Joint Boards Articulation Commission
Student Transfer Committee

Meeting Summary Notes
January 29, 2003
OIT Metro
Portland, OR

Members Present
Dave Phillips, Clatsop Community College, Chair
Jim Arnold, Oregon University System
Mary Brau, Lane Community College
Mickie Bush, Concordia University
John Duarte, Oregon Institute of Technology
Pat North, Eastern Oregon University
Martha Pitts, University of Oregon
Terry Rhodes, Portland State University
Glenda Tepper, Clackamas Community College
Diane Watson, Linn-Benton Community College
Elaine Yandle-Roth, Department of Community Colleges & Workforce Development

Dave Phillips called the meeting to order at 10:15 a.m.

1. Introductions, Announcements, and Suggestions for the Agenda

Members introduced themselves. There were no suggestions for the agenda. Jim Arnold shared a copy of the group photo taken at the last Transfer Committee meeting.

2. Minutes of the October 23, 2002, Meeting

The minutes of the October 2002 meeting were approved as submitted.

3. Transfer Activity in Oregon Postsecondary Education, 1996-97 to 2000-01

Arnold indicated that the Transfer Activity report, discussed at the last meeting, was now complete. It was delivered to the Joint Boards Articulation Commission on December 18, 2002, and the full version of the report, including all appendix material, is now online (as a PDF file) at http://www.ous.edu/aca/OregonTransfer02.pdf.

Members agreed that the report demonstrates the health of transfer activity in the state. Interesting in these data is the performance of transfer students, demonstrated to be comparable to OUS native students. Glenda Tepper observed that the Portland CRC (Portland State University and community colleges research consortium) has their own research agenda pertaining to transfer students in the metro area.

4. Report from the AACRAO Transfer Task Force Meeting (Washington, D.C., January, 2003)

Arnold reported that he attended the first meeting of the national “transfer task force” convened in Washington, D.C. January 24-26, 2003. This is a group of eleven individuals, selected by AACRAO, to “explore what constructive role AACRAO may be able to play in facilitating the transfer of academic credit and in providing assistance to both the sending and receiving institutions.” The meeting began, however, with a discussion of the current lobbying efforts by the Career College Association, and the prediction that “credit transfer” will likely be addressed in Congress’ current deliberations on the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. AACRAO’s position is the federal legislation is not necessary in this area, and that it may be a good idea to educate members of Congress and their staffs about credit transfer. Among the outcomes of the weekend, were (1) the agreement by members to review the Transfer Credit Practices portion of the AACRAO website, (2) to express commitment to develop a transfer guidelines document/manual; a statement of principles; and to compile best practices/case studies in the area of transfer; and (3) to plan a workshop for Congressional staff members, perhaps coincident with the AACRAO national meeting in early April. Arnold will keep the Student Transfer Committee and JBAC up to date on the work of this task force.

5. Status of the AS/OT-Bus

Arnold described the current status of the Associate of Science Oregon Transfer Degree in Business (AS/OT-Bus). The degree proposal was finalized by the statewide Business Chairs and University Deans group last October, and subsequently endorsed by the community colleges’ Council of Instructional Administrators in November and the OUS Academic Council in December. A draft version of the docket item for the Board of Education has been drafted. The “prerequisites/recommendations” section (page 3) of the degree proposal must be finalized before taking the proposal to the Board (only WOU and SOU need to approve their entries at this point; all other campuses have submitted their information). Board of Education approval is expected some time this spring, though after approval of the statewide transfer degree each individual college wishing to offer the degree must submit its own degree proposal.

Some comments, questions and concerns were raised about the impending degree, including:

• Wondering about the utility of the degree with changing requirements for entry into an OUS program. Won’t we increase the frustration level of students?
• Students are not necessarily afforded the protection of OUS native students in terms of catalog year.
• The degree will be of considerable utility for students who stop out.
• The degree is really a set of general education requirements with a guide to OUS prerequisites. This degree may be useful, but only if a student is aware that this degree is NOT an admission to a particular OUS business program.
• The more “distant” a community college is from an OUS campus, the more likely this degree is to be used.

A motion was made (Brau) and seconded (North) that:

The Student Transfer Committee recommends to the Joint Boards Articulation Commission that they make the recommendation to the Board of Education that the AS/OT-Bus be adopted by community colleges “in full” or “not at all.” For colleges who adopt and offer the AS/OT-Bus, no additional requirements or modifications should be allowed.

Discussion:

• Wouldn’t this be implementing the degree to the lowest common denominator?
• This restriction would facilitate transfer of students between community colleges.
• Why shouldn’t colleges be allowed to add requirements?
• At Clackamas, without this restriction, faculty would add sequence requirements as well as PE. AA/OT students are struggling without such a restriction.
• This degree is so rigorous that there is very little flexibility as it stands. There really is no room for additional requirements anyway.
• This is a statewide degree and needs to have a “generic shell.”
• Who is this degree for? Not faculty, not institutions, but, rather: students. This statewide degree will help students have an experience similar to OUS native students at the lower division. We have seen what problems the additional requirements imposed on the AA/OT have caused.

The motion passed with one dissenting vote.

This motion will be reported to the JBAC at the February meeting. It may be possible to take the degree to the State Board as early as March. (It must be emphasized that individual colleges will still need to have their own degrees approved after that.)

