Baccalaureate Core Committee

Baccalaureate Core Committee

October 23, 2014

Minutes

 

Brad, Kira, David, Bob Paasch – absent next Monday

 

Voting Members Present: Gerd Bobe, Robert Brudvig, Brad Cardinal, Susie Dunham, Kate Field, Kevin Gable, Kira Hughes, Lori Kayes, David McMurray, Bob Paasch, McKenzie Pfeifer, Ken Winograd

Voting Members Absent: Linda Bruslind, Melinda Manore, Malgo Peszynska, Kirsi Peltomaki

Ex-officio Members Present: Academic Affairs (Stefani Dawn), DPD Director (Nana Osei-Kofi), WIC Director (Vicki Tolar Burton)

Guest: Tara Williams, University Honors College

 

Review of New Course Proposals

Stefani briefly explained the workflow upon receipt of a proposal.

 

• 90556  WGSS 240
  • Change from Women Studies to gender and sports, 3 credits Ecampus course. Reviewer felt it was necessary to expand the course content – if race, ethnicity and gender are covered, why not disability also? The required disability statement was not included. It appeared that learning outcomes were met. Reading assignments are missing; unclear how long each unit is. Need a schedule.
  • It’s not really the purview of the BCC to review content, but could flag content so Curriculum Council would review it.

Action: Kevin will ask that assessment and course activities are connected to student learning outcomes, and request a schedule.

 

• 90277  ANTH 454/554
  • This course is part of the Food, Culture & Social Justice degree (there is no course designator yet); it’s administered by the School of Language Culture and Society; it’s an Ecourse; 4-credit new proposal; listing as fulfilling CGE – that sentence is not included, but clear that they post the outcomes. Proposal looks great. Issue was in assessment – assessing learning outcomes via 4 papers that fulfilling writing, but there is no explanation of what the papers are (only that they are a synthesis of the readings)
  • Question – on new course proposal – some liaisons were expired – KG there is a time window for response; if no response, it’s assumed that there is consent.
  • Stefani will ask Cheryl to add to her checklist that the sentence is included prior to it being forwarded to the reviewer.

Action – Kevin will send back and request that the sentence is included and due to the lack of focus on writing, request that they attach an example of each of the required papers.

 

• 90664  BI 450
  • Meets WIC requirement; semester course taught at HMSC. Credit hour number has not been corrected (16)

Action: Kevin will approve.

 

• 89964  FES 435H
  • Proposal was one of several late proposals (need a better way to link proposals so they don’t get lost in the new CPS). No syllabus appended to proposal; syllabus was found in linked documents. Requested to return and request that the proposer appropriately link the syllabus and resubmit.
  • To more quickly facilitate reviews, could there be categories (low level issues) that members would return to the proposer rather than bring to the whole committee for discussion. This would change permissions. It was noted that there is new staff in APAA and some things were missed as the new staff were being trained.

Action: Kevin will notify the proposer that the proposal is approved, but request that the syllabi be appropriately appended.

 

• 89148 ES 354
  • D
  • D

Action:

• 89176  EGSS 496/596
  • D

 

• 89220  PH 212
  • Asking to enforced pre-req on the course 1) came in 2/29 and ret from APAA 2/20 with questions; determined that proposer let it slide to the bottom of to do pile
  • approved
  • Felt syllabi it was exemplary and should be posted as an example
• 88583 JPN 411 (to be discussed in the absence of the primary reviewer)
• 91395  FOR 206
  • One-credit lab; proposal is to add one word so it’s congruent to the three-credit course. Forest Soil Science Lab

Action: approve

• Geo 323 – no problems, decent job of describing writing on the syllabus, proposal is fairly straightforward.

Action – approve request

(NB: Assigned proposals not listed will be on the agenda for Monday, October 26.)

• D
• D

 

Honors Course Sections in Category Review – Tara Williams

• How to handle assessment and review
• Associate Dean Tara Williams from the Honors College will visit us at 1:30 or thereabout to help us determine the most effective way to handle Honors sections during Category Review.
• Regarding category reviews, typically UHC courses are split from the same course in a unit. If it’s the same instructor for both courses, it either duplicates the work of the instructor, or they don’t complete reviews for both courses. Does this need to be policed and require instructors to do both reviews separately, or de-list an Honors course from the Bacc Core? Problem is that there may be different instructors and one will feel they don’t need to
• Tara – from UHC side, very much stress the UHC section has the same learning outcomes. Not out of the realm of possibility that outcomes re assessed with the same assignments. The UHC mantra is that the difference is quality and not quantity – UHC courses should not increase the workload of the student and be an additional burden. Nervous about separating out the UHC sections – important for accreditation to satisfy same outcomes in both Honors and non-Honors courses.
• How many course taught by the same individual? 250 UHC courses this year. Rarely occurs that the instructor doesn’t teach the same section, if it exists.
• Are UHC courses run a section at a time from the other courses? Are same time, same place courses occurring? Tara – sometimes it does happen in a different place (same time slot/different location).
• Course size can become an issue. If combined request specific Honors elements to be reviewed.
• Tara – some honors courses are offered yearly, while others are not offered on a regular basis.

 

CPS Replacement

• Please review the New Course Proposal Form – DRAFT v.10-21-2014 and be ready to suggest edits/additions/changes.
• Sent 10/21 version to Ric to post
• Comments related to the form:
  • Change courses – In the Bacc Core section, if ‘yes’ is entered, additional options will appear; link should send them to the Bacc Core to indicate requirements to include (i.e., learning outcomes, etc.)
  • Stefani queried whether this is where additional information should be solicited? Consensus was yes.
• Will there be a designation that this course is being resubmitted? Stefani will determine if this is possible.
• Stefani – Should specific WIC questions be built in? Yes.
• Credit hour justification – this is on the BCC to do list. A policy will be drafted.
  • Ecampus has a checklist that they use – Stefani is unaware of such a list.
• Requisites and Pre-requisites – difference is that requisite – other requirements. Kevin suggested combining requirements: Requisites and Prerequisite relationships.
• Indicate which academic unit will receive the student credit hour FTE credit – Stefani will clarify this entry on the form.
• Send any form related suggestions or concerns to Stefani.
• Stefani will discuss with the BCC the workflow issue at the next meeting.

 

Credit Hour Policy

• Please review the Draft Baccalaureate Core Excess Credit that represents options currently before us. Time allowing, we will attempt to get closer to consensus on the best way forward. 
• There was not time to discuss this issue, but Kevin asked that members read the policy and be ready to discuss next week.
• D

 

Sharepoint

• Instructions for access to the Sharepoint site are linked. Please forward any issues to the Chair, and copy Stefani Dawn.
• D

 

Other Business?

• D
• Kevin will send separately from the agenda the next round of course reviews to be discussed in two weeks
• The meeting on Monday will be held in the Library so there is access to computers for a training session.