Chabot College
Academic Program Review Report
Year Two of
Program Review Cycle
Communication Studies
Submitted on February 28, 2013
Jason Ames, Veronica Martinez, &
christine warda
Final Forms, 1/18/13
1
Table of Contents
Section A: What Progress Have We Made? ............................... 1
Section B: What Changes Do We Suggest? ................................ 2
Required Appendices:
A: Budget History .........................................................................................3
B1: Course Learning Outcomes Assessment Schedule .................................4
B2: “Closing the Loop” Assessment Reflections ...........................................5
C: Program Learning Outcomes....................................................................9
D: A Few Questions ....................................................................................11
E: New Initiatives .......................................................................................12
F1: New Faculty Requests ..........................................................................13
F2: Classified Staffing Requests ...................................................................14
F3: FTEF Requests ......................................................................................15
F4: Academic Learning Support Requests ..................................................16
F5: Supplies and Services Requests ............................................................17
F6: Conference/Travel Requests ................................................................18
F7: Technology and Other Equipment Requests ........................................19
F8: Facilities Requests ................................................................................20
2
A. What Progress Have We Made?
Complete Appendices A (Budget History), B1 and B2 (CLO's), C (PLO's), and D (A few questions) prior to
writing your narrative. You should alsoreview your most recent success, equity, course sequence,
and enrollment data at http://www.chabotcollege.edu/ProgramReview/Data2012.cfm.
In year one, you established goals and action plans for program improvement. This section asks
you to reflect on the progress you have made toward those goals. This analysis will be used by
the PRBC and Budget Committee to assess progress toward achievement of our Strategic Plan
and to inform future budget decisions. It will also be used by the SLOAC and Basic Skills
committees as input to their priority-setting process. In your narrative of two or less pages,
address the following questions:





What were your year one Program Review goals?
Did you achieve those goals? Specifically describe your progress on the goals you set for
student learning, program learning, and Strategic Plan achievement.
What are you most proud of?
What challenges did you face that may have prevented achieving your goals?
Cite relevant data in your narrative (e.g., efficiency, persistence, success, FT/PT faculty
ratios, CLO/PLO assessment results, external accreditation demands, etc.).
In our Year One Program Review (YOPR), we created action plans for the following goals: hire 2
more faculty members; develop Website with Virtual Lab; Lab Development & Curriculum; the
Speak Easy; Forensics Program Development & Funding; a Media Kit; and updating Curriculum.
We’ve also asked for several years to be moved into the School of Arts/Humanities (now with
Social Science division). We have had some success, some delays, and some lacking support.
We have worked tirelessly (actually we’re often tired) on our Lab and Forensics programs. We
believe that our perseverance is what has led to numerous awards and higher success rates for
our Program. Currently, COMM averages over 100% enrollment and about 70% success.
Students who use our lab (where tutors work with students in Social Sciences and Business
classes, as well) succeed at a much higher rate than students who do not visit the lab. We will
continue to promote our lab to adjunct faculty (who teach almost ¾ of our classes). We will also
try to have the lab open more hours than our current schedule. In addition, we need tutors of
more courses in our area (specifically Persuasion, Interpersonal/Intercultural, and Group
courses). In addition, we need a better way of ‘capturing WSCH’ with our forensics and lab
students. This will demonstrate the amount of time students in Communication Studies actually
spend working/studying/rehearsing in our area. Now that we have an Assistant Coach for the
Forensics program, a newly approved tutor training course: COMM 70, and ongoing facilities,
we can have even greater student success in our area. Further, our AA-T pathway is becoming
3
very popular. Communication Studies is a versatile AA degree for many of our transfer students.
Continuing to offer courses beyond those in the ‘golden four,’ will be essential to our degree
program’s growth.
As we look to other goals on our YOPR: two new hires, website development, and the Speak
Easy, we don’t see much movement. We haven’t had a ‘new’ hire since 2004 and have not
replaced Patti Keeling-Haines’ position. Also, we would like to see a webmaster on Chabot’s
campus to assist with our website and Virtual Lab. In addition, The Speak Easy is a project
focusing on development of staff, faculty and administration public speaking skills. We would
love support in bringing this training back to the campus. We know it is needed. As for our
Media Kit, it is being developed and we are planning to visit a Counseling division meeting in
the future to promote our degree and discuss our future scheduling. Of course, we have to
finalize changes to our course offerings (no longer offering 2B & 30) and develop several
certificates prior to promoting ourselves.
We believe, with administrative and collegial support in hiring additional faculty and developing
accurate WSCH collection, we will have a better load ratio. We will have greater coordination
with our lab, the ability to grow our AA-T program/pathway, as well as, the data to generate
further revenue and research. In addition, we will be able to divvy the load better to
coordinate, mentor, and evaluate adjunct faculty, thus increasing conversations about learning
outcomes and accreditation standards.
Finally, we are most proud of our students and alumni. Each day, we encourage and are witness
to outstanding efforts by them to overcome major fear and anxiety of public speaking; to try
out new conflict management strategies; to appreciate spoken word, storytelling, and dramatic
readings; to relate to people with empathy; to become more mindful listeners; to share
vulnerable and personal information; and to develop communities within our classrooms.
Former students come by to share their successes with speeches in other classes, promotions
at work and within organizations, and their continued dedication to complete their educational
goals. We are a relatively young faculty and now have students reaching graduate school. It is
amazing to hear their stories and we admire their perseverance. Fortunately, our Forensics
alumni come by to visit and mentor our team members. We’re exploring how they might be
inspirational to more of our current students.
4
B. What Changes Do We Suggest?
Review the Strategic Plan goal and key
strategiesathttp://www.chabotcollege.edu/prbc/StrategicPlan/SPforPR.pdfprior to completing
your narrative. Please complete Appendices E (New Initiatives) and F1-8 (Resources Requested)
to further detail your narrative. Limit your narrative to two pages, and be very specific about
what you hope to achieve, why, and how.
Given your experiences and student achievement results over the past year, what changes do
you suggest to your course/program improvement plan? What new initiatives might you begin to
support the achievement of our Strategic Plan goal? Do you have new ideas to improve student
learning? What are your specific, measurable goals? How will you achieve them? Would any of these
require collaboration with other disciplines or areas of the college? How will make that collaboration
occur?
Our student achievement results are fairly consistent with the school’s overall success rate. Our
course improvements will primarily focus on internal growth.
As Dictionary.com states, development is the act or process of developing, growth, progress.
We do not currently believe Flex Days enable us to grow or progress our teaching skills. We
don’t believe that Flex Days are for faculty growth; instead it is administrative tasking that is
necessary for accreditation mandated by the ACCJC. We understand the value of this work and
the need for accreditation, and we appreciate the time during flex days to complete the work,
rather than mandate it without time allocation. However, we do not believe the current
application of Flex Days enhances our day to day teaching; our primary responsibility and the
biggest way in which we actually assist in helping students reach their educational goal. While it
is fair to say there is some value in evaluating curriculum, numbers, and discussing new
programs, it simply does not allow us to become better teachers, only better accountants. And
often, the time to actually discuss this new curriculum, numbers and programs with our
colleagues is limited. Thus, we would like to see more time for actual development of our
teaching skills. We would like to be developed. Like a picture… A Polaroid picture. We would
like to be shaken like a Polaroid picture.
