Banner Image: Scenes from around campus

Minutes

Fall 2014 Semester:

  •  (September 4, 2014 Minutes to be added here)

 

 

Spring 2014 Semester:

 

March 20, 2014 Assessment Committee Minutes  (IEC:  Institutional Effectiveness Committee)

Attendance:  Jenny Lowood, Gabe Winer, Dean Carlos Cortez, Katherine Bergman, Kate Koelle, Dimitriy Zhiv, Willy Lizarraga, Sabrina Nelson, ASBCC re Justin Terry

Minutes were reviewed and approved.

Committee went over accomplishments of Assessment Committee since 2011 and discussed plans, membership, and purpose of the newly named PIE committee.

Suggestion made for as many members as possible to attend Roundtable meetings for representation.  If assessment meetings were part of the master calendar at the start of the year, we could get the maximum attendance possible.  A quorum is needed to pass a vote: 51% of members.  Classified staff could attend meetings if subs are provided for their positions while they’re away from their desks.  If the Assessment Committee meeting conflicts with a Counseling meeting, it needs to be re-scheduled; coordinate with Counseling.

RP Group Project:  Research and Planning Group –a non-profit that sponsors student success conferences — use data from community colleges.  They’ve interviewed over 1,000 students from twelve different colleges on factors that help them find direction.  They can recommend best practices, improvements, present “Student Voices,” ask “What helps you to be successful?”  RP advocates for change based on data.  They’re following up on CTE students.

Jennifer Kennedy is doing interviews to gather data for accreditation.  Committee members can submit questions.  Answers will be in bullet points for writers to use.

Call for everyone to encourage students to attend next Town Hall meeting on March 26.

March 6, 2014 Assessment Committee Minutes (IEC: Institutional Effectiveness Committee)

Attendance:  Hannah Chauvet, Jenny Lowood, Kate Koelle, ASBCC rep Justin Terry, Dean Carlos Cortez, Dmitriy Zhiv, Katherine Bergman, Heather Dodge, Sabrina Nelson

The Faculty Senate approved the new name for the Assessment Committee as the IEC — Institutional Effectiveness Committee.  The IEC will not be combined with the Education Committee.

Title 3 is ending, which funds the TLC (Teaching & Learning Center).  Last August, BCC had funds for Gabe Winer to coordinate the TLC but not for activities.  Through professional development, there are funds for projects like POP, which facilitates instructors visiting the classrooms of other instructors not for evaluation, but for the experience of gaining insight and effective teaching strategies.  Chaffey College is a good model for us — Grant and PD money fund their TLC.  The IEC could fund TLC assessment and related projects and act as an Advisory Committee for the TLC.  The TLC should match the needs determined by the IEC.

Hannah suggested that opportunities to interact with other instructors and observe each other’s classes should be mentioned in assessment documents.

Also, the flex day activities last January were very eye-opening and effective: student panels on LGBT, ASL, and Veterans Club.

The committee went over the reasons for the name change: what we’ve accomplished as the Assessment Committee, and what we’ll add on as the IEC.

Reviewed data analysis information from CCSSE responses.  Student surveys are almost ready to be sent out.

We should have a permanent representative from Classified; Katarina will be back soon.

Per Katherine: for the PD Committee, there are three reps from Classified, three from Faculty (with at least one part-timer), and three Administrators.  For a quorum, a rep from each group needs to be there.  We need this diverse representation.  For the IEC, two part-timers can be paid.  We should have a department liason from each department, with a second person to attend meetings if possible.  Can we also have a Counselor as a permanent member of the IEC?  And at least three people from Student Services?  As we move forward, we will define our membership more succinctly.

February 20, 2014 Assessment Committee Minutes

Attendance:  Heather Dodge, Jenny Lowood, Gabe Winer, Sabrina Nelson, Kate Koelle, Cleavon Smith, Dylan Eret, May Chen, Roberto , Carlos Gonzalez, ASBCC rep Justin Terry

Minutes were reviewed and approved.

Proposal for the Assessment Committee to be changed to the Institutional Effectiveness Committee.  This would incorporate a few different committees that have the same people on them.  The committee reviewed the new chart, including the Education Committee.

Jenny handed out a document on the work we did on Standard II — where to find evidence for questions.  How things move from one committee to the other depends on the decision made.   We would do analysis and final decisions would be at the Roundtable meetings.   Prioritizing would be a big part of the job for the new committee.  We would meet every Thursday, as opposed to every other Thursday.  The co-chairs are Jenny Lowood and May Chen.  Suggestion made to focus on assessment one week, education the next week, and alternate, as the Ed Committee used to meet on the weeks the Assessment Committee did not meet.

The committee also went over the student survey questions for Standard IIA and made some revisions.

February 6, 2014 Assessment Committee Minutes

Attendance:  Heather Dodge, Dmitriy Zhiv, Matthew Woods, Sabrina Nelson, Katherine Bergman, Jenny Lowood, Gabe Winer, Willy Lizarraga, Dylan Eret, Justin Terry (ASBCC), Carlos Cortez, Kate Koelle

Minutes were reviewed and approved.

At the last meeting, the Assessment Committee agreed to work on Standard II for accreditation, as it relates to SLO’s and ILO’s.  The committee reviewed Standard II and discussed methods to show evidence for questions asked in accreditation materials.

Surveys, Taskstream and Curricunet, etc. were cited as evidence.

Cabrillo College has a self evaluation which contains a written report with links to show evidence for accreditation.  We can use this as a model.

*November 1, 2013 Assessment Committee Minutes — All Day Retreat

Minutes were reviewed and approved.

