Baccalaureate Core Committee

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

Course Proposal

• Discussion Needed
  • BI 222

• Missing Cascades syllabus
  • Cascades using same syllabus as Corvallis campus
• There are quite a few Learning Outcomes (LOs) and it looks like they are overlapping the course specific LOs with the Baccalaureate Core (BC) LOs
  • They are attempting to align the LOs to state standards
• Restrictions for certain colleges was removed per the Baccalaureate Core Committee’s (BCC) request.
• The BCC would like some clarification on how the LOs are met
  • There is more information on the form and the BCC would like them to use it to expand on their matrix.
    • Approved, no abstentions, none against
  • No Discussion Needed
    • GEOG 103
      • Approved with no discussion needed

Contemporary Global Issues Category Review

• No Discussion Needed
  • HDFS 447
    • Recertify with no discussion needed
    •  One abstention

Science/Writing Intensive Curriculum (WIC) Follow-up

• Discussion Needed
  • BI 204/205/206 series and the course proposal for BI 22X
    • 20X series
      • Introduces a matrix of assessments and learning outcomes
        • Not the standard matrix
        • Consistent with matrices provided last year and works for the Science category
          • Is it fair that Science does not require the same specificity when it is required for courses in other categories?
          • The Sciences outcomes are very vague, it is noted that it can difficult to come up with a productive statement about how the outcomes are met.
            • The same argument could be made for other categories
          • There is some more specific information regarding course specific LOs below the matrix
          • Some members would like to see the courses make an effort to articulate the connections between the outcomes and their course content.
          • From an accreditation standing point, what’s provided would be insufficient
            • A little more information was provided via the table in CPS.
            • Approved, with no abstentions, but will provide feedback suggesting that, in the future, they add more specificity to the LOs and how the connections are made. The information provided in the form would be a good addition to the syllabus
  • CH 231
    • The submitter cut and paste the criteria for physical science courses into their syllabus.
    • Did not make any of the requested changes from last year.
    • Did not make any connections between assignments and course content and the LOs.
    • No information on assessment is provided.
    • Students will have other options for BC courses in this category so there should be no adverse effect on students if the course were decertified.
    • The series has a history of disregarding feedback
      • Send back with instructions to work with APA
  • CH 261
    • Same issues as CH 231
    • No information on what the lab assignments are or what students will be doing in the lab.
    • Missing BC verbatim statement
      • Send back with instructions to work with APA
  • CH 233
    • CH 263 has not submitted any information – lecture portion
  • FES 240
    • One syllabus does a decent job, the others are not as detailed
    • Makes an approach for connections between assignments and LOs, but the connections between assessment and LOs is rather weak
    • Table does not really address SLOs
      • Send back requesting stronger connections between LOs and assessment. The faculty are already working with APA on another course.
  • PH 111
    • Reviewer not present to discuss
  • TRAL 375 – WIC
    • No issues with WIC
    • Recertify with some minor changes (missing links, etc.)
  • WSE 210
    • Did not make requested changes
    • Added no new information
    • Missing verbatim statement and Reach Out statement
    • There is a new instructor – were they aware of the requested changes?
      • Send back with notes about previously requested changes and ask that they make the changes. Resubmit within a short timeline.

Adding more accountability within the units themselves would help close the loop and ensure that units are following through on requested changes and/or missing documents. Summer may be the best time to roll out new policies on accountability and chances offered for resubmissions (BCC timeline will be implemented next year)