ACCREDITING COMMISSION FOR COMMUNITY AND JUNIOR COLLEGES
COLLEGE STATUS REPORT ON STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES IMPLEMENTATION
INSTRUCTIONS
Colleges are asked to use this report form in completing their College Status Report on Student
Learning Outcomes Implementation. Colleges should submit a brief narrative analysis and quantitative
and qualitative evidence demonstrating status of Student Learning Outcome (SLO) implementation.
The report is divided into sections representing the bulleted characteristics of the Proficiency
implementation level on the Rubric for Evaluating Institutional Effectiveness, Part III (Rubric).
Colleges are asked to interpret their implementation level through the lens of the Accreditation
Standards cited for each characteristic. The final report section before the evidence list requests a brief
narrative self-assessment of overall status in relationship to the proficiency level, indicating what plans
are in place to mitigate any noted deficiencies or areas for improvement. Narrative responses for each
section of the template should not exceed 250 words.
This report form offers examples of quantitative and qualitative evidence which might be included for
each of the characteristics. The examples are illustrative in nature and are not intended to provide a
complete listing of the kinds of evidence colleges may use to document SLO status. College evidence
used for one Proficiency level characteristic may also serve as evidence for another characteristic.
This report is provided to colleges in hard copy and also electronically, by e-mail, as a fill-in Word
document. The reports must be submitted to the Commission by either the October 15, 2012 date or the
March 15, 2013 date, as defined on the enclosed list of colleges by assigned reporting date. When the
report is completed, colleges should:
a. Submit the report form by email to the ACCJC (accjc@accjc.org); and
b. Submit the full report with attached evidence on CD/DVD to the ACCJC (ACCJC, 10 Commercial
Blvd., Suite 204, Novato, CA 94949).
Although evidence cited in the text of the report may include links to college web resources, the
Commission requires actual copies (electronic files) of the evidence for its records.
COLLEGE INFORMATION: DATE OF REPORT; COLLEGE; SUBMITTED BY; CERTIFICATION BY CEO
Date of Report: October 15, 2012
Institution’s Name: Chabot College
Name and Title of Individuals Completing Report: George A. Railey*, Vice President Academic
Services, Jennifer Lange, Center for Teaching and Learning Coordinator, Carey Kopay, Chair, Student
Learning Outcomes and Assessment Committee, Robert Yest, Data and Technical SLO Support, and
Patricia Shannon, Title III Activity Coordinator
*Dr. Railey has accepted a new position, effective Nov. 1, 2012. He is available to answer questions;
however, the best direct contacts are the team members who completed the report under his direction.
Telephone Numbers and E-mail Addresses:
April 2012
1
Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges
College Status Report on Student Learning Outcomes Implementation
George A. Railey: 510-723-6626, grailey@chabotcollege.edu
Jennifer Lange: 510-723-7457, jlange@chabotcollege.edu
Carey Kopay: 510-723-7418, ckopay@chabotcollege.edu
Robert Yest: 510-723-7432, ryest@chabotcollege.edu
Patricia Shannon: 510-723-7693, pshannon@chabotcollege.edu
Certification by Chief Executive Officer: The information included in this report is certified as a
complete and accurate representation of the reporting institution.
Name of CEO:
Signature:________________________________
(e-signature permitted)
PROFICIENCY RUBRIC STATEMENT 1: STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES AND AUTHENTIC
ASSESSMENTS ARE IN PLACE FOR COURSES, PROGRAMS, SUPPORT SERVICES, CERTIFICATES AND
DEGREES.
Eligibility Requirement 10: Student Learning and Achievement
Standards: I.A.1; II.A.1.a; II.A.1.c; II.A.2.a,b,e,f,g,h,i; II.A.3 [See II.A.3.a,b,c.]; II.A.6; II.B.4; II.C.2].
EXAMPLES OF EVIDENCE: Evidence demonstrating numbers/percentages of course, program (academic
and student services), and institutional level outcomes are in place and assessed. Documentation on
institutional planning processes demonstrating integrated planning and the way SLO assessment results
impact program review. Descriptions could include discussions of high-impact courses, gateway
courses, college frameworks, and so forth.
