Baccalaureate Core Committee

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

Course Review

• ENG 101 – Introduction to Literature: The Young Adult Novel
  • The originators came back with very strong revisions and addressed all concerns.

Action: Motion to approve the proposal; seconded. The motion passed with 12 votes in favor, 0 votes against and 0 votes in abstention.

• FR 439 – French/Francophone Studies
  • The course is coming back with some minor changes, including a name change and adding 4^th year French as a pre-requisite. They’d also like to make a change to the course description.
  • Approved by the WIC Director after some revisions.
  • The Corvallis syllabus is missing the Student Bill of Rights statement.
  • Course materials are in French, making them difficult to review.
    • A French speaking Graduate student was able to assist with translating.
  • Still some confusion around the word-count for assignments.

Action: Motion to approve with suggestions for minor revisions; seconded. The motion passed with 12 votes in favor, 0 votes against and 0 votes in abstention.

Chair’s Report on General Education Core Installation Procedure

• Meetings have taken place and the reception with the Executive Committee was enthusiastic.
• Phase I Installation
  • The Baccalaureate Core Committee (BCC) will share data with colleges and units and then will review in AY23-24 >> College will complete a ‘statement of intent’ of the courses they plan to (re)design and submit in CIM >> Faculty (re)design courses through CADI >> Faculty will submit proposals in CIM >> Courses will then be reviewed >> Course approvals are added to the list for the Summer 2025 launch.
• Phase II Installation
  • College data-driven decisions encouraged >> BCC will share data with colleges and units and then will review in AY23-24 >> College will complete a ‘statement of intent’ of the courses they plan to (re)design and submit in CIM >> Faculty (re)design courses through CADI >> Faculty will submit proposals in CIM >> Courses will then be reviewed >> Course approvals are added to the list for the Summer 2025 launch.
• Is the two course per designator a detriment to certain units, like physics?
  • Series are an exception
  • It’s not a permanent cap

General Education Policy

• General Education Faculty Development
  • Pros
    • Gen Ed (GE) is a distinct curriculum, with distinct needs 
    • ensure awareness of GE, downstream enhancements in assessment and compliance 
    • teach graduate students how to teach – professional development 
  • Cons
    • bottle necks
  • Due to the positive impact of professional development on quality of teaching and student satisfaction, all General Education instructors should enroll in professional development, to be renewed on a periodic basis.
  • Some categories may require additional, and ongoing, professional development as is described in the category criteria and/or other General Education policies.
  • General Education professional development will be provided on an institutional (OSU-wide) basis and will be provisioned to meet campus demand.
  • Professional development takes on two forms, which are designed to accommodate differences in the complexity and novelty of courses, types, outcomes, expertise, and experience.
    • To develop a General Education course, the developer(s) will complete the Course Adaptation Design Institute (CADI) experience, for which compensation may be available for developers.
    • To teach an approved General Education course, an instructor will complete OSU's General Education Pedagogical Support and Development program.
  • In the event that professional development is inadequately provisioned, with the awareness of Academic Affairs, temporary waivers may be granted.
  • Emergency circumstances which require a temporary waiver may exist, but are exceedingly rare (such as the sudden unavailability of an instructor) (Failure to hire faculty or loss of situational awareness by a unit are not included in these).
  • In these circumstances, the Director of General Education (the responsible party for the waiver) and the Director of the Center for Teaching and Learning will actively work with faculty across units to find a solution, which may include a temporary waiver, an MOU for support from a different unit, or some other solution.
  • Can specific FTE amounts or payment can be written into policy? No. The committee does not have purview to approve payment for training.
  • Asynchronous Canvas Modules and 2-day synchronous training.
  • Currently, it is unclear who has to go through training and which types of training they will need to participate in.
    • Can some faculty in each unit be certified developers who can assist with developing new Baccalaureate Core courses?
      • Would that be written into their FTE?
• Course Credit Transfers
  • Create framework for transfer of credits under shared governance.
  • Pros
    • Establishes direct equivalency
    • Respects OSU decisions about core curriculum (2) 
    • Does not award credit if neither institution sees a course as GE; we don’t invent GE credit where it was never assumed.  
  •  Cons
    • General Education here but not there, why? Is it actually direct equivalency?  
    • How often do we check the direct equivalency table?
  • As long as the outside course meets about 75% of the OSU outcomes, the committee may consider it as meeting the requirement for transfer students. 
  • Make sure the articulation teams have the skills and bandwidth to do what is being asked.