Voting members present: Heather Arbuckle, Aidas Banaitis, Geoffrey Barstow, Daniel Faltesek, Kelsey Emard, Matthew Kennedy, Jack Istok, Lori McGraw, Kyle Niemeyer, Rene Reitsma, Randy Rosenberger, Justin St. Germain, Kaplan Yalcin
Voting members absent: No members absent
Ex-officio members present: Ecampus – Karen Watte; Academic Programs & Assessment – Heath Henry; WIC – Sarah Perrault
Guests: Funmi Amobi
CIM Review
-
BDS 411
-
WIC course
-
The WIC requirements have all been met
-
The instructional materials require students to identify them in the library. It would be ideal if it had more detail.
Action: Motion to approve but note in CIM that there is a concern over the lack of detail; motion seconded and passed with 11 votes in favor, 0 votes in opposition and 0 votes in abstention.
-
PAC 127 – no discussion needed
-
This proposal was approved with no discussion needed.
-
PAC 136 – no discussion needed
-
This proposal was approved with no discussion needed.
-
PAC 331
-
Assessment issues have been addressed
-
ALI has been added to the title
-
They did not add the PAC statement to the course description on the syllabus or in the CIM proposal
-
They addressed this in the comments; they chose not to add it to keep it the same as other baccalaureate core courses.
-
There may have been some confusion in what was being asked.
Action: Motion to roll back and request the inclusion of the PAC statement in the syllabus and the CIM proposal; motion seconded and passed with 11 votes in favor, 0 votes in opposition and 0 votes in abstention.
Summary of STS Category Review Cycle
-
One course got an extension due to extenuating circumstances.
-
71 courses were required to submit
-
6 did not submit any materials or were removed voluntarily and were decertified
-
65 were viewed by the committee with 25 being recertified after the first review
-
40 were required to submit additional materials; 3 did not submit additional materials and were decertified
-
37 submitted additional materials with 34 being recertified.
-
In total, the committee 102 reviews; 12 courses were decertified and 59 were recertified.
-
Courses not taught are not required to submit so it could conceivably go 10-20 years before being reviewed.
-
Faculty who received assistance from APA were more successful
-
The timelines and communication seemed to encourage faculty to take the process more seriously
Discussion of Future Category Review Cycles
-
Could BCC provide a holistic review of the WR II category
-
A future review year could catch courses not caught in the last three years – it would align with the Registrar’s catalog purge of courses not taught in three years.
-
Units can appeal the Registrar’s office decision, but it would likely only be a few.
-
In the initial letters that go out, inform instructors that committee members are available for assistance if they have questions.
-
It would be a good idea early in the year to take a meeting to discuss the category being reviewed so everyone can be on the same page on what is expected of the category.
-
Include a discussion of the alignment matrix as well as assessment methods and what constitutes meaningful course assessment of the category learning outcomes.