ASCRC Minutes 4/24/12
GBB 202, 2:10
Members Present: B. Borrie, G. Coon, D. Dalenberg, W. Davies, M. Grimes, C. Henderson, C.
Knight, D. Molgaard, Z. Patten, L. Tangedahl, C. Springmeyer, D. Stolle
Members Absent/Excused: N. Greymorning, B. Holzworth, J. Staub,
Ex-Officio Present: S. O’Hare, E. Johnson, A. Walker-Andrews
Chair Tangedahl called the meeting to order at 2:10 p.m.
The minutes from 4/17/12 were amended and approved.
Communication Items:

The Commissioner’s Office is having a meeting to discuss the process for maintaining
common course numbering. The meeting announcement was sent to Associate Provost
Walker-Andrews as the Single Point of Contact (SPOC). UM needs to have a faculty
representative attend the meeting in Helena this June. It was recommended that the
Faculty Senate Chair and Camie attend the meeting.

ASUM unanimously approved a resolution to support the add / drop date change.
Business Items

The General Education Rolling Review consent agenda was approved with the exception
of ANTY 220 and the understanding that the expressive arts courses will be voted on by
the General Education Committee tomorrow. BGMT 340, Management and
Organizational Behavior needs to be included on the list of Social Science courses with
the one year grace period.

The revised Common Course Numbering Workflow / Timeline Procedure (201.05) was
approved (appended below). It will go to the Faculty Senate next week as information.

ASCRC discussed the revised course form. Several additional changes were
recommended. This next year forms will be accepted with both traditional signatures and
electronic signatures (scanned Jpeg or scanned signature page). These will be made to the
form and circulated prior to the next meeting. The committee agreed that one form is
preferable to continuing with the prerequisite fast track form. The course form with be
updated to include check boxes at the top of the form to identify the intent of the form.
It is still unclear what to tell faculty when a cross-listing is requested. The ongoing
capability to cross-list depends on whether the pilot project provides adequate evidence
of a workable solution.

The course instructions document was also discussed and approved (below). [However
these will need to be edited to match the revised form.]

The curriculum deadline memo was also reviewed. Language will need to be included
regarding electronic signatures and a standard naming protocol. An edited version will
be considered next week.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:00 p.m.
Procedure Number:
Procedure:
201.05
Common Course Numbering Workflow / Timeline
Date Adopted:
4/24/12
Last Revision:
References:
Approved by:
4/24/12
BOR policy 301.5.5
ASCRC
In addition to the usual campus review, any new courses must be vetted via the common course
numbering scheme. The proposing faculty member or department should reference the CCN
array available on the OCHE website: http://www.mus.edu/Qtools/CCN/ccn_default.asp.
Course syllabi must specify learning outcomes expected of students completing the course.
These will be used by the proposal’s reviewers and by faculty in the future to determine whether
it’s unique or equivalent to another listed course.
Common
Process
Critical considerations
Course
Steps
Numbering
Check
Sequence
1. Faculty
Prepare
Course forms and instructions are found at:
proposes
course
http://www.umt.edu/facultysenate/documents/forms/CourseFor
new course proposal
m.doc
or course
forms
http://www.umt.edu/facultysenate/documents/forms/courseform
change
_instructionsX.aspx



