Chabot College Program Review Report 2014 ‐2015 Year 2 of Program Review Cycle Submitted on: October 31, 2013 Contact: Diane Zuliani Kevin Muller Final Forms, 1/18/13
1 Appendix B2: “Closing the Loop” Course‐Level Assessment Reflections. Course ARTH 1 Semester assessment data gathered SPRING 2013 Number of sections offered in the semester 5 (including 4 double sections) Number of sections assessed 3 (Zuliani’s sections only) Percentage of sections assessed 60% Semester held “Closing the Loop” discussion FALL 2013 Faculty members involved in “Closing the Loop” discussion DIANE ZULIANI & KEVIN MULLER Form Instructions:  Complete a separate Appendix B2 form for each Course‐Level assessment reported in this Program Review. These courses should be listed in Appendix B1: Student Learning Outcomes Assessment Reporting Schedule.  Part I: CLO Data Reporting. For each CLO, obtain Class Achievement data in aggregate for all sections assessed in eLumen.  Part II: CLO Reflections. Based on student success reported in Part I, reflect on the individual CLO.  Part III: Course Reflection. In reviewing all the CLOs and your findings, reflect on the course as a whole. PART I: COURSE‐LEVEL OUTCOMES – DATA RESULTS CONSIDER THE COURSE‐LEVEL OUTCOMES INDIVIDUALLY (THE NUMBER OF CLOS WILL DIFFER BY COURSE) (CLO) 1: ACCURATELY RECOGNIZE VISUAL ELEMENTS AND DESIGN PRINCIPLES. (CLO) 2: EVALUATE TO ADVANTAGE AN EXCURSION TO AN ART MUSEUM. (CLO) 3: JUDGE CRITICALLY THE VALUE OF ART. Defined Target Scores* (CLO Goal) 70 percent of students score 2, 3, or 4 (meet the CLO) 70 percent of students score 2, 3, or 4 (meet the CLO) 70 percent of students score 2, 3, or 4 (meet the CLO) Actual Scores** (eLumen data) 86.9 percent of students (average of three sections) met the target 99.2 percent of students (average of three sections) met the target 86.1 percent of students (average of three sections) met the target  If more CLOs are listed for the course, add another row to the table.  Defined Target Scores: What scores in eLumen from your students would indicate success for this CLO? (Example: 75% of the class scored either 3 or 4) **Actual scores: What is the actual percent of students that meet defined target based on the eLumen data collected in this assessment cycle? 2 PART II: COURSE‐ LEVEL OUTCOME REFLECTIONS A. COURSE‐LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 1: 1. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course level outcome? Scores exceed target for student success. 2. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have? CLO and assessment target appropriate. B. COURSE‐LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 2: 1. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course level outcome? Scores far exceed target for student success. 2. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have? CLO and assessment target too low. C. COURSE‐LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 3: 1. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course level outcome? Scores exceed target for student success. 2. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have? CLO and assessment target appropriate. D. COURSE‐LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 4: 1. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course level outcome? N/A 2. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have? 3 N/A E. COURSE‐LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 5: ADD IF NEEDED. N/A PART III: COURSE REFLECTIONS AND FUTURE PLANS 1. What changes were made to your course based on the previous assessment cycle, the prior Closing the Loop reflections and other faculty discussions? As per last year’s Course Reflections and Future Plans, we asked questions about the purpose and value of the museum visit assignment. We focused on ARTH 20 but since museum visits are part of all ARTH courses, we considered museum visits in all courses. We decided to change the museum visit assignments to ask less of students for whom this might well be their first ever visit to an art museum. 2. Based on the current assessment and reflections, what course‐level and programmatic strengths have the assessment reflections revealed? What actions has your discipline determined might be taken as a result of your reflections, discussions, and insights? The current assessment of the museum visit in ARTH 1 shows that 99.2 percent of students met the target for success. This number is inflated, not realistic. We had simplified the ARTH 1 museum visit assignment as a result of last year’s assessment. We believe we simplified too much, asking students mostly subjective questions, rather than questions requiring the application of the course’s academic content. So we are rewriting the assignment again this semester to be somewhat more challenging, in an attempt to find the right balance of ensuring the trip is enjoyable but also thought‐provoking. 3. What is the nature of the planned actions (please check all that apply)?  Curricular  Pedagogical Appendix C: Program Learning Outcomes Considering your feedback, findings, and/or information that has arisen from the course level discussions, please reflect on each of your Program Level Outcomes. Program: ART HISTORY  PLO #1: Identify and interpret the relationship between the formal qualities of art and art’s social, cultural, and historical significance.
4 
PLO #2: Acquire a body of knowledge about, and critical understanding of, art and artworlds within historical eras, and the corresponding artistic, intellectual, and social frameworks that change over time.
What questions or investigations arose as a result of these reflections or discussions? We initially had several more PLOs but enfolded them into the two written above. What program‐level strengths have the assessment reflections revealed? That Art History at Chabot meets all five college‐wide learning goals. What actions has your discipline determined might be taken to enhance the learning of students completing your program? We have proposed a new course, ARTH 8, a non‐Western Art History survey. Non‐Eurocentric content is critical to any Art History program. Four years ago we added ARTH 7 (Multicultural Histories of American Art) with the anticipation that Chabot students would be interested to see how their own culture’s traditional artforms are now part of the weave of American art. This is working, but it is also clear that students need survey overviews of the traditional artforms, too. That is the goal of the new ARTH 8, currently under review by the Curriculum Committee. 5