Cabrillo College Participatory Governance Handbook
Cabrillo College Participatory Governance Committee Bi-Annual
Report Submitted to CPC
Committee Name:
ARC
Date of Approved Report: 5/20/15
Please list the committee goals (milestones) for the semester and which are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Completed
In Progress
Continued to Next Semester
Deleted
(Please just put the number next to the goal.)
 If completed, please answer the following question and add to the goal summery.
“If the goal/milestone is completed, please give three to five sentences on how
the completion of the goal/milestone has helped to make Cabrillo College a more
effective learning institution”
 If in progress please list the items completed and what needs to be completed next term
(with a tentative timeline for completion if possible).
 If continued to next semester, please itemize the steps to be taken to complete the
goal/milestone and give a tentative timeline for completion.
 If deleted, please give a one sentence response as to why the goal has been deleted.
Thank you to the Committee from CPC for your diligence this semester. You can either send
this summary to the committee as part of its final information review, or any member or all of
your committee can attend the CPC meeting to make a formal presentation of the report.
Please contact Cheryl Romer for deadline submittal dates and possible oral report timelines.
I. Goal One: Fulfill ACCJC Recommendation #2 – 2 (in process)
Action Items completed:
1. Create Plan with timeline to fulfill recommendation #2.
2. Take plan through shared governance process for approval by Faculty
Senate and CPC.
3. Complete items on timeline for Spring 2015.
1
Cabrillo College Participatory Governance Handbook
Action Items to be completed:
1. Complete items on timeline for Fall 2015
2. Complete items on timeline for Spring 2016.
II. Goal Two: Prepare ARC 2014 Annual report - 2 (in process)
Action Items Completed:
1. Analyze assessment data and processes in Instruction, Library, Student Services
and Administration.
2. Write annual report detailing assessment trends and themes; make
recommendations to improve student learning and campus assessment processes
based on analysis.
3. Share report with Faculty Senate and CPC,
Action Items to be completed:
1. Share report with Governing Board by July 2015.
III. Goal Three: Prepare Best Assessment Practices Manuals - 2 (in process)
Action Items Completed:
1. Select best practices to feature in manuals by end of Spring 2015.
Action Items to be completed:
2. Complete manuals by December 2015.
3. Publicize manuals in Spring 2016.
4. Post manuals on SLO web site in Spring 2016.
IV. Goal Four: Assess Implementation of CurricUNET SLO module - 2 (in
process)
Action Items Completed:
1. Assess departmental training and make any needed improvements.
Action Items to be completed:
2
Cabrillo College Participatory Governance Handbook
1. Brainstorm solutions to any developing problems with SLO module itself and work
with CurricUNET to implement them by June 2015.
V. Goal Five: Analyze Emerging Issues/Recommendations in previous ARC
annual reports – 1 (completed)
ARC analyzed all its recommendations and the emerging student learning issues
it noted in the past seven reports (2007-2013). The analysis documents how Cabrillo
has become a better learning institution: student academic issues (especially lack of
preparedness) have remained the same but the approach to solving these has
changed, becoming more sophisticated, interdepartmental and college-wide. In
addition, ARC found that of the 63 recommendations it has made to improve student
learning and campus assessment processes, 44 have been completed, 13 are in
process, 5 are on-going and only one was abandoned since it was found to be
impossible. Finally, ARC found that the college has moved from the creation of
assessment processes to quality assurance: how we talk about assessment has
changed, shifting from a focus on the instructors to a focus on what students do.
VI. Goal Six: Assess Institutional Effectiveness of ARC – 2 (in process)
Action Items Completed:
1. Work with PRO Office to determine metrics for assessment.
2. Undertake committee survey.
Action Items to be completed:
1. Analyze survey results in Fall 2016.
3
Outcomes Assessment Review Committee
2014 Annual Report
Introduction
At Cabrillo, we assess student learning outcomes and administrative unit outcomes in a regular,
on-going rotation; their results are analyzed and included in departmental Annual Updates,
fueling yearly planning. The six-year Program Planning process provides an opportunity for
departments to analyze these results in depth, guiding their long-term plans and
recommendations. Each year, the Outcomes Assessment Review Committee (ARC) reviews the
Program Plans submitted to Instruction, Student Services and Administration, looking for
common themes and broad trends in each department’s analysis of its assessment results. This
report reflects on the insights discovered by the following programs:
College Sector
Program Plans Submitted
Instruction: Transfer and Basic Skills Communication Geography and Meteorology Chemistry Geology/Oceanography/Environmental Sciences Medical Assisting Not scheduled this year Accessibility Support Center President’s Office Student Success and Support Programs Tutorials Warehouse Instruction: Career Technical Education Instruction: Library Student Services Administrative Units 2014 Program Plan Assessment Results: Emerging Needs &
Issues
Instruction
Successes
The faculty in Instruction learned that most students were successful at mastering the course and
certificate SLOs as well as the skills required for each of the college core competencies. Some
successes were directly linked to classroom activities and student support:
•
Peer tutoring and in class hands-on activities in several departments were shown to positively
correlate with improved student learning. This observation has led some department to focus
on creating more hands-on activities in big lecture classes.
1
•
The length of time spent in science lab sessions positively correlated with higher student
success.
•
Students who received individual attention from student assistants also performed better.
Challenges
When students struggled with SLOs, some common themes appeared. Departments noted the
following areas of concern and proposed innovative and often inter-departmental solutions to
address them:
•
Problems with writing and grammar, especially the writing of lab reports. Proposed
solutions included giving more writing assignments in science courses, especially lab
reports or research papers, requiring drafts of papers, creating a possible 1 unit writing
course for the sciences, working with the English department to design science-oriented
English courses, and more referrals to Writing Center.
•
Lack of basic math and other numerical skills in non-math classes. Proposed solutions
included working more closely with the Math department.
•
Issues in critical thinking, especially applying concepts to problems and situations.
Proposed solutions included creating class activities that require more hands-on learning,
using clicker response systems to monitor student thinking and comprehension, and going
out in the field where students would be required to apply what they’ve learned in the
classroom.