Attendance:  Cleavon Smith, Gabe Winer, Jenny Lowood, Katherine Bergman, Matt Freeman, Laurie Brion, Dylan Erat, Sabrina Nelson, Matt Woods, Linda McAllister

The committee went over ILO’s, discussed the meanings and applications for BCC.

Cal has a model we can look at for applied learning.  Every course should have this.  We need to identify where we have service learning and clarify it.  Applied Learning, Reflective Learning,  and Civic Learning are slightly different — ARC.  One idea is to survey students and guage their interest in service learning.  UCB Public Service Center will bring a representative to BCC, possibly at the December Roundtable.

Matt Freeman gave a presentation on service learning.  Addressing community needs at BCC is important.  He worked with someone at CAL.  Matt stressed the importance of reflection in service learning.  This could be facilitated through an essay and through class discussions on projects, which will give other students insights.  We should ask ourselves what we want our students to gain from this experience?   Students can collect data to advocate for change.  (Sto sign?  Healthy food?  Mentoring?)  How do we define “community?”

Possible grant money through UC Partnership Community Fund, through Chancellor’s Office.  Resources:  serve.gov, servicelearning.org/slice, BCC Civic Engagement (on BCC website), UCB Public Service Center, Democracy Commitment

Three Assessments:  1.  What do students know already?  2.  What do students gain through preparation?  3.  What are students leaving with?

DQP — can we embed service learning?  First Year Experience students take a social science course on diversity issues.  Multimedia students could do filming in the community.  Could students with families and jobs incorporate service learning into their jobs?  Santa Barbara City College has an Integrative GE Seminar for lifelong learning and communication.  Per Cleavon, the CSU’s are open to community colleges providing models like this.

Can we adopt a course at BCC that can be shared?  Could there be service learning that helps to improve BCC?  Can we start internally and do external work later?  Per Matt, there is a database of service curriculum and a repository of community partners.    Per Gabe, there could be a FIG on this — embedded models in curriculum?  Could we find syllabi and course outlines at other schools to use as models?  This would need on-going support:  students placed, essays evaluated.  Could we advertise what we can do, through multimedia?  Or in professional development?  Vounteer opportunities could be available for an individual, students in a course, through a structure.  PD, curriculum, and service learning could work together on this.  There could be an educational model for student internships and we’d need to provide guidance and support.  The ACE social justice class is one model.  We would need science and math input.  Per Matt, we can use UC Berkeley’s information on this — they require it of their students.  We could invite CAL’s public service center to visit and talk to students about volunteering.  Mary Jenning’s students are working on a project.

ILO’s:  We could pilot addressing the ILO’s in the learning communities.  What would be the process for all students to address the outcomes?  We could use service learning.  B.A.R. — global awareness, inter-cultural competencies, and personal responsibility.  Unknown — ethics, self awareness, and interpersonal skills.  Humanities 30A covers ethics.  Should first year students take this course?  Methodology can be used as a measurement tool for SLO’s — but we don’t want students to be required to do service learning if they don’t want to.  DQP asks us to embed the service learning component.  But we could have an alternate assignment.  Applied learning and civic learning need to be incorporated.

If we start internally, most students could experience service learning.  (civic)   We could embed it in the First Year Experience and certain AA programs.  We need to be mindful of students who are working and who have families.  There are strands in the ESL courses that address US culture, information literacy, and critical thinking that could fit in.  We could look at CAL’s model and see how it fits into our courses.  Let’s identify where we have service learning and clarify it.

Applied-Civic Learning is reflective.  We could survey students to guage interest in service learning.  UCB Public Service Center, which asks for resources from BCC, will bring a representative to BCC, possibly at the December Roundtable.  (on 12/2)  We can see what exists, bring the info to the Ed Committee, Curriculum Committee, and Roundtable.  If a student works here through a UC resource, is there a better chance of working at UC?

Can the rubric be used?  Per Matt, there should be decentralized applications — we should also trust faculty and share our recourses, have our own repository.  Honor what people are already doing – everything doesn’t have to be part of our structure.  It should be a choice.  Can we highlight what’s already been done?  Get stipends from PD funds for service learning support?  Katie can interview who’s doing what and how they do it, and then write it up:  Persist, Matt Freeman’s classes, Juana Alicia, Barbara Des Roches.  Document procedures and good ideas.  Look at service learning in view of institutional learning.

October 3, 2013 Assessment Committee Minutes

Attendance: Carlos Cortez, Tom Kies, Kate Koelle, Willy Lizaraga, Jenny Lowood, Gabe Winer

Minutes from September 19 were reviewed and approved.

Problem with grade disputes arise when there are no clear guidelines for assignments.   BCC needs certain criteria in the syllabus and use of rubrics to justify a grade.  We could have a template of language that could be put into instructors’ syllabi.  Pilot a template syllabus in the spring of 2014?  Or instructors could cut and paste certain language and points into the syllabus.  Learning communities would be a good place to start:  Pace and Persist.  Can assessment be built into the syllabus?  Do rubrics reflect SLO’s?  We need assessment for assignments to be clear.

It’s good to have options.  We need elements and certain language, but not everyone needs a template.  Instructors should be free to choose.

The district recognizes “Programs of Distinction.”  What about the criteria for these programs?  Should the programs have assessment in order to qualify?  What if a class hasn’t been assessed?  The Board chooses these programs, but the Faculty Senate could go to the board about this.

In lieu of bi-monthly meetings, the Assessment Committee will have an all-day retreat later in the semester.  The focus will be on DQP’s (Degree Qualifications Profile).

September 19, 2013 Assessment Committee Minutes

Minutes for 9/5/13 were reviewed and approved.

