SLOC Meeting Notes

September 12, 2016

Attendees:  Katryn Wiese, Sheri Miraglia, Pam Mery, Cherisa Yarkin, Wendy Miller, Andrea Niosi, Janet Carpenter, Craig Kleinman, Mine Ternar, Malcom Cecil, Natalie Smith

 

  1. ILO 1 updated language - approved by Academic Senate, now goes to Planning and PGC.  There was some debate in Academic Senate about the requirement to go through planning and PGC as this is an academic area.  Academic Senate insisted an informational item.  There are more than academic areas connected to ILOs as Academic and Student Services so it is not truly limited to academic areas.  It would be useful in a future meeting to have a representative from Student Services workgroup visit the SLO Committee to help us understand the process better.
  2. Summer SLO Reporting was also approved by the Academic Senate at the same meeting in August.  There was some debate about workload, but the addition of Summer SLO reporting is needed to meet the requirements of our own Institutional Assessment Plan. We need to check the website to ensure that there is no more mention of “optional” summer assessment, and also that we support them.  We can also support summer faculty in the fall when they are ready to support.
  3. GELO Area F Forum will be held Sept 30th. Craig has done the lion share of work, and shared frustration with the process.  Katryn explained that the SLO Committee should be able to weigh in on the GE Area F before going to forum.  Area G is also delayed until November.  We have agreed to make Gen Ed assessment challenges part of our next SLO meeting, and to postpone the Area F Forum until after the October 10 SLO meeting  At the October 10 meeting we will be reviewing the reports for Areas F and G.  Craig will be sending us Area F report for review by email.  Craig will already have some of the feedback.
  4. A request was made to send out notice of SLO Committee meetings with agendas.  Sheri will start doing that.
  5. A discussion of the ILO4 mapping exercise was undertaken.  The maps to the committee were overall not very high quality.  What is the process for reviewing mappings? In Curriculum Committee only one person actually looks at the maps.  What is the value of the mappings? In many cases, everything is mapped to everything.  There are likely two issues.  One is that we may want to re-write the ILOs to make them better.  In the meantime, can we use these mappings to collect any meaningful data?  In this case, maybe the report is more about how we improve the mapping process and re-write the ILOs.  One thing we may need to do is increase the amount of time the SLO Committee spends as an ILO workgroup.  We have never had a past requirement that programs get updated.  Hopefully as maps are updated with Curriculum Committee this will improve over time.  It’s possible that programs really do achieve these learning outcomes, but the old program learning outcomes are just not written well enough to demonstrate this.  Some of this is a necessary clean-up.  There is a chance for us improve the ILO4 language considerably.

Some quick ideas for changes:

 

4a. Locate career resources and opportunities

 

Homework assignment for next ILO focused meeting:  Come up with language suggestions for what might work for ILO 4 based on what we know the program need is.   Career readiness may be a key or professional growth might be useful terms.  Some of these may not be course specific or about student services or ethos of the college itself.  Not all institutions assess all there SLOs through course SLOs.  Maybe we need to think beyond courses.

 

Propose adding a meeting on 9/26 for ILO 4 continued discussion, with 10/10 focused on GE Areas.

 

Sheri to send out meeting invite, announce to college, and google doc with ILO4 language to discuss

 

 

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.  

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