Academic Senate Meeting - Orange Coast College › about_occ... · 11/17/2015 · ACADEMIC SENATE EXECUTIVE BOARD MEETING AGENDA Tuesday, November 17, 2015 1:00–2:00 pm, OCC Faculty

Academic Senate Meeting Agenda Tuesday, November 17, 2015

Senate Members: Keep remarks focused on the topics of discussion and before speaking on an issue you may declare whether the remark is in support of or in opposition of an issue; keep remarks under 1 minute to allow the members of the AS Body to fully participate. Members of the Public: We ask that you keep your public commentary to one minute. Please fill out a white card and submit to the President before the meeting begins and indicate if you wish to speak at the beginning of the meeting or for one minute during the agenda item discussion.

1. Call to Order (<1 minute)

2. Non-Agenda Public Comments (1 minute per speaker up to 5 minutes total)

3. Approval of the Agenda for November 17, 2015(< 1 minute)

4. Reading and Approval of the Minutes of November 3, 2015 (1 minute)

5. AS President Report/Announcements (2 minutes)

6. Parliamentarian Report - State Academic Senate Support Systems - Sen. Kennedy (5 minutes)

7. Consent Calendar (<1 minute)

Unfinished Business

8. ISLO – Follow-up Action Item - All Senators (8 minutes)

9. Topics for Senate Discussion – All Senators (8 minutes)

10. Multicultural Resolution – Sen. Drew (10 minutes)

New Business

11. Processes for OCC Hiring - Secretary Blair (8 minutes)

12. For the Good of the Order – All Senators (3 minutes)

13. Public Comments (1 minute per speaker up to 5 minutes total)

14. Announcements (< 1 minute)

15. Adjournment (< 1 minute)

See attached list for FT Faculty Hiring Committee Volunteers

Submitted from Deans and VPI

ACADEMIC SENATE EXECUTIVE BOARD MEETING AGENDA

Tuesday, November 17, 2015 1:00–2:00 pm, OCC Faculty House

E-Board Members: Keep remarks focused on the topics of discussion and before speaking on an issue declare whether the remark is in support of or in opposition of an issue, if possible. Be sure to keep remarks under two minutes to allow the members of the AS Executive Board to fully participate.

Members of the Public: We ask that you keep your public commentary to one minute. Please fill out a white public comment slip and submit to the President before the meeting begins and indicate if you wish to speak at the beginning of the meeting or for one minute during the agenda item discussion. All public comments are limited to five minutes maximum per meeting.

1. Call to Order (<1 minute)

2. Agenda-Item Public Comments: Public commentators may speak for one minute at this time or for one minute

at the beginning of the agenda item. Non-Agenda public comments are reserved for the end of the meeting.

3. Approval of the Agenda (<1 minute)

4. Reading/Approval of the Minutes (2 minutes)

5. Reports from Members of the Executive Board (2 minutes)

6. Consent Calendar List of Items (2 minutes)

7. Committee Appointments—Randomized Approach (2 minutes)

8. Setting Agenda, Discussion/Prioritization of Topics (5 minutes)

9. Review of Senate Budget and Discussion of Speakers for Spring, 2016 (10 minutes)

10. Tasks and Duties for the Week (3 minutes)

11. Non-Agenda Item Public Comments: Public speakers may speak for up to one minute at this time on non-

agenda items only.

12. Adjournment (<1 minute)

The Academic Senate for California Community Colleges: The 10 +1

The following items are "rely primarily" meaning that the senate's recommendation will move forward unless there are compelling and unusual reasons not to implement the senate's recommendation:

Curriculum, including establishing prerequisites and placing courses in disciplines

Degree and certificate requirements

Standards and policies regarding student success

Educational program development

Faculty roles and involvement in the accreditation process, including self-study and annual reports

Policies for professional development activities

Processes for program review The following are "mutual agreement" items meaning that the senate and the administration must come to a decision as equal partners:

Grading policies

District and college governance structures, as related to faculty roles

Processes for institutional planning and budget development +1 Other academic and professional matters as mutually agreed upon

NOTE: Senate does not approve deans for hiring committees only faculty

Committee Composition

1 English - Positions 1 and 2 Ken Parker (Faculty)

Jeremy Zitter (Faculty)

Genevieve Zuidervaart (Faculty)

Leigh Ann Weatherford (Faculty)

Michael Mandelkern (Dean)

2 Sociology Candy Pettus (Sociology)

Jessica Alabi (Sociology/Gender Studies)

Vesna Marcina (Political Science)

Kevin Henson (Dean)

3 Communiation Studies Sherana Polk (Chair)

Ben Lohman (Faculty)

Chris DeSurra (Faculty)

Felicia Coco (Faculty)

Joey LaMer (Faculty) (added name)

Kat Carroll (Faculty)

Courtney Anderson (Faculty)


4 Psychology Jim Smolin (Faculty)

Jarren Gonzalez (Faculty)

Liem Pham (Faculty)

Olga Perez Stable Cox (Faculty)

Kevin Henson (Dean)

5 Respiratory Care-Clincial Cindi Reber-Bonhall (Faculty)

Walt Banoczi (Faculty)

Allison Riggio (chair)

Janet Russell - Clinical Expert

Jane McLaughlin (Dean)

Hiring Committee Composition - Spring 2016 as of 11/10/15

Discipline

C:\Users\TEMP.COAST.006\Desktop\11-10-15 REVISED S. Area FT Faculty Hiring Committees.xlsx

List Submitted to Academic Senate: November 10, 2015 sarea Page 1


6 EMT Lynne Cottrell (chair)

Cindi Reber-Bonhall (Faculty)

Loren Sachs (Faculty)

Jane McLaughlin (Dean)

7Counseling - Enrollments

and Retension Denia Guillen (Counselor)

Steve Hogue (Counselor)

Eileen Tom (Counselor)

Hue Pham (Dean)

8 Librarian John Dale (Librarian)

Carl Morgan (Librarian)

Lori Cassidy (chair)


9 Math- Developmental Eduardo Arismendi-Pardi (Faculty)

Sonia Avetesian (Faculty)

Jaime Blair (Faculty)

Andrew Koines (Faculty)

Tab Livingston (Faculty)

Naoko Maekawa (Faculty)

Art Moore (Faculty)

Dale Nauta (Faculty)

Mariana Voicu (Faculty)