5
In a very unsurprising way, our Program Review is all about resources and the lack thereof. We
have successfully navigated tough times and have come out of them in a favorable position,
although we still need help. Being a discipline that has a “bottleneck” we’ve had to make a
number of tough decisions over the last year. We are comfortable with the amount of classes
that have been added back into our discipline and with the decisions we’ve made in order to
alleviate the “bottlenecks” in a thoughtful way. We believe access to our classes, specifically the
Oral Communication requirement, is as good as it could be given the climate. We have done
this while maintaining the integrity of our discipline as a whole; specifically, we are not just a
“speech factory”, where we “just” teach speeches (although a critical part of our program). We
maintained diversity in our course offerings, which reflects the diversity of our discipline. For
instance, we’ve added not only Comm. 1, but also Comm. 20 and 46. All of these classes meet
the Oral Comm. Requirement, but adding variable classes enables us to give students options in
how they achieve this requirement. Also, our addition of Comm. 50 year round allows students
Comm. Studies AA-T majors to achieve their Ed. Goal since COMM50 is a required course for
the major.
We are asking for help in two strategic areas: 1) the Communication Lab, and 2) an increase in
faculty members in our discipline. The Communication Lab is vital to a student’s success in
classes. Our research shows that students who go to the Comm. Lab are dramatically better
suited to pass Comm. Classes. It helps in a number of different and effective ways. However,
the Comm. Lab is understaffed, underfunded, and under-resourced and it needs more support
in order for us to support our students achieving their Ed. Goal. More resources will improve
student learning not only within our discipline, but also campus wide. There are more
justifications elaborated on later in this document.
We also believe that we are due a new Full Time Faculty member. A new faculty member has
not been hired since 2004, when Jason Ames was hired. Veronica Martinez was hired as a
replacement for the retired Dave Arovola and christine warda was hired as a replacement for
Terry Petersen. Patti Keeling-Haines has retired and we were not given a replacement for her.
Additionally, Jason is the only new hire this department has received since Terry Petersen in the
early 1990’s. This means it has now been nearly 20 years with only 1 new hire. Our FT to PT
ratio is nearly 1:3 and it is starting to adversely affect our ability to facilitate student learning. It
has become very difficult to evaluate adjuncts, review courses/course material, keep up to date
with new trends, develop new curriculum, complete Program Reviews and SLO’s, and attend
conferences. Health Communication is a growing field and we know we can do so much more
with technology and on-line learning but we simply do not have the time or resources. The lack
of FT faculty is leading to the burnout of 3 young, talented, and popular instructors. Finally,
disciplines of a similar WSCH to FTE ratio have more full timers than we do and we’re kind of
jealous about it.
6
Finally, we believe our new ideas will benefit the school as a whole, while helping to assist
students in achieving their Ed. Goal. First, we are advocating for hosting a “Great Debate”
program. This is discussed below, but the idea is to coordinate multiple disciplines on campus,
community members, and the Chabot Forensics team to debate about an idea that is important
to the school/community. This would give students a first-hand look at how government
operates and how public speaking/argumentation/performance interact with policy.
This activity would require much collaboration with a number of different groups campus wide.
An obvious first place to start would be any law/policy based classes. This would include
Business Law (Hi Jan!), the Law and Democracy groups, Political Science, and History. Also, we
would clearly outreach to other disciplines on campus depending on the topic. Again, however,
this is dependent on resources as we currently do not have the faculty power to facilitate this
program.
7
Appendix A: Budget History and Impact
Audience: Budget Committee, PRBC,and Administrators
Purpose: This analysis describes your history of budget requests from the previous two years and
the impacts of funds received and needs that were not met. This history of documented need
can both support your narrative in Section A and provide additional information for Budget
Committee recommendations.
Instructions: Please provide the requested information, and fully explain the impact of the budget
decisions.
Category
Classified Staffing (# of positions)
Supplies & Services
Technology/Equipment
Other (Forensics)
TOTAL
2011-12
Budget
Requested
12,000
12,000
2011-12
Budget
Received
8,000
8,000
2012-13
Budget
Requested
Tutor funds
0
2345.68
12,000
14345.68
2012-13
Budget
Received
Tutor funds
100
0
8,000
8100.00
1. How has your investment of the budget monies you did receive improved student learning? When
you requested the funding, you provided a rationale. In this section, assess if the anticipated
positive impacts you projected have, in fact, been realized.
Hey Jason!
I hope you are well! I just finished my two week Winter class, which went well. Actually, it ended on a great note
following the presentation that my group gave for our final project. I truly believe that my success during the
presentation was a direct impact of having such an amazing debate coach and is a testament to all the hard work
that you put in with helping me organize my thoughts and perfect my structure for speech. The class was small,
only about 12 people. Instead of a written final, we (groups of 3) had to give a final presentation of our own
research study that was conducted outside the classroom. On a quick side note, I was under a lot of pressure,
because the professor that taught the course (who btw is apparently one of the toughest in the department and
can be harsh, yet good) is the same professor who's lab I'm currently working under; and the Graduate TA for the
course, is the one who I am an RA for. So, doing well and asking the right questions, etc, etc, was well..kindasorta
important, just a little ya know, and I sure as heck was nervous about it and was wondering what the heck did I get
myself into!!!! Anyways, so the day of the presentation, all the graduate student were there, many lab members,
the professors and a few other important people. I did the introduction and the methods section of the
presentation and a bit of the conclusion. You taught me that practice makes perfect (considering how many times
we had to cut the speech to get it under time and practicing it over and over and over again until it was just right),
and so I practiced several times and I attempted to slow down,(since all the nerves make me talk even faster than
normal). I could see a great deal of impressed audience members as I delivered my speech and I even got a lot of
laughs as I added a bit of humor into the presentation. During the Q&A rounds, which I feared the most, we
surprisingly did really well. As I answered questions from the lab manager and a 2nd year Graduate student (who
btw, said she was going to make us cry because she was going to ask us tough questions), the professor said, "Now
that's a graduate level answer."At the end of the day, the Graduate students said they were thoroughly impressed,
and that they saw a lot of my "shy" nature fade away and more of my personality shine through. My graduate TA
Billy, the same person that I'm an RA for, said that a lot of his fellow graduate students spoke afterwards and told
him that he has one heck of an RA, and he personally told me that I made him look good as I presented well. To top
8
it off, the professor himself at the end said, "I'm truly impressed Akanksha, you did really well, you are just so
natural up there." This was and is all thanks to you and your awesome coaching skills. I was quite nervous as I was
going to present, but somehow after a couple of minutes, my nerves calmed down and I worked my way through it
all. All of the hours practicing and gaining confidence in my speaking ability while having a coach that put in a lot of
time and effort and showed a great deal of compassion for his students definitely made a world difference for me
during my presentation. I already knew it before, and had no doubt, but just reiterate, those practices, long hauling
tournaments were well worth it for sure! Great coach, + tournaments, allowed for my communication/presenting
skills to literally speak for themselves, leaving a lasting impression on everyone else. Thank you so much Jason!
