Additional documentation for the Geospatial Studies Minor
Email trail of Conversations at CHABSS CAPC in Spring 2012
From: Anne Lombard
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 1:34 PM
To: Kimberley Knowles-Yanez
Subject: P form for Geospatial Studies Minor
Hi Kim,
The CHABSS CAPC has been reviewing the forms for the Geospatial Studies Minor,
which is wonderful -- we're really impressed!
We just have a few questions.
For the following, this is just a matter of confirming your intentions:
First, For Geog 130, we think the Course classification numbers are C2 and C15
(lecture plus lab).
Second, for Geog 232, we think the course classification number is C2 (4 hour
lecture only.) Third, for Geog 330, again for a lecture the course number is C2
(and lab is C15)
More substantively, on the form for Geog 330, we think 2 changes are needed: For
question 21 on the form, don't you mean to mark YES because the course fulfills
an UD requirement for the minor, and for question 22, we think you should mark
NO, that the class will not affect other disciplines (and take out the list of
disciplines affected by your P2 form -- this course has no direct impact on those
disciplines.)
For Geog 491, we are assuming the Course classification code is S-48, which means
the faculty member needs to spend 45 minutes per week per student (that's how
it's classified by the CSU).
Also, we understand that you had a very productive meeting last week about the
this minor and the issue of how to create classes for grad students came up. So
we wanted to ask whether you also want a chance to re-visit the description (and
the code) for Geog 491, possibly to turn it into a 500 level course? If you do,
Dawn will be happy to meet with you about this.
Thanks, Kim. If you can let me know this week I'll bring your response back to
the committee.
Best,
Anne
===============================
From: Kimberley Knowles-Yanez
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 2:32 PM
To: Anne Lombard
Subject: RE: P form for Geospatial Studies Minor
Oh, thank you so much for the compliment. I was so buried in it while completing
it that I no longer had any idea how it would be perceived!
I agree with all of your comments on the course classifications and questions 21
and 22 on the GEOG 330 form and gladly accept all of the suggestions. Thank you
for making it all so clear.
I'm going to email Dawn right now about GEOG 491.
changing the title to GEOG 491/591. We'll see.
I hope it is as simple as
Thank you for such a positive response from CAPC, Kim
===============================
From: Anne Lombard
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 3:45 PM
To: Theresa Aitchison; Nicoleta Bateman
Cc: Dawn Formo
Subject: FW: P form for Geospatial Studies Minor
Hi all -- For CAPC, Kim Knowles Yanez has confirmed (below) the minor changes to
the C forms that were submitted along with the P form for the geospatial studies
minor.
She will have to get back to us about how to deal with the course classification
for GEOG 491 after consulting with Dawn.
Thanks -- and have a good weekend!
Anne
===============================
From: Dawn Formo
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 6:06 PM
To: Anne Lombard; Theresa Aitchison; Nicoleta Bateman
Subject: RE: P form for Geospatial Studies Minor
591 is a great solution--advanced undergrads and grads can enroll in 500-level
courses.
Cheers,
df
===============================
From: Anne Lombard
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 7:18 PM
To: Dawn Formo; Theresa Aitchison; Nicoleta Bateman
Subject: RE: P form for Geospatial Studies Minor
Hi Dawn,
Great!
2 questions: 1) can a dept require a grad course for undergrads to complete the
minor? (I don't see why not, but is that against CSU rules?)
2) Do we need a syllabus for the re-numbered 491? or is it ok to say it's a
supervised internship and the course requirements will have to be worked out on
an ad hoc basis with each student?
If it's yes to either of these, can I have Kim talk to you, please?
This is all I can think of right now, though the committee may have other
concerns that I'm not thinking of.
Thanks for your quick response and for your help!
Have a good weekend.
Anne
===============================
From: Dawn Formo
To: David Barsky
Cc: Virginia Mann; Theresa Aitchison
Sent: Mon Feb 27 12:49:16 2012
Subject: FW: P form for Geospatial Studies Minor
Hi David-CAPC is reviewing the Geospatial minor. Based on a recent GIS mtg, there is
interest across colleges for this minor. Additionally, there is interest in
making part of the minor available to grad students.
