CHABOT COLLEGE
Curriculum Committee Minutes
October 11, 2005
Members Present:
Desmond Chun, Rudolph Cockerham, Jim Matthews, Bill McDonald, Clara
McLean, Ashnika Narayan (ASCC), Jan Novak, Lupe Ortiz, Norberto Ruiz,
Patricia Shannon
Ex-Officio
Members Present:
Jane Church Edna Danaher, Kaaren Krueg, Ron Taylor
Guests:
Brigitte Kouakou (ASCC), Cindy Rosa
I.
Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 2:10 by committee chair Norberto Ruiz.
II.
Approval of Minutes of September 13, 2005
MSC (Chun/Matthews) that the minutes of September 13, 2005, be approved as
presented.
III.
Role of the Curriculum Committee in the Distance Education Approval Process
Norberto initiated a discussion on the committee’s role in the DE process based on the
materials distributed at the last meeting. He noted that the DECSC proposes establishing
a tiered system that would shorten the approval timeline for experienced instructors.
The committee agreed that there are probably only two tiers needed, one for previously
approved faculty and one for faculty with no experience teaching distance education at
Chabot. Norberto added that there is a tie-in to the faculty contract, and anything we
decide might affect contract negotiations.
Bill McDonald stated his understanding that we would use any DE proposals brought
forth in this year’s packets as a trial to determine whether the new proposal will work.
Norberto referred to the state’s Distance Education Guidelines, March 2004, publication.
Section 55205 defines a DE course/section or session as “the use of technology utilized
51 percent or more of the time to deliver instruction during the course term and where the
student and instructor are separated by distance.” This means that many of our hybrid
courses do not require committee approval under Title 5. Patricia Shannon suggested
doing a consultation process similar to the Library consultation in place of a full review
for these courses.
IV.
Curriculum Committee Schedule? Fall or Fall/Spring?
Norberto introduced the subject of moving to a year-round curriculum process. In answer
to a question by Clara McLean, Jim Matthews said that we have been using the current,
Fall only, process for a number of years. It is dictated mainly by articulation and catalog
printing deadlines.
Patricia Shannon reiterated her belief that if we think of the calendar as February to
November, rather than September to May, and distribute presentations throughout that
Curriculum Committee
10-11-05, page 2
time period, it would give us more time to address each packet while still meeting
deadlines. This would allow us to schedule bi-weekly rather than weekly meetings,
would give people more time to think and discuss, and would balance the load throughout
the year.
Jane commented that an earlier presentation would not change the implementation date—
a course or program approved in Spring 2006 would not be implemented until Fall 2007,
after it had been published in the catalog.
Bill McDonald said that while we have always encouraged divisions to present in the
Spring, not many have taken us up on the opportunity. Kaaren Krueg added that Dental
Hygiene presented last Spring. They included one of the courses approved in Spring for
further change in this year’s packet. This creates confusion, in that the “old” outline
(previously approved but not yet published) has the same implementation date as the
“new” outline.
Jan Novak stated that vocational programs need to revise their curriculum in response to
community/industry demand. They cannot afford an 18-month lead time. This is also
true for programs accredited by outside agencies (such as allied health programs).
Norberto asked reps to take the discussion to their divisions for input and bring thoughts
back to the committee. A schedule change might eventually be taken to Senate for
ratification.
V.
Associate Degree, Writing and Critical Thinking Requirement
Norberto asked whether we need a task force to determine what courses will be placed in
Area A.2, Writing and Critical Thinking. Jane replied that Articulation Form 1, A.A.
Graduation Requirements, has been revised to allow people to propose courses to the
area. Be sure you have the A.A. Degree form, not the A.S. Degree form.
Norberto referred to the criteria for inclusion in Area A.2, which are available in the
Curriculum Handbook, Appendix C, Attachment A, and also in the Curriculum
Committee minutes of May 3, 2005, both available on the Curriculum website.
Discussion touched upon whether all criteria must be met for a course to be eligible, and
whether the criteria are college specific, or the same district wide. It was reported that
each college may set its own criteria.
VI.
Student Learning Outcomes
Discussion included:
• Necessity for a subcommittee, pros and cons; Jane thinks an SLOAC committee
is already meeting;
• Modification of the course outline; the method of assessment may already exist
in the current outline;
• Whether forcing assessment into the outline would promote teacher-to-teacher
conversation;
• Whether instructors would welcome another step in the “process.”
Curriculum Committee
10-11-05, page 3
In answer to the feeling that instructors already assess student outcomes, Norberto asked
how we document that assessment. Discussion on whether a standardized test is feasible.
Brigitte Kouakou asked whether we want to test student knowledge or the way that
instructors administer tests. She thinks that if it is the latter, the answer is in going into
the classroom to see whether instructors are following through on the process.
VII.
A.S. Degree General Education Requirements
The District Curriculum Task Force is meeting to determine the A.S. Degree General
Education requirements. Jane summarized the current degrees. We have an A.S. degree
that requires 19 units of General Education and a new A.A. degree requiring 25 units.
Options under discussion at the task force are:
• Leave the degrees as they are;
• Make both degrees the same.
It is also desirable that the degrees be defined.
Jim suggested that the committee decide whether we are in favor of leaving the A.S.
degree as is or if we would like to adjust the GE units, either up or down. Attention was
called to the footnote on our Statement of Rationale, “Degrees/Certificates with over 18
core units require a justification; Degrees with over 25 core units should consider an
Associate in Science Option.”
Bill thinks that the A.S. degree should be limited to technical and science programs, and
that this should be a district-wide policy.
Please initiate a discussion of this topic at your division meeting and bring information
back to the committee.
VIII.
Information Technology requirement?
Norberto shared a communication from Keith Mehl regarding the possibility of an
Information Technology requirement. Jim commented that the first part of the proposal
parallels the Information Competency requirement that the Board of Governors would
have addressed three years ago except for a ruling by the State Department of Finance
who declared it an unfunded mandate. CSUs and Community Colleges are involved in
promoting this competency as a degree requirement. Information Competency is also part
of the new accreditation standards. It is included in area A.2. of our current degree.
IX.
Curricunet
Curricunet is an online Curriculum Development and Workflow Automation Program,
which would allow paperless development of course outlines, class schedules, and
catalogs. If we had a system such as this, the committee’s work could be done online; the
committee would not be meeting as a group.
Patricia Shannon asked whether anyone would be willing to research how users such as
Ohlone, DVC, and San Diego CCD like the product. Norberto volunteered.
Curriculum Committee
10-11-05, page 4
X.
Next Meeting: October 18, 2005
Arts and Humanities presentation. Patricia Shannon asked members to pay particular
attention to Section B of the Statement of Rationale, which gives an overview of what the
Humanities discipline is doing and what they are trying to achieve.
IX.
The meeting was adjourned at 3:50 p.m.
kk 10/12/05
c:\documents\word\curric\2005-2006\10-11-05.min.doc