2016 Meeting Notes

December 5, 2016

Participants: Andrea Niosi, Sheri Miraglia, Craig Kleinman, Cherisa Yarkin, Katryn Wiese, Natalie Smith, Anna-Lisa Helmy, Wendy Miller

  1. When are the SSO workgroup and SLO Committee/Coordinators going to get together to discuss our shared issues, in particular the decision by the SSO workgroup to map to ILOs and how that’s going to get resolved.
  2. ILO 4 Assessment Survey – behind because of CurricUNET bug; Monkey Survey going out this week.  Will go out in email, out of Student Development. Print copies will be distributed through Libraries to try to pull in noncredit students. These surveys have been translated into Spanish and Chinese with fliers. Getting noncredit students will get copies through library. Need to be done by end of week. When done, will pull some of the data.
    1. Need to send email to all faculty alerting them that this survey has come out to students.
    2. Email should explain why this is important: Help us make your students heard!
    3. Include PDF with instructions for printing.
  3. ILO Revision Survey – 35 responses. Do we want more feedback? If so, do we send out another email? When?
    1. Most common complaint is use of “and/or” vs. “or”. We decided to change the “or” in the new ILO 4 outcomes to ensure we don’t confuse folks.
      1. Assess one’s own achievements and cultivate resources for educational and /or career growth
      2. Maintain and improve one’s health and safety and/or that of others
      3. Use technology in pursuit of intellectual growth and/or career development.
      4. In January, we will bring these revisions to the next Academic Senate.
    2. If AS EC sends it back with feedback, then we’ll address that feedback along with additional survey feedback.
  4. Spring FLEX
    1. No School meeting, so more time for actual work with departments
    2. Need to prepare for Department Chairs task lists in preparation for the meeting and during the meeting (what needs assessing and who will do it).
  5. Changing benchmarks
    1. Recognize 6-year cycle for curriculum updates.
    2. Connect to CTE 2-year cycle.
    3. Be sure that SSO and AUO stay at 3 years.
    4. Concern: some folks will wait to the end of the 6 years.
    5. Acknowledge the CRN-level assessments and hard work of faculty.
    6. Agreed to unanimously by SLO Committee.
    7. Move on to Assessment Planning Team.
  6. Spring Plan
    1. Need to have some extra meetings in preparation for SPRING FLEX and ILO 4 review.
    2. Agreed to have every other week and schedule accordingly. If can cancel, will do.
    3. We need more people on this committee.

November 21, 2016

Participants: Craig Kleinman, Sheri Miraglia, Andrea Niosi,  Malcom Cecil, Katryn Wiese, Anna-Lisa Helmy, Natalie Smith, Cherisa Yarkin, Natalie Smith

  1. FInalize proposed revision to ILO #4 sub-elements that will be put forward to a college in  survey
    1. 4a revision: will capture 4a, 4b, and 4d - Assess one’s own achievements and cultivate resources for educational and /or career growth
    2. New 4c - Maintain and improve one’s health and safety or that of others
    3. New 4e - leave as is
    4. Goal to have revised  sub-elements discussed at next SSO Workgroup
    5. SLOs have to be readable by others and be able to be validated by others - if to vague to map to broader ILOS, use some of the language in the ILO to develop
    6. Contact Pam to see whether we can have a conversation about SSOs mapping to ILOs in  the APT meeting  or arrange a specific meeting  with Samuel and  Nessa - what is the relationship going forward with PSLO/SSO -  should only Counseling faculty need to map and not all other SS areas
  2. ILO 4 report update
    1. Bug in curricunet is preventing the unmapping of 30 programs - Governet will get provide a solution in a week or 2
    2. Data areas: 1) maps; 2) student survey  going out in December; 3) Student Services; 4) Academic Services
    3. Goal  to have  SSO/ASO portion of report first draft by next SLO meeting; sent to SSO Workgroup for review
  3. Finalize committee approval of  GE Area F Report and send  forward to ACEC
    1. Area F report is a model for future GELO reports - it may have a  revised the process of GenEd assessment in which we gather data and compare  and create the report and then have people that teach in the area review and comment  and use  in conversations etc.
    2. Consider revising Institutional Assessment Plan and update online process  on the web for GELO  assessment
    3. Informational item to be put on ASEC agenda - ask them to not just read it but consider it and discuss it -  ensure that it gets out to the department chairs and beyond
    4. Fantastic report!!
  4. April 2017 SLO Flex
    1. Look for different aproach for course that have smaller datasets
    2. SSO Workgroup  needs to discuss what they will do  on that day
    3. Send an email out to Samuel and Nessa about that day; ideas for SSOs would be to discuss the 3 year benchmark
    4. Chairs can meet to discuss ways to market the SLO committee for more diverse participation
  5. Academic Senate resolution for SLO committee makeup be made up from members of the various schools/departments

