Assessment: Course Four Column - El Camino College

El Camino: Course SLOs (BSS) - Psychology

Spring/Summer 2019Assessment: Course Four Column

ECC: PSYC 12:Human Sexuality

Course SLOs Assessment MethodDescription Results Actions

SLO #1 Logic of the Scientific Method- On examination (e.g., m/c, T/F, fill-in, matching, essay), written essay,research paper, and/or oralpresentation, students will be able toexplain historical developments inscientific sex research as well asidentify and evaluate specificresearch methods used to study thepsychological, biological, and culturalfactors in human sexuality.

Course SLO Assessment Cycle: 2013-14 (Spring 2014), 2014-15 (Spring2015), 2015-16 (Spring 2016), 2016-17 (Spring 2017), 2018-19 (Fall 2018),2018-19 (Spring 2019), 2019-20(Spring 2020), 2020-21 (Spring 2021)

Course SLO Status: Active

Input Date: 03/25/2014

Action: As usual, there should bean ongoing discussion about theways to improve, modify thisassessment instrument. We arenow discussing how to use gradedwork in the class as an assessmentof he SLOs. (03/09/2019)

Follow-Up: Again, the process toimprove SLO assessment is part ofan ongoing discussion.(03/09/2019)

Action Category: SLO/PLOAssessment Process

% of Success for this SLO: 78Faculty Assessment Leader: Angela SimonFaculty Contributing to Assessment: Angela Simon

Semester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2017-18(Spring 2018)

Overall, the average score on 10-item quiz was 77% (N= 21).Three items on the 10-item quiz covered this SLO - #4, #5,#6 - a total of 78% of the students answered thesequestions correctly. (03/09/2019)

Standard Met? : Standard Met

Directly related to SLO

Standard and Target for Success: Itis expected that the average scoreon the Multiple-Choice assessmentwill be approximately 70%,equivalent to a passing grade of “C.”

Faculty Assessment Leader: Angela SimonFaculty Contributing to Assessment: Eddie Galvan

Action: No further action isrequired. How to best assessSLO's/PLO's is an on-goingdiscussion among Psychologyfaculty. (09/12/2019)Action Category: SLO/PLOAssessment Process

Semester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2018-19(Spring 2019)Standard Met? : Standard MetOverall, the average score on 10-item quiz was 78.5% (N=50). Three items on the 10-item quiz covered this SLO - #4,#5, #6 - a total of 85% of the students answered thesequestions correctly. This data was collected in Spring 2019.[more] (09/12/2019)

Action: There has been an ongoingdiscussion about the ways to

Semester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2018-19 (Fall2018)

Exam/Test/Quiz - The SLOAssessment will consist of 10,general, Multiple-Choice questionswhich will cover the three SLO’s forPsychology 12.

01/24/2020 of 69Generated by Nuventive Improve


% of Success for this SLO: 78Faculty Assessment Leader: Angela SimonFaculty Contributing to Assessment: Angela Simon

improve, modify this assessmentinstrument. We are nowdiscussing how to use graded workin the class as an assessment of heSLOs. (03/09/2019) (03/09/2019)

Follow-Up: It is believed that thecurrent instrument is adequatefor assessing this SLO.(09/12/2019)


Standard Met? : Standard MetOverall, the average score on 10-item quiz was 77% (N= 21).Three items on the 10-item quiz covered this SLO - #4, #5,#6 - a total of 78% of the students answered thesequestions correctly. This data was collected in Spring 2018.(03/09/2019)


Action: There should be continueddiscussion about the ways toimprove, modify this assessmentinstrument. We are nowdiscussing how to use graded workin the class as an assessment of heSLOs. (09/14/2018)

Follow-Up: Continue the on goingdiscussion among Psychologyfaculty members regarding theideal ways of assessing SLO's(03/09/2019). (03/09/2019)


Semester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2017-18(Spring 2018)Standard Met? : Standard MetOverall, the average score on 10-item quiz was 77% (N= 21).Three items on the 10-item quiz covered this SLO - #4, #5,#6 - a total of 78% of the students answered thesequestions correctly. (09/14/2018)

Faculty Assessment Leader: Angela SimonFaculty Contributing to Assessment: Eddie GalvanRelated Documents:Psychology 12 - Spring - SLO Assessment.docx

Action: Even though theassessment instrument has beenmodified over the semesters,there should be continueddiscussion about the ways toimprove, modify this assessmentinstrument. (09/05/2017)Action Category: SLO/PLOAssessment Process

Semester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2016-17(Spring 2017)Standard Met? : Standard MetOverall, the average score on the 10-item quiz was 82%,across two Psychology 12 classes (N=59). Three items onthe 10-item quiz covered this SLO - #4, #5, and #6 - a totalof 85% of the students answered these questions correctly.(09/05/2017)

Action: Instructors will meet toSemester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2015-16


https://elcamino.tracdat.com:443/tracdat/viewDocument?y=G1dDIobQaQnM


Faculty Assessment Leader: Angela Simon

standardize assessment process.(12/16/2016)Action Category: SLO/PLOAssessment Process

(Spring 2016)Standard Met? : Standard MetThree items on the 10-item quiz covered this SLO - #4, #5,and #6. Across two Psychology 12 classes (N = 66), anaverage of 78.5% of the students identified the correctanswer for these three items. (05/03/2016)

Faculty Assessment Leader: Angela SimonFaculty Contributing to Assessment: Eddie GalvanRelated Documents:Copy of SLO 12 Data.xlsxPsychology 12 - Spring 2014 - SLO Assessment.docx

Action: Instructors will meet tostandardize assessment process.(12/16/2016)Action Category: SLO/PLOAssessment ProcessAction: The assessment tool isadequate, but could be improved.The 10 Multiple-Choice questionsshould more distinctly addresseach of the 3 SLO's separately.(08/31/2015)Action Category: SLO/PLOAssessment Process

Semester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2013-14(Spring 2014)Standard Met? : Standard MetThe assessment was distributed to two Psychology 12classes, 83 students total; 5 assessments were incompleteso were not included in the analysis. The average score was68.5%. Overall, students demonstrated that they were ableto meet the general objectives stated in the SLOs. Bothgroups of students had difficulty with the same question:one of two assessing their knowledge of theoreticalperspectives – almost 80% of the students answered thisquestion (#2) incorrectly. Interestingly, only 19% of thestudents answered the other question assessing knowledgeof theoretical perspectives (#3) incorrectly. (09/11/2014)


Action: Although the target of 70%wasn't reached, the results are stillacceptable. The measure used toassess the three SLO's needs to berefined to more specificallyaddress the SLO's. The facultywho teach this course will beasked to review the currentmeasure as well as the three SLO'sand to make suggestions forsubstantive or minor changes tothe measure, which could includeadopting a different type of

Semester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2014-15(Spring 2015)Standard Met? : Standard Not MetTwo sections of Psychology 12 were assessed. A total of 63students completed the ten-item measure. The combinedaverage of the two sections on the ten-item measure was64.5%, a bit short of the target of 70%. The combinedresults were examined to see if any items posed particularproblems for the students; an item was deemed"problematic" if 50% of the combined students answeredthe item incorrectly. Question #1, which assessed bothSLO#1 and SLO#2 was missed by 49% of the total students;Question #2, which assessed SLO#2, was missed by 79.5% of



https://elcamino.tracdat.com:443/tracdat/viewDocument?y=BjLQrMiAVZSv

https://elcamino.tracdat.com:443/tracdat/viewDocument?y=BRVHNcupb77k


Faculty Assessment Leader: Angela SimonRelated Documents:SLO Assessment.docx

assessment method. (05/30/2016)Action Category: SLO/PLOAssessment Process

the total students. No other items were missed by 50% ofthe total students. (The ten-item measure is in RelatedDocuments.) (08/31/2015)


% of Success for this SLO: 75Faculty Assessment Leader: Isabelle Pena - TestFaculty Contributing to Assessment: Isabelle Pena - Test

Action: Action 1 (05/03/2019)Action Category: TeachingStrategies

Semester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2011-12 (Fall2011)Standard Met? : Standard MetTEST (05/03/2019)



Exam/Test/Quiz - The SLOAssessment will consist of 10,general, Multiple-Choice questionswhich will cover the three SLO’s forPsychology 12. _copy


Exam/Test/Quiz - The SLOAssessment will consist of 10,general, Multiple-Choice questionswhich will cover the three SLO’s forPsychology 12. _copy_copy

SLO #2 Fundamental Principles - Onexamination (e.g., m/c, T/F, fill-in,

Action: No further action isrequired. How to best assess


Exam/Test/Quiz - The SLOAssessment will consist of 10,


https://elcamino.tracdat.com:443/tracdat/viewDocument?y=FwmqDu8vPoTt


matching, essay), written essay,research paper, and/or oralpresentation, students will be able toidentify and explain major theories,perspectives, and facets of humansexuality.

Course SLO Assessment Cycle: 2013-14 (Spring 2014), 2014-15 (Spring2015), 2015-16 (Spring 2016), 2016-17 (Spring 2017), 2017-18 (Spring2018), 2018-19 (Spring 2019), 2019-20 (Spring 2020), 2020-21 (Spring2021)





SLO's/PLO's is an on-goingdiscussion among Psychologyfaculty. (09/12/2019)Action Category: SLO/PLOAssessment Process

Standard Met? : Standard MetOverall, the average score on the 10-item quiz was 78.5%(N=50). Three items on the 10-item quiz covered this SLO -#1, #2, #3 - a total of 89% of the students answered thesequestions correctly. [more] (09/12/2019)


Action: There should be continueddiscussion about the ways toimprove, modify this assessment.We are now discussing how toused graded work in the class asan assessment of the SLOs.(09/14/2018)

Follow-Up: It is believed that thecurrent instrument is adequatefor assessing this SLO.(09/12/2019 ) (09/12/2019)Follow-Up: It is believed that thecurrent instrument is adequatefor assessing this SLO.(09/12/2019 ) (09/12/2019)


Semester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2017-18(Spring 2018)Standard Met? : Standard MetOverall, the average score on the 10-item quiz was 77%.Three items on the 10-item quiz covered this SLO - #1, #2,#3 - a total of 86% of the students answered thesequestions correctly. (09/14/2018)


Action: Even though theassessment instrument has beenmodified over the semesters,there should be continueddiscussion about the ways toimprove, modify this assessmentinstrument. (09/05/2017)

Follow-Up: test (07/09/2019)


Semester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2016-17(Spring 2017)Standard Met? : Standard MetOverall, the average score on the 10-item quiz was 82%,across two Psychology 12 classes (N=59). Three items onthe 10-item quiz covered this SLO - #1, #2, and #3 - a totalof 96% of the students answered these questions correctly(09/05/2017)

Action: Instructors will meet tostandardize assessment process.


general, Multiple-Choice questionswhich will cover the three SLO’s forPsychology 12.





(12/16/2016)Action Category: SLO/PLOAssessment Process

Standard Met? : Standard MetThree items on the 10-item quiz covered this SLO - #1, #2,and #3. Across two Psychology 12 classes (N = 66), anaverage of 85% of the students identified the correctanswers for these three items. (09/07/2016)


Action: The assessment tool isadequate, but could be improved.The 10 Multiple-Choice questionsshould more distinctly addresseach of the 3 SLO's separately.(04/20/2015)Action Category: SLO/PLOAssessment Process

Semester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2013-14(Spring 2014)Standard Met? : Standard MetThe assessment was distributed to two Psychology 12classes, 83 students total; 5 assessments were incompleteso were not included in the analysis. The average score was68.5%. Overall, students demonstrated that they were ableto meet the general objectives stated in the SLOs. Bothgroups of students had difficulty with the same question:one of two assessing their knowledge of theoreticalperspectives – almost 80% of the students answered thisquestion (#2) incorrectly. Interestingly, only 19% of thestudents answered the other question assessing knowledgeof theoretical perspectives (#3) incorrectly. (09/11/2014)


Action: Although the target of 70%wasn't reached, the results are stillacceptable. The measure used toassess the three SLO's needs to berefined to more specificallyaddress the SLO's. The faculty whoteach this course will be asked toreview the current measure aswell as the three SLO's and tomake suggestions for substantiveor minor changes to the measure,which could include adopting adifferent type of assessmentmethod. (05/30/2016)Action Category: SLO/PLO

Semester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2014-15(Spring 2015)Standard Met? : Standard Not MetTwo sections of Psychology 12 were assessed. A total of 63students completed the ten-item measure. The combinedaverage of the two sections on the ten-item measure was64.5%, a bit short of the target of 70%. The combinedresults were examined to see if any items posed particularproblems for the students; an item was deemed"problematic" if 50% of the combined students answeredthe item incorrectly. Question #1, which assessed bothSLO#1 and SLO#2 was missed by 49% of the total students;Question #2, which assessed SLO#2, was missed by 79.5% ofthe total students. No other items were missed by 50% ofthe total students. (The ten-item measure is in Related






Faculty Assessment Leader: Angela Simon Follow-Up: test (04/12/2016)Assessment ProcessDocuments.) (05/04/2015)



SLO #3 Everyday Application - Onexamination (e.g., m/c, T/F, fill-in,matching, essay), written essay,research paper, and/or oralpresentation, students will be able toapply fundamental principles in thedevelopment of a personal sexualphilosophy.






