Baccalaureate Core Committee

Voting members present: Kathy Becker-Blease, Daniel Faltesek, Filix Maisch, Bob Paasch, Weihong Qiu, Dana Sanchez, Rorie Spill Solberg, Kaplan Yalcin
Voting members absent: Pat Ball, Nancy Barbour, Natalie Dollar, Patrice Dragon, McKenzie Huber, David Roundy, Inara Scott
Ex-Officio members present: Faculty Affairs – Heath Henry; Ecampus – Craig Rademacher (remote)

Category II Reviews

• Discussion Needed
  • NUR 420
    • Does not list any revisions required beyond the peer review. This includes the faculty revisions, which are a requirement.
      • Send back for revisions.
  • ATS 441/541
    • The course schedule was uploaded separately from the syllabus. Minimum syllabus requirements state that the schedule must be included in the syllabus.
      • Approved, with notes to the originator to add the schedule to the syllabus
  • SOC 471/571
    • The syllabus does not have course specific learning outcomes, except for one additional graduate learning outcome.
    • There is a note on how graduate students are graded differently from undergraduate students.
      • Make a note for Graduate Council to review this to make sure they are being graded appropriately.
    • Recommend that they consider adding course specific outcomes for undergraduate. students
      • Approve with recommendations
  • ANTH 447
    • The form states how the course assess and promotes critical thinking, but it is not clear on the syllabus.
      • Send back with a request to add the language about critical thinking in the form to the syllabus.
  • H 344
    • There is no required reading or day-to-day schedule.
    • There is no attempt to link the course activities to the Science, Technology and Society (STS) outcomes.
    • The syllabus still references Blackboard and the explanations in the form are very broad without focusing on the outcomes or STS requirements.
    • There is no minimum word count listed, though it does reference a minimum line requirement.
    • There are other procedural issues.
    • Overall, the course does align with the STS outcomes and requirements.
      • Send back with notes for major revisions.
  • MIME 497/498
    • Approved
    • The instructor only teaches these two courses.
    • The committee was concerned that the instructor did not have enough time to review all the papers.
      • Technical writers that evaluate student writing (averaging 40 minutes per paper)
  • PH 207
    • The reviewer is not present.
      • Review next meeting.
  • ENG 108
    • Baccalaureate Core outcomes are listed and explained in a well-organized table.
    • The syllabus is missing an explanation on how the third outcome is assessed.
    • No formal grading scale is listed in the syllabus. It is a minimum syllabus requirement.
    • Missing the academic integrity link.
      • Approve with minor revisions.
  • NMC 421
    • The pre-requisite is a WIC course, which is limiting.
    • How they are covering history is very vague.
    • The course has an unusual grading system, broken down into decimals.
      • Send back for revisions.
• No Discussion Needed
  • PSY 484/584
    • Approved

Approval of New Review Form

• A new box has been added – “reason for proposal”
• The syllabus checklist is shorter and focuses more on BC requirements
  • The committee would like to change some of the verbiage relating the mode of delivery (campus, ecampus, etc.)
• The criteria list is the same
• A new box has been added – “is this course appropriate for the category”
• Can there be a second comment box for the chairs to add comments and feedback
• Reason for Proposal box - click
• Syllabus checklist is shorter
  • Change ‘version’ to location and mode of delivery
• Added some outcome check boxes
• Criteria list is the same
• Is this course appropriate for the category – added
• Can the reviewers have a second box for comments/feedback for the proposer?