1

Outcomes Assessment Review Committee

2012 Annual Report

Respectfully Submitted by:

Marcy Alancraig, Dennis Bailey-Fournier, Alicia Beard, Justina Buller, Tama Bolton,

Tana de Santos (student representative), Rick Fillman, Jean Gallagher-Heil, Paul Harvell,

Brian King, Rachel Mayo, Isabel O’Connor, Margery Regalado, Georg Romero, Letisha

Scott-Curtis

Introduction and Background

In response to the change in accreditation standards in 2002, two shared governance

committees, the Learner Outcomes and Accreditation Committee (2001-2003) and the

Accreditation Planning Committee (2003-2005), along with the Cabrillo Faculty Senate,

designed a comprehensive SLO assessment plan: assessment of student learning

outcomes occurs in all sectors of the college as part of on-going Program Planning

(departmental review) processes. The college was divided into five assessment sectors --

Transfer and Basic Skills Instruction, Career Technical Education, Library, Student

Services, and Administration -- which were each to measure their contributions to

students' mastery of the college’s core competencies. Last spring, after years of

grappling with how to measure their contribution to student learning, administrative

departments switched to writing and assessing administrative unit outcomes. Each sector

of the college creates its own method to assess student success and/or the new AUOs.

See the SLO website for a detailed description of the methods used in each area

(http://pro.cabrillo.edu/slos/index.html).

Programs and services undergo Program Planning on a rotating basis; only a few

departments complete the process each year. For example, in Instruction, approximately

twelve of its fifty-six programs write a program plan in a given year.

Because of the number of programs within its purview, the Instructional component

began by phasing in SLO assessment, starting with the college core competencies. When

this set-up phase was completed, Instruction moved to institutionalizing the process,

asking that departments measure student mastery of every course, certificate and degree

SLO within the six-year program planning cycle. This staggered schedule of assessment

is called the Revolving Wheel of Assessment; every department is currently embarked on

some stage of its repeating cycle (see the SLO website for a detailed description of the

Wheel). Now Instruction has focused its efforts on quality assurance, creating processes

and tools to ensure excellence and full compliance with its SLO procedures.

Student Services also phased in SLO assessment, beginning with writing and then

revising their departmental SLOs, and now by assessing them. A grant received by the

college, the Bridging Research Information and Culture Technical Assistance Project,

2

(sponsored by the Research and Planning Group and funded by the Hewlett Foundation)

provided needed training in Student Services assessment methods during Spring 2011.

Prior to the training, a few departments had piloted some assessment measures, but most

began this activity in earnest after those sessions. By October 2012, all but one Student

Service department wrote a program plan and assessed all of their SLOs, leading to new

insights and ways to improve services.

Administration (composed of departments or administrative offices in the President’s

component, Administrative Services, Student Services and Instruction) spent the last five

years discussing and identifying how their departments contribute to student mastery of

the college core competencies and how to measure it. Because they provide a wide range

of services that enable teaching and learning to occur, but are not directly involved in the

formal learning process, their role in assessing SLOs has been difficult to define. In

Spring 2012, Administration switched to measuring Administrative Unit Outcomes.

Cabrillo defines an Administrative Unit Outcome as a description of what all the users of

an Administrative service can do, know, or understand after interacting with that office or

department – it is user centered, a description of what the service provides for others.

Unlike some schools across the state, a Cabrillo AUO is not an administrative unit goal.

Almost all administrative departments have written AUOs and two have assessed them.

No matter the assessment sector, all college departments that write a Program Plan by

June in a given year forward their assessment reports to the Outcomes Assessment

Review Committee. This committee, a subcommittee of the Faculty Senate, is chaired by

the Student Learning Outcomes Assessment Coordinator and is designed to include

representatives from the Student Senate, Faculty Senate, CCEU, CCFT, and a manager

along with representatives from Administration, Student Services, Library, and

Instruction (both Transfer & Basic Skills and CTE). The Campus Researcher and

Accreditation Liaison Officer serve as ex officio members of the committee.

The Outcomes Assessment Review Committee (ARC) oversees, analyzes and evaluates

all campus SLO and AUO assessment activities. It reviews the yearly assessment results

in Instruction, Student Services, the Library and Administration, looking for common

themes and broad trends. In addition to analyzing the collective contents of the

assessments submitted each year, ARC evaluates its own function and all assessment

processes on campus. ARC writes a report about its analysis, submitting it to campus

governing bodies authorized to act upon ARC’s recommendations, including the

Governing Board, the Master Planning Committee, the College Planning Council, the

Faculty and Student Senates and both unions, CCFT and CCEU. This year, the Outcomes

Assessment Review Committee was also asked by the President’s Cabinet to examine

institutional effectiveness issues, making recommendations for improving college

processes. When needed, the committee is empowered to initiate a college-wide dialog

process to analyze and solve broad issues about student learning that have been revealed

by SLO assessment results across the campus. For more detailed information on ARC’s

charge, membership and duties, please see the SLO website

(http://pro.cabrillo.edu/slos/index.html).

