El Camino College Student Learning Outcomes and Assessment Assessment of Learning Committee

El Camino College

Student Learning Outcomes and Assessment

Assessment of Learning Committee

February 25, 2008 Agenda

Voting Members:

Coordinators:

Time: 2:30p – 4:00p in Library 202

Jenny Simon, Lars Kjeseth

Business Rep:

Soc/Beh Rep:

Humanities Reps:

Nat Sci Rep:

Math Rep:

Ind / Tech Rep:

Fine Arts Rep:

HSA Reps:

Donna Grogan & Ollie Hadley

Cristina Gold

Matt Kline & Darrell Thompson

Nancy Freeman

Judy Kasabian

Ray Lewis

Harrison Storms

Kelly Clark & Rory Natividad

Learning Res Rep: Claudia Striepe

Student Services Rep: Vacant

Ex-Officio Members:

V. P. A. A.: Francisco Arce

Dean Rep:

Accred Reps: Arvid Spor

Inst. Research Rep:

Don Goldberg

Irene Graff

Compton Center Reps: David Maruyama & Jose Bernaudo

Agenda:

I.

Call to Order

II.

Revisiting the Assessment Principles

III.

Assessment of Student Learning Week

IV.

Presentation of Fall 2008 Final Report

V.

Adjourn

(0 minutes)

(40 minutes)

(30 minutes)

(10 minutes)

(0 minutes)

Submitted for review and ratification to the Academic Senate by the Assessment of

Learning Committee

El Camino College’s

Guiding Principles for Student Learning Outcomes Assessment Cycles

The Mission of El Camino College is to meet the educational needs of our diverse community and ensure student success by offering quality, comprehensive educational opportunities. Central to this mission is student learning, which is not restricted to interactions between students and instructors in a classroom. Instead, the entire campus works together to support student learning in all of our courses, programs and services.

Assessments of student learning offer the institution a vital measure of how effectively El

Camino College is fulfilling its mission. Assessment results also provide evidence upon which to base curricular, planning and budget decisions, which lead to greater student success.

Administrators, faculty, and staff work together to support the periodic assessment of student learning outcomes in all of its courses, programs and services.

A student learning outcome assessment cycle is a four-stage process in which we:

A.

Identify a student learning outcome

B.

Design and implement an assessment plan

C.

Reflect on the results of the assessment and draw conclusions

D.

Share the results and conclusions with the college community, invite review and comment, and recommend changes that may improve student learning

The following principles guide the implementation and use of student learning outcome assessment cycles:

1.

For any course, program or service, the personnel directly involved in its delivery are

finally responsible for all aspects of its assessment cycles: While expected to consult with all stakeholders on campus, the responsible personnel are the best qualified to determine appropriate student learning outcomes, implement effective assessments, report results, and make recommendations for improvements. For each outcome, they are also best equipped to decide when each stage of the cycle is complete.

2.

Broad participation in assessment cycles by administrators, faculty and staff is a shared

responsibility: The more personnel that participate in the production and analysis of assessment results, the greater the likelihood that proposed changes will be implemented and sustained.

3.

Student learning outcomes are defined in various ways. Student learning outcomes vary tremendously among courses, programs and services; they may be cognitive, affective, or psychomotor. They change over time and are informed by a multitude of factors, including community needs, discipline standards, and previous assessment cycles.

4.

Assessments use various methods and may build upon existing assessments: Assessment techniques range widely in style and rigor. Whenever feasible, existing assessment instruments are modified to meet new assessment needs. If possible, new assessment routines should replace old ones. Direct measures of student learning are preferred, although indirect measures may also be used, particularly in sectors that indirectly support student learning.

5.

Curricular, planning and budget decisions are informed by assessment results:

Assessment results provide evidence that allow administrators, faculty and staff to make wise planning and budget decisions. All curricular and program reviews are stronger when they incorporate assessment results in their reports. An individual may consider assessment results as part of the self-evaluation process.

6.

Assessments are used to evaluate student learning: Results of assessments of student learning outcomes will not be used in performance evaluation in any punitive manner. Student learning outcomes will not be used to undermine academic freedom.

7.

Resources are provided for assessment cycles: For some assessment cycles, existing resources will suffice; for others, additional resources will be needed. Administrators,

working together with faculty and staff, find the means of conducting meaningful assessment cycles without compromising the quality of instruction, delivery of services or overburdening specific personnel.

Discussion of the Assessment Principles—Started on Email in Dec.

