Meeting Date: 
May 20, 2020
05/20/2020 2:30 pm to 4:00 pm
Zoom Meeting
  1. Course Proposal
    • Discussion Needed
      • HEST 201 – Social Processes and Institutions
      • HDFS 260 – Social Processes and Institutions
      • MUS 200 – Literature and Arts
      • REL 372 – Difference, Power & Discrimination
      • HEST 342 – Contemporary Global Issues
      • MUS 331
      • PH 107
      • SUS 375
      • BEE 481
  1. No Discussion Needed
    • GER 411
    • GEOG 240 – Social Processes and Institutions
    • SOC 482 – Science, Technology & Society

Voting members present: Arbuckle, Banaitis, Becker-Blease, Faltesek, Huber, Kennedy, Maisch, McGraw, Morris, Paasch, Reitsma, Roundy, Solberg, Yalcin
Voting members absent: Harker
Ex-Officio members present: Faculty Affairs – Heath Henry; DPD Director – Nana Osei-Kofi; Ecampus – Karen Watte; WIC Director – Anita Helle
Guests present: Tamara Belknap

Course Proposal

  • Discussion Needed
    • HEST 201 – Social Processes and Institutions (SPI)
      • Mixed topic of anthropology, business and engineering
        • Re-evaluated
        • The idea was for them to make a project and then pitch it in a sort of ‘shark tank’ situation
        • No Learning Outcomes (LOs) related to SPI
      • Re-emerged dropping the business cross-list and adding anthropology
      • Has not liaised with Anthropology
      • Only has 10 students with 2 instructors
      • No textbook – students are reading journal articles and they are not on par with other similar SPI courses
      • Instructor was asked to make several changes
        • Not all the changes were made
      • The College of Liberal Arts (CLA) Curriculum Council has not seen it
      • Send back due to a procedural oversite in transferring between CPS and CIM
        • Should probably be in Science, Technology and Society category
          • Motion to send back for evaluation by the CLA Curriculum Council and liaisons; seconded. The motion passed with 13 in favor, none against. No abstentions.
    • HDFS 260 – Social Processes and Institutions
      • The reviewer cannot see how it meets the category
      • More of a practical course than a theory and connection course
      • The instructor puts a lot of effort into the matrix
        • The reviewer is not certain emotional intelligence qualifies as a social process
          • They are using the concept of emotional intelligence to reflect back on the social processes of mental health and society
            • The course feels too focused on the individual, rather than society as a whole
              • No reference to education or institutions in the syllabus class calendar
              • The calendar and activities listed do not align with the matrix and course description
          • Other committee members feel that the activities seem fit the outcome
          • Psychology was liaised and one member agrees with the reviewer that, while a good course, it’s maybe not a good fit for the Baccalaureate Core (BC) or the category.
            • PSYCH 201/202 are already SPI courses and may be a better choice for students to take
              • As it is currently structured, it does not meet any BC Category
                • Motion to send back with notes: Alignment of course content, activities and assessments with category learning outcomes espoused in the table is not apparent from the daily schedule of class activities or in the course catalog description. In particular, the social context (processes and institutions) which affect an individual's emotional health and well-being is not a central feature of the daily course activities; seconded. The motion passed 10 in favor, none against, 2 abstaining.
    • MUS 200 – Literature and Arts
      • The proposal is for the Literature & Arts category but the syllabus is for Western Culture.
      • Did not appropriately answer questions on form
        • Motion to reject and resubmit in CIM for the proper category and complete the alignment table; seconded. 10 in favor, none against. No abstentions.
    • REL 372 – Difference, Power & Discrimination
      • The DPD learning outcomes are not evident in the course materials provided.
      • Assessment of the DPD learning outcomes are not specific.
      • Reviewers comments regarding the DPD Learning Outcomes in connection to the course are:
        • DPD 1: studying the history of African American religion does not show how difference is socially constructed. However, studying how African American religions are different from other religions could.
        • DPD 2: How does seeking empowerment through religion combine with unequal distribution of power to result in discrimination?
        • DPD 3: how are the intersections of other social categories with African American religion related to DPD in the US?
      • After discussing the proposal and course, the Baccalaureate Core Committee (BCC) is wondering if this course would fit better in the Cultural Diversity category of the BC.
        • The committee recommends liaising back with the CLA Curriculum Council to determine best fit within BC.
        • Regardless of the category they decide to propose this course in, the BCC will need to see alignment of the BC category learning outcomes and assessment of course content.
