ASCRC Minutes 3/5/13
GBB 202, 2:10 p.m.
Members Present: B. Borrie, C. Chandler, J. Deboer, L. Gillison, C. Henderson, T. Thibeau, N.
Vonessen, N. Greymorning.
Members Absent/ Excused: W. Davies, E. Johnson, G. Coon, M. Grimes, B. Holzworth, M. Hopkins, D.
Stolle, J. Zink
Ex-Officio Present: S. O’Hare, N. Hinman
The minutes from 2/12/13 and 2/19/13 were approved.
Communication Items:

Interim Associate Provost Hinman has requested the Writing Committee consider a one-year
extension of the approved writing course status for WRIT 222. It was not submitted for the
rolling review this spring and so would be removed from the approved writing course list.
The College of Forestry & Conservation has had a new writing course approved, NRSM 200
Natural Resources Professional Writing. However, it appears there are still 600+ students
that need to cycle through a more general writing course such as WRIT 222. The Writing
committee approved an extension to their rolling review deadline rather than delay for a year.
In order for the course to make the fall course schedule (which is published in the next few
weeks just prior to Fall registration) it must be approved at the March Faculty Senate
meeting. The Writing Committee will take action through email when the form is
submitted. It would then come to ASCRC as a seconded motion to be voted on next week.
Business Items:

Professor Thibeau collaborated with Beverly Chin, Chair of the Writing Committee, on the
language for the writing requirement (below). It was edited and approved by the Writing
Committee yesterday. There was still concern regarding the designation on students’
transcripts (eg. WD: course title) in programs with a distributed or course add-on model.
That is, would transcripts show 3 WD courses with three credits each if a student is meeting
the upper-division writing expectation through a distribution model? Similarly, would
transcripts only show a WD course with only 1 credit if students meet the upper-division
writing expectation through a 1 credit add-on attached to an upper-division course? This
may be confusing to students or employers. Or is it the intent that these methods of fulfilling
the requirement not include the WD: designation in the course title? Furthermore, there were
questions as to whether course instructors would be consulted in the change of course titles
or whether the inclusion of W: or WD: in the course title would be implemented
automatically. ASCRC sent the item back to the Writing Committee for further clarification.
Change to Writing Requirement
Motion to ASCRC, 3/5/13
Writing Requirements for Graduation
To fulfill the writing requirements at UM and to demonstrate proficiency in the skill of
writing, students must satisfy the following four requirements in the order given:
1. Entry-level Composition WRIT 101 or 201 (ENEX 101, WTS 101, ENEX 200, or
equivalent),
2. One Approved Writing Course (designated W),
3. The Upper-Division Writing Proficiency Assessment, with a score of 3/3 or better,
4. Upper-Division Writing Course in the Discipline (designated WD) *
* This requirement may be fulfilled by:
• One upper-division writing course (numbered 300-400), determined by the
department and approved by the ASCRC Writing Committee
• An upper-division writing expectation, determined by the department and
approved by the ASCRC Writing Committee**
** This could be a distribution model which includes a synthesis of upperdivision courses that collectively meet the learning outcomes of WD or a 1
credit add-on attached to an upper-division course that collectively meet the
learning outcomes of WD. *
Note: The Approved Writing course will be identified in the catalog and on students’
transcripts by titles that start with W: course title. The Upper-Division Writing in the
Discipline course will be identified with a title that starts with WD: course title.

ASCRC received a late course form and justification to change the course number of LIT
373L to LIT 280L. Students in the Wilderness and Civilization program are advised to take
the course to fulfill the Literary and Artistic general education requirement. The course
currently has a prerequisite of LIT 210L or 211L (ENLT 224L or 225L) and LIT 300 (ENLT 301) or
consent of instructor, in recognition that students in a 300-level literature course should have
prior training in literary theory. In order for the Wilderness & Civilization students to get
into the course the prereq has been waived by default. The instructor had planned to offer the
course experimentally at the 200 level this fall, but then the students wouldn’t receive general
education credit.
After brief discussion ASCRC agreed to review the course, but that the change in course
content (i.e. less emphasis on literary theory) also be reviewed by the general education
committee. The course form will also be sent to the Humanities subcommittee for review.
[In follow-up email discussion, the department chose to offer the course with the existing
LIT 373L course number in the fall and submit the form for review next year, rather than
requiring special consideration this semester.]

