SLOC Meeting Notes

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