Meeting Date: 
October 28, 2021
10/28/2021 1:00 pm to 2:00 pm
Zoom Meeting
  1. Informational Item

  1. Introduction of Proposed Revisions to AR 21 and AR 31 (5 minutes)
    • Please review the proposed revisions and be ready to discuss/comment on November 4.
  1. CIM Proposal
    • AG 320
  1. Category Reviews – Science, Technology & Society
    • BB 332
    • BI 347
    • BI 348
    • BOT 324
    • CS 391/391H
    • EAH 411
    • ENGR 350
    • BI 345

Voting members present: Heather Arbuckle, 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: Ivan Arismendi, Kelsey Emard
Ex-officio members present: Ecampus – Karen Watte; Academic Affairs – Heath Henry, WIC – Sarah Perrault

Guests: Funmi Amobi, McKenzie Huber, Dwaine Plaza

Proposed Standing Rules Revisions – 5 minutes

  • Responses from the Hatfield Marine Science Center and Eastern Oregon – they do not see a need to have seats on the Committee at this time but appreciate being reached out to by the committee.
  • Where did the committee land on changing the Undergraduate Education language to Academic Affairs?
    • ‘Academic Affairs representative appointed by the Vice Provost for Academic Affairs’

Action: Move to approve the recommendation with the minor revision indicated to the text in blue; motion seconded and passed with 10 votes in favor, 0 votes in opposition and 0 votes in abstention.

Informational Item

  • Baccalaureate Core Committee Reference Guide
    • The various links can be found through the Baccalaureate Core (BC) website, but there was some concern it would be hard to find them all, so the reference guide was created so the BCC could find links quickly.
    • Suggested that it is placed in the Resource Materials tab of the Baccalaureate Core Committee (BCC) webpage.

Introduction of Proposed Revisions to AR 21 and AR 31 (5 minutes)

  • Please review the proposed revisions and be ready to discuss/comment on November 4.
    • Being presented for review and will be discussed in further detail next week. The Academic Regulations Committee chair would like the BCC’s comments on the revisions by November 8.
    • Fresh Start – gives the students a fresh start if they have experienced academic hardship by resetting their GPA and removing some of their poor grades.
      • Should the language be more specific about the program students are looking to get a fresh start in?

CIM Proposal

  • AG 320
    • Proposed for the Cultural Diversity (CD) category.
    • Lacking the verbatim (BC) statement.
    • Doesn’t specifically state how either syllabi meet the BC learning outcomes (LOs).
    • There are programs around this topic and it is well-covered at OSU. Is there a need for this type of course in the BC?
      • Noted that there were no courses like this in Agricultural Sciences.
      • There are no Anthropology courses in this category. There is only one similar course in the category, relating to Native American agriculture.
    • There does not seem to be any kind of theoretical perspective that you would expect around an anthropological topic.
      • It doesn’t need to be theoretical, per se, but it doesn’t express how perspectives change based on historical or cultural contexts.
    • It is an upper division course, but it’s unclear how it meets the requirements of an upper division course.
    • It’s unclear how the course meets the goals of the CD category
    • It does meet the course LO 1, but the next two LOs are poorly addressed in activities and assessment. It doesn’t seem to reflexively engage broader systems of meaning.
    • There is the potential of an uncleared negative liaison comment from the anthropology department regarding adding higher level reading to the course. Did the changes address their concerns?
    • The course also does not seem to have any activities or discussion on how the content of the course influences or contributes to global cultural, scientific, or social processes.

Action: Move to roll back to address the four major concerns discussed; motion seconded and passed with 12 votes in favor, 0 votes in opposition and 0 votes in abstention.

Category Reviews – Science, Technology & Society

  • BB 332
    • The reviewer was unsure if the syllabi were clear in how the course connected to the BC LOs. The Cascades syllabus did a better job of making those connections.
    • There did not seem to be much connection to the impact on society. It seems clear how the topic could integrate into social issues, but it’s not touched on in the syllabus. There also does not seem to be any discussion on society affects science.
    • The Corvallis syllabus made a change to the second outcome from ‘science’ to ‘medicine’ and it is very telling in the assignment how they are addressing society in the course.
      • The catalog description does give the idea that the course used to be more in alignment with the category, but there appears to have been some drift.
    • Nearly all enrolled students are in Science and the grade average skews highly into the ‘A’s.
    • Course activities also do not seem to address the category or meet the outcomes relating to society.
    • They do not seem to use a multi-disciplinary approach in addressing the category outcomes.

Action: Move to request revisions to address societal aspects of Science, Technology & Society category including alignment of content with course specific LOs and assessment methods and a writing assignment that addresses societal implications of the science; motion seconded and passed with 11 votes in favor, 0 votes in opposition and 1 vote in abstention.

  • ANTH 432
    • Recertified with no discussion needed.
  • BI 347
    • The course focuses on how people interact with marine environments, both positively and negatively. Seems like a good fit for the category.
    • They are running the course through two modalities, but there is only syllabus and it is not clear which modality it is for.
      • Ecampus was the only modality taught last year, so it was the only one required to be submitted.
        • It is not a syllabus minimum requirement to identify the modality.
        • Ecampus has two specific statements they are required to have, which helps identify them as Ecampus syllabi.
    • The matrix is well done.
    • They have 12 course specific LOs which seems excessive for a 3-credit course. 15, with the BC LOs. How are they assessing such a large number of LOs?
    • Nearly identical writing assignment to BI 345.
    • Alignment between various assessment mechanisms seems unclear.

Action: Move to table this review until next week due to lack of time; motion seconded and passed with 12 votes in favor, 0 votes in opposition and 0 vote in abstention.

  • BI 348
    • Not discussed
  • BOT 324
    • Not discussed
  • CS 391/391H
    • Not discussed
  • EAH 411
    • Not discussed
  • ENGR 350
    • Not discussed
  • BI 345
    • Not discussed


Minutes prepared by Caitlin Calascibetta