Meeting Summary Notes
February 19, 2003
Oregon State
University
Corvallis, OR
Members
Present
Liz Goulard, Chemeketa Community College, (Temporary)
Chair
Jim Arnold, Oregon University System
Craig Bell, Portland Community College
Dave Phillips, Clatsop Community College (via phone)
Michele Sandlin, Oregon State University
Karen Sprague, University of Oregon
Glenda Tepper, Clackamas Community College
Mark Wahlers, Concordia University
Elaine Yandle-Roth, Community Colleges and Workforce Development
Guest
Andy Duncan, Oregon University System
Liz
Goulard called the meeting to order at 10:25 a.m.
1.
Introductions and Announcements
Jim Arnold announced that Mary Kay
Tetreault would be absent from the meeting today, as she was unavoidably
detained in Washington, D.C. due to weather conditions there. Liz Goulard has
agreed to facilitate the meeting today in her place. All those present
introduced themselves. Michele Sandlin welcomed everyone to the Oregon State
University campus and reviewed the options in the Memorial Union for lunch.
2.
Minutes of the January 15, 2003, Meeting
The minutes of the January 2003 meeting
were approved as submitted. The discussion of the production of meeting minutes
was deferred until the next meeting, when Tetreault will be present.
3.
Report from the AACRAO Transfer Taskforce Meeting
Arnold distributed material from
the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers
(AACRAO) that announced the formation of a national “Transfer Taskforce.” Also
distributed was a membership list of the 12-person group, of which Arnold is a
member. The first meeting of the Taskforce was held January 24-26, 2003, in
Washington, D.C. Although the Taskforce’s announced charge was 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,” a significant portion of the conversation during the first day
revolved around the possibility of transfer issues being addressed in upcoming
federal legislation (the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act). Although
the specifics of what may be included are not clear, the subject has arisen at
the urging of the Career College
Association (CCA), the lobbying organization for private career schools.
What appears to be at issue is credit transfer from nationally
accredited colleges to regionally accredited institutions. Arnold agreed
to keep JBAC apprised on the work of the national taskforce as it proceeds.
4.
Variability of General Education Requirements
Andy Duncan, of the OUS Southwestern
Oregon University Center, gave a short presentation on “The General Education
Requirements Dilemma” – the same presentation he gave at the 2002 Articulation
& Transfer Conference that created some controversy about the apparent lack
of success of the current Associate of Arts/Oregon Transfer degree. In the
presentation, he reviewed the core requirements of the AA/OT and compared them
to the current lower-division general education requirements at the seven OUS
institutions. There is much variability in the OUS general education
requirements, as there is among community colleges (for example, some of the
community colleges have sequence requirements in their versions of the AA/OT).
The great differences between campuses can, and does, create much confusion for
students who transfer. Especially problematic is the AA/OT-seeking student who
forgoes the degree and transfers to an OUS campus prior to completing it.
However, the variability of OUS general education requirements is a good
argument in favor of the AA/OT…and argues, also, for a good statewide computer
system that can handle all course-equivalencies. This conversation necessarily
leads to the question about whether or not the University System (or JBAC)
should be seeking more uniformity in the lower-division general education
requirements. With students typically attending two or more institutions to
accumulate enough credits for a degree, the coherence and consistence of
general education requirements is an important issue. Comments on this topic
included:
Phillips indicated that he believed the
issues raised by Duncan were a perfect lead-in to a discussion of the work of
the Student Transfer Committee.
5.
Report from the January 29th Student Transfer Committee (STC) and
Status of AS/OT-Bus
Phillips indicated that Duncan had
framed the dilemma (and many of the issues currently under discussion by the
STC) well. The various issues under discussion are “quite messy.”