Action: No further action isrequired. How to best assessSLO's/PLO's is an on-goingdiscussion among Psychologyfaculty. (09/12/2019)(09/12/2019)Action Category: SLO/PLOAssessment Process

Semester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2018-19(Spring 2019)Standard Met? : Standard MetOverall, the average score on the 10-item quiz was 78.5%(N=50). Four items on the 10-item quiz covered this SLO -#7. #8, #9, #10 - a total of 69% of the students answeredthese questions correctly. (09/12/2019)


Action: There should be continueddiscussion about the ways toimprove, modify this assessmentinstrument. We are nowdiscussing how to use graded workin the class as an assessment ofthe SLO's. (09/14/2018)

Follow-Up: It is believed that thecurrent instrument is adequatefor assessing this SLO.(09/12/2019 ) (09/12/2019)


Semester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2018-19(Spring 2019)Standard Met? : Standard MetOverall, the average score on the 10-item quiz was 77%(N=21). Four items on the 10-item quiz covered this SLO -#7. #8, #9, #10 - a total of 71% of the students answeredthese questions correctly. (09/14/2018)

Action: Even though theassessment instrument has beenmodified over the semesters,

Semester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2016-17(Spring 2017)Standard Met? : Standard Met





there should be continueddiscussion about the ways toimprove, modify this assessmentinstrument, especially for theitems that assess this particularSLO (SLO #3). (09/05/2017)Action Category: SLO/PLOAssessment Process

Overall, the average score on the 10-item quiz was 82%,across two Psychology 12 classes (N=59). Four items on the10-item quiz covered this SLO - #7, #8, #9, and #10 - a totalof 75% of the students answered these questions correctly[more] (09/05/2017)


Action: Instructors will meet tostandardize assessment process.(12/16/2016)Action Category: SLO/PLOAssessment Process

Semester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2015-16(Spring 2016)Standard Met? : Standard MetFour items on the 10-item quiz covered this SLO - #7, #8, #9,and #10. Across two Psychology 12 classes (N = 66), anaverage of 62% of the students identified the correctanswers for these four items. [more] [more] (09/07/2016)


Action: The assessment tool isadequate, but could be improved.The 10 Multiple-Choice questionsshould more distinctly addresseach of the 3 SLO's separately.(04/20/2015)Action Category: SLO/PLOAssessment Process


The assessment was distributed to twoPsychology 12 classes, 83 students total; 5 assessmentswere incomplete so were not included in the analysis. Theaverage score was 68.5%. Overall, students demonstratedthat they were able to meet the general objectives stated inthe SLOs. Both groups of students had difficulty with thesame question: one of two assessing their knowledge oftheoretical perspectives – almost 80% of the studentsanswered this question (#2) incorrectly. Interestingly, only19% of the students answered the other question assessingknowledge of theoretical perspectives (#3) incorrectly.(09/11/2014)

Action: Although the target of 70%wasn't reached, the results are still


Exam/Test/Quiz - The SLOAssessment will consist of 10,








acceptable. The measure used toassess the three SLO's needs to berefined to more specificallyaddress the SLO's. The faculty whoteach this course will be asked toreview the current measure aswell as the three SLO's and tomake suggestions for substantiveor minor changes to the measure,which could include adopting adifferent type of assessmentmethod. (05/30/2016)Action Category: SLO/PLOAssessment Process

Standard Met? : Standard Not MetTwo sections of Psychology 12 were assessed. A total of 63students completed the ten-item measure. The combinedaverage of the two sections on the ten-item measure was64.5%, a bit short of the target of 70%. The combinedresults were examined to see if any items posed particularproblems for the students; an item was deemed"problematic" if 50% of the combined students answeredthe item incorrectly. Question #1, which assessed bothSLO#1 and SLO#2 was missed by 49% of the total students;Question #2, which assessed SLO#2, was missed by 79.5% ofthe total students. No other items were missed by 50% ofthe total students. (The ten-item measure is in RelatedDocuments.) (05/04/2015)

general, Multiple-Choice questionswhich will cover the three SLO’s forPsychology 12.




ECC: PSYC 15:Abnormal Psychology


SLO #1 Logic of the Scientific Method- On examination (e.g., m/c, T/F, fill-in, matching, essay), written essay,research paper, and/or oralpresentation, students will be able toexplain and evaluate various sourcesof data focusing on mental disorders(e.g.,epidemiology, efficacy,effectiveness).




Standard and Target for Success: Dr.Galbavy’s standard was defined atthe level of the class as a whole: Theclass was expected to average 70%correct on each set of 5 itemsreflecting each of the 3 SLOs.Related Documents:Psych15SLOSp14GalbavyItemsTable2.docx

Faculty Assessment Leader: Richard Mascolo, Ph.D.Faculty Contributing to Assessment: Renee Galbavy, Ph.D.Related Documents:Psych15SLOTablesSp17.docx

Action: Review curriculumrelevance in light of the newdevelopments and directionsestablished by the DSM-5(02/28/2018)Action Category: CurriculumChanges

Semester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2016-17(Spring 2017)Standard Met? : Standard MetTable 1 shows that 81% of students met the standard forSLO#1 thus meeting the Target.Table 3 shows that 83% of students met the standard for atleast 2 of 3 SLO's thus meeting the Target (09/15/2017)

Faculty Assessment Leader: Renee Galbavy, Ph.D.Faculty Contributing to Assessment: Richard Mascolo,Ph.D.Related Documents:Psych15SLOSp14_Tables_Figs.docx

Action: As a new addition to theFull-time faculty teachingPsychology 15, Dr. Galbavy canadd a fresh perspective to theestablishment of a commonAssessment Method and Standardfor Success for this course.(02/27/2015)

Follow-Up: Drs.Galbavy andMascolo created a commonassessment so that all Psych 15Spring 15 courses would beevaluated in the same way.(04/23/2015)


Semester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2014-15(Spring 2015)Standard Met? : Standard MetDr. Galbavy’s data are presented in Table 7. The classaveraged 73% correct responses on the SLO #1 set . Thus,Dr. Galbavy's data met her standard for SLO #1.

(09/12/2014)

Faculty Assessment Leader: Richard Mascolo, Ph.D.

Action: Though certainlyencouraging, these results can befurther assessed by reviewing theface validity of the exam itemsthought to reflect SLO #1.(02/27/2015)

Follow-Up: Drs.Galbavy and


Semester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2014-15(Spring 2015)Standard Met? : Standard MetDr. Mascolo data met his standard for individual SLOs: 67%of students correctly answered at least 2 of the 4 SLO #1items (see Table 8). Also, Dr. Mascolo's data met hisstandard for the 3 SLOs combined: 94% of students met thestandard for 2 or more SLOs (see Table 9). (09/12/2014)

Exam/Test/Quiz - Dr. Galbavycollected scores from 3 sets of 5multiple-choice items reflecting eachof the current SLOs (see Table 2).


https://elcamino.tracdat.com:443/tracdat/viewDocument?y=i8I2a7oXvZut


https://elcamino.tracdat.com:443/tracdat/viewDocument?y=lD2z8hCAT5IF

https://elcamino.tracdat.com:443/tracdat/viewDocument?y=r2g6KkFNryft


Related Documents:Psych15SLOSp14_Tables_Figs.docx

Mascolo created a commonassessment so that all Psych 15Spring 15 courses would beevaluated in the same way.(04/23/2015)

Standard and Target for Success:The standard for each SLO was aminimum 3 correct responses on the5 items sampled for that SLO. TheTargets were: 1) a minimum 67% ofstudents meeting the standard foreach individual SLO and 2) aminimum 67% of students meetingat least 2 of the 3 SLO standards.

Related Documents:Psych15SLOItems(Table1)Sp15.docx

Additional Information: Dr. Braundeclined to provide CoursePercentages without explanation.

Exam/Test/Quiz - Table 1 shows the15-item assessment (5 items foreach of 3 SLOs) given near the end ofthe semester. For each studenttaking the Final Exam, the number ofcorrect responses was tallied andrecorded for each of the 3 SLOs.Course Percentages, needed tocorrelate SLO scores and CourseGrades, were provided by Drs.Galbavy and Mascolo.

Exam/Test/Quiz - Dr. Mascoloabandoned his 2013 dataassessment method for thefollowing reasons:1. the SLOs were expandedto cover 3 areas of knowledge2. the DSM-IV was updatedby the American PsychiatricAssociation; its DSM-5 proved to be



https://elcamino.tracdat.com:443/tracdat/viewDocument?y=EOoFq83QnKhO


Standard and Target for Success: Dr.Mascolo’s standard was defined atthe level of the individual student:The standard for each SLO was aminimum 2 correct responses on the4 items sampled for that SLO. TheTargets were: 1) a minimum 67% ofstudents meeting the standard foreach individual SLO and 2) aminimum 80% of students meetingat least 2 of the 3 SLO standards.Related Documents:Psych15SLOSp14MascoloItemsTable 3.docx

a seismic shift in diagnosticnosology, and this required dramaticchanges in course material andlecture.

Therefore, Dr. Mascolo's primaryassessment method was constructedby sampling 12 Spring 14 Exam 1items – 4 items representing each ofthe 3 SLOs (see Table 3). For eachstudent taking Exam 1, the numberof correct responses was tallied andrecorded for each of the 3 SLOs. TheExam % and Course % were alsorecorded for each student.

Standard and Target for Success: Dr.Braun’s standard was defined at the

Exam/Test/Quiz - Dr. Brauncollected scores from the same 10Test Bank multiple choice itemsreflecting the single SLO (Theories &Definitions of Mental Illness) for the2013 assessment; these 10 itemsnow reflect the second current SLO(Fundamental Principles -- see Table1).


https://elcamino.tracdat.com:443/tracdat/viewDocument?y=WlcQ2nYOZ5RO



level of the class as a whole: 70% ofthe class scoring correct on each ofthe 10 items.Related Documents:Psych15SLOSp14BraunItemsTable1.docx

Standard and Target for Success:The standard for each SLO was aminimum 3 correct responses on the5 items sampled for that SLO. TheTargets were: 1) a minimum 67% ofstudents meeting the standard foreach individual SLO, 2) a minimum67% of students meeting at least 2 ofthe 3 SLO standards, and 3) aminimum 2 of 3 Sections meetingthe 2 Targets above.

Faculty Assessment Leader: Richard Mascolo, Ph.D.Faculty Contributing to Assessment: Michael Braun, Ph.D.,Renee Galbavy, Ph.D.Related Documents:Psych15SLOTablesSp16.docx

Action: Instructors will meet tostandardize assessment process,especially because additionalSections have been added to theschedule with new Instructors.(12/16/2016)Action Category: SLO/PLOAssessment Process

Semester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2015-16(Spring 2016)Standard Met? : Standard MetTable 2 shows that Sections 1 & 3 met the Target for SLO1(09/17/2016)

Exam/Test/Quiz - Table 1 shows the15-item assessment (5 items foreach of 3 SLOs) given at the end ofthe semester. For each studenttaking the Final Exam, the number ofcorrect responses was tallied andrecorded for each of the 3 SLOs. Alsocollected were Course Percentages

Standard and Target for Success:The standard for each SLO was aminimum 3 correct responses on the5 items sampled for that SLO. Thetargets were: 1) a minimum 67% of



Semester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2016-17(Spring 2017)Standard Met? : Standard MetTable 2 showsTable 3 shows (09/15/2017)

Essay/Written Assignment - Table 1shows the 15-item assessment (5items for each of 3 SLOs) given nearthe end of the semester. For eachstudent taking the final exam, thenumber of correct responses wastallied and recorded for each of the3 SLO's. Course percentages, neededto correlate SLO scores and coursegrades, were also collected.


https://elcamino.tracdat.com:443/tracdat/viewDocument?y=6gg8Sw1TDhct


https://elcamino.tracdat.com:443/tracdat/viewDocument?y=J4dHlRVplOLE



students meeting the standard foreach individual SLO and 2) aminimum 67% of students meetingat least 2 of the 3 SL0 standards.Related Documents:Psych15SLOTablesSp17.docx

Standard and Target for Success:67%

Exam/Test/Quiz - Semester Exams

Standard and Target for Success:The standard for each SLO was aminimum 3 correct responses on the5 items sampled for that SLO. TheTarget was a minimum 67% ofstudents meeting the standard foreach individual SLO.

% of Success for this SLO: 100Faculty Assessment Leader: Richard Mascolo, Ph.D.Related Documents:Psych15SLOTablesSp18.docx

Action: These results are animpressive improvement for thisSLO; plan to continue the coursechanges initiated in Spring 2018and assess the reliability of theseresults over the next twosemesters (09/13/2019)Action Category: SLO/PLOAssessment Process

Semester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2017-18(Spring 2018)Standard Met? : Standard MetTable 2 shows 100% of students met the standard for SLO#1, so the Target was met. (09/14/2018)

Exam/Test/Quiz - A 15-itemmultiple-choice assessment wasconstructed with 5 items measuringeach of 3 SLOs and spanning theentire semester. Table 1 shows theAssessment: specific to SLO #1 areitems 1-5; specific to SLO #2 areitems 6-10; specific to SLO #3 areitems 11-15.

Standard and Target for Success:The standard for each SLO was aminimum 3 correct responses on the5 items sampled for that SLO. TheTarget was a minimum 67% of




https://elcamino.tracdat.com:443/tracdat/viewDocument?y=Pd6cRAHrfcMT


students meeting at least 2 of the 3SLO standards.

Standard and Target for Success: Itis expected that 70% of students willanswer the target items correctly.

