Meeting Date: 
January 18, 2023
01/18/2023 1:00 pm to 2:00 pm
Zoom Meeting
  1. Policy Discussion
    • Approval process for new courses and course change
    • Course/category review cycle process

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


Policy Discussion

  • Approval process for new courses and course change
    • Currently, one person not in the unit proposing will review the course
    • Pros:
      • More rigorous reviews create occasions for faculty conversation
      • Reviewing on proposal and change is a proactive strategy to manage course drift
      • Non-college review is good
    • Cons:
      • More eyes needed, but paired annoying
      • No discussion needed can be problematic
    • Would it be more beneficial to have more than one reviewer on each proposal, similar to the Curriculum Council? One member from the college to, for foundational knowledge, and an outside pair of eyes for a more objective viewpoint to make sure it’s open and understandable for all disciplines.

Action: Daniel Faltesek made the motion to accept the following proposal: To encourage a variety of perspectives, all proposals will be reviewed by two faculty members, at least one of whom will be outside the proposing college, then discussed by the committee and either approved if it has reached committee standards or sent back; seconded. Motion passed with 8 votes in favor, 0 votes against and 0 votes in abstention.

  • Course/category review cycle process
    • One category per year, only if taught in the last 3 years.
    • Pros:
      • college level coordinated lifts
      • very doable with a smaller core
      • regular review expectations may discourage frivolous submissions
      • continuous review flows may smooth the category leveling learning curve
      • extreme drift over long periods of time
      • STS review was strong
      • Problematic choices and loss of administrative control
    • Cons
      • loss of flexibility
      • opacity is key to academic freedom
      • heavy lift for maximum review
      • cycle reviews lead to expertise that year
      • early warning dynamics could lead to arms racing (first person to flood wins, all others stopped)
    • Options for policies:
      • Every course will be fully assessed every four years which can result in decertification if a course is found in non-compliance with established standards. 
      • Every two years a course will receive a minor-review which will provide important feedback. These entail the assessment of the syllabus and other relevant material.  
        • Heath has volunteered to take the lead on the minor review to assist with the workload.
      • Communication related to both review processes is delegated to the Director of General Education. Exact timelines and communication methods for these reviews will be determined annually by the committee and communicated by the Director of General Education to the College Designees.  
    • The committee elected to come back and discuss this topic more at the next meeting.