Curriculum Council

Voting Members Present: Mike Bailey, Frank Chaplen, Alix Gitelman, Sue Helback, Prem Mathew, Rich Nafshun, Ben Tribelhorn
Voting Members Absent: Paul Adams, Robert Iltis, Sara Jameson, Matt Kennedy, Kate MacTavish, Daniel Stroud
Ex-Officio Members Present: Dianna Fisher (Ecampus), Rebecca Mathern (v. Nancy Laurence), (Registrar’s Office)
Liaison Members Present: Clay Torset (Academic Advising Council)
Guests: Gary Beach, Sarah Williams

Report from Course Designator Sub-committee – Bill Bogley, Sara Jameson, Clay Torset

• Requests for New or Changed Course Designator/Subject Code (updated)
• Sub-committee Recap

• There is no difference between a subject code and course designator; the ‘Requests for New or Changed Course Designator/Subject Code’ document will be changed to ‘Course Designator.’
• What is the definition of ‘academic home’, and is the Library an academic home? Clay felt the definition would be a degree granting unit, but the Library could show they are meeting the accreditation/academic pursuits of Library Science.
• Gary recommended a change to the first bullet under ‘Purpose’ – Because the Registrar’s Office is the only unit that uses ‘credentials’ (academic units don’t request credentials), he suggested removing ‘credentials’ and replacing it with ‘majors and certificates.’
• Regarding courses that have academic homes and satisfies a category, the offering unit must have accountability and be responsible for assessment.
  • Rebecca felt that the institution must determine benchmarks in order to create a course designator. Her belief is that the standard must assist in delineating the difference.
  • Sue suggested that course designator requests include justification and a means for assessment. Gary mentioned that, in the case of languages, only the major language course designators have gone through a review, while courses such as Hebrew have not been reviewed.
• Gary noted that once a course designator is approved by the Curriculum Council, it is accepted by the accrediting body, at least until the next review.
• There must be a body of approved courses before a course designator is approved.
• Ben suggested requiring the respective dean to sign off on course designator requests.
• Are there course designators not associated with an academic home (i.e., degree granting)? Perhaps ALS.
• The course designator must have a formal relationship with a college or academic home.
• Clay suggested changing the first bullet under ‘Accountability’ from "What is the academic home of the designator?" to "What is the College of the designator?"
• Gary suggested reviewing course designators related to international courses. Clay indicated that they would fall under the ‘Purpose’ section.
• Sue requested a lead-in paragraph to the document stating the intent of including a course designator definition.
• Ben expressed concern that approval of multiple new course designators over time could lead to fragmentation which would inhibit students from finding the existence of courses.
• If a course designator changes, which designator will appear on the transcript –the original designator that a student started with, or the new designator? The original designator appears.
  • Rebecca noted that an associated issue arises when course designators change and a student taking the course multiple times under two different course designators will not receive credit for the course; it may also affect financial aid. Ben suggested requiring that, perhaps for six years, there be an indication of the previous course designator.

Action: Clay will recap the discussion with the sub-committee and bring back a revised document for consideration.

GRAD Designator Request
    Motion continued from February 15

• Dean McComb forwarded a link from Virginia Tech related to their GRAD course designator

• Regarding assessment related to reviews, Ben questioned whether this should be added as a recommendation. Gary stated that APAA will present the Council with a recommendation for reviews that will cover all courses and all course designators.

Action: Because there was not a quorum, Mike will ask for an email vote.

New MOU Proposal Extending to OSU-Cascades the BS in Computer Science with an Applied Option #85405
    Motion continued from February 15
    Curriculum Council Reviewers: Mike Bailey, Daniel Stroud

• Online version
• PDF version
• Table comparing existing OSU courses and proposed OSU-Cascades courses
• Mike related Kate’s concern regarding the model to hire instructors the first two years and then recruit a professorial faculty member. He noted that OSU-Cascades has a different financial model.
• Dianna noted concern with tuition from OSU-Cascades Ecampus courses not being paid to OSU-Cascades, even though they provide advising, etc. She suggested that an understanding from Becky Johnson be included in the proposal that Ecampus courses will not generate income for Cascades.

Action: Because there was not a quorum, Mike will ask for an email vote.

Report from the Chair – Mike Bailey

• Reviewers were assigned for the following proposals:
  • Renaming an Academic Program Proposal - BS in Forest Management to BS in Forestry #85162 – Robert & Ben
  • Merge Biochemistry and Biophysics with Microbiology (School of Life Sciences) – Frank & Richard

Report from Academic Affairs – Bill Bogley

• No report

Meeting adjourned at 2:14 PM.


Minutes prepared by Vickie Nunnemaker, Faculty Senate staff