Student Learning Outcomes Committee Meeting
April 15, 2008
Room 3521, 12-1pm
Present: Dr. Norma Ambriz, Barbara Ogman, Rebecca Otto, Harjot Sawhney, Michelle
Sherry, Stephen Small, Dr. Celica Barberena, Bernadette Zermeno
Announcements:
Barbara opened the meeting by giving a summary of the April 11 SLO North Regional
Conference. The conference affirms that many surrounding campuses struggle with
similar obstacles, but have their own way to deal. Barbara asked to turn in all receipts
and gas mileage to Bernadette.
The next Accreditation meeting will be in Anaheim
Diana Zuliani will be leaving to Utah for a year. The committee has the opportunity to
set up a new report with the next elected Faculty Senate President.
Barbara asks all committee members to RSVP to Bernadette for the next Assessment
workshop.
Committee members help address the on the following questions for Accreditation:
IIA2
The following substandard-IIA2 was also identified as an area which needs your attention
and reference to student learning outcomes. We recognize that various other committees
on campus may also be addressing activities to this substandard. In the meantime, you
been identified as an individual which can best represents the best to respond to the
various questions. The definition of this substandard is provided and represents the
majority of the instructional and planning activities required within the standards.
The institution assures the quality and improvement of all instructional courses and
programs offered in the name of the institution, including collegiate, developmental, and
pre-collegiate courses and programs, continuing and community education, study abroad,
short-term training courses and programs, programs for international students, and
contract or other special programs, regardless of type of credit awarded, delivery mode,
or location.
The institution uses established procedures to design, identity learning outcomes for,
approve, administer, deliver, and evaluate courses and programs. The institution
recognizes the central role of its faculty for establishing quality and improving
instructional courses and programs
The institution relies on faculty expertise and the assistance of advisory committees when
appropriate to identity competency levels and measurable student learning outcomes for
courses, certificates, programs including general and vocational education, and degrees.
The institution regularly assesses student progress towards achieving those outcomes.
High- quality instruction and appropriate breath, depth, rigor, sequencing, time to
completion, and synthesis of learning characterize all programs.
The institution uses delivery modes and teaching methodologies that reflect the diverse
needs and learning styles of its students
The institution evaluates all courses and programs through an ongoing systemic review of
their relevance, appropriateness. Achievement of learning outcomes, currency, and future
needs and plans.
The institution engages in ongoing, systematic evaluation and integrated planning to
assure currency and measure achievement of its stated student learning outcomes of
courses, certificates, programs including general and vocational education, and degrees.
The institution systematically strives to improve those outcomes and makes the results
available to appropriate constituencies.
If an institution uses departmental course and/or program examinations, it validates their
effectiveness in measuring student learning and minimizing test biases.
The institution awards credit based on student achievement of the course’s stated learning
outcomes. Units of credits awarded are consistent with institutional policies that reflect
generally accepted norms or equivalencies in higher education.
The institution awards degrees and certificates based on student achievement of a
program’s stated learning outcomes.
We require your assistance by providing a response and the identification of evidence to
the following questions:
By what criteria and processes does the institution decide to offer developmental, precollegiate, and continuing and community education, study abroad, short-term training,
international students, or contract education programs?
Who is responsible for identifying appropriate student learning outcomes for courses and
programs?
In the spring of 2007, the Academic Senate formed the Committee for Student Learning
Outcomes and Assessment. A coordinator position was created with release time
attached. The committee has met two times per month since then. . The committee, with
the guidance of the Academic Senate, is committed to the SLO process being completely
faculty driven: faculty will determine, at every step, what an appropriate SLO is and how
they will choose to assess it.
Attached are
Minutes from the first meeting of the committee where goals and timelines are discussed.
The Faculty Senate charge for the SLO committee.
The job description for the SLO Coordinator
Are student learning outcomes established for each course and program? How is this “fit”
evaluated?
Chabot uses Elumen software to record data from the SLO assessments. Elumen will be
used to create the “flow” from course level SLOs to program SLOs.
How are courses and programs evaluated? How often? What are the results of the
evaluations?
Our goal is to have a systematic connection among the SLO Committee, Program Review
Committee and Curriculum Committee to insure the integration of SLOs into all planning
and budgeting decisions.
Attached is the timeline for SLO work on campus.
How are competency levels and measurable student learning outcomes determined?
What is the role of faculty? What is the role of advisory committee?
The SLO process is entirely faculty driven. Faculty will determine the appropriateness of
their SLO and are able to create assessments that fit their teaching “style”.
