Baccalaureate Core Committee

CIM Reviews

• ATS 342 – Contemporary Global Issues (CGI)
  • Seems to address all Learning Outcomes (LOs) and explains clearly how they are assessed. Exceeds writing assignment requirements.
  • A good fit for the category.

Action: Motion to approve; motion seconded and passed with 9 votes in favor, 0 votes in opposition and 0 votes in abstention.

Category Reviews – Science, Technology & Society (STS)

• GEO 307
  • Missing verbatim Baccalaureate Core (BC) statement
  • Unsure if it meets the category – connections to technology and society seem to be minor components of the course.
    • Does it touch on the historical aspect of national parks? It does, but it seems largely done in week 9 of the course.
  • LO 3 is related to critical perspective – only the term paper seems to link to that LO, but the term paper asks students to ‘describe’ or ‘explain’.
  • Course title mentions preservation but the topic does not feel fully integrated in the course content.

Action: Motion to return for missing verbatim statement, lack of critical perspective on science, additional social content integrated into the geology content (throughout), move from descriptive to critical terminology in assessment; motion seconded and passed with 10 votes in favor, 0 votes in opposition and 0 votes in abstention.

• ES 445
  • Verbatim Bacc Core statement missing.
  • Category LOs are missing.
  • Writing assignment ‘may’ be incorporated into the portfolio, but it’s not explicit.
  • There is almost no information on the form related to the course content. Overall, the proposal feels incomplete.

Action: Motion to return as file is incomplete and description of the course is missing statement, learning outcomes and writing assignment; motion seconded and passed with 10 votes in favor, 0 votes in opposition and 0 votes in abstention.

• FES 485
  • It does not seem like a good fit for the category.
  • 90% of students are post-bacc and from College of Forestry.
  • It’s unclear how social perspectives are addressed within the content of the course.
  • The writing assignment does not ask students to offer a critical perspective.
  • How many students are using this course for Bacc Core credit?
    • 19 students of 194 were not post-Bacc or Forestry majors.
      • The course is a requirement for Natural Resource majors. It’s also a pre-requisite for the WIC course for the major.

Action: Motion to decertify as it does not fit the category and is not in use as a BC category, include material from review; motion seconded and passed with 10 votes in favor, 0 votes in opposition and 0 votes in abstention.

• GEO 305
  • Missing clear connections to societal components.
  • Most of the course is based on the book and feels like a disciplinary course.
  • Needs a better description of how they connect course materials to LO 2.
  • recommend: send back for additional disciplinary engagement, description of LO 2: change in their field and other fields over time, shift the writing assignment to be critical - much of this work can be done in restaging the final assignment; seconded. 9, 0, 1.

Action: Motion to send back for additional disciplinary engagement, description of LO 2: change in their field and other fields over time, shift the writing assignment to be critical - much of this work can be done in restaging the final assignment; motion seconded and passed with 9 votes in favor, 0 votes in opposition and 1 vote in abstention.

• GEO 331
  • Needs more connections to societal aspects.
  • Has some suggested pre-requisites.
  • There’s no references or materials that explicitly link to social, philosophical and ethical discussion or assessment. This may be touched on in the course, but it’s not necessarily clear in the syllabus.
    • The provided student outline with examples - only 2 bullets were related to society. Students could complete the final paper without discussing societal impacts at all.

Action: Motion to send back with the recommendation to show their work on the social research elements; require dialectical engagement with the nature of the social in the final paper; motion seconded and passed with 9 votes in favor, 0 votes in opposition and 1 vote in abstention.

• GEO 380
  • The only issue seems to be with the final paper – the assignment could allow students to write a paper that does not fulfil the LO. It lacks a critical perspective. They could also turn in a PowerPoint or a video (with script). The script does require 5 external references and for the script to meet the 1,250-word minimum.
    • The modality does not seem important, so long as students are meeting the writing requirements.

Action: Motion to return to develop the writing assignment in as much as it is, A. critical and B. multidisciplinary in the category context; motion seconded and passed with 9 votes in favor, 0 votes in opposition and 1 vote in abstention.

• HSTS 416

Action: Motion to recertify with a suggestion to add wordcounts to the writing assignments; motion seconded and passed with 10 votes in favor, 0 votes in opposition and 0 votes in abstention.

• HSTS 421 – No Discussion Needed
  • Approved with no discussion needed.
• SUS 304
  • No single writing assignment that meets the 1,250-word requirement.
  • No course assessment rubric.

Action: Motion to send back for Cascades discussion; connection for assessment; needs a proper writing assessment; motion seconded and passed with 10 votes in favor, 0 votes in opposition and 0 votes in abstention.

• WGSS 340 – No Discussion Needed
  • Approved with no discussion needed.
• NSE 319
  • Was at one-point double-listed with CGI. It would be a better fit for that category. Lacks societal component and critical perspective on the writing assignment.
    • It says it was listed with CGI on their syllabus, but there is no evidence that it was ever actually listed with CGI.
    • One committee member believes it could fit in STS if they included the critical component.
  • They’re taking it to be self-evident that the course fits the category, but it needs to be shown in the syllabus.
  • Required course for several majors.

Action: Motion to return and ask them to explain connections and develop critical perspective; motion seconded and passed with 10 votes in favor, 0 votes in opposition and 0 votes in abstention.

• PH 313/H
  • The Ecampus syllabus was not provided.
  • No writing assignment rubric provided.
  • Seems a good fit for the category.
  • Has an honors section. Can you use the same syllabus for the regular course, in addition to the Honors course?
    • Might be under the purview of the Honors College.
    • You can potentially do 1 of 2 things
      • Smaller class size
      • ‘Same course’ but additional set of assignments or additional interactivity – but they could, in theory, have the same syllabus as the regular section.
        • This might be outdated information.
  • 20 course-specific LOs.

Action: Motion to return and ask them for Ecampus syllabus, note that there are quite a few learning outcomes; motion seconded and passed with 10 votes in favor, 0 votes in opposition and 0 votes in abstention.