November 7, 2016

Craig Kleinman, Sheri Miraglia, Andrea Niosi,  Malcom Cecil, Katryn Wiese, Mine Ternar, Beth Friedman, Anna-Lisa Helmy, Natalie Smith, Cherisa Yarkin, Pam Mery, Mandy Liang.  

 

  • After receiving the OK from the AC executive council,  the SLO committee  revisited the mapping and eliminated poorly mapped outcomes Sheri went into CurricUNET and did the final unmapping. Thank you Sheri.   During the unmapping, a bug was discovered in CurriUNET which prohibited about 30 departments' outcomes from being unmapped. CurriUNET has been notified of the bug and the SLO Committeee is waiting for the fix before it proceeds. 
  • Once the bug is fixed,  the data will be shared in a spreadsheet with graphs and the committee will review.


2.  Student Services/Academic Services assessment of ILO#4 subelements and inclusion of data in the report.

 

SSO Workgroup is planning on validating SSO/ ILO 4 mapping  at the Nov. 17th meeting.

  • Andrea will send email to Nessa and Samuel to ensure validation occurs at next meeting
  • SSO workgroup will write SS section of ILO 4
  • The method and format for student service data  in the ILO 4 report should follow the example from the ILO 3 report.
  • It was suggested that the outcome mappings for both student services and academic services be  listed together and organized by ILO sub-element to make it easier for the reader. 

3.  Student Survey (Research and Planning) collecting additional ILO#4 assessment data.

  • The ILO 4 survey was pre-tested by several students (both cred and noncredit) and adjustments were made to the language for clarity. The AS Executive Council also reviewed the survey and approved the survey. The SSO Workgroup will conduct final review of ILO 4 survey at the Nov. 17th meeting. The survey is scheduled to be distributed in early December after  the Thanksgiving break. It will be translated into Chinese and Spanish and distributed in print and online. 


4.  Revision of ILO #4

 

The SLO committee had a lively discussion regarding the rewording of the sub-elements for ILO 4. 

 

4a: Identify and develop helpful resources and opportunities

4b: Demonstrate self-reflection and confidence

4c: Maintain or improve health

4d: Value lifelong learning

4e: Utilize technology in pursuit of intellectual growth and career development.

 

4 a, b, d: The committee was leaning toward compiling sub-elements a, b and d into one outcome. Further discussion will ensue over the following:

 

  • Assess one's own achievements and cultivate resources and opportunities for continued educational (learning) and/or career growth
  • Assess one's achievements and cultivate resources and opportunities for pursuing educational and/or career goals
  • pursuing or continued pursuit of

 

4c: Recommend changing to: Maintain and improve one's health and safety and/or that of others.

 

4e: No change. However, it is believed that since this outcome is new, may programs that could map to it haven't yet.

October 10, 2016

Craig Kleinman, Sheri Miraglia, Wendy Miller, Andrea Niosi, Janet Carpenter, Jeannette Male, Malcom Cecil, Katryn Wiese, Mine Ternar, Beth Friedman, Laura Walsh, Anna-Lisa Helmy, Lou Schubert, Ed Moreno

 

