SLOC Meeting Notes
SLOC Meeting Notes
April 24, 2015
Participants: Kristina Whalen, Sheri Miraglia, Elizabeth Stewart, Katryn Weiss, Janet Carpenter, Andrea Niosi, Isabelle Motamedi, Lauren Muller
- ILO FLEX Day--update - The committee reviewed the agenda for the 10/20 FLEX day. The goal is to demonstrate that we are having college wide discussions on learning, as well as assess our cultural, social and environmental awareness. This SLO day accomplishes these important goals. The proposed agenda follows the same general format as prior SLO FLEX days. The committee discussed adding "global" awareness to the sessions, or including global awareness within the currently proposed sessions. We also discussed how the various areas "spill over" - it's not possible to completely separate cultural and environmental awareness (for example).
- SLO Impact Report--collaboration w/Academic Senate PR Com: The program review committee is suggesting an intervention to encourage higher quality answers for Q2 and Q4. They would like to rank answers by applying a rubric, which is being asked to be provided by SLO Coordinator. The committee is not clear that there is continued value in grading answer quality and we discussed that we don't feel that this is valuable. The SLO Committee discussed instead taking the SLO Impact report and taking next steps, which is to take the data and begin focusing on common themes and how to use this data to make improvements, which is the goal of SLO's. This is the kind of analysis that is required for Accreditation.
- CurricUNET continues to be rollled out. The goal this semester is to get as much CRN level data submitted as possible. The software will make Program and Course de-briefs easier later on, but for now the goal is data collection. There have been questions about reporting from student services. While the reporting deadlines are now more flexible, we still need to meet 3 year benchmarks and have enough data to support program review. It's particularly important that areas where deficiencies have been identified are reporting, and demostrating improvement. In particular, these groups need to assess the right things and show that appropriate changes are being made based on the data. The language that we communicate timelines with is not going to be the same for every group. Some CTE groups have one year benchmarks, while other programs have 3 year benchmarks.
- Program Review Rubric - Kristina shared a draft rubric with the committee and solicited feedback. She will share it with the program review committee.
- Update/Feedback on GE D/H outcome refinement - Feedback on proposed changes was shared with the committee including new language and some consolidation of GEO's. No major concerns were noted by the committee.
- Leading from the Middle Projects - Applications were submitted last Wednesday and a couple of them were based on SLO's, including a non-credit SLO toolkit and how to improve non-credit certificate completion. Another one was E-portfolio's (culinary dept) and getting widespread particiaption in E-portfolio's as a way to assess. Committee members were encouraged reach out to these groups if they are interested in participating.
- COM ILO Report - Our numbers are very good for our communications ILO competency. There won't be a lot of recommendations as a result. The only problem that will be solved by CurricUNET that is not resolved in this report was lack of reporting by non-credit. This is something that should be resolved as CurricUNET is rolled out. An additional note - we don't have an ILO relating specifically to use of physical tools (like computers, tools equipment). We had a preliminary discussion about creating an ILO around this - it seems like something that is missing. Discussions ensued over how to appropriately include language that would appropriately cover the various ways that people use "tools" and "technology".
April 9, 2015
Present: Kristina Whalen, Katryn Wiese, Jeff Lamb
1. Oct 20th SLO FLEX day. The group discussed that we have challenges with the upcoming ILO assessment in the Fall. Also, on October 20th, the fall calendar has a FLEX Day listed for SLOs. Kristina proposed that we use the day to have college wide-spread dialogue about the Cultural, Soical, and Enviornmental Awareness ILO. The goal of the day would to "assess as a college how well collaboratively we contribute to teaching ILO #3. A schedule for the dsay was shared that had BOT and executive leadership sharing how their projects contributed to this goal. The SLO Team would review ILO activities for the day. This would take place from 9:00-10:30. From 11-12:30 concurrent Sessions would be held around the these driving questions:
1. How do the environmental conditions in SF, CA, and the World impact our students?
2. How do the economic conditions in SF, CA, and the World impact our students?
3. How do the cultural conditions (or realities) in SF, CA, and the World impact our students?
After lunch we discussed two ideas:
- GIFTs. GIFTs is a collaborative “share out” strategy of best practices in the classroom. Faculty will be solicited to share a classroom policy or practice (with broad adaptability) that connects to the ILO of Cultural, Social, and Environmental awareness. The presenter is seated at the table with handouts. Presenters names and titles are projected. Faculty take a seat at a table and hear a 7-8 minute explanation of the classroom practice. A buzzer sounds and people move to the next table. If a table’s seats are filled, participants take a seat elsewhere and hear from that person. At the end of an hour and half a teacher would leave with about 8-9 Great ideas for Teaching! Further, connects and dialogue are promoted.