Tara Giblin (Dean)

10 Chemistry Arlene Vieau (Faculty)

Mickey Laux (Faculty)

Matt Appel (Faculty)

Tara Giblin (Dean)

11 Computer Science Gabriella Ernsberger (Faculty)

Stephen Gilbert (Faculty)

Michael Paulding (Faculty)

Ronald Johnson (Dean)




12 HVAC Rodney Foster (Faculty)

Al Cervantes (Faculty)

John Stuart (Faculty)

Daniel Shrader (Dean)

13 Aviation Maintenance Rodney Foster (Faculty)

Richard Hutchison (Faculty)

David Rodriguez (Faculty)

Daniel Shrader (Dean)

15 Business Arabian Morgan (Faculty)

Greg Clark (Faculty)

Dennis Morgan (Faculty)

Maryann Watson (Faculty)

Ronald Johnson (Dean)






Page | 1

Assessment of Institutional Student Learning Outcomes (ISLOs)

Using CCSSE Results

Background

An institutional student learning outcome is a knowledge, skill, ability, and/or attitude that students

should attain by the end of their college experience. At Orange Coast College (OCC), students who

complete an associate’s degree should have competency in the four core Institutional SLOs:

Communication, Thinking Skills, Social and Global Awareness, and Personal Development and

Responsibility.

The College has adopted a multiple methods approach to assess the extent to which students are

meeting ISLOs. One method of assessment relies on mapping course SLOs to ISLOs and aggregating

results up to the ISLO level. An ancillary method to measure ISLOs is to use the Community College

Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE) results to inform progress toward achieving ISLOs. This method

has been employed by other colleges (e.g., Canada College), and so the Institutional Effectiveness

Committee at OCC has recommended it be piloted at OCC this year (2014‐15).

Because this will be the first year for mapping CCSSE to ISLOs, data presented will be considered

baseline data. When OCC administers the CCSSE again in 2016, results between administrations will be

compared. This will provide information about areas where the college has improved and where

opportunities for improvement still exist.

AbouttheCCSSE

In April 2014, the Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE) was administered to a

representative sample of students at Orange Coast College. The purpose of the survey was to gather

feedback about OCC students’ level of engagement as a measure of institutional quality.

The Center for Community College Student Engagement’s framework for research is built around the

idea that there is value in asking students about their experiences. Their research starts with the

premise that students are the best informants about their own experience. The Center has collected

data from students using focus groups and cognitive interviews that confirm students understand the

CCSSE questions, are capable of answering them, and do so honestly. CCSSE results can therefore be

analyzed and interpreted with confidence.

Results from the CCSSE can serve multiple uses: diagnosis (identifying areas in which a college can

enhance students' educational experiences); benchmarking (a process supporting performance

improvement by providing external points of comparison to an institution's own performance); and

monitoring (documenting and improving educational effectiveness over time).

Page | 2

CCSSEItemSelection

Members of the Institutional Effectiveness Committee were tasked with reviewing the items on the

CCSSEE and identifying those statements that best represented each ISLO and its sub areas

(components). The members’ recommendations were compiled for the purposes of identifying CCSSE

items that the majority recommended for inclusion in the analysis. Further, these CCSSE items were

reviewed to determine if each sub area of the ISLOs was adequately represented by CCSSE items;

because there were not a sufficient number of items to allow for evaluation of all sub areas, the decision

was made to focus primary on the main ISLO statements. On future CCSSE administration, items can be

added to assess sub areas that were not adequately represented.

StudentSample

OCC students were selected to participate in the CCSSE through random sampling at the classroom level.

The survey was administered in classes randomly selected from all of the courses offered at OCC during

spring 2014, excluding non‐credit, dual‐enrollment, distance learning, ESL courses, labs, individual

instruction, and individual study or self‐paced classes. Figures 1‐3 present the percentage of

respondents by certain student characteristics. The percentages of each subgroup closely matched the

percentages of each student subgroup attending OCC.

Figure 1: Percentage of Respondents by Gender Figure 2: Percentage of Respondents by Ethnicity

Figure 3: Percentage of Respondents by Age

Page | 3

For the purpose of ISLO assessment, the sample was divided into two subgroups, students who had

completed 30 or more units (> 30 Units Student) and students who had completed less than 30 units

(< 30 Unit Students). Students with more than 30 units were thought to better represent students who

were near degree completion. The > 30 Units Student subsample included 568 students; the < 30 Units

Student subsample included 687 students. Table 1 summarizes difference between each subsample as

compared to the overall OCC sample.

Table 1: Subsample Differences from Overall OCC CCSSE Sample

Sample for <30 Units Students (N=687)

Sample for >30 Units Students (N=568)

ETHNICITY Asian students undersampled Asian students oversampled

AGE 18‐19 year olds oversampled 20‐24 year olds undersampled

18‐19 year olds undersampled 20‐24 year olds oversampled

DataCategorization

Because the CCSSE includes items with a range of response scales (e.g., “very often” to “never” or

“none” to “more than 30”), OCC created categories to combine items that had similar response scales

and addressed similar constructs. This was done to help with the interpretation of the results from

mapping CCSSE items to ISLOs. The categories created were as follows:

Experience Contributing to Knowledge (Items 5 and 12)

o These items represent how much students’ experience at OCC contributed to their

knowledge, skills and personal and cognitive development.

o Response scale for Q5: 1 = Very little, 2 = Some, 3 = Quite a bit, 4 = Very much


Experience Contributing to Action (Items 4 and 9)

o These items represent how much students’ experience at OCC contributed to academic

practices and behaviors that support learning.

o Response scale for Q4: 1 = Never, 2 = Sometimes, 3 = Often, 4 = Very often


Literacy Activities at College (Item 6)

o These items represent how much students’ experience at OCC contributed to literacy activities.

o Response scale for Q6: 1 = None, 2 = Between 1 and 4, 3 = Between 5 and 10, 4 = Between 11 and 20, 5 = More than 20

Time Spent on College Sponsored Activities/External Commitments (Item 10)

o These items represent how much time students spent on extracurricular activities,

preparing for class and caring for dependents.