  1. ILO-4 - we have permission to remap!  Sheri will be sending out an email with the criteria that we provided the Academic Senate and the old mapping validation files.  Committee Members will revisit their maps to determine if they meet the approved criteria.
  2. Governet has agreed to fix program aggregate assessment reports so that we can aggregate the PLOs into a single report.
  3. This meeting was dedicated to Area F and the Area F report: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1npOm5qraVASLlTYSfJnLa7sfypD52dDV1zR4GpsoRj0/edit?usp=sharing.  Many of the notes were taken directly in the Area F document as the committee went through this report.
    1. Area F is coming together - unique report because there has never been this level of disaggregation in a GELO report before!
    2. This area (US History) is dominated by history courses and political science. It does not have an IGETC equivalent (although it does have a CSU equivalent).
    3. The workgroup started by doing the mappings, which is a great exercise - it helps the workgroup better understand their outcomes and impact on GE programs.  In this case there were no edits to the maps, the workgroup felt that the maps were high quality.
    4. Curriculum Committee will also review these maps as the courses go through routine curriculum review, and also review whether or not courses should map to that area.  There are some courses that the GE Workgroup were not convinced belonged in Area F, and this will be resolved over time in the Curriculum Committee.  For example, there are questions about whether or not the labor and community studies course should map to GE Area F.   It has to be a significant area of the course that applies to Area F.
    5. The committee reviewed the Institution set standards and completion rate for Area F - one suggestion was too consider adding completion data to the SLO Dashboard.
    6. One key data trend is that students are not successfully completing history at the same rate as other courses.  This is a huge concern given the number of students impacted.   History completion, across the board is poor.  The committee had a long conversation about the possibility that the low completion and success rate may be due to instructor(s) teaching Hist 1.  One concern is how to use this information in a productive way.  
    7. When looking at the course preparedness data, there seems to be a big difference between Engl 96 and 1A in terms of Area F course completion.  It may be because teaching how to write a research paper doesn’t really happen until Engl 1A.  The same may be true for reading technical publications.  One recommendation that could come out of the Area F assessment is that these Area F courses are flagged by the Curriculum Committee so that we can ensure that prerequisites/advisories are added so that students are notified in advance what level of preparation they will need to succeed in the course.
    8. LALS SLO data is oddly low, especially for Latino students!  It may be that counselors are directing students to LALS early in their academic careers before they are more experienced students?  A “D” in LALS will transfer to CSU and possibly that course is being sacrificed by students.
    9. Some of these recommendations affect Student Services - it would make sense to have their voice in the room.

September 26, 2016

Attendees:  Katryn Wiese, Sheri Miraglia, Pam Mery, Cherisa Yarkin, Wendy Miller, Andrea Niosi, Janet Carpenter, Craig Kleinman, Malcom Cecil, Natalie Smith, Mandy Liang, Nessa Julian

 

DIscussion notes from 9/26/2016 SLO Committee (all regarding ILO 4 Assessment)

  • Mapping seems to be too poor to make any data gathered through mapping valuable

    • Can these mappings ever be high enough quality to make the data they draw in valuable? Current review process in Curriculum Committee really can’t ensure quality, because of the amount of subjectivity that comes into the mapping process.

      • Propose resolution to Academic Senate to get confirmation to make it so ILO mapping gets reviewed and edited by SLO committee during every assessment (the only way to ensure data are correct)

        • Process is to have two members judge Yes, No, Maybe -- then we get together and negotiate and remove mappings that aren’t correct

        • Applies for all future ILOs

        • Every 4 years the SLO Committee validates mapping (we recognize that departments recognize that students in their program will meet certain ILOs, but they might not have a PSLOs that map)

        • Whereas -- how ILO mapping is used (what it is and what it isn’t) -- isn’t about funding or program validation.

        • SSO workgroup validates their ILO mapping

        • Members of room voting: 12 YES for this resolution; 2 abstain.

      • Work with program coordinators and departments to help them understanding mappings and improve them (how make this workable)?

    • Should we gather data in other ways for the future, such as the CCSSE survey (we get 15 questions of our own -- we could ILO questions -- done once every three years -- random sample of credit courses only -- limited number) or exit surveys? Center surveys?

      • Get help from Office of Research -- bunch of new analysts

      • Surveys can be for students AND for faculty

      • Surveys will go out how? Through courses?

