ASCRC Minutes 2/25/14
Poetry Corner, Mansfield Library, 2:10 p.m.
Members Present: J. Deboer, L. Eagleheart, C. Henderson, L. Gillison, S. Samson, T. Thibeau, E.
Uchimoto, N. Vonessen, G. Weix
Members Absent/ Excused: K. Easwaramurthi, J. Hickman, T. Manuel, M. Triana
Ex-Officio Present: N. Hinman, B. Holzworth, B. Howard, J. Laine
The minutes from 2/18/14 were amended and approved. The meeting began with the UM
Minute.
Communication Items:

The Workgroup crafting policy language governing admission and academic support for
international students has had various email correspondence. Director Zagalo Melo
suggests Sharon O’hare and Jed Liston be included in the group. Professor Weix
volunteered as well. The TOEFL score for admission should not be raised too
dramatically. They are discussing a score of 525. Enforcement of the policy is also being
discussed. Prerequisite enforcement, course restrictions and advising will be necessary.
The Workgroup should have a final draft prepared before spring break in order for the policy
to be in next year’s catalog.
The language should include transferable score equivalencies for the various options of the
TOEFL. Beth Howard noted that non-degree seeking students are not required to enter an
advising number prior to registration. This may be something the group should consider.
One possible solution to exchange students’ English proficiency is to require higher TOEFL
scores for various class levels.
Business Items

The discussion regarding information literacy continued. It is a requirement at other
institutions. At UM it is included as one of the criteria for both approved writing courses and
the upper-division writing requirement in the major. However, it should be integrated into
the curriculum in other ways as well. The Mansfield Library Instruction Program uses best
practices based on Institutional Resources. The various models are only effective if
teaaching faculty support the value of information literacy .
Interim Associate Provost Hinman suggests that ASCRC take a leadership role to figure out
an equitable and efficient way to assure information literacy is learned at the appropriate
time. It was discussed when general education was revised, but was not added as a
separate credit requirement due to the number of credits already required for general
education.
The Mansfield Library has offered courses designed to be a co-requisite to writing courses.
The Library would need to evaluate whether it would be feasible to for every student to take
an information literacy lab course. The library liaisons also work with instructor to integrate
information literacy into courses, but sometimes encounter opposition.
One way to promote such a course might be to create a sample course so that faculty can
investigate how it might support their content. There is a GLI sample course available for
this purpose.
An online assessment could show whether students understand information literacy.
Missoula College has an assessment for computer literacy. If students do not pass, they
must take a course.
Another suggestion was to survey departments (informal poll) to find out how majors define,
achieve and assess information literacy. The library has done surveys, advertising, and
outreach, but continues to seek collaboration.. There are existing mechanisms to achieve
information literacy goals, but it seems they are not widely used.
Professors Samson and DeBoer agreed to serve on a workgroup to make
recommendations. Professor Weix will ask the Writing Committee for volunteers to serve on
the Workgroup as well. Chair Henderson and Camie will work on a survey. It should be
sent to department chairs and writing course instructors.
o
Chair Henderson has not had time to draft a letter to departments clarifying terms such as
option, track, emphasis, or specialization. Jasmine is well acquainted with the issue due to
her work with level 1 and 2 proposals. She will work on a communication for ASCRC to
consider.
o
The Committee discussed the draft language for learning goals and learning outcomes
language drafted by Professor DeBoer and student member Triana. Outcomes are student
products that are measurable, goals are aspirational, what faculty intend to do. Members
were asked to forward samples from their disciplines for consideration.
Learning Goals are a list of essential topics, knowledge, or skills relevant to the subject
area that will be addressed by the course (What the instructor will cover).



Example 1?
Example 2?
Example 3?
Learning Outcomes address the knowledge students should understand and/or the
skills they are able to apply by the conclusion of the course. Outcomes should clearly
reflect measures of performance or behaviors that indicate different levels of
understanding students may attain (what the student will be able to do at the end of the
course). Please note that outcomes will be considered at the state level for the purposes
of common course numbering.

Example 1?



o
Example 2?
Example 3?
The Committee reviewed the dual listed course data (below). It would like to have the
list of courses and schools as well. The majority of courses are English and Math.
Students receive a full year of instruction rather than a semester and should be well
prepared for the next level in Math. Instructors teaching the courses must meet
university standards same as adjunct instructors and the curriculum must match the
college course. Instructors must be certified to teach high school. From the advising
perspective students are not always are that the grade will go into their college GPA.
They also don’t know the college course number equivalent to the high school dual
credit course. Students pay an additional $50 for the course. There seems to be
demand for broader curriculum and the Missoula College is under pressure to create
200 level courses. There are still questions and concerns with how dual credit is
administered. Helena high school is offering a dual credit theater course, yet the twoyear college in Helena does not have a Theatre program.
ASCRC will be asked to consider a proposal for a Big Data Certificate. It was being
circulated in the fall, but was delayed due to resource concerns.
Dual Credit Statistics
Students Enrolled*
Students with
Enrollment Pending
Credits Attempted
Average GPA**
Number of students
who matriculated to
UM/MC***
Pending enrollment
credits attempted
201070
272
201130 201170 201230
41
396
45
201270 201330 201370
329
83
386
N/A
1010
N/A
126
N/A
1462
N/A
135
N/A
1330
N/A
259
N/A
1474
49
523
3.25
3.51
3.12
3.09
3.21
3.25
3.24†
N/A
151
29
210
34
159
51
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
185
*Students Enrolled does not include students who were cancelled or back
dropped.
**Average GPA does not include any students who withdrew.
***Students may be counted in more than one semester.
†
201430
156
The majority of grades are not in for this semester.
o
The Registrar’s Office has been instructed to remove the fall schedule experimental
offerings that exceed the maximum policy. ASCRC may see a couple requests for
extensions. The Registrar’s Office will run reports each semester to capture the courses
that should be reviewed to initiate correspondence.
o
ASCRC will be asked to consider a proposal for a Big Data Certificate. It was being
circulated in the fall, but was delayed due to resource concerns.
o
The School of Business is concerned about how credits will be counted in order to qualify for
the symbolic systems exception. Professor DeBoer will circulate the draft review form
before the next meeting.
The meeting adjourned at 3:55 PM