California Community Colleges Curriculum

Credit Course Repetition Discussion Board

We welcome your comments and questions on this topic.  Please note that your question will not appear on the board until it has been approved by a moderator.

125 thoughts on “Credit Course Repetition Discussion Board

  1. joberzeir

    On September 19, 2012 jbruno published a link to the final language … on repeatability approved by the Board of Governors at their July meeting. That document now seems to be missing. Could that doc be found and the link re-published?
    Thank you

      1. jfohrman

        These guidelines are still watermarked as “Preliminary.” Is that until a new set is published? Are there any significant changes pending that we might expect?

        1. pstanska

          The guidelines were approved by the Chancellor’s Office in July. There are clarifications in response to questions from the field, but nothing new is expected.

  2. Kelly Hall

    My question is about general Work Experience courses. I understand these are not repeatable. However, a student may take up to 16 units of general work experience.

    I just returned from the Curriculum Institute where (I think) I heard a speaker say that if a student wishes to take more than one general work experience course, the courses must have distinct student goals. In this way, the course is not being repeated as new learning goals are established for the second course.

    If our general work experience course is 3 units with a a course ID of WE 999, can a student enroll in it multiple times (up to 16 units) as long as the student establishes unique written goals for each course?

    OR, does a distinct course outline have to be created, with distinct learning outcomes and a unique course ID given?

    1. pstanska

      Thanks for the question! Work Experience is governed by a different section of Title 5 and has not been altered by the new credit course repetition changes recently approved.

  3. David Grossman

    Our Dance curriculum was revised to meet the repeatability mandate. My question is this: DANC 105 Ballet I was deleted and a new class was developed to replace it(DANC 141 Ballet I: Beginning Ballet)within a family of ballet courses, can a student take DANC 141 if they have already successfully completed DANC 105?

    1. pstanska

      The repeatability question can be addressed as follows: the District may only receive apportionment for up to four enrollments in courses related in content. Thus if the student has already taken one Ballet course in the district, even after its deletion, it remains in the same set of courses related in content.
      When DANC 141 was created, was it equated with the previous course for transcriptable and enrollment management purposes? If so, the student who successfully completed DANC 105 should not enroll in DANC 141.

  4. Rusty Smith

    I have a question/scenario regarding support classes/countable hours. If 3 to 5 of any teams athletes enrolled in a weight training class would that class count against the 175 if the their coach was the instructor? and how about if another sport coach was the instructor? Is there any specific definition regarding this? From many of your responses I get the sense that this would be stretching the spirit and intent of the regulation, and we do not want further legislative restrictions. However, I know this type of question will come up in my meetings with the Men’s Basketball Executive Board meeting this Sat.
    College of Sequoias
    CCCMBCA President

    1. jbruno

      If the course is coded as athletics, then it counts toward the 175/350 limit. Of course the instructor should meet the MQs, but who teaches the class does not determine if the class counts towards the hour limitation for the athlete – the coding of the course is the determining factor. The intent behind the 175/350 regulation change was to allow for the sport class and the offseason conditioning.

  5. Susan Coleman

    Can you clarify the repeatability requirements for general and vocational work experience courses. It is my understanding that vocational work experience courses can be repeated four times up to the 16 unit limit by title V but General is not repeatable. Can you clarify this category of repeatable courses. Thanks

    1. jbruno

      The revised regulations on repeatability do not affect the cooperative work experience (General and Occupational) regulations. General and occupational work experience courses previously could not, and still cannot, lawfully be designated by a district as repeatable. However, the law previously permitted and continues to allow districts, under the circumstances specified in section 55253, to permit students to enroll multiple times in an occupational work experience course. The law still does not allow for students to enroll multiple times in a general work experience course. (§ 55040(b)(6).)

      Because there seems to be some general confusion on this issue, the Chancellor’s Office will be including a discussion of the cooperative work experience regulations in the forthcoming repeatability guidelines.

  6. Mgleave

    I understand the creation of families and that a department can create various family groupings of classes. For each of these families a student can have 4 experiences (enrollments).
    My questions is: is it 4 experiences per family and then not eligible for any other PE course or other family of courses? or is it 4 experiences per EACH family of courses? example: 4 courses of weight training family and and then able to take 4 courses of ‘aerobic training’ family of courses.

    1. jbruno

      Hi Marla. Yes, courses related in content are grouped either by level or variation and students are permitted 4 enrollments for each group (or family) of courses. A student could have 4 enrollments within a group of weight training courses and subsequently (or simultaneously) enjoy 4 enrollments within the aerobic training group of courses.

