Baccalaureate Core Committee

Voting members present: Kathy 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; Ecampus – Karen Watte; Undergraduate Education – Heath Henry; WIC – Sarah Perrault

CIM Training cont’d.

• Reviews can search by Course Code, Title and Workflow
• There are two types of proposals: New Course and Change Course
  • Change Course proposals are filled predominately from Banner. Green text is new text and red text is text to be removed.
• Liaisons are listed – comments are at the bottom
• Course Information and Justification are listed
• Schedule Type will list modalities and Campus Location will state specific location
• Pre-reqs are listed further down
• Baccalaureate Core (BC) Questions are listed after pre-requisites – questions are based on the outcomes and will ask 3 questions based on outcomes
• Learning Components – will list course specific outcomes
• Course Content – Essentially the course calendar
• Evaluation – how grading is done
• Syllabi linked in space under evaluation
• Occasionally there is course documentation – records from the old Curriculum Proposal System if they had been moved over
• Comments – Anyone can comment on proposals, but they are typically from liaisons and reviewers. Oldest comments are listed first. Only reviewers can rollback proposals.

Contemporary Global Issues

• SOC 480
  • The syllabus has no assessment information related to outcomes.
  • There is nothing on the provided syllabus that states it is an Ecampus course. OSU-Cascades did not provide a syllabus for their campus.
  • The writing assignment does not seem to meet the 1,250 word count requirement.
  • The syllabus does not include the schedule or outline.
  • How can it serve graduate and undergraduate level with no pre-reqs? Is there additional material for Grad students? Additional Outcomes?
    • Motion to send back with comments with one month to resubmit; seconded. The motion passed with 10 in favor, none against. One abstention.
• ENT/HORT 331
  • It needs to explicitly state how it meets the BC requirements.
  • No links between assessment and outcomes – the table makes it clear but it’s missing from the syllabus
  • High grade skew in the As.
  • Meets the writing requirement.
    • Motion to recertify with comments to make small changes; seconded. The motion passed with 10 in favor, none against. One abstention.
• SOC 454
  • The title is Leisure and Society – how is leisure a contemporary global issue?
    • Is it referring to work-life balance?
  • Some major concerns: they do not mention the 1,250 writing assignments in either syllabus.
  • There is no verbatim BC statement.
  • No explanation on course assignments
  • They do not explain how assignments are linked to outcomes or assessment
  • They state that there is diversity in the types of students who take the course, but it is largely taken by College of Liberal Arts (CLA) students.
  • There are a lot of copy/paste information and it carries over spelling mistakes.
  • It appears that the course has already been decertified from the catalog– it is not listed in the catalog. Was it removed by the registrar’s office? Was there a procedural issue? There was supposed to be an extension. The schedule says it’s still a BC course…
    • Any courses who got an extension, will the committee need to check back on those to make sure they were not decertified prematurely?
      • Motion to decertify; seconded. The motion passed with 10 in favor, none against. One abstention.
      • McKenzie will reach out to Belinda regarding the discrepancy between the catalog and schedule of classes.
• WGSS 360
  • The way the form is filled out – 5 people are noted, but only one instructor was listed. It wasn’t clear what the structure of the course was. Other instructors are Graduate Teaching Assistants.
  • No assessments from each instructor who teaches the course.
    • Predominately uses a shared syllabus and is controlled by the primary instructor.
  • The Contemporary Global Issues (CGI) outcomes are bulleted and the Course Specific Learning Outcomes (CSLOs) are numbered. In areas noted in assessments, it refers to outcome one, but there are only bullets. It leads to some measure of confusion. It is technically sufficient, but the committee usually prefers a little more specificity.
    • Move up assessments connections below the outcomes and make them just a little more specific.
  • In the course description, there might be a way to make it clearer why masculinity is an issue.
    • Motion to send back with comments for minor changes to be resubmitted in one month; seconded. The motion passed with 10 in favor, none against. One abstention.

Course Proposals

• SUS 375 – SPI
  • This course will be discussed during the next committee meeting.
• GEO 332 – CGI
  • This course will be discussed during the next committee meeting.
• PAC 305 – PAC
  • No discussion needed
    • Approve with comments to use approved grading scale.
• PHL 475 – STS
  • Initially submitted last year.
  • There is a lot of grammatical and formatting issues that make the syllabus difficult to read.
  • There is not enough information on how the course meets the learning outcomes. There needs to be more detail on how the course relates to the category.
  • It is not clear how students are receiving feedback on their writing assignments.
    • Motion to send back and request a table with a clear statement of alignments; seconded. The motion passed with 10 in favor, none against. One abstention.