Background
In 1985, Long Beach City College began a program to routinely review one-fifth of the curriculum documents each year. The program was created at the urging of the accreditation visiting team with the following purposes:
1. Assess the relevance of our curriculum to our college mission and educational program goals/objectives.
2. Provide a reasonably up-to-date outline of course content, which can be given to faculty newly assigned to teach the course, used for articulation or given to outside requesters.
3. Promote accuracy in the data we maintain about our curriculum, and subsequently report to the state on an annual basis.
4. Meet accreditation standards.
In October, 2001, the Curriculum Committee passed a resolution requiring that all existing courses be translated onto the updated and integrated Course Outline Document and that this process would follow the locally established Routine Review cycle. This process will continue until the college's entire curriculum is presented on the integrated Course Outline Document format by the end of spring 2010. This Course Outline Document can be found at the Course Outline Website.
The Course Outline Document is a legal document, which establishes liability for the college. During the month of December, the Office of Academic Services publishes a list of courses to be reviewed during the upcoming school year and distributes that list to Curriculum Committee Representatives, Department Heads, and School Deans. In turn, Department Heads involve faculty in the review process and provide leadership in this effort.
What to Look For
The materials in the balance of this chapter will assist you as you participate in this review process. Additional material is found in the Faculty Curriculum Reference Book and additional information can be obtained by using the Help Button currently located through the Draft Course Outline. The following suggestions are made for the benefit of those doing a Routine Review of Course Outlines for credit curriculum; however, the general principles are the same for noncredit courses.
1. Has the course been offered within the last four semesters? If not, should the course be deleted or inactivated?
2. Is the course consistent with the college mission and is the current course number appropriate for the college numbering system? Courses in the 100 and 300 band need special attention. Please consult the college catalog for specific information on the course numbering system.
3. Does the Course Title accurately reflect the course description or content?
4. Is the current Catalog Description accurate and reflective of course content and theory? Is it written using complete sentences?
5. In the case of multi-semester courses (CHEM 1A-B), does the Catalog Description and Course Outline reflect the scope and distinction of each term's instruction?
6. Do the listed prerequisites accurately describe those courses a student must have taken in order to successfully complete the course requirements? Has a Requisite been completed within the past six years? (The Requisite Scrutiny Form can be viewed on the Course Outline Web Site by searching for the identified course and click on the Requisite button.)
7. Do the listed corequisites accurately describe the course in which a student must be concurrently enrolled in order to successfully complete the course requirements? Has a Requisite Review been completed within the last six years? (The Requisite Scrutiny Form can be viewed on the Course Outline Web Site by searching for the identified course and click on the Requisite button.)
8. If a recommended preparation statement is associated with the course, has a Requisite Review been completed within the last six years? (The Requisite Scrutiny Form can be viewed on the Course Outline Web Site by searching for the identified course and click on the Requisite button.)
9. Is there a minimum of six (6) learning outcomes described? Are at least three (3) of these learning outcomes reflective of college-level critical thinking for all credit courses that apply to the Associate Degree (courses numbered 1-599)? Are learning outcomes expressed in observable and/or measurable terms?
10. Is the course content, as described in the official Course Outline, an accurate reflection of current classroom instruction? Are the topics/concepts presented in a heading/subheading format? Does each major topic indicate the approximate amount of time devoted to it?
11. Is the course content taught in accordance with a core of student learning outcomes that are common to all sections of the course and listed in the outline?
12. Is the scope of appropriate instructional presentation methods identified and described? Are descriptions expressed in complete sentences?
13. Are there at least three (3) course-specific assignments described so as to reflect the opportunity for students to achieve the course's learning outcomes? Are explanations written in complete sentences?
14. Does the course treat the subject matter with intensity (outside of class preparation and pace of instruction) at a level that stimulates intellectual growth? Do assignments require two hours of out-of-class preparation for each hour of lecture time in class?
15. All courses with lecture contact hours demand assignments of written work. Courses that teach problem solving, such as mathematics, should provide modified written work, rather than expository writing. Skill building courses (laboratory contact hours only), such as music or physical education, need not require written assignments; all other courses must.
16. Are evaluation methodologies described as they align with the course's assignments, content, and learning outcomes? Do these descriptions provide standards and criteria (general departmental expectations)? Are descriptions expressed in complete sentences?
17. If texts are appropriate, are two (2) representative, college-level textbooks listed? Is complete information included (author, title, publisher, year)?
18. If technical manuals, periodicals, and/or web sites are used as supplements, are appropriate references provided on the textbook page under the "Recommended" prompt?
Process
Academic Services distributes the annual Routine Review list of courses via the Curriculum Committee Representatives, Department Heads, and School Deans. A Faculty Author initiates the Routine Review Process by creating a draft version of the identified Course Outline. The Faculty Author reviews and updates the Course Outline. (Please reference "Web Standards of Good Practice".) The Faculty Author informs the Department Head and School Dean that the draft version is ready for their review and signatures (signature lines are located on the face page of the Course Outline Document).
