Minnesota State Colleges and Universities
COMPUTER SCIENCE AND INFORMATION DISCIPLINE STEERING COMMITTEE
FEBRUARY 6, 2004
MEETING NOTES

Prepared by Sharon Harvey

Officiated by Lee Cornell

Attendees:

Transfer issue/problem one: Develop and communicate clear and compatible descriptions of course and program content.

Not considered workable.

Not considered workable.

Not considered workable, however each school should be encouraged to have their common course outlines on their own Web site.

A 4-year school and a 2-year school could set up an agreement and use that as a model for other agreements into which they wish to enter.

A suggestion was made to have 4-year school representatives meet to discuss a transfer agreement model.  Jerry said that this would be a good meeting for JoAnn Simser or Mitch Rubenstein from the program approval unit at MnSCU to attend.

Not considered workable.

Transfer issue/problem two: Clarify the difference between 200 and 300 level courses.

Not considered workable.  The 4-year schools will want to decide on the course numbering in their own system. This isn’t a problem with the new model.

In the new model we’re considering, we wouldn’t worry about transferring individual courses.  Instead, articulation agreements would be set up between 2-year and 4-year schools.  The entire AA/AS/AAS block would transfer to the 4-year school as a whole, leaving two years worth of upper division classes for a bachelors degree.

Any 2-year school with a department/program with the word “computer”, “information sciences”, etc., in it would have their catalog state either:

Transfer issue/problem three: Credit backbone – Develop clear guidelines to define when a class should be three credits and when it should be four. 

Not considered workable.  This also isn’t a problem with the new model.

4.                  We read through and discussed the Computer Technology Educators Conference meeting notes from October 24, 2003.

The purpose of the conference was to explore the similarities and differences in the way we approach similar courses.  However, in the pre-conference meetings, it became clear that there was intense interest in articulation and transfer of credits between:  

The 2-year to 2-year transfers will probably not have too many cases and can be handled on a case-by-case basis.

The 4-year to 4-year institutions probably already have models set up for these types of transfers.

Our model deals with the 2-year to 4-year transfers.

The 4-year schools shouldn’t dictate the program or content for the 2-year degrees/programs.  They should, however, attempt to articulate agreements with them so that their program transfers as a block and applies toward a bachelor’s degree.

The following is from those flip charts.

                It’s too overwhelming a task, and an unnecessary one, to create an agreement between every 2-year school with every 4-year school in the system.

8) There was a discussion of where students can go with their MnSCU training, in terms transferability.   An example cited was http://www.mnstate.edu/technology/2Plus2/  which shows transferability in with 2 year associate's degree leading to bachelor's degree. Again, this is not a system wide, but rather institution-specific path!

            Jerry said that a web site which lists college programs and their transfer agreements with other schools already exists at www.mntransfer.org.

11) There is the quality issue of graduates being accepted at other MnSCU institutions:

f)        What about accreditation of our on-line courses? Do they do the same job of preparing a person? If not, what does this say about transferability and articulation?

Not an issue, as courses are not accredited individually.  The institutions are accredited.

12)  Is the ACM standard curriculum for a four-year computer science degree something that should be implemented partly at the 2 year and partly at the 4 year institutions?  Who would administer such a spread out program?

            Not workable to be implemented system wide.  Hopefully, schools are looking at these standards and will consider following them.

13) Are block transfers feasible?  How would be go about setting up such?

            This is the model we’re talking about.  We’ll try to implement it with our current programs.

18)  Can we identify block transfers

These should be identified on a school-to-school basis, where the transfer is likely to occur.

20)  Can the differing goals of 2 year and 4 year institutions reconcilable? 

Both 2-year and 4-year school students need the ability to reason and learn independently.

2-year schools look at the job market.  4-year schools have a broader focus.  Students can get a job after 2 years, and continue to grow in the field.

5.   We discussed the difficulties and problems of making discipline transfer information available to everyone of the Web, at a central MnSCU location and how to resolve these issues.

It is too overwhelming to attempt to transfer courses on a one-to-one basis within the entire system.  Instead, we want to see how entire programs can easily blend into a 4-year program.

The highest priority should be for students who have completed a 2-year program.  One-to-one course transfers may be needed for students who have not completed a 2-year program.  This information should be available online at various MnSCU institutions.  Postings of equivalencies should be dated and kept current.  Once a year, perhaps, a 4-year school could e-mail 2-year schools to check if there have been any course changes.

This is our proposal:

        i.      This program prepares a student to finish a BS (or BA, BAS) in Computer Science (or some other degree) at the following 4-year colleges.

        ii.      This program does not apply to a bachelor’s degree in Computer Science (or This program does not have an articulation agreement with a 4-year college).

6. We discussed what research needs to be done relative to transfer and collaboration issues.

We need some numbers to back up this proposal.  For example, how many students complete a 2-year degree/program and enter a 4-year school within five years?  Perhaps seniors at a 4-year school could be polled for this information.  2-year schools could poll their 2^nd year students to see if they plan to transfer to schools the following year or sometime in the future.  Ideally, we would like students to be able to transfer from their 2-year school to a 4-year school and get a bachelor’s degree with all or many of the courses transferring.

Jerry volunteered to do an inventory of all 2-year and 4-year MnSCU computer related programs; their names, credits, etc.

7. We discussed how our discipline could accept and optimize the use of distance learning. 

What should be done about duplicate online courses?  Should they be limited?  Students may be taking on-line courses between their time in the 2-year school and the 4-year school.  What if two on-line courses sound the same but are different enough that a student may take one and find out later that it doesn’t fit the 4-year articulation agreement?  Should MnSCU control this?  Should there be a Minnesota On-line School that offers all of the on-line courses?

We should look for a group of people from 2-year and 4-year schools who wish to start talking about the collaboration of on-line courses.  Perhaps we could start with the 4-year schools coordination of computer courses to avoid duplication of courses or to stagger their offerings.

8. An “action plan” was developed for Lee.
1. 1 week     -       Lee will distribute copies of this meeting’s notes

b.      1 month   -       Lee will distribute information sheets at the CTL meeting February 27, 2004, listing some of these issues we’ve covered

3. 2 months  -       Lee will give the final transfer model to Jerry Johnson