3

This report reflects ARC’s review of the assessment results for those departments that

completed Program Planning in the 2011-2012 academic year.

4

Assessment Process: Facts and Figures

Participating in this year’s assessment were fourteen instructional departments, ten

serving Transfer and Basic Skills and five in CTE, the Library, thirteen departments in

Student Services and five in Administration.

Assessment Sector

Area

Transfer and Basic Skills

All 9 scheduled departments submitted

Program Plans

Career Technical Education Programs

All 5 scheduled departments submitted

Program Plans

Library Submitted a Program Plan as scheduled

Student Services

13 of 14 departments submitted program

plans and undertook SLO assessment. An

on-going rotating program planning cycle,

with annual reports has been developed.

Administration

5 of 21 departments submitted Program

Plans; 2 of those departments assessed

AUOs. An on-going schedule for program

planning is still being developed in some

components.

Participation

The charts below capture the participation of Cabrillo faculty and staff in assessment

activities. Since this assessment in Instruction and in some Student Services departments

took place over a number of years, an average rate was calculated.

Basic Skills/Transfer

Department

% of full time

presenting

assessment

results

% of adjunct

presenting

assessment

results

% of full time

discussing

results

% of adjunct

discussing

results

Anthropology 100% 100% 100% 60%

Art History 100% 60% 100% 75%

Athletics 50% 10% 75% 50%

Kinesiology 50% 0% 95% 30%

Physics 75% 50% 75% 50%

Political

Science

100% 38% 100% 63%

Sociology 100% 60% 100% 60%

Theatre Arts 66% 40% 100% 60%

Women’s

Studies

100% 0% 100% 0%

5

Figure 1. Basic skills/Transfer Assessment:

Full time and part time faculty assessment presentation rates

Figure 2. Basic skills/Transfer Assessment:

Full time and part time faculty assessment discussion rates

6

CTE

Department

% of full time

presenting

assessment

results

% of adjunct

presenting

assessment

results

% of full time

discussing

results

% of adjunct

discussing

results

Computer

Applications/Business

Technology

100% 20% 100% 36%

Engineering

Technology

100% 33% 100% 100%

Horticulture 100% 100% 100% 100%

Human Services 100% 50% 100% 75%

Nursing 81% 34% 81% 34%

Figure 3. CTE Assessment: Full time and part time faculty assessment presentation

rates

7

Figure 4. CTE: Full time and part time faculty assessment discussion rates

ARC is pleased with the robust rates of participation of full-time faculty overall as well

as the high rate of adjunct participation in the Anthropology and Horticulture

departments, but notes with concern the uneven participation of adjunct faculty in other

departments. As the charts demonstrate, more adjuncts participated in the discussion of

assessment than those who undertook the assessment itself. In part, this is because the

discussions occur during Flex week, when adjuncts have more opportunity to participate

and collaborate with members of their department. The actual assessment and its analysis

takes place during the course of the regular semester. But since so many of our courses

are taught by adjuncts, ARC continues to be concerned by this lack of full participation,

particularly in some smaller departments. However, ARC notes that the reporting form

may collect erroneous information since it asks for the total number of adjuncts though

only some may be teaching the course being assessed. ARC recommends changing the

form to capture this information more accurately. In addition, it notes that some of the

activities it undertook last year to help Program Chairs engage more adjuncts in SLO

assessment are not apparent in these statistics since this captures years previous to that

work.

Library

Type of

Assessment

% of full time

presenting

assessment

results

% of adjunct

presenting

assessment

results

% of full time

discussing

results

% of adjunct

discussing

results

Library 10 SLO 100% 100% 100% 100%

Core Four 100% 95% 100% 95%

ARC notes with pleasure the very high numbers of both full-time and adjunct faculty and

staff participation in SLO assessment in the Library.

