Outcomes Assessment Review Committee
2013 Annual Report
Respectfully Submitted by:
Marcy Alancraig, Dennis Bailey-Fournier, Alicia Beard, Justina Buller, Carter Frost,
(student representative), Jean Gallagher-Heil, Matt Halter, Paul Harvell, Victoria Lewis,
Rachel Mayo, Isabel O’Connor, Margery Regalado, Georg Romero, and Terrence Willett
Introduction and Background
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 SLOs and 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 (AUOs).
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-learning-outcomes/home
Programs and services undergo Program Planning on a rotating basis every six years;
only a few departments complete the process each year. For example, in Instruction,
approximately twenty-one percent of the programs write a plan in a given 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
1
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 how their departments contribute to student mastery of the college core
competencies and how to measure that contribution. 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 not an administrative unit goal.
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 shared-governance committee, a subcommittee of the Faculty
Senate, is chaired by the Student Learning Outcomes Assessment Coordinator. Its
membership is composed of representatives from the Student Senate, Faculty Senate,
CCEU, CCFT, and a manager along with representatives from each SLO sector -Administration, Student Services, Library, and Instruction (both Transfer & Basic Skills
and CTE). A representative from Administrative Services fills the manger or
Administration position. 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. In 2012, the Outcomes Assessment Review Committee
was also asked by the President’s Cabinet to examine institutional effectiveness issues,
making recommendations for improving college processes. 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: https://sites.google.com/a/cabrillo.edu/student-learningoutcomes/.
This report reflects ARC’s review of the assessment results for those departments that
completed Program Planning in the 2012-2013 academic year.
2
Assessment Process: Facts and Figures
Participating in this year’s assessment were ten Instructional departments (six in Transfer
and Basic Skills and four in CTE), four departments in Student Services, and five in
Administration.
Assessment Sector
Program Plans
Transfer and Basic Skills
All 6 scheduled departments submitted
Program Plans
All 4 scheduled departments submitted
Program Plans
Not scheduled to present a program plan
No Program Plans were scheduled, but 4
departments reassessed their SLO and
reported results in their annual updates.
5 scheduled departments submitted
Program Plans and 4 assessed AUOs.
Career Technical Education Programs
Library
Student Services
Administration
Participation
The charts below capture the participation of Cabrillo faculty and staff in assessment
activities. Since this assessment in Instruction took place over a number of years, an
average rate was calculated.
Basic Skills/Transfer
Department
% of full time % of adjunct
% of full time % of adjunct
presenting
presenting
discussing
discussing
assessment
assessment
results
results
results
results
Art Photography
100%
51%
100%
53%
Counseling
28%
64%
40%
40%
Digital
12%
66%
7%
54%
Management
Career Preparation
English as a Second 66%
83%
50%
56%
Language
Music
37% *
37%*
56%*
56%*
Stroke and
100%
N/A
100%
N/A
Disability Learning
Center
* Due to the use of an outdated reporting form, Music did not keep separate numbers for
how many fulltime and adjunct faculty participated in assessment activities.
3
Basic Skills/Transfer Presentation
% FT Presenting
% PT Presenting
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Art
Photography
Counseling
Digital
English as a
Management
Second
Career
Language
Preparation
Music
Stroke and
Disability
Learning
Center
Figure 1. Basic skills/Transfer Assessment: Full time and part time faculty assessment
presentation rates
Basic Skills/Transfer Discussion
% FT Discussing
% PT Discussing
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Art
Photography
Counseling
Digital
English as a
Management
Second
Career
Language
Preparation
Music
Stroke and
Disability
Learning
Center
Figure 1. Basic skills/Transfer Assessment: Full time and part time faculty
discussion rates
4
CTE
Department
Culinary Arts and
Hospitality
Management
Dental Hygiene
Early Childhood
Education
Radiologic
Technology
% of full time
presenting
assessment
results
100%
% of adjunct
presenting
assessment
results
100%
% of full time % of adjunct
discussing
discussing
results
results
100%
100%
56%
100%
28%
100%
45%
100%
43%
100%
100%
33%
83%
33%
CTE Presentation
% FT Presenting
% PT Presenting
