Outcomes Assessment Review Committee
2012 Annual Report
Respectfully Submitted by:
Marcy Alancraig, Dennis Bailey-Fournier, Alicia Beard, Justina Buller, Tama Bolton,
Tana de Santos (student representative), Rick Fillman, Jean Gallagher-Heil, Paul Harvell,
Brian King, Rachel Mayo, Isabel O’Connor, Margery Regalado, Georg Romero, Letisha
Scott-Curtis
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 core competencies. Last spring, 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 student success and/or the new AUOs.
See the SLO website for a detailed description of the methods used in each area
(http://pro.cabrillo.edu/slos/index.html).
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 fifty-six 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,
1
(sponsored by the Research and Planning Group and funded by the Hewlett Foundation)
provided needed training in Student Services assessment methods during Spring 2011.
Prior to the training, a few departments had piloted some assessment measures, but most
began this activity in earnest after those sessions. By October 2012, all but one Student
Service department wrote a program plan and assessed all 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 the last 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 not an administrative unit goal.
Almost all administrative departments have written AUOs and two have assessed 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 Faculty Senate, 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 Master Planning Committee, the College Planning Council, the
Faculty and Student Senates and both unions, CCFT and CCEU. This year, 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
(http://pro.cabrillo.edu/slos/index.html).
2
This report reflects ARC’s review of the assessment results for those departments that
completed Program Planning in the 2011-2012 academic year.
3
Assessment Process: Facts and Figures
Participating in this year’s assessment were fourteen instructional departments, ten
serving Transfer and Basic Skills and five in CTE, the Library, thirteen departments in
Student Services and five in Administration.
Assessment Sector
Area
Transfer and Basic Skills
All 9 scheduled departments submitted
Program Plans
All 5 scheduled departments submitted
Program Plans
Submitted a Program Plan as scheduled
13 of 14 departments submitted program
plans and undertook SLO assessment. An
on-going rotating program planning cycle,
with annual reports has been developed.
5 of 21 departments submitted Program
Plans; 2 of those departments assessed
AUOs. An on-going schedule for program
planning is still being developed in some
components.
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 and in some Student Services departments
took place over a number of years, an average rate was calculated.
Basic Skills/Transfer
Department
% of full time
presenting
assessment
results
Anthropology
100%
Art History
100%
Athletics
50%
Kinesiology
50%
Physics
75%
Political
100%
Science
Sociology
100%
Theatre Arts
66%
Women’s
100%
Studies
% of adjunct
presenting
assessment
results
100%
60%
10%
0%
50%
38%
% of full time % of adjunct
discussing
discussing
results
results
100%
100%
75%
95%
75%
100%
60%
75%
50%
30%
50%
63%
60%
40%
0%
100%
100%
100%
60%
60%
0%
4
Figure 1. Basic skills/Transfer Assessment:
Full time and part time faculty assessment presentation rates
Figure 2. Basic skills/Transfer Assessment:
Full time and part time faculty assessment discussion rates
5
CTE
Department
Computer
Applications/Business
Technology
Engineering
Technology
Horticulture
Human Services
Nursing
% of full time
presenting
assessment
results
100%
% of adjunct
presenting
assessment
results
20%
% of full time % of adjunct
discussing
discussing
results
results
100%
36%
100%
33%
100%
100%
100%
100%
81%
100%
50%
34%
100%
100%
81%
100%
75%
34%
Figure 3. CTE Assessment: Full time and part time faculty assessment presentation
rates
6
Figure 4. CTE: Full time and part time faculty assessment discussion rates
ARC is pleased with the robust rates of participation of full-time faculty overall as well
as the high rate of adjunct participation in the Anthropology and Horticulture
departments, but notes with concern the uneven participation of adjunct faculty in other
departments. As the charts demonstrate, more adjuncts participated in the discussion of
assessment than those who undertook the assessment itself. In part, this is because the
discussions occur during Flex week, when adjuncts have more opportunity to participate
and collaborate with members of their department. The actual assessment and its analysis
takes place during the course of the regular semester. But since so many of our courses
are taught by adjuncts, ARC continues to be concerned by this lack of full participation,
particularly in some smaller departments. However, ARC notes that the reporting form
may collect erroneous information since it asks for the total number of adjuncts though
only some may be teaching the course being assessed. ARC recommends changing the
form to capture this information more accurately. In addition, it notes that some of the
activities it undertook last year to help Program Chairs engage more adjuncts in SLO
assessment are not apparent in these statistics since this captures years previous to that
work.
