OATF Minutes September 26th
Members Present: Marybeth Buechner, Dana Wassmer, Cori Burns, Norv Wellsfry, Dave
Hodapp, Margaret Woodcock, Kathy McLain
1. Welcome – Dana welcomed folks to the meeting
2. Academic Senate/Council of Chairs Update – Dana indicated that the feedback
was overall very positive….the time set aside during convocation was good and
necessary and should continue. People liked the opportunity to dialogue.
Although there were some grumblings about workload, there was not much
resistance. The committee was reminded of the need to continue emphasizing the
utility of the process for student learning and student success. Marybeth indicated
that people understand the value of the dialogue but are expressing some
uncertainty about what is coming next and still are not convinced on the need for
or the utility of the process.
The Council of Chairs did include the outcomes assessment process in their list of
concerns related to workload and the sense of some that they are increasingly
consumed with outside activities and that this involvement was negatively
impacting their work with students. Marybeth indicated that a related CASSL
dialogue resulted in the realization that changes in the schedule have produced a
45 hour work week that many are trying to fit into four days. In addition, many of
the cycles of work (program review, SLOs, etc.) have overlapped with each other.
Finally, there is tension from the amount of change that is occurring at the
institution combined with some lack of trust between faculty and administration.
3. Overview of the tasks for the year – Kathy updated and reminded the committee
of the tasks for the year which include:
 Completing the first cycle (pilot implementation)
 Adapting the process and forms as needed and making a formal
recommendation to Senate/shared governance process for full adoption
and implementation
 Developing recommendation for institutionalization of process – who,
what, where, resources needed, etc.
 Developing and implementation plan and timeline
 developing evaluation criteria upon which to assess our success
4. Debrief and review of the SLO process conducted during Fall Convocation
 General reporting of observations on the day – Committee members
affirmed that the outcomes dialogues seemed to go well. Kathy reported
that we have received outcome dialogue summaries from over 90% of the
programs (detail is attached). Marybeth affirmed the work of the
committee during the role play and during the dialogues. Some concerns
about the involvement of adjunct were noted. In addition, one faculty
member indicated they needed to do some work with orienting faculty


with the big picture related to outcomes. Their ability to relate the
dialogue to student success and program effectiveness enabled them to
successfully engage in the dialogue.
Feedback from Deans and PD evaluations – Kathy disseminated a
summary of feedback from the Deans, the PD evaluations and the
accreditation survey (attached). This confirmed that the process overall
was a success.
Overview of collated report summary – Kathy indicated that Sara had
completed entering the key elements of the outcomes dialogue into a
spreadsheet, which would be disseminated to the committee after some
formatting issues were resolved. Committee members are to review the
submissions of programs in their areas to evaluate the process using this
more qualitative data source.
5. Planning for review of results and identification recommendations for changes
 Discussion of preliminary recommendations for changes to the
forms/processes – Marybeth led a discussion of changes to the fall and
spring forms that should be made based on our preliminary review.
Recommended changes included changing the prompt on the checkboxes
for the fall forms and adding a question to the spring form about what was
learned. The committee also affirmed a suggestion that the prompts be
changed from their current question format to a different format.
Marybeth will disseminate new draft forms that reflect these changes for
discussion at our meeting on October 24th.

Plans to disseminate information from the fall process – Dana led a
discussion about how we should disseminate information from the fall
process. The committee recommended that the summary of issues gleaned
at our next meeting be forwarded and included in the dialogue of the
planning summit. It was suggested that a CASSL workshop also be held
and that the results of the outcome dialogue also be included somehow in
convocation.

Discussion of what is needed to support the implementation of the fall
assessments – instructional and non-instructional programs- Kathy led a
discussion about how we should support the implementation of the fall
assessments. It was decided that a memo be written and distributed to all
instructional faculty. This memo will also be attached to the forms that
will be returned to lead faculty. Committee members will then follow up
in several weeks with individual departments in their area to see how the
assessments are going and to inquire as to whether the departments needs
nay particular help. The issues document will then be distributed to the
campus with an email that indicates how this document will be used to
enhance the college. Finally, in mid-November an email that includes a
link to the spring forms will be sent to the campus.
6. Preparation of spring forms, supporting materials and process (MB)
 Review of forms – see previous bullet

