Running head: QUANTIFIABLE SLOS 1

Quantifiable Student Learning Outcomes

Lynnette Mann

California State University, Monterey Bay

September 10, 2017

IST522 Instructional Design

Dr. Jeanne Farrington

QUANTIFIABLE SLOS 2

Quantifiable Student Learning Outcomes

The Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC) is the

accrediting authority for the 114 community colleges of California. The process to accreditation

is not taken lightly and colleges invest significant time and resources to comply with the process.

The consequences of losing accreditation are dire: the institution would suffer the forfeiture of

federal funding as well as federal financial aid to its students, the institution could not award

degrees, and athletics programs would have to be closed down.

The guidelines for the accrediting process are laid out in a published set of standards:

ACCJC Accreditation Standards 2014. One significant component of the Standards, ACCJC

Standards I.B.1 and 3, II.A.1-3, 11 addresses student learning outcomes, and the remainder of

this report will focus on ways to satisfy the criteria laid out there (ACCJC Accreditation

Standards, 2014).

Background

In March 2017, as part of the accreditation process, the External Evaluation Team

representing the ACCJC performed an onsite evaluation of West Hills College Coalinga

(WHCC). Several compliance issues were noted and relayed to the college and governing

commission via the team’s Evaluation Report (Snow-Flamer, 2017) as well as a letter to the

college president (Winn & Rodriguez, 2017). As of July 2017 West Hills College is on

“warning” by the ACCJC and reaffirmation of accreditation is delayed. Although the college

remains accredited, we have eighteen months to rectify the compliance issues that were noted,

otherwise we may face additional sanctions and possible loss of accreditation.

QUANTIFIABLE SLOS 3

This report will address recommendations 9: 2nd bulleted item and 10, which fall within

the scope of ACCJC Standard II.A (Student Learning Programs and Support Services:

Instructional Programs).

Issue

The compliance issues arise from the college’s lack of progress in the development of

quantifiable Student Learning Outcomes along with regular assessment of students at the course

level using SLOs with defined rubrics. These SLOs are clearly defined statements used to

measure a student’s competency. The recommendations to the college reference noncompliance

with ACCJC Standards:

• Recommendation 9 (2nd bullet) aligns with Standards I.B.1, II.A.1-3,11 and 16

fully and meaningfully assess all courses, certificate and degree programs using

student learning outcomes assessment to improve student learning and ensure

that faculty and staff fully engage in the student learning outcomes assessment

process (Snow-Flamer, 2017)

• Recommendation 10 aligns with Standard II.A.3

In order to meet Standards, the team recommends that the College ensure that all

course syllabi include the approved student learning outcomes and that the

officially approved course outlines contain student learning outcomes. (Snow-

Flamer, 2017)

Student Learning Outcomes

The West Hills College Coalinga (WHCC) catalog contains 298 courses available to offer

in any one semester (West Hills College Coalinga, 2017). During the fall 2017 semester WHCC

has scheduled 401 class sections of which 168 are unique. To be compliant with ACCJC
QUANTIFIABLE SLOS 4

Standards (minimally), all courses in the class schedule should have SLOs, a defined SLO

assessment cycle, and data from previously assessed terms. This is far from the case.

Less than two-thirds (62%) of the courses in the catalog have published SLOs and only

30% of these SLOs are well-defined and quantifiable. Of the unique courses in the class

schedule, 119 (71%) have published SLOs and 75 (45%) are well-defined, quantifiable, and have

available data from prior assessment cycles to evaluate for the purpose of course improvement.

Changing Culture

The slow adoption and development rate for SLOs can be attributed partly to the ‘culture’

on campus. During the last accreditation cycle (past six years) we lost many key administrators.

This resulted in new leadership, bringing with them new goals and focuses, multiple directional

changes, and changing priorities. A common sentiment among faculty during this time was that

SLOs were unimportant and there was no compelling reason for them to invest time and effort on

the process. Additionally, some faculty found the development of SLOs confusing and the

process for them was time consuming and frustrating. The lack of acceptance of the SLO

process, for whatever reason, played a significant part in not meeting the Standard.

