Outcomes Assessment and Improvement Student Learning Outcomes Implementation

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 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