CHABOT COLLEGE
Curriculum Committee Minutes
April 20, 2010
Members Present:
Jaswinder Bhangal, Debbie Buti, Barbara Ogman, Begoña Cirera-Perez, Wayne
Pitcher, Patricia Shannon, Ernesto Victoria, Patricia Wu
Ex-Officio
Members Present:
Jane Church, Kaaren Krueg
Guests:
Jon Palacio, Wayne Phillips
1.
Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 2:10 p.m. by committee chair Wayne Pitcher.
2.
Minutes of March 16, 2010
Approval tabled until May 6 meeting.
3.
Curriculum Submission Schedule with CurricUNET
Wayne Pitcher distributed a chart outlining Chabot College Curriculum Workflow. In
answer to a question from Barbara Ogman, he explained the differences between the
CurricUNET Steering Committee and the Curriculum Committee.
Wayne further explained the Steering Committee’s plan, stating that the process of
preparing a course for review by the Curriculum Committee would take about six weeks
from start to action by the Committee.. The Curriculum Committee would review
proposals on a rolling submission basis, acting on between 10 and 15 proposals per
week. Each individual course or degree/certificate would constitute a “proposal.”
Wayne polled other colleges and many use a rolling submission format. Nobody uses
our current system of submitting by division.
Jane spoke to Catalog and Flier publication cycles, which are updated once a year in the
early spring.
The main reason for changing the submission pattern is to redistribute the workload of
the Curriculum Committee so that it is more manageable. Patricia Shannon added that it
is vital that we communicate that we cannot continue to do business as we did this year.
The Steering Committee is working with the Program Review Committee to align
program review and curriculum updates. Wayne Phillips reported that Program Review
will be revised as a 3-year cycle. A review would start with assessment in Fall of Year
One. Needed changes would be identified in Spring, and curriculum proposals might be
submitted in either Spring of Year One or Fall of Year Two. Year Three would be
devoted to assessing the work done in Years One and Two and planning for the next
cycle.
The rolling submission process should give faculty some flexibility on when they
present, but with guidelines. There was discussion on faculty motivation and who is
responsible for setting deadlines. The Program Review process should serve as an
impetus to review curriculum. There was discussion on “room in the queue.” The
Committee chair would manage the queue to accommodate emergency needs, such as
those mandated by outside accrediting bodies. Other than that, the queue would operate
on a first in/first out basis.
Curriculum Committee
4-20-10, page 2
Patricia Shannon suggested we use flex day to communicate that “CurricUNET is
coming.” It will be rolled out in Fall 2010; beta tested in Spring 2011; and go live in Fall
2011, at which time there will be no other vehicle for curriculum submission. Jane
emphasized the need to get the word out now, not in fall at the beginning of the next
curriculum cycle.
Jon Palacio, a member of the steering committee, stated that the plan is to have Wayne
Pitcher, Trish Shannon, and himself available on a scheduled basis to help those who
would like to pilot the system.
4.
Technical Review Team
As part of the CurricUNET workflow, disciplines are responsible for proofreading their
materials prior to launch, as they should be doing with the current system in paper format
prior to publication for the committee. We need a Technical Review Team to review the
disciplines’ presentations, suggesting corrections to grammar, punctuation and style;
possible anomalies within the course numbering system (previously used number;
duplication of course name, etc.); aligning of content and outcomes. Patricia Shannon
suggested that division representatives might take turns serving on the Review Team,
serving one week at a time on a rotating basis.
The team will probably consist of Kaaren Krueg (Committee Secretary), Edna Danaher
(Student Records Evaluator), Wayne Pitcher (Committee Chair) and one Division
Representative on a week-at-a time rotating basis.
5.
Submission of Plans to Faculty Senate
Wayne will write up an outline of proposed procedural changes for submission to the
Faculty Senate. He will send a copy to the committee via email. He noted that the big
task is going to be informing and educating faculty on the advantages of the new system.
7.
Good of the Order
Jane reported on the approvals information she got from CSU and UC. Apparently there
was language in some of our submissions that prompted the universities to ask for more
information about “online laboratories.”
8.
Next Meeting: May 6, 2010
9.
The meeting was adjourned at 3:55 p.m.
kk 4/21/10
c:\documents\word\curric\2009-2010\4-20-10.min.doc