Student Learning Outcomes & Assessment Handbook · 2014-03-11 · individual class schedules and transcripts via MyWeb. 2. Submit degree and certificate graduation petitions. •

Approved by Academic Senate, October 2012

Page

1

San Jose City College

Student Learning Outcomes & Assessment

Handbook


Page

2

Table of Contents PREFACE/INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................3

BASIC AGREEMENTS ................................................................................................................5 SJCC Student Learning Outcomes and Assessment Committee (SLOAC) and Its Approach ...............................................................................................................5 The Role of the SLOAC ......................................................................................................5 The Goals of SLO Assessment ............................................................................................5 SLO Assessment and Staff/Faculty Evaluations..................................................................6 SLOs & ASSESSMENT DEFINED .............................................................................................7 Objectives vs. Outcomes ......................................................................................................7 Sample SLOs Across the Campus ..............................................................................7 Course – Program – Institutional Alignment .......................................................................8 SJCC Mission Statement.............................................................................................9 SJCC Institutional SLOs May 2010 ............................................................................9 Mapping Examples from Other Campuses .................................................................9 Assessment .........................................................................................................................11

Direct Assessment Methods ......................................................................................11 Indirect Assessment Methods ...................................................................................11

“CLOSING THE LOOP”: SLO & ASSESSMENT CYCLE ..................................................13 SJCC: CYCLES, TIMELINES & REPORTING FORMS .....................................................13 Timelines............................................................................................................................15 Reporting Forms ................................................................................................................16 The Course Level Assessment Reporting Form .......................................................16 The Program Level Assessment Reporting Form .....................................................17 Samples - Completed Forms .....................................................................................17 Helpful tips.........................................................................................................................18 Transition to TracDat .........................................................................................................19 SAMPLE COURSE STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES REPORTS ..............................22 Academic Divisions ...........................................................................................................22 SAMPLE PROGRAM STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES REPORTS ..........................41 Academic Divisions ...........................................................................................................41 Student Services .................................................................................................................46 SAMPLE STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES MAPPING ................................................51 Academic Divisions ...........................................................................................................51


Page

3

Student Learning Outcomes & Assessment Handbook Preface/Introduction

This handbook is a product of the Student Learning Outcomes and Assessment Committee (SLOAC) of San José City College. The formation of the SLOAC was approved by the Academic Senate in May 2010 as a result of the preparations for writing the 2010 SJCC Accreditation Self Study submitted to the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC) of the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC). The US Department of Education has determined that:

The goal of accreditation is to ensure that education provided by institutions of higher education meets acceptable levels of quality. … [There are] regional and national accrediting agencies recognized by the U.S. Secretary of Education as reliable authorities concerning the quality of education or training offered by the institutions of higher education or higher education programs they accredit. http://www2.ed.gov/admins/finaid/accred/index.html

Although there are several accrediting agencies across the country, all have increasingly called for the development and implementation of broad-based assessments to measure student achievement in order to evaluate and improve academic excellence and institutional effectiveness. Our regional accrediting body, the ACCJC, has developed a rubric for evaluating institutional effectiveness regarding Student Learning Outcomes. It has also established and described a level of Proficiency that all institutions should meet by 2012:

ACCJC Proficiency Rubric Statements • Student learning outcomes and authentic assessment are in place for courses, programs and degrees. • There is widespread institutional dialogue about the results of assessment and identification of gaps. • Decision-making includes dialogue on the results of assessment and is purposefully directed toward aligning institution-wide practices to support and improve student learning. • Appropriate resources continue to be allocated and fine-tuned. • Comprehensive assessment reports exist and are completed and updated on a regular basis. • Course student learning outcomes are aligned with degree student learning outcomes. • Students demonstrate awareness of goals and purposes of courses and programs in which they are enrolled.

Source: ACCJC May 2011


Page

4

In the fall 2010 both the evaluation team and ACCJC expressed concern as to whether SJCC has made sufficient progress needed to meet the 2012 deadline. The college recognized that additional work was needed to “accelerate its efforts at identifying, assessing, and communicating Student Learning Outcomes in order to meet the requirement that all colleges will be at the proficiency level by 2012.” (Standards IIA.1c, IIA.2b, II.A.6, IIB.4, IIC.2, IIIA.1c)

This handbook is an attempt to assist faculty and staff in their efforts to reach those proficiency guidelines. It is divided into four areas: I. BASIC AGREEMENTS

• SJCC SLOAC and Its Approach • The Role of the SLOAC • The Goals of SLO Assessment • Statement on SLOs and staff/faculty evaluation

II. SLOs & ASSESSMENT DEFINED

• SLOs: What are they? A short “history”. From “objectives” to “outcomes” • SLOs at the Course, Program and Institutional levels; Mapping • Sample SLOs; Bloom’s Taxonomy; Lower to higher order thinking • Assessment: Individual grades vs. Assessment; embedded in course; direct vs. indirect • Sample Assessment tools; rubrics

III. SLO & ASSESSMENT CYCLE

• Nichol & Nichol’s 5-step process; “closing the loop”; ACCJC guidelines • Sample timelines

IV. SJCC: TIMELINES & REPORTING FORMS

• Suggested timelines; fall-spring • Forms explained • Sample completed forms • Helpful tips


Page

5

I. BASIC AGREEMENTS SJCC Student Learning Outcomes and Assessment Committee (SLOAC) and Its Approach As with any mandate from an evaluating body, the ACCJC’s call to implement evaluation of Student Learning Outcomes and Assessment (SLO & A) has been met with a variety of reactions. We all come to our role in our students’ education from different professional perspectives, pedagogical approaches, and intellectual traditions that determine our relationship to this particular mandate. From its inception the SJCC SLOAC has tried to move forward keeping that in mind. It has continually addressed its charge negotiating three sets of tensions:

a. Urgency vs. Process. Although we appreciate the need to accelerate SLO assessment and reporting due to the exigencies of our probationary status, committee members also understand the importance of developing sound, sustainable practices.

b. Standardization vs. Academic Freedom. The accrediting body has set forth guiding principles regarding the role of assessment in its mandate. These guidelines expect that the assessments done within a department or program of services are the result of agreed-upon, explicit criteria that have considered national disciplinary standards. Committee members have also sought to respect the diversity inherent in learning styles, modes of instructional delivery and the providing of services.

c. Evidence vs. Dialogue. The national trend that institutional and curricular changes be “data-driven” and reflect a “culture of evidence” continues. The SLOAC maintains that the evidence and data must be in the service of a healthy, collegial dialogue about our role in the success of our students.

The Role of the SLOAC Through its deliberations, the committee envisions itself as a mentoring body and not one that evaluates other faculty, staff or their work. Although attempting to meet ACCJC timelines, we intend to privilege the labor processes already established within departments and programs, as well as the good efforts in writing course objectives and assessing student learning already being done. The SLOAC can offer suggestions on process and procedures, but each department or program should meet to determine what works best for them. The Goals of SLO Assessment The SLOAC views the overarching goal of SLO assessment to facilitate collaboration within and among departments while improving student learning, retention and program completion. While we have been motivated by accreditation concerns, the SLOAC assumes that through re-evaluating the manner in which we develop student learning outcomes, perform assessments and discuss among ourselves those results, the College as a whole can demonstrate more effectively our common commitment to academic excellence and to an ongoing dialogue about improving the services we provide to our students.


Page

6

SLO Assessment and Staff/Faculty Evaluations At the time of this writing, the District has entered negotiations with the Faculty Association regarding the completion of the SLO&A process in relation to the evaluation of faculty. In the future, we plan to include here a statement outlining those negotiations and resultant policies.


Page

7

II. SLOs & ASSESSMENT DEFINED

A. Objectives vs. Outcomes In the national trend to more effectively evaluate and make observable our success in facilitating our students’ learning, there has been a shift from writing student learning objectives to student learning outcomes. In general, objectives tend to reflect more closely the course content, resulting in a long list of items. Outcomes allow for broader statements that reflect what the students (as a group) can “do” at the end of course or after receiving services. Objectives: Nuts and Bolts

• Requires basic thinking skills • Describes small, discreet skills • Does not necessarily result in a product

Student Learning Outcomes: The Big Picture

• Requires HIGHER LEVEL thinking skills • Synthesizes many discreet skills • Results in a product that must be observed, evaluated, or assessed by faculty/staff • Requires students to APPLY what they have learned

Here is an example of the difference in an English IA course: Course Objectives:

• Develop a main idea • Maintain a clear command of tone • Show control of standard English grammar

Rewritten to synthesize into a Learning Outcome:

• Write essays, including research-based writing, demonstrating academic rhetorical strategies and documentation.

Sample SLOs across the campus The following SLOs were included in assessment reports from fall 2011. They reflect outcomes from a variety of disciplines and services. The full reports are found in a later section.

• Admissions & Records: 1. Register for classes, add and drop classes, and access individual class schedules and transcripts via MyWeb. 2. Submit degree and certificate graduation petitions.

• ART 091: Interpret and derive the meaning of a piece of art according to elements and principles of art, perceptual relationships (such as symbolism), and the historical framework in which it was created.

• Biology Program: Describe the ideal scientific method and use it to design a simple study of biology.


Page

8

• CHEM 1B: Student recognizes the relationship between rate law and the reaction mechanism.

