2013-2014 SLO Notes

December 17, 2014


Cloud 230 -- 2:30-4 pm

Participants: Kristina Whalen, Janet Carpenter,  Andrea Niosi, Sheri Miraglia,  Joshua O'Neal, Isabelle Motamedi, Jeffry Lamb

The SLO Committee spent the Dec 17 meeting reviewing the GE Area A and GE Area E Workgroup reports.  In particular the committee devoted considerable time to discussing Workgroup recommendations. 


GE Area A Review:

  •  The committee had an extensive discussion around mathematics not being well represented and discussed concerns with lack of outcomes addressing quantitative reasoning.  The lack of quantitative reasoning GEO was noted by the recent visiting team.   SLO committee discussed addressing the lack of "math" GEO by drafting recommendations to send to the academic senate rather than forming an academic senate subcommittee.
  • The committee also discussed how success in math is predictive of success in so many other disparate areas, what this information means, and how it can be leveraged to enhance student success campus-wide.
  • The committee noted some mismatches between SLO proficiency and pass rates.  May be in part due to not all SLO’s being assessed, and student absences on dates when SLO’s are covered.  However it’s a concern, and may require that we standardize more on how we report and continue to review and analyze gaps. 
  • Student equity as measured by this report was also discussed.  It is very clear from this data that some groups, specifically African Americans are not demonstrating proficiency at the same levels as other groups.  The committtee discussed the utility of forming a task force (joint task force?) evaluating the issues of student equity that arise from the analysis of SLO data.


GE Area E Review:

  • The committee noted that high pass rates and high proficiency rates characterize Area E.  This is an area of strength for the college.  A discussion ensued around whether or not we can appear to be “too proficient” vs. our obligation to highlight successful programs.
  • A discussion surrounding the pros and cons of common assessments ensued.  While there are concerns about maintaining academic freedom, there are advantages to knowing that a team has developed an authentic assessment via discussion that is used to effectively compare groups of students in different classes.

This meeting completed the SLO committee meeting for 2014.  Sheri Miraglia agreed to send out a Doodle to identify the best meeting time for committee members for Spring 2015.  Meetings are scheduled to recommence in January.


November 12, 2014


Cloud 230 -- 2:30-4 pm

Participants: Kristina Whalen, Janet Carpenter,  Andrea Niosi, Sheri Miraglia,  Joshua O'Neal, Isabelle Motamedi

  • The second annual Get It Done Day - will be held December 12.  Kristina will visit the centers on different days (other than Friday) to try to assist more people.  The committee also discussed recommending Departmental Get It Done Days as well.
  • Institutional Set Standard numbers/metrics are close to being set.  We expect to meet standards with respect to credit course passing rate, far exceed with certificates.  We are re-defining how to count the number of transfer students to 4-year institutions.  TBD
  • The committee discussed the SLO Validation Summary document.  One point was made that some reports considered "lean" actually were short summaries of far more substantial reports.  Do we need to change the reporting instrument?  How do we communicate to the college community how to generate an appropriately substantial report. We do want people to use our current SLO accounting system to centralize reporting.  The team revisited the cloud-based reporting system discussed at the Oct 29 meeting, and there is some enthusiasm for looking into implementing this system.
  • FLEX Days - Kristina is holding SLO basics workshop next week.  The team discussed other ideas for FLEX day (workshops to help people plan SLO assessment for the semester?  workshop to help people access reporting pages? program level tutorial? workshop to highlight great assessment tools? classroom assessment techniques/applications? affective assessment?)
  • Coordinator Release Update:  New job add will be going out for College SLO Coordinator.  We need to think about what that looks like.  Kristina is going on Sabbatical next Spring and will need someone to step in while she is on Sabbatical.  There is interest in a distributive model where SLO coordinator responsibilities are shared more broadly.
  • GE Area E and A forum is on Dec 5th.  Everyone is encouraged to attend!  The SLO team meeting has been officially changed to to December 5th between 12-1.


October 29, 2014


Cloud 230 -- 2:30-4 pm

Participants: Kristina Whalen, Janet Carpenter, Sheri Miraglia, Mine Ternar, Jeffrey Lamb, Joshua O'Neal, Isabelle Motamedi

  • Communication - Institutional Learning Outcomes - mapping document. The mapping document was reviewed by the committee.  The document is supposed to serve as a way to faciliate discussion around how the college aligns to ILO's.  Department chairs have made edits, changes, etc.  There are many programs that map to "communicate effectively".  Surprisingly low number map to the other ILO's (Demonstrate respectful interpersonal and intercultural communication, and recognize and interpret creative expression).
    • One problem may be that changing mapping is difficult.  A quick review by the committee indicated to us that there were programs/certificates/degrees that we would expect to map to these that do not.  Reviewing PLO's we noticed that they are not currently written to include these ILO's.  
    • The committee considered using the document to rally the college community to open up a dialog around (particularly) affective outcomes - how to measure them, and how to support students.  Also we can consider wrap-around and support systems for students that may map to affective outcomes if we review them.
    • Do we want to revise the wording of these outcomes?  The committee debated the current language,and the challenges around writing and assessing these kind of outcomes.
  • Assessing Orphan Degrees - Liberal Arts (emphasis on Arts and Humanities, emphasis on communication, emphasis on science and math, and behvioral sciences).  These are our most popular degress, but are not being assessed. 
    •   The committee discussed ways to handle this problem.  Can GE areas do double duty and be responsible for these liberal arts degrees?
  • GE Area A and E update - December 5th, the workgroup will be presenting their report between 12-2.  The next workgroup will be present at that meeting (at least that is the plan).  Extensive revisions were completed for Area E.   That will go to Academic Senate on November 3rd for feedback, ultimately the Academic Senate will vote yes or no on the revisions.
  • Curricunet - the implementation is going slowly with the hope that is a product with fewer bugs when it's rolled out.
  • The commitee had a long conversation about the validation exercise and the diversity of quality in reporting.  Concerns are how some reports are not adequate.  Discussion ensued around how to remedy the reports that are lean or lacking.
    • It would be ideal if those getting SLO coordinator units (reassigned time) were participating in the SLO meetings and discussions.
  • Shares from Strenthening Student Success (RP Group) - Kristina reported out that the winners of the award was for a cloud-based reporting system for SLO's.  The system disaggregates data based on individual students, generating a tremendous amount of data.


September 24, 2014


Cloud 261 -- 2:30-4 pm

Participants: Kristina Whalen, Janet Carpenter, Sheri Miraglia, Andrea Niosi, Jeffrey Lamb, Joshua O'Neal

  • Edits to Annual Assessment Plan - Andrea Niosi provided the committee with draft langugae for updating the Annual Assessment with Institutional Set Standards for Student Achievement.  The committee reviewed the proposed language and discussed the process, and the potential need for further disaggregation of the data leading to the five metrics.   The committee also discussed the recommended dates for data to be collected and recommendations sent to the PCG (participatory governance committee).  The committee agreed that we don't want to look at more than 3 years of trend data at one time, due to volatility of enrollment, etc.
  • Other consideratiosn for Annual Assessment Plans
    • benchmarks need to be articulated as not required (they are not standards).  In some cases it's not possible to meet the 3-year assessment benchmark.
    • within the annual assessment plan, the committee debated the need to include examples of when the 3-year benchmark is not necessarily applied.
    • Propose to institutionalize time frames for validation - from "periodic" to specifically statating that instruction will occur in the fall and student/admin services in the spring.
  • Review of outcome assessment sections of Self-Study - committee feedback was incorporated into the Self-Study (Standards 1B and 2A rely on oucome assessments/procedures for evidence).
  • GE Area E and A update - this is being finalized, will be tabeled until the next meeting.
  • CurricUNET update - 4 people have been hired to input course outline data and the work is 60% complete.  Jay Fields, Katryn Weise and Tom Bogel are representing the college with respect to the CurricUNET implementation.
  • Spring 14 Validation - the proposed rubric was shared with the committee for validating Spring 14 reports (shared responsibility between SLO committee meembers).  The committee discussed ways to improve the rubric priorto S14 validation activities.