- A Share Fair that is similiar to above but it more like poster sessions that are stationed down hallways or throughout campus.
2. ILO in Fall
Programs may not be mapped in the fall or would need to be mapped in order to complete the ILO. Group discussed the need to work with NC programs to map certificates because ILOs needs to include NC.
3. SLO Impact Report--discussion of report and possible allocation of homework.
The Academic Senate Program Review Committee would like to collaborate on the SLO Impact Report. The ORP office is comiling question 4 responses now. Instead of pulling out passsages, the project this year is to develop a rubric to evlauate responses to question 4 to share out at DCC, Academic Senate and Planning. This would help mentor programs that need growth in connecting assesment to data and assessment activities to detailed improvements and resource requests.
4. ILO mapping report out and ILO Report outline
The results form the fall 2014 Communication ILO were shared. ut of the 5,713 studentsassessed from "Communicate Effectively", 73% of student met outcome. Of the 2,644 assessed for "Demonstarte Respectful Interpersonal and Intercultural Communication" 74% met the outcomes. 2,492 students were assessed for ability to "Recognize and interpret Creative Expression" and 73% met the outcome. We discussed the leangth of the report and categories. Because the outcome results are so positive, very few recommendations will be included.
Only 300 students in non Credit were in the assessment.
5. CSU/IGETC GE Outcome analysis
New Outocme for Oral communication (CSU A1) were discussed and refined.
New critical thinking outcomes for CSU a3 and IGETC 1B were discissed and refined.
Outcomes for Art (separate from Humanities) were proposed, discussed and refined.
Kristina is awaiting feedback from faculty in Art, Critical Thinking. Speech and Philosophy have already approved the new outcomes.
7. Leading from the Middle Projects?
We breifly discussed but did not have time to flesh out ideas.
April 24 in C 257.
March 20, 2015
Participants: Kristina Whalen, Sheri Miraglia, Elizabeth Stewart, Katryn Weiss, Janet Carpenter, Andrea Niosi, Isabelle Motamedi, Mine Ternar
- Our resolution to have math removed from GE Area A was accepted by the Academic Senate.
- We reviewed the GE IGETC/CSU Outcomes Matrix: When we try to align IGETC, CSU and local outcomes we have some gaps. Both CSU and IGETC make the distinction between written and oral communication. Should our communication outcomes make this distinction? For example, should Area A cover oral communication and Area B cover written communication? One option would be to follow the lead of some other community college and use the CSU/IGETC as our local outcomes. That would simplifiy the process considerably and allow us to meet the accreditation requirements. Right now we are trying to map to three different patterns, and it's incredibly complex. The commitee spent considerable time reviewing the possibilities for successful alignment. The holes include communication (discussed above), we don't have any outcome that deals with effective citizenry (accred. standard), ethical reasoning, and the other hole is that our area G (health and phys ed) does not cover things like lifelong learning (accred. standard and is present in the other patterns). Katrina will have some discussions with college faculty leaders to see if eliminating the local patterns is something that would be considered.
- Results from PD Needs Survey/Most popular SLO related questions: Proposed Workshops for Thursday, April 16th.
- SLO & Assessment
- Effectively Using Different Types of Assessments – 66%
- Classroom Assessment Techniques to Improve Student outcomes – 54%
- How to Interpret Results and Work toward Improvement – 52%
- How to Leverage Technology to Assess Student Outcomes – 50%
- SLO & Assessment
- Delineate committee tasks for the accreditation timeline
- At CCSF, all faculty are required to put SLO's in their syllabus. Some faculty do not have SLO's or current SLO's. We need ideas for getting our syllabi into compliance. The committee discussed ways that we might achieve compliance. Emails could be sent out, but many people don't read their email. People need to be accountable. There are some faculty who refuse, and it may take a message from the VCAA sending a notice explaining that this is a job requirement. The committee spend time brainstorming ideas for how to become compliant in this area. An idea that the committee liked was instituting an awareness campaign.