Best,
Akanksha
*************************************************************************************
Background: Last year, Kelsey Paiz was on the National team. One of her events was
Communication Analysis, where students take a communication artifact and apply a communication
theory to the artifact in order to discern the rhetorical implications and/or applications of that
artifact. She transferred to Sacramento State, where she is now a Communication major. I received
this e-mail from her:
Hi Jason,
So I was just reading through my syllabus for one of my classes this semester, and there was a page called
"Assignment Structure" that notes the following:
1. Interesting Introduction (inclu. message or artifact being analyzed, research question and contribution to
larger theory) 2. Describe Artifact 3. Describe Method of Analysis (Unit of Analysis) 4. Report Findings 5.
Conclusions
So basically what I'm saying is: Thank you.
Kelsey Paiz
2. What has been the impact of not receiving some of your requested funding? How has student
learning been impacted, or safety compromised, or enrollment or retention negatively impacted?
As with most disciplines, our budget is trending downwards. This impacts our Forensics program,
Communication Lab, and overall instruction/staffing. In the last 3 years, the budget for the Forensics
team has decreased from over $12,000 in 2008-09 to a little over $8,000 in 2012-13. This hurts the
program, but it also affects the discipline as well. First, it clearly makes travel to tournaments more
difficult. This season, the team has been unable to travel to any tournaments outside the Northern
California region (except for the National Tournament), hurting the team’s National competitiveness. It
also affects the education of the Forensics student, as their exposure to speeches, arguments,
performances, and critiques of their own material is limited. Forensics students make up a plurality of
the Communication Studies majors, taking numerous Comm. classes from different instructors.
Forensics students also present speeches to Comm. classes and to the College as a whole. This year we
have put on our semi-annual “Speak Up” which had over 100 students fill Room 804. We will do this
again this spring. We also put on a ballot initiative forum in late October, where the community could
come in and watch debates about initiatives on the November ballot. Finally in February of 2012 we
hosted the Northern California Forensics Association Spring Championship tournament, making the
school thousands of dollars while exposing our campus to the best and brightest speakers in the nation.
9
However, the team is financially on the brink. ANY further cuts to the team will most likely result in a
restriction of tournaments, a restriction of students attending tournaments, and, almost assuredly, an
elimination of the National Tournament from our schedule. We will not have the money to travel and
will be limited to only regional and State tournaments. This would effectively destroy the Forensics
team as it has been known for over 30 years. Thus, we ask for an increase in the budget from its current
state back to its previous state of $12,000 a year. With this rate, the team will be able to travel to one
or two tournaments outside of our region, enabling us to better prepare competitively but to also better
educate students in the Forensics class and better serve our campus as a whole.
The Communication Lab is also in need of better funding. Veronica Martinez has been essential and
brilliantly creative in finding funding for the lab, but this funding is temporary through Title III grants.
She has also written curriculum that enables us to staff the lab through units instead of financial
compensation, but once the grant money runs out, we may not be able to staff “Lab Leads”, who are
currently paid. The Communication Lab needs a permanent funding source, and one that is not reliant
on grants or the WRAC/Building 100 project, as we are often an afterthought in that project.
The Communication Lab is also in need of more supplies, equipment, and pedagogical materials which
also need a permanent funding source. The supplies budget is minimal at best, despite a great need for
funding. There is currently only one computer in the lab, limiting the ability for students coming to the
lab to receive support for research elements of the speech. Additionally, there is no current mode for
students to practice power point presentations. This is because we do not have a projector or screen in
the performance space. Power Point presentations, and/or the simple use of presentation aids, are vital
to the education of a public speaker. This program has been a great success, as it serves the campus.
94% of students who visit the Comm. Lab pass their Comm. Studies class and students who visit the lab
have a higher success rate than students who don’t visit the lab. This is a successful program and we
need support to reach its enormous capabilities and to enable us to serve more students more often.
10
Appendix B1: Course Learning Outcomes Assessment Schedule
All courses must be assessed at least once every three years. Please complete this chart that
defines your assessment schedule.
ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE:
Spring
Fall
2013
2013
Courses:
COMM 6,
46, 50
COMM 3,
5, 10
COMM 1,
11,70
COMM 2,
20, 48
Full
Assmt
Spring
2014
Discuss
results
Report
Results
Full
Assmt
Discuss
results
& report
Full
Assmt
Fall
2014
Spring
2015
Fall
2015
Spring
2016
Full
Assmt
Discuss
results
Report
Results
Full
Assmt
Discuss
results
& report
11
Fall
2016
Spring
2017
Discuss
results
Report
Results
Appendix B2: “Closing the Loop” Assessment Reflections
Course
Semester assessment data gathered
Number of sections offered in the semester
Number of sections assessed
Percentage of sections assessed
Semester held “Closing the Loop” discussion
Faculty members involved in “Closing the Loop” discussion
COMM 6
Spring 2012
1
1
100%
Spring 2012
christine warda
Form Instructions:
 Part I: CLO Data Reporting. For each CLO, obtain Class Achievement data in aggregate for all
sections assessed in eLumen.
 Part II: CLO Reflections. Based on student success reported in Part I, reflect on the individual
CLO.
 Part III: Course Reflection. In reviewing all the CLOs and your findings, reflect on the course as
a whole.
PART I: COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOMES – DATA RESULTS
(CLO) 1: RECOGNIZE, DEFINE, AND APPLY THE PRINCIPLES OF
AESTHETIC COMMUNICATION AND PERFORMANCE THEORY.
Defined Target
Scores*
(CLO Goal)
70% score 3 or
better
28% met this
target
(CLO) 2:LISTEN TO, EVALUATE, AND RESPOND APPROPRIATELY
TO THE IDEAS AND PERFORMANCE OF OTHERS.
80% score 3 or
better
84% met this
target
(CLO) 3: APPRAISE, ANALYZE, AND SYNTHESIZE TRADITIONAL
60% score 3 or
better
83% met this
target
CONSIDER THE COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOMES INDIVIDUALLY (THE
NUMBER OF CLOS WILL DIFFER BY COURSE)
AND NONTRADITIONAL TEXTS FOR PERFORMANCE AND
Actual Scores**
(eLumen data)
PRODUCTION.
(CLO) 4:
 If more CLOs are listed for the course, add another row to the table.
* Defined Target Scores:What scores in eLumen from your students would indicate success for this CLO?
