CHABOT COLLEGE
Curriculum Committee Minutes
September 19, 2006
Members Present:
Jim Matthews, Clara McLean, Jan Novak, Don Plondke, Milton Rube, Norberto
Ruiz, Connie Telles, Ernesto Victoria
Ex-Officio
Members Present:
Jane Church, Edna Danaher, Kaaren Krueg, Ron Taylor
Guests:
Svend LaRose
I.
Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 2:10 p.m. by committee chair Norberto Ruiz. Those
present introduced themselves.
II.
Minutes of September 5, 2006
Clara McLean asked why we reviewed Arts and Humanities experimentals out or order.
Norberto replied that it was at the division’s request. He added that it seems better to
take experimental courses as they are ready to present rather than be inundated by a large
number all at one time.
MSC (Novak/McLean) to approve the minutes of September 5, 2006, as presented.
Svend LaRose noted that the representative from student governance was not present at
the September 5 meeting. He asked that the committee determine a method of being sure
that the students are represented and asked the committee to designated him as the
student representative. Norberto replied that the committee follows the procedures
published in the Chabot College Shared Governance and Collegial Consultation Process.
He added that Bernadette Richard is the representative of record until the ASCC informs
us otherwise.
III.
Role of the Committee and Best Practices
Norberto distributed Good Practices for Course Approval Processes, a document
prepared by the Curriculum Committee of the Academic Senate for California
Community Colleges in Spring 1998, and Distance Learning Manual, August 2005,
published by the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges..
IV.
Experimental Course Policy
Norberto began the discussion by stating that there is no written regulation telling how
long an experimental course can be taught, and that we need to set a policy that spells it
out more clearly.
Ron Taylor stated that he would like to set up a tracking system so that we know how
many times and when an experimental course has been offered.
Discussion touched upon the reasons for offering courses as experimental before
developing them as regular courses; whether extending the experimental time period
harms students; whether an experimental course can be articulated. On the articulation
Curriculum Committee
9-19-06, page 2
question, Ron reported that in his experience the articulation of experimental courses is
done individually by a student who is asking for an equivalency.
MSC (Matthews/Novak) that a course be limited to 2 offerings within 2 years before it
is either dropped or submitted to the Curriculum Committee for adoption as a regular
course.
V.
Distance Education Governance Document
Jan Novak led the committee in a discussion of proposed revisions to the Distance
Education Curriculum Support Committee.
Proposed changes include:
• changing the committee name to Distance Education Committee (DEC);
• revised membership requirements, removing the maximum number designation
• addition of 2 classified members (Instructional Technology Coordinator and
Instructional Designer) as voting members.
Jan explained that the committee wants to be able to expand membership as needed. Jim
suggested changing the membership wording to “eight people interested and experienced
in Distance Education.”
Discussion on including the classified reps as voting members resulted in the opinion that
they should be included on an ex officio (non-voting) basis.
It was moved and seconded (Novak, Rube) that the committee forward the proposed
changes (with classified reps as ex officio) to the Academic/Faculty Senate and then to
College Council for approval. The motioned carried with 5 yes votes and 2
abstentions.
VI.
A.S. Degree General Education Requirements
Norberto distributed a draft report of the focus group that met during convocation.
Discussion included the impetus for the project (it is at the Chancellor’s direction); what
the process will be; whether an A.S. Degree warrants fewer GE units; the fact that our
A.S. degree GE units equal those mandated in Title 5. Norberto summarized the
discussion by saying, “In this room the consensus seems to be that it’s not broken.”
VII.
Student Learning Outcomes
Norberto reported that at last week’s meeting the Academic/Faculty Senate directed the
Curriculum Committee to start looking at how we might carry out SLO assessment at the
course level. This project will be valuable in meeting the new Accrediting Commission
requirement in our next self study. Ron added that the standards don’t mandate any
particular level of achievement. They ask that colleges find out whether students are
achieving some particular skill and use that assessment to improve the institution.
Norberto explained that course outcomes feed into program outcomes, which in turn feed
the institutional outcomes. There was discussion on how many outcomes need to be
tested for in each course and how they should be chosen. The committee also discussed
Curriculum Committee
9-19-06, page 3
at length that the outcomes currently listed in the outlines could be used as learning
outcomes.
VIII.
Priority Objectives
Norberto distributed a copy of the college’s priority objectives for 2006-07. He reported
that College Council has asked every committee to pick a topic and tell how they will
address one of the priority objectives. Ron suggested forming a subcommittee to address
the third bullet under Assess Student learning and Institutional Effectiveness:
•
Formulate and execute a comprehensive plan for implementing student learning
outcomes and learning assessments for courses, programs and degrees.
Jim and Norberto volunteered to be on the subcommittee. They will ask Cristina
Ruggiero to join them.
IX.
Good of the Order
•
Jan reported that the DEC (formerly DECSC) received 52 responses to the Online
Initiatives project. Not all will be ready for implementation this year. The
subcommittee is investigating funding sources.
Jan reminded the committee that Distance Ed proposals are no longer included in
curriculum presentation packets. They are available on the subcommittee’s website if
committee reps want to review them.
In answer to a question by Jane, Jan noted that the DE proposals in process are being
listed in the Spring schedule. If for some reason a class is not approved, it will be
removed before the schedule is printed or, if published, will be cancelled before the
semester begins.
•
X.
XI.
Jane has received CSU/GE and IGETC guidelines from the CSU Chancellor’s Office.
She emailed the info to deans and the Curriculum Chair, and suggested that they be
used in conjunction with the information already published in Appendix C of the
Curriculum Handbook. Norberto will forward the email to committee reps.
Next meeting: October 3
The meeting was adjourned at 3:50 p.m.
kk 10/3/06
c:\documents\word\curric\2006-2007\9-19-06.min.doc