1
Cohort Report on Title III Academic Objectives
“Focusing on Learning to Increase Learner Success”
Angela Breckenridge
10/9/2009
Abstract
This report is in partial fulfillment of the goals stated in Delgado’s Federal Title III Grant to improve student achievement,
persistence, and retention through the institutionalization of practices piloted and assessed by a cohort who were specifically involved
with the academic objectives of the Grant Activity. The report consists of a narrative explanation of the process, product, and impact
associated with implementing certain of the academic objectives of the Grant as well as qualitative data elements related to evaluating
those processes, products, and impact (U.S. Department of Education [USDE], 2004, pg. 58).
Critical discourse analysis was used to determine findings and to categorize the several streams of institutional focus out of
which there emerged recommendations for quality improvement and sustainable impact of the Grant activity. The report concludes with
a comparative analysis of external data related to the findings and recommendations, including a proposal and timeline for
institutionalizing the functions of the Title III Learning Outcomes Specialist.
This report is limited to the data collected and controlled by the Learning Outcomes Specialist. It does not fulfill nor replace
the Grant’s proposed Internal Evaluation Plan; which is to be designed by Institutional Research and prepared with internal data from
the Title III Coordinator, Activity Director, Task Force, Department Chairs and Academic Deans, then submitted to the Title III Steering
Committee for review and approval before presentation to the Chancellor and Executive Council (USDE, pg. 59-60).
2
Table of Contents
Purpose ................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 3
Title III Academic Activity ........................................................................................................................................................................... 3
Implementation strategies facilitated by the Learning Outcomes Specialist .................................................................. 3
Summary ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 3
From then to now ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 4
Implementation and Assessment Procedures .................................................................................................................................... 5
Process ................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 6
Title III Courses and Cohorts Spreadsheet ..................................................................................................................................... 6
Delgado SLO/LA Overview and Process .......................................................................................................................................... 6
The Delgado Outcomes/Assessment Methodology and Guidelines .................................................................................... 6
Proposal for a General Education Rationale .................................................................................................................................. 7
Cohort Final Pilot Report ........................................................................................................................................................................ 7
Findings from process data elements ............................................................................................................................................... 7
Product................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 8
“Designs for Learning” Course ............................................................................................................................................................. 8
Course Design Checklist .......................................................................................................................................................................... 8
The SLO/LA Database .............................................................................................................................................................................. 9
Master and Course Syllabus Template and Policy ...................................................................................................................... 9
The Student Learning Outcomes/GenEd Core Competency Matrix .................................................................................... 9
Workshop Presentations ......................................................................................................................................................................10
Findings from product data elements ............................................................................................................................................10
Impact.................................................................................................................................................................................................................12
Course Evaluations ..................................................................................................................................................................................12
Part 1 ........................................................................................................................................................................................................12
Part 2 ........................................................................................................................................................................................................13
Final Pilot Report Feedback ................................................................................................................................................................15
Other Areas Impacted by Services and Activities ......................................................................................................................17
Examining Research & Best Practice...............................................................................................................................................18
Findings from impact data elements ...............................................................................................................................................19
Summary of Results .....................................................................................................................................................................................20
Overall findings ..............................................................................................................................................................................................21
Quality Improvement & Sustainable Impact for Discussion ......................................................................................................23
Appendices .......................................................................................................................................................................................................28
3
Purpose
The purpose of this report is to provide information derived from results of the Title
III Academic Activity that (a) have bearing upon the strategic focus of the College or that
(b) advance existing efforts to strengthen system-wide capabilities in effective planning,
outcomes assessment, data analysis, and continual learning through scholarship and
practice.
Title III Academic Activity
Implementation strategies facilitated by the Learning Outcomes Specialist





Instigate comprehensive faculty development in creating learning outcomes,
active/collaborative learning strategies, instructional design techniques, and
classroom assessment strategies;
Sustain faculty development over a four-year plan and beyond through mentorships and faculty-led workshops on creating learning outcomes, active/collaborative
learning, instructional design techniques, and classroom assessment strategies;
Revise and/or develop measurable student learning outcomes for 68 general
education courses and freshman seminar over four-year period;
Pilot learning outcomes and class assessment methods in these general education
courses and freshman seminar in cycles over four-year period; and
Institutionalize outcomes and active learning strategies for all GenEd courses
over four-year period (USDE, pp. 14-36).
Summary
The Federal Title III Grant award provided funds to improve Delgado’s learningcentered mission through objectives designed to strengthen our learning-centered
capabilities in our services and in the classroom as well as to continually improve the
quality of learning for our students in each phase of their academic journey. To this end, the
grant specified student services objectives as well as academic objectives to be
implemented, evaluated, and institutionalized by faculty, staff, grant personnel, a Task
Force and a Steering Committee. Ultimately, Delgado faculty, a learning outcomes and
assessment specialist, and an activity director implemented the academic objectives and
collected data relevant to assessing those objectives and to institutionalizing practices that
resulted from the process.
However, the originally proposed management and leadership support team is
required in order to successfully institutionalize this work in a way the College sees
4
appropriate. The collaborative effort of the faculty cohort to achieve the academic
objectives was intended to increase understanding of student learning in our classrooms.
Indeed, these results and findings should enter into existing dialogues regarding
organizational development, curriculum and instructional design, learning outcomes
throughout the student life cycle, and the systematic use of evidence in planning and
assessment at the College.
In general, what we learned through the experience and what the data collected
suggest is how critical it is to have a shared understanding of outcomes, assessment,
and planning. This can be seen in the final results, which suggest the need for system-wide
coordination, active and engaged leadership, competent support resources, and a wellcommunicated, meaningful set of guiding principles to serve as the foundation for Collegewide decision-making. The data also suggest recommendations for quality improvement in
these areas in order for faculty and staff to successfully fulfill the College’s commitment to
sustaining these initial processes, methods, and practices supported by the Federal funding
of our Title III Grant.
From then to now (see Appendix A, Implementation Recap)
In August 2005, General Education (GenEd) Department Chairs selected 16 courses
and instructors who taught them as the first cohort in a series of 5 pilots that was intended
to begin in the fall of 2005. This did not occur, as just two weeks into that semester,
Hurricane Katrina struck.
After the storm, in that chaotic spring of 2006, Delgado faculty, staff, and students
faced enormous challenges: all-important; all urgent. Among those challenges was the
charge to implement the Title III objectives immediately. The alternative was to risk losing
the award and its potential to increase student learning and retention.
That summer of 2006, in the midst of finding students, rebuilding homes, and
recovering from the devastation, 15 instructors agreed to participate in the first cohort. At
that time, the prospect of institutionalizing outcome-oriented pilot syllabi through
collaborative dialogue and College-wide participation was far-reaching, at best. Most
faculty and staff were unaware of Title III; most pilot faculty and their colleagues were
unfamiliar with outcomes assessment language and so were unclear about the purpose of
enhancing course syllabi through the pilot program.
But the first group stumbled their way through the process, trying to understand the
language of outcome-oriented syllabus design and how to fulfill the directive we’d been
given to pilot student learning outcomes and assessments at the course level for GenEd
courses. Three-and-a-half years and 71 additional instructors later, the new language is
more familiar to a few more people, and the focus on student learning outcomes has
5
become an expected—and in some cases a natural—mode of operation across many areas
of the College.
However, as we’ve seen, this understanding and mode of operation is sporadically
distributed across the College and requires support from trusted and knowledgeable
resources. This is an appropriate time to conduct another baseline survey to determine
Delgado’s “assessment climate” for use in a longitudinal comparison of organizational
knowledge and application of principles for planning, assessment, and the use of data for
both.
Implementation and Assessment Procedures
(USDE, pg. 61)
Objective
as per
Grant
Implementation
Strategies
actual
OutcomeOriented
Course
Designs
Develop
Outcomes
Design
Assessment
Design Learning
Activities
Professional
Development
and Training
Knowledge
Sharing
Active
/Collaborative
Learning
Strategy
Design
Core
courses
with
outcomes
and active
learning
strategies
All
components
2000
Baseline
as per
Grant
Zero
Criteria
as per
Grant
Data
Elements
as per Grant
Data Collection
Procedures
actual
Analysis
Procedures
as per Grant
14 per
year
68 total
Number of
core courses
with
Outcomes
Project Spreadsheet
Overview & Process
Guidebook
GenEd Rationale
Final Report Form
Comparative
Analysis
≧30%
20% and
60 core
courses
Application
Usage
Functional
Audit
Comparative
Analysis
Institutionalization
≧70%
20%
Faculty
satisfaction
and
recommendations
Course Materials
Syllabus Checklist
SLO/LA Database
Master Syllabus
Policy
GenEd Competency
Matrix
Workshop
Presentations
Course Evaluations
Final Pilot Reports
Areas of Impact
Table
Best Practice
Analysis
Institutionalization
Zero
100%
Funding,
governance,
and structure
Program Audit
Comparative
Analysis
Test of
significance
Comparative
Analysis
6
Process
Data elements for evaluating the process component of the Activity are listed in the
grant as “documents of accomplishments, such as manuals and guides developed to
support the implementation process, schedules and rosters developed to support the
implementation process, discussions of process reflected through meeting minutes, and
financial records” (USDE, pg. 58).
Our implementation process yielded the following deliverables that are suitable for use
by the institution and as data elements for project evaluation.
Title III Courses and Cohorts Spreadsheet (see Appendix B)
86 faculty piloted 88 courses, representing 33 disciplines within the College, 23 of
which were GenEd disciplines. The Grant called for cycling a total of 68 GenEd courses
through the program and pilot process. The cohort exceeded that with a total of 71 GenEd
courses and extended the impact of the Grant with an additional 17 courses from specific
academic program areas.
Delgado SLO/LA Overview and Process (see Appendix C)
Two-semester implementation:


Semester 1 – training, development, planning for pilot with support and Title III
Resources
Semester 2 – implementation of pilot and dissemination of pilot results throughout
respective departments
The process was adapted and modified with each successive cohort. Initially, the
Grant specified pilot implementation to be carried out by Deans, the Task Force, and other
instructors. This was one of the challenges in implementing the grant objectives. The
cohort also experienced some administrative issues that required interventions outside the
scope of the Title III staff or the faculty cohort.
The Delgado Outcomes/Assessment Methodology and Guidelines
(see excerpt in Appendix D)
This comprises the Manual as required by the Grant and was designed for webbased navigation. It is intended to assist faculty in understanding, practicing, designing, and
evaluating student learning outcomes, assessments, and learning activities at the course
and classroom level.
7
The methodology is based upon current theory and practice in the fields of
active/collaborative learning (Henscheid, 2006; Millis, 2008; Michaelson, 2002), classroom
assessment techniques (Angelo & Cross, 1993; Huba & Freed, 2000), learning-centered
practices (Weimer, 2002; Leamson, 1998), integrated course design principles (D. Fink,
2003), and outcomes/assessment process models (Stiehl & Lewchuk, 2002; 2005).
Proposal for a General Education Rationale (see excerpt in Appendix E)
It became evident early on that in order to connect the student learning outcomes to
a broader system of educational goals, we needed a framework and methodology. This
resulted in the use of Delgado’s GenEd Core Competencies as a means of mapping
student learning outcomes to the overarching achievement of those goals.
In doing so, it also became evident that many of the general outcomes, which faculty
identified as important for students to achieve, were not explicitly covered by either
Delgado’s GenEd Characteristics or Core Competencies. This led to many conversations
about the GenEd outcomes and the possibility of having a College-wide dialogue on revising
them to better align with current needs and practice.
The GenEd Rationale is a discussion document, should the College wish to pursue
further dialogue.
Cohort Final Pilot Report (see Appendix F)
In order to provide pilot faculty with a tool to help them facilitate dialogue with
their colleagues and their department chairs, a final report template was designed. It
was used by cohorts 2-5 and adapted based on feedback.
It defines the course, its SLOs, their alignment with certain levels of GenEd core
competencies, a critical analysis of assessments done during the pilot, final conclusions
from the pilot, and recommendations for the course.
Findings from process data elements


Grant objective to design SLOs for 68 GenEd courses exceeded by
o 4% in additional GenEd courses and
o 28% in additional academic program courses
Process for revising Master Syllabus and designing SLOs/Assessments documented,
web-based, and ready for institutionalization1
o Requires presentation to appropriate committees and administrative bodies
for discussion, approval, and communication
1 “An Outcomes Assessment Specialist and 4 academic advisors will be supported through Title III funds with Delgado assuming increasing costs
beginning in year 3, to institutionalize the positions, reforms and new systems over the course of the grant period.” (USDE, pg. 28)
8
Product
Data elements for evaluating the product component of the Activity are listed in the
grant as “materials, publications, systems and installations, approvals and related artifacts”
(USDE, pg. 58).
Our implementation process has yielded the following artifacts that are suitable for use
by the institution and as data elements for project evaluation.
“Designs for Learning” Course (see Appendix G)
The grant objectives specifically called for the design of a professional development
program for faculty that increased capabilities in instructional design, use of
active/collaborative learning methods, the application of learning theory in the classroom,
and assessing student learning. The professional development component went through a
dramatic evolution during the grant implementation, based on regular assessment and
feedback from the cohort. It now consists of both online and face-to-face delivery as well as
individual consultations with a designated resource. It follows a train-the-trainer model,
which is in support of recent initiatives to distribute outcomes/assessment knowledge and
skill throughout the organization via key point people in different functional and academic
areas.
These training components have also been absorbed into Delgado’s fledgling
faculty development curriculum and have influenced the curriculum design in their
emphasis on instructional design principles. The Delgado faculty development
curriculum is structured by knowledge areas, one of which is theory based instructional
design.
Course Design Checklist (see Appendix H)
In order to assess the effectiveness of the faculty development component and to
determine the quality of course designs and syllabi, we have developed a course design
checklist. Varied levels of understanding integrated course design using outcomes and
assessment can be seen in the syllabi that faculty have revised through this program.
This finding is in keeping with the notion that the process of strengthening
capabilities in outcomes and assessment takes time and allocated resources. In other
words, an instructor may or may not reach a level of understanding capable of designing a
quality outcome-oriented syllabus after a short workshop or series of workshops. This
point also becomes clear in the qualitative data analysis further in this report.
9
However, those instructors who had individual consultation in designing their
courses were able to produce outcome-oriented syllabi at an expected level of quality.
The SLO/LA Database (see sample interface pages in Appendix I)
This is an interactive, web-based program for searching course SLOs, courses,
and the levels of GenEd core competency they develop. The initial scope of this database
included an attempt to follow the GenEd Assessment methodology by being able to search
for courses, SLOs, and their corresponding levels of expected GenEd core competence in
order to assist in identifying courses for assessment and from which to secure assessment
artifacts. It is located on the faculty server.
Master and Course Syllabus Template and Policy (see Appendix J)
The Title III cohort spent six semesters revising and piloting what has become the
newly approved standard for Delgado Community College’s master syllabus template,
along with a revised policy and guidelines. This template corresponds with a system that
was designed to align learning outcomes with our GenEd goals.
It moves us from a very content-oriented style of our previous master syllabus to
one that is closer to a fully integrated, outcome-oriented syllabus. Some recommendations
made by faculty were too dramatically different from our traditional approach to be
successfully integrated at this point. However, the approved template, guidelines, and
policy embrace the outcome-oriented methodology and are a successful
institutionalization of the cohort’s work.
The Student Learning Outcomes/GenEd Core Competency Matrix
(see excerpt in Appendix K)
Early on in the implementation process, it became clear that for instructors to
design meaningful student learning outcomes (SLOs) for GenEd courses, those SLOs must
have substance and contribute to larger College and student goals. At the time we began
the project, the disciplines that comprised GenEd did not all have clear academic goals to
which courses within the discipline could connect in achieving an overarching learning
outcome. What we did have were GenEd Characteristics and, from the Office of Institutional
Effectiveness and the GenEd Assessment Committee, nine GenEd Core Competencies. The
core competencies aligned with the LCTCS GenEd goals and could be defined in terms of
proficiency levels.
Using Bloom’s Taxonomy of learning to structure three progressive levels of
proficiency for each of the GenEd Core Competencies, we were able to map pilot courses
and SLOs to the level(s) of core competence for which a particular course SLO was
10
designed to achieve. This provided a framework from which to design the SLOs piloted, as
well as to categorize levels of competence across GenEd courses for purposes of
assessment.
Workshop Presentations (see excerpts in Appendix L)
As the implementation progressed, more instructors and program coordinators
outside the GenEd scope sought support and guidance for designing SLOs, assessments,
and syllabi for programs, those under review and those simply wishing to improve the
quality of their program design. “Designs for Learning” provided instruction in course
design methodology that could be used across disciplines and throughout the College.
In response to the demand by many instructors for greater understanding of
these concepts, the “Designs for Learning” course was condensed into a two-hour
workshop focused on “Integrated Course Design.” In addition, three other workshops were
designed and delivered on the three main campuses and also at both Northshore sites.
These included “Understanding SLOs,” “Active Learning in the Classroom,” and
“Understanding Classroom Assessment.”
Findings from product data elements

Training program based on a train-the-trainer model developed for understanding
learning theory, SLOs, assessments and currently ready for institutionalization.2
o Supports successful implementation of Master Syllabus Revision initiative
o Supports coordinated development of faculty and staff competencies in
outcomes/assessment
o Findings indicate a need for continued support and development throughout
the collaborative and train-the-trainer process by a capable resource(s):
 Supports proposal for key “point people” with skills in learning
theory, SLOs, assessments to serve throughout the College

Syllabus checklist used in peer review to establish common set of understood
standards.
o Results of applying rubric to pilot syllabi suggest more instruction, support,
and most of all collaborative input by peers to achieve quality.
o Indicates value of collaboration, especially structured collaboration aligned
with academic processes and systems.

Interactive, web-based search engine designed for referencing and understanding
how GenEd skills are built through learning in different courses and with particular
SLOs.
2 “Changes in instructional strategies to engage students in the learning process will be institutionalized by project end. A web-based resource
center and train-the-trainer model will support continued development and expansion of these initiatives across the College into the future.”
(USDE, pg. 28)
11
o Suggested need for College-wide model to communicate with students,
faculty, staff, and accrediting bodies the rationale for student learning
outcomes at the course level.

Revised Master Syllabus Template, guidelines, and policy designed and piloted by
the Title III cohort and approved for institutionalization.
o Suggested need for updating the rationale behind the Master Syllabus
components.

Findings also suggested need for open dialogue on GenEd mission, definition, and
assessment in order to provide purpose and structure to designing course SLOs for
GenEd courses – GenEd Rationale drafted for discussion.

Findings suggested the need to “chunk” content from the faculty course and have
available for delivery on all campuses and to all departments as needed.
o Requires continued resource(s) skilled in outcomes, assessment, and
instructional design principles.
12
Impact
Data elements for evaluating the impact component of the Activity are listed in the
grant as “analyses of student performance, persistence and retention, as well as faculty and
staff satisfaction” (USDE, pg. 58)3.
The overall impact of this implementation process can be seen in the
satisfaction of faculty, their lessons learned, the actions they choose to take in their
own teaching, recommendations based upon their experiences, and conclusions drawn
from their pilot, all of which were also influenced by an understanding of the College’s
history and culture. The following artifacts are suitable for use by the institution and as
data elements for project evaluation.
Course Evaluations
When the grant activity began, it was understood from its record that a Task Force
and Steering Committee would collectively design an evaluation and assessment strategy,
including required baseline surveys as requested by then Chancellor Alex Johnson. A
baseline survey instrument was chosen but not implemented. Neither the Task Force nor
the Steering Committee has convened since 2006. It therefore became incumbent upon the
Learning Outcomes Specialist and the faculty cohort to provide data and feedback in order
to evaluate this portion of the activity.
Evaluations were distributed at the end of each training segment (see Appendix M).
For the first cohort, this took the form of a series of half-day workshops delivered by
external consultants. We distributed evaluations for these workshops to each participant
after each session. However, the assessment tool was not designed with the academic
objectives in mind. It was therefore an ineffective tool for use in this report. By the second
cohort, a better assessment tool was designed by the Learning Outcome Specialist and used
with each successive cohort to assess the effectiveness of the training program. The
resulting tool combined Likert scale evaluation with open-ended qualitative responses
from participants.
Part 1 – Likert Scale Survey Items (see Appendix N)
The tool used for faculty to evaluate the workshops and “Designs for Learning”
development component provided some relevant data on its success in achieving the Grant
objectives; however, we did see flaws in the tool that impacted data reliability. Some of this
3 Data elements related to student performance, persistence and retention are not included in this cohort report. They will be included in a
more comprehensive report on the Title III Activity, to be compiled by the Title III Director, Activity Directors, Institutional Research and an
External Evaluator.
13
had to do with the manner in which the questions were asked, which were apparently
interpreted differently by different instructors. But the ambiguity of the Likert scale also
limited the ability of this tool to collect thoroughly sound data. That said, we can still see
from the overall findings that, in general, faculty learned about and applied learning
theory and active and collaborative learning strategies in the classroom as a result of
the training.
The following findings indicate percentages of individuals who agreed that the program
helped them to do or to learn the following items:







93%
92%
91%
84%
96%
92%
93%
- understand student learning outcomes
- feel confident in creating an outcome-oriented course
- understand how active/collaborative methods increase learning
- use active and collaborative learning techniques in their course
- learn something valuable from their colleagues
- see the value that good course design can have on student learning
- apply learning theory to instructional design
The slightly higher findings that indicate instructors learned something valuable from
their colleagues as a result of the program are consistent with other findings throughout
the study. They confirm the conclusion that opportunities for faculty to collaborate are
key components of a continual improvement system for faculty development.
The slightly lower results in the area of using active/collaborative methods as a result
of the program suggest at least two possible conclusions, based on their consistency with
other findings. First, many faculty claimed that they used these types of methods in the
classroom prior to Title III. This may be some of the reason that the program was less likely
to influence their use of these methods. Second, other faculty expressed the challenges in
implementing these kinds of methods and requested further training beyond what Title
III offered.
Part 2 – Plus/∆ Feedback (see Appendix O)
This portion of the faculty evaluation asked a broad, open-ended question about
what participants would keep and what they would change about the faculty
development component of Title III. Respondents were to write what they would keep in
the program in the left hand column of the form (Plus) and list what they would change in
the right hand column of the form (∆).
Data from this portion of the faculty evaluations focused on satisfaction, future
training in the area of outcome-oriented course design and assessment, and the extent to
which the academic goals were achieved with the faculty development component funded
by the grant. In general, the findings from this portion of the evaluation were consistent
14
with other qualitative findings in this study and illustrated a clear message from
participating faculty regarding three issues: the value they perceived in sustaining the
particular curriculum offered through the program, the resources assigned to its
design and delivery, and the structured collaboration they had with colleagues as
members of the cohort.
Of the 106 individuals who completed faculty evaluations of the program, 99
commented either on what they felt should be kept from the program and why, and/or
offered suggestions for future changes to the program, creating 297 total data points to
analyze. None of the comments suggested the program should not be sustained, nor did
any comment suggest that the program was inappropriate for faculty development or a
waste of time. In fact, with the exception of comments coded as “Obstacles to application”
and a few that were irrelevant because the suggestions were already part of the program or
impractical to administer, the ∆ comments provided helpful suggestions that could
improve an otherwise worthwhile and sustainable program. (see Appendix P for
summary of Plus/∆ findings)
“Plus” Feedback – (207 data points)
These data represent 70% of the total feedback provided by faculty participants.
They reveal what faculty felt was valuable in the training program and what they
wanted more of, what they believed should be sustained, and insight into why it should be
sustained.
What emerged from this feedback fell into three major categories:
1. Feedback on sustaining the curriculum and delivery of the program, including a
resource capable of designing and implementing the type of curriculum in the
program (112 data points, 38% of total feedback)
2. Feedback on the program’s application to teaching practice (55 data points, 19%
of total feedback)
3. Feedback on the importance of sustaining the program’s structured opportunities
for faculty collaboration (40 data points, 13% of total feedback)
It could be said that categories 2 & 3 are embedded in category 1, but the sub-categories
that emerged were varied enough to warrant these three as distinct, with related subcategories. The sub-categories, in turn, help understand what faculty felt was valuable
within each of the major categories and provide insight as to why those things are worth
sustaining.
15
“∆” Feedback – (90 data points)
These data represent 30% of the total feedback provided by faculty participants.
They reveal what faculty felt could be changed in the training program to improve it
for future value. Some specific comments were based more on personal preference than on
the value added to teaching and learning practices (i.e. online v. face-to-face delivery; the
way the textbook was written). However, some of the participants’ detailed suggestions
provided a valuable perspective with regard to scheduling future development sessions,
structuring more collaborative opportunities, and providing more opportunities for
practice with new concepts on their own course.
What emerged from this feedback fell into three major categories:
1. Suggestions for the program’s curriculum/delivery, most of which built upon or
suggested more depth of existing components of the program (51 data points, 17%
of total feedback)
2. Suggestions on how the program could incorporate even more application to
teaching practice, including suggestions on how to incorporate the program into
existing institutional systems (28 data points, 9% of total feedback)
3. Suggestions on how to structure more opportunities for faculty collaboration (11
data points, 4% of total feedback)
These data points do not critically disclaim the program nor indicate disapproval of its
design. Because of this it may be that instructors who put their comments in the “∆”
column did so because they saw a specific suggestion as a “change” related to furthering the
design and improving the program. Therefore, even the data points in the “∆” column can
be said to support the sustainability and institutionalization of the program and its
recognized value.
The summary of findings in Appendix P breaks down these major categories into more
specific areas on which faculty found important enough to provide feedback for sustaining
and improving the program.
Final Pilot Report Feedback (see Appendix Q)
Sections 2 and 3 of the final pilot reports comprise a significant portion of the
qualitative data elements in this study. Discourse analysis was used to compile and
summarize findings from the final reports. Coding structure emerged from a deductive
process and yielded the following major themes that the cohort faculty found important
enough to include in their final pilot reports.
16
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Major Theme
Observations of student responses to changes in teaching/learning
Instructor recommendations based on learning instructional design
Changes in teaching and learning in the classroom
Learning about instructional design or teaching/learning
Attitudes and thoughts about the program
Obstacles to implementing effective teaching methods
Recommendations for specific activities and assessments
Occurrences
369
331
210
198
124
73
9
From these data we can see that the primary theme of import to the pilot faculty had to
do with their conscious reflections and understanding about student learning, through the
experimental process of observing through the pilot. The experience of the pilot, therefore, can be
said to have generated reflections important enough for instructors to record them in a final
report to share with others.
Within each major theme, instructors further reflected on what they had learned through
the pilot process. The following secondary themes were the most frequently noted within each
major theme.
Secondary Theme of Greatest Import Within Each Major Theme
1.1. Things that promote student learning
2.1. More collaboration
3.1. Assessment
4.1. Terms/Language
5.1. Improvement in instruction
6.1. Lack of time
7.1. Student-designed assignments
Occurrences
146
105
57
72
31
53
2
In this secondary level of data, faculty reveal what they learned through the training
and pilot process, as well as their reflections on the process and the products of what they
learned. The data reveal strong evidence of learning about things that promote student
learning, about assessment in general, of basic terms and new language. They communicated
the benefits of—and indeed recommended more opportunities to—engage in collaboration with
each other in order to learn from each other’s experiences and share practice. Also significant was
the importance of time and resources in order to learn these new skills and to apply them.
Ultimately, however, they saw positive results in the process which, according to their final
reports, could be seen in an improvement in instruction, and many specific methods and
techniques, most notably, student-designed assignments.
17
These findings suggest achievement of several overarching goals in the Title III
Academic Activity that are designed to be institutionalized as the College sees appropriate:
1. The incorporation of learning-centered/outcome-oriented learning theory in the classroom
2. The use of train-the-trainer or collaborative methods of faculty development
3. The increased use and understanding of assessment methods in the classroom
Other Areas Impacted by Services and Activities (see Appendix R)
During the course of the academic activity, other areas of the College called upon the
services of and instigated activities related to those provided by the Learning Outcomes Specialist.
This activity has been recorded in a matrix that matches the functional areas and/or special
programs of the College with the various services, expertise, and skills afforded the College
through the Title III funding for a trained Learning Outcomes Specialist.
Areas requesting services and support provided through Title III funding:












Faculty/Staff Development
Distance Learning/Instructional
Design
Learning Community Program
Service Learning Program
VC Student Affairs and Areas
Within
The Chancellor’s Office
Information Technology
Allied Health & Nursing
The Quality Enhancement Plan
Implementation
LCT Linkage
Grant for Social Entrepreneurship
Massage Therapy Program










ADOT Program
English As a Second Language
Program
Grant through Early Childhood
Education Program
Math Department
Individual instructors from
academic programs
Convocation Planning
Professional Development
Academy
Online Professional Development
Program
Program Review
The Leadership Connection
Specific services, functions, and skills:






Outcomes/Assessment Consulting
Documentation/Guidelines Design
Best Practice Research/Consulting
Training Design and Delivery
Curriculum Design for Workforce
Training
Instructional Design Methodology
Consulting





Competency Model Design
Program Development and Review
Facilitation services
Business Process Mapping
Data-based Planning, Training, and
Support
18
This activity indicates not only an institutional need for resources such as those funded
by the Title III grant, but an interest in and willingness to learn more about
outcomes/assessment and planning and using data for decisions, instructional design,
training, and best practices research and consulting. In addition, the Title III grant presupposed the need to institutionalize processes, practices, and methods instigated by the
grant activity. In fact, it is the College’s agreement in accepting this Federal funding that
certain functions will be appropriately absorbed into the natural operations of the
College and sustained in a way that makes sense, given the organizational needs, culture,
and environment.
Findings generated from faculty feedback, the challenges to stating and assessing
SLOs that were incurred during the grant Activity, the history of planning and assessment
at Delgado, and the level of activity recorded above by other areas of the College led to the
following conclusion: the need to institutionalize the support and special resources such as
those provided through the Title III funding for a Learning Outcomes Specialist is not only
reasonable but critical for ongoing organizational effectiveness. As the College is also
bound to the contractual conditions of the Federal Title III funding, it would be sensible to
institutionalize the functions assumed by the Learning Outcomes/Assessment Specialist.
How, when, and by whom remain to be discussed.
Examining Research & Best Practice
The Role of Student Learning Outcomes and Assessment Coordinators
The California Community College system faced similar challenges to those Delgado has
faced in terms of accreditation standards that have required outcomes-based assessment for all
areas of the institution. Requirements such as these, followed by the swift implementation and
obligatory use of comprehensive information systems to support these directives, have left an
enormous gap in capacity building for the complying institutions to stumble into, flounder about
in, and eventually fill as best they can with the resources at hand. Consequently, the quality and
purpose of the assessment process is understandably compromised by a conspicuous lack of
adequate preparation, training, guidance, and support by a core of capable resources in the areas
of outcomes and assessment.
The CCC system conducted a study examining the “Role of Student Learning Outcomes and
Assessment Coordinators in California Community Colleges” (The Accreditation and Student
Learning Outcome Committee [ASLOC], 2007). The expectations and function of these LOA
Coordinators is comparable to the LO Specialist funded through the Title III Grant and found to be
a necessary component for understanding and achieving the requirements mandated by
accrediting agencies for meaningful learning outcomes design and uses of assessment. The
“Accreditation and Student Learning Outcome Committee” conducted the study with 80
19
participating schools in the system in the effort to address the challenges institutions have with
institutionalizing LOA Coordinators and to make recommendations for addressing those
challenges.
The study culminated with an overarching conclusion similar to that which has been found
in this report: that “without adequate resources, organization and training, outcomes
assessment will not achieve its goal of improving teaching and learning” (ASLOC, pg. 23). They
emphasize the necessity for institutions to communicate, organize, and develop processes and
systems to adequately support the function of SLO Coordinators, which looks differently in
different institutions. Of the participating institutions, many had assigned several SLO
Coordinators rather than one administrative staff to assume the support for the entire
organization. This seems to have its benefits, particularly when the roles have been carefully
designed, job descriptions and accountabilities clarified, reporting structures determined, and
compensation/release times/appointment durations clearly and appropriately determined. Here
is a list of recommendations resulting from this study. They can be referenced in detail in
Appendix S.
Table 9: Summary of Recommendations for SLO Coordinator Positions (ASLOC, pg. 22)
1. In order for the SLO Coordinator position to be effective, its placement within the college
organizational structure must be adequately defined and carefully considered.
2. The college must determine how it will assign responsibility for the different major areas of
assessment: student services, library, and instruction (courses, programs, General Education and
degrees).
3. A clear job description for the SLO Coordinator position is essential.
4. A clear selection process for the SLO Coordinator with a specified length of service will assist in
making the position viable.
5. Clear lines of reporting and accountability make the position more successful.
6. The SLO Coordinator should be fairly compensated in some way for this work.
7. The process will not be successful without other significant dedicated resources.
8. SLO Coordinators need ongoing training in various aspects of their assignment.
9. SLO Coordinators and the assessment processes should be regularly evaluated.
Findings from impact data elements



Course evaluations revealed again the value in structured collaborative
opportunities for faculty, key to continual improvements in instruction
Course evaluations also revealed the need and desire for ongoing training
opportunities in learning theory, action research, and applied methods of
instruction and assessment
Faculty feedback confirmed again the need to keep a resource for SLO design and
assessment, to keep the quality of curriculum and delivery methods implemented
through the Title III training program, and to plan more opportunities for faculty
collaboration
20
Summary of Results
The Title III Academic Activity achieved the following objectives through
process:


Revise and/or develop measurable student learning outcomes for 68 GenEd
courses and freshman seminar over four-year period (achieved 71 + additional
program courses)
Pilot learning outcomes and class assessment methods in these GenEd courses
and freshman seminar in cycles over four-year period; (piloted methodology and
processes with five faculty cohorts)
product:


and
Instigate comprehensive faculty development in creating learning outcomes,
active/collaborative learning strategies, instructional design techniques, and
classroom assessment strategies; (designed course, methodology, ancillary
workshops, and consultations on demand)
Institutionalize outcomes and active learning strategies for all GenEd courses and
academic programs (achieved approval for revised Master Syllabus template,
guidelines and policy as a result of faculty pilot)
impact:

Sustain faculty development over a four-year plan and beyond through mentorships and faculty-led workshops on creating learning outcomes, active/collaborative
learning, instructional design techniques, and classroom assessment strategies;
(plans to use faculty development program as ongoing part of Delgado’s faculty
curriculum)
21
Overall findings
Implications for institutional effectiveness

Data reveal and best practice confirms that establishing organization-wide expertise
and skill in Outcomes/Assessment is difficult; sustaining its effective application is
even more difficult.

Designing SLOs and assessments for courses, service and functional areas should
not occur in isolation from the greater outcomes/goals/expectations of a program,
discipline, GenEd core, community, accreditation bodies, student and the workforce.

Understanding and designing SLOs and assessments for courses, programs, services,
and functional areas requires a clear institutional direction and coordination of
purpose

Institutionalizing outcomes/assessment requires a set of principles for decisionmaking; systems that support, reward, and sustain continual improvement efforts;
and a network of resources and ongoing development opportunities that facilitate
effective practice.
Implications for effective teaching and learning

Faculty learned and were able to apply concepts related to instructional design,
outcomes, and assessment as a result of the Title III Academic Activity.

Faculty expressed understanding of the value of knowledge, skill, and attitudes
related to effective instructional design, learning outcomes, and assessment.

Data reveal that structured opportunities for faculty collaboration facilitate learning
and increase application of best practices in teaching and learning.

Faculty collaboration increases understanding of outcomes/assessment methods
and practice in the classroom.

Faculty expressed understanding of the value of collaboration and knowledge
sharing in improving instruction.
22
Implications for effective faculty development

One-shot training in outcomes/assessment does not guarantee understanding nor
effective application of concepts taught.

Faculty expressed and other data reveal that the curriculum offered through the
Title III Academic Activity is worthwhile and important to sustain.

Faculty expressed and other data reveal that resources capable of designing,
delivering, assessing, and serving as a trusted resource in the area of
outcomes/assessment is critical to institutionalizing the levels of competence
required for effectiveness in teaching and student learning.

Faculty expressed and other data reveal that the more applicable faculty
development curriculum is to what they are doing in the classrooms, the more
satisfied faculty are with development opportunities and the more effective they are
in applying best practices in the classroom.

Faculty expressed and other data reveal that they would rather learn from each
other or from an “in-house” expert than from an external consultant or
administrative staff who does not experience teaching in the classroom.
23
Quality Improvement & Sustainable Impact for Discussion
Considerations Based on Findings
Big picture – systems overhaul, building connections
 An internally developed organizational model, based upon Delgado’s traditional strengths
and mission that would provide the rationale for overall College strategy and connect all
functional, academic, and student service areas to a common purpose:
o Plan and work out a schedule to continue work on defining stages, outcomes, and
principles of the Student Life Cycle (Arnel’s work, Valencia, Title III SA Activity) and
o Ensure all departments and functional areas contribute to and understand the model.

Use of organizational model to implement planning and assessment methodology and to
align all College initiatives to a common set of outcomes with a common set of guiding
principles for decision-making
o Coordinate a unified assessment plan, structure and schedule, beginning immediately
 Process outlined by Brett Heintz and Elizabeth Land, based on an assessment
of prior processes and perceived needs for various areas
 Initiative from Debbie Lea involving assessment, key assessment points of
contact
 Best practices/California model of implementation with Learning Outcome
Coordinators

Comprehensive review and revision of all committees and councils to align with the
organizational model and to determine effectiveness measures based on accountabilities
o Design a process based upon principles defined in the student life cycle
o Use principles defined in the student life cycle to determine committee actions,
planning, and assessment

Comprehensive review and revision of current performance appraisal system so that it
clearly reflects the organizational emphasis on evidence-based planning and assessment,
learning-centered methodologies, and scholarly-practice through performance expectations,
methods of appraisal, and the forms
o Analyze student life cycle in terms of planning/assessment/outcomes written by each
area
o Determine organizational needs in order to succeed, define competencies, measures,
and expectations
o Research best practices

Comprehensive review and revision of General Education mission, purpose, components,
and assessments to give cohesion to SLO design
o Best practice – Valencia’s process
o Working papers – rationale
24
On the ground – communication/coordination
 Multiple forms of College-wide communication from leaders acknowledging and
explaining the direction of the College
o Announcement of Learning Outcomes Specialist transition plan (faculty’s
work)
o Announcement of program review changes (Brett/Liz/Debbie/Yvette’s
work)
o Announcement of planning and assessment changes, process
(Brett/Liz/Debbie/Yvette’s work)
o Announcement of data workshops (Chancellor’s charge,
Tim/Cathy/Angela/Arnel’s work w/ Brett/Liz/Debbie/Yvette’s work)
o Organizational structure – With outcomes/assessment coordinators
(Debbie’s work)
o Distribute endorsed “Outcomes Assessment Culture” statement for the
College (Liz’s work)
o Distribute principles of teaching, instructional design, and a College-wide
definition of learning-centeredness (Cindy/Angela/Missy/Patrick’s work)
o Define and document institutionalization process resulting from Title III
Activity (Faculty’s work)
o Distribute Title III results College-wide (Faculty/Staff’s work)

Assessment of Convocation, use of data to revise purpose, structure, timing and
duration
o Research best practices
o Review recommendations based on cohort data
o Design a mission, purpose, and outcomes for Convocation that can be
assessed

Support for College-wide development of Planning and Assessment expertise in
the form of training and compensated resources (Debbie’s work)
o Review of best practices
o Review recommendations based on cohort data
o Design job description, reporting structure, accountabilities/evaluation, and
expectations for Learning Outcomes Coordinators
o Implement baseline survey and begin longitudinal study of burden: benefit
o Document baseline data for establishing a “culture of evidence”

Systems and processes in place to recognize, reward, share, and collaborate on
planning and assessment projects
o Review recommendation based on cohort data
o Document baseline data for longitudinal study on use of data for decisions,
planning and assessment
o Establish a system for collaboration and knowledge management
25
Institutionalizing the Title III Learning Outcomes Specialist Function
The institutionalization of the Title III Activity is broad, requires thoughtful
consideration and examination of need and results of the program. However, it is clear that
the College would benefit from many of the functions set in place with this Federal funding.
Indeed, several proposals for improvements are directly related to the functions and
services provided by Title III. Therefore, it would behoove the College to use the evidence
available to support those proposals as institutionalized processes for those Title III
functions we are required to institutionalize in some fashion. This could illustrate the
extent to which the College capitalized upon the grant objectives for ongoing
improvement efforts and would position the College as a viable candidate for future
funding. In considering the institutionalization of the Title III Learning Outcomes Specialist
Function, it should coordinate with existing structures and fulfill an existing need for those
skills and services. The following options are suggested based upon the findings of this
study as well as recent proposals for fulfilling needs in the area of outcomes/assessment
support and organizational coordination/planning.
Options for discussion:

One-year transition of Learning Outcomes Specialist function from single source to
multiple sources throughout the College

Based upon Title III Activity results, best practices, and support for existing plans
1. Maintain current job description* until end of year 1
a. Continue to support faculty/staff in present projects






DLIT – Faculty Development
Data Driven Decision Initiative
QEP – Assessment Process
MATH – Faculty Development
Assessment
ADOT – Program Analysis
Early Childhood Grant – Internal
Evaluation






Student Services – Student Life Map
Service Learning – Assessment Plan
Learning Communities – Program
Development/Assessment
Multiple Course-level Faculty
Initiatives
Leadership Connection
Professional Development Academy
b. Transition out - work w/ College on plan to distribute function



Reporting structure
Compensation/Duration
Job description/Expectations (see
Appendix T)