% of Success for this SLO: 80Faculty Assessment Leader: Renee Galbavy

Action: This is the first time thiscourse has been evaluated usingthis instrument. Standards mayneed to be adjusted as more SLOdata is collected. (09/10/2019)Action Category: SLO/PLOAssessment Process

Semester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2018-19(Spring 2019)Standard Met? : Standard MetOne example is included below.

(Q) In terms of clinical assessment and diagnostic tools,reliability is to __as validity is to .(A) consistency; accuracy (09/10/2019)

Exam/Test/Quiz - A total of 49students from Dr. Galbavy's classparticipated in gathering SLO data. Atotal of 3 multiple choice examquestions reflecting SLO#1 weresampled. Each involved multiplechoice exam items reflecting SLO#1.

SLO #2 Fundamental Principles - Onexamination (e.g., m/c, T/F, fill-in,matching, essay), written essay,research paper, and/or oralpresentation, students will be able toidentify and explain the majortheories and definitions of mentalillness (e.g., biological, cognitive-behavioral, psychoanalytic,humanistic, sociocultural), includingthe historical development of thesetheories.




Standard and Target for Success: Dr.Galbavy’s standard was defined atthe level of the class as a whole: Theclass was expected to average 70%correct on each set of 5 itemsreflecting each of the 3 SLOs.Related Documents:Psych15SLOSp14GalbavyItemsTable2.docx

Faculty Assessment Leader: Renee Galbavy, Ph.D.Faculty Contributing to Assessment: Richard Mascolo,Ph.D.Related Documents:Psych15SLOSp14_Tables_Figs.docx

Action: As a new addition to theFull-time faculty teachingPsychology 15, Dr. Galbavy canadd a fresh perspective to theestablishment of a commonAssessment Method and Standardfor Success for this course.(02/27/2015)



Semester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2013-14(Spring 2014)Standard Met? : Standard MetDr. Galbavy’s data are presented in Table 7. The classaveraged 71% correct responses on the SLO #2 set . Thus,Dr. Galbavy's data met her standard for SLO #2.(09/25/2014)


Action: Though certainlyencouraging, these results can befurther assessed by reviewing theface validity of the exam itemsthought to reflect SLO #2.(02/27/2015)

Follow-Up: Drs.Galbavy andMascolo created a common









assessment so that all Psych 15Spring 15 courses would beevaluated in the same way.(04/23/2015)

Faculty Assessment Leader: Richard Mascolo, Ph.D.Faculty Contributing to Assessment: Michael Braun, Ph.D.

Action: Evaluate course details(e.g., lecture methods,examinations) to effect changesstudent achievement that isconsistently below standard andunresponsive to lecture emphasis.Action Category: TeachingStrategies

Semester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2013-14(Spring 2014)Standard Met? : Standard Not MetDr. Braun’s data: Tables 4, 5, & 6 show the percentage ofstudents correctly answering the textbook exam itemsconsidered fundamental for SLO#2 averaged 41% -- all werebelow the 70% standard. The average percentage correctwas actually lower on the 4 exam items also elaboratedupon in lecture compared to the 6 that were not. Theseresults are remarkably similar to the 2012 results (seeFigures 1, 2, & 3). (09/12/2014)



Action: Evaluate lecture/testing ofSLO#2 (08/31/2015)Action Category: TeachingStrategiesAction: Evaluate lecture/testing ofSLO#2 (08/31/2015)Action Category: SLO/PLOAssessment Process

Semester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2014-15(Spring 2015)Standard Met? : Standard Not MetFor Dr. Braun:Table 2 shows that 30% of students met the standard forSLO #2, failing to meet the target of 67%.Table 3 shows that 60% of students met the standard forthe SLOs as a group, failing to meet the target of 67%.(08/31/2015)


Action: Evaluate lecture/testing ofSLO#2 (08/31/2015)Action Category: TeachingStrategiesAction: Evaluate face validity ofnew common assessment(08/31/2015)Action Category: SLO/PLOAssessment Process

Semester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2014-15(Spring 2015)Standard Met? : Standard Not MetFor Dr. Mascolo:Table 2 shows that 48% of students met the standard forSLO #2, failing to meet the target of 67%.Table 3 shows that 88% of students met the standard forthe SLOs as a group, exceeding the target of 67%.(08/12/2015)

Additional Information: Dr. Braundeclined to provide Course





Faculty Contributing to Assessment: none

Faculty Assessment Leader: Richard Mascolo, Ph.D.Faculty Contributing to Assessment: Renee Galbavy, Ph.D.Related Documents:Psych15SLOResults(Table 2_on)Sp15.docx

Action: Evaluate lecture/testing ofSLO#2 (08/31/2015)Action Category: TeachingStrategiesAction: Evaluate face validity ofnew common assessment(08/31/2015)Action Category: SLO/PLOAssessment Process

Semester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2014-15(Spring 2015)Standard Met? : Standard Not MetFor Dr. Galbavy:Table 2 shows that 50% of students met the standard forSLO #2, failing to meet the target of 67%.Table 3 shows that 86% of students met the standard forthe SLOs as a group, exceeding the target of 67%. (08/12/2015)

Percentages without explanation.

Standard and Target for Success: Foreach student taking Exam 1, thenumber of correct responses wastallied and recorded for each of the3 SLOs. The Exam 1% and Course %was also recorded for each studentRelated Documents:

Exam/Test/Quiz - Dr. Mascoloabandoned his 2013 dataassessment method for the followingreasons:1. the SLOs were expanded to cover3 areas of knowledge2. the DSM-IV was updated by theAmerican Psychiatric Association; itsDSM-5 proved to be a seismic shift indiagnostic nosology, and thisrequired dramatic changes in coursematerial and lecture.

Therefore, Dr. Mascolo's primaryassessment method was constructedby sampling 12 Spring 14 Exam 1items – 4 items representing each ofthe 3 SLOs (see Table 3).



https://elcamino.tracdat.com:443/tracdat/viewDocument?y=pkXQOCxxde8q


Psych15SLOSp14MascoloItemsTable 3.docx

Related Documents:Psych15SLOSp14BraunItemsTable1.docx

Exam/Test/Quiz - Dr. Brauncollected scores from the same 10Test Bank multiple choice itemsreflecting the single SLO (Theories &Definitions of Mental Illness) for the2013 assessment; these 10 itemsnow reflect the second current SLO(Fundamental Principles -- see Table1).



Action: Instructors will meet tostandardize assessment process,especially because additionalSections have been added to theschedule with new Instructors.(12/16/2016)Action Category: SLO/PLOAssessment Process

Semester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2015-16(Spring 2016)Standard Met? : Standard Not MetTable 2 shows that Section 2 met the Target for SLO2(09/17/2016)

Exam/Test/Quiz - Table 1 shows the15-item assessment (5 items foreach of 3 SLOs) given at the end ofthe semester. For each studenttaking the Final Exam, the number ofcorrect responses was tallied andrecorded for each of the 3 SLOs. Alsocollected were Course Percentages

Action: Review curriculumrelevance in light of the newdevelopments and directionsestablished by the DSM-5. Look forways to dovetail this effort withefforts to shore up student

Semester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2016-17(Spring 2017)Standard Met? : Standard Not MetTable 1 shows that 55% of students met the standard forSLO#2 thus failing to meet the Target.Table 3 shows that 83% of students met the standard for at

Essay/Written Assignment - Table 1shows the 15-item assessment (5items for each of 3 SLOs) given nearthe end of the semester. For eachstudent taking the final exam, thenumber of correct responses was








Standard and Target for Success:The standard for each SLO was aminimum 3 correct responses on the5 items sampled for that SLO. TheTargets were: 1) a minimum 67% ofstudents meeting the standard foreach individual SLO and 2) aminimum 67% of students meetingat least 2 of the 3 SL0 standards.

Related Documents:Psych15SLOTablesSp17.docx


success in this SLO (02/28/2018)Action Category: TeachingStrategies

least 2 of 3 SLO's thus meeting the Target (09/15/2017)tallied and recorded for each of the3 SLO's. Course percentages, neededto correlate SLO scores and coursegrades, were also collected. (Active)



Standard and Target for Success:67% of students score at least 70%

% of Success for this SLO: 100Faculty Assessment Leader: Richard Mascolo, Ph.D.Related Documents:

Action: 09/13/2019 These resultsare an impressive improvementfor this SLO; plan to continue thecourse changes initiated in Spring2018 and assess the reliability ofthese results over the next twosemesters. (09/14/2018)Action Category: SLO/PLO

Semester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2017-18(Spring 2018)Standard Met? : Standard MetTable 2 shows 67% of students met the standard for SLO #2,so the Target was met. (09/14/2018)

Exam/Test/Quiz - Mascolo Ex2 ShortAnswer





Psych15SLOTablesSp18.docxAssessment Process




Semester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2018-19(Spring 2019)Standard Met? : Standard MetA total of 49 students from Dr. Galbavy's class participatedin gathering SLO data. A total of 3 multiple choice examquestions reflecting SLO#2 were sampled. Each involvedmultiple choice exam items reflecting SLO#2. One exampleis included below.

(Q) Which statement is the BEST example of thebiopsychosocial perspective?(A) Abnormal behavior results from the interaction ofgenetic, emotional, and cultural influences. (09/10/2019)

Exam/Test/Quiz - A total of 49students from Dr. Galbavy's classparticipated in gathering SLO data. Atotal of 3 multiple choice examquestions reflecting SLO#2 weresampled. Each involved multiplechoice exam items reflecting SLO#2.

SLO #3 Everyday Application - Onexamination (e.g., m/c, T/F, fill-in,matching, essay), written essay,research paper, and/or oralpresentation, students will be able toapply fundamental principles ofabnormal psychology in their effortsto understand everyday lifeexperiences such as these: concernsabout the behavior of family orfriends, cognitive decline of parent,violent crime (including effects ofmedia coverage).




Standard and Target for Success: Dr.Galbavy’s standard was defined atthe level of the class as a whole: Theclass was expected to average 70%correct on each set of 5 itemsreflecting each of the 3 SLOs.

Dr. Mascolo’s standard was definedat the level of the individual student:The standard for each SLO was aminimum 2 correct responses on the4 items sampled for that SLO. TheTargets were: 1) a minimum 67% ofstudents meeting the standard foreach individual SLO and 2) aminimum 80% of students meetingat least 2 of the 3 SLO standards.

Faculty Assessment Leader: Richard Mascolo, Ph.D.Faculty Contributing to Assessment: Renee GalbavyRelated Documents:Psych15SLOItems(Table1)Sp15.docx

Action: Though certainlyencouraging, these results can befurther assessed by reviewing theface validity of the exam itemsthought to reflect SLO #3. Inparticular, students will besurveyed to determine whetherthey agree that these exam itemsreflect "Everyday Application".(02/27/2015)




Action: As a new addition to theFull-time faculty teachingPsychology 15, Dr. Galbavy can







Dr. Braun’s standard & target wasrestricted to SLO #2.

Faculty Assessment Leader: Renee Galbavy, Ph.D.Faculty Contributing to Assessment: Richard Mascolo,Ph.D.

add a fresh perspective to theestablishment of a commonAssessment Method and Standardfor Success for this course.(02/27/2015)



Dr. Galbavy’s data are presented in Table 7. The classaveraged 73% correct responses on the SLO #3 set . Thus,Dr. Galbavy's data met her standard for SLO #3(09/12/2014)



Faculty Assessment Leader: Richard Mascolo, Ph.D.Faculty Contributing to Assessment: Renee Galbavy, Ph.D.

Action: Evaluate Face Validity ofnew common assessment(12/01/2015)Action Category: SLO/PLOAssessment Process

Semester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2014-15(Spring 2015)Standard Met? : Standard MetFor Dr. Galbavy:Table 2 shows that 97% of students met the standard forSLO #3, exceeding the target of 67%.Table 3 shows that 86% of students met the standard forthe SLOs as a group, exceeding the target of 67%.(08/12/2015)

Faculty Assessment Leader: Richard Mascolo, Ph.D.Faculty Contributing to Assessment: none

Action: Evaluate Face Validity ofnew common assessment(12/01/2015)Action Category: SLO/PLOAssessment Process

Semester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2014-15(Spring 2015)Standard Met? : Standard MetFor Dr. Mascolo:Table 2 shows that 88% of students met the standard forSLO #3, exceeding the target of 67%.Table 3 shows that 88% of students met the standard forthe SLOs as a group, exceeding the target of 67%. (08/12/2015)

Action: Evaluate face validity ofnew common assessment(12/01/2015)Action Category: SLO/PLO

Semester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2014-15(Spring 2015)Standard Met? : Standard Not MetFor Dr. Braun:

Additional Information: Dr. Braundeclined to provide CoursePercentages for his section.






Assessment ProcessAction: Evaluate lecture/testing ofSLO#3 (08/31/2015)Action Category: TeachingStrategies

Table 2 shows that 65% of students met the standard forSLO #3, failing to meet the target of 67%.Table 3 shows that 60% of students met the standard forthe SLOs as a group, failing to meet the target of 67%.(08/12/2015)

Standard and Target for Success:For each student taking Exam 1, thenumber of correct responses wastallied and recorded for each of the3 SLOs. The Exam 1% and Course %was also recorded for each student.Related Documents:Psych15SLOSp14MascoloItemsTable 3.docx

Exam/Test/Quiz -Dr. Mascolo abandoned his 2013data assessment method for thefollowing reasons:1. the SLOs were expandedto cover 3 areas of knowledge2. the DSM-IV was updatedby the American PsychiatricAssociation; its DSM-5 proved to bea seismic shift in diagnosticnosology, and this required dramaticchanges in course material andlecture.

