COLLEGE CURRICULUM COMMITTEE
September 8, 2010
MINUTES
Members Present: Colin Archibald, Joe Bivins, Melody Boeringer, Chris Borglum, Karen Borglum (cochair), Diane Dalrymple, Dan Dutkofski, Bob Gessner, Yolanda Gonzalez, Celeste Henry, David Jones,
Anita Kovalsky, James McDonald, John Niss (co-chair), Kristy Pennino, George Rausch, Pam Sandy, Betty
Wanielista
Ex-Officio Present: Alys Arceneaux, Kurt Ewen, Jared Graber, Reyna Rangel (for Belen Caba), Cheryl
Robinson, George, Ruiz, Edwin Sanchez
Staff Present: Kim Adams (recording)
Guests Present: Fran Frierson
John opened the meeting with a welcome to the new academic year. He then moved quickly into the
Review of the Minutes, asking if there were any revisions or corrections for the July meeting minutes.
1.
Review of Minutes – July 14, 2010
There were no revisions noted for the July 14 meeting minutes, which were approved as
submitted.
2.
Consent Agenda – Course modifications or deletions involving minor editing of course
descriptions or level changes which do not impact other departments are eligible for placement
on the consent agenda. Any members of the committee may request to remove a proposal
from the consent agenda for the purpose of discussion.
The following course(s) have outlines in Course Outline Builder which may be viewed in ATLAS:
CJE 2003
Career Choices in Criminal Justice
The following outlines are being presented as part of the Two-Year Program Review Cycle (in
COB, the course number will be followed with the number 2 in parentheses [i.e., OST 1108 (2)])
OST 1108
OST 1305
OST 1330
OST 1335
OST 1355
REA 0001C
Building Keyboarding Speed and Accuracy
Proofreading
Business Grammar
Business Communications
Records Management and Legal Implications
College Preparatory Reading I
The Consent Agenda was approved by consensus, as submitted.
3.
Regular Agenda
There were no Regular Agenda items this month; however, two Discussion Items were moved to
the Regular Agenda for a vote, once the discussion took place, as follows:
1011-001
Lab Hours Task Force Manual ....................................................... Karen Borglum
This item was discussed as part of the Discussion Items portion of the Agenda (see page 6 for
full discussion). At the end of the discussion, John Niss asked if everyone felt comfortable with
moving this item to the Regular Agenda with the recommendation that it be taken to the
College Learning Council for final approval. The Committee agreed, and approved the
recommendation by consensus.
0910-213
Provisional Course List ................................................................. Karen Borglum
This item was very briefly discussed as part of the Discussion Items portion of the Agenda.
Karen told the CCC that the Provisional Course List, which was reviewed and approved to take to
the CLC at the July 2010 meeting, was presented to the CLC at its last meeting in September.
They, in turn, made the recommendation to include the Prep Courses – both levels of prep - and
EAP courses. Karen asked to move this to the Regular Agenda for approval, as well. The
Committee agreed, and this item was moved and approved by consensus.
4.
Discussion Items

Introduction of new CCC Representatives and Alternates – New members and alternates
will be introduced to the Committee.
As part of the Agenda package, a handout was provided, listing new members and reappointees. John asked everyone present to introduce themselves, as there are a number of
new members.
Karen then welcomed everyone and said she hoped everyone would have a very productive
year.