Page | 4

Response scale for Q10: 0 = None, 1 = 1‐5 hours, 2 = 6‐10 hours, 3 = 11‐20 hours, 4 = 21‐

30 hours, 5 = More than 30 hours

DataAnalysis

The means of the item scores were calculated for each subgroup, and t‐tests were used to identify items

that had a statistical difference between the two groups. These analyses were completed for each item

identified for the ISLO. The data are presented below by category. Items that were not significantly

different were compared to norm benchmarks to provide information on how the college is doing as

compared to a national cohort.

ISLO1:CommunicationStudents will communicate effectively, which includes:

Reading: Students will be able to comprehend and interpret various types of written information in prose and in documentation.

Writing: Students will demonstrate the ability to communicate thoughts, ideas, and information in writing.

Listening: Students will be able to receive, attend to, interpret and respond appropriately to verbal and/or nonverbal messages and cues.

Speaking: Students will be able to organize ideas and communicate verbal or non‐verbal messages and cues appropriate to the audience and the situation.

Non‐verbal: Students will be able to interpret and communicate nonverbal messages and cues.

ISLO1SummaryCCSSEResultsFigure 1 and Table 1.1 presents the CCSSE mean scores by OCC data category for the two student groups (> 30 Units Students and < 30 Units Students). Data trends are as follows.

In all three data categories, students who had completed more units at OCC had significantly higher mean CCSSE scores, on average

> 30 Units Students indicated their experience at OCC contributed to their knowledge “quite a bit”

> 30 Units Students indicated their OCC experience contributed to action between “sometimes” and “often” (or “some” and “quite a bit” depending on item scale)

On average, > 30 Units Students reported that they participated in moderate amounts of literacy activities at OCC, reading or writing between 1‐4 and 5‐10 books or papers within one school year

Page | 5

Figure 1 – Summary of Results by Student Group, Communication

indicates the mean score is statistically significantly higher than the mean score for the <30 unit students at the p=0.05 level. Table 1.1: Summary of Results, Communication

OCC Data Category

CCSSE Mean for >30 Units Students

CCSSE Mean for <30 Units Students

CCSSE Item

Response Scale

Interpretation for >30 Unit Students Mean Score

Experience Contributing to Knowledge (Item 12)

2.93 2.64 1‐4 Approximately “quite a bit”

Experience Contributing to Action (Item 4)

2.56 2.41 1‐4 Between "sometimes " and "often "

Literacy Activities at College (Item 6)

2.78 2.65 1‐5 Between 1‐4 and 5‐10 books read/papers written in current school year

Green shading indicates the mean score is statistically significantly higher than the mean score for the <30 unit students at the p=0.05 level.

Table 1.2 presents individual item scores for each student group. Data trends indicate > 30 Units Students reported engaging in communication activities inside and outside of class (i.e., discussions and presentations) more frequently than did < 30 Units Students. The > 30 Units Students also indicated that they discussed ideas from readings or classes with others outside of class more frequently than did students with fewer units completed. These differences could be related to the higher course levels in which students with more units might be expected to be enrolled and reflect development of the speaking, listening, and non‐verbal components of ISLO 1: Communication. Both student groups reported reading less frequently for personal or academic enrichment than the national norm, with no significant between groups. However, there was a significant difference between groups in the number of assigned textbooks, manuals, books, or book‐length packs of course readings, with > 30 Units Students reporting between 5 and 10. These findings support the development of the Reading component of the ISLO 1: Communication for students who attend OCC. Finally, > 30 Units Students indicated that OCC contributed to their writing and speaking skills “quite a bit”, on average and this response was significantly higher than the < 30 Units Students. These findings

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

Knowledge Action Literacy

2.932.56

2.782.642.41

2.65

ISLO 1 CCSSE Results

CCSSE Meanfor >30 UnitsStudents

CCSSE Meanfor <30 UnitsStudents

Page | 6

suggest that students feel their experiences at OCC reading, writing, and speaking component of the communication ISLO. While there was not a significant difference between the groups for all items, there was at least one item related to each subarea that was significantly different between the groups. This suggests that > 30 Units Students feel their experience at OCC has contributed to the development of all of the component competencies related to ISLO 1: Communication. As compared to a national norm, items that were not significantly different between groups were compared to the to the norm base for Ex‐Large Colleges. [4.c., 2.53(OCC)/2.54(cohort); 6.b., 2.13(OCC)/2.08(cohort); 6.c., 3.07(OCC)/2.89(cohort)]. The > 30 Units Students group matched or exceeded the national norm for all items that were not significant between groups.

Table 1.2: Detailed Results, Communication

OCC Data

Category CCSSE Item



CCSSE Item

Response Scale

ISLO Subarea

Action

4.a. [At this college, how often have you] Asked questions in class or contributed to class discussions 2.70 2.58 1‐4 Speaking

4.b. [At this college, how often have you] Made a class presentation 2.39 2.04 1‐4

Speaking/

Non‐verbal

4.c. [At this college, how often have you] Prepared two or more drafts of a paper or assignment before turning It In 2.53 2.55 1‐4 Writing

4.r. [At this college, how often have you] Discussed ideas from your readings or classes with others outside of class (students, family members, co‐workers, etc.) 2.61 2.49 1‐4

Speaking/

Listening

Know

ledge 12.c. [How much has your experience at

this college contributed to] Writing clearly and effectively 2.92 2.69 1‐4 Writing

12.d. [How much has your experience at this college contributed to] Speaking clearly and effectively 2.93 2.60 1‐4 Speaking

Literacy

6.a. [How much reading and writing have you done at this college] Number of assigned textbooks, manuals, books, or book‐length packs of course readings 3.15 2.92 1‐5 Reading

6.b. [How much reading and writing have you done at this college] Number of books read on your own (not assigned) for personal enjoyment or academic enrichment 2.13 2.06 1‐5 Reading

6.c. [How much reading and writing have you done at this college] Number of written papers or reports of any length 3.07 2.96 1‐5 Writing


Page | 7

ISLO2:ThinkingSkills

Students will think critically, which includes:

Critical, creative, and analytical thinking: Students will be able to reach decisions, solve problems, and make judgments and evaluations using critical, creative and analytical skills.

Quantitative reasoning: Students will develop and demonstrate problem solving skills by using critical thinking and logical reasoning.

Information competency: Students will demonstrate abilities to determine the extent of information needed; obtain data from various sources; evaluate the information and its sources critically; cite their sources correctly to avoid plagiarism; and understand the ethical and legal issues surrounding the use of information.