•
A number of departments perceived potential student benefit from establishing dedicated,
subject-specific study/learning spaces. The college will need to examine this idea as part
of its facilities planning process.
Student Services
Successes
Student Services professionals learned that their services made a great difference in student
success.
• SLO Assessment results showed that students greatly benefited from in-person information
provided by the Accessibility Support Center.
• A pre and post test revealed that students knew how to challenge a pre-requisite on their own
after being assisted in completing the process the first time. .
Challenges
Some challenges emerged as a result of SLO assessment:
2
•
Students revealed that faculty and staff were not uniformly aware of the steps involved in
challenging a pre-requisite. Proposed solution: Post more materials on the web and
distribute to Division offices to help faculty, staff and students be more aware of the steps
required.
•
Students with disabilities need more support classes to help them succeed.
Proposed solution: The Accessibility Support Center proposes to work with Counseling to
create a section of Counseling and Guidance 51 for this population..
Administrative Units:
Successes
Administrative Units, new to AUO assessment, found some revealing successes from their
assessment efforts:
• An assessment of Assessment, Orientation and Counseling by the Counseling and
Educational Support Services Division revealed great success from the new BYMA (Before
Your Make An Appointment) efforts, facilitated by the CESS office.
• The Warehouse discovered that those who used their services were very satisfied with them,
but many campus faculty and staff were unaware of what the department had to offer.
Challenges:
•
The CESS Dean identified a need for regular direct communication with all members of
some small departments, to improve awareness of and involvement in new campus issues and
changing requirements.
• Students coming to Tutorials benefit less from their sessions if they come unprepared
(without an assignment etc.). Proposed Solution: Tutorials will develop pre-semester
communications and increase in-class visits to better inform students of their role in the
tutoring process.
Commendations
ARC salutes the Geography Department for an excellent and sophisticated analysis of
their assessment results. They detailed specific issues faced by students and the
department’s creative solutions to meet them, which led to concrete goals and
recommendations for the program plan overall.
3
ARC lauds the Chemistry Department for a superior analysis of assessment results and
creative solutions to student learning issues. The work done for the Chemistry 12 class
in assessment and analysis was particularly outstanding.
ARC commends the Accessibility Support Center for implementing a new and highly
successful process (a pre and post test) to assess their outcomes.
ARC applauds the Counseling and Education Support Services Division for an
excellent use of assessment tools to get actionable results.
Assessment Facts and Figures
The college tracks departmental participation in the assessment process, encouraging robust
contribution from all members. The tables below show what was accomplished and who
participated. Because assessment in Instruction takes place over a number of years, an average
participation rate was calculated.
Instruction: Basic Skills/Transfer
Department Assessment Task Communication Geography and Meteorology Chemistry Geology/Oceanography/ Environmental Sciences Medical Assisting Core 4 100% 100% Course SLOs 50% 100% Assessment Participation Full Time Adjunct Faculty Faculty 100% 9% 100% 92% Discussion Participation Full Time Adjunct Faculty Faculty 31% 26% 100% 75% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 60% 100% 100% 100% 40% 50% 100% 100% 100% 50% 100% 100% ARC is pleased to note that the assessment of every course SLO and each of the Core 4 was
accomplished by all transfer departments; all full time faculty participated in the process in all
but one. Several departments are still struggling to involve adjuncts in both the assessment
process and the discussion of its results. This has been an on-going issue at the college from the
onset of the SLO process, but the percentages of adjunct participation are improving. The one
department which lagged in assessment activities and participation believed it was
accomplishing its SLO tasks properly, but now understands the process better and has developed
a plan to complete the necessary work and involve everyone in the department in SLO
assessment.
4
Instruction: Career Technical Education
Department Assessment Task Assessment Participation Certificate Course Full Time Adjunct SLOs SLOs Faculty Faculty Medical Assisting 100% 100% 100% 50% Discussion Participation Full Adjunct Time Faculty Faculty 100% 100% The Medical Assisting program mirrors the successful rate of completion in Transfer
departments. It should be noted, however, that the MA program plan revealed that their first
attempt at certificate and course SLO assessment resulted in all SLOs being rewritten, as they
were deemed inappropriate or impossible to assess. The new SLOs are now in the process of
being assessed, and have been found to be much more functional and illuminating about student
needs and issues.
Student Services
Department Accessibility Support Center CESS Division Office (Matriculation) SLO # of SLOs % of SLOs assessed 1 1 100% 100% % of department personnel discussing results 100% 100% ARC is delighted that assessment in Student Services continues to generate robust departmental
participation and accomplishment. Since the Student Success and Support Programs department
has both an SLO and an AUO, it is listed under both charts.
Administrative Units
Administrative Unit/ Department President’s Office CESS Division Office (Matriculation) AUO Tutorials Warehouse # of AUOs % of AUOs assessed % of department personnel discussing results 3 1 100% 100% 100% 65% 2 1 100% 100% 100% unknown ARC is pleased that departments in Administration continue to assess AUOs for the first time
and also involve the entire department in discussing those results.
Analysis of Cabrillo’s Outcomes Assessment Process
One of ARC’s charges is to analyze the campus’ assessment process and to make
recommendations for how to improve it. This year the committee noted the following:
5
Instruction
The committee observed three primary findings about the SLO process in Instruction:
1. Quality Assurance: All departments are robustly participating in assessment activities, but
some are accomplishing it with greater sophistication and depth. Some departments showed
an outstanding ability to analyze assessment results and propose solutions to student learning
issues that were creative and student-centered. Other departments do not use their SLO
assessment analyses as effectively, and are still primarily proposing teacher-centered
interventions rather than ones that focus on students.
2. Departmental Leadership: Some departments are to be commended for meeting the
challenges of past leadership gaps and past lack of participation in the SLO assessment
process by taking charge and making the process meaningful for the entire department.
Other departments still need to own the process.
