The institution employs sound and acceptable practices for determining the amount and level of credit for courses, regardless of format or mode of delivery.

_X_Compliance                      ___Partial Compliance                       ___Non-Compliance

Narrative

St. Petersburg College is in compliance with this comprehensive standard because it follows guidelines established by the Florida State Board of Education and adheres to standards of professional organizations such as the American Association of College Registrars and Admissions Officers (AACRAO).

Policies regarding amount and level of credit awarded

The amount of and level of credit awarded for courses is established by the Florida State Board of Education in Chapter 6A-10.033 under Postsecondary Credit Definitions.  The chapter defines uniform credit requirements for degrees, certificates and applied technology diplomas, and for College credit, vocational credit and noncredit courses.  St. Petersburg College adheres to objective and quality practices for the assignment of appropriate credit for courses that comply with State Board Rules and Regulations.

The College participates in the State Course Numbering system (SCNS) and the submission of courses and programs for approval in order to facilitate a common system for maintaining common course numbers, common prerequisites for baccalaureate programs of study statewide.  Courses included in the master list of common courses are regularly certified for course content, currency and the value of credit assigned.

         Florida Department of Education course numbering Web site

The College’s Curriculum and Instruction (C&I) Office provides oversight and monitoring of courses and programs in compliance with College policy and all course and program changes are approved through the curriculum process and are submitted to the Board of Trustees for disposition.

The curriculum process embodies the sum total of all instructional programs and offerings, credit and noncredit at the College.  Curriculum is further defined in terms of the specific courses and degree programs, a consistent rubric for determining the type and amount of credit awarded and the delivery mode of instruction.  Those policies are articulated in the Board of Trustees Rules, including the process for creation of new courses and programs, modification of curriculum, determining the appropriate Faculty workload, and procedures for approving instruction by alternate methods.  The procedure for adding to the curriculum and for cyclical review is detailed in the Curriculum and Instruction (C&I) Manual.

As outlined in the C&I Manual, curriculum proposals are created by individual Faculty or collaborative Faculty groups and reviewed by other Faculty through the Curriculum and Instruction Committee.  The Curriculum and Instruction Committee is composed primarily of Faculty representatives across disciplines and sites.  New degree program proposals are developed by individual Faculty or collaborative Faculty groups by first researching educational needs through business and industry advisory committees and economic councils, reviewing accreditation requirements, and benchmarking similar programs at other institutions. These proposals are then reviewed by other Faculty through the Curriculum and Instruction Committee.  Although proposals are passed through Provosts and department heads as part of the approval process, the Faculty bear primary responsibility for content and for methods of instruction.  This process is documented in the Curriculum and Instruction Manual and in minutes from the Curriculum and Instruction Committee meetings.

Acceptable practices, teaching objectives and program evaluation are accomplished through an on-going three-year cycle course and program review process in compliance with State Board of Education Regulations.  Courses that have not been taught in five years are subject to review by Program Directors and Deans and deletion from the active curriculum if it is determined that there is no intent to offer the course(s) at the College.

Acceleration mechanisms.  The College complies with State regulations governing acceleration mechanisms for gaining College credit and Board of Trustees Rules govern the evaluation and granting of that credit.  Acceleration mechanisms addressed by the State include Advanced Placement, International Baccalaureate, and College-level Examination Program.

     Guidance on credit-by-exam from the Articulation Coordinating Committee

     Example from Board Rule regarding credit awarded for Advanced Placement

Alternative formats

Flexible Access/Delivery courses.  Flexible Access/Delivery courses are classes such as courses delivered through the Internet, "blended" courses which include multiple delivery and media, and telecourses.  These courses are defined as those that include substantial components of distance and/or asynchronous learning as a substitute for, rather than as a complement to, traditional delivery where students and Faculty are in the same place at the same time.  Special care is taken to ensure they match the same high standards as any course offered at St. Petersburg College, meet the guidelines of accrediting agencies, meet the appropriate needs of students, and build on the unique strength and talents of instructors.  With that in mind, SPC has instituted a process for initial review and development of Flexible Access/Delivery courses and provide a continuing mechanism for reviewing and improving these courses.  This review process does not replace the normal Curriculum and Instruction Committee process, which focuses on content, but rather complements it by focusing on the alternate delivery mechanisms.