Therefore, Dr. Mascolo's primaryassessment method was constructedby sampling 12 Spring 14 Exam 1items – 4 items representing each ofthe 3 SLOs (see Table 3).

Action: Instructors will meet tostandardize assessment process,especially because additionalSections have been added to theschedule with new Instructors.

Semester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2015-16(Spring 2016)Standard Met? : Standard MetTable 2 shows that Sections 1, 2, & 3 met the Target forSLO3 (09/17/2016)

Exam/Test/Quiz - Table 1 shows the15-item assessment (5 items foreach of 3 SLOs) given at the end ofthe semester. For each studenttaking the Final Exam, the number of







(12/16/2016)Action Category: SLO/PLOAssessment Process

correct responses was tallied andrecorded for each of the 3 SLOs. Alsocollected were Course Percentages

Standard and Target for Success:The standard for each SLO was aminimum 3 correct responses on the5 items sampled for that SLO. Thetargets were: 1) a minimum 67% ofstudents meeting the standard foreach individual SLO and 2) aminimum 67% of students meetingat least 2 of the 3 SL0 standards.




Semester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2016-17(Spring 2017)Standard Met? : Standard MetTable 1 shows that 90% of students met the standard forSLO#3 thus meeting the Target.Table 3 shows that 83% of students met the standard for atleast 2 of 3 SLO's thus meeting the Target (09/15/2017)

Exam/Test/Quiz - Essay/WrittenAssignment Table 1 shows the 15-item assessment (5 items for each of3 SLOs) given near the end of thesemester. For each student takingthe final exam, the number ofcorrect responses was tallied andrecorded for each of the 3 SLO's.Course percentages, needed tocorrelate SLO scores and coursegrades, were also collected.

Standard and Target for Success:Exam/Test/Quiz - Semester Exams






67%



Action: These results are animpressive improvement for thisSLO; plan to continue the coursechanges initiated in Spring 2018and assess the reliability of theseresults over the next twosemesters (09/13/2019)Action Category: SLO/PLOAssessment Process

Semester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2017-18(Spring 2018)Standard Met? : Standard MetTable 2 shows 100% of students met the standard for SLO#3, so the Target was met. (09/14/2018)


Standard and Target for Success: Itis expected that students 70% ofstudents will answer the target itemscorrectly.


Semester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2018-19(Spring 2019)Standard Met? : Standard MetOne example is included below.

"Please discuss the Andrea Yates case using the questionsbelow to guide you. I want to get you thinking criticallyabout the case and its implications. The Andrea Yates caseis much more complicated than it may seem at first glance.Do not simply summarize the case. Discuss your opinionsand theories based on the facts presented and be sure tointegrate topical knowledge (i.e., facts/information aboutdisorder).

Was Andrea mentally ill? Was she legally insane? Shouldand could the warning signs have been taken moreseriously? Could her actions have been prevented? Did sheunderstand her actions were wrong? Should others bear theburden of fault for Andrea’s actions or is she solelyresponsible? Should she be in prison or a psychiatrichospital? What do you think about her treatment prior tothe tragedy? Was it sufficient? What are your feelings aboutthe insanity defense? Should it have been applied to this

Essay/Written Assignment - A totalof 49 students from Dr. Galbavy'sclass participated in gathering SLOdata. Over the course of thesemester a total of 5 “Case AnalysisEssays” were assigned, and studentswere required to choose three toturn in. These case analysis essaysare designed to get students“thinking critically aboutpsychopathology, how it influencesbehavior, and its applicability to real-life situations.





case? Why or why not? Please feel free to address anyadditional thoughts and feelings you may have about thecase presented." (09/10/2019)


ECC: PSYC 16:Lifespan Development


SLO #1 Logic of the Scientific Method- On examination (e.g., m/c, T/F, fill-in, matching, essay), written essay,research paper, and/or oralpresentation, students will be able todescribe and contrast specificresearch methods in the study oflifespan development(e.g.,longitudinal, cross-sectional,sequential designs)as well as assessthe strengths and weaknesses ofeach.




Standard and Target for Success: Forboth Dr. Wynne & Dr. Himsel, it isexpected that 70% of students willanswer the target items correctly.

% of Success for this SLO: 89Faculty Assessment Leader: Amy HimselFaculty Contributing to Assessment: Amy Himsel

Action: At this point in time, thereis no further action required. Wecontinue discussions within ourdepartment regarding the bestways to assess SLOs. (09/13/2019)Action Category: SLO/PLOAssessment Process

Semester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2018-19(Spring 2019)Standard Met? : Standard Met89% of the 87 students tested answered the targetquestions correctly. (09/13/2019)

% of Success for this SLO: 100Faculty Assessment Leader: Dr. Amy Himsel

Action: Review CCC Initiatives(03/01/2019)Action Category:Program/College Support

Semester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2017-18(Spring 2018)Standard Met? : Standard MetFor Dr. Himsel's class (90 students), 83% of the studentsanswered the target questions correctly. (09/14/2018)

Faculty Assessment Leader: Dr. Amy Himsel

Action: Review CCC initiatives(02/28/2018)Action Category:Program/College SupportAction: Review CCC initiatives(02/28/2018)Action Category:Program/College Support

Semester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2016-17(Spring 2017)Standard Met? : Standard MetFor Dr. Himsel's class (76 students), 83% of the studentsanswered the target questions correctly. (09/14/2017)(09/15/2017)

Faculty Assessment Leader: Dr. Michael Wynne


Semester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2016-17(Spring 2017)Standard Met? : Standard MetFor Dr. Wynne's class (22 students), 71% of the studentsanswered the target questions correctly. (09/15/2017)


Action: Clarify the Standard versusthe Target. (02/06/2017)Action Category: SLO/PLOAssessment Process


Action: Clarify the Standard versusSemester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2015-16

Exam/Test/Quiz - Data werecollected separately by Dr. Wynne &Dr. Himsel. Each involved multiplechoice exam items reflecting SLO#1.One example is included below.

(Q) Which type of research design isintended to avoid the shortcomingsof both cross-sectional andlongitudinal studies by combiningfeatures of both?(A) Sequential design




the Target. (02/06/2017)Action Category: SLO/PLOAssessment Process

(Spring 2016)Standard Met? : Standard MetFor Dr. Wynne's class (31 students), 70% of the studentsanswered the target questions correctly. (09/08/2016)

Faculty Assessment Leader: Amy Himsel, Ph.D.

Action: Clarify the Standard versusthe Target; consider detailing theAssessment Items in a separateDocument. (01/18/2016)Action Category: SLO/PLOAssessment Process


Faculty Assessment Leader: Michael Wynne, Ph.D.




Action: Review and retain courseactivities (e.g., lecture material,class activity, audio/videomaterial) that may contribute tothis success, and consideradditional activities that mayfurther student success beyondthe SLO target. (08/31/2015)Action Category: TeachingStrategies







Standard and Target for Success:Standard and Target for Success: Forboth Dr. Wynne & Dr. Himsel, it isexpected that 70% of students willanswer the target items correctly.

Exam/Test/Quiz - Data werecollected separately by Dr. Wynne &Dr. Himsel. Each involved multiplechoice exam items reflecting SLO#1.One example is included below.(Q) Which type of research design isintended to avoid the shortcomingsof both cross-sectional andlongitudinal studies by combiningfeatures of both?(A) Sequential design


% of Success for this SLO: 0Faculty Assessment Leader: Richard Mascolo, Ph.D.

Action: contact instructors fromlast spring (09/14/2018)Action Category: SLO/PLOAssessment Process

Semester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2017-18(Spring 2018)Standard Met? : Standard Not Metpending (09/14/2018)

Exam/Test/Quiz - Dr. Himselcollected multiple choice exam itemsreflecting SLO#1. One example isincluded below.(Q) Which type of research design isintended to avoid the shortcomingsof both cross-sectional andlongitudinal studies by combiningfeatures of both?(A) Sequential design




Exam/Test/Quiz - Data werecollected by Dr. Himsel across twosections of Psychology 16, usingmultiple choice exam itemsreflecting SLO#1. One example isincluded below.(Q) Which type of research design isintended to avoid the shortcomingsof both cross-sectional andlongitudinal studies by combining




features of both?(A) Sequential design

SLO #2 Fundamental Principles - Onexamination (e.g., m/c, T/F, fill-in,matching, essay), written essay,research paper, and/or oralpresentation, students will be able toidentify, explain, and compare theseaspects of the major theoreticalperspectives of lifespan development:main focus, key concepts, and basicassumptions.




Standard and Target for Success: Forboth Dr. Wynne & Dr. Himsel, it isexpected that an average of 70% ofstudents will answer the target itemscorrectly.






Semester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2017-18(Spring 2018)Standard Met? : Standard MetFor Dr. Himsel's class, (90 students), 88% of the studentsanswered the target questions correctly (09/14/2018)


Action: RTeview CCC Initiatives(02/28/2018)Action Category:Program/College Support

Semester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2016-17(Spring 2017)Standard Met? : Standard MetFor Dr. Himsel's class, (76 students), 84% of the studentsanswered the target questions correctly. (09/15/2017)



Semester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2016-17(Spring 2017)Standard Met? : Standard MetFor Dr. Wynne's class, (22 students), 72% of the studentsanswered the target questions correctly (09/15/2017)



Semester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2015-16(Spring 2016)Standard Met? : Standard MetFor Dr. Himsel's class, (86 students), 84% of the studentsanswered the target questions correctly. (09/08/2016)

Exam/Test/Quiz - Data werecollected separately by Dr. Wynne &Dr. Himsel. Each involved multiplechoice exam items reflecting SLO#2,for example:

(Q) What term did Bronfenbrenneruse to describe the impact of thespecific time in history on a person'sdevelopment?(A) Chronosystem




Action: In a class of 31 students,the difference between the Target(70% of the students meeting theStandard) and the results (52%met the standard) was 5 students,suggesting the need for a minoradjustment inpresenting/emphasizing thismaterial. (02/06/2017)Action Category: TeachingStrategies

Semester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2015-16(Spring 2016)Standard Met? : Standard Not MetFor Dr. Wynne's class, (31 students), 52% of the studentsanswered the target questions correctly. (09/08/2016)





Action: Clarify the Standard versusthe Target; consider detailing theAssessment Items in a separateDocument. (01/18/2016)Action Category: SLO/PLOAssessment ProcessAction: In a class of 37 students,the difference between the Target(70% of students meeting theStandard) and Dr. Wynn's results(55% met the Standard) was 6students, suggesting the need fora minor adjustment inpresenting/emphasizing thismaterial (01/18/2016)Action Category: TeachingStrategies

Semester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2014-15(Spring 2015)Standard Met? : Standard Not Met For Dr. Wynne's class (37 students), 55% of the studentsanswered the target questions correctly. (09/10/2015)

Action: Review assessment data todetermine the reason for thisoutlier. (08/31/2015)Action Category: SLO/PLO

Semester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2013-14(Spring 2014)Standard Met? : Standard Not MetFor Dr. Wynne's class (47 students), 50% of the students



Faculty Assessment Leader: Michael Wynne, Ph.D.Assessment Processanswered the target questions correctly. (09/12/2014)


Action: Review and retain courseactivities (e.g., lecture material,class activity, audio/videomaterial) that may contribute tothis success, and consideradditional activities that mayfurther student success beyondthe SLO target (08/31/2015)Action Category: TeachingStrategies

Semester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2013-14(Spring 2014)Standard Met? : Standard MetFor Dr. HImsel's class (57 students), 82% of the studentsanswered the target questions correctly. (09/12/2014)

Standard and Target for Success:Standard and Target for Success: Forboth Dr. Wynne & Dr. Himsel, it isexpected that an average of 70% ofstudents will answer the target itemscorrectly.

Exam/Test/Quiz - Data werecollected separately by Dr. Wynne &Dr. Himsel. Each involved multiplechoice exam items reflecting SLO#2,for example:(Q) _______ theory is regarded asone of the first lifespan views ofdevelopment.(A) Erikson’s

Standard and Target for Success: Itis expected that an average of 70%


Action: contact instructors fromlast spring (09/14/2018)Action Category: SLO/PLOAssessment Process


Exam/Test/Quiz - Dr. Himselcollected multiple choice exam itemsreflecting SLO#2, for example:(Q) _______ theory is regarded asone of the first lifespan views ofdevelopment.(A) Erikson’s



of students will answer the targetitems correctly.

Standard and Target for Success: Itis expected that an average of 70%of students will answer the targetitems correctly.




Exam/Test/Quiz - Data werecollected by Dr. Himsel across twosections of Psychology 16, usingmultiple choice exam itemsreflecting SLO#2. One example isincluded below.(Q) _______ theory is regarded asone of the first lifespan views ofdevelopment.(A) Erikson’s

SLO #3 Everyday Application - Onexamination (e.g., m/c, T/F, fill-in,matching, essay), written essay,research paper, and/or oralpresentation, students will be able toapply fundamental lifespan principles(e.g., temperament, attachment,personality, parental style,milestones, interpersonal and familialrelationship) in their efforts tounderstand everyday life experiences(e.g., child rearing, bereavement).




Standard and Target for Success: Forboth Drs. Wynne & Himsel. For both,It is expected that a class average of70% will be achieved.



