Meeting Date: 
April 19, 2019
04/19/2019 12:00 pm to 1:00 pm
379 Weniger Hall
Event Description: 

A PDF of the minutes can be found here.

  1. Category II Reviews
    • Discussion Needed
      • NUR 420
      • ATS 441/541
      • SOC 471/571
      • ANTH 447
      • H 344
      • MIME 497/498
      • PH 207
      • ENG 108
    • No Discussion Needed
      • PSY 484/584
  1. Approval of New Review Form

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?