Recommendation II (2)
In order to meet the standard, the team recommends that all full-time and part-time faculty assess instructional SLOs and communicate these outcomes, regardless of delivery modality, on all course syllabi and official course outlines of record after engaging in a collegial self-reflective dialogue about outcomes and improving student learning. (II.A.6)
In response to the Commission Action Letter, Las Positas College faculty, full-time and part-time, are engaged in assessing instructional SLOs and communicating these outcomes, regardless of delivery modality, on all course syllabi and official course outlines of record. Full-time and part-time faculty are engaged in collegial, self-reflective dialogue about outcomes and improving student learning. This dialogue has primarily been facilitated by the Student Learning Outcome (SLO) Committee. In support of its work to address this recommendation, the college has developed additional institutional structures for ongoing outcomes assessment work so that college practice demonstrates sustained compliance with the Standards.
Much of the structural work that was needed to support the collegial dialogue, the outcomes assessment work, and the efforts to improve student learning came from the leadership and efforts of the SLO Committee. First, the SLO committee developed new training and support tools. Second, along with the Instructional Technology Coordinator, the committee led the upgrade to a new version of eLumen to assist with recording and analysis of assessment data. Third, the college hired a new support position, a Curriculum and SLO Specialist who supports the SLO Committee and the faculty, staff, and administrators using eLumen and CurricUNET.
The SLO Committee has created training tools that provide clear guidelines, which can be used for evaluating SLOs. The draft guidelines started with a Flex Day workshop in the fall 2015 (R2.1). The SLO coordinator ran a workshop that gave faculty the opportunity to improve their SLOs using improved terminology and examples from other colleges. The draft guidelines outlined in the workshop formed the foundation of information given to all faculty in an SLO Handbook (R2.2). The SLO Handbook now serves as the college’s major source of information and guidance for faculty as they develop and assess SLOs. The SLO Handbook makes a clear distinction between measurable objectives and course SLOs (see Table 3); it gives examples of strong course and program SLOs (see Table 4 for program SLOs); it discusses methods of assessing SLOs; and it describes the types of analysis that can be performed using SLO data. This document is used for common understanding in trainings and Division Meetings (R2.3).
To illustrate this new shared understanding, the following Table identifies the relationship between course objectives and course outcomes.
Table 3: Examples of wording differences between course objectives and their related CSLOs
|Course Objective||Related Student Learning Outcome|
Upon completion of this course, students should be able to critique psychological research studies.
Evaluate and critique student drawings and receive criticism from others.
Write unified, coherent documents while also demonstrating adequate research skills, using discipline appropriate styles, such as MLA
Upon completion of this course, students should be able analyze the homeostatic mechanisms maintaining the human body.
This work toward a common understanding of outcomes began with support for opportunities in which faculty and administrators could have shared training and develop expertise in communicating about developing effective outcomes and assessing and analyzing SLO data. This has resulted in significant and ongoing dialogue about how all faculty and those directly responsible for student learning conceptualize SLOs and meaningfully assess student learning. During the spring 2016 semester, faculty leaders and administrators from LPC attended two ACCJC workshops. The first, Fundamentals of Assessment, presented by Dr. Amy Driscoll, gave an introduction to SLO assessment and detailed multiple activities that could be brought back and shared with college faculty and staff (R2.4).
Table 4: Examples of Program-level Student Learning Outcomes for degrees and certificates.
|Program-level Student Learning Outcomes|
Upon completion of the AAT in philosophy, students will be able to develop and present formal philosophical arguments using effective logical argumentative technique and avoiding logical error and fallacies.
Upon completion of the AAT in philosophy, students will be able to respond to philosophical writing and ideas of historical and contemporary philosophers by describing philosophical arguments, evaluating those arguments, and applying them with accuracy and creativity to contemporary conditions.
Upon completion of an AAT degree in anthropology, students will be able to contrast the fundamental ways in which cultures differ from one another.
Upon completion of an AAT degree in anthropology, students will be able to analyze the ethical responsibilities and concerns in the conducting of anthropological research.