The Executive Committee of the Faculty Senate is forming a Crosslisting / CCN Workgroup
potentially chaired by Professor Tobin Shearer, with representation by ECOS member, Joe
Crepeau, who has experience with the FLOC process. A message from the Faculty Senate
chair, Jeff Renz requests a member from ASCRC to serve on the workgroup. Professor Tully
Thibeau volunteered to serve. The Workgroup is charged with the following:
1.
How do we limit the proliferation of rubrics?
a. Interim Associate Provost Hinman suggested that it be something that we can
“draw a circle around.” Thus we can draw a circle around demographic
groups (Women and Gender Studies, African American Studies) or regions
(Central and Southwest Asian Studies, East Asian Studies). But what about
something like Climate Change Interdisciplinary Studies, CCIS, which has its
own rubric?
b. We could also draw lines on the major, minor, certificate (is there something
smaller than a certificate?) spectrum. If we do this, will some programs be
fatally injured? Do we grandfather-in existing programs?
2. How do we encourage new interdisciplinary programs? That is, we need to come up
with a way to permit a new interdisciplinary program to establish its own rubric,
although the rubric may be used to cross list other established courses and although
the program may not yet offer a certificate, minor, or major. At some point the
interdisciplinary program must show progress towards a certificate or minor or major
(depending on where we circumscribe the programs above) or must satisfy Nancy’s
“draw a circle” rule, or must satisfy whatever rule we come up with.
3. Finally, what is the best rubric for students? I fear that using an X (for cross) in front
of the old rubric will be confusing. Interim Associate Provost Hinman points out that
some rubrics already end in X, but perhaps we can address them
separately. (XX?) Anyway, as Gen. George Patton used to say, “here is your
mission, now surprise us with your brilliance.”

ASCRC briefly considered the revised Academic Procedures language. The language
reflects the way the Registrar’s Office is currently doing things, so it is difficult for the
Registrar’s Office staff to identify policy changes. ASCRC will need to make this list to
inform the Senate. The document also needs to be reviewed for consistency. This
committee recommends that underline formatting should not be used for emphatic
statements,due to the tendency to affiliate underlining with internet links. Bold and italic
formatting was suggested as alternatives for emphasis. The statement under Student Option
restricting freshmen and sophomores to taking one three course with the credit no credit
grading option was revised to:
Freshmen and sophomores are discouraged from taking more than one course a semester on a
credit/no credit basis.
Committee members are requested to give the current version (DRAFT REVISION 4
March 2013) close consideration and send any additional revisions to the language to
Registrar Johnson.

A verbal report was received from Study/ Life Skills Workgroup. It has reviewed the syllabi
of the current courses and looked at models from other institutions. For example, MSU has
students attend a student success summit. The workgroup feels there may be two separate
objectives for these skills courses: i) transitional courses for students who may be having
difficulty progressing from high school and confronting the scale and nature of a large
university, and ii) courses that focus on the technical mechanics of college study, such as
note taking, time management, etc. The Workgroup will make recommendations after
additional meetings. The workgroup was reminded of the difficulty ASCRC has had in
recent years with the review of study/life skill courses (including academic content (learning
objectives, texts, assignments, and grading), appropriate course level and credit, ) and
whether they should have a common CCN rubric.

Director O’Hare distributed an analysis conducted from the old early alert system. Students
that receive a deficient grade mid-way through the semester may not be able to make changes
to the grading option (eg. if a course does not allow a credit/no credit grading option). The
deficiency recovery index (i.e. if a student receiving a DEF grade, via the Early Alert system,
recovers sufficiently to pass the course) varies by discipline. In some cases, there is a high
level of successful completion (60% or more of students receiving DEF grades), but in others
there is very low levels of recovery (around 10%). Further, in some courses faculty will talk
with students throughout the semester to keep them informed about how they are doing, and
this may be why many choose not to participate in the early alert reporting mechanism. The
group will be looking at other models and will eventually make a recommendation.

Interim Associate Provost Hinman reported on the T-designation Workgroups progress. It
will likely have a motion within the next couple of weeks.

A verbal report was received from Degree Audit Workgroup met and discussed the issues
associated with data sharing and how to evaluate the time factors. It was suggested that the
group review the study done by Loey Knapp comparing the cost of buying a packaged
program compared to building a system in house.

The e-Curr group will be meeting Friday for a brief tutorial in the system before it starts beta
testing the new online course form system.

Professor Gillison followed up with Film Studies. The director indicates the learning
outcomes were previously provided to OCHE. These should be provided again by the
instructor to ASCRC.

Interim Associate Provost Hinman is the campus CCN Liaison and reports she is having
difficulty finding syllabi for courses. All faculty are required to provide an electronic copy
of their current syllabi within thirty (30) days of the start of the semester to their academic
Dean. These are then to be placed in an electronic data base for access by students. This is
frequently either through the Mansfield Library or posted to the Department’s website. It
would appear that few departments are making up-to-date syllabi available through these
mechanisms.

The committee recommends that the university catalog should be revamped to include a
comprehensive index, lots of internal links, hyperlink anchors for requirements, and
collapsible/expandable subsections. The effort should be guided by an advisory workgroup
with faculty, IT staff, and student representation.

The Registrar will demonstrate the Banner course description functionality at the next
meeting.
Good and Welfare

Theatre and Dance’s production of Jumping into the Fire continues this week.
The meeting was adjourned at 3.53 PM.