West Hills College Lemoore Program Level Student Learning Outcomes

(1)

Program Level Student Learning Outcomes

Program Name/Title: Hotel, Restaurant, and Casino Management

Originator(s): Christian Raia

Date: Fall 2012

I. Expected Program Level Student Learning Outcomes Defined

SLO 1:

ServSafe certifications for safety and sanitation principles in a food service operation

Proficiency in safety and sanitation issues

SLO 2:

Applying basic math skills in food production groups

Convert weight and volume measurements from English to Metric and from Metric to English

SLO 3:

Enforcing particular laws in the Hospitality field

Implement all rules and codes to safety and sanitation

SLO 4:

Efficient food production procedures

Fundamental principles, methods, and techniques of baking to prepare a variety of baked goods

SLO 5:

Control for labor and supplies in restaurant dining

Perform variety types of servicing and menu planning utilizing current trends

(2)

II. Mapping Program Level SLOs to Courses/Learning Experiences/Requirements

Map the expected program level student learning outcomes (Section I) to all the courses, program

requirements, and/or other learning experiences (i.e. work experience, internships, support

services, etc.) that are a part of the program. Place an “X” in the box for each program level SLO

that is introduced, emphasized, or reinforced in each of the listed courses or learning experiences.

Course or Learning Experience

SLO 1

SLO 2

SLO 3

SLO 4

SLO 5

CUL 54 Hospitality Laws and Regulations Student will be able to describe prevention philosophy. X CUL 55 Commercial Food Preparation Student will be able toprepare a dish utilizing proper measurements, techniques, and ingredients. X CUL 56 Garde Mangers Student will be able to identify three safe cold food‐handling preparations in order to prevent food contamination. X CUL 58 Dining Room Service and Management I Student will be able to demonstrate dining room etiquette skills. X RM 61 Culinary Theory & Fundamentals Describe the basic requirements for French cuisine X RM 63 Culinary Concepts Student will be cook shellfish to specific qualifications. X CUL 51 Restaurant Math Student will be able to apply a basic addition problem in order to calculate the total cost of goods bought within a specific period. X CUL 60 Nutrition for Chefs Student will be able to demonstrate a specific cooking method that is proven to maintain the nutritional value of the food. X CUL 52 Commercial Baking: Beginning Students will be able to identify 2 principles of baking. X CUL 65 Dining Room Service and Management II Student will be able to describe management techniques and skills desirable in the restaurant management field. X CUL 61 Kitchen Management Student will be able to develop a comparative price plan for vendor supplies. X CUL 06 Culinary Excursions CUL 50 Safety And Sanitation

x

CUL 53 Commercial Baking: Advanced

_X

HRCM 15X Occupational Work Experience Education

x

CUL 02 Food & Wine Pairings CUL 57 Beverage Management CUL 59 Introduction to Hospitality Careers and Human Relations CUL 64 Restaurant Desserts

(3)

CUL 66 Mixology X RM 10 Introduction to Food Service Operations RM 11 Food & Beverage Service RM 12 Food & Beverage Cost Control X RM 64 Cuisines of the World X X X RM 65 Catering & Beverage Services RM 66 Event Planning & Special Event Tourism HRCM 4 Supervision & Leadership in Hospitality

III. Defining Assessment of Expected Student Learning Outcomes

Identify appropriate assessment methodologies for the program level student learning outcomes,

including summative assessments where appropriate.

1.)

identify three safe cold food handling preparations in order to prevent food contamination A. Evaluation on demonstrating safety procedures with carving into a melon and the sanitary care of the fruit physically. Also, applying basic principles in handling equipment and tools used. 82%

2.)

Apply a basic addition problem in order to calculate the total cost of goods bought within a specific period.

B. Assessment tool will be a multiple choice test which will determine calculation success.96%

3.)

Describe prevention philosophy. C. Assessment tool will be a short essay consisting of a two‐paragraph paper. 92.6% Describe management techniques and skills desirable in the restaurant management field. D. Reproducing table settings demonstrating the proper skills and techniques.82%

4.)

Demonstrate an appropriate shellfish cooking technique. E. Assessment tool will be a practical demonstration assignment whereby the student will exhibit a correct shellfish cooking technique (determined by the instructor).100% Identify 2 principles of baking. F. demonstrate the techniques in a practical test.100% Prepare a dish utilizing proper measurements, techniques, and ingredients. G. Assessment tool will be to demonstrate competency in a cooking technique applicable to that protein and provide appropriate side dish and vegetable garnishes in a period of 50 minutes.88% Describe the basic requirements for French cuisine

H. Assessment will be to construct and compose Escoffier recipes.84% Demonstrate a specific cooking method that is proven to maintain the nutritional value of the food. I. Assessment will be physical demonstration cooking a specific food, while giving an oral presentation as to how this cooking method supports the food’s nutritional value.61‐82%

(4)

5.)

Demonstrate dining room etiquette skills.

J.

Practical demonstration on dining room etiquette skills. 93%

Develop a comparative price plan for vendor supplies.

