Baccalaureate Core Committee

  Baccalaureate Core Committee

February 5, 2015

Minutes

 

Voting members present: Robert Brudvig, Linda Bruslind, Brad Cardinal, Kevin Gable, Kira Hughes, David McMurray, Malgo Peszynska, Kirsi Peltomaki, Ken Winograd

Ex-officio members present: Academic Affairs (Stefani Dawn), WIC Director (Vicki Tolar Burton)

Guests: Karen Elliot, Heath Henry, Sheryl Thorburn

 

New/Changed Course Proposals – Karen Elliot, Sheryl Thorburn

91190     H 312        Contemporary Global Issues

• Kevin noted that to address one concern, Karen forwarded correct syllabi today. Concern – what was being asked of student’s online and face-to-face versions; mismatch in overall amount of effort being asked.
• Karen distributed to the members corrected versions of the on-campus and Ecampus Syllabi and provided the following information: Ecampus has a discussion board and on-campus has in-class activities. All information was standardized so there is an instructor manual from which to get questions, both have quizzes, and exams are from the test bank. There is a peer review of the paper and meets Bacc Core competency of the writing. Sheryl noted that, in error, an old version of the syllabus was uploaded to the CPS; Stefani stated that the APAA can post the correct version upon receipt.
• McKenzie noted concerns with historical context lacking and unclear how Bacc Core learning outcomes correlate with the course. Karen – historical context is covered in initial chapters of HIV and extends into current HIV information in later chapters; also covered in quizzes, mid-terms and final. It’s infused in many different ways. McKenzie noted that the learning outcomes could be added to Blackboard and Stefani noted that the requirement is being added to the form.
• Kevin noted an additional issue of over the structure of how the course was presented – very high enrollment course which affects many students. Concern is with writing assignment requiring much effort to grade, comment and get feedback to students – how is the managed so equitable outcomes are achieved. Sheryl – class has been taught for a long time, some materials are outdated, reviewed a year ago and updated textbook, working with publisher to create a standard set of slides that work with the course, standardized the syllabus, grad student instructors have been told there will be no changes to the syllabus; Karen meets with graduate students before and during the course to ensure that questions are responded to and to ensure that standardization occurs. Karen – with writing there are isn’t that all on-campus instructors and online must follow. Fall 2014 was the first term will all new content; excellent sample is posted for instructors; there is also a rubric for the instructors on which to base grading -expectations are clear of how to write the paper. There is also a mid-way peer review.
• Section size? On-campus is up to 70 students and online is 35. The larger sizes are handled by one instructor who has more experience with a course this size.

Action: Kevin will send back to update syllabi, and he indicated that it would be helpful to have the responses in writing so it’s part of the record.

 

WIC Category Review

• FST 425 – remove WIC status – replaced by FST 485
• Went through WIC review last year, but concerns with large # of students (68 per section). FST has submitted FST 385, which was previously approved, that allows writing exercises to be accomplished in smaller groups and receive appropriate attention. Unit is asking that FST 425 be dropped from the WIC category, but will continue on the books.

Action: Kevin will approve request.

 

DPD Category Reviews

• NB: since we did not get to these on January 30, we will continue with this list. Some reviewers may not be able to attend.
• ES 452 – Kate Field
• Not discussed.
• ES 212 – Bob Paasch

• Not discussed.

 

• ES 221/221H  - Kirsi Peltomaki
• ES 221H was not offered last year. Some confusion by proposers of what was required.
• ES221 – recommended to approve – syllabus is good, answers are less clear and to the point; regarding three outcomes, the proposer didn’t respond to each outcome, but it was felt that information on syllabi made up for that; student success is fine; one person teaching – no TA’s; assessment rubric is not very robust.
• Stefani – shared Nana’s notes – form has assessment questions that refer to #1, but unclear what #1 is;

Action: Kevin will recertify the courses?

 

• HST 202/202H  - David McMurray
• Course on American History from early 1800’s geared to cover issues of race and ethnic history of the nation; felt that Carson’s materials could be used as an excellent sample proposal. Other instructors take DPD status very seriously, and left Carson to point out some relevant elements. Question – course ends in 1920 but events of that earlier time period resonate today – could they be encouraged to be more relevant to today? Topic is history and, perhaps, extra steps could be added to connect with current events. Reviewer would support indicating to proposers that the course falls short of ‘contemporary’.  One questioned how the students make the connection to today that some of these same issues are still relevant.
• Ask them to address to be more explicit how these outcomes are relevant to structure course.
• Because one course has from 45 to 75 students in a DPD course and how does one get adequate conversation and interaction with students at the higher level? Advise them that the BCC hopes that the classes don’t grow larger.
• Kevin could ask Nana at what point does enrollment affect outcomes.
• Nana noticed syllabus – Two instructors syllabi have outcomes buried; some lack the DPD statement; would benefit from more explicit engagement with DPD in the syllabus.
• Kevin will forward Nana’s DPD requirements to the committee members.

Action: Kevin will recertify provisionally and ask proposers to take extra steps to draw the course to modern society; correct SLO syllabi, and note there were concerns of how large enrollment sections can engage students.

 

• HST 203/203H -  Bruslind
• Taught both Ecampus and on-campus. Grade distribution is a concern; on-campus grades are mostly A’s, with some B’s and C’s, but E-campus has 25% DFWs in one section and another section has 15% DFWs. The course is also in the Western Culture category; on-campus course had DPD Bacc Core outcomes, but one Ecampus section didn’t have outcomes; and must have outcomes for both categories. Syllabi concerns were met, but had no direct linkage of student learning outcomes; however, question responses related to outcomes were very good. Significant concern over grade distribution.
• Nana said they’re missing DPD statements on both Ecampus and on-campus syllabi, and difficult to tell it’s DPD on one syllabus.

Action: Kevin will give Provisional certification, but request proposer to provide an explanation of the grade distribution issue. Stefani will research grade distribution issues.

 

• HST 370 – Kirsi
• Concerns – 2 sections both on-campus, student success appears fine, one instructor. Syllabus is vague – no course schedule or list of learning resources, student will read a ‘handful’ of books with no suggested list. Answer to questions – they copied and pasted the same answer to each learning outcome; answers describing course content were slightly different, but fairly brief. Not enough information to adequately review the course.

Action: Kevin will indicate to the proposer that this is an incomplete response, which could lead to decertification because not enough information has been received. Will indicate that the syllabus needs to be corrected; additionally proposer needs to explain enough about the course to determine whether the learning outcomes are being met. The school directors will receive a copy of the message to the proposer. APAA will provide proposer with a new form to complete and a PDF of what was previously submitted.

 

• ENG/FILM 220 – Lori Kayes

 

There are six proposals in the queue for which Kevin will assign rev

 

1. Other business, as time allows 

• (Possible topic: scheduling follow-ups from prior years' Category Reviews.)
• Provisional recertification is supposed to occur the year following; the BCC is now two years behind. Need to do Synthesis from two years ago and WIC from last year. Kevin noted that the BCC is the only place where an in-depth review occurs for every course.
  • Vicki suggested splitting the committee during Spring term, based on attendance, and having each group review one category. Vickie suggested identifying past BCC members to accomplish the recertification, Synthesis, and WIC reviews. Consensus to proceed with the current members.
  • Consensus was that three years was too long for a “touch-base” message related to reviews.
  • Stefani asked whether the provisional certification review cycle should be restructured, i.e., 1-year for provisional recertification and two-years for immediate concerns.