6. Proposed AA/OT Guiding Principles and SP 111

Yandle-Roth referred members attention the October 23, 2002, meeting minutes of the Transfer Committee and the May 15, 2002, meeting minutes of the JBAC. Yandle-Roth and Jim Buch had been charged with finding documents related to the establishment of the AA/OT in order to research the “oral communication” requirements issue.

Yandle-Roth distributed copies of two documents, a 1988 draft of the requirements for the AA/OT degree and a “review of discussions by the JBAC (1987-1994) related to the oral communication requirement.” The history of the speech issue is outlined in the latter document, including the 1994 attempt to include language specifying a speech course “in which the student is required to make public oral presentations.” This language never was adopted for the AA/OT oral communication requirement. For the “skills courses” issue, there is not much written history. Yandle-Roth suggested that for both issues, we keep in mind what it is we want for future policy, not necessarily what was done in the past.

Comments included:

• We need to keep accreditation guidelines in mind. In fact, at the present time, the Northwest Association of Schools and Colleges is examining general education requirements. Current accreditation guidelines require “oral communications” in the general education curriculum
• Would like to see as much flexibility for students in this area as is possible.
• What is it that OUS campuses require? (It varies.) Concordia requires SP111 (“stand and deliver” speech course).
• Linn-Benton offers “persuasion”, “interpersonal” and SP111 for their degree.
• OIT wants to see a student have SP111; getting up and delivering a presentation in front of a group has great value.
• What is the outcome we’d like to see? Do we need to require the ability to make a professional presentation? What should students be required to demonstrate?
• Proposed outcome: organize a topic and present it in a public format.
• Should a group of speech faculty be convened to address this issue? Such a group could discuss their views of outcomes desired by a speech/oral communcations requirement. Should we also consult OUS campuses that have a speech requirement in their general education curriculum?
• We should solicit nominations from campuses, OUS and community colleges, of faculty that teach freshman-level speech to serve on such a body. Student Transfer Committee members could be present to frame the discussion.
• Yandle-Roth agreed to collect names of speech faculty to be involved and suggest a format for convening them.

With regard to the inclusion of so-called “skills courses” in the AA/OT:

• Originally such courses were allowed in the “B” list, not in the core curriculum.
• Are OUS students taking acting/dance classes allowed to use them in their general education requirements? Not typically, at UO. At OIT, it depends; three credits may be accepted in the Humanities, but the Civil Engineering students would not be allowed any. Concordia would accept them. At PSU, they are not part of the gen ed, but the credits would be accepted. OSU and UO do not have as part of their gen ed requirements, but other OUS campuses DO have them included.
• As with the previous discussion: what are the outcomes expected? Can we define outcomes for the arts/letters requirements?
• The accreditation handbook specifies humanities and fine arts for inclusion in general education.
• We should be talking about what students know and can demonstrate.
• The UO guidelines in this area were read to the group by Pitts. How about the transfer of courses between Lane Community College and UO? Would faculty be willing to engage in a conversation about “skills courses” that may apply to general education requirements?
• There was an objection to the term “skills courses.”
• Phillips indicated that at the last CIA meeting, the question of outcomes was raised. As opposed to making a list of classes, what should students achieve and know after ten credits of work in arts/letters?
• Would LCC faculty be willing to meet to have a conversation about outcomes language? We need to get past thinking about individual courses.
• Would it be possible to have Mary Brau and Martha Pitts carry this topic forward? Get LCC and UO faculty together to propose language in time for next Transfer Committee meeting? The specific proposal is to have LCC faculty identify syllabuses for at least two (“experiential” or “skills”) courses that they would be willing to have examined by UO faculty to see if they meet the criteria for UO general education. Brau and Pitts will coordinate this effort. It may be possible to develop guidelines in this area, using UO’s already established guidelines as a starting point.

The ultimate goal from these activities is to develop a set of revised “notes and clarifications” for the AA/OT degree.

7. The Generic AS/OT and “The Broken AA/OT”

Arnold called attention to the document distributed with the agenda materials: “Do We Need to ‘Fix’ the Associate of Arts/Oregon Transfer Degree?” This document outlines some of the current limitations of the AA/OT, as well as proposing some options for addressing these limitations. Arnold noted that one possible option, missing from the proposed list, is that of a statewide, transferable general education core curriculum that is “sub degree”, that is, an agreed-upon general education core that does not require an associate’s degree in order to receive credit (as is the case with the AA/OT). Other states have implemented such a practice, among them Illinois and Arizona.

Comments on this proposal included:

• This would be a “more elegant” fix than proliferating more AS block-transfer degrees.
• This would open more doors for students.
• Would the development of a common core eliminate the need for transfer degrees altogether? (Probably not. Arizona has three transfer degrees and the corresponding three “cores.”)
• Can a general education core be made to be outcomes based? The “certification” of a general education core would give value added with an outcomes approach.

Can this concept be brought up at the February JBAC meeting? Yes, this will be included in the Transfer Committee report, and Arnold will be responsible for compiling some accompanying materials (from Illinois and Arizona).

8. Adjournment and Next Meeting
The meeting was adjourned at 2:05 p.m. The details of the next meeting are as follows:

Wednesday May 21, 2003
10:00 a.m. - 2:00 p.m.
OIT Metro, Room 139

Prepared by Jim Arnold
OUS Academic Affairs
February 11, 2003

http://www.ous.edu/aca/1-29-03.htm