Technological competency: Students will demonstrate a firm grounding in the foundational concepts of computing in information technology; apply these concepts through the use of contemporary hardware, software, and network infrastructure; and access, interpret, and apply information that facilitates learning and critical inquiry.


Results were not statistically significantly different between students groups for either data category

> 30 Units Students indicated their experience at OCC contributed to their knowledge “quite a bit”

> 30 Units Students reported their OCC experience contributed to action “often” or “quite a bit” (depending on item scale)

Figure 2: Summary of Results by Student Group, Thinking Skills

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

Knowledge Action

2.89 3.082.71 2.90

ISLO 2 CCSSE ResultsCCSSE Meanfor >30 UnitsStudents


Page | 8

Table 2.1: Summary of Results, Thinking Skills

OCC Data Category



CCSSE Item

Response Scale


Experience Contributing to Knowledge (Items 5 & 12)

2.89 2.71 1‐4 Approximately “quite a bit”

Experience Contributing to Action (Items 4 & 9)

3.08 2.90 1‐4 Approximately “often/quite a bit”


Table 2.2 presents item‐level mean scores for the two student groups. Data trends indicate > 30 Units Students reported using email to communicate with an instructor and using computers in academic work more frequently than did < 30 Units Students. These trends suggest that OCC is contributing to the Technological component of the ISLO2: Thinking Skills. Within the Contributing to Knowledge category > 30 Units Students indicated their coursework emphasized analyzing the basic elements of an idea, experience, or theory, and that their experience at OCC contributed to solving numeric problems and using computer and information technology more than did students with fewer units completed. Significant differences on these items suggest that coursework at OCC is providing the knowledge required to influence student outcomes related to critical, creative, and analytical thinking. Items that were not significantly different between student groups were compared to the norm base for Ex‐Large Colleges. [4.d., 3.00 (OCC)/2.84(cohort); 4.j., 3.22 (OCC)/3.06(cohort); 5.c., 2.85 (OCC)/2.82(cohort); 5.d., 2.76 (OCC)/2.66(cohort); 5.e., 2.81 (OCC)/2.74(cohort); 5.f., 2.87 (OCC)/2.84(cohort); 12.e., 3.10 (OCC)/2.96(cohort)]. The > 30 Units Students group matched or exceeded the national norm for all items that were not significant between OCC student groups. Table 2.2: Detailed Results, Thinking Skills

OCC Data

Category CCSSE Item



CCSSE Item Response Scale

ISLO Sub area Component

Action

4.d. [At this college, how often have you] Worked on a paper or project that required Integrating Ideas or information from various sources 3.00 2.84 1‐4

Information

Competency

4.j. [At this college, how often have you] Used the Internet or instant messaging to work on an assignment 3.22 3.07 1‐4 Technological

4.k. [At this college, how often have you] Used e‐mail to communicate with an instructor 2.85 2.65 1‐4 Technological

9.g. [How much does this college emphasize] Using computers in academic work 3.24 3.04 1‐4 Technological

Page | 9

Know

ledge

5.b. [How much has your coursework emphasized] Analyzing the basic elements of an idea, experience, or theory 3.11 2.88 1‐4

Critical/

creative/

analytic

5.c. [How much has your coursework emphasized] Synthesizing and organizing ideas, information, or experiences In new ways 2.85 2.74 1‐4

Critical/

creative/

analytic

5.d. [How much has your coursework emphasized] Making judgments about the value or soundness of information, arguments, or methods 2.76 2.63 1‐4

Information

Competency

5.e. [How much has your coursework emphasized] Applying theories or concepts to practical problems or in new situations 2.81 2.66 1‐4

Critical/

creative/

analytic

5.f. [How much has your coursework emphasized] Using information you have read or heard to perform a new skill 2.87 2.79 1‐4

Information

Competency

12.e. [How much has your experience at this college contributed to] Thinking critically and analytically 3.10 2.89 1‐4

Critical/

creative/

analytic

12.f. [How much has your experience at this college contributed to] Solving numerical problems 2.78 2.53 1‐4 Quantitative

12.g. [How much has your experience at this college contributed to] Using computing and information technology 2.81 2.59 1‐4 Technological


ISLO3:SocialandGlobalAwarenessStudents will demonstrate a measurable understanding of the world, which includes:

Science and society: Students will apply critical thinking skills concerning the causes and effects of natural phenomena and will become familiar with the rational approach that researchers use to analyze data and formulate logical conclusions.

The arts and society: Students will develop skill sets associated with the arts by analyzing aesthetic qualities, evaluating and devising rational arguments, identifying cultural and historical influences, and engaging in artistic expression and experiences.

Social diversity: Students will describe how knowledge from different cultural and moral perspectives would affect their interpretations of prominent problems in politics, society, the arts and /or global relations.

Civics: Students will use theoretical and methodological principles of the social and behavioral sciences to explain and evaluate the human experience; describe institutional, group, and individual processes across social and global contexts or historical periods; and communicate the concepts, theories, and methods used to understand social, political, economic institutions and individual behavior.

Page | 10


Results were not statistically significantly different between students groups for any data category

Students indicated their experience at OCC contributed to their knowledge between “some” and “quite a bit”

Students indicated their OCC experience contributed to action between "sometimes/some" and

"often/quite a bit" (depending on item scale)

Students reported spending between 0‐5 hours on college‐sponsored activities

Figure 3: Summary of Results by Student Group, Social and Global Awareness

Table 3.1: Summary of Results, Social and Global Awareness

OCC Data Category



CCSSE Item

Response Scale



2.40 2.26 1‐4 Between “some” and “quite a bit”


2.36 2.23 1‐4 Between "sometimes/some" and "often/quite a bit"

Time Spent on College Sponsored Activities/External Commitments (Item10)

0.50 0.43 0‐5 Between “none” and “1‐5 hours”


Table 3.2 presents individual CCSSE item scores for each student group. Only one item had a statistically significant different mean score across student groups. Specifically, item 4.i. indicated > 30 Units Students reported that they participated in a community‐based project as part of a course more often than did < 30 Units Students. These data suggest that OCC is beginning to contribute to the Civics

