SLOC Meeting Notes

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.  (SHERI, NOTE—This phrasing works, but there is some awkwardness here with Apply…to address.  We might prune further to “Apply quantitative concepts to complex problems” OR shift to “Use 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.

 

  

Previous Notes