(Example: 75% of the class scored either 3 or 4)
**Actual scores: What is the actual percent of students that meet defined target based on the eLumen
data collected in this assessment cycle?
12
PART II: COURSE- LEVEL OUTCOME REFLECTIONS
A. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 1:
1. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course
level outcome?
Below the target.
2. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and
your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
We can incorporate more discussion and assignments with a focus on theory. We also
note that there is no prerequisite for this course, thus students often come into the class
without the ability to read, listen, and/or think critically about theoretical concepts.
B. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 2:
1. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course
level outcome?
We are above our target goal.
2. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and
your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
Listening activities and feedback session work.
13
C. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 3:
1. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course
level outcome?
Above our target.
2. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and
your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
Continue with assignments in place. Can add more intertextual activities.
D. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 4:
1. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course
level outcome?
2. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and
your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
E. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 5: ADD IF NEEDED.
14
PART III: COURSE REFLECTIONS AND FUTURE PLANS
1. What changes were made to your course based on the previous assessment cycle, the prior
Closing the Loop reflections and other faculty discussions?
This was the first time this course was offered and assessed.
2. Based on the current assessment and reflections, what course-level and programmatic
strengths have the assessment reflections revealed? What actions has your discipline
determined might be taken as a result of your reflections, discussions, and insights?
We are doing an amazing job!
We have spent a considerable amount of time refining our support services. The Comm Lab
serves all students with performances to prepare. We have created 2 new courses to train
our tutors. We review the research related to Comm lab visit outcomes. And we are
continually updating the content offered to our students who visit the Lab, in order to
improve their success in COMM 1.
We also strive to compare notes with faculty, including hosting the first Bay Are Comm
Studies Conference here at Chabot. We need more time to coordinate with Comm faculty
and share ideas.
christine warda is also planning WSCA to network with Comm Studies faculty.
We are also waiting to get (flex) time to work with our adjuncts.
These plans do not necessarily reflect the data from this document. We believe there are
more complete ways to assess our courses. In any case, we continually work to improve.
15
3. What is the nature of the planned actions (please check all that apply)?
X Curricular
X Pedagogical
X Resource based
 Change to CLO or rubric
 Change to assessment methods
 Other:_________________________________________________________________
Course
Semester assessment data gathered
Number of sections offered in the semester
Number of sections assessed
Percentage of sections assessed
Semester held “Closing the Loop” discussion
Faculty members involved in “Closing the Loop” discussion
COMM 1
Spring 2012
23
5
22%
Spring 2012
Jason Ames, Veronica Martinez,
christine warda
Form Instructions:
 Part I: CLO Data Reporting. For each CLO, obtain Class Achievement data in aggregate for all
sections assessed in eLumen.
 Part II: CLO Reflections. Based on student success reported in Part I, reflect on the individual
CLO.
 Part III: Course Reflection. In reviewing all the CLOs and your findings, reflect on the course as
a whole.
PART I: COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOMES – DATA RESULTS
PRACTICAL COMMUNICATION AND COMMUNICATION THEORY.
Defined Target
Scores*
(CLO Goal)
75% score 3 or
better
65% met this
target
(CLO) 2:LISTEN TO, EVALUATE, AND RESPOND APPROPRIATELY
TO THE IDEAS OF OTHERS.
75% score 3 or
better
76% met this
target
(CLO) 3: UNDERSTAND THE VARIETY OF COMMUNICATION
SYSTEMS PEOPLE USE IN COMMUNICATION.
75% score 3 or
better
53% met this
target
CONSIDER THE COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOMES INDIVIDUALLY (THE
NUMBER OF CLOS WILL DIFFER BY COURSE)
(CLO) 1: RECOGNIZE, DEFINE, AND APPLY THE PRINCIPLES OF
(CLO) 4:
16
Actual Scores**
(eLumen data)
 If more CLOs are listed for the course, add another row to the table.
* Defined Target Scores:What scores in eLumen from your students would indicate success for this CLO?
(Example: 75% of the class scored either 3 or 4)
**Actual scores: What is the actual percent of students that meet defined target based on the eLumen
data collected in this assessment cycle?
PART II: COURSE- LEVEL OUTCOME REFLECTIONS
C. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 1:
3. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course
level outcome?
Slightly below our target.
4. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and
your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
We will continue to teach at a high level. These numbers do not reflect all we do. This
data is very limited.
We also need time to discuss, compare, and reflect what we do in the classroom with
eachother, including coordinating time with our adjuncts. This will improve everything
we do in the classroom.
D. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 2:
3. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course
level outcome?
We are above our target goal.
4. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and
your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
17
C. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 3:
3. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course
level outcome?
These scores do not reach our target.
4. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and
your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
We need to use more activities to bring the concept of communication systems to life for
our students. Once again, time to coordinate with each other would improve our course
work. Also, attending conferences on the subject would help.
D. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 4:
3. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course
level outcome?
N/A
4. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and
your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
N/A
E. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 5: ADD IF NEEDED.
18
PART III: COURSE REFLECTIONS AND FUTURE PLANS
4. What changes were made to your course based on the previous assessment cycle, the prior
Closing the Loop reflections and other faculty discussions?
After the last assessment cycle we started to look at our forms of assessment for COMM 1.
(These plans do not necessarily reflect the data from this document. We believe there are
more complete ways to assess our courses.) We even worked with college to create a rubric
to assess any speech across campus. This FIG gave us the opportunity to discuss, evaluate,
and implement a unified system.
5. Based on the current assessment and reflections, what course-level and programmatic
strengths have the assessment reflections revealed? What actions has your discipline
determined might be taken as a result of your reflections, discussions, and insights?
Last year we spent a considerable amount of time rethinking our department textbooks for
this course. We invited several publishers to demonstrate their options. We also had an
opportunity to discuss various pedagogical approaches to COMM 1 related to our choice of
texts. We decided to create a list of credible texts for our department, thus increasing the
chances we all cover similar concepts of communication principles, systems, and overall
communication theory.
We have also spent a considerable amount of time refining our support services related to
COMM 1. We have created 2 new courses to train our tutors. We review the research
related to comm lab visit outcomes. And we are continually updating the content offered to
our students who visit the Lab, in order to improve their success in COMM 1.
We are waiting to get (flex) time to work with our adjuncts.
These plans do not necessarily reflect the data from this document. We believe there are
more complete ways to assess our courses. In any case, we continually work to improve.
19
6. What is the nature of the planned actions (please check all that apply)?
X Curricular
X Pedagogical
X Resource based
X Change to CLO or rubric
X Change to assessment methods
 Other:_________________________________________________________________
20
Appendix C: Program Learning Outcomes
Considering your feedback, findings, and/or information that has arisen from the course level
discussions, please reflect on each of your Program Level Outcomes.
Program: _______Communication Studies AA-T degree ____________
PLO #1:Pursue and evaluate knowledge through the skills of inquiry research and critical thinking.
