Chabot College Program Review Report Check one: __X_ SLO Portion of Upcoming ’16‐’17 Program Review (Submitted May 2015 in Preparation for Oct 2015) ___ Revision to ’15‐’16 Program Review (Originally Submitted Oct 2014) ___ Revision to ’14‐’15 Program Review (Originally Submitted Oct 2013) Submitted on: May 26, 2015 Contact: Jane Wolford 1 Appendix B: “Closing the Loop” Course‐Level Assessment Reflections. Course Semester assessment data gathered Number of sections offered in the semester Number of sections assessed Percentage of sections assessed Semester held “Closing the Loop” discussion Faculty members involved in “Closing the Loop” discussion TUTR 1A‐D Spring 2015 2 2 100% Spring 2015 6: Jane Wolford, Caren Parrish, Harjot Sawhney, Kent Uchiyama, Homeira Foth, Mireille Giovanola 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: Students will establish and apply tutoring instructional plans and objectives with individual students. (CLO) 2: STUDENTS WILL EFFECTIVELY APPLY KNOWLEDGE IN THEORY AND PRINCIPLES OF TUTORING, AND LEARNING IN BOTH DROP‐IN AND SCHEDULED TUTORING ENVIRONMENTS AND/OR IN A CLASSROOM LEARNING ENVIRONMENT (CLO) 3: 2 Defined Target Scores* (CLO Goal) 70% or more students will apply plans and objectives at least 70% of the time. Actual Scores** (eLumen data) 67.4% indicated that they apply plans and set objectives at least 70% of the time; 2.6% under target. 86% indicated 70% or more students indicate that they use a variety of that they use a variety of learning learning techniques; 16% techniques in a above target. tutoring session/classroom environment.  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? (CLO) 4: 3 PART II: COURSE‐ LEVEL OUTCOME REFLECTIONS A. COURSE‐LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 1: Students will establish and apply tutoring instructional plans and objectives with individual students. 1. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course level outcome? 2. 67.4% indicated that they apply plans and set objectives at least 70% of the time; 2.6% under target. 3. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have? Most of the Learning Assistants indicated that they do not apply plans or set objectives but instead answer students’ questions in the classroom. At present TUTR 1A‐D addresses mostly tutor issues/concerns. Data indicates that there needs to be at least some instruction targeted specifically for LAs who tend to not see themselves as tutors. Also, many Math tutors in the STEM Center do drop‐in tutoring, instead of scheduled fifty‐minute appointments, had similar responses to the LAs. B. COURSE‐LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 2: STUDENTS WILL EFFECTIVELY APPLY KNOWLEDGE IN THEORY AND PRINCIPLES OF TUTORING, AND LEARNING IN BOTH DROP‐IN AND SCHEDULED TUTORING ENVIRONMENTS AND/OR IN A CLASSROOM LEARNING ENVIRONMENT. 1. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course level outcome? 86% indicated that they use a variety of learning techniques; 16% above target. 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? Close to 90% of our Learning Connection Scholars use a variety of learning techniques to assist students in achieving their learning goals. 4 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? 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? 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? 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? E. COURSE‐LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 5: ADD IF NEEDED. 5 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? We did not participate in the previous assessment cycle. 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? Programmatic strengths: Tutors/LAs understand the need to meet our students where they are, and do try different learning/teaching techniques to reach as many students as possible. Action Plan: Develop curriculum specifically for Learning Assistants. Possibly creating a separate section for LAs. Also figuring out how to teach to students who are doing scheduled appointments along with those doing drop‐in tutoring. They seem to be very different learning support models yet our current training sessions lump them all together. Differentiated training might serve our LCS better. 3. What is the nature of the planned actions (please check all that apply)?  XCurricular X Pedagogical X Resource based  Change to CLO or rubric Change to assessment methods  Other:_________________________________________________________________ 6 Appendix B: “Closing the Loop” Course‐Level Assessment Reflections. Course Semester assessment data gathered Number of sections offered in the semester Number of sections assessed Percentage of sections assessed Semester held “Closing the Loop” discussion Faculty members involved in “Closing the Loop” discussion TUTR 2A‐D Spring 2015 9 5 55.5% Spring 2015 6: Jane Wolford, Caren Parrish, Harjot Sawhney, Kent Uchiyama, Homeira Foth, Mireille Giovanola 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: Students demonstrate sufficient subject knowledge and pedagogical skills to effectively assess tutees and (where appropriate) contribute positively to a classroom learning environment. (CLO) 2: (CLO) 3: (CLO) 4: Defined Target Scores* (CLO Goal) 100% of students will achieve a score of at least 3. Actual Scores** (eLumen data) 100% scored 3 or better.  