Memo
To:
Rebecca Eikey, Andy McCutcheon, Daylene Meuschke
From:
Alicia LeValley
Date:
6/29/2016
Re:
Institutional Learning Outcomes (ILO) Assessment Survey: Spring 2015
At the request of the Institutional Learning Outcomes (ILO) Committee, the Office of Institutional Development
and Technology conducted a survey to gather data from adjunct faculty, full-time faculty, division deans, the
College Planning Team (CPT), Learning Resources, and Student Services in Spring 2015. Revised ILOs are
being proposed in order to move towards a more meaningful, simplified institutional assessment process that is
more inclusive, coherent, and manageable. The purpose of this survey was to assess the campus community’s
understanding and opinions of the proposed ILOs for College of the Canyons.
Out of the possible 842 individuals who were invited to participate in the survey, completed surveys were
received from 122 individuals (15 percent response rate).
Overall
Adjunct Faculty
Full-Time Faculty
College Planning Team
Division Deans
Learning Resources
Student Services
Responses
Invited to Participate
Response Rate
122
64
37
6
4
6
5
844
595
179
22
7
8
16
15%
11%
21%
27%
57%
75%
31%
Note: 15 individuals from the Associated Student Government were invited to participate. No responses were
received.
1. Are you familiar with the proposed ILOs?


Overall, nearly half of the respondents are familiar with the proposed ILOs.
The majority of full-time faculty respondents are familiar with the proposed ILOs while only
about one-quarter of the adjunct faculty respondents are familiar with them.
Familiar with Proposed ILOs
Overall (n=122)
Adjunct Faculty (n=64)
Full-Time Faculty (n=37)
College Planning Team (n=6)
Division Deans (n=4)
Learning Resources (n=6)
Student Services (n=5)
44% (n=54)
28% (n=18)
65% (n=24)
-- (n=3)
-- (n=4)
-- (n=4)
-- (n=1)
“--” indicates that percentages are not reported for sample sizes less than ten.
If you answered “no” to question 1, please skip to question 3.
Page 1
2. Please indicate your satisfaction with the proposed ILOs.
Respondents indicating that they are familiar with the proposed ILOs were asked to indicate their
satisfaction with them.



Overall, the majority of respondents are “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with the proposed ILOs.
About two-thirds of full-time faculty and adjunct faculty respondents are “satisfied” or “very
satisfied” with the proposed ILOs.
No respondents indicated that they are “dissatisfied” or “very dissatisfied” with the proposed
ILOs.
Satisfied/
Very Satisfied
68% (n=36)
32% (n=17)
Dissatisfied/
Very Dissatisfied
0% (n=0)
Adjunct Faculty (n=18)
67% (n=12)
33% (n=6)
0% (n=0)
Full-Time Faculty (n=23)
61% (n=14)
39% (n=9)
0% (n=0)
College Planning Team (n=3)
-- (n=3)
-- (n=0)
-- (n=0)
Division Deans (n=4)
-- (n=3)
-- (n=1)
-- (n=0)
Learning Resources (n=4)
-- (n=3)
-- (n=1)
-- (n=0)
Student Services (n=1)
-- (n=1)
-- (n=0)
-- (n=0)
Overall (n=53)
Neutral
“--” indicates that percentages are not reported for sample sizes less than ten.
3. Please indicate your level of agreement that the proposed ILOs reflect College of the Canyons.



Overall, the majority of respondents “agree” or “strongly agree” that the proposed ILOs reflect
College of the Canyons.
The majority of full-time faculty and adjunct faculty respondents “agree” or “strongly agree” that
the proposed ILOs reflect College of the Canyons.
Less than 15 percent of respondents indicated that they “disagree” or “strongly disagree” that the
proposed ILOs reflect College of the Canyons.
Agree/
Strongly Agree
82% (n=91)
11% (n=12)
Disagree/
Strongly Disagree
7% (n=8)
Adjunct Faculty (n=56)
79% (n=44)
11% (n=6)
11% (n=6)
Full-Time Faculty (n=34)
82% (n=28)
12% (n=4)
6% (n=2)
College Planning Team (n=6)
-- (n=5)
-- (n=1)
-- (n=0)
Division Deans (n=4)
-- (n=3)
-- (n=1)
-- (n=0)
Learning Resources (n=6)
-- (n=6)
-- (n=0)
-- (n=0)
Student Services (n=5)
-- (n=5)
-- (n=0)
-- (n=0)
Overall (n=111)
Neutral
“--” indicates that percentages are not reported for sample sizes less than ten.
