curriculum committee meeting agendanew course – esr 140 introduction to environmental...

Curriculum Committee Meeting Agenda Voting Committee Members

Stephen Shwiff (Chair) Jules Burton Brian Greene Diana Lee-Greene Joel Kabokov Tom Kaser Tom Lieurance Dave Mason Pam Morse Janette Stanley (Vice Chair)

Non-Voting Committee Members Susan Lewis (Curriculum) Kaylene Herman (Student Services)

Support Staff Guests Jensi Smith (Curriculum) Academic Standards and Practices Com. (ASPC)

December, 2012 4:00-5:30 p.m. The Dalles Campus, room 3.218 (student services conference room) Hood River Campus, room 1.209 (conference room) Information items:

1. Course Review process – rewording of approved process (Susan) New Business:

1. Submissions New Course – ESR 140 Introduction to Environmental Sustainability* – Jules

Burton (4:05 pm) * This course is currently offered and approved by PCC. The committee may approve or disapprove the individual course’s addition to CGCC course offerings, but the committee may not revise the submission. However, the committee may require that a submission return upon independent accreditation to revise any portion it considers inadequate.

Old Business:

1. General Education research team update (Diana, Janette, Joel, Pam) Discussion Items:

1. Joint discussion with ASPC on developing curriculum related administrative rules and operating procedures and other common issues (see attachments)

Next Meeting: January 15, 2013 Attachments: 1 new course submission; Course Review process; CC & ASPC joint meeting topics list and related information

New LDC course request /revised 1.6.12 1

Columbia Gorge Community College

New Course

Lower Division Collegiate (LDC)

(double click on check boxes to activate dialog box)

Section #1 General Information

Department: Science

Submitter name Phone Email

Jules Burton

541‐399‐1160

[email protected]

Course Prefix and Number: ESR 140 # Credits: 4

Course Title:

60 characters max

Introduction to Environmental Sustainability

Transcript Title (30 characters max)

Intro to Envtl. Sustainability

Can this class be repeated? (for ART, cooperative ed, PE, independent study only)

Yes

No

How many times?

Contact hours (refer to help guide if necessary)

Lecture (# of hours): 40

Lec/lab (# of hours):

Lab (# of hours):

GRADE OPTIONS: Check as many or as few options as you’d like

Choose the default grade option. What is the default grade? This will be the option listed at the top of the dropdown menu for the CRN. Students who do not make a choice or do not make a change in the dropdown menu will automatically be assigned to the default grade option.

Check all that apply Default (Choose one)

A-F (letter grade)

Pass/No pass

Audit in consultation with faculty

Is this course equivalent to another? If yes, they

must have the same description and outcomes.

Yes

No

Course Number and Title

Course fee: Identify only fees that are above and beyond the usual CGCC fees

Course Description: (field will expand as needed)

Introduces concepts of environmental sustainability and their applications. May include field trips. Prerequisites: WR 115, RD 115 and MTH 20 or equivalent placement test scores. Audit available.

Begin the course description with an active verb. Include recommendations in the description.

Save this document as the course prefix and number

Send the completed form electronically to [email protected]


Note: if this course is requesting approval for the Gen Ed list, it will have, as a default, the following standard prerequisites: WR 115, RD 115 and MTH 20 or equivalent placement test scores. Higher levels of any of these prerequisites, or additional prerequisites can be requested. However, if the department wants to set the RD, WR and/or MTH prerequisites at a lower level, you will need to use the Prerequisite Opt-out form available on the Curriculum website.

Standard Prerequisites - WR 115, RD 115 and MTH 20 or equivalent placement test scores

Placement into: Placement into:

course prefix & number: Prerequisite Corequisite pre/co



Addendum to Course Description:

To clarify the teaching of evolution and its place in the classroom, the Portland Community College Science Departments stand by the following statements about what is science and how the theory of evolution is the major organizing theory in the discipline of the biological sciences.

A. Science is a fundamentally nondogmatic and self‐correcting investigatory process. In science, a theory is neither a guess, a dogma, nor a myth. The theories developed through scientific investigation are not decided in advance, but can be and often are modified and revised through observation and experimentation. B. The theory of evolution meets the criteria of a scientific theory. In contrast, creation "science" is neither self‐examining nor investigatory. Creation "science" is not considered a legitimate science, but a form of religious advocacy. This position is established by legal precedence (Webster v. New Lenox School District #122, 917 F. 2d 1004).

Science (ESR) instructors of Portland Community College will teach the theory of evolution not as absolute truth but as the most widely accepted scientific theory on the diversity of life. We, the Environmental Studies and Resources (ESR) Subject Area Curriculum Committee at Portland Community College, therefore stand with such organizations as the National Association of Biology Teachers in opposing the inclusion of pseudo‐sciences in our science curricula.

LEARNING OUTCOMES: Describe what the student will be able to do “out there” (in their life roles as worker, family member, community citizen, global citizen or lifelong learners), not in the classroom outcomes. Three to six outcomes are recommended. See course outcomes guidelines on the curriculum website for more guidance on writing good outcomes.

Learning Outcomes: (Use observable and measurable verbs)

A student will be able to collaboratively and independently:

A. Apply an understanding of environmental sustainability relative to human activity B. Identify the challenges and limitations of achieving environmental sustainability and

applying sustainability to their personal life C. Use critical thinking skills to address environmental sustainability issues in their personal

life D. Use the scientific method in analyzing problems in environmental sustainability

Course activities and design: (from CCOG)

Lectures, guest lectures, field trips, student projects, no formal labs

Outcomes assessment strategies:

A. Essay, short answer, and/or multiple choice exams B. Write‐ups of field experiences/journaling C. Research paper or project on environmental sustainability topic

D. Oral presentationsCourse Content: Themes, Concepts, Issues and Skills:

Concepts and Themes: A. Basic concepts of environmental systems B. Human impacts and environmental sustainability C. Technology and environmental sustainability D. The roles of the media and culture in environmental sustainability


(from CCOG they should be connected to the outcomes)

Process Skills (Competency skills): A. Read and evaluate scientific information B. Use basic math and statistics appropriately C. Understand the scientific method D. Locate and access information E. Think critically F. Collaborate with peers ‐‐ work effectively in groups

G. Present conclusions logically

Reason for the new course

This course further expands the Environmental Science offerings at CGCC, a popular program that has continuously offered only ESR171, 172 and 173 for the past 5 years.

Section #2 Transferabiltiy

Concern over students taking many courses that do not have a high transfer value has led to increasing attention to the transferability of LDC courses. The state currently requires us to certify that at least one OUS school will accept our new LDC course in transfer. We anticipate that the state will soon require evidence of transferability, possibly from more than one school before a new course is approved. It is important that we address these issues as early as possible in the development and internal approval process for new courses. Faculty should communicate with colleagues at one or more OUS schools to ascertain how the course will transfer by answering these questions.

1. Is there an equivalent lower division course at the University?

2. Will a department accept the course for its major or minor requirements?

3. Will the course be accepted as part of the University’s distribution requirements?

If a course transfers as an elective only, it may still be accepted or approved as an LDC course, depending on the nature of the course, though it will likely not be eligible for Gen Ed status.

Which OUS school will the course transfer to? List all

Previously vetted by PCC

How does it transfer?

Check all that apply

required or support for major general education distribution requirement general elective other (provide details)

Provide evidence of transferability: (minimum one, more preferred)

Required for Gen Ed only

Completed Transferability Status form

E-mail correspondence with receiving institution

Other - provide evidence

Identify comparables at Oregon schools PCC offers ESR140, OSU offers NR350, Sustainable Communities, an introduction to sustainability theory and practice

Is General Education or Cultural Diversity designation being sought at this time?

Yes – Submit the General Education form

No

Section #3 Additional Information for new LDC courses

How or where will the course

be taught? Check all that apply

on campus hybrid on-line (complete DL Modality form, obtain signature and submit) other (explain)

Is this course in a degree or certificate as required, an elective or a prerequisite? Please provide details.