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Culinary Arts and
Hospitality
Management
Dental Hygiene
Early Childhood
Education
Radiologic
Technology
Figure 2. CTE Assessment: Full time and part time faculty assessment presentation rates
5
CTE Discussion
% FT Discussing
% PT Discussing
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Culinary Arts and
Hospitality
Management
Dental Hygiene
Early Childhood
Education
Radiologic
Technology
Figure 2. CTE Assessment: Full time and part time faculty assessment presentation
and discussion rates
ARC is very pleased with the rates of participation of full-time faculty overall as well as
the complete participation of all adjunct faculty in the Culinary Arts and Hospitality
Management and Early Childhood Education departments. The committee notes,
however, the uneven participation of adjunct faculty in other departments. This is a
pattern that has occurred in previous years. It is hoped that some of the activities that
ARC has undertaken to better train program chairs to increase adjunct participation will
begin to be apparent in future statistics. The rates of participation of adjunct and faculty
participation in the music department could not be determined as they used an outdated
form to record their six years of assessment, a form which only asked for total faculty
who presented assessment results and a total of those participating in the discussion of
those results. More current forms ask for separate numbers for full and adjunct faculty
participation. The new CurricUNET SLO module, an on-line electronic program for the
reporting and archiving of SLO assessment that will be implemented in Spring 2014, will
prevent this from occurring in the future, since any updated forms will be the only
possible ones to use. The Stroke Center spent much of their time rewriting their
curriculum, and creating a viable assessment method for their special courses; they only
undertook assessment of the new courses.
6
Student Services
Department
Admissions and Records
Disabled Students Programs and
Services
Financial Aid
Student Affairs/Student Activities
and Government
Student Employment
# of
departmental
SLOs
% of SLOs
assessed
1
1
100%
100%
% of
department
personnel
discussing
results
100%
100%
1
4
100%
100%
100%
100%
1
100%
100%
ARC is delighted that four departments reassessed their SLOs, though it was not
scheduled as part of their program planning activities. This indicates the value the
departments see in the SLO assessment process.
Administration
Administrative Unit/
Department
Education Centers
CEED
Facilities Planning
and Plant Operations
(M & O)
Office of the Vice
President,
Administrative
Services
Purchasing,
Contracts and Risk
Management
# of departmental
AUOs
% of AUOs
assessed
2
3
1
100%
0
100%
% of department
personnel
discussing results
100%
0
100%
1
100%
100%
1
100%
100%
ARC notes with pleasure that four of the five departments assessed their AUOs for the
first time.
7
Assessment Progress
Transfer and Basic Skills
Department
% of Core 4
Assessed
Art Photography
100%
Counseling
100%
Digital
Management
100%
Career Preparation
English as a Second
100%
Language
Music
100%
Stroke and Disability
Curriculum
Learning Center
revised- no
assessment yet
% of Course SLOs Assessed
100%
54%
75%
100%
0%
100%
According to the Revolving Wheel of Assessment, all transfer and basic skills
departments were to have assessed each of the Core 4 and all course SLOs. All but one
department completed the assessment of the Core 4, and three departments also assessed
each of their course SLOs, but the other three departments varied in what they
accomplished. The Music Department noted in its program plan that “the Program Chair
never understood that each course SLO was supposed to be assessed, then discussed.”
Instead, they diligently reassessed the Core 4 in each course over the six-year period.
The Stroke Center entered a major curriculum revision and instead of assessing the Core
4, completely revamped its courses and assessed the new ones for the first time. The
Counseling program assessed 100% of the courses offered by their department, but did
not assess counseling courses offered by other departments such as DSPS and Tutoring.
ARC recommends that Counseling undertake dialogue about those courses with the
groups that are offering them and coordinate assessment efforts.
Career Technical Education
Department
Culinary Arts and
Hospitality Management
Dental Hygiene
Early
Childhood
Education
Radiologic Technology
Re-examine
Assessment
Plan
ü
Certificate SLOs
Assessed
100%
Course
SLOs
Assessed
100%
ü
ü
100%
100%
100%
100%
ü
100%
100%
8
According to the Revolving Wheel of Assessment, CTE programs were to re-examine
their assessment plan, and to assess all course and certificate SLOs. ARC is very pleased
that all CTE departments completed each aspect of the work.