Page 2
4. Are there any categories that you would consider renaming?

Overall, about twenty percent of the respondents indicated that there are categories that they
would consider renaming.
Consider Renaming Categories
Overall (n=108)
18% (n=19)
Adjunct Faculty (n=54)
15% (n=8)
Full-Time Faculty (n=33)
21% (n=7)
College Planning Team (n=6)
-- (n=0)
Division Deans (n=4)
-- (n=2)
Learning Resources (n=6)
-- (n=2)
Student Services (n=5)
-- (n=0)
“--” indicates that percentages are not reported for sample sizes less than ten.
If you answered “no” to question 4, please skip to question 6.
5. Please indicate which categories should be renamed and why.
Respondents indicating that there are categories that they would consider renaming were asked to
indicate which categories should be renamed and why.





Twenty respondents provided comments regarding which categories should be renamed and why.
Twelve respondents indicated that ILO #3 – “Working with Others” should be renamed to include
“Collaboration” in the title.
Six respondents indicated that ILO #6 – “Community Engagement” should be renamed to include
“Civic Engagement” in the title.
Three respondents indicated that ILO #2 – “Critical Thinking” should be renamed.
Three respondents indicated that ILO #5 – “Quantitative Literacy” should be renamed.
Collector Group
Adjunct Faculty
Adjunct Faculty
Adjunct Faculty
Adjunct Faculty
Adjunct Faculty
Response
"Working with Others" is the oddball here. All the other categories are two
word descriptors in an adjective-noun format. I recommend changing
"Working with Others" to "Constructive Collaboration" or something of the
sort in order to parallel the format of the other categories.
#3 too general
1. Communication Proficiency
2. Problem-Solving Literacy
3. Collaboration Competency
I would rename the above so all category names have parallel construction.
3. Working with Others - > Collaboration
This should be changed because collaboration has a different implication.
4. Information Literacy & 5. Quantitative Literacy -> 21st Century Literacy
(“The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write,
but those who cannot learn, unlearn and relearn.” – Alvin Toffler)
This should include information literacy, quantitative literacy, technology
literacy, and the ability to learn, unlearn, and relearn any new form of literacy.
6. Community Engagement -> Civic Engagement or Civic Leadership or Civic
Responsibility or Values-Based Community Leadership
This should be renamed because it sounds awkward and engagement does not
imply positive community outcomes.
3. Working with others: the title trivializes the importance of the objective.
Page 3
Collector Group
Adjunct Faculty
Adjunct Faculty
Full-Time Faculty
Full-Time Faculty
Full-Time Faculty
Full-Time Faculty
Full-Time Faculty
Full-Time Faculty
Full-Time Faculty
Full-Time Faculty
Division Deans
Division Deans
Learning Resources
Learning Resources
Student Services
Response
I prefer the term civic engagement b/c it seems more academic in nature. By
using "community" we've dumbed down the ILO. This did not happen re:
Quantitative Literacy which is all about math and data. Also, there is a
movement in our country to increase civic engagement. Overall, I know that
they are the same thing. But, the use of the word civic also implies political
involvement whereas community engagement does not. Perhaps Community
and Civic Engagement would be best.
The rhetoric of "Working with Others" sounds a little like verbiage used in K12. Perhaps, we could title it "Collaboration" as that sounds more appropriate
for a college-level institution.
#6. I see that as a specific interest area rather than a global focus of the
campus. I would rather emphasize ethics and allow courses and activities in
community engagement count on that area.
3. The title "Working with Others" could be replaced with something more
articulate like "collaborative process" [etc.]