Library
Type
Assessment
of % of full time % of adjunct
% of full time % of adjunct
presenting
presenting
discussing
discussing
assessment
assessment
results
results
results
results
Library 10 SLO
100%
100%
100%
100%
Core Four
100%
95%
100%
95%
ARC notes with pleasure the very high numbers of both full-time and adjunct faculty and
staff participation in SLO assessment in the Library.
7
Student Services
Department
Admissions and Records
Assessment
Cabrillo Advancement Program
(CAP)
Counseling
Disabled Students Programs and
Services
Financial Aid
Extended Opportunity Programs and
Services
Fast Track to Work
# of
departmental
SLOs
% of SLOs
assessed
1
1
2
100%
100%
50%
% of
department
discussing
results
95%
87%
100%
1
1
100%
100%
89%
100%
1
4
100%
75%
83%
100%
1
100%
50-86% for
three meetings
100%
100%
100%
Learning Skills
1
100%
Office of Matriculation
1
100%
Student Affairs/Student Activities
4
100%
and Government
Student Employment
1
100%
100%
Student Health Services
2
50%
100%
ARC is delighted with the high numbers of SLOs assessed and the robust rates of
participation of department members discussing their results.
Administration
Administrative Unit/
Department
Dean of Counseling
and Educational
Support Services
Information
Technology
Instructional
Division Offices
President’s Office
Vice President of
Student Services
Office
# of departmental
AUOs
% of AUOs
assessed
% of department
discussing results
1
100%
68%
1
0%
0%
1
0%
0%
3
1
0%
100%
0%
100%
ARC is pleased that two of the new AUOs have already been assessed and discussed.
8
Assessment Progress
Transfer and Basic Skills
Department
Anthropology
Art History
Athletics
Kinesiology
Physics
Political Science
Sociology
Theatre Arts
Women’s Studies
% of Core 4
Assessed
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
0%
0%
% of Course SLOs Assessed
0
50%
36%
94%
100%
100%
75%
13%
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. Almost 80%
of the departments were on track with their Core 4 assessment, but ARC notes with
concern that the assessment of course SLOs varies. One third of the group assessed at
least 90% with two departments at 100%. But one department assessed only 75% of its
courses, while four others (44% of the group) assessed fifty percent or less. However, it
should be noted that the Anthropology department, which assessed none of their course
SLOs, is in the process of completely rewriting them. They chose not to assess the old
ones and, having recently gotten curriculum approval for the new ones, are now
embarked on their assessment. Yet the reporting forms do not provide an opportunity to
explain this. Another factor to consider is that some classes may not have been assessed
because they were not scheduled, due to the budget crisis. Again, the reporting forms do
not capture this kind of information. ARC recommends revising the forms so that this
data can be revealed.
Career Technical Education
Department
Computer
Applications/Business
Technology
Engineering
Technology
Horticulture
Human Services
Nursing
Wrote
Assessment
Plan

Certificate SLOs
Assessed
100%
Course
SLOs
Assessed
100%

0%
31%



0%
28%
100%
100%
100%
0%
9
According to the Revolving Wheel of assessment, CTE programs were to write an
assessment plan, and to assess all course and certificate SLOs. ARC is pleased that all
CTE departments wrote an assessment plan or implemented the one created from their
last round of Program Planning. Two of five programs assessed all certificate SLOs
while two did not assess any, and one only assessed a small portion. It should be noted,
however, that the Horticulture department’s lack of certificate SLO assessment arose
from a misunderstanding; the department assumed that its course level assessment also
assessed its certificate SLOs. After working with the SLO coordinator, the department
has since instituted a different process. Three out of five departments assessed all course
SLOs, one department assessed almost a third and one didn’t assess any at all.
Overall analysis: It would be nice to consider the numbers of course and certificate level
assessment this year as a fluke, but the rates match what is occurring in other departments
across campus. Now that Instruction has moved from setting up and institutionalizing
SLO assessment to focusing on quality assurance, it undertook an inventory of overall
SLO assessment for the first time in Fall 2012. Using a tracking tool developed in
response to last year’s 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.