Training/Development
Accountabilities/Performance
Appraisal
26
2. Assume new job description (see Appendix U) by the end of year 1
a. Continue to serve the College as SME and training source
b. Transition in – work w/ College on organizational development
*As described in the U.S. Department of Education’s Title III Grant for Delgado
27
References
Accreditation and Student Learning Outcome Committee. 2007. Agents of Change:
Examining the role of student learning outcomes and assessment coordinators in
California Community Colleges. The Academic Senate for California Community
Colleges. Fall.
Angelo, T. A. and Cross, K. P. 1993. Classroom Assessment Techniques, A Handbook for
College Teachers, 2nd Ed. Jossey-Bass: San Francisco.
Fink, L. D. 2003. Creating Significant Learning Experiences: An Integrated Approach to
Designing College Courses. Jossey-Bass: San Francisco.
Henscheid, J. M. 2006. Using active learning strategies in the classroom: Practices in the
United States. Workshop presented at Japanese Annual Conference on General
Education, Kanazawa, Japan.
Huba, M. E. and Freed, J. E. 2000. Learner-Centered Assessment on College Campuses: Shifting
the Focus from Teaching to Learning. Allyn & Bacon: Boston, MA.
Leamnson, R. 1998. Thinking About Teaching and Learning: Developing Habits of Learning
with First Year College and University Students. Stylus Publishing: Sterling, VA
Michaelsen, L. K., Knight, A. B., Fink, L. D., 2002. Team-based learning: a transformative use
of small groups. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
Millis, B. J., Cohen, M. W., O’Brien, J. G., and Diamond, R. M. 2008. The Course Syllabus: A
Learning-Centered Approach. Jossey-Bass San Francisco.
Millis, B. J. and Cottell, P. G. 1998. Cooperative learning for higher education faculty. Oryx
Press :Santa Barbara, CA.
Stiehl, R., & Lewchuk, L. 2002. The OUTCOMES Primer: Reconstructing the College
Curriculum (2nd ed.). Corvallis, OR: The Learning Organization.
Stiehl, R., & Lewchuk, L. 2005. The MAPPING Primer: Tools for Reconstructing the College
Curriculum. Corvallis, OR: The Learning Organization.
U.S. Department of Education. 2004. Application for Grants Under the Strengthening
Institutions Programs CFDA #84.031A. Focusing on Learning to Increase Learner
Success. Delgado Community College.
Weimer, M. E. 2002. Learner-Centered Teaching: Five Key Changes to Practice. Jossey-Bass:
San Francisco.
28
Appendices
Appendix A: Implementation Recap ......................................................................................................... 29
Appendix B: Faculty Cohorts and Courses .............................................................................................. 34
Appendix C: SLO/LA Overview and Pilot ................................................................................................. 37
Appendix D: Outcomes/Assessment Methodology and Guidelines .............................................. 41
Appendix E: A General Education Rationale (excerpt)....................................................................... 47
Appendix F: Final Pilot Report Template Example .............................................................................. 58
Appendix G: Faculty Development Course Syllabus ............................................................................ 60
Appendix H: Syllabus Checklist for Major Instructional Components ......................................... 63
Appendix I: The SLO/LA Database Interface Pages from Slide Presentation ............................ 65
Appendix J: Revised, Approved Master Syllabus Policy/Template ............................................... 66
Appendix K: DCC GenEd Core Competency/SLO Matrix – Excerpt ............................................... 74
Appendix L: Sample Slides from Instructional Design Workshops ............................................... 77
Appendix M: Cohort Course Evaluation Form – Sample.................................................................... 82
Appendix N: Data Results from Likert Scale Survey Items ............................................................... 83
Appendix O: Raw Data Plus/Delta Feedback, Course Evaluation .................................................. 87
Appendix P: Summary Results – Plus/Delta........................................................................................... 95
Appendix Q: Data Results From Section III, Title III Final Pilot Report ..................................... 101
Appendix R: Functional Areas Impacted by Title III with Related Services and Activities 107
Appendix S: Distributing Student Learning Outcomes Coordinators ......................................... 109
Appendix T: Learning Outcomes Coordinator Position ................................................................... 112
Appendix U: Director of Learning Outcomes Assessment .............................................................. 114
29
Appendix A
Implementation Recap
Summer/Fall2006
*4 consultants
hired for summer
workshop series,
focused on
instructional
design, active and
collaborative
learning, using
learning theory in
the classroom, and
learning
assessment
*Met one on one
with each cohort to
review
expectations,
revised syllabi, and
pilot plans.
*Interviews
become data
elements
Spring/Fall2007
*Title III pilot faculty
present results of their
work to colleagues at
spring Convocation and
25 faculty are recruited
for the 2nd cohort,
extending beyond GenEd
to include faculty and
courses from several
academic programs.
*Faculty participate in a
modified, online version
of the previous summer’s
series on instructional
design,
active/collaborative
learning, learning theory,
and learning
assessment. *Online
discussion forum
becomes data element
*Met one on one with
each cohort instructor
Fall2007-Spring2008
*As 2nd cohort pilots in
the fall, the 3rd cohort
begins the course
component of the
program with newly
upgraded materials,
self-assessments,
guidelines, and small
group presentations of
topics from the text
book
*3rd cohort pilots 17
courses in the spring
*Meet one on one with
each cohort instructor
*Note the need for
deeper understanding
of terms and
application in writing
SLOs – some of the
previous cohort did not
get it
*Other instructors
report transformations
in their teaching and
student learning
Spring2008-Fall2008
*As 3rd cohort pilots in the
spring, the 4th cohort begins
course component of the
program
*4th cohort pilots ___
*Meet one on one with each
cohort instructor
*Note the need for Collegewide statement of
assessment principles,
methods, and process, as
per confusion relayed by
faculty and staff
Fall2008-Spring2009
*As 4th cohort pilots in
the fall, the 5th cohort
begins course
component of the
program
*5th cohort pilots ___
*Meet one on one with
each cohort instructor
*Note the need to
define course SLOs
within a context of the
bigger picture, not in
isolation
30
Summer/Fall2006
*Defined and
implemented pilot
plans and studentlearning outcomes
for 15 GenEd
courses, including
CCSS, in the Fall.
*Defined and
implemented SLOs
for Orientation
*Note confusion as
to what courses
are actually GenEd
courses, determine
that our
developmental and
ESL courses
counts as GenEd
courses for the
purposes of
implementing the
grant objectives
Spring/Fall2007
*Defined and
implemented sample
master syllabi, using
outcomes-oriented
methodology for 25
courses
*Presented rationale for
involving T3 Task Force
in institutionalization of
course SLOs,
Assessments. Task force
does not meet again.
*Focused cohort on
revising and piloting
outcomes-oriented
master syllabus template
as a purpose for their
work
Fall2007-Spring2008
*Cohort further modifies
the master syllabus
template
*Pat Roux and I
present to the deans for
approval and are told to
pilot the template
further
*SLO work done on
some courses still not
included on new
courses going through
curriculum, still using
old format
*As per faculty
feedback and to use in
implementing their
pilots, proposed and
was approved for 3
classrooms to be
outfitted as seminar
rooms, in conjunction
with learning centered
principles of small class
size. The rooms
provided for this were
not appropriate for the
purpose; some
teachers did not want
Spring2008-Fall2008
*Cohort further modifies
master syllabus template
*Instructors ask for
assistance on rubrics
*Note the need to re-assess
outcomes for Orientation
and assessment methods
*Request to serve on DLIT
planning committee,
specifically to build a
competency model for online
faculty that can be used to
align all faculty development
along defined streams of
knowledge, however, some
confusion by team members
on terms and how to use the
model. Suggests, again, the
need for a consistent set of
principles and guidelines for
determining the impact of an
initiative and the reasons for
doing it.
Fall2008-Spring2009
*Final cohort product
is presented to
curriculum for use in
all future master
syllabus revisions,
results in policy
change and first
documented
institutionalization of
cohort work
*Request for
assistance with
assessment piece for
LTC linkage
*Request for
assistance with PDA
outcomes/assessment
plan
*Request for
assistance with
Service Learning
Outcomes and
Assessment
*Request for
assistance with QEP
assessment plan
*Request for
assistance with
individual instructors’
31
Summer/Fall2006
*Created database
to relate courses
and learning
outcomes with
levels of GenEd
core competencies
*Designed
SLO/GenEd
Competency
matrix to use in
building a model
for assessing
GenEd
Competencies
*Designed
recommendation
for GenEd portion
of course catalog
*Began filming
Spring/Fall2007
Fall2007-Spring2008
tables. Conclusion:
determine 3 rooms that
can be used as
seminar rooms and
booked only with
classes that require
that set-up (i.e. Honors
courses, developmental
courses, collaborative
learning)
*Facilitated SLO design
*Institutionalization of
with Student Services
piloted syllabi still not
groups and Learning
regular nor planned by
Communities
respective disciplines
*Confirmed impact of
and programs
cohort work on GenEd
*Assessments piloted
assessment: course-level by cohorts also not
assessment would help
extending beyond
define discipline- and
individual instructor in
program- level outcomes T3, except on rare and
and assessment
informal occasions
*Confirmed
between individual
commonalities between
faculty
T3 and QEP principles
*Faculty begin to
for standardizing
request participation in
SLOs/Assessments and
the program, less
Teaching methods at the recruiting necessary
course level
*English faculty reach
*Feedback on
impasse on 061/062
Spring2008-Fall2008
*Request by VC Lea to
assist with LSD outcomes
*Request by IT to assist with
process mapping and
strategic planning
*Request by Chancellor’s
office to facilitate process
mapping
*Request by nursing staff to
analyze instructional design
of syllabi, note the absence
of outcomes and integrated
learning activities
Fall2008-Spring2009
courses: Culinary,
Biology, Massage
Therapy, English,
ESL, Reading, History,
Philosophy, Business
*Request by nursing
faculty development to
deliver all-day
workshop on course
design
*Created and
delivered 2 hour
workshops on
integrated course
design at all campuses
*Request for
assistance to prepare
for “TracDat” entry:
Physical Therapy
*Note the need for
guidelines and
process for instructors
who want to revise a
course syllabus and
present to curriculum
(must be collaboration
and outcomes
examined within the
context of other
32
Summer/Fall2006
short piece to help
students, faculty,
and the community
understand the
purpose of GenEd
Spring/Fall2007
inconsistencies between
the principles behind
promotion/performance
appraisal and those
behind the learningcentered mission
*Wrote
communication
plan, web content,
and marketing plan
for faculty
recruitment
*Created marketing
brochures, presented
Title III program at
departmental meetings
and on 3 campuses
*Assessed first
cohort experience
and dramatically
modified the
development
program and pilot
process
Fall2007-Spring2008
outcomes, divisions
between City
Park/West Bank
*Modified online course
to be offered as an
alternative to face-toface workshops
*Brought in MaryEllen
Weimer to discuss
learning-centered
teaching
*Assessed second cohort *Assessed third cohort
experience, revised
experience, revised
course content, went
course texts, binder
back to face to face
material, and created
meetings as per
PowerPoint
feedback on the benefits presentation to
of collaboration. *Course accompany workshop
evaluations and final pilot sessions
reports become data
*Met with 3rd cohort
elements
mid-way through pilot,
as per feedback on the
necessity for support
during the pilot. Grant
Spring2008-Fall2008
*Begin to work with Learning
Community Faculty on
integrated course outcomes
*Assessed forth cohort
experience, revised binder
material, structure of the
workshop sessions, times
and locations
*Met with 4th cohort mid-way
through their pilot to discuss
assessments and support
they might need. Feedback
focused on the challenges of
implementing a course
design after a week of
hurricane evacuation.
Fall2008-Spring2009
courses and the
program/discipline)
*Many instructors
voice concern at the
possibility of not
having a support
person for
outcomes/assessment
*Note the need for
institutionalization
support, perhaps in
committee charters
33
Summer/Fall2006
*Created manual,
course materials,
Blackboard site,
presentation
materials,
evaluations, and
templates for pilot
syllabi and final
reports
Spring/Fall2007
*Distributed final reports
to respective Department
Chairs for
institutionalization within
their areas, offered
assistance
*Math department
designs College-wide
institutionalization
process and assessment
analysis
*English department
analyzes rubrics and exit
exam
*Very little faculty
collaboration on pilot
courses within respective
departments, outcomes
still not used when
presenting new master
syllabi to Curriculum
committee
Fall2007-Spring2008
states that department
chairs, task force, and
deans implement the
pilot and learning
assessment
*Distributed final
reports to respective
Department Chairs for
institutionalization
within their areas,
offered assistance
*2nd and 3rd cohort
populate SLO/GenEd
Competency
Assessment matrix
*Feedback from faculty
on the difficulty in
getting colleagues
together to discuss
student learning and
their work. Recommend
convocation focus on
examining results of
learning assessments
Spring2008-Fall2008
Discussed alternatives to
starting semester when we
do in order to ensure better
student learning
*Distributed final reports to
respective Department
Chairs for institutionalization
within their areas, offered
assistance
*4th cohort populates
SLOs/GenEd Competency
Assessment matrix
*Feedback from faculty on
the need to revise GenEd
Core
competencies/characteristics
to more appropriate and
needed workforce skills
Fall2008-Spring2009
34
Appendix B
Faculty Cohorts and Courses
#
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
RUNNING TOTAL:
88
Discipline
READ
CCSS
ENGL
ENGL
ENGL
ENGL
ENGL
PHIL
HUMA
MATH
MATH
MATH
MATH
MATH
MATH
ACCT
ACCT
ADOT
ADOT
ADOT
ADOT
ADOT
ADOT
CADD
CADD
CULA
HORT
BIOL
BIOL
GEOL
PSYC
ENGL
ENGL
ESLR
MUSC
MATH
MATH
BUSG
ARCH
MATH
Faculty
FAVRET
DEFFENDAL
MCARTHUR
FELTEY
MITCHELL
DIAZ
GORVINE
FINDON
AUTHEMENT
VILA
SANTOLUCITO
FRICKEY
WILLIAMS
ROUX
ALBANO
GATZKE
LASKEY
DUCLOS
HOLLIDAY
LAWRENCE
LOGAN
TOLLIVER
GREEN
ZERINGUE
KRIEGER
BURBACK
ABBATE
ROSENZWEIG
RATARD
WOOD
HEINTZ
BRYANT
COSPER
TYLER
EDWARDS
JOHNSON
ROME
PEMBO
MIRZAI
BICKSLER
Course
072
107
221
205
206
102
101
101
105
118
128
130
091
095
120
218
205
101
106
105
265
264
178
125
201
105
101
101
102
101
240
222
212
023/027
105
095
096
250
110
203
Cohort
Group
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
Date
2006, Fall
2006, Fall
2006, Fall
2006, Fall
2006, Fall
2006, Fall
2006, Fall
2006, Fall
2006, Fall
2006, Fall
2006, Fall
2006, Fall
2006, Fall
2006, Fall
2006, Fall
2007, Spring
2007, Spring
2007, Spring
2007, Spring
2007, Spring
2007, Spring
2007, Spring
2007, Spring
2007, Spring
2007, Spring
2007, Spring
2007, Spring
2007, Spring
2007, Spring
2007, Spring
2007, Spring
2007, Spring
2007, Spring
2007, Spring
2007, Spring
2007, Spring
2007, Spring
2007, Spring
2007, Spring
2007, Fall
GenEd
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
35
#
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
RUNNING TOTAL:
88
Discipline
MATH
BIOL
BIOL
BIOL
PHYS
ASLS
FNAR
PSYC
PSYC
HUMA
ENGL
ENGL
HIST
HIST
READ
SOCI
PHIL
ADOT
ARCH
BIOL
BIOL
BIOL
CHEM
CMIN
CRJU
FREN
GEOL
INTD
MATH
NURS
BIOL
CHEM
CMIN
ECON
ECON
ENGL
FNAR
FNAR
FNAR
INTD
PSYC
PSYC
SOCI
SPCH
Faculty
DOYLE
ARCEMENT
ARNAUD-DAVIS
HURRELL
DUPLESSIS
KNOWLES
NIOLET
PRINCE-MADISON
RAY
CHOULDHURY
ROSEFELDT
HOWARD
ANSELMO
FONTANA
DUERSON
DEEL
CAMAILLE
WILSON
MIRZAI
PERRER
WORRELL
ANSPAUGH
DODSON
GILYOT
WHORTON
LOFTON
WOOD
SANDERS
SAM
WARNER
VARNADO
DODSON
LATIOLAIS
HILL
GONZALES
GAMBLE
BREWSTER
DAWES
NIOLET
SCANLAN
BERRY
DENNIS
WYLLIE
CLANTON
Course
131
141
161
251
101
101
126
127
225
150
211
062
101
260
101
151
175
102
180
211
252
254
141
201
298
101
102
242
120
112
212
101
201
201
202
061
103
120
125
125
226
250
155
130
Cohort
Group
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Date
2007, Fall
2007, Fall
2007, Fall
2007, Fall
2007, Fall
2007, Fall
2007, Fall
2007, Fall
2007, Fall
2007, Fall
2007, Fall
2007, Fall
2007, Fall
2007, Fall
2007, Fall
2007, Fall
2007, Fall
2008, Spring
2008, Spring
2008, Spring
2008, Spring
2008, Spring
2008, Spring
2008, Spring
2008, Spring
2008, Spring
2008, Spring
2008, Spring
2008, Spring
2008, Spring
2008, Fall
2008, Fall
2008, Fall
2008, Fall
2008, Fall
2008, Fall
2008, Fall
2008, Fall
2008, Fall
2008, Fall
2008, Fall
2008, Fall
2008, Fall
2008, Fall
GenEd
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
36
RUNNING TOTAL:
88
Cohort
# Discipline
Course
Faculty
Group
85 SPCH
230 LOUIS
5
86 SOCI
155 HALL
5
87 THEA
101 SANTOS
5
88 VISC
131 WALLEY
5
88 records = 86 instructors (Niolet and Wood piloted twice)
Date
2008, Fall
2008, Fall
2008, Fall
2008, Fall
GenEd
X
X
X
37
Appendix C
SLO/LA Overview and Pilot
Title III Designs For Learning and Course Pilot
Strengthening Our Capabilities in Teaching and Learning
In August, 2005, General Education Department Chairs selected 16 courses and instructors who
taught them as the first cohort in a series of 5 pilots that began the Summer, 2006 and that would continue over the
next 4 years. A stipend and opportunity for development travel is included for the collaborating faculty in the pilot. In
addition, faculty participants will have a learning plan to build upon competencies in active learning, collaborative
learning, and classroom assessment techniques. The plan includes professional development in this course but the
real learning occurs as innovative instructional design and learning assessments are put into practice in the classrooms.
The ongoing support network and online forum will provide an environment for dialogue on learning
as well as a record of the process that the cohort can use at the end of Phase 1 for recommendations in curriculum,
teaching methods, assessment methods, learning outcomes, and professional development. The train-thetrainer method set down in the Title III objectives for this project speaks to our "one college" mission (identity?
The word mission suggests it should appear in the College’s Mission Statement.) and the natural inclination that
so many of our instructors already have to collaborate and learn from one another. Pilot cohorts mentor incoming
faculty in the next group of courses selected in the process (Phase II), cycling through the learning plan with a third,
fourth and fifth cohort until all GenEd courses and sections have been covered and all faculty who teach them have
completed the program.
While the cohorts are selected from a pool of full-time GenEd faculty, any instructor interested in
participating is encouraged to join at any time. Contact Pat Roux pbroux@dcc.edu, the Title III Activity Director for
Academic Objectives or Angela Breckenridge abreck@dcc.edu, the Learning Outcome and Assessment Specialist.
Title III GenEd Learning Outcomes/Classroom Assessment Project Plan
2006
2007
2008
2009
Define SLO/LA for 14 Pilot 2/3 of the sections of
Institutionalize all sections of Institutionalize all sections of
core courses
1st 14 courses with Active
1st 14 courses with Active
2nd 14 courses with Active
Learning Strategies to
Learning Strategies to
Learning Strategies to
achieve increase in student
achieve increase in student
achieve increase in student
learning and satisfaction
learning, satisfaction, and
learning, satisfaction, and
course completion
course completion
Study Learning
Pilot 1/3 of 2nd 14 courses
Pilot 2/3 of the sections of
Pilot 2/3 of the sections of
Communities
with Active Learning
2nd 14 courses with Active
3rd 14 courses with Active
Strategies to achieve
Learning Strategies to
Learning Strategies to
increase in student learning
achieve increase in student
achieve increase in student
learning and satisfaction
learning and satisfaction
Pilot 1/3 of 1st 14
Define SLO/LA for 3rd 14
Pilot 1/3 of 3rd 14 courses
Pilot 1/3 of 4th 14 courses
courses with Active
courses
with Active Learning
with Active Learning
Learning Strategies
Strategies to achieve
Strategies to achieve
to achieve increase
increase in student learning
increase in student learning
in student learning
Define SLO/LA for
Design Learning
Define SLO/LA for 4th 14
Define SLO/LA for 5th 14
2nd 14 courses
Communities for more core
courses
courses
courses
38
First Cohort and Course Selection Summer 2006
PHIL 101 - Charlie Findon
HUMA 105- Rebecca Authement
ENGL 221 - Janet McArthur
ENGL 205 - Elizabeth Feltey
ENGL 206 - Chris Mitchell
ENGL 102 - Missy Diaz
ENGL 101 - Cathy Gorvine
READ 072 - Kathy Favret
MATH 118 - Janet Vila
MATH 120 - John Albano
MATH 128 - Susan Santolucito
MATH 130 - Dena Frickey
MATH 095 - Pat Roux
MATH 091 - Darlene Williams
CCSS 107 - Melanie Deffendall
Second Cohort and Course Selection Spring 2007
ACCT 205 – Beth Lasky
ACCT 218 – Kim Gatzke
ADOT 101 – Elaine Tolliver
ADOT 105 – Krista Lawrence
ADOT 106 – Ruby Holliday
ADOT 178 – Cheryl Green
ADOT 264 – Warren Duclos
ADOT 265 – Mary Logan
ARCH 110 – Victor Mirzai
BIOL 101 – Amanda Rosenzweig
BIOL 102 – Marceau Ratard
BUSL 250 – Tara Pembo
CADD 125 – Lorraine Zeringue
CADD 201 – Ken Krieger
CULA 105 – Nancy Burback
ENGL 212 – Emily Cosper
ENGL 221 – Janet McArthur
ENGL 222 – Brenda Bryant
ESLR 023/027 – Shelley Tyler
GEOL 101 – Jacqueline Wood
HORT 101 – Bettie Abbate
MATH 095 – Jennifer Johnson
MATH 096 – Pat Rome
MUSC 105 – Steven Edwards
PSYC 240 – Brett Hein
Third Cohort and Course Selection Fall 2007
MATH 203 – Laila Bicksler
MATH 131 – Chris Doyle
BIOL 141 – Rashad Arcement
BIOL 251 – Jim Hurrell
PHYS 101 – Raymond Duplessis
ASLS 101 – Leslie Knowles
FNAR 126 – Mae Niolet
PSYC 127 – Sandra Prince-Madison
PSYC 225 – Sadhana Ray
HUMA 150 – Shameem Choudhury
ENGL 211 – Paul Rosefeldt
ENGL 062 – Joe Howard
HIST 101 – Sal Anselmo
HIST 260 – Treg Fontana
READ 101 – Linda Duerson
SOCI 151 – Kellye Deel
PHIL 175 – Angela Camaille
39
4th Title III Pilot Cohort – 2008 Timeline
By Jan. 16, 2007 – new pilot cohort will. . .
 Be enrolled in the “Designs for Learning” Blackboard course for Title III
 Receive preliminary readings and initial assignment for 1st Cohort Session
 Receive contract and contract conditions to review and complete for 1st Cohort Session
Designs for Learning 1st Cohort Session, Jan. 25 – new pilot cohort will. . .
 Submit contract and course registration forms
 Receive administrative orientation and materials (Lillie Fleury)
 Receive pilot orientation and materials (Angela)
 Discuss preliminary readings, complete self-assessment
 Present ideas and visions for student learning
Designs for Learning 2nd – 6th Cohort Sessions
2hr sessions, times dependent upon instructor consensus
 2nd session – Friday, Feb. 8
 3rd session – Friday, Feb. 22
 4th session – Friday, Mar. 14
 5th session – Friday, Apr. 4
 6th session – Friday, Apr. 25
Designs for Learning, Spring 2008 – pilot cohort will be responsible for. . .
 Facilitating one of several collaborative discussions based on the assigned textbook
 Actively contributing to the dialogue, using topics from the textbook and readings
 Bringing personal learning theory into classroom practice
 Designing Student Learning Outcomes/Classroom Learning Assessments for their course and communicating
appropriately to others teaching that course (The Pilot Plan)
Outcomes by end of Spring 2008 – pilot faculty will. . .
 Present a solid draft syllabus for pilot course to Deans, faculty
 Present their pilot timelines to Deans, faculty (either Summer or Fall course)
 Receive Stipend
During course pilot, Summer or Fall 2008 – pilot faculty will. . .
 Implement their syllabus (Designs for Learning)
 Record observations and continue dialogue with cohort
 Report observations, reflections on process
 Communicate as necessary with colleagues who teach the same course, department chairs, etc.
 Observe one another’s classes, as appropriate, or request observation of their own class by 3 rd party
 Administer formative assessment methods and respond to feedback
Week after Finals, Summer or Fall 2008 – pilot faculty will. . .
 Prepare final pilot conclusions, observations, results, and recommendations
 Meet with other pilot faculty to review reports, synthesize results, make recommendations to be presented
to Vice Chancellor
Outcomes by end of Fall, 2008 – pilot faculty will. . .
 Present final pilot conclusions, observations, results, and recommendations
 Receive stipend
40
Title III Pilot Cohort – Administrative Processes
I.
Getting Paid – What it is and How you get it
a. What it is
i. You will get a stipend for participating in this pilot and helping to implement the
results
ii. The stipend will come in two checks, one at the end of the 1st semester of the
program, one at the end of the 2nd semester of the program
iii. As of today, the checks will be in the amounts of $1,500 and $1,300
b. How you get it
i. Complete the DCC Part-Time Contract COMPLETELY
ii. Have everything signed as necessary
iii. Turn it in to Lillie Fleury (Bldg. 1, 220E, CP, 671-6010) on or BEFORE 1/31/08
II.
Professional Travel – What it is and How you get it
a. What it is
i. For each cohort, Title III will reimburse 3 professional travel leaves for conferences,
seminars, or site visits that relate to Student Learning Outcomes/Assessment,
Active/Collaborative Learning Strategies, and/or Applying Learning Theory in the
Classroom. This means three people out of every cohort can choose an appropriate
conference, seminar, or site visit to supplement the development part of this project.
b. How you get it
i. Send an email to Angela abreck@dcc.edu with the type of event and its relevance to
the Title III project
ii. Complete all standard travel requests and reimbursement forms as per Delgado’s
operational guidelines and procedures
iii. Have everything signed as necessary
iv. Turn in to Lillie Fleury (Bldg. 1, 220E, CP, 671-6010)
41
Appendix D
Outcomes/Assessment Methodology and Guidelines
Strengthening Capabilities in Teaching
Title III Professional Development Series
Title III Learning Outcomes Resource Center
Title III Learning Outcomes Specialist
Professional Development
Based on the results of a baselining survey conducted by Delgado’s Institutional Effectiveness
department in September, 2005, faculty identified among other things the need for specific professional
development in areas of learning-centered instruction. The Title III grant objectives directly respond to
this feedback, focusing specifically on professional development in creating student learning outcomes,
active and collaborative learning, instructional design techniques, classroom learning assessment
strategies, and the relationship of scholarship and practice. Again, any faculty member is invited to
participate in the development program, even though several select faculty have been chosen to
participate in the first cohort and receive a stipend.
Professional Development workshops and learning activities will strengthen our capabilities as a
learning-centered college by pinpointing the following competencies and indicators:

Creating Outcomes-Oriented Courses
o Define meaningful, measurable student learning outcomes
o Align course outcomes with GenEd core competencies
o Align learning activities with course outcomes
o Align classroom assessment strategies with learning activities and course outcomes
o Adopt flexibility in learning activities that responds to assessment feedback
o Use assessment feedback in collaboration with colleagues to assure and demonstrate
progression of student learning across courses

Applying Learning Theory to Instructional Design
o Foster social connections in classroom, library, counseling environments
o Design learning experiences that address students’ unique strengths
o Design learning experiences that address students’ unique needs
o Develop reciprocity and cooperation among students (interdependence and teamwork)
o Include content well-suited to Delgado’s diverse* student population
o Establish connections among students in and out of the classroom (learning
communities)
o Vary assessment measures and techniques to engage cognitive diversity
o Create learning atmospheres that encourage all students to share view points
o Use diverse* perspectives to engage and deepen critical thinking (diversity* as a
learning resource)
42
o Develop student self-awareness (learning styles, personality types, assumptions)
*Note: diversity has many dimensions, including age, culture, gender, race/ethnicity, socio-economic
circumstances, learning style, education background, skill level, etc. that contribute to the many ways
that individuals perceive and contribute to the world.

Applying Active Learning Strategies
o Employ techniques such as engaging lectures, discussions, experiential learning,
scenarios, role-play, case study, problem-based learning, etc.
o Employ collaborative and cooperative learning techniques
o Encourage students to challenge ideas with reason
o Integrate concrete, real-life situations into learning strategies
o Invite student input on course outcomes (goals to achieve course outcomes, choice
among assignment topics; in-progress student feedback. . .)

Using Assessment Tools for Learning
o Employ formative feedback loops early and often (both to and from students)
o Provide students with written or face-to-face comments on strengths and weaknesses
o Give timely feedback on class activities, exams, and papers
o Design activities to help students refine their abilities to self-assess learning
o Integrate self-assessment into course processes
o Align summative evaluations with course outcomes and learning activities (appropriate
to level of thinking; appropriate levels of performance)
o Make assessment criteria public to students and colleagues
o Evaluate effectiveness of assessment strategies and grading practices
o Vary assessment measures and techniques to form a more complete picture of learning

Engaging in the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning
o Produce professional work that meets the Standards of Teaching Excellence* (course
designs, action research projects, publications, etc.)
o Build upon the work of others (consult literature, peers, self, students)
o Be open to constructive critique (by peers, students, self)
o Make work public to College and broader audiences
o Demonstrate relationship between scholarship and improved teaching and learning
processes
o Expand College capabilities in learning-centeredness by sharing expertise with others
(mentorships, leadership programs, faculty-led workshops, etc.)
43
Designs for Learning – Online Pilot Prep Course
While initially focused for the GenEd pilot cohort, all faculty are invited to enroll in this Blackboard
course and to participate in the dialogue, contribute, or browse this space focused on scholarly practice
in learning and assessing learning. Your suggestions and feedback will make it your own, so be vocal
with ideas on how to make it a meaningful space for knowledge sharing and collaboration with
colleagues.
Contact Angela Breckenridge if you need assistance in enrolling. abreck@dcc.edu
Some ideas for the content of this site are:
1. Discussion Forums
a. For specific disciplines, current programs
b. For learning outcomes and assessment methods tried in the classroom
c. Forums on specific areas of interest regarding teaching and learning
d. General forum – The Social Café
e. Focus Groups on Special Topics – The “Expert” Forum
f. Assessment feedback results and recommendations
2. Resource Areas
a. “Been Around the Block” – our valuable experience and learning
b. Who is doing what that works?
c. Travelers: meaningful things to share from off-site conferences and development
d. Reference Links
i. Active Learning
1. http://www.tlc.eku.edu/tips/
2. http://vccslitonline.cc.va.us/MRCTE/active.htm
3. http://www.med.jhu.edu/medcenter/quiz/home.cgi?SMSESSION=NO
4. http://edweb.sdsu.edu/people/bdodge/Active/ActiveLearning.html
5. http://www1.umn.edu/ohr/teachlearn/tutorials/active/index.html
6. http://www.iub.edu/~teaching/faqdisc.shtml
7. http://www.criticalthinking.org/
8.
ii. Collaborative Learning
1. http://www.clcrc.com/
2. http://www.dartmouth.edu/~collab/index.html
3. http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/archive/cl1/CL/doingcl/DCL1.asp
4. http://www.co-operation.org/pages/cl-methods.html
5. http://home.capecod.net/~tpanitz/
6. http://www.sci.ccny.cuny.edu/~chemwksp/index.html
iii. Instructional Design
1. http://www.ou.edu/idp/tips/ideas/diagram.html
44
iv. Classroom Learning Assessment and Other Assessment Links
1. http://faculty.mdc.edu/jmcnair/EME2040/behaviorist_lesson_plan1.ht
m
2. http://www.siue.edu/~deder/assess/catmain.html
3. http://www.uleth.ca/edu/runte/tests/
4. http://www.udel.edu/pbl/
5. http://www2.acs.ncsu.edu/UPA/assmt/resource.htm#course_assmt
6. http://www.niu.edu/assessment/_resourc/gloss.shtml#5
7. http://people.jmu.edu/yangsx/
8. http://people.jmu.edu/yangsx/
9. http://www.uwstout.edu/soe/profdev/assess.shtml
v. Rubrics
1. http://mh034.k12.sd.us/classroom_debate_rubric.htm
2. http://landmark-project.com/classweb/tools/rubric_builder.php3
3. http://projects.edtech.sandi.net/staffdev/tpss99/rubrics/rubrics.html
4. http://www.rubrics.com/rubric_examples.html
5. http://its.monmouth.edu/facultyresourcecenter/rubrics.htm
6. http://its.monmouth.edu/facultyresourcecenter/rubrics.htm
vi. Student Services
1. http://css.rpgroup.org/
vii. Discipline-specific resources
1. Science, Math, Technology
a. http://ublib.buffalo.edu/libraries/projects/cases/case.html
b. http://www.flaguide.org/
c.
2. Developmental
a. http://www.league.org/league/projects/remedial/index.htm
3. English
a. http://www.siue.edu/ECPP/Statements/assessment.html
viii. General Teaching Reference
a. http://ericae.net/
b. http://adulted.about.com/od/icebreakers/
c. http://www.tltgroup.org/programs/Teach/Smart_Classrooms.ht
m
d. http://www.iub.edu/~teaching/names.shtml
e. http://www.wku.edu/Dept/Support/AcadAffairs/CTL/db/quotes
/index.html
f. http://www.wvu.edu/~lawfac/jelkins/orientation/socratic.html
g. http://ject.lib.muohio.edu/contents/contents.php?vol=13&num
=2
45
h. http://its.monmouth.edu/facultyresourcecenter/FRCTrainingSeriesList.htm
i. http://www.clt.cornell.edu/campus/teach/faculty/faculty.html
j. http://www.lovedungeon.net/humor/college/index.html
k.
ix. Community College Reference
1. http://www.aacc.nche.edu/
2. http://css.rpgroup.org/
3. http://www.ncspod.org/
4. http://www.diversityweb.org/
e. Manual on Learning Outcomes/Assessment
f. How to interpret and respond to assessment feedback
3. Scholarship and Practice
a. Pedagogy
b. Teaching and Instructional Theory/Methodology
c. CATT
d. ELearning
e. Discipline-Specific – i.e. DOLL, etc.
Learning Outcomes Specialist
Support for Individual SLO/LA Projects
In addition to facilitating the outcomes/assessment projects, the Learning Outcomes Specialist Angela
Breckenridge is a resource, an advocate, and a voice for faculty in all aspects of strengthening
capabilities in teaching and learning.
Specifically, the faculty Learning Outcomes Specialist can:






Act as an "information center" for faculty
Facilitate reviews of student learning outcomes in courses
Support classroom learning assessment projects with individual faculty
Serve as coach for classroom learning assessment projects with individual faculty
Sponsor workshops for innovative teaching methods and other topics of critical interest
Provide newspapers, magazines, books, and journals about professional development
 Survey faculty and staff to address professional needs regarding learning outcomes and
classroom assessment
 Research and continually improve the faculty resources for learning outcomes and classroom
assessment
46
Strengthening Capabilities in Learning
Meaningful Rationale for General Education
Introduction
Defining General Education
Criteria Of An Effective GenEd Program
Characteristics Of Strong GenEd Programs
Standard GenEd Disciplines and Outcomes
Standard Competencies and Their Outcomes
Best Practice Framework for Stages of GenEd Competency Development
Guidelines, Examples, Influences for Consideration
DCC’s Present GenEd Purpose and Assessment Plan
Core Values and Campus-wide Learning Initiatives
A Launching Point For New Dialogue: Suggested Framework for a Competency-Based, Holistic
GenEd Program
Student Learning Plan
General Education Competency Model Terms and Definitions
GenEd Core Competencies
GenEd Characteristics
GenEd Student Learning Outcomes
GenEd Competency/Learning Outcomes Matrix
GenEd Class Objectives
GenEd Classroom Learning Assessment
Learning Plans/Eportfolios
GenEd Student Learning Outcomes/Learning Assessment Pilot
47
Appendix E
A General Education Rationale (excerpt)
General Education: a definition to work with
(Adapted from LCTCS, Fall 2004)
Two Types of GenEd


GenEd Designed for Transfer includes courses listed in the catalog under GenEd Courses and may or may not be included in
the College’s GenEd Core
Applied GenEd Designed For Skills-Based, Non-Transfer Credit –
includes skills, knowledge, and attitudes required to fulfill GenEd competencies, which may be
included in the College’s GenEd Course offerings or
in the learning outcomes stated for courses within major programs of study.
General Education Core Program
“General Education is a program and not just a collection of unrelated courses in different disciplines. It
must be defined so that students think of it as a connective pathway to intellectual growth, not episodic
potholes within a degree program.” General Education provides higher-level critical thinking skills,
discovery, and problem-solving. More specifically, it provides literacy and fluency in various methods of
communication in various languages. It promotes understanding of the existing scientific and
mathematical views of the world and their impact on our global culture. It emphasizes the ethical
demands of our common lives, demonstrates the importance of skills and knowledge of social and
behavioral sciences to understand our contemporary world and to succeed with others.
GenEd Core courses should have catalog definitions that explain how they:
1. have a recognized place in history: survey scientific paradigms, social patterns,
development of reason and moral action;
2. reflect commonality of all humans in a multicultural world: universal concerns, human
rights and liberties, value diversity within global interests;
3. prepare individuals for engaged citizenship, to deliberate and self-direct, calculate and
reason logically.
Criteria Of An Effective GenEd Program
(Adapted from SACS) Institutions are required to:
1. Publish GenEd program requirements and provide a rationale with which to determine,
“Why must I take this core general education course at this college?” This rationale
should state how the GenEd program is linked to:

College and program missions

Student learning goals

Student professional identity and occupational value

Self-directed lifelong learning;
2. Offer a GenEd program that is a substantial component of each undergraduate degree;
48
3. Ensure breadth of knowledge (i.e. courses do not narrowly focus upon those skills,
techniques and procedures specific to a particular occupation or profession) and provide
an explanation of how this is designed; and,
4. Clearly identify competencies within GenEd core and provide evidence that graduates
have attained those college-level competencies.
Characteristics Of Strong GenEd Programs

Give an explicit answer to the question, “What is the point of general education?;”

Are based upon well-articulated competency paths and/or learning goals and outcomes;

Strive for educational coherence;

Relate to the major field of study;

Reach beyond the classroom;

Include assessment to monitor learning;

Embody institutional mission and reflect its culture;

Spring from, require and foster sense of community;

Have strong faculty renewal and administrative leadership;

Ensure continuing support for faculty; and

Are designed carefully to permit continued evolution.
Standard GenEd Disciplines and Outcomes
(Adapted from LCTCS Guidelines for General Education Programs, Fall 2004)
I) English Comp/Communication
a) Analyze and evaluate oral and/or written expression by listening and reading critically for
elements that reflect an awareness of situation, audience, purpose, and diverse points of view.
b) Distill a primary purpose into a single, compelling statement and order and develop major points
in a reasonable and convincing manner based upon that purpose.
c) Demonstrate that the writing and/or speaking processes include procedures such as planning,
organizing, composing, revising, and editing.
d) Make written and/or oral presentations employing correct diction, syntax, usage, grammar and
mechanics.
e) Develop appropriate rhetorical patterns (i.e. narration, exemplification, process,
comparison/contrast, classification, cause/effect, definition, and argumentation) and other
special functions (i.e. analysis or research), while demonstrating writing and/or speaking skills
from process to product.
f)
Manage and coordinate basic information gathered from multiple sources for the purposes of
problem solving and decision making.
49
g) Recognize the use of evidence, analysis and persuasive strategies including basic distinctions
among opinions, facts, and inferences.
II) Mathematics
a) Build upon (not replicate) the competencies gained through the study of high school algebra,
geometry, and higher levels of mathematics.
b) Utilize mathematics to solve problems and determine if the solutions are reasonable.
c) Utilize mathematics to model real world behaviors and apply mathematical concepts to the
solution of real-life problems.
d) Make meaningful connections between mathematics and other disciplines.
e) Utilize technology for mathematical reasoning and problem solving.
f)
Apply mathematics and/or basic statistical reasoning to analyze data and graphs.
III) Natural Sciences
a) Conduct an experiment, collect and analyze data, and interpret results in a laboratory setting.
b) Analyze, evaluate and test scientific hypotheses.
c) Utilize basic scientific language and processes and be able to distinguish between scientific and
non-scientific explanations.
d) Identify unifying principles and patterns in nature, and apply them to problems or issues of a
scientific nature, recognizing the values of nature’s diversity.
e) Analyze and discuss the impact of scientific discovery on human thought and behavior.
f)
Exhibit ethical behavior.
IV) Humanities and/or Fine Arts
a) Analyze significant primary texts and works of art (ancient, pre-modern, modern , and postmodern) as forms of cultural and creative expression.
b) Explain the ways in which humanistic and/or artistic expression throughout the ages expresses
the culture and values of its time and place.
c) Explore global cultural diversity.
d) Frame a comparative context through which they can critically assess the ideas, forces and
values that have created the modern world.
e) Recognize the ways in which both change and continuity have affected human history.
f)
Practice the critical and analytical methodologies of the Humanities and/or Fine Arts.
g) Explore the ethical implications of cultural identity/cultural development/cultural integrity.
h) Analyze historical fact and interpretations.
i)
Analyze and compare political, geographic, economic, social, cultural, religious and intellectual
institutions, structures, and processes across a range of historical periods and cultures.
j)
Recognize and articulate the diversity of human experience across a range of historical periods
and the complexities of global culture and society.
50
V) Social/Behavioral Sciences
a) Recognize, describe, and explain social institutions, structures, and processes and the
complexities in a global culture and diverse society.
b) Think critically about how individuals are influenced by political, geographic, economic, cultural
and familial institutions in their own and other diverse cultures and explain how one’s own
belief system may differ from others.
c) Explore the relationship between the individual and society as it affects the personal behavior,
social development and quality of life of the individuals, the family and the community.
d) Examine the impact of behavioral and social scientific research on major contemporary issues
and their disciplines’ effects on individuals and societies.
e) Using the most appropriate principles, methods, and technologies, perceptively and objectively
gather, analyze, and present social and behavioral science research data, draw logical
conclusions, and apply those conclusions to one’s life and society.
f)
Take ethical stands based upon appropriate research in the social band behavioral sciences.
g) Analyze and communicate the values and processes that are used to formulate theories
regarding the social context of individual human behavior in the social and behavioral sciences.
h) Analyze historical facts and interpretations.
i)
Analyze and compare political, geographic, economic, social, cultural, religious, and intellectual
institutions, structures, and processes across a range of historical periods and cultures.
j)
Recognize and articulate the diversity of human experience across a range of historical periods
and the complexities of a global culture and society.
k) Draw on historical perspective to evaluate contemporary problems/issues.
l)
Analyze the contributions of past cultures/societies to the contemporary world.
Standard Competencies and GenEd Outcomes
(Adapted from Institutional Effectiveness Associates’ Presentation, 2005)
I) Basic Skills Competencies
a) Reading
b) Writing
c) Speaking
d) Listening
e) Performing
mathematical
calculations
f)
Demonstrating basic
computer skills
II) Knowledge/Understandin
g Competencies
a) Historical
perspective
b) Literary styles
c) Culture
d) Meaning of
numerical data
e) Global perspective
f)
Impact of technology
III) High Order Thinking Skills
a) Critical thinking
b) Logical reasoning
c) Scientific/Abstract
inquiry
d) Concept integration
IV) Values Development
a) Commitment to
democratic
foundations
51
b) Respect for cultural
diversity/cultural
integrity
c) Appreciation for
aesthetics
d) Awareness of self
within local and
global concerns
Best Practice Framework for Stages of Competency
(Adapted from Institutional Effectiveness Associates presentation material, 2005 and Anderson, 2005))
I) Novice – Level 1
a) Bloom’s Knowledge Cognitive Domain
i)
Observing and recalling information, knowing dates, events, places, major ideas and
mastery of subject matter
ii) Verbs for behavioral outcomes: list, define, tell, describe, identify, show, label, collect,
examine, tabulate, quote, name who-when-what-where
b) Krathwohl, Bloom, and Masia’s Receiving Affective Domain
i)
Passive but attentive
II) Beginner – Level 2
a) Bloom’s Comprehension Cognitive Domain
i)
Understanding information, grasping meaning, translating knowledge into new context,
interpreting facts, comparing, contrasting, ordering, grouping, inferring causes, predicting
consequences
ii) Verbs for behavioral outcomes: summarize, describe, interpret, contrast, predict, associate,
distinguish, estimate, differentiate, discuss, extend
b) Krathwohl, Bloom, and Masia’s Responding Affective Domain
i)
Complying and aware
III) Competent – Level 3
a) Bloom’s Application Cognitive Domain
i)
Using information, using methods, concepts, theories in new situations, solving problems
using required skills or knowledge
ii) Verbs for behavioral outcomes: apply, demonstrate, calculate, complete, illustrate, show,
solve, examine, modify, relate, change, classify, experiment, discover
b) Krathwohl, Bloom, and Masia’ Valuing Affective Domain
i)
Behavior consistent with attitude
IV) Proficient – Level 4
a) Bloom’s Analysis Cognitive Domain
i)
Seeing patterns, organizing parts, recognizing hidden meanings, identifying components
ii) Verbs for behavioral outcomes: analyze, separate, order, explain, connect, classify, arrange,
divide, compare, select, explain, infer
52
b) Krathwohl, Bloom, and Masia’s Organization Affective Domain
i)
Bringing together different values and building internally consistent value system
V) Expert – Level 5
a) Bloom’s Synthesis Cognitive Domain
i)
Using old ideas to create new ones, generalizing from given facts, relating knowledge from
several areas, predicting and drawing conclusions
ii) Verbs for behavioral outcomes: combine, integrate, modify, rearrange, substitute, plan,
create, design, invent, compose, formulate, prepare, generalize, rewrite
b) Krathwohl, Bloom, and Masia’s Characterization Affective Domain
i)
Behaving according to moral “life style” and maintaining a consistent philosophy regardless
of coercive surroundings
c) Bloom’s Evaluation (integrated within competency stages) Cognitive Domain
i)
Comparing and discriminating between ideas, assessing value of theories, presentations,
making choices based on reasoned argument, verifying value of evidence, recognizing
subjectivity
ii) Verbs for behavioral outcomes: assess, decide, rank, grade, test, measure, recommend,
convince, select, judge, explain, discriminate, support, conclude, compare, summarize
Guidelines, Examples, Influences for Consideration
These guidelines, examples and internal/external influences are presented for comparison with the
standards and expectations of other institutions and stakeholders to frame a valued public General
Education program. While these sources may represent a different demographic and location from that
of DCC, the message is consistent: that higher education, particularly the general education component,
plays a broad and vital role in the success of students, professionals, and communities. We can learn
from this feedback and make decisions to clarify the rationale for our own program, an action which will
allow us to determine accurate learning outcomes for GenEd courses and more efficient assessment
measures.
I) LCTCS Guideline for GenEd Statement of Purpose:

The purpose of a core GenEd is to “ensure that college students have the broad knowledge and
skills to become lifelong learners in a constantly changing global community . . . general
education core provides for students (and citizens as a whole) the means to a . . . more fulfilled
and rewarding life. . . they are foundations of history and culture, serving to bridge the diverse
heritages of a multicultural world, thus focusing upon the commonality of all humans and
preparing individuals for their roles as socially responsible and engaged citizens.” (excerpted
from LCTCS, 2004)
II) Examples of GenEd Statements of Purpose

South Louisiana Community College: . . .”general education” requirements represent a
conviction on the part of the faculty that all students need to reason logically, solve problems,
communicate effectively, and relate to the world around them. General education courses not
53
only enhance awareness of the world and the people in it but also foster an appreciation of the
arts and humanities, encourage insight into the social and behavioral sciences, and provide a
basic understanding of mathematical and scientific principles. The realistic expectations of a
general education program are to empower the student with a reliable set of skills and
understanding that move a lifelong learner forward in academia or the workforce.”

