Technical Review

Abstract

Typical use(s): 

Learn about the technical review process for course outlines

Available data: 

A description of what the technical review process entails, how it simplifies the approval process for course outline authors, and why it has become necessary

File format(s): 

(Not applicable)

Introduction and History

Over the past quarter century, the laws and regulations governing curriculum in the California community college system have increased and multiplied to a frightful degree. In the "good old days", the course outline reflected the simplicity of the times, and could often be contained on a single page (including the approval signatures). However, with the advent of new rules and regulations covering such issues as justification of prerequisites, proper statements of course objectives, establishment of course fees, meeting transfer and articulation requirements, and so on, the course review process has become much more complex. The typical community college course outline now occupies from five to nine pages, and there is a good chance that this number will continue to increase in coming years. In addition, recent accreditation expectations essentially demand that all courses be examined at least once every five years as part of each discipline's program review process. Implementing these periodic reviews means that the curriculum committee's workload will increase significantly in coming years.

To continue satisfying the college's curriculum obligations under the California Education Code and Title 5 of the California Code of Regulations, the curriculum committee can no longer devote time to discuss "technical" issues pertaining to course outlines. These issues include problems ranging from grammar and spelling errors, to incorrect conversions between lecture/lab hours and unit credit granted, to the specification of non-existent disciplines. To reduce the time spent correcting such errors, the curriculum committee has established a technical review subcommittee (sometimes pejoratively called the "nitpicking committee"). The hope is that course outline authors will work with members of the subcommittee well in advance of the date that outlines are formally submitted to department heads and division deans for signature and committee action. The intent is to reduce (but probably not to eliminate) the technical errors in course outlines submitted to the full curriculum committee.

Although course outlines are now required to undergo technical review before being presented to the full curriculum committee for consideration, the outline's author is not required to make the changes to the outline that are suggested during that process. However, if a course outline is submitted directly to the full committee and it becomes clear that it contains numerous errors, the committee is likely to refer it back to technical review and insist that the errors be corrected. This typically delays approval of the course for at least a month, and usually increases the stress level of the author, who must respond to the committee's sometimes extensive critique of the outline. The advantages of the technical review process are (1) it is non-public and should therefore reduce the apprehension that course outline authors often feel, (2) it streamlines the approval process, bypassing many potential delays, and (3) it allows the full curriculum committee to concentrate its attention on substance rather than form.

What Does Technical Review Check?

There is nothing particularly complex about technical review. In fact, course outline authors can do their own technical review by checking the items that appear in the following list. This list is not exhaustive, but does give an indication of the types of errors that careful examination of a course outline can frequently find.

Incidentally, please do not despair if you or the technical review subcommittee find numerous problems in early drafts of your course outline. When members of the subcommittee submit course outlines for their own disciplines, other members of the curriculum committee routinely (and enthusiastically) point out the errors contained therein (errors that were somehow missed during the "nitpicking" process). The moral of the story is that it is usually easier to review the work of others than to catch mistakes in one's own!

 General Considerations:

• Are you using a current version of the course outline form? Current forms are now available on the Internet; go to the Forms start page to get the latest version. It is better (even if not necessarily easier) to start with a fresh new outline rather than update an existing document.
• Be sure that spelling and grammar are correct. Most word processors can be configured to underline misspelled words. Do a visual check as well (this is often easier to do on a printed copy than on a computer screen). Careful proofreading often uncovers grammatical errors as well.
• This is an outline. Proper indentation of the various levels is key to identifying the hierarchical placement of each item and the relationships between items. The downloadable outlines available on the Internet are carefully tabbed to make this easier to accomplish, so this is less of a problem than it once was. Do exercise caution when editing, however.
• Do not use repetitive ("boilerplate") language when submitting several related courses simultaneously. Each course deserves its own thoughtful consideration as an individual. Hand-crafted outlines tend to be better than those that come from an assembly line. Carefully written courses are usually more rigorous (at least on paper) and can be more easily distinguished from other courses in the discipline.
• Indicate additions and deletions. Print additions using boldface or italics. Indicate deletions by using strikeout text. (Once the marked-up version of the outline is approved for first reading, authors will be asked to prepare a "clean" copy for second reading.)

Back to Top

 Cover sheet:

• Make sure the numeric portion of the course ID starts with the letter "R". This is the standard designation for Oxnard College courses. Courses with one- or two-digit designations should include leading zeroes to complete the name; for example, Math R009 or Math R014.
• The Banner title must be 30 or fewer characters. Don't worry; if this is a problem, there is a space on the next line for a longer descriptive title. The Banner title is the abbreviated course name that will appear on students' transcripts. The technical review subcommittee can suggest meaningful names that fit within this length limit. If the Banner title is abbreviated, don't use the same abbreviation in the descriptive title.
• Check the appropriate box(es) on each line. Some lines should be left blank, although others do have an "Inapplicable" block that should be checked if a particular item is inappropriate for the course. Use an "X" or check mark for checkoffs; letters in parentheses printed in front of some checkoff blanks are to assist the Office of Student Learning in coding reports to the state chancellor's office. These parenthesized letters should not be copied into the adjoining checkoff blank.
• Courses numbered R100 or higher are transferable. Filling out the articulation section helps the articulation officer to decide with which campuses we should negotiate articulation agreements. So it is important to list at least a few specific four-year schools in this section, so that your students may be reasonably assured of the course's transferability.
• Check the current catalog for appropriate CSU-GE and IGETC categories. The alphanumeric codes change from year to year, and copying the codes from an old outline does not assure that they are correct.
• Most courses (especially transferable, or 100-level, courses) are not basic skills courses. Basic skills courses are usually remedial or developmental.
• Check that your division dean completes the line just above the signature block. We know how busy they are; they sign so many documents that they sometimes forget course outlines require a little extra work.
• Please ensure that signatures are handwritten, not pre-printed on the form. The author, department head, and division dean (or authorized representative) must sign before you submit the outline to the Office of Student Learning. The curriculum committee has requested that technical review not sign off on documents not bearing these three signatures.