Before this, a department’s progress on the Revolving Wheel of Assessment was not
revealed until they attended a mandatory workshop two years before their program plan
was due and then again when they presented that plan to the Council for Instructional
Planning. The Council for Instructional Planning recognized that a four-year gap in
assessment reporting was not helpful and in 2008, required a description of assessment
activities as part of a department’s annual report. In 2011, it asked departments to also
submit any completed Assessment Analysis forms from the past year. However, not until
the reports due in December 2012 will departments be asked to report on their progress
on the Revolving Wheel of Assessment. These reports will be read by the SLO
Coordinator who will offer help to struggling departments. The new SLO Tracking tool,
which took the campus inventory and revealed these numbers, also pinpointed specific
departments that are struggling to whom the SLO Coordinator will offer assistance.
ARC took a close look at these assessment completion statistics. First and foremost, it
recognized that since the SLO tracking tool is a brand new approach to measuring
departmental assessment efforts. The Planning and Research office consulted with the
acting Vice Presidents of Instruction, the Deans and the SLO Coordinator, along with the
Instructional Procedures Analyst, about how to define active courses and how to retrieve
them from the college curriculum database. All involved acknowledge that this process
and the tool itself need refinement. For example, while the spreadsheet captured
information at the course level (course SLO assessed yes or no), systematic tracking of
the assessment of individual course SLOs has yet to be attempted.
Secondly, in an attempt to assure quality, this group also decided not to include those
course and certificate SLOs whose measurement was attempted but done incorrectly.
10
For instance, one department carefully and thoroughly assessed all of its 120 courses, but
used the wrong method. If these courses had been included, the course assessment rate
would have jumped to 74%. Similar errors occurred with some certificate SLO
assessment. All of this points to a need for continued monitoring of SLO processes and
more intensive program chair training.
Furthermore, ARC recognizes that since Instruction started its SLO assessment with the
college core competencies, there has been more training and emphasis on assessing this
level. The course and certificate level assessment methods have been taught but not as
intensively. In addition, as noted in the 2011 annual report, some departments seem to be
struggling with the organization and scheduling of course and program SLO assessment,
while others are accomplishing it very successfully. Analysis has not revealed any easily
definable reasons for this; size of department, number of adjuncts and length of tenure as
program chair cannot be the sole cause since there are many departments that have
completed their assigned assessment despite these issues.
ARC recommends the following to assure quality control for Instructional SLO
Assessment:
Create an electronic tool for both assessment reporting and planning, so that
program chairs, the SLO Coordinator and the Vice President of Instruction’s
Office can more easily identify the SLO assessment that has been accomplished
and that which needs to be done.
Revamp the SLO assessment analysis forms to collect more accurate data on
adjunct participation, and courses not offered due to budget or curriculum issues.
Provide specific training in course and certificate level SLO assessment through
the SLO web page and in flex workshops.
Ensure that all struggling departments work individually with the SLO
Coordinator to schedule, discuss and report SLO assessment.
Facilitate a dialogue with Deans, the Council of Instructional Planning and the
Faculty Senate to brainstorm other methods to ensure full compliance with
college SLO standards.
The Library
While the Library has successfully assessed all of its SLOs, it reported in its program
planning presentation to the Council for Instructional Planning in Spring 2012 that it
wasn’t satisfied with its assessment method for the Core Four. The Library believes that
their services provide a means to help students master the college core competencies.
They chose to measure this by asking students to assess themselves on the competencies
as part of their annual survey. This yielded very positive results but it did not provide
useful and reliable information for how to actually improve student learning within the
particular services. The Library also felt that this assessment did not capture how it
contributes to the learning of faculty and community members as well as students.
11
In Fall 2012, the Library adopted an Administrative Unit Outcome to capture what the
Library’s full component of services offers to students, faculty, and the community. It
reads:
Cabrillo library patrons will be able to successfully use the library's physical and
electronic services, information tools, and resources, to find and evaluate information,
and accomplish academic endeavors in the pursuit of formal and informal learning
In addition, a new assessment cycle was drafted. Since the Library completed its
program plan in 2012, this cycle will be put into effect beginning in 2013.
