Accreditation

Recommendation III (3)

In order to meet the standard, it is recommended that the instructional and administrative units engage in a systematic and ongoing assessment and analysis of course, program, and general education outcomes in which the results are used for improvement and effective integrated planning processes including program review. (II.A.1.c, II.A.2.f, II.A.2.i, II.A.3)

Narrative Analysis

In response to the Commission Action Letter, Las Positas College has undertaken numerous activities to ensure that all instructional units are engaging in assessment and analysis that is systematic and ongoing for course, program and general education learning outcomes. Through the primary vehicle of the program review process, these outcomes are used for improvement; they are also used for effective integrated planning processes and resource allocation.

Prior to the team visit in fall 2015, SLO assessment mainly focused on capturing and analyzing course-level assessment data using an outdated version of eLumen software and reporting analysis through the college’s burgeoning program review process. The methods and goals of analysis were often left up to faculty to determine. Guidelines and instructions for SLO assessment and analysis were in their infancy and often implicit. Since the team visit, Las Positas College has created structures that support sustainable institutional work on outcomes assessments. These structures have resulted in more systematic, widespread use of course-, program-, and institutional-level SLO data for program improvement and integrated planning. The program review process includes the administrative units of instruction and student services as a means to review, summarize, and move information forward in the use of outcomes data for those units although these are referenced neither in Standard II.A nor in the Recommendation.

Structural Elements that Support Sustained Institutional Work

The college has been investing in a variety of new structural elements that support sustained institutional work. First, the college’s decision to upgrade to eLumen version 6 is providing faculty with a better tool for capturing on-going assessment and analysis of SLO data. In spring 2014, the SLO Committee identified the need to upgrade from eLumen version 4 but decided to delay the update until after the accreditation site visit in fall 2015 (R3.1). In fall 2015, the SLO Committee reaffirmed the need to upgrade and adopted eLumen version 6. While the transition to the newest version of eLumen has posed some challenges, this new version of eLumen is a better tool for capturing SLO data, being easier for faculty to use and simplifying the reporting and analysis of course-, program-, and institutional-level SLO data.

In addition, the college hired a new Curriculum and SLO Specialist, a decision that emerged from the college’s integrated planning processes driven by SLO data as captured in program review. In fall 2015, the program review updates and dean’s summaries of these updates revealed that faculty needed help in working on curriculum and assessment projects. As the college’s planning priorities include curriculum, student learning outcomes, and accreditation, in response to this need, the college prioritized hiring a Curriculum and SLO Specialist (R3.2, R3.3). The need was so great that the position was ranked second out of twenty non-instructional position requests put forward in 2015-16 (R3.4). The Curriculum and SLO Specialist helps train faculty, staff, and administrators who use eLumen, provides regular reports to the SLO Committee about assessment progress, supports the SLO and curriculum coordinators, and provides support for eLumen and CurricuNET (R3.2).

Since the team visit in fall 2015, Las Positas College has also provided tools in the form of training, handbooks, and reassigned time to support ongoing assessment and analysis of SLOs. As mentioned previously, prior to the team visit, guidelines and instructions for SLO assessment and analysis were in their infancy and often implicit. The trainings and handbook have communicated explicit guidelines regarding analysis of course, program, and institutional-level SLO data. In the spring of 2016, faculty and administrators attended two ACCJC workshops. Attendees brought back materials and offered an overview of each workshop to the SLO Committee (R3.5, R3.6, R3.7, R3.8). The materials from these workshops continue to provide a basis for widespread training workshops at the college (R3.9, R3.10, R3.11; see Table 1). The SLO Committee has also created a SLO Handbook that provides clear definitions, standardized SLO language and definitions, and assessment methodology to steer SLO work (R3.12 and Appendix 2).

Table 8: Examples of workshops offered by the SLO and Program Review committees to provide training and guidance on SLO work.