AS/OT-Bus
With regard to the AS/OT-Bus, the STC
talked extensively about this proposed new degree. The CIA in their recent
meeting addressed the topic as well. Everyone seems to acknowledge that the
AS/OT-Bus does not solve all problems currently associated with the AA/OT. At
the CIA/CSSA meeting on February 13th, there was much discussion of
the “subject to change without notice” admonition in the last section
addressing university prerequisites. The primary issue raised was that transfer
students obtaining the AS/OT-Bus appear to have fewer protections than native
OUS students who would enter their academic programs under a particular
academic catalog and have a specified time to complete. At any rate, the STC
recommends moving forward with this degree proposal; even though the degree may
not be perfect, it merits a try and if problems arise we can attend to them.
The STC believes that if we move ahead with this statewide degree, it should be
adopted as is, that is, courses or sequence requirements should not be
allowed by the individual colleges that implement this degree. The STC passed
the following motion:
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.
As part of its ongoing charge in
matters of articulation and transfer, the JBAC would be the body with
responsibility for monitoring the implementation of the AS/OT-Bus; the JBAC
would rely on the Business Chairs and University Deans group for guidance,
review of the degree requirements, and updating of the prerequisites section.
The current version of the degree proposal, including all entries in the university
prerequisites section, has been approved. In making this degree a success,
communication with students will be the key.
One concern expressed about the degree
was the inability to communicate changes in the degree (or prerequisites) to
students. And, what about students who don’t complete the degree? How many
students will we have in that category, and what will happen to them? Who will
keep up the degree requirements and prerequisites and communicate them to
interested constituencies? (Answer: Jim Arnold, OUS.)
Despite some reservations, and
unanswered questions, Phillips indicated that this is a risk we have to take.
It may be that some colleges opt to not offer the degree, or to decide to offer
it at a later time. Do we (the JBAC) want to move the degree forward to the
Board of Education? The motion was made (Tepper) and seconded (Phillips) that:
JBAC
accept the STC motion and move the AS/OT-Bus degree proposal forward to the
Board with the recommendation that colleges only propose degrees for approval,
under statewide guidelines, that impose no additional requirements.
The motion was unanimously
passed.
In response to a question about an OUS
institution (perhaps OIT) offering the degree, the approval process would be
different. If an OUS campus wanted to offer the AS/OT-Bus, it would have to be
approved by the Board of Higher Education.
The draft version of the AS/OT-Bus
docket write-up, written by Arnold for consideration by the State Board, was
approved with minor modifications.
Speech
Communication
With regard to the STC’s consideration
of the “notes and clarifications” section of the AA/OT, the topic of the Oral
Communication/Rhetoric requirement was revisited. The question is: is the
original intent of this requirement still valid today? In the early days of the
AA/OT, the requirement was fulfilled by SP 111 (a “stand and deliver” speech
course), but the kinds of speech courses that some colleges use to satisfy that
requirement now include “persuasion” and “interpersonal communication.” The decision
arising from the STC is to gather some speech/communication faculty together
and have them frame what ought to be the educational outcomes for the AA/OT in
terms of communication/rhetoric. Yandle-Roth will recruit and convene such a
group in time for a report to the next STC meeting in May.
Studio/Performance
Courses in the AA/OT Arts & Letters Distribution Requirements
The question that the STC has been
grappling with in terms of studio, performance, or “skills” courses, is: should
they be allowed in terms of fulfilling requirements in the Arts & Letters?
In the beginning, such courses were not allowed, but some are now included. The
STC discussion focused on the desire to be able to express outcomes for such
courses if they were to be included in the AA/OT. The STC directed two of its
members, Mary Brau of Lane Community College and Martha Pitts of the University
of Oregon, to explore what language might be used (based on a model now in use
at UO) to describe acceptable outcomes for courses that would be considered to
be in this category. Brau will provide LCC syllabi for courses that will be
examined in light of guidelines for acceptability under UO’s UNDERGRADUATE
GENERAL-EDUCATION REQUIREMENTS
Karen Sprague informed the JBAC that,
to date, the UO Undergraduate Council has examined about 100 courses and
compared them to the criteria outlined in the new group-requirement policies.