  • Student Service data needs to be added, including mapping

September 12, 2016

Attendees:  Katryn Wiese, Sheri Miraglia, Pam Mery, Cherisa Yarkin, Wendy Miller, Andrea Niosi, Janet Carpenter, Craig Kleinman, Mine Ternar, Malcom Cecil, Natalie Smith

 

  1. ILO 1 updated language - approved by Academic Senate, now goes to Planning and PGC.  There was some debate in Academic Senate about the requirement to go through planning and PGC as this is an academic area.  Academic Senate insisted an informational item.  There are more than academic areas connected to ILOs as Academic and Student Services so it is not truly limited to academic areas.  It would be useful in a future meeting to have a representative from Student Services workgroup visit the SLO Committee to help us understand the process better.
  2. Summer SLO Reporting was also approved by the Academic Senate at the same meeting in August.  There was some debate about workload, but the addition of Summer SLO reporting is needed to meet the requirements of our own Institutional Assessment Plan. We need to check the website to ensure that there is no more mention of “optional” summer assessment, and also that we support them.  We can also support summer faculty in the fall when they are ready to support.
  3. GELO Area F Forum will be held Sept 30th. Craig has done the lion share of work, and shared frustration with the process.  Katryn explained that the SLO Committee should be able to weigh in on the GE Area F before going to forum.  Area G is also delayed until November.  We have agreed to make Gen Ed assessment challenges part of our next SLO meeting, and to postpone the Area F Forum until after the October 10 SLO meeting  At the October 10 meeting we will be reviewing the reports for Areas F and G.  Craig will be sending us Area F report for review by email.  Craig will already have some of the feedback.
  4. A request was made to send out notice of SLO Committee meetings with agendas.  Sheri will start doing that.
  5. A discussion of the ILO4 mapping exercise was undertaken.  The maps to the committee were overall not very high quality.  What is the process for reviewing mappings? In Curriculum Committee only one person actually looks at the maps.  What is the value of the mappings? In many cases, everything is mapped to everything.  There are likely two issues.  One is that we may want to re-write the ILOs to make them better.  In the meantime, can we use these mappings to collect any meaningful data?  In this case, maybe the report is more about how we improve the mapping process and re-write the ILOs.  One thing we may need to do is increase the amount of time the SLO Committee spends as an ILO workgroup.  We have never had a past requirement that programs get updated.  Hopefully as maps are updated with Curriculum Committee this will improve over time.  It’s possible that programs really do achieve these learning outcomes, but the old program learning outcomes are just not written well enough to demonstrate this.  Some of this is a necessary clean-up.  There is a chance for us improve the ILO4 language considerably.

Some quick ideas for changes:

 

4a. Locate career resources and opportunities

 

Homework assignment for next ILO focused meeting:  Come up with language suggestions for what might work for ILO 4 based on what we know the program need is.   Career readiness may be a key or professional growth might be useful terms.  Some of these may not be course specific or about student services or ethos of the college itself.  Not all institutions assess all there SLOs through course SLOs.  Maybe we need to think beyond courses.

 

Propose adding a meeting on 9/26 for ILO 4 continued discussion, with 10/10 focused on GE Areas.

 

Sheri to send out meeting invite, announce to college, and google doc with ILO4 language to discuss

 

August 22, 2016

SLO Senate Meeting: MUB 250, 12-1:30, 8/22

Attendees:  Sheri Miraglia, Craig Kleinman, Katryn Wiese, Mandy Liang, Wendy Miller, Mine Ternar, Janet Carpenter, Pam Mery, Cherisa Yarkin, Malcom Cecil

Follow-up discussion of last spring’s decision that summer courses shall also be required to undergo SLO assessment.  This was encouraged for summer 2016 but needs to be instituted for a variety of reasons, including that certain classes are only taught in summer and that spring/summer/fall comparative data can enhance scheduling and methodological considerations. A resolution will be submitted to XC.

 

A quantitative reasoning outcome for ILO #1, Critical Thinking and Information Competency, will also be proposed to the XC: Apply quantitative concepts to address complex problems.  

Even though there is a quantitative GELO in place, the committee agreed that a quantitative ILO makes it even more clear that we are addressing this standard.  It was also agreed that overall mapping will be enhanced by ILO 1 having distinct qualitative and quantitative outcomes.  The committee liked the idea of using parallel language for two of the ILO sub-elements: “Apply…to address.”  Suggestions were made for ILO subelement sequence—Apply (quant) , Apply (qual), Locate—if that does not create a mess in CurricUNET or in the current SSO table.

 

After XC approval the ILO revision, the PGC will also need to approve it.  Pam offered to shepherd it through.  Note: Mandy has removed a redundant step from the XC form.

