Meeting Date: 
November 16, 2020
11/16/2020 11:00 am to 12:00 pm
Zoom Meeting
  1. Course Proposals
    • Discussion Needed
      • HST 476 – Difference, Power & Discrimination
  1. Dual-listed Category Review
    • WSE 266 – Western Cultures, Social Processes & Institutions
  1. Check in on Double-listed Reviews

Voting members present: Kathryn Becker Blease, Kelsey Emard, Daniel Faltesek, McKenzie Huber, Jack Istok, Matt Kennedy, Lori McGraw, Rene Reitsma, David Roundy, Rorie Solberg, Kaplan Yalcin
Voting members absent: Heather Arbuckle, Aidas Banaitis
Ex-Officio members present: DPD Director – Bradley Boovy; Academic Programs and Assessment – Heath Henry; WIC Director – Sara Tinker Perrault; Ecampus – Karen Watte

Course Proposals

  • Discussion Needed
    • ENG 109
      • Resubmitted addressing some of the issues but the instructor is insisting that course specific Learning Outcomes are not required.
        • Course specific learning outcomes are a minimum syllabus requirements
        • For Baccalaureate Core (BC) courses, it states ‘in addition to the syllabus minimum requirement’, heavily implying that course specific outcomes are to be listed separately from BC outcomes
        • APA notes that while it may have been allowed in the past for the course to not have specific, separate, distinct outcomes, it is now no longer appropriate to not have separate outcomes.
          • Motion to send back to the instructor with notes to include specific, separate, distinct outcomes from the BC outcomes; seconded. Motion passes 10 in favor, none against. No abstentions.
    • HST 476 – Difference, Power & Discrimination (DPD)
      • Seems to fit DPD category well, but does require some work.
      • Do not describe how students will be assessed on BC Learning Outcomes (LOs)
      • BC DPD statement is not verbatim and should be moved to the top of the syllabus.
      • Some typos
      • No assessment of how anything in the course meets the LOs – lacking connections between activities and outcomes
      • BC LOs were pasted back into the CIM form
      • Difficult to ascertain if contemporary sources are being used.
        • Invited speakers can be considered contemporary sources.
          • Concerns about being able to guarantee speakers each time the course is offered. If the speakers are not available, how do they insure consistent course content?
            • Quite a few speakers are existing Faculty
            • If they aren’t available, how else will they meet the outcomes
      • Needs connections between historical and contemporary examples.
      • How do DPD courses meet criteria 9 – interactive activities? Are large DPD courses able to meet that criteria? Should course caps for DPD courses be implemented? There is also discussion of making DPD courses upper division courses only.
        • Motion to send back, suggesting they work with APA regarding multiple issues; seconded. The motion passes 11 in favor, none against. No abstentions.

Dual-listed Category Review

  • WSE 266 – Western Cultures, Social Processes & Institutions
    • Course content – appears to be a technical course regarding hemp and renewable resources.
      • Based on the course content – it doesn’t seem to meet either category
    • In old responses, it did appear to meet the category, but when asked to describe how it fits both categories, it struggles to meet all the outcomes adequately.
    • The writing assignment does not appear to meet the requirement. They leave it up to the student to decide if they’re doing an SPI or WC specific paper. Since students can change which category the course counts for, it causes a variety of issues.
    • There has likely been substantial course drift since it was originally submitted.
      • Motion to decertify in both categories; seconded. Motion passes with 10 in favor, none against. One abstention.
  • HST 201 – Western Culture (WC), DPD
    • The submitter provided quite a lot of detail.
      • They answered questions on the form as if all instructors teach the course the exact same way.
        • Faculty do not have one syllabi they all work from.
        • Not all syllabi meet what was stated in the form, eg., The form mentions that all courses do a weekly paper, but the weekly paper is not always mentioned in the syllabus.
    • They do a good job of explaining how it meets the DPD course, but not as good of a job of meeting WC.
    • Two syllabi do not have a weekly schedule.
    • Unclear what the contemporary resources or connections are.
    • No interactive activities mentioned – the submitter did state that they will work on this.
    • Missing an Honors syllabus – possibly a misclick as this is not an Honors only course.
    • One syllabus is missing the BC outcomes
    • Some of the syllabi do not have BC outcomes written verbatim.
    • A research paper is mentioned in the form but is not discussed in the syllabi.
    • All syllabi lack connections between outcomes and course activities.
    • They did a lot of work in making their argument for DPD and they got very specific, but many of the syllabi do not do everything listed in the form.
      • The course will be discussed further next week after the secondary reviewer has looked over the course.
    • DPD feels that maybe the course does not fit the category well. The DPD office will be looking over the course more and will discuss it next week.

Check in on Double-listed Reviews

  • There was not enough time to discuss these reviews. They will be discussed during the next meeting.