Baccalaureate Core Committee

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: Difference, Power & Discrimination – Kali Furman; Ecampus – Karen Watte; Undergrad Education – Heath Henry; WIC – Sarah Perrault
Guests present: Funmi Amobi, McKenzie Huber, Dwaine Plaza

Course Proposal

• RNG 470 – Contemporary Global Issues (CGI)
  • Has been sent back multiple times. This is an existing course they are trying to place into the Baccalaureate Core (BC).
  • The course has recommended disciplinary-based pre-requisites and it is noted in the proposal that students who take the pre-requisites are better prepared to succeed in the course.
  • What is the contemporary global issue being illuminated from the course content?
    • The Baccalaureate Core Committee (BCC) determined last year that the course could be appropriate for the category and they only needed some finishing touches on the syllabus and proposal.
    • It’s not clear to some newer members what contemporary issue is being addressed.
      • The reviewer would like them to make a stronger case for what contemporary issue is being addressed.

Action: Motion to roll back the proposal based on the comments in the previous send back that were not addressed; motion seconded and passed with 11 in favor, 1 vote in opposition and 1 vote in abstention.

Category Reviews – Science, Technology & Society

• AEC 353
  • Only five students enrolled last year, four of which from the college that offers the course. It does have pre-requisites, but they are appropriate for a synthesis course.
    • Three passed, one withdrew.
    • It is in development as an Ecampus course, but it is not planned to run online until Spring 2022 at the earliest.
  • It’s not serving students from diverse fields. It’s unclear if it’s appropriate for students from different disciplines.
  • It is unclear from the syllabus and form whether or not it fits or is appropriate for the BC.
  • Unclear how course activities address and assess outcomes.
  • It’s a good major course, but there are not many connections to Learning Outcomes (LOs) 1 and 2. LO 3 is met nicely with a writing assignment.

Action: Motion to request revisions to syllabi to show explicit examples on how the course addressed and assesses outcomes 1 and 2; motion seconded and passed with 13 in favor, 0 votes in opposition and 1 vote in abstention.

• HST 481
  • Corvallis syllabus is lacking the BC verbatim statement. The Corvallis syllabus also does not explain how the course assesses the BC LOs.
  • Neither Ecampus or Corvallis have writing assignments that meet the category requirements.

Action: Motion to send back and request they add the verbatim BC fulfilment statement to the Corvallis syllabus and for Corvallis syllabus to add how it addresses and assesses LOs 1 and 2 and for both Ecampus and Corvallis syllabi to develop writing assignments for outcome 3 that fit the STS category; motion seconded and passed with 13 in favor, 0 votes in opposition and 1 vote in abstention.

• AG 411
  • Originally under AEC 411 and was moved to AG.
  • The course looks really good.
  • Missing the verbatim statement.
  • The course has been handed off to a new instructor – are we missing any syllabi?
  • They list no cost materials, but there is a $120 textbook required for the course.
  • Listed in 18 academic programs.

Action: Motion to approve the course, provided they add the verbatim BC statement; motion seconded and passed with 12 in favor, 0 votes in opposition and 1 vote in abstention.

• BOT 325
  • Had some substantial issues – LOs not assessed in the syllabus. No clear connections in the table.
  • Writing assignment not appropriate for the category.
  • In the questionnaire, they admitted they were not aware of the BC LOs, they had not been assessing them but assured them they would be assessing them going forward.

Action: Motion to send back, given that the learning outcomes were not assessed we would request the future syllabus that speaks to the question of the learning outcomes which we will review at that point; motion seconded and passed with 13 in favor, 0 votes in opposition and 1 vote in abstention.