Attendance:  Jenny Lowood, Matt Woods, Catalina Herrera, Katherine Bergman, Heather Dodge, Kate Koelle, Sabrina Nelson, Gabby Padiernos (student rep), Gabe Winer, Windy Franklin, Carlos Cortez

Updated Shared Governance Model — recommended to Professional Development Committee and Faculty Senate.  Also report to Classified Senate?  Add to manual:  “plan and implement institutional learning outcome assessments and other large scale assessments.”  Add “relating to assessment” to “ID training needs and provide training and peer mentoring.”

Committee discussed English classes helping to disect word problems with math students, or providing tutoring on word problems.  We could use more math tutors.  What about peer tutoring?  Can the commmittee provide questions to help with assessment — like what can we do about math problems?  Is the wording in word problems unclear?  Could we incorporate more word problems in pre-algebra and basic math courses for practice?

At ACE at Cabrillo College, math and science are taught together.  (Tue Rush at Cabrillo connected to ACE.)  They apply math to science.  Mary Jennings is working on curriculum to “make math real.”  What about CTE and entreprenuerial math?  Start with a vacant lot, choose what to build and how to build it.  Make it relevant.  Supportive experts could teach effective ways to learn math.

ACE program and FELI workshops — could we open them up for teachers at other schools?

Matt Freeman will go over global awareness learning outcome.  Can we map Lumina to assessment and ILO’s?

The TLC will guage interest for projects.  TLC is not directly funded out of Title 3.  Could the TLC support inquiry and application, for math teachers to come up with strategies to teach word problems, for instance?

The committee worked on mapping ILO’s to programs and courses, specifically discussing civic learning and applied learning.  Retreat planned for a Friday so that department chairs can attend.

September 5, 2013 Assessment Committee Minutes

Minutes for 8/22/13 were reviewed and approved.

Attendance:  Jenny Lowood, Allie Young, Sabrina Nelson, Kate Koelle, Matt Woods, Katherine Bergman, Catalina Herrera, Heather Dodge, Justin Terry

Math department just finished assessment; students need more work on word problems.

We need more information on critical thinking.  MMART teachers have looked at student projects to check for criticial thinking.  They’ll use Dropbox to share ideas on this.  Social science teachers have gotten lots of information.

Assessment should be looking at representative work samples.  For ILO’s, we should assess anonymous papers — divide them into disciplines.

The committee discussed the five factors of DQP’s.  The goal is to map all programs to DQP.

The BCC written communication assessment (spring of 2012):  students did well in social sciences, but not in some other areas.  Common features of assignments were very detailed.  (i.e., “Write an introductory paragraph.”)  Teachers made packets of effective assignments and shared them.  Would teachers who want students to improve use these packets?

The committee discussed the findings from the CCSSE for BCC.  CCSSE results showed that students need more skill labs and computer labs.  ASBCC representative Justin Terry confirmed the need for evening students to have access to computers, and to let students know about the homework lab.

Goal:  to increase evening and early morning access to and advertise info on computer labs and tutoring/skill labs.  (MMART, math, and English have tutors and/or labs.)  But there are no English tutors outside of the writing workshop classes.

Goal:  to analyze CCSSE data to plan improvements.  Can we plan for a group of stakeholders and student government reps to meet?  A dialogue with CTE, student services, faculty, senate, Office of Instruction, Special Projects?

Goal:  to increase library hours.  Recommended hours are Mon – Thurs, until 8:00 PM, and Sat, from 10:00 – 2:00 PM.  (Faculty Senate recommended this, and BCC has increased the library hours.)

Goal:  to mentor and advise students.  Department chairs have discussed advising and mentoring.  A team is being created through Special Projects on mentoring.  Resources should go where they reflect the needs of our students.

Some student services have been assessed.  Could we do a student survey on financial aid?  Per Justin, student rep, we can get data on a survey that the Peralta Student Government did.

Goal:  to analyze the student survey mentioned above.

August 22, 2013 Assessment Committee Minutes

Attendance:  Jenny Lowood (English Dept. Chair),  Matt Woods (Liason for Arts & Cultural Studies), Gabe Winer (Professional Development & TLC), Sabrina Nelson (Multimedia), Dmitriy Zhiv (Mathematics), Katherine Bergman (Office of Instruction), Willy Lizarraga (Modern Languages), Hassan Moore (ASBCC),  Justin Terry (ASBCC), Kate Koelle (Admin Support for Assessment)

Minutes for were reviewed and approved.

Jenny: will give up money from the general fund for assessment liasons.  Fulltime faculty said they would still be willing to serve even if there’s no money.  Part time faculty wouldn’t, understandably.

Gabe:  her presence here is to serve the TLC.  If the Assessment Committee determines there’s a need for something specific, the TLC can hold workshops, etc. to address the need.

Jenny:  ACCJC will visit in 2015.  “Proficient” is no longer sufficient – “Sustainable Continuous Quality Improvement” is now required.  The last criteria for “Sustainable, etc.” is true – “Specifically linked to program reviews” – but student learning outcomes do not DRIVE our programs.

Not all courses are assessed.  Matt Freeman is focusing on finalizing plans and rubrics for the rest of the institutional learning outcome assessments.

CCSSE:  random sample of classes chosen by CCSSE for surveys.

In every area, fulltime students scored higher than part-time students.  Biggest gaps in student engagement were in career planning, social support, financial aid, skill labs, and computer labs. (i.e., BCC doesn’t offer enough of these services.)

Committee agreed that as well as strengthening areas where BCC received low scores, we want to be better than just “above average” when we scored higher.  Engagement helps students succeed and persist.

We should have the same level of service for part-time students as we do for fulltime: evening hours for library, counseling, faculty advisers, mentors.