Parish Community College: . . . considers “general education” to be a common body of skills,
knowledge, and values to which all graduates (Associate and Academic Certificates) must be
exposed, and for which the College shall determine certain levels of competency. These skills,
knowledge, and values are representative of a common body of educational experiences that the
College views as vital for enabling its graduates to be successful in today’s complex society.”


What do all of these examples have in common?
Do they seem to give an answer to “Why General Education here?”

How does our own GenEd mission compare?
Internal and External Influences on GenEd Statement of Purpose
These few examples from the business community, public at large, and undergraduate students as well
as our present circumstances in the wake of natural disasters offer some valuable input into the kinds of
competence expected and needed from our graduates. Most of this competence can be gained through
successful guidance and achievement of GenEd learning outcomes, but only if they clearly correspond to
a focused program rationale.
a) Business Community Expectations
In a study done in Omaha, Nebraska, Metropolitan Community College leaders found that
“employability skills” and “a strong work ethic” are traits most desired by business
representatives, and the traits seen as most lacking among new hires. (Van Wagoner, 2004) In
addition, they found that young people coming through the educational pipeline are woefully
unaware of the nature of work, workplace expectations, and the demands of success. Most
notably, employer’s regarded the following top ten skills necessary for, but lacking in, the
workforce:

Attendance and punctuality

Follow-through

Customer-service skills

Professionalism

Desire to learn

Respect for diversity

Ability to work as part of a team

Time-management skills

Oral communication skills

Problem solving skill
b) Public’s Expectations
Ranking of “absolutely essential” goals of general education from NCPPHE poll:
54

Sense of maturity and [ability to] manage on [one’s] own (71%)

Ability to get along with people different from self (68%)

Problem solving and thinking ability (63%)

High-technology skills (61%)

Specific expertise and knowledge in chosen career (60%)

Top-notch writing and speaking ability (57%)


[but note that this is also a success factor for “getting along with people”]
Responsibilities of citizenship (44%)

[but note that this is also a success factor for “sense of maturity”]
c) Students’ Expectations
Ranking of Importance of GenEd Goals by U Mass. Amherst: % agreeing “somewhat or very
important” (April, 1998).

Learn on my own (98%)

Write clearly and effectively (92%)

Understand the relationship between ideas (92%)

Think analytically and logically (91%)

Awareness of other societies and cultures (90%)

Awareness of American society (88%)
d) Katrina
Hurricane Disaster to impact internal/external needs in higher education in New Orleans

Unknown student demographic and population

Unknown specific needs from business community

Unknown specific student needs for learning and professional growth

Potential need for transparent critical information, leadership, coordination and followthrough on community development plans

Potential need for partnerships with public school system, other institutions, local
businesses, city planning commissions, all levels of government and neighborhood special
interest groups

Potential need for competencies in collaborative decision-making and action, high-level
communication skills, self-direction, technology, customer success, critical thinking,
creativity, and leadership

Potential need for urban planning, civil and marine engineering, economic development,
teaching, quality public information


What broad-based, general competencies apply here?
How does our program demonstrate commitment to these expectations?”

How have we designed our program to respond to these needs?
55
DCC’s Present GenEd Purpose and Assessment Plan
Mission Statement
General Education at Delgado Community College prepares students to think critically, demonstrate
leadership and be productive citizens through course offerings, core requirements and college-wide
activities associated with the GenEd characteristics and learning outcomes.

What would help communicate the College’s approach to General Education in
relation to individual lifelong learning and community value?

What roles do you see the graduates of the program taking?
GenEd Requirements and Rationale as per Catalog
[Within “Types of Degrees,” Delgado has a flexible, student-centered Associate of General Studies,
which usually follows an articulation path with a four-year college and has to be worked out with an
advisor.]
[Within “Categories of Requirements,” Delgado’s GenEd courses are in English, mathematics, fine arts,
humanities, natural science, and social science – required for most degree programs and include a few
electives beyond the specific categories which the student can choose within the course list.
Requirements
Associate Degrees in Arts, Science, and Applied Science, Associate, and Certificate of Applied Science
requirements for GenEd:

GenEd course hours must be “successfully” completed;

A proficiency exam in writing must be passed to earn credit in English 101;

Students should be particularly careful about adhering to the catalog and curriculum in effect at
time of admission (or change of major).
Substantial Component of Degree Offerings
[This should be confirmed. General Education Committee documents state that within DCC’s Degree
Programs, 3 Degree/Certificates require 27 hours; one requires 15 and one requires 9. Course guide also
stipulates that “students may not use a course in their major to fulfill their degree requirements,”. .
.which is taken to mean that the general education requirement can only be fulfilled by successful
completion of general education courses and cannot be fulfilled by successful completion of a
specialized course within the major program. The chart below is from the 2006 catalog and reflects the
different degree programs in which many Divisional GenEd requirements vary. If the Degrees had set
levels of competency rather than course requirements across Divisions, there could be more flexibility
on how students developed that core across courses.]
56
Degree
GenEd
Hours
English
Math
Fine
Arts
Humanities
Natural
Science
Social
Science
Associate of
General
Studies
30
9
6
3
3
6
6
Associate of
Arts
27 “or” 21 “or” 24
6
3
3
6 “or” 3
6
3 “or” 6
Associate of
Science
27 “or” 26 “or” 24
“or” 18
6
6 “or’ 7
3 “or”
zero
3
6 “or” 4
3
Associate of
Applied
Science
19 “or” 18 “or” 15
“or” 12 “or” 9 “or”
6
3 “or” 6
3
3 “or”
zero
3 “or” zero
3 “or”
zero “or”
4 in PHYS
3 “or”
zero “or”
3 in PSYC
Certificate
of Technical
Studies
3 “or” zero
3
“Or” 3
“or” 3
in TECH
Certificate
of Applied
Science
9
3
3
Curriculum
Option for
LPN – RN
18
6
6
3 “or”
3
3
3
Rationale for General Education
[General Education at Delgado is not a program. It is rationalized by course requirements for majors and
defined by general education characteristics. These characteristics explain specific outcomes the student
“will have” as a result of completing the course requirements.]

What rationale could be given for these requirements to justify their value and
purpose in a student’s learning journey?

What is needed to demonstrate how GenEd as a whole contributes to the
College’s core values, the student’s lifelong development, and continual
improvement to those ends?
57
Design To Ensure Breadth Of Knowledge Without Narrow Focus
[The College’s GenEd design is partly demonstrated by DCC GenEd Characteristics listed below, but some
feedback has suggested that a more defined notion of “breadth” related to the College mission would
help to clarify how Certification programs benefit from GenEd as well as how GenEd prepares students
to succeed in the Technical Competency Development with their Divisions.]

How could the design of GenEd demonstrate the College’s learning-centered mission and
attention to a variety of educational needs?
58
Appendix F
Final Pilot Report Template Example
Delgado Community College
Student Learning Outcomes Pilot Report, Fall 2008
The purpose of this report is to communicate to departments and colleagues the work completed by Title III Faculty Cohort in learning about,
designing, and piloting Student Learning Outcomes and Learning Assessment methods for courses involved in the Title III Grant’s Academic
Objectives.
The Title III Grant has provided resources for Delgado to pilot and incorporate Student Learning Outcomes and Assessment Methods on Master
Syllabi as well as to examine and make recommendations for strengthening our Master Syllabi. The following conclusions and recommendations
have been made by a Title III Instructor who has completed a course in Student Learning Outcome/Assessment Design and who has piloted a
Master Syllabus Design with those objectives in mind. The following conclusions and recommendations are based upon the instructor’s findings
from action research in the classroom and should provide a valuable source for building consensus on course-level Student Learning Outcomes
and piloted assessment methods to be incorporated into the Master Syllabus.
Faculty Cohort Name:
Campus:
Division/Department/Program:
Course:
Dean:
Semester(s) Piloted:
Part 1: Student Learning Outcomes
What are students able to do as a result of learning in this course, and how does that align with broader program and institutional goals? This
may or may not have changed due to your pilot. Update here as necessary.
Student Learning Outcomes - (What are students able to do as a GenEd Competency/Characteristic - (From the Competency Matrix -- What
result of learning in this course?)
competency and level does this SLO help develop?)
59
Part 2: Assessment of Student Learning
What methods did you use to determine whether students were learning/had learned?
Student Learning Outcomes - (What are
Learning Assessment Method - (What
Explanation of Use - (How did students demonstrate
students able to do as a result of
assessment methods were used to
the learning outcome? Was this an effective measure
learning in this course – same as in the
monitor learning and determine
of student learning? Why/why not?)
above table)
achievement of this SLO?)
Part 3: Conclusions and Recommendations for Master Syllabus – To Department and Colleagues who also teach the course.
(What are your conclusions from the pilot and recommendations for the Master Syllabus of this course? What do you feel the next step should
be in building consensus on SLOs/Assessments for this course? In piloting the Master Syllabus SLOs/Assessments with colleagues?)
60
Appendix G
Faculty Development Course Syllabus
Workforce Development & Education
Non-Credit/Continuing Education
Master Course Syllabus
A.
LECTURE/ LAB/CREDIT/CONTACT HOURS: 8
B.
MAXIMUM COURSE ENROLLMENT: 40
C.
SPECIAL FACILTY OR EQUIPMENT NEEDS/SAFETY RULES AND ISSUES: Orientation
session for this course takes place on each campus as per available location. Concluding session
for this course takes place at completion, time and location TBD.
D.
LAB FEE: N/A
1. COURSE NAME: Designs For Learning – Title III Student Learning Outcomes/Learning Assessment
Pilot Preparation Course
2. COURSE PREFIX AND NUMBER:
3. COURSE DESCRIPTION: This collaborative online/face-to-face forum prepares instructors for
piloting course designs based on the principles of Active Learning, Learner-Centered Assessment, and
Outcome-Oriented Learning. Participants formulate a constructive and meaningful grading system,
syllabus and course evaluation that provides valid guidance and feedback for continual improvement
4. PRE-AND CO-REQUISITES: Pre-reading material distributed prior to course. Full-time teaching
experience at Delgado, familiarity with Blackboard and an online learning environment.
5. COURSE GOAL: To increase Delgado student learning by building upon existing strengths in
learning-centered instructional design.
6. LEARNING OUTCOMES: As a result of learning in this course, individuals should be able to . . .
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Create an outcome-oriented course
Apply learning theory to Instructional Design
Apply Active Learning Strategies
Use Assessment Tools For Learning
Engage in the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning
7. Unit Outcomes:
Individuals achieve the learning outcomes by using the course content in the following ways. . .

In Creating Outcome-Oriented Courses, course content will help:
o
Define meaningful, measurable student learning outcomes
61




o
Align course outcomes with GenEd core competencies
o
Align learning activities with course outcomes
o
Align classroom assessment strategies with learning activities and course outcomes
o
Use assessment feedback in collaboration with colleagues to assure student learning align across
courses
In Applying Learning Theory to Instructional Design, course content will help:
o
Create ways to foster social connections in classroom, library, counseling environments
o
Design learning experiences that address students’ unique strengths, needs
o
Develop reciprocity and cooperation among students (interdependence and teamwork)
o
Include content well-suited to Delgado’s diverse student population
o
Establish connections among students in and out of the classroom (learning communities)
o
Vary assessment measures and techniques to engage cognitive diversity
o
Create learning atmospheres that encourage all students to share view points
o
Use alternative methods to engage and deepen critical thinking
o
Develop student self-awareness (learning styles, personality types, assumptions)
In Applying Active Learning Strategies, course content will help:
o
Employ techniques such as engaging lectures, discussions, experiential learning, scenarios, roleplay, case study, problem-based learning, etc.
o
Employ collaborative and cooperative learning techniques
o
Encourage students to challenge ideas with reason
o
Integrate concrete, real-life situations into learning strategies
o
Invite student input on course outcomes and assessments (goals to achieve course outcomes,
choice among assignment topics; in-progress student feedback. . .)
In Using Assessment Tools for Learning, course content will help:
o
Employ formative feedback loops early and often (both to and from students)
o
Provide students with written or face-to-face comments on strengths and weaknesses
o
Give timely feedback on class activities, exams, and papers
o
Design activities to help students self-assess their learning
o
Align summative evaluations with course outcomes and learning activities (appropriate to level of
thinking; appropriate levels of performance)
o
Make assessment criteria public to students and colleagues
o
Evaluate effectiveness of assessment strategies and grading practices
In Engaging in the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, course content will help:
o
Produce professional work that meets the Standards of Teaching Excellence (course designs, action
research projects, publications, etc.)
o
Build upon the work of others (consult literature, peers, self, students)
o
Be open to constructive critique (by peers, students, self)
o
Make work public to College and broader audiences
o
Demonstrate relationship between scholarship and improved teaching and learning processes
o
Expand College capabilities in learning-centeredness by sharing expertise with others (mentorships,
leadership programs, faculty-led workshops, etc.)
7. COURSE CONTENT:
The course content includes a standard textbook, background reading material, short instructional
handouts, and articles on learning-centered practices. It also includes your own course syllabus, the
Delgado course guide, and a General Education Core Competency Matrix to use in developing Student
Learning Outcomes. Topics follow those in the Table of Contents of the textbook, but the forum is not
62
limited to those topics. Finally, the discussions that emerge from your own ideas, reflections on teaching
and learning, and shared observations provide a source of invaluable, collaborative content in this type of
format.
8. TEXT: “Learner-Centered Assessment on College Campuses” by Mary Huba and Jann Freed;
selections from “The Outcomes Primer” and “The Assessment Primer” by Ruth Stiehl and Les
Lewchuk.
9. ASSESSMENT:
Definition: Assessment is the process of gathering and discussing information from
multiple and diverse sources in order to develop a deep understanding of what students
know, understand, and can do with their knowledge as a result of their educational
experiences; the process culminates when assessment results are used to improve
subsequent learning.
Self-Assessment of Learning-Centered Practice – completed at the beginning and the end of the
course to determine any strengthening of these capabilities; provides the participant with important
information for reflective teaching as well as for achieving the learning outcomes of this course.
Informal Feedback – through the online discussion, you will receive informal feedback from peers
through the process of your conversation and as you talk about how you apply learner-centered concepts
in your classes. In addition, the lead facilitator will provide one on one feedback related to the online
discussion, individual work, classroom observation, or in one-on-one consultation as requested by the
participant.
Formal Feedback – rubrics will be used to examine SLOs formulated in the course. Participants will
receive formal feedback on SLOs, Course Designs, and Pilot Plans or classroom observations in the form
of peer review/responses and rubrics used by participants as well as the lead facilitator.
Facilitator Summaries – participants will be divided into small work-teams and select one of the
textbook chapters as a topic of focus for the group. When the group’s chapter is scheduled for discussion,
the group is responsible for facilitating the discussion, engaging all participants in the dialogue, and
following up the topic discussion with a summary. This summary is a synthesis of the main themes found
in the discussion as well as reflections on what those themes mean, what valuable ideas were shared,
and any action taken by any participant that emerged from the topic of discussion. These will be posted
for feedback from participants as well as from the lead facilitator.
Deliverables – participants will design a Learner-Centered syllabus and a pilot plan for use in an initial
course pilot. Participants will have the opportunity to revise drafts and collect feedback on these items
prior to their final presentation to department heads and other colleagues for their information and
comment, if appropriate.
These assessments should provide ample results to continue or to improve learning in this course. The
intention is to “set everyone up for success.”
63
Appendix H
Syllabus Checklist for Major Instructional Components
Student Learning Outcomes Checklist
Yes
No
Yes
No
1. Do the SLOs begin with an active verb?
2. Are the SLOs written as outcomes rather than as objectives?
 Language indicates an important overarching concept versus small lesson
or chapter objectives
 Outcomes address what a student will be able to do at the completion of
the course, instead of what they will be doing in the course
 SLOs address student competency rather than content coverage.
3.
Do the SLOs address the expected level of learning for the course using
Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy as a guideline? (i.e. remembering, understanding,
applying, analyzing, evaluating, creating)
4. Will students understand the SLOs and find them meaningful?
5. Are the SLOs appropriate for the course?
 Consistent with the curriculum document of record
 Represents a fundamental result of the course
 Aligns with other courses in a sequence, if applicable
 Represents collegiate level work
6. Do the SLOs suggest or identify an assessment?
Learning Assessment Checklist
1.
Does the assessment adequately evaluate academic performance relevant to
the desired outcome? (validity)
2. Does this assessment tool enable students with different learning styles or
abilities to show you what they have learned and what they can do?
3. Does the content examined by the assessment align with the content from the
course? (Content validity)
5. Will the assessment provide information at a level appropriate to the
outcome? (Bloom’s)
6. Will the data accurately represent what the student can do in an authentic or
real life situation? (Authentic assessment)
7. Is the grading scheme consistent; would a student receive the same grade for
the same work on multiple evaluations? (Reliability)
8. Can multiple people use the scoring mechanism and come up with the same
general score? (Reliability)
10. Is the assessment summative or formative - if formative does it generate
diagnostic feedback to improve learning?
11. Is the assessment summative or formative - if summative, is the final
evaluation built upon multiple sources of data? (AAHE Good practice)
12 If this is a summative assessment, have the students had ample opportunity for
formative feedback and practice displaying what they know and can do?
13.
Is the assessment unbiased or value-neutral, minimizing an attempt to give
desirable responses and reducing any cultural misinterpretations?
14.
Are the intended uses for the assessment clear? (Grading, program review,
both)
64
15.
Have other faculty provided feedback?
16.
Has the assessment been pilot-tested?
17.
Has the evaluation instrument been normed?
18.
19.
20.
Will the information derived from the assessment help to improve teaching
and learning? (AAHE Good Practice)
Will you provide the students with a copy of the rubric or assignment
grading criteria?
Will you provide the students examples of model work?
Teaching and Learning Activities Checklist
1.
Do they give students opportunities to practice before evaluation?
2.
Do they give students opportunities to learn in different ways?
3.
Do they give students opportunities to DO something with the course content?
4.
Do they give students opportunities to reflect upon their learning?
5.
Is the student or the instructor using the course content?
6.
Are students interacting with each other and with the instructor?
Yes
No
65
Appendix I
The SLO/LA Database
Interface Pages from Slide Presentation
Developing Core General Education Competencies
Increasing Student Success In The Job Market
Overview
Oral/Written
Communication
Computation/
Problem Solving
Applied Technology
Search
Cultural Value &
Awareness
Citizenry & Social
Values Development
Leadership/
Professional Identity
Logical Reasoning/
Critical Thinking
Navigation Options:
1. Select a button above to see an Overview, visit a Competency Domain, or Search
2. Select a button to the right to access teaching/learning resources
Sample SLO Teaching
Methods
Sample SLO
Assessment Rubrics
(Next Page is what user sees if he clicks on “Overview” above)
Classroom Assessment
Techniques
Critical Thinking
Across Domains
Technology
Across Domains
Professionalism
Across Domains
Developing Core General Education Competencies
Increasing Student Success In The Job Market
Oral/Written
Communication
Computation
Problem Solving
Technology
Diversity
Awareness
Citizenry
Social Value
Professional
Identity
Overview
Search
Navigation Options:
1. Select a button above to visit a Competency Domain
2. Select a button to the right to access teaching/learning resources
3. Select a link below to navigate this topic
Overview (bullets
Sample SLO Teaching
Methods
below are links)
• Learning-Centered Framework for General Education Core
Sample SLO
Assessment Rubrics
• Introduction to Competency-Based Learning
• General Education Core Competency Domains
Classroom Assessment
Techniques
• General Education Characteristics
• General Education Student Learning Outcomes
Critical Thinking
Across Domains
• Using the Framework
• Learning Outcomes Project Request Form
• General Education Student Learning Outcomes/Learning
Assessment Pilot
Technology
Across Domains
Professionalism
Across Domains
(Next Page is what user sees if he clicks on “Oral/Written Communication” above)
66
Appendix J
Revised, Approved Master Syllabus Policy/Template
Policy No. AA-1503.1A
POLICY & PROCEDURES MEMORANDUM
TITLE:
MASTER SYLLABUS
EFFECTIVE DATE:
December 7, 2004*
(*Title Updates: 1/30/08)
CANCELLATION: AA-1503.1 (6/20/95)
OFFICE:
Academic Affairs (AA)
POLICY STATEMENT
It is the policy of Delgado Community College to have and maintain an up-to-date master
syllabus for each credit course currently taught at the College. Master syllabi are developed and
managed in accordance with Louisiana Community and Technical College System Policy
I.1.034, Participatory Curriculum Development, as well as the guidelines and procedures
outlined in this memorandum.
PROCEDURES & SPECIFIC INFORMATION
1.
Purpose
To publish policy and procedures for the development and management of the
master syllabus for each course carrying credit hours offered by Delgado Community
College.
2.
Scope and Applicability
This policy and procedures memorandum applies to all faculty and academic units
of the College.
3.
Responsibilities
Under the authority of the Board of Supervisors for the Louisiana Community and
Technical College System and with the leadership of the Vice Chancellor for Learning
and Student Development, Division Deans, and the Curriculum Committee of the
67
College, the faculty develops, maintains, and uses the appropriate master syllabus for
teaching credit courses.
4.
Components
A syllabus is an approved plan for the content, instruction, assessment, and
management of credit courses. A master syllabus is the approved syllabus for a course
which must be used for all sections of the course, wherever offered and regardless of
campus or delivery system. The master syllabus is the basis of all course syllabi.
In developing the course syllabus--which the faculty member must give to
students at the start of each semester--the faculty member must include the major
components of the course as outlined in the master syllabus. Faculty members are
encouraged to enhance and individualize their course syllabus. Faculty members are
encouraged to include policies and procedures regarding attendance, discipline, etc., in
their course syllabi. Each instructor's course syllabus must be submitted to the academic
unit supervisor every semester for review at least once each academic year.
5.
Development of Master Syllabi
A master syllabus is developed by the faculty member(s) responsible for a
particular course. After approval by the appropriate Division Dean(s), the syllabus is
presented to the College Curriculum Committee for review. Sufficient justification
should be provided to plan for the new course and for faculty/administration evaluation
of the new course. The Committee can (1) recommend approval; (2) recommend
approval with amendments; or (3) reject the proposal with or without recommendations.
The Committee makes its recommendations to the Vice Chancellor for Learning and
Student Development who gives final approval.
6.
Management of Master Syllabi
Full-time faculty members are expected to participate and contribute to the
development of master course syllabi in their discipline. If major changes in a syllabus
are necessary, the syllabus must be treated as a new course syllabus and must go through
the curriculum review process. The Vice Chancellor for Learning and Student
Development makes the final decision to accept a master course syllabus. Once the
master syllabus is approved, it is entered into the official master syllabus file. The
official master syllabus file, which is maintained by the Director of Curriculum and
Program Development, contains the official documents used for inter- and intrainstitutional communication about course content. At least once every five (5) years
faculty and academic administrators must review a master syllabus.
7.
Academic Freedom
In accordance with the College’s Policy on Academic Freedom, the guidelines
and procedures outlined in this memorandum will not be used to interfere with the
68
academic freedom of instructors to add to and enhance their courses in content, teaching
style, delivery, use of technology, or independent assessment of learning. The faculty is
encouraged to be creative and innovative in setting high standards for courses.
8.
Cancellation
This policy and procedures memorandum cancels AA-1503.1, “Master Syllabus,”
dated June 20, 1995.
SIGNATURE
Alex Johnson
Chancellor
Attachment:
Attachment A – Master Syllabus and Course Syllabi: Guidelines and Formats
Policy Reference:
Principles of Accreditation, Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, Commission
on Colleges
Louisiana Community and Technical College System, Policy I.1.034 Participatory
Curriculum Development
Review Process:
Curriculum Committee 10/22/04
Academic Affairs Council 10/28/04
College Council 12/7/04
Distribution:
Distributed Electronically Via the College's Intranet and E-mail Systems
69
Attachment A (page 1 of 5)
MASTER SYLLABUS AND COURSE SYLLABI:
Guidelines and Formats
Attached is the format to be used in developing the Master Syllabus and the suggested model for Course
Syllabi.
Definitions
Master Syllabus: This syllabus contains the approved student learning outcomes, content, and
assessment standards for a credit course at Delgado Community College, no matter when or where it is taught,
who teaches it, and regardless of the delivery system. There is only one Master Syllabus for each course
taught at the College. Each course must have a Master Syllabus on file in the Office of Curriculum and
Program Development.
Course Syllabus: A syllabus developed by an individual instructor based on the Master Syllabus. It is
revised each semester, provided to the faculty member's supervisor, and given to all students, preferably on
the first day of classes. The Course Syllabus provides each instructor the opportunity to individualize an
approved course and to respond to the specific needs of the students and the circumstances of the class.
Scope
All courses have one Master Syllabus agreed to by the faculty who teach those courses. If possible, all
Master Syllabi should be put in a common form using Microsoft Word, and both a hard copy and an
electronic copy be submitted to the Office of Curriculum and Program Development. Master Syllabi for all
courses must be filed in the Curriculum and Program Development Office. The normal administrative
procedures are:



Faculty members/lead instructors/department heads on all campuses agree on a Master
Syllabus that follows the format and guidelines provided.
- For divisions with many adjunct faculty or that have multiple courses building upon
one another, instructors may decide to design a more detailed “model” syllabus from
the master, which all faculty of a given course could use.
The Master Syllabus is submitted to all Deans of divisions where the course is taught.
The Master Syllabus is submitted to the Curriculum and Program Development Office.
Approved:
Curriculum Committee May 1, 2009
Vice Chancellor for Learning & Student Development May 26, 2009
70
Attachment A (page 2 of 5)
Master Syllabus Format
This is the required Master Syllabus format for all Delgado Community College credit courses.
CURRENT (APPROVED) COURSE PREFIX, NUMBER AND NAME
Course Lecture-Lab-Credit and/ Contact Hours:
-
-
/ _____
Course Maximum Enrollment: _______________________
Lab Fee: __________________
Special Facility or Equipment Needs/Safety Rules and Issues: ________________________
****
Course Description: Describes the type and level of course, including typical method of
delivery. The description should be no more than five typed lines in length appropriate for the
College Catalog. Each course description should begin with something other than a verb. The
first portion is a half-sentence, followed by complete sentences. The sentences of the description
should group similar concepts together.
Include a brief statement about how this course contributes to the College mission for student
learning and/or how it contributes to developing certain General Education competencies in the
student.
Pre- and/or Co-requisites: Specifies the appropriate pre-requisite and/or co-requisite courses
based on skill and experience levels required for the course.
Pre-requisite(s):_____________________________________________________________
Co-requisite(s): _____________________________________________________________
Course Goal: The goal should be a general statement of what the course is intended to
accomplish, including the particular program outcomes or General Education
competencies/characteristics the course is designed to develop. The goal should answer the
question, "What does the course do for the student?"
Student Learning Outcomes: Learning outcomes state what students will be able to do as a
result of learning in the course. Use measurable or observable terms to define 1-5
71
overarching learning outcomes. They should begin with active verbs, such as those used in
Bloom’s Taxonomy, and should suggest an assessment of some kind. Each outcome statement
should complete the sentence, "As a result of learning in this course, the student will be able
to...."
Course Content: This is an outline or a narrative description and explanation of the major
topics, concepts, or themes of study that students will learn about in the course. Any revisions of
the major topics of the course content must be brought before the Curriculum Committee.
Texts and Readings: The text(s) and/or reading(s) agreed upon by all concerned faculty should
be listed in an appropriate format giving the title, author, edition and year of publication. If
applicable, additional recommended readings, websites and/or software materials should be
listed. Updates of the agreed-upon text(s) and/or reading(s) need only be revised with Division
Dean’s approval.
Assessment: This section should explain the ways students will demonstrate achievement of
learning outcomes as well as the quality standards expected by the discipline. Types of
assessment should be consistent with the language used to define learning outcomes and produce
reliable measurements of student learning. For example, the statement for Assessment on Master
Syllabi might read, “Student learning in this course will be monitored and measured using a
variety of approved methods including but not limited to writing assignments, research projects,
collaborative projects, presentations, portfolios, case studies, demonstrations and problemsolving activities.”
Although not required for the Master Syllabus, each individual instructor's Course Syllabus
MUST specify exact expectations of students, including rubrics that explain what different levels
of performance look like and how grades are assigned to them.
Statement for Disability Services: The policy statement regarding disability services is
included in all master and course syllabi and should cite the College Catalog as a source of more
information.
Approved:
Curriculum Committee May 1, 2009
Vice Chancellor for Learning & Student Development May 26, 2009
72
Attachment A (page 4 of 5)
Course Syllabus Format
This is a suggested format for Course Syllabi which instructors must present to division
deans and give to students at the beginning of every semester for each course. The individual
course syllabus with regard to description, content, etc., can elaborate on the master syllabus,
but must contain all major components described in the master syllabus for that course.
COURSE NAME
Instructor: _________________________Course Section(s): _________________
Office (place): _______________________Meeting Place(s): __________________
Office Hours: _________________________
Safety Issues & Rules: __________________________________________________________
Course Name (complete): _______________________________________________________
Course Prefix and Number: ___ Course Lecture-Lab-Credit and/ Contact Hours:
/__
Course Description: Includes catalog description but may be more detailed.
Pre- and/or Co-requisites:______________________________________________________
Instructors may include a brief statement describing what is expected that students already know or
are able to do coming into the course.
Course Goal: General statement of the purpose of the course; may indicate how consistent the
course is with the College Mission and the needs of Delgado students; if appropriate, indicates
program goals met by the course and the types of General Education Competencies/Characteristics
developed as a result of learning in the course.
Student Learning Outcomes: These are the overarching course outcomes in the format, "As a
result of learning in this course, you will be able to . . ." The instructor may also add outcomes in
oral communication, writing, critical thinking, and problem solving skills.
Course Content and Unit or Topic Outcomes: This section provides students with a weekly or
daily schedule of classes. It lists the assignments and learning activities for each Unit or Topic of the
course, including specific outcomes expected from learning in each area and exams or assessments
73
of learning in each area. These specific outcomes may be an elaboration of course level SLOs listed
on the Master Syllabus, providing greater detail at the Unit or Topic level. The following sample
format may be used for this section:
Date or
Week #
Unit/Topic and Learning outcome.
“As a result of learning in this
section of the course, you will be
able to…”
Learning Activities
and Assignments
Learning Assessment,
Tests or Exams
Texts, Readings and Other Educational Resources: Required texts for purchase,
supplementary texts, library readings, websites, audio-visual/computer materials, supplies or
special equipment, and educational resources (e.g., availability of tutoring, learning resource
centers, and computer labs).
Assessment: Explain how student learning will be monitored and measured. Specify
expectations of students. Include assessment objectives (student knowledge, skills, attitude, and
behavior); specify outcomes criteria and include grading rubrics to clarify expectations and
levels of quality. Explain the grading rationale.
Teaching/Learning Methods: Instructors may choose to inform students of the basic structure
of the course, i.e. lecture, PowerPoint, group discussion, collaborative learning, one-on-one
coaching, etc.
Statement for Disability Services: The policy statement regarding disability services must be
included in the course syllabus and should cite the College Catalog as a source of more
information.
College and Classroom Policies: Instructors are encouraged to include policies and procedures
regarding attendance, discipline, make-up exams, etc., in their individual course syllabi.
Approved:
Curriculum Committee May 1, 2009
Vice Chancellor for Learning & Student Development May 26, 2009
74
Appendix K
DCC GenEd Core Competency/SLO Matrix – Excerpt
This document is in development. Down the first column are Delgado’s 9 General Education core competencies and characteristics we hope to develop in our students. The next
three columns divide each core competency into stages that correspond to Bloom’s taxonomy of learning. Plotted according to the competency and stage to which Title III Pilot
instructors have determined they contribute are course level student learning outcomes for courses to be piloted for Title III.
GenEd Core Competency –
A set of skills, knowledge,
attitudes, and behaviors
developed and consistently
applied in the workforce and in
life.
Stage 1 – Foundation
(Remembering, Understanding)
Student may be passive and
compliant, but should be attentive
and aware. Much observing and
recalling information at this stage.
Basic recall includes dates, events,
places, major ideas and mastery of
subject matter or basic skill.
This stage begins the student’s
ability to understand information,
grasp meaning, translate knowledge
into new context, interpret facts,
compare, contrast, order, infer
causes, and predict consequences.
Stage 2 – Inquiry
(Applying, Analyzing)
The student is now using information,
methods, concepts, theories in new
situations, solving problems using learned
skills or knowledge.
Student is bringing together different values
and building internally a consistent value
system that can be see in his/her behavior.
He/she sees patterns, organizes parts,
recognizes hidden meanings, and identifies
components.
Stage 3 – Meaning-Making
(Evaluating, Creating)
Student uses old ideas to create new
ones, generalizes from given facts,
relates knowledge from several areas,
predicts and draws conclusions.
He/she compares and discriminates
between ideas, assesses value of
theories, makes choices based on
reasoned argument, verifies the value of
evidence, recognizes subjectivity.
Student begins to behave according to a
moral “life style” and maintains a
consistent philosophy regardless of
coercive surroundings.
I. Writing and Critical Thinking
– ability to read satisfactorily in
an organized and critical
manner. Demonstrates a general
understanding of the English
language.
Characteristics:
1) The ability to describe, report,
order and analyze facts and
opinions
2) The ability to distinguish
between facts and opinions, to
synthesize facts and opinions,
and to think critically.
3) The ability to compose and
express a series of related
ENGL 061 – Developmental English I
Apply the fundamentals of grammar
to his/her own essay
Identify and correct specific elements
of grammar
ENGL 101 – English Composition I:
Edit to correct errors in grammar,
punctuation, spelling, and usage
ENGL 221/222 – British Lit. I & II:
Independently synthesize and analyze
FREN 101 – Elementary French I
CCSS 107 – College Success Skills:
Analyze what’s required for entering the
professional workforce
ENGL 062 – Developmental Composition II:
Generate and organize their own ideas into
an essay written in predominantly error free
standard English prose.
ENGL 101 – English Composition I:
Accurately quote, summarize, and
paraphrase
ENGL 102 – English Composition II:
Read with comprehension
Analyze ideas, opinions, patterns, and
themes
Apply critical thinking skills to real world
experiences including other disciplines
BIOL 212 – Microbiology Laboratory:
Demonstrate improved critical thinking
skills through intricate problem-solving
analysis
ENGL 061 – Developmental English I
Generate and organize his/her own ideas
into a paragraph
Generate and organize his/her own ideas
into an essay
ENGL 062 – Developmental Composition
II:
Generate and organize their own ideas
into an essay written in predominantly
error free standard English prose.
ENGL 101 – English Composition I:
Develop and organize ideas to support
Writing
- Construct cohesive
compositions using the
themes covered in
75
GenEd Core Competency –
A set of skills, knowledge,
attitudes, and behaviors
developed and consistently
applied in the workforce and in
life.
Stage 1 – Foundation
(Remembering, Understanding)
Student may be passive and
compliant, but should be attentive
and aware. Much observing and
recalling information at this stage.
Basic recall includes dates, events,
places, major ideas and mastery of
subject matter or basic skill.
This stage begins the student’s
ability to understand information,
grasp meaning, translate knowledge
into new context, interpret facts,
compare, contrast, order, infer
causes, and predict consequences.
Stage 2 – Inquiry
(Applying, Analyzing)
The student is now using information,
methods, concepts, theories in new
situations, solving problems using learned
skills or knowledge.
Student is bringing together different values
and building internally a consistent value
system that can be see in his/her behavior.
He/she sees patterns, organizes parts,
recognizes hidden meanings, and identifies
components.
Stage 3 – Meaning-Making
(Evaluating, Creating)
Student uses old ideas to create new
ones, generalizes from given facts,
relates knowledge from several areas,
predicts and draws conclusions.
He/she compares and discriminates
between ideas, assesses value of
theories, makes choices based on
reasoned argument, verifies the value of
evidence, recognizes subjectivity.
Student begins to behave according to a
moral “life style” and maintains a
consistent philosophy regardless of
coercive surroundings.
thoughts, unified in content and
coherent in language.
French 101
Reading/Listening
Comprehension:
- Translate French 101
level passages written in
non-technical French
ENGL 205 – Intro.to Short Story & Novel:
Relate literary works to personal experience
Analyze/interpret literary works
Analyze relationships among selected
elements of literary form and thematic
content (e.g. setting and characterization, or
symbol and theme)
ENGL 206 – Intro.to Poetry and Drama:
Analyze poetry and drama by using
interpretative tools
Write a literary analysis using proper MLA
documentation
ENGL 212 – American Literature II:
Analyze and interpret a text in writing
FREN 101 – Elementary French I
and explicit thesis statement
ENGL 102 – English Composition II:
Synthesize ideas on a variety of topics
Integrate current, accurate, and valid
information from various sources, without
incident of plagiarism
ENGL 212 – American Literature II:
Use critical thinking to plan and
implement a project
Evaluate primary and/or secondary
sources and integrate into an original
response
ENGL 221/222 – British Lit. I & II:
Demonstrate respect for others in written
responses
PHIL 175 – Social Ethics:
Evaluate arguments and identify faulty
arguments in reason and logic
SPCH 230 – Public Speaking:
Assess your audience, occasion, and
communication context for an oral
presentation
Research and Select appropriate subject
(Need to accommodate
foreign languages and
sign language here.
Also need to consider
extracting “Critical
Thinking” and define that
as a skill Assessments to
include:
Write a well-organized
paper using appropriate
documentation
Read a document and
demonstrate a
comprehensive response
Identify the theme and
READ 072 – Dev. Reading II:
Identify and use context clues to
understand the meaning of unfamiliar
vocabulary
Identify the stated main idea in a
paragraph
Recognize the supporting details in a
paragraph and state how they relate
to the main idea (pattern of
organization)
Speaking/Listening Comprehension:
- Answer and ask basic questions
about identity and origin
- Describe themselves and others
- Explain schedules and daily activities
- Communicate preferences, likes,
dislikes, and plans in the near future
76
GenEd Core Competency –
A set of skills, knowledge,
attitudes, and behaviors
developed and consistently
applied in the workforce and in
life.
setting of a written
document)
Stage 1 – Foundation
(Remembering, Understanding)
Student may be passive and
compliant, but should be attentive
and aware. Much observing and
recalling information at this stage.
Basic recall includes dates, events,
places, major ideas and mastery of
subject matter or basic skill.
This stage begins the student’s
ability to understand information,
grasp meaning, translate knowledge
into new context, interpret facts,
compare, contrast, order, infer
causes, and predict consequences.
Stage 2 – Inquiry
(Applying, Analyzing)
The student is now using information,
methods, concepts, theories in new
situations, solving problems using learned
skills or knowledge.
Student is bringing together different values
and building internally a consistent value
system that can be see in his/her behavior.
He/she sees patterns, organizes parts,
recognizes hidden meanings, and identifies
components.
Stage 3 – Meaning-Making
(Evaluating, Creating)
Student uses old ideas to create new
ones, generalizes from given facts,
relates knowledge from several areas,
predicts and draws conclusions.
He/she compares and discriminates
between ideas, assesses value of
theories, makes choices based on
reasoned argument, verifies the value of
evidence, recognizes subjectivity.
Student begins to behave according to a
moral “life style” and maintains a
consistent philosophy regardless of
coercive surroundings.
Writing
- Construct cohesive compositions
using the themes covered in French
101
matter to be organized and presented in
an informative speech
HIST 101/102 – Early Western
Civilization/Modern Western Civilization:
I. Writing and Critical Thinking,
(cont.)
Use academic skills necessary for
success in any college-level history
class
READ 072 – Dev. Reading II:
Use decoding skills in order to read
independently at 8-12 grade level
READ 101 – Analytical Reading
Demonstrate the ability to read
college-level materials critically and
analytically
Identify and analyze the organizational
parts of both fiction and nonfiction
77
Appendix L
Sample Slides from Instructional Design Workshops
Integrated Course Design
Planning for learning
Today’s Objectives
• Identify a strategy for addressing resistance
• Explain a developmental learning strategy
• List examples of active learning
• List teaching/learning activities based on brain
research
• Name the basic components of course design
• Analyze a course design for effective integration
Integration Example #1
Student Learning Outcomes
Teaching and
Learning Activities
Feedback and Assessment
78
Part 2:
Writing Student Learning
Outcomes
Try it
•
•
•
•
Look at the big picture
Consider the taxonomy
Determine results of learning
Determine performance criteria
Critique it
Are these well written student learning outcomes?
• Know more about personal communication style
• Understand the role of gender and cultural differences in
communication
• Complete the “Feedback on Verbal Communications” to
identify my strengths and weakness
• Identify and list my communication strengths and
weaknesses, design an action plan, and evaluate the
effectiveness of learning three months later
• Interpret the logical consistency of a report.
79
Consider the course you teach
Part 2 – Determining Assessment
Learning Outcomes:
- Distinguish between various types of assessment
- Choose an assessment that aligns with course outcomes
Learning Assessment Process – Course Level
Define
Student
Learning
Outcomes
Discuss and use
assessment
results to
improve
learning
We Are
Here
Develop or
select
assessment
measures
Create
experiences
leading to
outcomes
Try It
Learning Outcome: Distinguish between various types of assessment
• Examine a student learning outcome
– How would I know if the student was learning
how to do this?
– How would I determine whether or not a student
had achieved this?
Learning Outcome: Choose an assessment that aligns with course outcomes
80
Assessment Tool Checklist
–Do they provide feedback to students
for improvement?
–Do students perform the outcome in
some way in the assessment?
–Are they in alignment with the
teaching methods and learning
activities?
–Do they provide information
instructors can use to facilitate
learning or improve instruction?
Learning Outcome: Choose an assessment that aligns with course outcomes
Consider the course you teach
Part 3 – Achieving Learning Outcomes
Try It
Learning Outcome: Choose learning activities that align with course outcomes
• Examine a student learning outcome
– From what kind of an experience would a student
learn how to do this?
– What kind of activity would set a student up for
success on the final evaluation?
Learning Outcome: Choose learning activities that align with course outcomes
81
Activity Checklist
– Do they give students opportunities to practice before
evaluation?
– Do they give students opportunities to learn in
different ways?
– Do they give students opportunities to DO something
with the course content?
– Do they give students opportunities to reflect upon
their learning?
– Is the student or the instructor using the course
content?
– Are students interacting with each other and with the
instructor?
Learning Outcome: Choose learning activities that align with course outcomes
•
•
•
Peer Review
Outcome statements
– Do they begin with an active verb?
– Are there less than 6 of them?
– Do they suggest an assessment?
– Will the chosen assessments measure them?
– Do they align with our GenEd core competencies?
Learning assessment methods
– Do they provide feedback to students for improvement?
– Do students perform the outcome in some way in the assessment?
– Are they in alignment with the teaching methods and learning activities?
– Do they provide information instructors can use to facilitate learning or
improve instruction?
Teaching and learning activities
– Do they give students opportunities to practice before evaluation?
– Do they give students opportunities to learn in different ways?
– Do they give students opportunities to DO something with the course
content?
– Do they give students opportunities to reflect upon their learning?
– Is the student or the instructor using the course content?
– Are students interacting with each other and with the instructor?
82
Appendix M
Cohort Course Evaluation Form – Sample
Cohort # – Date
Impact of Title III Program Goals: Please use this scale to respond to the following statements:
1
Yes, due to this program
2
Mostly due to this program
3
Somewhat due to this program
4
Not due to this program
5
1. I have an understanding of what student learning outcomes are.
2. I feel confident in creating an outcome-oriented course.
3. I have an understanding of how active and collaborative methods increase learning.
4. I will use active and collaborative learning techniques in my course.
5. I learned something valuable from the stories/experience of my colleagues.
6. I see the value that good course design can have on student learning.
7. I am able to apply learning theory to instructional design.
Feedback for Continual Improvement
On the plus side, list those things that were valuable in this program.
On the delta side, list those things that you would change to increase the value of this program.
+
83
Appendix N
Data Results from Likert Scale Survey Items
“Designs for Learning” Course and Workshop
I have an understanding of Student Learning
Outcomes
3 4
Completely due to this program
19
Mostly due to this program
Somewhat due to this program
79
Not due to this program
93% agree that the program helped them understand student learning outcomes
6% agree that something other than the program helped with their understanding of student learning
outcomes
I feel confident in creating an outcomeoriented course
2
Completely due to this program
6
Mostly due to this program
35
62
Somewhat due to this program
Not due to this program
92% agree that the program helped them feel confident in creating an outcome-oriented course
7% agree that something other than the program helped them feel confident in creating an outcome-oriented
course.
84
I have an understanding of how active and
collaborative methods increase learning
7 2
Completely due to this program
Mostly due to this program
34
60
Somewhat due to this program
Not due to this program
91% agree that the program helped them understand how active/collaborative methods increase learning
8% agree that something other than the program helped them understand how active/collaborative methods
increase learning
I will use active and collaborative learning
techniques in my course
5
Completely due to this program
5
Mostly due to this program
13
38
Somewhat due to this program
Not due to this program
84% agree that the program helped them use active and collaborative learning techniques in their course
16% agree that something other than the program helped them use active and collaborative learning
techniques in their course
85
I learned something valuable from the
stories/experiences of my colleagues
2
2
Completely due to this program
32
Mostly due to this program
67
Somewhat due to this program
Not due to this program
96% agree that the program helped them learn something valuable from their colleagues
4% agree that something other than the program helped them learn something valuable from their colleagues
I see the value that good course design can
have on student learning
3 2
Completely due to this program
14
Mostly due to this program
Somewhat due to this program
45
Not due to this program
92% agree that the program helped them see the value that good course design can have on student learning
8% agree that something else helped them see the value that good course design can have on student learning
86
I am able to apply learning theory to
instructional design as a result of this
program
1
Completely due to this program
2
Mostly due to this program
18
25
Somewhat due to this program
Not due to this program
93% agree that the program helped them apply learning theory to instructional design
6% agree that something other than the program helped them apply learning theory to instructional design
87
Appendix O
Raw Data Plus/Delta Feedback, Course Evaluation
Plus (The Keepers) – 207 data points
Sub-Categories
Meta Category - Curriculum/Delivery
(112 data points)
Instructor-39
Structure/Delivery method-38
Resources/Content-23
General value added-12
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Instructor
Instructor
Instructor
Instructor
Instructor
Instructor
Instructor
Instructor
Instructor
Instructor
Instructor
Instructor
Instructor
Instructor
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
Presents knowledge well
Models what she teaches
Passion for topic
Angela-good teacher
Angela-great at keeping the discussions flowing without lecturing.
The instructor's patience
Gives clean instructions
Presenter tried to work with the group
Working one on one
Working with Angela
Angela and Pat
Angela's actually working with us, not just directions.
Feedback
Also, one on one meetings to outline my course and program
outcomes
Angela is an excellent facilitator
Very helpful and open
The facilitation ability of the teacher to coordinate the class
Facilitation by the team leader to clarify "grey" issues
Angela
This has helped me so much.
Thank you for your help.
Angela Breckenridge
Angela's patient guidance
Also I felt Angela worked hard to give me abstractions/outcomes,
"Goals"
Excellent Speaker
Angela Breckenridge in general
Angela as an instructor
Excellent teacher
Angela's expertise on the subject
Her ability to keep discussions on track and positive
Well done Angela
Availability of Instructor.
Encouragement
Helpfulness of Instructor
Angela Breckenridge
Continuous enthusiastic engagement/constructive feedback from
Angela
Mandatory one on one time with instructor
Still need help in writing outcomes for our course
Great Instruction
Instructor
Instructor
Instructor
Instructor
Instructor
Instructor
Instructor
Instructor
Instructor
Instructor
Instructor
Instructor
Instructor
Instructor
Instructor
Instructor
Instructor
Instructor
Instructor
Instructor
Instructor
Instructor
Instructor
Instructor
Instructor
88
Plus (The Keepers) – 207 data points
1.
2.
3.
4.
Sub-Categories
Structure/Delivery method
Structure/Delivery method
Structure/Delivery method
Structure/Delivery method
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
Ability to work around class schedule
On time
Presentation
The flow of information and the order in which it was given helped
me to the ultimate goal of dissecting my course to discover what the
learning outcomes were
Understanding of the Nursing program design before the
presentation.
You always have a lot of detailed well-groomed info in your
presenting.
Group Activities
Relaxed atmosphere
Design
Presentation was excellent, pacing good
PowerPoint presentations
Good PowerPoint slides
Able to work in course groups
Group Activities
Writing
Peer reviews
Paired group activities
Smaller consistent groups/members
Large group intro & wrap-up
Very organized
On point
Guest Lecturer
PowerPoint presentations
Dialogue
Coincide manner in which information was presented
Well organized
The readings when combined w/discussion
Work in groups
Group project & interaction In the first semester
Discussion of SLO's
Exercises
Awesome how material from Nursing course were incorporated into
w/s
Active Participation
Stimulated the thought process
Activities
Presentation by each participant
Exercises
Individual Presentations
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Excellent topic
Examples used by Angela
Handouts
Resources Online
Excellent Book
The readings
The readings
Resources/Content
Resources/Content
Resources/Content
Resources/Content
Resources/Content
Resources/Content
Resources/Content
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
Structure/Delivery method
Structure/Delivery method
Structure/Delivery method
Structure/Delivery method
Structure/Delivery method
Structure/Delivery method
Structure/Delivery method
Structure/Delivery method
Structure/Delivery method
Structure/Delivery method
Structure/Delivery method
Structure/Delivery method
Structure/Delivery method
Structure/Delivery method
Structure/Delivery method
Structure/Delivery method
Structure/Delivery method
Structure/Delivery method
Structure/Delivery method
Structure/Delivery method
Structure/Delivery method
Structure/Delivery method
Structure/Delivery method
Structure/Delivery method
Structure/Delivery method
Structure/Delivery method
Structure/Delivery method
Structure/Delivery method
Structure/Delivery method
Structure/Delivery method
Structure/Delivery method
Structure/Delivery method
Structure/Delivery method
Structure/Delivery method
89
Plus (The Keepers) – 207 data points
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
Text book
Booklet
Textbooks
The PowerPoint video that showed the evolution of technology etc.
(Think about it?)
Reading assignments & discussions
Binder material
Textbooks
Idea paper
I really enjoyed the presentations each session
Information
Gave great examples
"2" Scores indicate where felt abstract nature of concepts, not
presentation made some ideas difficult to catch-otherwise.
Harder Edges
Basic research
Information provided
Handouts
1.
2.
3.
Sub-Categories
Resources/Content
Resources/Content
Resources/Content
Resources/Content
Resources/Content
Resources/Content
Resources/Content
Resources/Content
Resources/Content
Resources/Content
Resources/Content
Resources/Content
Resources/Content
Resources/Content
Resources/Content
Resources/Content
Presentations were excellent
This is a very good workshop.
You have managed to put so many "essential truths" in a
comprehensible 2 hours.
4. Pauses to think
5. Workshops
6. Definitely
7. This was very valuable
8. Knowledge
9. Overall really enjoyed the course
10. Learned a lot
11. I would change nothing
12. All of the above were valuable
General value added
General value added
General value added
Meta Category – Application to Teaching Practice
(55 data points)
Core Competencies for Faculty-29
Application in practice-16
Awareness/Perspective Shift-10
1.
Core Competencies for Faculty
Recognizing important concepts to focus on for Teacher / student
education
2. Creating outcomes & objectives
3. Creating outcomes & objectives
4. S.L. outcomes, Objectives, Assessments, How they affect each other
5. Outcomes - SLO
6. State learning outcomes in terms of what you want the students to
"own"