Suggestions for process and follow up – The committee indicated there
were some issues with logistics and traffic flow. It was recommended that
the spring dialogues be scheduled more closely to the Recital Hall. The
distribution of lunch also needs to be enhanced. The committee
recommended that an OATF workshop be included in the Thursday Flex
schedule and that we also provide a skit that models the spring dialogues.
It was decided that computers were not needed for the spring dialogue.
Packets should include copies of the spring form, examples of completed
spring forms, and copies of the spreadsheet that summarize the fall
dialogues for the program.
7. The preliminary discussion about long term OATF plans (i.e. institutionalizing the
assessment process was very brief and will be revisited at the next meeting.
Preliminary thoughts were to use existing processes and entities as much as
possible. In addition, the focus of the effort should continue to be on program
improvement and enhanced student learning and success. It was decided that we
should define the tasks that need to be done to sustain the assessment efforts. That
will help in the identification of needs and options. The committee identified that
coordination, leadership and expertise should be included in the list of needs.
Cosumnes River College
Status of Fall 2008 SLO Forms Submittal
10/01/08
NAME
PHONE (691-)
DEPARTMENT
OFFICE
Dean Ryan P. Cox
7427
Business & Family Science
SOC-159
Accounting - Received
Business/Economics/Real Estate - Received
CIS - Received
Early Childhood Education/FCS - Received
NAME
PHONE (691-)
DEPARTMENT
OFFICE
Dean Patrick S. Blacklock
7391
Careers & Technology
T-108/109
Agriculture Business – Received
Architecture Design Technology - Received
Architecture - Received
Automotive Mechanics Technology – Received
Construction - Received
Cooperative Work Experience - Received
Culinary Arts
Emergency Medical Technology - Received
Fire Technology - Received
HIT - Received
Horticulture/Plant Science - Received
Medical Assisting/Allied Health - Received
Nutrition – Received
Pharmacy Tech - Received
Veterinary Technology - Received
Welding - Received
NAME
PHONE (691-)
Dean Ellen Arden-Ogle
DEPARTMENT
OFFICE
Communication/Visual & Performing Arts VPA-100A
7171/7170
Art - Received
Communication Studies- Received
Music - Received
Photography - Received
Radio, Television & Film Production/Journalism - Received
Theatre Arts - Received
NAME
PHONE (691-)
DEPARTMENT
Dean Donald Tingley
7359
Humanities & Social Science
Anthropology - Received
English - Received
ESL - Received
History
Humanities - Received
Philosophy- Received
Political Science
Psychology- Received
Reading - Received
Sign Language
Sociology - Received
OFFICE
SOC-157
Spanish – Received
Vietnamese – Received
NAME
PHONE (691-)
DEPARTMENT
Dean Stephen McGloughlin
Learning Resources and College Technology L-
106G
OFFICE
7337/7589
Library - Received
NAME
PHONE (691-)
DEPARTMENT
Dean Elizabeth Belyea
7261/7367
Physical Education & Athletics
OFFICE
CAC-130A
Physical Education - Received
NAME
PHONE (691-)
DEPARTMENT
OFFICE
Dean Robert L. Montanez
Science, Mathematics & Engineering LRC-123
7204/7212
Biology - Received
Chemistry - Received
Engineering - Received
Earth Sciences (Geography/Geology) – Received
Mathematics - Received
MESA
Physics/Astronomy/Physical Science - Received
NAME
PHONE (691-)
Dean Juan Avalos
DEPARTMENT
Student Services & Counseling
7350/7333
Counseling - Received
Extended Opportunities Programs & Services
Disabled Student Services
Tutoring
OFFICE
L-220
NAME
PHONE (691-)
Dean Richard H. Shintaku
7738
Health Services
Student Development
DEPARTMENT
OFFICE
Student Services & Enrollment Management L-222
Assessments of Outcomes Dialogues
Dean’s dialogue
PE - Timing for the SLO dialogue in PE was good – most said an extra 15 minutes would have been
beneficial. Liz assisted by posing questions.
Counseling – they struggled a bit with the concept and task. They did have good dialogue and it was a
good starting point to the task. They didn’t finish. Dean adapted the exercise and task. They needed to
do a lot of work identifying the skills and behaviors that would represent success with respect to the
SAO/SLO – in essence they started the process of defining the rubric they would use for assessment.
CVPA - Two departments struggled a bit….Dean used the “out there” concept to help the departments
understand the concept of the SLO. She also used Stiehl’s mapping document to help. It was also not
easy for some departments to identify how they would know if students had proficiency in the SLO.
There was some push back in some of the dialogues with regard to the whole task and/or workload
issues related to the task.
CTE – The SLO workshop on Thursday really helped set the stage. Task force membe4s were great
and helped a lot. The process did seem to encourage new collaboration in one of the departments.
BFS – OATF person was invaluable! Dean did for the most part work with one department in the area.
SME – Information provided in advance was very helpful. Faculty seemed engaged in the process.
HSS – English struggled initially but then got engaged and were working very hard.
Accreditation Survey
There seems to be fairly broad and strong understanding of the definition of Student Learning or
Service Area Outcomes and outcomes assessment as indicated by the fact that 84% of respondents
agreed or strongly agreed that they understood Student Learning or Service Area Outcomes and only
11.7% of respondents indicated they did not understand the concept of outcomes assessment. 81% of
respondents familiar with the outcomes dialogue opportunities at the College agreed or strongly
agreed that they were sufficient. 65% of all survey respondents, and 97.3% of full-time faculty
respondents, indicated they had participated in the development of student learning or service area
outcomes. Finally, close to 50% of all respondents, and 72% of full time faculty respondents,
indicated they had already engaged in the formal assessment of student learning or service area
outcomes.
Convocation Evaluation
Event Outcomes: To provide an experience that facilitates reflection, learning, making connections with
colleagues, and becoming more informed about district/campus activities.
Strongly agree
agree no opinion
disagree
strongly disagree
1
2
3
4
5
The departmental outcomes dialogue helped me achieve one or more of the event
outcomes listed above. Average Rating = 2.0 (n = 114)
Sixteen respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed with one or more items.
 two of these people were extremely negative about most aspects of the day;
 five respondents did not see value in the outcomes dialogue;
 two persons did not see the value of the outcomes dialogue or the faculty panel;