To: Rebecca Eikey, Andy Mccutcheon, Daylene Meuschke

Memo

To: Rebecca Eikey, Andy McCutcheon, Daylene Meuschke

From:Alicia LeValley

Date:09/27/2018

Re:Institutional Learning Outcomes (ILO) Assessment Survey: Spring 2015

At the request of the Institutional Learning Outcomes (ILO) Committee, the Office of Institutional Development and Technology conducted a survey to gather data from adjunct faculty, full-time faculty, division deans, the College Planning Team (CPT), Learning Resources, and Student Servicesin Spring 2015.Revised ILOs are being proposed in order to move towards a more meaningful, simplified institutional assessment process that is more inclusive, coherent, and manageable.The purpose of this survey was to assess the campus community’s understanding and opinions of the proposed ILOs for College of the Canyons.

Out of the possible 842individuals who were invited to participate in the survey, completed surveys were received from 122individuals (15 percent response rate).

Responses / Invited to Participate / Response Rate
Overall / 122 / 844 / 15%
Adjunct Faculty / 64 / 595 / 11%
Full-Time Faculty / 37 / 179 / 21%
College Planning Team / 6 / 22 / 27%
Division Deans / 4 / 7 / 57%
Learning Resources / 6 / 8 / 75%
Student Services / 5 / 16 / 31%

Note: 15 individuals from the Associated Student Government were invited to participate. No responses were received.

1.Are you familiar with the proposed ILOs?

• Overall, nearly half of the respondents are familiar with the proposed ILOs.

• The majority of full-time faculty respondents are familiar with the proposed ILOs while only about one-quarter of the adjunct faculty respondents are familiar with them.

Familiar with Proposed ILOs
Overall (n=122) / 44%(n=54)
Adjunct Faculty (n=64) / 28% (n=18)
Full-Time Faculty(n=37) / 65%(n=24)
College Planning Team(n=6) / -- (n=3)
Division Deans (n=4) / -- (n=4)
Learning Resources(n=6) / -- (n=4)
Student Services(n=5) / -- (n=1)

“--”indicates that percentages are not reported for sample sizes less than ten.

If you answered “no” to question 1, please skip to question 3.

2.Please indicate your satisfaction with the proposed ILOs.

Respondents indicating that they are familiar with the proposed ILOs were asked to indicate their satisfaction with them.

• Overall, the majority of respondentsare “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with the proposed ILOs.
• About two-thirds of full-time faculty and adjunct faculty respondents are “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with the proposed ILOs.
• No respondents indicated that they are “dissatisfied” or “very dissatisfied” with the proposed ILOs.

Satisfied/
Very Satisfied / Neutral / Dissatisfied/
Very Dissatisfied
Overall(n=53) / 68% (n=36) / 32%(n=17) / 0% (n=0)
Adjunct Faculty (n=18) / 67%(n=12) / 33%(n=6) / 0%(n=0)
Full-Time Faculty (n=23) / 61%(n=14) / 39%(n=9) / 0%(n=0)
College Planning Team (n=3) / -- (n=3) / -- (n=0) / -- (n=0)
Division Deans (n=4) / -- (n=3) / -- (n=1) / -- (n=0)
Learning Resources (n=4) / -- (n=3) / -- (n=1) / -- (n=0)
Student Services (n=1) / -- (n=1) / -- (n=0) / -- (n=0)

“--” indicates that percentages are not reported for sample sizes less than ten.

3.Please indicate your level of agreement that the proposed ILOs reflect College of the Canyons.

• Overall, the majority of respondents “agree” or “stronglyagree” that the proposed ILOs reflect College of the Canyons.
• The majority of full-time faculty and adjunct faculty respondents “agree” or “strongly agree” that the proposed ILOs reflect College of the Canyons.

• Less than 15 percent of respondents indicated that they “disagree” or “strongly disagree” that the proposed ILOs reflect College of the Canyons.

Agree/
Strongly Agree / Neutral / Disagree/
Strongly Disagree
Overall (n=111) / 82% (n=91) / 11%(n=12) / 7% (n=8)
Adjunct Faculty (n=56) / 79% (n=44) / 11%(n=6) / 11%(n=6)
Full-Time Faculty (n=34) / 82%(n=28) / 12%(n=4) / 6%(n=2)
College Planning Team (n=6) / -- (n=5) / -- (n=1) / -- (n=0)
Division Deans (n=4) / -- (n=3) / -- (n=1) / -- (n=0)
Learning Resources (n=6) / -- (n=6) / -- (n=0) / -- (n=0)
Student Services (n=5) / -- (n=5) / -- (n=0) / -- (n=0)

“--” indicates that percentages are not reported for sample sizes less than ten.