• COMS Oral Communication 020: Present informative and persuasive speeches. • Esthetics 130A/B: Communication skills—Build rapport with diverse clientele. Explain

methods, equipment and products used. • ESL 091: Write in-class essays that show competency in essay organization and

development and use of academic vocabulary. These essays will show proficiency in verb tense and sentence boundaries. They will also exhibit sentence variety showing ability to use simple, compound, and complex sentences.

• Financial Aid Office: 1. Submit complete and accurate Financial Aid applications with minimal assistance. 2. Submit complete, required documentation to the Financial Aid Office as soon as possible.

• Math 11A: #2 Perform operations on real numbers. #4 Simplify and evaluate algebraic expressions. #5 Solve linear equations and inequalities in one variable.

• Tutoring Center Program: 1. Demonstrate improved understanding of their course subject matter. 2. Feel more confident in their mastery of the course material.

In general, SLOs should:

• Communicate clear expectations about what is important in the course or program • Inform students that they will be evaluated (or demonstrate what they have learned) in a

consistent way • Demonstrate that there is common core content across all sections of a course [though,

instructional delivery may vary among individual faculty members] • Allow all faculty and staff to make better decisions about courses and programs based on

the assessment of the SLOs. • Demonstrate an alignment with SLOs at the course, program and institutional levels

Helpful links dealing with: Action Verbs; Bloom’s Taxonomy; Lower vs. Higher Thinking; http://www.celt.iastate.edu/teaching/RevisedBlooms1.html http://www.sjcc.edu/Acad/Special/slo/pdf/SLO-Glossary-2010.pdf

B. Course - Program - Institutional Alignment One way to demonstrate that the College as a whole is meeting its goals is to reflect the College mission in the SLOs at the Program level, and likewise reflect those larger Program SLOs in different courses. Not all courses need to deal with every single Program or Institutional SLO, however they should be reflected somewhere in the program’s course offerings or services.

http://www.celt.iastate.edu/teaching/RevisedBlooms1.html

http://www.sjcc.edu/Acad/Special/slo/pdf/SLO-Glossary-2010.pdf


Page

9

SJCC Mission Statement

"The mission of San Jose City College is to effect social justice by providing open and equitable access to quality education and programs that both challenge and prepare individuals for successful careers and active participation in a diverse, global society.” SJCC Catalog 2009-10

SJCC Institutional SLOs May 2010

1. Communication Students will communicate effectively including reading, writing, speaking and listening. 2. Critical and Analytical Thinking Students will analyze problems using evidence and sound reasoning to make decisions. 3. Global Awareness and Social Justice Students will demonstrate an awareness of social, economic, ecological, historical, and cultural differences and their implications. 4. Personal Responsibility, Ethics and Civility Students will demonstrate personal and civic responsibility and professional integrity. 5. Technology Students will utilize technology effectively for informational, academic, personal, and professional needs. 6. Aesthetics and Creativity Students will develop an appreciation of the arts and engage in the creative process. One way to help in ensuring that alignment exists is to develop a grid or map of which courses in the Program reflect each of the Program SLOs. The same should be done with the Program SLOs in relation to the Institutional SLOs. There are several ways to do this and each program or department should meet to determine what way works best for them. Such a determination can be achieved within one or two meetings. Mapping Examples from Other Campuses SLOAC members have attended workshops offered by the Western Association of Schools and Colleges, the regional accrediting body. Within these workshops samples of alignment “maps” have been offered. Following are a few methods found in those handouts (available at the SLOAC webpage link). For each course in a program, the map will show to what extent, if at all, the institutional SLOs are addressed. Here are some common rubrics: A) I-D-M Mary Allen, CSU Bakersfield


Page

10

• Introduce (I): Students first learn about key ideas, concepts or skills related to the outcome;

• Develop (D): Students gain additional information related to the outcome. They may start to synthesize key ideas or skills and are expected to demonstrate their knowledge or ability at increasingly proficient levels.

• Master (M): Students are expected to be able to demonstrate their ability to perform the outcome with a reasonably high level of independence and sophistication.

B) Also from Mary Allen:

• Novice, Apprentice, Proficient, Expert • Emerging, Developing, Proficient, Insightful (similar to grading rubrics)

C) 1-2-3 Bellevue College, WA

• 0: Does not include instruction in this area; • 1: Includes some instruction or practice and assessment (very little emphasis); • 2: Addresses the outcome as the focus in 20% or more of the course (modest emphasis); • 3: Addresses the outcome as the focus in 33% or more of the course (major emphasis).

Here is an example of what a map would look like using the rubric above.

Outcome 1 Outcome 2 Outcome 3 Outcome 4 Course 1 1 Course 2 2 1 1 Course 3 3 2 2 Course 4 3 1 2 Course 5 2 3 Course 6 3 Once you have created your map, take a moment to assess the alignment. This is what CSU Long Beach considers to be a “healthy” map (using the Introduced, Developed, Mastered criteria):

• Each learning outcome (each column) is introduced, developed and mastered at least once across multiple courses. However, if each cell in the column is filled, it suggests redundancy and overlap related to that outcome in your curriculum. If few cells are filled or you are missing an I, D, or M, it’s likely the curriculum is not covering that outcome as completely as faculty would like.

• Each course (each row) supports at least one and ideally more than one learning outcome. Meaningfully addressing all learning outcomes in a single course is difficult, unless it is an introductory survey course. But if a required course does not seem related to any program learning outcomes, it provides the opportunity to ask whether the course should be required or whether an important learning outcome has been missed.


Page

11

Appendix: Sample SJCC Mapping Grids

C. Assessment When writing the SLOs it is useful to determine how to assess them, how you will measure to what extent students have reached those goals. The question that is often asked is “why aren’t grades enough?” If we are committed to academic freedom, we assign grades in different ways across sections of the same course. SLO assessment provides useful information about the degree to which students as a whole are learning the core skills, values, knowledge that all members of the program faculty and staff have deemed necessary. Although faculty and staff may choose to administer the assessment in different ways, there should be consistency through common outcomes, common instruments and common scoring. Therefore, it is helpful to embed the assessment instrument into the course and minimize the addition of “extra work”, or of additional tests and surveys that students will not take seriously. It is important to remember that assessment is not just about reporting data. The aim should be to use the data to improve the quality of the education and services we provide. Faculty and staff must meet to discuss and analyze the findings in order to make improvements. The next section on “closing the loop” will discuss that process more. Assessment Methods In general there are two different methods of assessment, direct and indirect. Barbara Wright has outlined several methods of each and provided the advantages and disadvantages of each. Below is a list of the methods she discussed at a WASC workshop on assessment. The handouts are found on pages 68-84 of the packet found here: http://www.sjcc.edu/Acad/Special/slo/pdf/ProgramBookRetreatStudentLearningAssessLevelI.pdf Direct Assessment Methods

Performances Capstone Courses Portfolios Common Assignments. Template assignments, secondary readings, and other embedded

assignments Course Management Programs that capture student responses Classroom Assessment/Research e.g. techniques in Classroom Assessment Techniques

(CAT) by Cross and Angelo Student Self-assessment Local Tests Commercially available standardized tests

Indirect Assessment Methods

Surveys Interviews Focus Groups Ethnographic Research

http://www.sjcc.edu/Acad/Special/slo/pdf/ProgramBookRetreatStudentLearningAssessLevelI.pdf


Page

12

Some assessments could involve both:

• Classroom Research • Course Management Programs • Focus Groups • Portfolios • Student Self-assessment

In the section below on Reporting Forms there are sample reports from across SJCC that demonstrate a variety of assessment methods. Appendices: http://www.sjcc.edu/Acad/Special/slo/pdf/GuidePrinciplesSLOAssessment.pdf


Page

13

III. “CLOSING THE LOOP”: SLO & ASSESSMENT CYCLE Once SLOs have been written and assessments done, faculty and staff should meet to discuss the results, analyze the data and decide future action. Questions that can arise: Are the SLOs well-written? Do they reflect what our learning goals truly are? Are the students demonstrating what they have learned? Do we need to change how we deliver instruction or services? In our effort to improve institutional effectiveness, it will be necessary to document those deliberations. The Academic Senate for California Community Colleges promotes the following cycle:

• Develop or modify student learning outcomes (SLOs) • Design and measure student learning as a result of the curriculum, course or program • Collect, discuss, and analyze data. • Determine refinements based on outcomes data • Develop, modify, or review a curriculum, course, program or service

Crafton Hills College has interpreted the cycle in this way:

1. Define/Refine student learning outcomes based on input from stakeholders. 2. Design assessment tools, criteria, and standards directly linked to each outcome. 3. Implement assessment tool(s) to gather evidence of student learning. 4. Analyze and evaluate the collected data. 5. Identify gaps between desired and actual results. 6. Document results and outline needed changes in curriculum, instructional materials, or

teaching strategies.

IV. SJCC: CYCLES, TIMELINES & REPORTING FORMS The SLOAC at SJCC has envisioned a six-step model that can be used for both Program level SLOs and Course level SLOs. Within each program, assessment at both levels should be accomplished. Each program should determine if the cycle at each level be completed per academic year, or per semester, as well as how many SLOs to assess during each cycle.

POSSIBLE QUESTIONS TO ASK AT EACH STEP IN THE PROCESS (Document Distributed at SLO & Assessment Workshop

PD Day September 1, 2011)

Develop or modify Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs)

• What should our students be able to do at the end of the course or service provided? This is not the same as course content, classroom activities, hours spent.