PLO #2:Demonstrate effective skills in written and spoken communication.

PLO #3:

PLO #4:
What questions or investigations arose as a result of these reflections or discussions?
Explain: Are the number of PLO’s adequate for our discipline?
What program-level strengths have the assessment reflections revealed?
Strengths revealed:The wording of these 2 objectives applies to all courses and prompts important
analysis. Our program is on-point. Our courses consistently promote inquiry, critical thinking, and
improvement in spoken and written communication.
What actions has your discipline determined might be taken to enhance the learning of
students completing your program?
Actions planned:
Based on discussion by full-time faculty and written input from adjunct faculty, we plan to continue
what we are currently doing overall. Some specific further actions might include assessing our research
methods, listening skills, and nonverbal communication in FIGs.
Program: __Speech Communication AA degree__________________________________
PLO #1:Pursue and evaluate knowledge through the skills of inquiry research and critical thinking.
PLO #2:Demonstrate effective skills in written and spoken communication.

PLO #3:
21
 PLO #4:
What questions or investigations arose as a result of these reflections or discussions?
Explain: Are the number of PLO’s adequate for our discipline?
What program-level strengths have the assessment reflections revealed?
Strengths revealed:The wording of these 2 objectives applies to all courses and prompts important
analysis. Our program is on-point. Our courses consistently promote inquiry, critical thinking, and
improvement in spoken and written communication.
What actions has your discipline determined might be taken to enhance the learning of
students completing your program?
Actions planned:
Based on discussion by full-time faculty and written input from adjunct faculty, we plan to continue
what we are currently doing overall. Some specific further actions might include assessing our research
methods, listening skills, and nonverbal communication in FIGs.
22
Appendix D: A Few Questions
Please answer the following questions with "yes" or "no". For any questions answered "no",
please provide an explanation. No explanation is required for "yes" answers :-)
1. Have all of your course outlines been updated within the past five years? If no, identify the
course outlines you will update in the next curriculum cycle. Ed Code requires all course
outlines to be updated every six years.
Yes. (We are scheduled to update our curriculum in Fall 13)
2. Have all of your courses been offered within the past five years? If no, why should those
courses remain in our college catalog?
No. We no longer offer COMM 2B and 30. We will be archiving these courses in Fall.
3. Do all of your courses have the required number of CLOs completed, with corresponding
rubrics? If no, identify the CLO work you still need to complete, and your timeline for
completing that work this semester.
We have one new course: COMM 70, which will be offered for the first time in the Fall.
The CLOs will be completed in Fall and assessed the following year.
4. Have you assessed all of your courses and completed "closing the loop" forms for all of your
courses within the past three years? If no, identify which courses still require this work, and
your timeline for completing that work this semester.
We completed Close-The-Loop forms for almost all of our courses in Fall 12. Again, we
have one new course that hasn’t been offered yet. (see above)
5. Have you developed and assessed PLOs for all of your programs? If no, identify programs which
still require this work, and your timeline to complete that work this semester.
Yes.
6. If you have course sequences, is success in the first course a good predictor of success in the
subsequent course(s)?
N/A
7. Does successful completion of College-level Math and/or English correlate positively with
success in your courses? If not, explain why you think this may be.
We are still waiting for data to support hypothesis that completion of ENGL 1A is still
recommended for COMM courses.
23
Appendix E: Proposal for New Initiatives (Complete for each new initiative)
Audience: Deans/Unit Administrators, PRBC, Foundation, Grants Committee, College Budget Committee
Purpose: A “New Initiative” is a new project or expansion of a current project that supports our Strategic
Plan. The project will require the support of additional and/or outside funding. The information you
provide will facilitate and focus the research and development process for finding both internal and
external funding.
How does your initiative address the college's Strategic Plan goal, or significantly improve student
learning?
“The Great Debate”. This initiative will be modeled after Chico States “Great Debate” Program. On CSU,
Chico’s website, they describe the purpose: “The purpose of the Chico Great Debate is to bring together members of the campus
and community to investigate and engage in dialogue around a “hot topic” that has the potential to divide us. The entire day of presentations and
debates stresses active listening, respectful exchange, and collaborative civic learning through civil discourse.” Additionally, “Throughout the day,
students from various Communication Studies classes give presentations and conduct debates focused on a chosen "hot topic." In the evening, at 6:30,
there is a formal debate by CSU, Chico Debate Team members and stakeholder Community Members.”
http://www.csuchico.edu/fye/Public_Sphere_Work/greatdebate/index.shtml
This meets a number of strategic plans and initiatives. First, it will expose Chabot students to members of their community governance entities.
Additionally, it will improve upon our Communication initiative by exposing students to more communication, but also demonstrating how their
communication skills translate to real policy making and progress. This could also assist other campus programs such as the Law and Democracy
Program, the Leadership Program, and CIN, just to name a few. And, let’s be honest, it never hurts to have a few members of local government in favor
of the things you do, eh?
What is your specific goal and measurable outcome?
Increase communication skills, increase public awareness of Chabot’s fantastic Communication Studies
department, engage local civic leaders, increase student engagement with their local community and
local politics while increasing their public speaking skills.
What is your action plan to achieve your goal?
Activity (brief description)
Discuss program with Chabot Faculty and faculty from Chico
State to help assist in program development
Move proposal forward to civic leaders
Set up rooms on campus for events
Target
Completion
Date
4/31/2013
Required Budget (Split out
personnel, supplies, other
categories)
$300.00 For hotel rooms
for CSU, Chico faculty
6/1/2013
8/31/2013 None as hopefully Chabot
will allow us to use rooms
free of charge
12/1/2013 $500.00 for lunch/food
Host
How will you manage the personnel needs?
x
New Hires:
Faculty # of positions
Classified staff # of positions
Reassigning existing employee(s) to the project; employee(s) current workload will be:
Covered by overload or part-time employee(s)
Covered by hiring temporary replacement(s)
Other, explain
24
At the end of the project period, the proposed project will:
Be completed (onetime only effort)
Require additional funding to continue and/or institutionalize the project
(obtained by/from):
Will the proposed project require facility modifications, additional space, or program relocation?
No
x we will need rooms to host the events
Will the proposed project involve subcontractors, collaborative partners, or cooperative agreements?
No
Yes, explain:
Do you know of any grant funding sources that would meet the needs of the proposed project?
x
No
Yes, list potential funding sources:
25
Appendix F1: Full-Time Faculty/Adjunct Staffing Request(s) [Acct. Category
1000]
Audience: Faculty Prioritization Committeeand Administrators
Purpose: Providing explanation and justification for new and replacement positions for full-time faculty
and adjuncts
Instructions: Please justify the need for your request. Discussanticipated improvements in student
learning and contribution to the Strategic Plangoal. Cite evidence and data to support your request,
including enrollment management data (EM Summary by Term) for the most recent three years, student
success and retention data , and any other pertinent information. Data is available at
http://www.chabotcollege.edu/ProgramReview/Data2012.cfm.
