Category Archives: Bacc Core

Pre/Views: Results of Bacc Core Review of WIC in Three Colleges

Posted on by | 3 Replies

vicki_cropBy Vicki Tolar Burton, WIC Director

In an article in this issue, Kevin Gable, Chair of the Baccalaureate Core Committee (BCC), describes the process and data used by the Bacc Core Committee in
determining whether WIC courses in colleges under review will be recertified.  Reviewed in 2013-14 were Colleges of Agricultural Sciences, College of Business, and College of Public Health and Human Sciences.  Gable’s article also alerts readers to the key problems the committee saw in this first WIC review—problems that led to some courses being only provisionally recertified (with a given time to fix problems) or even not recertified. The review results are summarized here.

College Recertified Provisionally Recertified Not Recertified Review Cont’d until 2014-15
Agricultural  Sciences 5 4 0 3
Public Health and Human Sciences 3 4 1 0
Business 0 4 0 0

WIC status was removed from four courses at the request of the units offering the courses.  These were primarily housekeeping removals for courses that had been discontinued or replaced by other WIC courses.

Congratulations to faculty whose courses were recertified.  I especially want to recognize two faculty whose course materials were named Exemplary by the BCC: Scott Heppell for FW 454, and John Lambrinos for HORT 318.

Regarding class size for WIC courses under review: only two courses in CAS and two courses in College of Business were over allowed class size.  No courses in PHHS were over class size limit.  Thus overall 81% of WIC courses reviewed fell within class size guidelines (under 30 students).

In spring of 2015, half of the WIC courses in the College of Liberal Arts will be reviewed—those in the Schools of Writing, Literature, and Film; Psychology; Arts and Communication. Remaining units in CLA will be reviewed in 2016.  Colleges of Engineering and Forestry are currently under review.

Upcoming WIC events include a winter term workshop for units who have courses with provisional recertification.  The WIC staff will answer questions and help with course revisions to meet Bacc Core standards.  There will also be faculty events for the College of Liberal Arts in preparation for their upcoming reviews.

Improving Your WIC Course Before Review

Posted on by | 2 Replies

kevingablesBy Kevin Gable, Bacc Core Chair

Category review by the Baccalaureate Core Committee is an important element of maintaining the Bacc Core as a a vital piece of the OSU undergraduate curriculum.  The committee considers a variety of information about a course: data extracted from BANNER regarding the group of students served by the course; information provided by the unit offering the course (including detailed description of assessment processes and interpretations of assessment data); and soon, responses by students to questions on eSET forms.  The committee’s primary goal is to assure that each course continues to meet the goals established for the category, and to provide advice on improving the effectiveness of the unit meeting those goals.

The WIC category is more complex than some others because of the specific writing metrics specified in the criteria.  Further, each WIC course is intended to both use writing as a learning tool and to convey to students professional expectations in their field.  The Committee sees a variety of common issues that crop up to varying degrees among WIC courses:

  • The total word count for writing exercises is often not specified.  We accept that an 8 page paper will satisfy the requirement assuming 250 words per page.
  • It is often unclear whether, and to what degree, drafts receive thoughtful and complete critique by the instructor.
  • The criteria demand that revision of a draft of the major formal writing exercise is mandatory; this is often not explicitly stated.  It’s best to include due dates for drafts and revisions in the course schedule.
  • Links between Baccalaureate Core Category Learning Outcomes and course activities are often vague or even not evident at all.
  • Transparency on syllabi – both with how the course fits the category and how the specific activities in the course will help students achieve the Category Learning Outcomes.
  • We often seek more detailed indication of assessment plans/implementation.
  • We often seek more complete assessment data collection/reporting.
  • For courses with multiple sections and instructors each term, there is often divergence of outcome with respect to students achieving the learning outcomes.  It is best to provide intentional opportunities for all involved with the course to discuss student achievement (or lack thereof) of the Baccalaureate Core Category Learning Outcomes associated with the course.

And, of course, there are the minor mechanical issues that need regular attention on the syllabus:  statement that the course fulfills the WIC requirement of the Baccalaureate Core; verbatim statement of the category student learning outcomes for the category; provision of course schedule and grading criteria as required by the University’s syllabus criteria (http://oregonstate.edu/admin/aa/apaa/syllabus-minimum-requirements) including links to policies on academic honesty (http://oregonstate.edu/business/services/academic-honesty) and a statement regarding students with disabilities.

We certainly hope that by alerting you to common issues that have regularly arisen, you can be proactive and address any problems before review.  We do regularly cite exemplary review packages for courses that are fully meeting our expectations and articulating not just how the course is succeeding but also how the unit’s full cycle assessment is providing continual improvement in the course.