Web Standards of Good Practice Regarding Curriculum Documentation for New Courses or Routinely Reviewed Outlines
1. Faculty members who teach multiple sections of a course are expected to collaborate and reach agreement on the Course Outline contents and on the appropriateness of any requisites.
2. The principal Faculty Author leading the work on an outline of record is responsible for consulting collegially with others who teach the course and those in the collaborative circle who help review the document to achieve consensus on the following:
a. Course facts (Course Title, contact hours, Catalog Description, requisites)
b. Learning outcomes
c. Content topics and relative time devoted to each major area
d. Representative instructional methods, assignments, means of and criteria for evaluation and textbooks
e. Presupposed knowledge and skills where pre/corequisites or recommended preparation is involved
3. The documentation must meet the minimum standards for curriculum documentation established by the Course Evaluation Subcommittee or it will be returned to the originator.
4. Department Faculty Reviewers are to participate in the collaborative circle by providing a constructive critique that applies expectations inherent in CCR (Title 5) and locally developed standards of good practice and by consulting collegially with the principal author and those in the signature path.
5. All signatories are expected to contribute to the proofreading process to ensure an accurate, complete and professional product.
a. Where substantive changes are requested, the originator will be asked to make them, but if reluctant to do so, additional discussion is required.
b. Where procedural, mechanical, technical, and proofing changes are needed, the party making the corrections will inform the originator of the changes.
6. The following procedure will occur after all required signatures have been obtained:
a. The department shall contact the Routine Review Work Group member assigned to that school to "submit" the draft version of the Course Outline.
b. The Routine Review Work Group member provides a college-wide peer review of the draft version of the identified Course Outline. Any suggestions to strengthen the document will be forwarded to the Faculty Author and the Department Head and School Dean will be copied.
c. Communication between the department members and the Routine Review Work Group member is encouraged.
d. When refinements and/or updates have been accomplished, the Faculty Author and/or Department Head should contact the Routine Review Work Group member for the final review.
e. The Routine Review Work Group member will inform the curriculum technician, when the draft version of the identified Course Outline has successfully been completed.
f. The Routine Review Work Group member will notify the department that Academic Services has been contacted regarding completion of the Routine Review Process.
g. Academic Services will process the draft version of the Course Outline into its new "adopted" status.
Addenda to the Course Outline
Long Beach City College has addenda documents for Distance Learning and Honors versions of credit courses. (Please reference the Faculty Curriculum Reference Book Credit Course Outline Section.) If a credit course is due for routine course review and it has a Distance Learning or Honors version, they too must be reviewed at the same time.
Distance Learning
A department does not need to create a separate Course Outline for the Distance Learning version. Completion of the appropriate addendum form is all that is necessary to fulfill this requirement. Presently, the Distance Learning Addendum form can be downloaded from the curriculum forms website. Further, a Distance Learning Course Guidelines website is available and provides direction and information in this area of curriculum development. It is further suggested that the assigned faculty author contact Amit Schitai, Director of Distance Learning, to assist with document development prior to contacting your department’s peer reviewer.
Honors
The Honors page is imbedded in the course outline of record. To facilitate this process the faculty author may wish to use the Honors Addendum Template to assist with the development of this particular page in anticipation of placing this information on the draft course outline. This document provides detailed information and examples on how to respond to the required questions in the Honors section of the outline. The “help” button on the draft course outline is also a source of information. Be advised that the body of the Honors outline must exactly coincide with the general education version of the course. The Honors outline will have the Honors page in addition.
Routine Course Review Cycle Mandate Justification
Course Evaluation Subcommittee
August 2008
• Accrediting Commission for Community & Junior Colleges (ACCJC)
Western Association of Schools & Colleges
Accreditation Standards
Approved, June 2002
Standard II.A.2.e
Standard II.A.2.f
• California Code of Regulations: Title 5, Division 6, Chapter 6
§55002 Standards & Criteria for Courses
§55003 Policies on Prerequisites, Corequisites, Advisories on Recommended Preparation
§ 55200 Definition & Application (Distance Education)
§ 55206 Separate Course Approval (Distance Education)
• California Community College Chancellor's Office
Program and Course Approval Handbook
Second Edition, March 2003
“Distance Education Guidelines”
2008 Omnibus Version
“Prerequisites, Corequisites, Advisories, and Limitations on Enrollment”
Fall 1997
“The Model District Policy on Prerequisites, Corequisites, and Advisories on Recommended Preparation”
Board of Governors
September 1993
• Academic Senate for California Community Colleges
“The Course Outline of Record: A Curriculum Reference Guide”
Adopted, Spring 2008
“Good Practice for the Implementation of Prerequisites”
Spring 1997
The college's routine course review cycle, per regulation and standards, will encompass reviews of the Course Outline of Record, Requisites, Student Learning Outcomes, Distance Learning Addendum, and Materials Fee.
Revised 10/14/2009