September 10, 2014


Cloud 261 -- 2:30-4 pm

Participants: Kristina Whalen, Janet Carpenter, Isabelle Motamedi, Sheri Miraglia, Andrea Niosi, Jeffrey Lamb, Joshua O'Neal

  • Spring SLO reporting results
    • The report is online, complete and being used as a referene for the self study.
    • Fall 2014 Assessment forms are open and people have already begun inputing new reports.
    • Links to report archives have been streamlined and archives are now updated once, instead of for each of 63 departments and 32 student services.....
  • Annual Assessment; Procedure for Institutional Set-Standards
    • In 2013 the ACCJC required colleges to set standards for:
      • % credit course completion
      • degree completion
      • number of students tranferring to 4 year institutions
    • We are on target to meet our standards.
    • Standards for upcoming years have been revised down to reflect our lower enrollment
    • A procedure needs to be developed to evaluate and set new Institutional Set Standard Benchmarks.  Currently no process has been articulated for how to set these benchmarks. The SLO team discussed a possible pathway:
      • Assessment Planning Team (APT) could use fall semester data to deliberate and communicate to the planning committee and the PGC.  Then, recommendations could be passed to the Academic senate.
      • Andrea agreed to draft a strategy based on the discussion for review at the next meeting.
    • The ILO and GEO assessment timetable was reviewed and a discussion to compress the timetable to complete CQI for these assesssments ensued.  The timetable for completion will be updated by Kristina to reflect the committee's decision.
    • Many faculty would benefit from additional training on how to apply Bloom's taxonomy to the writing of assessable SLO's.  Many part-time faculty may lack the experience or training.  One option might be to offer more training on FLEX days, or possibly online training via the Library.
    • Committee homework: review Institutional Assessment Plan
      • consider organization
      • consider how to make it a great resources
      • this is a key piece of evidence for the institutional self study
    • The committee revisited the utility and necessity of AUO's.
  • Reports from GE Area A & E workgroups
    • GE Area A and E data is coming in, and proficiency is at 73 and 75% respectively.   This reflects healthy participation by the college on both of these assessments. The final report deadline is December.  The committee reviewed the refined GE Area E GEO refinements.
  • Assessment of orphan degrees--might be following discussion on outcomes listser
    • Degree that we give out most commonly is the “liberal arts degree”, but this degree is not offered by any one department.
    • An assessment strategy for these types of degrees needs to be developed.




August 20, 2014


Cloud 261 -- 2:30-4 pm

Participants: Katryn Wiese, Janet Carpenter, Isabelle Motamedi, Sheri Miraglia, Andrea Niosi, Jeffrey Lamb

  • Spring SLO reporting results
    • Draft out for our review
    • Strong reporting cycle (Why? Stronger message to "Get it Done" including that day.)
    • More people are getting into the "habit" around reporting (both for courses and programs)
    • How to get Student and Admin Services more committed to the deadlines and overall goals. Program Review/SLOs.
      • Get on agenda at Chancellor's Cabinet. Need commitment at all levels.
      • Contacts in Admin and Student Services
  • Faculty Handbook (Review & Revisions of "Elements of a Syllabus")
    • SLOs required -- update accordingly.
  • Fall 2014 Reporting update
    • CurricUNET implementation is showing us exciting functionality, but implementation is going slower than we'd hoped for. Silver Lining: we will implement slowly and methodically over the course of the year -- Curriculum Module first. We will ensure that the product is as good as possible (never perfect) before having folks train on it.
    • Repeating existing Google Forms for Fall.
    • Especially for ongoing mapping and CurricUNET issues, is there a way to get reassigned time to SLO Coordinators for different schools/departments.
  • Review of ILO #2 mapping report
    • Mapped by SLO Coordinator instead of individual departments
    • Some "discipline" programs still missing PSLOs.
  • Discussion on definition of "program" -- Agreed in group that it's time to remove "disciplines" as programs. Those courses are captured already as part of departmental Program Review and GEO assessment.

May 21, 2014

SCI 45 -- 2:30-4 pm

Participants: Katryn Wiese, Janet Carpenter, Sheri Miraglia, Tracy Burt, Anna-Lisa Helmy,
Kimberly Ginther-Webster

  • Sharing from SLO Network Conference at Merritt -- Sharing best practices across colleges.
  • Get It Done Day debrief -- Got a lot done that day across multiple campuses. Many folks worked on the reports even not at the sessions. Lessons learned: off-campus hours were not well used. Need to better integrate and plan with folks on site to ensure that it's better used AND there are resources on each campus to help share the training afterwards. Common issues: serious computer-illiteracy that stresses folks who have to do anything on a computer. Note: this level of training is hard for us to achieve late in the semester with a lot of people needing help. How can we get folks who need this kind of help to attend drop-in sessions throughout the semester. We all agree it's valuable to have days like these and have drop-in help and off-campus sessions, even if not currently well attended, because the message is so valuable. We really need to create human resources to help us across the college. How will CurricuNET change this? How can we keep folks from doing everything last minute? Without a deadline, 90% of folks will not do the work. Revisit having School SLO Resource Individuals everyone else can connect with -- and do outreach. Another request from some members: how can we get department chairs to be more leaders in SLOs? Seem to be inconsistent in support and assistance.
  • Fall reporting/CurricuNET implementation discussion -- LOTS to do this Fall as we roll out CurricuNET -- including updating 400+ outlines, program review, and SLO mapping. Where does the Fall reporting fit with this? How can we best support all the new training and efforts across the college relative to CurricuNET without overwhelming everyone? Has to combine with ILO data collection #2. Trainings should include online tutorials and sample mappings.
  • ILO #1 roundtable--campus forum -- discussion of basic recommendations and how to get feedback on ways to potentially implement some of these. Should we send out a survey for folks to complete to gather more ideas?

May 7, 2014

Wednesday, May 7, 2014 -- SCI 45 -- 2:30-4 pm

Participants: Katryn Wiese, Tracy Burt, Lorelei Leung, Janet Carpenter, Mine Ternar, Anna-Lisa Helmy, Isabelle Motamedi, Sheri Miraglia, Andrea Niosi, Lillian Marrujo-Duck

  • ILO report review and notes for Kristina:
    • Everyone who didn't get a chance (most of us) will review and send comments to Kristina by the end of the weekend. 
    • Andrea led a discussion on the ILO C section, and we all agreed that we recommended the current ILO C section (appendices) be removed, and the ILO C report that Andrea wrote be included as a full part of the main report (not as an appendix, but as, say, Part II). We agreed that the tables currently in there were NOT useful to the goals of the report.
  • Student Evaluations update
    • LONG discussion of the goals and merits of this request (thus grateful for a year to consider). 
    • Is putting a question on the student evaluation of faculty the best place to learn what we want to know (whether or not faculty are communicating SLOs to students)? Are there other ways to get the desired information?
    • Timing means we would be well past the start-of-class syllabus time when SLOs are discussed, so we'd likely hear only positive results in classes where SLOs are more embedded throughout.
    • Will students know what SLO means? Is that important? Can't the SLOs be hidden, as long as students know goals of class and are assured that all projects and evaluations cooperatively assist them in achieving those goals?
    • Apparently there's a large discussion on EFF about the value of SLOs -- with some folks feeling freed by them (focus on teaching to SLOs, not the content), while others feel confined by them (limits academic freedom). We discussed how a course outline in general achieves a similar dichotomy of opinions/values. So this issue is not unique to SLOs.
    • Agreed to table the VERY ROBUST conversation for future meetings.
  • Works of Art Committee evaluation (seeking feedback)
    • Impressed at the motivation of the committee to be a part of this larger college-wide assessment and the quality of the survey. A few suggestions/notes/comments:
      • Felt like too many questions (worried that it would take up too much student time to complete). 
      • Some questions clearly apply only to some activities. Would it be possible to streamline it and then allow for customization?
      • If the goal is to participate in ILO assessment, a good place to start is mapping committee outcomes to ILOs. However, it was also noted that committees don't have SLOs -- they have outcomes, but not student learning outcomes -- not usually anyway, so we wondered what the outcomes are of the committee and what their goals are with the survey. The value of gathering these data might be more than just connecting to SLOs.
      • Overall -- go for it! Offer it to faculty as a optional ask -- would you be willng to help us capture these day. Thank you.
  • GE Area C recommendations update -- Lillian gave us an update. Recommendations hit a wall due to concerns about whether the Academic Senate should be involved in having science faculty come together to discuss prerequisites (with lunch provided). Tabled for future discussion. Much discussion took place about prerequisites in general and Title V language about degree-applicable courses and prerequisites. (55002 (a) (D) + 55003)The issue seems to be one that's college wide. We all agreed we wanted students to know ahead of time what would be necessary to succeed in a class -- that we wanted to help them start their preparation early -- and that any advisories we could use to assist counselors and students would be beneficial to all. Would like to see work done to review the way these are handled (GE-Area classes and their prerequisites/advisories) at other colleges.
  • Get It Done Day update -- enroute. Everyone should be advertising it!
  • Other business