3. Assessment Analysis: When their analysis determined that students were mastering their
course SLOs, some departments chose to reexamine the efficacy of their assessment
instruments, embracing the process to make it more useful. Other departments inferred that
their students were completely successful, and thus no further analysis or effort was needed
on their part. ARC recommends the following to build on the gains that have been made and to strengthen
those departments that are less experienced with SLO analysis:
A. Revise the program planning instructions so that the SLO section is student-focused
rather than faculty-focused. Ask the Deans and program planning mentors on the
Council of Instruction Planning to point out this change as they work with their
department chairs to write program plans.
B. Undertake an informational campaign for departments in need to help them better
analyze their assessment results. This would include:
• Using the SLO training for department chairs that will occur in spring 2015 as
part of the Year of Instruction and the CurricUNET SLO module training that will
be occurring over the next four semesters as venues for sharing more
sophisticated methods of SLO analysis.
• Revising the program chair materials on the SLO web site.
• Sending a copy of ARC’s annual report directly to program chairs, to give them a
better idea of what is viewed as exemplary SLO analysis.
• Assembling a best practice guide for SLO assessment from some of the work
done by exemplary departments in Instruction.
Student Services and Administrative Units
ARC found that Student Services and Administrative Units had two similar issues with their
assessment processes.
1. Departments are still struggling to find the right assessment tools. They are working with the
PRO office to create better metrics that will provide more useful information.
2. Departments could use some help with analyzing the data that they generate.
ARC recommends the following to help strengthen the progress that is being made in both
sectors:
6
A. ARC should provide a best practice guide for Student Services SLO assessment and
Administrative AUO assessment that shows available tools, how to use the data,
identify conclusions, generate goals and recommendations based on the data,
implement them, and then look at the new data. Recommendations
2014 Recommendations for Teaching and Learning
The recommendations below should be pursued by Faculty Senate, IAC, Student Services
Council, or college shared governance committees, as appropriate.
Recommendation Responsible Party Time Line A critical issue in all courses (transfer, CTE and basic skills) is a deficiency of basic reading, writing, and numerical skills. This on-­‐going, critical issue, which ARC has noted for the last seven years, negatively impacts student success across the campus. Efforts to address this issue (including the Equity Plan, the Student Success and Support Program and campus professional development) should be coordinated, with on-­‐going dialogue between all involved parties, including transfer and CTE faculty. ARC, Faculty Senate, CPC, Equity Committee, Student Success Committee, Basic Skills Committee, PETL Committee Spring 2015 2014 Recommendations for SLO Assessment Processes
Recommendation Responsible Party Time Line In Instruction, revise the program planning instructions so that the SLO section focuses on the specific plans departments have developed to help students, rather than on professional development. Ask the Deans and CIP program planning mentors to reinforce this change as they work with their departments to write program plans. Undertake an informational campaign to help departments better analyze their assessment results.
CIP and SLO Coordinator Discuss in spring 2015 SLO Coordinator spring and fall 2015 7
Informational Campaign: Use the SLO training for department chairs in spring 2015 and the CurricUNET SLO module training over the next four semesters as venues for teaching more sophisticated SLO analysis methods. Informational Campaign: Revise the program chair materials on the SLO web site to stress this approach to analysis. Informational Campaign: Send a copy of ARC’s annual report to program chairs, to give them a better idea of what is viewed as exemplary SLO analysis. Informational Campaign: Assemble a best practice guide for SLO assessment from some of the extraordinary work done by exemplary departments in Instruction Provide a best practice guide for Student Services SLO assessment and AUO assessment that shows available tools, how to use the data, identify conclusions, generate goals and recommendations based on the data, implement them, and then look at the new data. SLO Coordinator spring 2015 SLO Coordinator spring 2015 SLO Coordinator spring 2015 ARC fall 2015 ARC fall 2015 Progress on Last Year’s Recommendations
ARC made several recommendations last year to improve the campus’ assessment processes.
Six of the twelve recommendations were completed. The rest are in process.
Recommendation Responsible Party Utilize projects from the Student Success Committee as opportunities for faculty to share best practices across departments In Instruction, create a formal program chair training that includes how to lead the department in SLO assessment. In Instruction, hold a FLEX workshop for program chairs to get help on specific issues from the SLO Coordinator In Instruction, revise instructions for the SLO section in program plans In Instruction, revise Core 4 Student Success committee; Staff Development committee Deans, VP of Instruction, Program Chairs In pro-­‐ cess Com-­‐
pleted Notes ü ü The Faculty Consultation Network continues to lead this work Part of the Year of Instruction training in spring 2015 SLO Coordinator & Staff Development Committee ü SLO Coordinator and CIP SLO Coordinator, ü ü 8
Was not well attended. Workshops may not be the best venue. Recommendation Responsible Party In pro-­‐ cess Com-­‐
pleted Notes Assessment Analysis forms to include separate discussions of student success in departmental degrees, the GE program and the college’s institutional outcomes. In Instruction, create a chart to better map what is assessed by transfer and CTE departments Create an informational campaign for how the college defines a program CIP, Faculty Senate Create an information campaign about the services available from the Planning and Research Office. In Student Services, fill out assessment analysis forms in addition to the annual updates to record SLO assessment results In Administration, after an AUO is assessed, continue to refine assessment instruments Analyze all ARC annual reports, noting trends that have emerged over time and the college’s progress in addressing them. Undertake a self-­‐evaluation of the committee PRO ü Student Services and the SLO Coordinator ü Administration and the SLO Coordinator ARC ü ARC ü ARC and the Faculty Senate ü See Response to ACCJC Recommendation #2 This is an on-­‐going effort ARC ü ü See Analysis of ARC’s Past Recommendations Analysis of ARC’s Past Recommendations
One of ARC’s recommendations last year was to undertake an analysis of all its previous
recommendations, assessing the college’s progress in addressing them. Sixty-three
recommendations were scrutinized. The committee found that of those, 44 had been completed,
13 were in progress, 5 were on-going and one was abandoned since it was found to be
impossible. ARC also noted the following trends:
1. Academic issues noted as a result of SLO assessment have remained constant. Students are
underprepared academically, especially in reading and writing, and do not possess the habits
of mind to enable them to be successful students.
