Core Education Committee

Voting members present: Andrea Allan, Vipin Arora, Aidas Banaitis, Abigail Crowell, Kelsey Emard, Troy Hall, Matthew Kennedy, Lori McGraw, Brian Mills, Kari-Lyn Sakuma, Paula Weiss
Voting members absent: Liz Delf, Daniel Faltesek, Holly Mitchell,
Ex-officio members present: Core Ed – McKenzie Huber
Guests: Patrick Ball, Kristin Nagy Katz, Andrew Valls

Transitions Policy

• Proposed material for Core 100 and 300 – a group of experts is being convened to look over the materials regarding mental health.
• Separating the evaluation of CIM proposals from the Canvas module.
• Coming in future meeting – larger discussion about amending the policy around required modules.

Course Reviews

• HDFS 262 Introduction to Human Services                      Beyond I & II
  • Meets the learning outcomes (LO) and criteria.
  • Some initial concerns around transferability by the reviewer.
    • There are other options for Beyond I and II in College of Health.
    • Suggested that this concern around transferability be at least noted in comments back to the originators so they are aware of potential problems in the future.
  • Assessment is good.
  • Missing statement that Transitions is a pre-requisite.

Action: Motion to approve with comment about transitions pre-requisite being added by curriculum later and the need for HDFS to have additional beyond options as not all students will be able to take this course; seconded. The motion passed with 11 votes in favor, 0 votes in opposition and 0 abstentions.

• FST 202 Careers in Food                                              Beyond I & II
  • No issues; looks like a great course for the categories.

Action: Motion to approve with no comments; seconded. The motion passed with 11 votes in favor, 0 votes in opposition and 0 abstentions.

• KIN 193 Intro to Careers in Kinesiology                           Beyond I
  • Several components in how students are assessed – there seems to be some discrepancy between the syllabus and the proposal.
    • Each modality breaks out the activities a bit differently – for example, Ecampus has more discussions.
    • There are some other discrepancies within the same modality – for example, the Corvallis syllabus lists research at 26% in CIM but 28% on the syllabus.
  • Cascades syllabus – some minimum syllabus requirements are missing regarding instructor information and office location.
  • There is less information in the syllabus than in CIM about assessment, but it feels like there is enough information for students to understand.
  • The Assessment Office has no concerns with the course.

Action: Motion to approve; seconded. The motion passed with 11 votes in favor, 0 votes in opposition and 0 abstentions.

• OP 101 Intro to the Outdoor Products Industry                 Beyond I
  • Well done but one small oversight.
    • No portfolio is listed under "Evaluation of Student Performance," though the portfolio is discussed in the course content and Core Education Matrix.
    • The course total for Ecampus = 600 points. The Cascades campus syllabus is exactly the same, except it includes the Sharepoint Portfolio (100 pts.) under "Evaluation of Student Performance. The course total for Cascades is 700 points.
  • Syllabus could use more explanation of LOs.

Action: Motion to approve with request to address the oversight; seconded. The motion passed with 11 votes in favor, 0 votes in opposition and 0 abstentions.

• ENGR 102 Design Engineering and Problem Solving           Beyond I
  • Several issues with the proposals.
  • The Cascades syllabus is mostly a template with almost zero information.
  • The reflections assignments contribute so little to a student’s grade that the student could essentially not do them at all, and it would have little effect on their grade.
    • Maybe they just need to provide more details connecting reflection to how it fits the LO.
  • No location labels on the syllabi.
  • Learning Resources and course content vary widely between courses.
  • The essential assignment – the career relevance portion of the assignment may not be enough to meet the criteria.
  • No mention of the paper used for the essential assignment for LO 1.
  • Many of the instructions are vague.
    • Being taught by at least 16 different instructors.
    • ENGR 100 is being put forward as Transitions, but it covers a lot of career development.

Action: Motion to send back citing multiple issues that need addressing. 1) Develop Cascades syllabus, including a course content section, and how it meets LOs and Criteria; 2) Provide more detail on how the reflections assess LO 1 and ensure that the assessment is high stakes enough to motivate student completion; 3) Clarify how the teamwork project used for LO 2 produces Career Relevant Artifacts, using the definition of the Career Relevant Artifacts in the Learning Outcome, Criteria, & Rationale (LOCR) document; and 4) Ecampus syllabus needs Learning Resources; seconded. The motion passed with 10 votes in favor, 1 vote in opposition and 0 abstentions.

• AEC 250 Intro to Environmental Econ & Policy                  Social Science
  • Learning Outcomes
    • Explain the informal and formal structures and processes of Institutions and human behavior.
      • The LOCR definition of an institution is somewhat narrow.
      • The institution chosen by the course is the economy, which is not listed under the definition in the LOCR.
      • Markets is listed under rationale, but the economy could be included with Markets.
    • Describe how quantitative and qualitative data are used to explain human behavior.
      • Course does not use qualitative data.
    • Characterize your individual role in the structures, processes, or institutions of society.
      • The essential assignment is a reflection that asks students about their opinions on the economy. Is an opinion the same thing as a student’s “role” in the economy?

Action: Motion to rollback with the following: 1) an explanation of qualitative data is used to address LO1; 2) more detail on how you are conceptualizing institutions in this class; and 3) an explanation for how the essential assignment for LO 3 addresses the outcome (clarification on how the student characterizes their role in the economy beyond their opinions of the economy); seconded. The motion passed with 11 votes in favor, 0 votes in opposition and 0 abstentions.

• GEOG 203 There is No Plan(et) B                                   Social Science
  • There are some major issues with the proposal.
  • Essential assignment in CIM for LO 2 does not match what is in the syllabus.
  • They are still covering Difference, Power & Oppression (DPO) topics, but it is not clear how they are meeting the current DPO LOs. They are not trying to get into the new DPO program but want to transition into Social Science. They aren’t meeting current Baccalaureate Core standards.
    • Sent back by the previous DPO director.

Action: Motion to rollback: 1) provide explanation of how this class continues to meet Baccalaureate Core DPO LOs and criteria; 2) Core Education LO 2 Essential Assignment does not match in CIM proposal and syllabi; seconded. The motion passed with 11 votes in favor, 0 votes in opposition and 0 abstentions.

• FST 320 Seeking Solutions in Food Sustainability              Seeking Solutions
  • Will be discussed during the next meeting.

• ANS 315 Contentious Social Issues in Animal Science        Seeking Solutions
  • Will be discussed during the next meeting.

• GEO 201 Physical Geology                                            Scientific Inquiry
  • Will be discussed during the next meeting.
• H 244 Science of Human & Planetary Health                     Scientific Inquiry
  • Will be discussed during the next meeting.

• PS 207 Political Communications                                    Comm, Media, Society
  • Will be discussed during the next meeting.