Core Education Committee

Voting members present: Andrea Allan, Vipin Arora, Aidas Banaitis, Abigail Crowell, Liz Delf, Kelsey Emard, Daniel Faltesek, Troy Hall, Matthew Kennedy, Lori McGraw, Brian Mills, Holly Mitchell, Kari-Lyn Sakuma, Paula Weiss
Voting members absent: No members absent
Ex-officio members present: Core Education – McKenzie Huber; Curriculum Management – Stephanie Baugh; Ecampus – Karen Watte; General Education Assessment – Heath Henry
Guests: Kristin Nagy Katz, Caryn Stoess

Course Reviews

• FST 320    Seeking Solutions in Food Sustainability                        Seeking Solutions
  • Course was well developed but the instructor interaction in Ecampus is unclear. How is teamwork aspect going to be facilitated?
    • How does the discussion board meet the criteria? Will the instructor have enough interaction with the students?
      • It is on the instructor to ensure that they are engaging with small groups.
      • There are small group tools within Canvas. Instructors can track who is doing what by students identifying their contributions.
    • In Ecampus, asynchronous learning is campus policy.
    • Assessment is based on a team project.
      • I do think that tools for collaboration and teamwork are separate and distinct from measuring and evaluating teamwork for individuals.
  • Some liaisons needed to be resolved. One reviewer followed up with them.

Action: Motion to rollback to request greater detail on how instructor will provide input and mentorship to team processes in the Ecampus format, and how individual contributions to teamwork are assessed on Learning Outcome (LO) 4 (grading a team project may not be sufficient for assessing individual contributions); seconded. The motion passed with 13 votes in favor, 0 votes in opposition and 0 abstentions.

• ANS 315   Contentious Social Issues in Animal Science                  Seeking Solutions
  • Similar concerns regarding teamwork evaluation and mentorship.
  • Violates HB 2119 – wants students to buy their personal grammar checker through a non-standard link.
  • Does not fit the ‘Seeking’ part of the category. Where are students exploring different solutions to the problem presented? It focuses on a very narrow debate and a specific solution.
  • Some small syllabus issues – LO 4 is missing from the matrix and the commercial project is only mentioned in LO 3 but nowhere else in the syllabus, however it supposedly assesses all outcomes.

Action: Motion to rollback with requests to 1) list resources on the bookstore rather than the syllabus per HB2919; 2) describe how the course can be open-ended about seeking solutions rather than prescribing a solution or debate; 3) provide explanation for how teamwork and instructor mentorship is provided; 4) ensure the essential assignment for LO4 evaluates individual teamwork skills and individual contributions to teamwork; 5) add explanation of LO 4 in the matrix in the syllabus; and 6) ensure match between the assessments described in the LO matrix and the assignments listed under the Evaluation of Student Learning; seconded. The motion passed with 13 votes in favor, 0 votes in opposition and 0 abstentions.

• PS 207     Political Communications                                            Comm, Media, Society
  • Was rolled back a couple of times last spring.
  • Asked for an explanation of the oral presentations; when they’re given and how they are given feedback.
  • How feedback for LO 1 is given.
  • Responses were given in CIM but no changes were made to the syllabi but so it was sent back again.
  • A liaison comment had not been addressed but has since been responded to.
  • All concerns have now been addressed but there is a standing disagreement on where the expertise for this topic lies.
    • There is no content in the course that teaches students how to give a speech or how to resolve communication.
    • There is no instructor on the course.
  • Learning Outcomes:
    • Identify communication and media processes as they relate to social phenomena.
    • Describe different forms of communication and media and the degree to which they meet the needs of diverse audiences and contexts. 
    • Apply communication theory to the development and delivery of speech communication products.
      • Response for how they meet LO 3:
        • Students will be expected to connect the materials in class to the actual delivery of communication strategies in order to best understand what goes into the framing of an issue. They will be expected to think through communications strategies themselves, such as evaluating the audience being appealed to.
        • Students will showcase these skills for their midterm which will ask them to apply themes from the first half of the course to an oral presentation expressing arguments for a selected policy issue and making clear how they are attempting to appeal to selected audiences.
  • This is not a high priority category, so the committee opted to hold the conversation and come back to this course later.
• CORE 100 Transitions                                                               Transitions
  • Asked them to reconsider the LO 1 essential assignment and reconsider the AI statement.
  • Asked them to address the liaison comment.
  • Concerns were addressed.

Action: Motion to approve; seconded. The motion passed with 12 votes in favor, 0 votes in opposition and 1 abstention.

• CORE 300 Transitions                                                               Transitions
  • Same issues as CORE 100 but needed a statement for transfer students.
  • Concerns were addressed.
  • All the 100 and 300 courses must have the same course description to be equivalent. Suggested to add a comment regarding a line about transfer students to Core 300 to help reduce confusion.

Action: Motion to approve CORE 300 with approval to change the catalog description to specify transfer students; seconded. The motion passed with 13 votes in favor, 0 votes in opposition and 0 abstentions.

• HST 106   World History III: The Modern & Contemporary World     Arts & Hum – Global
  • Previously rolled back with the following requests for changes:
    • Please provide more detail and specifics on how Learning Outcome 2 (LO2) is addressed in the class; please clarify how the Essential Assignment for LO2 connects to the learning outcome, because the assignment as currently written doesn't appear to directly assess that particular LO; please explain how formative and summative feedback on creative/interpretive work is provided, per the category criteria; and please remove references to "in-class activities" from the Ecampus syllabus.
  • Syllabus was not updated in all areas.
  • They seem to be unclear what formative assessment is.

Action: Motion to approve with a reminder to change the example/description of the paper used for LO 2 under the Evaluation of Student Learning in the syllabus; seconded. The motion passed with 13 votes in favor, 0 votes in opposition and 0 abstentions.

• ED 216     Purpose, Structure, Function of Ed in Democracy           Difference, Power & Oppression – Foundations
  • A generally good fit for the category.
  • Some minor issues, but not serious issues.
  • Ecampus redevelopment proposal has been submitted.
  • Not a lot of depth to exploring intersectionality but they did have a couple of examples. Some more examples would have been nice.
    • If it didn’t meet the intersectionality requirements, would it have made it past the Difference, Power & Oppression (DPO) Director?
    • This issue with intersectionality issue was apparent at the CADI training so the committee may see other proposals like this.
    • Criteria of the Category: Provide examples of ways in which oppression and privilege occur differently along intersecting identities.
  • The essential assignment for LO 1; wasn’t clear how it explained the social construction of difference.

Action: Motion to Rollback with the comment – we think the class is an excellent fit for the category but before approving we need a bit more detail about how social construction of difference is assessed (LO 1) and a few more examples of intersectionality in the class (LO2 and criteria); seconded. The motion passed with 13 votes in favor, 0 votes in opposition and 0 abstentions.

• ST 243Z   Elementary Statistics I                                              Quantitative Literacy
  • This will be discussed during the next meeting.
• ST 244     Elementary Statistics II                                             Quantitative Literacy
  • This will be discussed during the next meeting.
• MTH 227   Calculus and Probability for the Life Sciences I               Quantitative Literacy
  • This will be discussed during the next meeting.
• MTH 241   Calculus for Management and Social Science                 Quantitative Literacy
  • This will be discussed during the next meeting.
• MTH 245   Math for Management, Life, and Social Sciences             Quantitative Literacy
  • This will be discussed during the next meeting.
• MTH 251   Differential Calculus                                                  Quantitative Literacy
  • This will be discussed during the next meeting.
• ED 201     Lying with Statistics: Quant Analysis through Social Science Lens         Quant. Lit.
  • This will be discussed during the next meeting.