Workshops Offered by the SLO and Program Review Committee
Workshop Title	Location	Date
SLOs and Course Objectives	Lecture Hall Room 2420	Aug 16 9:00 - 10:30 am
Developing and Writing Program SLOs	Lecture Hall Room 2420	Aug 16 10:30-12:00 noon
Introduction to eLumen	Computer Lab Room 2416	Aug 16 10:30-12:00 noon
Program Review Training	Teaching & Learning Center Room 2410	Aug 31 2:30-4:00pm
Program Review Training	Teaching & Learning Center Room 2410	Sept 1 2:30-4:00pm
eLumen as an Instructor	Teaching & Learning Center Room 2410	Sept 8 5:30-6:30pm
eLumen as a Coordinator	Teaching & Learning Center Room 2410	Sept 14 3:30-4:30pm
eLumen as an Instructor	Teaching & Learning Center Room 2410	Sept 14 3:30-4:30pm
Program Review Training	Teaching & Learning Center Room 2410	Sept 15 2:30-4:00pm
Program Review Training	Teaching & Learning Center Room 2410	Sept 19 2:30-4:00pm
eLumen as an Instructor	Teaching & Learning Center Room 2410	Sept 19 5:30-6:30pm
eLumen as an Instructor	Teaching & Learning Center Room 2410	Sept 22 5:30-6:30pm
eLumen as an Instructor	Computer Lab Room 2414	Sept 27 8:00-9:00am
Putting SLOs into practice: Mapping SLOs to your Course Assignments	Computer Lab Room 2414	Sept 27 9:10-10:10am
eLumen as a Coordinator	Computer Lab Room 2414	Sept 27 10:20-11:20am
Program Review Training	Teaching & Learning Center Room 2410	Oct 3 2:30-3:30pm
eLumen as an Instructor	Teaching & Learning Center Room 2410	Oct 3 2:30-3:30pm
eLumen as a Coordinator	Teaching & Learning Center Room 2410	Oct 3 3:30-4:30pm
eLumen as a Coordinator	Teaching & Learning Center Room 2410	Oct 4 2:30-3:30pm
eLumen as an Instructor	Teaching & Learning Center Room 2410	Oct 4 3:30-4:30pm

Finally, the college is investing in more reassigned time for SLO work. The SLO Committee Coordinators, who also serve on the Accreditation Steering Committee, received 0.4 FTEF for propelling SLO work on campus. This is an increase of 0.2 FTEF since fall 2015. This time has allowed the SLO Coordinators to set up the new eLumen, provide trainings in eLumen and writing Program Review Updates, and drive innovative work in the development of CSLOs, PSLOs, and ISLOs (R3.13, R3.14, R3.15, R3.16). The college has also supported reassigned time for four SLO Liaisons, one assigned to each academic division. Receiving 0.07 FTEF each, these faculty members work with faculty one-on-one to help them with SLO assessment and analysis as well as reporting about SLOs to the entire division and attending SLO meetings (R3.17, R3.18, R3.19, R3.20, R3.21).

Integrated Planning using Course and Program SLO data

SLO assessment and analysis are now systematic and ongoing, as captured and communicated through the vehicles of program review and dean’s summaries. Since the team visit in fall 2015, the analysis of course, program, and general education outcomes is more broadly used for the improvement of integrated planning processes and resource allocation. Program reviews are written each fall and read by the Program Review Committee, SLO Committee, and division deans. The deans and committee members collaborate to write program review division summaries. Each dean summary is reviewed by members of the division, who may suggest revisions. The final drafts of the dean’s summaries are sent to the Institutional Effectiveness and Planning Committee (IPEC) for use in creating college planning priorities that guide the allocation of college resources (R3.22, R3.23). As described in the Integrated Planning and Budget Cycle diagram (see Figure 1), essential to the college’s effective planning processes is the synergistic relationship between program review, which systematically records and communicates course- and program-level SLO data, and the college’s planning priorities, mission and goals. Programmatic needs emerge from the program reviews and are described in the dean’s summaries. Ultimately, this information is used to drive the college’s planning priorities, align with the mission and goals, and guide resource allocation.

Figure 1: Diagram of the integrated planning process that is used to develop college planning priorities that guide resource allocation.

Budget Cycle

Now that faculty are engaging in more regular and robust SLO assessment and analysis, the results of course- and program-level data are widely used for both program improvement and in requests for resource allocation across disciplines. The following are some examples from the 2015-2016 and the 2016-2017 Program Review Updates. These examples showcase the expansive, ongoing, and systematic way SLO data analysis results are being used for program improvement based on faculty dialogue.