Idea to keep a list of needs that arise out of the Assessment Committee meetings of what we could research – also keep a running list of PD/TLC needs.  Gabe started the list on an easel.  We could also list general needs.  In English, we determined that student need more research skills.  Other departments concur!  Keep these running lists in the TLC.  Add Programmatic Changes to the assessment to-do list?

Dmitriy:  working on the “whole circle” of assessment, a chart to make sure they assess ALL the courses in the math dept. A section on weaknesses will be part of it.

Dmitriy:  Word problems are a weakness in ALL classes!  International students study proofs more and U.S. students study more word problems.  Also, part of the problem for international students is that word problems often consist of too much explanation for a simple problem.  (Example:  Use points A, B, and C rather than an elaborate explanation and story about a man on a mountain with goats, ice, other mountaineers, etc.)  But word problems are often also hard for native speakers.

January 24, 2013 Assessment Committee Minutes

Attendance:  Leonard Chung (Business/CIS/HUSV), Denise Jennings (Interim Director, Special Projects), Willy Lizarraga (Modern Languages), Jenny Lowood (English/ESL/Education), Sabrina Nelson (MMART), Matt Woods (Social Sciences), Dmitriiy Zhiv (Mathematics)

  • The minutes (11/8/12) were reviewed and approved.
  • The committee discussed the steps needed to implement the critical thinking assessment.
  • The committee discussed the results of the Communication ILO assessment and the DART which was implemented during the professional day at the beginning of the semester.
  • BCC was accepted to participate in the Lumina Project, sponsored by ACCJC.  Details will follow at the next meeting.

November 8, 2012 Assessment Committee Minutes

Attendance:  Hannah Chauvet (MMART), Leonard Chung (Business/CIS/HUSV), Denise Jennings (Interim Director, Special Projects), Willy Lizarraga (Modern Languages), Jenny Lowood (English/ESL/Education), Sabrina Nelson (MMART), Matt Woods (Social Sciences)

  • The minutes (10/25/12) were reviewed and approved.
  • The committee focused on finalizing the critical thinking assessment plans for spring semester, 2013.
    • The definition of critical thinking was revised slightly to change the header, “Critical thinking is the rigorous process of reasoning, which requires the following,” to “Critical thinking… which requires one or more of the following.”
    • The committee edited portions of the AACU “Critical Thinking Value Rubric” and the AACU “Inquiry and Analysis Value Rubric” to create a critical thinking value rubric for essays and a critical thinking value rubric for projects (primarily to be used in areas such as the sciences and computer information science), which will be reviewed and revised at the final meeting of the semester.
  • The committee voted unanimously to allow ASBCC to add questions to the CCSSE if they wish to do so.

October 25, 2012 Assessment Committee Minutes

Attendance:  Hannah Chauvet (MMART), Leonard Chung (Business/CIS/HUSV), James Crossen (ASBCC), Matt Freeman (Social Sciences), Iva Ikeda (ASL), Denise Jennings (Interim Director, Special Projects), Jenny Lowood (English/ESL/Education), Sabrina Nelson (MMART), Matt Woods (Social Sciences)

  • The minutes (10/11/12) were reviewed and approved.
  • The committee discussed whether it would recommend that the college participate in CCSSE, the deadline for registration being 11/1/12.
    • The committee reviewed several pages of the sample CCSSE, discussed the student and faculty versions, looked at the SENSE, and reviewed the crosswalk between the CCSSE and accreditation standards.
    • The committee unanimously endorses BCC participation in CCSSE and the use of all of the tests.
  • The committee discussed the March 13, 2013 report for ACCJC.  Jenny will prepare a draft report, to be shared with the committee at the beginning of the spring semester for feedback.
  • The committee discussed the results of the ILO assessment.
    • The three “content area” teachers whose students scored exceptionally well are preparing a packet to help other content area teachers create prompts or assignments for students which will elicit well organized essays with a clear thesis or sense of purpose.  They will introduce an activity at the professional day activity in January (a “DART”), through which other content area teachers will practice using this packet.
    • Additional essays are coming in for the ILO assessment from classes in Communication, Humanities, and Philosophy.  We will need readers to assess these essays.  Matt Woods, Sabrina Nelson, and Hannah Chauvet will participate.  The stipend for this reading will be $100 per 4-hour session.
  • We discussed the part assessment will play in professional day activities on opening day in January.
    • The assessment liaisons will introduce themselves, and we will share contact information for each of them.
    • We’ll present the plan for the critical thinking assessment.
    • In addition to the activity described above based on the Communication ILO assessment results, we’ll introduce a second DART which will elicit class assessments using “Classroom Assessment Techniques.”
  • The focus of the next meeting will be completing the Critical Thinking ILO assessment plan.

October 11, 2012 Assessment Committee Minutes

Attendance:  Jon Barba (Student Worker), Hannah Chauvet (MMART), Leonard Chung (Business/CIS/HUSV), James Crossen (ASBCC), Matt Freeman (Social Sciences), Iva Ikeda (ASL), Denise Jennings (Interim Director, Special Projects), Willy Lizaragga (Modern Languages), Jenny Lowood (English/ESL/Education), Sabrina Nelson (MMART), Matt Woods (Social Sciences), Alley Young (Counseling)