Upon completion of an AA degree in music, students will demonstrate a working knowledge of musical analysis and harmonic theory applicable to their area of specialization.
Upon completion of an AAT degree in psychology, students will be able to use basic research methods in psychology including research design, hypothesis testing, and data interpretation.
Upon completion of an AS degree in mathematics, students will use mathematical reasoning to solve problems and a generalized problem solving process to work word problems.
Upon completion of the AA degree in theater arts, students will be able to evaluate the work performed by theatre practitioners, with special attention to the skills involved in acting, directing, and designing.
Upon completion of the AA degree in theater arts, students will be able to integrate acting skills and techniques in the preparation and performance of dramatic literature.
Upon completion of the certificate in automotive mechanics, students will be able to diagnose, repair, and replace electrical and electronic systems and components.
Upon completion of the certificate in automotive mechanics, students will be able to diagnose, repair, and replace brake systems and components.
Upon completion of the certificate in early childhood development, students will implement a wide array of developmentally appropriate approaches, instructional strategies, and tools to connect with children and families.
Upon completion of the certificate in medical assisting, students will be able to perform clinical office responsibilities such as vital signs, exam room preparation, patient data collection, simple dressing changes, lab tests, phlebotomy, and EKGs.
The second workshop, Taking Assessment to the Program Level, presented by Linda Suskie, gave strong examples of program outcomes, went over examples of how PSLO data could be analyzed and used in decision-making, and allowed members to apply the lessons learned to a program at their own college (R2.5). Attendees brought back materials and offered an overview of each workshop to SLO Committee (R2.6, R2.7). Using the information and materials from the ACCJC workshops, members of the SLO Committee offered workshops at an English discipline meeting and at fall’s Flex Day 2016 (R2.8, R2.9). In addition, a College Day workshop for all faculty on writing SLOs was headed by Ginni May from Academic Senate of the California Community Colleges (R2.10). These workshops facilitated dialogue, which led to clearer distinctions between outcomes and objectives as well as providing a structural framework by which faculty could evaluate the quality of the SLOs. The trainings have resulted in faculty creating a more diverse set of SLOs for courses, degrees, certificates, and student service areas. The mean number of SLOs per course, degree, certificate, and student service area has continued to increase overtime, partially as a result of the recent trainings (see Chart 1). The trainings have resulted in faculty creating over one hundred new ¬¬¬¬SLOs during the fall 2016 semester alone (R2.11, R2.12). Not only has training resulted in a greater number of SLOs being created, but the SLOs are of high quality.
Chart 1: The number of SLOs per course, program, and student service area has increased as faculty and staff have received additional SLO training.
Ensuring that dialogue results in high quality SLOs is the purview of SLO Committee, and, in response to this recommendation, the SLO Committee has made strides in providing the college with more institutionalized support for developing, assessing and analyzing SLOs by reviewing and providing feedback to faculty as they write new Course or Program Student Learning Outcomes.
The college’s support for the SLO work has been strengthened by its choice to upgrade to the new version of eLumen. While this upgrade has taken a significant amount of time and effort, the college is now able to easily enter assessment data and analyze results because of the increased functionality of the new eLumen software. In April 2014, the SLO Committee decided to upgrade to version 5 of the eLumen software (R2.13). In September 2014, the SLO Committee became concerned about the impact of the software upgrade on faculty work on SLO assessments prior to the Accreditation site visit and the SLO committee decided to delay the upgrade until after the Accreditation site visit (R2.14). During that time, the eLumen software was redesigned and version 6 became available. The SLO Committee saw the new version of eLumen and agreed with the previous decision by the SLO Committee to upgrade (R2.15).
