Chabot  College
Student  Learning  Outcomes  and  Assessment  Cycle  (SLOAC)  Committee  Minutes
Tuesday,  November  15,  2011
12:00-­12:55,  Room  3521
Attendees:
1.
Arturo  Lopez  Yanez  (ASL/LA)
2.
Carolyn  Arnold  (Institutional  Research)
3.
Christine  Park  (ESL/LA)
4.
Hilal  Oldemir  (ECD/Social  Science)
5.
Mireille  Giovanola  (Anthropology/Social  Science)
6.
Robert  Yest    (Math  &  Science)
7.
Stephen  Small  (Auto  Tech)
8.
Sunshine  Kirst  (English/LA)
Agenda:
1.
Review  November  1,  2011  minutes.
2.
Approve  College-­‐Wide  Assessment  Process  DRAFT
3.
Review  DRAFT  of  Academic  Program  Review  Form
4.
Holiday  Party  (Dec.  10 th  or  11 th )
Handouts :
1.
Agenda  &  updated   SLOAC  Assessment  Policy
2.
November  1,  2011  minutes
3.
Current  copy  &  DRAFT  of  Academic  Program  Review  and  Action  Planning  Form
4.
Copy  of  Courses  that  Show  Assessment  in  at  Least  50%  of  the  Sections  (Data  as  of  10.4.11)
Chair:  Christine  Park
Note  Taker:  Robert  Yest
Minutes :
1.
Meeting  was  called  to  order  at  12:05  pm.
2.
Review  the  agenda
3.
Review  November  1,  2011  minutes:
• Correct  Mireille’s  spelling  in  item  #5.
•
Bruce  moved  to  approve  the  minutes  with  the  correction  and  Sunshine  second.    All  approved   unanimously.
4.
Approve  of  College-­Wide  Assessment  Process  DRAFT:
•
Trish  Shannon  is  meeting  with  Deans  and  Curriculum  today  to  present  the  draft  of  the  assessment   plan.
•
Adjunct  faculty  will  be  compensated  1.5  hours  for  assessing  up  to  3  SLOs/CLOs  per  class.    Jennifer
Lange  is  compiling  a  list  of  adjuncts  who’ll  be  teaching  next  semester.  We’ll  need  to  identify  who  and   how  many  courses  are  being  taught  in  Spring  2012  since  some  adjuncts  are  teaching  more  than  one   class.
•
Carolyn  asked  to  remove  the  ClassWeb  reference  (page  2,  last  line).
•
Mireille  reported  that  Social  Science  adjunct  faculty  is  holding  off  their  input  until  compensation  next   semester.    Since  some  may  not  be  teaching  next  semester,  how  will  we  assess  those  courses  taught  by   adjuncts?    Could  adjuncts  get  paid  in  Spring  for  assessing  this  semester’s  data?    Mireille  and  Carolyn   expressed  how  can  they  have  a  meaningful  dialogue?
•
Christine  stated  that  assessment  work  can’t  be  retroactive.    In  other  words,  the  compensation  is   not   meant  for  this  semester’s  data  entry  in  Spring  2012.    It’s  a  minimalistic  assessment  plan  in  meeting   the  deadline,  not  ideal.
•
Carolyn  asked  if  WASC  will  forgive  us  for  not  getting  data  from  adjunct  before  Spring.    Christine   acknowledged  that  we’ll  have  to  justify  this  deficiency  on  the  report.
•
Carolyn  wonders  about  faculty  who  teach  more  than  one  course.    Currently,  Jennifer  Lange  is   compiling  a  list  of  adjuncts  teaching  in  the  Spring  2012.
•
Robert  has  sent  out  an  individual  email  to  Math  adjunct  faculty  to  assess  his/her  CLOs  and  has  gotten   a  very  positive  feedback  so  far.
• Need  to  get  clarification  about  Fall  assessment  being  entered  in  Spring.    Christine  reiterated  that  at   the  moment,  we  can  only  ask  nicely  but  can’t  require  the  adjuncts  to  do  assessment  work.    The

compensation  is  for  courses  taught  by  adjuncts  in  the  Spring  2012,  not  for  courses  assessed  this   semester.
5.
Question  about  the  copy  of  Courses  that  Show  Assessment  in  at  Least  50%  of  the  Sections:
•
Hilal  asked  about  the  Full  Assessment  List  for  completion.
•
Christine  explained  as  to  how  the  fully  assessed  list  was  determined.    Counted  as  assessed  if  faculty   assessed  100%  of  1  to  2  sections  offered,  a  minimum  of  50%  assessed  for  3  or  more  sections,  all  the
SLOs/CLOs  were  assessed    and  for  those  classes  with  30  students  or  more,  a  minimum  of  30  students   were  assessed  (the  first  or  last  30stuents  on  the  roster).
6.
Review  of  the  Program  Review  Form:
• Jennifer  and  Christine  have  been  working  on  it  diligently.    Call  for  input  and  feedback  on  the  DRAFT.
•
Reviewed  Section  A.  VI.  Student  Learning  Outcomes  Inventory,  pp.  3-­‐4.   o Changed  formatting  &  bullets  to  reflect  the  essential  points.   o Assessment  Schedule:    Is  used  as  an  example.    Suggestion  to  include  “Insert  your  assessment   schedule”  or  leave  a  blank  form  to  be  completed  after  the  3 rd  bullet  point,  p.  3.   o Carolyn  asked  if  divisions  will  check  all  CWLG  options,  p.4.    She  suggested  that  maybe  it’ll  be   more  meaning  to  reflect  on  how  many  CLOs  address  the  CWLG  in  your  discipline.    Bruce   suggested  that  having  a  %  might  be  better  than  a  number  of  CLOs.    This  information  could  be   provided  by  eLumen.    The  SLOAC  committee  could  provide  data  to  assist.    Carolyn  pointed   out  that  we  want  the  share  the  role  of  CWLGs  within  the  disciplines.
Meeting  adjourned  at  12:55  pm
Minutes  submitted  by  Robert  Yest  and  edited  by  Christine  Park