• Do outcomes describe major skills or knowledge? • Do they reflect course/program content? • What will our students produce that demonstrates that they have mastered those skills? • Do SLOs use action verbs that reflect higher-level thinking? • Do we have a unmanageable number of SLOs that can be assessed in a 4-6 year cycle?

http://wizardkicking.com/images/Logo-Paw.jpg



Page

14

• Do the SLOs reflect agreement among us (faculty/staff) about what we expect from our students?

• How can we arrive at agreement about SLOs and respect academic freedom and different modes of delivery?

• Do course-level SLOs reflect SLOs at the program and institutional levels?

Design SLO assessment tool(s) and measure student learning

• Which SLO do we want to assess? • How do we currently measure student learning? How do we know when we are

successful? • Do we use direct methods—tests, essays, presentations? Do we use indirect methods—

surveys, interviews, questionnaires? Do we use a combination of both—direct & indirect, quantitative & qualitative?

• Do our assessment methods give us the data/information needed to show what students learn?

• Do they reflect our SLOs? • Do we have a rubric that all faculty/staff can agree on for evaluating, not to assign

individual grades but to evaluate the SLO? • What do we consider to be a successful outcome? When ___% of students receive ____

score on _____ scale? • How will we come up with the assessment tool? • How will we get the assessment tool to all instructors/staff teaching the course or

providing the service? • How will we divide the labor? How and when will we meet? Collect, discuss, and analyze data

• How many instructors/sections/service providers conducted the assessment? • How many students participated? • Are there significant patterns or trends in the data? What can explain those? • Were our students successful based on our stated expectations? • Based on the findings, what is working well? • Does something need to change—the SLO, the method of delivery, the assessment tool,

the rubric, course/program content? • How do the suggested changes justify resource and personnel requests, if any? • How will we manage the process? How will we divide the labor? How and when will we

meet?

Determine refinements based on data

• Based on our discussion of assessment data, how do we plan to move forward? • How will we implement changes, if any, and on what timeline? • How do the suggested changes support and improve student learning?














Page

15

• Do the changes reflect recommendations to re-align institution wide practices that better support and improve student learning?

• How will these changes impact our program review? • What do we recommend for the next time this assessment is conducted and when will

we conduct it again? • How will we manage the process? How will we divide the labor? How and when will we

meet?

Drafting and submitting reports

• Do we know what forms to use and where to procure them? • How will we review the draft report—virtually, program/department meetings? • How will we archive our reports (for now)? • How are these reports submitted and related to the yearly program review process? • How will we share our findings with our colleagues and students? • How will we manage the process? How will we divide the labor? How and when will we

meet?

Develop, modify, review—“closing the loop”

• What SLO will we assess next? When? • Should we re-assess the same SLO and/or select a new one? • Do we need to change the process? • How will we manage the process? How will we divide the labor? How and when will we

meet? Timelines Below is a recommended timeline for assessment that was developed in 2011. It will soon be revised to reflect the newly developed process for Program Review. That is, the Comprehensive Program Review will be completed every 4 years. This will mean that all Program level SLOs should be assessed in a 3-4 year cycle. Ideally, all Course level SLOs should be assessed within that same time period. A revised timeline will be available October 2012.

SEMESTER 1

FALL

SEMESTER 2

SPRING

Step 1 • Identify SLOs for program/course

• Develop a grid to demonstrate alignment between Course, Program, Degree and Institutional SLOs (attainable during 1-2 meetings)

Step 4 Review data and summarize strengths & weaknesses of program/course based on this assessment (discussed at 1-2 meetings)








Page

16

Step 2 Identify at least one direct or indirect measure to be used for assessment of one outcome (discussed at same meetings above)

Step 5 Create assessment plan & timeline for program/course improvement including date of recommended next assessment of same SLO (at meetings in Step 4)

Step 3 Perform assessment/gather data for one outcome

Step 6 • Implement assessment plan • Share reports/summaries • Decide on next SLO to assess. Review Step 1. Begin again at Step 2

Important reminders:

• Steps 1-3 could be accomplished in one semester; Steps 4-6 in the next. • All Program level SLOs should be assessed at least every 4-6 years. Each program should

develop a timeline for the assessment of all SLOs. So, there should be no more than 6 program level SLOs.

• The assessment of SLOs should be coordinated with updates to the Course Outline, done every 5 years, and with the completion of the Comprehensive Program Review, done every 4 years.

Draft prepared for SJCC Academic Senate, Oct. 21, 2011 Revised for Academic Senate, Nov. 7, 2011 Approved by SJCC Academic Senate, November 15, 2011

Reporting Forms The SLOAC has developed reporting forms to be completed in order to document and share our results institution-wide. Currently, faculty and staff should turn in an electronic copy of the form to respective Deans, and they will become part of the information to be included in the program review. It is important to note that these procedures are only in the developmental stage. The College has purchased the data management system, TracDat, that will facilitate the documentation process for SLO assessment, as well as Program Review. Beginning in fall 2012, the SLOA Committee suggests that faculty and staff should submit the forms to their Dean by the end of the sixth week of the following semester. That is, for an assessment done in the spring semester, the completed reporting form should be submitted by the end of the sixth week of the fall semester. Likewise, for assessments done in the fall, forms should be submitted the sixth week of the spring semester. The Course Level Assessment Reporting Form (May 2011) includes the following entries: Student Learning Outcome Assessed


Page

17

Include the Student Learning Outcome being evaluated and the date of previous assessment (if available). Description of Assessment Tool Describe the method(s) being used to evaluate the SLO; for example: tests, lab exercises, surveys, final projects, portfolios. Include criteria used for evaluation; for example, rubrics or scoring guidelines. Data Collected Describe the evidence collected; for example: number of students taking exam and grade breakdown; number of surveys administered and responses. Analysis of Findings Describe your findings in terms of the Course SLO. Does the data reflect the SLO accurately? Recommendations Describe any recommendations and timeline for change in terms of instructional delivery, the SLO as currently written, Program SLOs and curriculum. Communication Briefly describe the manner in which faculty/staff discussed the findings and arrived at recommendations. Include dates if available. Similarly the Program Level Assessment Reporting Form (May 2011) includes: Student Learning Outcome Assessed Include the Program Student Learning Outcome being evaluated and the date of previous assessment (if available). Description of Assessment Tool Describe the method(s) being used to evaluate the SLO; for example: tests, lab exercises, surveys, final projects, portfolios. Include criteria used for evaluation; for example, rubrics or scoring guidelines. Data Collected Describe the evidence collected; for example: number of students taking exam and grade breakdown; number of surveys administered and responses. Analysis of Findings Describe your findings in terms of the Program SLO. Does the data reflect the SLO accurately? Recommendations Describe any recommendations and timeline for change in terms of instructional delivery, the SLO as currently written, the curriculum or Institutional SLOs. Communication Briefly describe the manner in which faculty/staff discussed the findings and arrived at recommendations. Include dates if available. SAMPLES - COMPLETED FORMS The SLOA Committee and the Deans have identified reports to include there that are good examples. They reflect different types of assessment methods (direct and indirect), styles of writing, as well as a variety of disciplines and services. Below is a short explanation of why these forms were selected. The full forms are found in the appendix.

• Admissions & Records: 1. Register for classes, add and drop classes, and access individual class schedules and transcripts via MyWeb. 2. Submit degree and certificate


Page

18

graduation petitions. This assessment utilizes quantitative data to review trends and make recommendations for improvement of services.

• ART 091: Interpret and derive the meaning of a piece of art according to elements and principles of art, perceptual relationships (such as symbolism), and the historical framework in which it was created. This report includes recommendations for change that were directly related to the assessment process.

• Biology Program: Describe the ideal scientific method and use it to design a simple study of biology. This assessment utilized an indirect method and surveyed faculty members that resulted in revising the SLO and served to justify resource requests.

• CHEM 1B: Student recognizes the relationship between rate law and the reaction mechanism. This assessment utilized a standardized exam and the results yielded a recommendation to improve links between the lecture and lab portions of the class.

• COMS Oral Communication 020: Present informative and persuasive speeches. This assessment utilized several indirect methods and resulted in recommendations for improvement across sections. The report also emphasized alignment with program and institutional level SLOs.

• Esthetics 130A/B: Communication skills—Build rapport with diverse clientele. Explain methods, equipment and products used. This assessment utilized several methods and resulted in recommendations for improving student acquisition of skills.

• ESL 091: Write in-class essays that show competency in essay organization and development and use of academic vocabulary. These essays will show proficiency in verb tense and sentence boundaries. They will also exhibit sentence variety showing ability to use simple, compound, and complex sentences. This detailed report offers examples of several assessment methods and is a good example of documenting how they “closed the loop”.

• Financial Aid Office: 1. Submit complete and accurate Financial Aid applications with minimal assistance. 2. Submit complete, required documentation to the Financial Aid Office as soon as possible. This assessment report discusses findings of a student survey that resulted in offering more workshops and improving face-to-face interactions with students.

• Math 11A: #2 Perform operations on real numbers. #4 Simplify and evaluate algebraic expressions. #5 Solve linear equations and inequalities in one variable. This report covered several SLOs, made comparisons with previous assessments, and demonstrated alignment with program level SLOs. Another example of “closing the loop”.

• Tutoring Center Program: 1. Demonstrate improved understanding of their course subject matter. 2. Feel more confident in their mastery of the course material. This assessment utilized indirect methods yielding recommendations that directly impacted services to students.

HELPFUL TIPS The SLOAC has also identified some general “dos and don’ts” to remember when completing the forms:


Page

19

• Complete and submit the form after the data have been reviewed and discussed within the department or program. The Reporting form should not just be a statement of the plan for assessment, but should reflect an analysis of data and recommendations for implementing change in the service or curriculum.

