1. Will catalogue descriptions change to conform to other institutions?

No, we are not aware of any discussions to make course descriptions uniform among the community colleges. We will have courses with the same course title and number but we will maintain our unique descriptions.

2. Are we just changing numbers or are we changing catalogue descriptions as well?

We will not be required to change the course descriptions. Just the course title and number will change. At Kirkwood, any decisions to change to the course description will be left to the academic department.

3. Will the college be making changes as to actual courses offered?

No. CCN will not be driving curriculum change.

4. Given that many courses given common numbers are quite different from each other (especially in terms of the depth, percentage of time on topics, approaches), won't this process make transfer credits to four-year schools even more complex?

Only courses that have been deemed by faculty to be >80% similar will share a common catalog number. Several courses across the state may be similar, and may share a common course name, but because they differ in either depth of coverage, content, or credit hours, they will be assigned unique catalog numbers.

5. This seems like a lot of crock. What do we gain from this?

• Facilitate transfer between the community colleges on those  courses that are determined to match up as "in common" currently 10-20%;
  
• Raise questions for discussion about why some courses that would otherwise appear to BE in common do not transfer similarly, so that mistakes can be corrected and courses that are missing components of instruction or are out-of-date can be redesigned appropriately.
  
• Raise some questions about consistency in transfer and perhaps open some doors to re-evaluation of our courses and even whole programs, or at least provide a vehicle for talking points among faculty at both institutions and transfer representatives.
  
• Provide all who participate in these conversations some familiarity with a working model of a process for arriving at CCN agreement or disagreement, which may serve as a paradigm for institutional conversations of the future, i.e., the "80%"/”gut" rule; preserving the integrity of the system; or allowing for adding in new courses.

6. Will we add some classes and discard others to bring us in line with others?

No.

7. Will classes change format (i.e. will we be changing from a 4 credit Western Civilization course to a 2 or 3 credit course)?

No.

8. What will happen to unique-to-campus courses? Will they be eliminated?

Most of the courses state-wide are unique to just one campus. These courses will be assigned a unique number and will continue as they always have. Although the course number may have to change to fit into the numbering scheme designed within that discipline, the course title, description, and syllabus can stay the same.

9. Who makes the final decision? Will faculty have a chance for rebuttal?

Faculty will work with their deans to decide whether or not their courses have a "match" within the existing common course numbering matrix or they are unique. When possible course matches are found, faculty and deans will work together, using due diligence, to ascertain whether or not the courses have 80% commonalities and, thus, are able to share common numbers statewide. Courses that are found to be unique will be assigned a unique number within the discipline's numbering scheme.

10. What should be done (and by whom) if the matrix does not reflect discussions held by disciplines to establish common course numbers?

Please discuss the problem with your dean so that the information/problem can be passed along. The CCN Implementation team will forward any questions or concerns about the placement of Kirkwood’s courses in the CCN Matrix maintained by WITCC.

11. I'm much more concerned about common names and prefixes (as students don't pay attention to numbers). Writing courses need to be intelligently listed as such - writing or composition, not communication.

Faculty within the discipline named the courses.

12. If this common course numbering process adds confusion to transfer to four-year schools (they don't have such a system), who/what is this for?

Common Course Numbering was initiated by the Community College Presidents in 2002 in order to create a more useful system of seamless transfer among Iowa community colleges and the Regents institutions.  Discussions were held among administrators and faculty of all of the community colleges within discipline and program areas seeking greater alignment of curriculum.

The result of those extensive discussions was the creation of a matrix demonstrating those courses that were judged close enough in content and intent to be designated as in common.  Such courses were given common titles and catalog numbers.  The matrix, as published on the Web, is hosted by Western Iowa Technical College in Sioux City, Iowa.

13. I am disappointed that the 100 numbers and 200 numbers no longer mean freshman and sophomore level classes, respectfully. This has been a long standing tradition of college campuses nationally and the current numbers seem meaningless.

There are too many unique courses across the state to use this system of numbering.

14. What is the state-wide process for making changes?

This has not yet been established.

The following questions were added on 8/21/06.

15. Did the Regents Institutions request clarification from the community colleges in the form of a common name and numbering system?

The Common Course Numbering initiative was a directive from the Community College Presidents, designed to improve transfer and articulation within our own system.  The Regents have been kept informed throughout this process.  They have requested and will be provided with a crosswalk from each of our colleges to assist them in updating their own systems.  The process of getting faculty together from across the state of Iowa to discuss what we teach and how we teach it may be an even more important outcome than the crosswalk we are producing.  It is my understanding that these conversations will continue over time at the direction of the Chief Academic Officers.

16. I recall being assured at a college-wide discussion that CCN would only affect the catalog course numbers and not the names, but apparently to expedite the efficiency of the spreadsheet the names have also been made common.  This makes sense from an administrative, but not curricular point of view.  Changing the name of a course begins to impinge on its curriculum, despite assurances to the contrary.  If faculty have expressed concern from the outset that this plan is leading to the infringement of administrative efficiency on the curriculum each department developed and adopted, why was common course naming even considered, let alone implemented, and why are we still calling it common course numbering if the process has turned out to be common course naming and numbering?

When Deans and Chief Academic Officers were first given the charge to initiate Common Course Numbering, common titles were not a part of the charge.  You did hear that correctly.  Deans told faculty what they were told about the process.  That directive on including names was added later and the Chief Academic Officers carried it out accordingly.  Those faculty who participated in the discussions about Common Course Numbering across the state were able to voice an opinion and sway their peers in attendance.  These were still faculty decisions about control of the curriculum.  It was, however, a case of “you had to be there to benefit.”

Administrators did not make decisions on what the titles should be.  Those faculty in attendance made those decisions after discussing implications of change first.  If a college decided that a course was not “in common” enough, (the 80% gut rule coined by Verlyn Fick, CAO of WIT, and facilitator of most of the meetings) there was no coercion to adopt the common course number and title.  Colleges were free to continue to list their courses separately to preserve the integrity of the academic offerings.  Everyone in attendance at every meeting heard this from Verlyn repeatedly.  

17. At what point in time will the Common Course Numbers be finalized on the website so they can be entered into Datatel?

The current plan is that the numbers are being entered into Datatel now through this Fall 2006, but Kirkwood will not really be using these numbers for scheduling with students until Summer and Fall registration 2007.

18. What do we do with courses that we no longer offer?

We are not putting courses that are inactive into Common Course Numbering, but they will continue to exist within the archived course information system for reference in case students need a transcript reviewed.    

19.  To clarify Question 12 above:

There is no way to calculate the time spent on checking for the transfer of courses among the community colleges or between community colleges with the Regents.  The various crosswalks that have been developed at each institution are intended to assist students, advisors and parents as much as possible.  Students who take responsibility for getting competent advising from their intended transfer institution and from Kirkwood as they choose courses have the best chances for successful transfer as their plans and the programs at all the institutions change.