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

Knowledge Action College‐SponsoredActivities

2.40 2.36

0.50

2.26 2.23

0.43




Page | 11

component of ISLO 3: Social and Global Awareness. However the lack of mean score differences on the other items suggest more focus could be given to the subarea Social Diversity. A possible explanation for the limited significant difference between means may be that students enter OCC with some level of social and global awareness. It may be useful to look at the extremes of the distribution to determine if there is a significant difference when viewed this way. While the exact number of units that the students have completed is not reported, students are asked to report a range of total credit hours they have earned at OCC, not counting the courses they are currently taking this term. This allows creating two groups, 0 – 14 units and 45 – 60+ units, and these two groups’ means could be compared to determine if there is significant difference. Another strategy might be to use quartiles for analysis. In addition to these limited findings, ISLO3: Social and Global Awareness was identified by the Institutional Effectiveness Committee as an outcome that is not well represented by items on the CCSSEE. In particular, the subareas Science and Society and The arts and Society do not have CCSSE items that assess their development as a result of a student attending OCC. These sub areas will require additional CCSSEE items to improve the use of the survey as a measure of ISLO3: Social and Global Awareness. To provide perspective, items that were not significantly different between groups were compared to the norm base for Ex‐Large Colleges. [4.s., 2.74 (OCC)/2.54(cohort); 4.t., 2.54(OCC)/2.39(cohort); 9.c., 2.68(OCC)/2.62(cohort); 12.k., 2.72 (OCC)/2.52 (cohort); 12.m., 2.08(OCC)/ 2.74(cohort); 10.c., 0.50(OCC)/0.28 (cohort)]. The > 30 Units Students group matched or exceeded the national norm for all items that were not significant between groups.

Table 3.2: Detailed Results, Social and Global Awareness

OCC Data Category CCSSE Item



CCSSE Item

Response Scale

ISLO Subarea

Action

4.i. [At this college, how often have you] Participated In a community‐based project as a part of a regular course 1.48 1.33 1‐4 Civics

4.s. [At this college, how often have you] Had serious conversations with students of a different race or ethnicity other than your own 2.74 2.58 1‐4

Social

diversity

4.t. [At this college, how often have you] Had serious conversations with students who differ from you In terms of their religious beliefs, political opinions, or personal values 2.54 2.43 1‐4

Social

diversity

9.c. [How much does this college emphasize] Encouraging contact among students from different economic, social, and racial ‐ or ethnic backgrounds 2.68 2.56 1‐4

Social

diversity

Know

‐ledge 12.k. [How much has your experience at this

college contributed to] Understanding people of other racial and ethnic backgrounds 2.72 2.52 1‐4

Social

diversity

12.m. [How much has your experience at this college contributed to] Contributing to the welfare of your community 2.08 1.99 1‐4 Civics

Page | 12

College‐

Sponsored

Activities 10.c. [How many hrs per week] Participating in

college‐sponsored activities (organizations, ‐ campus publications, student government, Intercollegiate or ‐ Intramural sports, etc.) 0.50 0.43 0‐5 Civics


ISLO4:PersonalDevelopmentandResponsibilityStudents will demonstrate personal development and responsibility, which includes

Self‐management: Students will be able to accurately assess their own knowledge, skills, and abilities; motivate self and set realistic goals; accept that taking feedback well is important to success; respond appropriately to challenging situations.

Social and emotional wellness: Students will engage in self‐evaluation in regard to social and emotional wellbeing and will demonstrate an awareness of the skills and behaviors necessary to develop plans for behavior change for the achievement of satisfactory relationships on an individual, community, and societal level.

Physical wellness: Students will manage personal health and physical fitness by actively applying appropriate principles for the development and implementation of a plan of health and fitness enhancing behaviors.

Workplace/professional skills: Students will be dependable, reliable, and accountable; meet deadlines and complete tasks; maintain a professional attitude; and work as a productive member of a team.

Ethics: Students will demonstrate individual moral responsibilities toward themselves and others.


Students who had completed more units at OCC had significantly higher mean CCSSE scores, on average, in the College‐Sponsored Activities category, but not in the other categories

Students indicated their experience at OCC contributed to their knowledge between “some” and “quite a bit”

Students indicated their OCC experience contributed to action between "sometimes/some" and

"often/quite a bit" (depending on item scale)

On average, > 30 Units Students reported spending between “1‐5 hours” and “6‐10 hours” on college‐sponsored activities

Page | 13

Figure 4: Summary of Results by Student Group, Personal Development and Responsibility

indicates the mean score is statistically significantly higher than the mean score for the <30 unit students at the p=0.05 level.

Table 4.1: Summary of Results, Personal Development and Responsibility

OCC Data Category



CCSSE Item

Response Scale



2.74 2.58 1‐4 Between “some” and “quite a bit”


2.42 2.29 1‐4 Between "sometimes/some" and "often/quite a bit"

Time Spent on College Sponsored Activities/External Commitments (Item10)

1.70 1.48 0‐5 Between “1‐5 hours” and “6‐10 hours”


Table 4.2 presents item‐level scores for the >30 and <30 student groups. Mean score differences indicate > 30 Units Students reported their experience at OCC has contributed to their working effectively with others and understanding themselves more than < 30 Units Students. These item score differences suggest OCC is increasing students’ Social and Emotional Wellness as described in ISLO 4: Personal Development and Responsibility. The > 30 Units Students group also reported working with classmates outside of class to prepare assignments more often and spending more time preparing for class than the < 30 Units Students group. The higher mean scores for the > 30 Units Students provide evidence OCC is contributing to students’ self‐management according to in ISLO 4: Personal Development and Responsibility. To provide perspective, items that were not significantly different between groups were compared to the norm base for Ex‐Large Colleges. [12.b., 2.46 (OCC)/2.46 (cohort); 12.i., 3.03 (OCC)/2.96(cohort); 12.l., 2.64 (OCC)/2.46 (cohort); 12.n., 2.75 (OCC)/2.68 (cohort); 12.o., 2.61 (OCC)/2.53 (cohort); 4.e., 2.01 (OCC)/1.87 (cohort); 4.f., 2.63 (OCC)/2.52(cohort); 4.p., 2.68 (OCC)/2.61(cohort); 9.b., 3.01 (OCC)/2.99(cohort); 9.d., 1.97 (OCC)/1.97(cohort); 10.d., 1.14 (OCC)/1.57(cohort)]. The > 30 Units

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

Knowledge Action College‐SponsoredActivities

2.742.42

1.70

2.582.29

1.48




Page | 14

Students group matched or exceeded the national norm for all items that were not significant between groups with the exception of item 10.d, where OCC had a statistically significantly lower mean score.