Overall analysis: The rate of assessment and faculty participation has significantly
increased from previous years. However, the incompleteness of course level assessment
in three transfer departments is in line with the findings of last year’s ARC report, and the
inventory of assessment revealed by Cabrillo’s SLO Tracker. As part of Instruction’s
effort to focus on quality assurance, it undertook an inventory of overall SLO assessment
in Fall 2012 for the first time. Using a tracking tool developed in response to the 2011
ARC annual report, Instruction discovered that 61% of SLOs in active courses (those in
the catalog and offered in the last three years) and 76% of certificate SLOs had been
assessed.
As a result of this data, Instruction undertook the following:
• Asked departments to assess any course offered in Spring 2013 and Fall 2013 that
had not yet been assessed, in addition to undertaking any other assessment
scheduled as part of the Revolving Wheel. Due to the hard work of all
departments on campus, the overall rate of course assessment has been raised
from 61% to 87% as of December 2013. It is expected to rise to 90% by the time
each department completes this accelerated assessment by the beginning of the
Spring 2014 semester. These improved statistics will become apparent in future
Program Planning reports. The Music and Counseling departments, whose course
SLO rates were 0 and 54% respectively when they submitted their program plans
in Spring 2013, have both increased to 85%. Digital Management and Career
Preparation has only one active course that it has not yet assessed, due to it not
being offered in the last year, and has raised its rate to from 75% to 90% since last
spring. • Refined the SLO Tracking Tool to be more accurate. • Worked with CurricUNET to create an electronic SLO Assessment module,
which will be used for SLO and AUO assessment activities across the campus. It
is being piloted in Fall 2013 and will then be implemented over the next two
years. The Assessment module will: 1. Provide an electronic means to collect and archive SLO and AUO
assessment. All faculty will submit their individual assessment analysis
forms on-line, which will both save time and archive all records in a
central place. 2. Accurately track what has been assessed and what yet needs to be done. 3. Create departmental assessment reports that summarize individual
assessment results so that departments can more easily share data to
decide what is needed to improve student learning. These reports can also
be shared between departments (to facilitate inter-departmental dialogue)
as well as with ARC to assist with its annual report. 4. Create campus-wide reports for Core 4 assessment results, so that ARC
can more easily analyze the efforts across the campus. 9
•
•
5. Provide a planning function with the ability to remind Program Chairs
which SLOs should be assessed any particular semester as part of the
Revolving Wheel of Assessment. 6. Create quality control through its approval process. Departmental reports
will be scrutinized and approved by the SLO Coordinator, creating
consistency and a more user-friendly process if reports need to be revised. Revised Core 4 assessment reporting forms to include numerical results, and to
separate discussions about what the results indicate could improve student
learning in transfer departmental degrees, the GE program, and the college’s
institutional outcomes, all of which are measured by the Core 4. Previously, this
discussion was combined into one area on the form.
Revised the workbooks on the SLO web page to focus on assessing course and
certificate SLOs as well as the Core 4.
Student Services
As noted earlier, no program plans for Student Services were scheduled yet four
departments undertook SLO assessment again due to interest and seeing value in what
can be learned from the results. Student Services annual reports ask departments to
discuss SLO assessment progress. The CurricUNET SLO module will easily track what
has been done once all departments in Student Services have been brought on to the new
system.
Administration
All departments in Administration have written AUOs. Four out of the five departments
that wrote program plans also assessed them. The assessment results are providing
opportunities for departments to improve services, tweak the writing of the AUOs, and
examine assessment methods to see if they provide enough useful information or need to
be revised. 10
Assessment Results: Emerging Needs and Issues
The departments who assessed the college Core 4 competencies, certificate and
individual course SLOs identified the following key student needs and issues:
• Academically, weaknesses in reading and writing skills affected student success.
Reading problems were the ones most commonly mentioned.
• Academic success was further impacted by the college budget crisis, which
resulted in cutbacks in tutorials, the Writing Center and other student support
services.
• Students also struggled with the other effects of the budget crisis such as the
impact on the scheduling of classes, purchases of new equipment or upkeep of
facilities.
Those departments proposed the following strategies to help meet these needs:
• In-class tests to assess student writing and reading skills very early in the
semester.
• Better scaffolding of assignments to assist with reading and writing skills.
• Tutorial help, when staffing is restored.
Many departments commented on the value of department dialogue about SLO
assessment results in their program plans and how this resulted in some concrete changes
in departmental teaching or practices.