Year 1 (by Spring 2013): Assess Computer services (website review committee
efforts; annual survey questions covering computer use)
Year 2 (Spring 2014): Assess Circulation services (likely using a brief survey
handed out to users of the services)
Year 3 (Spring 2015): Assess Reference services (likely using student evaluations
generated through the faculty evaluation process)
Year 4 (Spring 2016): Assess Information resources (method undetermined as
yet)
Year 5 (Spring 2017): Evaluate our overall outcomes, assessments, and planning
cycle
Year 6 (2017-2018): Write library program plan
Student Services
Student Services has completed the SLO assessment of 92% of its SLOs. Now that each
SLO has been assessed once, Student Services is currently creating an on-going and
revolving assessment schedule while revising its program planning and annual report
templates.
Administration
Administration adopted a shift to writing and assessing administrative unit outcomes in
Spring 2012. Almost all departments have since written AUOs and two departments
have assessed them. In addition, five departments wrote program plans, using the
template from the Office of Instruction that was adopted in 2010.
12
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:
A lack of preparedness in some students.
A need to continue to experiment with and develop better instructional
practices and pedagogy, including facilitating group work.
A need for faculty to provide more writing assignments in non-English
transfer level courses.
Those departments proposed the following strategies to help meet these needs:
More faculty training and development, particularly in working with
underprepared students.
More departmental meeting time devoted to a discussion of pedagogical
issues, with a focus on how to “scaffold” assignments so that they build
up to major assignments and/or the best progression of skills.
Training in how to implement and manage student working groups.
Request the writing factor for some transfer level courses.
Increase class participation through the use of clicker response tools.
Instructional departments also commented on the positive effects of SLO assessment
in their program plans.
Physics: “This process has proved very beneficial to our department. It sparked
many interesting discussions about teaching methodologies as well as highlighted
our students’ strengths.”
Computer Applications/Business Technology: “We have found this to be a
productive way to have focused discussions on course and student success and ways
to increase them.”
Kinesiology: “One faculty member who could not attend the meetings voiced
concern that completing the assessments amounted to ‘inconsequential busy work.’
She was able to attend a later meeting and learn from other faculty the kinds of
rubrics they used, and was thrilled with the results of her new assessment tool, so
much so that she shared with me each and every one of the student responses. She
was astounded at how meaningful her class was to her students, and has found new
direction and emphasis in her teaching. So we’ve found that dialogue and sharing is
integral to a meaningful assessment process. “
Others noted problem areas:
Political Science: “Adding SLOs to our program planning over time has significantly
impacted the planning process itself…The time involved in conceptualizing how to
apply this new paradigm, taking part in the necessary training and actually
implementing the assessment has been significant. Although part time faculty
13
members have been willing to participate, SLO assessment puts an undue burden on
them.”
Sociology: “…The Program Chair duties of a one full time contract department
…have been overwhelming…The assessment process has suffered.”
Student Services SLO assessment revealed that one time training may not be enough to
help students become more self-efficacious.
The departments are proposing new
methods to follow-up with students over time.
14
Analysis of Cabrillo’s Outcomes Assessment Process
ARC’s analysis of this year’s SLO assessment process notes the wealth of assessment
occurring across campus in all sectors, along with issues that arise from either
institutionalizing the process and/or assuring its quality.
Overall, the assessment analysis forms scrutinized by ARC reveal that many important
insights about student learning have been garnered as a result of SLO assessment. The
entire college could benefit from hearing what has been learned. However, there are few
ways for departments to share what they’ve come to comprehend with others. With all
fifty-six Instructional departments now assessing SLOs, along with fourteen Student
Service departments and soon twenty-one Administrative departments, the college needs
to find a way to disseminate all that has been discovered.
Last year ARC made a recommendation that more sharing occur in Instruction, and in
Fall 2012, it facilitated a flex workshop to impart what had been discovered from Core 4
assessment, which resulted in useful interdepartmental dialogue. This year, ARC
recommends continuing that conversation but also expanding it so that the important
insights generated by the Student Services SLO assessment can be shared with
Instructional faculty and staff, and vice versa. This presents a scheduling challenge since
many Student Services faculty and staff are very busy serving students during Flex week
and cannot attend the scheduled sessions. ARC brought this idea to the Staff
Development committee, which enthusiastically embraced it and suggested a midsemester flex time for sharing between Instruction and Student Services. Staff
Development is currently in dialogue with the Faculty Senate about this possibility;
changing Flex times is also a negotiated item and must be part of a discussion between
the Administration and the Faculty union.
