ASCnet

Details

Date

2007-04-27

Time

Location

Agenda

9:00-11a.m., Bricker 200

Agenda:
1. BS-CIS Minor Program Revisions (proposal below; syllabi may be found at http://artsandsciences.osu.edu/currofc/tracking.cfm?TrackingID=675)
2. Approval of Meeting Minutes
3. Updates from the Chair
4. Historical Study
5. Discussion of Degree Requirements continued:
    Update on Insight Area discussions and process
    BA math requirement (proposal reposted below, same as April 13 meeting )
    Pass/Fail option (proposal reposted below, same as April 13 meeting )
6. 294s/694s and GEC status
7. Dual Credit - guests Nancy Nestor-Baker, Tom Nygren

Notes

Present: Adelson, Shanda, Trudeau, Florman, Hobgood, Harder, Mumy, Vasey, Lemberger, Baker, Oltmann, Andereck, Mockabee, Dutta, Wanzer, Collier, Corel, Francis, Highley

 

1. BS-CIS Minor revisions – guest Neelam Soundarajan

a.   – minor has 2 tracks – Information Systems and Programming and Algorithms

b.      Sub C reviewed and approved proposed changes unanimously

c.       Primary change is to remove CSE 560 from both tracks since it is a course required for the majors and not appropriate for minors

d.      Additional changes include making CSE 360 an elective instead of required and adding 201 or 202 to required course list

e.       Changes in minor were triggered by changes in the field

f.        Question of whether there are courses in other departments that might fit the minor: yes, but they would be approved by the advisor – noted that most minors are more focused within one department

g.       Vote:  9 yes,  0 no, 0 abstention

2. Approval of meeting minutes – Motion – Vasey, 2^nd Shanda
1. Vote: 9 yes, 0 no, 0 abstention
3. Updates from the Chair
1. Senate approved all motions from CCI on Wednesday

                                                               i.      80 hours in one Registrar’s listing

                                                             ii.      Double counting of 2^nd writing in BS degrees

                                                            iii.      Removal of free electives – this will go to CAA.

2. Question of how changes to curriculum will be implemented with students

1.      New students will have 181 hour requirement

2.      Other changes will be implemented incrementally

3. CAA has looked at 6 of 8 professional college proposals for new GEC templates, all proposals will go to University Senate on May 10.  Changes to degree hours will go to the Board of Trustees on June 2
4. Cluster pilot program budget for ASC was approved
5. Re-accreditation

                                                               i.      We were verbally re-accredited, waiting for final written report

                                                             ii.      No major issues were identified—unusual for an institution of this size, and a great testament to all involved in the process

                                                            iii.      Alexis Collier thanked for all of her work in assessment

                                                           iv.      Team was impressed with the embedding of assessment, we will continue this process

4. Historical Study
1. Sub B worked on guidelines beginning Sept. 12; worked with Bill Childs and Jennifer Seigal from the Department of History
2. Reviewed syllabi from History, one of these will be posted on the web for reference for those who wish to propose a course in this category
3. History will be asked for concurrence on courses proposed in this category
4. As with all GEC courses, proposers may request that these courses be available in multiple GEC categories at the time of the proposal.
5. Proposal contains the category goal/rationale and three learning objectives
6. Committee did not discuss how to assess the category, strictly the courses—the ways in which the courses now fit together, given the removal of the sequence, will have to be considered in light of the need to assess the learning outcomes for the requirement of two courses
7. Suggested that specifics of the assessment plan be included with guidelines
8. Proposed guidelines includes requirements that every course in this category will have to include instruction regarding primary and secondary sources

                                                               i.      Noted that it is important for students to understand what constitutes primary and secondary sources

9. Noted that the proposed 3^rd learning objective for Historical Study is somewhat different than the original objective, this was changed to meet historical standards set forth by the State (Objective 3: Students will develop the ability to think critically through the study of diverse interpretations of historical events through historical analysis of primary and secondary sources)
10. Question of whether the assessment of the category will have to determine if students are taking 2 related courses

                                                               i.      One approach is to see which courses students are choosing – if they continue to take the traditional sequences, if so, assess the sequences

11. There is a need to determine whether courses have to meet all 3 proposed objectives, or 2 out of 3
12. Concern expressed that History maintains a hold on this category – the department has been explicit in stating that it is open to any course that fulfills the guideline
13. Question of whether objective number 3 will exclude departments because the faculty are not trained in Historical Study.
14. Suggested that the proposal return to Sub B to re-examine the language of objective 3; recommended that historians in departments outside of History be consulted
15. Sub B will work with Alexis to further develop the assessment guidelines
16. Proposal tabled pending Sub B’s review
4. Insight Areas—update from Chair

a.       The Diversity Panel is reviewing proposals; panel chairs will be invited to next CCI meeting for a discussion of how their recommendations can be implemented

b.      A-deans will be asked to give a summary of discussions occurring within the College curriculum committees

c.       One challenge is to determine how the current Diversity requirement is doing

