Core Education Committee

Oregon State University Faculty Senate

Meeting of the Core Education Committee
March 14, 2025
11:30-1:30 p.m.
Zoom

Minutes

 

Policy issue EOP Proposal for Transitions

• Proposed Motion: 

The Core Education Committee, noting the unique legacy of excellence in instruction by the Educational Opportunities Program (EOP) with demonstrated benefits for a specific population of minoritized students, supports the proposal from the EOP to partner with a Baccalaureate College to offer cohort–based Transitions sections for EOP students taught by EOP professional faculty (within agreed upon policies for those positions).

• Comment – the motion is excellent, and they appreciated the back and forth. Would vote to approve.
• Motion to approve by Kelsey, Brian moved and seconded. Motion approved 13-0-0.

ANTH 284* (co–chair question) – We would like to let the proposer know that if this course enrolls primarily majors then it will be decertified in the future, are you all on board with that?

OC 101 – Scientific Inquiry

• No issues, motion to approve, motion seconded, motion passes 11-0-0.

GEO 202 – Scientific Inquiry

• No issues, motion to approve, motion seconded, motion passes 10-0-0.

FES 240 Scientific Inquiry

• No issues, motion to approve, motion seconded, motion passes 10-0-1.

PH 201 Scientific Inquiry

• Re-review did not change bookstore purchasing option. Changed grade percentages. Met the Learning Outcome (LO) revision. The program still wants to have the pre-requisites on the course because they were having to un-enroll students from the course. Committee discussed conditional approval if they fix bookstore HB219.
• Someone asked why we would allow pre-requisites for other courses such as Math and Chemistry and not Physics. The committee discussed and decided that this is not an unreasonable barrier because students are already taking the math pre-requisites, and the proposer stated in their response to the pre–req that the math courses are needed to study physics.
• Motion to approve pending modification to the Ecampus syllabus and CIM to send students to the bookstore learning resources. Motion passes and was seconded 11-0-0.

GEOG 202 – Communication, Media, and Society

• Re-review for third time – Co–chair noted that the course was removed from programmatic requirements.
• Reviewer LO 3 is a sticking point but thinks it should be approved. Reviewer thinks the proposer answered the send–back comments. Reviewer thinks this a good course and that the professor is capable of teaching the course. The reviewer looked at other courses in this category and compared with the Norcross amendment and feels that we have approved other courses in this category. Reviewer would vote to approve.
• Reviewer two – feels that there are no grounds to deny course, LO 3 was further updated.
• Motion to approve, motion seconded and passes, 8-2-1.

ATS 341 – Seeking Solutions

• Microcosm of greater climate change issue. Can tell the proposer has done careful thinking and formative and summative assessment. Thinks it should be approved.
• Other reviewer thinks it is a good class.
• Bigger question with Seeking Solutions category with having enough social or natural science to be sufficient.
• Agreement with what reviewer says about what constitutes “social science.”
• Reviewer 1 thinks it is okay in social science, thinks CIM proposal does well to describe weather and climate impacts individuals in areas impacted by climate change.
• Mentioned weekly check–ins. Assessing individual student contributions.
• Reviewer 1 thinks the assessment is okay, with a note to the proposer to clarify.
• Assessment and Accreditation reviewed the course, proposer is giving feedback and teamwork is important, from assessment standpoint, thinks it is okay to approve.
• Motion to approve with notes to correct minor mistakes in the syllabus, was seconded and passes, 11–0–0.

GEOG 331 – Seeking Solutions

• Reviewer 1 thought the course was great, points don’t add up, Ecampus syllabus notes in–person participation.
• Reviewer 2 agrees with reviewer 1.
• Both are unclear about supervision and mentorship for Ecampus.
• Course needs an Ecampus redevelopment proposal.
• Motion to Conditional Approval Pending Ecampus redevelopment proposal and minor clarifications on the syllabus and CIM. Motion passes 10-0-1.

HST 317 – Seeking Solutions

• Reviewer 1 – syllabus is information overload, 25 pages. Feels heavy in social science.
• Reviewer 2 – didn’t have issues
• Troy Hall – course explicitly uses contemporary science articles, meets the spirit of the category.
• Heath Henry – longest proposal in his life, everything is really intentional.
• Motion to approve, motion seconded, motion approved 12–0–0

GEO 305 – Seeking Solutions ––– Just see transcript….

