Curriculum Council

Voting members present: John Bailey, Candice Clark, Michael Harte, Prem Mathew, Tom Miller, Mina Ossiander, Jeff Reimer, John Schuna, Michele Swift, Allen Thompson, Ann Zweber
Voting members absent: Jake Hamblin, Carol McKiel, Richard Nafshun, John Schlipf, David Taylor
Ex-Officio members: Academic Affairs – Gary Beach, Extended Campus – Alfonso Bradoch, Graduate School – Yanyun Zhao, University Libraries – Anne-Marie Deitering
Guest present: JoAnne Bunnage

University Accreditation – JoAnne Bunnage 

• Materials
  • The purpose of JoAnne’s visit was to build awareness of the upcoming university accreditation and site visit from April 15-17, 2019.
  • Research institutions are a very small part of what NWCCU accredits. WSU recently completed their site visit and have been very gracious in sharing their experience with OSU.
  • An OSU accreditation team has been charged. Initial reports are due May 11; the Curriculum Council materials have been completed by the co-chairs. Core themes are due August 1. A student accreditation advisory council is being developed.
    • John Bailey noted that the Curriculum Council report was an opportunity to reiterate and reemphasize things that the Council does – it was a meaningful experience.
  • JoAnne indicated that there are two areas that faulty in units are involved:

1) When called on to review documents or, in mid-fall, to provide feedback. She suggested that they zero in on the Curriculum Council area or provide feedback as a faculty member; she will also need faculty volunteers to meet with the external site visitors.

2) Review forward facing documents and web presence – ensure that materials are accurate, current and functional.

• Rebecca asked if, after Friday, there will be an internal website to view standards and how they were submitted. JoAnne stated that there will be an opportunity, but likely not in the next month or so. The core theme committees will not change, but objectives and indicators may change. Due to those changes, the standards will likely not be public until August or September.
• JoAnne recommended to Associate Vice Provost Susan Capalbo and Provost Ed Feser that a call to campus should be made for units to concentrate on websites – incorrectly linking sites will be the responsibility of the linking unit.
• Claire stated that students find broken links all the time. She suggested that students are contacted and advise them where to send broken links. If students know the university is looking for broken links, they could report them.
• John Bailey noted that there will be some follow-up work for the Council.

Curricular Proposal

Arts, Media & Technology New Degree Program Proposal #103310

• Web version
• PDF version
  • Approved by Budgets & Fiscal Planning Committee
  • Reviewers: Prem Mathew, Tom Miller
    • Prem advised the proposers of the hidden pre-requisites. The proposers addressed this issue in the recent version of the proposal, but also added 4-5 brand new courses that have not yet had Cat IIs submitted. If Cat IIs are not in the system, the proposal will be held.
    • Michael questioned whether it would be worthwhile to schedule a master coaching session, in conjunction with the new CIM, to avoid this type of thing. John Bailey explained that, with CIM, the objective is to have a built-in automated system which coaches proposers through the system. Michael asked whether Curriculum Council reviewers could act as mentors. It was noted that the Academic Programs Committee (APC) used to catch these issues before it reached the committees, which reduced the amount of time a proposal spends with the committees, but Academic Programs and Assessment no longer has time to hold APC meetings.
    • Rebecca explained that CIM will have two paths for proposals. The new process is streamlined based on what you’re trying to do, i.e., new degree, new course, change option, etc.
    • Allen noted that, in regard to planning for the shape of the system, Council representatives provided user perspectives for the proposed new system. He wants to ensure that design and construction of the CIM has faculty input. Rebecca will ask for faculty participation when the project kicks off (implementation), likely May 30. Forms are in the process of being built. All input will occur after the kick-off. Rebecca will provide a brief description of the CIM implementation to the Curriculum Council at an upcoming meeting.

Action: The Arts, Media & Technology New Degree Program was tabled while waiting for Category II submissions.