Academic Services: SLO data analysis and programmatic need led to the decision to hire a fourth dean. The dean position was described in the Non-Instructional Position Request Form 2015-2016 as crucial to supporting the institutional structure and SLO work:

At both the District and the College, the Dean is part of the structure that supports the Planning Priorities and the Goals outlined for the year by the Educational Support Services Committee (ESS). Specifically, the Dean is involved in the Planning Priorities by being part of the institutional support for curriculum development by working with faculty and attending the meetings. The Dean is also part of the institutional structure that supports accreditation work and advancing the work of SLOs in the Division (R3.60).

The position was approved and, in spring 2016, a new dean was hired (R3.4, R3.24).

Anthropology: The Anthropology department used SLO data to drive a staffing request. The department identified a need to hire an archeologist to address the breadth of classes offered in the new Anthropology AA-T degree (R3.25). A position request was ranked by the Faculty Hiring Prioritization Committee, approved by the president and posted in spring 2016 (R3.26). Unfortunately, the position was advertised but the hiring was delayed due to lack of funding. It will be advertised again in the 2016-17 academic year.

Biology: The Biology department also used SLO data to drive a staffing request, specifically the hire of a new biologist in spring 2016. The Biology department based their request on their observation that they were “seeing negative effects on student success, attitude, work ethic, and lab skills in subsequent courses in the Biology majors and Allied Health pathways.” They argued that, “In order to ensure consistent and quality instruction, it is crucial to have an additional full-time instructor teaching this foundational course of the Biology curriculum.” (R3.27).

Business: The Business department noted consistent performance in PSLO data among all business degrees. The overall success rate of 70% in fall 2015 data will be compared with spring 2016 data, which is still being entered due to eLumen downtime (R3.19, R.28).

Computing Studies: The Computer Studies department identified positive outcomes at the program level based on the acquisition of robotic technologies and the employment of additional staff. The department observes that the AS in Computer Programming “increased student interest and engagement when robotic technologies were introduced into Computer Science courses.” They were addressing the PSLO, “Students will be able to direct computer operations by writing detailed instructions using computer programming languages.” The department plans to increase “the use of robotic technologies to enhance the learning environment in CS courses” and notes that the addition of a second full-time instructor further stimulated dialogue about the student experience and active engagement with part-time instructors (R3.29).

Economics: The Economics department made curricular improvements based on SLO data. They noticed “mastery” of an ECON 10 SLO was achieved by only seven students, which was much lower than the number who achieved mastery in the course’s other SLOs. To help more students achieve mastery, more class time will be allocated to the SLO and results of this change will be analyzed when they become available (R3.19).

English as a Second Language: The ESL department used SLO data to drive program improvements. Starting in the fall 2014, the ESL department implemented a common final for all grammar classes. They have been regularly revising and refining grammar exams based on ongoing student learning outcomes assessment, analysis, and dialogue. Their efforts have led to steady improvements in student success over time. For example, SLO assessment and analysis for ESL130B has revealed continuous student improvement working with verb forms. This is a result of action taken by the department to revise verb form lists and homework assignments as well as providing online access to the answer keys for quizzes, which were also revised based on analysis and discussion of SLO data. Furthermore, the ESL faculty have been in continuous discussions about revising SLOs in eLumen and designing reading-specific SLOs for applicable courses, a project on which they are currently working (R3.30).

Foreign Language: In the Foreign Language department, assessment and analysis of the SPAN 1A SLO led to curricular improvements. The data revealed that some students relied too heavily on basic phrases learned during the first couple weeks of class. The instructor revised activities to include written assignments for each lesson covered so that students would have more practice processing new vocabulary and grammar structures in writing as they progress through the course (R3.31).

Geography: In the Geography department, SLO data analysis led to curricular innovations and resource requests. The Geography AAT degree requires students to be able to “assemble and analyze spatial information using traditional and modern mapping technology methods.” Based on this program outcome, all courses now have a spatial component, and the program has been successful in teaching spatial mapping. To date, the program is using maps and Google Earth and has identified a need to invest in more elaborate software and hardware to help student success (R3.32).

