SLOC Meeting Notes
SLOC Meeting Notes
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
- 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.
- Governet has agreed to fix program aggregate assessment reports so that we can aggregate the PLOs into a single report.
- 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.
- Area F is coming together - unique report because there has never been this level of disaggregation in a GELO report before!
- 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).
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- A request was made to send out notice of SLO Committee meetings with agendas. Sheri will start doing that.
- 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.