page 1
page 2
page 3
page 4

TO :

AIC Steering Committee/Mark Silliman, Chair

FROM:

AIC for Degrees and Certificates/General Education and Student Learning

Outcomes:

J. De Ste Croix, Co-Chair

Candice Hochstein, Co-Chair

SUBJECT : Final Report

DATE:

March 28, 2003

The final meeting for the AIC for Degrees and Certificates took place on Oct

. 4, 2002.

The Co-Chairs convened the meeting in order to assess the committee's progress and to

formulate a direction for the future

. In general, the committee concluded that it had

fulfilled the original charges for which it was responsible and that the April First Progress

Report had outlined the particulars supporting that conclusion

. (A copy of that report is

attached to this memo

.) The Committee does recommend, however, that the General

Education Outcomes and Associate in Arts Degree Competencies (pages 45-49 in the

2002-2003 LCC Catalog) be shared with all of the Divisions and Curriculum Committee

members

. They should be aware that any course proposed for the Core will need to

conform to the requirements denoted in these documents.

During the October fourth meeting, the subject of the committee's future prospects

constituted the bulk of the discussion

. After considering several possibilities (some of

which are listed on the minutes for that meeting), committee members settled on an

exploratory approach

. Because the committee's original tasks had centered on issues

having to do with assessment, concluded the members, it might be reasonable for this

committee to assume a leading role in the formation of a campus-wide assessment

committee, one linked to other similar bodies throughout the system

. In order to look

into the possibilities for this development, the committee members decided to create a

proposal suggesting this possibility and outlining the conditions it would see as necessary

in order for a successful assessment committee to operate.

The October fourth meeting took place on a Friday afternoon

. On the following

Monday, the LCC administration announced its formation of a wholly separate campus-

wide pre-assessment committee in charge of creating the group which would establish

and implement assessment for the LCC community

. In light of this latter development,

the AIC for Degrees and Certificates has decided that its decision to offer a proposal is

now unnecessary and, as a result, will not be formulated

. Unless the AIC Steering

Committee sees compelling reasons for this AIC to continue, we propose that it be

discontinued.

A system-wide community college task force headed by Dave Cleveland of Honolulu

Community College is working on consolidating the AA degree learning competencies.

Moreover, Bernadette Howard, Leeward Community College's Acting Assistant Dean of

Instruction, is currently consulting with individual disciplines in order to form standard

learning student learning outcomes for all courses

TO:

AIC Steering Committee/Mark Silliman, Chair

FROM:

AIC for Degrees and Certificates/General Education and Student Learning

Outcomes:

J. De Ste Croix, Co-Chair

Candice Hochstein, Co-Chair

SUBJECT : April First Progress Report

DATE :

April 1, 2002

In August of 2001, the AIC for Degrees and Certificates was formed in order to

address specific concerns the recent accrediting body noted in its accrediting report on

Leeward Community College

. At its first meeting in the fall of 2001, the committee

established a co-chair organization and began its work of identifying its particular tasks

in this campus- wide effort of self-study and action plans

. As the fall semester

progressed, the responsibilities of the committee began to take concrete form in a list of

seven "charges" arranged in order of importance. As that first semester came to a close,

we initiated work on the first charge.

The spring semester brought unexpected changes in our committee personnel.

Because our Acting Dean of Instruction left the campus to facilitate LCC's international

efforts, one of our co-chairs left the committee in order to fill the administrative vacancy.

A new co-chair was appointed and has since executed the responsibilities of the position.

The full committee has met twice this spring semester (so far), and the co-chairs have met

more than five times

. Following is a list of the seven charges, each in bold type . After

each charge is an explanation of the committee's response to that charge--as of April 1,

2002

1 . Identify and make public expected student learning outcomes for all of its

[LCC's] degree and certificate programs.

Leeward Community College now has three degree programs (A .A., A.S., and

A.A.S.)

and several certificate programs, all of which have been approved by the

community college system

. Learning outcomes for these degrees and certificates have

likewise been formulated and approved at the systems level and can be found in

"Chancellor for Community Colleges Memo" #6004 (November 4, 1996) and "University

of Hawaii General Education Project Memo," dated March 17, 1997

. (An additional

skills standard, "non-linear thinking," was added by the LCC Senate.*) As a committee,

we incorporated these outcomes into the appropriate sections of the LCC catalogue and,

on February 12, 2002, edited the final incorporation . This suggested revision to the LCC

catalogue was then forwarded to the AIC Steering Committee (with an accompanying

memo) in mid-March, 2002

. Whether these revision suggestions will appear in the next

LCC catalogue depends on those responsible for assembling it and the timelines they

must work with.

