Baccalaureate Core Committee

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

Category II Reviews

• Discussion Needed
  • PAC 326
    • They are looking to rename the course so it aligns with a pre-requisite course title.
    • There are issues with the syllabus the committee would like addressed before they approve any changes:
      • The student conduct link is broken.
      • The Baccalaureate Core (BC) paragraph is vague and has confusing verbiage
        • ‘… a previously taken PAC course will satisfy this Fitness requirement’ should be changed to ‘… this PAC course will satisfy this Fitness requirement’.
          • Send back to originator with a request for revisions.

Category Reviews

• Discussion Needed
  • OC 201
    • Two of the syllabi have broken conduct links but otherwise all three submitted syllabi are identical.
    • They have the Baccalaureate Core Learning Outcomes (BCLO) but there are no connections assignments or assessment.
    • It is unclear on the syllabus if they are meeting the third BCLO.
      • There is some verbiage about it on the syllabus but no clear connection to assessment. The answer provided on the form is also vague on how it is met and assessed.
        • One committee member asked if, due to the somewhat broad nature of the learning outcomes, is it disingenuous to ask the submitter to pull out specific questions on exams as an example for how they meet the outcome.
          • The reviewer stated that, in the case of these syllabi, they already refer to the tests as an example, but the example is not specific. The reviewer cannot tell, based on the provided information, whether the outcome is being met.
      • The committee decided that the syllabus needed better connections between the BCLOs and assessment practices.
        • Recertify, provided the submitter makes the requested changes to the syllabus and resubmits within 30 days for re-review.
  • PH 106
    • The syllabus has many issues:
      • There is no list of course content.
      • There are no student conduct or ADA links.
      • There are no Course Specific Learning Outcomes and it does not discuss how the BCLOs are assessed.
      • There is no discussion of labs.
    • There is a link to a course webpage, but it does not have any more information than the syllabus does.
      • Decertify.
• No Discussion Needed
  • ED 340
    • There are no connections between the WIC outcomes and the course content and no mention of critical thinking.
    • There is a matrix that was included on the form with more information. It is strongly suggested that adding this matrix to the syllabus would fix the issues.
      • Recertify, provided the submitter makes the requested changes to the syllabus and resubmits within 30 days for re-review.
  • GEO 203
    • Recertify.
  • BI 103
    • The syllabus is very similar to previously reviewed BI courses.
    • The syllabus is very long and complex.
      • There is a table in the form that visually and clearly links the outcomes to course content and assessment. It is suggested that it be added to the syllabus for a quick reference for students.
    • They did not provide a syllabus from Cascades.
      • Recertify and request a copy of the Cascades syllabus to be reviewed.