• Art Photography: “This process was beneficial to the program because it formalized the review process and included all faculty members in the discussion process. Both positive trends and areas that need improvement emerged from the assessment and discussions.” • Culinary Arts and Hospitality Management: “All faculty, 100% of full time and adjunct, were involved in the assessment. Discussion at the meeting was fruitful, collegial and productive…There were several cases where assessment tools were not addressing what they were intended to measure. In these cases, the participating faculty helped to tweak assignments, projects or exams to better assess the SLO. In a couple of cases, the rate of A grades was very high. This prompted a very useful discussion among faculty on maintaining high standards and rigor in every course. As a consequence of this discussion, we have seen change in this practice.” • Early Childhood Education: “The ECE faculty have found that these discussions provide a rich opportunity to talk about our teaching, and discuss ideas for improving both teaching and learning. The conversations about SLOs have also served as a vehicle for: engaging in professional development activities, looking at our program planning process, completing the CAP work and the development of our AS-­‐T in ECE.” • English as a Second Language: “Another result of the completing the SLO course forms was to create a binder full of materials from natural language sources and molding them for language acquisition…ESL now has an abundance of materials for our classes, one class at each of the four core levels…Another benefit that came from the SLO course forms was to take more students to the Writing Center in Aptos and the ILC in 11
Watsonville at the beginning of each semester to show students where they can help outside of class.” Student Services SLO assessment revealed that students were making modest progress in
applying for jobs, using Web Advisor to plan schedules and register for classes and using
appropriate student activities and government. Enrollment Services identified a need to
duplicate its one-stop office at the Watsonville Center, which “will require
reconfiguration of service counters and ongoing cross training of staff.” Some
departments are considering tweaking assessment instruments to gain better information
on how to improve student learning.
The issues revealed by Administration AUO assessment varied by department. Key
findings by the Education Centers included lower enrollment in both Scott’s Valley and
Watsonville compared to last year, low percentage of computer use in Watsonville when
averaged from 8 am to 8 pm, although at key times all stations are in use, and a high
demand for tutoring and counseling appointments (in line with the Enrollment Services
SLO assessment described above). Both the Purchasing and Facilities departments
discovered that much of the campus has had little interaction with their work order
system or some services. The Office of Administrative Services assessment instrument, a
survey, was given at a time of budgetary distress on campus, and this impacted its results.
It was hard to glean useful information when the survey was used by some respondents to
voice campus-wide concerns about the budgetary climate rather than evaluating the
office’s services.
Now that these first assessments have occurred, Purchasing, Facilities and the Office of
Administrative Services are revising their assessment instruments to gain better and more
useful information.
12
Analysis of Cabrillo’s Outcomes Assessment Process
This year’s analysis of the college’s assessment processes notes the increase of
sophisticated assessment measures across the entire campus, a greater level of
participation, and a response to ARC’s recommendations to assure quality control in last
year’s report. While “trending up” in all areas, some issues remain.
Instruction
In Instruction, the committee noted that more departments utilized the dialogue aspect of
the SLO assessment analysis process to create concrete actions to improve student
learning. In some departments, there was considerable sophistication in what was
measured and how it was analyzed. Other departments seemed to be struggling to garner
participation from departmental faculty. In addition, those departments that were not as
experienced at SLO assessment analysis often listed professional development for their
faculty as a way to improve rather than focusing more on student learning. ARC
considered some of the factors that might contribute to this disparity, such as size of
department and area of study, but found none of them to be significant. Instead, it
believes that the leadership provided by program chairs to be the determining factor in
departmental success with SLO assessment. ARC also observed that some departments
seemed to need more technical assistance from the Planning and Research Office for
charts and, most importantly, for understanding what the data in the charts means.
ARC recommends the following to improve SLO assessment in Instruction:
• Instruction should create a formal program chair training that includes how to lead
the department in SLO assessment. Additionally, the training could include
time-management skills for the job, how to write a program plan, and the
knowledge needed about campus processes and systems such as curriculum and
budget allocation.
• Another flex workshop for program chairs should be held where they are provided
an opportunity to drop in to meet with the SLO Coordinator to get specific help
on their assessment issues.
• The SLO section in program plans should include a discussion of what students
are doing well, what they are not doing well and what the department is going to
do to help them, utilizing the model used by the Applied Photography department
in its 2013 program plan. Departments should focus on the specifics the
department develops to help students, not just on what the department is learning
about itself or teaching.