K. Assessment will be a written test comparing specific pricing information from different vendors. Students who determine the best “value” with reasoning will determine success.83%

IV. Assessing Student Learning Outcomes

Have the expected student learning outcomes for all courses or other experiences required in the

program (sections II and III) been assessed? If all relevant courses and/or other experiences have

been assessed, summarize the assessment data.

The expected student learning outcomes for all of the courses required in the Hotel,

Restaurant, and Casino Management program as well as the Culinary Arts program, have

not all been assessed.

These are the courses in the Hotel, Restaurant, and Casino Management program that have

not been assessed yet:

RM 64 Cuisines of the World – SP 2011 RM 12 Food & Beverage Cost Control – SP 2011 CUL 64 Restaurant Desserts CUL 66 Mixology –SP 2011 CUL 57 Beverage Management FA 2011 CUL 59 Introduction to Hospitality Careers and Human Relations FA2011 RM 10 Introduction to Food Service Operations FA 2011 RM 11 Food & Beverage Service CUL 02 Food & Wine Pairings RM 65 Catering & Beverage Services RM 66 Event Planning & Special Event Tourism FA2011 HRCM 4 Supervision & Leadership in Hospitality HRCM 15x Occupational Work Experience

(5)

V. Analyzing the Results of Assessment

Have the assessment results for all courses and/or other experiences required in the program (sections

II and III) been analyzed? If so, summarize those analyses. In other words, what does the relevant

SLO assessment data tell you about student learning in this program.

Spring 2011

HRCM Department SLOs were assessed Spring 2011. We identified our

assessment method through multiple choice and contextualized learning

evaluations. The operational procedure of assessing, we would have a session one

and session two each class, early in the semester, and we would assess the

improvements between the first and second testing; then, evaluated that data. The

second evalution, approached later in the semester (within the last four weeks),

and found that our data fluctuated only 2%. The number of students involved in

this semester totaled 95, the total of students for which data was captured for 73

students, 80% of the total students. These were our goals, from implementation

of the program to date, for all courses and program to meet this mark.

Fall 2011

In this semester, we had 110 students, of whom 81 took the test. The results

indicated a 44% proficiency rate. Again, the cycle was one test mid‐semester,

second test near the end of the semester. As instructors, we attempted to imbed,

though our testing material, teaching segments to elevate the proficiency level to

89‐92%. Results of the second testing of the 20 questions, 29 of the 81 students

(23%) were below proficiency, identified from the first evaluation. This

indicates a 21% improvement from first to second test. Improvements were

designed and implemented for the subsequent semester (Spring 2012).

(6)

V. Analyzing the Results of Assessment (continued)

Spring 2012

The improvement areas which were identified and begun at the end of Fall 2011

were further imbedded into the teaching areas in early Spring 2012, and further

refined as the semester progressed. This form of test was multiple choice, and

combined first and second SLO tests and administered only to those classes who

did not have labs as part of the class. Those classes which had labs as part of their

course incorporated contextualized learning stations, and as criteria had

individual evaluations per project per semester. Non‐lab students resulted in a

57% proficiency. The position of our department is that contextualized learning

supports this form of instruction for the preponderance of our classes.

During this semester we introduced the concept of contextualized learning

(practical application) as a segment for how to collect data. It was used with an

imbedded approach to assessing efficiency and improvements in learning. The

success of this approach is evidenced by the following assessment:

 Consider the average of 20 students per class, by using this method of

assessment, only 2 students (for lab classes) did not meet the proficiency

criteria, or actually achieved a 90% proficiency for these lab students. This

clearly falls within the 89‐92% department standard.

(7)

VI. Planning/implementing changes t o pedagogy, facilities, etc. to improve learning

Using the assessment results from sections IV and V, have changes to pedagogy, facilities, etc. been

planned and implemented to improve learning in the program? Explain how the assessment results

were used to plan and make changes to improve learning; and describe the changes implemented. If

no changes are planned, explain why.

Planning

The intent of our evaluations focused on soft skills (math, reading comprehension

code and complance enforcement, and technical skills). The interpretation of the

results revealed stronger contextualized areas of improvement, and areas in which

further emphasis should be concentrated earlier in the semester; i.e.,

comprehension and math (culinary math, weights and measurements,

calculations, fundamentals, etc.).

Changes Implemented

We have identified and implemented as much as feasible the following:

 Longer lab hours for students to have access to the facility

 SLO assessment contrextualized learning centers (the student’s hands‐on

repetitive and memory retention skills)

 The Chef‐in‐Residence position has shown its worth with a positive impact

and more emphasis on one‐on‐one fundamental methodology and techniques

Changes Planned

 Addressing the trends of the HRCM industry, acquisition and upgrade of

desktop material to support and increase the basic skills and fundamentals of

HRCM students

 Increase in the current physical plant facilities and establishment of broader

space availability in order to support growth in the department and program

 Concentration on completion of mandatory pre‐requisites and encouragement

of recommended associated and support studies

 Acquisition of budgetary availability which will allow growth of the program,

the department, the individual classes, and the individual students

 The ability to attract qualified instructors who will bring contributions to this

department which will continually “raise the bar of excellence”

(8)