• Do not include personal, student information on the reporting forms.

• Even if there is only one faculty member teaching a course, there should be dialogue

about the assessment results with other faculty and/or the Dean.

• Currently, faculty and staff should turn in an electronic copy of the form to respective Deans, and they will become part of the information to be included in the program review.

• Beginning in fall 2012, the SLOA Committee suggests that faculty and staff should submit the forms by the end of the sixth week of the following semester. That is, for an assessment done in the spring semester, the completed reporting form should be submitted by the end of the sixth week of the fall semester. Likewise, for assessments done in the fall, forms should be submitted the sixth week of the spring semester.

TRANSITION TO TRACDAT

SJCC has purchased the TracDat system to facilitate, and create institutional memory regarding, the SLO assessment process. In July 2012, a working group of Campus Tech, administrative staff, and members of the Curriculum, Program Review and SLOA committees, met to initially set up the system to reflect current procedures as much as possible. A general, tentative plan to train users has been developed and is presented here:

Phase/Stage & Dates Participants Tasks Stage I (Sept. 8-Sept 28)

Vice Presidents Administrators Deans Faculty Course/Unit Leads Administrative Assistants SLOAC Members

• Upload Descriptions: PSLOs and CSLOs

• Input Spring 2012 SLO assessment results

Stage II (Sept 24-Nov 2)

SLOAC Deans Faculty Leads Administrative Assistants

• Upload Descriptions: PSLOs and CSLOs

• Input Spring 2012 SLO assessment results

Stage III (Nov 5-Dec 7)

Residual Training

• Begin inputting Fall 2012 SLO


Page

20

assessments

FALL 2012 TracDat Training

Training Day/Date Time/Location Tasks/Guests Thursday, September 20th 3-4, L113 Vice Presidents,

Administrators, Deans, Faculty Course/Unit Leads, Administrative Assistants, SLOAC Members, Academic Senate President

Thursday, September 27th 3-4, L113 Same as above Friday, September 28th 10:30-11:30, L113 Same as above Tuesday, October 16th 1-2, L113 Same as above Wednesday, October 17th 1-2, L113 Same as above Wednesday, October 24th 4-5, L113 Same as above Wednesday, November 14th 1-2, L113 Faculty Course/Unit Leads Thursday, November 15th 5-6, L113 Faculty Course/Unit Leads Wednesday, November 21st 5-6, L113 Faculty Course/Unit Leads Thursday, November 22nd 1-2, L113 Faculty Course/Unit Leads Wednesday, December 12th 2-3, L113 Faculty Course/Unit Leads Thursday, December 13th 5-6, L113 Faculty Course/Unit Leads Wednesday, December 19th 5-6, L113 Faculty Course/Unit Leads Thursday, December 20th 2-3, L113 Faculty Course/Unit Leads Prepared by D. Pucay & C. Cruz-Johnson, 9/10/2012

NOTE: One-on-one training sessions will be offered in GE-118.

[NOTE: To include in the future: a section on using TracDat, a description of the revised processes with screen shots, etc.]

LINK TO PROGRAM REVIEW

It is through the Program Review process that the links to SLO assessments and Resource Allocation are established and documented. Student Learning Outcomes are created for every course at program at SJCC. As well, each Program or Unit must submit a Comprehensive Program Review every three years, and an Annual Program Review that summarizes changes and resource requests in the intervening years. The program reviews for each department include the identification of resource needs. These needs are prioritized by the appropriate vice president who forwards recommendations to the Finance Committee for the Budget Hearing process.


Page

21

Based on the findings of the Budget Hearings, final resource allocations are forward to the College Planning Council, with final allocations made by the college president


Page

22


Page

23

Course Student Learning Outcome Assessment Report

San José City College Course & Division: Art 091 / HumanitiesSubmitted by: Allison Connor Semester & Year of Review: Fall 2011Date Submitted: December 19, 2011 STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOME ASSESSED Include the Student Learning Outcome being evaluated and the date of previous assessment (if available).

• Interpret and derive the meaning of a piece of art according to elements and principles of

art, perceptual relationships (such as symbolism), and the historical framework in which it was created.

Date of previous assessment not available. DESCRIPTION OF ASSESSMENT TOOL Describe the method(s) being used to evaluate the SLO; for example: tests, lab exercises, surveys, final projects, portfolios. Include criteria used for evaluation; for example, rubrics or scoring guidelines. A worksheet assignment in which the student was required to visit a museum and asked to choose a work of art to evaluate using both objective criteria, such analyzing the elements and principles of art, and subjective criteria such as an emotional response while demonstrating an understanding of the personal cultural context from which that response comes. In addition, the student is asked to briefly describe the cultural/historical background of the artwork and/or the artist. See attached worksheet. Students were evaluated using the following criteria: Above average – the student demonstrated an excellent understanding of the elements and principles of art, and the ability to analyze a work of art both objectively and subjectively. Somewhat above average – the student demonstrated a good understanding of the elements and principles of art, and the ability to analyze a work of art both objectively and subjectively. Average – the student demonstrated a moderate understanding of the elements and principles of art, and the ability to analyze a work of art both objectively and subjectively. Below average – the student demonstrated a poor understanding of the elements and principles of art, and showed poor ability to analyze a work of art both objectively and subjectively. DATA COLLECTED Describe the evidence collected; for example: number of students taking exam and grade breakdown; number of surveys administered and responses.


Page

24

In two sections of Art 91, 46 students had completed the assignment in time for this assessment. 68% were above average 20% were somewhat above average 10% were average 2% were below average. ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS Describe your findings in terms of the Course SLO. Does the data reflect the SLO accurately? 88% of students who completed the museum visit worksheet had above average success in interpreting and deriving meaning from an art work after completing an objective analysis of that artwork using the elements and principles of art. In-class discussions and reading helped prepare them to place that artwork in its historical and cultural context. The worksheet format was particularly effective in achieving the SLO in terms of an integrated subjective and objective analysis of an artwork. RECOMMENDATIONS Describe any recommendations and timeline for change in terms of instructional delivery, the SLO as currently written, Program SLOs and curriculum. A new learning tool, the museum visit worksheet had been recently incorporated into the classroom, and proved to be highly successful in implementing this SLO. Better results were obtained from the worksheet because it of its highly directed focus on the individual elements and principles of art. The worksheet format will be further tested in future classes. Better communication within the art department earlier in the semester would facilitate the universal implementation and assessment of the SLOs. Establish a shared vocabulary list, Diseminate and apply it throughout the arts curriculum, which will help to reinforce important concepts such as the elements and principles of design. Creating the vocabulary list will require a collaborative effort with input sought throughout the disciplines. COMMUNICATION Briefly describe the manner in which faculty/staff discussed the findings and arrived at recommendations. Include dates if available. The full-time faculty has been meeting consistently throughout the semester to develop the Program SLOs and assess how they are being implemented in the curriculum. We chose a specific Program SLO (analyze the objective and subjective qualities of an artwork) to assess and chose the Course SLOs to be assessed based on that Program SLO. We have also met with the entire part-time faculty to discuss the implementation of the Course SLO assessment. Full-time Faculty Meeting dates: 10/11/11; 10/25/11; 11/15/11; 12/6/11 Part-time Faculty Meeting dates: 10/26/11; 10/27/11; 10/31/11; 11/1/11; 11/2/11; 12/6/11; 12/7/11; 12/8/11


Page

25

Course Student Learning Outcome Assessment Report San José City College

Program/Division: CHEM-1B, MATH &SCIENCESubmitted by: JOSE A. CABRERA Semester & Year of Review: FALL 2011 Date Submitted: 3/02/2012 STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOME ASSESSED Include the Student Learning Outcome being evaluated and the date of previous assessment (if available). SLO-1: Student recognizes the relationship between rate law and the reaction mechanism. SLO-2: Student recognizes the fundamental relationship between reactants and products in chemical equilibrium using the law of mass action and the Le Chatelier’s Principle DESCRIPTION OF ASSESSMENT TOOL Describe the method(s) being used to evaluate the SLO; for example: tests, lab exercises, surveys, final projects, portfolios. Include criteria used for evaluation; for example, rubrics or scoring guidelines. The American Chemical (ACS) Society General Chemistry standardized examination is administered for each section of CHEM-1B. The examination employed in our course is prepared by the, “Examination Institute of the ACS Division of Chemical Education through its General Chemistry Committee.” The General Chemistry Committee is comprised of faculty from both four-year institutions as well as community colleges from around the country. The questions chosen to address the above-mentioned SLO’s are shown below. All students from each section provided responses to the same questions employed in the assessment. To assess SLO-1 described above all students enrolled in Chemistry-1B for fall 2011 were asked Question 1 as stated below: Question 1: Which rate law corresponds to the proposed mechanism for the decomposition of N2O? Reaction: 2N2O → 2N2 + O2 Mechanism: Step 1 N2O → N2 + O (slow) Step 2 N2O + O → N2 + O2 (fast)

(a) Rate = k[N2O] (c) Rate = k[N2O][O] (b) Rate = k[N2O]2 (d) Rate = k[N2O]2[O]


Page

26

To assess SLO-2 described above all students enrolled in Chemistry-1B for fall 2011 were asked Question 2 as stated below: Question 2- A mixture of gaseous nitrogen, hydrogen, and ammonia is placed in a sealed container and brought to equilibrium. Which change to the system will result in an increase in the number of moles of nitrogen gas?

