Meeting Date: 
February 17, 2020
02/17/2020 10:30 am to 12:00 pm
109 Gilkey Hall
Event Description: 

A PDF of the minutes can be found here.

  1. Faculty Senate Policy Debrief
  1. Moratorium – Kathy Becker Blease
  1. Course Proposals
    • Discussion Needed
      • FR 493 – Writing Intensive Course
      • PHL 475 – Science, Technology and Society
  1. Category Reviews – Contemporary Global Issues
    • Discussion Needed
      • HST 488
      • ANTH 473
      • HST/REL 425/425H
    • No Discussion Needed
      • HST 319
  1. Science Follow-up
    • Discussion Needed
      • PH 203
      • CH 123
    • No Discussion Needed
      • BOT 220


Zoom Login Information
     ID: 415-004-514
     Phone: 1-669-900-6833


Voting members present: Kathy Becker Blease, Daniel Faltesek, Andrew Harker, McKenzie Huber, Matthew Kennedy, Filix Maisch, Bob Paasch, Rene Reitsma, David Roundy, Rorie Spill Solberg, Kaplan Yalcin
Voting members absent: Heather Arbuckle, Aidas Banaitis, Lori McGraw, Steven Morris,
Ex-Officio members present: Faculty Affairs – Heath Henry; DPD Director – Nana Osei-Kofi (remote); Ecampus – Karen Warren; WIC Director – Anita Helle
Guests present: Tam Belknap

Faculty Senate Policy Debrief

  • Despite previously stated support from the College of Liberal Arts (CLA) Curriculum Council, there was opposition from some CLA staff. The discussion ran for 45 minutes.
  • OSU-Cascades had concerns that preventing double-listing would downsize their already rather small Baccalaureate Core.
  • The biggest argument from the opposition was that there was overlap between categories, which meant that courses could meet all the outcomes with ease. Previous assessment by the Baccalaureate Core Committee (BCC) showed this may not be accurate and that students are not getting a full three credits in either category.
  • The vote was tabled after discussion and vote on the policy did not occur.
    • One faculty members suggested that the BCC should review the 82 dual-listed courses individually, rather than making a blanket decision.
      • This is in the BCC’s purview.
      • The BCC decided to push back the category review for next year (Science, Technology and Society) to focus on reviewing these double-listed courses.

Moratorium – Kathy Becker Blease

  • It was proposed that a moratorium be imposed on new course proposals for the Baccalaureate Core.
    • Possible exceptions for Writing Intensive Curriculum Courses (WIC) and Difference, Power & Discrimination (DPD) courses
    • Possible exceptions if the unit proposing the course has no courses in the category they are submitting for.
  • Will need approval from the Executive Committee (EC).
    • There is precedent – the EC approved suspending new courses in 2010 during the first Baccalaureate Core reform.
  • It was also proposed that some very specific question could be added to CIM, requiring submitters to provide more rationale for new courses.
  • Three members of the committee will attend the EC meeting on February 25 to further discuss a moratorium.

Course Proposals

  • Discussion Needed
    • FR 439 – Writing Intensive Course
      • The reviewer was unsure if the final writing assignment met the minimum requirements as it does not go into great detail about its requirements.
      • They do provide a word-count table, but there is little information on how it is critiqued.
      • There are frequent references to German, despite this being a French course.
      • WIC worked with the instructor on the syllabus, with several revisions, and they feel it does meet the minimum requirements.
        • The BCC can ask for supplemental documents if the syllabus does not provide enough information.
      • This is a slash course but there does not seem to be enough additional content for Graduate level students to make it a 500 level course.
      • A second copy syllabus was submitted after the first. It is missing a lot of information, but is the most recent submission.
        • Send back with a request for a copy of the final assignment and to clarify which syllabus they are intending to use. A note about the grad coursework will also be included.
    • PHL 475 – Science, Technology and Society
      • The font is exceptional small and difficult to read. There are concerns this may an issue for students who have difficulty with their vision.
      • Does not seem to meet outcome one.
      • It seems largely focused on the humanities. It may be a better fit for Contemporary Global Issues (CGI)
      • It is lacking historical connections.
      • There are no liaisons
      • This is a slash course but there does not seem to be enough additional content for Graduate level students to make it a 500 level course.
        • Send back, not appropriate for the category. Suggest CGI or to go into more details on how it meets the outcomes.

Category Reviews – Contemporary Global Issues

  • Discussion Needed
    • HST 488
      • Assessments were linked reasonably well to outcomes.
      • The course focuses on US-Vietnam relations from 1945-1995. How is the topic of the course contemporary?
        • The instructor does make an attempt at linking it to contemporary issues but it is vague and more detail could be provided.
      • Instructor name and contact info not present on syllabus
      • The 1,250 word paper does not relate to CGI; it is basically a history paper, which has one sentence asking students to relate it to issues today.
      • The Ecampus portion lists a pre-requisite as ‘Instructor’s Permission’. This is not enforceable and not appropriate for the Baccalaureate Core.
      • The final assignment is in violation of Academic Regulation 16.
      • Slash course but the grad level may not be offered currently. It makes little reference to the Graduate assignments.
        •  Decertified, citing multiple issues.
    • ANTH 473
      • Notes assignments as meeting all outcomes with little example as to how they are meeting them.
      • There is no enough information to determine how these outcomes are assessed.
      • There are two versions of the final paper:
        • A standard paper
        • An ethnographic paper, that is longer and nets students 10% extra credit
          • It is unlikely that students outside the Anthropology major would be familiar enough with an ethnographic paper to take advantage of the extra credit.
      • 75% of students who take the class are from CLA; 38% are from Anthropology and 60% of those take the class on campus.
      • High amount of As and Bs in the course.
      • Writing assignment meets the word-count minimum.
        • Send back requesting more detail on the how the course addresses and assesses the outcomes. Note that the committee is concerned that the course leans heavily into the Anthropology major and may favor them with the extra credit for the longer paper.
    • HST/REL 425/425H
      • The syllabus is well put together and meets the category requirements.
      • There could a little more information on how the outcomes are assessed.
        • Recertified
  • No Discussion Needed
    • HST 319
      • Recertified with no discussion needed

Science Follow-up

  • Discussion Needed
    • PH 203
      • Updated the DAS statement. It is missing the Reach Out statement, but that was implemented as a requirement after the course was sent back to the submitter.
      • They removed language stating they didn’t need the lab if they passed a previous one.
      • Lab activities appear appropriate.
        • Recertified
  • CH 262
    • Lab only
      • The syllabus requires more explanation of how the assignments align to and assess the learning outcomes.
    • The lecture portion has not submitted any material.
  • CH 123
    • They have added everything that was requested previously.
    • They have added how the outcomes are assessed and how they connected to the assignments.
      • Recertified
  • No Discussion Needed
    • BOT 220
      • Recertified with no discussion needed
  • BOT 101
    • Recertified with no discussion needed