April 23, 2014

Wednesday -- Science 45 -- 2:30-4 pm

Participants: Kristina Whalen, Katryn Wiese, Tracy Burt, Lorelei Leung, Janet Carpenter, Mine Ternar, Anna-Lisa Helmy, Isabelle Motamedi, Sheri Miraglia

  • SLO FLEX ideas – revisit – Mickey Branca now completely in charge. Contact has been made to do something SLO related at the all-campus August FLEX day. David Marshall – San Bernadino College Department Chair – does workshops across the country -- could come work with us for $2500 (all day). Works with us ahead of time to review what we’re going through. Can have him work with Deans/Faculty Leaders – etc. – in advance. Share positive stories/examples from around the college. Have it be an all-SLO day – only those workshops can take place. School meeting. Assigned readings in advance for leaders or for everyone, so folks can fully engage in discussions. Chancellor Speaks in morning, then everyone goes to Department Meetings. Suggestion: Whole School Chancellor meeting – then concurrent sessions – then School Meetings – then Department meetings. Or.. like Culinary Arts – do department meetings on independent flex and leave regular flex for all-school event. Include a workshop on teachers teaching each other. College needs a professional development coordinator.
  • ILO data review – revisit – Reviewed the initial data broken out by school, and it was decided to switch to providing those data by program and also to review comments for review/inclusion in final report.
  • Per previous meeting: follow up on recommendation to modify Student evaluation of teaching by adding element about whether faculty have communicated the SLOs for the course  -- demonstrates college culture – integrated more into evaluation of faculty. Kristina will take it further. (Also supports the GE Area C recommendations on finding ways to ensure that all students who take the class regardless of instructor cover the same SLOs.)
  • Academic Senate passed the revised ILO#1 language. Updated on the website.
  • Self Study – comments reviewed.
  • Get It Done Day – TLC computer lab reserved.
  • GE Area C recommendations – update on days’ meeting between Katryn and the workgroup (Steve Brown, Fred Teti, Dana Labreque, Lisa Romano

April 9, 2014

Wednesday -- Science 45 -- 2:30-4 pm

Participants: Kristina Whalen, Katryn Wiese, Janet Carpenter, Andrea Niosi, Anna-Lisa Helmy, Isabelle Motamedi, Sheri Miraglia, Lorelei Leung, Megan Sweeney, Mine Ternar, Lillian Marrujo-Duck

  • ILO data review -- revisit -- what did we learn by reviewing the spreadsheet? -- haven't made much progress. Workgroup hasn't had time to meet (because of Spring Break). Question: what do we want to do with these data? Conversation with Learning Community Committee. They've rank ordered classes based on pass rate. Can we look at classes that submitted data -- submit research request for pass rates for Fall 2014. Could help us say if scores have been pulled down by particular groups. For example: general education areas versus not -- credit vs noncredit -- prerequisites vs not. Problem: programs submit data, not courses. Can't match to course data. So what do we want to do with this assessment? After our new SLO software is up, we can do a better job of identifying data down to the course level, and thus our ultimate goals for ILO assessment will be different than what we can do this time around with ILO #1 critical thinking assessment. So what outcomes would we want? Conversations college wide about how PSLOs should map to ILOs, and movement forward on improving that; conversations about critical thinking in general and how the college addresses it in classes. Improvement of our ILOs. Analysis of % of mapping currently existing, by school/program. Analysis of scores per school/program (variations from average). Another outcome: what's the best way to assess ILOs. In our future assessments, how do we want to approach this assessment level? Combine ILOs and GEOs? How do we get onto the FLEX agenda? How do we bring in the ILOs? How do we get our leadership to get behind and support the college-wide conversation? Primary goal: use this report as a professional development tool to better refine program-level mappings. VERY IMPORTANT: Send recommendation to Curriculum Committee to ensure that as program proposals come through the committee, these mappings are reviewed by many to ensure good mapping.
  • SLO Impact Report -- discussion and call for edits -- Now complete. Will be sent to committee by end of day today for final review by all of us. For example, looking at highlights and shorter sampling -- ask yourself: is this really the best that can come back from a particular department? Especially AUOs -- seems that administrators are NOT doing a quality review and mostly copying and pasting exactly the same thing from the year before. Needed: training, especially for administrative units, especially in regards to progression of improvements. New organization chart -- thus each unit is moved into separate units. Useful! Only continuity document we have  so far created on differences from one semester to another.
  • Debrief on Institutional Set Standards -- Assessment Planning Team met to discuss proposal to Academic Senate on starter standards for first time, first standards. Academic Senate reviewed those and endorsed them and sent them onward to the Administration. No idea what went into the Annual Report. (As Academic Senate just provided "recommendations," administration can choose whatever they want.) Academic Senate didn't contest the numbers, but wished there had been greater conversations college wide about the data, and what do the number mean. Need to put a timeline in the Assessment Plan for how to discuss these data in the future, so doesn't happen at the last minute.
  • Upcoming Northern California SLO Group meeting -- Pacheco advertisement. Interested parties? Lorelei, Andrea, Kristina, and Anna-Lisa planning to go.
  • ACCJC regional workshop--opportunity for information gathering -- Ohlone College -- Academic Senate is sending Wendy Kaufmyn. Kristina Whalen will be going with Gohar.
  • SLO FLEX ideas -- Advertising SLO activities for April independent flex day. How to get people there? Need motivation for them. How will attending make their lives better? Save them time? People will come to computer labs and work through reporting -- especially with future CurricuNET technology. (Fall 2014) Come and we'll help you finish your report. Can we make folks excited and motivated about SLO future? Showcase and hear case studies of what's happening in various departments in regards to SLOs. Celebration of good things going on. The student perspective! Panel of students. Sharing good ideas from across the college. CCSF showcase!
  • Recommendation: student evaluations of instructors should contain language about how well an instructor has conveyed the outcomes of a given course and helps to meet them.

March 19, 2014

Wednesday -- Science 45 -- 2:30-4 pm

Participants: Kristina Whalen, Katryn Wiese, Janet Carpenter, Lorelei Leung, Megan Sweeney, Mine Ternar, Andrea Niosi, Sheri Miraglia, Anna-Lisa Helmy

  • ILO data review -- trees were shaken for loose fruit meant for the ILO #1 assessment. Only one more should be coming. Not here yet. Bottom line: what we have is what we'll get. So let's move forward on how we'll analyze the data and what new data we might want to gather to inform our final report, which should reaffirm the process and how we gathered data, as well how we've come to a proposal on refinement of outcomes. Next steps: 3 get together to look at data closely and come up with some analysis and interpretation that we bring to the group. Meanwhile, all data will go to all group members for their general input. (Katryn will send.)
  • CurricuNET update -- won't be ready until Fall 2014 -- will need to have the "old-time" forms available to capture data over Summer and Fall. Will we keep reporting a twice-a-year requirement? Will have to wait until implementation is complete to see what we can do. Ultimately want folks to update their information and enter assessment results AS they are available and not focussed on particular dates. But... for now, we are keeping to the twice a year requirement to keep folks focussed and keep momentum.
  • Proposal: Have Assessment Planning Team come up with starter Institutional Standards -- Benchmarks for Student Achievement. Supposed to happen this way: proposed by faculty -- reviewed by Academic Senate -- then put forward to Board, who decides the benchmarks. After implemented, discussion college wide about how we are or are not meeting them. Some colleges look over 5 years -- some 10 years. What's the benchmark? The average? Or average + 3% boost? Or lowest year? Also need to document this process -- "THIS is how we set our benchmarks. THIS is how we assess our process." Maybe the assessment planning team document is the place to document this process.
  • ILO C wording -- Librarians talked about the outcomes we discussed in our SLO Committee group, and no one liked them. Had some concerns about the use of the word "ethical" and how it could be interpreted. Had concerns about mappings that didn't seem to fit the current detailed ILO wording. Basically every course will/should map to this ILO -- as long as students gather data from multiple sources, like a textbook, website information, and experts or peers with special experiences -- whether technology was used or not -- evaluate and synthesize that data and then use it in some form (like preparing for an exam or a class assignment).
    • Proposal: Locate, evaluate, synthesize, and appropriately use multiple forms of information.
    • As this likely occurs in all classes, this will result in addition of new PSLOs and course SLOs related to information competency across the college in all courses and programs. It won't be required, but it will likely happen.
    • Ultimately this makes the two newly proposed ILO #1 bullets overlap a lot and likely any outcomes that link to one will link to the other as well. Perhaps that's appropriate for a higher-level ILO devoted to critical thinking and information competency.
  • SLO Impacts Report homework -- debrief
    • Members of the SLO Committee got frustrated reading the answers, because they felt there weren't enough details and descriptions "informing" their program improvements.
    • Likely because we're so new to this process, so many of the improvements were related to course and program description improvements, improved outcomes, addition of new courses and deletion of old ones. But no SLO data supporting it.
    • Strategies for how to make the question better, so we get better answers. Proposal: give Kristina's assessment description FOR the answers TO the planning team.
    • Can we have an assessment day over Summer or on Independent FLEX day? No more official FLEX days.
  • Responses to ACCJC SLO report -- Read existing wording to specific questions. Edits send to Kristina.