2. Efforts to improve these academic issues have changed, moving from a focus purely on
professional development to some solutions across disciplines. ARC noted that a collegewide approach to these issues is emerging through projects that will be developed through the
Equity Plan and the focus on Habits of Mind by the Professional Engagement committee for
9
the next academic year.
3. Recommendations demonstrate a constant effort to build an infrastructure to sustain campuswide assessment efforts. That effort has been a success, but as noted earlier in this report,
there is still an uneven quality in assessment across departments. In Instruction, department
chair leadership is the key. In Student Services and Administrative Units, more experience
with assessment will lead to improved metrics and measures.
4. The college has moved from the creation of the assessment process to quality assurance.
How we talk about assessment efforts has changed, shifting from a focus on the instructors to
a focus on what students do. This is a significant paradigm shift. Richer and more
sophisticated analysis of assessment results is occurring, especially in some departments in
Instruction. Interdisciplinary solutions are now more often sought to solve student academic
issues.
The detailed analysis and a list of all the recommendations appears in the appendix B of the
report.
Response to ACCJC Recommendation #2
After our accreditation site visit last fall, ARC was assigned to develop a plan to respond to
recommendation #2: In order to improve effectiveness, the team recommends that the college
clarify and document its definition of a program and include the evaluation and improvement of
all degree offerings in the program review and planning process.
ARC has developed an action plan that has been approved by the Faculty Senate and other
campus governing bodies to fulfill all aspects of this recommendation. Many of last year’s ARC
recommendations were part of that plan. The time line for implementation of the plan will be
finalized in spring 2015, although many aspects of it are already in effect. See Appendix C for
the full plan and timeline.
Institutional Effectiveness
ARC’s role in assessing the college’s Institutional Effectiveness ended at the close of spring
2014 with the creation of the Institutional Effectiveness Committee. ARC was one of the
partners in helping to create that committee and define its charge. Its recommendation last year
to assess its own effectiveness has now become one of the duties of the Institutional
Effectiveness committee, although ARC has worked with the PRO office to define the most
appropriate metrics to determine its efficacy. The assessment will occur in spring 2015.
Respectfully Submitted by
Marcy Alancraig, Dale Attias, Ivan Ayala (student representative), Justina Buller, Carter Frost,
(student representative), Jean Gallagher-Heil, Paul Harvell, Denise Lim, Victoria Lewis, Isabel
O’Connor, Margery Regalado, Georg Romero, Kathie Welch and Terrence Willett
10
Appendices:
A. ARC’s History and Charge
B. Analysis of ARC’s Past Recommendations
C. Action Plan to Meet ACCJC Recommendation #2
11
Appendix A: ARC’s History and Charge
In response to the change in accreditation standards in 2002, two shared governance committees,
the Learner Outcomes and Accreditation Committee (2001-2003) and the Accreditation Planning
Committee (2003-2005), along with the Cabrillo Faculty Senate, designed a comprehensive SLO
assessment plan: assessment of student learning outcomes occurs in all sectors of the college as
part of on-going Program Planning (departmental review) processes. The college was divided
into five assessment sectors -- Transfer and Basic Skills Instruction, Career Technical Education,
Library, Student Services, and Administration -- which were each to measure their contributions
to students' mastery of the college’s core competencies. In 2012, after years of grappling with
how to measure their contribution to student learning, administrative departments switched to
writing and assessing administrative unit outcomes. Each sector of the college creates its own
method to assess SLOs and/or AUOs. See the SLO website for a detailed description of the
methods used in each area (https://sites.google.com/a/cabrillo.edu/student-learningoutcomes/home).
Programs and services undergo Program Planning on a rotating basis; only a few departments
complete the process each year. For example, in Instruction, approximately twelve of its fiftysix programs write a program plan in a given year.
Because of the number of programs within its purview, the Instructional component began by
phasing in SLO assessment, starting with the college core competencies. When this set-up phase
was completed, Instruction moved to institutionalizing the process, asking that departments
measure student mastery of every course, certificate and degree SLO within the six-year program
planning cycle. This staggered schedule of assessment is called the Revolving Wheel of
Assessment; every department is currently embarked on some stage of its repeating cycle (see
the SLO website for a detailed description of the Wheel). Now Instruction has focused its efforts
on quality assurance, creating processes and tools to ensure excellence and full compliance with
its SLO procedures.
Student Services also phased in SLO assessment, beginning with writing and then revising their
departmental SLOs, and now by assessing them. A grant received by the college, the Bridging
Research Information and Culture Technical Assistance Project, (sponsored by the Research and
Planning Group and funded by the Hewlett Foundation) provided needed training in Student
Services assessment methods during Spring 2011. By the next year, all Student Service
departments had assessed each of their SLOs, leading to new insights and ways to improve
services.
Administration (composed of departments or administrative offices in the President’s
component, Administrative Services, Student Services and Instruction) spent five years
discussing and identifying how their departments contribute to student mastery of the college
core competencies and how to measure it. Because they provide a wide range of services that
enable teaching and learning to occur, but are not directly involved in the formal learning
process, their role in assessing SLOs has been difficult to define. In Spring 2012, Administration
switched to measuring Administrative Unit Outcomes. Cabrillo defines an Administrative Unit
Outcome as a description of what all the users of an Administrative service can do, know, or
understand after interacting with that office or department – it is user centered, a description of
what the service provides for others. Unlike some schools across the state, a Cabrillo AUO is
12
not an administrative unit goal. Almost all administrative departments have written AUOs and
are beginning to assess them.
No matter the assessment sector, all college departments that write a Program Plan by June in a
given year forward their assessment reports to the Outcomes Assessment Review Committee.
This committee, a subcommittee of the College Planning Council, is chaired by the Student
Learning Outcomes Assessment Coordinator and is designed to include representatives from the
Student Senate, Faculty Senate, CCEU, CCFT, and a manager along with representatives from
Administration, Student Services, Library, and Instruction (both Transfer & Basic Skills and
CTE). The Campus Researcher and Accreditation Liaison Officer serve as ex officio members
of the committee.
