Baccalaureate Core Committee

Voting members present: Kathy Becker-Blease, Kelsey Emard, Daniel Faltesek, McKenzie Huber, Jack Istok, Matt Kennedy, Lori McGraw, David Roundy, Rene Reitsma, Rorie Solberg, Kaplan Yalcin
Voting members absent: Heather Arbuckle, Aidas Banaitis
Ex-Officio members present: Ecampus – Karen Watte; WIC Director – Sarah Tinker Perrault; Undergraduate Education – Heath Henry

Category Review Assignments – Heath Henry

• Will be sent out by Wednesday this week.
• Will there still be two reviewers per course?
  • Heath can send the link to the primary reviewer and the primary reviewer will share the link with the secondary reviewer. One form will be submitted.
  • Heath will send the courses to the Co-Chairs and they will determine the reviewers.
• There are 12 courses submitted
• Due by the end of December and begin talking about them in January. Done with reviews and discussion by February 1.

Expedited Proposals

• Expedited proposals bypass the committee, which causes problems when the courses come around for review.
• A new option came through to be part of the approval stage for expedited proposals. It will have to go through the Curriculum Council first for discussion and approval. The co-chairs are in talks with the Curriculum Council about this. WIC and DPD will also have the options to be either an approval stage or tagged in an FYI email.
• From the Ecampus viewpoint – one issue with courses is that, after approval, the courses tweak their courses and syllabi so they drift out of alignment. Adding an extra step does slow down the process a little. Development will also slow down and Ecampus would have to recommend that people start the two-term process earlier.
  • While it may slow down the Ecampus development, it would insure the course meets the Baccalaureate Core (BC) requirements. It will need to be made clear to instructors that this could impact the timeline of when courses will be up and ready for Ecampus.
  • Can these courses be prioritized to avoid slowing down the expedited process too much?
• Adding a modality means that how you get to the Learning Outcome (LOs) can be different than how it is met on campus. There are often different instructors, as well, who teach the course differently.
• When adding a modality, syllabi are not checked to make sure that the outcomes are being met, only that the learning outcomes are listed.

Contemporary Global Issues Category Review

• No Discussion Needed
  • PS 345
    • Approved with no discussion needed.

Course Proposals

• ENG 109 – Literature & the Arts
  • The actual material was in alignment with the category expectations.
  • The BC outcomes are only listed in the table.
    • As long as they are clear, it is fine to have them listed on the table.
  • Only have the Baccalaureate Core LOs, there are no course specific learning outcomes (CSLOs)
    • CSLOs are a minimum syllabus requirements.
  • There’s a statement under the code of conduct link that has some additional verbiage that seems to go beyond the scope of traditional plagiarism expectations.
    • This is a little problematic, but it seems like the instructor wants to avoid students putting their assignments on course share. Perhaps better wording could be used?
  • The syllabus lacks historical and cultural context
    • CSLOs could help provide this context. More detail is provided in the proposal, but it’s not clear on the syllabus.
      • Motion to send back requesting CSLOs be added that address the lack of historical and cultural context, the lack of connections and that they make the context and connections are clear on the syllabus; seconded. Motion passed with 9 in favor; none against. There was one abstention.
• AG 351 – Contemporary Global Issues
  • Approved with no discussion needed.
  • Well done syllabus that will be shared at the next meeting.