1. Number of new faculty requested in this discipline: __2__
2. If you are requesting more than one position, please rank order the positions.
Position
Description
1. Replacement Position (Patti Keeling-Haines) Full Time Faculty
2. New Hire
Full Time Faculty
3. Rationale for your proposal. Please use the enrollment management data. Additional data that will
strengthen your rationale include FTES trends over the last 5 years,persistence,FT/PT faculty
ratios,CLOand PLO assessment results and external accreditation demands.
We have been asking for a new hire since 2004. Our department continues to shrink and we are still
expected to accommodate a significant number of general education students in our courses, in addition
to managing a successful Communication Lab, Forensics program, and being integral to the Change it
Now Learning Community. Currently, our FT/PT faculty ratio is 33% FT to 67% PT. With additional FTEF
allocated to Communication Studies courses for Fall 13 (Bottlenecks), the ratio grows even more
inadequate. We cannot ensure coordination of our adjunct faculty, the completion of assessment of a
majority of our courses, and consistency with students’ use of our lab facility. With two hires, FT Faculty
will teach a slight majority of courses and we will have a stronger program, better assessment
procedures, and a well-utilized Communication Lab, thus greater success rates. If we are expected to
accommodate more students to meet the Student Success Act and Accreditation/Assessment
requirements, we must have the faculty to do so effectively. We cannot continue to carry this load – it is
leading to early burnout with our three (relatively) young faculty members.
4. Statements about the alignment with the strategic plan and your student learning goals are
required. Indicate here any information from advisory committees or outside accreditation reviews
that is pertinent to the proposal.
We are an essential discipline, offering courses that meet not one, but two of the ‘golden four.’ We are a
necessary program for this institution to meet its strategic plan. In order to transfer or complete a
degree, general education students must take COMM 1, 20, or 46. In addition, we have an AA-T in
Communication Studies which has tripled our majors in just a few semesters. Communication Studies is
one of the most popular majors in the state, since communication skills are required for almost every
job. If we are to promote the AA-T as a potential pathway, we must be able to offer additional courses,
beyond the three listed above. We are trying to get students to meet their goals, but we fear we cannot
accommodate the numbers we’d like, as an institution, without increased full-time faculty support in
Communication Studies.
26
Appendix F2: Classified Staffing Request(s) including Student Assistants [Acct.
Category 2000]
Audience: Administrators, PRBC
Purpose: Providing explanation and justification for new and replacement positions for full-time and
part-time regular (permanent) classified professional positions(new, augmented and replacement
positions).Remember, student assistants are not to replace Classified Professional staff.
Instructions: Please justify the need for your request. Discuss anticipated improvements in student
learning and contribution to the Strategic Plan goal, safety, mandates, accreditation issues. Please cite
any evidence or data to support your request. If this position is categorically funded, include and
designate the funding source of new categorically-funded position where continuation is contingent
upon available funding.
1. Number of positions requested: ______
2. If you are requesting more than one position, please rank order the positions.
Position
Description
1.
2.
3. Rationale for your proposal.
4. Statements about the alignment with the strategic plan and program review are required. Indicate
here any information from advisory committees or outside accreditation reviews that is pertinent to
the proposal.
27
Appendix F3: FTEF Requests
Audience: Administrators, CEMC, PRBC
Purpose: To recommend changes in FTEF allocations for subsequent academic year and guide Deans and
CEMC in the allocation of FTEF to disciplines. For more information, see Article 29 (CEMC) of the Faculty
Contract.
Instructions: In the area below, please list your requested changes in course offerings (and
corresponding request in FTEF) and provide your rationale for these changes. Be sure to analyze
enrollment trends and other relevant data
athttp://www.chabotcollege.edu/ProgramReview/Data2012.cfm.
Several campuses are incorporating required Lab time with their Public Speaking courses, such as
Ohlone College and Santa Barbara College. The idea is to ensure the necessary practice of classroom
lecture and textbook information. Class time does not provide adequate time for students to learn and
practice these skills. During Lab time, students will practice all concepts introduced in the classroom,
such as, research, outlining, delivery and evaluation. ESL and students with high anxiety (a large
population), need this additional time to review and practice these concepts. The Comm Lab
requirement will provide the necessary time it takes for students to not only learn the material
superficially but actually become more proficient with presenting themselves in public. We want to
encourage as much practice as possible.The 1-unit requirement should also aid in the continued funding
of the Comm Lab.
We also need reassigned time for faculty to make Lab improvements. We plan to visit and learn from
other Labs, attend conferences, create a webpage and media kit, create and implement learning
modules in the Lab, and explore the possibility of on-line tutoring.
Since we believe the Communication Studies AA-T will be widely popular (and it has been as we’ve
increase are majors in the discipline by 300%), it is imperative to increase our area’s FTEF to allow for
some growth. We can currently serve about 1500 students a year (with an average of 757 served each
term). While some may suggest that we increase our class capacity, we understand and hold firm that
this will NOT enhance learning but dramatically decrease learning in our area. Our courses require
significant time allotted for student presentations/debates and opportunities for group projects,
roleplays, and other communicative training activities. If the capacity is increased, students will have
even less individual attention and instructor support in the development of their communication skills.
In the 2009 Accreditation report, it notes that there were approximately 6300 students looking to
transfer or receive an AA/AS. At this point, we are able to serve about ¼ of that number – whereas all of
these students must take a Communication course. We have 2 “bottlenecked” requirements in our
discipline: the Oral Communication requirement and the Critical Thinking requirement. Comm. Studies
1, 20, and 46 fulfill the Oral Communication requirement, while 20 and 46 fulfill both the Oral
Communication and Critical Thinking requirement. Thus, we have been asking for increases not only to
Comm. 1, but also to CS 20 and 46 in order to facilitate and educate more students wanting to complete
their educational goals. We believe the CEMC and PRBC allocations have been fair and are fulfilling
most of our goals.
28
Appendix F4: Academic Learning Support Requests [Acct. Category 2000]
Audience: Administrators, PRBC, Learning Connection
Purpose: Providing explanation and justification for new and replacement student assistants (tutors,
learning assistants, lab assistants, supplemental instruction, etc.).
Instructions: Please justify the need for your request. Discuss anticipated improvements in student
learning and contribution to the Strategic Plan goal. Please cite any evidence or data to support your
request. If this position is categorically funded, include and designate the funding source of new
categorically-funded position where continuation is contingent upon available funding.
1. Number of positions requested: _Maintain 8-10 tutors in the COMM LAB & 1-3 Paid Lead tutors
2. If you are requesting more than one position, please rank order the positions.
Position
Description
1. Tutors
Peer advisors taking COMM 70A / 70B
2. Lead Tutors
Peer advisors earning scholarships through
Learning Connection. In addition to peer advising,
they perform data collection, campus outreach,
and liaison between tutors, faculty, and Learning
Connection staff.