March 5, 2014

Wednesday -- Science 45 -- 2:30-4 pm

Participants: Kristina Whalen, Katryn Wiese, Janet Carpenter, Sheri Miraglia, Andrea Niosi, Isabelle Motamedi, Anna-Lisa Helmy, Lorelei Leung, Jeffrey Lamb, Lauren Muller

  • Pam Mery is looking for volunteers to work on/review the SOARS survey -- content analysis -- next Tuesday -- maybe 400+ instances.
  • ILO data review -- do we wait until June deadline to process all these data? Or do we use what we have now? Is there an issue with our annual report to the ACCJC where one is preferred? It seems that folks have missed the deadline because they "didn't know it was there." Plan: make a list of program coordinators who promised to do it, didn't map correctly, and didn't submit their data and contact them. Create a new form just for them? When we reviewed the basic data, we reminded ourselves that the data are suspect because the assessment types are different for each program, and the assessment standards are different or interpreted differently. What % of data comes from ESL, noncredit? What do SLOs mean for students who take a class multiple times? This conversation should be happening across the college. If students aren't meeting an ILO, what does this say about the ILO itself, about our programs, about our students? Since at least 20% of the mappings are suspect, what does that do to our data? Should we remove those? Are the reporting instructions clear enough? What more data do we want from the research office? Definitely want to get rid of the data that doesn't really map. Recommendations of final report should include the programs whose mappings weren't valid and indicate that we recommend that they reword their Program SLOs to include one that will map to ILO C, for example, because clearly their courses do, but their program SLOs don't.
  • ILO C wording (read report from Library sent via email) -- In general, the mappings on this ILO are poor across the college, as not many courses actually map specifically to information competency. Proposals for rewording:
    • Recognize when information is needed; effectively locate and evaluate credible and relevant information using appropriate research strategies and tools; and ethically use that information.
    • Use appropriate research strategies and tools to effectively locate and evaluate credible and relevant information and ethically use that information. (Strategies and tools limits the potential application of this outcome... removing it makes it more likely to be broadly applicable.)
    • Biggest learning lesson: program outcomes need to be reworded, so that if this information IS taught in courses in a program, a program outcomes EXISTS that can legitimately align to this outcome and convey to students what they'll be learning.
  • Assignment SLO Impact Report homework -- Important report that has potential to inform changes across the college. Needs review by committee members. Everybody gets about 9 answers to question #4. Reduce it to an abbreviated highlight -- what outcome, linking evidence and data to it, alignment with the college -- a single passage or line. Last year's report should be reviewed first. Goal is to have a snippet from each department. Instructions coming through email.
  • Any Feedback to Standards dealing with SLO to be forwarded during public feedback of new standards -- handed out last time. Get any comments to Kristina by early next week, so she can pass them along.
  • Discussion on professional development during April 25th Independent FLEX DAY. Because it's independent, not a lot of people will show up. Limited time and resources make this unlikely. Better for us to add in a last-minute event where appropriate IF, say, CurricuNET is live or nearly live?


February 12, 2014

Wednesday -- Science 45 -- 2:30-4 pm

Participants: Kristina Whalen, Tracy Burt, Isabelle Motemedi, Lillian Marujo-Duck, Mine Terner, Lorelei Leung, Janet Carpenter, Anna-Lisa Helmy, Andrea Noisi

ILO wording Refinement

Committee revisted the wording from the last SLO committee. After much refelction the group reached consensus that we didn't want the assumption of diverse viewpoints to go unstated. But we did reach consensus that the inclusion of the word quantitative was captured sufficiently in the more general wording. We also favored the wording "reasoning" over "thinking". The group came to consensus that the SLO committee would move forward the following wording to the Academic Senate in place of ILO #1 prong 1 & 2:

"apply critical and creative reasoning, including diverse perspectives, to address complex problems"

The committee applauded!

Andrea Noisi shared that the librarians had a very producive discussion on the ILO wording during their professional development day. She noted that the emphasis in Information Competency is moving away from locating and retrieving and more toward analysis of data. They also felt that the inclusion of tech and tools in current wording was inviting errant mappings. Some wording considered:

"locate evaluate, organize, and ethically use information to meet a need..."

"indentify, evaluate, and synthesize. . . "

"use reliable, relevant and appropriate information..."

"recognize when information is needed and effectively locate, evalaute, and use information"

We agreed to think on these wording choices and come back to the process next meeting.

Accreditation Institute Report Out

Andrea, Kristina, and Lillian shared what they learned at the institute jointly sponsored by the ACCJC and Statewide Academic Senate. This included a discussion of institutional set standards, the increased emphasis on the use of disaggregated data, and the fact that the complexity and word count of the changes were no different from current standards.


Kristina noted that she was contacted by academic senate. They are forming a workgroup to explore recommendations in the GE Area C Report and prioritize the recommendations. They want a member of the SLO Com on the work group. No one volunteered but Kristina said she would talk to Sheri or perhaps members of the Area C workgroup.


Course coordinators from all AREA A courses offered this semester have been contacted. Area E has yet to send email.


January 29, 2014

Wednesday -- Science 45 -- 3-4:30 pm

Participants: Katryn Wiese, Kristina Whalen, Mine Ternar, Lillian Marrujo-Duck, Sheri Miraglia, Anna-Lisa Helmy, Isabelle Motamedi, Megan Sweeney, Janet Carpenter, Lorelei Leung, Tracy Burt