Name of certificate(s): # credits:

Name of degree(s): AS, ASOT, AGS, ASOT # credits: 90


Briefly explain how this course fits into the above program(s), i.e. requirement or elective:

elective

Impact on other Programs and Departments

Are there similar courses existing in other programs or disciplines at CGCC? If yes, explain and/or describe the nature of acknowledgements and/or agreements that have been reached.

no

Have you consulted with the Department Chair(s) of other program(s) regarding potential impact such as content overlap, duplication, prerequisites, enrollment impact etc. If yes, explain and/or describe the nature of acknowledgements or agreements that have been reached.

No content overlap with other programs

Is there any potential impact on another department? If yes, explain and/or describe the nature of acknowledgments and/or agreements that have been reached.

no

Implementation term: Next available term after approval

Specify term

Allow 3-4 months to complete the new course approval process before the course can be scheduled. Note: Most LDC courses will implement in fall or spring terms depending on the formal approval process (see timetable linking request and review to implementation term). There may be exceptions for LDC disciplines that operate as CTE programs.

Section # 4 Department Review

This proposal has be reviewed at the Director level and approved for submission.

Department Chair Email

Dan Ropek [email protected]

Department Director Email

Dave Mason [email protected]

Task Force Recommendation: October 23, 2012 1. Initial independent course approval:

Upon independent accreditation, all courses must be initially approved by the Curriculum Committee.* Initial independent course approval will be completed over three years, 2013‐2016, with scheduling to be determined by the department in collaboration with the Curriculum Office. In building a schedule, the department should consider evenly distributing courses over each of the 3 years. The Curriculum Committee accepts submissions October through June. A draft three year schedule for each department’s initial independent course approval review is due to the Curriculum Office no later than February 5, 2013.

* While all courses are required to go through “initial independent course approval,” based on prior approval by the PCC Curriculum Committee, all courses listed as a CGCC course in the 2012‐13 catalog or approved by the Curriculum Committee within the 2012‐13 academic year will be rolled over and eligible to offer through spring term, 2016 based on prior approval by the PCC Curriculum Committee. Courses that do not comply with the “initial independent course approval” process within the 2013‐2016 time schedule will be inactivated and have to be resubmitted as a new course before offering.

2. Ongoing course review:

As part of their regularly scheduled Department Review, departments will review, evaluate, and validate all courses as to their authenticity, currency, and relevancy.

Documentation of such review is to include evidence of faculty participation in the review process (department meeting minutes, signed reviews). Relevant data to consider: Course Assessment results and analysis, including student course evaluations; frequency of offering and fill rate; degree, certificate and program outcomes assessment.

Revisions are highlighted. Independent was added to the title of the process to clarify that the approval followed independence. The addition of “or approved by the Curriculum Committee within the 2012‐13 academic year” was done to include the courses that will be approved this year but will obviously not be in this year’s catalog.

CC & ASPC Joint Meeting Topics: December 4, 2012

1. related instruction (attached: PCC AR) a. standalone vs. embedded RI b. instructor qualifications

2. repeatability of courses for credit (attached: PCC inservice info on repeatability; PCC memo to SACs on repeat courses)

3. experimental courses (attached: CGCC 2010‐11 summary showing decision on experimental courses; PCC AR)

4. credit guidelines (attached: PCC AR) 5. degree & certificate substitution standards (attached: PCC AR) 6. course challenge 7. general education requirements for associate degrees 8. granting of CEUs (attached: PCC AR) 9. credit for experiential and/or prior learning 10. dual listed courses (ldc and cte) (cross disciplinary) 11. teach out operating procedure – inactivation of a degree or certificate (attached: PCC

“to do” list for program suspension) 12. inactivation of courses (attached: CGCC procedure for dormant courses; 2011‐12

summary showing decision on inactivation of dormant courses) 13. department responsibilities regarding curriculum (attached: PCC’s SAC responsibilities)

14. authority between the three instructional governance standing committees (ASPC, CC,

IC) (attached: CGCC governance chart)

I believe that our goal is to make an action plan on how we should proceed on each of these

items. It may be that some require research to be carried out prior to the writing of

administrative rules and/or operating procedures. As research proceeds, discussion and

decision making will need to follow. I wasn’t able to provide an attachment for all the items,

and the information is minimal. My goal was to give you something in order to have at least a

minimal understanding of what is on the table.

susan

R601 Academic Policies and Standards May 2011

Academic(Policies(and(Standards(!

Policy/Standard(Name:!!Related!Instruction!Requirements!for!Career!Technical!Certificates!Policy/Standard(Identifier:!!R601!Authority:((N/A(Units(responsible(for(review(and(update:!!Degree!and!Certificates!Approval:!!District!President!Responsibility:!!Vice!President!of!Academic!and!Student!Affairs!Date(of(Final(Approval:!!May!2011(Effective(Date:!!May!2011(Prior(Versions:!!Yes!!

Related Instruction Requirements for

Career Technical Certificates PCC’s accreditation agency, the Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities (NWCCU), requires that “Applied undergraduate degree and certificate programs of thirty (30) semester credits or forty-‐five (45) quarter credits in length contain a recognizable core of related instruction or general education with identified outcomes in the areas of communication, computation, and human relations that align with and support program goals or intended outcomes.” (from Standard 2.C.9). This body of instruction is referred to as “Related Instruction.”

NWCCU further states, “The related instruction components of applied degree and certificate programs (if offered) have identifiable and assessable learning outcomes that align with and support program goals or intended outcomes. Related instruction components may be embedded within program curricula or taught in blocks of specialized instruction, but each approach must have clearly identified content and be taught or monitored by teaching faculty who are appropriately qualified in those areas.” (Standard 2.C.11).

Related Instruction in AAS Degrees and Certificates

At PCC, Related Instruction for AAS Degrees is fulfilled by the 16 credits of general education with a minimum of 1 course (3 credits or more) in each of the three areas of the General Education/Discipline Studies list, as described in section Academic Standards and Practices A102. At PCC, the Related Instruction components for certificates of 45 credits or more are outlined on the Related Instruction Template, showing which courses provide related instruction in which areas, and how many hours. The Template is recommended by the SAC, the SAC Administrative Liaison, the Degrees and Certificates Committee and the Dean(s) of Instruction for approval by the Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs.

2


Related Instruction Course Options: The Related Instruction requirement in certificates may be fulfilled using stand-‐alone courses, courses in the program containing embedded instruction (both described below) or a combination of the two.

Stand-‐alone course(s) option: Uses existing credit courses (must be 100 level or above) that address 1) communication, 2) computation, or 3) human relations. Sources for this option are a college-‐level course (CTE or LDC) in any discipline that provides instruction that would be relevant to the discipline in question and clearly addresses one (and only one) of the three areas. (Courses that address more than one area are considered to have embedded related instruction, as described below). Stand-‐alone courses used for Related Instruction must be identified and the hours included on the Certificate Related Instruction Template (see Curriculum Office Forms page for blank template). In the event that the Degrees and Certificates Committee has concerns about the course content with respect to related instruction, it may refer the course to the Curriculum Committee for evaluation. Embedded instruction option: Embedded instruction occurs simultaneously with program content instruction. Embedded instruction content and hours must be reflected in each course CCOG. More than one of the three areas can be embedded in a single course. SACs can identify embedded instruction hours that apply to their CTE courses only. The Related Instruction embedded in courses is recommended by the SAC, the SAC Administrative Liaison, the Curriculum Committee and the Dean(s) of Instruction for approval by the Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs. Recommendation by the Curriculum Committee is required before the Degrees and Certificates Committee recommends the Related Instruction Template.

Credit and Contact Hour Requirements for Related Instruction:

In order to facilitate identification and recording, related instruction would be counted in hours of student learning rather than credits. A credit is considered to represent 30 hours of student learning (instruction supported by study and practice).

