Meeting Date: 
April 13, 2022
Date: 
04/13/2022 10:00 am to 11:00 am
Location: 
Zoom Meeting
Agenda: 
  1. CIM Review
    • BDS 411
    • PAC 127
    • PAC 136 – no discussion needed
    • PAC 331
  1. Summary of STS Category Review Cycle
  1. Discussion of Future Category Review Cycles
Minutes: 

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.