7. Especially with new / younger instructor
8. Various learning styles
9. Student Learning Outcomes & Student Learning Objectives
10. A better understanding of active/collaborative learning
11. Finally get what learning outcomes are
12. Configuring of outcomes & assessments
General value added
General value added
General value added
General value added
General value added
General value added
General value added
General value added
General value added
Core Competencies for Faculty
Core Competencies for Faculty
Core Competencies for Faculty
Core Competencies for Faculty
Core Competencies for Faculty
Core Competencies for Faculty
Core Competencies for Faculty
Core Competencies for Faculty
Core Competencies for Faculty
Core Competencies for Faculty
Core Competencies for Faculty
90
Plus (The Keepers) – 207 data points
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
Sub-Categories
Core Competencies for Faculty
Core Competencies for Faculty
Core Competencies for Faculty
Core Competencies for Faculty
Core Competencies for Faculty
Core Competencies for Faculty
Core Competencies for Faculty
Core Competencies for Faculty
Core Competencies for Faculty
Core Competencies for Faculty
Core Competencies for Faculty
28.
29.
Better understanding of assessment linked to improve learning
Learning outcomes
Stimulated participants to think about SLO's
"Integrated Course Design" which utilizes Learning Goals
Teaching / Learning Activities, and feedback & Assessment
A deeper understanding of the terms
Learning objectives
Integrated definition assessment and outcomes
Learned about "Integrated" course design
How it relates to older terminology of goals/outcomes & objectives
Identify ways to evaluate student learning using methods to provide
feedback in an ongoing manner and to help them retain content
learned
Using the active learning principles
giving me tools to enhance student learning
Justify what a student should learn in class
How students learn material & How assessment improves your
classroom experience
Active Learning
Hold myself accountable for enabling learning
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Always in context of actual courses
Using the actual master & course syllabi as models - double plus.
Used our Nursing SLO and course Outcomes so it was real world
Allowed us to apply your "content" right away
Models of SLO's/assessments already being used at DCC
I plan to utilize this in my particular course.
Samples from our curriculum
One minute paper for feedback
Practicality
Student learning outcome development in a course syllabus
Methods for feedback
Methods for assessment
Practice exercises
Idea's on different learning techniques
Teaching strategies
Practicality
Application in practice
Application in practice
Application in practice
Application in practice
Application in practice
Application in practice
Application in practice
Application in practice
Application in practice
Application in practice
Application in practice
Application in practice
Application in practice
Application in practice
Application in practice
Application in practice
24.
25.
26.
27.
1.
It helped me have the confidence to break traditional Science teacher
roles
2. Re-thinking current methods
3. Re-thinking current strategies
4. I really needed to analyze my courses
5. Stress using an actual course I'm teaching
6. The way I impart my information.
7. Started a thought process
8. If we as educators embrace that notion that notion, then education
should prove meaningful for the students we teach without ever
having to articulate why learning any discipline is important.
9. Took a bit before I felt I understood how to write a better syllabus
10. Freedom to experiment w/ teaching and learning
Core Competencies for Faculty
Core Competencies for Faculty
Core Competencies for Faculty
Core Competencies for Faculty
Core Competencies for Faculty
Core Competencies for Faculty
Awareness/Perspective Shift
Awareness/Perspective Shift
Awareness/Perspective Shift
Awareness/Perspective Shift
Awareness/Perspective Shift
Awareness/Perspective Shift
Awareness/Perception Shift
Awareness/Perspective Shift
Awareness/Perspective Shift
Awareness/Perspective Shift
91
Plus (The Keepers) – 207 data points
Sub-Categories
Meta Category – Collaboration
(40 data points)
Structured dialogue -20
Why it’s value added-20
1.
This was a great course for the instructor to collaborate with each
other
Feedback from other faculty
Group Discussions
Exchange of Ideas
Ability to interact with colleagues from diverse populations and
disciplines.
Loved group sessions where we got to share ideas from difference
disciplines.
Experiences from other instructors.
Group Discussions
Discussion among other colleagues
Discussion with faculty of other disciplines
Group Discussions
Group Activities with other colleagues
Group Discussions
Opportunities to share positive/negative teaching experiences.
Discussion
Being with other teachers
Discussing our student
Made us collaborate with our own group and other groups. - asked
thought- provoking questions
Sharing of the "Learning Journey" with Title III faculty at each
meeting.
Meetings with other faculty to share what others are doing in other
disciplines
Structured dialogue
All having the same problem
It didn't matter whether it was culinary arts or math
To learn what others are doing
apply similar things
Good collegial collaboration
Listening to others ideas
Sharing interaction with colleagues on designing learning
Discussion of the ways students learn
Discussion of shared experiences by faculty from variety disciplines
Communication about learning outcomes with colleagues
An appreciation that education does not occur in a vacuum and that
all disciplines are inter related.
Models of SLO's assessments already being used at DCC.
Discussion of the techniques used by other instructors.
Discussions of our examples
Made us collaborate with our own group and other groups. - asked
thought- provoking questions
Sharing of the "Learning Journey" with Title III faculty at each
meeting.
Meetings with other faculty to share what others are doing in other
disciplines
Why it’s value added
Why it’s value added
Why it’s value added
Why it’s value added
Why it’s value added
Why it’s value added
Why it’s value added
Why it’s value added
Why it’s value added
Why it’s value added
Why it’s value added
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
Structured dialogue
Structured dialogue
Structured dialogue
Structured dialogue
Structured dialogue
Structured dialogue
Structured dialogue
Structured dialogue
Structured dialogue
Structured dialogue
Structured dialogue
Structured dialogue
Structured dialogue
Structured dialogue
Structured dialogue
Structured dialogue
Structured dialogue
Structured dialogue
Structured dialogue
Why it’s value added
Why it’s value added
Why it’s value added
Why it’s value added
Why it’s value added
Why it’s value added
92
Plus (The Keepers) – 207 data points
18. Collegial nature of group
19. Opportunity to discuss course to colleagues in a less stressful
atmosphere
20. Faculty interaction
Delta (Changes) – 90 data points
Sub-Categories
Why it’s value added
Why it’s value added
Why it’s value added
Sub-Categories
Meta Category – Curriculum/Delivery
(51 data points)
Structure/Delivery method-27
Timing/Venue-21
Resources/Content-3
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
More discussion
This could be done online
More role-playing of how a particular strategy works
Could cluster instructions
Less face to face meetings
More face to face meetings
For me online takes too much time
better designed discussions on blackboard
Focus on most important concept(s) Instead of 20 page details
Assessment of teaching style in the beginning of the program
More reflective discussion per session
Terminology was hard to grasp/sort at first the difference between
Outcome and Objective
Subject-focused
How to satisfactorily evaluate the assessments
Condense
Some of this was too basic
Make packet bound together
Number the pages for easy cooperation with audience
Give us a reading assignment (link) ahead of time
Practiced what you taught
What do I want STDS to remember/incorporate/practice in 2-3 years
More intense work session
A little disorganized
Decrease size of groups
Handouts to accommodate note taking
Having 2 cohorts cross all disciplines
Too short
Structure/Delivery method
Structure/Delivery method
Structure/Delivery method
Structure/Delivery method
Structure/Delivery method
Structure/Delivery method
Structure/Delivery method
Structure/Delivery method
Structure/Delivery method
Structure/Delivery method
Structure/Delivery method
Structure/Delivery method
Temperature
All dates were not connected
Hold session at the beginning of semester when we are fresher
More time
Timeframe workshop for 4 hours lunch then dismissed
More time or a multi-part workshop
Not so long
At the end of the semester, it would be good to do a face to face
Increase number of meetings to perhaps 2 per mentor to keep
information fresh
Timing/Venue
Timing/Venue
Timing/Venue
Timing/Venue
Timing/Venue
Timing/Venue
Timing/Venue
Timing/Venue
Timing/Venue
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Structure/Delivery method
Structure/Delivery method
Structure/Delivery method
Structure/Delivery method
Structure/Delivery method
Structure/Delivery method
Structure/Delivery method
Structure/Delivery method
Structure/Delivery method
Structure/Delivery method
Structure/Delivery method
Structure/Delivery method
Structure/Delivery method
Structure/Delivery method
Structure/Delivery method
93
Delta (Changes) – 90 data points
Sub-Categories
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
Shorter
Length of program
Offer two part
Program on 2 consecutive Fridays
A break
Temp audience seating arrangement.
Configuration of rooms
Group work lends itself better to circular configuration
Lighting in the room
Room temperature
Room more conducive to learning
Venue
Timing/Venue
Timing/Venue
Timing/Venue
Timing/Venue
Timing/Venue
Timing/Venue
Timing/Venue
Timing/Venue
Timing/Venue
Timing/Venue
Timing/Venue
Timing/Venue
1.
2.
Perhaps a better text
Discuss author's own acknowledgements of limitations of the "new
paradigm"
The textbook makes these concepts sound more complicated than
they really are
Resources/Content
Resources/Content
3.
Resources/Content
Meta Category – Application to Teaching Practice
(28 data points)
Application in Practice-15
Obstacles to application-7
Core Competencies for Faculty-6
1.
2.
More time to apply to each of our course
Tweak or expound on what they're already doing. In other words, we
are highlighting that which they're already doing while reinforcing
the need of the project to enhance their further development
Tell us to bring our course objectives with us to the program
Make seminar specific to nursing program
Do some readings that fit the profile of DCC students
More emphasis on the pilot
Need more examples of how this really works in classroom
I would like to spend more time on the actual try-its. Make it a true
try-it.
More application to Nursing Courses individually
Maybe have us physically work on the syllabus a little more
First session, bring syllabus
Second session, add your learning outcomes. So that we can discuss
within the group
A few more examples of appropriate assessments
Examples (models) from this faculty of their SLO's/assessments
syllabi
As with all initiatives, recognize that ANY data collected is
valuable…what DOES NOT work is as invaluable as what DOES!
Application in practice
Application in practice
In general an odd semester
Meetings disturbed by Gustav (hurricane)
Snow day in December.
The conflict I encountered when I presented my Title III Syllabi to
Curriculum Committee
So I guess what I'm saying is that it is still difficult to reach consensus
in how to apply the information to wide student learning objective &
Obstacles to application
Obstacles to application
Obstacles to application
Obstacles to application
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Application in practice
Application in practice
Application in practice
Application in practice
Application in practice
Application in practice
Application in practice
Application in practice
Application in practice
Application in practice
Application in practice
Application in practice
Application in practice
Obstacles to application
94
Delta (Changes) – 90 data points
6.
7.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
outcomes
Give released times for pilots
Using a delta symbol on an evaluation form
I would like to take another course like this. Part II?
Others would need training before possibly
Should continue for years until all have participated
Consider special cohort to address issues peculiar to online learning
Should include successful completion for promotion
Continue it in the future to allow interested faculty to repeat process
for other classes
Sub-Categories
Obstacles to application
Obstacles to application
Core Competencies for Faculty
Core Competencies for Faculty
Core Competencies for Faculty
Core Competencies for Faculty
Core Competencies for Faculty
Core Competencies for Faculty
Meta Category – Collaboration
(11 data points)
Structured dialogue-9
Why it’s value added-2
1.
2.
I think meeting as a group during the spring
Visits from faculty members who have already gone through this
process
Stories of successes/challenges in the various departments while
developing their syllabus, etc.
Meetings at those conducting pilots to discuss problems/successes
Needed more time as a group
More designated time working with other instructors on this process
Maybe a blackboard site with database to share with all faculty in
program to share
With all faculty in program to draw everyone in
During the semester after the course when we pilot our courses, I
would appreciate some way to share with other faculty in the pilot
about experiences
Structured dialogue
Structured dialogue
Using previous pilot experiences more to learn from them
Sharing experiences would be helpful
Why it’s value added
Why it’s value added
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
1.
2.
Structured dialogue
Structured dialogue
Structured dialogue
Structured dialogue
Structured dialogue
Structured dialogue
95
Appendix P
Summary Results – Plus/Delta
“Plus” Feedback
Program components to keep for future success
Curriculum/Delivery - Keeper Categories
12
39
23
Instructor
Structure/Delivery Method
Resources/Content
General Value Added
38
Structure/Delivery Method
38 comments regarding the value of the program’s structure/delivery (34% of the data points in
this category)
Instructor
36 comments regarding the value of a capable, full-time instructor, someone who knows how to
create the kind of experience they say is worth keeping (32% of the data points in this category)
Resources/Content
22 comments regarding the value of resources/content (20% of the data points in this category)
General Value Added
11 general comments about the value of keeping the program (10% of the data points in this
category)
96
Application to Teaching Practice How and Why
10
Core Competencies for Faculty
29
16
Application in practice
Awareness/Perspective Shift
Core Competencies for Faculty
29 comments regarding the applicability of the program to developing key knowledge, skills, and
attitudes for successful teaching (53% of the data points in this category)
Application in practice
16 comments affirming the applicability of program outcomes to teaching practice and
providing examples of the program’s influence on instructional design (29% of the data points in
this category)
Awareness/Perspective Shift (The importance of reflective practice on continual improvement)
10 comments reflecting on the program’s influence in creating awareness and new perspective
on instructional design (18% of the data points in this category)
97
Structured Collaboration - Importance of
Sustaining
20
20
Structured Dialogue
Why it's value added
Structured Dialogue
20 comments regarding the importance of having structured opportunities for dialogue among
faculty within and across disciplines (50% of the data points in this category)
Why it’s value added
20 comments regarding what is learned from and why collaboration is important to facilitate
and to structure formally for some purposes (50% of the data points in this category)
98
“∆” Feedback
Program components to modify for sustainable value
Curriculum/Delivery - Suggestions for
Improvement
3
Structure/Delivery Method
21
27
Timing/Venue
Resources/Content
Structure/Delivery Method
27 comments indicating what and how to improve the program’s curriculum and delivery for the
future, including suggestions that build upon or complement the existing structure (53% of the
data points in this category)
Timing/Venue
21 suggestions to help schedule and organize the program for the future (41% of the data points
in this category)
Resources/Content
3 opinions about the authors and textbook, statistically unremarkable in comparison to the
number of comments that valued the resources and content of the program (6% of the data
points in this category)
99
Application to Teaching Practice - How to,
why it's hard, where the College needs it
6
Application in Practice
15
7
Obstacles to application
Core Competencies for Faculty
Application in Practice
15 suggestions that build upon (add more of the same to) or complement existing components
of the curriculum believed to be practical for teaching (54% of the data points in this category)
Obstacles to Application
7 comments indicating why applying some of the concepts in the program is difficult (33% of the
data points in this category)
Core Competencies for Faculty
6 comments that recommend the program be institutionalized into existing developmental and
HR systems (29% of the data points in this category)
100
Collaboration - More of the Same
2
Structured Dialogue
Why it's value added
9
Structured Dialogue
9 suggestions for structuring more faculty collaboration (81% of the data points in this category)
Why it’s value added
2 comments indicating the value of collaboration, statistically unremarkable in comparison to
the number of similar comments in the “Plus” column. However, these two data points support
the “Plus” column and could be included there in the findings concerning the value of
collaboration (18% of the data points in this category)
101
Appendix Q
Data Results From Section III, Title III Final Pilot Report
Self-report: Learning about
instructional design or
teaching/learning – 198
Instructor recommendations
based on learning instructional
design – 331
Meta Category
Terms/Language
FQ
72
Instructional effectiveness
61
Assessment
65
More Collaboration
105
More development like Title III
61
Sub-Category
Outcomes v. Objectives
FQ
18
Refining
Awareness
Syllabus
Covering Material
Learning styles
Awareness
Already doing it
Impact on student
Framework for learning
Awareness
TracDat
Methods
Already doing it
Competency assessment
Across disciplines
9
20
25
19
12
6
5
10
9
29
17
8
2
9
13
Share what we’ve learned
Use Convocation
For Program goals
Consensus on course level SLOs
Consensus on quality standards
No consultants, learn from within
For course syllabi
W/ students on SLOs
Online
Support/Resource for SLO/Assessment
For Understanding Assessment
For managing group learning
W/ faculty led workshops and sharing
19
28
11
10
11
14
9
3
9
17
11
6
18
102
Meta Category
Changes in teaching and learning
in the classroom – 210
Revise GenEd
FQ
70
Syllabus revision throughout curriculum
80
Walk the walk of learning centeredness
3
Setting expectations for students
12
Setting expectations for students
38
Revise course design
31
Integrating new techniques
51
Student involvement
Assessment
8
57
More use of library resource
9
Sub-Category
Emphasis on writing and critical thinking
Clarify Fine Arts v. Humanities
Critical analysis of most important content
Common rubrics
Divide – Skills & Content Areas
Define more clearly
Include variety of assessments in MS
Include variety of activities in MS
Consistency
Online/FTF versions same
Critical analysis of curriculum
Seminar classrooms
Scheduling classes
Building labels (Names v. numbers)
Type of teaching method, explaining why
Explaining SLOs to students
Academic SLOs for Orientation
Rubrics as learning tool
FQ
28
5
6
9
4
18
9
5
27
26
13
1
1
1
1
5
6
16
Modify presentation of SLOs
Produce competency checklist
Reiterate presentation of SLOs
Forward looking assessments
Clarify SLOS, more measurable
More student-focused
Using SLOs for everything in the class
Peer mentoring
Learning in chunks
Summarizing as a learning tool
Generate test questions
Pre-post-testing of student competency
Incorporating critical thinking, problemsolving, and group efforts
Keep trying with rubrics
Portfolio
Students learning databases for research
8
5
9
8
23
29
9
5
4
4
8
6
30
6
15
4
103
Meta Category
Observations of student responses
to changes in teaching/learning –
369
Time management for incorporating LC
principles
Positive response to teaching change
Negative response to teaching change
Things that promote student learning
FQ
16
Sub-Category
Field trips to library
Library SLOs
Worth taking the time, but takes a lot of time
FQ
3
2
16
141
Use of “real world” problems
10
collaborative learning/social networking
13
daily in-class writing activity
students have more active role in learning
process
work on exams or assignments as a group
9
19
Active learning and learning-centered
activities
Discussing the syllabus and the importance of
SLOs
Active learning and learning-centered
activities
Student responsibility for learning
Discussion board
Working in groups (lack of motivation)
Need chance to make mistakes before getting a
grade
Just getting a test back instead of learning from
mistakes
Daily in-class writing activity
Open discussion method
Active learning and learning-centered
activities
Rubrics as teaching tool
Work on exams or assignments as a group
Active involvement in learning process
Case studies
Pre-tests
11
8
146
20
11
18
9
21
8
12
5
11
15
12
12
9
7
16
14
104
Meta Category
Assessments that reveal learning
20
Theory, scholarship, or methods that have
impacted teaching changes
13
Sub-Category
Presentations
A value put upon the learning and the activity
“Ill-defined” group problem
Low levels of required skills for succeeding in
the course
Resistance to change
No explanation for use of rubric
Me explaining everything instead of the
students explaining to each other
Low expectations of students
Students have no hope
Moving writing out into the world changes the
way that they perceive writing
Group work is not effective for a skills-based
class
Reflective writing
1-minute papers
Short assignments on reading
Brain research
53
Evidence of active learning/experiential
learning working
Blackboard
Extra course loads
3
8
5
4
18
Volume of material
Shortened calendar (registration, weather,
absences)
Release time for development
Additional institutional demands
Teachers
Outcomes v. objectives
Writing
Fear of “wrong” answer
Eager to use what was learned
Things that inhibit student learning
Obstacles to implementing
effective teaching methods – 73
Attitudes and thoughts about the
program – 124
FQ
26
Beliefs about students
10
Beliefs about teaching methods
5
Lack of time
Resistance to change
New language
Lack of required skills in students
Lack of confidence in students
Excitement in teaching
FQ
18
14
13
9
5
4
8
6
4
2
3
9
5
6
3
4
6
18
9
6
14
6
3
8
5
4
6
105
Meta Category
FQ
Awareness/perspective shift
21
Improvement in instruction
31
Critical reflection on teaching methods
10
Observations of others
Beliefs about teaching
5
16
Lack of excitement
2
Beliefs about organization
14
Sub-Category
Sharing experiences with colleagues
Due to the pilot
Already using some
Due to collaboration with other disciplines
Lean toward methods that were used on us
Takes a while to get
Interactions with students and colleagues
Inspired to do more
Due to the quality of program
Need time to focus on classroom learning to
improve
Assessments, peer review
Methods and process, creative and effective
Some resistant
Helping students overcome obstacles to
education
Teaching, not methods, is where teachers learn
to teach
Students need to know they matter
More than content, need to teach them what’s
being asked of them in the workforce
I want them to love reading
I want them to be more confident
I want them to be able to make decisions about
their well being
TrackDat boxes and jargon
Conforming to whatever
May need to change our rules about general
education
Skepticism that what’s being asked to do will
not matter
No one believes this will change the master
syllabus
Some faculty will never change
New initiatives mean new buzz words, that’s
all
FQ
8
4
5
8
3
5
7
8
5
11
4
6
5
2
3
2
3
1
3
2
1
1
1
3
1
3
2
106
Meta Category
Recommendations for specific
activities and assessments – 9
FQ
Sub-Category
Department meetings talk about
administration, not learning
Someone cares about what I’m doing
Talking with colleagues
FQ
4
Appreciation
7
2
5
Student-designed assignments
2
Visual diagrams
Oral reports
Group assignments followed by individual
assignments on same thing
Kinesthetic – building models
Take-home practice exams
Monthly faculty collaboration meetings
Build time in course for critical reflection and
discussion
1
1
1
Interconnections of things
Demonstration of learning to others
1
1
1
1
1
1
For explaining concepts
1
107
Appendix R
Functional Areas Impacted by Title III with Related Services and Activities
Faculty/Staff
Development
Online
Learning
Learning
Communities
Classroom
Learning
Service
Learning
Academic
Affairs
Student Affairs
Chancellor's
Office (Larissa
& DDD)
DLIT
IT
Allied Health &
Nursing
QEP
LCT Linkage
Documentation
Guidelines
Best
Practice
Research
Consult
Training
Curric
Design
Course
Design
Method
Compet.
Model
Design
Program
Devel.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Title III
Obj
Outcome
Assesmt
Consult
X
X
X
Business
Process
Mapping
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Facilitation
X
X
X
X
108
Social
Entrepreneurs
hip
Massage
Therapy
ADOT
ESL
Early
Childhood
Math Dept
Individual
Instructors
Convocation
Planning
Professional
Development
Academy
Online
Professional
Development
Program
Program
Review
Leadership
Connection
Title III
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
109
Appendix S
Distributing Student Learning Outcomes Coordinators
Considerations and Recommendations
(ASLOC, pg. 20-22)
The research undertaken by the Ad Hoc Accreditation and Student Learning Outcomes
Committee reveals an emerging leadership group at California community colleges, Student
Learning Outcomes and Assessment Coordinators. These faculty are attempting to undertake a
huge task: designing and implementing a sustainable, learning-centered, institution-wide
assessment process that addresses the expectations in the new ACCJC-WASC Accreditation
Standards. The enormous nature of the task is complicated by the variety of assignments, working
conditions, training and preparation of those serving in this position. These variations are not
surprising because they speak to the unique cultures, governance policies, and organizational
structures of California community colleges.
The Accreditation Standards state that no one method or organizational strategy be used;
colleges must create ones that suit their institutions and mission. In spite of the local differences, a
careful examination of the data gathered through surveys and in the regional meetings, reveals a
commonalities and areas of concern that local senates should use when considering the role of the
SLO Coordinator and assessment oriented towards processes, not products. The recommendations,
in bold, are followed by considerations that include questions and statements intended to help
guide you in a manner appropriate for your institution.
1. In order for the SLO Coordinator position to be effective, its placement within the
college organizational structure must be adequately defined and carefully
considered.
One way to begin this analysis is to define a college’s assessment tasks and the best way to
organize them. Institutions beginning SLO and assessment work should scrutinize the strategies
used by other colleges across the state that may be further along. The SLO listserv created by the
Academic Senate, the Academic Senate website, and the RP Group website, Center for Student
Success (http://css.rpgroup.org/) are sources to gather information, data and examples. Begin by
considering existing committees on your campus. Some colleges connect Program Review
committees with program outcomes; others connect Curriculum Committee work with course
outcomes, and still others create new committees that interface with existing college governance
committees. As always, individual college culture is the key. What will work at your college?
2. The college must determine how it will assign responsibility for the major areas
of assessment: student services, library, and instruction (courses, programs,
General Education and degrees).
Will it work best for your college to have only one person as SLO Coordinator, or two, or a
team? Should there be a committee with equal responsibilities? Who will guide and direct student
services areas? Will it be the same person coordinating instructional outcomes? Will your campus
include administrative services in creating and assessing outcomes? Is one person able to bridge all
these areas? What will be most effective considering your college dynamics?
110
3. A clear job description with expectations for the SLO Coordinator position is
essential.
The local senate should be the principal author for the SLO Coordinator description. What level
of authority will the SLO Coordinator will have? Will he or she act as mentor or manager, as SLO
czar or outcomes facilitator? Does participatory governance flourish if the coordinator is more a
manager than a mentor or coordinator? Will he or she be the keeper of the data or trainer of faculty
chairs who instead will keep the data? Determine the importance of qualifications and knowledge
for the job, as well as scope of institutional knowledge and experience. Carefully define the
expectations for this position and then prudently determine how much time is required to meet the
task. Work cooperatively with administration to establish this important faculty role.
4. A clear selection process for the SLO Coordinator with a specified length of
service will assist in making the position viable.
In most cases, this position should be selected through a process which involves the local senate
in order to establish early faculty buy-in. Since reassigned time and research resources are
essential, focus group members suggested that cooperation between the local senate and the
administration is very helpful. Who will review the applications? Will this process include an
interview? How will the administration be involved in the selection process?
5. Clear lines of reporting and accountability make the position more successful.
There are many questions that must be clearly answered if the SLO Coordinator position is to
work effectively. To whom does the SLO and Assessment Coordinator report? Should there be
standing reports to the local senate, the college Vice President, the Board of Trustees? When? How
often? If difficult suggestions or decisions have to be made (such as to meet accreditation standards
or recommendations) is it better coming from an individual or a committee or the senate?
6. The SLO Coordinator should be fairly compensated in some way for this work.
Outcomes and assessment tasks cannot be accomplished by a faculty member in addition to a
full teaching load. Some colleges have advanced in limited areas without the reassigned position;
however, to cover the breadth of the accreditation requirements for assessment, some type of
reassigned time, equivalent to the job assignment, is essential. Local senates should help determine
these parameters in conjunction with the administration in a method similar to the reassigned time
for other faculty positions related to local senate and legally mandated faculty tasks such as
curriculum and program review.
7. The process will not be successful without other significant dedicated resources.
The implementation of student learning outcomes is not a trivial task. It cannot proceed
without the allocation of significant resources. It is necessary to determine accessibility and use of
research data and research staff and to clarify the administrative and clerical support that will be
available (e.g. to document evidence).
111