- Clear outcomes need to be listed and assessments in place for every CSU and IGETC (discussed earlier).
- We need ethical reasoning in one of our GE areas.
- Outcomes for Math - this is being resolved.
March 6, 2015
Participants: Kristina Whalen, Sheri Miraglia, Jeffrey Lamb, Elizabeth Stewart, Katryn Weiss, Janet Carpenter, Isabelle Motamedi
- Policy on recording and keeping SLO evidence. We need to craft policies on how to do this. How do we keep the evidence if it's handed back to the student? What do we need to keep? It was discussed that the policy would be similar to grades. Being able to provide examples or rubrics would be useful, but saving all student work does not seem practical or useful. Keeping minutes of all our discussions is important. Department webpages are a good place to do this. Dept. webpages are supposed to be updated every semester. Minutes could also be posted from the Dept Chair/Dean joint meetings as well. It's important that the discussion record program assessments and improvements, not just SLO process.
- Discussion on assessing courses like LERN 1000/Lab courses - there are 16,000 students that enroll in these non-credit courses to access learning centers and tutoring. There needs to be a way (google form) to assess outcomes for these courses. We also need to understand the course(s) better and the expectations for the course(s). The decision was made to get more clarification on what the outcomes for these courses are in order to advise on an appropriate assessment methodology.
- Accreditation Institute report out - People from across the state to discuss accreditation. There was discussion about the future of the ACCJC. WASC and the ACCJC are unusual in that sr and jr colleges are split into two accreditors. Bachelor's degrees are now allowed to be granted by community colleges. There will be some significant changes regarding accreditation as a result of this. On the SLO front, compared to other community colleges, CCSF has made tremendous progress. We should feel good about what we've done, even as we work to make more progress quickly. The only software that currently disaggregates data is eLumen and a lot of people are reporting that they hate it. So we will continue to move forward with CurricuNet.
- Moving removal of Math from GE Area A and discussion of new science outcomes for CSU/IGETC - The SLO committee discussed putting a resolution forward to the Academic sentate to move math out of GE Area A. Faculty would then develop oucomes related to quantitative reasoning related to this area. A committee subgroup is also working on creating outcomes that map to CSU/IGETC for sciences, especially pertaining to the laboratory requirement that relates specifically to transfer to CSU and UC. A meeting was held with members of each science department, and we brainstormed what we felt were outcomes for different labs in different departments. CCSF's local area C does not require a lab, and this subgroup felt strongly that it should.
- GE Outcomes action items for Accreditation Steering Committee - we will need 4 sets of institutional outcomes (ILO's and GEO's). As courses move through curriculum committee the outcomes will need to map appropriately to institutional outcomes to make it through committee. SLO's first go through tech review and then every SLO (currently) goes through Katryn. As the accreditation steering committee meets, outcomes will be on the agenda. The timeline for putting the refined institutional outcomes is important. We need to demonstrate that we've acquired instutional feedback on these revised outcomes. The academic senate needs the opportunity to provide feedback to the experts who put the outcomes together.
- review of Fall 2014 reporting summary - we will be taking a look at these results and completing the ILO report. This will be the last time we use the Google Form. We don't yet know what the CurricuNET reports will look like yet though. The committee reviewed the outcomes assessment data for F14. We discussed how the new disaggregated data reporting requirements will hold individual faculty accountable to do the SLO work.
- We need a non-credit representative on the SLO committee as well as a member from the Academic Senate. In general, we need faculty to step up and serve - especially those who are getting reassigned time for doing SLO work. There are people who get reassigned time for SLO work who do not attend these meetings. The committee feels it would be very useful for them to attend. The committee was asked to please review the Fall data and the examples that were used in the report and communicate feedback to Kristina.
Febrary 6, 2015
Participants: Kristina Whalen, Sheri Miraglia, Jeffrey Lamb, Elizabeth Stewart, Katryn Weiss, Janet Carpenter, Josh O'Neil, Isabelle Motamedi
- GE Area E and A Implementation Matrix - greatest area of concern is how quantitative reasoning will appear in GE Area A. Can we split the communication and quantitative reasoning outcomes so that there is no ambiguity in the assessment of these outcomes. Citizenship and Ethical reasoning are the other two areas noted by the visiting team that needed addressing. Some revising of the GEO's might be helpful The GEO's came from Title V language. Looking at CSU GEO patterns, the math/quantitative reasoning outcomes go toether with sciences. The committee discussed recommending moving math to GE Area C. This would require a GE Area C2.