One area of discussion related to items questioned item 10.d and whether or not it was appropriate to

use as a measure of the institution’s influence on student learning. The college can provide support for

students in terms of time management and other resources, but the college has no influence or control

over the number of hours that students provide care for dependents living with them. It was

recommended by the group to remove the item in subsequent ISLO mapping.

For ISLO4 subarea Workplace questions, it may be useful to disaggregate student data by educational goal. It could be that CTE students have higher mean scores than transfer students on the questions related to acquiring job skills. This may provide a truer evaluation of the colleges impact on the students related to this subarea. Another weakness in using the CCSSEE Personal Development and Responsibility was that no CCSSE

items were identified that would assess the development of students’ physical wellness while at OCC.

This is a present weakness of using the CCSSEE for assessing ISLO 4 Personal Development and

Responsibility which should be addressed with additional items on the survey’s next administration.

Table 4.2: Detailed Results, Personal Development and Responsibility

OCC Data Category CCSSE Item



CCSSE Item

Response Scale ISLO Subarea

Know

ledge

12.b. [How much has your experience at this college contributed to] Acquiring job or work‐related knowledge and skills 2.46 2.31 1‐4 Workplace

12.h. [How much has your experience at this college contributed to] Working effectively with others 2.84 2.67 1‐4

Social/

emotional

12.i. [How much has your experience at this college contributed to] Learning effectively on your own 3.03 2.94 1‐4

Self‐management

12.J. [How much has your experience at this college contributed to] Understanding yourself 2.86 2.64 1‐4

Social/emotional

12.l. [How much has your experience at this college contributed to] Developing a personal code of values and ethics 2.64 2.49 1‐4 Ethics

12.n. [How much has your experience at this college contributed to] Developing clearer career goals 2.75 2.58 1‐4 Workplace

12.o. [How much has your experience at this college contributed to] Gaining Information about career opportunities 2.61 2.46 1‐4 Workplace

Acti

on 4.e. [At this college, how often have you] Come

to class without completing readings or assignments 2.01 1.95 1‐4

Self‐management

Page | 15

4.f. [At this college, how often have you] Worked with other students on projects during class 2.63 2.44 1‐4

Workplace/Self‐

management

4.g. [At this college, how often have you] Worked with classmates outside of class to prepare class assignments 2.23 1.90 1‐4

Workplace/Self‐

management

4.p. [At this college, how often have you] Worked harder than you thought you could to meet an instructor's standards or expectations 2.68 2.55 1‐4

Self‐management

9.b. [How much does this college emphasize] Providing the support you need to help you succeed at this college 3.01 2.95 1‐4

Self‐management

9.d. [How much does this college emphasize] Helping you cope with your non‐academic responsibilities (work, family, etc.) 1.97 1.96 1‐4

Social/ emotional

College‐

Sponsored

Activities

10.a. [How many hrs per week] Preparing for class (studying, reading, writing, rehearsing, doing homework, or other activities related to your program) 2.27 1.99 0‐5

Self‐management

10.d. [How many hrs per week] Providing care for dependents living with you (parents, ‐ children, spouse, etc.) 1.14 0.97 0‐5

Self‐management


Summary/Plan for Improvement

This is the first attempt at using data from the CCSSE survey to evaluate ISLOs at Orange Coast College. Overall, the items identified for each ISLO showed either a significant difference between > 30 Units Students and < 30 Units Students or the > 30 Units Students group exceeded the norm base for Ex‐Large Colleges. An overall recommendation was to survey faculty with the CCSSE companion survey to evaluate how well faculty perceptions align with students’ perceptions. Recommendations for actions and subsequent use of CCSSEE for ISLO evaluation is presented below. ISLO 1: Communication was well represented by items from the CCSSE. The one area that may require a separate item is non‐verbal communication. Plan for improvement:

Create items that would assess the subarea Non‐verbal Communication;

Identify strategies to improve scores for items that were not significantly different between > 30

Units Students and < 30 Units Students groups;

Remove item 6b from analyses since it reflects activity outside of school context and would be

difficult for OCC to impact.

ISLO2: Thinking Skills also had a sufficient number of CCSSEE items that represented the subareas of the

ISLO with the exception of quantitative reasoning. Of the twelve items, only five were significantly

different between > 30 Units Students and < 30 Units Students groups.

Plan for improvement:

Create additional items to evaluate quantitative reasoning;

Page | 16

Identify strategies to improve scores for items that were not significantly different between

groups.

ISLO 3: Social and Global Awareness was not as well represented by items from the CCSSEE, with two

subareas (Science and Society; The Arts and Society) not represented by any CCSSEE items. The seven

CCSSEE items identified related to civics and social diversity, and only one of the seven was statistically

significant between > 30 Units Students and < 30 Units Students groups.

Plan for improvement:

Create items that would assess the subarea Science and Society;

Create items that would assess the subarea The Arts and Society;

Evaluate the extremes of the distribution by using quartiles or creating two groups, 0‐14 units

and 45‐60+ units;


groups.

ISLO 4 Personal Development and Responsibility had the greatest number of CCSSEE items (15), with only four having significant difference between > 30 Units Students and < 30 Units Students groups. The 15 items provided good coverage for most subareas, with the exception of Ethics (1 item) and Physical wellness (0 items). Plan for improvement

Create items that would assess the subarea Physical Wellness;

Create item that would further assess Ethics;

Remove item 10d from analyses since it reflects activity outside of school context and would be

difficult for OCC to impact;

For ISLO4 subarea Workplace questions, disaggregate student data by educational goal;


groups.

Respectfully Submitted,

Anna Hanlon, MS, MPH

Faculty Coordinator, Program Assessment and Improvement

June 24, 2015; IE: October 5, 2015 Senate: Preliminary report, November 10, 2015

11‐17‐15 Chair Hanlon 2015 ETS_HEighten_Pilot_Rept.docx Page | 1

AssessmentofInstitutionalStudentLearningOutcomes(ISLOs)EducationalTestingServices(ETS)HEightenPilot

Background

An institutional student learning outcome (ISLO) is a knowledge, skill, ability, and/or attitude

that students should attain by the end of their college experience. At Orange Coast College

(OCC), students who complete an associate’s degree should have competency in the four core

Institutional SLOs: Communication, Thinking Skills, Social and Global Awareness, and Personal

Development and Responsibility.