Student learning includes both direct instruction and of class work such as study or practice. For every hour of lecture, it is expected that students will spend 2 hrs outside of class, so a 1-‐credit lecture class meets for 10 hrs (minimum), 20 hours (additional time spent learning) – over the course of a 10-‐week term that would be equivalent to 30 hrs. The distribution of class vs out-‐of –class time is different for the lab and lec-‐lab configurations. The conventions used at PCC are as follows:

1 cr lecture meets 1 hr /wk, plus 2 hrs/wk of study, for at least 10 weeks = 30 hours 1 cr lec-‐lab meets 2 hrs/wk, plus 1 hr/wk of study, for at least 10 weeks = 30 hours 1 cr lab meets 3 hrs/wk, with minimal outside study, for at least10 weeks = 30 hours

3


The Related Instruction Template identifies the courses and hours of instruction in the three areas used to meet the requirements described above. This is recommended by the SAC, the SAC Administrative Liaison, the Degrees and Certificates Committee and the Dean(s) of Instruction for approval by the Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs.

For certificates of 45 to 60 credits: 240 hours (the equivalent of 8 credits) of related instruction with representation in three program-‐related instructional areas, 1) communication, 2) computation, and 3) human relations. A minimum 48 embedded hours (20% of the minimum total) of student learning are required in each area; 96 embedded hours are at the SAC’s discretion.

For certificates of 61 to 108 credits: 480 hours (the equivalent of 16 credits) of related instruction with representation in three program-‐related instructional areas, 1) communication, 2) computation, and 3) human relations. A minimum 96 embedded hours (20% of the minimum total) of student learning are required in each area; 192 embedded hours are at the SAC’s discretion.

Instructor Qualifications for Embedded Related Instruction The SAC for the CTE program develops specific requirements that pertain to the related instruction embedded in their courses, and recommends these for administrative approval. These requirements are published as part of the Instructor Qualifications. The Instructor Approval Form will note that an instructor is qualified to deliver embedded related instruction; either for all courses or for specific courses, and supporting documentation of the relevant qualifications will be attached to the approval form.

Revised and approved: May 2011

RepeatCourses–BackgroundandPathforwardforSACChairIn‐serviceSept17,2012

Two important changes take place Fall 2013

Last year the EAC (via the Degrees and Certificates Committee) decided that with a handful of

specific and systematic exceptions, courses will be used only once in a degree or certificate. The

exceptions are Cooperative Education Courses and their seminars, and certain practicum courses in

CTE programs.

Banner will be block enrollment in courses that are recorded in Banner as “not repeatable for

credit” (zero repeats), when a student has successfully completed the course. [This currently does

not happen, and results in students re‐taking courses that cannot receive credit more than once)

Some background and relevant points:

The vast majority courses are recorded in our system as not repeatable for credit (zero repeats).

Banner is not currently set to prevent registration when a course has already been completed

successfully (C or better). For “zero‐repeat” courses, the student who takes the course twice will

find that they only get credit once.

Taking courses that are not eligible for credit is generally not a good thing for students, and such a

decision should be made with intention and knowledge of the consequences.

By enabling the block on re‐registration for a course already successfully completed, we can alert

the student to the consequences of taking a course that may not be eligible for credit.

The block can be overridden by faculty, but provides a pause that gives the student a chance to

consider.

SACs with courses that students often retake (to get a better grade for competitive program entry,

for example), need to be aware that starting Fall 2013, students will be blocked from re‐registering

if they have already successfully completed the course. An override will be needed in order to

enroll.

Some courses (about 370 or so) are coded in the system as repeatable 1, 2 3 or 97 times, for credit.

If the course is formally repeatable, instructors would not need to override registration and the

student could get credit for the second taking of the class, BUT with the few exceptions noted, this

will not be usable towards completion of a degree or certificates.

Students will be allowed to retake, but not be automatically alerted to the fact that the credits

won’t apply.

If a “repeatable” course is taken many times, Ds and Fs earned initially will not be replaced by later

higher grades in the GPA until the maximum number of repeats has been reached.

There are about 300 or so courses in our curriculum that may be repeated for credit one, two three or 99

times. As of Fall 2013, most of these cannot be used more than once in a degree or certificate.

Decisions about how many times a course might be repeated for credits have been made with different

levels of understanding of the consequences over the last couple of decades.

The SACs that have many repeatable courses have been notified of this change, and are considering

whether to retain the repeatability, or revising these into distinct courses that would apply to a degree.

What should SACs do about the remaining courses currently listed as repeatable?

Find out from the Curriculum Office which courses are repeatable, and how many times.

Think about the ramifications of leaving them repeatable given the upcoming changes.

Develop a plan the SACs intentions with regards to these courses and communicate the plan to

the to the Curriculum Office

If there are courses that you wish set to zero repeats, notify the Curriculum Office. They will give

you the expedited process for changing the courses to zero repeats.

Remember :

o students will not be blocked from a “zero‐repeat course” until they have received a C/P or

better in the course

o Instructors may override the registration block for students to retake a course as many

times as they wish (though students should be informed that these will not count towards

their PCC Degree or Certificate)

If the SAC wishes to leave the repeats in place, please find a way to make sure that students know

that even if they get credit two, three or more times, the course credit can only be used once in a

degree or certificate. An annotation on the syllabus would be appropriate. (This will also be

communicated to students and advisors, but until this practice is well‐understood, faculty teaching

repeatable courses share the responsibility for notifying students).

If the SAC wishes multiple iterations of the course to count towards a degree, the solution to

expand that course into multiple new courses , with at least one outcome that speaks to the value

of taking what is essentially the same course s second or third time. These courses will go through

the standard New Course Approval process

For CTE programs with repeatable courses (other than those numbered 280 for Work Experience):

If the courses may not be used more than once in a degree or certificate, it should be

changed to zero repeats (notify Curriculum and get expedited process)

If the course is intended to be repeatable, confer with the Curriculum office to ensure that

it meets the spirit of the exception.

For new courses or courses that are currently set a zero‐repeats, that the SAC wishes to make a

course repeatable for credit, a Course Revision Form and process will be required.

1

October 4, 2012 To: SAC Chairs From: Curriculum Support Services RE: Repeat course policy In our desire to inform faculty of policy changes that affect them and their students we want to bring

to your attention a policy change which the EAC has recommended and the President approved, the

course repeat policy will be implemented fall 2013.

PCC courses approved to be repeated for credit other than Cooperative Education may

only be applied once in meeting a PCC degree or certificate requirement. Students may

take a course additional times for credit, if the course is so designated, but those

additional credits may not be used toward fulfilling PCC certificate requirements.

Certain CTE programs have exceptions to this requirement. Contact programs for

information.

This repeat policy was developed to clarify the intent of degrees and certificates, and establish a

consistent standard with regards to repeated courses in a degree or certificate. With this policy in

place, it is possible to enable the registration block, so that students do not unwittingly take courses

that will not count towards their degree or certificate. Federal Financial Aid rules have affected this

policy as students who complete a course with a passing grade can use their financial aid to take the

course only one additional time and generally there is an expectation that students reach their

academic goals efficiently and limit the debt they incur. Graduation issues have also affected this

policy. Students, when they apply for graduation, discover that the credits from courses taken

multiple times do not apply to the degree total multiple times, and this is disappointing news for

students.

Beginning fall 2013 a registration block will be active and students will be prevented from registering

for a course which they have previously completed with a C or better (and is not repeatable) This

registration block may be overridden by approval from the faculty or advisor. The block enforces a

pause that gives students the opportunity to consider the consequences of their choices. A search in

the Banner database identified one or more courses within your subject area that have been approved

for repeat credit. We want to help your SAC make an informed decision as to what you want to do

about these courses. There are three options SACs may choose. The decision you make will have

varying effects on your students and your faculty. On the second page of this letter you will see a table

detailing the three options you might choose regarding repeatable courses. Carefully review this table

and determine the best option for students and faculty affected by this rule change.

Should the SAC determine they want multiple iterations of the course to count towards a degree, the

solution is to develop one or more new courses. The new courses must have at least one outcome

which reflects the difference between it and the original course. The new course must follow the

traditional committee review process and the deadline for submission of these requests is December

21, 2012.