3. change "Working with Others" to "Collaboration/Teamwork Skills for the
Work Place"
Critical Thinking might be renamed to "Creative, Critical and Analytical
Thinking".... This is more appropriate and more encompassing for both GE,
transfer and major prep. Strongly recommend this as a reconsideration. Also,
might consider a renaming of Community Engagement to "Community/Global
Engagement or "Community/Global Consciousness and Responsibility" or
some similar form.
none
Quantitative Literacy should be renamed. The title is easy to confuse with
Information Literacy. A possible title could be Applied Mathematically
Reasoning or Thinking about numbers to draw a feasible conclusion (too
long).
Rename working with others to collaboration
Working with others
#6 from Community Engagement to Civic Engagement. This term reflects a
campus initiative already underway.
I would include the term "Qualitative" with ILO #5.
In addition, I would rename #6 to read "Civic and Community Engagement."
I prefer the term "Collaboration" rather than "Working with Others". I think it
aligns better with the other 5 ILOs.
Working With Others as a title seems more like how to play nicely with
classmates rather than the tenor of the ILO itself which is more about
collaborative constructs both academic and interpersonal.
Creative/Innovative Thinking
Page 4
6. Are there areas that are missing in the proposed ILOs?

Overall, about 15 percent of the respondents indicated that there are areas missing in the proposed
ILOs.
Consider Renaming Categories
Overall (n=110)
13% (n=14)
Adjunct Faculty (n=56)
13% (n=7)
Full-Time Faculty (n=33)
15% (n=5)
College Planning Team (n=6)
-- (n=0)
Division Deans (n=4)
-- (n=0)
Learning Resources (n=6)
-- (n=1)
Student Services (n=5)
-- (n=1)
“--” indicates that percentages are not reported for sample sizes less than ten.
If you answered “no” to question 6, please skip to question 8.
7. Please indicate the areas that are missing.
Respondents indicating that there are areas missing in the proposed ILOs were asked to indicate the
areas that are missing.


Thirteen respondents provided comments regarding the areas that are missing in the proposed
ILOs.
Four respondents indicated that “Creativity” should be included in the ILOs.
Collector Group
Adjunct Faculty
Adjunct Faculty
Adjunct Faculty
Adjunct Faculty
Adjunct Faculty
Adjunct Faculty
Response
Creativity, the arts, and physical development are missing. They contribute
to these goals in ways that science hasn't finished measuring. In addition,
appreciation for diversity seems absent. PLEASE NOTE: a verb after "to"
is missing from the first sentence in item 6.
I have to admit that I was confused by the first sentence of the Critical
Thinking ILO. I initially though it included critical thinking and BEING
creative. When I hear the word creative, I think of "artsy" - not thinking
outside of the box to problem solve. Anyway, it made me realize that we do
not have any ILOs that address the actual act of being creative, imaginative,
artsy... This begs the question, do we in any way want our students to use
creativity in their communication with others, presentations and community
engagement? Is that part of being in college? If so, then we need to add an
ILO. One other thing I noticed is that despite discussion re: teaching
students the art of metacognition, there is nothing mentioned (that I saw) in
the ILOs re: self-analysis, self-reflection and personal growth. This is
somewhat applied in the Critical Thinking ILO, but one really has to look
hard to see that it might be included. I think that we should add this piece to
the Critical Thinking ILO.
I would add an ILO about developing success strategies, such as knowing
when to ask for help or how to take effective notes.
Perhaps something related to creativity or appreciation of beauty. The
humanities are underrepresented in the ILOs, so something related to
original creation of artistic products or appreciation of such might be good.
I know the Humanities are somewhat covered in the Effective
Communication ILO, but this only briefly addresses reading as an
important skill, and I think interpreting meaning in a variety of texts should
be given more prominence.
technology, independent learning, goal oriented
Writing skills/ability
Page 5
Collector Group
Full-Time Faculty
Full-Time Faculty
Full-Time Faculty
Full-Time Faculty
Full-Time Faculty
Learning Resources
Student Services
Response
appreciation for education
Ethics, which I see as more universal than community engagement.
I'm not sure if these topics fit into ILOs? (might not be "over-arching"
enough to be included) 1. Time management/meeting deadlines/ability to
multitask
It is my professional opinion that spatial, or geospatial literacy is essential.
