SLOC Meeting Notes

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

Participants: Kristina Whalen, Sheri Miraglia, Tracy Burt, Andrea Niosi, Janet Carpenter, Isabelle Motamedi, Rhea Dellimore, Mark Kitchel, Katryn Weise
  • 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.



Previous Notes