  • The focus of this meeting was the development of the critical thinking assessment.  The full definition of critical thinking was finalized, as follows:
    • Critical thinking is the rigorous process of reasoning, which, depending on the task or issue at hand, requires some or all of the following:
      • Open-mindedness
      • Ability to consider, entertain, assess, and evaluate multiple perspectives (cultural, political, social, economical, technical)
      • Ability to focus on that which is relevant and significant
      • Analytical skills
        • Ability to identify assumptions and statements of fact
        • Ability to analyze an argument’s structure and substance
      • Evaluative skills
      • Mindfulness or metacognition (ability to self-correct, self-reflection)
  • Each participant discussed how students demonstrate the use of critical thinking in his or her department:
    • Computer Information Sciences — programming
    • Business — tests, homework problems, case studies, and essay
    • Social Science — essays, qualitative and quantitative evaluation of primary documents, close textual exegesis, data analysis
    • MMART — analysis of media, group work, creation of presentations
    • Spanish — tests, essays, storytelling
    • the two students expressed that they believe the primary method is essay writing; they also included evaluations of arguments

September 27, 2012 Assessment Committee Minutes

Attendance:  Hannah Chauvet (MMART), Leonard Chung (Business/CIS/HUSV), James Crossen (ASBCC), Matt Freeman (Social Sciences), Iva Ikeda (ASL), Denise Jennings (Interim Director, Special Projects), Jenny Lowood (English/ESL/Education), Sabrina Nelson (MMART), Matt Woods (Social Sciences), Alley Young (Counseling), Dmitriy Zhiv (Mathematics)

  • Because of questions that were recently raised by the curriculum committee and individual instructors on campus, the focus of the meeting shifted to focus on identifying roles of assessment committee liaisons and clarification of SLO/assessment protocols.  The planning of the Critical Thinking ILO assessment will continue next week.
  • The committee developed the following recommendations:
    • The official repository for SLOs in courses and programs is Taskstream.  The SLOs in Curricunet are the ones that were originally created for the course, but not necessarily the most recent ones.
    • SLO changes to Taskstream need to be approved by the department.  They should be sent to the Assessment Liaison for the department or the Assessment Coordinator, who might recommend changes based on the number of SLOs, the degree to which they can be measured or assessed, their clarity, or their alignment with course outlines and/or program or institutional learning outcomes.
    • The assessment liaisons’ responsibilities include the following:
      • Annual review of SLOs and course and program assessments
      • Communication with faculty regarding SLOs and assessments
      • Communication with faculty regarding how to find SLOs and put them on syllabi
      • Mapping of program outcomes to course outcomes

September 13, 2012 Assessment Committee Minutes

Attendance:  Hannah Chauvet (MMART), Leonard Chung (Business/CIS/HUSV), James Crossen (ASBCC), Pieter deHaan (Science), Iva Ikeda (ASL), Cora Leighton (Arts & Cultural Studies), Willy Lizarraga (Modern Languages), Jenny Lowood (English/ESL/Education), Sabrina Nelson (MMART), Matt Woods (Social Sciences), Alley Young (Counseling), Dmitriy Zhiv (Mathematics)

  • The focus of this meeting was beginning the process of planning the critical thinking institutional learning outcome assessment.  The group began by working together to draft a statement defining and citing the characteristics of critical thinking, as follows:
  • Critical thinking is the rigorous process of reasoning, which requires the following:
    • Open-mindedness
    • Ability to consider, entertain, assess, and evaluate multiple perspectives (cultural, political, social, economical)
    • Ability to focus on that which is relevant and significant
    • Analytical skills
      • Ability to identify assumptions and statements of fact
      • Ability to analyze an argument’s structure and substance
    • Evaluative skills
    • Mindfulness (ability to self-correct, self-reflection)

 

August 30, 2012 Assessment Committee Minutes

Attendance:  Hannah Chauvet (MMART), Leonard Chung (Business/CIS/HUSV), Pieter deHaan (Science), Iva Ikeda (ASL), Francine Lewis (Admin. Asst.), Denise Jennings (Interim Director, Special Projects),  Cora Leighton (Arts & Cultural Studies), Willy Lizarraga (Modern Languages), Jenny Lowood (English/ESL/Education), Sabrina Nelson (MMART), Matt Woods (Social Sciences), Alley Young (Counseling), Dmitriy Zhiv (Mathematics)

  • welcome and introductions
  • finding information on the website
  • brief review of written communications ILO
    • overall findings – need to bolster organizational skills
    • wide differences among results in different classes, even excepting English classes
    • action plan:  develop APPLE to solicit best practices from (3) instructors teaching classes with highest scores and develop way to promote these practices across the college
  • program assessments which will be presented this semester:  MMART, ASL
  • planning the oral communication ILO assessment (this semester)
    • we will plan this further at a task force meeting for communications (Cora), ESL (Laurie), English (Jenny) and any other departments which will be assessing this ILO
  • planning the critical thinking ILO assessment (next semester)
    • our next meeting will focus on this
    • we will begin by discussing a definition and/or characteristics of critical thinking
    • we will review relevant AACU rubrics
  • Math is working on several assessment initiatives, including a common exam for Statistics (Math 13)

Note:  The May meeting was used to plan the ILO assessment of written essays; scoring will occur during summer and results will be presented to the Assessment Committee during Fall, 2012.

April 26, 2012 Assessment Committee Minutes

Attendance:  Hannah Chauvet (MMART), Leonard Chung (Business/CIS/HUSV), Pieter deHaan (Science), Francine Lewis (Admin. Asst.), Denise Jennings (Interim Director, Special Projects),  Jenny Lowood (English/ESL/Education), Sabrina Nelson (MMART), Matthew Woods (Art & Humanities)

  • Program Assessment Reports
    • English
      • presentation of the assessment of English 85A, 85B, 85C, and 17 (English A.A.)
      • presentation of the portfolio rubric assessment, which includes all sections of English 1A, 201A, 201B, 101A, 101B, 269AB, and 248UX, as well as upper levels of ESL writing classes, and related action plans
    • ESL
      • ESL program assessment included all levels of writing, reading, speaking, and grammar classes.
      • Action plans for these assessments led to a complete revision of the ESL program, to be launched in Fall, 2012.
  • Planning Ongoing Assessments
    • Oral communication assessment in Fall, 2012
    • MMART class will be used to film oral presentations in all classes.

