Meeting Date: 
May 3, 2019
05/03/2019 12:00 pm to 1:00 pm
379 Weniger Hall
Event Description: 

A PDF of the agenda can be found here.

A PDF of the minutes can be found here.

  1. Category II Reviews
    • FW 454
    • MUS 331
    • MTH 338
    • H 476
    • GEOG 105
    • ENG 221
    • PAC 323/332
  2. Category Reviews
    • GEO 202
    • SOIL/FOR 205

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

Category II Reviews

  • FW 454
    • The course was submitted two years ago for a course description update, but there were no changes made on the form.
    • It is still missing required WIC and Ecampus documents and has not provided any updated, 2019 materials.
    • The reviewer feels that the syllabus is only about 50% complete.
      • Send back for major revisions.
  • MUS 331, Cultural Diversity
    • It is not clear how the course topics connect with other subject areas.
    • The second and third learning outcomes (LOs) are not covered well. The answers on the form are very vague and the third outcomes is not addressed correctly. The third outcome is to discuss how the topic influences other cultures, but the answers on the form reference how other cultures affect the topic.
    • How assignments are assessed and linked to the outcomes is also very vague. Nearly every assignment is linked to the third outcome, but the third outcome is one of the most weakly addressed in the form.
    • Course assignments seem to favor students studying music.
      • Send back for major revisions.
  • MTH 338, Writing Intensive Curriculum (WIC)
    • The instruction handout is not provided and is not attached to the syllabus.
      • Send back for minor revisions
  • H 476
    • Approved with no further discussion needed.
  • GEOG 105
    • Missing the verbatim Baccalaureate Core (BC) statement.
    • No information on the syllabus on how the BC LOs are assessed, but that information is present in the form filled out by the originator.
    • This is a course description change, but there is talk in the college of also changing the name of the course.
      • This may come back around once a name change has been decided on, but the committee will focus on the current proposal of a course description change.
        • Send back for revisions, requesting that the information on BC LOs in the form be added to the syllabus.
  • ENG 221
    • The course is originally a Literature & the Arts course; they are attempting to add it to the Difference, Power & Discrimination (DPD) category
    • The committee is not willing to approve it for the DPD category due to some issues:
      • The course does not spend a lot of time focusing on DPD outcomes.
      • Answers on outcomes and assessments on the form are vague.
    • It was approved by the DPD office with no comments.
      • Send back citing concerns that the course does not adequately focus on DPD outcomes.
  • PAC 323/332
    • A resubmission; the student conduct link has not been updated.
    • The mountaineering course references kayaking.
    • There is some language in the LOs that is confusing.
      • Send back with some suggested language.

Category Review

  • GEO 202
    • High A-skew in the grades.
    • Has a very nice assessment statement.
    • The three BC outcomes should be addressed more specifically.
    • The course copyright blurb is unusual, possibly an attempt to keep students from uploading to sites like coursehero. Is this enforceable?
      • Send to Executive Committee and Faculty Senate for discussion.
  • SOIL/FOR 205
    • Three credits + one credit lab in Soil or Forestry. The class is marked as fulfilling both biological and physical science requirements.
    • The committee feels that by trying to meet both requirements, the students may be losing out on the experience and that the course content may be watered down. If this is the only course students are taking in these categories, is it enough?
    • The course content leans more heavily into the physical sciences.
    • Currently there is no difference in the outcomes/criteria between the two sciences.
      • Should the committee amend the language in the requirements to be more distinctive?
    • Should the committee invite the originator to explain how the course equitably meets the requirements for both sciences?

Other Business

  • A committee member may be unable to continue serving. The Faculty Senate office will reach out to them to discuss options.
  • The Baccalaureate Core Workgroup will be meeting May 6, 2019. They are developing a strategic plan for the BC, based on the systems analysis.