The College has adopted a multiple methods approach to assess the extent to which students

are meeting ISLOs. Two indirect methods of assessment are being evaluated by the college: 1)

using mapping to tie course SLOs to program student learning outcome (PSLO) and then

mapping PSLOs to ISLOs. The results of assessment at the course level will be rolled up to the

ISLO level and used for assessment of ISLOs. This method will be managed via the college’s

integrated database, TracDat; 2) using items from the Community College Survey of Student

Engagement (CCSSE) results to inform progress toward achieving ISLOs. Results from this

method will be presented in a written report. Both indirect methods have been used by other

California Community Colleges; however, the Institutional Effectiveness (IE) Committee has

recommended the piloting of a direct method of assessing ISLOs.

AboutETSandHEighten

Educational Testing Services (ETS) is a private nonprofit organization devoted to educational

measurement and research, primarily through testing. ETS is in the process of developing an

outcome assessment suite, HEighten, that will allow for the measurement of general education

outcomes, with the intention of providing data for accreditation purposes and improvement of

curriculum. The assessment has three parts: written communication, quantitative literacy, and

critical thinking. Because the GE SLOs at Orange Coast College are mapped to the ISLOs, this

assessment would be appropriate for the assessment of ISLO 1: Communication and ISLO 2:

Thinking Skills.

HEightenPilot

Orange Coast College agreed to participate in the pilot study of HEighten. Standard contracts

were submitted to the President’s Office for review and signature. The College agreed to

administer two of the three assessments to a minimum of 100 students. A convenience sample

was solicited from faculty who were known to the members of the IE Committee, and included

Laura Behr (Kinesiology), Gabrielle Stanco (Psychology), David Ring (Philosophy), Sheryl Area



(Business) and Georgie Monahan (Communication Studies). Proctors participated in the

proctor training that was provided by ETS, and testing occurred to regular class hours in

reserved computer labs. After advising students of the voluntary and confidential nature of the

assessments, a total of 161 students agreed to participate. For more details and a complete

documentation of the pilot assessment process, please refer to the ETS Pilot binder.

HEightenPilotResult

The results from the pilot administrations were received via email on July 8, 2015. All data files

were password protected.

“Due to the properties of pilot test data, results are presented in the form of raw

scores. These raw scores indicate the number of test questions answered

correctly by the students. Percentile ranks are also provided to show the

percentage of participating institutions that scored at or below the raw score

achieved by your students. Although the data can be useful in providing some

insight into student performance, caution should be used when interpreting the

results.

The table below displays the mean raw score and percentile rank for each of the

assessments administered at your institution.”

Institution

Name

Cohort

ID Subject

Students

Tested

Mean

Total

Raw

Score

Standard

Deviation Percentile

Orange Coast College

60431 Critical Thinking 106 9.9 4.3 54


60433 Quantitative Literacy

87 7.7 3.4 50


60434 Written Communication

100 14.6 8.6 61

A request was sent on August 4, 2015 asking for the norm data for two‐year colleges. The

following data was received on august 14, 2015 with the description as follows:

“Our statisticians we ran the analysis of the pilot institutions to only include the

two‐year schools. Below are the updated percentile for your institution when

compared to other two‐year schools that participate in the pilot.



Please keep in mind there were a total of five two‐year schools participate in the

pilot so that sample is pretty small. I know you have the full institution list, but

the two‐year schools were:

Austin Community College

Iowa Western Community College

Quincy College

Southeast Kentucky Community and Technical College

Institution Name

Cohort ID

Subject Students Tested

Mean Total Raw Score

Standard Deviation

Percentile


60431 Critical Thinking 106 9.9 4.3 65


60433 Quantitative Literacy

87 7.7 3.4 63


60434 Written Communication

100 14.6 8.6 73

StudentFeedback

Student Exit Survey data was received from ETS. The items included in the exit survey following

the Written Communication assessment are as follows:

The primary reason you took this test is:

Did you try your best?

Does your scores have consequences?

Number of college‐level classes taken that focused on writing skills.

Number of college‐level classes taken that required you to submit one or more 500‐

word‐or‐more paper.

Number of college‐level classes taken that required one or more essays on a timed in‐

class exam

What other activities have contributed to your WC skills?

Do you feel your undergraduate coursework requires you to develop written skills

How often do you receive feedback on the quality of your writing

How would you rate your WC skills

Receive a certificate increase your motivation

What would your the certificate for

Regarding the difficulty of the test, do you feel the test was



Regarding the time allotted, do you feel you had

The items included in the exit survey following the Critical Thinking assessment are as follows:

The primary reason you are taking this test is

Did you try your best?

Does your score on this test have any consequence(s) for you

Please indicate the number of college‐level classes you have taken related to critical

thinking (e.g., scientific inquiry, problem solving)

◦ Selected answer 1 (capstone courses) for question5?

◦ Selected answer 2 (co‐ops/practicum/internships) for question5?

◦ Selected answer 3 (study abroad) for question5?

◦ Selected answer 4 (service learning) for question5?

◦ Selected answer 5 (seminars) for question5?

◦ Selected answer 6 (other) for question5?

To what extent do you feel your undergraduate coursework requires you to think

critically

How would you rate your critical thinking skills

Would knowing that you could receive a certificate of achievement increase your

motivation to do well

◦ Selected answer 1 (resume) for question9?

◦ Selected answer 2 (graduate program admission) for question9?

◦ Selected answer 3 (linked in or social media site) for question9?

◦ Selected answer 4 (admission to an internship program) for question9?

◦ Selected answer 5 (i would not use the certificate) for question9?


Regarding the difficulty of the test, did you feel the test was

Regarding the time allotted to take the test, did you feel you had

The items included in the exit survey following the Quantitative Literacy assessment are as

follows:

The primary reason you signed up for the test

◦ Selected answer 1 (course requirement) for question1?"

◦ Selected answer 2 (university/college/program requirement) for question1?

◦ Selected answer 3 (extra credit) for question1?

◦ Selected answer 4 (financial incentive) for question1?

◦ Selected answer 5 (volunteer) for question1?




Did you try your best when you were taking the test

Does your score on this test have any consequence(s) for you

Please indicate the number of college‐level classes you have taken related to critical

thinking (e.g., scientific inquiry, problem solving)

Please indicate your reasons for taking college‐level classes related to quantitative

literacy (check all that apply)

◦ Selected answer 1 (college level requirements) for question5?