Include detailed syllabus.
Define and list learning outcomes
Identify discipline (prefix) and level (100,200, …)
The syllabus needs to specify learning outcomes expected of
students completing the course. These will be used by the
proposal’s reviewers and by faculty in the future to determine
whether it is unique or equivalent to another listed course.
2. Faculty
check for
similarity
to existing
courses at
UM
Search
catalog
Contact
affected
departments
Use outcomes template developed by FLOC to list outcomes for
new courses:
http://www.mus.edu/Qtools/CCN/CCN.asp
Has the similar UM course undergone CCN revision?
Yes: Are proposed syllabus and Learning Outcomes 80%
similar?
 Rationalize proposed course with existing course.
 Similar course offerings must bear same prefix and
number.
 Affected department(s) must sign-off on proposed course
No: Complete course preparation forms as new course.
3. Faculty
check for
similarity
to courses
in CCN
database.
For new or
revised
course,
search CCN
database for
similar
courses
Has the MUS discipline gone through the CCN review /
renumbering process?
Yes: check the array of courses for potential equivalencies
 as needed, contact offering faculty/departments and/or FLOC
members to get more details
 http://www.mus.edu/Qtools/CCN/ccn_default.asp.
Does the course appear to be equivalent to another listed in the
array?
 Verify the apparent equivalency in terms of similar learning
outcomes (75-80%?)
 If equivalency seems confirmed, assign existing CCN
discipline, title, and number to course
If not equivalent, review the array and assign unique title and
number to ensure a logical “fit” of the new entry in the array
4. Department
Head /
Dean
reviews
proposed
change
5. ASCRC
and
Review
CCN for
alignment
issues (et
al.)
Review
proposal for
No: proceed as you always have.
Verifies that faculty has complied with CCN procedures.
http://www.mus.edu/Qtools/CCN/CCN.asp
Considers alternative disciplinary alignments that might reveal
unanticipated equivalencies that could raise concerns both on
Transfer
Liaison
reviews
proposed
change
6. Campus
Approval
7. Notificatio
n of UM
action
certification
of review
for CCN
alignment
issues.
campus and elsewhere in the system.
Consent agendas are approved by Faculty Senate usually at the
Nov / Dec meetings
Departments notified of completion of internal review during
winter break.
OCHE provided with list of new and changed courses to
incorporate into the array.
8. Notificatio
n of OCHE
action
(CCN) and
Final
approval
Learning outcomes entered into OCHE’s database.
OCHE informs University Point of Contact and Registrar’s
Office of CCN review determination and courses are entered into
the catalog and set up in Banner.
Departments are notified of any changes that arise from the
internal review.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COURSE CHANGE FORM
CURRICULUM PROPOSALS
Purpose: To make sure that the proposed course, or changes to the course, meet
academic standards and technical requirements. ASCRC will review forms by
assigning members to subcommittees according to academic discipline.
I Summary of Proposed Changes




Course Number includes abbreviation and level. (i.e. U ENLT 352) New courses
and course number changes must complete Common Course Numbering Review
(see below).
Course title Please list the complete title, no abbreviations.
Short title is limited to 26 characters/spaces or fewer to fit on students
transcripts.
Proposal Summary- A concise description of and rationale for the proposed
change.
If your department has several existing courses with the same change, list the
number, title, and short title for each course all on the same form.
II Syllabus/Assessment Information- Required for a new course, change to the level
of a course, or substantial changes to the learning outcomes. Important: please spell
out learning goals and learning outcomes clearly in the syllabus. Learning Goals
are a list of what students should know, understand, or be able to do at the end of the
course, including essential information and knowledge or skills that are relevant to the
subject area. Learning Outcomes are measures of performance or behavior that will
indicate, to the teacher and the students, that students understand the material, and
what criteria differentiates among different levels of understanding.
III Endorsement/Approvals

Signatures- The form must have the signature of the individual making the
request, the Chair or Director of the Department/Program, the Dean, and the
Chair or Director of the other programs that are affected by the proposal. Other
affected departments include any department or program offering courses which
are (a) required courses incl. prerequisites or co-requisites, (b) perceived to
overlap in content area, (c) cross-listed; or any department or program requiring
courses which are being deleted or changed.
If the course is proposed by a non- tenurable faculty member then a letter of
endorsement from the Department Chair or Director is required. The endorsement
must include a stipulation that the course will be taught with existing resources at
least once every three years. Administrators may make comments that they wish
ASCRC or Graduate Council to consider in the space provided.
IV New Course

Common Course Numbering Review Department chairs must complete this
section of the form. The common course matrix must be referenced to determine
whether the learning outcomes are equivalent to those of a course that exists on
a different campus. If an equivalent course exists, the course/campus is noted
on the form and the same rubric/number/title should be used. If there is not an
equivalent course, the proposed rubric/number/title must be checked to confirm
that it is not currently in use and the new course will be subject to CCN review at
the system level and the proposed course number may change due to
simultaneous curriculum development in the Montana University System. For all
new courses, learning outcomes must be included for review.
Additional requirements for a new course number include the following. UG
courses must have a 400 number. Course numbers once used cannot be used
again for different subject matter for a period of ten (10) years. X90-X99 are
reserved numbers, see procedure 201.80 at
http://www.umt.edu/facultysenate/procedures/default.aspx.

