2002-2003 Annual ASCRC Report

2002-2003 Membership

Ed Moore, Chair	COT
Lois Hayes, Vice Chair	Poly Sci
Don Bedunah/Don Potts	Forestry
Linda Gillison/Tim Bradstock	For Lang
Christopher Mullin	Library
Audrey Peterson	C & I
David Moore	English
Thomas Tonev (Fall)	Math
Deni Elliot **	Pract Ethics
Tom Cook	Music
Carolyn Krussel	Math
Mark Cracolice	Chemistry
Tom Huff **(February-only)	Philosophy/Law
John Case	Student
Rob Welsh	Student
Healther O’Loughlan (Spring)	Student
Betsy Bach/Don Robson	Assistant Provost
Philip Bain	Registrar
Laura Carlyon	Associate Registrar

Agenda Items and Actions

1. Routine Curriculum Review
The bulk (330) of curriculum change requests were presented at the November and December Faculty Senate meetings. Additional requests (50) were included in the spring. There was extensive discussion regarding proposed program changes in the spring. Two proposals for minors (Military Science and Asian Studies) were not approved after meeting with respective members of the faculty involved with the proposals.
The Board of Regents revised procedure for Level I and Level II changes is somewhat disruptive to ASCRC’s traditional schedule of review. The BOR now reviews Level II proposals three times a year. Program proposals require preliminary approval by the Provost’s Office prior to submission to the Senate Office. The Provost’s Office would like to stagger these rather than present them all at the same time, which had coincided with ASCRC’s procedure for inclusion in the catalog.

2. AP/CLEP
ECOS requested that ASCRC reconsider this issue. Admissions and New Student Service’s had numerous complaints and felt UM’s policy was deterring students from enrolling at UM. Credit was not given in many cases. ASCRC met with a representative from the Admissions Office and asked for data regarding the difficulties and comparisons to other Universities. There was considerable discussion regarding the validity of the exams and the impact on students. The final motion gave students elective credit for the exams and gave departments discretion on weather credit was given for program requirements. The Senate debated the issue related to lowering standards. The motion passed 23 to 12.

3. English Competency catalog language
The Provost’s Writing Committee asked that the language in the catalog referring to English Writing Skills be identical to the writing assessment criterion. Also the language was edited to provide students with a reference for the when to take the exam (after 45 but no later than 90 credits). Nancy Mattina, Director of the Writing Center was invited to a meeting to address concerns of criterion clarity.

- Respond appropriately and effectively to new or given information;

- Communicate a unified message supported by evidence, examples or arguments;

- Develop ideas thoroughly and logically with clear connections among them;

- Have a purposeful organizational plan that befits the message;

- Use language that is clear and precise;

- Possess a voice that is consistent and appropriate to the audience and purpose;

- Use correct spelling, punctuation and grammar.

4. Pass/Not Pass Grading
The Graduation Appeals Committee suggested a change in the Traditional Letter Grading section in the catalog. Some departments on campus have internal policies relating to the grade of D. History, for example does not consider a D a passing grade, which contradicts the language in the catalog. Thus, ASCRC proposed this change: A work of superior quality; B work better than average; C average work; D work below average, but barely passing; F failure. In addition the committee proposed that the criteria for determining a P, or NP grade should be stated in the course syllabus. This component of the motion was removed at the Senate and an amendment was approved to remove “The grades of pass or not pass are not formally defined in terms of their relationship to the traditional grades of A, B, C, D, or F”; and actually define the passing grades “A P is given for work considered to be passing (A, B, or C ) and therefore deserving credit, and an NP for work not passed (D and F).”

5. Audit Option
Lori Morin, School of Pharmacy asked ASCRC to help with abuses related to this option. An increasing number of students have been changing to audit at the end of the semester to avoid a bad grade. ASCRC discussed the matter and proposed changing the deadline for a change from Traditional Grading or Pass/Not Pass Grading to the 5^th day of class rather than the last day of instruction before scheduled final examinations. There was some opposition at the Senate from Disability Services for Students. However, it was recommended that the petition process is available for students in special circumstances and can be utilized by students with learning disabilities who may need more time to evaluate the material to make a determination.