◦ Selected answer 2 (major requirement) for question5?

◦ Selected answer 3 (electives) for question5?

◦ Selected answer 4 (not applicable) for question5?

"What other collegiate activities are likely to have contributed to your quantitative

literacy knowledge (check all that apply)

◦ Selected answer 1 (capstone courses) for question6?"

◦ Selected answer 2 (co‐ops/practicum/internships) for question6?

◦ Selected answer 3 (study abroad) for question6?

◦ Selected answer 4 (service learning) for question6?

◦ Selected answer 5 (seminars) for question6?


To what extent do you feel your undergraduate coursework requires you to use

quantitative skills

How would you rate your quantitative literacy skills

If you could receive a certificate of achievement would that increase your motivation to

do well on this assessment

"If you were to receive a certificate, would you use it for any of the following purposes?

please check all that apply

◦ Selected answer 1 (resume) for question10?"

◦ Selected answer 2 (graduate program admission) for question10?

◦ Selected answer 3 (linked in or social media site) for question10?

◦ Selected answer 4 (admission to an internship program) for question10?

◦ Selected answer 5 (i would not use the certificate) for question10?


Regarding the difficulty of the test, did you feel the test was?

Regarding the time allotted to take the test, did you feel you had

The following was received directly from students immediately following test administration.

Written Communication ‐ Writing prompts was dull, uninteresting, and vague



Written Communication ‐ Would rather write about something engaging, such as ethics in

current world news or statistics

Written Communication ‐ This is not high school, do not make the test seem so standardized,

add interesting topics with relevancy to modern day, either pop culture or world news

centric

Written Communication ‐ This is neither a doctoral thesis, shorten and use more concise

wording

Quantitative Literacy ‐ A few questions are too vague in asking what to find. Quantitative Literacy ‐ Simply adding names to components would keep me interested.

Quantitative Literacy – some questions were so long or convoluted I simply did not want to

answer them. Keep questions general, but not vague; specific by not too in depth.

Critical Thinking – the question where you highlight to select a sentence should be placed on the right

Critical Thinking – I did not like how there was a fact list and two arguments as information

used for 4 ‐5 questions

General – When Review is clicked, the answer choices turn from random bubbles/boxes to A,

B, C, D

General – Questions with A1B1 type answer choices should be written differently General – A highlighted sentence pops up then asks you to choose parts of the fact list – that

should be moved to the right.

General – add color, test lost my attention at the start

General – Fill the screen, do not leave blank areas General – Pictures when relevant General – Stylized background General – Answer choices are too long General – All clickable buttons should be on the right General – I like how the test highlighted stuff

Recommendations

ThepilotresultswerepresentedtotheInstitutionalEffectivenessCommitteeforinitialfeedbackonOctober5,2015.TheCommitteereviewedandprovidedthefeedback,whichincludedthefollowingquestions:

WhatorhowdoesOCCwanttousethedatathatithasreceived(orwillreceiveifthisisdoneinthefuture)?

Ittakes45to60minutestodo. Howcouldwemarketthistostudents(i.e.,Shouldthestudentreceivesomethingfor

takingthesurvey?)



Wouldthestudentgetacompetencycertificateaftertakingthesurvey?Wouldthisbeaddedtotheirtranscript?

CanthedatabeusedtodetermineanOCCbenchmarkofsuccess(DoesETSprovidescorebenchmarks?)?

Whatarethetake‐awaysfromETS?

TheentireprocesswillbebroughttotheAcademicSenateforfeedbackandrecommendationsonhowtoproceed.Thiswilloccurduringthe2015‐2016academicyear.

RespectfullySubmitted,AnnaHanlon,MS,MPHFacultyCoordinator,ProgramAssessmentandImprovement

Orange Coast College Academic Senate

International and Multicultural Committee (IMC)

Joint Resolution in support of designating a Designating a Multicultural Center at OCC Resolution#FA15 - (Assigend by Senate Secretary)

Proposed by: Sen. Rendell Drew and Seconded by: Sen. Clyde Phillips Note: This is a joint resolution between the OCC IMC and Academic Senate to name the newly identified space site in the Neurta Business building as the new “Multicultural Center.” On Novemeber 1o,2015, this “draft” resolution was placed on the IMC Agenda for input, review, and discussion. After further discussion, this resolution was M/S/C to be forwarded to the Academic Senate for final approval. WHEREAS: Orange Coast College hosts a variety of programs to serve diverse groups of students: WHEREAS: Orange Coast College’s programs and services targeted to multicultural and diverse students are designed to assist these students to achieve their educational objectives and student success: WHEREAS: Certain Orange Coast College programs and activities will be relocating to the Neutra Business Building during the spring 2016 semester: WHEREAS: Orange Coast College’s programs to serve our ethnically and culturally diverse students are increasingly seen as assets in recruiting new students to the College: WHEREAS: The Coast Community College District is working to increase its student enrollment in order to reach targets that have resulted from Stabilization: WHEREAS: Orange Coast College’s programs that serve ethnically diverse, and Disproportionally Impacted (DI) students are an integral point of pride to both the community, and to supporter s of Orange Coast College: WHEREAS: Both the International and Multicultural Committee (IMC), and the OCC Academic Senate, has strongly endorsed designating and naming, a facility in the Neutra Business Building Complex as "The Multicultural Center""; and NOW, THEREFORE, Be It Resolved: That it is the “sense of the Senate” that OCC should support the designation, and naming, of a site in the Neutra Business Building complex as:“The Multicultural Center.”

The foregoing resolution was passed by the Orange Coast College Academic Senate Office this ___ day of Month Year.

Mtg./Action

Date

Resolution Audit Trail

11/17/15 Draft Resolves Read to AS Body

11/24/15 Added to Agenda for Discussion

Adopted as Written

Revised and Resubmitted to Body for Final Review/Approval

Senate Secretary Provides Approved Resolution to Senate Office for Posting

Posted to OCC Website and OCC Portal by Staff Aide

Documents

Academic Senate Meeting - Orange Coast College › about_occ... · 11/17/2015 · ACADEMIC SENATE EXECUTIVE BOARD MEETING AGENDA Tuesday, November 17, 2015 1:00–2:00 pm, OCC Faculty