Student Learning Outcomes, January, 2007

An introduction and startup activity for MSJC faculty.

First, some background

• This is the second year MSJC faculty have been involved in SLOs

• In year one, some 20 programs completed the SLO process

• All completing programs earned “incentive funds”—funds that finally reached budgets just a few days ago, I am reliably informed.

Why do we do SLOs?

• Because we have to.

• And…

– it helps our students!

a. Because we have to.

The requirement is imposed by our regional accrediting commission, WASC, and its community college arm, ACCJC. Last academic year, we made enough progress to get recognition—but also received an admonition not to “backslide.” So, we continue.

b. And because it is good for our programs and students!

Last year, we found that the SLO process gave us a chance to share our expectations for student performance and to review student work in light of those expectations for the first time in many semesters. In some departments, this process had never happened before!

Additionally:

SLOs create the potential to compare projects in terms of their benefit to the college—which is helpful in planning and allocation processes. SLOs, fully developed across the college, can help administrative and faculty decision-makers. (Of course, that would require a real planning function be instituted again.)

SO—WHAT ARE SLOs?

SLOs—Student Learning Outcomes—are really just behavioral objectives made more robust by establishing the conditions under which they will be demonstrated and the expectations faculty share for such demonstrations.

• NOTICE: Full implementation of SLO processes includes assessment, norming, and taking action on the results—processes we’ll describe today, but which we cannot undertake to complete today.

MSJC’s model depends upon

• FACULTY discussions, decisions and actions,

• COLLABORATIVELY authored and COLLECTIVELY shared expectations for student learning and assessment

• Oh yes—and norming.

NORMING?? Omagawd!?

• Somebody’s gonna tell me what to teach and how?!

No!

The process at MSJC is faculty owned and authored. Therefore, it is based on faculty insights, and it reflects the variations between fields and professional perceptions.

Norming does NOT mean identical learning activities, emphases, pedagogy — it means consultation & collaboration.1

1Maki, P.L. (2004). Assessing for Learning. American Association for Higher Education, Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Norming — Collaboratively

• Autonomy/ Academic freedom/ Professional discretion and expertise are central to the process!

• SLOs, criteria/ primary traits, rubrics describing shared expectations are set collaboratively with full and associate faculty participating,

• Outcomes/examples of student work are shared and peer-reviewed,

• Improvement alternatives are agreed upon and implemented.

So—how do we do this, today?

• First, recognize that we are going to work on one class, and from that class, one main objective.

• Second, work collaboratively with your department members to complete the process.

• Third, we will assist you through the first part of the process today, but if associate faculty also teach the prep, and they are not here, you will have to run through this stuff again to incorporate them.

In small groups:

•Select one objective, two at most.

•Select several ways to assess achievement for the objective.

•Work out generalized statements that would describe student outcomes: high, middle, and low.

An Example

• Select an objective:

“Organize learned materials in order to present coherent arguments that explain major differences between patterns of governance and belief systems found in the various cultural zones studied.”

--from History 103

How can we assess this?

• A paper on an assigned topic?

• A presentation, group or individual?

• An essay?

OK—let’s use that last one; history profs are devils for essays!

What are the various levels of success?

STRONG responses might deserve this sort of assessment:

“The essay represents a high level of intellectual engagement with its topic. It recognizes the topic’s complexities; it understands and critically evaluates its sources; it displays a strong sense of purpose. It pursues a clear and consistent line of reasoning. It uses source material as evidence frequently and accurately.”

“The essay addresses the topic. It stays on topic. It handles multiple facets of the topic, though with uneven success. The essay often cites examples from source material clearly and mostly correctly to support claims.”

MIDDLE range responses might deserve this assessment:

FAILING responses might earn this assessment:

The essay does not address the topic. It may be written with no clear issue or problem in view. It may simply misunderstand the topic, or “write around” it. Hypothetical statements replace actual historical citations. The essay only rarely employs source material correctly and clearly. Citations are rarely accurate, and they are poorly integrated into the argument.

OK, but my objectives don’t work like that—they are actual hands-on

kinds of things:

A. “Student will correctly diagnose and repair typical automobile brake and suspension malfunctions to a competence appropriate for entry level employment.”

B. “Student recognizes reverse-thread wheel bolts and sets pneumatic wrench appropriately.” (from an old “intro to brakes and suspension” outline)

Hmmmmmm…

• “B” looks so small as to be a fairly small minor psycho-motor skill (“Set the wrench right”);

• “A” may be so large as to be the over-arching goal of the course! (“Diagnose and repair brakes well enough to get a job.”)

• Is there something in the middle?

How about this?

• In lab setting, the student will correctly diagnose typical brake problems and identify the corrective action to be taken.

• In shop setting, student will demonstrate the ability to perform appropriate corrective adjustments or repairs to address common brake problems.Both of these are a little more manageable. Select one and move on to select the assessment and to describe levels of success.

Either could be used--

Who decides?? The faculty who teach the “brakes” class select the objective, the way it will be assessed, and the outcome expectations, steps we did for the history example earlier.

[[But since we are talking about brakes, I hope the outline will still include in its statement of satisfactory correct performance something like: “100% correct reassembly of all components to a zero-fault safety and road test standard.”]]

Having determined the “objective,” the faculty determine when that assessment will be made and how.

Is it observable only at the end? In what behavior?

Can it be observed by mid-terms? (Again-how?)

Then, they describe their shared expectations for very successful, satisfactory, and poor (high-middle-low).

And really, that is as far as we you can go today—except for establishing a timeline for completing the process.

Creating a Completion Calendar: How and when will you achieve these next steps?

A) Incorporate associate faculty in the outcomes and expectations process we did today-if they teach the course you selected.B) Assess! Implement the student activity designed (designed today and in A above) to reveal achievement of the learning outcome.C) Collaboratively review the student work—are we as faculty interpreting the shared expectations the same way? Are we happy with the student results? What changes are needed?D) Make changes to improve things.

Let’s review today’s process:

• Choose (or rewrite) an objective in outcome terms (when, under what conditions);

• Determine what sort of student work would display whether achieved the objective;

• Describe what would constitute High, Middle, and Low outcomes;

• Briefly discuss a completion calendar;

So, today:• You select the objective

and the means (task, test, performance outcome) by which you can tell how the student accomplishes the objective.

• You describe the indicators of successestablish what constitutes high, satis-factory, and failing

• You capture the results by briefly listing the results in the hand out—and by discussing completion timelines.

Carolyn Hays and I are here to help any way we can—so please now, gather as departments and start the process!