6. T-Removal issue
In the fall a T-removal subcommittee was established to look at the 110 courses submitted for t-removal. Bruce Biggley, who was on the previous task force assigned to …….agreed to chair the committee. Although Collegiate Criteria was developed by the task force it was stopped at ECOS from going to the Senate in April 02. Thus, the subcommittee was charged to review the courses according to the amended 4/11/02 motion and standing ASCRC policies related to adding new courses Bruce Biggley met with ASCRC to discuss the subcommittees difficulties.
ASCRC, after much discussion, decided to propose the elimination of the T from all COT courses. The motion was presented to the Senate on 12/12/02. There was much debate and the discussion was postponed. At the preceding meeting (2/13/03), COT made a presentation addressing comments made at the December meeting. The Senate was split on the vote and the Acting Chair Knowles declined to break the tie by abstaining and recommended ASCRC create a clearly written motion to solve the issue. In March the motion was amended and a summary of facts was provided. The motion failed as an accreditation concern surfaced related to having two business programs on campus. There appears to be the need for discussions with the School of Business regarding courses with similar content. In April a list of COT courses that apply towards a baccalaureate degree was approved to be included in the catalog for clarification. The courses submitted for T-removal will be reviewed next year with dialogue taking place between the School of Business and the COT business program.

7. Editorial Changes
In an effort to reduce paperwork ASCRC discussed changes that could be made without review by the committee. The following editorial changes may be made directly on the catalog copy sent by the Registrar’s Office in January/February:

1. Opening paragraph(s) describing the program or school/college.  This usually is a definition of the discipline, degrees offered, employment opportunities and such.  It precedes the section called Special Degree Requirements or in some programs the section called Admission Requirements. 
2. Typographical errors.
3. Grammatical errors or other composition errors.
4. Changes in punctuation for clarification.
5. Reorganization for clarification if no effect on requirements.
6. Changes in the semester(s) a course is offered.
7. Minor changes in terminology (not affecting course focus) used in course descriptions.
8. Changes in faculty listing.
9. Changes in the second and third digits of course numbers (excluding X90-X99)

8. Plus/minus grading option
ASCRC was asked by ECOS to reconsider the plus/minus grading option. Documentation from previous attempts was considered. ASUM was asked to weigh in on the issue, and passed a resolution in support. The motion was presented as information at the May Senate meeting, and will be discussed and voted on in September 2003.

9. Information Technology Proficiency
The committee was asked by Provost Muir to consider the recommendations made by the Technology Proficiency Task Force. There was considerable discussion regarding the need, or lack there of for this proficiency. Members of the committee searched on-line for similar proficiencies at other institutions with little success. A preliminary survey was conducted of students to assess current levels of proficiency. Student members made the point that most students’ skills surpass the faculty. There was discussion regarding how to implement, track, and test out. The committee was unsure of how to proceed and met with the Provost. After considerable discussion the Provost decided to have a conversation with the Task Force to look at refining the standards, focusing on transfer skills or the broader context, not today’s knowledge.

10. On-line course standards
Members of the committee suggested the consideration on-line course standards. Courses offered on-line require re-conception and there was concern that perhaps the new format should have set standards. Current courses have been approved in their traditional format. Members conducted research and contacted sources on campus. There will be discussion next year regarding the next step. The Provost commented at a Senate meeting that on-line courses should be considered no different that summer or intersession courses, the bottom line are educational outcomes/assessment.

11. Procedures –forms
The Faculty Senate secretary created draft procedures that will be revised as needed and passed on to each new chair. A new Form A was created and sent out with the deadline letter. The Senate leadership requested ASCRC consider possible process changes to increase efficiency. The Provost suggested the consideration of a General Education Subcommittee. Don Robson, Associate Provost asked for a check list to be applied to Form B’s to assist in the curriculum review process. Next years chair and vice chair will consider recommendations.

12. General Education on-going review/oversight
Early in the year the committee discussed general education oversight and how this might be a duplication of efforts if the General Education Task Force proposal was to go forward. The committee decided to wait for communication regarding the outcome of the Gen Ed Task Force Report. Al Borgmann, Chair of the General Education Task Force met with ASCRC in February. There is still uncertainty on the possibility of changes in general education.

ASCRC planned to review the w-criteria. Syllabi were collected and a subcommittee was established. The review was put on hold by request of the Provost’s Writing Committee as there was discussion regarding strengthening the criteria and the possibility of pending changes. The Provost Writing Committee then requested to view the syllabi. ASCRC awaits the decision of the Provost’s Writing Committee.