  • Review of Fall 2013 Assessment Progress Reporting Process -- specifically a review of the summary report. Discussion and comments:
    • Needed improvements -- do we transition to yearly reports? How will the new software affect this? New processes now that folks can enter data all the time. Without deadlines people tend not to do the work, as the data clearly shows (number of entries the day before the deadline). If CurricuNET will solve this with automatic reminders and reports of units/classes that haven't reported in after a particular amount of time, we still might need check-ins annually or biannually to ensure folks don't forget. Meanwhile, program review work in the Fall needs to be better pulled together with SLOs and other assessment issues. Can we combine that deadline with the department dialogue needed about all assessment?
      • Concern: dropping a deadline (moving to annual) means it will be harder to coordinate multiple colleagues to move forward...
      • Can we change one of the deadlines though -- Fall deadline to be a requirement that folks summarize their data and have department conversations that inform resource requests that will happen through program review.
      • Need to ensure CurricuNET will automate the nagging process for folks who havent' checked in for 6 months or haven't checked in according to their schedule.
      • Make system sustainable. Pick your schedule, then keep to it.
      • Must keep some kind of consequence to missing deadlines and not following through with plans, or folks will drop the ball.
    • Rate of completion dropped, due to new deadlines, hard deadlines? Unfortunately, more so on the AUO/SSO side of the house. Why? Administration reorg caused some balls to drop...
      • Student Services Leadership Team met with SLO Coordinator to discuss the poor completion rates. Team members for the SSO Assessment Team will be forwarded to the SLO Coordinator for continued collaboration.
      • Report needs to be stronger about what MUST happen... versus "needs to happen"
      • Future emails need to ensure that all folks across the college remember the messages and requirements apply to everyone.
      • Future staff training in service and admin units should all contain AUO/SSO reporting sessions/debriefs/training/updates...
      • Sigh.. disappointment that folks need so much pushing to follow through..
    • Send further comments through email to Kristina.
  • Refinement on ILO#1 rewording
    • Review of work done in December
    • Suggestions/discussion:
      • Based on our review of existing mappings, it's clear that folks across the college are broadly applying statements even when they don't seem to apply ("and" becomes "or"). Do we want to accept that
      • Suggest: "apply critical and creative thinking to address quantitative and/or complex problems."
      • Suggest: "apply critical and creative reasoning to address quantitative and/or complex problems."
      • Diverse perspectives -- Include it specifically? Or included already? Would be nice to merge the two. Would the proposed wording above mean we wouldn't need two?
  • GE Area C Summary Report -- Next steps
    • Academic Senate Executive Council review happened. Engagement happened. People were fired up about making the recommendations happen. But it also awakened a lot of cross-talk about advisories and prerequisites and what we want for the College culture. Lots of follow-up conversation. There are some colleges that have mandated advisories and/or prerequisites across the board for all credit classes. Why not here? Conversations are happening, even if we haven't come to agreement.
      • Advisories will help students take responsibility for their own skill development -- give them what they need to decide whether to take a class or even prepare for one.
      • Next steps: Action to the floor of the Academic Senate -- others plan to take it to the floor... Advisories + Improved Counselor/Instructor conversation
      • Next steps: Report is on the planning committee agenda. Chantilly Apollon will present.
  • GE Areas A & E workgroup meetings update
    • Area A has met twice already this semester -- email to course coordinators going out this week
    • Area E has met once this semester and they're almost ready to send email to coordinators and is really ready and active in work to modify the existing SLOs.
  • CurricuNET implemenation update -- Spring implementation is for Curriculum followed by SLOs and Program Review -- latter two ready in Fall.
  • Other: February 6th FLEX day 1:45-2:45 pm for departments to work on SLOs
  • Spring meeting schedule -- Confirmation --
    • Possible meeting times. Who drops out if pull back 30 minutes to 2:30 pm?
    • Next meeting on Wednesday, February 12th at 2:30 pm
    • Room in S45


December 16, 2013

Monday, December 16 -- Science 9 -- 2-3:30 pm

Participants: Katryn Wiese, Kristina Whalen, Janet Carpenter, Kathleen Mitchell, Anna-Lisa Helmy, Lorelei Leung, Mine Ternar, Andrea Niosi,  Isabelle Motamedi

  • Compilation and review of senate survey -- finalized for submission.
  • GE Area C Summary Report -- review of failure and withdrawal rates and the relationship between all general education area courses and the prerequisites that aren't explicitly stated but represent the minimum qualifications for graduating high school. Concerns -- how to have this conversation happen across the college at all levels including our administrative leadership. Imagine if the institution decided to make advisories to all General Education classes of these high-school levels. We also discussed the evidence and call to improve the equity gap through increased standards and ensuring students are prepared when they enter classes and thus successful when they exit these classes. Spring focus: have this conversation happen!
    • Recommendation: Andrea Niosi will create a short abstract review of potential impacts of the report. We'll put it in the January Highlights and get the message out through email. Key is why everyone should read this report and its application to all General Education areas.
    • Recommendation: Meet with Chancellor and Vice Chancellors. He should be taking leadership on this as well.
  • Software update: funding secured. Board resolution on Thursday expected to go forward.
  • Refinement on ILO#1 rewording -- review of worksheet
    • Locate, retrieve, and evaluate information using appropriate research strategies, tools and technology -- Information Competency wording is undergoing discussion by library, and the IC Committee in the Library will take on that role. 
    • Use reason and creativity to make decisions and solve problems -- 
      • Options: Develop analytical skills to apply to problem solving
      • Options: Use reason and creativity to reach valid conclusions -- (or supported conclusions or testable conclusions)
      • Need some kind of data incorporation...
      • Do we need to have anything other than just "Use reason and creativity"? Why include another step.
      • Options: Use
      • Options: real-life application? Is that exclusive?
      • Creativity + reason together.
      • Next time: have all ILOs in front of us (so we don't duplicate)
      • CSUEB: think critically and creatively and apply analytical and quantitative reasoning to address complex challenges and everyday problems.
    • Apply diverse viewpoints to aid in decision making or problem solving --
      • Join with above.
      • Option: critically evaluate diverse arguments, frameworks and informational sources, perspectives, data...
      • Apply diverse prespectives (or keep viewpoints) to interpret data (or phenomena?)
      • Benefit of keeping it separate is that we have the diversity perspective and it's not covered elsewhere...
      • Merge option based on CSUEB: think critically and creatively to evaluate diverse perspectives and apply analytical and quantitative reasoning to address complex challenges and everyday problems.
      • Too long!!! Two? Think critically and creatively to evaluate diverse perspectives. Apply analytical and quantitative reasoning to address complex challenges and everyday problems.
      • Other comparisons:
        • apply knowledge of diversity and multicultural competencies to promote equity and social justice in our communities
        • work collaboratively and respectfully as members and leaders of diverse teams and communities;
        • communicate ideas, perspectives, and values clearly and persuasively while listening openly to others;
    • Recommendation: add section to SLO Handbook about mapping well -- how to (Kristina)
  • Spring meeting schedule -- suggestion for moving in Spring to Wednesdays (works for all but Isabelle). Suggestion Wednesdays 3 pm. Room to be determined... (Maybe 2:30)
  • ILO #1 Mapping Summary Report
    • Good format. Need to break into separate documents for each ILO.
    • Valuable document to have available online.
    • Searchable, but will ultimately be replaced by new software.
  • Congratulations to Kathleen Mitchell on her retirement. And THANK YOU for all her contributions to cultural change at CCSF.


December 2, 2013

Monday, December 2 -- Science 9 -- 2-3:30 pm

Participants: Katryn Wiese, Kristina Whalen, Janet Carpenter, Kathleen Mitchell, Anna-Lisa Helmy, Lorelei Leung, Mine Ternar, Andrea Niosi, Tracy Burt

  • ILO #1 Workgroup/Refining ILO wording -- Discussion occurred on mapping results -- there were many mappings that seemed incorrect -- a lot of them. Part of that is folks misunderstanding the ILO. Part is folks trying to force a mapping when none existed. We discussed that over time, these mappings will improve as folks revise their own PSLOs and better understand the process. We reviewed a few options for revising the two non-Informational Competency ILOs related to Critical Thinking, and came up with the following suggestions:
    • Add a fourth dealing with quantitative reasoning or ensure it's part of the other three. (Will problem solving be sufficient?)
    • Apply or use for.... reason & creativity to... analyze or make... decisions and solve problems"
    • Diverse viewpoints change to "Critically evaluate diverse arguments, frameworks and informational sources, perspectives, data.... something like that..
    • Locate, retrieve.... keep as is
  • Review: New preamble approved by Academic Senate Executive Council -- will be part of next catalog and is also a part of the website now.
  • GE Areas A and E -- update -- Area A met the Friday prior to Thanksgiving break. Area E meets this coming Friday. Results online: Area A workgroup | Area E workgroup
  • GE Area C -- update -- report should be officially published this week.
  • Senate Survey -- results from our homework review were given to Kristina for collation.
  • New software review -- update -- CurricuNET is our recommendation. Will take awhile to implement, and still must find funding, but decision made and confirmed by current Leadership as recommended for multiple college-wide needs: curriculum, program review, and assessment.
  • Last meeting of the current semester in two weeks.


