LEARNING OUTCOMES COUNCIL
Minutes
Approved 11/1/12
October 25, 2012
Co-Chairs:
Present:
Absent:
Recorder:
Berta Cuaron and Wendy Nelson
Melinda Carrillo, Berta Cuaron,
Robert Deegan, Katy French, Michael Gilkey,
MINUTES
John Harland, Cheryl Kearse, Greg Larson, Leanne Maunu, Michael Mufson, Norma
Miyamoto, Wendy Nelson, Mollie Smith, Mark Vernoy
MINUTESDebra Doerfler, Lynda
Rebecca Barr, Michelle Barton, Linda Cox, Philip Debarros,
Halttunen, Ken Imaizumi, Susan Miller, Linda Morrow
Anna-Kate Hilton
SLOAC Coordinator Wendy Nelson called the meeting to order at 2:08 p.m.
I.
APPROVE MINUTES – 9/6/12 and 9/27/12
MSC: Larson/Maunu – (Unanimous) Approval to correct typo on August 30th approved
minutes. Typo was in the date 8/30/12 under Minute Item I. Date should read 8/23/12.
MSC: Vernoy/Miyamoto – (Unanimous) Approval of minutes for the meeting of 9/6/12,
approved as presented.
MSC: Vernoy/Smith – (Unanimous) Approval of minutes for the meeting of 9/27/12,
approved as presented
II.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
No Announcements.
III.
STRENGTHENING STUDENT SUCCESS CONFERENCE REPORT
Wendy reported on the Student Success Conference that was held in Los Angeles the
beginning of October. Members of the committee that attended were Berta, Katy, Wendy,
and Mollie.
Highlights:
 Wendy attended several workshops regarding the College Status Report on Student
Learning Outcomes Implementation and what the ACCJC is expecting to see in the
report.
 Berta and Wendy attended a hands-on workshop on Friday where they worked with
others on preparing answers and evidence for the report. The workshop provided
useful information and also confirmed that we are on the right track. Berta and
Wendy feel that they are on track on how to respond each section.
Learning Outcomes Council

IV.
2
October 25, 2012
Katy and Marty presented our GE/ILO project. Many of the attendees were very
impressed with our project.
GE/ILO OUTCOMES ASSESSMENT TIMELINE
Handout – Wendy handed out the current list of Palomar’s Institutional GE/ILOs. Wendy
presented a GE ILO framework and 3 year cycle for discussion.
Highlights/Discussion:
 The timeline included a combination approach that included course level direct
assessments and institutional indirect/direct assessments.
 One of the ways the institutional assessments could be measured is through a
student survey. It was asked if it was essential for us to individually assess the
GE/ILOs or possibly aggregate the data from the courses and programs that are
mapped to them. Katy mentioned that we have the option to do both. However if
we choose to use the data from the course/program level, it is important to have a
separate, college wide conversation about how the data impacts students and the
college at the institutional level. It was asked if samples of the surveys from others
colleges could be reviewed. If we use a survey approach it could be used to start a
conversation at the institutional level.
 A concern with having so many ILOs is whether we can assess them on such a
regular basis. Some said that if the amount of outcomes were reduced that it might
ultimately affect teaching and what courses are taught in the future.
 Because we would like to continue to use all the ILOs identified, it was agreed that
we continue with the course level direct assessments (Critical Thinking, Oral
Communication, Quantitative Literacy, Writing/Reading, Information Literacy, and
possibly on additional outcome) and do a more broad institutional assessment
through a survey for the remaining outcomes.
Proposed Timeline:
Course embedded assessment
Critical Thinking – Spring 2013
Oral Communication – Spring 2013
Quantitative Literacy – Spring 2014
Writing/Reading – Spring 2014
Information Literacy – Spring 2015
TBD Outcome – Spring 2015
Institutional Level Survey – Spring or Fall 2013
Survey or other instrument – Spring or Fall 2014
Surveyor other instrument – Spring or Fall 2015
Learning Outcomes Council
V.
October 25, 2012
SPPF FUNDING
Handout – Wendy handed out the proposed SPPF funding request for LOC. SPPF funding
requests are due November 1 to SPC.


VI.
3
It was suggested that because our requests seem to be ongoing, we should request a
permanent budget for LOC to support the projects and research that will be needed
for assessment.
No questions/concerns were expressed on the specific request.
HOW TO USE COMPREHENSIVE REPORTS
Katy showed the group an example of a comprehensive report.




The report listed the individual SLOs, means of assessment, results, and
action/follow-up.
The report does list our customized fields.
The report can be used for program/course planning
Access to the report is restricted to the specific discipline/program.
Meeting was adjourned at 3:30pm.
Next Meeting
November 1, 2012
2:00 – 3:30pm
AA-140