Voting members present: Heather Arbuckle, Ivan Arismendi, Aidas Banaitis, Geoffrey Barstow, Daniel Faltesek, Kelsey Emard, Matthew Kennedy, Lori McGraw, Kyle Niemeyer, Rene Reitsma, Randy Rosenberger, Justin St. Germain, Kaplan Yalcin
Voting members absent: Jack Istok
Ex-officio members present: Ecampus – Karen Watte, Undergraduate Education – Heath Henry
Guests: McKenzie Huber
Category Reviews – Science, Technology & Society
-
GEOG 340
-
Course learning outcomes differ between syllabi.
-
Two of the three instructors do not have compliant writing assignments.
-
First one does not specify what paper is about
-
Second is pick any four themes from the course
Action: Motion to recertify and suggest they discuss differences between course learning outcomes and delineating writing assignment; motion seconded and passed with 12 votes in favor, 0 votes in opposition and 0 votes in abstention.
-
HSTS 413
-
Moved to January 3 agenda.
-
HSTS 414
-
Moved to January 3 agenda.
-
HSTS 415
-
Moved to January 3 agenda.
-
HSTS 419
-
Moved to January 3 agenda.
-
HSTS 451
-
Good fit for the category.
-
Reformulate writing assignment length to be read as 1,250 words, rather than 4-6 pages.
-
Missing verbatim Baccalaureate Core (BC) statement.
-
Writing assignment instructions could be improved.
Action: Motion to recertify with minor edits; motion seconded and passed with 13 votes in favor, 0 votes in opposition and 0 votes in abstention.
-
HSTS 452
-
Approved with no discussion needed.
-
NMC 427
-
Needs better alignment about how BC LOs are met and explained and how they align through assessment.
-
LO 3 is not approached seriously. The 1,250-word paper is a discussion board post submitted in the final week of the course and is only worth 3.6% their grade.
-
It does require outside sources.
-
There is no other formal writing assignment in the course.
-
It does meet all the other requirements.
-
There is no evidence they get instructor feedback.
Action: Motion to send back citing concerns about assessment and the final writing assignment - ask how students received meaningful feedback from the instructors and about the weight of the final writing assignment grade; motion seconded and passed with 12 votes in favor, 0 votes in opposition and 1 vote in abstention.
-
NR 351
-
Moved to January 3 agenda.
-
NUTR 312
-
Moved to January 3 agenda.
-
PHL 325
-
Moved to January 3 agenda.
-
PHL/REL 444
-
Moved to January 3 agenda.
-
PHL 474
-
Moved to January 3 agenda.
-
TOX 360
-
Moved to January 3 agenda.
-
WGSS 319
-
Moved to January 3 agenda.
-
WGSS 320 – No discussion needed
-
Approved with no discussion needed
-
WGSS 440
-
Moved to January 3 agenda.
-
WSE 392
-
Moved to January 3 agenda.
-
SOC 481
-
The hybrid offering has a group writing assignment for LO 3.
-
Rules of the category specify that the writing assignment must be done individually.
-
There is no way to determine whether each student in the group is meeting the 1,250-word minimum.
-
They mention considering moving to an individual writing assignment. Suggest they speak with the Ecampus instructor about their writing assignment.
-
Is the hybrid course approved by the schedule of classes?
Action: Motion to send back to revise writing assignment for hybrid section to be an individual assignment; motion seconded and passed with 13 votes in favor, 0 votes in opposition and 0 votes in abstention.