2

On the third page of this document you will see a table which lists the specific courses in your subject

area, the last term scheduled and options available to you for dealing with these courses. Please

complete this document and email to [email protected] or fax to curriculum at 971.722.7576.

Should we have questions about this submission we will follow up with you.

Should you have any questions about this process and/or your curriculum feel free to contact Sally

Earll, sally.earll @pcc.edu; Anne Haberkern, [email protected]; or Kendra Cawley,

[email protected].

Repeat courses and impact on students and faculty

course Change to Not repeatable Remain repeatable for credit, but will count one time only in a degree or certificate

Remain repeatable for credit and count towards degree/certificate

Student Will be blocked from registering if they have already earned a “P” or “C” or better.

May register even if previously taken and earned a passing grade.

Only specific courses in CTE programs are approved for this, Cooperative ed, practicum, clinical and seminars associated with a work experience.

Student Must request an override by faculty or advisor to register. They should be informed of consequences of taking a course again (possible limits on financial aid, credits earned not applicable to degree). May need specific advice based on individual circumstances.

Registration will not be blocked; may not realize that credits earned (repeated) will not count towards degree completion or limits on financial aid. Note: All credits earned will be placed on the student’s transcript

Student May create problems with financial aid in the term they register for repeat.

May create problems with financial aid in the term they register for the course

Faculty Override required. May be a substantial burden due to an increase of requests for override if the course is popular for repeating.

Repeatable CTE courses must be identified by the SAC in a way that is clear to students

Faculty Must inform students of the implications of repeating a course (possible limits on financial aid, credits earned not applicable to degree).

Must inform students (via Syllabus and CCOG) that the course is repeatable, but may only be used once in a degree or certificate

Requests for exceptions to the repeat rule should be referred to the curriculum office

See page three for a list of courses within your discipline.

3

Using this response document please tell us what the SAC would like to do regarding the repeatable

courses listed below.

Due date: January 15, 2013 for this response document

Due date: December 21 for new iterations of current courses

Choose one

Course Current repeat limit

last term scheduled

change to 0 repeat

inactivate leave as repeatable, faculty will inform students of consequences

make multiple iterations of the course (requires committee review)

SAC chair initial and date required

WR 180 97 201204

WR 246 2 201202

When the table is complete email (this page only) to [email protected] or fax to 971.722.7576

Curriculum Committee Summary 2010‐11

Courses reviewed 26 New CTE courses were approved 6 New LDC courses were approved 8 CTE course revisions were approved 1 New CTE course was denied (revised and subsequently approved)

Degrees and Certificates reviewed 1 New Certificate was approved 3 Degree revisions were approved 1 Certificate revision was approved

Decisions or Actions approved 1. Consent Agenda approved for use for the following items (10/10 & 11/30/10):

Course title change Course number change Addition or deletion of an elective Degree and Certificate title changes Consent Agenda Process: Submission is sent to Susan L. Form is sent to CC members with next meeting agenda. CC members decide if anything needs to be discussed. If not, the consent agenda is voted on as a group item. Items that require discussion may be pulled from the consent agenda for further discussion prior to vote.

2. Committee approved the inclusion of a student services representative to the committee as a non‐voting member. The purpose is to provide the CC with insights from the Student Services perspective and to make sure the committee isn’t overlooking issues that impact curriculum decisions. In addition, the Student Services representative would be kept informed of what curriculum items are being proposed and be able to pass that knowledge along to the Student Services department, keeping it apprised of CC actions and plans. Charter was revised to include the student services support position. (11/9/10 & 11/30/10 & 2/11)

3. Committee approved the approval of CC minutes by email so that they could be posted on the web in a timely manner. (11/9/10)

4. Committee determined that a certificate or degree revision submission was not necessary for movement of classes between terms. (11/30/10) 5. As new courses are brought on that are currently part of PCC’s offerings, the CC is not permitted to revise the outcomes, descriptions, etc. However, the committee recognized it’s authority to approve a new offering for CGCC with a qualifying statement that would require a course to come back to the committee upon independent accreditation for review and update of outcomes, description, etc. (1/11)

6. Committee agreed to adopt PCC approved courses upon independent accreditation. In preparation, priority courses may come through CC prior to accreditation for approval of changes to outcomes, descriptions, requisites, title, and/or number; however, implementation of these approved changes

will have to wait until accreditation is granted. If no revision is approved prior to accreditation, courses currently listed in the CGCC catalog will roll‐over as approved courses. (3/11)

7. Membership and term limits: Replacement of outgoing members would be the responsibility of the appropriate department chair under previously determined guidelines. CC Chair would facilitate search and report to CAO on progress and identity of new members. Charter stipulates that a CC member can be reelected for two terms of service. (5/10/11)

8. Election of officers will take place at the September meeting. (5/10/11)

9. Committee agreed that keeping meeting dates as consistent as possible is a good idea so that there might be less confusion regarding submission deadlines and CC attendance requirements for submitters. Meeting dates will be remain the second Tuesday of the month, 4‐5:30 p.m., except when the second Tuesday falls within finals week. Then the meeting date will be adjusted forward or backward one week to the most reasonable Tuesday. Schedule will be posted for the year on the Curriculum web page. (5/10/11)

10. Committee approved the motion that 1) Experimental Courses will be treated as Information Items, not requiring approval; and 2) The Committee will adopt PCC’s guidelines to limit experimental courses to two terms and send a recommendation to the Academic Standards Committee and Department Chairs. (5/31/11)

11. Committee approved the addition of an end‐of‐year retreat. Its purpose is to wrap up some unfinished business, review previous year’s activities, make recommendations for next year’s agenda, and provide input regarding CC experience, commitment level, and responsibility. (5/31/11) 12. Approved the use of the word “appreciation” in course and program outcomes as an “unmeasurable goal or a measureable outcome.” When “appreciation” is used as an outcome, the committee will need to address this when reviewing the submission to ensure it can be measured. (6/29/11) 13. Approved use of modality check box but did not clarify if course would need to come before the CC if it was changing or adding a modality. Requested that a comment box be added to the modality section. (6/29/11) 14. Approval of election of officers procedure: An election will occur at the first meeting of the academic year. The vice chair from the previous year will serve as “chair‐elect” in September and will host the election of a new chair. Terms of office for both chair and vice‐chair are one year. (6/29/11)

Discussion Items Related Instruction and applied courses Wording of outcomes – inclusion of appreciation as an outcome What is collegiate level? Roll over of courses upon accreditation General Education designation Experimental Courses

slewis

Highlight

E202 Academic Policies and Standards February 2010


Policy/Standard(Name:!Experimental!Courses!Policy/Standard(Identifier:!!E202!Authority:(((Units(responsible(for(review(and(update:(Curriculum!Committee!Approval:!!District!President!Responsibility:!!Vice!President!of!Academic!and!Student!Affairs!Date(of(Final(Approval:!!February!2010(Effective(Date:!!Winter!2010(Prior(Versions:!!Yes!!

Experimental Courses

All programs are authorized to offer Experimental Courses for the purpose of introducing new materials on a trial basis. The following designations shall be used:

XX 199X or XX 299X Course Title (e.g. ART 299B History of Photography)

Experimental Courses shall be approved by the appropriate SAC, the SAC's administrative liaison, and the Dean of Instruction responsible for the SAC. A course outline, including the course description and learning outcomes, must be filed with the Curriculum Office, but no other approvals will be required.

Experimental Courses shall be offered a maximum of two terms (unless a third term offering exception be granted by the Chair of the Curriculum Committee (CC) with the notification of the CC), after which the course material may only be offered as a conventionally numbered course that has been approved following the normal course approval process. These two (or three) terms must occur within a single 15-‐month period.

Except as provided in the "Granting Degrees and Certificates Policy", degree and certificate candidates shall be limited to the use of 9 credits of Experimental Courses in their degree or certificate requirements.