Back to Top

 Course Identification and Justification section:

• State the reason(s) for the new course or revision. For some reason authors often leave this field blank.
• Make sure the numeric portion of the course ID starts with the letter "R". This is the standard designation for Oxnard College courses. Courses with one- or two-digit designations should include leading zeroes to complete the name; for example, Math R009 or Math R014. The course ID should match that on the cover sheet.
• The Banner title must be 30 or fewer characters. Don't worry; if this is a problem, there is a space on the next line for a longer descriptive title. The Banner title is the abbreviated course name that will appear on students' transcripts. The technical review subcommittee can suggest meaningful names that fit within this length limit. These titles should agree with that given on the cover sheet. If the Banner title is abbreviated, don't use the same abbreviation in the descriptive title.

Back to Top

 Catalog Information section:

• Be sure that the number of units offered is consistent with the lecture/lab hour specification. For most courses, one unit is a minimum of one hour per week of lecture or three hours per week of lab. Internships, and some other courses have different formulas, however. When calculating "weekly" hours, assume that the course will be a full sixteen-week semester in length, even if it will never be offered that way. For example, a half-unit course that is always offered for eight hours on a single Saturday should still be listed as 0.5 hour per week of lecture.
• You must list all prerequisites, corequisites, advisories, and limitations on enrollment. These must be justified on a standard form to be appended to the outline. The type of justification required depends on the reasons for establishing the prerequisite. Prerequisites need not be courses (for example, "Negative TB test" could be a prerequisite). Limitations on enrollment do not refer to the maximum number of students that may enroll in a class. Rather, such a limitation restricts enrollment to a certain category of student (e.g., those that have been admitted to the dental hygiene program). See your curriculum committee representative or a member of the technical review subcommittee for additional information.
• Use complete sentences for the entire catalog description. Any course being reviewed must satisfy this requirement, even if the reason for revising the course is totally unrelated to the catalog information. A good catalog description is about six lines long, and indicates how the course fits into its program and/or what type of student should take it (e.g., is it a majors or non-majors course?).
• The schedule description should be a subset of the catalog information. Information not already in the catalog description should not be introduced here. Limit to one sentence if possible; two sentences at most.
• Fees may only be charged under limited circumstances. Check with your curriculum representative for additional information.
• Course repetition: Lecture and lecture-lab courses ordinarily may not be repeated for credit, except for basic skills courses. Lab-only and P.E. courses may be repeated under limited circumstances.

Back to Top

 Course Objectives and Course Content sections:

• Objectives must be measurable. See the Bloom's Taxonomy page for a list of sample verbs that may be used to write the objectives. Keep the list concise; a rule of thumb is that one objective is too few, ten are too many. Letter each objective (A, B, C, etc.).
• Course content should be closely tied to the objectives. There need not be a one-to-one correlation between objectives and content. However, it should be clear that the content of the course will allow students to meet each objective. Letter each major topic (A, B, C, etc.) and then number each subtopic (1, 2, 3, etc.) within each major topic.
• Avoid using undefined discipline-specific acronyms (except commonly-used ones such as DOS or HMO). Define each acronym upon its first use. This is especially important if the author is not presenting the course to the committee; the department representative may not know what an acronym means!

Back to Top

 Methods of Evaluation and Assignments section:

• Check all appropriate boxes. These are easy to miss!
• If the course does not include graded essays or graded written assignments, supply a brief reason. Usually the reason is obvious (e.g., "This is a physical education activity course"). Note: Although students often do lots of writing in math and math-like courses, this question should be answered "no" for such courses unless students are writing essays as well as solving problems.
• Don't forget other methods of evaluation. These may include such things as attendance, class participation, work attitude, evaluations by employers (for internships), and so on. Also state how these relate to or help students achieve course objectives.
• Typical outside of classroom assignments should not include quizzes or exams. (Unless, of course, the exams are designed to be take-home.) Reading and writing assignments should specify typical frequencies and amounts (pages read, words written, problems solved, etc.), plus a few additional words of description that clearly tie these assignments to the achievement of one or more course objectives.

Back to Top

 Textbooks and Instructional Materials section:

• Don't specify a particular edition of the text(s). Otherwise you are technically required to update the outline when a new edition comes out. You may append the phrase "or comparable college-level textbook" if the text changes frequently or if some instructors use different texts. Specify title, author, and publisher.
• Other instructional materials may include specialized equipment as well as supplemental reading materials. "Professional journals and magazines" is a popular but unsuitable response; try to be specific (e.g., The Wall Street Journal). Don't list publications not found in the college library or on the Internet unless the instructor can always provide these directly to students.

Back to Top

 Discipline Assignment section:

• Is the course's discipline actually on the State Disciplines list? Check out the Links to Curriculum Information page and look under the heading "Minimum Qualifications". Alternatively, if you know the minimum qualifications and just need to verify the discipline names, you can visit the State Disciplines List page at this website.

Back to Top

 Prerequisite/Corequisite/Advisory Justification appendix:

• The type(s) of justification used are specified by regulation and must be appropriate. See the Links to Curriculum Information page for more information on prerequisites, or contact your curriculum committee representative.
• If the prerequisite is sequential or advisory, then the skills listed must be closely linked to the course objectives of the prerequiste or advisory course. Be sure to number the items in the list. Justifications for multiple prerequisites or advisories should be enumerated in separate lists. When submitting an outline for a course that has prerequisites or advisories, please also provide a copy of the course outline(s) of the prerequisite or advisory course(s), if any.