People need to understand where they are in this world - basic N,S,E,W
direction and knowing the most basic places on a world map. I still have
students who mistake the Pacific Ocean with the Atlantic, Canada from
Russia, etc. The wonderful advancement of GPS technology is enabling
dependence upon a device and atrophying the capability of thinking
spatially, knowing where countries are or where wars are being fought, or
which direction on the freeway one is driving, etc. I had a student who
went to Paris and couldn't find France on a map a few weeks afterward she
returned. Can we add a Spatial Literacy Outcome? I'd prefer the term
Geospatial, since surveying, construction, transportation, architectural
rendering, GIS (Geographic Information Systems), satellite imagery,
meteorology, climate and environment studies, energy development,
geology, international business - these all require a critical ability to view
the world in a spatial perspective - relative to another place. Future
generations living in a globalized world need to have Geospatial literacy,
more than ever.
Metacognition
Identity development / self-discovery.
Creative/Innovative Thinking
8. Do you currently participate in the assessment of course or program SLOs?


Overall, the majority of respondents indicated that they participate in the assessment of course or
program SLOs.
One hundred percent of full-time faculty respondents indicated that they participate in the
assessment of course or program SLOs and more than half of adjunct faculty respondents
indicated that they participate in the assessment of course or program SLOs.
Overall (n=110)
Participate in the Assessment of
Course or Program SLOs
72% (n=72)
Adjunct Faculty (n=56)
59% (n=33)
Full-Time Faculty (n=33)
100% (n=33)
College Planning Team (n=6)
-- (n=0)
Division Deans (n=4)
-- (n=0)
Learning Resources (n=6)
-- (n=4)
Student Services (n=5)
-- (n=2)
“--” indicates that percentages are not reported for sample sizes less than ten.
If you answered “no” to question 8 you have completed the survey. Thank you.
Page 6
9. Please indicate which of the following methods of assessment you use for course SLOs.
Respondents indicating that they currently participate in the assessment of course or program SLOs
were asked to indicate which methods of assessment they use.




Overall, nearly two-thirds of the respondents indicated that they use essay assessment and nearly
half use multiple choice assessment for assessing course SLOs.
The majority of adjunct faculty indicated that they use essay assessment and one-third use
multiple choice assessment.
Just over half of the full-time faculty respondents indicated that they use multiple choice
assessment and nearly two-thirds use essay assessment.
Respondents indicating “other” methods of assessment that they utilize specified class
projects/portfolio and skills demonstrations (5 respondents, each), institutional data (4
respondents), pre- and post-tests (2 respondents), and problem solving (2 respondents). See below
for a detailed list.
Multiple Choice
Assessment
46% (n=33)
Essay
Assessment
60% (n=43)
38% (n=27)
Adjunct Faculty (n=33)
33% (n=11)
70% (n=23)
24% (n=8)
Full-Time Faculty (n=33)
58% (n=19)
55% (n=18)
42% (n=14)
College Planning Team (n=0)
-- (n=0)
-- (n=0)
-- (n=0)
Division Deans (n=4)
-- (n=0)
-- (n=0)
-- (n=0)
Learning Resources (n=4)
-- (n=3)
-- (n=2)
-- (n=3)
Student Services (n=2)
-- (n=0)
-- (n=0)
-- (n=2)
Overall (n=72)
Other
“--” indicates that percentages are not reported for sample sizes less than ten.
“Other” methods of assessment:
Collector Group
Adjunct Faculty
Adjunct Faculty
Adjunct Faculty
Adjunct Faculty
Adjunct Faculty
Adjunct Faculty
Adjunct Faculty
Adjunct Faculty
Full-Time Faculty
Full-Time Faculty
Full-Time Faculty
Full-Time Faculty
Full-Time Faculty
Full-Time Faculty
Full-Time Faculty
Full-Time Faculty
Full-Time Faculty
Full-Time Faculty
Response
Adapting existing written assignments to SLO grading
assessment of class project
coursework performance
demonstration of skills (performing arts)
pre and post assessment
Questions specific to the medical office.