The upgrade to eLumen version 6 took longer than anticipated and affected SLO data reporting in spring and summer of 2016. In December 2015, a tentative timeline was developed and presented to the SLO Committee (R2.16, R2.17). The timeline included moving existing data to the new version of eLumen and allowing faculty to use the new system by February 2016. There were a number of delays during the spring and summer semester (R2.18, R2.19). Due to the number of delays and the need to begin collecting SLO data, the SLO Committee recommended to division faculty that the college move forward without moving the data over from the old system. The old data would be made available to faculty when it was needed (R2.20). When the information was presented to faculty at division meetings, most were in favor of moving forward without the data from the old system (R2.21). During the summer of 2016, the college began work on setting up the new eLumen site. The site was made available to faculty at the beginning of the fall 2016 semester. Trainings were first offered at College Day just prior to the beginning of classes (R2.22). The SLO Committee, working with the Staff Development Committee, has offered numerous workshops in using the new eLumen at varied dates and times so that full-time and part-time faculty are able to attend. (R2.23, R2.24, TLC Website http://laspositascollege.edu/staffdevelopment/workshop_description.php). Now that the software is in place, the college has an effective system to capture SLO assessment data and to allow users to more easily visualize course, program, and institutional data. The new system has helped the SLO committee to make institutionalized changes to its processes. To support and ensure the development of high-quality SLOs, the SLO Committee reviews all SLOs when they are created or revised using eLumen (R2.25, R2.26, R2.27). When SLOs are created or revised, the SLO committee compares the new SLOs to existing SLOs and to the course outline of record (R2.28). The SLO Committee sets clear deadlines for updating of SLOs to assist in the accurate communication of SLOs to students in course syllabi and the College Catalog (R2.29). The college is confident that this will allow faculty and others directly responsible for student learning to more fully engage in collegial dialogue about assessment results.
The third piece of institutional support to SLO work came from the decision to hire a new Curriculum and SLO Specialist. This decision was developed based on the college’s integrated planning process. 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 (R2.30, R2.31, R2.32). The Curriculum and SLO Specialist helps train faculty and staff 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 (R2.33. R2.34, R2.35). This position has been essential in supporting SLO work at the college by assisting faculty to update SLOs, enter assessment data, and access SLO data in the previous version of eLumen.
As a result of the training and the dialogue about outcomes assessment and improving student learning, the college is more clearly communicating SLOs to students and external stakeholders. The Curriculum and SLO Specialist posts all course-level SLOs (CSLOs), program-level SLOs (PSLOs), service area outcomes (SAOs), and institutional-level SLOs (ISLOs) on the SLO webpage (http://laspositascollege.edu/slo/slolists.php). An example of science and math CSLOs is provided in Appendix 3. PSLOs can also be found in the college catalog for each degree and certificate program that is offered at Las Positas College (R2.35). The college has developed a process to ensure that all faculty, full-time and part-time, are communicating student learning outcomes, regardless of delivery modality, on all course syllabi. For example, as of fall 2015 (contract ratified – September 10, 2015), the faculty contract references SLO work as a part of faculty professional responsibility:
(1) Participate in program and subject area improvement tasks such as creating and assessment of Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs), Service Area Outcomes (SAOs), Course Learning Outcomes (CLOs) and Program Learning Outcomes (PLOs), program review, and curriculum development. (Article 18.I.VII.c.1) (R2.36).
Along with the new contract language, extensive efforts have been made to emphasize the importance of communicating CSLOs on all course syllabi, regardless of the delivery modality of the course. All new faculty now receive training on their obligations regarding communication and assessment of SLOs (R2.37). Also, the faculty handbook describes the information that needs to be included on all course syllabi, including CSLOs (R2.38). The need to communicate CSLOs to students on course syllabi was explicitly described to all faculty in an email from deans and during orientation trainings for full-time faculty and part-time faculty (R2.39). After expressing the importance of clearly communicating CSLOs to students on course syllabi, the deans’ offices confirm that syllabi have all the required information on them, including CSLOs. If syllabi do not have the correct SLOs, the dean’s office staff contacts faculty and requests that they update the syllabus with the correct CSLOs, and if this does not produce the change, the dean will contact the faculty member. This standardized process is designed to ensure that CSLOs are the same between different sections of the same course and that all students are aware of the CSLOs. As a result of this work, Las Positas College is communicating CSLOs to students through course syllabi.
