ASCnet

At 3/2/09 mtng, Sciences Subcom clarified 1/12/09 contingencies, removing items 1 & 3 and expanding on item 2 below- emailed to R Mcclish 3/3/09 res:

2. Assessment plan is written as a grading plan (aside from a qualitative survey); they say embedded questions will be used but don’t explain how they will be analyzed; request more detail regarding the last paragraph below the expected learning outcomes; how does it meet GEC learning outcomes (it is on the syllabus; could the proposers cut and paste these into the assessment plan?)

• No mention of how the embedded questions address learning outcomes and no examples; send some sample questions that map to the learning outcomes- what are the expectations/performance levels that would be acceptable? I.e., their debate is a great measure of this: include a brief grading rubric. How will the results be analyzed to improve the course and student learning?
• What are the expectations for learning?- How are the pts given for the debate assignment? Link to learning outcomes.

Contingencies sent to R McClish 1/14/09 res

1. Is this adequately a GEC physical & natural science course? What is the rationale for this?
2. Assessment plan is written as a grading plan (aside from a qualitative survey); they say embedded questions will be used but don’t explain how they will be analyzed; request more detail regarding the last paragraph below the expected learning outcomes; how does it meet GEC learning outcomes (it is on the syllabus; could the proposers cut and paste these into the assessment plan?) 
3.Why is it a 400 level course vs. any other level?  Lack of prerequisites not a concern if the rigor of the course is worthy of this level (especially in physical sciences).  If it was a lower, say 200-level course, it would seem adequate. 

1. Geog 420 Approved with Contingency
1. Waiting on concurrences from Earth Sci, Econ, Nat Resources, Physics, and Int’l Studies.  Reminders to be sent week of 2/18.
2. Needs an assessment plan for course before going to Sub-C