Baccalaureate Core Committee

Baccalaureate Core Committee

April 7, 2014

Minutes

Voting Members Present: Robert Brudvig, Linda Bruslind, Kevin Gable, Melinda Manore, Rebecca Olson, Bob Paasch, Malgo Peszynska, Ken Winograd

Voting Members Absent: Jaga Giebultowicz, Lori Kayes, Kirsi Peltomaki, McKenzie Pfeifer

Ex-Officio Members Present: Stefani Dawn (Academic Affairs), Vicki Tolar Burton (WIC)

1.  Outstanding New Course Proposals:

• #88995  OC201 – Peszynska
  • Could be considered as exemplary, but syllabus was scary in terms of breadth. Grading policy was very intricate. The course was originally OC331 and the request is to change to 201; the proposal was submitted as a new course rather than a change; and concerned whether 300-level course is sufficiently watered down for a 200-level course. It was not specifically indicated whether intensity and depth was decreased from OC331, which needs to be dropped. It may only be interdisciplinary within Science.
  •  Are there connections outside of science?

Action: Kevin will indicate that BCC was impressed with proposal, approval presumes that OC331 would be dropped so students could not take both courses for credit; is the course really 200-level; and lab syllabus needs to be more detailed.

• #88913  IT261 – Peltomaki
  • Good course and good fit for category, checklist items are fine, answers to assessment question are less well-thought out than the rest of the proposal (the first question is not answered), recommendation is to pass, although supportive of committee returning for assessment  issue.
  • The committee did not wish to return the proposal.

Action: Kevin will inform the proposers that the course is approved.

• 89135  PHL 345  Olson
  • Looks great, no concerns or objections,

Action: Kevin will inform proposers that the course is approved.

2.  Debrief on Category Review Process

a)  How to manage confusion between courses in a Category Review and New Course Proposals?  This seemed extensive.

• Suggested to include in the message: Category Review or New Course Proposal and link to  number
• Could the BCC concentrate on either the reviews or new course proposals, and how much could be moved online?
  • Focusing on one or the other is not likely due to the volume, and Kevin didn’t feel it could be condensed into a shorter timeline.
    • Suggested having one group focus on one area, rather than each member moving between the two.
• Is there someone who could provide clerical support to determine deficiencies? Stefani noted that the purpose is to ensure that all BCC members are looking equally at the same information.
  • What is the value of the committee pulling out IR data and transferring data to Qualtrics? What if some members only did IR data? Some felt they would need to refer back to the spreadsheet to determine what occurred, so there would be duplication. Could ask proposers to look at areas (i.e. DFW rate).
• Sometimes meaning of data on Qualtrics was duplicated – is there a way to avoid this? Stefani noted that the process still needs to be tweaked.
• Regarding moving the course review process online – Stefani felt it would be easy to do this.
• When generating an online form for reviewing new course or course changes, incorporate checklists and a comments field. Whatever is placed online would need to look very different from the category review to easily differentiate the two.

3.  Planning for 2014-2015 Category Review:  Engineering WIC, DPD courses

• Changes to general approach (from Item 2) – Specific questions for the DPD category
  • Stefani noted that they are developing a draft of a new form for proposers to use for the category review; the members reviewed the draft and suggested revisions.
    • Include CLOs as part of the Student Evaluation of Teaching and ask every student to rate themselves for every course. Stefani indicated this is already done by category, and is included with data that reviewers see on Share Point. Faculty Senate agreement is that data will only be aggregated by category; could ask instructors to include if they have the course information from students.

• Is anything missing that would have helped with reviews?
  • There is not an open-ended question about how the unit handles assessment.
• Stefani will work on changing the reviewer form and bring back to the BCC.
• WIC draft changes are not yet ready.

4.  Other issues?

• Multi-state Collaborative Pilot Project
  • Ways to recruit faculty:
    • Email from Kevin inviting faculty to participate in the Provost’s Team for Oregon Higher Education Assessment early next week. Target audience: faculty teaching high enrollment courses,
    • Create webform of faculty interests.
    • There could be levels of participation:
      • Level 1 – provide student work samples; 
      • Level 2 – participate in state-wide conference in Portland;
      • Level 3 – participate as a state-and national level reviewer for the  Multi-State Collaborative
    • Host explanatory sessions during the last week of April.
    • Expand form to gauge interest.
  • The members present felt this was a reasonable approach.

• Course Specific Outcomes Related to Writing
  • Vicki distributed a draft document and requested input:
    • Add the Honors course – Vicki will request information from the University Honors College
  • Contacts: the information will be sent to advisors, placed on Bacc Core website, and Vicki will meet with both advising councils to respond to WRII inquiries. Vicki would like one BCC member to accompany her to the advising councils.

Meeting adjourned at 2:30 PM.