From a sampling taken by the Visiting Team in the fall of 2015, it was determined that approximately 55% of all syllabi contained the communication of CSLOs. Since that time, a tracking process has been effectively developed and implemented at the division offices. Their document information is forwarded to the office of the Academic Vice President and compiled. It was verified that over 96% of course syllabi communicated the course SLOs in the fall of 2016 (R2.40). As of February 2017, XX% of course syllabi for spring have CSLOs on them (R2.41). Those syllabi that do not have SLOs will go through the same process of follow-up by the division office staff and, if needed, the dean. This information has been part of the ongoing Accreditation updates presented at Town Hall meetings in the fall, September, October, and December (R2.42, R2.43, R2.44).
Table 5: SLOs communicated to students on syllabi
|# of Course Sections||# with SLOs||%|
Note: The number of courses sections does include Independent Study courses, or Alternate Study contracts. Fall figures do not include Student Services courses though spring figures do include Student Services courses.
Table 6. Disciplines showing all their courses have SLOs on syllabi
Administration of Justice
American Sign Language
Computer Information Systems
Computer Network Technology
Early Childhood Education
Emergency Medical Services
English as a Second Language
Fire Service Technology
Occupational Safety & Health
The SLO Committee and the Curriculum Committee discussed the best way to ensure that all CSLOs were included on the official course outline of record (R2.45, R2.46). A system was developed that would minimize unnecessary work for members of both committees but also make sure that CSLOs were reviewed and kept current in the two systems that house the college’s SLO assessment data and course outlines of record, eLumen and CurricUNET, respectively. The SLO committee reviews all student learning outcomes for quality and the Curriculum and SLO Specialist enters the newly revised CSLOs onto the course outlines of record. The SLO Committee also keeps track of all new curriculum to make sure every new course, degree, and certificate has SLOs.
The college certifies that course-level SLOs are comparable to award credit for incoming transfer students through its course equivalency process. Students submit one of two forms, depending on whether they want a waiver of a prerequisite, a course substitution, or a waiver of a program requirement. The forms entitled “Request for Course Substitution or Waiver of Program Requirement” or “Prerequisite Challenge Form” require the student submit a course syllabus or course outline of record as part of the paperwork for approval. The course syllabus or course outline of record will contain CSLOs, allowing the evaluator to certify comparability in order to award credit (R2.47).
Assessment and Dialogue about Outcomes and Improving Student Learning
The new structural support for SLO assessment and analysis led to meaningful dialogue and stronger communication about SLOs, all of which has deepened faculty investment in SLO assessment and analysis at the college. In March of 2015, a small group of faculty leaders gathered in a Common Ground meeting to develop a mutual language for discussing course-level outcomes (R2.48). In fall 2016, the campus-wide dialogue about SLOs is an indication of the college’s vast progress. The new terminology for the various types of SLO data is one such indicator. First, the SLO Committee renamed the different levels of SLOs so that the relationship between them is more logical and obvious: course-level SLO’s are now CSLOs; program-level SLOs are PSLOs; institutional-level SLOs, previously named “Core Competencies,” are now ISLOs (R2.49).
Table 7: New terminology has helped clarify the relationship between the different kinds of SLOs.
|New Terminology||Previous Terminology|
|Course Student Learning Outcomes (CSLO)||Student Learning Outcomes|
|Student Area Outcomes (SAO)||Student Area Outcomes|
|Program Student Learning Outcomes (PSLO)||Program Outcomes|
|Institutional Learning Outcomes (ISLO)||Core Competencies|
Figure 1: The assessment cycle for Course-level SLOs during a single semester. This cycle has helped clarify faculty responsibilities.
The clarification of the assessment cycle helped faculty communicate CSLOs to part-time faculty, plan assessment activities, and capture dialogue about assessment data. Other changes have also supported this critical work. The new faculty contract containing language describing the professional responsibilities of faculty includes entering SLO assessment data and recording dialogue about the results in eLumen.
