Hello,
This is interesting. I am wondering if the distinction is scalable/sustainable. What happens if a REC class is dropped from a curriculum? Does it need to be changed to an ACT class since it is no longer required? Also, what happens if an REC class is “one in a set of directed electives” or is required for a minor or option within a program? Does that mean it should be developed as a REC class or as an ACT class? OR what happens if it is required for a program on one campus but not on the campus in which it is being taken? For example: we offer an avalanche training course that is required in the Snowscience option within the Earth Science major, does this mean that anyone offering avalanche training should offer the course as REC. Then, what if they change the requirements for that program and no longer require this class, do we all change it to ACT? Or what if we started offering the program after the course was established as ACT? Would everyone need to update their catalog to reclassify it as REC? This approach may involve a level of complexity we haven’t seen in other areas withing CCN. We have also seen some persistent issues in areas in which we don’t require direct equivalencies like education practicum.
I am not opposed to expanding the number of Rubrics for ACT-type classes but I am not sure if “required for program completion” is a stable enough threshold to anchor the distinction. Do we have an inventory of ACT courses that could potentially change to REC if this were the standard. I wonder if that analysis may be indicative a best way forward.
Looking forward to learning more and finding a workable, sustainable solution (perhaps the ACT/REC turn out to be the best way forward).
Tony
From: MACRAO Listserv <MACRAO@LISTSERV.GFCMSU.EDU> On Behalf Of Thiel, Joe
Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2021 3:00 PM
To: MACRAO@LISTSERV.GFCMSU.EDU
Subject: ACT and ACTV common numbering policy change
MACRAO Colleagues:
OCHE would appreciate your feedback and review of a policy change related to ACT “Activities: General” and ACTV “ Activities: Varsity” courses within common course numbering.
There are no longer available course numbers in the ACT “Activities: General” rubric. This lack of available numbers is now preventing campuses from developing and listing new activities and recreation related courses. Across the system, courses currently in the ACT rubric are rarely, if ever, components of either a campus general education program or required courses in a major or minor program of study.
The CCN campus liaisons have proposed making activities and recreation courses (i.e. courses in the ACT and ACTV rubrics) that are not specifically part of an academic degree program exempt from CCN requirements. Here is the specific policy language for your review and comment:
- Activities or recreation related courses (i.e. team sports; personal health and wellness classes; outdoor activities) that are not a specific requirement of an academic degree program are exempt from common course numbering requirements. Such courses should carry either the ACT “Activities: General” or ACTV “Activities: Varsity” rubric. ACT and ACTV courses will not be listed in the CCN course guide.
- Activities or recreation related courses that are a specific requirement in an academic degree program are not exempt from common course numbering requirements and should be listed under the REC “Recreation” rubric.
I would appreciate your response by May 28th so that CCN liaisons can consider your comments before their final review of these changes.
Kind Regards,
Joseph Thiel
Director of Academic Policy and Research
Montana University System
To unsubscribe from the MACRAO list, click the following link:
http://listserv.gfcmsu.edu/scripts/wa.exe?TICKET=NzM3OTUxIHRjYW1wZWF1QE1PTlRBTkEuRURVIE1BQ1JBT%2FtE3qzLLAsq&c=SIGNOFF
