Meeting Summary Notes
May 15, 2002
Conference Call
Members
Present
Dave
Phillips, Clatsop Community College, Chair
Jim
Arnold, Oregon University System
Craig
Bell, Portland Community College
Liz
Goulard, Chemeketa Community College
Michele
Sandlin, Oregon State University
Mary
Kay Tetreault, Portland State University
Mark
Wahlers, Concordia University
Elaine
Yandle-Roth, Community Colleges and Workforce Development
Dave
Phillips called the meeting to order at 10:05 a.m.
1.
Introductions, Announcements and Suggestions for the Agenda
Jim Arnold called the roll of members.
There were no announcements or suggestions for the agenda.
2.
Minutes of the April 17, 2002, Meeting
The minutes of the April 2002 meeting
were approved as submitted.
3.
Report from the May 10th Business Chairs/Deans Meeting
Elaine Yandle-Roth reported on the
meeting of the statewide business chairs/deans group that she and Arnold
attended on May 10th. This was an all day meeting held at
Linn-Benton Community College devoted, as was their February meeting, solely to
the topic of the proposal for an Associate of Science transfer degree in
Business. As there were participants present that were not involved in February
(EOU, OSU, OSU, UO had representatives in attendance this time), much the same
“processing” was required. In the end, since a final product could not be
agreed to, a special task force (subcommittee) was named to “clean up” the
final recommendations and circulate them to other stakeholders (e.g., Academic
Council, Council of Instructional Administrators).
The group made progress toward a degree
that may have to be offered at two different “levels.” The first level of this
AS degree might include the “business” designation, allow a student to transfer
with lower-division general education credits met at the receiving campus, and
register as a junior. Admission to the business school of choice would not be
guaranteed, however. The second level of this transfer degree would be
institution-specific, include additional, required business courses, and allow
entry directly into the business school.
The group in attendance on May 10th
could not come to any kind of compromise agreement in terms of constructing a
prototype transfer degree; all participating OUS campuses maintained that all
of their specific business-school pre-requisites would need to be met by a
transfer-degree student. Hence, much of the discussion was devoted to examining
the possibility of a degree that would include a combination of ALL business
programs’ lower-division requirements – and effectively leave little room for
electives.
Phillips indicated that he had received
a brief written report from the Clatsop Community College business program
representative to the meeting. That communication had indicated some expression
that the legislature might be involved in mandating a degree. Arnold assured
Phillips that he had tried to communicate to the participants that involving
the legislature in curricular matters was not a desirable route to take.
The topic of common course numbering
(for business courses) was addressed briefly during the meeting; common course
outcomes were not. Oregon Independent Colleges were not represented at the
meeting.
The task force appointed by the
business chairs/deans is to be led by Jim Arnold of OUS. Arnold indicated that
Joan Ryan of Clackamas Community College, the facilitator for the last two
business chairs/deans meeting, will be present for the next meeting of the
Student Transfer Committee on June 5th.
4.
AS/OT Proposal from Oregon State University
Given the difficulties with
constructing a disciplinary-specific AS degree (such as the business degree
discussed above), Michele Sandlin, on behalf of Oregon State University,
proposed that the JBAC and Student Transfer Committee consider a “generic” AS
transfer degree such as OSU has in place with Washington State Community
Colleges (and is developing with Hawaii). With a generic AS transfer degree, a
variety of majors could be accommodated.
Phillips suggested that this be added
to the agenda for the June 5th Student Transfer Committee meeting.
Sandlin indicated that she will have a written document ready to distribute to
the group before that meeting and Arnold agreed to distribute it ahead of time.
The STC will make a recommendation to JBAC on how to proceed with this concept.
5.
Transferring Reading Courses
Yandle-Roth indicated that a conference
call meeting was held recently to address the issues previously raised at JBAC
regarding the transferability of reading courses. The composition of the small
group that met by conference call was not really appropriate to make much
progress on this issue, however. The participants initially named to this group
have been difficult to schedule into a meeting. (Only two campus staff were
present for the meeting: one from Portland State University and one from
Central Oregon Community College.) Yandle-Roth indicated that she will attempt
to recruit individuals to participate in another meeting during the fall term.
Craig Bell reported that the initial PCC issue has been resolved: with a course
title change, PSU is now accepting a reading course that had previously been in
question.
6. Data Sharing with OICA Institutions
Yandle-Roth announced that a conference
call meeting is scheduled for June 10th at 10:30 a.m.. Participants
will be herself, Jim Arnold, Mickie Bush (Concordia University) and Marilyn
Kolodziejczyk (CCWD/OCCURS). The topic will be the JBAC workplan item: “Explore
data-sharing efforts with members of the Oregon Independent Colleges
Association in order to implement a tracking system (e.g., performance,
persistence) for students who transfer to those campuses.”
7.