Exact entry should include course abbreviation (i.e. SPAN, GEOG), level,
number, title, credits, repeatability (if applicable), frequency of offering,
prerequisites, and a brief description.






Justification of course- explains how the course satisfies the criteria for
evaluating a new course (see procedure 201.30 at
http://www.umt.edu/facultysenate/procedures/default.aspx
This section must be completed for all proposals.
Curriculum adjustments- What changes will be made in the department to
facilitate offering the course (i.e. course deletion, reorganization, etc.)
Graduate increment is the additional work assigned to graduate students. (See
procedure 301.30 at http://www.umt.edu/facultysenate/procedures/default.aspx
Co-covened courses – include companion course number, title, and description
as well as syllabus (See procedure 301.20 at
http://www.umt.edu/facultysenate/procedures/default.aspx.)
Fees- The Board of Regents considers requests for course fees every other
year. Administration & Finance coordinates these requests and must be
informed in advance of departments requesting fees or changes to courses with
an existing fee.
V Delete or Change Course












Deletion- If other programs are affected explain how issues have been resolved.
Course number - Changed courses may retain the same course number if the
learning outcomes are the same. If the learning outcomes are substantially
different, a new number must be assigned and the Common Course Numbering
Review for a new course must be completed (see above).
Description- A short and concise summary is best for catalogue purposes. Try
to limit to 20 words or less.
Credits -should reflect unit standards of department.
Prerequisites - List the change to prerequisites.
Course Title - Make sure the title is not ambiguous or confusing for students.
Level change - Clearly state reasoning and course content being adjusted to suit
the proposed level. Attach syllabus. UG courses must have a 400 number.
Repeatability- Normally a course can only be taken once. Exceptions are
allowed for variable topics courses (e.g. seminars, independent studies, and
thesis). The limit is usually 9-12 credits.
Cross-listing (currently under review) courses must have substantial
interdisciplinary content, have the same title and number in both
departments/programs and approval (signatures) from both. Only the primary
department should submit the form. The courses must have the same level.
"Special topics" or variable content courses are not cross listed.
Fee- Administration and Finance is provided with a copy of the form if the course
has a fee in order to maintain an accurate accounting of courses with fees.
Current course information-cut and paste from on-line catalog.
(http://www.umt.edu/catalog)
Exact entry-same as Part I above




Co-convened courses – include companion course number, title, and
description as well as syllabus (See procedure 301.20 at
http://www.umt.edu/facultysenate/procedures/default.aspx.)
Graduate increment- If course is changed to UG a syllabus must be provided
that includes an appropriate graduate increment. (See procedure 301.30 at
http://www.umt.edu/facultysenate/procedures/default.aspx
Other affected programs- Identify programs that will be affected by the change
to the course. The chair of the department should sign the form
Justification- What is the purpose of the change? Identify the need.
VI Department Summary List all the proposals submitted by the department (only
required if submitting several forms). The summary is a separate document listing the
course number, title, and proposed change from Part I above.
VII Copies and Electronic Submission - The approved original and a digital copy
(attached via email or cd) must be submitted to the Faculty Senate Office (UH 221,
camie.foos@mso.umt.edu) by the deadline. The digital copy is posted the he faculty
senate website and the original is provided to the subcommittee chair. If changes are
required during the course of review a revised form must be submitted. The Registrar's
Office prepares catalog copy from the posted forms.
VIII Form available on the Faculty Senate Website- You are welcome to review the
form on the website for accuracy. It will be indexed under the appropriate review
subcommittee (ASCRC review items /Graduate Council review items) Allow 5 working
days past the curriculum deadline for processing.