1. I'm writing to confirm that 500-level courses are available to undergrads and
grads, correct? CAPC would like to suggest that the independent study/capstone
course be numbered 591 rather than 491 so as to accommodate grads and undergrads.
Sound good?
2. Does UCC need to see a syllabus for the independent study course. I think not
but wanted to check.
Thanks!
df
===============================
From: Dawn Formo
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 1:36 PM
To: Nicoleta Bateman; Anne Lombard
Cc: Theresa Aitchison
Subject: FW: P form for Geospatial Studies Minor
See David Barsky's response below.
Dawn M. Formo, Ph.D.
===============================
From: Anne Lombard
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 5:50 PM
To: Kimberley Knowles-Yanez
Subject: FW: P form for Geospatial Studies Minor
Hi Kim,
I need to ask if you could please resubmit the C form for the independent study
course, this time numbering it as 591, NOT 491. I don't have the form in front
of me but I expect it would also be helpful to add some language about why it's a
graduate course, wherever that is relevant.
I'm attaching Dawn's email string with David Barsky, speaking mostly on behalf of
UCC, below. There's no need for a syllabus, since it's an independent study
course. We'll want you to inform Gerry Gonzalez that you're planning to
introduce the course (I don't know if you need his signature approving it, but
since we're treating these signatures mostly as evidence that a program has
informed all interested parties, maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea to send it to
him and ask him to confirm that he supports it.)
Thanks!
Anne
===============================
From: Kimberley Knowles-Yanez
Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 11:16 AM
To: Anne Lombard
Subject: RE: P form for Geospatial Studies Minor
Hi Anne- Thank you for following up and giving me such clear instructions to
follow. I have attached the new C form for GEOG 591. I have also emailed my
dept chair and Gerry to get their electronic sigs. I will forward them as soon
as I receive them. Thank you!! Kim
===============================
From: Dawn Formo
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 5:37 PM
To: David Barsky
Subject: FW: FW- P form for Geospatial Studies Minor
Hi David—
Nicoleta, the former CAPC chair, kindly provided the following e-mail chain. I hope this is helpful.
Best,
df
===============================
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 7:17 PM
To: Dawn Formo; Nicoleta Bateman
Cc: Virginia Mann
Subject: RE: FW- P form for Geospatial Studies Minor
Dawn and Nicoleta,
Thank you. This is quite helpful.
I do have one other cluster of questions. What UCC is concerned about is that this minor will require
several courses (two 4-unit courses and one 2-unit course) that are offered at Palomar College, but not
here at CSUSM. Was this matter ever discussed at CAPC (if so, I am supposing that the committee was
not concerned about it, but if it was discussed at any length, it would be very useful to UCC to know
what swayed CAPC to forward the proposal on) or with Kim (I didn’t see anything about it in the email
chain)?
– David
===============================
From: Dawn Formo
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 1:42 PM
To: David Barsky
Cc: Virginia Mann; Nicoleta Bateman
Subject: RE: FW- P form for Geospatial Studies Minor
Hi David—
We did discuss this. Nicoleta and I chatted again today about this. We know that relying on the Palomar
partnership isn’t ideal, but given a rich conversation that CSM, CHABSS, and EL had in the spring outside
of CAPC about the robust program at Palomar and the fact that our faculty and Palomar faculty had a
grant together focused on this, we decided we were comfortable with this approach. Said another way,
the partnership already exists. We also noted that providing this minor here would create a clear
pathway for Palomar students who transfer to CSUSM interested in Geospatial Studies.
As a side note, I recall that VPA depended on Palomar and other community colleges to offer LD for
years. Is my memory correct?