speaking
Substantive Paragraphs
1. Science Project or formal lab report 2. Sorting and Diagraming
Information
Evaluation tool with rubric, which is linked to both course and program
outcomes. Alumni and employer satisfaction data is also collected
Health [Behavior] Journal and Analysis
In some of my courses there is a specific paper tied to the SLO
Lab experiments, problem solving
Open-ended calculation/critical thinking problems
portfolio review
Problem solving, applied lab skills
Problems
Project based learning, performance-based assessment, skills-demonstration
Page 7
Collector Group
Full-Time Faculty
Full-Time Faculty
Full-Time Faculty
Full-Time Faculty
Learning Resources
Learning Resources
Learning Resources
Student Services
Student Services
Response
short answer
skills demonstration or project based
skills demonstration, problem solving exam/assessment
skills evaluation, service learning
Pre-test/post-test
College data
Surveys and IDT data
% of goal met
Surveys, existing data
10. Please indicate why you chose your current assessment method for your course SLO.
Respondents indicating that they currently participate in the assessment of course or program SLOs
were asked to indicate why they chose their current method of assessment for their course SLO.





Fourteen respondents indicated that the assessment method they use was determined by their
department.
Seven respondents indicated that they use their current assessment method because it is easy to
use.
Four respondents indicated that they use their current assessment method because it is mandatory.
Three respondents indicated that they use their current assessment method because they do not
want their students to be able to guess the answers using multiple choice.
Two respondents indicated that they use their current assessment method because it best
addresses their SLOs.
Collector Group
Adjunct Faculty
Adjunct Faculty
Adjunct Faculty
Adjunct Faculty
Adjunct Faculty
Adjunct Faculty
Adjunct Faculty
Adjunct Faculty
Adjunct Faculty
Adjunct Faculty
Adjunct Faculty
Adjunct Faculty
Adjunct Faculty
Adjunct Faculty
Adjunct Faculty
Response
A qualitative approach is the best for a social science.
As a department, we have largely agreed this assessment method is
working.
Because I am told to!
Because will assist the best and most effectively in evaluation of student
learning in my courses
Best fits with the course SLO.
Broad assessment capabilities without extra demands on students.
Chosen by the English Department as relevant and applicable to the course,
English 101, which is composition.
Department evaluation of methods prior to assessment
ESSAY FORMAT ALLOWS FOR QUALITATIVE EVALUATION OF
THE STUDENT KNOWLEDGE OF THE MATERIAL
have coordinated a method that myself and other instructor teaching the
same class can both use to assess pre and post assessment
I can assess a fine art student's progress best by examining his/her visual
art.
I chose multiple choice for my lab because it is more quantitative in nature
but I chose essay for my lecture because it is more cultural in nature and
each student would approach the SLO differently.
I find it is the easiest method for the types of classes I teach
I suppose it is the department norm and no one has ever suggested that we
utilize a different assessment methodology.
I'm assessing multiple SLOs, so I didn't want the students to try to fit all
SLOs into one essay. Also, because I teach English, some of the students'
responses are subjective. I wanted to give them enough space to explain
their reasoning rather than asking them to do a multiple choice test.
Page 8
Adjunct Faculty
Instructors created the current assessment
Collector Group
Adjunct Faculty
Response
It was a joint decision made by our department.
It's difficult to gauge understanding of the concepts with a simple tool, like
a multiple-choice test.
It's what the department has indicated as the chosen form of assessment.
most valid
Multiple choice is objective and direct. Essays offer ways to assess
creativity and communication skills.
my discipline's goal is to teach students to be able to consistently
demonstrate practical application of their skills (performing arts); for some
courses in my discipline, an essay clearly shows whether a student has
learned to articulate their critical analysis of a performance they have
[witnessed]
quantitative
Reflects current assignments
Reflects the student's mastery of course skills using a fairly accurate
method
Removes guessing on the part of students.
That is the method that all the instructors were told to use.
To assess if the student understands the broad scope of skills needed when
working in a medical office; social, communication, cognitive and math.
We've tried several different methods of evaluation. This is just the current
strategy.
Without writing, the assessment in my field becomes narrowly focused on
information. Writing is a synthetic skill demonstrating several dimensions
of learning.
Works well with my general pedagogy and timing wise fits nicely as part of
the culmination of work in the class.
Authentic assessment is essential to determining that students can actually
demonstrate higher-order thinking skills and abilities.
Balance between effective demonstration of skills by students and time
required to grade assessments by faculty involved.
Best suited for my subject matter
Better way of assessing critical thinking, synthesis of ideas, communication
skills, and ability to apply learning.