From: Simon, Jenny [mailto:jsimon@elcamino.edu]

Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 5:02 PM

To: Gold, Christina; Romero, Kathryn; Maruyama, David; Constantino, Cindy; Lam, Karen; Hadley, Ollie; Clark,

Kelly; Lewis, Ray; Grogan, Donna; Gallucci, Linda; Arce, Francisco; Storms, Harrison; Goldberg, Don; Striepe,

Claudia; Kjeseth, Lars; Kasabian, Judy; Simon, Jenny; Kline. Matthew; Natividad, Rory; Thompson, Darrell; Spor,

Arvid; Graff, Irene; Freeman, Nancy

Cc: Dever, Susan; Marcoux, Peter; Donnell, Sean

Subject: Principles Statement

Dear Assessment of Learning Committee Members: I took our "guiding principles" to Senate today, and it was tabled. The main issue was with #6 ("Assessments are used to evaluate student learning: Results of assessments of student learning outcomes will not be used in performance evaluation in any punitive manner.

Student learning outcomes will not be used to undermine academic freedom.")

There were two main camps with respect to the sentence: "Results of assessments of student learning outcomes will not be used in performance evaluation in any punitive manner."

1. Lance Widman wanted to change the sentence to: "Results may be used in faculty performance evaluations with the concurrence of faculty being evaluated." (i.e. not removing totally the possibility of having SLOs in performance evals, but leaving it up to the faculty.)

2. Chris Wells wanted to change it to: "Results of assessments of SLOs will not be used in performance evaluation." (i.e. totally removing the possibility of SLOs being used in evals at all.)

I was not willing to accept any rewording without the committee's consultation first, so it was I who decided that it would be best to take it back to committee.

Here were some other issues:

-It needs to be clearer what this is going to be used for: guiding contract negotiations? Board of Trustees? (I stated that it would be used to guide the implementation of the SLO process and be posted on our website; however, I think we may need to do some extra asking around, perhaps to union folks, to see if these guiding principles will/can be used in contract negotiations.)

-Perhaps we need to back up our statement #6 with similar statements by the state academic senate and accreditation standards (i.e. add a footnote)

So, this is just a heads-up... it's not over yet.

Jenny Simon, Ed.D.

ESL Instructor

SLO Assessment Coordinator

El Camino Community College

Email: jsimon@elcamino.edu

Tel: (310) 660-3187

From: Gold, Christina [mailto:cgold@elcamino.edu]

Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 5:14 AM

To: Simon, Jenny; Romero, Kathryn; Maruyama, David; Constantino, Cindy; Lam, Karen; Hadley, Ollie; Clark,

Kelly; Lewis, Ray; Grogan, Donna; Gallucci, Linda; Arce, Francisco; Storms, Harrison; Goldberg, Don; Striepe,

Claudia; Kjeseth, Lars; Kasabian, Judy; Kline. Matthew; Natividad, Rory; Thompson, Darrell; Spor, Arvid; Graff,

Irene; Freeman, Nancy


Subject: RE: Principles Statement

Principal #6 is a tricky one, it seems. Chris Wells has a good point - it may be clearer to just not use

Assessments in faculty evaluations at all. It may muddy the waters if we use them sometimes and not others.

However, Lance Widman also makes a good point - sometimes faculty may want to use assessments in their evaluations. I would imagine that faculty with high expectations for student performance may consistently receive low student evaluations and may be able to use their assessment results to demonstrate high levels of student learning in their classes.

Asking the union about this is a good idea. Also, let's see how other campuses are handling this. If I can whittle out a little time later today, I'll do an internet search of similar statements used on other campuses.

Dr. Christina Gold

History Instructor

El Camino College

From: Gallucci, Linda [mailto:lgallucci@elcamino.edu]

Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 1:31 PM

To: Simon, Jenny; Gold, Christina; Romero, Kathryn; Maruyama, David; Constantino,

Cindy; Lam, Karen; Hadley, Ollie; Clark, Kelly; Lewis, Ray; Grogan, Donna; Arce,

Francisco; Storms, Harrison; Goldberg, Don; Striepe, Claudia; Kjeseth, Lars;

Kasabian, Judy; Kline. Matthew; Natividad, Rory; Thompson, Darrell; Spor, Arvid;

Graff, Irene; Freeman, Nancy

Cc: Dever, Susan; Marcoux, Peter; Donnell, Sean

Subject: RE: Principles Statement

Hello everyone,

This was a point of discussion at today's Counselor Planning Committee.