Health: In the Health department, SLO data analysis led to curricular improvements. The Health 1, fall 2014, assessment of a SLO involving students’ ability to locate and evaluate sources of relevant health information in a database showed no students achieving mastery. As a result, LPC Library orientations were arranged in several sections of Health 1, and online students were directed to the LPC Health 1 Library Guide. A tutorial or assignment is being planned for online Health 1 students so that they are not at a disadvantage to students in face-to-face classes that have a physical library orientation (R3.33)

Humanities and Philosophy: In Humanities and Philosophy, past SLO analysis and faculty dialogue led to pedagogical changes that have improved student success. For example, a 2015 assessment of the Aesthetics SLO for PHIL 3 resulted in the scheduling of an extra day of rough-draft workshops and expanding the evaluation instructions; this change impacted student success positively as the 2016 class showed a large increase in proficiency with the Aesthetics SLO (R3.34).

Kinesiology: The Kinesiology department’s SLO analysis led to curricular improvement and equipment requests. In KIN 15 (CPR & First Aid), the assessment of the CSLO, “Demonstrate the ability to perform CPR with an AED and rescue breathing,” showed 96.9% competency. Of this 96.9%, 51.6% showed mastery. Because this is a skill that saves lives, the department wishes to increase the number of students who demonstrate mastery of this SLO. As a result, the instructional videos have been updated to focus more on concepts and applications rather than mimicry of procedures, which was the emphasis of past videos. Faculty predict changing the focus will result in greater understanding of the process, not just memorization of skills (R3.35).

In addition, in 2015, Kinesiology requested funds for equipment essential to students’ ability to achieve CSLOs. They identified a need for a water polo timing system with nets and lane lines in order to help students meet several CSLOs in various Water Polo classes. For example, a CSLO for KIN WP1 (Water Polo 1) states students will be able to “demonstrate basic water polo skills: dribbling, passing, and shooting.” The acquisition of nets and lanes lines allows students to meet this outcome. Similarly, a CSLO for KIN WP3 (Water Polo 3) says students will be able to “evaluate various competitive situations and integrate possible solutions.” Without the timing system, nets, and lanes lines, students would not be able to meet this outcome as successfully. The acquisition of these items allows for students to meet several other CSLOs in various Water Polo classes (R3.36). This request was approved by the Resource Allocation Committee and then by the college President on December, 12, 2015 (R3.37). Subsequently these items have been purchased are in use.

Library: The Library’s acquisition of resources led to improved student learning. The Library reports that in assessing the CSLO of LIBR 7, “Students will develop and refine search strategies to locate eight appropriate information sources using the Internet for an approved topic,” the results show an increase in student engagement, and student outcome shows a 100% success rate on this specific SLO (R.38). This improvement is due to the purchase of white boards (purchased with instructional equipment funds), on which librarians may visually represent the research process, including developing search strategies based on a topic (R3.39). The Library plans to expand the use of white boards to library orientations.

Mass Communication: In the Mass Communications discipline, the revisions of CSLOs and PSLOs have led to program improvements that have impacted student success. Removal of a co-requisite to MSCM 17 – Express Editorial Board has increased student access to the course. Also, the department has revised the PSLOs for the Certificate of Achievement – Journalism to make the PSLOs more specific and aligned to the goals of students in the certificate program. Specific goals for the future that have emerged from assessment and dialogue about SLOs are to update newspaper classes to include a hybrid component, to increase literary anthology classes to three units, and to decrease the magazine production course to three units (R3.40).

Music: In the Music department, the results of SLO analysis have led to equipment requests. The Music department was granted a request for wireless locks with tracking capability in an effort to not only protect musical equipment but also to monitor students’ practice habits, with particular respect to tracking practice lab hours, a practice that allows the department to facilitate meaningful assessments of CSLOs in five music courses (R.41, R3.42).

