Baccalaureate Core Committee

Voting members present: Aidas Banaitis, Geoffrey Barstow, Daniel Faltesek, Matthew Kennedy, Rene Reitsma, Justin St. Germain, Michelle McAllaster, Ifeoma Ozoede, Randy Rosenberger, Kari-Lyn Sakuma, Kaplan Yalcin
Voting members absent: Kelsey Emard, Jack Istok, Colin Johnson, Lori McGraw
Ex-officio members present: DPD – Nana Osei-Kofi Ecampus – Karen Watte; Academic Affairs – Heath Henry; WIC – Sarah Perrault;
Guests: John Edwards, Michael Jefferies, Caryn Stoess

Course Review

• WR 323 – Advanced Writing & Argumentation
  • They made a change to the due date of the final paper. All the syllabi are very consistent.

Action: Motion to approve; seconded. Motion passed with 8 votes in favor, 0 votes against and 0 votes in abstention.

Course Review Assignments

• Due April 10
  • Some proposals came in and will be assigned today. Reviewers are asked to have proposal reviews in by April 10.

GenEd Policy

• Class Sizes
  • Synthesis (70) and Writing Intensive Curriculum (WIC) (25?) areas have course cap policies. https://apa.oregonstate.edu/general-education/current-bacc-core/bacc-cor...
  • Synthesis: A course capacity of 70 students. If enrollment is over 70, then break-outs (recitations) or GTAs should be used to ensure that students receive adequate and timely writing feedback.
  • WIC: Ideally, WIC courses are restricted to 20 students. If anticipated enrollment is greater than the ideal maximum number of students, please explain how faculty will manage the work load.
  • Pros:
    • smaller course sizes are better for student feedback and engagement
    • some courses require smaller sizes for signature assignments
    • writing assignments require time to be graded for meaningful disciplinary content (not mechanics/syntax)
  • Cons
    • more sections, challenging logistics
    • increased risk of course divergence (is one giant good course better than a divergence of problematic ones)
  • Enforced with departures.
  • Divergence in a small number of Science, Technology & Society/Contemporary Global Issues, WIC
  • Areas set lower numbers for practical reasons (how many speeches can be delivered per hour)
  • Recommendations are provided in the ratified framework. 
    • Original framework:
      • Transitions 35 (27)
      • Writing exploration “smaller course sizes” (41)
      • Difference, Power and Oppression (DPO) 1: 50
      • DPO 2: 25
  • Learning Outcomes, Criteria, and Rationale (LOCRs) have extensive language in this space. This policy allows LOCR change. 
  • It is possible that a much larger jurisdictional argument may begin on April 13. 
  • Case against Faculty Senate (FS) authority: course caps are operational, not educational standards and thus they should be a reserved to administration. Some of the caps may not be optimal. 
  • Case for FS authority: this is historically an FS power; especially where educational standards are concerned. Shared governance would suggest that FS authority over ed standards and Administration authority on operations is reasonable.

Action: Motion to accept the proposed policy: Category specific educational standards for maximum class size have been established by the Faculty Senate. Variances, when permitted, require a reasonable plan to provision labor to support the course. The Director of General Education is responsible for managing variance approvals; seconded. The motion passed with 9 votes in favor, 0 votes against and 0 votes in abstention.

• Discussion
  • The WIC director feels that there are simply some things instructors cannot due if class sizes grow too big, but there is a minimum class size requirement. 
    • There are exception mechanisms in place.
• Unnecessary Burden
  • All LOCR groups were asked to have the following verbatim statement in their criteria: “Not create unreasonable barriers for students seeking to fulfill this category, including prerequisites, class‐level restrictions, and college and major restrictions.” However, only a few included this statement --> need for overall policy
    • Stronger language may help the future committee by placing the onus on proposers
    • The co-chairs will draft a new policy to bring to the committee next week.
  • Professional Development
  • Pros
    • GenEd is a distinct curriculum, with distinct needs
    • ensure awareness of GE, downstream enhancements in assessment and compliance
    • teach graduate students how to teach – professional development
  • Cons
    • bottle necks

Action: Motion to accept the policy as proposed: Due to the positive impact of professional development on quality of teaching and student satisfaction, all General Education instructors should enroll in professional development, to be renewed on a periodic basis. Some areas may require additional, and ongoing, professional development as is described in the category criteria and/or other General Education policies. General Education professional development will be provided on an institutional (OSU-wide) basis and will be provisioned to meet campus demand. Professional development takes on two forms, which are designed to accommodate differences in the complexity and novelty of courses, types, outcomes, expertise, and experience.  

• To develop an on-campus General Education course, the developer(s) will complete the Course Adaptation Design Institute (CADI) experience, for which compensation may be available. E-campus development support will be provided by ecampus.  
• To teach an approved General Education course, an instructor will complete OSU's General Education Pedagogical Support and Development program. 

In the event that professional development is inadequately provisioned, with the awareness of Academic Affairs, temporary waivers may be granted. Emergency circumstances which require a temporary waiver may exist, but are exceedingly rare (such as the sudden unavailability of an instructor) (Failure to hire faculty or loss of situational awareness by a unit are not included in these). In these circumstances, the Director of General Education (the responsible party for the waiver) and the Coordinator of Faculty Development will actively work with faculty across units to find a solution, which may include a temporary waiver, an MOU for support from a different unit, or some other solution; seconded. The motion passed with 10 votes in favor, 0 votes against and 0 votes in abstention.