Voting members present: Kathy Becker-Blease, Kelsey Emard, Daniel Faltesek, Andrew Harker, McKenzie Huber, Jack Istok, Matt Kennedy, Justin St. Germain, Rene Reitsma, David Roundy, Rorie Solberg, Kaplan Yalcin
Voting members absent: Heather Arbuckle, Aidas Banaitis, Lori McGraw
Ex-Officio members present: Academic Programs and Assessment – Heath Henry; WIC Director – Sarah Perrault Tinker; Ecampus – Karen Watte
Course Proposals
-
ENG 216 – Literature & the Arts
-
Sent back with suggested revisions, but was returned to the committee almost immediately.
-
Two primary issues – they need to talk to APA about whether it is a good idea for the instructor to provide advising advice on the syllabus. The syllabus is missing the course specific learning outcomes (CSLOs).
-
The syllabus is 30 pages long
-
Assessment details are vague and they need to redo the table to make it more concise.
-
The reviewer has made extensive notes for revising the syllabus. The course itself is fine, but the proposal needs a lot of work.
-
Motion to rollback for work on alignment/assessment matrix, incorporate CSLOs, and other comments provided by reviewers; seconded. Motion passes with 11 in favor, none against. One abstention.
-
PAC 100 – Fitness
-
The proposal is to change the course title
-
It’s not clear if there needs to be further detail on the analysis of knowledge, skill and ability addressed in the syllabus.
-
PAC courses were provided a statement that was to be included in all PAC syllabi but they have since changed the statement and it has lost its clarity. It makes confusing for how the outcome is addressed and assessed.
-
It is unclear how teaching is happening – What is being taught? Is there any training? What movement is being done? The only thing mentioned is that students need to show up and be dressed appropriately.
-
PAC 100 is largely tailored to individual student needs, which is why it might be somewhat vague.
-
They did initially state in the description that the course was focused largely on rehab, but they dropped it to be more inclusive.
-
A weekly schedule is a minimum requirement but is not provided
-
Critical thinking is addressed in CIM, but not so much in the syllabus. They are all rather general, though, considering each course has a different topic.
-
Why is it an enforced policy that all PAC courses must be in the Baccalaureate Core (BC)? Not all of the PAC courses necessarily meet the Baccalaureate Core Learning Outcome (BCLOs).
-
Motion to vote on all PAC courses in on group, provided they have similar issues; seconded. Motion passes with 12 in favor, none against. No abstentions.
-
PAC 105 – Fitness
-
PAC 122 – Fitness
-
PAC 284 – Fitness
-
PAC 285 – Fitness
-
Motion to rollback PAC courses citing similar issues with the Core statement, Critical Thinking Learning Outcomes, Assessment, and the Weekly Schedule. Motion passes with 11 in favor, none against. No abstentions.
Update on Baccalaureate Core Revision and Template Discussion
-
None of the presented templates are decisions that have been made. They are suggestions and ideas that still need to be workshopped and approved.
-
Started off with listening sessions. The information was forwarded to the Ad Hoc Baccalaureate Core Review Committee.
-
All colleges were invited to participate in the committee; not all chose to have a representative.
-
The committee researched several universities that were reviewed through the OSU Lens.
-
The committee broke into 3 workgroups that each created a template for a new BC.
-
The committee was prepared to present the templates to the President and Provost before meeting with Deans. This has stalled somewhat.
-
Once presented, the next steps will be for the creation of an implementation committee that will use one/all/none of the templates or a combination of them to develop the new BC.