4.Are there any categories that you would consider renaming?

• Overall, about twenty percent of the respondents indicated that there are categories that they would consider renaming.

Consider Renaming Categories
Overall (n=108) / 18% (n=19)
Adjunct Faculty (n=54) / 15% (n=8)
Full-Time Faculty (n=33) / 21%(n=7)
College Planning Team (n=6) / -- (n=0)
Division Deans (n=4) / -- (n=2)
Learning Resources (n=6) / -- (n=2)
Student Services (n=5) / -- (n=0)

“--”indicates that percentages are not reported for sample sizes less than ten.

If you answered “no” to question 4, please skip to question 6.

5.Please indicate which categories should be renamed and why.

Respondents indicating that there are categories that they would consider renaming were asked to indicate which categories should be renamed and why.

• Twenty respondents provided comments regarding which categories should be renamed and why.
• Twelve respondents indicated that ILO #3 – “Working with Others” should be renamed to include “Collaboration” in the title.
• Six respondents indicated that ILO #6 –“Community Engagement” should be renamed to include “Civic Engagement” in the title.
• Three respondents indicated that ILO #2 – “Critical Thinking” should be renamed.
• Three respondents indicated that ILO #5 – “Quantitative Literacy” should be renamed.

Collector Group / Response
Adjunct Faculty / "Working with Others" is the oddball here. All the other categories are two word descriptors in an adjective-noun format. I recommend changing "Working with Others" to "Constructive Collaboration" or something of the sort in order to parallel the format of the other categories.
Adjunct Faculty / #3 too general
Adjunct Faculty / 1. Communication Proficiency
2. Problem-Solving Literacy
3. Collaboration Competency
I would rename the above so all category names have parallel construction.
Adjunct Faculty / 3. Working with Others - > Collaboration
This should be changed because collaboration has a different implication.
4. Information Literacy & 5. Quantitative Literacy -> 21st Century Literacy (“The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn and relearn.” – Alvin Toffler)
This should include information literacy, quantitative literacy, technology literacy, and the ability to learn, unlearn, and relearn any new form of literacy.
6. Community Engagement -> Civic Engagement or Civic Leadership or Civic Responsibility or Values-Based Community Leadership
This should be renamed because it sounds awkward and engagement does not imply positive community outcomes.
Adjunct Faculty / 3. Working with others: the title trivializes the importance of the objective.
Collector Group / Response
Adjunct Faculty / I prefer the term civic engagement b/c it seems more academic in nature. By using "community" we've dumbed down the ILO. This did not happen re: Quantitative Literacy which is all about math and data. Also, there is a movement in our country to increase civic engagement. Overall, I know that they are the same thing. But, the use of the word civic also implies political involvement whereas community engagement does not. Perhaps Community and Civic Engagement would be best.
Adjunct Faculty / The rhetoric of "Working with Others" sounds a little like verbiage used in K-12. Perhaps, we could title it "Collaboration" as that sounds more appropriate for a college-level institution.
Full-Time Faculty / #6. I see that as a specific interest area rather than a global focus of the campus. I would rather emphasize ethics and allow courses and activities in community engagement count on that area.
Full-Time Faculty / 3. The title "Working with Others" could be replaced with something more articulate like "collaborative process" [etc.]
Full-Time Faculty / 3. change "Working with Others" to "Collaboration/Teamwork Skills for the Work Place"
Full-Time Faculty / Critical Thinking might be renamed to "Creative, Critical and Analytical Thinking".... This is more appropriate and more encompassing for both GE, transfer and major prep. Strongly recommend this as a reconsideration. Also, might consider a renaming of Community Engagement to "Community/Global Engagement or "Community/Global Consciousness and Responsibility" or some similar form.
Full-Time Faculty / none
Full-Time Faculty / Quantitative Literacy should be renamed. The title is easy to confuse with Information Literacy. A possible title could be Applied Mathematically Reasoning or Thinking about numbers to draw a feasible conclusion (too long).
Full-Time Faculty / Rename working with others to collaboration
Full-Time Faculty / Working with others
Division Deans / #6 from Community Engagement to Civic Engagement. This term reflects a campus initiative already underway.
Division Deans / I would include the term "Qualitative" with ILO #5.
In addition, I would rename #6 to read "Civic and Community Engagement."
Learning Resources / I prefer the term "Collaboration" rather than "Working with Others". I think it aligns better with the other 5 ILOs.
Learning Resources / Working With Others as a title seems more like how to play nicely with classmates rather than the tenor of the ILO itself which is more about collaborative constructs both academic and interpersonal.
Student Services / Creative/Innovative Thinking

6.Are there areas that are missing in the proposed ILOs?