• The Planning and Research Office should undertake an information campaign to
inform departments about its services and how to best utilize them.
In addition, ARC made several recommendations for changes in assessment in Instruction
as a result of the college’s accreditation site visit. The visiting team seemed to be
confused about how Cabrillo defines a program for SLO assessment in transfer. The
confusion seemed to arise from two issues:
13
1. They were not familiar with the approach of considering GE all one program
and had some concerns that this resulted in a lack of evidence of assessment
of our departmental degrees in transfer.
2. The people they interviewed gave differing answers about how the college
defines programs in transfer.
After discussing the issues raised by the visiting team’s questions, ARC affirmed its
commitment to Cabrillo’s approach. Individual departments in transfer will continue to
assess the Core 4 as a way to measure three areas: the GE program, our institutional
SLOs and departmental transfer degrees. However, as discussed on page 7, ARC
recommended that the Core 4 assessment forms be changed to specifically discuss what
was learned from the results about each area.
This change has already been
implemented.
In addition, ARC recommended that the SLO Coordinator work with PRO to create a
chart to map in more detail what is assessed by transfer and CTE departments, making it
clear that courses, certificates, the GE program, departmental degrees and institutional
outcomes are all measured.
Finally, ARC recommended that an informational campaign be created to clarify how the
college defines a program.
Student Services
In Student Services, some departments seem to be enthusiastically embarking on SLO
assessment, undertaking it yearly. This is a most promising development. ARC
recommends that those departments fill out the SLO Assessment Analysis form each time
assessment occurs so that what is discovered can be recorded in detail, rather than in the
summary captured on the annual update forms.
Administration
The assessment of AUOs in Administration is very promising, and also very new. Now
that it has occurred for the first time in some departments, they have the opportunity to
revise their assessment instruments. The committee noted that the surveys used for
Purchasing, Facilities and the VP of Administrative Services Office did not seem to yield
the best information to help them improve services. Members of ARC who also serve on
CPC remembered the excellent budget pre-and-post test that the Vice President of
Administrative Services used to teach the budget process to the committee and thought it
might prove to be a better measure of the department’s AUO. ARC recommends that
Administrative Services continue to explore various assessment instruments to find those
that will provide pertinent information. ARC also noted that due to changes in
Administration, no progress has been made on its recommendation of last year that
Administrative departments share their program plans in a committee that is similar to
CIP in scope and purpose. Dr. Jones is exploring options for this, and some progress
may be made in the coming year.
14
Overall Analysis
The committee notes that this is the seventh report it has written and that it is time to take
a closer look at progress made over time. In 2014, ARC will undertake two projects to
address this:
1. Examine the issues noted in all ARC reports and analyze trends that have
emerged over the years along with the progress the college has made in
addressing them.
2. Undertake an evaluation of the committee’s charge, its effectiveness, and its
relation to other campus shared-governance bodies.
Progress on Past Recommendations
ARC made several recommendations last year to improve the campus’ SLO and AUO
assessment process. The following was completed:
1. As noted on page 7, an electronic filing and archival system has been
purchased. The CurricUNET SLO module is being piloted in Fall 2013 and,
if all goes well, will begin implemented over the next three semesters.
2. Assessment Analysis forms were modified to include reports on the
effectiveness of previous assessment results and the activities undertaken as a
result.
3. The SLO Tracking Tool has been refined.
4. Departments that seemed to be struggling with assessment completion, as
noted by the SLO Tracker, have worked with the SLO Coordinator as needed.
5. A special Program Chair section of the SLO web site was created along with
an SLO Handbook for PCs that is posted on that section of the website.
6. A second SLO survey was undertaken in May 2013. A summary of the
positive results entitled “Things are Trending Up!” is posted on the SLO
website
at
https://sites.google.com/a/cabrillo.edu/student-learningoutcomes/.
7. The name of ARC was changed from the SLO Assessment Review
Committee to the Outcomes Assessment Review Committee.
Some progress has been made on three other recommendations from the 2012 report.
The SLO Coordinator was directed to get feedback from the departments participating in
the pilot for numerical reporting of assessment results. She found that all but one of the
departments who had undertaken it wish to continue but with more overall participation.