November 18, 2013

Monday 2-3:30 pm in Science 9

Participants: Katryn Wiese, Kristina Whalen, Janet Carpenter, Kathleen Mitchell, Anna-Lisa Helmy, Lorelei Leung, Isabelle Motamedi

  • New software review (update) -- CurricuNET webinar Wednesday mornings (members invited to attend). RFP being written up right now. Costs, pros, and cons shared for existing options. Recommendations ready to put forward.
    • CurricuNET handles curriculum issues that is are a key problem at the college right now. Can it also handle our SLOs sufficiently?
    • Which can be implemented in Spring?
  • GE Areas A and E -- update -- Area A has a good robust group and is ready to go with the first meeting set up for this semester (this coming Friday). Area C needs more individuals, but has a good start. Area C folks have been invited to come share their experience.
    • These area workgroups are missing folks from particular departments who courses are significant in these areas. Examples missing from Area E: Foreign Language, Art, Music, Theatre ArtsLGBT (and more).
    • Note: GE Area E is the only area in which NOT all GEOs are required to be mapped to course SLOs. Not clear to us why there is an exception. How does this ensure all students who get a GE degree achieve all outcomes (per our language). Ask Office of Instruction.
    • Other issue that came up: why are course outlines still using MLOs (instead of Course SLOs)? It's confusing. Can we recommend a change? Especially as new software is implemented?
    • Will meet in Spring based on group member meeting times.
    • Discussion of ACCJC phone call re: ILOs/GEOs and our progress. New insights uncovered, and needs to be addressed. The speed of moving through ILOs and GEOs can be slowed down. We ARE meeting assessment needs. However, the ILOs and GEO "deep-level" assessments are the kind of reporting and college-wide discussion we are lacking. (Currently we do not look at learning across units....) So while we should stick with our current schedule of deep-level assessments, we should change the focus to the college-wide discussion, and the work groups will be working longer but more sustainably and slowly. 1.5-year process. Example: ILO#1 is encouraged to be assessed in Fall 2013. Data are analyzed and discussed by programs in Spring 2014 (some might be able to do that in Fall 2013 as well, but most will wait and do in Spring 2014). Then data will entered into Fall 2013 or Spring 2014 progress reports. In Fall 2014, it will be reviewed by the ILO#1 work group and discussed across the college. So it's a 1.5 year process. Review and refinement of actual outcomes would be part of this process as well.
  • ILO #1 Workgroup: mappings report progress
    • It's clear that ILO language could use clarification (would improve mapping). For example: is problem solving and decision making part of two subpoints to ILO#1? Are they both necessary? Do those who are mapping understand a) how to map and b) what the ILO really means?
    • We should come with suggested rewordings for ILO#1 to next meeting (based on our experience with reviewing the mappings).
  • Professional Development -- our recommendations
    • SLOs -- many folks sign up to do these, but a) few people show up and b) we don't want to water down our SLO sessions, and we do want to ensure they all support current processes and focal points -- How do we handle this?
    • FLEX days -- fewer sessions that are invited -- no more than 10 people
    • Department meetings should start at 11 am or Noon -- with nothing else getting in the way after that, so departments can work together
  • General Liberal Arts majors (a few others as well) -- no one is in charge, so not being assessed. Problem? Not once we have new software. We'll map it, and then it will be under assessment. Periodically we can set up workgroups to review.


November 4th, 2013

Monday 2-3:30 pm in Science 9

Participants: Katryn Wiese, Kristina Whalen, Janet Carpenter, Megan Sweeney, Kathleen Mitchell, Anna-Lisa Helmy, Karen Saginor, Mine Ternar

  • GE Areas A and E -- update -- Workgroups forming now -- websites are up. Emails sent out. Volunteers are limited to date: Area A (Fred Teti, Ophelia Clark, Charles Metzler, someone from Speech Communication) -- Area E (Kathleen Mitchell, Stephan Johnson.) Plan for now: pick a date and time -- set up the first meeting and readvertise to the college -- when and where. At that meeting, both A and E will meet together, receive training, and then move out to make one remaining meeting this meeting and set up future meetings for Spring. Meanwhile, we'll identify leaders for each group to direct this efforts.
  • SLO Implementation feedback report from the ACCJC -- will be clarification on one point on Wednesday during phone meeting with Krista Johns, and then we'll post it online -- specifically highlighting the two areas where we rated low in March and where we've come from there -- reporting and ILOs.
  • ILO #1 Workgroup: mappings report progress -- 12 of us looked at the mapping of 216 programs. 44% of mappings were clear and coherent. 13% were unclear or mistaken. 16% undermapped. 8% said they didn't map to the ILO, and we agreed. 19% they said it didn't map, and we disagreed. (See formal notes on review process.)
    • Need long-term assessment training -- rewrite PSLOs to map nicely to ILOS. Then rewrite CSLOs to map PSLOs.
    • Need to revise ILO #1 wording -- combine part 1 and 2.
    • Reword preamble -- not all courses/programs have to map to ALL ILOs.
  • Annual Plan update (Discussion at EC re: 3-year recommended benchmark -- further discussion continued about the need to ensure folks work consistently towards a common goal and that those that exceed or meet the benchmark greatly excees the number who don't.
  • New software review (update on need and the three vendors and the request for funds).
  • Exit 15 minutes early to meet eLumen.


October 21st, 2013

Monday 2-3:30 pm in Science 9

Participants: Katryn Wiese, Kristina Whalen, Anna-Lisa Helmy, Janet Carpenter, Kathleen Mitchell, Isabelle Motamedi, Tracy Burt

  • Report v. 3.0 -- Reviewed current word version and provided input. Ready now to build.
  • GE Areas A and E -- Reviewed email for chairs (to send Tuesday) and faculty (to send Wednesday). Will send out this week.
  • ILO #1 Workgroup: mappings report -- reviewed review rubric and made assignments.
  • Brown bag lunch events -- updated on success/attendance and reviewed next steps


October 7th, 2013

Monday, October 7th, 2-3:30 pm in Science 9

Participants: Katryn Wiese, Kristina Whalen, Anna-Lisa Helmy, Janet Carpenter, Kathleen Mitchell, Lorelei Leung, Pam Mery, Mine Ternar, Lauren Muller, Frederick Moore, Tracy Burt

  • CHEA SLO award application revisited -- Because our college is not advanced enough institutionally to be competitive in all required evaluation components/goals of the award, we chose to focus on a particular program -- and DMI/Radiologic Services is our main candidate.
  • Review of drafts of these reports:
    • Aug. 31 Reports Summary -- discussed issues uncovered during quality review and overall satisfaction with current status and this particular report. Ready to send onward to Academic Senate Executive Council and Planning Committee.
    • Aug. 31 Reporting Process Evaluation -- additional suggestions added, especially for recommendations for next section. Ready to send onward to Academic Senate Executive Council and Planning Committee.
    • Annual Assessment Plan 2013-2014 -- additional suggestions added. Ready to send onward to Academic Senate Executive Council and Planning Committee.
  • TracDat review & Reporting Forms 3.0 -- discussed comments from folks who attended TracDat webinar. Reviewed that new reporting forms (v. 3.0) will be available for review by end of month.


September 23, 2013

Monday, September 23, 2-3:30 pm in Science 9

Participants: Katryn Wiese, Kristina Whalen, Mine Ternar, Anna-Lisa Helmy, Janet Carpenter, Kathleen Mitchell, Lorelei Leung, Lauren Muller, Tracy Burt

  • Proposed maximum cycles for assessing courses and instructional programs -- various numbers used at colleges through the state -- general consensus was on proposing 3-year maximum.
  • 9/17 FLEX review -- Initial stats provided. ~450 evaluations submitted. Overall satisfaction rating: 8 (median value). Highest scores for Schools/Division meetings, then Concurrent Sessions, then Opening Session. Full report will come by end of week. Full report will summarize overall comments PLUS list of all ideas for leadership (minus names). Will also include the four reasons why non-anonymous surveys were used. Next FLEX events will NOT be led/organized by SLO Coordinators.
  • Review of ongoing GE-Area C results: GE-Area C Outcome revision made it through the Executive Council of the Academic Senate. Now awaiting Bipartite. Good news: the process worked. This process will be used for all future GE-Area assessments + ILO assessments. So good to know it can work! Still would be good to have a standing member who is also a member of the Executive Council of the Academic Senate -- so they can make regular reports. All GE-Area C comments from 9/17 evaluation are being sent to workgroup for incorporation into report.
  • GE Areas A and E -- These workgroups need to be formed later this semester so rubrics can be developed. (We need to assess every SLO within these areas. Assessments will follow ILO format.)
  • 8/31 report -- Discussed and trained folks on rubric for shared review of random sampling of existing report drafts. Everyone will complete rubric review in 1 week. Katryn will finalize report draft by end of week and incorporate quality review (anonymous review). Plus draft of evaluation and plans for future reporting forms.
  • CHEA SLO award application (discussed merits of applying)
    If we apply, the forms we use and the online website (transparency, combination of program review, cultural shift) would be a good topic. But will we have a different set of forms and process by next year? No one has time to sign up to complete the application at the moment. We feel like next year we'll be in a better place.
  • ILO #1 Workgroup -- Kristina will process mappings document for future review and publishing online -- current mapping. Kristina reviewed process with Chairs at DCC meeting. Kristina contacted all program coordinators planning Fall assessments with a review of the process. Instructions and guidelines were posted online with sample rubrics developed by workgroup members. Future tasks: attending school meetings with Q&A, training in brown-bag lunches, development of reporting forms and heads up on what we'll ask for at end-of-semester.
  • Friday brown bag trainings to start shortly. Possible topics: scantrons and surveys (using technology), ILO process, Program Coordination, Course Coordination with multiple instructors at multiple locations, Using rubrics, Noncredit assessment.
  • Future business: Reporting Form 3.0, TracDat, Evaluation Report for 8/31.