8

Student Services

Department

# of

departmental

SLOs

% of SLOs

assessed

% of

department

discussing

results

Admissions and Records 1 100% 95%

Assessment 1 100% 87%

Cabrillo Advancement Program

(CAP)

2 50% 100%

Counseling 1 100% 89%

Disabled Students Programs and

Services

1 100% 100%

Financial Aid 1 100% 83%

Extended Opportunity Programs and

Services

4 75% 100%

Fast Track to Work 1 100% 50-86% for

three meetings

Learning Skills 1 100% 100%

Office of Matriculation 1 100% 100%

Student Affairs/Student Activities

and Government

4 100% 100%

Student Employment 1 100% 100%

Student Health Services 2 50% 100%

ARC is delighted with the high numbers of SLOs assessed and the robust rates of

participation of department members discussing their results.

Administration

Administrative Unit/

Department

# of departmental

AUOs

% of AUOs

assessed

% of department

discussing results

Dean of Counseling

and Educational

Support Services

1 100% 68%

Information

Technology

1 0% 0%

Instructional

Division Offices

1 0% 0%

President’s Office 3 0% 0%

Vice President of

Student Services

Office

1 100% 100%

ARC is pleased that two of the new AUOs have already been assessed and discussed.

9

Assessment Progress

Transfer and Basic Skills

Department % of Core 4

Assessed

% of Course SLOs Assessed

Anthropology 100% 0

Art History 100% 50%

Athletics 100% 36%

Kinesiology 100% 94%

Physics 100% 100%

Political Science 100% 100%

Sociology 100% 75%

Theatre Arts 0% 13%

Women’s Studies 0% 100%

According to the Revolving Wheel of Assessment, all transfer and basic skills

departments were to have assessed each of the Core 4 and all course SLOs. Almost 80%

of the departments were on track with their Core 4 assessment, but ARC notes with

concern that the assessment of course SLOs varies. One third of the group assessed at

least 90% with two departments at 100%. But one department assessed only 75% of its

courses, while four others (44% of the group) assessed fifty percent or less. However, it

should be noted that the Anthropology department, which assessed none of their course

SLOs, is in the process of completely rewriting them. They chose not to assess the old

ones and, having recently gotten curriculum approval for the new ones, are now

embarked on their assessment. Yet the reporting forms do not provide an opportunity to

explain this. Another factor to consider is that some classes may not have been assessed

because they were not scheduled, due to the budget crisis. Again, the reporting forms do

not capture this kind of information. ARC recommends revising the forms so that this

data can be revealed.

Career Technical Education

Department Wrote

Assessment

Plan

Certificate SLOs

Assessed

Course

SLOs

Assessed

Computer

Applications/Business

Technology

100% 100%

Engineering

Technology

0% 31%

Horticulture 0% 100%

Human Services 28% 100%

Nursing 100% 0%

10

According to the Revolving Wheel of assessment, CTE programs were to write an

assessment plan, and to assess all course and certificate SLOs. ARC is pleased that all

CTE departments wrote an assessment plan or implemented the one created from their

last round of Program Planning. Two of five programs assessed all certificate SLOs

while two did not assess any, and one only assessed a small portion. It should be noted,

however, that the Horticulture department’s lack of certificate SLO assessment arose

from a misunderstanding; the department assumed that its course level assessment also

assessed its certificate SLOs. After working with the SLO coordinator, the department

has since instituted a different process. Three out of five departments assessed all course

SLOs, one department assessed almost a third and one didn’t assess any at all.

Overall analysis: It would be nice to consider the numbers of course and certificate level

assessment this year as a fluke, but the rates match what is occurring in other departments

across campus. Now that Instruction has moved from setting up and institutionalizing

SLO assessment to focusing on quality assurance, it undertook an inventory of overall

SLO assessment for the first time in Fall 2012. Using a tracking tool developed in

response to last year’s ARC annual report, Instruction discovered that 61% of SLOs in

active courses (those in the catalog and offered in the last three years) and 76% of

certificate SLOs had been assessed.

Before this, a department’s progress on the Revolving Wheel of Assessment was not

revealed until they attended a mandatory workshop two years before their program plan

was due and then again when they presented that plan to the Council for Instructional

Planning. The Council for Instructional Planning recognized that a four-year gap in

assessment reporting was not helpful and in 2008, required a description of assessment

activities as part of a department’s annual report. In 2011, it asked departments to also

submit any completed Assessment Analysis forms from the past year. However, not until

the reports due in December 2012 will departments be asked to report on their progress

on the Revolving Wheel of Assessment. These reports will be read by the SLO

Coordinator who will offer help to struggling departments. The new SLO Tracking tool,

which took the campus inventory and revealed these numbers, also pinpointed specific

departments that are struggling to whom the SLO Coordinator will offer assistance.

