Assessment of Learning Committee
Meeting Notes: Feb. 22, 2010
Present: J. Simon, C. Subramaniam, J. Soden, R. Bergeman, M. Kline, J. Noyes, K.
Laureano-Ribas, R. Lewis, H. Storms, K. Holt, C. Striepe, B. Jaffe, J. Shankweiler, I.
Graff
1. Reports on flex-day mapping activity
 Most programs finished the activity
 Some confusion about meaning of activity and how the mapping data will be
used; some confusion about what the numbers (1-4) meant
 Some expression of fatigue about SLOs being the focus of flex day activities
 Many felt the activity was useful in giving faculty a clearer vision of their
courses and programs
 Some programs had one faculty member do the mapping activity before
meeting in order to start the ball rolling (HSA, Humanities)
2. Personnel Additions
R. Lewis and C. Gold agreed last semester to become facilitators; J. Noyes, K.
Holt, J. Soden were recently asked and agreed to become facilitators. H. Storms
has been asked but has not yet agreed. These facilitators will attend
department/division meetings and work one-on-one with faculty on their SLOs.
They will add to the critical mass of leadership that is needed on campus to move
the process forward.
3. Goals for Spring 2010
 Still need to work on Fall 2009 deadline of 100% of courses having at least
one SLO. (The campus is still at 87% of courses). This is the first priority to
resolve in the first weeks of this semester.
 The next goal for the spring is in June 2010, each program will have
completed a program-level assessment and a complete report. H. Storms
asked if programs need to assess their program-level SLOs every year. J.
Simon answered that assessment cycles should be tied to program-review
cycles. Once the issue is resolved with the ACCJC recommending a 4-year
rather than a 6-year cycle, the decision can be made how many times program
SLOs should be assessed. J. Simon estimated once or twice per program
review cycle. H. Storms inquired specifically about the Art Dept., which
includes two programs (Studio courses and Art History courses). J. Simon
answered that these would still be considered two separate programs from the
purposes of SLO assessment.
 New deadline: Sept. 15, 2010: all courses need to have a complete set of SLOs
(i.e. at least one SLO that aligns with the core competencies rated as a “4” on
the mapping activity.)
 K. Laureano-Ribas asked how this would be documented, and J. Simon
handed out the “Course-Level SLO Addendum” to be reviewed by the
committee. K. Holt and I. Graff suggested asking the CurricUNET team
about the possibility of starting to enter SLO documentation online and
migrating it to CurricUNET when the SLO module is ready. J. Simon will
inquire into this possibility; the “Course-Level SLO Addendum” will not be
used at this time.
Completed by: J. Simon