2N2(g ) + 3H2(g) → 2NH3(g) ∆Ho = -46 kJ

(a) Increasing the temperature of the mixture (c) Adding H2 to the mixture (b) Removing NH3 from the mixture (d) Compressing the mixture DATA COLLECTED Describe the evidence collected; for example: number of students taking exam and grade breakdown; number of surveys administered and responses. As can be seen in the table and plot shown below, fifty-seven students contributed their response questions (Q1 and Q2). Thirty-seven out of the fifty-seven students correctly answered Question 1. Thirty-two out of the fifty-seven students correctly answered Question 2. This corresponds to 64.9 % and 56.1 % of correct responses for Question 1 and Question 2 respectively.

Total Number of Students Number of Students who Answered Correctly

Percent of Correct Responses

Q1 57 37 64.9% Q2 57 32 56.1%

Figure 1: Percent of correct responses for each of the questions (Q1 and Q2) chosen to assess SLO-1 and SLO-2 as described in the report. Q1 refers to Question 1. Q1 refers to Question 2. ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS Describe your findings in terms of the Course SLO. Does the data reflect the SLO accurately?

Series1, Q1, 64.9

Series1, Q2, 56.8


Page

27

SLO (Student recognizes the relationship between rate law and the reaction mechanism.). Over 60% of the students correctly answered the question addressing the above SLO. The question (Q1) as written does accurately reflect the SLO. SLO (Student recognizes the fundamental relationship between reactants and products in chemical equilibrium using the law of mass action and the Le Chatelier’s Principle). Only 56% of the students correctly answered the question addressing the above SLO. The question (Q1) as written does accurately reflect the SLO. RECOMMENDATIONS Describe any recommendations and timeline for change in terms of instructional delivery, the SLO as currently written, Program SLOs and curriculum. SLO (Student recognizes the relationship between rate law and the reaction mechanism.). As a department we plan to assess the same SLO in the next round. However, there is currently a laboratory experiment that directly relates to the SLO. We plan to change how the lab is presented to students, so as to provide a clearer connection between lecture and lab. In addition, we will provide assessment in the lab to determine the extent to which students understood pertinent chemical concepts in the laboratory. Further assessment will enable us to determine the effect of the changes described above, and thus provide data for further actions. SLO (Student recognizes the fundamental relationship between reactants and products in chemical equilibrium using the law of mass action and the Le Chatelier’s Principle). As a department we plan to assess the same SLO in the next round. However, since there is currently a laboratory experiment that directly relates to the SLO. We plan to change how the lab is presented to students, so as to provide a clearer connection between lecture and lab. In addition, we will provide assessment in the lab to determine the extent to which students understood pertinent chemical concepts in the laboratory. Further assessment will enable us to determine the effect of the changes described above, and thus provide data for further actions. COMMUNICATION Briefly describe the manner in which faculty/staff discussed the findings and arrived at recommendations. Include dates if available. The assessment report, which included the analyzed data, was provided to chemistry faculty on March 2, 2012. Faculty teaching the course sent their recommendations.


Page

28


Course & Division: Coms 20 Oral CommunicationSubmitted by: Leslyn McCallum Semester & Year of Review: Fall 2011Date Submitted: February 27, 2012 STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOME ASSESSED Present informative and persuasive speeches. ISLO #4 Global Awareness and Social Justice was included in this assessment PSLO: “Participate in the civic lives of their communities through public address and civic engagement, and advocate for positive change”. The ISLOs are embedded within the PSLOs for the Communication Studies Department, so when we assess a program outcome, we are also assessing for the institution. ISLO#4 Global Awareness and Social Justice is embedded into every communication course. The two PSLOs that coordinate with ISLO#4 are:

1. Appreciate and embrace diversity, differing belief and value systems, as well as individual opinions.

2. Participate in the civic life of their communities through public address and civic engagement, and advocate for positive change.

There is no previous documented assessment. DESCRIPTION OF ASSESSMENT TOOL A survey was created for all faculty teaching this course. The survey was conducted by interviews and evidence was collected via email and in person. Instructors were asked to submit copies of:

1. Syllabus 2. Outline requirements for informative and persuasive speeches 3. Assignment Handouts for informative and persuasive speaking 4. Labs and practicum 5. Rubrics for speeches 6. Peer evaluations 7. Assignment and lesson plans for citation of sources. 8. Arts and Lecture Series promoted within the class. This meets ISLO/PSLO #4.

DATA COLLECTED Describe the evidence collected; for example: number of students taking exam and grade breakdown; number of surveys administered and responses.


Page

29

All seven Communication Studies faculty members participated. Some were very helpful and others had to be pressured for the information. 2 full time faculty members and five adjunct faculty participated in the survey. Full time faculty member, Leslyn McCallum collected, examined, and analyzed all the data. ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS Describe your findings in terms of the Course SLO. Does the data reflect the SLO accurately? This SLO is a very basic one. Every Coms 20 Oral Communication course is REQUIRED to cover this material. This basic requirement allows the course to meet CSU transfer requirements. Both full time instructors are meeting all requirements for the course and following the course outline. Several of the adjunct faculty are not meeting basic requirements for the course. A few instructors do not have the course SLOs listed on their syllabus. Two do not require a formal, academically rigorous persuasive speech in the course. Outlining skills are a mandatory part of any Oral Communication course. One instructor is not requiring any typed, formal outlines in the course. One instructor does not have clear handouts of assignments. One instructor does not have clear rubrics for informative and persuasive speeches. RECOMMENDATIONS Describe any recommendations and timeline for change in terms of instructional delivery, the SLO as currently written, Program SLOs and curriculum. Meeting 1/10/2012 – Anya Iyengar and Leslyn McCallum created a document: Coms 20 Course Requirements. Furthermore, due to inconsistencies in syllabi, a Sample Outline was also created during this meeting. This was created to help coordinate language used on all course syllabi. Some faculty did not have correct SLOs for the course or SJCC’s description for the course. These documents were emailed to all faculty teaching Coms 20.

Coms 20 Course Requirements

The following is a list of requirements for all Coms 20/Oral Communication courses:

*These requirements closely match those of San Jose State University. It is imperative that we closely match the standards set by the California State University System.

REQUIRED

1. Speeches: every student must prepare and present an Informative and a Persuasive speech. Speeches must receive a letter grade from their instructor. Student must also practice impromptu speaking (does not have to be a graded assignment).

2. Syllabus must include: o SLOs clearly stated. o Statement about classroom conduct o Plagiarism /academic integrity policy o Disability /student accommodations o Campus withdraw/add/drop policy


Page

30

o Office hours, contact information

3. Assignment handouts: instructors must provide a handout for each speech as well as all other graded assignments. Handouts must clearly state requirements and expectations for students.

4. Labs and Practicum: students must be required to listen to speeches outside of the classroom. 5. Promotion of the Communication Studies Arts and Lectures Series for lab credit or extra

credit.

6. Rubrics: Students must be given a clear and detailed rubric for each speech.

7. Outlines: Students must submit typewritten, formal outlines (compliant with collegiate standards for both Informative and Persuasive speeches.) Follows textbook model. Students must leave the course with a full grasp of how to outline.

8. Citation of sources: students must cite sources within their speech and outlines • As a bibliography on a separate sheet (using MLA or APA style) • Or cited within the speech itself.

9. Peer Evaluations: students must evaluate other speakers; can be either a written assignment or verbally after speeches.

10. Self evaluation- students must analyze and evaluate their own speech and abilities.

*By Fall 2012, everyone in the Communication Studies Department will be required to submit evidence for all of the above! This is part of our assessment process.

Training meetings were set for January 27, 2012 and February 7, 2012. COMMUNICATION Briefly describe the manner in which faculty/staff discussed the findings and arrived at recommendations. Include dates if available. A meeting with EVC faculty took place on 1/11/2012. In addition to Program Reviews, rewriting of the SLOs for COMS 20 also took place. Results of this survey were shared at the Communications Department meeting on January 27, 2012. All Communications faculty members were present.


Page

31


Course: Math 11ADivision: Math & ScienceSubmitted by: ___Angela Tran___ Semester & Year of Review: __Fall 2011__Date Submitted: ___2 – 14 – 2012 __ STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOME ASSESSED Include the Student Learning Outcome being evaluated and the date of previous assessment (if available). SLOs being evaluated:

#2. Perform operations on real numbers. #4. Simplify and evaluate algebraic expressions. #5. Solve linear equations and inequalities in one variable. $6. Graph linear equations in two variables by plotting points, graphing intercepts, and using the slopes and y-intercept. #8. Use the slope-intercept, point-slope, and standard forms to write linear equations #9. Solve systems of linear equations in two variables by graphing, substitution, and addition methods. #11. Identify the properties of exponents and perform operations on polynomials. #14. Factor binomials and polynomials of the form ax2 + bx + c. #16. Solve application (word) problems involving linear, quadratic, and rational equations and inequalities.

