Main Navigation:

SLOC Meeting Notes

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