Learning Outcomes Dialog
Subcommittee
MINUTES
March 10, 2010
3:00 p.m.
President’s Conference Room
CALL TO ORDER – Gary welcomed Dave Hodapp, David Fulk, Annie Trent, Ray Mapeso, and
Kathy McLain to the meeting.
ACTION ITEMS
1. The agenda was approved by consensus
2. The February 24, 2010 minutes were approved by consensus.
REPORT
3. Supporting Course SLO completion update –
a. Gary shared that nobody has been attending his open CASSL SLO development
drop-in sessions, although at least one person has contacted him and is planning to
attend the workshop scheduled for this evening. He needs to be more proactive in
reaching out to folks as they engage this work.
b. Gary shared that he has two resources that will help him reach out to specific faculty
to help assure that all course SLOs are written and finalized by Spring, 2012. Dan
DuBray has shared a spreadsheet of all courses at catalog level that have SLOs. As
noted previously, there are 500 courses at catalog status without SLOs. There are
125 courses at various stages of development, however, which could decrease this
number by the end of the semester. However, it is not known at this point how many
of these courses already have SLOs and how many in the pipeline have developed
SLOs for the first time. Brad also extracted the curriculum related plans from the
PrOF database. This spreadsheet shows the courses that departments have
targeted for SLO completion this semester. The committee recommended that
Gary’s outreach to faculty affirm the work that has already been done on SLO
development, that it acknowledge that according to PrOF you have identified you will
be developing SLOs this semester, and reminds folks that he is available to help as
needed. Gary indicated that he will be consulting SOCRATES so his contact with
them can reflect the work they have already done. The committee also
recommended that Kathy disseminate the PrOF curriculum-related report to Deans,
asking them to help folks follow up on their plans.
4. BRIC Tap Submission Update – Gary informed the committee that the application was
submitted and that we should know the outcome by the end of March.
5. Training – Gary shared that he was going to attend the SLO coordinators regional
meeting at Orange Coast College. The focus of the meeting is on best practices and
challenges of course SLO assessment. Since that is the focus of our recommendation,
the information should be very helpful as Gary provides leadership to our SLO work.
6. August Convocation discussion – the committee discussed whether the outcomes dialog
portion of the convocation day was still needed. After much dialog, it was decided that
we should recommend that outcome dialog time for instructional programs continue to be
allocated. Gary and Kathy will draft the recommendation, which should include
requesting the time for the dialogs, recommending it not be at the end of the day, and
requesting some time on the convocation agenda to address the importance and
relevance of assessment dialogs, and why we have recommended the dialogs be
included in the convocation day activities. Ideas for this presentation included a video
presentation (with humor) and having a high ranking administrator make the remarks.
These remarks should be proactive and positive, stress the importance of this work to the
institution, student success and the professional development of participants, and should
mention that our clear accreditation was built on the promise to continue in this work.
The committee also discussed the need for Deans to get more involved and
knowledgeable about SLOs and PrOF so they can better support the efforts by being
resources and providing the appropriate levels of push so the task stays on very full
agendas.
One committee member commented that, in general, it seems that the work of SLO
development and assessment is not valued by the institution and we need to enlist the
support of administration and the academic senate to overcome this.
7. WASC 2012 SLO target
a. rubric/recommendation discussion – Kathy disseminated the SLO rubric and our
recommendation, indicating that our midterm report needs to show that we are at the
proficiency level and have addressed the SLO recommendation.
b. communication/outreach to the campus – The committee had a vibrant discussion
about the limited dissemination of the accreditation recommendations – and
recommended that they be more broadly disseminated to the campus. This would
help fuel the fire regarding our efforts as it would clearly communicate the need to
engage this work. This might help us recruit folks to design the system and to be
committed to implementing and improving the system to maximize its value while
minimizing the work. The idea of having a one page abstract of the accreditation
recommendations, including the key elements of our self-identified planning agendas,
developed and disseminated to the college community. The idea of developing and
disseminating a page of SLO assessment exemplars (along with testimonials of the
perceived benefit) was also forwarded. The need to invest more resources in the
effort was also raised, so that more help was available to faculty and staff.
8. Evaluation Summary – Gary discussed the summary of the 7 evaluations that were
returned, which emphasized his previous comments that the responses were all over the
map. The variation in responses, however, reinforces the need to keep emphasizing the
value and benefits and requirements related to SLO development and assessment. It is
clear that a lack of understanding still exists. The value of SLO assessment is not wellunderstood and its connection to other work is not clear. In addition, many in the
institution don’t seem to understand that the convocation day’s activities need to meet the
PD requirements. This should be more clearly communicated as well.
9. New FAQ – potential areas to address – this item was deferred to the next meeting.
10. Future Discussion Items
a. Non-Instructional pSLO and saSLO assessment
b. Curriculum Role / SOCRATES SLO adjustments
c. LODs / SLO Coordinator Role 2011/-12
d. August Convocation Documents
e. Quality pSLO writing and improvement/PrOF Midterm Review
f. Other
Next Meeting: Wednesday, March 24 at 3 p.m. President Conference Room