PROFICIENCY RUBRIC STATEMENT 1: NUMERICAL RESPONSE
QUANTITATIVE EVIDENCE/DATA ON THE RATE/PERCENTAGE OF SLOS DEFINED AND ASSESSED
1. Courses
a. Total number of college courses (active courses in the college catalog, offered on the schedule in
some rotation): ___753________
b. Number of college courses with defined Student Learning Outcomes: ___753________
Percentage of total: __100_________
c. Number of college courses with ongoing assessment of learning outcomes: ___674________
Percentage of total: __90%_________
2. Programs
a. Total number of college programs (all certificates and degrees, and other programs defined by
college): ____128_______
b. Number of college programs with defined Student Learning Outcomes: __111______;
Percentage of total: ___87%____
c. Number of college programs with ongoing assessment of learning outcomes: ____64_____;
Percentage of total: ___50%____
3. Student Learning and Support Activities
a. Total number of student learning and support activities (as college has identified or grouped
April 2012
2
Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges
College Status Report on Student Learning Outcomes Implementation
them for SLO implementation): __12_________
b. Number of student learning and support activities with defined Student Learning Outcomes:
____12_______; Percentage of total: ___100%________
c. Number of student learning and support activities with ongoing assessment of learning
outcomes: ___12________; Percentage of total: __100%_________
4. Institutional Learning Outcomes
a. Total number of institutional Student Learning Outcomes defined: ____5_______
b. Number of institutional learning outcomes with ongoing assessment: ____5_______
PROFICIENCY RUBRIC STATEMENT 1: NARRATIVE RESPONSE
All courses have Learning Outcomes, including courses not offered due to FTEF reductions,
Thus, when such courses are scheduled, they can be assessed.
Of 69 Disciplines, 62 have fully assessed all active courses. Disciplines that did not meet the
100% objective are predominantly taught by adjunct faculty (e.g., Physical Education and
Photography). During this cycle, we became aware that our current contract does not stipulate
SLO work as part of adjunct work load. We unsuccessfully tried alternative approaches to
interpreting workload. This problem must be addressed through collective bargaining. A
report detailing the status of each course is submitted. We anticipate closing the gaps at the
first opportunity.
Most disciplines use eLumen for tracking, Nursing, Medical Assisting, and Dental Hygiene use
industry standard testing to measure assessment. Samples of their analysis are included.
Programs and their outcomes are indentified by disciplines and reported in the new annual
Program Review process. The process, revised and augmented annually to respond to
assessment needs, was put in place in 2010. Of 128 programs (areas of study leading to a
degree or certificate), 111 programs have PLOs on record: 87% of programs meet this
objective. The remaining 13% of programs should be compliant by Spring 2013 through
improved scrutiny of Program Review submissions. Sixty-four programs have documented
assessment and reflection on program-level student learning, which was completed through
Program Review in Spring 2012 and a Fall 2012 Addendum process.
There are 12 Support Service Area Outcomes and 5 Institutional SLOs, all fully assessed.
April 2012
3
Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges
College Status Report on Student Learning Outcomes Implementation
PROFICIENCY RUBRIC STATEMENT 2: THERE IS A WIDESPREAD INSTITUTIONAL DIALOGUE ABOUT
ASSESSMENT RESULTS AND IDENTIFICATION OF GAPS.
Standards: I.B.1; I.B.2; I.B.3; I.B.5.
EXAMPLES OF EVIDENCE: Documentation on processes and outcomes of SLO assessment. Specific
examples with the outcome data analysis and description of how the results were used. Descriptions
could include examples of institutional changes made to respond to outcomes assessment results.
PROFICIENCY RUBRIC STATEMENT 2: NARRATIVE RESPONSE
During our first full cycle of assessment there has been an increasingly effective campus-wide
effort to institutionalize the process of assessment, evaluation, reflection and modification for
the purposes of continuous improvement. All courses have established course learning
outcomes. A three year assessment cycle and a process was defined and completed. During
this cycle, with the exception of the athletics/physical education and courses taught by adjunct
only, all college courses were assessed. Faculty have conducted student assessments,
archived data in eLumen (or equivalent), and completed reflection and course improvement
discussions.
College courses are mapped to degree and certificate programs. Through program review,
course assessment and program evaluations are conducted with the intention of integrating
faculty assessment, reflections, and course and program revision with planning and
budgeting. Program review includes resource allocation requests and planning for future
assessment cycles. The process includes annual reports from program faculty (Academic
Program Review Forms), which are submitted to division deans, then considered by the
college-wide Program Review and Budget Council. In this cycle, substantial changes to the
program review forms and process were made to improve reporting and integration.
For most programs, evaluations of SLOs are considered at the discipline and division level.
