|
Chair Kennedy reported that Bernadette Howard
was unable to attend, but had forwarded comments regarding Items #6, 7, 8,
and 10 on Page 2 of a memo to AIC Chairs from Gail Levy, Accreditation
Liaison Officer, Re: Self-Study
Recommendations and Action Plans, dated November 26, 2001 (text from the memo
follows).
Curriculum
Revision and Review (from memo of 11/26/02)
1. Make curriculum review and revision a
systematic and cyclical process with the goal of assuring academic rigor and
integrity in all courses and programs.
2. Describe critical curriculum information
consistently in the Core Outlines on Curriculum Central.
3. Establish a formalized and
institutionalized process to periodically review established Core Outlines to
assure the currency and continued appropriateness of curriculum content,
instructional methods, course activities and objectives, and student
competencies.
4. Regularly compare all Course Outlines
and syllabi with their relevant Core Outlines to provide assurance that the
objectives and student competencies for all sections of a given course,
wherever and by whomever offered, are consistent with the outline of record
for that course.
5. Gather random samples of Course
Outlines and syllabi for specific courses taught at the College and at other
institutions in the System, compare them, and determine if they show the same
academic rigor.
6. Give instructors the final grades of
all sections of the courses they teach so that they can compare the grades
they give with the aggregate grades of all the other sections of the same
course.
7. Determine how the F and N grades
should be used across all courses and clearly communicate their meanings to
faculty and students.
8. Identify the minimum passing letter
grade for each prerequisite and state it in the description of the affected
courses in the Catalog.
9. Evaluate the long-term need for
alternative delivery systems, e.g., distance education, learning communities,
cooperative education, and provide funding for those deemed important to the
College's mission.
10. Resolve the credit-non-credit
differences and integrate various evaluation components and processes into
its overall institutional evaluation and planning.
Item # 6: The
committee needs to determine how it wants to proceed on this issue: “Give
instructors the final grades of all sections of the courses they teach so
that they can compare the grades they give with the aggregate grades of all
the other sections of the same course.”
Andy Rossi, Institutional Analyst, submitted the September 4, 2000,
report done by Gail Levy and himself called "A Study of English 100
Class Grades." It is Andy’s
opinion that the cost in time and personnel would make providing this
information to all faculty on a regular basis would be prohibitive.
Discussion: It
was reported by Andy Rossi that the study has not generated much interest. If teachers want to gauge where they are
in relation to other teachers' grading policies, this would be a useful tool. This committee agreed that Item #6 is a
division matter and may be handled by the division or discipline.
Item # 7:
According to Stella Ho-McGinnis, Dean of Students and Banner Student Team
Leader, the “N” grade is still a valid grade for LCC in Banner. The committee now must determine if it
wants to address item # 7: “Determine how the N and F grades should be used
across all courses and clearly communicate their meanings to faculty and
students.”
Discussion: Table the "N" greade issue for
now, but make sure that if this grade is used, that the teacher clearly
defines its use in his/her syllabus.
Motion (Thomson/Tomisato):
Leave the “N” grade issue alone for the purpose that there is ongoing
discussion regarding this. The motion
was passed: Yes: 8; No:
0, Abstain: 1
# 8: Banner has a
field that requires that a minimum passing letter grade be input for each
prerequisite. The current practice of
listing test scores and equivalencies does not fit in Banner. The committee needs to determine if it
wants to address this issue and set up a process for having all courses
comply with using letter grades for prerequisites.
Discussion: Software should not dictate the policy of
the campus. Motion
(Hotta/Miller): Test scores shall
remain as prerequisites. The motion
was passed unanimously.
# 10: Randy
Francisco, the new OCET director, will be present to discuss this issue with
the committee: “Address the credit-non-credit differences and integrate
various evaluation components and processes into its overall institutional
evaluation and planning.”
Discussion: As the newly-hired Interim Director of the
Office of Continuing Education and Training (OCET), Randy is still assessing
the similarities and differences between credit and non-credit courses to see
how courses logically fit into the two units. There are some internal changes that will be made such as printing
a semester schedule instead of a quarterly one. A point was brought up regarding certificates awarded by
OCET. Randy reported that the
Department of Labor is no longer accepting Certificates of Attendance. However, it was pointed out that when students
receive non-credit certificates, students and employers do not know the
difference between non-credit certificates and credit certificates. Randy said that this is another issue that
needs to be studied. He said that he
would like to extend the computer coodinator's position from part-time to
full-time.
This committee
discussed the possibility of having a committee established to review OCET
(non-credit) and credit-courses and programs. Motion (Thomson/Tomisato):
Support better communication between OCET and faculty (credit and
non-credit) to improve conditions between the two programs. The motion was passed unanimously.
Core
Outlines/Course Syllabi. Barbara
Hotta provided the committee with the attached template of a core outline
that is generated from Curriculum Central.
The template is attached as "Course." It was recommended that Barbara supply a
sample of the template for the syllabus that may be generated by Curriculum
Central. That template is attached as
"dspsyl." There is still
question of what to do with template of Course Syllabus provided by Barbara
Hotta. Divisions are to discuss any
modifications to the template, e.g., statement about student disabilities. Once divisions agree on model, then all
teachers will use the template to produce standardized course outlines. This Committee has to discuss and
establish procedures for implementation.
|