3.
4.
3. Rationale for your proposal based on your program review conclusions. Include anticipated impact
on student learning outcomes and alignment with the strategic plan goal. Indicate if this request is
for the same, more, or fewer academic learning support positions.
Explain:
Communication Studies instructors have continually used student assistants in the classroom and peer
advisors in the Communication Lab.
Jason Ames, has used student assistants in the classroom. We will continue to use this form of support.
These student assistants are typically senior members of the Forensics team who are coming back to
compete in the next semester. Being a student assistant allows them to see the “other side” of the
ballot and learn from instructing, evaluating, and assisting. This has proven to be a valuable resource not
only for the classroom, but also for the Forensics team.
Since 2010 the Communication Lab in Room 803 has had a steady growth of students coming to see our
peer advisors. According to the College of Instructional Research, we had 287 visits in Spring 2011 and
391 visits in Fall 2011. In a study of success rates from Fall 2009-Spring 2011 our COMM 1 students had
a 94% success rate. In other words, of our students who visit the Lab have higher success rates than
students who do not use the Lab. Furthermore in this same study, the withdraw rate was 0%,
confirming students stay in class when they receive support. According to the College of Instructional
Research, “higher success rates mean more students can go on to the next course rather than repeating
the course and preventing others from taking it. This increases the number of students that Chabot can
serve as well as the number of students who can succeed, persist, graduate, and transfer.” We can only
further emphasize this fact as COMM 1 is a GE requirement all students must pass. (In 2012, we did not
see an increase in student visits but maintained approximately 250 visits per semester despite the fact
29
that our number of tutors declined.)
The Comm Lab is currently open Monday –Thursday from 10am-5pm (depending on staff/tutor
availability). Ideally we would like to be open approx 28 hours per week with 2 tutors working in the Lab
at all times. This requires 3 things: Lab supervision by faculty, peer advisors, and an instructor to teach
the corresponding COMM 70 courses. Currently there is no pay for staff to oversee the Lab (as in
previous years). We rely on faculty to work office hours in the Lab and/or simply make themselves
available. Many of our faculty make themselves available because they know the value of the Lab but
this is not ideal to ask for continued service without compensation. In 2011 the Learning Connection
informed us there would not be enough money to fund the number of tutors needed to maintain
previously noted standards. We knew this would not be acceptable because the number of students
visiting the Lab was growing. So we brainstormed an alternative method. With the help of Title III grant
money, we designed and implemented a new experimental course, a Communication Tutor course,
COMM 4902. Now students earn units instead of pay. The experimental course has now expired and
the new COMM 70A & COMM 70B courses are in the curriculum process. Based on the previous year,
the course is a success. The focus on tutoring as a learned skill instead of job is more accurate and many
students appreciate the units. But this still requires money. Title III money has run out so we need the
Division to add these new courses to the budget. This becomes more imperative as we plan to add 1
Lab unit to our COMM 1 courses, thus dramatically increasing the number of students who visit the Lab.
In addition, the Learning Connection continues to provide some financial support for tutors. We use this
scholarship for Lead tutors, 1-3 veteran tutors who have completed at least one semester of tutoring. It
is necessary to maintain Lead tutors, 3 per semester would be ideal, to role-model skills for new tutors,
perform data collection, campus outreach, and liaison between tutors, faculty, and Learning Connection
staff.
Additionally, in order for the Lab to run smoothly there has to be faculty to supervise, train, write
curriculum, data collection, troubleshooting, assessment, etc. The Communication Lab needs a
permanent funding source, and one that is not reliant on grants or temporary solutions. The
Communication Lab is also in need of more supplies, equipment, and pedagogical materials which also
need a permanent funding source. This program has been a great success, as it serves the entire
campus. And it is growing. We need support to reach its enormous capabilities and to enable us to
serve more students more often.
30
COMM
Appendix F6: Conference and Travel Requests [ Acct. Category 5000]
Audience: Staff Development Committee,Administrators, Budget Committee, PRBC
Purpose: To request funding for conference attendance, and to guide the Budget and Staff Development
Committees in allocation of funds.
Instructions:Please list specific conferences/training programs, including specific information on the
name of the conference and location. Note that the Staff Development Committee currently has no
budget, so this data is primarily intended to identify areas of need that could perhaps be fulfilled on
campus, and to establish a historical record of need. Your rationale should discuss student learning goals
and/or connection to the Strategic Plan goal.
Conference/Training
Program
Western States
Communication Association
Annual conference
National Communication
Association Annual
Convention
National Association of
Communication Centers
Phi Rho Pi National
Convention
2013-14 Request
$1200
$1500
$1000
$1000
Rationale
As faculty, we often present and attend this
conference. We have access to larger discipline
conversations, great ideas for teaching (GIFTs), and
statewide SLO work.
See above. It is important for us to meet and discuss
trends, innovations, and challenges.
See above. Our lab has the highest percentage of
success rates. We want to keep it that way.
See above. Each night of the convention there are
business meetings to address/adjust rules in
intercollegiate forensics competition. We want a
voice and to stay current to ensure our students are
prepared and successful.
31
Appendix F6: Conference and Travel Requests [ Acct. Category 5000]
Audience: Staff Development Committee,Administrators, Budget Committee, PRBC
Purpose: To request funding for conference attendance, and to guide the Budget and Staff Development
Committees in allocation of funds.
Instructions:Please list specific conferences/training programs, including specific information on the
name of the conference and location. Note that the Staff Development Committee currently has no
budget, so this data is primarily intended to identify areas of need that could perhaps be fulfilled on
campus, and to establish a historical record of need. Your rationale should discuss student learning goals
and/or connection to the Strategic Plan goal.
Conference/Training
Program
Western States
Communication Association
Annual conference
National Communication
Association Annual
Convention
National Association of
Communication Centers
Phi Rho Pi National
Convention
2013-14 Request
$1200
$1500
$1000
$1000
Rationale
As faculty, we often present and attend this
conference. We have access to larger discipline
conversations, great ideas for teaching (GIFTs), and
statewide SLO work.
See above. It is important for us to meet and discuss
trends, innovations, and challenges.
See above. Our lab has the highest percentage of
success rates. We want to keep it that way.
See above. Each night of the convention there are
business meetings to address/adjust rules in
intercollegiate forensics competition. We want a
voice and to stay current to ensure our students are
prepared and successful.
32
Appendix F7: Technology and Other Equipment Requests [Acct. Category 6000]
Audience: Budget Committee, Technology Committee, Administrators
Purpose: To be read and responded to by Budget Committee and to inform priorities of the Technology
Committee.
Instructions: Please fill in the following as needed to justify your requests.If you're requesting classroom
technology, see http://www.chabotcollege.edu/audiovisual/Chabot%20College%20Standard.pdf for the
brands/model numbers that are our current standards. If requesting multiple pieces of equipment,
please rank order those requests. Include shipping cost and taxes in your request.
