SLOAC Minutes March 3, 2015 Closing the Loop: Discussion of the Fall CWLG/GE Critical Thinking CLO Attendees: Gene Groppetti, Hilal Ozdemir, Norberto Ruiz, Harjot Sawhney, Kent Uchiyama, Don Plondke, Carolyn Arnold, Andrew Pierson, Felicia Tripp, Robert Yest, Adina Pineschi-­‐Petty, christine warda, Homeira Foth, Doris Hanhan, Stephen Small, Christina Mendoza, Mireille Giovanola Food offered by the VP Stacy Thompson. Meeting called to order at 12:05 pm. Minutes for 02-­‐17-­‐15: Motion to approve as corrected: Harjot Sawhney. Hilal Ozdemir seconded the motion. Motion unanimously approved. This meeting brought together many of the instructors who participated in the Fall CWLG/GE Critical Thinking CLO for a discussion on the experience and process of assessing this CLO. The meeting began with introductions. The group was then asked by Mireille Giovanola if they had any comments about the assessment and/or the process. Expectations of this Critical Thinking CLO Mireille stated that she would not have expected 36% of students to get a 4 on critical thinking on campus, based on her own experience. christine warda stated that she was surprised that there were more 4s than 3s. Rob Yest stated that he included both weighted and unweighted calculations in the tabulation of results, because two of the classes that were assessed had over 100 students. So he wanted to see each course weighted against the next one, which would give a percentage so we can compare one course to another. Carolyn, asked if he averaged the averages? And he did. She stated that there seems to be a pretty solid trend. Norberto Ruiz stated that there is no data that states which students are participating in the assessment. If you look at the student population, one would expect that some population of students may do better on the assessment. christine warda stated that having more or less students in a class who have completed the English requirements may make a difference in the results. Those students who have already taken English courses may score better that those who have not. Carolyn Arnold stated that the success rate for the campus is about 68%. She said that she would be hesitant to link this to grades. This is an accomplishment level. Rob stated that what we would define to be a score of 2 on this assessment wouldn’t necessarily translate to a C. Carolyn then stated that most CLOs are seen as critical thinking. Gene Groppetti stated that for accreditation, what they care about is that we have done the assessment. They are not looking for a level of achievement. They are looking to see if we made a determination as to whether or not students have met the expectations we made and that we have an action plan. Comments on Rubrics The group began discussing the rubric that was established for the CLO assessment. Rob stated that he chose the problems in math with critical thinking in mind, but they did not execute as smoothly as he liked; it was reflective. Doris Hanhan stated that it was only one problem that she used for the assessment, so it was not that informative. It may have been the hardest problem for them or maybe not, but it was just a snapshot. Carolyn appreciated the comments and stated that instructors picked the CLO that they thought expressed critical thinking, and if this is what they used to test students, then this is great. It was a good pilot. christine warda stated that she did not use a snapshot approach. She looked at whole test rather than the problem. Suggestions on Improving the Process Mireille stated that across disciplines, it’s very difficult to standardize the assessment. So the SLOAC committee thought that as long as it addressed critical thinking it can be used as an assessment tool. Norberto suggested that we give students the rubric ahead of time so that they can refine the assignment and meet the higher standard. Gene stated that this goes back to the question of whether or not students know the SLOs for the courses they are taking. He said that we don’t do well in this category because as a college we still don’t collectively inform students of the SLO’s for each course. One idea that has been suggested is to incorporate the PLOs/CLOs in the course catalog. Mireille stated that we have tried this. The Academic Senate voted against our “strong suggestion” that instructors put SLOs on the syllabus. Carolyn Arnold stated that what it more relevant here is if the rubrics work. Since everyone is on the same sale (0-­‐4), we are all able to come up with our own assessment. Mireille asked the group: Do we care how many students we assess in a course? Rob stated that he thinks we have enough sections and we are sampling enough students. For example, in French classes, they have small class size and fewer numbers of sections. There were about 15-­‐20 courses included in this assessment, so this is enough to allow the classes that have very few students. Carolyn stated that it looks fine because this is about GE courses, where many are included here. christine warda stated that we are looking at an overall snapshot of the GE program and where our students fit into this. This group should talk about if we should bring our own rubrics and then talk about the particular assignment and get feedback from the particular assignment. Carolyn added that instructors can also learn from each other what is critical thinking and how do we know when we see it. Felicia stated that christine warda’s comments would be helpful when we prepare to assess the next CLO. The next time we do this we need to get everyone on the same page to begin with. Groups Reflections on Critical Thinking Carolyn asked the group if they have any insights about assessing critical thinking. Norberto stated that if you are going to assess, let students know that you are assessing and give them a rubric for them to look at. Andrew stated that he puts the CLOs on a PowerPoint slide and lets students know what they are expected to learn at the start of the semester. The way he assesses is that he has 4 questions embedded in an exam and students had to identify cause and effect. He thinks that’s an important part of critical thinking. They get a score of 4 if they get all four questions right, etc. Doris asked: Are you looking at a rubric for the whole test or just a problem? Rob stated that when he goes over the exam, he goes over the strategies with the students. He teaches the behaviors needed to correctly answer the questions, but not the rubric itself. Hilal Ozdemir commented that if it’s an assignment the assessment would not be a problem. If it were a whole test, instructors may encounter problems. Carolyn stated that she thinks that people are used to the 0 to 4 scale and they developed the rubrics this way. christine warda commented that if we are talking action on the results of the assessment, for communication it would mean more tutoring in the communication lab. She would advocate student learning support to keep up our scores as a college. This committee could advocate something like that. Gene asked that if this group, with the diversity of disciplines, could come up with an action or a set of action. Homeira Foth said that in English, the instructors could state that in students writing students could improve in the course by synthesizing their ideas, but this is a tough thing to teach. Norberto stated that in the course Business 10, they have students look up legal cases and he looks up their cases to see if they are relevant cases. He checks to see if they can provide a conclusion on how they want to solve the problem with concrete evidence. Action Plan Carolyn asked, what would help in teaching critical thinking? This prompted the group to come up with some action plan ideas. Homeira stated that more basic skills is needed. In English, students need to be ready for their classes and they have to be ready to be able to integrate evidence. English 102 is called critical thinking but it was not assessed here. The bridging of English 1A to basic skills would also be useful. Doris said that she thinks that students understand what “A” quality work is. If they could see a sample of what a student did and why they got an “A” in an assignment, they would see that the expectations we have for students are not unrealistic. Students often think that these assessments are something that is unattainable. Gene stated that this discussion is great. It should be part of an accreditation report. This is not a test of faculty members, but a method of thinking about the possibilities. Mireille stated that if you have any more comments let her know. The first part of the survey that was handed out to faculty was about how we can improve critical thinking. The second part was about improving the process. Rob, we should have 0-­‐4 and an n/a column for those students who did not take the assessment. Homeira, she thinks we need more clarity to the difference between 0 and 1. More information on these numbers will be helpful. The meeting was adjourned at 1:00pm Submitted by Christina Mendoza