Date: 
01/17/2014 1:00 pm
Location: 
Linus Pauling Science Center, Room 402
Agenda: 

Remote participation: D. Stroud – 541-322-3155
Anticipated absence: A. Azarenko, F. Chaplen, C. Hilbert, N. Davison, S. Dawn, K. Mactavish, P. Mathew
 

    1. Approval of Minutes
      Approve the January 10, 2014 minutes.

 

    1. Policies and Definitions
      • Definition of an academic unit
      • Program Type Communication Policy

 

    1. Proposed Undergraduate Program Review Metrics

 

    1. Academic Program Reviews – AY 2013-14

 

    1. 2:00 – CAG Course Designator – Penny Deibel

 

    1. Course Designator vs. Subject Code – Stefani Dawn

 

    1. Report from the Chair – Mike Bailey
      • Curricular proposal – Need reviewer for #88672 – New MOU Proposal – Post Bacc Certificate in Accounting to Extend to OSU-Cascades
      • Academic Program Review – Need reviewer for the May 12-14 Tourism and Outdoor Leadership (BS).

 

  1. Report from Academic Affairs

Information Item:

  1. Any materials distributed during this meeting must be sent to Mike Bailey and Vickie Nunnemaker prior to the meeting.

Pending Issues:

  • Category I proposals eventually need to include mention of assessment and learning outcomes (includes Ecampus memos)? CC to discuss
  • Review guidelines for Category II proposals
Minutes: 

Voting Members Present: Paul Adams, Mike Bailey, Neil Davison, Sue Helback, Kate MacTavish, Prem Mathew, Richard Nafshun, Mina Ossiander, Natalie Dollar (v. Stroud)
Voting Members Absent: Frank Chaplen, Demian Hommel
Ex-officio Members Present:Stefani Dawn (Academic Affairs), Dianna Fisher (Extended Campus), Rebecca Mathern (v. Laurence)
Guest: Anita Azarenko, Gary Beach, Penny Diebel, Shannon Riggs, Sarah Williams

Approval of Minutes
The January 10, 2014 Minutes were approved as distributed.

Policies and Definitions

    • Definition of an academic unit
      • First sentence 0 delate 'a' prior to 'research'
    • Action: Neil moved to make the proposed definition official, as amended; motion seconded and passed.

 

  • Program Type Communication Policy
    • Is there a need to refer to ‘multi-campus’ to encompass Pharmacy programs in Portland, as well as OSU-Cascades and, potentially, courses at the Hatfield Marine Science Center?
      • One felt that we should wait until it’s an issue; alternatively, it may be covered under the ‘on-campus’ definition.

Action: No statement re: multi-campuses will be made.

    • Stefani noted a symbol to indicate each of the program delivery types would need to be developed. This proposal needs to go to the Faculty Senate Executive Committee next and they might want to consider the points shared in the ‘Factors and Considerations for the Program Type Policy’. The EC will decide on next steps; if approved, it would need to be explained to the units and they will need to indicate/define the delivery type for each program.
    • ’Ecampus’ section, Dianna suggested adding “unless otherwise noted” at the end of the verbiage within the parentheses.
    • Stefani noted that the ‘Factors and Considerations for the Program Type Policy’ section are not officially part of the Program Type Communication Policy, and the Council would only vote on the verbiage through the three bullets under ‘Program Type Communication Policy.’
    • Sue suggested moving the third bullet under ‘Factors and Considerations for the Program Type Policy’ to fall within the policy. Mike suggested to not include this in the policy because the budget process may be changing.
    • Mina suggested removing the first sentence of the third bullet under ‘Factors and Considerations for the Program Type Policy.’ It was noted that the four bullets under ‘Factors and Considerations for the Program Type Policy’ are just talking points as the policy is being considered, and will not be visible when the policy is approved and posted.
    • Program Type Communication Policy – suggested revisions:
      • 1st paragraph – delete entirely.
      • 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence – Delete “The” and the slash between “program/delivery mode”
      • 1st bullet – add “Hybrid courses are considered on-campus courses.” as the last sentence.
      • 2nd bullet – Add and delete verbiage as follows: “Ecampus” programs must be structured such that students can complete all program requirements via Ecampus,unless otherwise noted. Some required lower division courses are not available online via Ecampus (e.g. Bacc Core Communications requirement).

Proposed Undergraduate Program Review Metrics
Stefani asked if members had feedback on the metrics. Richard noted that Chemistry will pilot the proposed metrics. Stefani noted the metrics will also be shared with several up-coming undergraduate program reviews. It was agreed that suggestions for modifications to the proposed metrics may not emerge until they have been applied in a program review, so the next step in this review of the undergraduate program review (UPR) process is to begin looking at the text of the UPR handbook.  Stefani will start bringing proposed modifications to the UPR processes/handbook.

