Spring SLO Committee Meeting Notes

May 8, 2017


Attendees:  Sheri Miraglia, Craig Kleinman, Cherisa Yarkin, Janet Carpenter, Andrea Niosi, Natalie Smith, Anna-Lisa Helmy, Lisa Velarde

Please note:  Sheri both faciliated the meeting and took notes - so they are brief!

  • This was our final meeting of the Spring Semester and the 2016/17 Academic Year.
  • We discussed proposed changes to Aggregate Assessment Timelines and revised the proposal per a robust discussion.  Comments were captured in the document and the final presentation, available from the link above, reflects our final work product as a committe.  We unanimously agreed to forward our proposal to APT, Planning and the Academic Senate for further review. 
  • The committee reviewed the initial GE Area C report, and discussed the assessment of the AA with Science Emphasis "orphan" degree.  We agreed to include a bit more information about the specific degree recipients to finalize this part of the assessment, per the same report for GE Area D that was completed in 2015.
  • The committee was updated on SLO Coordination that is planned for 2017-2018, and we introduced David and Janey to the committee (virtually since they did not attend).  
  • We agreed that we will move the fall meeting time to 11-12:30 monthly to accomodate David's schedule.
  • We discussed our summer vacation plans and found that Anna-Lisa, who is going to Hawaii, has the best summer plans.


April 10, 2017


Attendees:  Sheri Miraglia, Craig Kleinman, Pam Mery, Cherisa Yarkin, Janet Carpenter, Andrea Niosi, Natalie Smith, Anna-Lisa Helmy, Lisa Velarde


  • The committee heard an update from Pam Mery on the CCSF SLO Presentation last week at the ACCJC Conference and general themes that were heard around SLOs.  In brief, CCSF is in a leadership position with respect to disaggregation in the state!  Although the ACCJC is going to give colleges time to identify ways to disaggregate data, and levels upon which disaggregation can be done, it's clear that the progress we've made will continue to be put to good use.
  • SLO Coordinators updated the committe on the April 20 SLO FLEX plans and review of the FLEX Activity. Committee members did a complete walk-through of the FLEX day activity: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Oh7OFlTppxypUn8dADV2Sy0MqQcSbpdZR4q6DwI6YZk/edit?usp=sharing
  • Feedback from the committee included sharing the following with chairs prior to FLEX
    • Positive points for chairs and facilitators to emphasize
      • brag about us being leaders in this, what other colleges are aspiring to.  
      • praise everyone for their course-level work
      • chance to improve course outlines, teaching strategies, resource requests
      • also a chance to reflect critically on the success and needs of programs (degrees and certificates)
      • another chance to shift from culture of compliance to culture of intentionality
      • another way to improve conversations among colleagues
      • build more comfort incorporating CurricUNET data
      • enjoy arguing about the gradations in the ranking
    • Advide to chairs regarding the Ranking Activity (for modeling reports and clarifying criteria)
      • List of good qualities
      • using evidence
      • being specific
      • emphasizing change
      • really answering the prompts
      • responding clearly and in ways that could inform future assessments
      • responding in ways that could help toward outline revisions
      • responding in ways that could help with funding, support, and facilities needs
      • optional--addresses outside expectations (CTE outside accreditation)
  • Additionally we brainstormed ideas for the end-of-day survey:
    • attitude and understanding have a lot to do with assessment participation
    •  survey
    • Has your perception of assessment shifted?  scale rank two years ago   rank today
    • is there someone in your department who might be a good slo coordinator
    • promote the upcoming assessments
  • Lastly we discussed the importance of identifying new/additional SLO Coordinators in Fall 2017 to deepen the team.  We agreed that if possible we will market both the SLO Coordination team and Academic Senate SLO Committee during the 4/20 FLEX.


March 20, 2017

The SLO Committee's March 20th meeting was also the Campus-wide forum completing the assessment of GE Area G1 and G2 (Health Knowledge and Physical Skills).


Attendees:  Fred Teti, Sheri Miraglia, Craig Kleinman, Andrea Niosi, Janet Carpenter, Cherisa Yarkin, Lisa Velarde, Anna-Lisa Helmy, Melissa McPeters



Area G Forum-

tremendous number of classes. much of it is PE, and highly represented by PE 200C with 13,000 students. 


Note that no faculty from Area G participated in the forum.  It was noted several times that it is a  huge amount of work to do this assessment, and yet there is no requirement (many colleges don’t have a “health” GE area).  So if there is no interest in Health Knowledge from the faculty who teach in these areas, why do the assessment?  Evaluating which GE areas are not required, and which could be dispensed with might be worthwhile.


A discussion ensued about the decision to move from a workgroup model for GELO assessments to having SLO Coordinators compile the data for asynchronous analysis by stakeholders.    Concerns about not having faculty/chairs i a room together to discuss the results was discussed.  One option is to make the forum the place for those discussions (although as pointed out earlier, no one from Area G attended this forum).  Another option is a mid-report meeting to discuss analysis as the report is being finalized.


A note was made that we need to create and add a worksheet that lists all G1 courses in the report.


Many courses and blurry lines between G1 and G2 made the data analysis really challenging!  The assessment took a long time, lacked a cohesive workgroup.  


Looking at some of the data, a lack of advisories may be affecting completion data in some of the health classes.  Anna-Lisa had a suggestion (based on a grant she’s working with) to potentially pair instructors with IBEST co-teachers - co-teaching model.  IBEST model under the AEBG (Adult Education Block Grant).  ESL or basic skills instructors pair with Anatomy or Nutrition teachers to help students who lack basic skills and support instruction in these areas.


