Baccalaureate Core Committee

Voting members present:Aidas Banaitis, Kathy Becker-Blease, Kelsey Emard, Daniel Faltesek, Andrew Harker, McKenzie Huber, Jack Istok, Matthew Kennedy, Lori McGraw, Rene Reitsma, Rorie Solberg, Kaplan Yalcin
Voting members absent: Heather Arbuckle, David Roundy
Ex-Officio members present: Academic Programs & Assessment – Heath Henry; WIC Director – Sarah Tinker Perrault, Ecampus – Karen Watte

Updated on Director of the Baccalaureate Core

• Position Description
  • Please read and submit any edits by March 10, 2021.
    • The search committee has been formed.
    • Several groups have reviewed the Position Description (PD) and it will be going to Human Resources next week.
    • There have been some division around the job duties and the qualifications.
      • What are the necessary skills and experience?
    • The direct experience teaching the Baccalaureate Core (BC) requirement – there might be very qualified applicants who are professional faculty, such as advisors. Advisors have experience with the transfer maps and other aspects of the Bacc Core that teachers may not have experience with. By limiting it to teaching; it narrows who can be considered for the position and presents a narrow view of what the committee wants to get across.
      • Experience in teaching will be moved to preferred qualifications.
    • Removed – deep knowledge of OSU’s BC
      • There was a question of how this could be accurately assessed.
    • Minimum qualifications were intended to be broad. It is not expected for every applicant to meet each of the preferred qualifications.
      • Some of the preferred qualifications are skewed heavily towards people who teach. Can the scholarly publications and pedagogy qualification be expanded to include professional faculty?
        • Suggested: Demonstrated evidence of scholarly or involvement in national organizations related to scholarly publications OR pedagogical development OR curriculum development OR student development
        • Suggested: Demonstrated expertise in….
    • General feelings of the committee is that too much focus on teaching or scholarly works limits the pool too much.

Course Proposals

• Discussion Needed
  • ENG 216 – Literature & the Arts
    • Assessment for Learning Outcomes (LO) are vague. It is unclear how LO 1 is met.
    • LOs are not listed distinctly.
    • Broader historical connections are not met and how it relates to culture is not addressed.
    • The syllabus is 30 pages.
      • Motion to send back citing several issues – course needs more development; it is not clear how LOs are met; syllabus needs to be more succinct. Motion seconded. Motion passes with 11 in favor, none against. None abstaining.
  • OC 444 – WIC
    • Will be the WIC for a new major.
      • The major exists as an option and is being broken out to its own standing major.
    • Approved by the WIC office.
    • The idea of practicing writing in the form of research grant proposals seems like an interesting writing topic.
    • The aspect of critical thinking is not distinctly stated in the syllabus.
      • It is embedded within descriptions of assignments students will be doing on the syllabus.
    • Not all instructions for assignments were included.
      • Motion to roll back and request assignment handouts to be added to CIM; seconded. Motion passes with 11 in favor, none against. No abstentions
  • AEC 122 – Social Processes & Institutions
    • Appropriate for category
    • LO 3 – talks about value and limitations in social science. Doesn’t hit the limits of economics and could use a little more development
    • Syllabus needs more description of assignments
      • Motion to roll back and request more development around LO 3 and more details about assignments used to assess LOs; seconded. Motion passes with 10 in favor, none against, one abstention.
• No Discussion Needed
  • GEO 101 – Physical Science
    • Approved with no discussion needed
  • PAC 129 – Fitness
    • Approved with no discussion needed