The recommendations from the ACCJC, along with the real threat of losing accreditation,

has had a significant impact on the climate of the college. All parties at WHCC recognize the

need for an institutional process for developing and assessing SLOs. The realization that the SLO

process has merit for the improvement of courses and subject matter delivery is embraced by all.

Now that leadership and faculty are on board to solve this issue, SLO training is needed to

establish good practices in the development and assessment of SLOs.

QUANTIFIABLE SLOS 5

Solution

Training is the first step towards the solution. SLO is a faculty driven process and

involves: creating and managing SLOs, rubrics, and the corresponding assessment tool; creating

and adhering to an assessment cycle; and scoring and recording the results. Faculty need the

foundation for developing quantifiable SLOs and the guidance on how to align SLOs to

appropriate assessment tools. Appropriate training could provide an effective and efficient

platform to accomplish this.

Training options might include faculty-lead training, self-paced learning, and live or

virtual meetings. For this purpose, self-paced training seems to best meet the needs of the

college. All WHCC faculty have access to the college’s learning management system, Canvas.

The training could be deployed as a program of self-paced learning modules on the Canvas LMS.

Faculty/Learner would access the modules on demand at any time that best fits their schedule.

Module assessments and Canvas built-in statistics would ensure faculty are participating. It

would a give the training administrator an opportunity to identity any faculty/learner who are

struggling and to personally reach out to them.

Training modules would be developed in collaboration with subject matter experts

(SMEs). These SMEs could be drawn from administration, curriculum committee membership,

and SLO committee members. These training modules would focus on the main concepts and

processes related to SLOs: defining SLOs, the SLO process, categorizing SLOs, applying

Bloom’s Taxonomy, types of assessment tools, and aligning SLO and assessment tools.

Learners will move through the course via an adaptive release structure ensuring that

prerequisite content had been mastered, before proceeding to a new module. Each module would

consist of a lesson, a practice problem set based on a scenario, some form of assessment and
QUANTIFIABLE SLOS 6

meaningful feedback. The learner obtains knowledge from the lesson, application and analysis of

principles with the practice problems. Assessments within modules allow faculty to construct

SLOs and evaluate their comprehension of the material. The course culminates with a more

significant assessment and certificate of completion. Learners have open access to the Canvas

course after completing the course for future reference.

Administration assigns the training to all faculty (full time and adjunct) and requires the

faculty to forward the certificate of completion to a designated person for recording.

Training Cycle

Before the program is deployed to the faculty at large, we plan to select a small cohort of

candidates to test the worthiness of the training materials. Based on their comments and

suggestions we will make any necessary modifications before releasing the training materials.

I expect that this training will be ongoing: new hires will need training, accreditation

requirements are continuously modified and improved, and local conditions may change. In

order to accommodate these factors, periodic review of the program materials is required. We

would reach out to our SME for feedback on any specific recommendations and modification to

the training materials. We would periodically reach out to the learning community and solicit

their input on this particular program and any other needed training opportunities. We might

consider convocation, or other all hand’s meetings, as possible venues for this feedback.

Conclusion

Training is a necessary component in helping faculty understand the need and rationale

for SLOs and to help them master the skills necessary to develop and apply the assessment

activities that are predicated on these SLOs. I would expect that after a training program is
QUANTIFIABLE SLOS 7

implemented that the college would be well on its way to conforming to the recommendations of

the accreditation evaluation team. (Moreover, I should be hired immediately  )

QUANTIFIABLE SLOS 8

References

ACCJC Accreditation Standards. (2014). Retrieved from The Accrediting Commission for

Community and Junior Colleges: https://accjc.org/eligibility-requirements-standards-

policies/#accreditation-standards

Snow-Flamer, K. (2017). Evaluation Team Report. Novato: ACCJC.

West Hills College Coalinga. (2017, Summer). West Hills College Coalinga Catalog 2017 -

2018. Coalinga, California, United States of America.

Winn, R., & Rodriguez, R. (2017, June 23). Delay Reaffirmation of Accreditation [Letter to B.

Thames]. West Hills College Coalinga, Coalinga, CA.