Www.ccccio.org
Options for Pre-requisites
Small Group Discussions at CIO/CSSO conference April 2, 2009 (Fulks, Lieu, Patton)
|Local Content Review |Statewide Pre-reqs |
|(Done course by course) |e.g. for all Transfer G.E. Courses |
| |(e.g. English 1A for History1A) |
|PROs |PROs |
|Easier to establish prerequisite. |Consistent standards; no “neighborhood” disadvantages |
|Requisite fewer resources: leg., research. |Higher threshold required to establish |
|More dialogue between disciplines. |Less local research required |
|Flexibility by college/region. |Increase in system credibility |
|Easier ---more streamlined |Increase in portability of articulation |
|Specific to program |Less work at local level |
|Direct faculty participation |Portability |
|Works well for sequential courses |Statewide standards |
|Easier |Large schools could provide data for small schools |
|Sits w/ content experts |Consistency across schools reduces confusion and frustration for students |
|Creates faculty to faculty dialogue |Prevents students from “shopping” |
|ID dialogue (interdisciplinary) |Only way to achieve prerequisites |
|Ease/Flexibility |Promotes transferability: moves toward standardization |
|Addresses local needs/situations |Consistent across institutions |
|Increase chance of student success |Clear message to standards – you need this to be successful |
|Increase in academic faculty in involvement |Allow faculty to teach to true level of course rigor |
|Local control |Course alignment |
|Involvement and investment of discipline faculty |Ease of transfer |
|Faculty know course and the requirements to succeed |Student transcripts --evaluation time |
|Streamlined content review process |Much more efficient and less costly |
|Adapted to local student population abilities |Better use of revenues |
|Flexibility in course design when validated locally |Standardization supports transferability |
|More faculty comfortable with controlling own curriculum |Easier to please in a concerted manner |
|Serves needs of specific student community |Will have help and support of ASCC (promotion and provide training) |
|Maintains local control (faculty) |Portability of prerequisites |
|Local expertise used for locally unique courses/programs |Curriculum consistency |
|Streamlined |Increase success rate of students (like having a local content review process0 |
|Satisfy concerns of faculty; local control |Consistency |
|Raise student success |“Cheaper” - less resources needed at the local level |
|Will raise involvement of faculty with establishment of prerequisites |Increase student portability |
|Don’t have to deal with state |May lead to standardization of curriculum |
|Make faculty happier |Increases college networking which may increase student success |
|Local decrease to review over demographics of community |Good pilot for nursing programs |
|Better for success of students |Level playing field with regard to student “shopping” for colleges that have different |
|College determines courses |requirements |
|Faculty have ability to determine what courses have prerequisites |Speed the “evaluation” process |
|Success likely |All would be the same – easier for student movement |
|Provide another perspective to curriculum |Address inconsistencies within multi-college district |
|Respect curriculum process |Success level of student likely to increase |
| |Some faculty welcome this, especially when they deal with under-prepared students who enter |
| |classes with no prerequisite |
| |Provide framework for articulation – college to college, etc. |
| | |
|CONs |CONs |
|Inconsistency in standards could over estimate the need for the prerequisite |Less ability to respond to local conditions *** |
|Validation? |Perceived loss of academic freedom, e.g., by providing additional support |
|Disproportionate impact |Leads to more standardization |
|Content review insufficient ; need stats |U.C. mandates could force the reading/writing faculty to rethink their programs’ consistent |
|Relationship of prerequisite to course not verified |levels of expectation |
|Need data for cross discipline |State control |
|If not done properly could set unnecessary (subjective) barrier |Agreement – statewide (common numbering) |
|Lack of consistency across institutions |All courses would have to be unified across the state |
|Potential “abuse” |Students are frequently successful in courses they would not meet prerequisites for |
|“Competitive” enrolling/student shopping |Loss of multiple measures |
|Increased need for faculty to teach additional Basic Skills |Can we ever obtain this level of agreement? |
|Student will compare one college’s prerequisites with another --- more difficult to transfer |Prevents C.S.U./U.C. from imposing curriculum, i.e. IGETC |
|between CC’s. |Ramification of addressing needs - e.g. scheduling many more sections of Basic Skills and then|
|Benefit to program enrollment not learning |don’t have load for other faculty |
|Attempts at exclusivity by faculty seeking elite students |Makes CC’s the “bad guy” for enforcing rules created by K-12 deficiencies |
|Without statistical analysis, validity is questionable |Perceived lack of Academic Freedom |
|Content review is minimal |Student transcripts evaluation time |
|Access and equity |More faculty involvement in evaluation of transcripts in a timely manner |
|Worried about excellent competition from neighboring colleges |Loss of local control |
|May not be uniformity in applying them |Resistance to change |
|Time intensive |Prerequisite courses pressured toward a standard (as well as courses having that prerequisite) |
|Decreases student portability |Cookie cutter courses limit creativity and local relevance (and arguments of restricting academic|
|Potentially adversely affects program quality |freedom) |
|Leaves potential for abuse |Statewide curriculum |
|Might affect students “shopping” for classes at other colleges |No evidence this is needed |
|Might be hard to cover the increase in Basic Skills courses |Bypasses local curriculum committee authority over curriculum |
|May make it less likely to happen |Access and equity |
|If different standards have issue with moving from campus to campus |Assumes same level/style of instructor |
|Vulnerable to external pressures |Can be problematic in reading and writing area – difficult to validate |
|What about a department of one? |One size does not fit all |
| |May lead to/require standardization of curriculum |
| |Less flexible |
| |Implementation would add time and cost |
| |Very challenging |
| |Over regulation |
| |As we meet all the state mandates |
| |Years to interpret and apply |
| |Faculty over regulated |
COMMENTS:
• The example you gave in which successful completion of intermediate algebra resulted in a much higher level of success in Econ. does not imply cause & effect. Ability to succeed in intermediate algebra may just indicate overall ability that predict success in Econ.
• Pre reqs would enable colleges to handle getting students remediation early
• We (the group) assumed statistical validation needed in either case
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related searches
- https www municipalonlinepayments
- bcps org jobs
- smartcu org sign on page
- aarp org membership card registration
- free org email accounts
- hackensackumc org pay bill
- get my transcripts org from college
- bcps org community volunteer info
- my access tgh org portal
- bcps org employee self service
- intranet florida hospital org employee
- typical finance org chart