Baccalaureate Core Committee

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

CIM System Overview

• You can access the CIM System by going to the Academic Programs and Assessment page, then Curriculum Proposal Software Access, and then select either CIM Course or CIM Program proposal links. A third link is available to chairs to approve through.
  • Liaisons are now academic units, not people. At least 3 are required.
  • Anyone can comment on a proposal, whether they have been invited to review it or not. The comment is not anonymous but it can be deleted. Adding a comment does not send a notification.
  • The ‘unenforced pre-requisites’ section is now titled as ‘recommended pre-requisites’.
  • There is an issues in the Baccalaureate Core (BC) questions where some text is missing. The vendor has been notified and is working on a fix.
  • The BC questions now align with the table.
  • If you see (Rollback) on a comment, that is an official send back to originator from a reviewer.
  • All courses now get one proposal. Any changes are made directly to that proposal. New changes appear as green text. Removed text is shown in red with a strike-through. Text that has not changed will be in black.

Category Proposals

• No Discussion Needed
  • ES 360
    • Reviewer not present.
• Discussion Needed
  • SOC 482
    • The description for how the course fits the category does not fit and is more of a restatement of the first learning outcome.
    • No word-count for the essays is provided and there is no mention of citations. No instructions for the essays were provided.
    • There is no specific discussion on how the learning outcomes (LOs) are assessed.
      • Send back with a list of requested changes.

Category Reviews – Contemporary Global Issues

• Discussion needed
  • FES-NR 477
    • The course is also listed in the Science, Technology and Society (STS) category.
      • Recertify with a note that they may soon have to choose which of two categories they want to be in.
        • The reviewer believes it may be better listed as a Contemporary Global Issues (CGI) course, but it should be left up to the discretion of the unit.
  • ANTH 478
    • Reviewer not present to discuss
  • FCSJ 454
    • There is quite a bit of information on how the assignments meet the LOs but there is little information on how they are assessed.
    • There is no information about assignment or discussion details. The assignment descriptions are very general.
    • The reviewer noted that there is more detail on how the course meets the CGI requirements in the form, but those details are not present in the syllabus.
      • Recertify with notes requesting more information about assignments and how they are assessed.
  • FES 365
    • Two of the syllabi use a 40 year old speech textbook. Third syllabus uses a YouTube video about Dunning-Kruger effect. The reviewer does not feel this is an appropriate resource.
    • There is another textbook discussed in the syllabus, but is not listed in the textbook section of the syllabus.
    • How does the course relate to other disciplines? The three courses do not seem to be equal in what is being taught.
    • The hybrid course does not have the BC LOs listed.
      • Decertify, requires major revisions.
  • BI 306 H
    • Reviewer not present to discuss.
  • AEC/ECON 352
    • There are several syllabi, but only one has the BC statement.
    • The Ecampus syllabus does not make any mention of the BC.
    • There is no alignment between the LOs and assignments and assessment.
    • It is unclear which outcomes are tied to which assignments.
    • It is unclear if all the classes are meeting the word-count requirements.
    • One class does not mention using outside sources in citations.
      • Decertify, requires major revisions on every syllabus.
  • CROP 330
    • Seems to steer students to the online portion. How can capacity be increased on campus to better service Corvallis students?
    • Learning outcomes are listed, but it never states that it is a CGI course.
    • They do not link the outcomes, assignments and assessment
    • There is no statement that it meets the CGI category
      • Decertify
  • No Discussion Needed
    • BI 301
      • Recertify

Other Business

• The committee will put together a sub-committee to create a definition of what constitutes a lab so that there is a written guideline in place.