Dates of previous assessment: every semester from Fall 2008 to Spring 2011 DESCRIPTION OF ASSESSMENT TOOL Describe the method(s) being used to evaluate the SLO; for example: tests, lab exercises, surveys, final projects, portfolios. Include criteria used for evaluation; for example, rubrics or scoring guidelines. A thirty minute test of 10 multiple choice questions is given in the last week of school. Students answer on scantrons. The scantrons are scored by Math 11A instructors (their own sections). DATA COLLECTED Describe the evidence collected; for example: number of students taking exam and grade breakdown; number of surveys administered and responses. There were 412 tests distributed to instructors (based on the numbers of used seat for math 11A reported after census printed on December 12 2011). There were 289 students taking the exam have been reported. The percent correct on each question (with the correspond SLO and Spring 2011 result) is below:


Page

32

Question # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 SLO # 2 4 5 5 11 8 9 16 6 14

% correct Fall 2011 65 71 63 40 68 48 72 47 57 46 % correct Spring2011 40 66 57 36 65 42 69 46 49 68

The percent correct on each SLO that has been tested is:

SLO # 2 4 5 6 8 9 11 14 16 % correct Fall 11 65 71 52 57 48 72 68 46 47

% correct Spring 11 40 66 47 49 42 69 65 68 46 ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS Describe your findings in terms of the Course SLO. Does the data reflect the SLO accurately?

• About 70% students actually took tests and reported by instructors. • We are improved on the focus SLO #2—perform operations on real numbers:

The question revised simpler as Fall 2010 and a work sheet distributed to instructors for class activities in the last two weeks of school. As the result, we get 65% correct, compared to 40% correct in Spring 11 and about 50% correct in Fall 2008 to Fall 2011.

• We are improved on all SLOs evaluated except on SLO 14—factoring a trinomial. The question revised as a free response. The instruction stated on the test “write your answer on the back of the scantron.” Scantrons with no answers on the back are counted wrong. Some factored it correctly but went on solving as is solving an equation by factoring. Thus, the result may not reflect truly the students’ factoring skill; it may be their skill on following the direction as well.

• The lowest percent correct (40%) is on solving inequalities in one variable (part of SLO 5). The answer choices are in interval notation; there may be where the problem is.

• By SLOs, the percent correct below 50 are: o 46% on SLO 14—Factor binomials and polynomials of the form ax2 + bx + c. o 47% on SLO 16—Solve application (word) problems involving linear, quadratic, and

rational equations and inequalities. In this case, it is an application involving a system of two linear equations. Application is one of our program learning outcomes.

o 48% on SLO 8—Use the slope-intercept, point-slope, and standard forms to write linear equations

• The highest percent correct is 72%, remain the same from pass data (about 70%).

RECOMMENDATIONS Describe any recommendations and timeline for change in terms of instructional delivery, the SLO as currently written, Program SLOs and curriculum.

• Encourage more students participate on SLO assessment. It is strongly suggested that make the test be part of the comprehensive final, which is mandatory. Students will be more serious and thus the result would be more accurate.


Page

33

• Inform instructors which SLOs we focus on from the beginning of the semester (and a reminder communication in a regular basis.) Instructors instruct in their own way instead of the worksheet at the end of semester. SLO #2—perform operations on real numbers should be one of the focus to see we actually earn the improvement.

• Keep the question and instruction the same on factoring. Instructors may remind students prior to testing as “follow the instruction on the test.” During the semester, often remind students the different between factoring and solving by factoring.

• Teach students interval notation. • Since application is one of our program learning outcomes; we should focus and make

improvement on that SLO. COMMUNICATION Briefly describe the manner in which faculty/staff discussed the findings and arrived at recommendations. Include dates if available. The coordinator email results back to fall 2011 instructors for their reference (may make their own adjustment in teaching.) The coordinator emailed to all math instructors the findings, analyses, and initiated recommendations. There the discussion via email starts. The coordinator monitors and records all that email discussions to bring back to department meetings.


Page

34


Course & Division: __ESL 91___________Submitted by: __Margaret Muench_______ Semester & Year of Review: __Sp 2011___Date Submitted: _8/16/11______________ STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOME ASSESSED Include the Student Learning Outcome being evaluated and the date of previous assessment (if available).

SLO assessed:

Write in-class essays that show competency in essay organization and development and use of academic vocabulary. These essays will show proficiency in verb tense and sentence boundaries. They will also exhibit sentence variety showing ability to use simple, compound, and complex sentences.

This SLO was last evaluated in Fa 2010. DESCRIPTION OF ASSESSMENT TOOL Describe the method(s) being used to evaluate the SLO; for example: tests, lab exercises, surveys, final projects, portfolios. Include criteria used for evaluation; for example, rubrics or scoring guidelines.

Following the recommendations made after the Fa 2010 evaluation, it was decided to assess the students twice in Sp 11.

The first assessment was a midterm exam, administered and graded the same way the Fa 10 final exam was administered and graded:

• Students in all 4 sections of ESL 91 were administered a timed writing under the same conditions with the same essay prompt.

• Sample tests were discussed and normed for consistency in scoring, based on the rubric below.

• All papers were scored by at least 2 instructors; any papers with a split score between 2 and 3 were scored by a third reader.

• Numbers of papers scored at each level in each section were recorded. In cases of split scores, the 2 highest scores were recorded.

Rubric used for the midterm:

4:Pass (P) The student’s essay shows strong competency in all the areas: essay organization and development use of academic vocabulary correct use of verb tenses and sentence boundary punctuation sentence variety


Page

35

3:Low Pass (P-)

The student’s essay shows competency in all the above areas, although perhaps only adequate competency in one or more of the areas

2:High No-Pass (NP+) The student’s essay shows inadequate competency in one or two of the above areas, or borderline competency throughout all the areas

1:No-Pass (NP) The student’s essay shows inadequate competency in most or all of the above areas.

The second assessment was a portfolio assessment. This was a new method that was not used in Fa 2010. It was designed to add a second way to assess the in-class writing SLO in combination with other course SLOs:

• Students were instructed to prepare a portfolio including their best out-of-class essay, their best in-class essay, and a reflection essay.

• As a final exam, students were administered a timed writing at the same time under the same conditions with the same essay prompt, just like the Sp 2011 midterm and the Fa 2010 final exam.

• Instructors attached the final exam to the portfolio and graded the final exams of their own students as part of an assessment of the portfolio as a whole. A new rubric for assessing the whole portfolio was used, which included assessment of in-class writing.

• At the norming/board-grading session, sample portfolios from each section were scored and normed by all the section instructors. Any portfolios that had been scored as borderline or questionable by the student’s own instructor were brought to the group for scoring by 2 additional readers.

Rubric used:

4:Pass (P)

A majority of the portfolio displays clear and consistent competency in meeting the SLOS

3:Low Pass (P-) A majority of the portfolio displays adequate competency in meeting the SLOs 2:High No-Pass (NP+)

A majority of the portfolio shows inadequate competency on one or two of the SLOs, or borderline competency throughout

1:No-Pass (NP) A majority of the portfolio shows inadequate competency in most or all of the SLOs


Page

36

Even though the rubric was used to assess 4 different SLOs, it included the SLO for timed writing described on this form, and the student could not pass the portfolio without having at least one passing timed writing (either their best in-class essay or the final exam).

DATA COLLECTED Describe the evidence collected; for example: number of students taking exam and grade breakdown; number of surveys administered and responses.

Midterm assessment

Each essay was read by 2 or 3 teachers; if read by 3 teachers, the top 2 scores were recorded. The lowest score that could be earned was 2, the highest was 8. Score of 2-5:No pass Score of 6-8:Pass

Portfolio assessment

Each portfolio was graded either by the student’s instructor or by 2 other instructors; in case of disagreement, a score based on the rubric was determined through collegial discussion by at least 2 instructors.

Results MidtermPortfolio

Students # % # % # # % # % #

Score of 2-5: No-Pass

Score of 6-8: Pass

Total

Score of 1-2: No-Pass

Score of 3-4: Pass

Total

Section 1 16 50% 16 50% 32 8 30% 19 70% 27 Section 2 1 8% 11 92% 12 1 9% 10 91% 11 Section 3 13 62% 8 38% 21 4 21% 15 79% 19 Section 4 5 45% 6 55% 11 1 14% 6 86% 7 Total 35 46% 41 54% 76 14 22% 50 78% 64

Comparison of Fall 2010 and Spring 2011 SLO pass rates: Fall 2010 final exam pass rate: 59% Spring 2011 midterm exam pass rate:54% Spring 2011 final portfolio pass rate: 78%

ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS Describe your findings in terms of the Course SLO. Does the data reflect the SLO accurately?

Finding #1: Spring 2011 students passed the one-shot midterm assessment at almost as high a rate (54%) as the Fall 2011 students passed the same one-shot final exam


Page

37

assessment (59%). This suggests that PERHAPS there tends not to be a lot of improvement on this SLO from midterm to final exam time, as measured by the single one-shot exam.

Finding #2: Spring 2011 students passed the portfolio assessment at the end of the semester, which included assessment of this SLO, at a higher rate (78%) than they passed the midterm assessment (54%), which would seem to suggest the earlier assessment gave students more chance to improve their skill before the end of the semester.

Finding #3 Spring 2011 students passed the portfolio assessment at the end of the semester (78%) at a higher rate than students passed the one-shot final exam assessment at the end of the Fa 2010 semester (59%), indicating that a higher percentage of Spring 2011 students achieved this SLO.