September 9, 2013

Monday, September 9, 2-3:30 pm in Science 37

Participants: Katryn Wiese, Kristina Whalen, Mine Ternar, Anna-Lisa Helmy, Janet Carpenter, Kathleen Mitchell, Lorelei Leung, Andrea Niosi, Fred Teti, Tracy Burt

  • Revision of 8/31 and 1/31 deadlines -- Proposal is to change the deadline to a maximum of 1 week after grades are due. Everyone agreed this change would be beneficial and should REDUCE work, because it will focus folks on the point of the reports -- reflection about what was done -- NOT addition of new work. The new work that needs to be done should happen the following semester and be reported on the following semester. (instructions)
  • 8/31 reports -- good results. Working better! For the Jan. 31, 2013 reports, 90% of courses and programs completed the reports. (Only 70% by the deadline.) For the August 31, 2013 reports, 95% of courses completed reports and 93% of programs. (94/93% by the deadline!)
  • How do we report on 8/31 results? Randomize entries and then take a random sample for courses and program (say 20%) and then develop a rubric for reading and evaluating each one. We can farm out a certain number of these reports and have folks review and assess using a standard rubric, so we can determine how well we're doing in terms of quality of reports, as well as what great things stand out (program/service improvements), and what weaknesses appear (report misunderstandings, or poor assessment tools, or assessment stage misunderstandings).
    • Volunteers for conducting this review -- 20 reports -- 2 weeks to complete -- simple rubric
    • Note: still planning to change to outside software (to reduce workload on SLO Coordinator).
    • Reports need to be tools for incoming instructors to educate himself/herself on existing work and continue work done in future semesters
  • ILO #1 Workgroup: reporting on mappings and next step
    • Volunteers for conducting this review of mapping
    • Need to create example mappings of various PSLOs to bins: Proficiency, Developing, No Evidence (for letter) -- folks signed up to do this.
    • Issue to address eventually at Executive Council -- 70 programs said they didn't map to ILO #1. However, the current language of the ILOs requires that ALL programs would link to the ILO. So we need to resolve how we will be handling this going forward: Either change the ILO wording (not require every program) OR change the language on the ILO preamble. Currently: "Students who complete their educational goals at CCSF will be able to:" to something like "Students who complete their educational goals at CCSF will be able to achieve some of the following outcomes:"
    • Letter for program coodinators -- need examples at end of week of rubric mappings for a variety of programs.
  • GE Areas A and E -- review plans for forming these workgroups this semester -- tabled until mid October.
  • Review of ongoing GE-Area C results and work efforts -- discussion of recent experience of GE-Area C outcomes revision proposal at Executive Council meeting. Presentation was followed by Q&A. Seems to be a problem with awareness of ongoing SLO efforts. Emails/surveys/websites -- not registering. What to do in future? Final reading/vote next meeting.


August 26, 2013

Monday, August 26th, 2-3:30 pm in Science 37

Participants: Katryn Wiese, Kristina Whalen, Andrea Niosi, Mine Ternar, Tracy Burt

  • 9/17 flex discussion -- reviewed format of data and need for volunteers to assist in faciliating overflow rooms (small group and neighbor discussions) and concurrent sessions (keep energy positive and discussion productive)
  • GEO Area C Workgroup -- update on progress from last semester, presented on the GEO Area C Workgroup website.
  • ILO #1 -- plans, timelines, and review of what's happened to date. See ILO #1 assessment web page for details.
    • Homework: provide detailed examples from units across college to provide Program Coordinators and facilitate semester assessment.
    • Invite more people to attend and take part in the ILO #1 work group.
  • 8/31 and 1/31 report deadlines SHOULD be moved to 1 week after grades are due. That was the recommendation of the group. No discussion of what's needed to make that happen. Should be part of next meeting.

Next meeing:  review ILO #1 mapping data and prepare for presentation at 9/17 flex


August 13, 2013

Tuesday, August 13th, 4-5 pm in Science 45

Participants: Katryn Wiese, Kristina Whalen, Jeffrey Lamb, Craig Kleinman, Sheri Miraglia, Kathleen Mitchell, Anna-Lisa Helmy, Mine Ternar, Katryn Wiese, Lorelei Leung, (and ~5 others who didn't sign in)

  • Schedule for meetings this semester --- Mon. 2 – 3:30 biweekly -- location TBA by Katryn
  • ILO assessment planning and tasks as well as continued GEO assessment will be a large part of the AS SLO Committee work this semester.
  • Main goals for the SLO area this semester (aided by the SLO Committee who will continue to educate, train and encourage faculty and departments to reach them):
    • Websites need to be updated as frequently as possible, each semester at the least. Each department needs to ensure it has an identified web master to handle that work (but all department eyes should assist through regular monitoring).
    • No old outlines will remain in use. Ultimately all need to be 6 years old or less. However, the most urgent need is to update those outlines that are from 2004 or earlier and that do not have genuine SLOs in them. Those outlines should be rare, but we have to root them out and remove them by the end of this semester.
    • Close the loop on Program Review with all SLOs embedded.
    • Aug. and Jan. assessments must be done for 100% of courses.
    • Katryn and Kristina have already been working to reach these goals. They are currently identifying missing reports and courses that have out-dated course outlines. Deans will be asked to enforce the requirements in case of faculty not responding to requests for assessment reports.
    • Suggestions from attendees included:
    • have smaller depts. work together and pool their knowledge of report completion and SLO work
    • have depts in compliance mentor other depts who are struggling and behind in the process

Next meeing:  finalize plans for Sept. 17 Flex day about SLOs. and discuss ILO tasks


May 8th, 2013

Wednesday 12:30-2 pm in Arts 212

Participants: Andrea Niosi, Kathleen Mitchell, Anna-Lisa Helmy, Mine Ternar, Katryn Wiese, Lorelei Leung

  • Fall plans and priorities:
    • August 13th FLEX day -- because of busyness of that day, 1 main event, 1 drop-in help lab, and the SLO Committee Meeting
    • September 17 FLEX day -- proposal for college-wide SLO event. Suggested ideal schedule:
      • 9-10:30 am college-wide meeting (gym?) with SLO Coordinators, Committe, and College Leadership (all three VCs + Chancellor) to discuss the progress we've made, the processes we're following, and the timeline we're pursuing for future efforts. Each VC should discuss how SLOs, SAOs, or AUOs are handled and what directions each group is taking. Will include interactive "neighbor" discussions surrounding the differences between SLOs, SAOs, and AUOs, as well as outcomes in general. Focus as well on ILOs/GEOs and upcoming plans.
      • 11 am to 12 pm -- Concurrent SLO-themed sessions (rubrics 1.0, 2.0 | Authentic assessments | Valuable Outcomes | SAOs | AUOs | etc.)
      • 12-1 pm -- Lunch
      • 1-2 pm -- Concurrent SLO-themed sessions
      • 2-5 pm -- Departmental meetings
    • Other professional development? -- need college-wide commitment to this goal. Should be a larger discussion. What are models used elsewhere?
    • September HIGHLIGHTS? -- We identified folks to approach now for that effort.
    • ILO 1 plans -- workgroup will be the main SLO committee and anyone that attends -- goals: create examples for how ILO assessment is happening and rubrics for translating results.
    • GEO Area Planning workgroups for Areas A and E; Analysis and reporting for Area C.
  • Review of the ongoing GEO process and its application in Fall to ILOs (forms seemed workable and translatable to larger college-wide effort)
  • High-level priorities for 2013-2014:
    • new technology (TrackDat?) for reporting SLO activity across the college will be evaluated for future implementation and funding. Target implementation: 2014-2015 year.
    • ensuring outcomes assessment exists in all corners (admin, services, instructional)
  • SLO Coordinator position -- should really be an administrator? Requires significant coordination and collaboration with college administrators and leaders. Goal for 2014-2015?
  • Next meeting scheduled: Aug. 13 (Flex Day) 4 pm in S45

