Meeting Date: 
April 15, 2020
Date: 
Wed 04/15/2020 2:30 pm to 4:00 pm
Location: 
Zoom Meeting
Agenda: 
  1. Brief updates
    • Standing Rules revision, WAB – 2-3 minutes
    • Curriculum Council follow-up email – Rorie Spill Solberg 2 minutes
  1. Course Proposal Reviews
    • Discussion Needed
      • SOC 482 – Science, Technology & Society
      • PHL 330 – Science, Technology & Society
      • AG 350 – Science, Technology & Society
    • No Discussion Needed
      • PSY 450 – Writing Intensive Curriculum
      • CS 461 – Writing Intensive Curriculum
      • ECE 441/442/443 – Writing Intensive Curriculum
  1. Science Category Review
    • PH 111
  1. Contemporary Global Issues Category Reviews
    • Discussion Needed
      • H 312
      • WGSS 480
      • COMM 446
      • TRAL 479
      • Z 349
      • PS 458
      • PS 341
      • WGSS 380
    • No Discussion Needed
      • FW 324
      • PHL 440
Minutes: 

All members participated remotely

Voting members present: Heather Arbuckle, Aidas Banaitis, Kathryn Becker Blease, Daniel Faltesek, Andrew Harker, McKenzie Huber, Matthew Kennedy, Filix Maisch, Lori McGraw, Steven Morris, Bob Paasch, Rene Reitsma, David Roundy, Rorie Solberg, Kaplan Yalcin
Voting members absent: No members absent
Ex-Officio members present: Faculty Affairs – Heath Henry; DPD Director – Nana Osei-Kofi; Ecampus – Karen Watte; WIC Director – Anita Helle
Guests present: Tam Belknap

Brief updates

  • Standing Rules revision, WAB – 2-3 minutes
    • The committee voted to remove the reference to the Writing Advisory Board and some of its titles as some of the positions no longer exist.
      • It was later brought to the committee’s attention that the Writing Advisory Board currently only resides within the Standing Rules of the Baccalaureate Core (BC). The Writing Intensive Curriculum (WIC) office and other faculty requested that it remain for the meantime.
        • Motion to leave the paragraph about the Writing Advisory Board in the Standing Rules, seconded; 9 in favor, none opposed. No abstentions. Motion passes.
  • Curriculum Council follow-up email – Rorie Spill Solberg
    • The BC received a proposal for a 4 credit course that only had 3 credit contact hours. The BC forwarded this course to the Curriculum Council to review.
    • Michele Swift was unable to find any exceptions in place for this course that would allow the course to have fewer contact hours.
    • The Curriculum Council is looking to review those exceptions and potentially remove them. They will do more investigating.

Course Proposal Reviews

  • Discussion Needed
    • SOC 482 – Science, Technology & Society
      • Syllabus states that students are to use reading from class as their sources for the paper. Requirements are that they use outside sources.
      • It lacked information on how the outcomes are met and there is not a lot of information on assessment and connections to the outcomes and activities.
        • Send back with list of issues that need to be addressed.
    • PHL 330 – Science, Technology & Society
      • It is well formatted and all components were available on the syllabus. However, there is not much information on how the course explores historical context
        • Send back and request that they explain how the course meets the historical context outcome more explicitly.
    • AG 350 – Science, Technology & Society
      • There is no information on how the outcomes are assessed.
      • The form mentions and on-campus and Ecampus component. An Ecampus component has not yet been designed for this course.
      • The writing assignment does not meet the minimum requirements for the BC.
      • It focuses heavily on the history of Agricultural Communication and does not connect it to other areas of focus. Does this make it appropriate for the category?
        • Send back citing lack of a developed Ecampus course and syllabus and issues with the writing assignment and lack of connections to other areas.
  • No Discussion Needed
    • PSY 450 – Writing Intensive Curriculum
      • Approve with no discussion needed
    • CS 461 – Writing Intensive Curriculum
      • Approve with no discussion needed
    • ECE 441/442/443 – Writing Intensive Curriculum
  • Exemplary syllabi
    • Approve with no discussion needed

Science Category Review

  • PH 111
    • PH 111 sent in more information on the labs but did not make a good argument on why they need a SAPR in place.
      • The argument was that the course was an important meeting place for future science teachers to determine if they wanted to be science teachers.
        • The reviewer notes that this makes the course seem like a good on-boarding option for students who had not considered that career path.
      • The submitters and committee agreed that adding a math prerequisite would be a better, less restrictive option than a SAPR. Math is a common prerequisite for Physics courses and the Baccalaureate Core Committee (BCC) has not historically viewed these as restrictive.
        • They will need to create a proposal in CIM to add prerequisites.
          • The committee will note in their letter that the recertification is pending based on confirmation from the schedule desk that they have removed the SAPR.

