PROGRAM REVIEW AS A CATALYST FOR STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES ASSESSMENTThe Santa Monica College Counseling Department Approach

Esau Tovar, Santa Monica CollegeAccreditation Institute 2011Academic Senate for California Community CollegesMarch 19, 2011

Program Review as a Guide to SLO Assessment

• Program Review at Santa Monica College:– Ongoing assessment of program effectiveness and

improvement– Dialogue – Program goals aligned/support institutional goals– Student learning outcomes assessment is central to the

PR process:• Goals• Program improvement• Program effectiveness

2

Program Review Key SLO Questions

• Discuss how the goals and Institutional Learning Outcomes of the College (see Vision, Mission, Goals, and ILOs) are integrated into the program.

• Describe how the department engages all members in the discussion, review, assessment and revision of program SLOs.

• How and when has your program assessed SLOs, and how have you responded to the results?

• How does the program ensure that SLOs are assessed consistently?

• What program changes have been made based on the result of the assessed outcomes?

• Discuss how program SLOs relate to the program goals or achievement outcomes.

3

Counseling Student Learning Outcomes—An Overview

• Student Learning Outcomes discussions and plans start in March 2006 anticipating our Fall 2007 Program Review.

• Have undergone several assessment cycles for a variety of SLOs; three cycles for educational planning SLO.

• Adopted SLOs have included attitudinal, behavioral, and cognitive domains for counseling service and instruction.

• Common in all: lots of discussion, debriefing, assessing, and willingness to sustain efforts.

4

Starts in 2006

5

Timeline Toward SLO Adoption & Assessment—Some Milestones

6

Timeline Toward SLO Adoption & Assessment—Some Milestones

7

Timeline Toward SLO Adoption & Assessment—Some Milestones

8

Timeline Toward SLO Adoption & Assessment—Some Milestones

Core SLOs for Realistic Appraisal of Educational Planning

Original SLO Adopted:SLO #1:

As a result of the counseling session(s), students will demonstrate a basic understanding of their individual interests and related academic and career goals which will help them to formulate a realistic educational plan.

SLO #2:

Students will identify their math and English course sequences, understand the possible consequences of not following appropriate course sequence and chart their individual math and English course sequences to achieve their educational goals.

Revised Based on First Assessment Cycle:Student will formulate a realistic self-appraisal of their educational

status and its relationship to their overall goals.

+ SLO#2

• As a result of counselor visitations to the basic skills classes, students will be able to identify specific support services designed to supplement/enhance student success.

• SLO #2: Probationary students who receive counseling intervention via the “Back-to-Success” group counseling session will identify obstacles to academic success and apply strategies to manage these obstacles more effectively.

– Assessment: Point of Service Survey -- Back-to-Success (BTS) sessions– Based on results: decision to move to a problem-based learning assessment model– New SLOs adopted and continue to assess over next two years

• SLO 2a. Students will define progress and academic probation• SLO 2b. Students will identify the consequences of progress and academic probation

• ISLO #1: As a result of taking a course in the Counseling Department, students will identify their needs and apply the knowledge, skills and strategies that support their academic and life-long success

9

SMC’s Counseling Department Model for Assessing SLOs

10

Logistics

• Required collaboration of counselors and Counseling 20—Student Success Seminar instructors.

• Willingness to dedicate 1-2 class sessions for:– Ed Planning presentation– Transfer presentation– Helps to have small number of

engaging/knowledgeable presenters• Willingness to administer post-assignment quiz and survey

11

Logistics (cont.)

• Require students to individually meet with counselors to review ed plan– Willingness to ask students to come back when it is clear little effort

was placed in completing assignment• Provide guidance on how to create ed plan

– Review of 5 ed plan components. Identification of relevant:• Degree/transfer General Education requirements (categorize)• Major –specific requirements• Prerequisites• English/Math prerequisite sequencing• 3 semester/session course planning

– Counselor evaluation of ed plan—based on completed assignment and in-person discussion of student goals, etc.

12

Logistics (cont.)

• Data Collection/Analysis– Counselors must keep track of ed plans evaluated

13

Logistics (cont.)

• Data Collection/Analysis– Counselors must keep track of ed plans evaluated– Records kept by student name, ID number– Require ID number on Quiz and Survey– Integrate ALL data above into single student record for

comprehensive analysis if desired– Method affords opportunity to identify both a control and an

experimental group– Opportunity to incorporate course grade received and examine

differences by select student characteristics or for group as a whole

– Analysis requires someone with basic quantitative analysis experience

14

Logistics (cont.)

• Closing Assessment Cycles– Discussing findings and dedicating time to dialogue is

crucial– Use findings to guide future directions

• Revise materials and methods used – Willingness to sustain efforts

15

SLO Assessment Cycle 1 – 3 Results

• Fall 2008 to Fall 2010:– Educational Planning SLO Competency:

• From 67% to 89%

– Represents:

• 22-percentage point differential

• Net improvement rate of 33%

• SLO 1 met

– English/Math Prerequisite Sequencing:

• From 65% to 85%

– Represents:

• 20 percentage point differential

• Net improvement rate of 31%

• SLO 2 Met

16

Results—A Brief Overview

Figure 1.

Student educational plan MEAN differences by cohort year (all differences significant at p < .001)

17

Results—A Brief Overview

Figure 2.

Student educational plan PERCENTAGE differences by cohort year (all differences significant at p < .001)

18

67%63%

67% 68% 67%

83% 83% 85% 86%89%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

General Education Major Requirements & Prerequisites

Course Prerequisite Sequence

Ed Planning & Classification

Realistic Appraisal

Fall 2008 Fall 2009 Fall 2010

Results—A Brief Overview

19

Figure 3.

Percentage of Students Correctly Identifying Educational Planning Quiz Responses

Figure 2. Percentage of Students Correctly Identifying Educational Planning Quiz Responses

Results—A Brief Overview

Figure 4.

Percentage of Students Needing Additional Assistance with Ed Plan Assignment

20

Conclusion/New Directions

• Fall 2010: Examined differences by race, ethnicity, gender, income

• Determined that we have achieved our goals for SLOs– Will not assess in the coming year– Will expand educational planning exercise to all students

• Develop a pilot self-paced, interactive exercise

• Begin to plan for a Fall 2012 Program Review– Spring 2011:

• Revise Departmental Goals• Develop new SLOs

21