Faculty Senate

Curriculum Council

October 11, 2007
Minutes

VOTING MEMBERS PRESENT:     
                  Alison Bobal – The Valley Library
                  Neil Browne – proxy for Sandy Brooke – OSU-Cascades
                  Carol Brown – College of Business
                  SueAnn Bottoms – College of Education
                  Marisa Chappell – History
                  Mary Cluskey – Nutrition & Exercise Science
                  John Lee – Mathematics
                  Rick Nafshun –Chemistry
                  Marv Pyles – Forest Engineering
                  John Simonsen – Wood Science & Engineering
EX-OFFICIO (non-voting) MEMBERS PRESENT:
                  Alfonso Bradoch – E-Campus
                  Kent Kuo – proxy for Heather Chermak – Registrar’s Office
                  Laurel Kristick – Library
LIAISON (non-voting) MEMBERS PRESENT:
                  Neil Browne – proxy for Sandy Brooke - OSU-Cascades
                  John Greydanus – Instructional Technology
                  Kerry Kincanon – Academic Advising Council
SUPPORT STAFF PRESENT:
                  Vickie Nunnemaker – Faculty Senate

Chair Report – Lee noted that the meeting schedule had been revised to adequately accommodate the split schedule. The revised schedule is online at http://oregonstate.edu/dept/senate/committees/curric/meet/.
    
     The October 1 minutes were approved as distributed.

Academic Programs Report – There was no report.

Work Session –

1. BIOE 340 - The visit by College of Science representatives has been postponed.
2. Recommendations for changes to the online Category II process – What follows is a list of desirable features that the Curriculum Council recommends be incorporated in any revised software implementation of the on-line Category II Proposal System. It was felt that these features will better serve faculty inputting course requests, result in better and more complete liaison, and minimize the need to go back and ask for additional information once a proposal is submitted.

   The list includes items that may not be fully implementable with current technology or funding. In such cases, we recommend partial implementation consistent with reality.

   Overview – excerpted from the Curriculum Council 2006-2007 Annual report:
   As in 2005-2006, the CC spent considerable time discussing how to improve liaison when curricular changes have potential impact beyond the proposing department and/or college. Problem areas include:

   • Lack of easy-to-use, readily available tools that enable proposers of curricular change to identify all potentially affected units. Who really should be contacted?
   • Lack of a process for tracking concerns raised and actions taken during the liaison process. Are concerns ever addressed? What resolution if any was reached? If differences cannot be resolved, that should be explicitly stated.
   • Since effective liaison is not always easy to accomplish, the online system should provide tools needed to determine which units the proposed changes will affect and means to guarantee that liaison issues are tracked as in the previous item.
     
     

   What follows are specific recommendations related to the foregoing list. The CC is aware that several other lists of desirable features are under discussion. We have restricted our list to items of particular concern to us, but many of the items on the other lists also would be welcome improvements to a new on-line system.
   