The review process begins when an electronic request is made by an individual or instructional team to offer a Flexible Access/Delivery class.  The Faculty member submits a completed electronic Flexible Access and Delivery Form, after it has been checked by an Instructional Technologist.  The Curriculum Services Coordinator, upon consultation with the Senior Vice President of Educational and Student Services, appoints a review committee, which will include the following individuals:

• [Program] Director or Dean of at least one of the following: eCampus and Instructional Computing
• Program Director or Dean of department that submitted the Proposal
• Faculty member(s) from various campuses who have taught this course or a closely related course through normal delivery techniques
• Faculty member(s) who have taught similar remote delivery courses

The committees review the Flexible Access and Delivery Form for content and delivery.  If the decision is made to "approve pending revision" or "recommend major revisions," the Faculty member will make revisions and resubmit to the Committee for another review.  The Senior Vice President of Educational and Student Services may allow the course to be offered one semester as a "pilot" while revisions to the Proposal are being made.  Before the course can be offered again, the proposal must be promptly revised and resubmitted for review and approval.  The Senior Vice President of Educational and Student Services will make the final decision regarding the approval of any Flexible Access and Delivery Proposals.

All existing Flexible Access Courses undergo a cyclical review.  As the normal curriculum review process comes due for a course's three year review with the Curriculum and Instruction Committee, the Flexible Access Course will use the existing Flexible Access and Delivery Form, in addition to any requirements for the course itself, following the same procedure described above.

Use of results.  The Project Eagle grant is a multi-year strategic initiative by SPC to build a national online learning model for increasing access to four-year degrees and workforce training for students attending community colleges.  The Project Eagle grant office and eCampus Provost monitor results of courses compared to courses offered in a traditional format.  In Fall 2005, the success rate was 72.8% for the lecture mode of instruction and 66.4% for the online mode.  Success is defined by receiving a grade of an A, B or C. In Spring 2006, the success rate was 70.0% for the lecture mode of instruction and 61.5% for the online mode.  Success is defined by receiving a grade of an A, B or C.

Comparison of all delivery formats

Collegewide Fall 2005

Collegewide Spring 2006

With a retention differential in 2005-2006 of 4.5-5.5% between lecture and online classes, SPC compares favorably to research showing retention in online courses nationwide lagging traditional delivery methods by 10-20%:

          Excerpt from Chronicle of Higher Education, 2-11-2000

Due to a concerted effort on the part of eCampus, including a Project Eagle grant to oversee the quality of online course development, the average difference between success rates (grades of A, B, or C) in traditional and online classes over the last 8 semesters has been 5%, better than research shows is typical of online delivery.  The same is true for the difference between withdrawal rates, which has averaged 4.7% over the same time period.  Among the improvements to course development instituted by Project Eagle were the addition of Chickering and Gamson’s Seven Principles of Good Practice in Education to improve online courses and the “flexible access” (alternative delivery) checklist to the three-year course review.

In addition to monitoring the quality of course development, Project Eagle provides ongoing support and professional development through its monthly newsletter, Best Educational E-Practices (BEEP), sent out to all online instructors to improve overall instruction through offering information on best practices.

           Sample issue of BEEP

Using standards of professional organizations

In addition to following State Statutes, the College also operates as a Service Members Opportunity College (SOC) and adheres to guidelines established by College Source, the American Council on Education (ACE), and the American Association of College Registrars and Admissions Officers (AACRAO).

       American Association of College Registrars and Admissions Officers’ guidelines

When developing new programs or courses, Program Directors and Deans review the standards set by national and local professional organizations.  Wherever available, they review model curricula developed by the professional organizations.  For example, The Health Information Management program looked to the American Health Information Management Association (AHIMA) for guidance in developing a program with an emphasis on new technology for managing health information.

     Excerpt from AHIMA Model Curriculum for Health Information Management

All new programs and courses are submitted to the Florida Department of Education for approval.