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? 7 PART II: COURSE‐ LEVEL OUTCOME REFLECTIONS C. COURSE‐LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 1: Students demonstrate sufficient subject knowledge and pedagogical skills to effectively assess tutees and (where appropriate) contribute positively to a classroom learning environment. 4. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course level outcome? 5. 100% of students scored 3 or higher, so met expectations. 6. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have? At a previous meeting, we discussed methods of assessment for this CLO because the subject matter for each tutor section is so different from another. We decided that each tutor mentor would choose the best assessment method in his/her area. It was generally agreed to set very high standards because we expect excellence from the tutoring services. We also discussed how we could recruit more and better tutors. The following was discussed: flyers, class visits starting on the second week of classes, sending out a recruiting announcement asking instructors to look for potential tutors early in the semester. Evaluation methods included the following: 1) Performing tutoring tasks during role play. 2) Feedback on classroom observation. 3) Final reflection on tutoring experience. Reflection should include how tutors handled a difficult situation. 4) Test of tutors’ knowledge of subject matter and ability to explain material to tutees. D. COURSE‐LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 2: 3. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course level outcome? 4. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have? 8 C. COURSE‐LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 3: 3. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course level outcome? 4. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have? D. COURSE‐LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 4: 3. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course level outcome? 4. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have? E. COURSE‐LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 5: ADD IF NEEDED. 9 PART III: COURSE REFLECTIONS AND FUTURE PLANS 4. What changes were made to your course based on the previous assessment cycle, the prior Closing the Loop reflections and other faculty discussions? We did not participate in the previous assessment cycle. 5. 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? 2.1. Programmatic strengths: We have very high standards for our tutors because we expect them to provide the highest level of academic support. Assignments in each of the TUTR 2A‐D content areas reflect emphasis on pedagogical effectiveness and assessment of student needs. The number of training hours is adequate. 2.2. Action Plan: We are currently exploring ways to observe tutor/student interactions to assess a tutor’s effectiveness. We are discussing setting up a mentoring program in which more experienced tutors would provide guidance to incoming tutors, and possibly assess them. 6. What is the nature of the planned actions (please check all that apply)?  Curricular X Pedagogical X Resource based  Change to CLO or rubric X Change to assessment methods  Other:_________________________________________________________________ 10 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: Tutoring 
PLO #1: Reinforce concepts necessary for course mastery in the specific subject area being studied.

PLO #2: While working with students, tutors and LAs will apply a variety of instructional strategies, including auditory, kinesthetic, and visual. 
PLO #3: Establish objective(s) with individual students.

PLO #4: What questions or investigations arose as a result of these reflections or discussions? 1. How can we assess our LCS in action? With over 120 LCS currently in our program TUTR 1 and 2 instructors can’t effectively manage such large‐scale assessment. Perhaps creating a mentoring system with experienced LCS mentoring and evaluating new LCS as part of the TUTR curriculum? 2. How to deliver the best instruction to each of three groups: tutors engaged in scheduled‐appointment and drop‐in models and Learning Assistants. What program‐level strengths have the assessment reflections revealed? LCS use a variety of learning techniques to reach our students to tailor each session to fit the learning needs of our students seeking support. We hold our LCS to a high standard in content areas. What actions has your discipline determined might be taken to enhance the learning of students completing your program? Developing a peer‐mentoring program as part of the TUTR 1 and 2 curriculum. Developing curriculum specifically targeted for Learning Assistants and differentiated instruction for scheduled‐appointment vs. drop‐in tutoring models. Program: _____ 11 
PLO #1: 
PLO #2: 
PLO #3: 
PLO #4: What questions or investigations arose as a result of these reflections or discussions? What program‐level strengths have the assessment reflections revealed? What actions has your discipline determined might be taken to enhance the learning of students completing your program? 12