Semester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2018-19(Spring 2019)Standard Met? : Standard MetAcross the 78 students who completed the written essay,the class average on the Development Analysis Paper was89% (09/13/2019)



Semester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2017-18(Spring 2018)Standard Met? : Standard MetFor Dr. Himsel's class (74 students), the class average on thedevelopment analysis was 93%. (09/14/2018)



Semester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2016-17(Spring 2017)Standard Met? : Standard MetFor Dr. Himsel's class (76 students), the class average on thedevelopment analysis was 90%. (09/15/2017)

Multiple Assessments - Data werecollected separately by Drs. Wynne& Himsel. Dr. Wynne's involvedmultiple choice exam itemsreflecting SLO#3; Dr. Himsel'sinvolved a developmental analysispaper in which students analyze adevelopment-focused documentaryfilm or an interview of a professionalworking in a development-relatedfield using material from the course.





Semester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2016-17(Spring 2017)Standard Met? : Standard MetFor Dr. Wynne's class (31 students), 72% of the studentsanswered the target questions correctly (09/15/2017)



Semester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2015-16(Spring 2016)Standard Met? : Standard MetFor Dr. Himsel's class (84 students), 95% of the studentswho wrote the paper earned a C or higher. The classaverage on the development analysis was 88%.(09/08/2016)






Semester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2014-15(Spring 2015)Standard Met? : Standard MetFor Dr. Himsel's class (66 students), 100% of the studentswho wrote the paper earned a C or higher. The classaverage on the development analysis paper was 92%.(09/10/2015)




Action: Review and retain courseactivities (e.g., lecture material,class activity, audio/videomaterial) that may contribute to

Semester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2013-14(Spring 2014)Standard Met? : Standard MetFor Dr. Wynne's class (47 students),76% of the studentsanswered the target questions correctly. (09/12/2014)



Faculty Assessment Leader: Michael Wynne, Ph.D.this success, and consideradditional activities that mayfurther student success beyondthe SLO target. (08/31/2015)Action Category: TeachingStrategies



Semester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2013-14(Spring 2014)Standard Met? : Standard MetFor Dr. Himsel's class (34 students), the class average on thedevelopment analysis paper was 87%. (09/12/2014)

Standard and Target for Success:TestAdditional Information: Test

Case Study - Test

Standard and Target for Success: Forboth Drs. Wynne & Himsel, it isexpected that a class average of 70%will be achieved

Exam/Test/Quiz - Data werecollected separately by Drs. Wynne& Himsel. Dr. Wynne's involvedmultiple choice exam itemsreflecting SLO#3; Dr. Himsel'sinvolved a developmental analysispaper in which students analyze adevelopment-focused documentaryfilm or an interview of a professionalworking in a development-relatedfield using material from the course

Action: contact spring instructors(09/14/2018)Action Category: SLO/PLOAssessment Process


Essay/Written Assignment - Dr.Himsel's collected data via adevelopmental analysis paper inwhich students analyze a



Standard and Target for Success: Itis expected that a class average of70% will be achieved.


development-focused documentaryfilm or an interview of a professionalworking in a development-relatedfield using material from the course.

Standard and Target for Success: Itis expected that a class average of70% will be achieved.



Semester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2018-19(Spring 2019)Standard Met? : Standard MetAcross the 78 students who completed the written essay,the class average on the Development Analysis Paper was89% (09/13/2019)

Essay/Written Assignment -Students wrote a DevelopmentalAnalysis Paper in which theyanalyzed real-life material (from adocumentary film or an interview ofa professional working in adevelopment-related field) usingmaterial from the course.


ECC: PSYC 2:Psychology of Effective Living


SLO #1 Logic of the Scientific Method- Logic of the Scientific Method: Onexamination students will be able todemonstrate a fundamentalunderstanding of psychologicalresearch and methodology.

Course SLO Assessment Cycle: 2013-14 (Spring 2014), 2014-15 (Spring2015), 2015-16 (Spring 2016), 2016-17 (Spring 2017), 2018-19 (Spring2019), 2019-20 (Spring 2020)



Standard and Target for Success: Itis expected that the overall score ofthe class will average 70%.

% of Success for this SLO: 90Faculty Assessment Leader: Richard Mascolo, Ph.DFaculty Contributing to Assessment: Lorrie Kato, Ph.D.Related Documents:Psychology 2 Assessment Questions_Results Spring2019.docx

Action: From this point forwardPsych 2 SLO Leader will be JulioFarias, M.A. (09/30/2020)Action Category: SLO/PLOAssessment Process

Semester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2018-19(Spring 2019)Standard Met? : Standard MetTable 2 shows 90% of students met the standard SLO#1,and Table 3 shows 98% of students met the standards for atleast 2 of the 3 SLO's (09/14/2019)

% of Success for this SLO: 100Faculty Assessment Leader: Lorrie Kato, Ph.D.Faculty Contributing to Assessment: Richard Mascolo,Ph.D.

Semester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2017-18(Spring 2018)Standard Met? : Standard MetThe primary assessment method was constructed bysampling Spring 18 assignments representing each of the 3SLOs; one assignment was fill-in-the-blank, the other twowere short essays, and all were scored on a 0-5 scale (seeTable 1). Each student's score was recorded for each of the3 SLOs, as was the Course (Letter) Grade.

For Dr. Kato’s classes, Table 2 shows 76% of Section 4186students and 91% of Section 4188 students met thestandard SLO#1, and Table 3 shows 90% of Section 4186students and 86% of Section 4188 students met thestandards for at least 2 of the 3 SLO's (09/14/2018)

Faculty Assessment Leader: Julio Farias, M.A.Related Documents:

Action: Review lecture materialmaking the case for theimportance of scientific skepticismespecially in applied course likethis. (02/27/2015)Action Category: Teaching

Semester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2013-14(Spring 2014)Standard Met? : Standard Not MetThe overall average of the class was 60.1% (09/12/2014)

Exam/Test/Quiz - Assessment wasobtained using a multiple choiceexam measuring studentunderstanding of researchmethodology, ethics, and skepticism.


https://elcamino.tracdat.com:443/tracdat/viewDocument?y=EUqZtgHIVMaO



Psychology 2 Assessment Questions/Results Spring2018.docx

Strategies


Faculty Assessment Leader: Richard Mascolo, Ph.D.Faculty Contributing to Assessment: Lorrie Kato, M.A.

Semester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2014-15(Spring 2015)Standard Met? : Standard MetTable 2 shows that 92% of students met the standard forSLO #1, exceeding the target of 67%.Table 3 shows that 96% of students met the standard forthe SLOs as a group, exceeding the target of 67%.(10/03/2015)

Faculty Assessment Leader: Richard Mascolo, Ph.D.Faculty Contributing to Assessment: Lorrie Shiota, M.A.


Faculty Assessment Leader: Richard Mascolo, Ph.D.Faculty Contributing to Assessment: Lorrie Kato


Exam/Test/Quiz - The primaryassessment method was constructedby sampling 15 Spring 15 Exam items– 5 items representing each of the 3SLOs (see Table 1). For each student,the number of correct responseswas tallied and recorded for each ofthe 3 SLOs. Also recorded wereCourse Percentage and Course(Letter) Grades.


Action: Validate AssessmentMeasurement by correlating eachSLO Standard and Target withCourse Percentage (01/27/2017)Action Category: SLO/PLOAssessment Process

Semester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2015-16(Spring 2016)Standard Met? : Standard Met84% of students achieved the Standard for SLO1 (see Table2), and 92% achieved at least 2/3 SLO Standards (see Table3). (09/16/2016)

Multiple Assessments - The primaryassessment method was constructedby sampling a Spring 16 assignmentrepresenting each of the 3 SLOs; oneassignment was fill-in-the-blank, theother two were short essays, and allwere scored on a 0-5 scale (see


https://elcamino.tracdat.com:443/tracdat/viewDocument?y=UGGJ1GNdlIo2



Standard and Target for Success:The standard for each SLO was aminimum 3/5 points The Targetswere: 1) a minimum 67% of studentsmeeting the standard for eachindividual SLO and 2) a minimum67% of students meeting at least 2 ofthe 3 SLO standards.Related Documents:Psych2TablesSp16.docx

Faculty Contributing to Assessment: Lorrie Kato, Ph.D.Related Documents:Psych2TablesSp16.docx

Table 1). Each student's score wasrecorded for each of the 3 SLOs, aswere the Course Percentage andCourse (Letter) Grades. (Active)

Standard and Target for Success:The standard for each SLO was aminimum 3/5 points. The Targetswere:1) a minimum 67% of studentsmeeting the standard for eachindividual SLO and 2) a minimum67% of students meeting thestandards for at least 2 of the 3SLO'S.Related Documents:Psych2SLOTablesSp17.docx

Faculty Assessment Leader: Lorrie Kato, Ph.D.Faculty Contributing to Assessment: Richard Mascolo,Ph.D.

Action: Review CCC Initiatives todetermine how they may impactPsychology 2 (02/28/2018)Action Category: TeachingStrategies

Semester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2016-17(Spring 2017)Standard Met? : Standard MetTable 2 shows 84% of students met the standard each ofthe 3 SLO's, and Table 3 shows 91% met the standards for atleast 2 of the 3 SLO's (09/15/2017)

Multiple Assessments - The primaryassessment method was constructedby sampling Spring 17assignments/exams representingeach of the 3 SLOs; one assignmentwas fill-in-the-blank, the other twowere short essays, and all werescored on a 0-5 scale (see Table 1).Each student's score was recordedfor each of the 3 SLOs, as were theCourse Percentage and Course(Letter) Grades.

Multiple Assessments - The primary


https://elcamino.tracdat.com:443/tracdat/viewDocument?y=8psQlsw21nSy


https://elcamino.tracdat.com:443/tracdat/viewDocument?y=PFcOlgBi1DZE



assessment method was constructedby sampling Spring 18 assignmentsrepresenting each of the 3 SLOs; oneassignment was fill-in-the-blank, theother two were short essays, and allwere scored on a 0-5 scale (seeTable 1). Each student's score wasrecorded for each of the 3 SLOs, aswas the Course (Letter) Grade.

Exam/Test/Quiz - MultipleAssessments The primaryassessment method was constructedby sampling Spring 18 assignmentsrepresenting each of the 3 SLOs; oneassignment was fill-in-the-blank, theother two were short essays, and allwere scored on a 0-5 scale (seeTable 1). Each student's score wasrecorded for each of the 3 SLOs, aswas the Course (Letter) Grade.(Active)Multiple Assessments - The primaryassessment method was constructedby sampling 15 Spring 19 Exam items– 5 items representing each of the 3SLOs (see Table 1). For each student,the number of correct responseswas tallied and recorded for each ofthe 3 SLOs. Also recorded wereCourse Percentage and Course(Letter) Grades.



Standard and Target for Success:The standard for each SLO was aminimum 3 correct responses on the5 items sampled for that SLO. TheTargets were: 1) a minimum 67% ofstudents meeting the standard foreach individual SLO and 2) aminimum 67% of students meetingat least 2 of the 3 SLO standards

SLO #2 Fundamental Principles -Fundamental Principles: Onexamination, students will be able toidentify various assessmentmethodologies, principles andtheories that pertain to modernpersonal, cultural and socialdevelopment functioning.








% of Success for this SLO: 100Faculty Assessment Leader: Lorrie Kato, Ph.D.Faculty Contributing to Assessment: Richard Mascolo, Ph.



Multiple Assessments - Assessmentwas obtained using a multiple choiceexam, four short essays (1-2 pages)measuring student understanding ofpersonality development andadjustment to modern life.





D.Related Documents:Psychology 2 Assessment Questions/Results Spring2018.docx

Faculty Assessment Leader: Julio Farias, M.A.

Action: Review lecture materialand assessment -- considerpossibility that student writingability hampers meeting this SLOstandard. (02/27/2015)Action Category: TeachingStrategies

Semester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2013-14(Spring 2014)Standard Met? : Standard Not MetThe overall class average was 71.8% (09/12/2014)














Faculty Assessment Leader: Richard Mascolo, Ph.D.Faculty Contributing to Assessment: Lorrie Kato, Ph.D.Related Documents:Psych2TablesSp16.docx

Action: Validate AssessmentMeasurement by correlating eachSLO Standard and Target withCourse Percentage (01/27/2017)Action Category: SLO/PLOAssessment Process

Semester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2015-16(Spring 2016)Standard Met? : Standard Met88% of students achieved the Standard for SLO2 (see Table2), and 92% achieved at least 2/3 SLO Standards (see Table3). (09/16/2016)

Multiple Assessments - The primaryassessment method was constructedby sampling a Spring 16 assignmentrepresenting each of the 3 SLOs; oneassignment was fill-in-the-blank, theother two were short essays, and allwere scored on a 0-5 scale (seeTable 1). Each student's score wasrecorded for each of the 3 SLOs, aswere the Course Percentage andCourse (Letter) Grades.

Standard and Target for Success:The standard for each SLO was aminimum 3/5 points. The Targetswere:1) a minimum 67% of students


Action: Review CCC Initiatives anddetermine how they may impactPsychology 2. (02/28/2018)Action Category: TeachingStrategies


84% of students met the standard each of the 3 SLO's, and91% met the standards for at least 2 of the 3 SLO'S (09/15/2017)






meeting the standard for eachindividual SLO and 2) a minimum67% of students meeting at least 2 ofthe 3 SLO standards.Related Documents:Psych2SLOTablesSp17.docx


Multiple Assessments - The primaryassessment method was constructedby sampling Spring 18 assignmentsrepresenting each of the 3 SLOs; oneassignment was fill-in-the-blank, theother two were short essays, and allwere scored on a 0-5 scale (seeTable 1). Each student's score wasrecorded for each of the 3 SLOs, aswas the Course (Letter) Grade.