Contemporary Global Issues (CGI) Category Reviews

  • Discussion Needed
    • H 312
      • Does not list the BC Learning Outcomes (LOs) on the syllabus.
      • Writing assignments do not meet the minimum BC requirements.
      • There is no mention on how activities are assessed and how they link back to the LOs.
      • Outcome questions on the form were left unanswered.
      • The syllabus states that the course is WIC course but it is not categorized as one.
      • Doesn’t list Bacc Core learning outcomes on syllabus.
      • Writing assignments do not meet the requirements.
      • No assessment or connections
      • Did not answer outcome questions in the submission form.
      • Wrote WIC on the syllabus, but is not a WIC course.
      • Is a widely attended course
        • Motion to decertify, seconded; 13 in favor, none against, no abstentions. Motion passes.
    • WGSS 480
      • Double listed with Cultural Diversity (CD)
      • Grades skew heavily into the A’s and is largely attended by Liberal Arts students.
      • Missing the on-campus syllabus.
      • The provided syllabus is missing the verbatim BC statement, makes no connections to the LOs and does not reference the LOs again until the final assignment.
      • The final reflection assignment tasks students to reflection on the CD, CGI and course specific LOs. This is the only mention of CD in the syllabus
        • The assignment is 1 ½ to 3 pages and the most point heavy assignment in the course.
      • It’s unclear if other writing assignments meet the BC requirements.
      • The course description from the syllabus is copy and pasted into the form for each questions about the outcomes.
        • Motion to decertify for CGI, seconded; 11 in favor, none opposed. None abstaining. Motion passes.
      • The committee continued to discuss the concerns about CD. The course is not currently being reviewed for this category, but the issues are severe enough that it was decided that the course also warranted decertification from CD.
        • Motion to decertify for CD, seconded; 12 in favor, none opposed. None abstaining. Motion passes.
          • The letter will note to the submitter that they will not have to participate in the dual listed courses review process. If they would like to resubmit to the BC, they will need to make a new proposal in CIM.
          • NOTE: A later discussion with APA confirmed that the committee cannot decertify for Cultural Diversity as it is not the category for review and the unit was unable to defend the CD category.
    • COMM 446
      • Reviewer not present to discuss.
    • TRAL 479
      • The supposed issue the students will be discussing is ‘humans losing their connection to nature’. However, the course assignments do not seem to be focused on this topic. Course content seems largely focused on cultural perceptions of nature.
      • Connections between the BC LOs and courses assignments are unclear.
      • It is unclear on the syllabus how the students will meet the requirements for the writing assignment.
      • The WIC course listed as a prerequisite is not available, though it does state that they will accept an ‘equivalent’ course as the prerequisite. It is unclear how that is determined.
      • The course seems like a better fit for CD, but CD courses cannot have prerequisites.
        • It was also discussed if the course was too major specific and if it belongs in the BC at all.
          • Motion to decertify; seconded. Motion withdrawn before voting could occur; seconded.
            • The course will be discussed further next week.
    • Z 349
      • Missing assessment and outcome connections.
      • Will be discussed further next week.
    • PS 458
      • How does one define ‘contemporary’? None of the readings for the course were published within the last 10 years.
      • The topic for the final paper is to be approved by the instructor, but there is little guidance in the syllabus for what topics would be considered appropriate.
      • There is little discussion on how students will develop their critical thinking skills and how it is assessed.
      • Assessment methods lack specificity on how assignments are connected to LOs.
      • The course is listed as a 4 credit course, but it is unclear in the syllabus if they are meeting the contact hour requirements.
        • It was confirmed that these courses do meet the contact hour requirements, but it needs to be explicitly stated within the syllabus.
          • Motion to decertify; seconded; 12 in favor, none opposed. None abstaining. Motion passes.
    • PS 341
      • Will be discussed next week.
    • WGSS 380
      • Will be discussed next week.
  • No Discussion Needed
    • FW 324
      • Will be discussed next week.
    • PHL 440
      • Will be discussed next week.