Not all faculty in each department had added numerical reporting to their assessment
analysis forms. These results and the development of the CurricUNET SLO module led
ARC to revise the Core 4 assessment analysis form to include numerical results. Faculty
and entire departments now rate student competency on a four- point scale. Very
preliminary response to the new form has been positive. ARC chose to do this for two
reasons:
• It will facilitate dialogue within and between departments, allowing them to more
easily see a summary of each other’s results.
• It will provide ARC with a better way to assess Core 4 results across the entire
campus each year, allowing it to compare departmental ratings and get a sense of
overall progress across the college.
15
ARC also recommended that the college find a better way for departments in all
assessment areas to share the good work that has been done and the innovations they
have created to improve student learning, particularly outside of Flex week so that the
entire campus can participate. There was some discussion of this at the Faculty Senate,
including the possibility of a flex day devoted to SLOs in the middle of the semester, but
no formal process has yet been identified.
Lastly, ARC recommended that a dialogue take place with Deans, the Council for
Instructional Planning and the Faculty Senate to brainstorm other methods to ensure full
compliance with college SLO standards. This has occurred in each area, with some
processes clarified to better describe expectations, but no formal recommendations have
yet been adopted. CIP and the Faculty Senate continue to discuss how to better
“incentivize” assessment activities and to laud the departments who excel at meeting
expectations.
16
Institutional Effectiveness
ARC’s responsibilities were expanded to include looking at campus institutional
effectiveness issues in Fall 2012. Over the last year, to fulfill this part of its charge, the
committee has:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Created a diagram that captures the college’s integrated planning process for the
Accreditation Self Evaluation.
Made recommendations for the diagram that captures Cabrillo’s decision- making
process for the Accreditation Self-Evaluation.
Served as readers for the SLO chapter in the Accreditation Self Evaluation.
Created a template for program plans in Administration.
Discussed the link between SLO assessment and student success.
Recommended the process to establish benchmarks for Instructional Goals
required for the Accreditation Self-Evaluation.
Created the SLO Assessment Dashboard that is posted on the SLO website:
https://sites.google.com/a/cabrillo.edu/student-learning-outcomes/.
Made recommendations for the frequency of AUO assessment in Administration.
Discussed and piloted a possible template for minutes in campus shared governance committees.
Commendations
ARC salutes the Early Childhood Education and Art Photography
departments for doing an excellent job analyzing their SLO assessment
results in depth and with specific detail, resulting in compelling interventions
to improve student learning. Both discussions could serve as models for other
departments due to how they are organized and presented.
ARC lauds the Admissions and Records, Disable Student Programs and
Services, Financial Aid, Student Affairs/Student Activities and Government
and Student Employment departments in Student Services department who
undertook SLO assessment though it was not scheduled and reported the
results in their annual updates.
ARC commends the Education Centers, the Vice President of Administrative
Services Office and Purchasing’s program plans for success in depicting
complex, multi-faceted departments and undertaking useful and reasonable
measures to assess AUOs.
17
Recommendations
2013 Recommendations for Teaching and Learning
The Faculty Senate has primary responsibility for providing leadership in teaching and
learning, particularly in areas related to curriculum and pedagogy, while Student Services
Council directs the efforts in their area. The recommendations below will be put into
effect by Faculty Senate, Student Services Council and college shared governance
committees.
Recommendation
Responsible Party
Time Line
Utilize the exciting new activities
from Student Success Committee,
particularly the Faculty Consultation
network, for the improvement of
pedagogy and the sharing of best
practices, particularly across
departments so faculty can learn
successful strategies used by others to
solve common problems.
Student Success committee
and Staff Development
committee
Spring and
Fall 2014 flex
2013 Recommendations for SLO Assessment Processes
Recommendation
Responsible Party
Time Line
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
Assessment Analysis forms to include
separate discussions of student success
in departmental degrees, the GE
program and the college’s institutional
outcomes.
Deans, Vice President of
Instruction, Program Chairs
Discuss in
Spring 2014
SLO Coordinator and Staff
Development Committee
Fall 2014
SLO Coordinator and CIP
Spring 2014
ARC
Fall 2013
(completed)
18
Recommendation
Responsible Party
Time Line
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 and PRO
Spring 2014
ARC and the Faculty Senate
Spring and
Fall 2014
Fall 2014
PRO
Student Services and the SLO Spring 2014
Coordinator
Administration and the SLO
Coordinator
On-going
ARC
Spring and
Fall 2014
ARC
Spring 2014
Completed Recommendations from Previous ARC Reports
Year of
Report
2012
2012
2012
2012
Past Recommendation
Action Taken
Any Next Steps?