March 15, 2012 Assessment Committee Minutes

Attendance:  Hannah Chauvet (MMART), Leonard Chung (Business/CIS/HUSV), Pieter deHaan (Science), Francine Lewis (Admin. Asst.), Denise Jennings (Interim Director, Special Projects), Willy Lizarraga (Modern Languages),  Jenny Lowood (English/ESL/Education), Sabrina Nelson (MMART), Matthew Woods (Art & Humanities), Alley Young (Counseling), Dmitriy Zhiv (Math)

  • Progress on SLO’s
    • Thanks to the efforts of Alexandra Kostoulas, Francine Lewis, Ariane Collins, and all the departmental assessment leaders, all courses being taught, instructional programs, and student service areas have SLO’s.  The SLO’s have been reconciled between Taskstream and Curricunet.  Since our curriculum committee has a policy not to approve courses or progams without learning outcomes, this important work is now complete.
  • Progress on the Communication ILO and creating the new assessment cycle
    • Essay Assessment:  It was determined that we would ask for essays from half of the students in a course if it is a single course and the communications ILO assessment is the main assessment for the course; otherwise, we will ask for 20%, randomly selected.
    • The critiquing rubric was distributed; committee members asked for electronic copies, which will be sent.
    • Filming of Oral Presentations:
      • We need the list of courses (dates and times) as soon as possible so that we can arrange for filming.
      • We will identify student workers who can help with the filming; Denise Jennings has offered to train them.
      • Sabrina will film courses which are taught on Thursday or Friday.
    • At our next meeting, we will revisit the question of payment for assessors.
  • Ongoing assessments
    • We agreed that the courses which will be assessed every semester are Communication 1A, English 1A, English 5, and Mathematics 13.
    • We will revisit the methodologies for these assessments.

March 1, 2012 — Meeting Cancelled Due to College Safety Drill

February 16, 2012 Assessment Committee Minutes

  • This was a work meeting to develop the rubric for student critiques of their peers’ work.  All those who would be using this rubric were invited to attend.    Hannah Chauvet and Sabrina Nelson from MMART; Sharon Coleman, who teaches poetry writing; and Matt Freeman, the assessment leader of Arts and Cultural Studies; along with Jenny Lowood and Denise Jennings, worked together to create the rubric, which will be used in this semester’s communication ILO assessment.

February 2, 2012 Assessment Committee Minutes

Attendance:  Hannah Chauvet (MMART), Leonard Chung (Business/CIS/HUSV), Pieter deHaan (Science), Francine Lewis (Admin. Asst.), Jenny Lowood (English/ESL/Education), Sabrina Nelson (MMART), Matthew Woods (Art & Humanities), Iva Ivanetta (ASL),

  • Launching the Communication ILO Assessment: Oral Presentations
    • Videotaping Oral Presentations:
      • For each section of each course that involves oral presentations, Hannah, Sabrina, or a MMART student will videotape one class session in which students give oral presentations.  We need to create a list of all sections in which students give oral presentations, to be given to Hannah and Sabrina.
      • Oral presentations should be 5-7 minutes long.
      • Students will have to sign release forms.  Hannah will provide these forms.
      • Denise Jennings and Hannah Chauvet are working on a course for students who want more practice in multimedia.  The class will offer multimedia services to the college.  In a future semester, this will be very helpful for us.
  • Launching the Communication ILO Assessment: Essays
    • Cover page:
      • Students’ names and teachers’ names will be optional for those instructors who want to receive scored essays, for their information.  Teachers may use pseudonyms for themselves or their students.
      • We will include 2 checkboxes, where students can indicate whether they’ve taken English 1A and/or Communication 1A
    • Directions
      • Essays should be 3-5 pages in length if possible.  Shorter or longer essays will be acceptable.
      • We ask that instructors randomize the selection of essays by selecting every fifth essay alphabetically by student if they have at least 30 students (#1, 6, 11, 16, 21, 26, etc.) or use a similar method to select at least six students if they have 25 or fewer students.
      • We want to remind faculty members that this is an easy way to complete course assessment if they haven’t done so already, remembering that the entire assessment cycle includes analyzing the results, developing an action plan, and implementing the action plan.
      • We will include the rubric and encourage faculty members to share it with their students.
      • We will remind faculty that the results of the assessment will not include teachers’ or students’ names and that they will not be used to evaluate instructors.

Agenda for next meeting:  Developing the “Critiquing Rubric.”  This will be a work meeting on February 16 for those interested in participating in the development of the rubric for student critiques of artwork, creative writing, etc.  Some members of the assessment committee may choose not to come, and faculty members who are not on the committee but have expressed interest in this will be especially invited.