April 24th, 2013

Wednesday April 24th, 12:30-2 pm in Arts 212

Participants: Andrea Niosi, Kathleen Mitchell, Anna-Lisa Helmy, Tracy Burt, Katryn Wiese

  • Reviewed the Fall 2013 ILO assessment process and preparations -- reviewed the material on the website -- the mapping effort that is part of the Aug. 31 reporting form, the examples provided by committee members of mappings for ILO 1 -- and the underlying value/motivation.
    • Reviewed the results of the GEO workgroup, the translation rubric, and the email notice.
    • To do in Fall: continue to send emails to those conducting program-level assessments to prepare them for end-of-semester translations and collection of data and finalize rubric.
    • Homework: review course assessment form as though you were a GE Area C course and bring feedback to next meeting.
  • Reviewed progress on end-of-semester online forms raffle -- finding donations -- seeking new ones -- and shared docs file to keep track.
  • Reviewed use of CCSFMail as part of the process
  • April 26th negotiations -- special day -- college closed, but we'll have the day for drop-in lab
  • Get out the word out on the SLO Coordinator position.

April 10th, 2013

Wednesday April 10th, 12:30-2 pm in Arts 212

Participants: Andrea Niosi, Kathleen Mitchell, Anna-Lisa Helmy, Mine Ternar, Tracy Burt, Lorelei Leung, Katryn Wiese

  • Brief review of Visiting Team meeting details -- it went very well in regards to SLOs. Thanks all!
  • April 26th professional development (independent flex day) schedule -- review of topics, schedule, and call for assistance [NOTE: This day has since been canceled.]
  • SLO coordinator position update: new SLO Coord position will report to Pam Mery/RD and Planning; waiting for position processing through HR.
  • Forms v.3.0 -- review of changes:
    • More streamlined
    • Clearer instructions on how to refer to already entered data
    • Fewer questions
    • Editing capabilities (raffle will help with challenge of a new email -- really there for password entry -- but will bring positive value later if folks choose to explore Google Apps)
      • ITS will help us set up accounts for everyone who submitted Jan. 31 forms -- everyone else will need to sign up for an account. 
      • We should email folks right away to warn them of what's happening, so they can prepare and any new coordinators can sign up for google mail accounts
      • We should also explain in above email the various uses/distinctions between new Office 365 and Google Mail.
    • Plan portion significantly reduced
    • GEO review embedded into course assessment
    • ILO prep and mapping for ILO1 embedded into program assessment
    • Just for activities completed in Spring and all Spring classes
    • Courses with similar reports can be combined
    • Report structure will make it easier for chairs to identify progress
    • Raffle for making June deadline already has these prizes:
      • 8 entrance tickets and private behind-the-scenes tour at the Exploratorium
      • Tickets to the Aquarium of the Bay
      • 5 tickets to the California Academy of Sciences
      • Homework: Need help -- especially with museums and entities not science related :)
  • ILO workgroup formation put on hold until end of Fall 2013. ILO 1 assessment work will be completed by SLO Committee using work produced by GEO work group. Best use of time and resources. Homework: put together rubrics for our own departments/content for examples. These will be sent in Fall through email to those who have identified through online forms that they'll be conducting Fall Program SLO assessments.


March 13th, 2013

Wednesday March 13th, 12:30-2 pm in Arts 212

Participants: Andrea Niosi, Kathleen Mitchell, Anna-Lisa Helmy, Mine Ternar, Tracy Burt, Katryn Wiese

  • Website HIGHLIGHTS are the place to send folks to encourage them to learn more about what's happening across the college. (Needs an email.)
  • More Professional Development on Preparing for the Accreditation Team Visit scheduled. (See Professional Development website.)
  • Formation of ILO workgroup for Fall 2013 assessment (what is a rubric -- what are our goals -- how to handle embedding into Aug. 31 online reporting forms -- review of what's happening in the GE Area C workgroup and the need for a consistent language and set of generic rubrics)
    • Proposal: 3= Proficient | 2 = Developing | 1 = Awareness | 0 = No evivdence (with the possibility of combining 2 and 1 into one and calling it "Developing")
    • Workgroup develop a list of sample customized rubrics.
    • Instructions: program assessments happen as departments best see fit. Customized rubrics developed by each department. Departments determine cut-off criteria for each level. 
    • Send email asking for volunteers
    • (every program has to map to at least one ILO)
    • ILO wkgrp forming to prepare for Fall 2013 assessment and Spring 2014 evaluation. ILO 2 will be assessed Fall 2014. ILO 3, Fall 2014. ILO 4, Fall 2015.
  • ILOs will map to PSLOs. Every Program should map to at lest one PSLO. These mappings will be collected year by year as each ILO is assessed.
  • Testing of report v.3 (and discussion of using Google Mail) -- Tabled for next meeting


February 20, 2013

Attendance:   Anna-Lisa Helmy, ESL; Katryn Wiese, SLO Coordinator; Andrea Niosi, Library; Kathleen Mitchell, Counseling; Mine Ternar, Art; Lorelei Leung, EOPS; Tom Boegel, Administrator

1--Discussed format/content ideas for the Program Review Summary document (part of March 15th SLO Report)

Goals of the summary: 

  • to highlight and show how far reaching our SLO improvements are for accreditation visiting team review
  • to review, summarize, and acknowledge the efforts department chairs have made, not only in the SLO areas, but in putting together their program reviews.
  • to identify training needs where outcomes-assessment work, as described, indicates its needed

The report will be divided as follows:  

  • summary introduction;
  • body with a sentence highlighting each depts.
  • PR work'  conclusion going more in-depth with a sample of strengths from various depts.

2--Discussed variation in depts. reporting of SLO work--- acknowledged it will take time for a "cultural shift" about SLO work to occur at CCSF; emphasized difference in depts. and the way reports could be written up; emhasized need for ongoing professional development in this area across the college

3--Looked briefly at main points of Institutional Assessment Plan--- discussed rotation schedule for GEO and ILO assessments and that instructors need to be aware of GE outcomes for their courses and how they map to ILOs; discussed need to review this document and prepare to discuss more in-depth at next meeting

4--Briefly discussed SLO Coordinator(s) Job Description for next year---members asked to review document more carefully on the website

5--Discussed the importance of being well-prepared for AACJC visit---dept chairs will facilitate this in their depts. Kathleen Mitchell explained how she is going to provide a workshop for counseling and other student services departments.

Homework:  Please review Institutional Assessment Plan and job description for SLO Coordinator before the next meeting on March 13. Send feedback to Katryn Wiese.



February 13, 2013

Wednesday February 13 from 12:30-2 pm in Arts 212.
Present: Anna-Lisa Helmy, ESL; Katryn Wiese, SLO Coordinator; Andrea Niosi, Library; Kathleen Mitchell, Counseling; Mine Ternar, Art; Lorelei Leung, EOPS

  • Edited and reviewed mission and scope of this committee and elected chairs (cochairs: Anna-Lisa Helmy, ESL; Katryn Wiese, SLO Coordinator)
  • Confirmed plans for General Education Area C Workgroup with Chantilly Apollon taking on chair duties (data) | workgroup details
    • Discussed methods for gathering data on GE requirements for transfer between CCSF and the UC/CSU systems (including working with Deanna Abma -- articulation officer).
  • Reviewed ongoing Professional Development schedule and needs -- discussed ideas for Independent FLEX (suggested sessions on sharing options and examples of survey tools and data gathering methods)
  • Reviewed new Faculty Evaluation SLO criteria: Effectively assesses Student Learning Outcomes as stated in approved departmental documents (e.g. course outlines) and demonstrates the use of data to improve instruction and/or program. Website: Office of Instruction
  • Didn't review current reports in development for March 15th and faculty involvement in gathering evidence. Will cover in next meeting.
  • Homework: Please try to become familiar with the SLO web pages for the next meeting.