Create an electronic
means of 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
Create a special section
of the SLO web site for
Creation of
CurricUNET SLO
module
Complete Pilot and
implement gradually
Spring 2014-Spring
2015
Create flex trainings
New Assessment
Workbooks on SLO
website
Individual departments
worked with SLO
Coordinator as needed.
Continue to offer this
service
Section created and
introduced at Spring
Add more exemplary
examples and models
19
Year of
Report
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2011
2011
Past Recommendation
Action Taken
Any Next Steps?
Program Chairs
2013 Program Chairs
meeting
Forms revised as part
of creation of the
CurricUNET SLO
model
to this section of the
site
Revise as needed
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
Results disseminated
ARC survey; administer to Faculty Senate and
survey again in 2013
posted on SLO
website; New survey
undertaken in Spring
2013 and results
disseminated in Fall
2013.
Gather feedback on pilot Results gathered and
on quantitative reporting reported to ARC.
of SLO results
Numerical reporting
incorporated into Core
4 assessment analysis
forms.
Adopt the new template Template adopted.
for non-Instructional
program planning
created by ARC
Change ARC’s name
Faculty Senate
approved the name
change in Spring 2013.
Provide training about
Flex workshop offered
organizing and
Spring and Fall 2012;
facilitating departmental Training for Deans
SLO assessment to
occurred at a CIP
Program Chairs and
meeting in Spring 2013
Deans.
Convene a meeting of
Flex Workshop held in
Program Chairs of
Spring 2013
smaller departments to
brainstorm
organizational strategies
for SLO assessment
20
Undertake survey
again in 5-6 years.
SLO Coordinator to
work with departments
to increase
participation in pilot.
Template to be
tweaked as needed by
Administrative units.
None
None
Continue to create a
means for PCs to
dialogue about SLO
assessment
Year of
Report
2011
Past Recommendation
Action Taken
Create a web tool that
lists the calendar for
every Instructional
department’s SLO
assessment schedule.
2011
Write Administrative
Unit Outcomes for each
department in
Administration
Revise and update SLO
web site
Facilitate
interdisciplinary
discussions about
student mastery of each
of the four core
competencies
Serve as readers for the
SLO chapter that will be
included in the 2012
Accreditation SelfEvaluation.
SLO Tracking Tool
Pilot CurricUNET
created- but it was only planning tools
able to inventory (not
calendar) college SLO
assessment. The
CurricUNET SLO
module has some
planning capabilities
100% complete
None
2011
2011
2010
Any Next Steps?
Web site revision
completed Spring 2013
Fall 2012 and
Spring 2013 Flex
meetings
Revise as needed
ARC read the chapter
draft in Fall 2012 and
provided feedback;
chapter completed in
Spring 2013.
None
Continue to search for
ways for faculty to
share results across
departments other than
Flex workshops
Recommendations in Process from previous ARC reports
Year of
Report
2012
Past Recommendation
Actions Undertaken
Next Steps
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.
Discussions at ARC,
CIP, Faculty Senate in
Fall 2012 to Fall 2013
Continue Discussion
2012
Create a forum for
Student Services and
Instructional
departments to share
Discussions at Faculty
Senate and Staff
Development
Committee
Continue discussions
with all parties,
including the CCFT,
since Flex time is a
21
Year of
Report
2011
2011
Past Recommendation
Actions Undertaken
SLO assessment results
that occurs outside of
traditional flex week.
Create a venue or
Discussions within
reporting mechanism for Cabinet
Administration’s
Program Plans
Post examples of a full
No progress
assessment cycle for
each area on the SLO
web site
Next Steps
negotiated item
Continue discussion
with President Jones
and Cabinet
Add to website
Past Recommendations from ARC Reports that are now Institutional
Practices
Year of
Report
2008
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
Past Recommendation
Actions Taken
Offer an intensive SLO Assessment
workshop for all faculty in
instructional departments two years
in advance of Program Planning
Support ongoing, sustained staff
development in the assessment of
student learning, including rubric
development.
Share effective practices and
methods for modeling strategies for
assignments
Provide support for faculty as they
confront challenges to academic
ethics, such as plagiarism and other
forms of cheating
Provide sustained faculty
development for addressing student
learning needs in reading, research
and documentation, and writing
Communicate to the college at large
the importance of maintaining and
documenting a college-wide
planning process that systematically
considers student learning, including
non-instructional areas.