Psychology: In the Psychology department, the analysis of the Psychology AA-T PSLO, “Demonstrate an understanding of and apply basic research methods in psychology including research design, hypothesis testing, and data interpretation,” resulted in program improvement. The assessment results showed that students who were proficient on the PSLO increased from 77% of all students in spring 2014, 78% in fall 2014, 91% in spring 2015, and 91% in fall 2015. The department attributes the increase in proficiency to a curriculum modification. Psychology added a 3-hour lab to its Research Methods course to help students to gain a better understanding of research methodology (R3.43).

Speech: In the Speech department, analysis of SLO data led to program improvements. The 2015-2016 SLO assessment and analysis for Speech 1 and Speech 10 revealed a 100% student success rate, leading faculty to have meaningful dialogue focused on reevaluating the academic rigor reflected in the CSLOs for these course. The department plans to reassess CSLOs for these courses in the current academic year, during which they also plan to assess Speech 2A, 5, 11, 46, and 48. The department has also recently evaluated all CSLOs and mapped them to PSLOs for the AA-T in Speech. The department notes that Speech 1, 46, and 48, in particular, help students to achieve all PSLOs, but also notes that the limited offerings of Speech 2A, 5, 10, and 11 (once per year) creates a challenge for students trying to obtain the degree and transfer from LPC within two years (R3.44).

Theater Arts: The Theater Arts department SLO data analysis led to two equipment requests. They identified the need for and received sound equipment necessary for the proper training of students to achieve learning outcomes related to the recording and set up of sound gear. The department noted that a lack of proper sound equipment had been a barrier to student success with the following learning outcomes: 1) “Serve as a member of a creative design process, simulating the complexities of creating live performance”; and 2) “Recognize crew organization, hang and focus lights, record a sound effect, or set up a microphone.” The Theater Arts department was also granted a request for four LED lighting fixtures with up-to-date lighting technology. This equipment was necessary for the department to move forward with their goal of offering a certificate program in Technical Theater since training students using current technology will better prepare them for the workforce. While updated lighting technology helped students to achieve many learning outcomes specific to the theater program, especially those requiring students to participate creatively in productions, it also helped students achieve the following outcome in a manner consistent with current practices in the workforce and at larger institutions: “Students will be able to create a lighting plot for an assigned production” (R3.45, R3.46).

Welding Technology: Welding Technology department states that their AS & Certificate PSLO, “Demonstrates safety awareness in the welding workplace,” witnessed significant success (99% Success vs. 1% No Success). The program will continue to emphasize safety as the “most important task” for students (R3.47).

These examples of resource requests being driven by regular and systematic SLO data assessment and analysis are illustrative of a shift in the college’s new approach to using SLO data results. The college’s more systematic, structured approach to SLO assessment and analysis has made the SLO assessment process more valuable, which, in turn, is making its integrated planning processes more effective.

Since the fall 2015 team visit, there have been also been some macro-level changes to the college’s planning processes as a result of SLO assessment and analysis. The centrality of SLO data in the planning process led the SLO Committee to meet twice instead of once a month. More frequent meetings had become necessary to facilitate a smoother integration between SLO work and the work of other college committees, supporting the systemic and ongoing nature of SLO work (R3.48).

Another improvement in the college’s integrated planning processes was the combining of two committees, the Integrated Planning Committee (IPC) and the Institutional Effectiveness Committee (IEC), into a single committee, the Integrated Planning and Effectiveness Committee (IPEC) (R3.49, R3.50). Driving this decision was the recognition that it is through the integration and analysis of a wide variety of data, including SLO data, that effective planning and resource allocation occurs.

Assessment/Analysis of Institutional Learning Outcomes

In fall 2015, during the team visit, the college’s institutional learning outcomes were referred to as “Core Competencies.” However, since the team visit, the SLO Committee has renamed the Core Competencies; they are now “Institutional Student Learning Outcomes” or ISLOs, the name more logically identifying their relationship to program-level outcomes, PSLOs, and course-level outcomes, CSLOs (R3.51)

ISLOs serve as the college’s general education learning outcomes. These are a significant systematic and ongoing measure of student learning at Las Positas College. Prior to the site visit in fall 2015, the IEC and the IPC were responsible for reviewing the ISLO data annually. Unfortunately, these committees did not have a clear standard to compare ISLO performance data against, which led to problems in meaningful analysis ISLO data. Since the site visit, Las Positas College has made significant improvements to the ISLOs and the methods of analyzing ISLO data. These improvements allow the college to more meaningfully and regularly use ISLO data to make institutional improvements and achieve more effective integrated planning processes.