    • HEST 342 – Contemporary Global Issues (CGI)
      • Did not connect outcomes and assessment
      • Not clear to the reviewer how this is a CGI course
        • Students are going to stay with a family in Guatemala and do experiments and write a paper about household energy poverty and their overall experience
        • They do not explain how this connects to a contemporary global issue
        • There are no meetings or discussion before the trip as can be seen from the course schedule/itinerary
          • There is another course that is supposed to be taken before this, but it is an optional pre-requisite.
      • The instructor was able to explain the connections very well to Academic Programs & Assessment but it does not come across well in the syllabus
      • The immersion feels like only part of the issue and it is unclear how it relates to a larger global consideration.
        • Motion to send back with comments: make sure that there is some sort of a reflective grading assessment that gets at what students get or take away from the experience and how they connect to the learning outcomes. They also still need to justify and explain what the contemporary global issue is. Final report: Students will be assessed on Bacc Core Learning Outcome #2 and #3 by writing a final report. This will be a term paper synthesizing what has been learned from both the spring and summer courses. It will include the research plan, the results of the multi-disciplinary field assignments, data analysis, photographs, and other reflections providing a critical perspective from the time spent in Guatemala. This report should be a minimum of 1,250 words and include citations and discussion of at least 2 outside sources related to the topic of their choosing. You can’t have a synthesis/reflection that requires a non-required pre-req; seconded. The motion passed 11 in favor, with one 1 against. No abstentions.
    • H 312 – Contemporary Global Issues
      • They do not seem certain about how many hours of GTA support they have.
        • The student with .29 is below the minimum
        • The .59 is shared between two GTAs
      • There is one section each term that far exceeds the enrollment cap of 70 students with nearly 200 students
        • The schedule desk was not aware of the enrollment cap for certain BC categories
      • The Writing Center Advisory Board (WCAB) also reviewed the course and its assignments.
        • The category requirement is a 5 page paper; the instructor says the paper is only 2-3 pages but insists that it meets the word-count requirement.
          • The instructor claims the papers are the length they are because only he grades this assignment
        • If they do fulfill the writing requirement, do they have the GTA support to review and grade these assignments
          • GTAs are only grading assignments and are not providing feedback
            • If they are to provide feedback, the course would need at least 3 GTAs.
              • The instructor confirmed that GTAs are not grading the complex assignments, which includes the final paper
        • Should the committee implement a rule about requiring GTAs for every 70 students?
          • Is 70 students an unreasonable amount of students for a single GTA to review and turn around in a week?
            • They would need 2.5 FTE to cover the section with 200 students
              • They will need to work within the CGE to remain compliant
              • The instructor is included in this FTE calculation
              • It would equal to .80 FTE for each GTA
        • Motion to keep decertification and send back with WCAB comments and specific information about the 1,250 word, double-spaced paper and guidance about the amount of FTE needed when dealing with 200 students; seconded. The motion passed 14 in favor; none against. No abstentions.
    • MUS 331
      • They clarified that the course was Ecampus only as requested
      • The rest of the syllabus looks good
        • Motion to approve; seconded. The motion passed (vote tallies unavailable)
    • PH 107
      • Not discussed during this meeting
    • SUS 375
      • Extensive string of negative liaisons
      • There were negotiations about pre-requisites that do not seem to have been honored
      • Course is not taught by an OSU faculty member; they don’t seem to have an OSU email and the proposer is not the same person as on the syllabus.
      • Course is not appropriate for the category and would need extensive pre-requisites that make it inappropriate for the BC.
        • Synthesis courses are supposed to be lower division courses
      • ‘It critiques without first understanding’. The course is applying economics to a situation, but is not teaching economics
      • Needs to be re-liaised
        • Motion to send back with comments and a note that it needs to be re-liaised; seconded. The motion passed with 13 in favor, none against. No abstentions
    • BEE 481
      • Approved with no discussion needed.

No Discussion Needed

  • GER 411
    • Approved with no discussion needed.
  • GEOG 240 – Social Processes and Institutions
    • Approved with no discussion needed.
  • SOC 482 – Science, Technology & Society
    • Approved with no discussion needed.