 

More discussion of the ILO/GELO alternating schedule took place.  ILO 4 assessment is scheduled for this fall.  A quick look at the PSLO-ILO 4a “preliminary mapping” has revealed some questionable alignment, in part an effect of individuals working in isolation or being a bit confused by mapping concepts.  ILO4 assessment, not unlike GELO assessment, is a chance to review that mapping.  The committee is going to share review of each ILO 4 section’s outcomes maps and document in a shared Google file mapping that should be removed.  Chairs will be made aware of this and given a chance to respond.  The committee’s hope is that departments will be grateful for this review, that it will help departments reflect even more on their programs, and that it will make the assessment data that much more accurate and meaningful.  The new technology ILO4 subelement instituted one year ago will not generate as much data as the others, but chairs will be reminded that programs due to be updated will need to map to this new ILO subelement when appropriate.

 

The ILO 4 mapping review should be completed in early September so that it may also be discussed at the 9/20 Deans and Chairs meeting.

 

SSO mapping still needs to be made more robust in CurricUNET.  An official SSO coordinator is also still needed.

 

Ideally, the SLO Senate Committee will have no fewer than 15 members and representation from every school.  At present the only schools represented are FAC, English/FL, and Science.

 

The college-wide forums for the Area F and G GELO assessment reports are being scheduled for 9/16 at 1:15 and 2:15.  More to follow. 

 

Assessment validation discussion was postponed till the September meeting.

 

May 2, 2016

Participants:  Katryn Wiese,  Janet Carpenter, Sheri Miraglia, Craig Kleinman, Mandy Liang, Mine Ternar

  • GELO Area B report:  The SLO Commitee reviewed the Area B draft report.  Craig reviewed the GELO revision history for Area B which was not typical of our process.  In this case, GELOs from Area B were changed prior to the GELO assessment.  At the completion of GELO assessment, there is a desire to make additional changes.  These will be addressed at the next assessment.  To do the GELO assessment, the Area B workgroup decided to look at a subset of student papers and this process extended the workgroup timeline by a considerable amount.
    • For Area B, all instructors (800+ reports) evaluated on SLO at the CRN level.  Then, a subset of those essays were evaluated by two "readers" looking at all four GELOs.
    • The English Department assessment of this GELO resulted in meaningful conversations around the design of English 1A as well as English 1A assignments.
    • Findings were discussed by the AS SLO Committee.  One concern that was discussed involved inferring information about course success for demographic groups by looking only at SLO data for students that are completing the course.
    • SLO data does not always correlate with success because success data incorporates other things such as attendance, meeting deadlines, etc.
    • We might want to consider adding language indicating that we are actually doing quite well.  The aspirational goals for course completing for the college are 73%, but in 1A the GELOs are being met at a rate of 75%.
    • May 16th from 12-1 will be the Area B College-Wide Forum
  • March 8 Report:  We have provided the college with a link to the March 8 report.  Mandy Liang will be presenting this at the AS EC meeting this upcoming Wed.  The goal is to find ways within the college committees to act on findings.  Some of this is anticipated to be completed via the Quality Focus Essay that is part of the Accreditation Self Study.
  • This was our last SLO Committee meeting of the year.  Action items remaining will be followed up with the SLO Coordinators.  Until next semester!

 

April 18, 2016

Participants:  Katryn Wiese,  Janet Carpenter, Sheri Miraglia, Craig Kleinman, Mandy Liang, Kristina Whalen, Mine Ternar