Academic Program Reviews – AY 2013-14
Dianna Fisher volunteered to replace Carey Hilbert for the May 12-14 Tourism and Outdoor Leadership (BS) review.

CAG Course Designator – Penny Diebel

  • Penny explained that this request arose from a discussion to potentially offer college-wide courses which may have rotating faculty, and may be funded via either the dean’s office or college. The college designator would reside with the College of Agricultural Sciences Academic Programs Office, and would allow SCH to be allocated appropriately. There are some courses that currently reside under the Agriculture Science (Ag Sci) curriculum, but the college wants to pull the courses out of Ag Sci because they currently appear as though they are part of the department of General Agriculture curriculum. Penny also noted that their original request was for a CAS designator, but the Registrar requested an alternate designator to avoid duplication of an existing designator at other Oregon institutions.
  • Gary questioned how many courses are anticipated. Penny responded there would probably be six new courses, in addition to existing courses (some are cross-listed), which may be as many as a dozen. The current designator is open to any student in all units.
  • Gary questioned whether special topics or blanket numbers would be used.  Penny responded that hasn’t yet been decided. If they develop something that is a college-wide required course, such as a dean’s lecture, the proposed designator would be used.
  • Rebecca addressed the CAS vs. CAG issue, and noted that OSU tries to not overlap designators within OUS. She explained that CAS is used at two-year institutions to designate computer application software courses.
  • Regarding current multiple cross-listing, Rebecca questioned whether the intent is to expire those courses. Penny responded that, if a new course uses CAG, the other designators would disappear. Rebecca felt that it’s the duty of the Curriculum Council to ensure that other designators are expired when approving a new designator.
  • Sue questioned the value to students. Penny explained that some courses don’t fall within curriculum (i.e. Ambassador’s classes), and she also noted cross-listed courses.

Curriculum Council Discussion:

  • Kate suggested that the designators could move to four letters, rather than three, to include a ‘C’ for the college.
  • Rebecca noted the desire to have a policy for setting course designators to take the responsibility out of the Curriculum Council’s purview.
  • Stefani noted it was likely that colleges have courses that span across several departments.
  • There was a discussion of using the most general type of designators for colleges. The Council discussed how the College of Engineering handled this issue. They use a general ENGR course designator.
  • Stefani suggested that, if we want a consistent policy, there may be some things that need to be shaped around the policy (i.e., suggest AGRI in place of CAG, or have AG move to AGSI). Following a quick online search, Richard noted that many other U.S. institutions use AGRI.

Action: The Council agreed to return the proposal and ask how urgent this is (if not urgent, perhaps fold into the CIP/Course Designator discussion), and request that they consider AGRI in place of CAG. The Council is generally accepting of a college-wide designator. The concern is the trend of doing a ‘college of’ designator vs. a broad designator and subject. Mike will return the proposal for additional information.

Course Designator vs. Subject Code (01/13/14 draft) – Stefani Dawn

  • Stefani met with various people who have been engaged with course designators on multiple levels and learned that there was an understanding of the rationale. The mechanism allows for a unique identity of each of the degree programs, which units have expressed as being very important. Upon approval, the next step is to look at the CIP levels/descriptions and proposed course designators in partnership with the units. APAA would work with each program to identify designator next steps. The purpose is to identify a permanent designator to allow for necessary changes as programs progress; this would NOT be retroactive, and it would apply to new designators upon approval.
    • She wondered if the Council should consider an option to allow units to choose between designators that already exist and the new option associated with the CIP code. Such a choice would be with the understanding that the choice will be a long term (“permanent”) choice.
  • The university needs a structure that allows for permanency and separates the degree program name, but is still accurately affiliated with what the program represents. The structure can be automated only to a certain extent. There also needs to be a critical mass of courses for a unique designator.
  • Next steps: Determine whether this draft sounds feasible. If so, begin wordsmithing a policy. Policy proposal 1 and 2 – Stefani will reformat the document, and the Ag example will be removed.
  • Gary noted that every 10 years the Department of Agriculture reviews CIPS (next reviewed in 2020), and there are sometimes substantial changes. Stefani felt that the CIP is tied to the designator, but would not necessarily require a change to the course designator if the CIP is changed by the Department of Agriculture.
  • This proposal could be challenging to a unit as it may take some time for faculty or units to adjust, but it may also save time and steps in the course and program proposal process.

Report from the Chair – Mike Bailey

Report from Academic Affairs – no report

Minutes prepared by Vickie Nunnemaker, Faculty Senate staff.