The Outcomes Assessment Review Committee (ARC) oversees, analyzes and evaluates all
campus SLO and AUO assessment activities. It reviews the yearly assessment results in
Instruction, Student Services, the Library and Administration, looking for common themes and
broad trends. In addition to analyzing the collective contents of the assessments submitted each
year, ARC evaluates its own function and all assessment processes on campus. ARC writes a
report about its analysis, submitting it to campus governing bodies authorized to act upon ARC’s
recommendations, including the Governing Board, the College Planning Council, the Faculty
and Student Senates and both unions, CCFT and CCEU. When needed, the committee is
empowered to initiate a college-wide dialog process to analyze and solve broad issues about
student learning that have been revealed by SLO assessment results across the campus. For more
detailed information on ARC’s charge, membership and duties, please see the SLO website.
13
Appendix B: Analysis of ARC’s Past Recommendations
(2007-2013)
Trends
1. Academic issues noted as a result of SLO assessment have remained constant. They are:
a. Students are underprepared academically, especially in reading and writing. Math
is not mentioned as frequently, though affected departments have made note of
student lack of ability in this area as well.
b. Students do not know how to be students.
2. Efforts to improve the above academic issues have changed, moving from a focus purely
on professional development within departments to some solutions across disciplines. For
example:
a. Flex workshops on plagiarism and the creation of campus honor code.
b. Making use of projects from the Student Success Committee and the Faculty
Consultation Network to share best practices and pedagogical approaches.
3. Recommendations demonstrate a constant effort to build an infrastructure to sustain
campus-wide assessment efforts.
a. Every year, several recommendations focused on improving the assessment
process including: departmental, program chair and individual training in
assessment methods, professional development on assessment, creation of the
SLO web site and the workbooks it features, revision of reporting forms, and the
quantitative data reporting pilot.
b. Developing the CurricUNET SLO module.
c. Instruction led this effort, with additional progress made first in Student Services
and now in Administration.
4. The college has moved from the creation of the assessment process to quality assurance.
a. How we talk about assessment efforts has changed, shifting from a focus on the
instructors to a focus on what students do. This is a significant paradigm shift in
campus culture.
b. Richer and more sophisticated analysis of assessment results is occurring,
especially in some departments in Instruction.
c. Assessment data includes quantitative measures.
d. Interdisciplinary solutions are now more often sought to solve student academic
issues.
e. SLO assessment is now part of the Faculty Handbook, along with new fulltime
and adjunct faculty orientations.
f. Materials and trainings have been geared toward Program Chairs, including a
page on the SLO web site, several new tools, a workbook and flex sessions.
g. Recommendations addressed issues noted during our Accreditation Site visit
before those recommendations were even finalized by the ACCJC.
5. Almost all of ARC’s recommendations have been completed or are in process.
Total Recommendations: 64.
14
Total Completed: 44
Total In-progress: 13
Total that are now on-going: 5
Total Abandoned: 1 (the task was deemed impossible)
The Council of Instructional Planning, in particular, has followed almost all of ARC’s
suggestions and worked with the SLO Coordinator to implement them. The other most
frequent groups that have labored to make the recommendations come into being are
ARC itself, PRO and the SLO Coordinator. Many of the assessment process
recommendations also required and received the approval of the Faculty Senate.
Issues that Disappeared and an Analysis of Why
1. The focus on increasing adjunct participation during the first three years morphed into
program chair training when ARC realized that PC’s now do the bulk of the training
in SLO assessment.
2. Recommendations to share Core 4 results across the campus stopped when the
professional development workshops held during Flex week had poor attendance.
Most Pressing Concerns
1. Academic Issues: Many students are still underprepared and not aware of what it is to
be a student. A college-wide approach to these issues is emerging through projects
that will be developed through the Equity Plan and the focus on Habits of Mind by
the Professional Engagement committee for the next academic year.
2. Assessment Quality: There is still an uneven quality in assessment across
departments. In Instruction, size and subject matter of the department were not found
to be issues. PC leadership is the key. In Student Services and Administration, more
experience with assessment will lead to improved metrics and measures.
3. Professional Development: Flex activities have not been well attended, particularly
those designed for program chairs or for sharing Core 4 results across campus. A
new format for dialogue and sharing needs to be found. Sustained professional
engagement that goes beyond a one-time workshop may be a more effective way to
accomplish assessment trainings and any departmental approaches to improve student
learning, providing those involved with time to apply what has been presented.
4. Quality Assurance: There are only minor consequences if a department member or
department as a whole does not assess outcomes in a quality way. Should the college
consider creating more meaningful consequences or rewards?
5. Closing the Loop: The six-year assessment cycle takes so long that it is hard to see
and measure if improvements in student performance have occurred from previous
interventions. Should the college consider creating a faster time frame?
A list of all recommendations is provided below:
15
ARC Recommendations
Year
Recommendations
Responsible Party
In process?
Completed?
2007
1
2
The Administration and CCFT,
along with program chairs and
Deans, need to find ways to increase
adjunct participation in SLO
assessment in Instruction
Revise the Instructional Assessment
Analysis form to include number of
faculty participating in assessment
(full-time and adjunct), options for
improvement and develop Scantron
form for quantitative data.
Administration, CCFT, PCs,
Deans
ü
SLO Coordinator
ü
3
Student Services and Administrative
Services Departmental Reviews
should include a section about
departmental discussions of survey
results.
Student Services,
Administrative Services
ü
4
Continue to educate the Cabrillo
community about the paradigm shift
from evaluating individuals to
evaluating departments. Use flex
activities, and campus governing
bodies such as CPC and Faculty
Senate as vehicles for this education
Make the SLO website, particularly
the “best practices” examples posted
there, clearly and easily accessible
from the campus web page and on
the college’s P-drive archives.
President, CPC, Staff
Development Cte, Faculty
Senate
ü
SLO Coordinator and PRO
ü
Institute an SLO workshop for
programs two years in advance of
Instructional Planning and for non
instructional programs;
Provide similar workshops for noninstructional departments and
components
Develop system of succession and
dissemination of expertise in
SLO Coordinator and PRO
ü
SLO Coordinator
ü
Administration and Faculty
Senate
ü
5
2008
6
7
8
16
SLOAC across campus
2009
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Provide sustained faculty
development for addressing student
learning needs in reading, research
and documentation, and writing.