   • The new course/program proposal system, in as automated fashion as possible, should send liaison requests to affected departments:
   • For changes to existing courses, generate liaison requests for any unit that has the course as an (enforced) prerequisite, a major or minor degree requirement, elective, or appears on a short list of options in a degree program.
   • For new and existing courses, generates liaison requests to individuals identified by the proposer – provide the proposer with a box in which to enter e-mail addresses.
   • Proposals to drop a course should by supported by software that identifies and notifies for liaison purposes all departments whose students take the course in reasonable numbers (threshold TBD) and departments that require the course as a major or minor degree requirement.
   • It would be preferable if the contact list provided for liaison populated with email addresses.
   •  Add search by department to the search features.
   • Add a search by program type (options, majors, minors, new program requests, perhaps others).
   • Add a feature that enables a department to drop an existing course and add a related new course in a common proposal. The feature should include liaison both for the dropped course and the new course. Assist users by clarifying which action should be selected since it is currently unclear.
   • Provide web access so that community colleges could see proposed OSU Cat. II proposals as they move through the system.
   • Provide a means for community college liaison.
   • The Council does not support a fast track for Baccalaureate Core course removal involving just the proposer, the BCC, and APAA. Such proposals should flow through the CC as well and appropriate liaison should be sent to departments whose students use the course, very likely for baccalaureate core requirement purposes.
          Lee will forward suggestions to the Baccalaureate Core Committee.
   • On Change of Course proposals, the proposal should in every case explicitly list the current course data.
   • When program changes are proposed, the software should display in side-by-side format the existing program information and requirements and the proposed program information and requirements.
   • Add a feature that enables the user to delineate proposed additions in italics or bold or both and show proposed deletions in strike-through format.
   • For discussion purposes with APAA, Scheduling Type FNL (final exam) is unclear. This is from #17 on Larry Bulling’s list.
   • Provide a check box to indicate who did and did not respond to the liaison request.
   • There should be a dedicated field for learning outcomes, especially to assist with accreditation reviews. (Currently learning outcomes are “buried” in the syllabus that accompanies the proposal.)
   • There should be a dedicated field for assessment of learning outcomes, again for accreditation purposes.
   • There should be a separate field for the course syllabus. (This would facilitate linking the on-line catalog with a course description, ultimately for every course.)
   • Revise the liaison letter to state that failure to respond by the indicated deadline (now two weeks – reasonable?) means the contacted unit does not object to approval of the proposal.
   • The system should suggest that liaison is done prior to beginning to prepare the proposal.
   • For discussion purposes with APAA, #22 on the Category II Online System Suggestions was not clear.
   • The software should provide a list of respondents to liaison requests. This list should include person contacted, and his/her unit affiliation.
   • New course or program proposers should be explicitly directed by the software that they must drop old courses if the new courses are replacing existing ones and that they must drop old degree, option, etc. requirements when proposing new ones
   • The search page for proposals now has a course tab and a program tab. There should be only one tab and proposal numbers should uniquely identify the course or proposal.
   • Users inputting a Cat. II proposal need to be able to stop at any point save their work and continue later. (Now you can only logoff at certain points and it is not clear how far into the future they are.)
   • When revising a Cat. II it would be very helpful to be able to enter the draft and any point. (Now you basically have to step through all the screens to make a change in one.)
   • Somewhere in the Cat. II process proposers should be alerted that an item that causes a request for additional information may significantly slow up the processing of their request. Posted timelines refer to proposals that pass through the system with minimal such requests.
   • Proposer should be required to respond to liaison, probably in dedicated text boxes or dedicated attachment sites. A proposer should explicitly summarize the concerns raised and, if any, actions taken to address those concerns. The proposer should explicitly list the name and affiliation of any liaison respondent with whom difference could not be resolved.
     

Lee asked Council members to review the list and send any corrections or additions to curric@lists.oregonstate.edu; the final list will be reviewed in two weeks.

Although not a recommendation, Cluskey would like the Council to revisit #24 regarding wait lists since there is currently confusion surrounding the enforced prerequisite lists.  

3. E-campus course approval process for on-campus courses ported to E-campus – Lee is a liaison to the Distance Education Committee and will ask the DEC to review the recommendations formulated by the CC last year. CC continued discussion of the process will be postponed until both Cluskey and Bradoch can be present.
4. Minors – This will be discussed at the next meeting.  
   
   

New Business – None.

Wrap-up – The next meeting will be October 22 from 3:30-5:00 in 128 Kidder Hall.

APPROVED CATEGORY II PROPOSALS

COLLEGE OF OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES

Drop
ATS 415. ATMOSPHERIC DYNAMICS I (4). Effective Fall 2008 (3268).
ATS 416. ATMOSPHERIC DYNAMICS II (4). Effective Fall 2008 (3269).
ATS 446. GEOPHYSICAL BOUNDARY LAYERS (3). Effective Fall 2008 (3270).
ATS 420. PRINCIPLES OF ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCE (4). Effective Fall 2008 (3271).
OC 430. PRINCIPLES OF PHYSICAL OCEANOGRAPHY (4). Effective Fall 2008 (3272).
OC 450. CHEMICAL OCEANOGRAPHY (3). Effective Fall 2008 (3273).
OC 460. GEOLOGICAL OCEANOGRAPHY (3). Effective Fall 2009 (3277).