Baccalaureate Core Committee

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

CAT II Reviews

• No Discussion Needed
  • HST 366
    • Approved with no discussion.
  • ENG 221
    • Did not have course specific outcomes listed and did not have the correct student conduct link.
    • Fulfills both the Difference, Power and Discrimination (DPD) and the Literature and the Arts categories. Does it need a third set of outcomes that are specific to the course? Could additional outcomes confuse students?
      • Other courses in the DPD category do not necessarily have the additional Course Specific Learning Outcomes.
      • The standard has been to allow the Baccalaureate Cored (BC_ outcomes to substitute as specific learning outcomes in the case of DPD courses and as long as the course description is not too broad.
    • They use a matrix to cover the BC statement. While it is not verbatim, it is appropriate and covers the required information.
      • Approve with a request sent to the originator to update student conduct link.

Category Reviews

• No Discussion Needed
  • GEO 100
    • Approved with no discussion.
  • GEOG 102
    • Approved with no discussion.
• Discussion Needed
  • BI 204
    • The learning objectives and assessments are clear but the reviewer requested additional opinions from the rest of the committee members as to whether or not they felt the syllabus was missing anything important.
    • The committee agrees that the syllabus appears to be done well.
      • Approve
  • PH 104
    • Reviewer is not present to discuss the course. The review will be discusses at the next meeting.
  • PH 212
    • Doesn’t explicitly state how the BC outcomes align with class activities.
      • Alignments can be assumed based on the course description and what the BC outcomes are.
        • Hold on approval until the committee can review PH 211 and 213 to see if they will have similar issues.

Discussion

• Review of updates made to the "Writing Intensive Requirement for Double Degree and Dual Major” policy
  • Some minor changes to wording
    • ‘Department(s)’ is being changed to ‘Academic Unit(s)’
  • The intent is to broaden the policy so that all units are covered.
  • Is it an exception to Academic Regulation (AR) 25?
    • APA will check and confirm .
  • If the committee approves this policy change, can it also be added to AR25 to avoid confusion or a miscommunication?
  • Does the capitalization differences on department and Departments and academic unit and Academic Units have a meaning in who can do these approvals.
    • The CLA faculty expressed that this is program specific verbiage that they use and it was determined that the departments may interpret the policy slightly differently.
    • The committee could bring it to the Head Advisor Counsel or to the AAC to determine if there may be issues with the wording.
      • Approved
• There are still courses who have not submitted their syllabi and other information for the review process.
  • The chairs will send out emails informing the departments that courses not submitted for review will be decertified.
• Courses that have not been taught in some time will be difficult to get syllabus and information for. Once the new CPS is in place, it should be easier to keep track of courses.
• Can courses missed last year that haven’t been taught in some time and were not reviewed be looked over starting at the beginning of the next cycle?
  • CPS makes it difficult to track these courses but the new system should make it easier.
• Is the committee still hoping to do a workshop at Cascades?
  • Potentially in Spring Term

Adjourned at 3:36 PM

Minutes prepared by Caitlin Calascibetta