ACADEMIC AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE OF THE CPC

MINUTES

FOR THE MEETING OF

May 19, 2004

2:30 P.M.

President’s Conference Room

Attending:        

Administration –Luis Rosas, Ann Tomlinson

Faculty – Nabeel Barakat, Carmen Carrillo, Joy Fisher, Sally Gogin, Bruce Lemon, Lauren McKenzie, Susan McMurray, Stanley Sandell, Jim Stanbery, Pamela Watkins, Mark Wood, Laurel Woodley, Bradley Young

Classified –Traci Liley

Students – LeShawn Cook

Absent: Administration - Charlie Bossler, Nancy Carson, Bobby McNeel, Bob Richards, Faculty –Wendy Hollis, Classified –Hovsep Kotelyan, Classified Manager - Carla Mussa-Muldoon, Students - Phillip Horsley, Kalani Mailo, Anthony Rodriguez, Arsenio Navarro-Rodriguez

Luis Rosas chaired the meeting.

I.          MINUTES

The Minutes of the March 21, 2004 meeting were distributed.

II.                 PROGRAM REVIEW

III.               VIABILITY STUDIES

IV.              ACCREDITATION

The Academic Senate has approved the plan to set up a Program Review Committee.  Program review, by AB 1725, is the purview of the Academic Senate.  The president has talked about making a position available for overseeing the college program review.  Given the continuing work necessary for the Grant Allocation Task Force and with the upcoming accreditation, this may make good sense.

Divisions were asked to identify more than one person from their division to serve on the Program Review Committees. Dr. Tomlinson would like to have all of the minutes posted on the web site, and readily available for the accreditation team’s visit, as well as for other purposes both internal and external. 

Curriculum Committee feels that the update/revision of course outlines should be completed using the campus approved template, electronically.  These outlines will go on the web site.  (Handwritten forms cannot be placed on the web.)  The accreditation team will be referred to the web site for all course outlines to prevent employees from having to run around and find the most current outlines when the committee makes any such a requests.

Nabeel Barakat wondered if course outlines could be posted on the web with a notation that the outline is currently under review.  This could demonstrate a division’s intent to complete all updates even though the task is not complete.  There was a lack of support for this approach. 

Where a division is uncomfortable updating course outlines with the student learning outcomes, it may be wise at to go ahead and complete them without the SLO’s at this point.  The SLO’s can be added during the working session on Opening Day. When writing student learning outcomes, consider: what is the course, what is the prerequisite for the course, what do you want the class to know (stated as succinctly as possible).  

The high points coming out of the retreat on Student Learning Outcomes were presented by Ann Tomlinson.  A handout showing a summary from workshops by Jim Nichols, Bill Scroggins and Fred Trapp was distributed.  SLO’s are defined at three levels:  course, program and college level.  Learning outcomes are direct measures of learning whereas indirect measures such as graduation rates, course completion, and grades provide institutional accomplishment of the mission. 

The ultimate goal of SLO’s is to improve learning.  SLO’s clearly state upon completion of a course what a student can do.  Measurable expectations and shared outcomes should be included.  Common tools for measuring learning can include portfolios, workplace performance, rating sheets and classroom assessment. 

After her visit to the Marines at Camp Pendelton, Dr. Tomlinson came away impressed with what the students learn in 12 weeks with 30 year old retrofitted equipment.  Students have to pass a basic skills test and physical test.  The hardest part for them they report is not the physical part of training, but the classroom instruction.  Marines have found that memorization is the most effective teaching method.  Dr. Tomlinson came away impressed with the overall education components of the training.  As an educator, she felt she learned a good deal from this experience.

Many of the new accreditation standards are coming from of a book entitled The Learning Organization, published in 1990.  In the book, the point is made that building a learning organization starts with the seekers of knowledge not with the providers.  To acquire new knowledge the seeker has to connect it to existing knowledge.  More active learning increases the learning curve. 

Miramar identified their college outcomes, and this was summarized in a handout provided by Dr. Tomlinson.  They identified communications skills, critical thinking, problem solving, global awareness, information management and personal and professional skills.  These were their overall core competencies.  Harbor College core competencies should be discussed within this committee. 

V.        ADJOURNMENT

The next meeting takes place on Wednesday, August 18, 2004, at 2:30 p.m., in the President’s Conference Room.