ARC took a close look at these assessment completion statistics. First and foremost, it

recognized that since the SLO tracking tool is a brand new approach to measuring

departmental assessment efforts. The Planning and Research office consulted with the

acting Vice Presidents of Instruction, the Deans and the SLO Coordinator, along with the

Instructional Procedures Analyst, about how to define active courses and how to retrieve

them from the college curriculum database. All involved acknowledge that this process

and the tool itself need refinement. For example, while the spreadsheet captured

information at the course level (course SLO assessed yes or no), systematic tracking of

the assessment of individual course SLOs has yet to be attempted.

Secondly, in an attempt to assure quality, this group also decided not to include those

course and certificate SLOs whose measurement was attempted but done incorrectly.

11

For instance, one department carefully and thoroughly assessed all of its 120 courses, but

used the wrong method. If these courses had been included, the course assessment rate

would have jumped to 74%. Similar errors occurred with some certificate SLO

assessment. All of this points to a need for continued monitoring of SLO processes and

more intensive program chair training.

Furthermore, ARC recognizes that since Instruction started its SLO assessment with the

college core competencies, there has been more training and emphasis on assessing this

level. The course and certificate level assessment methods have been taught but not as

intensively. In addition, as noted in the 2011 annual report, some departments seem to be

struggling with the organization and scheduling of course and program SLO assessment,

while others are accomplishing it very successfully. Analysis has not revealed any easily

definable reasons for this; size of department, number of adjuncts and length of tenure as

program chair cannot be the sole cause since there are many departments that have

completed their assigned assessment despite these issues.

ARC recommends the following to assure quality control for Instructional SLO

Assessment:

Create an electronic tool for both assessment reporting and planning, so that

program chairs, the SLO Coordinator and the Vice President of Instruction’s

Office can more easily identify the SLO assessment that has been accomplished

and that which needs to be done.

Revamp the SLO assessment analysis forms to collect more accurate data on

adjunct participation, and courses not offered due to budget or curriculum issues.

Provide specific training in course and certificate level SLO assessment through

the SLO web page and in flex workshops.

Ensure that all struggling departments work individually with the SLO

Coordinator to schedule, discuss and report SLO assessment.

Facilitate a dialogue with Deans, the Council of Instructional Planning and the

Faculty Senate to brainstorm other methods to ensure full compliance with

college SLO standards.

The Library

While the Library has successfully assessed all of its SLOs, it reported in its program

planning presentation to the Council for Instructional Planning in Spring 2012 that it

wasn’t satisfied with its assessment method for the Core Four. The Library believes that

their services provide a means to help students master the college core competencies.

They chose to measure this by asking students to assess themselves on the competencies

as part of their annual survey. This yielded very positive results but it did not provide

useful and reliable information for how to actually improve student learning within the

particular services. The Library also felt that this assessment did not capture how it

contributes to the learning of faculty and community members as well as students.

12

In Fall 2012, the Library adopted an Administrative Unit Outcome to capture what the

Library’s full component of services offers to students, faculty, and the community. It

reads:

Cabrillo library patrons will be able to successfully use the library's physical and electronic services, information tools, and resources, to find and evaluate information, and accomplish academic endeavors in the pursuit of formal and informal learning

In addition, a new assessment cycle was drafted. Since the Library completed its

program plan in 2012, this cycle will be put into effect beginning in 2013.

Year 1 (by Spring 2013): Assess Computer services (website review committee

efforts; annual survey questions covering computer use)

Year 2 (Spring 2014): Assess Circulation services (likely using a brief survey

handed out to users of the services)

Year 3 (Spring 2015): Assess Reference services (likely using student evaluations

generated through the faculty evaluation process)

Year 4 (Spring 2016): Assess Information resources (method undetermined as

yet)

Year 5 (Spring 2017): Evaluate our overall outcomes, assessments, and planning

cycle

Year 6 (2017-2018): Write library program plan

Student Services Student Services has completed the SLO assessment of 92% of its SLOs. Now that each

SLO has been assessed once, Student Services is currently creating an on-going and

revolving assessment schedule while revising its program planning and annual report

templates.

Administration

Administration adopted a shift to writing and assessing administrative unit outcomes in

Spring 2012. Almost all departments have since written AUOs and two departments

have assessed them. In addition, five departments wrote program plans, using the

template from the Office of Instruction that was adopted in 2010.

13

Assessment Results: Emerging Needs and Issues

The departments who assessed the college Core 4 competencies, certificate and

individual course SLOs identified the following key student needs and issues:

A lack of preparedness in some students.

A need to continue to experiment with and develop better instructional

practices and pedagogy, including facilitating group work.

A need for faculty to provide more writing assignments in non-English

transfer level courses.