Curricular Policies and Procedures – Reviewing and Updating

• Options
  • Regarding the Undergraduate Option, Mina noted that most students use most of the same classes and asked if an option is the same as the minor. There is no minor in Math – only in an option is Math offered by Math. The option is in the Math field of study.
  • Prem indicated that, in the College of Business, the option is taken by students in the same program – a minor is taken by students outside the program.
  • Rebecca questioned whether Math should be allowed to offer an option in Statistics. Mina replied that they don’t want it to go away.
  • What is meant by field of study?
  • Rebecca noted that, currently, students are harmed. Allen questioned who is hurt. Rebeca responded that students in College X may be able to earn twice as many credits as in College Y, and students complain about this. The policy is not administered equally across colleges. One felt there should be a university policy.
  • Mina provided an example of a significant number of Computer Science students who get a minor in math, then can double-count credits for both the minor and major.
  • Michael felt that there was the issue of harm – the issue is where one student pays for a 180-credit degree which includes an option, and another student pays additional for the same credentials.
  • John Bailey inquired whether there was a recommendation to cap double-dipping? Rebecca noted that whatever is decided needs to also be incorporated into the Academic Regulations.
  • Rebecca and Mina will take the lead over the summer of mapping out where else the issue needs to be addressed. Some small overlap may be acceptable, but duplicating the body of classes is not acceptable.
  • Claire noted that options for graduate students must match the catalog year. Rebecca noted that this needs to also be in the regulation piece.

Action: Discussion tabled until recommendations from Rebecca and Mina are brought forward for consideration – this likely won’t occur until Fall 2018.

• Posthumous Degrees
  • Michael felt that the policy should be based on the number of degree credits met, in particular for the graduate degrees.
  • Rebecca explained that this has been discussed with associate deans for several years, and she tries to enforce the policy fully. OSU has created a certificate of recognition, which looks very much like a degree, which is given to the family of every active student who does not order a posthumous degree; the provost and president sign the certificate. The policy requirements must be firm, and no waivers would be allowed.
  • Rebecca indicated that there is not actually a posthumous degree, rather, it’s a degree earned.
  • Gary inquired whether this was an issue with NWCCU; Rebecca was unsure.
  • Rebecca felt that the Undergraduate Education Committee should also be involved in this discussion since they began discussing it several years ago.

Action: The Curriculum Council tabled discussion until Rebecca takes this policy to the Undergraduate Education Committee for input; in the meantime, the current policy stands.

Course Designator – AnRS

• Proposal
  • John Bailey didn’t think that the rationale was persuasive for only a couple of classes. The proposal also does not eliminate an existing course designator.
  • The Registrar’s Office previously discussed this proposal with the then unit chair and recommended against it – they felt the proposal was misleading. Additionally, some courses are at Eastern Oregon University.

Action: The proposal was tabled; John Bailey will request a list of classes to be converted to AnRS and invite someone from the unit to meet with the Council to discuss this request.

Category II Proposals

• The proposals in the attached file will be approved following the May 9, 2018 meeting.
  • Regarding #103225 VMB415, Mina noted that the class is being presented as an overall study of animal, human and environmental health; however, there has been no liaison outside of the College of Veterinary Medicine – it needs liaison with pre-med advisors in the Colleges of Science and Public Health and Human Sciences. The proposal will be sent back for liaisons.
  • The proposals in the attached file will be approved following the May 15, 2018 meeting.

Report from the Co-chairs – John Bailey, Allen Thompson

• No report

Report from the Office of Academic Programs and Assessment – Gary Beach

• The proposal approved by the Curriculum Council regarding Ecampus hybrid programs has been changed twice by the Provost since the Council approved it on March 2:

1. Portland hybrid degrees do not require HECC approval, instead, approval ends with the Provost; and
2. Academic Programs and Assessment was contacted by the College of Veterinary Medicine because they are running out of numbers for their course designator. They want to either add a VM course designator or be allowed to reduce the number of years between when a course designator is discontinued and again activated.

Action: Rebecca will have Larry Bulling run analytics to determine how many courses would be affected.

Minutes provided by Vickie Nunnemaker, Faculty Senate staff