Approved: February 2010

Effective date: Winter 2010

C103 Academic Policies and Standards DRAFT June 2011


Policy/Standard(Name:!Credit!Guidelines!Policy/Standard(Identifier:!!C103!Authority:(((Units(responsible(for(review(and(update:(Registrar,!Curriculum!Committee!Approval:!!District!President!Responsibility:!!Vice!President!of!Academic!and!Student!Affairs!Date(of(Final(Approval:!!June!2011(Effective(Date:!!June!2011(Prior(Versions:!!Yes!!

Credit Guidelines

Critical Elements of Credit Instruction

• Credit Courses must have defined learning outcomes and have established criteria for successful completion. Assessments will be used to evaluate attainment of outcomes.

• Instruction will be delivered by instructors who have been determined to meet qualifications established for the discipline as recommended by the Subject Area Committee (SAC) and approved by the administration.

• Consideration is given to the relevant academic preparation and prerequisites established as appropriate.

• Credit courses must be applicable to a degree or certificate (unless approved as a Stand-‐alone Occupational Preparatory course – see Oregon Community Colleges and Workforce Development Handbook). Courses that are below 100-‐level may not always be applicable to a degree or certificate but may serve as a prerequisite for a course that is applicable to a degree or certificate.

Establishing and Revising Credits in Courses

New credit courses and any change in course credit or clock hours are recommended by the SAC, the SAC Administrative Liaison, the Curriculum Committee and Deans of Instruction for approval by the Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs. Credit is based on in-‐class or equivalent hours and student out of class work. PCC operates in the quarter system, in which one credit is based on, or equivalent to, 30-‐36 hours of academic

2

C103 Academic Policies and Standards DRAFT June 2011

engagement. When equating clock or contact hours to credit hours, one credit in the following types of courses is represented by:

• Lecture -‐ 10 to 12 clock hours of instruction plus a minimum of 20 hours of out-‐of-‐class student work

• Lecture/lab – 20 to 24 clock hours of instruction plus a minimum of 10 hours of out-‐of-‐class student work

• Lab – 30 to 36 clock hours of instruction

• Cooperative Education/Clinical – 30-‐36 clock hours of supervised or semi-‐supervised instruction consisting of work experience in which a college instructor visits the work site periodically but primary supervision is from the employer or other individual contracted to provide the work experience

• Seminar – 10 to 12 clock hours in class plus a minimum of 20 hours of out-‐of-‐class student work (Example: Cooperative Education Seminar 280)

• Independent Study -‐ A minimum of 30 hours student involvement equals one credit hour.

For courses in which instruction is less clearly tied to clock hours, such as courses that might be offered exclusively online, the SAC will present evidence of equivalency that reasonably approximates the minimum hours of student engagement.

Definition (from 34 CFR Section 600.2)

Credit Hour: Except as provided in 34 CFR 668.8(k) and (l), a credit hour is an amount of work represented in intended learning outcomes and verified by evidence of student achievement that is an institutionally established equivalency that reasonably approximates not less than -‐-‐

(1) One hour of classroom or direct faculty instruction and a minimum of two hours of out of class student work each week for approximately fifteen weeks for one semester or trimester hour of credit, or ten to twelve weeks for one quarter hour of credit, or the equivalent amount of work over a different amount of time; or

(2) At least an equivalent amount of work a required in paragraph (1) of this definition for other academic activities as established by the institution including laboratory work, internships, practica, studio work and other academic work leading to the award of credit hours.

Approved: June 2011

A110 Academic Policies and Standards March 2011


Policy/Standard(Name:!!Degree!and!Certificate!Substitution!Standards!Policy/Standard(Identifier:!!A110!Authority:(((Units(responsible(for(review(and(update:(Degrees!and!Certificates!Approval:!!District!President!Responsibility:!!Vice!President!of!Academic!and!Student!Affairs!Date(of(Final(Approval:!!March!2011(Effective(Date:!!March!2011(Prior(Versions:!!No!!

Degree and Certificate Substitution Standards

Students have the right to petition for the substitution of course work to meet degree and/or certificate requirements. No student can graduate with fewer than the required number of credits in a degree or certificate. Credit can be given for a substitution of additional course work, but credit cannot be waived.

Requests for substitutions of course work in the ASOT, AAOT, AS and AGS degrees require approvals by the Registrar in accordance with guidelines established by the SAC.

Requests for substitution of course work in AAS degrees and certificates require approval by the department chair from which the student is earning the degree and/or certificate, consistent with degree outcomes.

All substitutions must meet state guidelines for each degree or certificate as established by the state (CCWD) degree/certificate rules. The Registrar’s office provides institutional approval for substitution decisions based on accreditation standards, government regulations and degree outcomes

Disagreements between the Registrar and the Faculty Department Chair may be appealed to a three Dean panel including the involved Division Dean, the Campus Dean of Instruction and a third dean of the administration’s choice.

Approved: March 2011

C101 Academic Policies and Standards June 2010

Academic Policies and Standards

Policy/Standard Name: Continuing Education Units (CEU) Policy/Standard Identifier: C101 Authority: Units responsible for review and update: Academic Standards and Practices Approval: District President Responsibility: Vice President of Academic and Student Affairs Date of Final Approval: June 2010 Effective Date: Summer 2010 Prior Versions: Yes

Continuing Education Units (CEU)

Definition The Continuing Education Unit (CEU) is designed as a uniform unit of measurement to facilitate the accumulation and exchange of standardized information about individual participation in non-‐ credit continuing education. CEUs must be consistent with the Mission and Goals of PCC [http://www.pcc.edu/about/mission.html], and characterized by high quality instruction with qualified instructors.

CEUs provide the opportunity for individuals to have recognition of their efforts to update/broaden their occupational knowledge, skills, or attitudes. Records of CEUs successfully completed provide a framework within which individuals can develop and achieve long-‐range educational goals through a variety of educational options. Having readily available permanent records permits individuals to maintain and transmit to others a record of their life-‐long occupationally related learning experiences.

The most common uses of a CEU record or transcript by an individual are to supply an employer or prospective employer with information on continuing education and training experiences pertinent to an occupational competence; and to provide documentation to registration boards, certification bodies, or professional and occupational societies, of continuing education undertaken to maintain or increase professional competence. CEUs are only available for occupational upgrading purposes.

A request for Continuing Education Unit instruction may originate from an individual, an employer, or a professional association. In addition, PCC staff may identify the need for CEUs within business, industry, labor, government, and/or professional organizations. When a need has been identified, a PCC staff member will validate the need for the CEU instruction with their department administrator.

2


Examples of activities that do not qualify for CEU include: • Association Membership and Certification Programs -‐ Non-‐ educational activities of

professional, occupational, or other organizations that otherwise may be used to qualify for professional and occupational membership or certification.

• Committee Work -‐ Committee meetings, activities, and assignments are not appropriate for the awarding of CEUs.

• Credit Programs -‐ CEUs and academic credit, for secondary or post-‐ secondary courses and programs, may not be awarded simultaneously. There is no relationship between CEUs and academic credit. Academic credit applies specifically to certificate/degree requirements and CEUs are not awarded to individuals for that purpose.

• Entertainment and Recreation -‐ Attendance at cultural performances, entertainment, recreational meetings, or participation in travel groups.

• High-‐school Equivalency -‐ Programs leading to high-‐school equivalency certificates or diplomas.

• Individual Scholarship -‐ Independent writing or the presentation of papers outside of a planned, directly supervised continuing education experience that fulfills CEU criteria.

• Mass Media Program -‐ Programs delivered through the media (e.g., television, radio, newspaper) do not qualify for CEUs, unless these activities are an integral part of a planned continuing education experience that qualifies under CEU criteria.

• Conferences and Conventions -‐ Meetings, conferences, and conventions of professional/occupational organizations do not automatically qualify as continuing education experiences. However, specifically organized courses, workshops or seminars held in conjunction with meetings, conferences, or conventions may qualify for CEUs when the CEU criteria are met.