6. BA Math requirement

a.       Currently, if students place at Level L (“ready for calculus”) on the math placement test, they have completed their math requirement

b.      If students place in Level N (college algebra), the courses they may chose from do not match the placement level

c.       If the goal is to get students to the pre-calculus level, the current system does not achieve that

d.      MAPS CC recommends that the language about Level L be dropped from the BA GEC so that the requirement for Math & Logical Analysis would simply say “Select one course from the following list.”

e.       Noted that this would require students who do place at Level L would have to take a math course that they do not currently have to take, this is a small number of students and only those pursuing a BA.

f.        Placement exam will still have to be taken in order to fulfill the Basic Computational Skills category

g.       Noted that there are courses in this list that students would not have seen in high school

Motion: Math & Logical Analysis category requirement will now read “Select one course from the following list.” Shanda, 2^nd Lemberger

Vote: 10 Yes, 0 no, 0 abstentions

7. Pass/Non-Pass option in the GEC
1. Art department opposes the option, it will greatly affect the studio art classes
2. Suggested that a course might be able to choose to have a statement that indicating that the course is not available for Pass/Fail in GEC.
3. Recommended that language be included to state that Pass/Non-pass is only available upon approval of instructor - another option is to have courses opt in

d.      Concern that the courses we’d like to target for this proposal (upper-level GECs) might struggle given they are typically smaller courses that contain group work

e.       General feeling of committee is that this proposal is largely unsupportable

                                                               i.      Some feeling that students who would chose this option would be motivated students

                                                             ii.      Student representative feels that any student who is motivated in this fashion would want the grade anyway

                                                            iii.      Concern that we have 2 sets of students, those motivated to achieve, and those who will want the “easy way out”

                                                           iv.      Concern that students who take this will have questionable motivation or time pressures

f.        Question of whether we could get input from students – student rep will take it to student council

g.       Concern that the students will love this idea and word will spread quickly, resulting in too many students in a particular course electing this option

h.       Committee will table this proposal pending more information – including information regarding which courses have historically had pass/non-pass students and feedback from those instructors

8. 294/694 courses and GEC status—should GEC status be granted for X94 courses?

a.       Concern: Some departments tell students that their 294 is a GEC without getting approval

b.      Some departments prefer the option as a way to help pilot a course

c.       More discussion requested at future meeting

9. Dual Enrollment – guests Nancy Nestor-Baker, Tom Nygren

a.       High School students can take a course that provides College and High School credit

b.      Currently there is pressure on our regional campuses to offer these because of movements in private institutions

c.       PSEO (Post Secondary Education Option) is one component of Dual Enrollment

d.      Context: Ohio is trying to increase it’s per-capita income, which rises with the level of education attained; higher ed enrollment is a big concern in the state government; the higher ed system in Ohio is stressed with regards to enrollment capabilities; alignment between high school and higher ed is needed

e.       The Ohio Core is a program to increase the academic rigor in high schools – every student will complete the pre-college requirements; only 24% of Ohio high school students have currently completed the core

f.        Dual Enrollment options can be anything that a higher ed institution and a high school agree to establish

g.       Currently most dual credit courses are being taught by high school teachers

h.       Lima proposed that they offer Math 148 and Psych 100 for dual enrollment—permission granted to pilot this after feedback from Math and Psych departments, both of which had concerns

                                                               i.      CCI will monitor this pilot

                                                             ii.      Math representative unable to attend the CCI discussion

                                                            iii.      Psych 100: The Undergrad committee gave initial approval to pilot program, but has concerns – students have to meet an ACT minimum of 21 which is much lower than OSU standards of 27

                                                           iv.      Department is going to insist that the course be taught the same way it is taught on campus  - however, concern expressed over how this will be implemented, especially the diversity component; department will insist that high school teachers cannot teach the course – they will not have the credentials nor will they keep up with the changes in the field

                                                             v.      Noted that the program states that students will be enriched by having college students in the course, but this will not likely be the case if it is offered in a high school building

                                                           vi.      Department is requesting data from Lima regarding their pilot

                                                          vii.      Question of whether we have graduate students who would be available to teach the courses – thought is that Lima faculty will have to teach it

i.         Concern that there are unintended consequences for our students – those who get too many credits in high school lose their financial aid earlier because of too many college credits earned before they actually complete their degree

j.        CCI will continue to discuss this in the future

k.      Noted that the Lima pilot is only one pilot and there are a number of other Dual Enrollment programs that look completely different