Transcript Crafton Hills College Outcomes, Assessment and Improvement

Outcomes, Assessment
and Improvement
Student Learning Outcomes Implementation at Crafton Hills
College
Courses
• 100% of CHC courses have SLOs
• Of these, 66% have completed an assessment cycle and are
engaged in ongoing assessment.
Programs
• Instructional programs
• 43 instructional programs have program-level outcomes
• Of these, 47% have assessed them and are engaged in ongoing
assessment
• Service areas
100% of service areas have program-level outcomes (Service Area
Outcomes
Of these, 81% have completed the assessment cycle and are engaged in
ongoing assessement
Institution
• The college has six ILO’s:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Critical Thinking
Written and Oral Communication
Interpersonal and Group Skills
Society and Culture
Information Literacy
Ethics and Values
ILO’s 1., 2., and 4. have been assessed:
• Course-ILO mapping (ILO’s 1. and 2.)
• Community College Survey of Student Engagement (ILO 4.)
Institutional Dialogue
Dialogue has been widespread and continuous:
• College In-Service Days
• Academic Senate: resolution, SLOs; approval, IAP
• Student Senate, discussion, student success data
• Classified Senate
• Open Forums, Student Success predictors
• College Hour Workshops
• Planning and Program Review, committee dialogue, and participant
feedback
• Educational Master Planning Committee
• Accreditation Committee
• Crafton Council
• Professional Development
• Outcomes Committee
Assessment and Decisionmaking
• Educational Master Plan: Objectives 3.1.4 and 3.1.5 make
assessment an institutional priority
• Planning and Program Review elicits information about course
and program-level assessments, results, and improvements
• Linkages between course/program assessment and resource
allocation are made in Planning and Program Review
• Unit-level objectives and their accompanying resources are
linked with the Educational Master Plan
Resources and Support
• Institutional Effectiveness, Accreditation, and Outcomes Committee
• 20% Faculty Assignment, SLO Coordinator. Plans to identify
additional Coordinators
• Web tools, such as Elumen and the online Outcomes Web Tool. The
college is currently revising the PPR Web Tool to be the process for
reporting outcomes.
• Institutional Assessment Plan, approved by Academic Senate
• Workshops, training, and opportunities for dialogue in many arenas
Comprehensive Reports
Several reporting formats exist:
• Course-Level
• ORP Website
• Elumen
• Planning and Program Review
• Program-Level
• ORP Website
• Planning and Program Review
• Institution-Level
• ORP Website
Course-Program Alignment
• Examples of curricular-revision to meet program goals:
shortening the basic skills sequence in Reading/English to
improve student success (English)
• Examples of course-level revision to improve learning: use of
benchmarking to improve low-end performance, and
exploration of cross-grading to improve instructor objectivity
and cohesiveness of expectations (Speech)
• Example of course-level intervention to reach a program-level
goal; job and market information, resume assistance provided
to grads (Respiratory Care)
Student Awareness
• Most syllabi contain course outcomes
• The online and print versions of the College Catalog contain
program outcomes for most programs
• Course update and modification forms require the faculty to
list SLOs for each course
• Curricular approval process requires SLOs are included in the
Course Outline of Record
Excellence in Integrated
Planning
• The CHC Planning and Program Review process won the
statewide Research and Planning Group’s Excellence in
Planning Award in 2012
• The PPR cycle begins with a reflective self-evaluation of programs
by departments
• Using rubrics developed for each item, the committee reviews
each program, and provides feedback
• The cycle also provides the foundation for planning. Unit-level
objectives are prioritized campus-wide by the committee. The
cabinet receives the list of objectives and the associated
resources needed to meet them. These are used for resource
allocation.
• Expenditures are reported to the campus at the spring in-service
day.
Excellence in Program
Evaluation
• Student Life: Increase student participation in shared
governance. Benchmark was set (80%), and planning and
programming have been developed to meet the goal, e.g.
assignment of committee mentors, chairs training, monitoring
of student positions by AS President
• Maintenance and Grounds: Planning is directly aligned with
program objectives. Data supports the success of the unit in
operations control, safety, equipment maintenance, tracking,
and replacement.
• Chemistry: Assessment of lab skills across multiple courses.
Benchmark set and student performance tracked.
• Spanish: Use of data to increase vocabulary content in
Spanish 101 and 102.
Excellence in Curricular Redesign
Finding: Research indicated that students who place at the
lowest levels of reading, English, and math are less likely to
complete their goals
Response: The English and Reading Departments have revised
pre-collegiate English to include a reading component. Reading
and English pre-requisites are now co-requisites, taken together,
shortening the amount of time to complete pre-collegiate
English from three to two semesters.
Excellence in Institutional
Evaluation and Response
• CSSEE Results indicated that 41% of students felt their
experiences at CHC contributed quite a bit or very much to
their ability to understand people of other racial and ethnic
backgrounds, an how to contribute to the community.
• Institutional Response:
• Additional diversity-centered Learning Communities
• Professional Development theme, 2012-2013: Diversity and
Multicultural Appreciation
• Workshop and seminar series, Thomas Brown and Assoc.
(supported by Title V grant funds)
How Can We Improve?
• One common reporting mechanism
• PPR, ORP Website, or Elumen? Campus-wide discussion during
2012-2013
• Use of existing process to increase Course-Program-Institution
Level linkages
• Curriculum Committee
• Planning and Program Review
• Foster dialogue concerning the quality of assessments,
including appropriate benchmarking, choice of assessments
and phasing, and planning to address results of assessment