In the Catalogue, publish in clear and complete terms the general

education component of all degree programs.

As in the first charge, systems-level standards for the general education

Component of all degree programs can be found in "Chancellor for Community Colleges

Memo" #6004 (November 4, 1996) and "University of Hawaii General Education Project

memo," dated March 17, 1997 . At the same time that we incorporated the modifications

for our first charge, we also incorporated the modifications for our second charge . In

other words, both are contained in the revisions we forwarded to the AIC Steering

Committee in mid-March, 2002.

3. Make sure that the general education component is based on a philosophy

and rationale that are clearly stated and publicized.

The philosophy and rationale for the general education requirement is clearly

stated on page 12 of 12 of Appendix 2 of CCCM# 6004. This two-paragraph statement

presents a clear rationale and philosophy for the general education component and does

so at the systems level. Although it references the Associate in Science Degree in a

footnote, that reference does not, in the opinion of this committee, mean that the rationale

need be so restricted . The text of the statement speaks otherwise.

4. Provide the criteria by which the appropriateness of each course in the

general education component is determined.

The criteria for the appropriateness of the inclusion of courses into the general

education component were, again, established at the systems level . University of Hawaii

General Education Project Memo, dated March 17, 1997, provides an explanation of the

mechanism through which these standards were developed . The appropriate section

reads as follows:

The skill standards set for the in this document are the result of (1) a 1995-

96 survey of faculty, the results of which were presented at 12 campus and

system meetings, (2) a 1996 survey of graduating/leaver students at all

university of Hawaii campuses, (3) five system-wide meetings of faculty

and administrators, and (4) faculty responses to previous drafts of these

skill standards. (Page 2 of 10)

The standards themselves are those which have been forwarded to the AIC

Steering Committee. (See numbers one through three of this memo .)

5. Evaluate the Liberal Arts

degree program and integrate this

evaluation with those of all other established academic programs as part

of the overall institutional evaluation and planning.

Charge #5 breaks down into two sections . The first part asks that we evaluate the

Liberal Arts AA degree program in terms, we assume, of how we determine any

particular class fits into the general education core . In order to address this half of the

charge, this committee sent memos to all Division Chairs (dated February 4), asking that

each division review courses it has included in the general education core and indicate

how those courses meet "at least one of the specified academic skills standards

mentioned in the University of Hawaii General Education Project and LCC Faculty

minutes regarding non-linear thinking ." This committee asked that responses be

forwarded by April 1.

The second part of Charge #5 asks that this committee "integrate this

evaluation with those of all other established academic programs as part of the

overall institutional evaluation and planning ." As a committee we felt that this

vague and ambiguous part of the charge required expertise and authority beyond

the scope of the committee

. As a result, we forwarded a memo to the AIC

Steering Committee concerning our evaluation and received a response on March

10, a response that agreed with our assessment.

6. Establish the Academic Assessment Committee to develop instruments to

measure student competence in specific skill areas, e .g., oral and written

communication, scientific and quantitative reasoning, and critical

analysis/logical thought.

And

7. Established formalized and institutionalized policies and procedures to

use such instruments to assess student learning outcomes across the

disciplines and to effect change.

Charges six and seven represent two very important and time-consuming tasks.

The scope of these jobs prompted this committee to forward a memo to the AIC

Steering Committee, recommending that a campus-wide authority be established

to address these concerns . It is the opinion of this committee that this authority

have both authority and responsibility to see that the campus addresses these

concerns and establishes the mechanisms required in Charge seven . More

specifically, this committee asked that a position be created so that that person "be

designated in charge of this very complex task ." In the request memo, this

committee understood that the person in this position would be drawn from

faculty and provided with release time.

The response to this committee's memo arrived on March 8 . In it, the AIC

Steering Committee Chair, Mark Silliman, agreed with our assessment and

indicated that an ad-hoc planning committee would be established by the LCC

Acting Interim Dean "to think through the recommendation and to make concrete

plans, including a timetable and projected costs, to implement the

recommendation."

*This committee could see no essential distinction between the LCC standard for Non-

Linear thinking and the system-wide skill standard for Critical Thinking .