CHABOT COLLEGE
Curriculum Committee Minutes
October 24, 2006
Members Present:
Clara McLean, Jan Novak, Don Plondke, Milton Rube, Norberto Ruiz, Patricia
Shannon, Connie Telles, Ernesto Victoria
Ex-Officio
Members Present:
Jane Church, Edna Danaher, Kaaren Krueg, Ron Taylor
Guest:
Carey Harbin
I.
Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 2:10 p.m. by committee chair Norberto Ruiz.
II.
Minutes of October 17, 2006
MSC (Rube/McLean) that the minutes of October 17, 2006, be approved as presented.
III.
Science/Math Proposal Vote
Jane Church reported that she has researched articulation of biotechnology courses to
CSU and UC schools. She did not find any biotechnology submissions. She did find
biochemistry classes, but they were submitted as chemistry, rather than biotechnology.
Moved and seconded (Rube/Shannon) that the Science/Math proposal be accepted
contingent on changes being made as noted in the minutes of October 17. Patricia
Shannon asked to amend the motion to include asking the division to follow-up on how
4-year institutions are articulating biotechnology courses and revising their
articulation requests if appropriate. Milton Rube accepted the amendment. The
motion carried.
IV.
Counseling Presentation (It was noted that the Library will not be presenting.)
Carey Harbin presented the packet.
AA Degree, Liberal Arts
The division is requesting a title change from Liberal Studies to Liberal Arts. Carey
affirmed that this is the degree that most of our graduates earn. The reason for the
change is that many students confuse “Liberal Studies” with elementary teaching
programs and think that the degree will allow them to teach.
Ron Taylor commented that per the presentation given by Mark Wade Lieu on
convocation day, our Option I may not be legal. He suggested making the name
change now and reviewing the degree in a year or so to be sure it is still legal.
Jane reported that Counseling is currently having students interested in Option I
make a list of courses they propose and define how they comprise an “area of focus.”
Counseling maintains this document to support the degree.
Curriculum Committee
10-24-06, page 2
Changes as listed below were discussed and recommended. Carey stated that he felt
that the division would accept the revisions.
Needed:
• Rewrite the second paragraph of the lead-in statement to read, “…the
opportunity to pursue a major or an area of focus of at least 18 units…”
• Under “Core Courses, Option I” add “or area of focus” to “Minimum Units
Required for the Major”
• Rewrite the footnote to Option I (page 5 of packet) to read, “…the
opportunity to pursue a major or an area of focus of at least 18 units…”
Case Management for Human Services, Certificate of Completion
This certificate is being proposed in response to advisory committee recommendation
and student requests. The certificate is made up of pre-existing courses and is
designed to provide students with entry-level skills needed in managing a case in the
human services environment. It would prepare students for employment as social
services aids or assistants in facilities such as group homes.
Clara McLean asked what accommodations would be made for a student who was
already computer literate. Carey replied that the student could request a waiver or a
course substitution.
Changes in wording were suggested.
Needed:
• Rewrite lead-in paragraph as follows: “…Students will develop multicultural
awareness…Students earning this Certificate of Completion…human
services and case management to document intake…”
PSCN 25, Transition to College, ½ unit
The division would like to change the course title from College Orientation to better
reflect the course content.
Needed:
• Add “including time management” to Expected Outcome 6.
• Rewrite Typical Assignments to be student oriented.
PSCN 80, Occupational Community Service in Human Services, 2 units
At the request of the Advisory Committee, the title is being change to omit reference
to volunteerism. Outline has been rewritten in support of “service learning.” After a
discussion of the relationship between Course Content and Expected Outcomes, the
following changes were suggested:
Needed:
• Add to Course Content “1.g. Weekly meetings with instructor for feedback
and reflection.”
