OATF Minutes

Monday, February 9th

President’s Conference Room

  1. Dana welcomed Brad Brazil, Chris Thomas, Kathy McLain, Dan DuBray, Cori Burns, Lisa Marchand, Dave Hodapp, Jeanne Edman and Norv Wellsfry to the meeting.
  1. Updates

•Kathy updated the committee regarding the forms that had been received (see next page)

•Kathy indicated that a spreadsheet had been developed to collect the information from the spring forms – but that there had been some problems with the formatting and layout of the initial spread sheet. This has been resolved (thanks to Brad) and hopefully the data entry will be completed next week. Once the data entry is completed, Kathy will do an analysis to identify themes in what was submitted. This analysis will be disseminated and discussed at the next meeting.

•Dana indicated that the senate has almost completed their review/editing of the CASSL coordinator position description and has had some dialogue about the SLO coordinatorposition descriptions. She remarked that there was more interest and input generated during the CASSL discussion compared with the SLO discussion, probably because the context and nature of the CASSL role is better understood by faculty.

•Dana shared that she had attended an SLO discussion in student services. She shared their form, which captures many of the same elements as what is on our spring and fall form. Chris Thomas indicated that there was some pressure on moving forward with outcomes assessment in some of the student services programs (such as CalWORKS) due to the reporting requirements associated with these programs. Dana commented that she liked the layout (table format) because it captured the entire assessment cycle and made it easier to stay connected with the process over time. There was consensus that converting our forms to a similar format was not a good idea due to the fact that many departments are completing their forms by hand during their meetings. The group was also concerned about some of the language on the form and the fact that the form did not tie the assessment of outcomes to an underlying issue or question. However, the attendees at the meeting agreed that something like the student services form needed to be developed to support the assessment process in instructional programs. Brad indicated that if we convert the data entry to the web (instead of excel) we could create a summary report that could be returned to the departments on an annual basis. This report would also be available for review during program review. Web entry of data could also support the creation of a spread sheet that supported the college-wide analysis of the assessment projects.

3. Discussion

  • Dana led a discussion about how to move forward with obtaining outstanding forms and evaluations. There was consensus that individual OATF members should dialogue with departments that have not submitted their forms to gather information and to encourage that the departments conduct and report on their assessment dialogue.
  • Dana led a discussion about how to support departments that are struggling. It was decided that we need to start highlighting the positive benefits that have been obtained through this process in a variety of formats (including convocation, a newsletter, a FLEX workshop, using multi-media, including snippets in the weekly bulletin). Once we obtain a better sense of where departments are in the process, we may need to offer particular assistance to departments who did not conduct assessments during the fall.
  • Kathy reported on what she learned from talking with Jamey about how to recommend that a new shared governance committee that assumes and extends the OATF function be formed. She also indicated that he preferred that we establish asubcommittee of an existing committee instead of a new shared governance committee. Jamey mentioned that a subcommittee does not need to be a subset of the overarching committee; there just needs to be periodic reports from the subcommittee to the overarching committee. Meeting attendees discussed this option and agreed to move forward with recommending that OATF be replaced by a subcommittee of planning. Kathy indicated that she would draft a subcommittee description for discussion at our next meeting. Norv indicated that the Planning Committee would need to amend their charge to reflect the addition of this subcommittee. The group discussed possible names and settled on the Learning Outcomes Dialogue Subcommittee as a name for the subcommittee. Dan indicated that the subcommittee should contain a representative from curriculum and Norv indicated it should have representation from each instructional area. The need to have at least two representatives from student service (one from counseling and one from another student service) was also discussed.
  • Kathy began a discussion about possible modifications that should be made to the fall and spring forms to support enhanced flexibility and the fact that programs are now at various points in the cycle. It was recommended that we rename the forms Outcome Assessment Planning Form and Outcome Assessment Reporting Form and have both available to departments during both semesters. This will be discussed further at the next meeting.