Certification exams, state and national accrediting boards compliance
Consensus among department members.
Department requirements
Departmental decision
departmental decisions
Different courses have appropriate assessments. It's important to use
currently proven assessment methods rather than create a different
assessment for the SLO.
Easy to do
Essay based assessment allows me to evaluate the quality of students'
thoughts.
Hopefully reflects our SLOs
I use more of authentic assessment because I believe it is a truer measure of
learning. To be able to apply the concepts you are asking students to learn
in a paper, is much more meaningful in my discipline, then to ask them to
regurgitate meaningless information on a multiple choice exam. To me, it
Adjunct Faculty
Adjunct Faculty
Adjunct Faculty
Adjunct Faculty
Adjunct Faculty
Adjunct Faculty
Adjunct Faculty
Adjunct Faculty
Adjunct Faculty
Adjunct Faculty
Adjunct Faculty
Adjunct Faculty
Adjunct Faculty
Adjunct Faculty
Full-Time Faculty
Full-Time Faculty
Full-Time Faculty
Full-Time Faculty
Full-Time Faculty
Full-Time Faculty
Full-Time Faculty
Full-Time Faculty
Full-Time Faculty
Full-Time Faculty
Full-Time Faculty
Full-Time Faculty
Full-Time Faculty
Full-Time Faculty
Page 9
doesn't measure true learning.
Collector Group
Full-Time Faculty
Full-Time Faculty
Full-Time Faculty
Full-Time Faculty
Full-Time Faculty
Full-Time Faculty
Full-Time Faculty
Full-Time Faculty
Full-Time Faculty
Full-Time Faculty
Full-Time Faculty
Full-Time Faculty
Full-Time Faculty
Full-Time Faculty
Learning Resources
Learning Resources
Learning Resources
Learning Resources
Student Services
Student Services
Response
In a lab environment, students are using equipment. The assessment needs
to assess how well the student has mastered those skills. For written exams,
we want to know how well the student can solve subject specific problems.
This requires problem solving and calculating.
Indicates [student’s] mastery of the information covered in the course
through their ability to successfully collect data about their current health
behaviors and then analyze the potential effects of those behaviors in the
both the short and long term.
it is easy to administer, collect and grade. It is not intrusive and does not
disrupt the flow of instruction or take a lot of the class time to complete
It is effective
It is standard in the discipline and expected by our outside accrediting
agency. That group expects to see all outcomes to flow from the program
outcomes and learning strands. It also expects to see clear progression
through the program in student performance.
It works for the students and all the adjuncts. The consideration of time
during finals has been important, also.
meeting the needs of my accreditation organization. Feedback to students
in more than one format
Nature of course
Primarily to avoid data based on guessing skills
Simple to incorporate across all sections by having common questions
appear on the Final; gives clear image of student grasp of those key
concepts
The assessment of course SLOs is determined by the department. The
department agrees to use the same assessment for sections of a particular
class.
The production and assembly of a portfolio is cumulative. It allows for skill
assessment and requires the student to be self-critical as the creator and
editor.
We felt we could not capture the SLOs in a multiple choice exam. A real
life situation would not be multiple choice.
We were told to do so
Because they address all areas of both our SLOs and mission statement.
Easy & fast
The method pre-dated my responsibility for AUOs. The method will be
reconsidered in the future.
With our open entry / open exit [noncredit] course, we don't assess the students
with graded assignments. We need to use student surveys and institutional data to
assess our learning outcomes.
It is the easiest way for A&R to develop and track SLOs.
The ease of identifying results
Page 10
11. Do you need additional training in how to create assessments?


Overall, about one-quarter of the respondents indicated that they need additional training in how
to create assessments.
About one-third of full-time faculty respondents and about one-fifth of the adjunct faculty
respondents indicated that they need additional training in how to create assessments.
Additional Training Needed
Overall (n=72)
24% (n=17)
Adjunct Faculty (n=33)
21% (n=7)
Full-Time Faculty (n=33)
30% (n=10)
College Planning Team (n=0)
-- (n=0)
Division Deans (n=0)
-- (n=0)
Learning Resources (n=4)
-- (n=0)
Student Services (n=2)
-- (n=0)
“--” indicates that percentages are not reported for sample sizes less than ten.
