ASCRC Minutes 9/15/09
Members Present: M. Beebe-Frankenberger, D. Dalenberg, C. Knight, S. Lodmell, E.
May, P. Muench, M. Nielsen, J. Staub, A. Stovall, E. Uchimoto, R. Vanita, G. Weix, L.
Tangedahl, A. Williams
Members Absent/Excused: K. Zoellner
Ex-Officio Present: B. Holzworth, E. Johnson, A. Walker-Andrews, S. O’Hare
Chair Lodmell called the meeting to order at 2:10 p.m.
Student members were welcomed. The minutes from 9/1/09 were amended and
approved.
Communication




Bonnie Holzworth, the Assistant Registrar will be attending ASCRC meetings.
She is in charge of catalog changes and will provide a direct connection.
The academic strategic plan and admissions standards proposal are available
online for faculty to review.
Common course numbering efforts continue. The Commissioner’s Office sent a
list of meeting dates and deadlines for Faculty Learning Outcomes Committees
(FLOC). This document was shared with the committee. Professor Weix
questioned what departments would be included in Interdisciplinary Studies Social Sciences. Associate Provost Walker- Andrews will request clarification
from OCHE. The legislative funding for the implementation of common course
numbering ended June 30th.
The interview schedule for the Executive Director of the Office for Student
Success was provided as information to members.
Business Items:

An additional member (Matthew Strohl- Philosophy) was added to the Humanities
and Cultural Studies Subcommittee. In the situation where two members are from the
same department, the subcommittee chair should assure that proposals are reviewed
by different perspectives. Department chairs should be informed of the subcommittee
membership and given the opportunity to nominate additional faculty.

Chair Lodmell listed the benefits of serving as chair of ASCRC. Course release time
for the curriculum committees was considered in collective bargaining, however,
given the current budget situation it was not a priority. Professor Weix asked whether
some of the course release provided to the Faculty Senate Chair could be transferred
to the ASCRC Chair to make the position more attractive. She also recommended a
bylaw amendment eliminating the ASCRC chair as chair of the Graduation Appeals
Committee. The Chair- elect position needs to be filled prior to the first Graduation
Appeals Committee meeting the third week of the month.

Professor Knight agreed to serve as Chair-elect and was approved by the committee.

The common course numbering workflow document was simplified and approved by
the committee (appended below). It will be included in instructions to proposers.

After further investigation it seems that the only bag number (variable content
number) that does not have an equivalency in the common course number array is
X93 Omnibus. The catalog description of Omnibus is below:
Under the University omnibus option credit is allowed for independent work
in topics or problems that are proposed by the student and approved both by
the instructor or instructors under whose supervision the work is to be done
and by the chairperson or chairpersons of the department(s) involved. Such
independent work may require as many weeks as the instructor(s) shall
stipulate. The work may be on campus or off campus, as the nature of the
study requires, although prior approval of all arrangements and faculty
supervision must be assured. ….
The Interim Registrar will provide data regarding how many students are taking the courses
to determine whether certain departments rely on the courses to meet students’ needs. There
were twenty-five X93 courses, but only 7 of these had Omnibus titles. So it seems this bag
number has not been enforced. Perhaps omnibus can be included with Independent Study.
The number of credits allowed for X98 internships is restricted and this could create a
problem for departments that rely on departmental internships. A list was provided
that identified the departments with X90 courses. There are approximately eighty
X90 courses. Data on how many students take the X90 courses should also be
reviewed.
Number
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
New (common course
numbering)
Research
Special topics/Experimental
Courses
Independent Study
Study tours / study abroad
Seminar/ Workshop
Field work / clinical / practicum
/ student teaching
Service learning
Educational methods courses
within disciplines
Internship / externship /
cooperative education I
Senior thesis / capstone
Old
Departmental internships
Practicum
Reserved for future
Omnibus
Seminar
Special Topics
Independent study
Research
Work-Based Learning
internships
(099, 199, 399) transfer
articulation
(599) professional paper
(699) thesis/dissertation
The Interim Registrar suggests that departments transition the bag number courses
concurrently with the common course numbers as follows:
o Courses converted for 2009-2010 are already under the new bag number
methodology.
o Courses scheduled to be converted for 2010-2011 during AY 2009-2010
will be converted to the new bag number methodology.
o Courses scheduled to be converted for 2011-2012 during AY 2010-2011
(and thereafter) will remain numbered as is until they are converted to
CCN in future years.
Simple course number changes to abide by common course numbering do not need to
be reviewed by ASCRC.