In the new structure, the IPEC annually evaluates evidence, including data on institution set-standards for ISLOs, to determine if there is a need for new college planning priorities. Institution-set standards for ISLO performance are determined in the same way that that set standards are determined for student success in courses. The set standards for ISLOs use a five-year average of performance in each of the five ISLOs. That average is compared to the most recent year of ISLO data. (R3.52, R3.53, R3.54). If the College does not meet its standard for ISLO achievement in a given year, then IPEC will recommend a College planning priority around the deficient ISLO in order to ensure the College meets its standard in the following year. This is a new method of evaluating ISLO data that the college is confident will enable the IPEC to use ISLO data for institutional improvements and more effective integrated planning (R3.52, R3.55).

Table 9: Achievement on the 5 ISLOs has remained high as shown by examining the institution set standard for each ISLO. The development of the set standard allows us to track student progress on the ISLOs annually.

Table 2: Achievement on the 5 ISLOs

At LPC, CSLOs are mapped to ISLOs and each ISLO contains a small number of subcategories to describe what constitutes each ISLO. For example, the Communication ISLO contains four subcategories (Read Critically, Write Effectively, Communicate Orally, and Communicate Visually and Symbolically). The SLO committee recognized that the ISLOs are too broad to meaningfully analyze the causes of a decrease in ISLO performance longitudinally. However, the SLO committee also realized that the existing subcategories in ISLOs might aid in the analysis of ISLO data. This would be possible if the CSLOs were not only mapped to the ISLOs but also to the ISLO subcategories. To start that process, a large group of faculty, staff, and administrators broke into five workgroups to refine the language of the five ISLOs and review the subcategories at a Town Hall meeting (R3.15). In order to capture feedback from everyone on campus, the ISLOs then were presented at division meetings and summarized at the SLO Committee (R3.56). Finally, workgroups were reformed to finalize the new ISLO language (R3.57). The new ISLO language was presented to the Academic Senate for approval in the spring semester (R3.58). In the spring semester, faculty will also begin mapping CSLOs to the new ISLOs. The newly mapped ISLO data will be analyzed in the fall 2017 semester. The improved ISLO language and the ISLO set standards will allow the college to systematically and regularly evaluate ISLO data. Those results will be used for institutional improvements and more effective integrated planning processes.

Assessment and Analysis of Student Learning Outcomes by Administrative Units

Instructional and student services administrative units have engaged in a systematic and ongoing assessment and analysis of course, program, and general education outcomes through the program review cycle that moves the results to the IPEC where the information is use for improvement and effective integrated planning.

As part of the annual program review, each instructional and student services program reports on CSLOs for their areas; deans of administrative units that serve these programs assess and analyze their student learning outcomes as a component of the annual dean program review summaries; these summaries are used by the college’s planning committee to inform the integrated planning process. More specifically, dean program review summaries are used to help inform the college’s planning priorities (R3.22).

The dean program review summaries are an integral part of the planning process at the college. Based primarily on dean program review summaries, the IPC recommended the following planning priority, which was adopted by the college in spring 2015, around student learning outcomes: “develop processes to facilitate ongoing meaningful assessment of SLOs/SAOs and integrate assessment of SLOs/SAOs into college processes.” In order to ensure the college appropriately addresses the learning outcomes planning priority, the Vice President of Academic Services coordinates the steps to address this priority and makes regular progress reports about the priority to the college’s planning committee (R3.59).

Conclusion

The college has addressed the Recommendation and now meets the IIA Standards. The instructional and administrative units are engaged in assessment and analysis of course, program, and institutional outcomes that are systematic and ongoing as evidenced by the full program review process. Program review documents capture how outcomes are used for improvement, and they effectively inform the Institutional Planning and Effectiveness Committee in the integrated planning processes.

Recommendation III (3)

Narrative Analysis

Structural Elements that Support Sustained Institutional Work

Conclusion

Evidence