12. Do you need additional training in rubric development?


Overall, about one-third of the respondents indicated that they need additional training in rubric
development.
One-third of adjunct faculty respondents and nearly half of the full-time faculty respondents
indicated that they need additional training in rubric development.
Additional Training Needed
Overall (n=72)
35% (n=25)
Adjunct Faculty (n=33)
33% (n=11)
Full-Time Faculty (n=33)
42% (n=14)
College Planning Team (n=0)
-- (n=0)
Division Deans (n=0)
-- (n=0)
Learning Resources (n=4)
-- (n=0)
Student Services (n=2)
-- (n=0)
“--” indicates that percentages are not reported for sample sizes less than ten.
13. What difficulties have you encountered when assessing program level SLOs?



Forty respondents provided comments regarding the difficulties they have encountered when
assessing program level SLOs.
Twenty-one respondents indicated that they have had no difficulties.
Three respondents indicated that the assessment process is too time consuming.
Collector Group
Response
Adjunct Faculty
Adjunct Faculty
Adjunct Faculty
Adjunct Faculty
Adjunct Faculty
Adjunct Faculty
Adjunct Faculty
Consistency across instructors
Determining factors if poor performance.
Figuring out the format for reporting the SLO's
General agreement on what those SLOs should be, narrowing down a large body of
knowledge from our field into a 2-3 primary points. I'm not convinced we are
actually accurately evaluating student understanding better with SLOs than we are
just from existing grades.
Have not done assessment at the program level.
I haven't done this before.
I haven't participated in program level SLO assessments yet
Inconsistency with peers.
Collector Group
Response
Adjunct Faculty
Page 11
Adjunct Faculty
Adjunct Faculty
Adjunct Faculty
Adjunct Faculty
Adjunct Faculty
Adjunct Faculty
Adjunct Faculty
Adjunct Faculty
Adjunct Faculty
Adjunct Faculty
Adjunct Faculty
Adjunct Faculty
Full-Time Faculty
Full-Time Faculty
Full-Time Faculty
Full-Time Faculty
Full-Time Faculty
Full-Time Faculty
Full-Time Faculty
Full-Time Faculty
Full-Time Faculty
Full-Time Faculty
Full-Time Faculty
Full-Time Faculty
Full-Time Faculty
Full-Time Faculty
Full-Time Faculty
Full-Time Faculty
Full-Time Faculty
Full-Time Faculty
Student Services
Student Services
Level 2 ESL students sometimes do not have a high enough reading level and so do
not do well in the multi choice reading comprehension questions.
N/A
none
none
None
None
None at the moment
None at this point
None because there are guidelines and samples provided by the course coordinator
to understand criteria and its application.
None.
Students will often guess as they know the material is not worth a grade
The assessments are not built into the course curriculum before the class begins, so
there's often an awkward inclusion of an assessment at a potentially odd point in
the semester. Also, finding a reading or article that can be used across the classes is
challenging.
We don't currently assess program level SLOs
At times, the assessments feel arbitrary.
Currently don't have a portfolio-based platform for students to keep track of their
work and to reflect on that work so assessing their program level SLO achievement
is very difficult. Hoping to solve that with new initiative.
Entering data into curricunet, Updating data into curricunet.
Hard to get employment data.
I did not have any difficulties
I feel that they are too broad in scope, watered down and easy to achieve.
In the past I have had more difficulty, but as our department in developing
assignments to assess our SLO's, it is becoming more meaningful as well as it is
giving us good information about our course SLO's
Need training for rubrics.
No difficulties
None
None
None, but would be interested in hearing about different methods to make sure the
current ones I am using are the most effective.
Not much
Significant amount of time involved in the process
Students can be thrown off by taking a common final exam authored by someone
different than their instructor with different wording used on the questions.
The SLO's are so vague that it feels like the data are meaningless.
time towards development and input of scores
No particular difficulties have happened. It can be tedious to keep up with.
None
14. Please indicate which areas are challenging when it comes to assessing course or program SLOs.




Forty-three respondents provided comments regarding which areas are challenging when it comes
to assessing course or program level SLOs.