Those departments proposed the following strategies to help meet these needs:

More faculty training and development, particularly in working with

underprepared students.

More departmental meeting time devoted to a discussion of pedagogical

issues, with a focus on how to “scaffold” assignments so that they build

up to major assignments and/or the best progression of skills.

Training in how to implement and manage student working groups.

Request the writing factor for some transfer level courses.

Increase class participation through the use of clicker response tools.

Instructional departments also commented on the positive effects of SLO assessment

in their program plans.

Physics: “This process has proved very beneficial to our department. It sparked

many interesting discussions about teaching methodologies as well as highlighted

our students’ strengths.”

Computer Applications/Business Technology: “We have found this to be a

productive way to have focused discussions on course and student success and ways

to increase them.”

Kinesiology: “One faculty member who could not attend the meetings voiced

concern that completing the assessments amounted to ‘inconsequential busy work.’

She was able to attend a later meeting and learn from other faculty the kinds of

rubrics they used, and was thrilled with the results of her new assessment tool, so

much so that she shared with me each and every one of the student responses. She

was astounded at how meaningful her class was to her students, and has found new

direction and emphasis in her teaching. So we’ve found that dialogue and sharing is

integral to a meaningful assessment process. “

Others noted problem areas:

Political Science: “Adding SLOs to our program planning over time has significantly

impacted the planning process itself…The time involved in conceptualizing how to

apply this new paradigm, taking part in the necessary training and actually

implementing the assessment has been significant. Although part time faculty

14

members have been willing to participate, SLO assessment puts an undue burden on

them.”

Sociology: “…The Program Chair duties of a one full time contract department

…have been overwhelming…The assessment process has suffered.”

Student Services SLO assessment revealed that one time training may not be enough to

help students become more self-efficacious. The departments are proposing new

methods to follow-up with students over time.

15

Analysis of Cabrillo’s Outcomes Assessment Process

ARC’s analysis of this year’s SLO assessment process notes the wealth of assessment

occurring across campus in all sectors, along with issues that arise from either

institutionalizing the process and/or assuring its quality.

Overall, the assessment analysis forms scrutinized by ARC reveal that many important

insights about student learning have been garnered as a result of SLO assessment. The

entire college could benefit from hearing what has been learned. However, there are few

ways for departments to share what they’ve come to comprehend with others. With all

fifty-six Instructional departments now assessing SLOs, along with fourteen Student

Service departments and soon twenty-one Administrative departments, the college needs

to find a way to disseminate all that has been discovered.

Last year ARC made a recommendation that more sharing occur in Instruction, and in

Fall 2012, it facilitated a flex workshop to impart what had been discovered from Core 4

assessment, which resulted in useful interdepartmental dialogue. This year, ARC

recommends continuing that conversation but also expanding it so that the important

insights generated by the Student Services SLO assessment can be shared with

Instructional faculty and staff, and vice versa. This presents a scheduling challenge since

many Student Services faculty and staff are very busy serving students during Flex week

and cannot attend the scheduled sessions. ARC brought this idea to the Staff

Development committee, which enthusiastically embraced it and suggested a mid-

semester flex time for sharing between Instruction and Student Services. Staff

Development is currently in dialogue with the Faculty Senate about this possibility;

changing Flex times is also a negotiated item and must be part of a discussion between

the Administration and the Faculty union.

ARC further recommends that the college give serious consideration to how it can

continue to recognize and share assessment results so that the entire college community

can benefit. Some sort of vehicle that highlights excellent work, such as a newsletter,

web portal or grants and awards, should be created.

In addition to sharing assessment results, one of the biggest needs is a streamlined

scheduling and reporting process that allows the college to have an accurate look at what

outcomes assessment is occurring and how each department is progressing with this

work. For instance, Instruction’s fifty-six departments are each required to turn in at

least two forms per year summarizing their SLO assessment efforts. Currently, the forms

are word documents downloaded from the SLO website which are e-mailed to the

Instruction Office. Program Chairs keep track of what assessment is scheduled and what

has been accomplished on their own. As noted earlier, not all departments are completing

their assessment in a timely manner and those who might assist in this effort, such as

Deans and the SLO Coordinator, are unaware of where problems exist until too late in the

cycle. A campus wide system for reporting and scheduling would make this work easier

and more efficient, and could increase the rate of SLO assessment.

16

ARC previously looked into various outsourced SLO reporting formats, but all were

found to be financially unfeasible; the 2011 report details those efforts along with a

recommendation that the SLO Coordinator and the Planning and Research Office

continue working to find solutions. This resulted in the creation of the SLO Tracking

tool, and some organizing documents but as this report attests, more is needed. To meet

that need, in Fall 2012, ARC convened an ad hoc committee to explore other options.

