Chabot College Program Review Report 2014 ‐2015 Year 2 of Program Review Cycle Submitted on November 1, 2013 Contact: Cynthia Stubblebine Final Forms, 1/18/13
1 Appendix B2: “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 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 (CLO) 1: (CLO) 2: (CLO) 3: (CLO) 4: Actual Scores** (eLumen data) Defined Target Scores* (CLO Goal) CONSIDER THE COURSE‐LEVEL OUTCOMES INDIVIDUALLY (THE NUMBER OF CLOS WILL DIFFER BY COURSE)  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? 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? 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? 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 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. 4 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? Based on our previous discussions we have completely replaced our CLO/PLOs on record. See below. 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? 3. What is the nature of the planned actions (please check all that apply)?  Curricular  Pedagogical  Resource based X Change to CLO or rubric X Change to assessment methods  Other:_________________________________________________________________ 5 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: _Math AS_____  PLO #1: 
PLO #2: 
PLO #3: 
PLO #4: What questions or investigations arose as a result of these reflections or discussions? Based on our previous discussions we have completely replaced our CLO/PLOs on record. See below. 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? Program: _Math AA____  PLO #1: 
PLO #2: 
PLO #3: 
PLO #4: What questions or investigations arose as a result of these reflections or discussions? 6 Based on our previous discussions we have completely replaced our CLO/PLOs on record. See below. 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? 7 Description of the Revised SLO’s for the Math Subdivision After going through the SLO process in the Fall 11, it was obvious that the process was broken—
the data gathered was not meaningful, with its biased accumulation, its limited scope, and nearly empty results. Alternate solutions were sought. Below is an outline of the new process. New PLOs and CLOs. For each degree (AA and AS) as well as each of our 23 courses the learning outcomes will be changed to: 1) (Critical Thinking) Analyze mathematical problems critically using a logical methodology. 2) (Communication) Communicate mathematical ideas, understand definitions, and interpret concepts. 3) (Development of the Whole Person) Increase confidence in understanding mathematical concepts, communicating ideas and thinking analytically. For each course approximately 12 individual questions will be created based on the course outline of record. These questions are self reflective in nature. While the data comes from an indirect method, it does provide an insight in the learning process that hasn’t been explored previously, namely the student’s perception of their success. Gathering the Data. A simple mechanism needs to be used to collect the student response. Using a Scantron during class will ensure that a mathematically significant number of students will participate, while minimizing the impact to class time. The Scantron machine we currently have in the breakroom will not work, as it does not do surveys. A new machine, software, installation, and support will need to be purchased. In addition, a server will also need to be set up to hold the data. The data will be queried to determine the weakest 25% of subjects across all courses. Closing the Loops After all courses are assessed and the data has been tabulated resulting in the bottom 25%, we will meet to identify topics, trends, and behaviors to work on for all our courses. This will not be limited to the survey alone, but with our insight from our experiences as math instructors. These identified topics will be the subject of our Monthly Meeting of Mathematical Minds (MMMM) for the subsequent three years. 8 These topics may result in sharing best practices for teaching a difficult topic, curriculum changes, etc. The identified topic will dictate how the discussions will proceed. The MMMM will meet at least 5 times an academic year. Follow Up Assessments: When subsequent assessments are done we can compare the two results. We will know that we were successful if the problem no longer shows up in the bottom 25%. If it does remain, then we know that we did not achieve the goal; further analysis will need to be done. This might include adjustment to the actual questions used on the assessment. 9