Best,
df
===============================
From: David Barsky <djbarsky@csusm.edu>
Date: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 11:04 PM
To: Dawn Formo <dformo@csusm.edu>
Cc: Virginia Mann <vmann@csusm.edu>, Nicoleta Bateman <nbateman@csusm.edu>
Subject: RE: FW- P form for Geospatial Studies Minor
Let me start from the side note and work back from there. Yes, but….. That was a remnant of the
beginning days when we were upper-division only, and as their options have been revised over the
years, I’ve been pushing them to offer the necessary LD courses. While I think that it is great to be able
to find ways to value the coursework taken at the community colleges, what kind of message are we
giving students who come directly to CSUSM from high school and want to pursue this? You should’ve
gone to Palomar instead??? You don’t have to answer; it was a rhetorical question, but that’s the
message that UCC has asked me to deliver to Kim. How do we get some of the rich conversation that
you mention over to UCC? Trying to tap into that was the real purpose of my contacting you. I had the
sense that the something like that had gone on, but lacking that context, the minor looks like a nice idea
but not something that can be a CSUSM minor. – David
===============================
From: Nicoleta Bateman
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 10:38 AM
To: Dawn Formo
Subject: Re: FW- P form for Geospatial Studies Minor
Hi Dawn,
I have been thinking about David's response, and I see UCC's point about the message we would be sending
our native students. However, I don't think that that alone should be reason enough not to allow this minor
move forward at CSUSM. We would be denying all our students the opportunity to acquire skills that would
be very useful for employment (and for applied research, should they choose to go in that direction). Having
the minor with the structure proposed, utilizing the existing partnership and thereby combining resources,
would allow the minor to grow and perhaps in the future CSUSM would have the resources to offer the
equivalent courses in-house (similar to what happened in VPA). One could look at this partnership as utilizing
everything our region offers to best serve our students.
I am not sure whether UCC has already made up their mind that the minor is not something that can be a
CSUSM minor but only a "nice idea." You are welcome to forward this if you think it would help clarify things.
Thank you,
Nicoleta
===============================
Hi David—
I gave more thought to asking CAPC to send UCC a memo about Geospatial Studies. Last year’s CAPC
reviewed it…so I believe it only makes sense at this point to share the email below from the CAPC chair
who reviewed the minor. She has given me permission to forward her e-mail. I do hope that her words
are helpful in UCC’s deliberations.
Please let me know if you have additional questions.
Best,
df
Email trail of Conversations at between Proposer & UCC Chair in Spring 2013
From: Kimberley Knowles-Yanez
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 2:25 PM
To: Yi Sun
Cc: David Barsky; Virginia Mann
Subject: RE: UCC on Minor in Geospatial Studies proposal
Hi Yi- After our meeting on Nov. 19 about the Geospatial Studies minor, I emailed David Barsky about
the questions UCC had about the minor (and which you all directed me to work with him on) and he told
me he would get back to me about them. I have not heard back from him yet, and I am concerned. The
outside evaluator for my NSF grant with Palomar is coming for her review on Feb. 13, and I need to have
something to tell her about the progress of the Minor through the review process. (You might
remember from the Minor P form that the minor is a product of my collaboration with Palomar on the
NSF.) The Minor has been in David’s office/UCC since March of last year, and previous to that it began
the review process in late 2010 (meaning all the committees before UCC). Perhaps you can understand
my embarrassment at having to tell my NSF reviewer about this situation? What can I possibly do to
move this minor along? Is it that UCC is going to vote no on it? If so, can it still go to Senate for a Senate
vote? ANYTHING you can tell me is better than the nothing that I have to tell my NSF evaluator right
now. Thank you for your time, Kim
===============================
From: David Barsky
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2013 10:46 AM
To: Kimberley Knowles-Yanez; Yi Sun
Cc: Virginia Mann; Dawn Formo; Nicoleta Bateman
Subject: RE: UCC on Minor in Geospatial Studies proposal
Kim,
I can offer a partial explanation. The more that anyone looks at the proposal the more interesting and
unusual things one finds. When you visited UCC last Fall (at a meeting where I could not be present)
there was some discussion of “A” and “B” versions of courses that I was able to explain to UCC were not
going to be feasible. What I didn’t realize until UCC pointed it out to me was that the minor contains 10
units (3 courses) of coursework that we are not planning to offer at CSUSM; this is highly unusual. UCC
asked me to go back and talk with you some more about the program, and I said that I
couldn’t/wouldn’t do this until I could talk with Dawn Formo to find out what guidance you had been
given by CAPC. I contacted Dawn back in November but then I went out sick for a while in December and
we were not able to reconnect on this until last week through a number of emails back and forth and
then a meeting at the end of the day on Friday.