ARC further recommends that the college give serious consideration to how it can
continue to recognize and share assessment results so that the entire college community
can benefit. Some sort of vehicle that highlights excellent work, such as a newsletter,
web portal or grants and awards, should be created.
In addition to sharing assessment results, one of the biggest needs is a streamlined
scheduling and reporting process that allows the college to have an accurate look at what
outcomes assessment is occurring and how each department is progressing with this
work. For instance, Instruction’s fifty-six departments are each required to turn in at
least two forms per year summarizing their SLO assessment efforts. Currently, the forms
are word documents downloaded from the SLO website which are e-mailed to the
Instruction Office. Program Chairs keep track of what assessment is scheduled and what
has been accomplished on their own. As noted earlier, not all departments are completing
their assessment in a timely manner and those who might assist in this effort, such as
Deans and the SLO Coordinator, are unaware of where problems exist until too late in the
cycle. A campus wide system for reporting and scheduling would make this work easier
and more efficient, and could increase the rate of SLO assessment.
15
ARC previously looked into various outsourced SLO reporting formats, but all were
found to be financially unfeasible; the 2011 report details those efforts along with a
recommendation that the SLO Coordinator and the Planning and Research Office
continue working to find solutions. This resulted in the creation of the SLO Tracking
tool, and some organizing documents but as this report attests, more is needed. To meet
that need, in Fall 2012, ARC convened an ad hoc committee to explore other options.
Composed of some of the best technical minds on campus, it is currently exploring the
use of CurriUNET’s SLO and program planning modules along with some homegrown
solutions. It will report its conclusions to ARC and the committee will, in turn, pass
those recommendations on to other shared governance committees.
ARC also noted that this year, some departments are assessing SLOs for the second time.
It recommends modifying the assessment analysis form so that departments can report on
the results of previous results and identified trends.
Last year, ARC recommended increased training of Program Chairs and Deans. One of
the goals of this training was to provide a solution to another issue arising from the
institutionalization of SLO assessment: lack of participation by adjunct faculty. Since
PC’s now are responsible for training their adjuncts in SLO assessment, ARC hoped that
improving their training would result in increased adjunct participation. Two Flex
workshops were held, in Spring and Fall 2012, with good attendance, during which the
PC role in SLO assessment was clarified, new tools for organizing it were offered and
most importantly, a dialogue occurred between those departments that have struggled
with SLO issues and those that have been successful. It is too soon to tell if this dialogue
will actually bring about an increase in adjunct participation numbers, but the workshops
were a promising start. This year ARC recommends that this training be continued but in
a different format:
Now that struggling departments have been identified through the SLO
Tracker, they should work individually with the SLO Coordinator to plan
and organize SLO assessment.
Create a special Program Chair section of the revamped SLO website,
with training materials (for new program chairs), tools and examples from
departments that have successfully undertaken SLO work. The Flex
workshops offered this year also garnered many helpful suggestions for
what should be included in this section of the website.
One of ARC’s activities of last year was to develop a campus-wide survey to take the
“SLO temperature” of the entire college. ARC administered the survey in late Fall 2011,
analyzed the results in Spring 2012 and prepared a short report on the survey results in
Fall 2012. The survey results confirmed the observations of many ARC reports from the
past five years:
The campus finds the SLO assessment process valuable.
Adjunct and full-time faculty have a different experience with SLO
assessment
16
At the time, Student Services had just rewritten their SLOs and were just
embarking on actual assessment.
At the time, Administration was still struggling with how they contributed to
student learning outcomes; they were at the very beginning of their
assessment efforts.
ARC will disseminate the survey results in Spring 2013, along with an update on how
things have changed. In addition, because Student Services and Administration have
made such strides in only twelve months, ARC will administer the survey again in late
Spring 2013.