Most courses have measured up, but some have not. She expressed eagerness to
examine the LCC courses.
“Fixing
the AA/OT” Memo
Phillips referred to the policy memo,
prepared by Arnold, entitled “Do we need to “fix” the Associate of Arts/Oregon
Transfer degree?” This document does an excellent job of framing the issues and
concerns that have been discussed at recent Articulation & Transfer
Conferences as well as in several meetings of the JBAC and STC regarding the
transfer degree. One idea discussed at length at the STC meeting was the
concept of a “statewide, standardized, transferable, lower-division general
education core curriculum.” This would be a “sub-degree” point of completion
for students that would be transportable and transferable without loss of
credit. Phillips and Arnold discussed this concept with the joint CIA/CSSA
groups on February 13th, and the group seemed to think that the
idea/concept was worth exploring further. Phillips wanted to alert the JBAC
that this is an idea that the STC will be researching, and may come back with a
recommendation in this area at some point.
Bell indicated that the CSSA group also
talked about this concept in a separate meeting. Some of the observations
arising from that conversation were:
The suggestion
was made to see what the experience has been in other states (e.g., Arizona,
Illinois) that have implemented transferable general education core curricula.
Did students benefit from doing this? Is this pathway really being used and is
it beneficial to students? How do we know? Did it encourage students to NOT
complete an associate’s degrees? Arnold agreed to explore such questions with
other states.
Other
questions that JBAC members had included: what exactly is the idea being
proposed? How would the process look? Is this concept really viable? How do we
proceed? For JBAC to endorse such a proposal, OUS naturally would have to be
involved. There seems to be genuine interest in the concept. Arnold will share
the policy memo draft with Vice Chancellor Clark so she is briefed on the
latest discussions at the JBAC and STC level.
Phillips
indicated that there is some interest on the part of some CIA members regarding
the option of “mandating” conformity to the AA/OT degree. We may want to spend
some time discussing possible ramifications of such an approach at a future
JBAC meeting.
6. Status of the AS/OT-CS (Computer Science)
Yandle-Roth
and Arnold reported that a proposal for an AS/OT in computer science has been
drafted by one of the computer science department chairs (after a meeting last
fall when the concept was briefly discussed at the computer science chairs
statewide group). As far as can be determined, the proposal has not been widely
circulated, and certainly not yet widely discussed. The current proposal will
likely be addressed at the next full meeting of the computer science chairs
(this spring). The suggestion was made that the CS group may benefit by hearing
from a representative of the Business Chairs and University Deans. Arnold and
Yandle-Roth will monitor activity and report back to JBAC.
7. Transfer Activity in Oregon Postsecondary Education
1996-97 to 2000-01
Arnold
referred to the recently-released report “Transfer Activity in Oregon Postsecondary
Education, 1996-7 to 2000-01”, which the JBAC has seen at several points in its
development. While the report addresses some implications, it does not go so
far as to address possible policy directions. Given that, Arnold invited the
group to engage in discussion about possible policy issues, or perhaps make
recommendations for future study as the report is projected to now be regularly
updated on a biennial basis.
One suggestion
was offered to set up a separate subcommittee of JBAC to address Arnold’s
request and then lead the larger group through a discussion of issues raised. A
few comments on data presentation were offered:
8. Meeting Schedule and Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 1:50 p.m.
The
remaining meetings for the year are as follows:
March 19, 2003 9:00 - 11:00 Conference
Call
April 16, 2003 9:00 - 11:00 Conference
Call
May 14, 2003 9:00 - 11:00 Conference
Call
June 11, 2003 10:00 - 2:00 at OIT Metro
Prepared
by Jim Arnold
OUS Academic Affairs
February 27, 2003
Revised: April 17, 2003
http://www.ous.edu/aca/2-19-03.htm