Standard and Target for Success:The standard for each SLO was aminimum 3 correct responses on the5 items sampled for that SLO. TheTargets were: 1) a minimum 67% of

Multiple Assessments - The primaryassessment method was constructedby sampling 15 Spring 19 Exam items– 5 items representing each of the 3SLOs (see Table 1). For each student,the number of correct responseswas tallied and recorded for each ofthe 3 SLOs. Also recorded wereCourse Percentage and Course(Letter) Grades.




students meeting the standard foreach individual SLO and 2) aminimum 67% of students meetingat least 2 of the 3 SLO standards.

SLO #3 Everyday Application -Everyday Application: Onexamination students will be able todemonstrate an awareness andunderstanding of the personal,cultural, and social factors that affecttheir ability to function in their dailylives.








% of Success for this SLO: 100Faculty Assessment Leader: Lorrie Kato, Ph.D.Faculty Contributing to Assessment: Richard Masolo, Ph.D.Related Documents:Psychology 2 Assessment Questions/Results Spring2018.docx



Action: Compare these resultsSemester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2013-14

Multiple Assessments - Assessmentdata were collected via the Keirsy-Bates Temperament Sorter(available to students on-line), fiveself-assessment exercises tomeasure physical health, levels ofstress, alcohol and drug usage, andself-efficacy (all located within thetext), and a semester project of self-improvement.







Faculty Assessment Leader: Julio Farias, M.A.

with overall Success/Retentionrates for this course to determinethe degree to which the itemsmaking up the assessmentcorrelate with overall studentsuccess. (02/27/2015)Action Category: SLO/PLOAssessment Process

(Spring 2014)Standard Met? : Standard Not MetThe overall score of the class was 72.1% (09/12/2014)


Faculty Assessment Leader: Richard Mascolo, Ph. D.Faculty Contributing to Assessment: Lorrie Kato, M.A.







Action: Validate AssessmentSemester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2015-16Multiple Assessments - The primary




Faculty Assessment Leader: Richard Mascolo, Ph.D.Faculty Contributing to Assessment: Lorrie Kato, Ph.D.Related Documents:Psych2TablesSp16.docx

Measurement by correlating eachSLO Standard and Target withCourse Percentage (01/27/2017)Action Category: SLO/PLOAssessment Process

(Spring 2016)Standard Met? : Standard Met84% of students achieved the Standard for SLO3 (see Table2), and 92% achieved at least 2/3 SLO Standards (see Table3). (09/16/2016)

assessment method was constructedby sampling a Spring 16 assignmentrepresenting each of the 3 SLOs; oneassignment was fill-in-the-blank, theother two were short essays, and allwere scored on a 0-5 scale (seeTable 1). Each student's score wasrecorded for each of the 3 SLOs, aswere the Course Percentage andCourse (Letter) Grades.

Standard and Target for Success:The standard for each SLO was aminimum 3/5 points. The Targetswere:1) a minimum 67% of studentsmeeting the standard for eachindividual SLO and 2) a minimum67% of students meeting the


Action: Review CCC initiatives todetermine whether they mayimpact Psychology 2 (09/15/2017)Action Category: TeachingStrategies

Semester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2016-17(Spring 2017)Standard Met? : Standard Met84% (09/15/2017)






standards for at least 2 of the 3SLO's.Related Documents:Psych2SLOTablesSp17.docx

Standard and Target for Success:Standard and Target for Success: Thestandard for each SLO was aminimum 3/5 points. The Targetswere: 1) a minimum 67% of studentsmeeting the standard for eachindividual SLO and 2) a minimum67% of students meeting thestandards for at least 2 of the 3SLO'S.

Multiple Assessments - The primaryassessment method was constructedby sampling Spring 18 assignmentsrepresenting each of the 3 SLOs; oneassignment was fill-in-the-blank, theother two were short essays, and allwere scored on a 0-5 scale (seeTable 1). Each student's score wasrecorded for each of the 3 SLOs, aswas the Course (Letter) Grade.

Standard and Target for Success:The standard for each SLO was aminimum 3/5 points. The Targetswere:1) a minimum 67% of studentsmeeting the standard for each

Multiple Assessments - The primaryassessment method was constructedby sampling 15 Spring 19 Exam items– 5 items representing each of the 3SLOs (see Table 1). For each student,the number of correct responseswas tallied and recorded for each ofthe 3 SLOs. Also recorded wereCourse Percentage and Course(Letter) Grades.




individual SLO and 2) a minimum67% of students meeting thestandards for at least 2 of the 3SLO'S.


ECC: PSYC 7:Physiological Psychology


SLO #1 Logic of the Scientific Method- On examination (e.g., m/c, T/F, fill-in, matching, essay), written essay,research paper, and/or oralpresentation, students will be able toexplain and evaluate various types ofdata relevant to the biological basis ofbehavior (e.g., experimental versusnon-experimental, human versusinfrahuman, basic versus applied).




Standard and Target for Success:The standard for each SLO was aminimum 3 correct responses on the5 items sampled for that SLO. TheTargets were: 1) a minimum 67% ofstudents meeting the standard foreach individual SLO and 2) aminimum 67% of students meetingat least 2 of the 3 SLO standards(previous standard was 80% -- it waschanged so that the standard foreach individual SLO and the SLOs asa group would be the same).Related Documents:Psych7SLOExamItems(Table1)Sp15.docx


Action: Adjust courserequirements for Psych 7 Fall 2015sections to decrease disparity in Agrades. (08/31/2015)

Follow-Up: Psych 7 Fall 2015Online MIdterm and Final Examshave been adjusted so that Agrades will be harder to earn butpassing grades will not;Oncampus Midterm and FinalExams will not be adjusted, but abrief prep exam will be offeredthat will also add extra creditpoints. (08/11/2015)

Action Category: TeachingStrategies

Action: Identify teaching methodsmost effective in meetingstandard (08/31/2015)

Follow-Up: Section Quizzes standout as the most effective teachingstrategy to increase StudentSuccess (08/11/2015)


Semester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2014-15(Spring 2015)Standard Met? : Standard MetTable 2 shows that 92% of students met the standard forSLO #1, exceeding the target of 67%.

Table 3 shows that 94% of students met the standard forthe SLOs as a group, exceeding the target of 67%.

Also, Figure 1 shows Course Grade comparisons, which nowspans from Spring 2012 to Spring 2015. The data show thatthe percentage of A grades has remained steady in theonline format and has increased slightly in the oncampusformat across these four semesters. Nonetheless,percentage of A grades remains much greater for the onlineformat compared to the oncampus format. The cumulativegrade differential decreases and then disappears when thecomparison extends to B and then to C grades, so thesuccess rate is similar across the two formats. Nonetheless,the differential in A grades cannot be ignored.

Finally, Table 4 shows that, not surprisingly, the highestcorrelations with Course Percentage are Final ExamPercentage and Section Quiz Percentage; individually theyaccount for 55% and 63% of the variability in CoursePercentage, respectively. The SLOs can be expected tocorrelate highly with Course Percentage is sampled fromFinal Exam items. Still, it is noteworthy that the SLO#2correlation is much higher than the other two and accountsfor 31% of the variability in Course Percentage.

(07/29/2015)

Action: Extend data analysis inorder to hone in on effectiveteaching strategies that may beapplied to SLO #1 material

Semester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2013-14(Spring 2014)Standard Met? : Standard MetThe target of 67% was exceeded --72% of students met the

Exam/Test/Quiz - The primaryassessment method was constructedby sampling 15 Spring 15 On campusFinal Exam items – 5 itemsrepresenting each of the 3 SLOs.These items were the same as thoseused in the Spring 14 Assessmentwith the exception of one item eachfor SLO#1 and SLO#2 (see Table 1).For each student taking the FinalExam, the number of correctresponses was tallied and recordedfor each of the 3 SLOs. Also recordedwere Course Percentage, Final ExamPercentage, and Section QuizPercentage. Finally, Course (Letter)Grades were recorded for bothoncampus and online students.


https://elcamino.tracdat.com:443/tracdat/viewDocument?y=PRMKBiM1sVbQ



Faculty Assessment Leader: Richard Mascolo, Ph.D.Related Documents:Psych7Sp14SLO_Items_Tables_Figs_9_25_14

(02/27/2015)

Follow-Up: Data analysisextended to Spring 2015 SLOassessment (08/12/2015)


standard for SLO #1, so the standard was met (see Table 2).

In addition, the target of 80% was exceeded -- 88% ofstudents met the standard for 2 or more SLOs, so thisstandard was met as well (see Table 3). (09/12/2014)

Faculty Assessment Leader: Richard Mascolo, Ph.D.Faculty Contributing to Assessment: Kim Nguyen, M.A.Related Documents:Psych7SLOTablesSp16.docx

Action: First and foremost theissue of Standardization will beaddressed. (12/16/2016)Action Category: SLO/PLOAssessment Process

Semester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2015-16(Spring 2016)Standard Met? : Standard MetTables 2 and 3 show that the Targets for SLOs individuallyand combined were met in Section 1 but not in Section 2, sothe Section Target was met.

These results are not surprising inasmuch as the Section 1Instructor has been developing the SLO Assessment Itemsas part of the Final Exam, whereas the Section 2 Instructorwas asked to help preserve continuity of data byadministering a separate quiz following the Section 2 FinalExam. So, there is no Standardization in this SLOassessment save the actual assessment items themselves.

Despite the fact that Section 2 did not meet any of the SLOTargets, Table 4 shows the Section 2 Success Rate andRetention Rate were very high in their own right and indeedoutpaced those of Section 1 (09/16/2016)

Exam/Test/Quiz - A 15-itemAssessment with 5 items measuringeach of 3 SLOs was pulled from theon campus Final Exam. This is nowreferred to as Section 1, because forthe first time in over 2 decades, asecond on campus Section taught bya different instructor was offered. Inorder to extend the data collectionto this Section 2 without dictatingFinal Exam content, the same itemswere delivered as a separateAssessment that was administeredfollowing the Section 2 Final Exam.

Table 1 shows the Assessmentcontent; whichever way it wasdelivered: the Assessment itemsspecific to SLO #1 are items 1-5; theAssessment items specific to SLO #2are items 6-10; the Assessmentitems specific to SLO #3 are items11-15

Also recorded for Assessment werestudent grades (defined as CoursePercentage), Success Rates (definedas percentage of final enrollmentassigned As, Bs, or Cs), andRetention Rates (defined as finalenrollment compared to enrollmentmaximum of 50).


https://elcamino.tracdat.com:443/tracdat/viewDocument?y=ArbJAJ74Lyzp

https://elcamino.tracdat.com:443/tracdat/viewDocument?y=JJ1nZZ1MZosr


Standard and Target for Success:The Standard defined for each SLOwas a minimum 3/5 (60%) correctanswers. The Target for each SLOwas a minimum 66% of studentsmeeting the Standard. The Target forthe SLOs combined was a minimum66% of students meeting at least 2 ofthe 3 SLO Standards. The Target forthe Sections was a minimum 1 of 2(50%) meeting each Target.Related Documents:Psych7SLOTablesSp16.docx

Standard and Target for Success:Standard and Target for Success: TheStandard defined for each SLO was aminimum 3/5 (60%) correct answers.The Target for each SLO was aminimum 66% of students meetingthe Standard. The Target for theSLOs combined was a minimum 66%of students meeting at least 2 of the3 SLO Standards.


Action: Finalize analysis(11/30/2017)Action Category: SLO/PLOAssessment Process

Semester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2016-17(Spring 2017)Standard Met? : Standard Not MetThe data have been collected and tallied but not preparedfor analysis or presentation (09/15/2017)

Exam/Test/Quiz - A 15-itemAssessment with 5 items measuringeach of 3 SLOs was pulled from theFinal Exam.

Standard and Target for Success:The standard for each SLO was aminimum 3 correct responses on the5 items sampled for that SLO. The


Semester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2017-18(Spring 2018)Standard Met? : Standard Not MetTable 2 shows 40% of Section 2850 students and 28% ofSection 2852 students met the standard for SLO#1.Neither section met the standard, so the Target was notmet. (09/14/2018)




https://elcamino.tracdat.com:443/tracdat/viewDocument?y=rdVfux5K724o


Target was that at least one of twosections would meet this Target: aminimum 67% of students meetingthe standard for each individual SLO.

Standard and Target for Success:The Target was that at least one oftwo sections would meet this Target:a minimum 67% of students meetingat least 2 of the 3 SLO standards.

% of Success for this SLO: 50Faculty Assessment Leader: Richard Mascoklo, Ph.D.Related Documents:Psych7SLOTablesSp18.docx

Semester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2017-18(Spring 2018)Standard Met? : Standard MetTable 3 shows 40% of Section 2850 students and 78% ofSection 2852 students met the standards for at least 2 ofthe 3 SLO's. One section met the standard, so the Targetwas met. (09/14/2018)

Exam/Test/Quiz - A 15-itemmultiple-choice assessment wasconstructed with 5 items measuringeach of 3 SLOs and spanning theentire semester. Table 1 shows theAssessment: specific to SLO #1 areitems 1-5; specific to SLO #2 areitems 6-10; specific to SLO #3 areitems 11-15

Standard and Target for Success:The Standard defined for each SLOwas a minimum 3/5 (60%) correctanswers. The Target for each SLOwas a minimum 66% of studentsmeeting the Standard. The Target forthe SLOs combined was a minimum66% of students meeting at least 2 ofthe 3 SLO Standards.