• Reviewer 1 – no objections, note about supervision being delegated to TA’s/ULAs
• Reviewer 2 – crisis PR class, (see transcript BC Dan talked a lot)
• Heath – proposal
• Motion to approve, motion seconded, motion passes 12-0-0

GEO 306 – Seeking Solutions

• Reviewer 1 – title needs to change to Survey of Mines. No idea how it does social science. Course materials are optional. Roll back to clarify specific problems rather than covering all different types of mines.
• Reviewer 2 – roll ack for CLO 1 – what is the main point of the class, scope of problem, and identifying it’s causes. CLO 2.
• Troy Hall – missing social science in weekly schedule.
• Motion to rollback: it is unclear how the course fits the category; what is the main question of the class, what is it attempting solve? What is the scope of the problem and its causes? Weekly content doesn’t have social science content; as written course does not fit the category. Motion seconded. Motion passes 12-0-0.

GEO 380 – Seeking Solutions

• Motion to rollback GEO 380: What is the main question of the class, what is it attempting solve? What is the scope of the problem and its causes? Weekly content does not yet have sufficient social science content nor sufficient integration of multiple approaches into addressing the problems. Motion is seconded and passes 11–0–0.

FOR 346 – Seeking Solutions

• Reviewer 1 – continue to recommend roll–back, students are assessing other solutions that have been proposed, teamwork is weak. Specifically, rollback as essential assignments are not meeting LOs.
• No social science in the course. Teamwork is not addressed as described.
• Reviewer 2 – some improvements, CIM has been updated but syllabus never was updated.
• Direct feedback that is more concise needs to be given.
• Motion to rollback this course does not fit the category; fundamental changes to the course structure would need to happen in collaboration with seeking solutions fellows and the core ed committee; alternatively, you can teach the course as is outside of the category. Motion is seconded and passes 12-0-0 in favor.

WSE 111 – Beyond OSU I – defer to next meeting.

WGSS 414 – Difference, Power & Oppression – Advanced

• Needs Ecampus development proposal.
• Reviewer 1 says approve.
• Reviewer 2 says more detail on how LOs are met, specifically LO 2, can students skate by on the coattails of group members.
• Heath says this is a minimal proposal. This course makes sense to someone in the field but seems like it wouldn’t make sense to someone outside the field.
• The course is appropriate for category, agrees it is barebones/succinct. Course enrollments are low so students can’t skate by.
• Motion to conditionally approve pending Ecampus redevelopment proposal. Proposal is seconded and passes 11-1-0.

HSTS 213 – defer to next week

HST 210 – Difference, Power & Oppression – Foundations

• Second review
• Reviewer 1 – think they addressed LO’s, added racism and systems of oppression. Contemporary issue is not obvious but sees where it was added
• Reviewer 2 – LO 3 looks better, student positioning is in CIM but not syllabi but they covered it
• Motion to approve, seconded, passes 12-0-0.

HST 204 – Difference, Power & Oppression – Foundations

• Exemplary
• Motion to approve, motion seconded, motion passes 11-0-0.

HDFS 201 – Difference, Power & Oppression – Foundations

• Good, recommend approval.
• Essential assignment, wonders if it’s evaluating intersectionality.
• Heath felt it is weak but is there. Brought in race and income level, believes they do more than what is described and it meets the threshold.
• Motion to approve, motion second, and passes 12-0-0.

ES 223 – Difference, Power & Oppression – Foundations

• Reviewer 1 – CIM proposal issues – Core Ed LO’s addressed and assessed are superficial, LO 3 is fine. Missing teaching strategies and content. Other issue CIM parameter where students are asked to provide opportunities to reflect on their own identities – description does not support this for student, it is probably there but not articulated in proposal. Contemporary issues are not explicit.
• Reviewer 2 had a similar review. Mismatch in CIM and syllabus description
• Evident that reviewer wants to teach it how it has been taught, and the course is not re–working to meet the LOs.
• Motion to rollback for the following: 1) match the course description between CIM and syllabus; 2) remove the second repeated core ed statement; 3) more contemporary examples are needed; 4) LOs 1 and 2 need clarification on how the assignments assess the LOs; and 5) it is unclear how students reflect on their own positions. Motion seconded. Motion passes 12-0-0.

ES 201 – Difference, Power & Oppression – Foundations

• Reviewer 1 – needs to be rolled back, superficial. LO’s are not well defined. Need historical events and teaching activities.
• DPO program concurs.
• Motion to rollback ES 201 to 1) provide greater specifics and examples on how the assignments assess all parts of the LOs; 2) add detail on how students reflect on their own positions; and 3) revise the syllabus for clarity and include a Core Ed LO table to help students see how the LOs are addressed and assessed. Motion is seconded and passes 12-0-0.

 

Minutes prepared by McKenzie Huber