Here the discussion seemed to focus on putting this language in the contract. I emphasized that the implementation of SLOs is faculty driven that it in no way is to be used as part of their performance evaluation. While no vote was taken, the general feeling seemed to be that it should not be contained in the Contract.

I think that there may be some concern that the language of the Guiding

Principles may be added to the contract. Since these are two very distinct processes, this should not be an overwhelming concern. The reality is that it may be.

Linda

From: Kjeseth, Lars [mailto:lkjeseth@elcamino.edu]


To: Gold, Christina; Simon, Jenny; Romero, Kathryn; Maruyama, David; Constantino, Cindy; Lam, Karen; Hadley,

Ollie; Clark, Kelly; Lewis, Ray; Grogan, Donna; Gallucci, Linda; Arce, Francisco; Storms, Harrison; Goldberg, Don;

Striepe, Claudia; Kasabian, Judy; Kline. Matthew; Natividad, Rory; Thompson, Darrell; Spor, Arvid; Graff, Irene;

Freeman, Nancy


Subject: Principles Statement #6

Hello, Colleagues,

Upon reflection and a discussion with Janet Young, I think the problem with this one is that it is TOO specific to be considered simply a guiding principle. Rather, it borders too much on what could be considered a policy statement or even a regulation. This document was never intended to serve as such. I propose the following change:

Assessments are used to evaluate and to improve student learning: Results of assessments of student learning outcomes will not be used in performance evaluation in any punitive manner. Student learning outcomes will not be used to undermine academic freedom.

Setting up meetings with the unions is a good idea, as well, but I think it would be better to fix the principles statement first. A meeting with the union at this time may be awkward, as they are in the midst of contract negotiations.

What do people think about this possible solution?

Lars

From: Donnell, Sean [mailto:sdonnell@elcamino.edu]


To: Lewis, Ray; Kjeseth, Lars; Gold, Christina; Simon, Jenny; Romero, Kathryn; Maruyama, David; Constantino,

Cindy; Lam, Karen; Hadley, Ollie; Clark, Kelly; Grogan, Donna; Gallucci, Linda; Arce, Francisco; Storms, Harrison;

Goldberg, Don; Striepe, Claudia; Kasabian, Judy; Kline. Matthew; Natividad, Rory; Thompson, Darrell; Spor,


Cc: Dever, Susan; Marcoux, Peter

Subject: RE: Principles Statement #6

It must be stated that, at this time, one of the biggest sticking points of this contract negotiation is the issue of making SLOs part of the evaluation process. The District contends that, according to ACCJC Accreditation

Standards, SLOs must be part of the faculty evaluation. We are contending that this is not so. Some clarity on how you folks feel about having SLOs being part of the evaluation process for faculty, specifically the selfevaluation, would be germane here. To wit, you suggest that SLOs should not be punitive; however, if one does not meet his/her SLOs in the evaluation and is given a "Needs Improvement" or "Unsatisfactory" rating, could that be considered punitive. My understanding is that SLOs were meant to be evaluated via assessment, not that faculty are to be evaluated on SLOs. Your wisdom here would be greatly appreciated.

Sean M. Donnell

ECCFT President/Chief Negotiator

From: Lewis, Ray [mailto:RLewis@elcamino.edu]


To: Donnell, Sean; Kjeseth, Lars; Gold, Christina; Simon, Jenny; Romero, Kathryn; Maruyama, David;

Constantino, Cindy; Lam, Karen; Hadley, Ollie; Clark, Kelly; Grogan, Donna; Gallucci, Linda; Arce, Francisco;

Storms, Harrison; Goldberg, Don; Striepe, Claudia; Kasabian, Judy; Kline. Matthew; Natividad, Rory; Thompson,

Darrell; Spor, Arvid; Graff, Irene; Freeman, Nancy



Sean

I think SLO is part of the accreditation team’s evaluation of the institution, not the faculty. It is my understanding that SLO was never intended to be part of individual faculty performance evaluation. Any attempt to make it so should be resisted. That philosophy would gut the purpose of SLO, which is intended to be faculty driven, designed to improve student learning and teaching. In our campus wide SLO committee meetings, this issue has risen periodically, but it has been the strong consensus that it is not part of faculty performance evaluation, thus the statement.