The new terminology and the new version of eLumen has clarified the relationships between CSLOs, PSLOs, and ISLOs. The clearer mapping matrix of CSLOs to PSLOs to ISLOs is easily accessible on the SLO website (R2.52). As part of the annual Program Review Update, faculty were asked to review and discuss the mapping of CSLOs and PSLOs for degrees and certificates in their discipline. PSLO assessments are now captured in the college’s comprehensive program review template where the timeline is clear: CSLOs and PSLOs are regularly and systematically analyzed in the annual Program Review (R2.53). To facilitate this work, the SLO Committee has worked with the Program Review Committee to offer multiple workshops on how to write the Program Review Update for fall 2016, focusing on the importance of SLO data analysis and mapping (R2.21). In addition, the Fall Flex Day schedule allowed time for discipline faculty to work together on SLOs and Program Review Updates, as noted earlier. The college’s effort in providing numerous SLO training opportunities and dedicated time for discipline SLO work underscores its commitment to full-time and part-time faculty having meaningful dialogue about outcomes and student learning.
The ISLOs serve as the college’s General Education SLOs. In fall 2016, faculty, staff, and administrators undertook a college-wide review of the ISLOs (R2.54, R2.55). During the spring 2017, faculty from across the college began reviewing the mapping of CSLOs to the ISLOs as part of the college’s annual review of ISLOs. The ISLOs will be assessed and analyzed annually by set-standards determining satisfactory performance for student achievement developed in the Institutional Planning and Effectiveness Committee (IPEC). The analysis of ISLOs is captured in the college’s annual Institutional Report, and the IPEC Chair communicates this analysis to the SLO Committee and the Town Hall meeting, facilitating collegial, self-reflective dialogue about ISLO assessment with the broader college community (R2.56).
In addition, SLO Liaisons were assigned to support each division, and they have focused on communication about SLOs, helping all faculty, full-time and part-time, engage in meaningful, self-reflective dialogue about outcomes and student learning. As evident in the report from the Arts and Humanities Liaison, the direct support of an SLO expert heightened faculty investment in SLO work:
The Arts & Humanities Division has largely been in the process of revising program-level and course-level student learning outcomes so that they align with the recommendations of the SLO Committee. This process has also led several disciplines to revise course curriculum as well as create new curriculum, and the division has also moved forward with implementing and/or advocating for changes within the classroom, department, division, and college based on student learning outcome assessment, analysis, and discussion of data collected in previous semesters. For example, the English department has followed through with ten strategies to improve student success based on recommendations that rolled out of analysis and discussion of student learning outcome data that assessed student skill level integrating source material in the English sequence (English 104, 1A, 4/7). The Music department has identified classroom design/construction as a barrier to students reaching learning outcomes in performance classes, and has addressed this concern by requesting updates to performance classrooms in program review. SLO discussions in the ESL department have led to creating new outcomes that focus on reading in appropriate classes. The Foreign Language department has noted the lack of reassigned time for its only full-time faculty/coordinator as a barrier to meaningful collaboration and discussion of outcomes across the different foreign language disciplines. And SLO discussions in the Mass Communications department have resulted in revising program outcomes for the Certificate of Achievement. It should also be noted that support from the division SLO Liaison has been valuable to the progress made with streamlining meaningful assessment of learning outcomes within the division, and particularly valuable to new full-time faculty within the Humanities cluster (R2.57).
The SLO Liaisons have been central to the college’s vast improvement in assessing and analyzing SLO data. They have helped discipline faculty who were still engaging in dialogue about SLOs at the developmental level in fall 2015 to shift their discussions so that they now have a focus on assessment results and analysis of CSLO and PSLO data. (R2.58, R2.59). The SLO Liaisons also supported all disciplines in writing about SLOs in their Program Review Updates for 2016.