Last year, the Faculty Senate embarked on a pilot to add a quantitative component to
SLO reporting and added pre and post testing as an approved assessment method for
Basic Skills and Transfer departments. ARC recommends that the SLO Coordinator
collect feedback about these changes and share the results with the Faculty Senate.
The Library’s assessment process, with its switch to AUOs, showcases the iterative
properties of SLO assessment and how taking a careful look at both data and processes
can result in needed changes. ARC looks forward to the insights revealed by the new
assessment focus and measurements.
Student Services has made great progress in their work with SLO assessment this year.
The committee commends them for undertaking so much good SLO assessment. Now
that a first round has been completed, Student Services has standardized its required
program planning elements and developed a template for those plans. This template
better integrates SLO assessment results with program planning goals and budgetary
recommendations.
Administration has also made great progress. The writing of Administrative Unit
Outcomes has commenced with zeal and insight; eighty-five percent of departments have
written them and are slowly beginning their assessment. ARC was especially pleased
that five departments wrote program plans and two of them assessed their AUOs. Now
that some plans have been completed, it may be time to revisit the program planning
template to see if all components of it are useful. As part of its new institutional
effectiveness duties, ARC drafted a simpler template for all non-Instructional
departments, built on the one developed by Student Services. ARC recommends that the
College Planning Council, Cabinet and all other non-Instructional managers groups
examine the new template and adopt it.
Finally, ARC recommends that its name be changed from the SLO Assessment Review
Committee to the Outcomes Assessment Review Committee since it is now looking at
both student learning and administrative unit outcomes.
17
Commendations
ARC salutes the Computer Applications and Business Technology
department and the Nursing department for creating new forms to keep track
of SLO assessment over the entire six-year planning cycle.
ARC commends the Political Science and Physics departments for looking at
all aspects of the learning process and for being very student-focused in their
plans for improvement of the classroom.
ARC lauds all Student Services departments for undertaking SLO
assessment; their work demonstrates how they assist students to become
more self-sufficient through training and self-efficacy.
ARC extolls the AUO assessment done by the Vice President of Student
Services office and the Office of Matriculation.
Recommendations
New 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
Provide sustained faculty
development 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.
In Student Services, provide more
than one-time trainings and/or follow
up with students over time.
Staff Development committee
and Program Chairs
Spring and
Fall 2013 flex
Individual departments in
Student Services
On-going
18
New recommendations for SLO Assessment Processes
Recommendation
Responsible Party
Time Line
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
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.
Staff Development
Committee, the
Faculty Senate, CCFT
and Administration
ARC
2013
ARC ad hoc
committee
Spring 2013
SLO Coordinator
2013
SLO Coordinator
2013
ARC, Deans, CIP.
Faculty Senate
2013
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
Spring 2013
SLO Coordinator
Spring 2013
SLO Coordinator
Spring 2013
SLO Coordinator
2013
Administration
2013
Faculty Senate
Spring 2013
19
Spring 2013
Completed Recommendations from the 2011 ARC Report
Past Recommendation
Action Taken
Any Next Steps?
Provide training about
organizing and facilitating
departmental SLO
assessment to Program
Chairs and Deans.
Facilitate interdisciplinary
discussions about student
mastery of each of the four
core competencies
Provide on-going training
and workshops in SLO
assessment to Student
Services staff
Flex workshop offered
Spring and Fall 2012
Work with PRO and IT
to create an electronic tool
to plan and track SLO
assessment; train PCs how
to use it.
Spring 2013 Flex
workshop to continue the
discussion
Serve as readers for the SLO
chapter that will be
included in the 2012
Accreditation SelfEvaluation.
Fall 2012 Flex meeting
Individual meetings
between departments and
the SLO Coordinator were
held in Spring and Fall
2012
SLO Coordinator should
continue to work with any
departments that might
want to revise their
assessment process now
that it’s been tried once.
ARC read the chapter draft Revise chapter based on
in Fall 2012
committee suggestions
Recommendations in Process from the 2011 and 2010 ARC Reports
Past Recommendation
Actions Undertaken
Next Steps
Survey adjunct faculty to
assess their awareness of
Cabrillo’s SLO process
Survey of entire campus
(not just adjuncts)
undertaken and analyzed
Distribute analysis to
shared governance venues
Inform potential hires of
Cabrillo’s SLO process and
our participation
expectations in trainings for
new faculty, through
mentorships and in the
Faculty Handbook
Create a venue or reporting
mechanism for
Administration’s Program
Plans
Wrote section on SLOs
for new Faculty handbook
Convene meeting with
Human Resources; bring
SLO process to adjunct
faculty training.
