Present: Adelson, Shanda, Highley, Berman, Hobgood, Vasey, Mumy, Florman, Oltman, Krissek, Trudeau, Schoen, Wanzer, Andereck, Collier, Breitenberger, Lemberger
- Updates from chair
- CAA approved IS double major within tracks
- CAA approved Societal Perspectives in Science and Technology minor
- ASC Faculty Senate B.S. template- vote on template and hours to degree next Wednesday
- Service Learning- Guests Mindy Wright and Golden Jackson
- Method for identifying service learning courses by using suffix “S” so that students can find these courses easier
- 70 courses already identified as SL, proposal would be sent to Golden to be reviewed for SL content, she’d send to OAA to have “s” added.
- New courses would go through normal process and then be proposers would be encouraged to send to the roundtable for “s” suffix
- Check list of core requirements for “S” provided for faculty
- “S” would not have to be on a course every quarter
- Vote: 9 yes, 0 no, 0 abstentions
- AP credit- Jay Hobgood
- Revised title to be less negative based on suggestion
- 4 major concerns expressed at last meeting
i. Historical studies should be added
ii. Foreign Language should be removed
iii. Extend proposal to BS degree
iv. Add international baccalaureate courses
- Concern expressed that not enough data is available to make decisions regarding AP credit right now; lowering hours to 181 to degree and increasing courses required is concerning
- Noted that the Honors students will also already be seeing more stringent requirements
- Noted that there are a large number of students who are getting a degree without taking an adequate number of college level GECs, AP credit proposal will allocate some credits that can be used toward hours to degree, but under the proposal a student just can’t wipe out a GEC category
- Noted that OSU is not giving easier AP credit than peers and recommended that such comparisons be removed as a motive for proposal
- Request made to have Mabel Freeman come to CCI to talk about affect on admissions; chair will pursue
- Concern expressed that proposal would discourage students from applying to OSU
- Question of if strongest students are already in honors, which may not follow these guidelines, how many students will be affected?
- Proposal is an attempt to get ahead of the curve with regards to the increase in AP credit counting for GEC instead of being reactionary in the future as well as use AP for its original design—Advanced placement toward a high level course
- Proposal calls for students to take higher level courses, not 100 level
- Request for data break down of how many students bring in how many hours; chair will generate this information for CCI
- History Department already changes their AP credit allotment from 10 credit hours to 5 hours
- Suggested that another solution would be to go through course by course in GEC and limit hours that a student can use to place out of a category
- Reminded that the goal is to require all students to take the same GEC
- There is a concern that AP teachers teach to the test, is this a test that we can endorse as our GEC hours?
- Student rep. believes students should have to take at least one course in each GEC category
- Suggested that students understand that there will always be course requirements beyond the AP credit hours
- Suggested that the rule should be that students have to take at least one course in each GEC category, therefore why all the concern over the data and admissions?
- Request for info about how CIC institutions handle AP; chair will request information from other institutions
- Student rep suggested that students will not base decision on which college to attend on whether their AP credits will get them 10 hours of credit
- Discussion tabled pending additional information as requested above
- Insight Areas
- Concern over proliferation of layers requirements in GEC -may be partially due to way info is presented
- Diversity panel wants to keep 3 subcategories, CCI should consider these as they are confusing to students
- 4 options regarding Insight Areas presented by Valarie Mockabee
i. students take 2 out of 4 categories
ii. put responsibility on faculty to make sure they’re covered
iii. allow for requirements to be achieved in major
iv. pilot requirements in honors program
- Noted that panel members are invested in the topics and therefore it’s natural that they feel they should be required
- Noted that there’s a 5th option: to add additional “0” credit requirements in these areas
- Suggested that honors pilot might not translate to general student population since honors advising is intensive
- Desire expressed to create something that students and faculty can understand, not make things more complicated than they already are
- Committee reminded that original insight areas concept was that we can say that students will touch on these areas by the end of their GEC experience; students and faculty should not have to complete check- boxes for these
- Humanities is uncomfortable with concept of teaching Moral Reasoning as part of the GEC
- Noted that it’s almost impossible to get through university experience without being exposed to multiple technological tools; definition from panel is to study effects on society
- Question of how we can evaluate that students are achieving the goals if not attached to courses - suggested that insight areas are byproducts of the core of the GEC which is being assessed
- Tech literacy panel would like for courses to be created to explain how technology works and what their affect on society is - reality is that we are 5 years away from having sufficient numbers of these courses
- Request from chair for additional direction on how committee should proceed with insight areas
- Concern expressed over delivery problem if students have to check off more categories. Recommended that we simply encourage faculty to explore these areas in greater depth, maybe provide some seed money to encourage
- Question of if there is truth in advertising if we say students are getting these areas without having data to back it up - suggested that it is possible to assess
- Support for making a statement that we value these as part of an OSU education
- Student rep. noted that she feels she’s already getting the insight areas and they are not part of her GECs
- Recommended that we survey students to see if they feel they are getting these
- We have data that show our students engage in activities that involve diverse populations, but is this enough to say we are successful?
- Request for a few members to look at panel reports and Val’s report to make a suggestion - Gene Mumy volunteered to discuss it with another member
- Question of whether we can encourage these areas by asking departments to articulate where they address these content areas - ask them to submit info as to how they include them in their curriculum and not assess students; this would not be valid for outcomes assessment and accreditation
- Noted that most of the assessment is just a matter of documenting what we are already doing
- Discussion will be continued at subsequent CCI meeting in Spring Quarter
- ASC degree Requirements— Chair report on process
- More reports will be sent for the next meeting addressing areas for CCI action
- Most important issue is University Rule of 15 hours of free electives required: how should this be adjusted in light of changes made to GEC and trends in major requirements?
- Let Ed know if you would like to see any other data that will assist in the deliberation process for these areas