  7. Elizabeth Pfleging

    I have a question regarding repeatability of field science courses. Our college has numerous field science courses and there is overlap in the course content & objectives between these courses. However, even though there is silimarity in content and objectives, each field science course is based in a different, specific locale (ex: Death Valley or Lake Tahoe Region) and each course has a unique course number and title that includes the specific location where it is taught. We are removing repeatability from each individual course (ie can only take the Death valley course one time) but are unclear if the different location of each course is enough to make it not considered a repeat of the other field science courses when there are some locale-specific content/objectives for each course but also significant overlap in content & ojectives between all of the courses. We would appreciate your guidance on this issue.

    1. jbruno

      What you have outlined sounds appropriate. As you describe them, the courses appear to be discrete and that the distinction is based on location specific objectives and content. As long as you have removed repeatability and the differences are clearly delineated in the COR, the overlap shouldn’t be of concern. It would make sense that the courses share fundamental knowledge and skills objectives.

  8. Joe Conrad

    Currently we have a repeatable course in Journalism that is meant for students who produce the student newspaper. The instructor wants to make a sequence of four courses to deal with the loss of repeatability. Her proposals were just a copy-and-paste from the original course. I said that would not be sufficient as the COR’s should be distinct. I tried to find something in the new regs to back me up, but where they describe needing different outcomes, it is in the context of families which only apply to PE, Perfomring and Visual Arts. Journalism would not go there. It seems to me that such a ploy is exactly what is to be avoided, but the instructor said that she just mimicked what someone from another school had said at a journalism meeting would be a model for such courses. Am I off on this?

    1. jbruno

      No, you are correct. Creating four new courses that have the content and objectives copied and pasted from the original course to get around the repeatability guidelines is problematic and I sincerely hope that your curriculum committee would never approve such a plan. More importantly, to do so would be a grave disservice to students. To adhere to the intent of the proposed regulations and address students’ educational needs, a journalism course currently designated repeatable may be leveled or sequenced to create separate courses with distinct objectives and content that would build students’ knowledge and skills within the discipline as they complete the courses.

  9. Kim Bretz

    What if a student is an athlete in more than one sport… do they get 300 hours per sport? For instance, If a water polo player in the fall decides to swim in the spring with the swim team… do they get 175 hours for off season water polo training plus 175 hours in season swim training?
    Just wanted to check on this… as some sports training crosses over too – as swim training is needed for water polo too.

    1. jbruno

      Yes, if a student is an athlete in more than one sport they get 350 hours per sport. In other words, the 350 hours are tracked per student per sport.

  10. Kim Bretz

    As we start solidifying our families and start “plugging courses in” or creating new ones… I have a question about ‘dual membership’ in families. If I have a family that is “swimming” and a family that is “weight training” and “basketball” and I have a course that you rotate through different venues that includes, swimming, weight training, and basketball as part of the curriculum for that one course… what family does the course fall under? Or does it fall under all three of the families it relates to?… (meaning it counts as a ‘take’ in each of the three families it relates to).

    1. jbruno

      The decision of assigning courses to a family is a local decision. The course you describe sounds like a “survey” course and it is quite possible that it may be assigned to more than one family as an introductory course. You may want to post this question to the Yahoogroups Curriculum listserv to see how other colleges with a similar course have dealt with the issue.

  11. Matthew Jordan

    I would like to relay a question that was posed by our Articulation Officer. We have an Art course, Art 52, that is currently repeatable one time. The faculty would like to make this course into a family called “Illustration” that would include two courses. This course currently articulates with a single lower division course that exists at multiple CSUs. If this course becomes the Illustration family, comprised of Art 52A and Art 52B, can both of these courses be transferable, even though there is only one comparable course at the CSU level? In other words, can they each be articulated with the same course at the CSU?

    1. jbruno

      Yes, your curriculum committee may approve both courses as transferable since community colleges determine transferability at their end. Articulation is a different matter. Each CSU determines whether a course at a college articulates with a similar course at their university. I suppose if your Art 52A and 52B cover the material of a single course at the CSU, then the CSU may be willing to articulate both courses for their one course. However there is another concern, if the CSU course is only 3 units and your two courses combine to be 4, 5 or 6 units, the student taking your two courses would end up with an excess of units.