% of Success for this SLO: 85Faculty Assessment Leader: Richard Mascolo, Ph.DFaculty Contributing to Assessment: Richard Mascolo,Ph.D.

Action: Standardize number ofpossible answers (e.g., T/F = 2) foritems across the 3 SLOs.(05/01/2020)Action Category: SLO/PLOAssessment Process

Semester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2018-19(Spring 2019)Standard Met? : Standard Met85% of students met the standard for SLO #1 (see Table 2)(09/12/2019)

Exam/Test/Quiz - A 15-itemAssessment with 5 items measuringeach of 3 SLOs was pulled from theFinal Exam. The Assessment itemsspecific to SLO #1 are items 1-5; theAssessment items specific to SLO #2are items 6-10; the Assessmentitems specific to SLO #3 are items11-15 (see Table 1).

SLO #2 Fundamental Principles - Onexamination (e.g., m/c, T/F, fill-in,matching, essay), written essay,

Action: Standardize number ofpossible answers (e.g., T/F = 2) for


Exam/Test/Quiz - The primaryassessment method was constructedby sampling 15 Spring 15 On campus




research paper, and/or oralpresentation, students will be able toidentify and explain basic nervoussystem structures (e.g., neural andglial cells; brain stem and forebrain;meninges and blood-brain barrier)and functions (e.g., resting and actionpotentials; excitatory and inhibitorypostsynaptic potentials; sensorytransduction; agonistic andantagonistic drug effects).






items across the 3 SLOs.(05/01/2020)Action Category: SLO/PLOAssessment Process

Standard Met? : Standard Met88% of students met the standard for SLO #1 (see Table 2)(09/12/2019)


Action: Identify teaching methodsmost effective in meetingstandard (08/11/2015)




Table 3 shows that 94% of students met the standard forthe SLOs as a group, exceeding the target of 67%.(07/29/2015)

Faculty Assessment Leader: Richard Mascolo

Action: The target was met,though just barely; teachingstrategies will be evaluated toincrease achievement of SLOtarget (02/27/2015)

Follow-Up: Assessment ofteaching strategies was extendedto Spring 2015 SLO Assessment(08/12/2015)


Semester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2013-14(Spring 2014)Standard Met? : Standard MetThe target of 67% was exceeded --68% of students met thestandard for SLO #2, so the standard was met (see Table 2).


Final Exam items – 5 itemsrepresenting each of the 3 SLOs.These items were the same as thoseused in the Spring 14 Assessmentwith the exception of one item eachfor SLO#1 and SLO#2 (see Table 1).For each student taking the FinalExam, the number of correctresponses was tallied and recordedfor each of the 3 SLOs. Also recordedwere Course Percentage, Final ExamPercentage, and Section QuizPercentage. Finally, Course (Letter)Grades were recorded for bothoncampus and online students.



These results are not surprising inasmuch as the Section 1Instructor has been developing the SLO Assessment Items

Exam/Test/Quiz - A 15-itemAssessment with 5 items measuringeach of 3 SLOs was pulled from theon campus Final Exam. This is nowreferred to as Section 1, because forthe first time in over 2 decades, asecond on campus Section taught bya different instructor was offered. Inorder to extend the data collection





Standard and Target for Success:The Standard defined for each SLOwas a minimum 3/5 (60%) correctanswers. The Target for each SLOwas a minimum 66% of studentsmeeting the Standard. The Target forthe SLOs combined was a minimum66% of students meeting at least 2 ofthe 3 SLO Standards. The Target forthe Sections was a minimum 1 of 2(50%) meeting each TargetRelated Documents:Psych7SLOTablesSp16.docx

Faculty Assessment Leader: Richard Mascolo, Ph.D.Faculty Contributing to Assessment: Kim Nguyen, M.A.Related Documents:Psych7SLOTablesSp16.docx

as part of the Final Exam, whereas the Section 2 Instructorwas asked to help preserve continuity of data byadministering a separate quiz following the Section 2 FinalExam. So, there is no Standardization in this SLOassessment save the actual assessment items themselves.

Despite the fact that Section 2 did not meet any of the SLOTargets, Table 4 shows the Section 2 Success Rate andRetention Rate were very high in their own right and indeedoutpaced those of Section 1. (09/16/2016)

to this Section 2 without dictatingFinal Exam content, the same itemswere delivered as a separateAssessment that was administeredfollowing the Section 2 Final Exam.

Table 1 shows the Assessmentcontent; whichever way it wasdelivered: the Assessment itemsspecific to SLO #1 are items 1-5; theAssessment items specific to SLO #2are items 6-10; the Assessmentitems specific to SLO #3 are items11-15


Action: Finish analysis(11/30/2017)Action Category: SLO/PLOAssessment Process

Semester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2016-17(Spring 2017)Standard Met? : Standard Not MetThe data have been collected and tallied but not prepared







Faculty Assessment Leader: Richard Mascolo, Ph.D.for analysis or presentation (09/15/2017)

Standard and Target for Success:The standard for each SLO was aminimum 3 correct responses on the5 items sampled for that SLO. TheTarget was that at least one of twosections would meet this Target: aminimum 67% of students meetingthe standard for each individual SLO.


Semester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2017-18(Spring 2018)Standard Met? : Standard MetTable 2 shows 47% of Section 2850 students and 83% ofSection 2852 students met the standard for SLO#2. Onesection met the standard, so the Target was met.(09/14/2018)

Exam/Test/Quiz - A 15-item multiplechoice assessment was constructedwith 5 items measuring each of 3SLOs and spanning the entiresemester. Table 1 shows theAssessment: specific to SLO #1 areitems 1-5; specific to SLO #2 areitems 6-10; specific to SLO #3 areitems 11-15.

Standard and Target for Success:The Target was that at least one oftwo sections would meet this Target:





a minimum 67% of students meetingat least 2 of the 3 SLO standards.

Standard and Target for Success:The Standard defined for each SLOwas a minimum 3/5 (60%) correctanswers. The Target for each SLOwas a minimum 66% of studentsmeeting the Standard. The Target forthe SLOs combined was a minimum66% of students meeting at least 2 ofthe 3 SLO Standards.Related Documents:Psych7SLOTablesSp19.docx

Exam/Test/Quiz - A 15-itemAssessment with 5 items measuringeach of 3 SLOs was pulled from theFinal Exam. Table 1 shows theAssessment content; the Assessmentitems specific to SLO #1 are items 1-5; the Assessment items specific toSLO #2 are items 6-10; theAssessment items specific to SLO #3are items 11-15 (see Table 1).

SLO #3 Everyday Application - Onexamination (e.g., m/c, T/F, fill-in,matching, essay), written essay,research paper, and/or oralpresentation, students will be able toapply fundamental psycho-psychological principles in theirefforts to understand everyday lifeexperiences (e.g., weight control,sexual behavior, insomnia; copingwith cognitive decline).

Course SLO Assessment Cycle: 2013-14 (Spring 2014), 2014-15 (Spring2015), 2015-16 (Spring 2016), 2016-



Action: Standardize number ofpossible answers (e.g., T/F = 2) foritems across the 3 SLOs.(05/01/2020)Action Category: SLO/PLOAssessment Process

Semester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2018-19(Spring 2019)Standard Met? : Standard Met100% of students met the standard for SLO #1 (see Table 2)(09/12/2019)

Action: Identify teaching methodsmost effective in meetingstandard (08/11/2015)Action Category: TeachingStrategies


Exam/Test/Quiz - The primaryassessment method was constructedby sampling 15 Spring 15 On campusFinal Exam items – 5 itemsrepresenting each of the 3 SLOs.These items were the same as thoseused in the Spring 14 Assessmentwith the exception of one item eachfor SLO#1 and SLO#2 (see Table 1).For each student taking the FinalExam, the number of correctresponses was tallied and recordedfor each of the 3 SLOs. Also recordedwere Course Percentage, Final ExamPercentage, and Section Quiz


https://elcamino.tracdat.com:443/tracdat/viewDocument?y=iQ8b1QESNcwp


17 (Spring 2017), 2018-19 (Spring2019), 2019-20 (Spring 2020)Input Date: 03/25/2014




Table 3 shows that 94% of students met the standard forthe SLOs as a group, exceeding the target of 67%. (07/29/2015)


Action: Extend data analysis inorder to hone in on effectiveteaching strategies that may beapplied to bolster SLO #3 material(02/27/2015)

Follow-Up: Assessment ofteaching strategies was extendedto Spring 2015 SLO Assessment(08/12/2015)


Semester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2013-14(Spring 2014)Standard Met? : Standard MetThe target of 67% was exceeded --89% of students met thestandard for SLO #3, so the standard was met (see Table 2).


Percentage. Finally, Course (Letter)Grades were recorded for bothoncampus and online students.

Faculty Assessment Leader: Richard Mascolo, Ph.D.Faculty Contributing to Assessment: Kim Nguyen, M.A.



These results are not surprising inasmuch as the Section 1Instructor has been developing the SLO Assessment Itemsas part of the Final Exam, whereas the Section 2 Instructorwas asked to help preserve continuity of data byadministering a separate quiz following the Section 2 FinalExam. So, there is no Standardization in this SLOassessment save the actual assessment items themselves.

Despite the fact that Section 2 did not meet any of the SLOTargets, Table 4 shows the Section 2 Success Rate andRetention Rate were very high in their own right and indeedoutpaced those of Section 1. (09/16/2016)

Exam/Test/Quiz - A 15-itemAssessment with 5 items measuringeach of 3 SLOs was pulled from theon campus Final Exam. This is nowreferred to as Section 1, because forthe first time in over 2 decades, asecond on campus Section taught bya different instructor was offered. Inorder to extend the data collectionto this Section 2 without dictatingFinal Exam content, the same itemswere delivered as a separateAssessment that was administeredfollowing the Section 2 Final Exam.

Table 1 shows the Assessmentcontent; whichever way it wasdelivered: the Assessment itemsspecific to SLO #1 are items 1-5; theAssessment items specific to SLO #2are items 6-10; the Assessment





Standard and Target for Success:The Standard defined for each SLOwas a minimum 3/5 (60%) correctanswers. The Target for each SLOwas a minimum 66% of studentsmeeting the Standard. The Target forthe SLOs combined was a minimum66% of students meeting at least 2 ofthe 3 SLO Standards. The Target forthe Sections was a minimum 1 of 2(50%) meeting each Target.Related Documents:Psych7SLOTablesSp16.docx


items specific to SLO #3 are items11-15




Action: Finish analysis(11/30/2017)Action Category: SLO/PLOAssessment Process

Semester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2016-17(Spring 2017)Standard Met? : Standard Not MetThe data have been collected and tallied but not preparedfor analysis or presentation (09/15/2017)


Semester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2017-18Exam/Test/Quiz - A 15-item





Standard and Target for Success:The standard for each SLO was aminimum 3 correct responses on the5 items sampled for that SLO. TheTarget was that at least one of twosections would meet this Target: aminimum 67% of students meetingthe standard for each individual SLO.


(Spring 2018)Standard Met? : Standard Met60 %& 89% (09/14/2018)

multiple-choice assessment wasconstructed with 5 items measuringeach of 3 SLOs and spanning theentire semester. Table 1 shows theAssessment: specific to SLO #1 areitems 1-5; specific to SLO #2 areitems 6-10; specific to SLO #3 areitems 11-15.

Standard and Target for Success:The Target was that at least one oftwo sections would meet this Target:a minimum 67% of students meetingat least 2 of the 3 SLO standards.


Exam/Test/Quiz - A 15-itemAssessment with 5 items measuringeach of 3 SLOs was pulled from theFinal Exam. Table 1 shows theAssessment content; the Assessmentitems specific to SLO #1 are items 1-5; the Assessment items specific toSLO #2 are items 6-10; theAssessment items specific to SLO #3are items 11-15 (see Table 1).



Standard and Target for Success:The Standard defined for each SLOwas a minimum 3/5 (60%) correctanswers. The Target for each SLOwas a minimum 66% of studentsmeeting the Standard. The Target forthe SLOs combined was a minimum66% of students meeting at least 2 ofthe 3 SLO Standards.Related Documents:Psych7SLOTablesSp19.docx


https://elcamino.tracdat.com:443/tracdat/viewDocument?y=iQ8b1QESNcwp

ECC: PSYC 9B:Experimental Methods in the Study of Behavior


SLO #1 Logic of the Scientific Method- On examination (e.g., m/c, T/F, fill-in, matching, essay), written essay,research paper, and/or oralpresentation, students will be able toexplain and critique essentialcomponents of the scientific methodin psychological research.




