Baccalaureate Core Committee

Baccalaureate Core Curriculum Committee

April 2, 2014

Minutes

 

Voting Members Present: Robert Brudvig, Linda Bruslind, Kevin Gable, Lori Kayes, Rebecca Olson, Bob Paasch, Kirsi Peltomaki, McKenzie Pfeifer, Ken Winograd

Voting Member Absent: Jaga Giebultowicz, Trischa Goodnow, Melinda Manore, Malgo Peszynska

Ex-Officio Members Present: Stefani Dawn (Academic Affairs), Vicki Tolar Burton (WIC)

 

3 vs. 4 Credits

Kevin talked with Marion Rossi who is interested in taking up the issue of 3 vs 4 credits and will talk with CLA leadership team; Kevin also suggested presenting this issue to the UEC.

 

Bob distributed an analysis   ; Stefani offered to get accurate numbers, if still needed, following the next meeting. KG – determine what particular level of choice is being targeted. What proportion of f180 credits should be devoted to the Bacc Core?

 

Linda – previous BCC understanding was ? – determine from Linda KG requested a time frame to try to find it in the minutes. Look under Jay Noller

 

Stefani – did KG talk with Marion from both the BCC and Curriculum Council perspective? Kevin did and noted that they are all interrelated.

 

Bob indicated that data determination is important before approving SCH increase.

 

VTB – BCC Co-chair previously 5 yrs ago did a search to determine open seats and availability. She felt that the data may have changed since five years ago.

 

Kevin felt that we’re still in the position to have the conversation to a productive end – create policy and make it stick.

KG will invite Marion to the BCC and pursue the UEC angle.

Stefani noted that the CC will also be discussing this issue. Bob was agreeable to sharing his data.

 

For Stefani - for 4 credit courses, has it ever been determined how many are graduate courses vs undergraduate?

 

 

----------------

 

Multistate Cooperative and Participation in an Assessment Conference at PSU – Stefani Dawn

• Background: nine states are participating in the project (MA, OR, RI, CT, IN, MN MO, UT) to explore the concept of assessing student learning in particular areas, as opposed to using a standardized testing approach.
• OSU may participate in the written communication in Fall 2014 – this would involve either WIC or Synthesis.
• There will be a statewide assessment conference at end of May in Portland that could assist in moving forward the multi-state cooperative – all state-wide universities and community colleges will participate. There is also an exploratory component around quantitative literacy, in addition to the writing component.
• Potential role of BCC with project – Kevin would like BCC to discuss and endorse moving forward with a pilot at OSU. How can this be done without unduly inconveniencing faculty? Stefani noted that APAA would be responsible for the blind coding.
  • Pilot discussion
    • Need to define expectations in advance;
    • Would students know in advance that their work would be included in the pilot? Stefani – OSU’s IRB would make the determination whether this would be allowed. It is allowed if the information is used internally; public release is not allowed. This will be a double-blind process.
    • Worthwhile to determine whether other institutions are planning a specific assignment for this project, which would remove the comparability of the project. OSU is not going to have a specific assignment.
    • It was noted that there are concerns with the approach, but the pilot will determine whether it’s a feasible approach. VTB suggested aiming for the 3^rd outcome of the synthesis. The pilot would begin in Fall 2014.
    • No one present spoke against the pilot.
    • To promote and encourage participation for the May project:
      • Promote and recognize via P&T.
      • Becky’s office will pay for faculty to participate in the Portland conference. Recommended that participants be given a name, i.e. Provost’s … task force.
      • Perhaps begin looking for participants by approaching instructors who teach WIC courses. Alternatively, it was suggested to include both Synthesis and WIC instructors because there are fewer opportunities for faculty development for those who teach Synthesis.
• Stefani would communicate with faculty regarding criteria for the pilot, and then determine which students would qualify.

 

New Course Proposals & Resubmissions

Resubmissions:

• 87059 IT 331 – Manore
  • Not present to discuss
• 86585 ES243 – Manore
  • Not present to discuss
• 88698 FR343 – Brudvig
  • Syllabus is quite thorough; the pre-requisite is 2 years of French, which prohibits most students – is this acceptable?; minor still does not explicitly state that its part of Cultural Diversity. Kevin will send it back and make it clear that it does meet Bacc Core requirements.
• 87458 ANTH 374 – Bruslind
  • Approve; original issues have been dealt with satisfactorily.
• 88762 GER241 – Kayes
  • Approve; revision addresses concerns.

 

Prior assignments:

• 88677 SOIL102 – Kayes
  • Purpose is to add designator for sustainability. Noticed that there is an Ecampus a lab; the online version is different, but may be equivalent. 3-hr weekly lab, but no lab during week one and three; 3 of 8 labs are town hall formats. Kevin will ask them to provide Ecampus syllabus to determine if the criteria is the same.
  • Stefani noted that now is the time to call units on these inconsistencies.
• 88339 OC334 – Paasch
  • Appears to meet WIC criteria; found several faults: the outline is due on the 21^st, and a 2,000 word draft is due on the 25^th – the time allowed seems to be insufficient; and the syllabus is missing the student conduct link. Once the link is added, the course can be approved; other issues will be flagged.

• 87099 MTH338 – Pfeifer
  • Syllabus is incomplete and the schedule was not part of the syllabus; nothing related to Academic Dishonesty; there appears to be ungraded assignments, but it’s not noted on the syllabus; no evidence that it applied to their field; didn’t see how course contents and schedule supported outcomes. It appears that the instructor didn’t determine what was required.

 

New assignments:

• 88995 OC201 – Peszynska
  • Not present to discuss
• 88913 IT 261 – Peltomaki
  • Hasn’t had a chance to review

• 84819 PHL 440 – Winograd
  • This is a revision; previously it didn’t distinguish objectives between graduate and undergraduate students, but that has now been corrected; it’s a Synthesis course and meets all criteria. The student conduct link is inaccurate, and it needs a clear statement that the course fulfills Bacc Core for CGI. Kevin will return for corrections.
• 82394 PHL 345 – Olson
• 89135 ES350 – Pfeifer
  • Need to again address the ungraded writing component which is mentioned in the proposal, but not in the syllabus.
  • Vicki noted that they resubmitted and the math (word count) was correct. If the members want the ungraded component more prominent, she will work with instructors to ensure they address this.
  • Kevin will approve course, but suggest that a statement re: ungraded writing component be addressed.

• 89183 WGSS295 – Gable
  • Felt that syllabus was great, but the description of assessment, and associated responses, were poor. Kevin will approve the course, but indicate that the BCC is concerned about the instructor-level assessment of learning outcomes.

 

New Assignments

MTH Perspectives courses: Use of Math Placement Test and enforcement of prerequisites

• Kevin noted that Math has submitted six proposals to change the enforced pre-requisites for foundational Math courses. During the category review the BCC flagged a high DFW rate, so they are changing pre-requisites. Because several members have already reviewed the proposals, he will read through the proposals and provide a blanket approval.