  • GELO Area B report needs to be reviewed by this committee.  Craig will be sending out a link to committee members for review and feedback.   We will be discussing it at our next meeting, so we are asking committee members to look at the report and be prepared to discuss at our next meeting.  Katryn has edited the process online for workgroups to ensure that reports go to the Academic Senate before moving them forward to PGC and/or Board depending on what is required.
  • ACCJC Annual Report - information is on the website.  We have completed mapping of ILOs to PSLOs to ensure 100% compliance.  Mapping will improve as programs are re-mapped as part of the curriculum update process by the respective departments.
  • Department Webpage update:  Katryn updated all the Department webpages to link to the new CurricUNET system. It looks great!!  Lots of bad data, bad links were removed.  The result is much cleaner, accurate and streamlined.
  • Course and Program Level Reporting Timeline:  In the next two years all courses and programs need to be completing course and program level aggregate reports.  We are going to be working with the college community to educate everyone as to the various levels of assessment reporting and continue to drive the process forward by communicating regularly with Deans and Chairs.
  • PSLO reports in the library - mix service and learning outcomes - CurricUNET has been organized to satisfy the need for both service and course outcomes that inform a program level assessment.  Library and Learning Services have a "discipline" that has SLOs and a course aggregate assessment can be completed in CurricUNET.  The information competency SLO is actually in both areas, so it can be completed as a service or a course assessment.  There should be SLO Coordinator check in with the library regarding their Assessment Webpage as well to ensure departmental consistency.
  • Non-credit assessment during the summer:  Normally we don't require assessment during the summer, however there are some short summer classes that are unique courses that won't be assessed any other way unless a summer assessment is done.  Courses are unusual - same SLOs as courses taught in the Fall, but a different teacher on Mondays, vs Tuesdays etc.  The suggestion was made to different instructors to assess different SLOs to avoid "double counting" individual students.  But it's possible that it doesn't matter in non-credit because each student is counted as being in a new class each time they attend.  However - we should begin exploring a requirement for assessment during the summer.  The idea would first need to go before the academic senate.  This summer we could send out reminders about assessment without specifically saying that assessment is "optional" with a goal to make assessment mandatory in one or two years.

 

April 4, 2016

Participants:  Katryn Wiese,  Janet Carpenter, Sheri Miraglia, Craig Kleinman, Mandy Liang, Ken Lin, Fatima Shah, Kristina Whalen, Jeff Lamb, Rachel Cohen, Greg Keach, Ed Ros, Cam Tran, Kitty Moriwaki, Erin Denney, Dennis Piontkowski, Rick Fillman, Laura Walsh

  • Demonstration of Course Success Cube (by Math, English and ESL preparation levels) (Chien Ken Lin) - Ken demonstrated how to use the new course success cubes to look at student success in individual courses relative to student preparation.  Many guests joined the committee to have the opportunity to see the cubes in action.  The SLO Committee sees tremendous value in the use of these cubes for determinining student success in individual courses.  We anticipate value in determining whether courses will benefit from advisories or prerequsites.
    • Robust discussions were held around how to define students who are "-1" in English, vs ESL, vs Math and how to understand those numbers.
    • We noted again how student do much worse in history classes (for example) when they have weaker math skills.  Again - a robust discussion ensued as to what that data means.  Looking at History we also see how important English skills are, and it was noted that there is no advisory or prerequsite, and yet it's clear that students need these skills to be successful.
    • For Art, PE, dance, etc. - there was less variability in student success based on eligibility.  Even so, higher math level was a predictor for success in French!  
    • After looking at some of the data, Ken demo'd how to access the data in ARGOS.
    • After the demo, a concern came up about how individual faculty can gain access to this data for their classes.  Using ARGOS is hard (if you don't use it regularly), and it can be difficult to access.

 

March 14, 2016

Participants:  Katryn Wiese,  Janet Carpenter, Sheri Miraglia, Craig Kleinman, Mandy Liang, Mine Ternar

ILO#3  Report and Recommendations

The SLO Committee meeting on March 14 was devoted to the committee's function as the ILO 3 workgroup.

  • The time was spent reviewing the final report and making/editing/polishing the recommendations.  Some key observations:
  • Recommendations included revising ILO 3, which we have done.  This will be a subset of the recommendations at the end entitled: "revisions".
  • We agreed to include a recommendation to tie ethical reasoning more tightly to our GE program.  It might be better to have it under social sciences to ensure it matches better to Area H.4.  Create parallelism between the new ILO 3 and GE Area H.4.
  • Just looking at ILO 3 data does not effectively inform recommendations, which is one reason why the college-wide survey and college conversations take on such importnace.  The DATA from ILO 3 implies that students are usually meeting ILO 3 outcomes and that no changes are required of the college.
  • The ILO 3 workgroup (Academic Senate SLO Comittee) went through the SWOT recommendations one by one to determine if they were sufficiently tied to ILO 3.  Recommendations were accepted or rejected based on their relationship to ILO 3.
  • Next steps:  Finalize report.  Sheri and Craig to take this on.
  • Produce offical report
  • Submit to Academic Senate Executive Council as an informational item
  • Disseminate to PGC as well.
  • Ask both groups to review recommendations to determine if they are supported and should be taken on by the college.
  • This committee's job is to recommend - action must be taken by the college community if they agree with recommendations.