• Remove “Textbook(s): None”
Curriculum Committee
10-24-06, page 3
•
Place Special Student Materials after Textbook(s) (Typical)
Curriculum Committee
10-24-06, page 4
PSCN 23, College Readiness, 3 units
This course was previously offered as an experimental course. Articulation Form #2
is being submitted.
Needed:
• Revise Expected Outcome #4 to read, “demonstrate knowledge of college
policies…”
• Revise Course Content #3 to read, “Life decision making and planning.”
V.
Work Experience
At the request of Kaaren Krueg, Norberto added a discussion of Work Experience to the
agenda. Kaaren stated that as a result of last year’s Curriculum Committee action, she
thought that the only Work Experience classes to be offered would be Business 95/96 and
Work Experience 95/96. Edna Danaher replied that there have always been Work
Experience classes offered in Early Childhood Development and Fire Technology.
Kaaren asked the committee for clarification and direction.
The cross-listing of Business and Work Experience 95/96 classes limits students to a
combined total of 3 repetitions for those courses. There was discussion of whether
students could earn units in Work Experience classes in other disciplines in addition to
units earned in the BUS/WEXP classes, and whether having the same title “Work
Experience” for courses that are not cross-listed would be confusing. Ron stated that we
need to determine the state’s regulations concerning repetition and funding.
VI.
Distance Education
Milton Rube distributed a packet of DE Course Review Suggestions addressing his
concerns regarding the review process—1) the desirability of separating the approval of
the “DE delivery plan/design” from the approval of the instructor who will teach using
the design and 2) the need for the Curriculum Committee as a whole to approve each DE
delivery design.
Included in Milton’s packet was a one-page form designed to streamline the process
while meeting state and district requirements. Milton noted that the Chancellor’
Guidelines do not specify instructor approval, but do require a review to document how
regular effective contact with the instructor is to be achieved.
Clara McLean noted, as an example, that every English 1A is taught differently.
Norberto replied that they are all taught to the course outline of record. Ron added that
we are talking about variation among delivery plans, which might be more obvious in
some disciplines than in others. He said that the state’s concern is whether a course can
be taught successfully in DE delivery mode. This is the part requiring Curriculum
Committee approval. The decision of which instructor may be able to teach the course
can then be made like any other college-based decision.
Jane expressed the opinion that the current approval process started out as a mentoring
process, to assure that new instructors knew what they were getting into. Kaaren added
that the section in the contract was added to ensure that DE courses were not contracted
out to non-Chabot instructors.
Curriculum Committee
10-24-06, page 5
Milton asked whether DE proposals are voted on by the Committee as a whole. Patricia
Shannon told him that in the past the entire DE packet, now being vetted by the DEC,
was included in each division’s proposal, causing larger packets that took longer to
present. She outlined how the process was modified to relieve the committee of some of
the details. Because the DEC is a subcommittee of the Curriculum Committee, Patricia
thinks that our process is responsive to the spirit of the state regulation.
Jane stated that we are a subcommittee of the Academic/Faculty Senate, which has
approved the current procedure. Norberto added that we did report back to the Senate on
DE last year. Clara commented that she trusts the DEC to make informed decisions in
areas that are not part of her expertise.
Patricia asked whether we should ask Milton to work with the DEC to determine whether
the process is doing the work we think it should be doing. Jan Novak stated that a review
at this time would be premature. Don Plondke added that the current process started this
semester. He thinks it should be given time to develop and added that it is frustrating for
faculty to have the rules changed so frequently.
Further discussion was tabled for a future meeting.
VII.
Good of the Order
Jane reported that although Chabot voted to eliminate the limits on courses being
transferred to CSU, LPC would like to study the issue further. Andrea Alvarado, LPC’s
Articulation Officer, will survey the community colleges for their information. Jane will
poll the CSUs for incoming limits.
VIII.
IX.
Next Meeting: October 31
The meeting was adjourned at 4:05 p.m.
kk 10/26/06
c:\documents\word\curric\2006-2007\10-24-06.min.doc