Baccalaureate Core Committee

Voting members present: Aidas Banaitis, Geoffrey Barstow, Daniel Faltesek, Colin Johnson, Matthew Kennedy, Michelle McAllaster, Lori McGraw, Rene Reitsma, Randy Rosenberger, Justin St. Germain, Kari-Lyn Sakuma
Voting members absent: Jack Istok, Kelsey Emard, Ifeoma Ozoede, Kaplan Yalcin
Ex-officio members present: Academic Programs & Assessment – Heath Henry; Difference, Power & Discrimination – Nana Osei-Kofi; Ecampus – Karen Watte; WIC – Sarah Perrault
Guests: Pat Ball, John Edwards, McKenzie Huber, Michael Jefferis, Caryn Stoess

Open Education Resources (OER) Learning Resources

Action: The co-chairs motioned to accept the following:

• Include an OER component in GenEd professional development program(s).
• Curriculum Management System for new/change course proposals: If a GenEd course proposal, the following questions appear:
  • List all non-OER/non-freely available course resources (text, audio, video, software, data, etc.).
  • For each non-OER/non-freely-available resource, indicate (yes/no) whether or not an effort was made to find an OER/freely-available alternative (with a referral to OSU's 'Open Educational Resources' office for help). If "not" then the following statement appears:
    • "In order to maximize access to quality General Education, Oregon State University strongly encourages all course designers and instructors to use Open Education Resources (OER) in their courses. Where adequate OER are not available course designers and instructors are encouraged to search for low-cost or no-cost options. This information is being gathered for informational purposes only." 
• Have the above OER statement on the GenEd website with the friendly amendment; seconded. The motion passed with 12 votes in favor, 1 vote against and 0 votes in abstention.
• The intent is for the statement is to encourage faculty to search for low-cost options, but not over-reach on academic freedom of instructors to select their own materials.
• Would a ‘yes’ checkbox be sufficient/more efficient for instructors in what is already a long process?
  • It would allow for the committee to gather data.
  • A box has already been added to require faculty to list their resources. A secondary box could be added for just additional clarification
  • A tick-box is too easy to check. There is a possibility for people to check the box without supporting it with evidence.

Course Proposals

• HDFS 260
  • Would like to be added to the Social Processes & Institutions category, however it does not seem to meet the category. It feels largely focused on personal wellness.
  • Components were present and the outcomes were largely addressed but the overall goal of the course does not seem to be about social processes or institutions.
  • Was initially rolled back, with notes that it had potential but needed adjustments to meet the criteria.
  • CLO3 is not as well met as the other categories. There doesn’t seem to be much focus on the institution component.
  • They’ve addressed what the committee has asked them to address, but the committee is still uncertain as to whether the course is appropriate for the category.

Action: Motion to approve the proposal for the Social Processes & Institutions category; seconded. The motion passed with 6 votes in favor, 3 votes against and 1 vote in abstention.

• HST 424
  • It’s very thorough but it does not seem to have much focus on contemporary issues.
    • They seem to be looking at the contemporary impacts of past genocidal events.

Action: Motion to send back and request clarification on how the course meets the LOs. The motion passed with 10 votes in favor, 0 votes against and 0 votes in abstention.

LOCR Feedback from Baccalaureate Core Committee

• Not discussed during this meeting.

Policy Discussion

• Non-sponsored WIC/DPO2 courses
  • WIC courses have not historically been approved without sponsorship from an academic college.
  • For DPO2, it may largely depend on what the LOCR committee determines for DPO2.