 

February 29, 2016

Participants:  Katryn Wiese, Kristina Whalen, Janet Carpenter, Sheri Miraglia, Craig Kleinman

ILO#3  Validation Exercise

The SLO Committee (which is also the ILO Workgroup) took on validating the mapping for ILO#3.  We looked at the ILOs subelements prior to the revisions that went through Academic Senate and Bipartite in February.  

We did not validation ILO3.3 (becuase we found that mappers were confused by the difference beteween "demonstrate" and "demonstrate an understanding"

 

For: ILO3.1 Demonstrate an understanding of the history and values of other people and cultures:  

  • Mappings validated: 23/30 mapped very well.   
  • For the weaker mappings/mismappings - some were mis-mapped.  Some required additional course content to create the mapping - particularly those where language was used as a link to "culture".   Some were the result of poorly written pSLOs.  

For:  ILO3.2 Demonstrate an understanding of civic, social and environmental responsibility.

  • Mappings validated: 20/28 mapped very well.   

For:  ILO3.4 Collaborate effectively in diverse social, cultural, and global settings.

  • Mappings validated: 15/22 mapped very well.   

 

We have updated ILO#3, and going forward the Curriculum Committee will have more input and oversight over mapping. It will be interesting to see if the mapping improves.  It should!

 

Workgroup Recommendations:

There should be more oversight by the Curriculum Committee over mapping.

 

ILO #3 Workgroup Data Analysis:

We are interested as a workgroup, in finding out how many programs actually map to at least one sub-element of ILO#3.  We will look at this data and come back to this question during our next meeting.

 

We are planning to spend another SLO Committee meeting addressing ILO #3 and working to complete the final report, including reviwing recommendations from the college and parsing those that are most appropriate for improving ILO#3 Outcomes.

February 8, 2016

Participants:  Mine Ternar, Janet Carpenter, Kristina Whalen, Craig Kleinman, Mandy Liang, Sheri Miraglia, Katryn Wiese

March 8 FLEX -

  • We reviewed the plans for the day with the committee; we discussed how to use the day to make assessment more valuable to the college community.  We asked everyone on the commitee to review March 8 website and provide feedback to the SLO Coordinators.  
  • We also reviewed the detailed panel agenda and discussed how to keep the panel organized and coordinated.  There may be some personality conflicts - are there creative solutions to how to keep the panel conversations on track?  We want to make sure panelists share their experinces and not their opinions.
  • We discussed other panel formats that might also work to allow everyone to share their experiences - should we provide as much rigidity?   Ultimately we decided to stick with the current plan and encouraged committee members to share ideas with the SLO Coordinators if they have them.
GE Workgroup Recruiting Update: 
  • Great progress was made on Friday with Area G faculty who participating in mapping their courses to Area G GELO.  There has been challenges getting Area F people to sit down and get started on the work.  There is some "why do we have to do this" resistance to the idea of GELO assessment.  Overall progress is being made and Craig is feeling more confident about pulling together these workgroups.
  • Area B is finally working toward completion and we should have a good draft report by the end of the month.
  • Good progess has also been made getting the ILO#3 report ready and Mandy and Craig are working on completing this.

ILO #3 Revisions

  • Good progess has also been made getting the ILO#3 report ready and Mandy and Craig are working on completing this.
  • ILO #3 revisions are going before the Academic Senate on Wednesday.  Craig and Sheri provided Lillian details of why each revision was recommended.  The justification is part of the ILO#3 report.
 