Dawn has been in contact with Nicoleta Bateman who was chair of last year’s CHABSS CAPC, and
Nicoleta has provided an email account of the CAPC deliberations on this program from last year. I will
be taking this to UCC today and asking them how they want to proceed.
One new thing that I think might be useful to explore (and which I don’t think was in any of the
submitted paperwork; you may have mentioned it at your meeting with UCC, so perhaps it is known to
the committee and only new to me) is the fact that the proposal is connected with an NSF grant.
To answer your question about whether it can go to the Senate if UCC were to vote No, the answer is
“Not through the usual channels.” UCC will only put curriculum onto the Senate agenda if it has
endorsed it. The only unusual channel that I can imagine is that it could be added to the agenda by a
successful motion from the a Senator on the Senate floor, but I don’t think that this is likely to be
successful if the Senate’s curriculum committee (UCC) has reviewed the proposal and voted against it.
– David
===============================
From: Kimberley Knowles-Yanez
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 3:49 PM
To: David Barsky; Yi Sun
Cc: Virginia Mann
Subject: RE: UCC on Minor in Geospatial Studies proposal
Hi David- Any news from UCC about anything I need to do for the Geospatial Minor? Will UCC be
contacting me? Kim
===============================
From: David Barsky
Sent: February 5, 2013 7:17 PM
To: Kimberley Knowles-Yanez, Yi Sun
CC: Virginia Mann
Subject: RE: UCC on Minor in Geospatial Studies proposal
Kim,
There was a brief discussion of the minor at UCC yesterday, but my understanding is that Yi will put this
on the agenda for a full discussion next Monday (February 11).
– David
P.S. My bad on missing the NSF connection. After I got your email I went back and reread the proposal
one more time (I really had read it through several times before that looking for it) and found where you
had indeed included it.
===============================
From: Yi Sun
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 7:55 PM
To: Kimberley Knowles-Yanez; David Barsky
Cc: Virginia Mann
Subject: RE: UCC on Minor in Geospatial Studies proposal
HI,
I quickly review UCC minutes across multiple sessions. UCC decided that the following are the
concerns that need to be addressed so that UCC can resume the review. Thanks
Yi
UCC is concerned about only offering two courses from the list of courses with geospatial
components since many of them prerequisites and the history class has not yet been approved
at UCC. UCC suggested although a letter from Palomar to show intent to offer these classes is a
reasonable request.
UCC is concerned about campus constraints that may impact CSUSM students majoring in this
minor: Only one class per semester can be taken from other colleges.
UCC is concerned about including 500 and 600 level classes in the program.
UCC is concerned that students will come into upper division classes with different preparation
and expectations. Some members suggested offering different sections of the same class for
students with different preparations.
UCC expects the originator to come back with a proposal to integrate geospatial skill sets into
upper division courses.
===============================
From: Kimberley Knowles-Yanez <kyanez@csusm.edu>
Date: Wednesday, February 6, 2013 11:00 AM
To: Yi Sun <ysun@csusm.edu>, David Barsky <djbarsky@csusm.edu>
Cc: Virginia Mann <vmann@csusm.edu>
Subject: RE: UCC on Minor in Geospatial Studies proposal
Hi Yi- Thank you for getting back to me on this. I have written out a few questions in red below. These
will help me as I proceed to collect the information. Also,
David wrote that you will be discussing the minor next Monday. If you have time to get back to me on
the clarifications I am requesting below, I will compile all of the material outlined below on Friday and
send it to you then so that you have it for Monday's discussion. Would you also like me to attend the
meeting? Please see my other questions below in red:
UCC is concerned about only offering two courses from the list of courses with geospatial
components since many of them prerequisites and the history class has not yet been approved
at UCC. I am not sure what you want me to do about this concern. I am in full agreement that
we can take the History class off the list and then do a P-2 form later to add it back in, but is
there something else you would like me to do here? From my perspective the prereqs required
by the other classes are just fine as they will already be completed by students in their
respective majors who are looking to add the Geospatial minor. The range of disciplinary UD
classes listed on the minor is specifically wide so that students can build on their existing majors
to complete the minor. I would not like to take away the many options this allows students by
narrowing the list of UD electives.