Chair Lodmell talked with the Chair of Geosciences regarding his request to define
the difference between a bachelor of arts and a bachelor of science. He agreed that
adopting a universal set of guidelines to distinguish what constitutes a BA and BS
would be very difficult in view of the current conventions at UM and throughout the
U.S. and withdrew his request.

Professor Neilson spoke with Cathy Corr, the Chair of the Applied Arts and Sciences
Department regarding the College of Technology’s changing role. Professor Core
would be happy to meet with ASCRC to discuss specific proposals or explain its
vision of meeting general education needs of students.
The College of Technology offers many general education courses and would like to
be able to have courses available in all the group designations. Often the same course
is taught on both campuses. The issue of duplication and resource implications was a
concern to some members. Administration and Finance tracts the number of COT
students taking courses on the main campus and vice versa. This has financial
implications due to the lower cost per credit at the College of Technology. The COT
general education courses should be linked to its curriculum and not be isolated,
which seemed to be the case of the Nature and Society course approved last year
There was discussion regarding the goal in the Academic Strategic Plan to fully
integrate the College of Technology into The University of Montana. This will
encourage more collaboration and development of 2+ 2 programs, as well as process
integration.

The audit process/procedure was briefly discussed. A member of ECOS had a
student who audited a course but never attended demand to get credit for auditing.
ECOS suggests that a mechanism be put in place to indicate non attendance.
According to Interim Registrar Johnson the existing grade reporting mechanism in
CyberBear will provide the instructor an avenue to enter a request that a notation of
“Unsatisfactory Attendance” in the course be placed on the student’s academic
transcript. Instructions will be provided to faculty in the final grade reminder memo
distributed near the end of the term. The current catalog language is below:
AUD-auditor registration. (AUD is recorded for all students who register in
courses as auditors, intending to listen to the courses without earning credit or
being graded. The same fees are assessed as when registering for credit. Any
attendance or participation expectations are established by the instructor of the
course. If attendance expectations are not met, the instructor may request a
notation be placed on the student's academic record indicating attendance was not
satisfactory.)
Chair Lodmell will review the catalog language and make appropriate revisions for
the committee to consider next week. Faculty should be informed prior to the start of
the semester about setting attendance expectations for audit students. There are likely
a number of issues the faculty should be informed of prior to the start of semester.

Professor Eglin, the Chair of the General Education Committee outlined the revisions
made to the General Education Form. ASCRC suggested several additional editorial
changes and the form (appended below) was approved. He will attend ASCRC
meetings as needed to provide updates and serve as the liaison between the two
committees.

The Interim Registrar has run a report for dormant courses and is in the process of
sending out a communication to gather responses from departments.