January 26, 2012 Assessment Committee Minutes

Attendance:  Hannah Chauvet (MMART), Leonard Chung (Business/CIS/HUSV), Ariane Collins (Student) Pieter deHaan (Science), Francine Lewis (Admin. Asst.), Willy Lizarraga (Modern Languages), Jenny Lowood (English/ESL/Education), Sabrina Nelson (MMART), Matthew Woods (Art & Humanities), Iva Ivanetta (ASL), Alley Young (Counseling)

  • Launching the Communication ILO Assessment
    • Members of the committee discussed responses from their departments at opening day meetings.
    • The committee decided to focus on different aspects of the assessment at different future meetings.
    • The committee agreed on a threefold assessment for this ILO:
      • The writing assessment will involve receiving 20% of essays for one assignment in each of the courses involved; a group will assess the essays, applying the communication rubric, at the end of the semester or during the first few weeks of summer (this will involve norming, and having each essay read twice to ensure interrater reliability).
      • The oral assessment will involve videotaping 20% or more of oral presentations in each of the courses involved; a group will assess the presentations, applying the communication rubric, at the end of the semester or during the first few weeks of summer (this will involve norming, and having each presentation assessed by two raters to ensure interrater reliability)
      • The assessment of critiquing will involve having instructors apply the “critiquing rubric” to all of the critiques in one session of each of their classes; the results will be collected.
    • Of the ongoing assessments, the portfolio assessment of English 1A and all classes in the writing program will continue.  The math department is developing an assessment for Math 13.
  • Upcoming meetings
    • The committee agreed on a plan for using the Assessment Committee meetings this semester to complete the Communications ILO Assessment and plant the Critical Thinking Assessment for next semester.

Agenda for next meeting:  Launching the Communications ILO Assessment.

 

—————————————————————————————————————————————————-

Minutes — Fall 2011

December 1, 2011 Assessment Committee Minutes

Attendance:  Hannah Chauvet (MMART), Jenny Lowood (English/ESL/Education), Willy Lizarraga (Modern Languages), Pieter deHaan (Science), Matthew Woods (Art & Humanities), Iva Ivanetta (ASL), Leonard Chung (Business/CIS/HUSV), Alley Young (Counseling)

  • Assessment Timelines
    • The committee developed the BCC Assessment Timeline, which will be vetted at the Department Chairs’ Council and Faculty Senate, as well as the College Roundtable, as early as possible in the spring.
  • Planning for the First ILO Assessment (Communication)
    • The committee planned to focus on two major assessments, one in writing and one in oral communication, using parts of two different AACU Value Rubrics.

Agenda for next meeting:  Launching the Communications ILO Assessment.

 

November 10, 2011 Assessment Committee Minutes

Attendance:  Hannah Chauvet (MMART), Jenny Lowood (English/ESL/Education), Willy Lizarraga (Modern Languages), Pieter deHaan (Science), Matthew Woods (Art & Humanities), May Chen (VPSS), Terry Tricomi (Title III), Leonard Chung (Business/CIS/HUSV), Gabe Winer (Teaching-Learning Center)

  • The attendees reported back from the WASC Level II Assessment Retreat and made three proposals, which were discussed and accepted (see action items below).
  • Assessment Timelines
    • The group agreed that we would meet on December 1 to complete timelines for all courses and programs
  • Assessment 101
    • Jenny and Matthew Woods are working on an “Assessment 101″ document to help those new to or unfamiliar with all aspects of assessment

Agenda for next meeting:  Assessment Timelines

Action Items:

  1. Each semester, college assessment efforts will focus on a different institutional outcome.
    1. This will require that we are always planning a semester ahead, implementing assessment for the present semester, and analyzing findings/creating action plans for the prior semester.
    2. We will combine ethics and personal responsibility with self-awareness, so that we will be on a six-semester cycle.
  2. We will develop rubric “segments” so that we can use rubrics with common elements in a given semester and thereby aggregate data for multiple courses and possibly multiple programs.
    1. We will establish common elements for assignments given in all of these courses and programs.
    2. Drafts for rubrics and assignments will be developed at the assessment committee; they will be vetted and revised in department meetings.
    3. We will request support for part-timer involvement in any extraordinary rubric and assignment development and/or assessment.
  3. Course assessment outside of the range of the ILO project described above will focus on “high impact” courses.

 

October 13, 2011 Assessment Committee Minutes

Attendance:  Hannah Chauvet (MMART), Jenny Lowood (English/ESL/Education), Willy Lizarraga (Modern Languages), Pieter deHaan (Science), Ivanetta Ikada (ASL), Matthew Woods (Art & Humanities), Francine Lewis (staff assistant), Chris Lebo-Planas (Persist), May Chen (VPSS), Terry Tricomi (Title III)

  • We discussed the mid-term accreditation report for spring 2012.
  • We discussed how the unit plans incorporated assessment, as it relates to planning and budgeting for all programs.
  • We discussed the upcoming WASC Level II Assessment Retreat, which will be attended by Denise Jennings, Krista Johns, Chris Lebo-Planas, Jenny Lowood, Terry Tricomi, Gabe Winer, and Matt Woods.
    • Our project will be how to assess general education areas which require the “cafeteria” approach and do not have an entry or exit point.
    • Our promising practice will be FIG’s, FIT’s, and DART’s in the Teaching-Learning Center.
    • We will report back in November.
  • We discussed progress in student services assessment.

September 1, 2011 Assessment Committee Minutes

Attendance:  Hannah Chauvet (MMART), Jenny Lowood (English/ESL/Education), Dmitriy Zhiv (Math), Willy Lizarraga (Modern Languages), Pieter deHaan (Science), Ivanetta Ikada (ASL), Matt Freeman (Social Sciences), Matthew Woods (Art & Humanities), Francine Lewis (staff assistant), Chris Lebo-Planas (Persist), May Chen (VPSS), Terry Tricomi (Title III)