Ray

From: Striepe, Claudia [mailto:cstriepe@elcamino.edu]


To: Lewis, Ray; Donnell, Sean; Kjeseth, Lars; Gold, Christina; Simon, Jenny; Romero, Kathryn; Maruyama, David;


Storms, Harrison; Goldberg, Don; Kasabian, Judy; Kline. Matthew; Natividad, Rory; Thompson, Darrell; Spor,




I agree with Ray. One of the questions/points that came up at Senate yesterday was not so much being evaluated on SLO’s but say a person wants to note in their self evaluation that they have put in a lot of time on SLO’s. More so that it can be noted and appreciated by the Dean as to how they have spent their time working for the Division, rather than evaluated and picked apart – should the person have the right/opportunity to do that without it blowing up in their face.

I think Lars ’ compromise is workable.

Claudia


Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 2:57 PM

To: Striepe, Claudia; Lewis, Ray; Donnell, Sean; Kjeseth, Lars; Simon, Jenny; Romero, Kathryn; Maruyama,

David; Constantino, Cindy; Lam, Karen; Hadley, Ollie; Clark, Kelly; Grogan, Donna; Gallucci, Linda; Arce,

Francisco; Storms, Harrison; Goldberg, Don; Kasabian, Judy; Kline. Matthew; Natividad, Rory; Thompson, Darrell;

Spor, Arvid; Graff, Irene; Freeman, Nancy



I agree with Claudia and Ray's comments. This is an urgent issue since many of us are undergoing evaluation right now. I have my faculty evaluation meeting tomorrow. In my self-evaluation I included my SLO committee work and conference attendance as professional development. I also indicated that I am conducting assessment in my courses and will respond and reassess, but I did not make any mention of the results of my assessments. I certainly want my work with SLOs and Assessments recognized as this takes up a growing chuck of my time, but

I don't necessarily want the results of my particular assessments judged.

In addition, at the Strengthening Student Success Conference it was apparent that many campuses are of the opinion that the Course, not the faculty, should be assessed . These campuses build confidentiality into their process, keeping the focus on the course, not the instructor. For instance, on one campus they were assessing an English course. All faculty teaching the course randomly selected papers. Identifying information was removed from all the papers and a team of faculty members then used a rubric to assess all the papers (fulltimers received flex credit and part-timers were actually paid!!). The assessment results then pertained to the course, not individual faculty. This, of course, doesn't seem logistically possible on our campus, but uniformly inserting confidentiality into the process may be an option if we fear that the assessment results will be used in evaluations.

Here's the Skyline College statement: "We will not use assessment of student learning punitively or as a means of determining faculty or staff salaries or rewards. The purpose of assessment is to evaluate student learning, not to reward or punish faculty. Specifically, the rate of achievement of student learning outcomes in any section or course may not be used in the evaluation of any specific faculty member."

Happy Hanukah!

Chris

Dr. Christina Gold

History Instructor

El Camino College

From: Goldberg, Don [mailto:dgoldberg@elcamino.edu]


To: Gold, Christina; Striepe, Claudia; Lewis, Ray; Donnell, Sean; Kjeseth, Lars; Simon, Jenny; Romero, Kathryn;

Maruyama, David; Constantino, Cindy; Lam, Karen; Hadley, Ollie; Clark, Kelly; Grogan, Donna; Gallucci, Linda;

Arce, Francisco; Storms, Harrison; Kasabian, Judy; Kline. Matthew; Natividad, Rory; Thompson, Darrell; Spor,




I'm not going to express an opinion. (May wonders never cease.)

However, I do want to quote from the WASC ACCJ Standards. This is Standard III.A.1.c.

"Faculty and others directly responsible for student progress toward achieving stated student learning outcomes have, as a component of their evaluation, effectiveness in producing those learning outcomes."

--don



To: Goldberg, Don; Gold, Christina; Striepe, Claudia; Donnell, Sean; Kjeseth, Lars; Simon, Jenny; Romero,

Kathryn; Maruyama, David; Constantino, Cindy; Lam, Karen; Hadley, Ollie; Clark, Kelly; Grogan, Donna; Gallucci,

Linda; Arce, Francisco; Storms, Harrison; Kasabian, Judy; Kline. Matthew; Natividad, Rory; Thompson, Darrell;

Spor, Arvid; Graff, Irene; Freeman, Nancy



Don, as we talked about earlier, I believe that standard refers to institutional effectiveness and not as an evaluation tool for individual faculty.

Ray

From: Donnell, Sean [mailto:sdonnell@elcamino.edu]


To: Goldberg, Don; Gold, Christina; Striepe, Claudia; Lewis, Ray; Kjeseth, Lars; Simon, Jenny; Romero, Kathryn;






Ok, not to get too "Englishy," but. . . .