The Undergraduate Advising Center Course Review workgroup has not met.
Good and Welfare
According to Professor Weix there have been several appeals resulting from the
recommendation of a faculty member who informs students that a course meet the ethics
designation but does not follow through with the appropriate paper work. Faculty need to
be informed not to tell students that a course meets a general education designation when
it has not been approved. This is unacceptable and is not fair for students.
The meeting was adjourned at 3:50.
Procedures to sustain common-course numbering system
OCHE’s role in ongoing maintenance of common course numbers is one of oversight of
the process—not of the substance of the curriculum. This remains a function of ASCRC
and Graduate Council. In addition to the usual campus review, any new courses will
need to 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://msudw.msu.montana.edu:9030/wfez/owa/musxfer.p_CCN_MAIN.
Typical
Process Phase
New / Added
Process Steps
How?
Faculty /
Department
proposes course
change
(Add? Delete?
Alter?)
Check
proposed
course against
the published
CCN array
Department
Head / Dean
reviews
proposed
change
ASCRC and
Transfer
Liaison reviews
proposed
change
Review CCN
for alignment
issues (et al.)
Review CCN
alignment
issues (et al.)
Has the discipline gone through the CCN review /
renumbering process?
 If not, proceed as you always have.
 If so, check the array of courses for potential
equivalencies
 as needed, contact offering faculty/departments and/or
FLOC members to get more details
Does the course appear to be equivalent to another listed in
the array?
 If so, verify the apparent equivalency in terms of similar
learning outcomes (75-80%?)
 If equivalency seems confirmed, assign existing title and
number to course
 If not equivalent, review the array for appropriate title
(must be unique) and number to ensure a logical “fit” of
the new entry in the array
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’s unique or equivalent to another listed course. Use
outcomes template developed by FLOC to list outcomes for
new courses. (link)
Considers alternative disciplinary alignments that might
reveal unanticipated equivalencies that could raise concerns
both on campus and elsewhere in the system
Note: CCN relevance/ conformity is subject to review by ASCRC, the UM Transfer
Initiative Liaison Person, and OCHE.
I. ASCRC General Education Form (revised 9/15/09)
Use to propose new general education courses (except writing courses), to change existing
gen ed courses and to remove designations for existing gen ed courses.
Note: One-time-only general education designation may be requested for experimental courses
(X91-previously X95), granted only for the semester taught. A NEW request must be
submitted for the course to receive subsequent general education status.
Group
III. Language
VII: Social Sciences
(submit
III Exception: Symbolic Systems * VIII: Ethics & Human Values
separate forms
IV: Expressive Arts
IX: American & European
if requesting
V: Literary & Artistic Studies
X: Indigenous & Global
more than one
VI: Historical & Cultural Studies
XI: Natural Sciences
general
w/ lab  w/out lab 
education
group
designation)
Dept/Program
Course Title
Prerequisite
*Courses proposed for this designation must be standing requirements of
majors that qualify for exceptions to the modern and classical language
requirement
Course #
Credits
II. Endorsement/Approvals
Complete the form and obtain signatures before submitting to Faculty Senate Office
Please type / print name Signature
Date
Instructor
Phone / Email
Program Chair
Dean
III. Type of request
New
One-time Only
Change
Remove
Reason for Gen Ed inclusion, change or deletion
Description of change
IV. Description and purpose of new general education course: General Education courses
must be introductory and foundational within the offering department or within the General
Education Group. They must emphasize breadth, context, and connectedness; and relate course
content to students’ future lives: See Preamble:
http://www.umt.edu/facultysenate/gened/GEPreamble_final.htm
V. Criteria: Briefly explain how this course meets the criteria for the group. See:
http://www.umt.edu/facultysenate/ASCRCx/Adocuments/GE_Criteria5-1-08.htm
VI. Student Learning Goals: Briefly explain how this course will meet the applicable learning
goals. See: http://www.umt.edu/facultysenate/ASCRCx/Adocuments/GE_Criteria5-1-08.htm
VII. Justification: Normally, general education courses will not carry pre-requisites, will carry
at least 3 credits, and will be numbered at the 100-200 level. If the course has more than one
pre-requisite, carries fewer than three credits, or is upper division (numbered above the 200
level), provide rationale for exception(s).
VIII. Syllabus: Paste syllabus below or attach and send digital copy with form.  The syllabus
should clearly describe how the above criteria are satisfied. For assistance on syllabus
preparation see: http://teaching.berkeley.edu/bgd/syllabus.html
Please note: Approved general education changes will take effect next fall.
General education instructors will be expected to provide sample assessment items and
corresponding responses to the Assessment Advisory Committee.