Once concern that might be worth looking at is the low completion rates for some PE classes.  It may be that people “fail” or “drop” on purpose so that they can retake the course at bargain prices!


Most of the discussion was around the suggestions in the Area G report, which can be found at this LINK.


Degree seekers?  Is there a way to look at the difference between life-long learners, community students vs those who are actively working on earning a degree?  It would be interesting in PE to see how this might impact outcome achievement.



March 6, 2017

The SLO Committee's March 6th meeting was also the Campus-wide forum completing the assessment of ILO 4.


Attending:  Paula Cahill (Student Health), Melissa McPeters (TRST),  Andrea Niosi (Library/SLO Coordinator), Cherisa Yarking (Research and Planning), Dana Jae Labrecque (BEMA), Craig Kleinman (English/SLO Coordinator), Mandy Liang (New Student Counseling, Academic Senate President), Janet Carpenter (Art), Joe Reyes (Biology Chair), Jimmy Ly (CSCD), Natalie Smith (Fashion), Lisa Velarde (Library), Lidia Jenkins (Matriculation and Counseling), Kristina Whalen (Dean, FACA), Anna-Lisa Helmy (ESL), Pam Mery (Research and Planning), Myesha Smith (Testing, Matriculation)


The main part of the meeting consisted of reviewing the ILO 4 report and assoicated assessment data and discussing the results.  This information is fully captured in the ILO 4 Report.


The last 10 minutes of the meeting was dedicated to the upcoming SLO FLEX Day.  The committee reviewed anonymized aggregate assessment reports and discussed ways to create a fun and effective instrument for illustrating the differences between meaningful assessment and compliance assessment.  Currently on the table is a ranking activity, followed by the development of criteria (by group discussion) that make assessment reports useful and meaningful.


February 6, 2017

Attending:  Sheri Miraglia, Craig Kleinman, Natalie Smith, Anna Lisa Helmsy, Neesa Julian, Cherisa Yarking, Janet Carpenter


  • ILO 4 Report -  The committee spent most of the time working on ILO 4 (LINK to the draft report).  The focus in today's meeting was the data collected from the student survey that was completed in December.  Notes from the discussion were captured directly in the report.  
  • The current 3 year benchmark for Aggregate Assessment - the committee debated whether changing this to 4 or 6 years would be a good idea.  No consensus was reached, but we agreed to add it to the Assessment Planning Team Agenda in the spring.
  • Communication of the new Summer SLO Assessment requirement to faculty - what is the best way to do this?  The committee agreed early and often, getting chairs and deans involved in the roll out. Sheri will work to draft an email to send out in February.
  • Academic Senate SLO Committee composition and participation - we need more people and more varied participants.  This comes up frequently - no resolution reached.
  • How to identify individuals interested in becoming SLO Coordinators to carry the torch forward - this also comes up frequently.  The committee discussed whether or not a stipend might inspire faculty to take on this role.  Currently the main "advantage" to being an SLO coordinator is college-wide exposure and experience to add to one's resume.  No resolution reached.
  • Lastly - the committee took up the task of coming up with an activity to help faculty determine what constitutes a "quality" aggregate assessment report.  Sample resport were sent home with "homework" for the March 6 meeting to come up with a fun activity to accompany CurricUNET training.

January 23, 2017

Attending--Sheri Miraglia, Cherisa Yarkin, Andrea Niosi, Craig Kleinman, Anna Lisa Helmsy, Lisa Velarde.


Review of ILO4 status, cleaned up mapping results, Sheri’s hard work with this over break

  • PLO < ILO4 mapping done
  • Review of ILO4 results and hitting 70% benchmarks
  • We have preliminary survey data but will wait to get rest of it before discussing in committee.  Might be considerably more noncredit responses on the way.
  • Andrea suggested linking to the national health survey.  Should we link out to the subelement?
  • Open-ended question in student survey on what lifelong learning means to them.  General analysis to follow
  • ILO4 review is reinforcing the ongoing need for SLOs and PSLOs to be better aligned with ILOs.
  • Curriculum Comm review of alignment and mapping is crucial.
  • Brainstorming of ILO4 “findings” and additional data analysis
  • Since the technology outcome was a late addition, the outcomes data regarding that is a bit limited
  • After Andrea submits additional info and more bullet points are added, Sheri will flesh out prose to get the report more ready for the academic senate.  More needed from student services workgroup this week.
  • Table of Contents addition: Other Relevant Resources (e.g., CCSSE Data)
  • Deadline for ILO4 additions 2/6


Discussed Area G and Area C/Math report progress

  • Sheri and Craig will meet first Feb Friday to attack Argos
  • Craig will check with Ken on Math course completion programming progress in Argos.  NOTE--Ken is moving to IT.


April 20 Flex Day: Since they are so similar, lump together Program Level and and Course Aggregate Assessment workshops.  Craig, Sheri, and Natalie will work on PPT and other materials  

  • Can we find 25 facilitators?  Use the program review flex day model
  • Students Services training: Andrea will start organizing ASO assessment and will communicate with Samue
  • What’s this spring’s Argos training schedule?  Cherisa is checking with Rick
  • How can we make Course Aggregate flex day training more interactive?  Small group peer review?
  • Reports need to be pulled from curricunet as a way to get more ideas for April 20



Previous Notes