Friday, March 27th, 2015
ASSESSMENT AND DISCUSSION OF CWLGs/GE CLOs AT CHABOT COLLEGE
CWLGs/GE CLOs at Chabot College
Chabot College has five College-wide Learning Goals (CWLGs):
Global and Cultural Involvement
Civic Responsibility
Communication
Critical Thinking
Development of the Whole Person
See http://www.chabotcollege.edu/sloac/institutional.asp for a complete
description of these CWLGs.
For our purpose, College-wide Learning Goals (CWLGs) are equivalent to the
CLOs for the general education courses required for the AA and AS degrees at
Chabot (GE CLOs).
Assessment and discussion of our CWLGs/GE CLOs has been ongoing at
Chabot in the form of
1) Student and faculty surveys administered through Institutional Research;
2) FIGs (Faculty Inquiry groups);
3) Assessment and discussion of Course Learning Outcomes (CLOs) for the
courses that satisfy the GE requirements for the AA and AS degrees,
within each discipline. For all the courses that were assessed and
discussed, and for a schedule of courses assessment and discussion to
occur by May 1, 2015, see “Current Status of Assessment”
http://www.chabotcollege.edu/sloac/, and click on each division.
College-wide assessment and discussion of our CWLGs/GE CLOs
Early in fall 2014, we decided to conduct ongoing college-wide assessment of our
CWLGs/GE CLOs based on student performance, followed by a “closing-the-loop”
discussion the following semester.
1. Assessment Methods and Reporting:
In fall 2014, we assessed Critical Thinking, the most widely covered CWLG.
We selected courses in each of our GE areas for the AA and AS degrees
(except for Physical Education) based on the following criteria:
 At least one of the course CLOs had to address Critical Thinking.
 The course had to be taught in Fall 2014 by a full-time instructor.
We contacted 22 instructors by e-mail. 21 instructors responded positively.
We followed up with instructions on course assessment.
 Instructors were asked to assess at least one section of their course.
 Instructors could choose which CLO best suited Critical Thinking.
 Instructors could choose the assessment method they felt best suited
their subject.
 Students were assessed on a scale of 0 (no understanding of the topic,
etc.) to 4 (mastery). This is a system that was used in eLumen, so was
already familiar to instructors.
 Instructors were asked to fill out an assessment form (developed by
Robert Yest; see Appendix A) and send it to Robert Yest and Mireille
Giovanola by the end of the semester.
19 instructors, representing all GE areas (except for Physical Education) sent
in their assessment results. Results were tabulated by Mireille Giovanola and
Robert Yest (see Appendix B).
2. “Closing-the-Loop” discussion:
Spring 2015: All assessment participants were invited to attend the
3/3/2015 SLOAC meeting to discuss the assessment results, and make
recommendations about the assessment methods and the reporting form for
future assessments.
Christina Mendoza captured the discussion in the 3/3/2015 SLOAC minutes.
See Minutes and Agendas at http://www.chabotcollege.edu/sloac/
Reflections, recommendations and action plan included the following:
1) Need for CLO Transparency:
 We must collectively make the CLOs transparent to our students, but
we do not have a system for this yet.
 Some participants stated that they included the CLOs in their syllabus.
 Various people suggested that at the very least, instructors should
discuss their CLOs in class.
2) Need for Transparency in CLO Assessment:
 Give assessment rubrics to students should be given to students
ahead of time so they know how their performance will be evaluated
and so they are given a chance to do their best (Norberto Ruiz. He and
Donald Plondke shared their elaborate rubric system).
 Share a student’s “A” work with the rest of the class. Students might
understand that doing excellent work is possible, and that our
expectations are not unreasonable (Doris Hanhan).
3) Discussion of Assessment Methods by all participants:
 Assessment methods varied from very simple (“the snapshot”
approach) to elaborate assessments.
 After some discussion, everybody agreed that it would be hard to have
a one-fits-all type of assessment when assessing CLOs, and it was
better to use an assessment method that was appropriate for the
discipline.
 All agreed that the “closing-the-loop” discussion should include a
discussion on the methodology that was used in each discipline.
4) Changes to the Assessment Rubric and Scoring System:
Recommendations included:
 Clarification and refinement of the scoring system and the rubrics so
the assessment is standardized in these respects (Homeira Foth).
 In addition to the 0-4 columns, there should be a N/A column for
people who do not submit any work.
 Be more specific for total number of students. Say “Total number of
students at the time of assessment.”
5) Other reflections/recommendations:
 Perhaps include a question about basic skills in the next form. It
would be interesting to know if the students who are English
proficient perform better than others (christine warda). We could
then make recommendations about what our students need be more
successful.
 Recommendations included:
 Increased lab hours in Communication (christine warda).
 Better bridging between some English courses (such as English
102: Critical Thinking) and English 1A (Homeira Foth).
3. Implementation of recommendations:
At their 3/24/15 meeting of Mathematical Minds, the Math faculty discussed
feedback from the CWLG participants.
To quote Robert Yest: “What came of it was a robust discussion of how to
improve Critical Thinking in our classrooms. The broad scope of ideas offered a
multi-faceted approach, from types of questions to ask on a test, to how to
approach a problem in class, to using tests scoring as a tool to understand []
why we ask those types of questions getting students to analyze the material
conceptually and away from the problem itself. As you can see from the
attached minutes form the meeting, many tools were offered.”
(See Appendix C).
4. Future assessments and discussions:
Spring 2015: Assessment of two CWLGs: Global and Cultural Involvement
Civic Responsibility
th
May 5 or Fall 2015: Closing-the-loop discussion with participants.
Acknowledgments:
The following people were involved at various stages of the process: Willing
assessment participants, Stacy Thompson (VP of Academic Services), Gene
Groppetti (Academic Services), Felicia Tripp (Counseling), Robert Yest (Math),
Carolyn Arnold (Institutional Research), Patricia Shannon
(Humanities/Philosophy/Religious Studies), Mireille Giovanola (Social Sciences),
Christina Mendoza (Sociology), SLOAC members.