Generally speaking, this is a really poorly written sentence. The pronoun "their" in the phrase "as a component of their evaluation" has an ambiguous reference. Does it refer to the evaluation of "Faculty and others," or is it a reference to the evaluation of the "stated student learning outcomes"? I'm not sure.

If this is the only evidence that SLOs should be part of the evaluation process, I'm not convinced that they need to be included in evaluations because the meaning of the sentence seems so ambiguous as a result of the hazy pronoun-antecedent reference.

Just my $.02 on the matter.

Best,

Sean M. Donnell



To: Donnell, Sean; Goldberg, Don; Striepe, Claudia; Lewis, Ray; Kjeseth, Lars; Simon, Jenny; Romero, Kathryn;






"Faculty and others directly responsible for student progress toward achieving stated student learning outcomes have, as a component of their evaluation, effectiveness in producing those learning outcomes."

I agree, Sean, this is confusing. Am I crazy, or is it saying that faculty and staff should be evaluated on how effectively (well? quickly?) they write SLOs. It does not say that the assessment process or the result of assessment of SLOs should be used in evaluation.

Dr. Christina Gold

History Instructor

El Camino College


Sent: Friday, December 28, 2007 6:50 AM

To: Simon, Jenny; Gold, Christina; Romero, Kathryn; Maruyama, David; Constantino, Cindy; Lam, Karen; Hadley,

Ollie; Clark, Kelly; Lewis, Ray; Grogan, Donna; Gallucci, Linda; Arce, Francisco; Storms, Harrison; Goldberg, Don;

Striepe, Claudia; Kjeseth, Lars; Kasabian, Judy; Simon, Jenny; Kline. Matthew; Natividad, Rory; Thompson,



Subject: RE: Principles Statement

Hi Jenny. I agree with Chris. The potential punative nature of the inclusion of that (use as an evaluation tool) undercuts the underlying philosophy of SLO. I don't have a problem with a contractual inclusion that faculty will participate in the process of developing SLO's and in conducting assessments so long as the results are not used against faculty.

Ray

From: Thompson, Darrell [mailto:dethompson@elcamino.edu]


To: Gold, Christina; Striepe, Claudia; Lewis, Ray; Donnell, Sean; Kjeseth, Lars; Simon, Jenny; Romero, Kathryn;


Arce, Francisco; Storms, Harrison; Goldberg, Don; Kasabian, Judy; Kline. Matthew; Natividad, Rory; Spor, Arvid;

Graff, Irene; Freeman, Nancy


Subject: RE: Principles Statement #6 our english department has done assessment the same way mentioned in your example. there was no credit or pay but there was pizza or something, i understand. it can, then, be done and makes more sense in terms of course slo's. it also, and this may be improtant, allows us to complete many courses, or perhaps an entire program at once rather than one at a time.

Darrell Thompson

Instructor of English

El Camino College

NATS 6

310 660 - 3689


Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 5:52 PM

To: Donnell, Sean; Kjeseth, Lars; Gold, Christina; Simon, Jenny; Romero, Kathryn; Maruyama, David;


Storms, Harrison; Goldberg, Don; Striepe, Claudia; Kasabian, Judy; Kline. Matthew; Natividad, Rory; Thompson,


Cc: Dever, Susan; Marcoux, Peter; Rodriguez, Stephanie


I have been a part of the SLO process for about 3 years and am a member of the campus wide SLO committee. in most of our discussions within the committee, and in background information we have researched, the SLO process is clearly designed to be faculty driven; the aim is to improve student learning and in the process, perhaps improve our own teaching. In my understanding, it was not designed to be a hammer held over individual faculty members. To do so would undercut the philosophy of developing outcomes on individual bases that are reasonable and attainable, and conducting assessments to those outcomes. this has been a major selling point as we have reached out to the faculty at large to "sell" the concept. Personally, I would resist efforts to use this process as leverage against the faculty. I think to do so undercuts our own credibility as we work with faculty on this. Philosophically, I believe in the process and believe it can help in improving learning. Most of us have been doing this sort of thing for a long time before we started calling it SLO. Having said that, there is frustration among those of us involved in this process with faculty who choose to not participate. I think administration is trying to figure out how to broaden the participation. But who knows? There could be a different agenda. I think administration is misreading the program intent. If it becomes management driven, we could be looking at another "TQM" labor intensive exercise that will ultimately be meaningless, again.

Ray

El Camino College Student Learning Outcomes and Assessment Assessment of Learning Committee

El Camino College

Student Learning Outcomes and Assessment

Assessment of Learning Committee

February 25, 2008 Agenda

Dr. Christina Gold

History Instructor