• Overall, about 15 percent of the respondents indicated that there are areas missing in the proposed ILOs.

Consider Renaming Categories
Overall (n=110) / 13% (n=14)
Adjunct Faculty (n=56) / 13% (n=7)
Full-Time Faculty (n=33) / 15%(n=5)
College Planning Team (n=6) / -- (n=0)
Division Deans (n=4) / -- (n=0)
Learning Resources (n=6) / -- (n=1)
Student Services (n=5) / -- (n=1)

“--”indicates that percentages are not reported for sample sizes less than ten.

If you answered “no” to question 6, please skip to question 8.

7.Please indicate the areas that are missing.

Respondents indicating that there are areas missing in the proposed ILOs were asked to indicate the areas that are missing.

• Thirteen respondents provided comments regarding the areas that are missing in the proposed ILOs.

• Four respondents indicated that “Creativity” should be included in the ILOs.

Collector Group / Response
Adjunct Faculty / Creativity, the arts, and physical development are missing. They contribute to these goals in ways that science hasn't finished measuring. In addition, appreciation for diversity seems absent. PLEASE NOTE: a verb after "to" is missing from the first sentence in item 6.
Adjunct Faculty / I have to admit that I was confused by the first sentence of the Critical Thinking ILO. I initially though it included critical thinking and BEING creative. When I hear the word creative, I think of "artsy" - not thinking outside of the box to problem solve. Anyway, it made me realize that we do not have any ILOs that address the actual act of being creative, imaginative, artsy... This begs the question, do we in any way want our students to use creativity in their communication with others, presentations and community engagement? Is that part of being in college? If so, then we need to add an ILO. One other thing I noticed is that despite discussion re: teaching students the art of metacognition, there is nothing mentioned (that I saw) in the ILOs re: self-analysis, self-reflection and personal growth. This is somewhat applied in the Critical Thinking ILO, but one really has to look hard to see that it might be included. I think that we should add this piece to the Critical Thinking ILO.
Adjunct Faculty / I would add an ILO about developing success strategies, such as knowing when to ask for help or how to take effective notes.
Adjunct Faculty / Perhaps something related to creativity or appreciation of beauty. The humanities are underrepresented in the ILOs, so something related to original creation of artistic products or appreciation of such might be good. I know the Humanities are somewhat covered in the Effective Communication ILO, but this only briefly addresses reading as an important skill, and I think interpreting meaning in a variety of texts should be given more prominence.
Adjunct Faculty / technology, independent learning, goal oriented
Adjunct Faculty / Writing skills/ability
Collector Group / Response
Full-Time Faculty / appreciation for education
Full-Time Faculty / Ethics, which I see as more universal than community engagement.
Full-Time Faculty / I'm not sure if these topics fit into ILOs? (might not be "over-arching" enough to be included) 1. Time management/meeting deadlines/ability to multitask
Full-Time Faculty / It is my professional opinion that spatial, or geospatial literacy is essential. People need to understand where they are in this world - basic N,S,E,W direction and knowing the most basic places on a world map. I still have students who mistake the Pacific Ocean with the Atlantic, Canada from Russia, etc. The wonderful advancement of GPS technology is enabling dependence upon a device and atrophying the capability of thinking spatially, knowing where countries are or where wars are being fought, or which direction on the freeway one is driving, etc. I had a student who went to Paris and couldn't find France on a map a few weeks afterward she returned. Can we add a Spatial Literacy Outcome? I'd prefer the term Geospatial, since surveying, construction, transportation, architectural rendering, GIS (Geographic Information Systems), satellite imagery, meteorology, climate and environment studies, energy development, geology, international business - these all require a critical ability to view the world in a spatial perspective - relative to another place. Future generations living in a globalized world need to have Geospatial literacy, more than ever.
Full-Time Faculty / Metacognition
Learning Resources / Identity development / self-discovery.
Student Services / Creative/Innovative Thinking

8.Do you currently participate in the assessment of course or program SLOs?

• Overall, the majority of respondents indicated that they participate in the assessment of course or program SLOs.
• One hundred percent of full-time faculty respondents indicated that they participate in the assessment of course or program SLOs and more than half of adjunct faculty respondents indicated that they participate in the assessment of course or program SLOs.

