Meeting Date: 
October 12, 2020
10/12/2020 11:00 am to 12:00 pm
Zoom Meeting
  1. Welcome New Member
  1. Dual-listed Course Review Training
  1. Registrar Scheduling Update (if time permits)

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


Welcome New Member

Dual-listed Course Review Training

  • 79 courses were on the list originally. 51 have so far decided to drop a second category on their own without going through the review process. This number may go up. Around 20 have not sent in anything. Seven courses have responded saying that want to remain in both categories and will go through the review process.
  • Committee members will receive an email with the course they’re reviewing, what categories they’re in and links to SharePoint and the review form. If members lose the link to the form, Heath can resend it.
    • SharePoint has all the course information
    • The SharePoint link will open to the category page. The menu is on the left and the folders will be named by course. There will be syllabi for each faculty member and each modality.
  • The CORE report will show grade spread, the colleges that students belong to, what years students are taking the course in.
    • Keep an eye out for anything unusual
      • High grade skew to A’s or F’s
      • High withdrawal rate
      • Attendance caps (WICs have a cap of 25 students)
      • Bi-modal grading (only As or Fs)
    • All syllabi required to have verbatim statements.
      • Minimum Syllabus requirements
      • Dual-listed courses must state both categories and state that students don’t get credit for both categories.
      • All outcomes must be listed.
      • Must state how the course meets both categories
      • Must state how each Learning Outcomes is assessed
    • If they send a single syllabus for faculty, they’ll have to answer the question for each faculty, but will not need to update multiple copies of the same syllabus.
    • Survey filled out by faculty – lists questions based on the course and how it meets all the BC requirements. More detail is better.
      • With multiple instructors – it is ideal to see blurbs on how each faculty teaches the course.
      • How is it assessed
      • What are the activities and how do they relate to the outcomes
      • How do the activities connect to both categories and how many outcomes they relate to?
      • Strengths, weaknesses, where do students struggle?
        • Is the capacity requested?
          • There are no specific questions, but that information is in the CORE report (cap of 70 for synthesis, cap of 25 for WIC)
  • Reviewers will fill out a Qualtrics survey. If submitted by mistake, Heath can reopen the form.
    • First few questions similar to previous forms. First questions related to CORE data, campus modalities, is it an Honors course?
    • Next few questions are about syllabus and faculty roles. Includes checklist and a space to make notes. If you’re not sure about something, write the question in the notes and it can be discussed during the meeting.
    • Criteria review – checklist of what to look for and whether or not the reviewer feels it meets the criteria.
    • Does the reviewer feel they did a good job covering both categories? Covering either category?
    • Does the course meet the outcomes for each category?
    • Slider – does the reviewer feel their spending enough time on each category?
    • How well do they cover each category?
    • Renewal recommendation
  • Would it be beneficial to have two reviewers on each course? They could review the course together and sift through it before presenting it to the committee.
    • Links for the survey form can be sent to others. There can be a main reviewer and a backup who can also look over it. Having two reviewers could help provide some clarity.
      • With only 7 submitted courses, it would be within the capacity of the committee to have two people look at course. Only one form will be submitted.
  • It might be a good idea to have reviewers of DPD and WIC courses to speak with the Ex-Officios regarding those courses before the meetings.
  • Should courses be reviewed by members in the same discipline? Is there a way to balance the colleges of who is reviewing what? Outside perspective should be considered.
    • In the team assignments, diversity of colleges would be a good idea.
      • Neither reviewer needs to be from the home college, it’s about providing different perspectives.
  • Heath will provide a brief CIM overview for the next meeting.

Registrar Scheduling Update (if time permits)

  • Met with them over the summer to develop policies about cap requirements. A new tool would be used to assist with monitoring and reporting courses that attempt to bypass capacity restrictions.
    • The tool was supposed to be implemented for Spring, but was pushed back to Fall 2021. This means courses can go over capacity requirements for the remainder of the year.