• Instructing -‐ Instructing or leading a continuing education experience for which CEUs are awarded is not an appropriate activity for the awarding of CEUs.

• Work Experience -‐ On-‐the-‐job training and other work experiences do not qualify for CEUs unless the experience is offered according to CEU criteria. CEUs are not awarded for prior life/work experiences.

Approval and Administration One Continuing Education Unit is defined as ten contact hours of participation (with one contact hour defined as 60 minutes), in an organized continuing education experience, under responsible sponsorship, capable direction, and qualified instruction. The State of Oregon’s Community Colleges & Workforce Development Department [http://www.odccwd.state.or.us/] requires that CEU courses be between 1 and 210 contact

3


hours. Fractional CEUs may be awarded down to the minimum increment of 0.3 CEU for the successful completion of three lecture hours.

A Course Content & Outcomes Guide (CCOG) must be developed according to PCC's "Guidelines for Course Content & Outcomes Guides." [http://www.pcc.edu/resources/academic/ccog/index.html] CCOG's must be completed and on file with the instructional department prior to offering the CEU instruction.

The CEU course request form is found at the Curriculum Office’s website: http://www.pcc.edu/resources/academic/eac/curriculum/resources/forms.html

CEUs may not be awarded for anything less than what was originally approved for a given CEU number and title.

Documentation of the instructor’s qualifications will be kept on file in the department offering the CEU course.

The requirements for the successful completion of CEU instruction are to be established prior to the offering and provided to the students at the first session. Requirements should include demonstrations of competence based on course objectives, attendance, or a combination of the two. When attendance is the only determinant of successful completion, the criteria for successful completion should be attendance at a minimum of 90% of the class sessions.

The grades recorded for CEU instruction will be in accordance with G301 Grading Guidelines [http://www.pcc.edu/resources/academic/standards-‐practices/AcademicStandardsandPractices-‐GradingGuidelines.html]. Grades are available through MyPCC at the end of each term in the same manner as presented in credit classes.

CEU Students register for CEU courses using established registration processes.

A PCC student record will be established that includes name and student identification number of the student, title of the CEU course, term and year of completion, number of CEUs awarded, and an indication as to whether or not the student has successfully completed the CEU instruction. The permanent CEU transcript will be maintained for each student who has enrolled in a CEU course, and can be separate from the transcript for work taken in a credit program.

Evaluation A department offering CEU instruction is responsible for the evaluation of course content and instructor. Evaluation procedures must include feedback from students, employers and/or professional organizations, and instructors. Evaluations will be kept on file with the department offering the CEU course.

Effective Date: Summer 2010

Program Suspension To Do: Contact the advisory committee re need to suspend Letter to students Letter to full‐time part‐time instructors Letter to Degree and Certificate Committee (with rationale and teach out plan) Letter to PCC advisors Letter to the program advisory group Complete the catalog template Revise/update the webpage Revise/update the catalog Remove program from open admission website (curriculum office does this) Letter to CCWD (with teach out plan) Sally will do this letter based upon the information presented to Degrees and Certificates

Procedure for the inactivation of dormant classes The Curriculum Committee met with the Instructional Council and requested input and agreement on the implementation of the following procedure regarding the inactivation of dormant courses.

“After 3 years, a course will be identified as "dormant" if it has not been offered or if it has been offered but not taught because of low enrollment or any other reason. When a course is identified as dormant, a notification will be sent from the Curriculum Office to the applicable Department Chair, Director and the Chief Academic Officer advising of the new status and asking for written justification of why the course should be retained if so desired. If no response is received, it will be assumed that there is no objection to the inactivation of the course and as a result the course will be dropped from CGCC offerings, removed from the next catalog, and not available for teaching. After the inactivation process has been completed, the course will need to be submitted to the Curriculum Committee as a new course, following all new course submission requirements before it may be offered again.”

The purpose of the procedure is to maintain accurate representation of course offerings. Listing "dormant"

courses in the catalog may be construed as false advertising and result in student anticipation of a course

being offered which never is. The responsibility for inactivating a course is still placed with the Department

Chair, Director and Chief Academic Officer. The Curriculum Committee and Curriculum Office are not

putting themselves forward as the decision makers in whether a course should be inactivated or not. This

procedure is a way of ensuring that a timely review is made of dormant courses in order to avoid carrying

courses that are no longer needed or relevant.

Response from Instructional Council January 13, 2012: IC members recommended changing the default

from automatic inactivation if no response was forthcoming following notification to leave the course as is

if no response is forthcoming. Considerable concern regarding the potential that Curriculum Office and

Curriculum Committee might be dictating what curriculum should be offered. They didn’t want to have to

go through the work of resubmitting courses at a later date because they were inactivated. Wanted to add

notations to course descriptions in catalog advising students of when courses were offered.

Revised procedure, February 1, 2012:

“After 3 years, a course will be identified as "dormant" if it has not been offered or if it has

been offered but not taught because of low enrollment or any other reason. When a course is

identified as dormant, a notification will be sent from the Curriculum Office to the applicable

department chair, instructional director and the chief academic officer advising of the new

status and asking for a written response on whether or not the course should be retained. If

the decision is that the course will be dropped from CGCC offerings, its listing will be removed

from the next catalog, and not available for teaching. After inactivation, a course will need to

be submitted to the Curriculum Committee as a new course, following all new course

submission requirements before it may be offered again. If upon notification of dormant

status, no response is received from the relevant department chair, no action will be taken

and the course will remain active.”

Curriculum Committee Summary 2011‐12

Courses reviewed Degrees and Certificates reviewed 4 New CTE courses were approved 1 New Certificate was approved 8 New LDC courses were approved 3 Degree revisions were approved 15 CTE course revisions were approved 4 Certificate revisions were approved 1 Course inactivation

Decisions or Actions approved 1. Recommendation was made that the Writing Department review the prerequisites for the Creative Writing series (WR 240‐247) to determine if any

changes would be appropriate to provide for greater student success. (10.11.11) 2. Recommendation was made to include in course and degree/certificate development procedures a directive to include the financial aid office early in

the development process. This recommendation replaced the original recommendation to add a “financial aid” check box to new course and certificate/degree submission forms indicating that submitter has spoken with financial aid department regarding financial aid eligibility. Financial aid officer was a part of this conversation and decision. (10/11/11, 12/6/11, 1/10/12, 2/14/12.)

3. Inactivation policy/process: A process for inactivating dormant courses was developed with input from department chairs. When a course hasn’t been taught for 3 years, the CO will send a notification to the appropriate department chair advising that the course has been listed as dormant and requesting a determination on whether or not it should be inactivated. The course will only be inactivated if the department chair submits an inactivation form. CC noted that inactivation policy may become moot when the larger issue of regular course review is determined. (11/8/11, 12/6/11, 2/14/12)

4. CC members researched course descriptions at other Oregon colleges. A sub‐committee was formed to take these findings and develop course description guidelines. It was determined that a course description should do three things:

a. Tell the student what they are about to take/learn (reflect the outcomes of the course) b. Provide information on what is covered for use in determining transferability of course c. Be a marketing tool for the course

In addition, a description may have an addendum that is not published, but is informative to the instructor (i.e. the course may include a field trip or service learning options) Guidelines were presented to the CC, approved, and to be posted on the CO website. (11/8/11, 12/6/11, 2/14/12)

5. Proposal was made to change name of CC to Curriculum and Degrees and Certificates Committee to reflect all aspects of the committee’s work. The CC is a combination of the two committees that PCC has, should our name be a combination of both. Research was conducted on how similar committees were named at other institutions. The majority were named “Curriculum Committee.” It was decided that we would keep “Curriculum Committee” as the word curriculum is inclusive of the work the committee does related to courses, degrees, and certificates. (1/10/12, 2/14/12, 3/13/12)