  • We agreed that our priorities in 2011-12 will be program assessment and closing the loop.
  • May Chen reported on student services assessment at BCC to date:
    • In Student Services at BCC, one person is responsible for each area.
    • Service Area Outcomes have been identified for Financial Aid and Admissions & Records
    • Surveys have been developed and administered in the areas of Counseling, Veteran Affairs, the Transfer and Career Center, EOPS/CARE, CalWorks, and Assessment & Orientation
    • Other surveys are planned.
  • We discussed the upcoming “Assessment II” conference sponsored by WASC, to be held in Berkeley October 27-29.  We hope that as many members of the committee as possible will attend the conference.  Those who wish to attend will submit travel forms to Terry Tricomi’s office.
  • We discussed the new program review forms, which require reporting on program learning outcomes and assessment; we will devote the meeting on September 15 to a discussion of these forms and to program assessment in BCC programs, including general education and basic skills.
  • We reviewed the WASC rubrics, updated in 2010, and discussed our part in the mid-term accreditation report.
  • We discussed the need to distinguish among the following terms:  department, discipline, program.
  • We agreed that we will continue to meet every two weeks, immediately after the curriculum committee (Thursdays, 12-2).  The first meeting of each month will be include everyone on the committee.  Other meetings will be less formal and will focus on completing specific tasks.

 

—————————————————————————————————————————————————-

Minutes — Spring 2011

During the fall semester, 2010, the Assessment Committee met monthly to plan the structure, mission, and functions of the committee.  In Spring, 2011, the committee began to meet monthly and to publish its minutes:

April 13, 2011 Assessment Committee Minutes

Attendance:  Hannah Chauvet (MMART), Jenny Lowood (English/ESL/Education), Dmitriy Zhiv (Math), Willy Lizarraga (Modern Languages), Pieter deHaan (Science), Ivanetta Ikada (ASL), Neil Dunlop (CIS/Business), Terry Tricomi (Title III)

    • defining programs at BCC
      • The following programs are now considered programs at BCC:
        • degrees and certificates, including IGETC certificate of achievement
        • general education
        • basic skills
        • all programs in student services areas and student life
        • administration
        • other programs, as self-defined
      • The list was originated at the Assessment Committee, then sent to the Curriculum Committee, Department Chairs’ Council, and Roundtable; at these shared governance committees, the list was modified and ratified.  It was ratified, in this final version, at this meeting.

      • review of program curriculum matrices

      • Hannah Chauvet shared the Multimedia matrix for all Multimedia programs, mapped to the college ILO’s and led a committee discussion of matrix development and program assessment.

      • discussion of adapting the program review document for the college in order to incorporate program assessment as a critical factor in planning and budgeting, and of including general education components in program review for different departments (for example, computational skills, as reflected in the general education matrix, in the program review for the math department)

March 2, 2011 Assessment Committee Minutes

Attendance:  Hannah Chauvet (MMART), Jenny Lowood (English/ESL/Education), Dmitriy Zhiv (Math), Willy Lizarraga (Modern Languages), Pieter deHaan (Science), Alley Young (Counseling), Ivanetta Ikada (ASL), Neil Dunlop (CIS/Business), Jayne Matthews (Curriculum Committee Chairperson), Terry Tricomi (Title III), Francine Lewis (Administrative Assistant, Title III)

  • defining programs at BCC
    • We agreed that the following are BCC programs:
      • degrees and certificates, including IGETC certificate of achievement
      • any large department without degrees and certificates (Mathematics)
      • interdisciplinary programs — PACE, Persist
      • basic skills
      • all programs in student services areas and student life
      • administration
      • general education
    • We agreed to send this list to the curriculum committee for their feedback.
  • review of program curriculum matrices
    • way of charting how program outcomes are addressed in the courses in the program at levels such as beginning, developing, mastered
    • important for program assessment
  • general discussion of program assessments
    • program assessments can begin with course assessment results or with an overall inquiry question
  • We will request funding for a faculty inquiry group to create program curriculum matrices.
    • requestors:  Modern Languages, CIS, Business, Math, Multimedia, Sciences
    • next meeting for FIG (if it is funded) will be on March 16; this will be a working meeting

February 2, 2011 Assessment Committee Minutes

Attendance:  Hannah Chauvet (MMART), Jenny Lowood (English/ESL/Education), Dmitry Zhiv (Math), Willy Lizarraga (Modern Languages), Pieter deHaan (Science), Alley Young (Counseling), Ivanetta Ikada (ASL), Neil Dunlop (CIS/Business), Chris Lebo-Planas (PERSIST)

  • Presentation from Willy Lizarraga — Modern Languages
    • Assessment of Spanish1B (see Taskstream)
      • Rubric creation
      • Simple, doable
        • Cultural, language comprehension, response articulation
        • Odd numbers of graders to avoid a tie
        • Tabulation of results, resolution of discrepancies
      • Findings
        • All scored above acceptable (with few exceptions)
        • 63 students (over 90%) scored significantly higher
        • Better comprehension than language production (appropriate for non-native speakers of Spanish)
      • Action Plan
        • Decision to improve writing/vocabulary section of the curriculum
        • Focus on changing curriculum in Spanish 1A
          • Students write sentences in Spanish from the beginning
          • Students begin to write paragraphs mid-semester
          • Follow-up in April to re-evaluate
      • Program Assessment to follow
        • Matrix of program outcomes/courses
  • Assessment film developed by Hannah to briefly demonstrate SLO/rubric development and assessment (posted on this website)
      • Development of a rubric in an area that might be hard to assess (qualitative) such as poetry writing.
  • Report on WASC rubric/focus
      • Program assessment
        • Defining programs
        • March meeting will focus on program assessment, including defining programs
        • Data can be drawn from course assessments
        • Ohlone model —question aimed at the program, program inquiry

 

  • Planning for Institutional Effectiveness

    Tuesday 2 September 2014

  • Berkeley Weather

    Conditions for Berkeley, CA at 1:52 am PDT: Fair, 61 F
  •  

BCC Home

Footer Links