Provide support for faculty as they
confront challenges to academic
ethics, such as plagiarism and other
forms of cheating.
Staff Development Cte
On-going
Faculty Senate, Dean of
Student Services
ü
Support ongoing, sustained staff
development in the assessment of
student learning, including rubric
development
Share effective practices and
strategies for modeling assignments.
Encourage greater adjunct
involvement.
Assist the Administrative Services
to develop a program review model
that includes relevant student
learning outcomes and that can be
utilized consistently across noninstructional departments.
SLO Coordinator
ü
Departments
ü
ü
President, Cabinet, SLO
Coordinator
Communicate to the college at
President
large the importance of maintaining
and documenting a college-wide
planning process that
systematically considers student
learning, including noninstructional areas.
ü
ü
2010
16
Provide sustained faculty
development for addressing student
learning needs, particularly those of
basic skills students, through new
pedagogies, technology, the Faculty
Inquiry Network and contextualized
instruction
Staff Development
committee; Basic Skills
Learning Community
Advisory Council, and the
Faculty Senate
ü 18
Provide support for the teaching of
college survival skills across the
Staff Development
committee and the Faculty
ü 17
curriculum.
Senate
19
Develop recommendations for
making the SLO reporting process
electronic
ARC and Faculty Senate
ü
20
Explore adding a quantitative
component to SLO reports
Survey adjunct faculty to assess
their awareness of Cabrillo’s SLO
process and barriers to their
participation in it
ARC and Faculty Senate
ü
ARC with the help of the
PRO office
ü
22
If necessary, create avenues for
campus dialogue to discuss the
survey results and brainstorm
solutions to the issues it reveals.
ARC
ü
23
Inform potential hires of Cabrillo’s
SLO process and participation
expectations in new faculty and staff
trainings, mentorships and in the
Faculty Handbook
Human Resources, Office of
Instruction, Deans, Student
Services, Administration
and SLO Coordinator
ü
24
Use the template created by the
Instruction Office for program
planning for all Administration
departments
Create a venue or reporting
mechanism for Administration’s
Program Plans
Administration
ü
Administration
ü
Adopt the name “Program
Planning” to describe the
departmental review process for all
components
Cabinet and Administration
Council
ü
Provide faculty development to
improve pedagogy and sharing of
best practices. Use flex hours, but
not necessarily during flex week, to
do this.
Provide training about organizing
and facilitating departmental SLO
assessment to Program Chairs and
Deans.
Convene a meeting of Program
Staff Development
committee and Program
Chairs
21
25
26
2011
27
28
29
On-going
SLO Coordinator
ü SLO Coordinator
ü 18
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Chairs of smaller departments to
brainstorm organizational strategies
for SLO assessment
Create a web tool that lists the
calendar for every Instructional
department’s SLO assessment
schedule.
Post examples of a full assessment
cycle on the SLO web site for
transfer/ basic skills, CTE and
Student Services
Facilitate interdisciplinary
discussions about student mastery of
each of the four core competencies
Write Administrative Unit
Outcomes for each department in
Administration
Develop an Assessment Instrument
and reporting format for
Administration Program Planning
that can be used by all the
departments in this area
Provide on-going training and
workshops in SLO assessment to
Student Services staff
Serve as readers for the chapter on
the college’s SLO efforts that will
be included in the 2012
Accreditation Self-Evaluation.
Revise and update SLO web site
SLO Coordinator and PRO
office
SLO Coordinator and PRO
office
Not found to
be possible
ü
ARC members and SLO
Coordinator
ü Administration
ü Administration & PRO
ü SLO Coordinator
ü ARC
ü SLO Coordinator with the
help of the PRO office
ü 2012
38
39
40
41
42
Provide faculty development to
improve pedagogy and sharing of
best practices.
In Student Services, provide more
than one-time trainings and/or
follow up with students over time.
Create a forum for Student Services
and Instructional departments to
share SLO assessment results that
occurs outside of traditional flex
week
Find ways to showcase SLO and
AUO assessment results across the
campus
Create an electronic means of
Staff Development
committee and Program
Chairs
Individual departments in
Student Services
On-going
ü
Staff Development
Committee, the Faculty
Senate, CCFT and
Administration
ü
ARC
ü
ARC ad hoc committee
19
ü 43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
2013
52
53
54
55
organizing, scheduling and reporting
SLO assessment results
Provide web based and flex training
in how to assess course and
certificate SLOs
Departments struggling with SLO
assessment should work
individually with the SLO
Coordinator to find solutions for any
issues
Facilitate a dialogue with Deans, the
Council for Instructional Planning
and the Faculty Senate to brainstorm
other methods to ensure full
compliance with college SLO
standards.
SLO Coordinator
ü SLO Coordinator
ü ARC, Deans, CIP. Faculty
Senate
On-going
Create a special section of the
SLO web site for Program Chairs
Revise Assessment Analysis forms
to gather better adjunct and
curriculum data; add a line to report
on previous interventions the last
time an SLO was assessed and the
progress made.
Disseminate results of ARC survey;
administer survey again in 2013
Gather feedback on pilot on
quantitative reporting of SLO results
Adopt the new template for nonInstructional program planning
created by ARC
Change ARC’s name
SLO Coordinator
ü SLO Coordinator
ü SLO Coordinator
ü
SLO Coordinator
ü
Administration
ü
Faculty Senate
ü
Utilize projects from the Student
Success Committee as opportunities
for faculty to share best practices
across departments
In Instruction, create a formal
program chair training that includes
how to lead the department in SLO
assessment.
In Instruction, hold a flex workshop
for Program chairs to get help on
specific issues from the SLO
Coordinator
In Instruction, revise instructions for
Student Success committee
and Staff Development
committee
ü
Deans, Vice President of
Instruction, Program Chairs
ü
SLO Coordinator and Staff
Development Committee
ü
SLO Coordinator and CIP
ü
20
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63.
the SLO section in program plans
In Instruction, revise Core 4
Assessment Analysis forms to
include separate discussions of
student success in departmental
degrees, the GE program and the
college’s institutional outcomes.