UCC suggested although a letter from Palomar to show intent to offer these classes is a
reasonable request. Yes, I can provide this letter. I am meeting with my Palomar colleague
today and will produce the letter this week.
UCC is concerned about campus constraints that may impact CSUSM students majoring in this
minor: Only one class per semester can be taken from other colleges. Yes, given that there are
three classes required at Palomar, they will be able to finish that part in three semesters, so
that should work out for native students. And please remember that the minor is primarily
designed to capture Palomar students. In other words, students are coming from Palomar with
their LD GIS classes, looking for a way to use them in a degree at CSUSM. It is an enticement for
them to enroll at CSUSM. This is the goal of the NSF grant I have with my colleague at Palomar--to increase local workforce skill sets by bettering the Palomar to CSUSM student transition. It
is a unique way of leveraging what Palomar does best with what CSUSM does best. We were
awarded the NSF grant specifically because this is what the NSF is encouraging for regional
workforce development.
UCC is concerned about including 500 and 600 level classes in the program. David and I agree
on this and that we should take those classes out of the minor. They should now be treated as
stand-alone C forms. By the way, I think there is only one 600 course in question. There is no
500 level course. David has the latest copy of the C form so I think he can clarify this.
UCC is concerned that students will come into upper division classes with different preparation
and expectations. Some members suggested offering different sections of the same class for
students with different preparations. David and I agree that having parallel sections is not
feasible because it would be too complicated to manage. We will struggle to offer even one
section of each class/year in the current budget situation and will not be able to offer a
separate section for Palomar students, who may be few in number as the minor rolls out.
Furthermore, there will be CSUSM native students who take my GEOG 330, then do the
Palomar courses, then take the other UD classes. How would you monitor the order of the
classes students take and know exactly when someone has completed the LD at Palomar and
then expect them to switch over to the Palomar student version of the courses? This would
just be too confusing to manage and plain unfair to students to expect some to get the CSUSM
degree with Palomar oriented classes and some with CSUSM student oriented classes.
Also, regarding different preparation and expectations....isn't that true of all UD classes? Some
students have taken more writing, math, research, etc....classes than others and have higher
skill levels, yet they still manage to learn more and have real takeaways from my classes. I see
this all of the time in my classes. For example, psychology students are always much more
prepared than other students to do the scholarly research required in one of my classes. I work
with them on this and am able to get them to the next level within the framework of the class.
I see this as a natural thing that occurs in all classes and my GIS classes will be no exception to
this practice.
One this issue, please let me know how you would like me to proceed. I do not know what
action is required of me here.
UCC expects the originator to come back with a proposal to integrate geospatial skill sets into
upper division courses. Since I have already done this on the syllabi I submitted with the P
form, can you please explain what further action is required here? Specifically, what do you
want me to propose that is not in the syllabus? Again, I am not quite understanding the
distinction that UCC is trying to make between GIS and other skill sets students bring to classes.
I am sincere in saying I do not know what you want me to produce here. All I can think of is to
give you the set of notes for GEOG 320 as an example of how this is done. My class notes fully
outline every detail of how GIS, writing, speaking, critical thinking and research (the latter being
other examples of skill sets I expect students to use in all of my classes) are integrated into my
classes. The problem with this is that my notes are 100+ pages long and I don't expect UCC has
time to read that. Please clarify what you want me to do here.
===============================
From: Yi Sun
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 12:09 PM
To: Kimberley Knowles-Yanez; David Barsky
Cc: Virginia Mann
Subject: Re: UCC on Minor in Geospatial Studies proposal
Kimberley,
Thank you very much. We will post it so UCC members can review it and discuss it on Monday.