  12. John Carter

    How do non-credit (not “no-credit” ) classes fit into this scenario? Would it be possible to offer a four semester sequence/family and then provide a non-credit section offered at the same time to allow students to take more repetitions? This would allow for a student who is going to be at a Community College for three years before they transfer to continue to take an ensemble to keep their skills up until they transfer (although the third year would be in the non-credit section). This is also particularly relevant to community choruses/bands/orchestra/adult fitness/art, etc. where there are a large number of “community” members (i.e. students who are not working on degrees or planning to transfer to four year schools).

    1. jbruno

      I am unaware of any regulation that prevents combining credit and noncredit courses, as long as minimum qualifications for the faculty teaching the credit courses are upheld. However, please be aware that noncredit courses must fall under specific categories according to Title 5, Section 58160:

      § 58160. Noncredit Course Funding.
      (a) In order to be eligible to be claimed for state apportionment, a noncredit course must be approved pursuant to sections 55002 and 55150 and fall into one of the following statutory categories:

      (1) elementary and secondary basic skills courses and other courses such as remedial academic courses in reading, mathematics, and language arts;
      (2) courses in English as a second language, including vocational English as a second Language;
      (3) short-term vocational courses and programs with high employment potential;
      (4) workforce preparation courses in the basic skills of speaking, listening, reading, writing, mathematics, decisionmaking, problem solving skills, and other courses required for preparation to participate in job-specific technical training;
      (5) courses in citizenship for immigrants;
      (6) parenting, including parent cooperative preschools, courses in child growth and development and parent-child relationships;
      (7) courses and programs for persons with substantial disabilities;
      (8) courses and programs for older adults;
      (9) courses and programs in home economics; and
      (10) courses in health and safety education.

      I don’t see a category that could be used for the courses you describe.

  13. Terry Wilson

    I’m sorry to beat this to death, but I am still unclear about the above distinctions. We currently offer Ballet 110. We are/have created a Ballet Family that is Ballet 110 A,B,C,D. If a student is currently enrolled in Ballet 110 and then takes it again in Spring ’13 will that count as two out or our new family in Fall ’13. Or would you advise that we change our new family to be Ballet 112 A,B,C,D and to adjust our A level to be different than the original 110?

    1. jbruno

      If a student is enrolled in Ballet 110 and takes it again in spring 2013, they will not be able to repeat it for a third time in fall 2013 and it will count as two takes in the family of courses in which it belongs. If you delete Ballet 110 and create four new courses Ballet 112A, 112B, 112C and 112D in the Ballet family, a student will have 4 takes within that family. Since the courses are all new, the students previous repetition of Ballet 110 will not count. I’m not sure what you mean by adjusting the A level to be different from the original 110. With Ballet 112A being a new course, it has no connection to the deleted course of Ballet 110.

      1. Terry Wilson

        Thank you so much for your response.
        Another question I have is about “families”.
        Continuing with the idea that our Ballet 110 would be the first course addressing fundamentals; and we create a Ballet 112 ABCD addressing beginning, beginning intermediate, intermediate and advanced Ballet; and we do the same with our Modern and Jazz classes; could we then create a “family” of fundamentals that include our original courses in Ballet, Modern and Jazz or would they, because of the content and language land in their respective families and count as one of the four? In other words: can we create a ” Fundamentals Families” that would have one course in Ballet, Modern or Jazz. And then have a “Ballet Family ABCD”,” Modern Family ABCD” and “Jazz Family ABCE”. We are trying to create a family for non-majors that students can take once to enrich their lives or gain P.E. requirement, which would be separate from courses selected for students striving for a major or minor in dance. We are grateful for your guidance.

        1. jbruno

          The determination of families and the designation of courses within families is a local decision based on student need, the expertise of discipline faculty, and the approval of your curriculum committee. That being said, we are urging faculty to be conservative as they construct families of courses. If I were on your curriculum committee, I might question if the curriculum of Ballet 110 (a fundamentals course) is significantly different from Ballet 112A (a beginning course). Granted, I do not have discipline expertise, but I would need some convincing that your non-major students wouldn’t be just as well served by taking Ballet 112A rather than a separate Ballet 110 course. Also, ballet classes likely should be all in the same family since they do meet the definition of similar activities, and the same would apply to any other style of dance. If the fundamental courses were non-transferable, you may have a stronger argument in separating them from the transfer-level ballet courses but if all transferable, all ballet classes would seem to go together.