Standard and Target for Success:Course grades of D or F areconsidered failures because they donot transfer to 4-year institutions.Midterm or course numerical scoresbelow 70% are considered failuresfor the same reason.Related Documents:Psych9BSLO_Sp15_8_5.docx


Action: Increase lecture and labemphasis on the scientific methodas it relates to research methodsin psychology. (02/15/2020)Action Category: TeachingStrategies

Semester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2018-19(Spring 2019)Standard Met? : Standard Not Met19% of students correctly answered the Final Exam Itemmeasuring SLO #1 (09/12/2019)

Action: Continue collecting thesedata in Spring 2015 but add dataspecific to SLO#1 (05/01/2015)

Follow-Up: Spring 2014 data wereextended to Spring 2015. Finalexam items were used to add anSLO#1-specific assessment toSpring 2015. (08/09/2015)


Semester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2013-14(Spring 2014)Standard Met? : Standard Not MetTable 1 summarizes the course characteristics andcompares midterm and course percentage D/Fs for 2011-2014. Tables 2 & 3 show the results of statistical analysiscomparing results across the 4 Spring semesters.At its core, data analysis is used to estimate populationparameters based on sample statistics, and virtually allstudies in the social & behavioral sciences rely on samplesthat are very small compared to the populations theypurportedly represent. This SLO assessment is noexception, and so the validity of the statistics presentedabove must be scrutinized carefully. In addition, theinterpretation of data analysis never includes cause andeffect conclusions; these are justified solely by researchmethodology.

Keeping in mind these statistical and methodologicallimitations, the meaning of these data can be clarified inthis way:

First glance of the difference between 2012 open-bookmidterm grades and 2013 closed-book midterm gradeswould seem to show a severe drop off. However, addingthe 2011 semester to the comparison muddies the waters –though open-book, the D/F % is the same as that of theclosed-book 2013 semester. In fact, analysis of numerical

Exam/Test/Quiz - Given thesedevelopments and the concern thathas emerged, this semester’s courseassessment compared midtermexam and final course scores acrossthe 2011, 2012, 2013, and now 2014spring semesters at ECC.


https://elcamino.tracdat.com:443/tracdat/viewDocument?y=YvcAM3YdW3u8


Faculty Assessment Leader: Richard Mascolo, Ph.D.Faculty Contributing to Assessment: Richard Mascolo,Ph.D., Kim Nguyen, M.A.

scores shows that 2012 was significantly higher than both2011 and 2013 scores, the latter two being statistically thesame. Also complicating the picture is the addition ofSpring 2014 data: though the 2014 average midtermpercentage is the same as that of Spring 2013 – thus joiningthe significant drop-off from 2012s open-book midterm, the2014 average course percentage landed squarely inbetween those of 2013 and 2012 – statisticallyindistinguishable from either and so serving as a counter-example to the “open-book advantage” possibility.

There is no observable trend in these data. Thus, the effectsof open- versus closed-book exams and, for that matter,one- versus two-instructors are not at all clear. What isclear is the unacceptably high rates of D/F grades in themiddle of what should be the final semester beforepsychology students transfer to 4-year institutions. (09/12/2014)


Faculty Assessment Leader: Richard Mascolo, Ph.D.Faculty Contributing to Assessment: Richard Mascolo,Ph.D. Kim Nguyen, M.A.

Action: Re-evaluate validity ofSLO#1 items (02/01/2016)Action Category: SLO/PLOAssessment Process


Action: R. Mascolo and K. Nguyenreview and interpret resultsfocusing on assessment validity(08/31/2015)Action Category: SLO/PLOAssessment Process

Semester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2014-15(Spring 2015)Standard Met? : Standard MetTable 4 shows that, not surprisingly, Midterm and FinalExam Percentages are both highly correlated with CoursePercentage; individually they account for 80% and 67% ofthe variability in Course Percentage, respectively. Theaverage of these two exams comprises the Lecture Grade

Exam/Test/Quiz - Table 1 shows the15-item assessment (5 items foreach of 3 SLOs) For each studenttaking the Final Exam, the number ofcorrect responses was tallied andrecorded for each of the 3 SLOs. Alsorecorded were Course Percentage,Midterm Exam Percentage, FinalExam Percentage, Exam AveragePercentage, and Lab Percentage.



Related Documents:Psych9BSLOItems(Table1)Sp15.docxPsych9BSLO_Sp15_8_5.docx


(75% of Course Percentage), so it is again there is nosurprise in reporting that Average Exam Percentageaccounts for 98% of the variability in Course Percentage.

Table 4 also shows that Lab Percentage, weighted 25% inthe calculation of Course Percentage, accounts for 16percent of its variability.

The SLO scores can also be expected to correlate highly withCourse Percentage, though to a lesser degree, because eachis sampled from Final Exam items (Final Exam is 50% ofLecture Grade and 37% of Course Percentage). However,Table 4 shows these correlations are moderate at best andaccount for relatively little of the variability in Coursepercentage. Also, the pair-wise correlations of SLO scoresare extremely low; this suggests they are independent ofeach other, and although they are comprised of differentFinal Exam items thought to reflect different SLOs, it issurprising that they would have almost no correlation witheach other.

Finally, Tables 5 & 6 compare Exam and Lab Percentagesacross four Spring semesters (2012 – 2015). Thesecomparisons constituted the Psych 9B SLO assessments inprior years but have been replaced by the SLO-specificanalyses presented above. Table 5 shows the significanceof overall comparisons, and Table 6 specifies the sources ofsignificant differences. Together they show that the 2013Course Percentage is significantly lower than that of 2012and 2015 and that the 2013 Average Exam Percentage issignificantly lower than that of 2012. Regarding LabPercentage, 2015 is significantly higher than 2014 and 2012.(08/05/2015)

Action: This Assessment is a majordeparture from previous ones; ithas the potential to address themost basic question of an SLO --

Semester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2015-16(Spring 2016)Standard Met? : Standard MetTable 2 shows that 100% of transferring students -- whether

Survey/Focus Group - TheAssessment for Psychology 9B wasradically changed; instead of cullingdata from Final Exams, data were


https://elcamino.tracdat.com:443/tracdat/viewDocument?y=YerrIoPKQTQB



Standard and Target for Success: Inresponse to the question, "Did Iprepare you for the challenges youfaced when you transferred? Workyou too hard? Too easy? Just right?",a minimum 80% of students willrespond "Just right"Related Documents:PsychDept9BSurveySLOSp16.docx

Faculty Assessment Leader: Richard Mascolo, Ph.D.Related Documents:PsychDept9BSurveySLOSp16.docx

hoe do our students fare afterthey transfer? Nonetheless, manyimprovements must be made; firstand foremost are these: responserate (likely bias) and vaguequestions (especially regarding the3 specific SLOs).. The Action Plan istherefore focused on addressingthese limitations (12/16/2016)Action Category: SLO/PLOAssessment Process

to a UC or CSU -- rated my preparation "Just Right"(09/17/2016)

solicited from 9B students who hadtransferred to 4-year Institutions. .

Standard and Target for Success: Inresponse to the question, "Did Iprepare you for the challenges youfaced when you transferred? Workyou too hard? Too easy? Just right?",a minimum 80% of students willrespond "Just right"


Action: Finish collecting data foranalysis (12/15/2017)Action Category: SLO/PLOAssessment Process

Semester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2016-17(Spring 2017)Standard Met? : Standard Not MetInformal feedback from returning students suggestedsurvey was best collected mid-Fall, and so the data andanalysis are forthcoming (09/15/2017)

Survey/Focus Group - Survey/FocusGroup The Assessment forPsychology 9B was radicallychanged; instead of culling data fromFinal Exams, data were solicitedfrom 9B students who hadtransferred to 4-year Institutions.

Standard and Target for Success:The Standard defined for each SLOwas a correct answer for the itemmeasuring that SLO. The Target foreach SLO was a minimum 66% ofstudents meeting the Standard. TheTarget for the SLOs combined was aminimum 66% of students meetingat least 2 of the 3 SLO Standards.

Exam/Test/Quiz - 3 items weresampled from the Final Exam, 1 foreach SLO (see Table 1).

SLO #2 Fundamental Principles - On


https://elcamino.tracdat.com:443/tracdat/viewDocument?y=Cl7jREbVNQok



examination (e.g., m/c, T/F, fill-in,matching, essay), written essay,research paper, and/or oralpresentation, students will be able toexplain and apply essential elementsof the scientific method inpsychological research.




Standard and Target for Success:Please see SLO#1


Action: Increase lecture and labemphasis on the fundamentalprinciples of research methods inpsychology. (09/12/2019)Action Category: TeachingStrategies

Semester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2018-19(Spring 2019)Standard Met? : Standard Not Met56% of students correctly answered the Final Exam Itemmeasuring SLO #2. (09/12/2019)




Semester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2013-14(Spring 2014)Standard Met? : Standard Not MetPlease see SLO#1 (09/12/2014)

Exam/Test/Quiz - Please see SLO#1


Faculty Assessment Leader: Richard Mascolo, Ph.D.Faculty Contributing to Assessment: Richard Mascolo,Ph.D.

Action: Re-evaluate validity ofSLO#2 items (02/01/2016)Action Category: SLO/PLOAssessment Process


Exam/Test/Quiz - Table 1 shows the15 Final Exam items (5 for each of 3SLOs) comprising this assessment.For each student taking the FinalExam, the number of correctresponses was tallied and recordedfor each of the 3 SLOs. Also recordedwere Course Percentage, MidtermExam Percentage, Final ExamPercentage, Exam AveragePercentage, and Lab Percentage.



Related Documents:Psych9BSLO_Sp15_8_5.docx



Action: This Assessment is a majordeparture from previous ones; ithas the potential to address themost basic question of an SLO --hoe do our students fare afterthey transfer? Nonetheless, manyimprovements must be made; firstand foremost are these: responserate (likely bias) and vaguequestions (especially regarding the3 specific SLOs).. The Action Plan istherefore focused on addressingthese limitations. (12/16/2016)Action Category: SLO/PLOAssessment Process

Semester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2015-16(Spring 2016)Standard Met? : Standard MetTable 2 shows that 100% of transferring students -- whetherto a UC or CSU -- rated my preparation "Just Right"(09/17/2016)

Survey/Focus Group - TheAssessment for Psychology 9B wasradically changed; instead of cullingdata from Final Exams, data weresolicited from 9B students who hadtransferred to 4-year Institutions.






Standard and Target for Success:The Standard defined for each SLOwas a correct answer for the itemmeasuring that SLO. The Target foreach SLO was a minimum 66% of







students meeting the Standard. TheTarget for the SLOs combined was aminimum 66% of students meetingat least 2 of the 3 SLO Standards.

SLO #3 Everyday Application - Onexamination (e.g., m/c, T/F, fill-in,matching, essay), written essay,research paper, and/or oralpresentation, students will be able toevaluate both the adequacy andrelevance of research in their effortsto understand everyday lifeexperiences (e.g., choose a diet plan,decide if a treatment or product issafe and effective, vote for or againsta proposition).




Standard and Target for Success:Please see SLO#1


Action: Emphasize the paradigmshift in statistical analysis inPsychology (02/14/2020)Action Category: TeachingStrategies

Semester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2018-19(Spring 2019)Standard Met? : Standard Not Met13% of students correctoly answered the Final Exam itemmeasureing SLO #3. (09/12/2019)




Semester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2013-14(Spring 2014)Standard Met? : Standard Not MetPlease see SLO#1 (09/12/2014)

Exam/Test/Quiz - Please see SLO#1

Standard and Target for Success:The standard for each SLO was aminimum 3 correct responses on the5 items sampled for that SLO. The


Action: Emphasize explicit real-life applilcations (02/01/2016)Action Category: TeachingStrategiesAction: Re-evaluate validity ofSLO#3 items (02/01/2016)Action Category: SLO/PLOAssessment Process

Semester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2014-15(Spring 2015)Standard Met? : Standard Not MetTable 2 shows that 35% of students met the standard forSLO #3, failing to meet the target of 67%.Table 3 shows that 79% of students met the standard forthe SLOs as a group, exceeding the target of 67%.(08/05/2015)

Exam/Test/Quiz - Table 1 shows the15 Final Exam items (5 for each of 3SLOs) comprising this assessment.For each student taking the FinalExam, the number of correctresponses was tallied and recordedfor each of the 3 SLOs. Also recordedwere Course Percentage, MidtermExam Percentage, Final ExamPercentage, Exam AveragePercentage, and Lab Percentage.



Targets were: 1) a minimum 67% ofstudents meeting the standard foreach individual SLO and 2) aminimum 67% of students meetingat least 2 of the 3 SLO standards.Related Documents:Psych9BSLO_Sp15_8_5.docx



Action: This Assessment is a majordeparture from previous ones; ithas the potential to address themost basic question of an SLO --hoe do our students fare afterthey transfer? Nonetheless, manyimprovements must be made; firstand foremost are these: responserate (likely bias) and vaguequestions (especially regarding the3 specific SLOs).. The Action Plan istherefore focused on addressingthese limitations. (12/16/2016)Action Category: SLO/PLOAssessment Process

Semester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2015-16(Spring 2016)Standard Met? : Standard MetTable 2 shows that 100% of transferring students -- whetherto a UC or CSU -- rated my preparation "Just Right"(09/17/2016)

Survey/Focus Group - TheAssessment for Psychology 9B wasradically changed; instead of cullingdata from Final Exams, data weresolicited from 9B students who hadtransferred to 4-year Institutions.












Standard and Target for Success:The Standard defined for each SLOwas a correct answer for the itemmeasuring that SLO. The Target foreach SLO was a minimum 66% ofstudents meeting the Standard. TheTarget for the SLOs combined was aminimum 66% of students meetingat least 2 of the 3 SLO Standards.


Assessment: Course Four Column - El Camino College

Documents

Transcript of Assessment: Course Four Column - El Camino College