Yi
===============================
From: Kimberley Knowles-Yanez
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 8:15 PM
To: Yi Sun; David Barsky
Cc: Virginia Mann
Subject: RE: UCC on Minor in Geospatial Studies proposal
Hi Yi- I just want to make sure that I understand what you mean. Do you mean you will post my
email? Or do you want me to prepare some other document? Please let me know. Meanwhile, my
colleague at Palomar is going to write the letter about his offerings very soon and I will forward that just
as soon as I have it.
If you do mean to post this email for UCC, then I'd like to take the opportunity to add two more points of
clarification:

Regarding having parallel UD classes for the minor which are different for students who have
taken Palomar's classes, I wanted to discuss one more piece of evidence for why this is an
unwieldy proposition. When UCC first asked me about it last November I asked my department
chair what she thought and she said, "No way," for two reasons: 1) We do not have the budget
for additional classes, and 2) We have a lot of experience running parallel classes in my
department since we are in charge of the UD offerings for the Integrated Credential Program;
LBST probably has more experience with these kinds of classes than any other department and
we can attest to the fact that is always difficult to find the funding for these classes, even though
enrollment is often very high for them. My chair has offered to ask my dean to write a letter
explaining why we cannot offer parallel classes for the minor, but I turned down that offer for
two reasons, 1) David had already told me that he knew parallel classes were not feasible and I
thought he had explained that to UCC back in November after we talked, and 2) since my dean
already approved the minor P form, I do not want to "bug" him again about it by asking him to
rethink it in a way that my department and David already know is not feasible. However, if UCC
wants, we can ask for the letter explaining why the college cannot afford parallel classes for this
minor. Let me know, please.
 Regarding this UCC comment in your previous email to me: "UCC expects the originator to come
back with a proposal to integrate geospatial skill sets into upper division courses;" as I describe
below, I am flummoxed by trying to understand what you want me to do here beyond supplying
all of the syllabi I have already included in the P form. I have been giving it a lot of thought.
I've tried to put myself in your shoes and understand why I would be asked about this in this
way. For example, would you ask a math professor to put forth a "proposal" about how they will
integrate math techniques into their UD math classes? What would that mean beyond supplying
a syllabus? Anyway, I trust you will explain what it is you want me to do here; maybe you have
an example from another proposal that you can show me, where UCC has needed something
beyond a syllabus to verify course content proposed by faculty members in other disciplines?
Meanwhile, I have thought of one more bit of evidence to support my belief that GIS
trained faculty are capable of integrating GIS into their classes. Perhaps this will add to UCC's
understanding that, like every other faculty member on campus who use various kinds of skill
sets in their classes (GIS, writing, critical thinking, math, etc....), instructors who use GIS are
capable of teaching the material that they set out to teach in their syllabi: As part of my NSF
grant, we have, for the past three years offered two day long geospatial workshops (GRID) to
regional faculty so that they can learn how to integrate GIS techniques into their classes. Many
of the attendees have been CSUSM faculty, and, furthermore, most of the faculty who teach the
classes listed on the electives portion of the minor P form have taken the workshop, in years one
and two. As well, each year, we have a webinar for these same faculty to follow up on what they
have learned as they integrate GIS into their classes and we follow up with individual faculty
members throughout the years, as they request help with their curriculum. This process is
described in the P form, but perhaps the P form is not clear enough regarding how important
these workshops are towards development of curriculum for the minor. Would you like to see
the agenda for the workshops? (Additionally, please note that IITS now has a GIS curriculum
developer who we all use to help us build out our classes. I worked with IITS for years in order
to make this position an ongoing one at the university. This is also discussed in the P form.) :)
Please let me know what I need to do moving forward. Thank you, Kim
===============================
From: Yi Sun
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 9:07 PM
To: Kimberley Knowles-Yanez; David Barsky
Cc: Virginia Mann
Subject: RE: UCC on Minor in Geospatial Studies proposal
Hi,
I will share your response with UCC. UCC will review it and come back to you again. Thanks
Yi