2010-2011 Curriculum Committee Goals
o A.A. Program Outcomes
o Gen Ed Alignment
Karen Borglum will lead a discussion focusing on the goals of the Curriculum Committee for
the upcoming 2010-2011 Academic Year.
Gen Ed Alignment
Karen began by telling the Committee that, for several years, the alignment of General
Education between Valencia’s A.A. and A.S. degree programs has been a goal. There have
already been several meetings with UCF; during the course of those meetings we asked
Page 2
them, “If students did not complete their degree program at Valencia and wanted to
transfer to UCF, which courses would be accepted so that the students would not need to
repeat a general education course already taken at Valencia?”
The information from these joint meetings was gathered, there will be another meeting with
UCF this Friday, September 10, and Karen will bring recommendations out of the meetings
back to the CCC. She asked for the CCC’s consensus in meeting this goal this academic year.
The Committee was in agreement.
A.A. Program Outcomes
Beginning with some history, Karen said that an e-mail went out several months ago from
Lisa Macon regarding faculty compensation and the link to institutional effectiveness. A
major goal in the integration of institutional effective with compensation is for every area of
the college to have outcomes established by May 2011. At this point in time, the only
program in the college that does not have outcomes is the A.A. Degree Program, since all of
the A.S. degree programs have had outcomes established for them. In the A.A. Degree
Program, 36 of the 60 required hours are already covered under the outcomes previously
established for general education; the other 24 will need to have outcomes. Since many of
those hours are for elective courses, Karen said that the outcomes should probably be
general, yet measurable.
Colin expressed concern that outcomes that are too general will not be measurable. Karen
said that she has thought a lot about that, and has had discussions with Kurt, as well. She
said that, among other things, LifeMap can be a tool used in developing these outcomes,
since students will take a variety of electives, many based on their career goals.
There was quite a bit of discussion; many members felt that the only identifiable outcome is
that the program should prepare a student for transfer to an upper division college or
university. If there are to be other outcomes established, the need will be to find
quantifiable outcomes, since those can be measured.
Karen said that a decision does not need to be made today, but the conversation needs to
begin, since specific deadlines have been established for institutional effectiveness and
outcomes.
Joe suggested that part of the outcomes could include counseling, both academically and
from the student services area, to help students identify the courses (elective) that they need
to be successful and to be able to transfer. John said that there are also many students who
have a goal of finishing their A.A. Degree, but do not necessarily plan on transferring. This
must be taken into consideration, as well.
It was the general consensus that it will be very difficult to find outcomes that will be
measurable. It was suggested that one of the only things that can be measured is whether a
student is making informed decisions regarding the courses they are taking to meet their
goal of an A.A. Degree.
Page 3
Karen asked Kurt to describe the difference between program learning outcomes and
program outcomes. Kurt said he was surprised that TVCA had not entered into the
discussion, since this is a crucial element in developing outcomes. He said that the
differences are:
Program Learning Outcomes – student behavior that comes from the program of study, i.e.,
thinking critically;
Program Outcome – a quantitative measure of the program – e.g., number of transfers;
how well the student does in the first semester following transfer; etc. – most of these are
captured by IR so should be relatively easy to obtain.
John said that Think, Value, Communicate, and Act (TVCA), established several years ago
and effectively utilized, should definitely be utilized in determining outcomes.
Karen asked Bob Gessner, as Faculty Council President-Elect, for his suggestions on how to
proceed. He said that a committee comprised of faculty members was his thinking. Karen
asked when the next Faculty Council meeting is, so that faculty members can be placed; she
also said that she would like to see the committee a joint one, comprised of the Faculty
Council and the CCC. She asked for CCC volunteers, and a number of people quickly agreed
to be involved in the planning – Bob Gessner, Dan Dutkofski, Kurt Ewen, Karen Borglum (who
will chair the group), Joe Bivins, Chris Borglum, and Yolanda Gonzalez all volunteered. Karen
will ask Lisa Macon to join them, as well.

CCC Membership and Voter Lists – Karen Borglum will discuss the composition of the
Curriculum Committee and Voter Lists – current policy, requested changes, and whether
the current procedures should be revised. (Curriculum Committee Manual, Pages 4; 6)
Karen directed Committee members to the new CCC Manual, provided for each person in
attendance, in order to look at membership and voter list requirements. She said that a
discussion began at the June, 2010 meeting that was tabled until the summer was over and
more people were in attendance.
The question right now is, “Should the Committee add (or delete) membership for the
upcoming year?” There have been requests for representation in architecture (in addition to
Engineering); and a request for additional dean representation has been made. Dan said
that the membership and voter lists run parallel to one another; and they were established
at a time when curriculum was very different than now.
Karen said that an additional issue that has come up with the voter lists (ref. CCC Manual,
Page 6) is that faculty who are on a voter list are credentialed in a specific discipline, and
have their major teaching responsibility in a specific area. Some deans have been taking the
liberty of removing faculty from a voter list, when their major teaching load is in that
Page 4
discipline; additionally, some are putting people on who are 4- or 10-month, or who are not
qualified according to the Curriculum Committee Manual.
Membership – After reviewing the manual, Dan said that he believes that the
representation is not meant to include EVERY department, but to be broad and inclusive of
the major areas. Karen said that the committee must be sensitive, however, to give all areas
a voice.
Several changes to the wording in this portion of the Manual were recommended, along
with a few miscellaneous changes. Kristy Pennino requested that the area of Fine Arts be
changed to “Arts and Entertainment.” She said that, particularly for East Campus, there are
not many fine arts faculty members, and this would be inclusive of the areas of Graphics,
Film, Music, Theatre, etc. Other changes were suggested, including the manner in which
CCC representatives and alternates are appointed (by Faculty Council); and the changing of
“Health Sciences” to “Allied Health.” It was suggested that the Student Representative be
omitted, since it has been difficult to keep the students appointed coming to the meetings.
Colin asked to add to the manual that the meetings are open and that guests are invited to
attend and offer input. The recommended changes will be made and posted to the Manual
that is online, and the print Manual will be updated for the 2011-12 academic year.
It was suggested that membership could be uniformly spread among the campuses; Karen
said that had already been discussed and no real benefit was seen in doing that.
At this point, Karen went back to the request to split architecture and engineering and add
an additional representative. Specifically, it was requested that Shannon Hellard be added,
but she pointed out that his main teaching load is not in architecture. The faculty members
that would be eligible, based on established criteria, would be Andy Ray and Don Watters.
There were opinions that went both ways – do we add additional members to the CCC and
perhaps “dilute” the committee to the point where people don’t show up because they think
their presence isn’t needed? But it was also argued that there are representatives for
business, public service, and IT, which are all under one dean, so perhaps there should be an
additional person under engineering and architecture.
At this point, since the Committee appeared unable to come to a consensus, Karen said that
we will move forward with the edits suggested, and re-visit the expansion of the
membership at a later date.
Voter Lists - Karen said that it is important to note that there are times when a 4-month
person has program chair duties, so probably should be on the voter list; however, current
procedure states that they cannot vote. In addition, there are some program areas that
have few or no full-time people, so the only option is to have 4-month faculty members on
the list. It was generally felt that exceptions should not be made except in case of
extenuating circumstances. Karen will have a discussion with the IAC regarding the addition
of 4-, 8-, and 10-month contract faculty members on voter lists.
Page 5
Some additional revisions were made under the section, “Voter Eligibility List for Curriculum
Changes” on page 6: add an “s” to discipline/program; remove “assistant” in the last
paragraph.
Karen reminded everyone that the lists are online, and can always be viewed at any time for
possible corrections. Deans will be encouraged to review pertinent voter lists at the first
department meeting held each academic year.

