Meeting Date: 
February 25, 2019
02/25/2019 3:00 pm to 4:00 pm
109 Gilkey Hall
Event Description: 

A PDF of the minutes can be found here.

  1. Category II Reviews
    • FW 391
    • NMC 101
  1. Category Reviews
    • PH 213
    • GEO 201

Voting members present: Kathy Becker-Blease, Daniel Faltesek, McKenzie Huber (remote), Filix Maisch, Bob Paasch, David Roundy, Dana Sanchez, Inara Scott (remote), Rorie Spill Solberg, Kaplan Yalcin
Voting members absent: Pat Ball, Nancy Barbour, Natalie Dollar, Patrice Dragon, Weihong Qiu
Ex-Officio members present: Faculty Affairs – Heath Henry; WIC Director – Vicki Tolar Burton (remote)

Category II Reviews

  • FW 391
    • Term Project instruction is provided separately; the committee would like it to be provided within the syllabus.
      • Send back for minor revisions.
  • NMC 101
    • The syllabus seems disorganized, with assessment and links to Baccalaureate Core (BC) Learning Outcomes (LOs) scattered throughout.
      • The committee would like the instructor to put anything related to assessment in one place so it is easy for students to locate.
        • Send back for minor revisions
  • H 338
    • It is not stated how BC LOs are assessed.
      • Send back and request statements regarding how the LOs are assessed.
  • HSC 375
    • The minimum word requirement (1,250) is not stated within the syllabus and there is no explicit statement about students using outside resources.
    • Assignments are assessed and linked back to outcomes.
    • Send back with a request to change the verbiage in the assignment instructions to make the required minimum word-count and the use of two sources more explicit.
  • SOC 448/548
    • There is no explanation on how the course meets the Difference, Power & Discrimination (DPD) requirements or how it is assessed.
    • There is no mention of assessment for the BC LOs and assignments are not linked to them.
      • Send back with suggestions for revisions

Category Reviews

  • PH 213
    • Similar issues to PH 211 and PH 212
    • It is evident they meet the LOs based on what the labs are, but it should be stated in the syllabus
    • They are missing the Cascades syllabus
    • High D, F, Withdraw (DFW) rate in Fall – it is uncertain why – the class is an anomaly when compared to other courses by the same instructor
      • Send back for revisions and request for Cascades syllabus and to resubmit
  • GEO 201
    • Reviewer not present to discuss
  • WSE 210
    • No connections to course material or assessment within the syllabus
    • How are the LOs formally measured? It is not fully explained in the syllabus
    • The instructor is leaving OSU and it is unclear if the course will be continue being taught
    • It is unclear how it meets physical science requirements
      • Return with requests to clarify whether the course will be taught by a new instructor and request changes to the syllabus.
  • SUS 102
    • Grades skewed with a high A passing (60%) and very low DFW
    • There seems to be a lot of effort to reach out to students with a lot of extra credit available. Students can earn up to 40% through extra credit.
    • It is noted that a lot of engineering students take the class
    • There is no data on how many students used the course for the BC requirement and how many took the course for the double degree requirement
    • 5 instructors and 8 GTAs
    • Recertify – comment about high A rate
      • Does the high extra credit rate affect this?
  • AG 445
    • Submitted as a Writing II course but they have not had a liaison review the course
    • Send back with concerns about the lack of a liaison