AA/OT Guiding Principles
Yandle-Roth noted that she had sent
out, the previous day, an email version of a proposed revision to the “notes
and clarifications” section of the current AA/OT degree. This effort was a
result of the discussion at the last JBAC meeting regarding the
campus-by-campus comparison of AA/OT requirements and the desire to offer
additional guidelines and structure to the degree. Such guidelines may be
particularly useful for community college faculty who develop courses that may be
considered for fulfilling AA/OT requirements. The revised notes and
clarifications section proposed by Yandle-Roth is as follows:
NOTES
AND CLARIFICATIONS
[The following notes are
not intended to be part of the actual "Guidelines" (above), but rather
serve to clarify some aspects thereof. As such, they are attached to these
"Guidelines" as reference material for participating institutions.]
Courses
that are developmental in nature, designed to prepare students for college
transfer courses, are not applicable to this degree.
The
"General Requirements" above represent minimal minimum
skill competencies. As such, they may be open to demonstration of proficiency.
Each community college is encouraged to establish how students may demonstrate competency
in lieu of completing the course(s).
The
Speech course is intended to focus on developing formal presentation techniques
similar to those included in Fundamentals of Speech (SP 111). Courses such as Interpersonal,
Intercultural, or Small Group Communications help students develop important
skills but do not meet the intent of this requirement. (What about the Distribution
Requirements? Would we consider these
skill courses? I wonder if
Intercultural Communication might not get at the “global” issues? Do we need to develop parameters to “make
sure it” meet the general requirements?)
Courses
used to meet the "Distribution Requirements" must be at least 3
credits each.
Skills
courses (e.g. studio art and music performance) do not meet the intent of this
section. A limited number of skills
course credits were originally accepted for completion of the “B” list courses
but with the elimination of sequence requirements and the A & B lists these
“B” list courses converted to elective status.
Computer
courses used in the Math/Science/Computer Science area must meet the
intersegmental Computer Science chairs group criteria for a science course.
This includes CS 120, 121, 122, 161, 162, 171, 260, and 271 from the list of
commonly numbered courses.
In
Arts and Letters, the second year of a foreign language may be included, but
not the first year. ASL is considered a foreign language.
The
determination of whether a discipline or course meet Arts and Letters or Social
Science designation is left to the granting college. A course by course determination is to be made (e.g. a few
Criminal Justice courses may meet the social science or Forest Engineering may
meet a science requirement) when not all courses with a given prefix would
qualify.
The minimum number of credits
required for an associate degree is specified in Administrative Rule as well as
in this agreement. Colleges may add
requirements (e.g. computer science, health and PE) and may require more than
the 90 credits but the total number of credits required for the degree should
not exceed the low 90’s.
This proposal, in addition to
suggesting new language, also poses some questions (to be answered by JBAC),
such as: the role of “intercultural communications” courses and skills courses;
what courses/areas should be included in the broad disciplinary areas of the
degree; and the minimum number of credits for the degree.
Yandle-Roth asked if this was generally
what was anticipated in terms of the assignment of producing a “guiding
principles” document? Generally, the group accepted this as good progress.
Guidelines are very useful given the high rate of staff turnover, and can help
with the work of curriculum committees. This document will also be shared with
the Student Transfer Committee.
8.
Organic Chemistry Update
Jim Arnold reported on his
investigation of the organic
chemistry transfer policy. As reported last month, some concern had been
expressed over the organic chemistry listing in the Western Oregon University
articulation tables on the Web. Upon consulting with the WOU registrar and
chemistry department, Arnold reported that the policy for transfer of organic
chemistry (and the opportunity for students to obtain upper division credit)
was being adhered to by the campus.
9.
Workplan Review
A
brief review of the annual workplan had been prepared by Arnold for review by
the group. Individual workplan elements, including commentary on
progress-to-date, follows:
1.
Review and reconsider the recommendations from the Student Services Action
Team, focusing particularly on the topics of academic calendar and residency,
consult with external constituencies regarding these topics, and make further
recommendations, as appropriate.
The
Student Services Action Team recommendations have not been specifically
re-examined during 2001-02. However, several community colleges are reportedly
poised to make the move, for Fall 2002, to an academic calendar that will match
the Oregon University System calendar. Further, the differences in the
residency requirements for community colleges and OUS have again been discussed
at the JBAC level as well as examinations of the issues involved at the
November 2001 joint CAO/Academic Council meeting and the February 2002 meeting of
the Council of Student Services Administrators.
2.
Provide for continuing effective communication between and among the
postsecondary sectors, including such efforts as the JBAC web page, the
Articulation Hotline list, and JBAC member participation in the annual OUS
articulation and transfer conference.
The
JBAC web page has been maintained and kept up to date. The Articulation Hotline
list underwent its annual update during Fall 2001. Several JBAC members
attended and participated in the December 7, 2001, Articulation and Transfer
Conference, including facilitating several sessions.