Composed of some of the best technical minds on campus, it is currently exploring the

use of CurriUNET’s SLO and program planning modules along with some homegrown

solutions. It will report its conclusions to ARC and the committee will, in turn, pass

those recommendations on to other shared governance committees.

ARC also noted that this year, some departments are assessing SLOs for the second time.

It recommends modifying the assessment analysis form so that departments can report on

the results of previous results and identified trends.

Last year, ARC recommended increased training of Program Chairs and Deans. One of

the goals of this training was to provide a solution to another issue arising from the

institutionalization of SLO assessment: lack of participation by adjunct faculty. Since

PC’s now are responsible for training their adjuncts in SLO assessment, ARC hoped that

improving their training would result in increased adjunct participation. Two Flex

workshops were held, in Spring and Fall 2012, with good attendance, during which the

PC role in SLO assessment was clarified, new tools for organizing it were offered and

most importantly, a dialogue occurred between those departments that have struggled

with SLO issues and those that have been successful. It is too soon to tell if this dialogue

will actually bring about an increase in adjunct participation numbers, but the workshops

were a promising start. This year ARC recommends that this training be continued but in

a different format:

Now that struggling departments have been identified through the SLO

Tracker, they should work individually with the SLO Coordinator to plan

and organize SLO assessment.

Create a special Program Chair section of the revamped SLO website,

with training materials (for new program chairs), tools and examples from

departments that have successfully undertaken SLO work. The Flex

workshops offered this year also garnered many helpful suggestions for

what should be included in this section of the website.

One of ARC’s activities of last year was to develop a campus-wide survey to take the

“SLO temperature” of the entire college. ARC administered the survey in late Fall 2011,

analyzed the results in Spring 2012 and prepared a short report on the survey results in

Fall 2012. The survey results confirmed the observations of many ARC reports from the

past five years:

The campus finds the SLO assessment process valuable.

Adjunct and full-time faculty have a different experience with SLO

assessment

17

At the time, Student Services had just rewritten their SLOs and were just

embarking on actual assessment.

At the time, Administration was still struggling with how they contributed to

student learning outcomes; they were at the very beginning of their

assessment efforts.

ARC will disseminate the survey results in Spring 2013, along with an update on how

things have changed. In addition, because Student Services and Administration have

made such strides in only twelve months, ARC will administer the survey again in late

Spring 2013.

Last year, the Faculty Senate embarked on a pilot to add a quantitative component to

SLO reporting and added pre and post testing as an approved assessment method for

Basic Skills and Transfer departments. ARC recommends that the SLO Coordinator

collect feedback about these changes and share the results with the Faculty Senate.

The Library’s assessment process, with its switch to AUOs, showcases the iterative

properties of SLO assessment and how taking a careful look at both data and processes

can result in needed changes. ARC looks forward to the insights revealed by the new

assessment focus and measurements.

Student Services has made great progress in their work with SLO assessment this year.

The committee commends them for undertaking so much good SLO assessment. Now

that a first round has been completed, Student Services has standardized its required

program planning elements and developed a template for those plans. This template

better integrates SLO assessment results with program planning goals and budgetary

recommendations.

Administration has also made great progress. The writing of Administrative Unit

Outcomes has commenced with zeal and insight; eighty-five percent of departments have

written them and are slowly beginning their assessment. ARC was especially pleased

that five departments wrote program plans and two of them assessed their AUOs. Now

that some plans have been completed, it may be time to revisit the program planning

template to see if all components of it are useful. As part of its new institutional

effectiveness duties, ARC drafted a simpler template for all non-Instructional

departments, built on the one developed by Student Services. ARC recommends that the

College Planning Council, Cabinet and all other non-Instructional managers groups

examine the new template and adopt it.

Finally, ARC recommends that its name be changed from the SLO Assessment Review

Committee to the Outcomes Assessment Review Committee since it is now looking at

both student learning and administrative unit outcomes.

18

Commendations

ARC salutes the Computer Applications and Business Technology

department and the Nursing department for creating new forms to keep track

of SLO assessment over the entire six-year planning cycle.

ARC commends the Political Science and Physics departments for looking at

all aspects of the learning process and for being very student-focused in their

plans for improvement of the classroom.

ARC lauds all Student Services departments for undertaking SLO

assessment; their work demonstrates how they assist students to become

more self-sufficient through training and self-efficacy.