In Instruction, create a chart to
better map what is assessed by
transfer and CTE departments
Create an informational campaign
for how the college defines a
program
Create an information campaign
about the services available from the
Planning and Research Office.
In Student Services, fill out
assessment analysis forms in
addition to the annual updates to
record SLO assessment results
In Administration, after an AUO is
assessed, continue to refine
assessment instruments
Analyze all ARC annual reports,
noting trends that have emerged
over time and the college’s progress
in addressing them.
Undertake a self-evaluation of the
committee
SLO Coordinator, CIP,
Faculty Senate
ü
ARC
ü
ARC and the Faculty Senate
ü
PRO
On-going
Student Services and the
SLO Coordinator
ü
Administration and the SLO
Coordinator
ü
ü
ARC
ü
ARC
21
Appendix C: Action Plan to Meet ACCJC Recommendation #2
ACCJC Recommendation #2:
In order to improve effectiveness, the team recommends that the college clarify and
document its definition of a program and include the evaluation and improvement of all degree
offerings in the program review and planning process.
ACTION PLAN
I.
Definition of Program
ARC recommends that the college adopt the following definitions to avoid confusion and
to be consistent across campus:
a. Academic Program: A collection or series of courses that lead to a degree,
certificate, or transfer to another institution of higher education (Title 5, ACCJC
program definitions, Title 5 TOP code specifications1). For purposes of college
organization, a program is composed of all the degrees and certificates offered by
a specific academic department. CTE departments that offer separate programs
accredited by different outside accrediting agencies are considered one
department that offers multiple programs.
For example, the ECE Program includes an AS and AS-T degree and all
certificates offered by the ECE Department. The Spanish Program is the AA
degree offered by the World Languages department. The Medical Assistant
department offers two programs: Medical Assistance and Phlebotomy Technician
because they are accredited by two separate outside accrediting agencies. Using
this definition, there are a few programs that do not belong to a specific academic
department (such as the General Science degree, Liberal Arts and Sciences degree
or General Education).
b. Academic Department: A group of faculty in a related field of study or a
discipline that offers an academic program.
Departments are people. Programs are courses of study, certificates and
degrees.
ARC also recommends the following name changes to be consistent with the definitions
offered above and to avoid confusion to accreditors:
1
The Taxonomy of Program (TOP) is a system of numerical codes used at the state level to
collect and report information on programs and courses, in different colleges throughout the
state, that have similar outcomes.
22
•
The name “Program Chair” should be changed to “Department Chair” or
“Department Cluster Chair.”
ARC recognizes that these definitions imply the following:
• We need to inventory how many programs exist outside of an academic department,
and we need to create a way to assess them.
II.
Documentation of the Definition of a Program
ARC recommends that these definitions be documented in the following places:
• College Catalog
• Schedule of Classes
• Program Planning Instructions
• Appropriate BPs and ARs
• Governance Handbook
• Maps of campus processes on the SLO and PRO websites.
• Appropriate documents that include programs (such as new PIE matrix, the New
Faculty Handbook etc.)
• Appropriate places on the college web site (including each academic department’s
web site and listing under Majors/Programs)
III.
Publicity Campaign on the Definition of a Program
ARC recommends that once the new definitions have been adopted and placed in all
appropriate documents, websites and ARs and BPs, that the college conducts a publicity
campaign to further alert members of the campus community. The campaign could
include:
• Presentations at Division Meetings and/or All College Day.
• Faculty Senate meetings.
• Included in an “Accreditation Info Sheet” before our next visit.
• Other venues that arise from campus activities.
IV.
Demonstrating the Link between the Core 4 and Transfer Degrees
ARC recognizes that one of the reasons we received this recommendation was
that the
visiting team did not understand that the assessment of the Core 4 is used to assess transfer
degrees, the GE program and the college’s institutional outcomes. To clarify that, ARC
recommends:
• The creation of new maps of our SLO assessment process to be posted on the SLO
website and College website in appropriate places.
• Changes in the college Catalog that make this clearer, including listing the Core 4 as
program outcomes for all transfer degrees.
• The creation of maps that show what courses in a transfer degree teach the specific
skills contained in the Core 4. ARC recommends that we start this work with all AAT and AS-T degrees and that we use a special flex SLO “Get It Done” day to do so
23
V.
Evaluation of all Degree Offerings in the Program Review and Planning Process.
ARC recommends that the college take the following steps to meet this part of the
recommendation:
• Change Core 4 Assessment Forms to include separate discussions of what the results
indicate about student mastery of skills for a degree, the GE program and Core 4 in
general.
• Change the requirements for the SLO section of program plans to include separate
discussions of what the Core 4 assessment results indicate about student mastery of
skills for a degree, the GE program and Core 4 in general. Can also include averages
from numerical results of Core 4 assessment (a data chart).
• Work with CurrucNET to design reports that gather Core 4 assessment results for all
courses that are included as part of a degree so that a separate report is generated and
evaluated by the department. Reports can be archived in CurricUNET for
accreditation.
