|
Chair Bernadette Howard reported that the
Open Forum to discuss the proposed “Policy for Curriculum Revision and
Review” held on Thursday, October 10, 2002, from 12:30-1:30 p.m. in GT 105,
went very well. Many of this
committee’s members as well as a good cross-section of the campus turned out
to express their views.
A culture of
evidence needs to be established—records of meetings or some evidence showing
that discussions are taking place at the course level (program) and at the
various degree levels. Divisions
already have curriculum procedures in place for curriculum proposals, but
this policy is being established to ensure cyclical review of core outlines,
syllabi, and curriculum modifications.
The new
“Introduction to the Accreditation Standards,” approved June 2002, p. 5
“Standard II: Student Learning
Programs and Services” states in Item 1c:
“The institution identifies student learning outcomes for courses,
programs, certificates, and degrees; assesses student achievement of those
outcomes; and uses assessment results to make improvements.” Page 6, Item 2: “The institution assures the quality and improvement of all instructional
courses and programs offered in the name of the institution, including
collegiate, developmental, and pre-collegiate courses and programs,
continuing and community education, study abroad, short-term training courses
and programs, programs for international students, and contract or other
special programs, regardless of type of credit awarded, delivery mode, or
location.” Item 2e “The institution
evaluates all courses and programs through an on-going systematic review of
their relevance, appropriateness, achievement of learning outcomes, currency,
and future needs and plans.” The
campus needs to have institutional policies regarding curriculum review in
place in the form of two statements—(1) institutional (policy for the
campus—this AIC Committee on Curriculum Revision and Review has been
established to develop this) and (2) division implementation policy.
As a result of the
Open Forum, the following changes will be made to the “Curriculum Revision
and Review Draft Policy”: Item #1—The
division will be responsible for determining which courses will be reviewed
each year, so long as all courses are reviewed over a six-year cycle. Item #4—If the core outlines that are
reviewed need modification, normal curriculum procedures for course
modifications as determined by the Chancellor for Community Colleges Memos
(CCCM) will be followed within the current semester.
The committee
members are asked to go back to their divisions with the revised “Curriculum
Revision and Review Draft Policy” for comments and approval.
Each committee
member is to request feedback from division members to finalize what standard
information (printed out by Curriculum Central) should be included on the
course outline/syllabus. For example,
using the earlier distributed template:
LEEWARD COMMUNITY
COLLEGE
COURSE OUTLINE
Alpha & Number
Semester Year
Instructor: Course
Section:
Office Location: Course
Schedule:
Office Hours: Credit
Hours:
Office Phone: Course
Description
Course Title: Prerequisites:
Recommended
Preparation: Course
Goals:
Course Objectives:
Course
Contents: [Does this have to be
identical for each instructor teaching this course?]
Student
Assignments: [Does this have to be
identical for each instructor teaching this course?]
Attendance/Tardiness
Policy: [Does this have to be
identical for each instructor teaching this course?]
Evaluation: [Does this have to be identical for each
instructor teaching this course?]
Resources: [Does this have to be identical for each
instructor teaching this course?]
Method of
Instruction: [Does this have to be
identical for each instructor teaching this course?]
Educational
Philosophy: [Does this have to be
identical for each instructor teaching this course?]
Statements About
Plagiarism and Cheating:
Statement About
Disabilities: [Do we want to include
this statement in everyone’s course outline?]
|