ARC extolls the AUO assessment done by the Vice President of Student

Services office and the Office of Matriculation.

Recommendations

New Recommendations for Teaching and Learning

The Faculty Senate has primary responsibility for providing leadership in teaching and

learning, particularly in areas related to curriculum and pedagogy, while Student Services

Council directs the efforts in their area. The recommendations below will be put into

effect by Faculty Senate, Student Services Council and college shared governance

committees.

Recommendation Responsible Party Time Line

Provide sustained faculty

development for the improvement of

pedagogy and the sharing of best

practices, particularly across

departments so faculty can learn

successful strategies used by others to

solve common problems.

Staff Development committee

and Program Chairs

Spring and

Fall 2013 flex

In Student Services, provide more

than one-time trainings and/or follow

up with students over time.

Individual departments in

Student Services

On-going

19

New recommendations for SLO Assessment Processes

Recommendation Responsible Party Time Line

Create a forum for Student Services

and Instructional departments to share

SLO assessment results that occurs

outside of traditional flex week

Staff Development

Committee, the

Faculty Senate, CCFT

and Administration

2013

Find ways to showcase SLO and AUO

assessment results across the campus

ARC Spring 2013

Create an electronic means of

organizing, scheduling and reporting

SLO assessment results

ARC ad hoc

committee

Spring 2013

Provide web based and flex training in

how to assess course and certificate

SLOs

SLO Coordinator 2013

Departments struggling with SLO

assessment should work individually

with the SLO Coordinator to find

solutions for any issues

SLO Coordinator 2013

Facilitate a dialogue with Deans, the

Council for Instructional Planning and

the Faculty Senate to brainstorm other

methods to ensure full compliance with

college SLO standards.

ARC, Deans, CIP.

Faculty Senate

2013

Create a special section of the

SLO web site for Program Chairs

SLO Coordinator Spring 2013

Revise Assessment Analysis forms to

gather better adjunct and curriculum

data; add a line to report on previous

interventions the last time an SLO was

assessed and the progress made.

SLO Coordinator Spring 2013

Disseminate results of ARC survey;

administer survey again in 2013

SLO Coordinator Spring 2013

Gather feedback on pilot on

quantitative reporting of SLO results

SLO Coordinator 2013

Adopt the new template for non-

Instructional program planning created

by ARC

Administration 2013

Change ARC’s name Faculty Senate Spring 2013

20

Completed Recommendations from the 2011 ARC Report

Past Recommendation Action Taken Any Next Steps?

Provide training about

organizing and facilitating

departmental SLO

assessment to Program

Chairs and Deans.

Flex workshop offered

Spring and Fall 2012

Work with PRO and IT

to create an electronic tool

to plan and track SLO

assessment; train PCs how

to use it.

Facilitate interdisciplinary

discussions about student

mastery of each of the four

core competencies

Fall 2012 Flex meeting Spring 2013 Flex

workshop to continue the

discussion

Provide on-going training

and workshops in SLO

assessment to Student

Services staff

Individual meetings

between departments and

the SLO Coordinator were

held in Spring and Fall

2012

SLO Coordinator should

continue to work with any

departments that might

want to revise their

assessment process now

that it’s been tried once.

Serve as readers for the SLO

chapter that will be

included in the 2012

Accreditation Self-

Evaluation.

ARC read the chapter draft

in Fall 2012

Revise chapter based on

committee suggestions

Recommendations in Process from the 2011 and 2010 ARC Reports

Past Recommendation Actions Undertaken Next Steps

Survey adjunct faculty to

assess their awareness of

Cabrillo’s SLO process

Survey of entire campus

(not just adjuncts)

undertaken and analyzed

Distribute analysis to

shared governance venues

Inform potential hires of

Cabrillo’s SLO process and

our participation

expectations in trainings for

new faculty, through

mentorships and in the

Faculty Handbook

Wrote section on SLOs

for new Faculty handbook

Convene meeting with

Human Resources; bring

SLO process to adjunct

faculty training.

Create a venue or reporting

mechanism for

Administration’s Program

Plans

Discussions within

Cabinet

Continue discussion

21

Past Recommendation Actions Undertaken Next Steps

Convene a meeting of

Program Chairs of smaller

departments to brainstorm

organizational strategies for

SLO assessment

Workshop planned for

Spring 2013

Hold workshop

Create a web tool that lists

the calendar for every

Instructional department’s

SLO assessment schedule.

SLO Tracking Tool

created- but it was only

able to inventory (not

calendar) college SLO

assessment

Continue to work with IT

and PRO to create a web

tool for planning and

reporting SLO assessment

results; explore options for

outsourced tool.