An errata were discovered in the IGETC/CSU outcomes:
  • Errata: Here's what we updated on our website and in CurricUNET (but which is incorrect):"Apply scientific principles, theories, or models to explain the behavior of natural biological phenomena."  It should be "Apply scientific principles, theories, or models to explain the behavior of natural phenomena."
  • The movement of the "ethical reasoning" outcome out of Area H for IGETC and CSU was questioned in terms of mapping and ensuring that the courses that transfer map correctly to this outcome.  This was discussed with Kristina per her role having done this work as the former SLO Coordinator.  We need to be clear on the website what the actual wording is.
ILO#4 Technology Addition - a proposal has been put forward to discuss this additional ILO subelement before it goes to the board to ensure that we can successfully map to this new ILO #4 subelement.  Kristina clarified that the genesis of including this ILO is that teaching technology does come up in program mapping and believes that it should map.  Katryn is concerned about the specific wording and ensuring that we can in fact successfully map.  We will look back into the SLO 
 

January 25, 2016

Participants: Lauren Muller, Janet Carpenter, Jeff Lamb, Katryn Wiese, Sheri Miraglia, Craig Kleinman

1. Committee Chair Elections - Sheri Miragli elected as committee chair.

2. ILO#3 Revisions -- Review of previous recommendations and survey data.

  • Proposed new ILO 3a was supported by all: Demonstrate an understanding of the history and values of diverse cultures. (Survey says 73% (70 people responding) said very helpful; only 10% (10 people) said not helpful.)
  • Proposed new ILO 3b had more varied responses: Make responsible civic, social, or environmental choices. (Survey says 46% (40 people) said very helpful; 27% (26 people) said not helpful.)
  • Proposed new ILO 3c was supported by all: Collaborate effectively in diverse social and cultural settings. (Survey says 69% (50 people responding) said very helpful; only 13.5% (13 people) said not helpful.)
  • Synthesis of comments made (39 people commented)
    • A number of people were greatful and thought these changes were good
    • ILO 3a (1 or 2 wanted us to put back "peoples"; more liked that we changed it)
    • ILO 3b (Concern about use of "or" instead of "and"; Concern about use of "make" and "responsible" -- arguments included "who decides what's responsible"; Concern about how to assess -- some folks felt this required too much outside-classroom review; some noted that combining the two isn't really possible: "One can do something without understanding it, and one can understanding something without acting upon it. We need both, as the action reinforces the understanding and vice versa."
    • ILO 3c (a few comments about being sad to see the removal of "global"; a few comments about how to measure "effective")
    • SLO Committee comments:
      • "Effective" is important to distinguish between simply showing up to a diverse group and effectively collaborating in it. That being said, "effective collaboration" is decided by the instructor likely with a rubric. SLO Coordinators can assist with this.
      • "Global" was eliminated because so few courses include collaborative "global" environments, but "social and cultural" will also cover that.
      • "Or" ensures that we can map to ILO, as many courses might be about making "informed or responsible" civic and social choices without them also environmentally informed. Note: the opposite is rarely true: environmental stewardship and sustainability includes also civic and social responsibility. 
      • Verdict: need work work on new ILO 3b: 
      • Proposals: 
        • Evaluate civic, social, and/or environmental choices.
        • Analyze and evaluate the impact of civic, social, and/or environmental choices.
        • Evaluate the impact of civic, social, and/or environmental choices.
  • Proposal to go forward to Academic Senate Executive Council: 
    • Proposed new ILO 3a: Demonstrate an understanding of the history and values of diverse cultures. 
    • Proposed new ILO 3b: Evaluate the impact of civic, social, and/or environmental choices.
    • Proposed new ILO 3c: Collaborate effectively in diverse social and cultural settings. 

3. GE Workgroup recruiting -- Ideas give for pulling in folks from Areas G1, G2 and F.

4. Assessment challenges

  • When repeatability of courses has been gotten around by creating families and breaking them into A, B, C, D, then offering A, B, C, D at the same time and location (same instructor), the process for submitting SLOs is more laborious (4 reports). Similarly folks that teach low-unit courses have to submit larger numbers of reports than other faculty. It would be nice to address this later as we improve our processes as workload is not uniform.
  • When lab classes have separate CRNs from lecture (but they are the same class with one grade), then many of the lab classes end up with no assessment reports, because the assessment is happening in the lecture.
  • Noncredit assessment is challenging when SLOs are too advanced or unwieldy (too many pieces) and don't match students. Suggestions include: refining SLOs; customizing classes to meet audience; using rubrics when SLOs have multiple elements. Also, in the end, we have to address the limitations of noncredit by assessing only students who have attended a certain % of the class (threshold) and recognizing that success levels depend significantly on what students come in with and their physical and mental capabilities, over which we have no control.

5. Department Webpages -- Reviewed recommend changes. Everyone agreed they were fine. Ready to move forward.

  

Previous Notes