Participate in the Assessment of Course or Program SLOs
Overall (n=110) / 72% (n=72)
Adjunct Faculty (n=56) / 59% (n=33)
Full-Time Faculty (n=33) / 100%(n=33)
College Planning Team (n=6) / -- (n=0)
Division Deans (n=4) / -- (n=0)
Learning Resources (n=6) / -- (n=4)
Student Services (n=5) / -- (n=2)

“--”indicates that percentages are not reported for sample sizes less than ten.

If you answered “no” to question 8 you have completed the survey. Thank you.

9.Please indicate which of the following methods of assessment you use for course SLOs.

Respondents indicating that they currently participate in the assessment of course or program SLOs were asked to indicate which methods of assessment they use.

• Overall, nearly two-thirds of the respondents indicated that they use essay assessment and nearly half use multiple choice assessment for assessing course SLOs.
• The majority of adjunct faculty indicated that they use essay assessment and one-third use multiple choice assessment.
• Just over half of the full-time faculty respondents indicated that they use multiple choice assessment and nearly two-thirds use essay assessment.
• Respondents indicating “other” methods of assessment that they utilize specified class projects/portfolio and skills demonstrations (5 respondents, each), institutional data (4 respondents), pre- and post-tests (2 respondents), and problem solving (2 respondents). See below for a detailed list.

Multiple Choice Assessment / Essay
Assessment / Other
Overall (n=72) / 46% (n=33) / 60%(n=43) / 38% (n=27)
Adjunct Faculty (n=33) / 33% (n=11) / 70%(n=23) / 24%(n=8)
Full-Time Faculty (n=33) / 58%(n=19) / 55%(n=18) / 42%(n=14)
College Planning Team (n=0) / -- (n=0) / -- (n=0) / -- (n=0)
Division Deans (n=4) / -- (n=0) / -- (n=0) / -- (n=0)
Learning Resources (n=4) / -- (n=3) / -- (n=2) / -- (n=3)
Student Services (n=2) / -- (n=0) / -- (n=0) / -- (n=2)

“--” indicates that percentages are not reported for sample sizes less than ten.

“Other” methods of assessment:

Collector Group / Response
Adjunct Faculty / Adapting existing written assignments to SLO grading
Adjunct Faculty / assessment of class project
Adjunct Faculty / coursework performance
Adjunct Faculty / demonstration of skills (performing arts)
Adjunct Faculty / pre and post assessment
Adjunct Faculty / Questions specific to the medical office.
Adjunct Faculty / speaking
Adjunct Faculty / Substantive Paragraphs
Full-Time Faculty / 1. Science Project or formal lab report 2. Sorting and Diagraming Information
Full-Time Faculty / Evaluation tool with rubric, which is linked to both course and program outcomes. Alumni and employer satisfaction data is also collected
Full-Time Faculty / Health [Behavior] Journal and Analysis
Full-Time Faculty / In some of my courses there is a specific paper tied to the SLO
Full-Time Faculty / Lab experiments, problem solving
Full-Time Faculty / Open-ended calculation/critical thinking problems
Full-Time Faculty / portfolio review
Full-Time Faculty / Problem solving, applied lab skills
Full-Time Faculty / Problems
Full-Time Faculty / Project based learning, performance-based assessment, skills-demonstration
Collector Group / Response
Full-Time Faculty / short answer
Full-Time Faculty / skills demonstration or project based
Full-Time Faculty / skills demonstration, problem solving exam/assessment
Full-Time Faculty / skills evaluation, service learning
Learning Resources / Pre-test/post-test
Learning Resources / College data
Learning Resources / Surveys and IDT data
Student Services / % of goal met
Student Services / Surveys, existing data

10.Please indicate why you chose your current assessment method for your course SLO.

Respondents indicating that they currently participate in the assessment of course or program SLOs were asked to indicate why they chose their current method of assessment for their course SLO.

• Fourteen respondents indicated that the assessment method they use was determined by their department.
• Seven respondents indicated that they use their current assessment method because it is easy to use.
• Four respondents indicated that they use their current assessment method because it is mandatory.
• Three respondents indicated that they use their current assessment method because they do not want their students to be able to guess the answers using multiple choice.
• Two respondents indicated that they use their current assessment method because it best addresses their SLOs.

Collector Group / Response
Adjunct Faculty / A qualitative approach is the best for a social science.
Adjunct Faculty / As a department, we have largely agreed this assessment method is working.
Adjunct Faculty / Because I am told to!
Adjunct Faculty / Because will assist the best and most effectively in evaluation of student learning in my courses
Adjunct Faculty / Best fits with the course SLO.
Adjunct Faculty / Broad assessment capabilities without extra demands on students.
Adjunct Faculty / Chosen by the English Department as relevant and applicable to the course, English 101, which is composition.