  14. Kim Bretz

    Sorry to continue with the Retroactive issue — but there were 2 different answers given on this discussion board about retroactive issues and they appear to contradict each other… can we get a clarification? How do courses that are deleated and replaced or are modified — factor into the ‘takes’ within a family or with Athletic top code repeatability.
    Here are the 2 previous replys that seem to answer that differently:

    September 24, 2012 at 4:15 pm
    No, you don’t have to put the old courses in the families and it would make sense not to do so. Using your example: If you have one course – Swimming – and under the old regulations it was designated repeatable 4 times. Now you have created a family with Swimming I, II, III, and IV. These four courses should have discrete objectives, outcomes and content so that a student can take the series and progress in the skills needed to master swimming. Since these are now four new courses a student who took the old swimming course a couple of years ago, or last semester, would still be able to enroll in the swimming family of course and have 4 experiences.

    October 18, 2012 at 11:14 pm
    The Chancellor’s Office has been clear that there will be no grandfathering or “fresh start.” If the student has taken the class previously, that would count as one one of the takes within the family. If the class was previously repeatable and the student had taken it twice, then it would count as two takes within the family. If the course remains repeatable and the student has taken it already, that experience (or those experiences) would count against the number of repeats allowed. A TOP code change would not matter; any previous takes of the course would count in relationship to the restrictions now placed on the course, whether in terms of repeatability or families.

    1. dmorse

      There is really no contradiction here. Julie’s response referred to the creation of a series of new courses. I understood the question to involve existing courses, or at least, within the family, one existing course. If the courses are all new, with new course numbers, then Julie’s answer applies. If an existing course using a previously existing course number, even though the course has been modified, is involved, then my answer applies.

  15. Kris Leppien-Christensen

    We’re working with our Music program and with our Curriculum Committee to establish appropriate families for courses. However, there seems to be some confusion based on what the transfer institutions seem to require. For example, some of our transfer institutions require “two years of performance” in either vocal or instrument. As a result, some courses would appear to be repeatable under this requirement. If so, would it make sense to cluster say choral performance into a family with the student only able to take each course one time (e.g., Baroque, Oratorio, Modern, SATB Voiced Community) or to leave them repeatable? My thinking is that by making them nonrepeatable but part of a family, we are best meeting the intent of the revised regulations as the courses remain nonrepeatable yet the students can get the performance experience they need within the family.

    We could also use additional guidance regarding families. What has been provided seems a bit too vague to me and makes sense for PE, but is not as clear when it comes to music based on the examples provided. Also, is there a suggested limit for the number of families that are created? We want to be conservative and meet the intent of the new regulations; at the same time, we don’t want to be so conservative that we jeopardize the program and/or harm the students.

    1. jbruno

      How you structure your curriculum to best meet the needs of students while adhering to regulations is a local decision. According to Section 55041, which outlines the types of courses that may be designated as repeatable, one category is “[c]ourses for which repetition is necessary to meet the major requirements of CSU or UC completion of a bachelor’s degree.” Your curriculum committee may determine that your transfer institution’s requirement of “‘two years of performance’ in either vocal or instrument” is sufficient supporting documentation to designate specific courses repeatable. Again, that is a local decision, but colleges should remember that if they are ever audited, they may have to justify their decisions in this area, so the determination of proper documentation should be made thoughtfully and preferably conservatively. You may also be able to meet the major requirement through the use of nonrepeatable courses in a family. Ultimately, the decision is up to your curriculum committee in collaboration with discipline faculty and your academic senate.

      Regarding your second question, there is no suggested limit for the number of families created. Again, this is a local decision driven by student need and determined by your curriculum committee. We are urging faculty to be conservative so as to meet the intent of the proposed regulations but of course, you will want to do what is in the best interest of your students. If you are looking for further examples for Music families, it might be useful to post a request on the Yahoogroups curriculum listserv.

  16. Dr. Jayne E. Campbell

    I understand that the changes for repeatability are to be implement in Fall of 2013. My question is: do all students start at semester one regardless of previous enrollment, or will previous enrollment in performance classes be taken into account? Thank you.

  17. Carrie Starbird

    I have two more questions…

    1. Our faculty feel very strongly about maintaining repeatability for Independent study courses. At the regional meetings, a lot of the conversation revolved around “local decision”. We were wondering if maintaining repeatability on independent study courses could be a “local decision” or if we HAVE to remove repeatability?

    2. Can a class that is not a PE activity, but is designed to help students with disabilities communicate, maintain repeatability?