We hoped that by giving students multiple chances to demonstrate achievement of this SLO, they would do better (more chance to practice, less stress due to one-shot assessment, earlier group-graded feedback); we also felt that by grading this SLO by looking at more than one attempt to pass it and by looking holistically at the students writing skill on both in-class and out-of-class essays, we would have a more accurate assessment of their ability to achieve this SLO, and perhaps be able to pass more students than we could if only grading a one-shot assessment. The data seems to show that doing the assessment in this new way is showing improved results on this SLO. When comparing the midterm and portfolio scores, we recognize that 12 of the 76 students who took the midterm subsequently dropped and did not submit a portfolio; these may have been the weaker students, those who did not pass the midterm and might not have passed the portfolio even if they had stayed. If we count all 76 students in the portfolio assessment, and count all 12 withdrawals as having received NP on the portfolio, we get this result: MidtermPortfolio

Students # % # % # # % # % #

No-Pass Pass Total No-Pass + withdrawals

Pass Total

Total 35 46% 41 54% 76 26 34% 50 66% 76

And this:


Page

38

Comparison of Fall 2010 and Spring 2011 SLO pass rates: Fall 2010 final exam pass rate: 59% Spring 2011 midterm exam pass rate:54% Spring 2011 final portfolio pass rate: 66%

Even when the data is analyzed in this way, it still seems to show that doing the assessment in this new way is showing improved results on this SLO.

RECOMMENDATIONS Describe any recommendations and timeline for change in terms of instructional delivery, the SLO as currently written, Program SLOs and curriculum.

We recommend doing the same 2-part assessment, with a board-graded midterm and a final portfolio assessment, one more time during the Fall 2011 semester. We want to see if the results continue to show improvement over the results from Fall 2010. We don’t plan to change anything in particular, although each instructor will of course analyze ways to improve her own instruction, as teachers generally do. In addition, we teachers have agreed to give each other access to our Moodle pages where we post information about our classes, post links to resources, etc, something we did not do last semester, and we have all decided to use the same text, thus facilitating the sharing of teaching ideas.

COMMUNICATION Briefly describe the manner in which faculty/staff discussed the findings and arrived at recommendations. Include dates if available.

During the month of August, 2011, numerous emails were exchanged among the 3 Fall 2011 ESL 91 instructors. We discussed the results of this report at length, and many proposals were made for continuing this assessment and coordinating our efforts. Then on Thursday, Sept 1, the 3 instructors met during a PDD meeting and finalized plans for this semester’s assessment.


Page

39

Course Student Learning Outcome Assessment Report San Jose City College

Course & Division: Esthetics 130 A and 130 Business & Services Submitted by: Yelena Lipilina Semester & Year of Review: Fall2011 Date Submitted: March 6, 2012 STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOME ASSESSED Include the Student Learning Outcome being evaluated and the date of previous assessment (if available). #3 Communication Skills: • Build rapport with diverse clientele. • Explain methods, equipment and products used. DESCRIPTION OF ASSESSMENT TOOL Describe the method(s) being used to evaluate the SLO; for example: tests, lab exercises, surveys, final projects, portfolios. Include criteria used for evaluation; for example, rubrics or scoring guidelines. • Lab exercises • Surveys • Multiple choice tests • Final practical and written exams • Grades • Fill -in forms DATA COLLECTED Describe the evidence collected; for example: number of students taking exam and grade breakdown; number of surveys administered and responses. Data collected from : 1. Client's survey form 1. SJECCD Reporting Administrative Server Portal 2. State Board of Barbering and Cosmetology 3. Chancellor Office DataMart 4. School Scantron test scoring results Number of students taking exam- 54 Grade breakdown:- "A" 28 students "B" 19 students "C" 7 students ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS Describe your findings in terms of the Course SLO. Does the data reflect the SLO accurately? 1. The data reflect the Course SLO accurately 2. The average GPA of Esthetic's students is 3.25 3. The completion rate is 97% 4. According to the State Board Pass and Fail Rate Information Chart we were pleased to learn that SJCC Esthetic's students have higher passing rate than other Esthetics schools in California. RECOMMENDATIONS


Page

40

Describe any recommendations and timeline for change in terms of instructional delivery, the SLO as currently written, Program SLOs and curriculum. To prepare students for General Theory Subjects Tests we need to: 1. Offer tutorial to familiarize students with the chemical contents of products 2. Organize additional friends and family days 3. Have individual and group exercises 4. To prepare students for General Theory Subjects Tests we need to include online testing COMMUNICATION Briefly describe the manner in which faculty/staff discussed the findings and arrived at recommendations. Include dates if available. The SLOS were discussed at the Division Meeting, Professional Development Days and faculty and staff departmental meetings.


Page

41


Page

42

Program Student Learning Outcome Assessment Report San José City College

Program/Division: Biology Program Submitted by: Biology Department Semester & Year of Review: _Fall 2011 ___Date Submitted: ___3/22/12__________ STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOME ASSESSED Include the Program Student Learning Outcome being evaluated and the date of previous assessment (if available). Biology Program SLO’s #2 & 3:

2. Describe the ideal scientific method and use it to design a simple study in biology. 3. Use some scientific instrumentation (i.e. weighing, testing pH) to measure experimental

outcomes. DESCRIPTION OF ASSESSMENT TOOL Describe the method(s) being used to evaluate the SLO; for example: tests, lab exercises, surveys, final projects, portfolios. Include criteria used for evaluation; for example, rubrics or scoring guidelines. The Biology Department collected data from full-time and adjunct Biology faculty to determine 1) what students are being taught about the ideal scientific method; and 2) if students are being provided opportunities to use scientific instrumentation to collect data. In a following semester, the students in particular biology classes will be surveyed to get their input. A 10 question survey about our two SLO’s was posted on-line using Survey Monkey, and faculty were asked to respond. This instrument contained both multiple choice and open answer questions. Fifteen of 19 faculty (79 %) responded; all lecture/laboratory classes taught at SJCC in Fall 2011 were represented in the survey. DATA COLLECTED Describe the evidence collected; for example: number of students taking exam and grade breakdown; number of surveys administered and responses. The responses are listed below: 1. Please mark the courses that you are teaching SJCC in Fall 2011. The number of faculty is given in parentheses.

BIOL 001 (2)BIOL 061 BIOL 002 BIOL 063 BIOL 003 (1)BIOL 064 BIOL 020 (1)BIOL 066 BIOL 021 (5)BIOL 071 (1) ENVIR 010 (3)BIOL 072 (1)

BIOL 074 (1)


Page

43

2. Do you teach the ideal scientific method (observation, hypothesis, prediction, test, & conclusion) in your course(s)?

a. yes 15 (100%) b. no 0 (0%)

3. Do your students identify dependent variables, independent variables, standardized

variables, control group, and experimental groups? a. yes 10 (66.7%)

b. no 5 (33.3%) 4. Check all of the instruments/techniques used by your students in laboratory classes.

a. microscopes13 (100%) b. pH analysis13 (100%) c. assay of biological molecules, inorganic compounds 7 (62%) d. spectrophotometer 6 (46%) e. digital balances 10 (76.9%)

1. What other scientific instrumentation do students use to gather data in your laboratory

classes? • Refractometer – determining salinity • dissolved oxygen test kit • Water testing • soil nutrient analysis • Graduated cylinders, pipettes, micropipettes • Incubators, water baths • Urinalysis • Blood typing • Gel electrophoresis • Tissue culture hood • Centrifuges • PCR thermal cyclers

2. Do students have activities where they have to ____? (Check all that apply)

a. make observations13 (92.9%) b. propose a hypothesis13 (92.9%) c. design a scientific study 9 (64.3%) d. make predictions12 (85.7%)

7. Do you have an activity where students _______? (Check all that apply)

a. collect data 9 (64.3%) b. tabulate data 5 (35.7%) c. graphically represent the data 6 (42.9%) d. interpret their data 9 (64.3%)


Page

44

8. Do you have an activity where students use simulation software tools to simulate long-term studies?

a. yes, I use a licensed software 4 (26.7%) b. yes, I use a website where the software is free and available on line 4 (26.7%) c. no, I do not use any such software 8 (53.3%)

9. Students in this class are required to access the internet _______ for research purposes

during this class. a. never 0 (0.0%) b. occasionally 10 (66.6%) c. regularly 5 (33.3%)

10. How do students present compiled scientific information?

a. written reports 12 (80%)

b. research paper 5 (33.3%) c. oral presentation 5 (33.3%) d. poster presentation 4 (26.7%) e. do not present 3 (20%)

ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS Describe your findings in terms of the Program SLO. Does the data reflect the SLO accurately? Our data indicate all responding faculty are teaching the ideal scientific method in their courses. Other answers generally suggest that generally we are doing a good job providing students learning experiences with scientific method. However, there is variation in the depth of experience students are receiving as evidenced by responses to questions #3, 6, and 7. Some of these responses may indicate areas that need closer examination; it is likely we will find a dichotomy between majors and non-majors classes, and we will need to consider if the latter need to be changed fundamentally. About one-third of the responders indicated that their students did not a) identify variables or treatment groups, b) design scientific investigations, or c) interpret data. Only 5 responses (35.7% indicated that students tabulated data, and just 6 respondents (42.9%) have their students graphically represent data. Students are required to present their data in a variety of ways (question #10). Questions #4, 5, and 7 indicate that our students receive ample opportunity to use a variety of scientific instrumentation to gather quantitative & qualitative data. Additionally, we have included use of simulation software and internet research (questions 8 and 9) under SLO #2 (we should rewrite) and it appears that nearly half our classes do use such software, and that all the surveyed classes require students to access information on the internet. The variation in amount of scientific process emphasized and instrumentation used may well be related to the level (i.e. majors or non-majors) of the course. RECOMMENDATIONS


Page

45

Describe any recommendations and timeline for change in terms of instructional delivery, the SLO as currently written, the curriculum or Institutional SLOs. The following are recommendations:

1. Rewrite SLO #3 to include simulation software and/or internet research. 2. Determine what proportion of our classes do not appear to be good opportunities for the

acquisition of scientific data. For instance, it may be that students learning human anatomy will never have opportunities to gather data; but these same allied health students will have that experience in human physiology and microbiology.