Annual Spring Flex Workshop
22
Ongoing Flex Workshops
Ongoing Flex Workshops
On-going Flex workshops;
creation of Student Honor Code
On-going Flex workshops
“Breakfast with Brian” flex
workshops; development of the
Faculty Inquiry Network;
Bridging Research Information
and Culture Technical Assistance
Project; discussions about Student
Year of
Report
Past Recommendation
Actions Taken
2010
Survey campus to assess awareness
of Cabrillo’s SLO process
2011
Inform potential hires of Cabrillo’s
SLO process and our participation
expectations in trainings for new
faculty, through mentorships and in
the Faculty Handbook
23
Success Task Force
Recommendations; campus wide
focus on Student Success
First survey administered Fall
2011; second to be administered
Spring 2013
Wrote section on SLOs for new
Faculty handbook; SLO process
presented at adjunct faculty
training.
Summary of Issues in Past Reports
As stated on page 13, in Spring 2014, ARC will review the chart below, which catalogues
the concerns noted in each ARC report, and analyze the trends that have emerged over
time and the progress and the college has made in addressing them. This analysis will be
included in the 2014 ARC report.
Emerging Needs and
Issues
Recommendations for
Teaching and Learning
Recommendations for
SLO Assessment
Processes
Students need stronger
skills in writing, reading,
and college readiness;
The longer a student is
enrolled at Cabrillo, the
more positive their
association with the
Library
Increase emphasis on
class discussions and
student collaboration.
More tutorial assistance
for students
Encourage greater
adjunct involvement;
Continue to educate the
Cabrillo community
about the paradigm shift
Teachers want more
frequent collegial
exchange; Improved
facilities/equipment
needed.
2009
Students need more
instruction in reading,
research and
documentation, and
writing; concerns about
plagiarism.
Provide ongoing,
sustained faculty
development; share
effective practices and
strategies for modeling
assignments.
2010
Some students need more
instruction in basic
academic skills and
college survival skills.
Provide faculty
training in new
pedagogies, technology,
and contextualized
instruction. Support the
teaching of college
survival skills across the
Encourage greater
adjunct involvement.
SLO workshop for
programs two years in
advance of Instructional
Planning and for non
instructional programs;
Develop system of
succession and
dissemination of
expertise in SLOAC
across campus.
Encourage greater
adjunct involvement.
Communicate to the
college the importance of
maintaining and
documenting a planning
process that
systematically considers
student learning.
Encourage greater
adjunct involvement.
Embed SLO assessment
expectations in faculty
hiring, new hire training
and mentoring practices.
Develop an electronic
2007
2008
24
Emerging Needs and
Issues
Recommendations for
Teaching and Learning
Recommendations for
SLO Assessment
Processes
curriculum.
means for SLO
assessment result
reporting. Explore
adding a quantitative
component.
Provide training to Deans
and Program chairs on
organizing SLO tasks.
Revise web site and add
web tools to assist
organizing the process.
Hold campus-wide
discussions on Core 4
assessment results.
Undertake pilot for
numerical reporting.
Find ways to showcase
assessment insights
occurring across the
campus. Increase rate of
SLO assessment by
creating an electronic tool
to organize, track and
report assessment results.
Work individually with
struggling departments to
achieve timely SLO
assessment. Create a
program chair section of
SLO website.
Create program chair
training. Revise Core 4
form and instructions for
SLO section on program
plans. Create
informational campaigns
on Pro services and the
definition of a program.
In student Services and
Administration, record
assessment results on
forms and continue to
revise assessment
instruments.
2011
Students need to improve
their reading and writing
skills.
Provide faculty
development to improve
pedagogy and sharing of
best practices. Use flex
hours, but not necessarily
during flex week, to do
this.
2012
Students need to be more
prepared for college level
work, especially writing
in transfer level courses.
Provide faculty
development to improve
pedagogy and sharing of
best practices. Facilitate
discussions between
Instructional faculty and
Student Services faculty
and staff to share SLO
assessment results.
2013
Students were affected by
budget cuts, particularly
in tutoring and class
offerings.
Utilize projects from the
Student Success
Committee as
opportunities for faculty
to share best practices
across departments.
25
26