Discussions within
Cabinet
Continue discussion
20
Past Recommendation
Actions Undertaken
Next Steps
Convene a meeting of
Program 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.
Workshop planned for
Spring 2013
Hold workshop
SLO Tracking Tool
created- but it was only
able to inventory (not
calendar) college SLO
assessment
Post examples of a full
assessment cycle on the
SLO web site for transfer/
basic skills, CTE and
Student Services
Develop an Assessment
Instrument and reporting
format for Administration
Program Planning that can
be used by all the
departments in this area
No progress
Continue to work with IT
and PRO to create a web
tool for planning and
reporting SLO assessment
results; explore options for
outsourced tool.
Revamp SLO website in
Spring 2013 to include this
Write Administrative Unit
Outcomes for each
department in
Administration
Revise and update SLO web
site
Based on the good work
done in Administration
program plans, ARC
developed
recommendations for a
simpler, common program
planning template
85% complete
Bring the template to
Administration
No progress
Complete in Spring 2013;
on-going as needed
Complete in Spring 2013
Past Recommendations that are now Institutional Practices
Date of
Recommendation
2008
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.
Annual Spring Flex Workshop
21
Ongoing Flex Workshops
Date of
Recommendation
2009
2009
2009
2009
2010
Past Recommendation
Actions Taken
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 noninstructional areas.
Ongoing Flex Workshops
Survey campus to assess
awareness of Cabrillo’s SLO
process
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 Success Task
Force Recommendations;
campus wide focus on Student
Success
First survey administered Fall
2011; second to be administered
Spring 2013
Emerging Trends
Emerging Needs and
Issues
2007
Recommendations for
Teaching and Learning
Students need stronger More tutorial assistance for
skills in writing, reading, students
and college readiness;
The longer a student is
enrolled at Cabrillo, the
more positive their
association with the
Library
22
Recommendations for SLO
Assessment Processes
Encourage greater adjunct
involvement; Continue to
educate the Cabrillo community
about the paradigm shift
Emerging Needs and
Issues
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Recommendations for
Teaching and Learning
Increase emphasis on
class discussions and
student collaboration.
Recommendations for SLO
Assessment Processes
Teachers want more frequent Encourage greater adjunct
collegial exchange; Improved involvement. SLO workshop
facilities/equipment needed. 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.
Students need more
Provide ongoing, sustained Encourage greater adjunct
instruction in reading,
faculty development; share involvement. Communicate to
research and
effective practices and
the college the importance of
documentation, and
strategies for modeling
maintaining and documenting a
writing; concerns about assignments.
planning process that
plagiarism.
systematically considers student
learning.
Some students need more Provide faculty
Encourage greater adjunct
instruction in basic
training in new pedagogies, involvement. Embed SLO
academic skills and
technology, and
assessment expectations in
college survival skills. contextualized instruction.
faculty hiring, new hire training
Support the teaching of
and mentoring practices.
college survival skills across Develop an electronic means
the curriculum.
for SLO assessment result
reporting. Explore adding a
quantitative component.
Students need to improve Provide faculty development Provide training to Deans and
their reading and writing to improve pedagogy and
Program chairs on organizing
skills.
sharing of best practices. Use SLO tasks. Revise web site and
flex hours, but not necessarily add web tools to assist
during flex week, to do this. organizing the process. Hold
campus-wide discussions on
Core 4 assessment results.
Undertake pilot for numerical
reporting.
Students need to be more Provide faculty development Find ways to showcase
prepared for college level to improve pedagogy and
assessment insights occurring
work, especially writing sharing of best practices.
across the campus. Increase
in transfer level courses. Facilitate discussions between rate of SLO assessment by
Instructional faculty and
creating an electronic tool to
Student Services faculty and organize, track and report
staff to share SLO assessment assessment results. Work
results.
individually with struggling
departments to achieve timely
SLO assessment. Create a
program chair section of SLO
website.
23