    1. dmorse

      1. Yes, you have to remove the repeatability. Independent study classes would not fall under any of the exceptions for repeatability.

      2. The class cannot be listed as repeatable. However, if the class is designed for disabled students, you can create a process through which individual students can repeat the course as long as you can verify that the student’s disability exits.

      1. Matthew Jordan

        David, hi, thank you for all of the work that you are doing in answering all of our questions. I am from the same college as Carrie Starbird, above, and I have a follow-up question. Can we maintain repeatability on our Independent Study courses if we do not intend to apply for or receive apportionment beyond the first successful student completion?

        1. jbruno

          Hi Matthew, I’m responding for David today. The simple answer is yes, however, I suspect that most colleges will not want to use this option much, if at all. All of the repeatability changes refer to when you can collect apportionment. If your college is willing to let a student repeat a class without drawing apportionment for it (therefore essentially allowing the student to take the class for free), then the regulations do not prohibit doing so. The course still cannot be designated as repeatable, but a district may choose to allow a student to repeat the class with the understanding that if the student does not meet any of the criteria outlined in section 55040, then the district will not receive apportionment for that student. However, if this became a general practice, I would worry that an auditor might have some questions about it if you were ever audited. I also wonder how many administrators would be willing to allow this – in rare instances, maybe but as a general practice, probably not so much.

  18. David Hensley

    I would like someone from the State Department of Education and/or Curriculum Office to try to defend elimination of repeatability for performing arts courses (choir, orchestra, band, drama, dance). I think this may get lively, given the very nature of a performance-based class needs to build upon the skills of those who are continuing assisting those who are new, and that performing classes are, in every educational model in the world, repeatable. So, whoever it is that actually supports reducing or eliminating repeatability for performance classes, take your best shot now.

    1. dmorse

      Such a defense would be a waste of time, and I cannot see anyone providing it at this point. The changes are no longer under debate; the Board of governors has already approved them. Arguing whether the changes should happen or not, or trying to defend them, is therefore pointless. Whether one agrees with the changes or not, the task now if for each college to decide to adapt to them.

  19. Heather Sisneros

    Sorry if this is in the wrong place
    Heard that I can’t use PE 9 (weight training)if it is already a course and I want move to weight training 1, 2, 3, and 4. I would want PE 9, 10, 11, 12. But—PE 10 is badmintion… do we streamline the numbers?

    1. dmorse

      This is completely a local decision. Colleges number their courses in all sorts of ways. The Chancellor’s Office has no interest in policing this. If it helps, instead of PE 9,10,11,12, you could have PE 9A, 9B, 9C, and 9D. As long as each of the courses has its own course outline of record, you can number them any way you want as far as the state is concerned.

      1. Heather Sisneros

        Thank you,dmorse, for the response. We are looking at using this opportunity to revamp our nubmering for courses…keeping our two aquatics families next to eachother and we will for sure use A,B,C,D. Right now our swim courses are sporatic ie- PE 33A, PE 33B, PE 29, PE 46….PE 23…these are all different aquatics courses. Sort of wanted to erase all past and begin anew with numbering strategically. But if I delete PE 1, I can’t use PE 1 for any new course I create…that is my understanding. Does that make sense?

        1. jbruno

          Yes, that does make sense. Although not written down, articulation officers, curriculum chairs and faculty all agree that it is a “best practice” not to recycle course numbers. Reusing past course numbers has the potential to cause too much confusion for colleges and students alike.

  20. Joe Meyer

    I operate a Welding program where we certify many of our students in accordance to a National Welding Code. Many employers as well as local unions require or recommend this certification (licensure) of our students for employment or eligibility to become a member of the union. To develop skills at this level requires the repeating of our welding labs. Without this certification credential, their employment opportunities of high-paying jobs will be curtailed. Does this permit repeatability in accordance with 55040(b)9?

    1. jbruno

      No, the course cannot be marked as repeatable for the reasons you state. If a student is unable to pass the licensure exam and is therefore not able to be employed, then the individual student can petition to retake the class for reasons of legally mandated training. However, if this is a common occurrence, you should consider adjusting and redesigning your curriculum to make certain that students who complete your program are normally prepared to pass the licensure exam without repetition.

  21. Joe Meyer

    Question about variable unit labs. We offer a lab that is 3 units for the day students but only 1 unit for the evening students. Completion of 3 units is necessary for students working toward their Certificate of Achievement. Will the evening students be able to repeat the lab to earn the full 3 units?