The Closing the Loop Form documents the dialogue and contributions from faculty teaching a
given course through the assessment cycle. Adjunct faculty were encouraged to participate in
the process. These discussions have been integrated through multiple events, including
division meetings, staff development sessions, workshops, and CLO Workgroups over the last
three years.
April 2012
4
Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges
College Status Report on Student Learning Outcomes Implementation
PROFICIENCY RUBRIC STATEMENT 3: DECISION MAKING INCLUDES DIALOGUE ON THE RESULTS OF
ASSESSMENT AND IS PURPOSEFULLY DIRECTED TOWARD ALIGNING INSTITUTION-WIDE PRACTICES TO
SUPPORT AND IMPROVE STUDENT LEARNING.
Standards: I.B; I.B.3; II.A.1.c; II.A.2.f; III.A.1.c; IV.A.2.b.
EXAMPLES OF EVIDENCE: Documentation of institutional planning processes and the integration of
SLO assessment results with program review, college-wide planning and resource allocation, including
evidence of college-wide dialogue.
PROFICIENCY RUBRIC STATEMENT 3: NARRATIVE RESPONSE
Spring 2011 was the first submission of a revised academic program review process that
asked faculty to elucidate and summarize SLO assessment result discussions and to consider
this, and other data sources, in their action plan. By centralizing the myriad conversations
surrounding student success in the singular annual review, information can uniformly be made
available to planning bodies. These documents are reviewed by the PRBC as well as shared
governance committees and administrators in order to inform professional development
activities, fund allocations, technology policy, and strategic planning.
With most programs completing their first cycle of SLO assessment in Spring/Fall 2012, clear
declarations of identified learning needs correlating to resource requests have been limited.
We recognize that the line between resource requests, allocations, and ultimate impacts on
learning was not uniformly clear. Alteration of program review forms to provide tighter linking
was discussed in PRBC in late Fall 2011/Spring 2012, but at that point, it was deemed too late
for changes. Revisions are being made for submissions in Spring 2013.
We have worked diligently to incorporate student learning assessment and dialogue into
program review and to link that dialogue to resource requests. Of necessity, we have been
designing and implementing a process while educating faculty about that process while
continually improving the process. That has required a strong institutional commitment that
started among a relatively small group and has gradually involved a growing number of faculty
and staff. We have made substantial progress, but we have much work to do.
April 2012
5
Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges
College Status Report on Student Learning Outcomes Implementation
PROFICIENCY RUBRIC STATEMENT 4: APPROPRIATE RESOURCES CONTINUE TO BE ALLOCATED AND
FINE-TUNED.
Standards: I.B; I.B.4; I.B.6; III.C.2; III.D.2.a; III.D.3.
EXAMPLES OF EVIDENCE: Documentation on the integration of SLO assessment results with
institutional planning and resource allocation.
PROFICIENCY RUBRIC STATEMENT 4: NARRATIVE RESPONSE
We have made a substantial effort in identifying and implementing a program review process
that is driven by data on student learning, success, and persistence. The new academic
review was completed for the first time in Spring 2011. Revisions were made in the short
window available in Fall 2011 to strengthen the learning assessment linkage and discipline
leads were trained on how to complete the revised sections. Despite this, some disciplines
completed old forms, which wasn’t caught until after submission, highlighting our historical
communication gaps. Learning from this, extensive dialogue is occurring concerning process
improvement to ensure use of up-to-date forms and of uniform reporting.
With a new Strategic Plan starting in Fall 2012, Chabot’s focus is dedicated to improving
student educational goal completion. Conversations are underway to identify specific collegewide strategies that will facilitate student progress through needed courses, including
examining FTEF allocation patterns, course scheduling patterns, student habits of mind and
learning skills, as well as academic support options. Conversations about student goals and
achievements at the course, discipline, and multidisciplinary programmatic levels are
informing these college-wide initiatives.
In the past two years, the Planning, Review and Budget Council has changed dramatically
with participation increases and enhanced focus. These changes are also transforming the
college-wide approach to planning and budgeting. Substantially increased awareness and
transparent dialogue about connecting mission, vision, values, and student learning is
occurring. As a consequence, we expect substantial improvement, at every step in the
process, during 2012-13 Program Review cycle.
April 2012
6
Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges
College Status Report on Student Learning Outcomes Implementation
PROFICIENCY RUBRIC STATEMENT 5: COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT REPORTS EXIST AND ARE
COMPLETED AND UPDATED ON A REGULAR BASIS.
