CHABOT COL LEGE
Curriculum Committee Minutes
March 8, 2005
Members Present:
Alla Barbalat (ASCC), Desmond Chun, JoAnn Galliano, Cindy Hicks, Gayle
Hunt, Diana Immisch, Bill McDonald, Lupe Ortiz, Dan Raveica, Patricia
Shannon
Ex-Officio
Members Present:
Edna Danaher
Guests:
None
I.
Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 2:05 by committee chair Cindy Hicks.
II.
Approval of Minutes of February 22, 2005
MSC (Chun/Raveica) that the minutes of February 22, 2005, be approved as presented.
III.
GE: Area Proposals Criteria Details
District Task Force
JoAnn Galliano reported on the March 4 District Task Force meeting. LPC has
developed six options ranging from 21 to 26 units. They will ask for a faculty vote
before finalizing a proposal for the Task Force. JoAnn noted that the Chabot
proposal was not among the options LPC will be voting on. The next District Task
Force meeting will be held on April 1. After LPC has presented their GE pattern, the
Task Force will make a recommendation to the Chancellor.
Diana Immisch asked how LPC plans to measure Proficiency in Information
Technology. JoAnn replied that they haven’t decided yet, but they might use
completion of a course that is already part of the curriculum, from a list of divisionidentified courses.
Cindy introduced a discussion of student characteristics and demographics and
whether it would be valuable for the Task Force to consider them when making their
recommendation. JoAnn added that there was discussion at the Task Force on
whether the GE requirements should be tailored to our educational values or to our
students’ characteristics.
Report to the Senate
Cindy distributed copies of the Committee’s Report to the Senate and reported on the
joint meeting. She thanked Dan Raveica and Diana Immisch for attending with her.
Cindy said that the Senate requested a few changes (add “Pacific Islander” to U.S.
Cultures; change “American” to “U.S.” throughout; add that the AA GE requirement
in U.S. History, Government, and Informed Citizenship meets 3 of 6 units required
for CSU American Institutions), but that overall there was very little response. In
answer to a question from the Senate President, Cindy explained the rationale for
requiring only 3 units in English Composition, and stated that the English subdivision
is comfortable with the recommendation.
Curriculum Committee
3-8-05, page 2
In an effort to determine whether all U.S. Cultures criteria are in the purview of the
Curriculum Committee, Cindy questioned numbers 3 and 4. To clarify the difference
between the two, Patricia Shannon defined “pedagogy” as a philosophy, and
“teaching methodology” as a technique. Discussion included
• how these criteria would be measured;
• whether they should be included in the rationale, rather than in the course
outline itself; and
• which parts of the outline would validate the proposed criteria.
It was decided that Criteria #1 and #2 are Course Content, #5 is Student Outcomes,
and #2 and #3 might be validated by Course Content, Student Outcomes, or Typical
Assignments. Cindy suggested omitting numbers 3 and 4 from our final
recommendation. The Committee agreed.
Cindy summarized her comments at the Senate meeting, in which she addressed the
lack of professional, collegial behavior occasionally exhibited in the process of
arriving at a GE recommendation. She reported to Senate her sense that there was
not enough attention paid to the overall goal, and too much to protecting personal
areas. She expressed disappointment that inquiry and creativity were stifled,
especially as the process neared its end. Dan added that he found the comments from
one senator in particular—that the Curriculum Committee’s recommendation is the
same as a suggestion made in September and that people did a lot of work to come
back to where we began—inappropriate and offensive.
U.S. History, Government, and Informed Citizenship
.
The committee discussed the part of the criteria that states, “It is the intent that
courses accepted to fulfill the U.S. History, Government, and Informed Citizenship
requirement will also fulfill 3 of the 6 units required to fulfill American Institutions at
CSU.” Topics included
• possible confusion caused by trying to tie our requirement to CSU’s;
• the possibility of presenting the information in two ways, one aimed at
students who plan to transfer to CSU and one at those who do not;
• whether we should wait to list new courses until they have been accepted by
CSU (this would make adding courses a 2-year process);
• whether we need a Group A and a Group B, since students are only required
to take one course; it was noted that the AS Degree lists the courses as a
single group;
• whether the statement, “any student considering transfer should see a
counselor,” should be added to the degree page.
Consensus was that the courses fulfilling this area should be presented in a
single list, and that new courses should not be added until approved by CSU.
Health Education
Cindy commented that the criteria in #1 and #3 are much the same and that we
probably don’t need both. However, next year’s Curriculum Committee can attend to
this as they begin to use the criteria to place courses into the areas.
IV.
Posting of Draft Minutes
Curriculum Committee
3-8-05, page 3
In response to the request by Dr. Carlson that draft minutes be posted on the committee’s
website it was moved and seconded (Galliano/Hunt) that the committee not post draft
minutes. The motion carried unanimously. We will continue to post approved minutes
only.
V.
VI.
Removing Nursing’s admissions statement from the Catalog
Clarifying Curriculum Committee’s role, if any, in the review of programs’
admissions statements
JoAnn reported that Dental Hygiene doesn’t put their enrollment criteria in the catalog.
Discussion raised questions of whether enrollment criteria are the same as a program
prerequisite, and whether Title 5 requires that they be vetted by the Curriculum
Committee.
Cindy tabled further discussion until Ron Taylor is present at the meeting and Cindy has
the Title 5 materials that Nancy Cowan has referred to in other meetings. She stated that
decisions are needed on when the Curriculum Committee needs to be involved, and how
we ensure that counseling and students are informed of changes.
VII.
DE Review and Approval Policy
Cindy reported that more faculty are proposing DE courses than previously, and that
perhaps our process is not efficient enough to handle the increased submissions. Cindy
thinks that next year we may want to look at a revised process, one that deals with
helping faculty develop their delivery plans and getting courses to go “live,” which are
longer processes, and one the deals with the separate approval required by Title 5, which
has deadline constraints. She also suggested that the college consider a dean dedicated to
technology-mediated instruction.
Cindy requested that Curriculum Committee reps bring back comments from their
divisions related to DE and their experiences with the current process, since Curriculum,
DECSC, and the Office of Academic Services will need the responses in order to address
a process that meets our needs now.
VIII.
Announcement
Business Graphics Certificate: minor change as follows.
Computer Applications Systems 84 (Designing Business Graphics)
Move to: SPRING (3 units)
IX.
Good of the Order
“Pending” Programs: Cindy clarified that the new policy of not publishing programs in
the catalog until they have been state approved does not apply to this year’s curriculum
changes. Anyone who currently has a “pending” program (including those approved this
year) must obtain state approval prior to the deadline for the 2006 Catalog (December
2005). Programs that have not been approved by then will be removed from the Catalog.
There was discussion on the timing of Board approval and whether this would cause a
problem with publishing deadlines. Cindy will discuss this with Ron.
Dental Hygiene: Dental Hygiene withdraws its proposal to change their degree to an
A.S.; it will remain A.A., Dental Hygiene.
Curriculum Committee
3-8-05, page 4
X.
XI.
Next meeting: April 5, 2005 (March 15 meeting is cancelled)
The meeting was adjourned at 3:40 p.m.
k 3/10/05
c:\documents\word\curric\2004-2005\3-8-05.min.doc