Please note: Equipment requests are for equipment whose unit cost exceeds $200. Items which are
less expensive should be requested as supplies. Software licenses should also be requested as
supplies.
Project or Items Requested
2012-13 Budget
Requested Received
2013-14
Request
$
$ 448
0
$
$ 448
DESKTOP MONITOR - HP Energy
Efficient Essential Series
146.99
0
146.99
DESKTOP COMPUTER - HP Intel
Pentium 5500 Dual-Core
459.95
0
459.95
PROJECTOR - Sony Bravia VPL-BW7
599.99
0
599.99
Epson Duet Ultra Portable
Projector Screen Projection screen
124.99
0
124.99
Philips PET729 DVD player with TV
tuner
79.99
0
79.99
LAPTOP COMPUTER - HP Turion II
P540
Rationale*
In terms of technology, currently the Lab has one laptop for tutors to input necessary data for the
Learning Connection.
We need more laptops for students to research presentation topics, draft outlines, and create visual
aids.
Our Comm Lab also lacks up-to-date presentation aides for students to rehearse. In the future, we
need a set-up as close to a SMART classroom as possible; projector, screen, computer with internet
access and Power Point, DVD player, CD player, and document camera.
We also need video-taping equipment to record student speeches. This is an essential rehearsal tool
and can be a requirement for some classes. This requires a video camera with good microphone and
tripod. Currently this is part of the plan for Building 100, but it is still in planning stages. In these plans,
there will also be computer stations. We require the following programs: Word, Power Point, and a
Dictionary with auditory pronunciation and headphones.
33
Appendix F8: Facilities Requests
Audience: Facilities Committee, Administrators
Purpose: To be read and responded to by Facilities Committee.
Background: Following the completion of the 2012 Chabot College Facility Master Plan, the Facilities
Committee (FC) has begun the task of re-prioritizing Measure B Bond budgets to better align with current
needs. The FC has identified approximately $18M in budgets to be used to meet capital improvement
needs on the Chabot College campus. Discussion in the FC includes holding some funds for a year or two
to be used as match if and when the State again funds capital projects, and to fund smaller projects that
will directly assist our strategic goal. The FC has determined that although some of the college's greatest
needs involving new facilities cannot be met with this limited amount of funding, there are many smaller
pressing needs that could be addressed. The kinds of projects that can be legally funded with bond
dollars include the "repairing, constructing, acquiring, equipping of classrooms, labs, sites and facilities."
Do NOT use this form for equipment or supply requests.
Instructions: Please fill in the following as needed to justify your requests.If requesting more than one
facilities project, please rank order your requests.
Brief Title of Request (Project Name): New library/Learning Connection space
Building/Location: Building 100
Description of the facility project. Please be as specific as possible.
The Communication Lab is currently located in room 803. The space is an improvement from WRAC
but still lacks several criteria for a productive performance space. We need a space that has
technology essential for presentations, sound proofing, and a larger /addition space.
Mike Seaton, Senior Instructional Support, informed us that room 803 is not capable of the technology
that is required for presentation preparation. We need a set-up as close to a SMART classroom as
possible. This includes a projector, screen, computer with internet access and Power Point, DVD
player, CD, player, and document camera. We also need a space that is equipped to record speeches in
a quiet, enclosed space.
In terms of soundproofing, we rehearse many dramatic performances in the Lab and instructors in the
adjoining classroom come in to our space at least once per semester, demanding we quiet down. This
is not possible. In order to fully prepare for a dramatic presentation and/or oral interpretation, our
students need to project. We need a space where students can do this in comfort and without
interruption.
Individual presentation preparation is not the only activity happening in the Communication Lab. Jason
Ames also uses the space for our Intramural Speech Tournament. And groups come into rehears group
presentations regularly. In the future we plan to use the space for our Speakeasy as well as the Great
Debate. We need additional enclosed space and/or a larger space to accommodate these activities.
What educational programs or institutional purposes does this equipment support?
The Mission Statement of Chabot College:
“Chabot College is a public comprehensive community college that prepares students to succeed in their
education, progress in the workplace, and engage in the civic and cultural life of the global community . . .”
Communication Studies explores the complexity of human interaction. Our courses include the
Fundamentals of Speech Communication, Dramatic Oral Interpretation, Group Communication,
Interpersonal Communication, Intercultural Communication, Persuasion, Argumentation, and more.
34
All of which directly reflect the Mission of the College.
The Communication Lab supports all of our courses. The Communication Lab provides help with
speech preparation in any course. We also house speech competitions and we provide a rehearsal
space for group preparation and dramatic interpretation.
In the future we also want to invite faculty and staff to the Communication Lab (Speakeasy) and reach
more of the campus. We will also offer more aspects of Communication, such as listening skills. And
we will invite students to prepare for the Great Debate, a direct opportunity to have a voice in our
community.
So the Communication Lab support all courses and activities in the Communication Studies area
(namely toward the Communication Studies AA-T), we support any course with a communication
assignment, individual and groups, and will support faculty and staff with a variety of communication
topics. The National Association of Colleges and Employers, in a 2010 survey, ranked the top three
desired candidate skills/qualities: (1) communication skills; (2) analytical skills; and (3) teamwork skills.
The Comm Lab is fundamental in supporting our students toward academic, professional, and personal
goals, all objectives of the College and the workforce at large.
Briefly describe how your request relates specifically to meeting the Strategic Plan Goal and to
enhancing student learning?
The Strategic Plan of Chabot college is to:
“Increase the number of students that achieve their educational goal within a reasonable time by
clarifying pathways and providing more information and support.”
The Communication Lab has already proven to be necessary in successful completion of COMM
1 courses and overall retention. Thus increasing the number of students who move closer to
their degree. According to the College of Instructional Research, we had 287 visits in Spring
2011 and 391 visits in Fall 2011. In a study of success rates from Fall 2009-Spring 2011 our
COMM 1 students had a 94% success rate. In other words, of our students who visit the Lab
have higher success rates than students who do not use the Lab. Furthermore in this same
study, the withdraw rate was 0%, confirming students stay in class when they receive support.
According to the College of Instructional Research, “higher success rates mean more students
can go on to the next course rather than repeating the course and preventing others from
taking it. This increases the number of students that Chabot can serve as well as the number of
students who can succeed, persist, graduate, and transfer.”
The Strategic Plan also plans to:
“7. Build pathway learning communities to support students.
a. Leverage the power of peer mentoring
g. Identify “mentor” spaces on campus “
The Communication Lab directly supports all students pursuing Pathways related to Communication,
whether it be a Communication Studies Degree, Political Science, Nursing Degree, etc. Our peer
mentors guide students in organization of ideas, critical thinking, audience analysis, teamwork,
confidence, credibility, verbal and nonverbal strategies, and more. All areas that would increase the
number of students that achieve their educational goal.
35