Baccalaureate Core Committee

Voting members present: Kathy Becker-Blease, Kelsey Emard, Daniel Faltesek, McKenzie Huber, Matt Kennedy, Lori McGraw, Rene Reitsma, David Roundy, Rorie Solberg, Kaplan Yalcin
Voting members absent: Heather Arbuckle, Aidas Banaitis
Ex-Officio members present: Ecampus – Karen Watte; Difference, Power & Discrimination – Bradley Boovy; Office of Undergraduate Education – Heath Henry; WIC Director – Sarah Tinker Perrault
Guests present: Tam Belknap

Introductions and Welcome

• The committee members went around and introduced themselves.

Reports from the Co-Chairs

• Improving processes and communications
  • Several committee members worked during summer to develop templates and processes to streamline communication with units.
    • College designees were identified at the dean and associate dean level. All review requests and communications are sent to the designee who will then disseminate them out to the appropriate faculty.
    • Templates were developed to allow for clearer communication via email.
    • The Baccalaureate Core (BC) website has been given a new home on the Academic Programs and Assessment (APA) site and is in the process of being created.
  • A representative of the Baccalaureate Core Ad Hoc Review Committee (Bacc Core 2.0) summarized their work so far in the development of a new BC model.
    • The Bacc Core 2.0 researched several institutions for ideas on developing a new model. They have broken into smaller groups and will be creating three or four that will be presented to faculty during a listening sessions. Currently, they are looking to speak with Sherm Bloomer on how the budget model will change and for assurance that it will change when a new model is selected. They are also looking for vocal support from the administration with assurance that a new model will be put into place.
      • The primary goal is to create a BC that is fewer credits and fewer classes. Models will be presented with a list of Pros and Cons.
• Dual-listed course review
  • Up to the last academic year, there was no process to review courses listed in multiple categories. They would be reviewed for the category that was the year’s focus and any issues noted with the other category often had to wait a few years to be reviewed.
  • The Baccalaureate Core Committee (BCC) attempted to install a rule against dual-listed courses, as they believed that students were not getting the full experience in either category. The committee does not believe that courses offering nearly a dozen learning outcomes can adequately cover them all.
    • Feedback from the Faculty Senate requested instead that the BCC review all dual-listed courses in each category in case some courses do adequately cover each outcome.
    • Dual-listed courses will be reviewed this academic year. Dual-listed courses that have not been submitted for review will not be reviewed and must select a category for the course to be listed under. If they do not choose a category, the BCC will choose which category it is removed from. Courses are due October 15, 2020.
• New/change course proposals review
  • Courses in the queue have been assigned. Due dates for reviews are two-three weeks after they have been assigned.
  • There is a possible issue for courses in the Difference, Power & Discrimination (DPD) program. An executive order has been placed that states that institutions will lose federal contracts and grants if they do training regarding implicit bias or structural racism. There is an exception for academic programs, but they must be taught in a way that is unbiased and unobjective. The DPD office will be having a meeting to discuss how this affect their courses.
• Expedited proposals follow-up
  • Expedited proposals tend to bypass the BCC, leading to issues in the course when it comes around for review.
  • The co-chairs have been talking with Ecampus on how they can assist with bettering the process to insure connections between course outcomes and learning assessments are present on syllabi. Ecampus already has processes in place for their own courses that could be incorporated into a training. The co-chairs have not yet touched base with OSU-Cascades regarding processes.

Category Reviews – Follow-ups from Last Year

• Contemporary Global Issues (CGI)
  • Discussion needed
    • ENG 416
      • The only issue is that it may not meet the category. The courses uses documentaries as the primary resource for teaching and most of them are too old to be considered contemporary. Many of the text requirements suffer from the same issue.
      • The BCC believe the course could fit pretty easily into the DPD category with some small changes.
        • Motion to recertify the course in the CGI category; seconded. The motion failed with 0 in favor of recertifying and 9 against recertifying. There were no abstentions.
          • The course will be returned to the originator with a not suggesting the course for the DPD category.
  • No discussion needed
    • AG 351 *
      • Recertified
    • DHE/DSGN 475 *
      • Recertified
    • ENG 497
      • Recertified
    • FE/FOR 456 *
      • Recertified
    • FW 325 *
      • Recertified
    • H 312 *
      • Recertified
    • WGSS 380 *
      • Recertified
    • WGSS 480 *
      • Recertified
    • WGSS 495
      • Recertified
    • ANTH 352
      • Did not submit – decertified
    • ANTH 374
      • Did not submit – decertified
    • ANTH 383
      • Did not submit – decertified
    • BA 465H
      • Did not submit – decertified
    • COMM 446
      • Did not submit – decertified
    • HST 488
      • Did not submit – decertified
    • PS 455
      • Did not submit – decertified
    • PS 458
      • Did not submit – decertified

Course Reviews

• Discussion needed
  • MUS 200 – Western Culture
    • Due to time constraints, this course will be discussed at a future meeting.
  • MIME 497 – Writing Intensive Curriculum (WIC)
    • There is a session running with 116 students and another with 75. The cap is typically 25. It seems like the majority of the writing is being done in small groups. However, there is no documentation on how students are going through this WIC. What are the added teaching resources? There is no information in CIM on how the needs of this many students are being met.
    • As there is no rep for the College of Engineering on the BCC, it might be best to table this until there is one.
    • The BCC did not want to hold up the review on waiting for a new member and decided to send the course back and request documentation on how they are handling the course size.