Lab Manual – The Lab Manual that came about as the result of the Lab Hours Task Force
will be distributed and discussed.
Karen gave a brief history of the Lab Hours Task Force and the purpose of the Manual, which
is to assist faculty and deans in establishing lab hours and fees. There were lengthy
conversations at the meetings, as well, regarding the payment of Instructional Assistants,
but consensus was not achieved.
During the course of the meetings, Karen sent an e-mail to all deans, with two questions
asked: 1. “How are you determining lab hours for your division?”; 2. “How is faculty
engaging with students within those lab hours?” There were a number of formulas being
used by departments and consensus was not reached regarding a single method of
establishing lab hours that works for every department. As such, lab hours and fees will be
set by each department, and what is set, for example, by the Science Department, may not
be what is set for the Math Department. However, it was determined that the fees will be
standardized by department.
Karen then reviewed the manual for pertinent information – such as the definition of a lab;
the definition of “C” vs. “L” courses, etc.
Karen said that the issue of lab fees and distance learning fees being charged concurrently is
currently a matter for discussion. A course that is online where students are being charged a
distance learning fee cannot also be charged a lab fee. It needs to be determined, for those
courses that have special fees, whether these are actually lab fees. If so, they need to be
removed.
A list prepared by Sherri Dixon detailing specific examples of appropriate lab fee charges
was reviewed (Lab Manual, Appendix C - next to last page). Dan said that tutors cannot be
charged out of lab fee funding, so must be removed from Appendix C. That will be discussed
with Sherri and changed, if needed. In addition, we will add the terminology “lab personnel”
to replace “personnel.”
Alys said that she has concerns with how courses are coded – special fees vs. lab fees vs.
online fees – and how that will affect reporting in Banner.
John asked if everyone feels comfortable with moving this item to the Regular Agenda, with
the recommendation that it be taken to CLC for final approval. The Committee agreed; this
item, for the record, became part of the Regular Agenda, and was approved by consensus.
Page 6

Additional Item – Provisional Course List
Karen told the CCC that the Provisional Course List, which was reviewed and approved to take to
the CLC at the July 2010 meeting, was presented to the CLC at its last meeting in September.
They, in turn, made the recommendation to include the Prep Courses – both levels of prep - and
EAP courses. Karen asked to move this to the Regular Agenda for approval, as well. The
Committee agreed, and this item was moved and approved by consensus.
5.
Information Items

Curriculum Committee Website – Kim Adams will walk the Curriculum Committee through the
CCC website, which has been updated to include new pages.
Kim Adams gave the CCC a visual tour of the updated website, pointing out changes and new
features and pages.

Field Review - At the July 14, 2010 CCC meeting, the following course change from a SCNS Field
Review was presented:
OST 2852, MS Excel - Introductory will become OST 2859, effective August 1, 2011
In a subsequent e-mail from the SCNS, we were informed that the change(s) requested would
cause issues with seamless articulation, so all changes were cancelled. Another Field Review
will take place at a later date to resolve the outstanding issues that exist.
The next meeting of the College Curriculum Committee is scheduled for October 13, 2010, and will
be held on the West Campus, Room 6-202. Deadline for submission of materials for the October
agenda is September 29, 2010
Page 7