    1. jbruno

      Variable unit courses that are open entry/open exit are repeatable by students as stated in Title 5, Section 55040(c)(4) and 55044. The repetition is based on the student not the curriculum and making courses variable units should not be used as a method of gaining repeatability. That being said, a student could use a petition process (or some other locally determined process) to re-enroll in a variable unit class to complete the units he or she did not complete the first time. In other words, if a student enrolls and completes one unit of content and objectives of a 3 variable unit open entry/open exit course, she may petition to repeat the course and complete the content and objectives linked to the other two units. What is unclear in the scenario you have outlined is that if the 3 units are required for the certificate then why would this be a variable unit class? Also, why is there a discrepancy between what is offered for day students and what is offered for evening students in fulfilling the requirements for the certificate? It may be better to align course offerings with certificate requirements rather than compelling your evening students to go through a petition or some other locally determined process to complete the certificate requirements.

  22. Abe Farkas

    Can someone be so kind as to clarify for me what Music courses or types of Music courses the CSU/UCs consider “necessary” for accepting a transfer student and therefore repeatable?

    1. jbruno

      Not being music faculty, I have limited experience with this, Abe, but I would think the answer to your question would depend on the CSU and UC. Michelle Stewart posted on 9/21 some language from UCLA and CSU Northridge as examples that her local Curriculum Committee were considering as possibilities to justify repeatability for Ensemble classes, which is a local decision. You may want to post your question to the Yahoogroups Curriculum listserv to see what others have found.

  23. Kim Bretz

    How do the new repeatabilty rules affect FEE BASED classes? Our fee based classes are listed with PE 600 – 899 number designations…. if they have a PE topcode…. are they tied into the families/no repeatability rules??

    1. jbruno

      The proposed regulations are for credit courses and do not affect fee based (community education) courses. The regulations governing community education and not-for-credit courses have not changed.

  24. Kim Bretz

    I know there was a little discussion previously about RETROACTIVE issues…can we get a little more detail about what will happen starting Fall 2013?
    For instance, if a student has taken beginning swimming 2x and intermediate swimming 2x … do their 4 attempts (in a family) start over? Or are they now done with all swimming attempts since they’ve has 4 semesters of experiences in swimming(assumming those swimming courses are in one family). Will students be able to take a course they’ve already taken one more time (first and only time under new rules)? What if the course was officially “modified”… ie: PE 33 Beginning swimming is now updated to KIN 1 – “Beginning Swimming” with some updated content but still basically the same course (both PE topcoded)… can they take it one time as the modified course?

    What about courses that ‘morph’ (through an official course modification) from a current PE topcode to an Athletics top code… how does that play into it? This is especially concerning to athletics as they currently use PE courses as their off season conditioning and will be transitioning some of those courses to athletic topcodes (which will be repeatable 4x)… but they still may have to have a few PE support classes for their athletes… but if the athletes have already taken “weight training” type courses for 4+ semesters… are they going to be able to take ANY weight training classes as of Fall 2013??
    I really think we should have a “fresh slate” starting fall 2013 to keep tracking neater and give students an oportunity to fit into appropriate course tracks…and not have things retroactive — am I dreaming?

    1. dmorse

      The Chancellor’s Office has been clear that there will be no grandfathering or “fresh start.” If the student has taken the class previously, that would count as one one of the takes within the family. If the class was previously repeatable and the student had taken it twice, then it would count as two takes within the family. If the course remains repeatable and the student has taken it already, that experience (or those experiences) would count against the number of repeats allowed. A TOP code change would not matter; any previous takes of the course would count in relationship to the restrictions now placed on the course, whether in terms of repeatability or families.

  25. Carrie Starbird

    After talking with our deans today, a question arose that I need some clarification about. We have at least one course that is for advanced students doing doing a year-long, but the requirements for the internship are that the student be enrolled in the internship class. Since the internship is for a year, yet the course is only for a semester, how would you suggest we go about continuing to offer the internship opportunity to our students, if the course can not be repeatable? (The course is in Natural Science, so a family is not an option.)

    1. jbruno

      One way to address this issue would be to level the courses for the internship. The courses must have distinct objectives and content which would make sense since the student should be gaining more knowledge and skill as they progress through the internship. This might be a good question to post on the Yahoogroups Curriculum Listserv so that you could find out what others in a similar circumstance are doing to address the students’ needs.