6. Charter was revised to reflect changes regarding membership, representation, retreat, officers and elections. Sections that were determined to be “procedures” were removed from the charter. These procedures were then forwarded to Martha Dell for creation of possible Administrative Rules and/or Operating Procedures. The development of the ARs and OPs is carrying over to next year. Next steps will also include determining whether or not a “charter” is still the appropriate document to define/regulate the CC. It is suggested that a “charter” is a good document for starting out; however, now the CC is established and maybe it should have “by‐laws” instead. (10/11/11, 2/14/12, 3/13/12, 4/10/12, 5/29/12)

7. Agreed that different members of the committee may be more appropriate representatives of committee proposals, recommendations, and/or questions. Susan L shouldn’t necessarily be the front person for all interactions. The committee will consider the expertise needed for any presentation and choose a representative(s) based on that. (2/14/12)

slewis

Highlight

8. Subcommittee prepared guidelines for writing outcomes. To be posted to website. (3/13/12, 4/10/12) 9. Authority of CC: (3/13/12, 4/10/12, 5/8/12)

a. CC will “approve” or “not approve” submissions rather than “recommend” or “not recommend”. b. CAO will review and 2nd approval or not. If the CAO has questions, they will be taken back to the CC if the questions cannot be satisfactorily

answered by the CO or the submitting department. The CAO will not override a CC decision. Concerns/differences will be discussed by CAO and CC in order to find a common understanding and decision. If no resolution can be made, an ad hoc committee will be formed to address the issue.

c. Submissions “not recommended” may be revised and resubmitted. Minor changes that can be accommodated in committee will be done at the time of submission. For example, a minor rewording of an outcome could be completed during the CC meeting rather than sending the submission back for revision and resubmission.

d. New certificates or degrees will require the president and board of education approval. e. Revisions of certificates or degrees are not required to go to the president or the board unless the revision is so significant that the nature and

intent of the degree or certificate is changed, resulting in a fundamentally new degree or certificate. This is at the discretion of the CAO. f. The content of curriculum is the responsibility of the faculty, and the CC is representative of the faculty and trained in the oversight of the

college’s curriculum. 10. Administrative Rules and Operating Procedures: 4 areas to start defining – prepare an administrative rule with a set of procedures for each area.

a. Curriculum authority b. Curriculum development c. Curriculum/course review d. Charter revision

The CO will develop and bring to the CC for comment and approval. (5/29/12) 11. Proposal for periodic Course Review developed. Purpose, responsibility, procedure, and timing were discussed. Purpose was defined as: to maintain

validity, applicability and quality of curriculum. Proposed linking to program review; however, there was concern over length of time between program reviews. (5 years or more may be too long between reviewing courses – 3 year may be more appropriate.) Responsibility for completing review would be with the department (instructors reviewing, department chairs organizing); review schedule the responsibility of the CC. (Course assessment should be an integral part of the course review process.) All courses should go through an initial review process in order to “make them our own.” Proposed “certification” process for courses, with departments signing off that courses were current, appropriate, and relevant. Proof of faculty participation required (department meeting minutes). During fall term, committee members will take proposal to their respective departments to be reviewed and commented on before approving final procedure. (4/10/12, 6/26/12)

Discussion Items Related Instruction and applied courses (9/20/11, 1/10/12) Course inactivation (11/8/11, 12/6/11, 2/14/12) Wording of outcomes (3/13/12, 4/10/12) Wording of course descriptions (11/8/11, 12/6/11, 2/14/12) Authority of CC and relationship with CAO, department chairs, academic standards committee (3/13/12, 4/10/12, 5/8/12) Financial aid – should we have certificates that are not financial aid eligible (5/29/12) CCOG Format – inclusion of “Text and Materials” (6/26/12) Course Review (4/10/12, 6/26/12)

S701 Academic Policies and Standards May 2012


Policy/Standard(Name:!Subject!area!Committees!!Policy/Standard(Identifier:!S701!Authority:(((Units(responsible(for(review(and(update:(Academic!Standards!and!Practices!Approval:!!District!President!Responsibility:!!Vice!President!of!Academic!and!Student!Affairs!Date(of(Final(Approval:!!May!2012(Effective(Date:!!May!2012(Prior(Versions:!!Yes!!

Subject Area Committees (SACs)

Definition A Subject Area Committee [http://www.pcc.edu/resources/academic/program-‐review/documents/SACchairandProgramReviewMaster.pdf] (SAC) is composed of all faculty throughout the PCC district who teach in a subject area or program. A SAC addresses the instructional and curriculum concerns of its program(s) or discipline(s). The SACs represent and articulate subject area and program issues which are defined by the PCC Mission Statement and Core Outcomes and the Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities. As the curricular and content experts for their subject areas, SACs will make recommendations and must be consulted regarding all relevant academic and curricular issues.

Purpose SACs develop and implement curricula of all course offerings within individual programs or disciplines or in a group of related programs or disciplines. SACs fulfill college and accreditation requirements for assessment of student learning outcomes with guidance from the Learning Assessment Council and the Dean of Academic Affairs. Assessment is used to guide SAC practices towards enhancement of student learning as well as to ensure that students who complete courses, programs, degrees, and certificates achieve the designated outcomes. This assessment is not for evaluation purposes of individual faculty members.


2

The SAC is the proper forum for discussion of curricular issues. SACs make recommendations regarding academic/curricular issues such as:

• high school articulation • community or baccalaureate college articulation • grant application review when requested • substitutions for graduation requirements • course and program analysis

SACs are not designed to negotiate or adjudicate issues that are of a contractual nature. Issues such as faculty compensation, faculty assessments, campus assignments, professional leaves (e.g. sabbaticals), and hours and days of assignment are resolved through mechanisms established by the collective bargaining agreement. SACs may make recommendations regarding contractual issues that have an impact on instruction and programs or disciplines.

Membership and Organization Each SAC will have as members all faculty (including temporary full-‐time instructors and part-‐time instructors) in its subject area or program. Part-‐time instructors are encouraged but not required to attend SAC meetings. All instructors, including part-‐time instructors, have the right to participate in all SAC deliberations including those concerning instructional materials selection, curriculum, faculty qualifications, and class size. Many SACs tend to make their decisions by consensus, while others use a voting process. For SACs using a voting process, part-‐time instructors with assignment rights who attend a SAC meeting will have the right to vote. SACs may extend decision-‐making rights to a greater number of their part-‐time faculty, including full decision-‐making rights to all SAC members who attend. Proxy voting is not allowed in SAC decisions. SACs should determine their quorum requirements and voting-‐by-‐email policy for SAC actions. SACs should determine their own subcommittee rules and requirements. SAC members shall determine a chairperson(s) and inform the Vice President of Academic and Student Affairs’ (VPASA) office. Whenever possible, the chairperson’s term of office will be one to three years, and multi-‐campus SACs should rotate their chairpersons among the campuses. A division dean or other administrator will be assigned by the VPASA to serve as administrative liaison for each SAC.


3

Meetings, Operation, and Recommendation Reporting At a minimum, each SAC will meet once during fall term, winter term, and spring term. All members must be notified at least seven days prior to the meeting date; an agenda will be distributed in advance of the meeting. Minutes will be taken and approved by the SAC members. Approved minutes will be distributed to all SAC members, the appropriate department chairs, division deans, deans of instruction (DOIs), campus presidents, and the VPASA. The SAC Chair(s) or division dean (or other designated administrator) will submit SAC recommendations in memo format (minority reports may also be submitted) to the appropriate venue (for example, the VPASA, the Educational Advisory Council (EAC), an EAC standing committee, a DOI and/or other division dean). All further actions on the recommendations shall be reported back to the SAC. The VPASA or designee will be responsible for responding to SAC recommendations in a timely manner. In the event that the administration disagrees with a SAC recommendation, the parties will work collaboratively to try to reach a compromise regarding the recommendation. After this collaborative effort, if a compromise is not reached, the administration will, in writing, explain the rationale for their decision. The SAC shall be given the opportunity to supply additional information to the VPASA (or, as appropriate, the EAC) and to appeal that decision to the VPASA. SAC chairs and SAC members may attend the EAC and participate as guests regarding any issue on the EAC agenda. In addition, SAC chairs or others may request that items be put on the agenda for discussion. Approved minutes and recommendations will be distributed to, and maintained in, all of the division offices supporting the program(s) or discipline(s) included in the SAC.

