Date: 
01/24/2014 1:30 pm
Location: 
128 Kidder Hall
Event Description: 

A PDF of the minutes can be found here.

Agenda: 

Remote participation: D. Stroud – 541-322-3155
Anticipated absence: F. Chaplen
 

    1. Approval of Minutes
      Approve the January 17, 2014 minutes.

 

    1. New MOU Proposal – Post Bacc Certificate in Accounting – Extend OSU-Cascades

 

    1. Course Designator vs. Subject Code – Stefani Dawn

 

  1. Report from the Chair – Mike Bailey, Richard Nafshun
    • CAG Course Designator
  2. Report from Academic Affairs

Information Item:

  1. Definition of an Academic Unit – Approved January 17, 2014 by the Curriculum Council.
  2. Program Type Communication Policy – Approved January 17, 2014 by the Curriculum Council.
  3. Program Type Communication Policy – Factors and Considerations – Reviewed January 17, 2014 by the Curriculum Council.
  4. Any materials distributed during this meeting must be sent to Mike Bailey, Richard Nafshun 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: 

Approval of Minutes
Richard moved to approve the January 17, 2014 minutes as distributed; motion seconded and approved.

New MOU Proposal – Post Bacc Certificate in Accounting – Extend to OSU-Cascades

  1. Curriculum Council reviewers: Prem Mathew, Richard Nafshun
  • Prem noted that OSU-Cascades wants to offer the Post Bacc, which will prepare students to sit for the CPA exam; the course will be offered as part of the Accounting major. Prem noted that the assessment plan was not included, and asked if it’s necessary for an abbreviated proposal.
  • Anita stated that an assessment plan is required by the Graduate Council and noted that there should be some learning outcomes outlined. She explained that this expectation is not currently included on the CPS, but the Graduate Council has asked others for the learning outcomes associated with other programs.
  • Kate questioned what it means when the proposal states that some courses will be offered via alternative. Richard felt this was for flexibility.

Action: Prem moved to approve the proposal upon inclusion of the learning outcomes; motion seconded and approved.

Course Designator vs. Subject Code – Stefani Dawn

  • Draft Policy – 01/21/2014
  • Based on the prior discussion, Stefani moved the policy components section to the beginning of the document. Additional revisions were discussed:
    • Course Designator Policy – Draft
      1. 1. – No revisions.
      2. 1.a. – No revisions.
      3. 1.b. – No revisions.
        • There was some discussion of the rationale verbiage “…provides stability in course identification over time.” because some felt it would confuse students if the degree name changes, but the designator doesn’t change.
          • There was a suggestion to make this a goal.
          • Stefani spoke with two chairs about the proposal. They wanted to make sure that the CIP codes are consistent and to differentiate the uniqueness among programs (no overlap between the same course in multiple colleges). Both chairs understood the reason behind the proposal and were supportive.
      4. 2. Stefani noted there are impacts both on campus and across the state (articulation agreements, etc.) when the course designators change. The course designator should be associated with the content of the course rather than the name of the course.
        • How would this impact course designators at other institutions? It gives a sense of permanency to articulation agreements.
        • Richard observed that when one accesses the CIP site, the CIP has a series of numbers and names. He proposed that everyone in the U.S. add a period after the six numbers and add three more numbers that are coded course numbers which allows units to change their name and course designator, but it will still map to the standardized CIP.
        • Need flexibility to assign course designators.
        • It was suggested to walk through a scenario and identify ‘what if’s’ to assist with drafting the proposal.
        • Stefani suggested adding a new number for programs that develop in depth, or when a unit splits off, to associate the number with a new CIP number.
        • Alternatively, Stefani reported there was a suggestion to replace course designator letters with numbers. Many Council members opposed that suggestion.

Action: Stefani will add to #2 “as a program develops in depth”, and will meet with a small group of people to review possible scenarios to determine what will and won’t work. It was suggested to include in the small group an advisor, unit head or chair, student, and a Curriculum Council member (Mike volunteered).

Report from the Chairs – Mike Bailey, Richard Nafshun

  • CAG Course Designator
    • Penny Diebel was preliminarily supportive of the Curriculum Council’s suggested to change the proposed course designator from CAG to AGRI, and is checking with others before giving final approval.
  • Mike announced that Sarah Williams is retiring next week and thanked her for her service.

Report from Academic Affairs – Stefani Dawn

  • Curriculum Proposal System (CPS) RFP – There is currently an effort underway to explore replacing both the CPS and catalog with a system that talks to each other. The committee is currently reviewing the three vendor submissions and will convene to discuss the proposals in the next 2-3 weeks. Mike noted that the RFP, prepared by Stefani, was particularly well-written because no vendor requested additional information.

Information Items:

  1. Definition of an Academic Unit – Approved January 17, 2014 by the Curriculum Council.
  2. Program Type Communication Policy – Approved January 17, 2014 by the Curriculum Council.
  3. Program Type Communication Policy – Factors and Considerations – Reviewed January 17, 2014 by the Curriculum Council


Minutes prepared by Vickie Nunnemaker, Faculty Senate Staff