The new requirement that disciplines capture PSLO data, in addition to CSLO data, in the annual Program Review Update, along with mapping CSLO data to PSLO data, is ensuring that all disciplines have meaningful dialogue about not only CSLOs, but also PSLOs (R2.60). The following are some examples from the Program Review Updates and SLO Liaison Reports of how PSLO assessment has driven meaningful analysis based on self-reflective dialogue:
Computer Studies - The Computer Studies department’s analysis of PSLO data helped them identify successful curricular innovations and staffing efforts. Analysis of the computing studies discipline’s PSLO, “Upon completion of the AS in computer programming students will be able to direct computer operations by writing detailed instructions using computer programming languages,” demonstrated “increased student interest and engagement when robotic technologies were introduced into Computer Science courses.” The program plans to increase “the use of robotic technologies to enhance the learning environment in CS courses.” The department notes that the addition of a second full-time instructor further stimulated dialogue about the student experience and active engagement with part-time instructors (R2.61).
English - The English department’s analysis of their PSLOs provided a new framework in which to examine student success. The department rewrote PSLOs for both AA and AA-T degrees in spring 2016 to better match the outcomes of required English courses, and they plan to examine PSLO data to see if new trends emerge as a result of this change. Considering the fact that most students who take English courses are not English majors, the English department plans to pay special attention to PSLOs mapped to literature courses, which are attended by a higher number of English majors (R2.62).
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 (R2.63).
Philosophy - The Philosophy department’s PSLO analysis also led to program improvement in assessment and planning. Assessment and dialogue of the PSLOs for the Philosophy AA-T resulted in faculty plans to craft a new PSLO that focuses on dialogue and respectful communication, an outcome that is in line with the goals of the program but not currently reflected in its outcomes. Faculty are also considering the addition of an argumentation and rationality PSLO that maps to Philosophy 6; the course faculty have agreed to view it as the capstone for the AA-T in Philosophy (R2.64).
Psychology - The Psychology department’s PSLO data analysis helped them identify successful curricular innovations. They analyzed the following PSLO: “Upon completion of the AA-T in psychology, students will demonstrate an understanding of and apply basic research methods in psychology including research design, hypothesis testing, and data interpretation.” Their assessment results showed that more students were becoming proficient in the PSLO (from 77% in spring 2014 to 91% in fall 2015). This improvement is attributed to students having increased access to a computer lab and the development of a new course that is required to complete the AA-T (PSYC 25 - Research Methods) (R2.65).
Speech - The Speech Department’s PSLO analysis provided a new framework in which to examine student pathways. The department re-evaluated all of their 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 program outcomes, but also observes that the limited offerings of Speech 2A, 5, 10, and 11 (once per year) create a challenge for students trying to obtain the degree and transfer from the college within two years, so dialog has begun to address this concern (R2.66).
These examples are a snapshot of the meaningful SLO work that is taking place throughout the campus as a result of better structure, deeper dialogue and broader communication.
The college has addressed the Recommendation and now meets the II.A.6 Standard. Full-time and part-time faculty assess instructional SLOs and engage in collegial self-reflective dialogue about outcomes and improving student learning. The divisions and Academic Vice President’s office are working together to ensure the communication of Course SLOs on all syllabi while the Curriculum Committee has worked with the SLO Committee to ensure the presence of SLOs on all Course Outlines of Record. Institutional supports have been put in place to improve communication and dialogue concerning outcomes assessment so that the work can be sustained.
