CHABOT COLLEGE
Curriculum Committee
November 13, 2012
Members Present:
Debbie Buti, Jane Church, Begoña Cirera-Perez, Luis Flores (ASCC), Dov
Hassan, Don Plondke, Linnea Wahamaki
Ex-Officio:
Edna Danaher, Kaaren Krueg, Tram Vo-Kumamoto (3:15)
Guests:
None
1.
Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 2:10 by the chair, Jane Church.
2.
Minutes of November 6, 2012
MSC (Buti/Wahamaki) to approve the minutes of November 6 as presented.
3.
Repeatability Issues
Jane has updated the timelines on the four LPC Worksheets that were distributed at the
last meeting. She stated that LPC does not have a November 30 submission deadline.
Dov shared a list of Theater families that he received from Mendocino College. He
noted that leveling existing courses involves the creation of many new courses, and that
he would rather have families identified before he undertakes that amount of work. He
feels that LPC's timeline is too long, and that the process of identifying families should
be finished before the end of the term.
There was discussion on the fact that families must be established district wide. Topics
discussed included:
•
•
•
•
Consultation with LPC.
Differing work styles: work together from the beginning; go to your room and
create a list and then come back and meet in the middle.
The number of approvals on the LPC model.
The IT-created list of "equivalent" courses. IT did not consult with faculty. Jane
will forward the list to committee members.
Jane asked if the following timeline would work:
•
•
Present a draft of Chabot families (modeled after the Mendocino list) to this
committee at the December 4 meeting.
Share the draft with District Curriculum Council on December 7.
Dov thinks the SOTA areas (Theater, Music, Visual Arts) can meet this timeline.
Begoña isn't so sure about PE. She asked for the location in Title 5 of the language
stating that the deadline is Fall 2013, because she knows her faculty will ask. Jane said
that as a reward for meeting the proposed timeline, we will remove the November 30
submission deadline for only the involved disciplines.
Curriculum Committee
11/13/12, Page 2
In answer to questions from Learning Skills faculty about the removal of repeatability
approved at the last meeting, Linnea confirmed that repeats by disabled students can only
be approved by petition. The repeatability language cannot be included in the course
outline. We need further information on the repeatability of Tutoring courses such as
GNST 115 and the content area tutoring sessions required by the Math Lab. Jane will
research these.
4.
Review/approval of courses at CurricUNET Level 4
Jane reviewed the things that should be looked for before approving a course outline,
such as the match between Course Content and Expected Outcomes, whether the
assignments are formatted as if addressing the student and represent college-level work,
and whether the textbooks are up to date (no older than 5 years).
At the last meeting, Dov asked for a template showing styles, such as beginning
Expected Outcomes with a lower case letter and ending all but the last Outcome with a
semi-colon. Today, Begoña also asked. Jane has not gotten to this project, but she will.
Jane explained that at CurricUNET Level 4, she is the action person, but she would like
all the voting members to check outlines and leave comments as needed. Begoña said
that if someone else has already left a comment, she doesn’t repeat it. It was suggested
that saying, “I agree with ___________’s comment” would give Jane a better idea of
whether edits are needed. If she sees that everyone has reviewed a proposal without
adverse comments, she can prepare a list of those courses, and we can do a blanket
approval at the next meeting. If comments indicate a serious difference of opinion
among committee members, Jane can ask the originator to come to a meeting to help
resolve the situation.
Another option is to meet in a computer lab and look at the proposals as a group.
Begoña likes that idea. Others felt that it would be time consuming, and that it would be
better to work on an individual basis.
To inform newer members of the committee’s history, Jane described the process as it
used to be: large binders of hard copy submissions, delivered to the committee a week
before the meeting, gone over in the meeting, and voted at the next meeting. Kaaren
reminded Jane that under that process, the committee met weekly during Fall semester.
Tram asked how the committee resolves questions. Does the originator come to the
committee meeting to present? Jane replied that it is done on an as needed basis. For
example, Ken Grace came and explained the direction he planned to take the PE
discipline, and then worked over the summer on the course outlines. So far, he has
submitted only Kinesiology, which is theory, and not repeatable or subject to division
into families.
The committee reviewed the following courses:
BUS 50H, Practical Business Ethics, 1 unit
MSC (Cirera-Perez/Hassan) to approve BUS 50H as presented.
Curriculum Committee
11/13/12, Page 3
BUS 23, Business Strategy, 3 units
Request to remove from catalog. MSC (Buti/Wahamaki) to deactivate course.
KINE 1, Introduction to Kinesiology & Physical Education, 3 units
Revised course, changed from PHED 20, Introduction to Physical Education, 3 units.
Returned to originator to correct outline style of Course Content.
8.
Good of the Order
Tram asked if it is possible to have governet highlight or change the Subject line so that
their system messages stand out. Jane will inquire.
Jane stated that Board Approval Lists must be reviewed by the Senate before they are
submitted to the district.
9.
kk 11-14-12
The meeting was adjourned at 4:00 p.m.
Next meeting: November 27, 2012.
c:\documents\word\curric\2012-13\11-13-12.min.doc