Standards: I.A.1; I.B; I.B.3; I.B.5; I.B.6; II.A.2.a; II.B.
EXAMPLES OF EVIDENCE: Documentation on the process and cycle of SLO assessment, including
results of cycles of assessment. Copies of summative assessment reports, with actual learning
outcomes.
PROFICIENCY RUBRIC STATEMENT 5: NARRATIVE RESPONSE
In fall 2009, we began diligently working on SLO assessment. Faculty were recruited and a
committee was formed. The district recognized our need for data tracking and purchased a
license from eLumen. At that time, our course outline of record required course outcomes, but
the campus perspective was that these outcomes and SLOs are different. Consequently, we
developed a separate process for CLOs. We struggled to become savvy with eLumen. We
had difficulty matching eLumen reporting with reporting requirements, so we developed
cumbersome spreadsheets and reports. We had some web assistance and created dropdown forms for submitting assessment schedules and CLOs, but data were hand-entered into
eLumen. We gradually became sure that the data in eLumen were not correct, due to the
hand-entry and lack of technical sophistication with eLumen.
The campus climate was generally resistant: faculty considered SLO assessment to be
unnecessary and irrelevant. Knowing that developing a robust and mature assessment
environment was a requirement, a small team kept working and making slow, incremental
progress. By early spring of 2011, we realized that our current approach required additional
resources and radical shift in technology if we were to meet the robust, mature goal. As a
consequence, we recruited from the assessment committee for needed support. New staff
joined the team with substantial software skills. We carefully corrected the eLumen data and
created new reports that provide clear, relevant, and accurate information. Our CLO reports
are now easy to obtain, produced on a regular and timely basis, and accurate.
April 2012
7
Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges
College Status Report on Student Learning Outcomes Implementation
PROFICIENCY RUBRIC STATEMENT 6: COURSE STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES ARE ALIGNED WITH
DEGREE STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES.
Standards: II.A.2.e; II.A.2.f; II.A.2.i.
EXAMPLES OF EVIDENCE: Documentation on the alignment/integration of course level outcomes with
program outcomes. Description could include curriculum mapping or other alignment activities.
Samples across the curriculum of institutional outcomes mapped to program outcomes.
PROFICIENCY RUBRIC STATEMENT 6: NARRATIVE RESPONSE
The forms for submitting CLOs contain a mapping of each CLO to the institutional learning
outcomes; thus, all CLOs are mapped within eLumen to one of the five College-Wide Learning
Goals (CWLG). There was an online CLO to PLO mapping form, but because our focus has
been on course-level assessment, we have not been rigorous about completing this form.
Simultaneously, the web support for maintaining and reporting on the form was discontinued,
and no additional resources for doing this by-hand were available.
At various Flex Day workshops and during Program Review, faculty have been asked to map
CLOs with program outcomes, and to map the program outcomes to the CWLGs. This is an
ongoing effort.
April 2012
8
Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges
College Status Report on Student Learning Outcomes Implementation
PROFICIENCY RUBRIC STATEMENT 7: STUDENTS DEMONSTRATE AWARENESS OF GOALS AND
PURPOSES OF COURSES AND PROGRAMS IN WHICH THEY ARE ENROLLED.
Standards: I.B.5; II.A.6; II.A.6.a; II.B.
EXAMPLES OF EVIDENCE: Documentation on means the college uses to inform students of course and
program purposes and outcomes. Samples across the curriculum of: course outlines of record and
syllabi with course SLOs; program and institutional SLOs in catalog.
PROFICIENCY RUBRIC STATEMENT 7: NARRATIVE RESPONSE
We have just completed our first full cycle of assessment. We recently finished writing sufficient CLOs
for all courses, and more recently writing PLOs. Our focus has been completing a full assessment
cycle. Communicating this information to students has not been a priority. Our Course Outline of
Record does not include CLOs. Course outcomes are included, but often they are not the same as
CLOs. Until recently, we had no good way to generate a list of CLOs. With the most recent version of
eLumen, this problem has been solved. We have generated a list, which we will sort by disciplines and
courses, and post this on the Academic Services website with the course outlines of record. For many
disciplines, program level reporting was submitted with Program Review in March 2012, or completed
during staff development activities this fall. We have been posting these on the PRBC website as they
are reported. The diligent student might be able to find them, but it is unlikely. Our institutional
outcomes were identified and posters were created and posted around the campus two years ago.