Seven respondents indicated that they have had no challenging areas.
Five respondents indicated that entering/uploading information into CurricuNet is a challenge.
Four respondents indicated that the challenge is ensuring that the results are accurate.
Collector Group
Response
Adjunct Faculty
Ability to analyze
Assessing critical thinking can often be challenging and choosing a genre (essay,
short answer, or something else) to create the assessment is also a challenge.
Adjunct Faculty
Page 12
Collector Group
Adjunct Faculty
Adjunct Faculty
Adjunct Faculty
Adjunct Faculty
Adjunct Faculty
Adjunct Faculty
Adjunct Faculty
Adjunct Faculty
Adjunct Faculty
Adjunct Faculty
Adjunct Faculty
Adjunct Faculty
Adjunct Faculty
Adjunct Faculty
Adjunct Faculty
Adjunct Faculty
Adjunct Faculty
Adjunct Faculty
Adjunct Faculty
Full-Time Faculty
Full-Time Faculty
Full-Time Faculty
Full-Time Faculty
Full-Time Faculty
Full-Time Faculty
Full-Time Faculty
Full-Time Faculty
Full-Time Faculty
Full-Time Faculty
Full-Time Faculty
Full-Time Faculty
Full-Time Faculty
Full-Time Faculty
Response
Computer-based learning centers, like SAM and Connect Plus, allow students to
copy from tutorials and paste into testing. Standardized testing is not as effective as
when tested in class by the teacher.
creating objective rubrics that are balanced and realistic
Ensuring validity of achievement determination for each individual when using
broad assessment method.
Formatting/Reporting in an accurate manner
Getting students to not see the assessment as another test!
If the wording the SLO is both meaningful and quantifiable, then assessment
becomes less challenging.
Level 2 ESL students do not have a good grammar grasp and so it affects their
writing and speaking test outcomes
Managing the data gathered during assessment.
N/A
none
None
Nothing yet.
simply being too wordy...
Students who do not complete the assignment due to absences
The manual nature of collecting all the data - even with improvement this semester
of capturing in MyCanyons, I am still told to email qualitative feedback too. Get it
to one place to capture all, the past practices have been clunky and a burden.
This process needs to be standardized and quickly. The process of trying to
evaluate SLOs has been going on for years, through multiple mutations and
methodologies. Teachers spend a lot of time learning a new process only to have it
dumped and another one must be learned, over and over and over again. Nothing
seems to be acceptable. If other schools have figured it out already, can we adopt
their methodology so we can get back to spending out time teaching our students?
Timing, meaning that the assessment always falls at the end of the semester
concurrent with grading, etc.
Understanding what is required
Validity and reliability
As mentioned, we are going to signature assignments.
asking instructors to take additional time away from the class to do separate SLO
assessments...we cannot use one of the assessments already used by instructors
because the assignment needs to be the same across all sections and each instructor
uses their own exams [etc.]
Assessing is simple when the SLOs are weak.
Course SLO assessment sometimes targets topics that are not covered in detail
during the term. It's difficult to know whether the students did not assess well in the
class, or just SLO-targeted topics in the course.
Entering data into curricunet, Updating data into curricunet.
Entering the results into CurricuNeT
Finding that theses manifestations of learning outcomes actually do what is
intended, and wondering if there is even such a tool.
Having optional training is good.
lab classes are a bit more complicated, so we are moving away from essay or
multiple choice question to a formal end of the semester either project, or lab report
to [assess] the lab SLOs
Mostly the employment data. We track licensing actively.
None
None
Only challenge is reporting of SLO's because I only do that rarely via curricunet.
Really making sure your assessments are effective
Page 13
Collector Group
Response
Full-Time Faculty
Full-Time Faculty
Full-Time Faculty
Full-Time Faculty
See above.
Significant amount of time involved in the process
The SLO's are so vague that it feels like the data are meaningless.
Tracking all the information is difficult. Working with numerous adjunct faculty to
assess courses, collect information, and close the loop is difficult.
uploading the results is a pain.
Although I write them into program review, responsibility for implementation and
assessment falls to another.
Entering them into program review.
Getting students to respond to surveys, etc.
Full-Time Faculty
Learning Resources
Student Services
Student Services
Page 14