- R2.1 - Agenda - Fall Flex Day - 09-15-15
- R2.2 - Other Document - SLO Handbook - spring 2016
- R2.3 - Other Document - SLO Talking Points - May 2016
- R2.4 - Training Materials - Driscoll Fundamentals of Assessment – 4-15-16
- R2.5 - Minutes - #6 - SLO Committee – 5-2-16
- R2.6 - Minutes - #8 - SLO Committee - 3-7-16
- R2.7 - Training Materials -Suskie Taking Program Assessment, Next Level - 3-3-16
- R2.8 - Agenda - Flex Day - 9-26-16
- R2.9 - Minutes - English Department - 4-29-16
- R2.10 - PowerPoint - Ginni May SLOs and Objectives - 8-16-16
- R2.11 - Agenda - #12 - SLO Committee - 10-24-16
- R2.12 - Agenda - #7 SLO Committee – 11-28-16
- R2.13 - Minutes - # VII - SLO Committee - 4-7-14
- R2.14 - Minutes - # VII - SLO Committee - 9-8-14
- R2.15 - Minutes - #4 - SLO Committee - 11-2-15
- R2.16 - Email - Melissa Kubrick, eLumen Update - 11-18-15
- R2.17 - Minutes - #4 - SLO Committee Item - 12-7-15
- R2.18 - Minutes - #4 - SLO Committee - 2-1-16
- R2.19 - Minutes - #6 - SLO Committee - 3-21-16
- R2.20 - Other Document - Talking Points - SLO Committee - 5-18-16
- R2.21 - Email - No migration of SLO data - 5-18-16
- R2.22 - Agenda - Convocation & LPC College Day - 8-15-16
- R2.23 - Website - Workshop Sign-Up Form - fall 2016
- R2.24 - Website - Workshop Descriptions - fall 2016
- R2.25 - Minutes - #7 - CSLO & PSLO Review - SLO Committee - 11-14-16
- R2.26 - Minutes - #7, 8 - SLO Committee 11-28-16
- R2.27 - Minutes - #10, #11 - SLO Committee - 10-10-16
- R2.28 - Other Document - CSLO Review - fall 2016
- R2.29 - Report - SLO Report to MSEPs Division - 11-16-16
- R2.30 - Form - Curriculum and SLO Specialist -Non-Instructional Position Request - fall 2015
- R2.31 - Other Document - Non-Instructional Positions Ranking - fall 2015
- R2.32 - Other Document - #IIa Classified Hiring - Board Packet Item - 6-21-16
- R2.33 - Minutes - #4 - SLO Committee - 8-22-2016
- R2.34 - Minutes - #6c - Curriculum Committee - 9-22-16
- R2.35 - Other Document - College Catalog - 2016-17
- R2.36 - Newsletter - CLPFA professional responsibility of adjuncts pg 2 - 10-2016
- R2.37 - Agenda - New Faculty Orientation - 8-11-16
- R2.38 - Other Document - Full Time Faculty Handbook pg C-6 - 2016-17
- R2.39 - Email - SLOs on Syllabus - Nan Ho, MSEPS Interim Dean - 8-16-16
- R2.40 - Other Document - List of Syllabi with CSLOs - fall 2016
- R2.41 - Other Document - List of Syllabi with CSLOs - spring 2017
- R2.42 - PowerPoint – Town Hall - September 2016
- R2.43 - PowerPoint – Town Hall - October 2016
- R2.44 - PowerPoint – Town Hall - December 2016
- R2.45 - Minutes - #9 - SLO Committee - 3-21-16
- R2.46 - Minutes - #7b - Curriculum Committee Item - 3-14-16
- R2.47 - Form - Course Equivalency Request - 9-22-16
- R2.48 - Minutes - Common Ground Meeting - 3-27-15
- R2.49 - Minutes - #8 - SLO Committee - 9-12-16
- R2.50 - Minutes - # 4 - SLO Committee - 9-12-16
- R2.51 - Email - SLO Language-Marty Nash-8-23-16
- R2.52 - Report - PSLO Mapping - spring 2016
- R2.53 - Form - Program Review Update Template - 8-25-16
- R2.54 - Agenda - Town Meeting Agenda and Announcements - 10-5-16
- R2.55 - Other Document - ISLO Workgroups Draft - 10-11.16
- R2.56 – PowerPoint – Institutional Set Standards – Town Hall – November 2016
- R2.57 - Other Document - SLO Liaison Report A&H Division - fall 2016
- R2.58 - Other Document – SLO Liaison Position – 9-12-16
- R2.59 - Minutes - #15 - SLO Liaison Responsibilities - MSEPS Division - 9-21-16
- R2.60 - Minutes - #5 - MSEPS Division - 10-19-16
- R2.61 - Program Review Update - Computing Studies – fall 2016
- R2.62 - Program Review Update – English – fall 2016
- R2.63 - Program Review Update - Mass Communications – fall 2016
- R2.64 - Program Review Update – Philosophy – fall 2016
- R2.65 - Program Review Update – Psychology – fall 2016
- R2.66 - Program Review Update - Speech – fall 2016