Voting members present: Heather Arbuckle, Ivan Arismendi, Aidas Banaitis, Geoffrey Barstow, Daniel Faltesek, Matthew Kennedy, Jack Istok, Lori McGraw, Kyle Niemeyer, Rene Reitsma, Randy Rosenberger, Justin St. Germain, Kaplan Yalcin
Voting members absent: Kelsey Emard
Ex-officio members present: Ecampus – Karen Watte, Undergraduate Education – Heath Henry, WIC – Sarah Perrault
Guests: Funmi Amobi, Dwaine Plaza
Meeting Time and Schedule for Winter Quarter
-
There 67 Science, Technology and Society (STS) courses currently in the queue. In order to complete reviews by February deadline, we need to extend meeting times.
-
Extend December 2 and December 9 meetings to 90 meetings (12:30-2:00) and add an additional two-hour meeting on December 14.
CIM Reviews
-
ATS 342 – Contemporary Global Issues
-
The committee will discuss on December 2
-
LEAD 341 – Cultural Diversity
-
Appropriate for the category.
-
Upper-level course – it needs to be lower division.
-
The Baccalaureate Core (BC) verbatim statement is missing.
-
The Cultural Diversity Learning Outcomes (LOs) have been modified to fit into the context of leadership.
Action: Motion to send back for the levels issue and the proforma statements; motion seconded and passed with 12 votes in favor, 0 votes in opposition and 0 votes in abstention.
-
HST/PHL 480 – WIC
-
Approved with no discussion needed
-
ANTH 352 – Contemporary Global Issues
-
Approved with no discussion needed
-
PHL/REL 445 – Contemporary Global Issues
-
Approved with no discussion needed
Category Reviews – Science, Technology & Society
-
EAH 411
-
Needs to address how it meets LO 1 and 2 in some more detail
-
Answers are brief with little information on how outcomes are met and assessed.
-
Otherwise seems to fit the category – but it’s hard to tell for sure with the lack of detail.
-
Was offered as a WIC last year but is no longer being offered in that category.
Action: Motion to send back to get the on-campus syllabus and to get outcomes 1 and 2; add a table/matrix/narrative thereto; motion seconded and passed with 13 votes in favor, 0 votes in opposition and 0 votes in abstention.
-
FW 350
-
Good distribution across the majors.
-
The syllabi do not talk about the LOs and how they relate to course content or how they are assessed.
-
It is unclear how technology connects to the content of the course.
-
No individual writing assignments that meet the STS requirements for any of the modalities.
-
The different modalities all seem to have different course specific learning outcomes
Action: Motion to send back for four things: 1. Learning outcome agreement, 2. Connection between outcomes and assessments, 3. no critical perspective on science/technology, 4. Non-compliant writing assignment; motion seconded and passed with 12 votes in favor, 0 votes in opposition and 0 votes in abstention.
-
HEST 412
-
The committee will discuss on December 2
-
FES/TOX 435
-
One assignment asks students to discuss their experience and history in research and genetics, which not all students may have.
-
Lacks minimum syllabus requirements and lists no learning materials. No course description.
-
Lists two BC statements, but the second one is incorrect.
-
Writing assignment does not meet LO 3.
-
They do not explicitly explain how policy or society is integrated into the course content.
-
The do have several guest speakers, but it’s unclear if any of them will be relating content of the course to society.
-
All assessment notations are the same.
Action: Motion to send back for five things: 1. Does not meet minimum syllabus requirements, 2. No writing assignment, 3. No alignment, 4. concerns about use of guest speakers, 5. Normative, not critical view of science; motion seconded and passed with 13 votes in favor, 0 votes in opposition and 0 votes in abstention.
-
HST 417
-
No course LOs nor STS LOs listed on syllabus.
-
Matrix should be listed on syllabus.
-
It’s unclear if the course fits the category.
-
Needs more detail in how the course and course activities relate to the category.
-
No mention of the BC at all.
Action: Motion to send back for category outcomes, required materials, assessment methods, and writing assignment; motion seconded and passed with 12 votes in favor, 0 votes in opposition and 0 votes in abstention.
-
PAX 301
-
It doesn’t refer often to technology.
-
It’s unclear how it fits the category.
-
There are grammatical issues that make the proposal difficult to read.
-
The writing assignment is very unclear.
Action: Motion to send back and authorize the co-chairs to write meaningful feedback; motion seconded and passed with 12 votes in favor, 0 votes in opposition and 0 votes in abstention.