The committee “trained” itself in the assessment cycle with colleagues from area colleges
conducting workshops on the variety of ways to approach SLOs and how rubrics relate to
SLOs. The committee sent representatives to Accreditation and SLO conferences.
Committee members:
Conducted forums to train faculty on how to create an SLO
Conducted workshops to create Assessments and Rubrics
Offered Flex Day workshops to learn hoe to use the Elumen software
Offered Flex Day workshops to learn how to create Assessments
Conducted a Flex Day activity on SLOs with a guest speaker and work time to practice
SLO writing.
Please see the SLO web site for the committee’s Guiding Principles.
http://www.chabotcollege.edu/FacultySenate/slo/default.asp
How has the institution structured the relationship between student learning outcomes,
competency levels for degrees, certificates, programs and courses?
Chabot is currently working to “connect the dots” to create course-program-institution
effectiveness.
Do students have a clear path to achieving the student learning outcomes required of a
course, program degree, certificates? How well does the institution achieve and evaluate
the effectiveness of learning at each level?
Chabot is in the process of deciding where the SLOs are “housed”: in course
outlines, course syllabi, as an addendum to course outlines. Our goal is to make the SLO
known and transparent to students.
How is the relevancy of a program determined? Have student learning outcomes for the
program been identified? How well are student achieving these outcomes?
Do criteria used in program review include relevancy, appropriateness, achievement of
student learning outcomes, currency, planning for the future? Is this process consistently
followed for all college programs, regardless of the type of program (collegiate,
developmental, etc.)?
Chabot will develop an action plan that incorporates SLOs and Program Review as part
of the planning and budgeting procedures.
IIA3
The following substandard-IIA3 was identified as primarily being fulfilled by the duties
and responsibilities of the curriculum committee but SLOAC has some specific areas to
address. The definition of the substandard is provided:
The institution requires of all academic and vocational degree programs a component of
general education based on a carefully considered philosophy that is clearly stated in its
catalogue. The institution, relying on the expertise of its faculty, determines the
appropriateness of each course for inclusion in the general education curriculum by
examining the stated learning outcomes for the course. Additionally, the following areas
are also examined:
An understanding of the basic content and methodology of the major areas of knowledge:
areas include the humanities and fine arts, the natural sciences, and the social sciences.
A capability to be a productive individual and life long learner: skills include oral and
written communication, information competency, computer literacy, scientific and
quantitative reasoning, critical analysis/logical thinking, and the ability to acquire
knowledge through a variety of means.
A recognition of what it means to be an ethical human being and effective citizen:
qualities include and appreciation of ethical principles; civility and interpersonal skills;
respect for cultural diversity; historical and aesthetic sensitivity; and the willingness to
assume civic, political, and social responsibilities locally, nationally, and globally.
We require your assistance by providing a response and the identification of evidence to
the following questions:
How are student learning outcomes used to analyze courses for inclusion as general
education?
Curriculum used them in Spring 2005 and Fall 2005 to evaluate which courses would be
included in the reduced GE units for an AA. There was a form that people had to fill out,
so Curriculum would have that form as evidence.
Do general education courses demonstrate student achievement of comprehensive student
learning outcomes?
If the course content area addresses one of the college-wide student learning outcomes
already, than the achievement is demonstrated by the student in that course. We have not
yet conducted an assessment that demonstrates these outcomes on a campus-wide basis.
Do student learning outcomes for general education courses require students to
understand the basic content and methodology in the major areas of knowledge? Is there
a consistent process for assuring that the content and methodology are included in course
outlines?
The following college-wide learning goals require knowledge and use of multiple
paradigms and methodologies, which is another way of saying students must know
content and methodology [see Learning Goals on Academic Services Web site]. I don’t
know if Curric. Comm has a process to include them on the course outline.
 Familiarity with multiple paradigms and methodologies
 Analysis of multiple paradigms and methodologies
 Quantitative and qualitative reasoning
How are student learning outcomes developed to address concerns about ethics and
effective citizenship? How is it determined where to include student learning to
development of these qualities?
The following college-wide learning goals address concerns about ethics and effective
citizenship. However, other than courses with components on ethnics, there has not been
a discussion about where the development of these qualities takes place on campus.
Once we identify those courses and programs, we can start to assess it.
Civic Responsibility
 Informed citizenship in a democracy
Cultural
Economic
Historical
Political
 Promoting the development of values, integrity, and ethical behavior
Communication
 Respectful and ethical communication