Baccalaureate Core Committee

Voting members present: Kathy Becker Blease, Kelsey Emard, Daniel Faltesek, McKenzie Huber, Matthew 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; Undergraduate Education – Heath Henry; WIC Director – Sarah Perrault
Guests present: Tamara Belknap

Proposal Reviews

• Discussion Needed
  • MUS 200 – Western Culture
    • When asked to specify which assignments, class activities and discussions are used to address outcomes, they put the same answer for each outcome. Essentially, ‘everything addresses everything’. This does not provide enough detail.
    • The description on how the course aligns with specific outcomes was vague and provided little detail. Learning Outcome 3 provides the least amount of information.
    • Covers 1600s-today – this is quite a lot of content to cover in 10 weeks.
      • First two weeks seem to cover large swathes of time with the rest of the course seeming focused on the 20^th century.
    • It was pointed out that there are 3 courses being taught in the Literature & the Arts category that are very similar. One is taught by the same instructor submitting this new course. Does it make sense for students to be allowed to take essentially the same course twice in two different categories?
      • From a unit standpoint, there is an issue with overlap between classes and it is a problem, regardless of whether or not the courses are in the Baccalaureate Core. The units are incidentally aware of this issue.
        • This is a potential loophole for double-listed courses to make essentially the same course and submit each one in a different category. Can a check be put in place? How can the BCC be more aware of what’s in the current BC to check this?
          • There is already an issue with overlapping course content within the BC.
    • Was originally submitted last year under two categories. It was sent back and they resubmitted under just Western Culture.
    • Would it be fair to ask the proposer how the course compliments existing courses in the BC rather than overlapping or competing?
      • It might be fair to start asking this as part of the proposal process to avoid making the BC bigger than it already is.
        • Motion to send back asking how Learning Outcome 3 is addressed and assed; request how this course compliments existing courses in the BC without overlap; request that they provide distinct assessments for each LO. Motion seconded. The motion passes.
  • OC 333 – CGI
    • Looked relatively good, but there is an unusual aspect of their syllabus – BC LOs are only listed in the table.
      • BC LOs are typically listed under course specific LOs – while this does not cause any issues, it is a deviation from what has been considered standard on syllabus.
      • Only listed this way on the Ecampus syllabus. On-campus is listed normally.
        • Motion to approve, but request that they move BC LOs on the Ecampus syllabus to match with what they have on the on-campus syllabus so that they’re more prominent; seconded. The motion passes.
• No Discussion Needed
  • BB 220 – DPD
    • Approved with no discussion needed.
  • PH 111 – Physical Science
    • Course was initially restricted by College and allowed only Education majors.
    • The instructor has proposed to lift that restriction, but replace it with pre-requisites. The pre-requisites are a series of Math courses taken by Education majors.
      • Does this addition of the pre-requisites solve the initial problem of course accessibility all students or does adding pre-requisites taken only by a particular major cause the same issue of inaccessibility?
        • Pre-requisites would not cause a problem for students double-majoring.
        • The math pre-requisites match with the content of the course well.
          • Equivalent courses to the pre-requisites could allow the course to be more accessible.
          • The Math courses are 200 level and the course requires 3 of them to be taken. These pre-requisites were not initially required and are, themselves, restrictive.
            • This would be the only physics class in the BC with required pre-requisites.
      • This course is intended for Education students; is it appropriate for a BC course? If it can’t be made available to the general student body, it doesn’t belong in the BC.
      • The course is very specific to a certain track with College of Education. It is likely that not counting this course as a BC course would not cause any problems to students within that track. Students will still be able meet their science outcomes.
        • Motion to send back to request the addition of math pre-requisites that are broadly accessible to most students; seconded. The motion passes.