Timeline for Action Plan
Action Item
Maps of Assessment Process
List Core 4 as transfer degree
outcomes in College Catalog
Post maps of assessment process
on SLO website
Revise Core 4 Assessment Forms
Revise SLO Section of Program
Plans
CurricUNET report design
Post this action plan in the Smart
Sheet planning agenda
Present Action Plan to Deans for
feedback
Present Action Plan to PCs for
feedback
Present Action Plan to Faculty
Senate for feedback and then
approval
Present Plan to CPC/IE
Inventory programs without
departments and create a plan to
assess them
Document Program Definition in:
• Catalog
• Schedule of Classes
• BP and ARs
• Program Planning
Instructions
• Appropriate Documents
Responsible Party
PRO
Curriculum Specialist
Date to be Completed
Completed
Completed
SLO Coordinator
Completed
SLO Coordinator
SLO Coordinator
Completed
Completed
SLO Coordinator
SLO Coordinator and PRO
Director
SLO Coordinator
Completed
Completed
SLO Coordinator
Completed
SLO Coordinator
Fall 2014
SLO Coordinator
ARC
Fall 2014
In process
SLO Coordinator with:
Fall 2014-Spring 2015
Curriculum Specialist
Curriculum Specialist
Chair of IC
Instruction Office
24
Completed
•
College Website
Conduct Publicity Campaign on
new definitions
Mapping of AA-T and AS-T
degrees to Core 4
Accreditation Info Sheet
Instruction Office
Spring Andrews & PCs for
Departmental Websites
ARC
SLO Coordinator and
Department Chairs
IE Committee
25
Fall 2015
Spring 2016
Just before our next visit
Summary of 2014 ARC Report
Participation:
College Sector
Program Plans Submitted
Instruction: Transfer and Basic Skills
Communication
Geography and Meteorology
Chemistry
Geology/Oceanography/Environmental Sciences
Medical Assisting
Not scheduled this year
Accessibility Support Center
President’s Office
Student Success and Support Programs
Tutorials
Warehouse
Instruction: Career Technical Education
Instruction: Library
Student Services
Administrative Units
Commendations:

ARC salutes the Geography Department for an excellent and sophisticated analysis of their
assessment results. They detailed specific issues faced by students and the department’s
creative solutions to meet them, which led to concrete goals and recommendations for the
program plan overall.

ARC lauds the Chemistry Department for a superior analysis of assessment results and
creative solutions to student learning issues.

ARC commends the Accessibility Support Center for implementing a new and highly
successful process (a pre and post test) to assess their outcomes.

ARC applauds the Counseling and Education Support Services Division for an excellent use
of assessment tools to get actionable results.
Successes:
Instruction: The faculty learned that most students were successful at mastering the course and
certificate SLOs as well as each of the college core competencies. Some successes were directly
linked to classroom activities and student support:
 Peer tutoring and hands-on activities were shown to positively correlate with improved
student learning.
 The length of time spent in lab sessions positively correlated with higher student success.
1

Students who received individual attention from student assistants performed better.
Student Services:
 Students greatly benefited from in-person information provided by the Accessibility
Support Center.
 A pre and post test revealed that students knew how to challenge a pre-requisite on their
own after being assisted in completing the process the first time.
Administrative Units:
 An assessment of Assessment, Orientation and Counseling by the Counseling and
Educational Support Services Division revealed great success from the new BYMA
(Before Your Make An Appointment) efforts.
 The Warehouse discovered that users were very satisfied with their services, but many
campus faculty and staff were unaware of what the department had to offer.
Challenges/Solutions
Instruction: When students struggled with SLOs, some common themes appeared.
 Problems with writing and grammar, especially the writing of lab reports. Proposed
solutions included giving more writing assignments in science courses, requiring drafts of
papers, creating a one-unit writing course for the sciences, working with the English
department and more referrals to Writing Center.
 Lack of basic math and other numerical skills in non-math classes. Proposed solutions
included working more closely with the Math department.
 Issues in critical thinking, especially applying concepts to problems and situations.
Proposed solutions included creating activities that require more hands-on learning, using
clicker response systems to monitor student comprehension, and more field work where
students would be required to apply what they’ve learned in the classroom.
Student Services:
 Students revealed that faculty and staff were not uniformly aware of the steps involved in
challenging a pre-requisite. Proposed solution: Post more materials on the web and in
Division offices to help faculty, staff and students be more aware of the steps required.
 Students with disabilities need more support classes to help them succeed.
Proposed solution: The Accessibility Support Center proposes to work with Counseling
to create a section of CG 51 for this population.
Administration:
 The CESS Dean identified a need for regular direct communication with all members of
some small departments, to improve awareness of and involvement in new campus issues
and changing requirements.
 Students coming to Tutorials benefit less from their sessions if they come unprepared
(without an assignment etc.). Proposed Solution: Tutorials will develop pre-semester
2
communications and increase in-class visits to better inform students of their role in the
tutoring process.
ARC’s Analysis of Campus Assessment Processes


In Instruction, all departments are robustly participating in assessment activities, but
some are analyzing its results with greater sophistication and depth. Some departments
could use additional support in undertaking assessment activities.
In Student Services and Administrative Units, departments are struggling to find the right
assessment tools and could use some help with analyzing the data that they generate.
ARC’s Recommendations
For teaching and learning:
 A critical issue in all courses (transfer, CTE and basic skills) is a deficiency of basic
reading, writing, and numerical skills. This on-going, critical issue, which ARC has noted
for the last seven years, negatively impacts student success across the campus. Efforts to
address this issue (including the Equity Plan, the Student Success and Support Program
and campus professional development) should be coordinated, with on-going dialogue
between all involved parties, including transfer and CTE faculty.
For Improving Assessment Processes
 Create Best Practice guides for Instruction, Student Services and Administration.
 Undertake an informational campaign to help Instructional departments to better analyze
assessment results.
Analysis of Past ARC Recommendations
One of ARC’s recommendations last year was to undertake an analysis of all its previous
recommendations. The committee found that of 63 total recommendations over the last seven
years, 44 had been completed, 13 were in progress, 5 were on-going and one was abandoned
since it was found to be impossible. ARC also noted the following trends:
 Academic issues noted as a result of SLO assessment have remained constant. Students
are underprepared academically, and do not possess the habits of mind to enable them to
be successful students.
 Efforts to improve these academic issues have changed, moving from a focus purely on
professional development to some solutions across disciplines. A college-wide approach
is emerging through the Equity Plan and the focus on Habits of Mind by the Professional
Engagement committee for the next academic year.
 Recommendations demonstrate a constant effort to build an infrastructure for campuswide assessment. That effort has been a success, but there is still an uneven quality in
assessment across departments.
 How we talk about assessment efforts has changed, shifting from a focus on the
instructors to a focus on what students do. This is a significant paradigm shift.
3