Baccalaureate Core Committee

Voting members present: Aidas Banaitis, Geoffrey Barstow, Daniel Faltesek, Matthew Kennedy, Rene Reitsma, Justin St. Germain, Colin Johnson, Michelle McAllaster, Kari-Lyn Sakuma, Kaplan Yalcin
Voting members absent: Kelsey Emard, Jack Istok, Lori McGraw, Ifeoma Ozoede, Randy Rosenberger
Ex-officio members present: Ecampus – Karen Watte; WIC – Sarah Perrault
Guests: JoAnne Bunnage, John Edwards, McKenzie Huber, Michael Jefferies, Caryn Stoess

GenEd Policy

• Transfer Credits
  • During the April 3, 2023 meeting, the committee as unsure how to interpret the line of the policy: Direct equivalency awarded when transfer course aligns at least 75% of course learning outcomes to OSU course.
    • The co-chairs spoke with Erin Bird about the committee’s concern with the language and came back with amended language.
    • Amended policy language – Direct equivalency awarded when courses align with all category learning outcomes with at least 75% alignment of course content
  • Courses always go to units first to determine if a transfer course is equivalent.

Action: Motion to accept the policy as amended; seconded. The motion passed with 10 votes in favor, 0 votes in opposition and 0 abstentions.

• Unnecessary Barriers – dropped
  • The committee will continue discussion of this topic during the April 17, 2023 meeting.

Course Review

• CS 428 – Cybersecurity Capstone Project
  • Minor issues.
  • Was initially sent back by the WIC director. Was the final report clear enough about evaluation criteria?
    • There is no set standard, only that the criteria must be stated.
  • Assessment methods are somewhat unclear and a bit vague.

Action: Motion to approve; seconded. The motion passed with 9 votes in favor, 0 votes in opposition and 0 abstentions.

• ENSC 321 – Environmental Case Studies
  • The syllabus had several issues and was returned to the originator.

GenEd Policy

• Expertise
  • LOCRs have various rhetorical strategies to manage disciplinarity. Some of these have been read to be exclusionary. A faculty group has offered an amendment to the LOCRs which would clarify that role. Executive Committee (EC) is willing to accept the amendment if this body and LOCR central approve.
• Pros
  • Clarifies criteria to frame conflict
  • Clearly stages authority for expertise debate 
  • H clarified that discipline is not exclusive and that they accede to expertise policy 
• Cons
  • Some units may be expecting future Baccalaureate Core Committees to litigate expertise 
  • Violates page 23 of Framework
  • Violates page 17 c.4 of the Writing Elevation (WE) category (unit control of designators could be contested)
  • Sentence 3 may be out of order
  • EC should not do substantive floor business via ad hoc process/it is a shared governance issue to direct the Baccalaureate Core Director to do this
• Original 
  • An important note: This document does not define academic domains as directly connecting to any existing or future academic units such as colleges, schools, departments, or programs. With the exception of Writing Foundations, course proposals from any academic unit that will be taught by faculty with the appropriate expertise and assessed to meet the learning outcomes of a General Education category shall be approved for use in the General Education Model. Responsibility for review and approval of General Education course proposals shall remain the purview of the Faculty Senate through its standing committees. 
    • We could:  
      • Approve such an addition to the document 
      • Deny such an addition to the document 
      • Take no action today as we have such a policy docketed to next week 
• Suggested amendment
  • An important note: This document does not define academic domains as directly connecting to any existing or future academic units such as colleges, schools, departments, or programs. With the exception of Writing Foundations, course proposals from any academic unit that will be taught by faculty with the appropriate expertise should be approved if judged to meet all other requirements of the General Education Model. Responsibility for review and approval of General Education course proposals, as well as policy defining expertise, is the purview of the Faculty Senate through its standing committees. 
• Discussion
  • Where is the drive coming from?
    • College of Public Health and Human Sciences (CPHHS) has some concerns over the verbiage that may lead to their school being excluded from teaching in some categories. (i.e., they have bio/stat teachers who could teach math and are qualified to do so, but the College of Science could argue that it falls outside of CPHHS’s expertise).
  • The BCC already has this topic as a discussion topic for next week, but if they choose not to discuss it this week, it may show up at the Faculty Senate as an amendment.
    • Should shift framing of the proposal to say: to be eligible, a proposal should have a qualified person, that is tied to their appropriate expertise NOT their academic unit
    • Without making a statement in support or opposition, the committee could provide the friendly amendment to the proposer of this change.
    • The BCC has elected to not take any actions with this document at this time. The decision will be communicated back to the EC.