Chabot College
Student Learning Outcomes and Assessment Committee
Minutes
November 17, 2009
12-12:55, Room 3521
Attendees:
X_ Carolyn Arnold ___Fe Baran
X_ Jennifer Lange X_ Bruce Mayer
__ Rebecca Otto
X_ Norberto Ruiz
X_ Michelle Sherry ___Steven Small
X_Adrian Huang
X_ Gloria Meads
X_Harjot Sawhney
X_Linda Swanson
X_Deonne Kunkel
Jan Novak
X_ Patricia Shannon
Chair: Carole Splendore
Note Taker: Adrian Huang
The meeting began at 12:05.
The agenda was reviewed.
The group reviewed and approved the Nov. 3, 2009 minutes.
The English Subdivision Meeting was visited. We are in negotiations as to how
English will continue assessing student progress through it’s already highly
developed and meaningful process; while at the same time satisfying the
SLOAC’s necessity of responding to WASC requirements: Carole and Trish.
Sharing of Accreditation Team Recommendations: WASC recommendations
were discussed. We are still waiting for the official report, before reporting out to
our respective divisions. Some of us did take notes however, and it seems
reasonable and necessary to be working towards developing what we already
knew to be our areas of concern.
Update on adjunct faculty trainings: Over 100 adjunct faculty members were
trained in the past two weeks. The schedule for eLumen trainings, and classroom
assessment discussions, has been placed in mailboxes, and is available online
from the CTL and SLOAC websites: Jennifer.
Adjunct faculty who attend trainings and workshops will be compensated for one
hour for SLO and eLumen trainings, and three hours for attending course
assessment workshops. Faculty needs to be trained to access the eLumen system.
Program Level Definition: handouts were given to re-familiarize ourselves with
the subject. A chapter from a Trudy H. Bers book was given for members to read
at home. We took 5 minutes to read through the session abstracts, or notes,
Carole had taken at two recent conventions regarding Program –level definition.
WASC defines an educational program as “An organized sequence of courses
leading to a defined objective, a degree, a certificate, a diploma, a license, or a
transfer.” This is very broad. A college needs to define it. There were two
models, discipline based model and degree/certificate based model, discussed.
Bruce responded to the advice of Marcy Allencraig, that we keep it simple and
only write two Program-level outcomes per area.
Linda asked, could Basic skills be considered a program. The group consensus
was, why not?
The group played with the idea of how a certain approach would work in their
division: Harjot, Bruce.
Linda voiced that curriculum mapping in eLumen was not the correct approach
for a meaningful process. Carole and the group concurred, curriculum mapping is
only a beginning step, it is not the goal. Meaningful discussions on teaching and
learning between faculty is the goal.
Trish mentioned a third approach, which blends the two paradigms might be in
order. It would be a degree and certificate model, with other homegrown
discipline-based programs added in. All these discussions are very formative at
this time.
We discussed that the CWLG’s are too broad to assess, they must be approached
through the outcomes for the other levels. For example, Course-level outcomes
are written as being relative to and specific enough for the course, and then are
mapped up to the appropriate CWLG. Program-level outcomes are handled in a
similar way. They will be broader than Course-level ones as is appropriate to
them, and they are also mapped up to the CWLG.
Next meeting’s agenda:
•
Program level definition will be continued.
•
Members were asked to prepare their statements on what they would like to
cover in the spring 2010 meetings. All are being asked to participate. Gloria
voiced a concern that we should be responding to the WASC
recommendations.
The meeting was adjourned at 12:55.