AIC Meeting Notes

Committee 3: Curriculum Revision and Review

Date: Tuesday, November 19, 2002

Time: 12:35 p.m.

Room: PS 101B

 

Meeting Chair:

Bernadette Howard

Meeting Recorder:

Jean Hara

Members Present:

Michael Bauer (Math & Science), Jean Hara (Business Technology), Barbara Hotta (Math & Science), Bernadette Howard (Administration), Patricia Kennedy (Arts & Humanities), Gail Levy (Language Arts), Paul Lococo (Arts & Humanities), Shelley Ota (Business Technology), and Donald Thomson (Social Sciences)     

 

Guests Present:

None

 

If this is a sub-committee meeting, what is the name/function of the sub-committee in relationship to the larger Accreditation Implementation Committee? N/A

 

I. Old Business (review/update of previous discussions and actions):

The committee members shared feedback from their divisions regarding the COURSE OUTLINE (Course Syllabus) and the CURRICULUM REVISION AND REVIEW LCC POLICY #_____, Draft 2 dated October 15, 2002.  A summary of the comments regarding required information on the first page of the course syllabus follow:

 

SOCIAL SCIENCES (reported by Don Thomson)

1.         The philosophy statement should be taken out.

2.         Plagiarism policy may be included with attached sheets to the course syllabus, but keep that statement out of the required first page.

 

ARTS AND HUMANITIES (reported by Pat Kennedy and Paul Lococo)

1.         Course goals and objectives—what are the differences?

2.         Plagiarism policy not necessary—it is already listed in the Leeward Community College Catalog.

3.         Leave out the course section since instructors may have multiple sections of courses and may want to use the same syllabus for all the courses.

 

BUSINESS TECHNOLOGY (reported by Shelley Ota and Jean Hara)

1.         E-mail address should be included

2.         Include a Plagiarism Statement

3.         Include a Disability Statement

4.         Instead of “Course Objectives,” list “Student Learning Objectives”

5.         Delete from the required first page:  Course Contents, Student Assignments, Attendance/Tardiness Policy, Evaluation, Resources, Method of Instruction, and Educational Philosophy

 

LANGUAGE ARTS (reported by Gail Levy)

1.         Parameters must be determined—(1) Students are the audience, (2) Separate what should be included in the outline versus what should be in the catalog, (3) Determine what should be listed by ALL teachers versus what should be listed by INDIVIDUAL teachers.  It was determined that the course syllabus should include items that ALL teachers should fill out for the students.

2.         The course syllabus needs to be straight forward, factual, and one page only.

3.         Included should be:  Semester, year, office location, electronic communication (telephone, e-mail, fax, web page, cellular, etc.), course, catalog course description, recommended prep, prerequisites, student learning objectives, grading policy, resources (textbook, material, supplies), disability statement, and plagiarism statement.

4.         Fuzzy areas included:  course content, method of instruction, and attendance/tardiness policy.

 

MATH AND SCIENCE (reported by Michael Bauer)

1.         Include the disabilities statement, e-mail address

2.         Delete everything from the sample template below Course Objectives (see comments for Business Technology) because those items should be personalized by each teacher.

 

After much discussion, the committee decided on a draft template, which will be simple with required information to students from teachers.  Barbara Hotta said that the online course syllabus template could have helpful hints to aid with completing the course syllabus, without those helpful hints being printed as part of the final course syllabus.  Customized additional sheets will list other information unique to each instructor.  (See attachment:  CourseSyllabus11_19_02)

 

A summary of the comments regarding the draft policy follow:

 

1.         For internal control and audit, a reviewing body needs to randomly select course syllabi from various divisions for accuracy and thoroughness.  An authoritative body outside of the division may need to review the course syllabi for compliance.  It was decided that after the division chair, the Dean of Instruction would be the next step in cases of conflict or non-compliance.

2.         What rubric will be used to decide the quality of each outline?

3.         Are there fields in Curriculum Central that will show that the course content is current?  Each discipline needs to look over the courses in Curriculum Central.     

 

II. New Business (plans/deadlines for new initiatives and actions):

The CURRICULUM REVISION AND REVIEW LCC POLICY #_____, Draft 2, dated October 15, 2002, will be submitted without changes to the Leeward Community College Faculty Senate for review, comment, and action.     

 

III. Miscellaneous Items:

None

 

IV. Time Meeting Adjourned: 1:35 p.m.

Date of Next Meeting: None scheduled.