SAC Responsibilities

Contractual The Faculty and Academic Professionals Contract (Article 26) [http://www.pcc.edu/hr/contracts/documents/faculty-‐ap-‐contract/article26.pdf] specifies the areas of expertise for which SACs are responsible: instructional material selection, curriculum, faculty qualifications, and class size.


4

Non-‐Contractual

Curriculum Responsibility SACs shall recommend all new courses, new programs, course and program revisions, course in activations, grading options, course repeatability, and the manner in which the course is delivered (for example, distance modality). SACs are responsible for reviewing outcomes and assessment strategies for all courses and programs taught in their subject areas. Learning outcomes for degrees and certificates shall be consistent with the college-‐wide core outcomes. Where no SAC exists for a course, program, or discipline the VPASA will appoint a SAC to make academic recommendations. SACs shall inactivate courses, which are no longer being offered. If a SAC fails to inactivate a course that has not been offered for four consecutive years, the Curriculum Office will coordinate with the SAC regarding course inactivation.

Course Content and Outcomes Guides SACs shall develop and approve a Course Content and Outcomes Guide (CCOG) for each of their courses. SACs shall review and, if necessary, update each CCOG at least once every four years so that it reflects current PCC and accreditation standards and practices. SACs shall submit new or updated CCOGs to the Curriculum Office. Refer to the Curriculum Office Home Page [http://www.pcc.edu/resources/academic/eac/curriculum/] for CCOG format guidelines and for course revision forms and procedures.

Program and Course Evaluation SACs shall review requirements for courses, programs, and disciplines. Recommended changes shall be made in time to meet catalog deadlines. The catalog and brochures must be reviewed and updated as appropriate. To satisfy accreditation criteria and ensure currency, program or discipline reviews will be conducted at least every five years.

Course Challenges SACs shall decide which courses can be challenged. SACs shall develop the challenge measurement and process as appropriate. Recommendations shall be submitted to the DOIs for approval.


5

Equipment Purchases SACs shall review and make recommendations to the appropriate division deans for purchases of equipment that impact curricula on a district-‐wide basis.

Library Holdings SACs shall review library holdings in appropriate subject areas and make recommendations for additional purchases or deletions. Recommendations should be submitted to the director of the library.

Textbooks/Instructional Materials SACs shall determine when textbook and instructional material adoptions are group decisions or individual decisions. SACs must consider ways to minimize the cost to students for textbooks and instructional materials.

SAC Chair Responsibilities 1. Work with SAC administrative liaison to set official meetings and agendas. 2. Conduct meetings. 3. Attend to the items in the SAC Responsibilities. 4. Work with the SAC administrative liaison to record and distribute minutes to SAC

members, division deans, DOIs involved with the SAC, the VPASA, and other interested parties within two weeks of a SAC meeting.

5. Forward all curricular recommendations to the VPASA or person designated by the VPASA.

6. Work with the SAC administrative liaison to maintain an up-‐to-‐date historical file readily accessible to all SAC members and administrative liaisons.

7. Be readily accessible to all SAC members.

Administrative Responsibilities to the SAC

Administrative Liaisons/Division Deans Administrative liaisons represent the broad interests of the college. They engage in respectful dialog with SACs, clarifying budgetary, contractual, and other implications of SAC curricular work; and they serve as a conduit between faculty, the DOIs, and the VPASA regarding issues critical to SAC recommendations. Administrative liaisons recommend SAC proposals – or, if necessary, add their justifications for not recommending them – after consulting with other division deans involved with the SAC.


6

Administrative liaisons work closely with faculty as they fulfill the SAC Responsibilities listed above. In particular, administrative liaisons will:

1. Collaborate with SAC chairs to identify issues SACs need to address and bring forward agenda items for SAC meetings.

2. Help SACs develop degree and certificate programs, including conferring with other schools regarding course transfer and program articulation.

3. Work with SACs and DOIs to focus, assess, and strengthen programs through program review and academic planning.

4. Work with SAC chairs to ensure that CCOGs are up-‐to-‐date. 5. Maintain the official SAC-‐approved listing of textbooks and other required student-‐

purchased instructional materials. Division deans are responsible for implementing SAC recommendations approved by the administration, including working with faculty and administrative colleagues to determine and secure necessary funding for approved proposals.

Deans of Instruction (DOIs) 1. Review and make recommendations for curricular revisions in accordance with

Curriculum Office processes. 2. Consult with the campus presidents and the VPASA on SAC issues, including the

assignment of SAC administrative liaisons. 3. Prepare administrative responses to SAC program reviews.

Campus Presidents 1. Review and make recommendations for curricular revisions in accordance with

Curriculum Office procedures. 2. Consult with the DOIs and VPASA on SAC issues, including the assignment of SAC

administrative liaisons.

Vice-‐President for Academic and Student Affairs (VPASA)

The VPASA serves as the College's Chief Academic Accreditation Officer and is responsible for working in the best interest of faculty, students, and the institution by ensuring compliance with accreditation standards, policies, and procedures; academic rigor and integrity of the College's curriculum; and the effectiveness of student development services that promote student retention and success. The VPASA will:

1. Review and approve/disapprove SAC recommendations as specified in previous sections of this standard.

2. Keep record of approved instructor qualifications and processes for faculty hiring. 3. Maintain the College's official file of all approved CCOGs.


7

4. Update the College Catalog as new and revised courses or programs are approved. 5. Keep the Course Master up-‐to-‐date as required by the course and program approval

process. 6. Coordinate training and briefings for SAC chairs and administrative liaisons. 7. Communicate information regarding statewide initiatives, practices, and procedures

impacting curriculum. Effective: Summer 2012

Links last updated: May 2012

Interim Chief Academic Officer Brian Greene

Director of

Transfer &

Pre-College

Programs

Dave Mason

Distance

Learning

& Instructional

Technology

Coordinator

Paula Ascher

Adult Continuing

Education &

Workforce

Training

Coordinator

Suzanne Burd

Director of

Career &

Technical

Education

(CTE)

Mary Kramer

Director of

Library

Services

Brian Greene Interim Day-to-Day

Operations:

Katie Wallis

Director of

Nursing

& Health

Occupations

Doris Jepson

Nursing/Health Occupations (includes Nursing, CNA, Med Aide, EMS, Health &

Safety, First Aid & CPR, Medical Assisting, and Medical Terminology)

Dept Chair - Diane Lee-Greene

KEY

* Developmental Education cours-

es will be incorporated in the appro-

priate curriculum department.

Science (Includes Nutrition, HPE, & PE)

Dept Chair - Dan Ropek

Departments

Art & Theatre/Humanities Dept Chair - Richard Parker

Business/Social Science

Dept Chair - John Copp

Writing, Literature, Foreign Language * (includes WR 90)

Dept Chair - Tim Schell

Pre-College * (includes Career Guidance, MTH 20, & Reading)

Dept Chair - Brook Maurer

English for Speakers of Other Languages

(ESOL)* Dept Chair - Lynn Lewis

Math * Dept Chair - John Evans

Revised Instructional Governance Model

2012-2013 Academic Year Revised 6-20-12

Career & Technical Education (Includes RET, Welding, Computer Applications,

Office Skills, & ECE)

Dept Chair - Mary Kramer (acting chair)

G:\SHARED\Instructional Services\Org Chart\12_13 Revised Instr Governance Model

Curriculum

Committee

Chair:

Stephen

Shwiff

Academic

Standards

Committee

Chair:

Richard Parker

Notes:

1. The Academic Standards

C o m m i t t e e m a k e s

recommendations to the

Chief Academic Officer

and the Chief Student

Services Officer.

2 . The Cur r i c u l u m

C o m m i t t e e m a k e s

recommendations to the

Chief Academic Officer.

curriculum committee meeting agendanew course – esr 140 introduction to environmental...

Documents