Post examples of a full

assessment cycle on the

SLO web site for transfer/

basic skills, CTE and

Student Services

No progress Revamp SLO website in

Spring 2013 to include this

Develop an Assessment

Instrument and reporting

format for Administration

Program Planning that can

be used by all the

departments in this area

Based on the good work

done in Administration

program plans, ARC

developed

recommendations for a

simpler, common program

planning template

Bring the template to

Administration

Write Administrative Unit

Outcomes for each

department in

Administration

85% complete Complete in Spring 2013

Revise and update SLO web

site

No progress Complete in Spring 2013;

on-going as needed

Past Recommendations that are now Institutional Practices

Date of

Recommend-

ation

Past Recommendation Actions Taken

2008 Offer an intensive SLO

Assessment workshop for all

faculty in instructional

departments two years in advance

of Program Planning

Annual Spring Flex Workshop

2009 Support ongoing, sustained staff

development in the assessment of

student learning, including rubric

development.

Ongoing Flex Workshops

22

Date of

Recommend-

ation

Past Recommendation Actions Taken

2009 Share effective practices and

methods for modeling strategies

for assignments

Ongoing Flex Workshops

2009 Provide support for faculty as they

confront challenges to academic

ethics, such as plagiarism and

other forms of cheating

On-going Flex workshops;

creation of Student Honor Code

2009 Provide sustained faculty

development for addressing

student learning needs in reading,

research and documentation, and

writing

On-going Flex workshops

2009 Communicate to the college at

large the importance of

maintaining and documenting a

college-wide planning process

that systematically considers

student learning, including non-

instructional areas.

“Breakfast with Brian” flex

workshops; development of the

Faculty Inquiry Network;

Bridging Research Information

and Culture Technical

Assistance Project; discussions

about Student Success Task

Force Recommendations;

campus wide focus on Student

Success

2010 Survey campus to assess

awareness of Cabrillo’s SLO

process

First survey administered Fall

2011; second to be administered

Spring 2013

Emerging Trends

Emerging Needs and

Issues

Recommendations for

Teaching and Learning

Recommendations for SLO

Assessment Processes

2007 Students need stronger

skills in writing, reading,

and college readiness;

The longer a student is

enrolled at Cabrillo, the

more positive their

association with the

Library

More tutorial assistance for

students

Encourage greater adjunct

involvement; Continue to

educate the Cabrillo community

about the paradigm shift

23

Emerging Needs and

Issues

Recommendations for

Teaching and Learning

Recommendations for SLO

Assessment Processes

2008 Increase emphasis on

class discussions and

student collaboration.

Teachers want more frequent

collegial exchange; Improved

facilities/equipment needed.

Encourage greater adjunct

involvement. SLO workshop

for programs two years in

advance of Instructional

Planning and for non

instructional programs;

Develop system of succession

and dissemination of expertise

in SLOAC across campus.

2009 Students need more

instruction in reading,

research and

documentation, and

writing; concerns about

plagiarism.

Provide ongoing, sustained

faculty development; share

effective practices and

strategies for modeling

assignments.

Encourage greater adjunct

involvement. Communicate to

the college the importance of

maintaining and documenting a

planning process that

systematically considers student

learning.

2010

Some students need more

instruction in basic

academic skills and

college survival skills.

Provide faculty

training in new pedagogies,

technology, and

contextualized instruction.

Support the teaching of

college survival skills across

the curriculum.

Encourage greater adjunct

involvement. Embed SLO

assessment expectations in

faculty hiring, new hire training

and mentoring practices.

Develop an electronic means

for SLO assessment result

reporting. Explore adding a

quantitative component.

2011 Students need to improve

their reading and writing

skills.

Provide faculty development

to improve pedagogy and

sharing of best practices. Use

flex hours, but not necessarily

during flex week, to do this.

Provide training to Deans and

Program chairs on organizing

SLO tasks. Revise web site and

add web tools to assist

organizing the process. Hold

campus-wide discussions on

Core 4 assessment results.

Undertake pilot for numerical

reporting.

2012 Students need to be more

prepared for college level

work, especially writing

in transfer level courses.

Provide faculty development

to improve pedagogy and

sharing of best practices.

Facilitate discussions between

Instructional faculty and

Student Services faculty and

staff to share SLO assessment

results.

Find ways to showcase

assessment insights occurring

across the campus. Increase

rate of SLO assessment by

creating an electronic tool to

organize, track and report

assessment results. Work

individually with struggling

departments to achieve timely

SLO assessment. Create a

program chair section of SLO

website.