How are institutional research data made available? SLO Coordinators need to be able
to work with faculty in departments on an individual level to write and develop SLOs
and assessment.
What resources are available for faculty training and staff development? Is there a
budget for outside speakers?
Will stipends be given to faculty doing pilot projects or special work? Is there funding to
attend conferences?
SLO Coordinators must also work with and educate administrators about outcomes and
assessment; most administrators have very little background in the process other than
accountability reporting. Working cooperatively with administrators is essential to assure
resources and authority.
It is imperative that the SLO Coordinator be a liaison to the local academic senate as a whole.
However, other considerations should also be examined, such as the SLO Coordinator participating
in or reporting to other operational and governance committees such as the curriculum, program
review, the institutional effectiveness, planning, or the budget committee. The relationship and
responsibility for work with the accreditation team and Institutional Researcher should be
understood by all.
8. SLO Coordinators need ongoing training in various aspects of their assignment.
The literature review provided in this paper describes the importance of ongoing training for SLO
and assessment leaders. The Ad Hoc Accreditation and Student Learning Outcomes Committee, in
cooperation with the Research and Planning Group, has held trainings for SLO Coordinators and
will continue to provide more. A plan is being considered to develop a statewide training process
for SLO Coordinators, perhaps with certification, to identify and provide instruction in the core
skills and issues necessary to accomplish and sustain this task locally. After a literature review we
believe this may be the first statewide attempt to train faculty-leaders that are coordinating student
learning outcomes and assessment efforts.
9. SLO Coordinators and the assessment processes should be regularly evaluated.
Consistent with the intent of regular assessment and evaluation that leads to improved teaching
and learning, institutions should develop a regular evaluation process for the SLO Coordinator
position coupled with an evaluation of the effectiveness of the institutional processes.
112
Appendix T
Learning Outcomes Coordinator Position
Sample Job Description, Accountabilities, & Comp.
Job Announcement: Modesto Junior College Student Learning Outcomes Facilitator
The MJC Academic Senate seeks applications for the Student Learning Outcomes Facilitator position. To apply,
submit a letter of application (1-2 pages) describing your interest and how your experience fulfills the list of
desirable characteristics below. Also, please provide a current resume. Submit all materials to Geri Wend in the
MJC Academic Senate Office prior to 3:00 p.m. on Thursday, May 5, 2005. Applications will be reviewed by the
Senate SLO Committee and finalists will be invited to an interview. The position is open to all current Modesto
Junior College faculty and staff members who meet the minimum qualifications necessary to teach at a California
Community College. Initial funding will allow compensation at the equivalent of 40% reassigned time.
SLO Facilitator Job Description
The Student Learning Outcomes Facilitator will provide leadership and support to faculty and staff as the college
develops the infrastructure, policies and procedures to implement an assessment plan. The initial assignment will
be for two years with an option for a third year. The facilitator, position description and committee activities will
be evaluated by the Academic Senate after the first year. Compensation will be reviewed each year and may be
increased as the college develops its approach to assessment. The position shall sunset after (6) full semesters
pending renewal by the Academic Senate.
Facilitator Tasks
Chair the SLO Committee, schedule the SLO Committee meetings and coordinate committee activities with the
Academic Senate, Office of Instruction, Director of College Research and Planning and the Curriculum Committee.
Recommend policies and procedures to the Curriculum Committee for the development, assessment and
improvement of course, program and general education level objectives and measurable outcomes AND in
cooperation with the Academic Senate President-Elect, advocate those policies and procedures to the Academic
Senate. Collaborate with the Office of Instruction, the Instructional Administrators Council, and the Curriculum
Committee to integrate the development, assessment and improvement of measurable program level SLO’s with
the current program review process. Present information at meetings including Academic Senate, Curriculum
Committee, Instructional Administrators Council and other appropriate venues. Develop, schedule and promote
training opportunities for assessment and measurable SLO development including on campus workshops and the
Summer SLO Institute. Provide training for staff on development of measurable SLO’s and assessment instruments.
Attend local, state and national conferences related to assessment and measurable SLO development.
Recommend activities and resource requests to the Academic Senate President for inclusion in the college
Educational Master Plan. Assist in the preparation of SLO reports for future accreditation processes.
Desirable Characteristics
Demonstrated enthusiasm and commitment to the improvement of teaching and learning at
Modesto Junior College.
Knowledge of the curriculum development process and guidelines at Modesto Junior College.
Knowledge of the college program review plan and associated procedures.
Possess skills in persuasive communication and facilitating dialogue.
Evidence of success in writing for college programs.
Knowledge of qualitative and quantitative educational research methodologies.
Demonstrated success in the application of Classroom Assessment Techniques.
Willingness to travel to state and national conferences.
113
Results of California Community College Study: Release Time and Compensation for SLO Coordinator
Table 6: How Much Reassigned Time Does Your SLO Position Provide? N=80
Compensated by
reassignment as
a part of load
20-30% = 17
40-60% = 16
80% = 1
100% = 3
Compensated by
reassignment by
hours per week
3-5 = 3
6-10 = 8
11-20 = 1
Compensated by
stipends
$6,000 = 1
10,000 = 1
*some have
combined a
stipend with
reassigned time
Compensation
subsumed into other
reassigned tasks
Accreditation = 1
Research/Institutional
Effectiveness = 2
Curriculum = 3
No reassignment
or compensation
Assigned but no
compensation =
17
No coordinator
position = 5
No response = 1
Table 7: Colleges Reporting Multiple Reassigned SLO and Assessment Coordinators
College
Allan Hancock College
Cerritos College
Chaffey College
Diablo Valley College
East LA College
El Camino College
LA City College
Mount San Antonio College
San Diego City College
Southwestern College
(ASLOC, pg. 17, 18)
Number of Reassigned Roles
Two Student Services
Two Instruction
(Total of four coordinators
reassigned)
Two Coordinators
One Vocational Coordinator
One Instructional non-vocational
Two Coordinators
One Coordinator
Three SLO facilitators
Two Coordinators
One Coordinator
Six faculty SLO team
(Total of seven reassigned)
One Coordinator
Two Facilitators
Two Coordinators
One Student Services
Coordinator
One Instructional Coordinator
Reassign Time
40-60%
40% each
40% each
25% each
60%
40% each
Total 180%
33% each
100%
20% for each for six faculty
100% for implementation phase
60% each
8 hours each
20% each
114
Appendix U
Director of Learning Outcomes Assessment
Sample Job Description & Accountabilities
Job Title: DIRECTOR OF LEARNING OUTCOMES ASSESSMENT & INSTRUCTIONAL DEVELOPMENT - Carroll
Community College Westminster, MD
Deadline Date: Open until filled. For best consideration, please apply by June 5, 2005
Starting Date:
Institution: Located approximately 30 miles northwest of Baltimore, Carroll Community College is
Maryland’s newest community college with an enrollment of about 3,200 students. For more
information, please visit our Web site.
Job Duties: The position of DIRECTOR OF LEARNING OUTCOMES ASSESSMENT AND INSTRUCTIONAL
DEVELOPMENT is available in the Academic Affairs Division. This position is on a full-time, 12-month
basis, working under the direction of the Vice President of Academic and Student Affairs.
FUNCTION: Responsible for managing processes associated with instructional development and learning
assessment/enhancement in collaboration with Deans, faculty, program directors, department chairs,
student affairs directors, and personnel in the Office of Planning, Marketing and Assessment. Specific
responsibilities include: Meeting individually with and supporting faculty in creating effective curriculum
design and learning outcomes assessment practices and overseeing processes for conducting
assessment at the course, program and General Education Core Competency levels; working with
Academic and Student Affairs Deans in developing and overseeing a comprehensive plan for outcomes
assessment/enhancement processes for all academic and Student Affairs units; consulting with
Continuing Education and Training Directors on the development of outcomes assessment processes for
non-credit programs and courses; supporting faculty and student affairs staff in the design and
execution of surveys and other evaluation instruments in support of ongoing assessment and
effectiveness evaluation projects; supporting faculty in the design of learning enhancement projects
associated with faculty promotion criteria; developing and presenting instructional
improvement/outcomes assessment workshops; working with the office of Planning, Marketing and
Assessment to design data gathering and analyses reports related to outcomes assessment projects and
participating in college wide strategic planning and assessment initiatives; overseeing the activities and
processes of the Learning Outcomes Assessment Committee; promoting and maintaining external
network connections with instructional design/outcomes assessment at peer institutions; preparing
reports to communicate learning outcomes activities and finds to Maryland Higher Education
Commission (MHEC); and assisting with periodic review and self-study processes for regional
accreditation via Middle States Commission on Higher Education.
115
Qualifications: Masters Degree in higher education, educational research, social sciences, curriculum
design or other discipline requiring coursework in curriculum design and assessment, research and
quantitative/qualitative analysis or statistics. A Doctorate in one of these areas is strongly preferred.
Director will have a minimum of three years experience in learning outcomes assessment and
instructional enhancement processes; will have had experience developing applied research projects in
higher education settings; demonstrated competency in the application of curriculum design and
learning outcomes assessment theories and methods; proficiency in survey development and the use of
statistical analysis tools such as SPSS, SNAP or SAS; demonstrated experience with database systems and
data retrieval using query-based software (Datatel’s Colleague or SQL preferred); proficiency in use of
office applications software; ability to handle multiple short and long-term projects; ability to maintain
strict confidentiality; ability to maintain effective working relationships with diverse faculty and staff;
demonstrated leadership and interpersonal skills; ability to communicate effectively, both verbally and
in writing including proficiency in preparing written, oral and graphical reports and presentations about
complex projects, data analyses, and use of results for internal and external audiences. Two years
teaching experience and personal experience conducting learning outcomes assessment practices within
courses and/or programs at the college level preferred.