3.
Consider and/or provide recommendations to the OUS Academic Council and
community college Chief Academic Officers on specific and explicit initiatives
to promote inter-sector collaboration and enhancement of the transfer function.
Recommendations may come in such area as (1) faculty involvement in curriculum
design and program development for the purpose of minimizing barriers to
institutional admissions and enhancing course and credit transfer; (2)
proposing modifications in the Associate of Arts/Oregon Transfer degree; and/or
(3) developing proposals for prototypes of Associate of Science/Oregon Transfer
degrees in various disciplinary areas.
No
activity in area (1) has been recorded. For area (2), the Student Transfer
Committee and the JBAC finalized recommendations during Fall 2001 for minor
modifications to the AA/OT that were approved at the January 2002 Joint Boards
of Education meeting. Additionally, a statewide review of the structure and
delivery of the AA/OT has been initiated. For area (3), a prototype for an
Associate of Science/Oregon Transfer degree in Business has been developed and
forwarded to the Statewide Business Chairs and University Deans group. The JBAC,
in cooperation with CIA, has started an examination of the transfer of reading
courses.
4.
Assess and report progress to the Joint Boards regarding a K-16 approach to
course and credit transfer, teacher education, early collegiate options,
distance learning and standards-based entrance and exit standards.
After
several years of work on the issue of transfer of credits earned for prior
learning, OUS adopted the JBAC-recommended guidelines in this area with a memo
from Vice Chancellor Clark in September 2001. A review of the (1999) OUS credit
transfer policy regarding organic chemistry is underway.
5.
Continue to analyze and standardize the procedures for data sharing between the
Oregon University System and the Department of Community Colleges and Workforce
Development. Examine data for trends that may lead to recommendations for
changes in student transfer polices and procedures. This work should include
progress on recommendations arising from the November 2000 JBAC transfer
student data report, and include:
• Enhanced follow-up on students in Oregon who earn
the Associate of Arts/Oregon Transfer degree, to include tracking of these
students more than one year past their degree.
• Expansion of data-collection efforts on students simultaneously
enrolled in two-year and four-year campuses.
• Expansion of data-collection efforts on transfer
students to assess their academic major after transfer.
• Explore data-sharing efforts with members of the
Oregon Independent Colleges Association in order to implement a tracking system
(e.g., performance, persistence) for students who transfer to those campuses.
A comprehensive update to the November 2000 “What the
Data Say” report is being compiled; data included will speak to the first three
of the bullets above. No progress has been made to date on any data sharing
initiatives between community colleges and OICA.
6.
Assign tasks to and/or consult with external groups working on issues with
transfer implications (e.g., the Oregon Writing and English Advisory Committee
(OWEAC) and the Oregon University System’s Proficiency-based Admission
Standards System (PASS) project).
The
JBAC heard progress reports on PASS, PREP and the CAM. A conversation with
OWEAC is scheduled for mid-May regarding the transferability of writing
courses.
7.
Develop guidelines for articulation of career ladders where proficiency
requirements cut across academic and professional technical program degrees and
courses.
No
activity reported.
Comments offered by members on the workplan
elements above included:
1.
Where are community colleges on the calendar move? No “list” of colleges
changing their fall term calendar exists, so there is no official information
to share about who is moving to an eleven-week calendar. Colleges that had
previously expressed great interest were COCC, LBCC, Clackamas, PCC, and
Chemeketa. Many colleges, however, have held off making the move until more is
known about the effects of the funding cap and the re-definition of the
reimbursable unit. Goulard reported that Chemeketa has decided to stay at 12
weeks for the time being. Bell reported that PCC has similarly adopted a
wait-and-see attitude.
2. The JBAC web page has been
maintained and the hotline list updated this year. Arnold announced that the articulation
and transfer conference this year will be held on December 6th at
Marylhurst University.
3. No additional recommendations are
proposed at this time. On those listed, some progress is being made (e.g.,
AS/OT degree), however slowly.
4. Sandlin indicated a desire to insert
some mention into the workplan regarding electronic data interchange (EDI) and
will forward some suggested language to Arnold for the JBAC’s consideration in
this area. Further, Sandlin indicated that Barbara Balz of OSU is now the EDI
coordinator for Oregon.
6. The suggestion was made to include
the topic of reading course transferability into the workplan. Arnold mentioned
that he will be discussing dual-credit writing courses with OWEAC at their May
17th meeting at Clackamas.
Phillips
suggested that the workplan
be a recurring item on the JBAC agenda each month.
10.
Adjournment and Meeting Dates
The
meeting was adjourned at 11:20 a.m.
The final meeting for the academic
year is:
June
12, 2002 Conference call
10:00-12:00
Prepared by Jim
Arnold
OUS Academic Affairs
May 28, 2002
http://www.ous.edu/aca/5-15-02.html