Baccalaureate Core Committee

Voting members present: Aidas Banaitis, Geoffrey Barstow, Daniel Faltesek, Colin Johnson, Matthew Kennedy, Rene Reitsma, Randy Rosenberger, Justin St. Germain, Kari-Lyn Sakuma, Thomas Shelly, Kaplan Yalcin
Voting members absent: Kelsey Emard, Jack Istok, Lori McGraw, Ifeoma Ozoede,
Ex-officio members present: Assessment & Accreditation – Heath Henry; Ecampus – Karen Watte; WIC – Sarah Perrault
Guests: John Edwards, McKenzie Huber, Michael Jefferies, Caryn Stoess, Kristin Nagy-Katz

Course Review

• BI 205/206
  • Sent back last week.
  • Concerns were addressed.
    • Connections between learning outcomes and assessment were made
    • Outside document was addressed and connections were vague.

Action: Motion to approve; seconded. Motion passed with 9 votes in favor, 0 votes in opposition and 1 abstention.

• CE/ARE 418
  • WIC course
  • No issues or concerns were noted.
  • Marked as exemplary by one of the reviewers.

Action: Motion to approve; seconded. Motion passed with 9 votes in favor, 0 votes in opposition and 1 abstention.

GenEd Policy Discussion

• Category Review Schedule
  • Compliance reviews?
    • How often?
    • What pattern? Age? Or Category?
      • Age – pro: courses don’t go for an excessive period without review
      • Category – pro: committee gains expertise of the category
        • If a course was not taught the previous year, it skipped review. One committee member proposed never skipping a course, whether it was taught or not.
      • Ideally with the new Core Education model, there should be far fewer courses that will allow for a more frequent review cycle.
        • Required professional development should also improve the quality of the courses coming into the Core, which will improve the review process.
        • Continuous flow, 3- and 5-year review cycles may be a good place to start.
• Learning Outcome Assessment – Kristin Nagy Catz, Heath Henry
  • Conclusion of list of assessment types
    • Narrow consideration of points 1 and 2 of assessment
      • All units must participate in assessment under penalty of decertification
      • Core framework: faculty may choose assessment metric for each category they are participating in.
        • Rubrics will be developed.
        • 7 kinds of assignments/signature assignment
          • Presentation
          • Paper
          • Anthology (collection of smaller writing assignments)
          • Exams
          • Performance
          • Project
            • Would this include experiential learning? (Labs, field work, etc.)
              • Yes
          • Reflection (student response to specific activity)
            • Combinations could be permitted

Action: Motion to accept the proposed policy – For the purposes of assessment, faculty will select the appropriate assessment instrument, this will be declared during the proposal process; seconded. The motion passed with 10 votes in favor, 0 votes in opposition and 0 abstentions.