- Committe discussed bringing outcomes language back to the group next time that would address quantitative reasoing. Because the visiting team has just given us feedback and because we are working to address the new standards, this is a good time to make adjustments. GEO's AND ILO's are both required although not all colleges seem to have both. The committee discussed the utility of having GEO's closely linked to graduation requirements and working with the Office of Instruction on the language.
- Conclusion - we are looking to find a dedicated "place" for Quantitative Reasoning.
- Academic Senate directive - college wide initiatitve to begin collecting diaggregated data THIS semester so that we have a substantial amount of data collected when we write the next self study. The committee discussed how the new rules can be successfully communicated. The new rules will require that every faculty member is accountable to the new standards. There are some challenges with people feeling like the SLO target continues to move.
- The committee looked at the new reporting structure that allows individual instructors to submit disaggregated data. Confidentiality is maintained for individual students.
- The software will be ready by the end of the semester. Everyone needs to gather disaggregated data to enter into the new system. Course coordinators will still be responsible for a deep read of the data. Instructors will still be meeting and working with course and program coordinators to develop assessments, discuss data and improve assessments and instructional tools.
- Every CRN must be assessed every semester.
- Katryn is developing training material for the new system.
- Two committee members will be attending the Accreditation Institute in February - major topics will be unpacking the new standards.
- Committee members are encouraged to review the Miami Date Cultural Social Awareness ILO assessment instrument for next meeting.
- SLO coordinator positions. Katryn and Kristina are attempting to step away from the coordinator positions. They are actively working to recruit new people to serve in this capacity. There will be multiple coordinators (Student Services, Credit Courses, Non-Credit SLO coordinator, CTE Coordinator, Curricunet Coordinator).
January 23, 2015
- Moving GE Area A & E recommendations forward: The visiting team report noted that we don't have a GE outcme that uses the words Quantitative Reasoning. The SLO committee discussed ways to move our recommenations forward. Where is the right place for quantitative reasoning within the GE outcomes? Area A is communication and analytical reasoning (which would work). There may be a bigger project to address the visiting team report, and how the college assesses ethical reasoning to align with CSU and IGETC? If there are "holes" in how we map our outcomes to CSU and IGETC, we need to be sure to fill those. We did not meet the standard in that area. The committee agrees that we have a mapping project to complete to meet this standard. Kristina will take this to the Academic Senate, and it will need to be addressed by the next bipartate comittee. In the new standards, every program in the college will be required to have an outcome related to ethical responsibility. For Area E, sampling could be impacted by randomly assigning courses to provide data (mandate?). Some colleges are creating a standard assessment and requiring all faculty within a GE area to use and report on the same assessment. It was discussed how this might make the data more valid and make it more meaningful when disaggregated. The committee continued discussing outreach and coordination for using assessment reporting to address the achievement gap.
- Professional development needs survey - the committee reviewed the text of the upcoming survey and discussed the professional development needs around assessment and reporting.
- Non Credit Program Reporting - the college does not issue certificates for non-credit, and this is causing frustration for students completing these non credit programs.
- Last push for COM ILO Results - Committee members were asked to remind members of their departments to encourage faculty complete ILO data and get it submitted. A suggestion was made for SLO announcements to be shorter, but come out more frequently.
- Roll out of CurricUNET and reporting changes (please carefully read attached document that details new reporting instructions being proposed). Training will be provided to faculty on the use of Curricunet as part of professional development. Information needs to get out to the college so people know what is required with respect to new standards, and how to use Curricunet to make that happen. We will be following new proposed procedures, and making changes due to how the software works. Katryn is actively soliciting comments on the document describing the new reporting instructions. We will be using the Curricunet software, a common rubric, and disaggregating data per the new Accreditation requirements. Rather than hard deadlines, reporting will have to occur regularly. However, people do respond better to specific deadlines. One idea is to set the deadline in the middle of the semester. This allows instructors to submit data for the past semester in the middle of the next semester. We are going to try for the first hard deadline to be mid-fall semester, for the SLO data collected Spring Semesster '15. Curricunet training will begin as soon as the software is live. It is hopeful that by the end of February that we may be able to start rolling the software out.