However, they were not identified as outcomes per se, and they are not included in the catalog. While
we have assessed those institutional outcomes in cross-disciplinary faculty inquiry groups, the results
have not been shared with students.
The use of rubrics has been discussed in several assessment workshops, and some faculty have adopted
them and share them with students. However, use is not required.
This is an area that requires significant improvement. Now that we have the ability to list the CLOs and
PLOs, we can begin communicating them to students. Discussion of the how and what should be
communicated about CLOs, PLOS, and institutional outcomes will be brought to PRBC.
April 2012
9
Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges
College Status Report on Student Learning Outcomes Implementation
SELF-ASSESSMENT ON LEVEL
OF IMPLEMENTATION:
YOU PLANNED TO ADDRESS NEEDED IMPROVEMENTS? WHAT
LEVEL OF SLO IMPLEMENTATION WOULD YOU ASSIGN YOUR
COLLEGE? WHY? WHAT EFFORTS HAVE YOU PLANNED TO
ADDRESS NEEDED IMPROVEMENTS?
SELF-ASSESSMENT ON LEVEL OF IMPLEMENTATION: NARRATIVE RESPONSE
Chabot College is on the cusp of meeting the Sustainable Continuous Quality
Improvement level. Substantial progress has been achieved in the past two years in
Student Learning Outcomes development and assessment at the course, program,
service area and institutional level that solidly places the college at the Proficiency
Level. We are engaging in a number of institutional practices that more closely align
with most components of Sustainable Continuous Quality Improvement Level.
Areas for improvement include clear and demonstrated links between assessment
and resource requests, broader and deeper participation in program-level
assessment (with clear links between course and institutional outcomes, and
communication with students about student learning outcomes). In the past year,
the campus has shifted into a radically new dialogue, spurred by our fiscal and
legislative climate and powered by changes in leadership. Within this dialogue, data
from, for, and about students is becoming a dominant force, this in turn is changing
how the campus views the process.
Institutional infrastructure improvements have been made, including: revising the college
planning council, improving college-wide participation, development of a strong and vibrant
SLOAC team, leveraging support of the Staff Development Committee, increasing personnel
resources to support SLO assessment data collection and its accuracy, providing SLO
progress feedback to the college community, as well as an institutional review of our planning
and assessment processes. These improvements speak to the level of achievement and the
sense of our commitment to continuous improvement.
TABLE OF EVIDENCE: LIST THE EVIDENCE USED TO SUPPORT YOUR NARRATIVE REPORT, SECTION BY
SECTION.
TABLE OF EVIDENCE (NO WORD COUNT LIMIT)
April 2012
10
Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges
College Status Report on Student Learning Outcomes Implementation
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
All documents are contained on a thumbdrive, organized by rubric number. Folders are labeled as
follows and contain the specified information.
CLO documentation folder contains three files, including Chabot’s SLOs, Current Classes SLO Status,
Examples of SLO discussions in divisions; Closing the Loop folder, which contains nine samples of
completed Closing the Loop Forms; College-Wide Learning Goals and Service Area
Accomplishments Folder, which has two subfolders, College-Wide Learning Goals (10 items related
to assessment) and Service Area Assessment (13 subfolders, each corresponding to a service area
assessment)
Chabot SLOs, (all SLOs); Closing the Loop folder, which contains nine samples of completed Closing
the Loop Forms (duplicated from #1); additional supporting evidence is provided in CLO documentation
folder (See #1); Accreditation Midterm Statement
PRBC Evidence, which contains eight items showing meeting minutes and retreat information;
Program Review and PLO information, which contains six items, including various forms and
summaries; Samples of Department Requests Folder, contains six files of typical resource requests;
Learning Connection-Student Support Services Folder, which contains 14 samples of meeting notes;
Professional Development Folder, which contains 16 items, meeting minutes, requests for professional
support, conference requests, reviews, Accreditation Midterm Statement
Budget Folder, contains six items showing samples of various budgets and allocations. Also, refer to
folders in #3.
Current Classes SLOs Status, (duplicated from #1)
College-Wide Learning Goals Folder (duplicated from #1)
Chabot’s SLOs
April 2012
11
Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges
College Status Report on Student Learning Outcomes Implementation
Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC)
10 Commercial Blvd., Suite 204, Novato, CA 94949
Telephone: 415-506-0234 ◊ FAX: 415-506-0238 ◊ E-mail: accjc@accjc.org
April 2012
12