Learning Outcomes Dialog
Subcommittee
MINUTES
September 28, 2009
3:00 p.m.
President’s Conference Room
CALL TO ORDER
1. Gary welcomed Lisa Marchand, Liz Belyea, Brad Brazil and Juan Avalos to the meeting.
Members absent: Melanie Lewis (ex), Dave Hodapp (ex), Ron Preble(ex), Ray Mapeso, and
Kathy McLain(ex).
REPORT
2. SLO Development Update – Gary asked for updates in the area of SLO development and
noted that last year, the College was at 38% for SLO development. Judy Beachler issued an
e-mail last week indicating that the College will soon be at 65.5%l. Lisa indicated that ESL
SLOs were almost ready and probably weren’t included in Judy’s numbers, so the number
could be closer to 70% completion. Gary noted that going from 38-70% completion in one
year certainly shows that we are doing what we are supposed to do. He indicated hope that
the Accreditation team visit may just indicate that we should “continue what we are doing” as
a recommendation in this area at most. Continuing with ESL, Lisa noted that there are five
ESL strands to work on and that generating SLOS ensures that different faculty teaching the
same course have an understanding of the course and how to deliver it to students. Liz
noted that (1) Adaptive PE is complete, but not yet in SOCRATES; (2) some PE courses
were marked for deletion, but the language was not correct, so the Curriculum Committee
asked for a language change and a resubmission (Cheri La Due has been working on this,
and it should be finished this week); (3) many of her courses have umbrella SLOS that are
shared between several courses; (4) that it would be nice if there were an automatic
notification generated by SOCRATES of when complete reviews are due, suggesting one or
two semesters lead time would be beneficial; and (5) that CRC is further along in embracing
the SLO development process than other colleges. Juan noted that the review of HCD
courses is difficult because there aren’t any full-time counseling faculty who teach HCD
classes as part of their load; they teach it as overload. Review of courses may occur by the
instructor who is teaching it a particular semester or may even be undertaken by an adjunct.
HCD curriculum ownership is a question. Gary noted that he attended a WASC Level I
training and discovered that we are in good shape compared with many colleges around the
state. We choose to pursue a higher level of analysis and other colleges have not been as
thorough. Liz asked if it was ok that SLOS were generated without thought to assessment. It
was noted that SLOS should have a measurable indicator of a students’ accomplishment of
it. Gary noted that our assessment piece is a bit weak, but that it is the last component so it
is expected to be not as thorough as the writing of SLOs at this point, and that it will likely
become our focus in the next two years.
ACTION ITEMS
3. Identification of Annual Goals – Gary distributed copies of the CRC strategic plan overview
and requested that the group review the 2009-10 goals that were generated at the last
meeting to determine the order of importance. These goals will be reported to the College
Planning Committee. After much discussion, the group decided on the following goals:
a. Process – create a timeline for staying on task and provide exemplars.
b. Better evaluation and integration of student services & administration areas into PrOF
and the process.
c. Ensuring course level SLO completion.
d. Evaluation of last convocation’s SLO assessment work.
e. Assess Instruction & Quality & Cycle
f. Opening of a dialog about assessment and course level SLOs. Course level
Assessment/Competency Assurance.
g. Desire for Technological support for forms and processes to unify PrOF and
SOCRATES, and the need for enough manpower to do this.
In relation to Process –discussion included: whether or not this subcommittee is
responsible for the completion of Service Area Outcomes (SAOs), which have been
discussed at CPC. It was noted that Kathy sent out an e-mail to remind everyone
about SAOs.
In relation to PrOF – discussion included: we could establish targets throughout the
cycle to keep us on track. Need to define how we can do that. Things that are being
researched now should flow back into the PrOF process. Lisa noted that we can’t
measure everything all the time. Individual departments must decide what they will
assess and then link to the PrOF cycle.
In relation to the accreditation site visit – three areas we want to focus on are
Program Review, SLOs (realizing there will be no sanctions from WASC in this area
until 2012); and closing the loop between budget and planning. Gary asked if
there’s anything that we need to do in preparation for the visit. Lisa indicated that the
where we are/where we’ve been document from Kathy McLain is nice.
In relation to Dialog about Course Level SLOs – we need language that will drive
broader discussion about course level assessment. We need to be able to find out
why students meet SLO-1 at Rate A in one faculty’s classroom, but only at Rate B in
another – why the difference?
In relation to technology support – it was noted that PrOF is supposed to be linked to
unit plans and the COB process, but many times this system is circumnavigated
because people getting used to working within SOCRATES, but don’t frequently
engage the PrOF process. We should have 100% PrOF return in order to fuel our
planning and budgeting processes. It was also noted that this may not be the work
for this subcommittee to undertake.
4. SLO Development Process Document Review – Gary discussed a handout that was
generated to show how and why the college took a overarching umbrella (top down)
approach (versus a course level bottom/up approach) to SLO development. The committee
reviewed the documents and noted that no changes were necessary. It was noted that some
colleges had limited the overall number of campus-wide programs with SLOs to just four:
GE, transfer, developmental, and vocational/technical.
5. Future Discussion Items – Gary noted that future discussion items include: convocation
evaluations; Planning & Assessment Documents for January; and LODs annual Goals &
Objective Statement for 2009-10.
6. Other – After discussion, Gary announced that the meetings will now be held on Wednesdays
to better accommodate members’ schedules.
ADJOURNMENT
Next Meeting: Wednesday, October 12, 2009 3 p.m. President Conference Room