3. Beginning in Spring 2012 some faculty will work to incorporate more quantitative tests of hypotheses lab or field exercise into classes missing such opportunities.

4. Lobby the higher administration for funds to acquire more instrumentation and relevant simulation software.

COMMUNICATION Briefly describe the manner in which faculty/staff discussed the findings and arrived at recommendations. Include dates if available. This report was circulated to full-time faculty for comment, discussion, and revision. Further discussion is scheduled for the Professional Development Day on 23March 2012.


Page

46


Page

47


Program/Division: Admissions & RecordsSubmitted by: Takeo Kubo Semester & Year of Review: Fall 2011Date Submitted: February 2, 2012 STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOME ASSESSED Include the Program Student Learning Outcome being evaluated and the date of previous assessment (if available). Upon receiving services from the Admissions & Records Office, students will be able to: 1. Register for classes, add and drop classes, and access individual class schedules and transcripts via

MyWeb 2. Submit degree and certificate graduation petitions. DESCRIPTION OF ASSESSMENT TOOL Describe the method(s) being used to evaluate the SLO; for example: tests, lab exercises, surveys, final projects, portfolios. Include criteria used for evaluation; for example, rubrics or scoring guidelines.

1. Data was requested from ITSS showing how many students registered by each different method: on-line, phone, in person, and by wait-list roll-over

2. The Evaluator tracks the number of petitions submitted per term and how many out of those are awarded their respective degree or certificate

DATA COLLECTED Describe the evidence collected; for example: number of students taking exam and grade breakdown; number of surveys administered and responses. Results are as follows for each PSLO addressed: 1. Upon receiving services from the Admissions & Records Office, students will be able to register for

classes, add and drop classes, and access individual class schedules and transcripts via MyWeb

2011FA 2011SU 2011SP 2010FA

StaReg 3,585 834 4,077 4,723 In Person 3,051 1,146 3,548 4,525 Waitlist 2,464 478 1,452 2,119 MyWeb 8,687 2,732 8,190 7,354

17,787 5,190 17,267 18,721

2. Upon receiving services from the Admissions & Records Office, students will be able to Submit degree and certificate graduation petitions.

2011SP 2011SU 2011FA Total

Degree petitions submitted 264 142 85 491 Degrees awarded 216 88 * 304 Certificate petitions submitted 168 176 112 456 Certificates awarded 125 152 * 277

*As of 12/14/11 FA11 has not been awarded

ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS


Page

48

Describe your findings in terms of the Program SLO. Does the data reflect the SLO accurately? These figures show a relatively slow, but steady increase of students registering via MyWeb and a decrease in students registering in-person and by phone (via StaReg). Various efforts have been put forth over the past several years encouraging students to use MyWeb for various activities and information, primarily to register for classes. These efforts include handing out MyWeb brochures at the front counter of A&R along with the staff advising students to use MyWeb and listing MyWeb as the primary tool for registration activities on-line and in other publications. Comparisons for degree and certificate petitions submitted and awarded will be completed at a later date. However, the numbers above provide a base-line to begin the trend study. RECOMMENDATIONS Describe any recommendations and timeline for change in terms of instructional delivery, the SLO as currently written, the curriculum or Institutional SLOs. Improving on the data provided above means further increasing the number of students registering on MyWeb, while decreasing the number of students registering in-person and to some extent, on the phone. To continue this trend, the A&R staff will need to continue communication with ITSS to ensure that the system is working and to stay informed of any changes prior to student use. The staff will also continue to encourage students and instructors to use MyWeb for registration activity, providing various communications throughout key times during each semester as well as instructions to students during orientations and at other times prior to registration. There will be a campus-wide campaign encouraging students to petition for graduation with degrees and/or certificates. It is widely believed that many students leave SJCC, especially transfer students, without petitioning for and declaring a degree, even though they have completed the necessary coursework to do so. One of the goals of this campaign is to capture some of those cases and increase the number of degrees awarded. COMMUNICATION Briefly describe the manner in which faculty/staff discussed the findings and arrived at recommendations. Include dates if available. The use of MyWeb is discussed at A&R staff meetings. Often times, staff share case studies in which students comment on issues they have with the registration process regardless of which method they use. These issues are also discussed among Student Services managers, again, reviewing and troubleshooting the various issues that students bring forth.

The graduation petition campaign has been discussed primarily at the manager level to this point. Once there are more details as to objectives and logistics, more will be shared with the staff and an action plan will be put in place.


Page

49


Program/Division: Financial Aid OfficeSubmitted by: Takeo Kubo Semester & Year of Review: Fall 2011Date Submitted: December 20, 2011 STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOME ASSESSED Include the Program Student Learning Outcome being evaluated and the date of previous assessment (if available). Upon receiving services from the Financial Aid Office, students will be able to: 3. Submit complete and accurate Financial Aid applications with minimal assistance. 4. Submit complete required documentation to the Financial Aid Office as soon as possible. DESCRIPTION OF ASSESSMENT TOOL Describe the method(s) being used to evaluate the SLO; for example: tests, lab exercises, surveys, final projects, portfolios. Include criteria used for evaluation; for example, rubrics or scoring guidelines. Staff distributed a student survey (using a Likert Scale) during Financial Aid awareness week. Almost 400 surveys were collected and tabulated. DATA COLLECTED Describe the evidence collected; for example: number of students taking exam and grade breakdown; number of surveys administered and responses. Results are as follows for each PSLO addressed: 1. Upon receiving services from the Financial Aid Office, students will be able to submit

complete and accurate Financial Aid applications with minimal assistance. Total responses: 375;

• Strongly Agree: 98 (26%) • Agree: 133 (35%) • Somewhat Agree: 82 (21%) • Disagree: 46 (12%) • Strongly Disagree: 9 (2%) • Does Not Apply: 7 (2%)

Total FAFSAs sent to SJCC – 2010-2011: 10,628; 2011-2012 (as of 09/30/11): 10,160 2. Upon receiving services from the Financial Aid Office, students will be able to submit

complete required documentation to the Financial Aid Office as soon as possible Total responses: 372

• Strongly Agree: 93 (24%) • Agree: 176 (46%) • Somewhat Agree: 62 (16%) • Disagree: 26 (7%) • Strongly Disagree: 4 (1%) • Does Not Apply: 11 (3%)

ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS Describe your findings in terms of the Program SLO. Does the data reflect the SLO accurately? Based on the survey results and the number of applications received over the past two academic years, it appears that students are able to submit their FAFSAs. Anecdotally, students are also


Page

50

submitting their documents as a follow-up to submitting the FAFSA; however, much of the information initially submitted is either incomplete or incorrect. RECOMMENDATIONS Describe any recommendations and timeline for change in terms of instructional delivery, the SLO as currently written, the curriculum or Institutional SLOs. To improve on the above findings, the Financial Aid Office will be implementing more workshop sessions and disseminating more literature, regarding the application process, including tips on completing the FAFSA and associated documents correctly and in a timely manner. There are also on-going training efforts in place to ensure consistency and accuracy during face to face interactions with students. COMMUNICATION Briefly describe the manner in which faculty/staff discussed the findings and arrived at recommendations. Include dates if available. This information has been the topic of ongoing conversations regarding increasing efficiency and streamlining processes. Ideas such as workshop sessions and more literature have originated and been refined by the staff.


Page

51


Page

52

San Jose City College Communication Studies Department

COMS 20 Mapping Students who complete Communication Studies courses will be able to:

ISLO #1 Critical Thinking PSLO #1 Demonstrate effective listening skills to comprehend spoken messages, analyze information critically, and consider multiple perspectives. CSLO #1 Incorporate sound reasoning and evidence that support claims made in speeches (informative and persuasive) and analyze and evaluate the speeches of others. ISLO #2 Communication PSLO #2 Communication Skills Express and convey messages clearly for effective oral communication. CSLO #2 Identify socially significant topics, then compose, outline, and deliver Informative and Persuasive speeches using an extemporaneous delivery style, while managing speech apprehension. ISLO #3 Technology PSLO #3 Technology Demonstrate knowledge of communication technology and its impact on human communication practices. CSLO #3 Ethically and effectively utilize technology for research and during speeches as media aids. ISLO #4 Global Awareness and Social Justice PSLO #4

1. Participate in the civic life of their communities through public address, and civic engagement and advocate for positive change.

2. Respect and encourage freedom of expression and defend its centrality to the democratic process.

CSLO #4 Present and evaluate speeches on cultural, social, and global issues and


Page

53

participate in civic engagement and advocate for positive change.

ISLO #5 Personal Responsibility, Ethics, and Civility PSLO #5 Personal Responsibility, Ethics, and Civility Apply interpersonal skills to create and maintain successful and beneficial social and civic relationships. CSLO #5 Adapt speeches based upon audience analysis and communicate respectfully with a diverse audience. ISLO #6 Creativity and Aesthetics PSLO #6 Apply creative brainstorming techniques in group communication and creative themes, introductions, conclusions, and media aids within presentations. CSLO #6 Create structural themes, attention getters, clinchers, and media aids to inspire and engage an audience.

Documents

Student Learning Outcomes & Assessment Handbook · 2014-03-11 · individual class schedules and transcripts via MyWeb. 2. Submit degree and certificate graduation petitions. •