Faculty Spotlight
Center for Teaching & Learning www.chabotcollege.edu/LearningConnection/ctl/news/spotlight.asp Center for Teaching & Learning December 2010 Volume 2, Issue 2 Faculty Inquiry Groups: Sharing Our Work Chabot Faculty Inquiry Network Conference March 4‐5, 2011 Faculty Inquiry Groups from inside the Faculty Inquiry Net‐
work (FIN), from Chabot College, and from around the state will come together to share insights, initiatives and innova‐
tions generated by their inquiry work including: Basic Skills, General Education, Career & Technical Education, Learning Communities, Student Services, and more. We will discuss: students’ affective domain, contextualized learning, moving from inquiry to innovation, changing classroom practice and dynamics, and more! The conference also will delve into the theory and the process of inquiry itself. Attendees will benefit from practical advice and guidance, including: how to establish and sustain Faculty Inquiry Groups; how and why to integrate student co‐inquirers; and the role technology—including video—can play. The conference will be engaging, fun and inspiring, and will include:  An interactive Inquiry Fair  Wide choice of workshops  Student co‐inquirer presentations and panel  Making Visible products  Friday night dance/gathering In This Issue: 2 Supplemental Instruction in Social Sciences 6 Global & Cultural Involvement 15 SLO Progress Report 3 Online Tutoring 7 ALEKS Adaptive Support Software 16 Upcoming Professional Development Events 4 Student Research Symposium 8 Reading Apprenticeship 5 Basic Skills in CTE 13 Investigations in Developmental English Adapting WRAC 115 Course for the Social Sciences By Alisa Klevens, Rani Nijjar, and Michael Thompson Center for Teaching & Learning In the Fall of 2009, in cooperation with the WRAC center, we began a Faculty Inquiry Group to help students whose learning skills may hinder their success in a college‐level Social Science course. Thus, we focused on implementing an innovative course modeled on English 115 to provide social science disci‐
pline specific reading and writing instruction for these learn‐
ers. History instructor Michael Thompson In the Fall of 2009, two courses, GNST 115 History and GNST 115 Psychology, provided individualized tutoring for students enrolled in History classes and Psychology classes. Workshops were also created that offered in‐
depth discussions on reading, contextualizing, textbook reading skills, note‐taking, lecture note‐
taking, how to study for exams, and how to write Social Science papers. The results of the 2009 pilot were very promising. From the data analysis, it was clear that students in both the History and Psychology courses developed more confidence in their skills and also, in some cases, improved their grades, particularly in response to the tutoring support. In History, there were clear gains in test scores and in paper scores, which translated into a higher success rate in History courses by those students who received credit for 115 than for those not enrolled in any supplemental support. In Psychology, the students were more motivated to study for their exams and had greater class participation. Overall, we determined that the focused indi‐
vidualized instruction made a significant difference in student success. These two supplemental instruction courses clearly provided students with greater access to sup‐
port while teaching the necessary skills for success in college courses. Section enrollment was not 100%, but was strong. As students and faculty become more aware of these services and their benefits, and as they start promoting the class, enrollments should increase. To this end, both Mi‐
chael and Rani worked as tutoring coordinators for their departments, shared information with colleagues about the class, and even conducted classroom visits advertising the new WRAC services. Psychology Instructor Rani Niijar works with a student on her reading assignment in the WRAC Center. Page 2 Expanding Tutoring To Reach Online Learners  Michael Langdon ‐ English (FIG Leader)  Wanda Wong ‐ Computer Science/
Business  Christina Moon ‐ World Languages  Aldrian Estepa ‐ Psychology  Michael Thompson ‐ History  Ramona Silver ‐ Humanities & Language Arts, Chair of COOL Page 3 FIG Members Fall 2010: Center for Teaching & Learning by Dennis Chowenhill; Chabot College has an expanding distance education program in which increasing numbers of students take courses online every year. Unlike students taking courses at the campus, however, students in these courses have limited access to a tutorial services program, de‐
spite the fact that Chabot is required to make all student services available to online stu‐
dents. At Chabot this is a particularly conspicuous inequity since the tutor program at Chabot has increased in size and use over tenfold since the inception of the current tutor program that is part of the Learning Connection. The retention rates of students taking online courses at Chabot are lower than the reten‐
tion rates of students taking courses in classrooms. There are many possible causes for this. It is axiomatic within online instructional programs that many students signing up for classes online have unrealistic expectations, one of which is that taking a class online is go‐
ing to be “easier” or less demanding than taking one in the classroom. There are other, equally intuitive, possibilities, for instance that since online instruction is still relatively new, students are not yet as fluent in this learning environment as they can be expected to be in the traditional classroom setting. by Michael Langdon; The focus of the FIGs earliest discussions in Spring 2010 was the learning needs of students seeking tutoring in both online and on campus courses. In all of our courses—across disci‐
plines—our students need to develop critical reading and critical thinking skills. Our stu‐
dents are most likely to seek tutoring when they need help with specific assignments. Be‐
cause the learning needs of online students are so similar to the learning needs of our on‐
campus students, and because our on‐campus students might also seek online tutoring, we decided that our online tutoring program should be as similar as possible to on‐campus tu‐
toring. A survey of online students last year found that a large majority of online students want online tutoring to occur in real‐time and with voice communication. We concluded that tutoring software that offered the option of real‐time voice communication with tutors would be preferable. We reviewed online tutoring programs at several other community colleges and previewed two types of online tutoring software: TutorTrac and CCC Confer. Our conclusion was that CCC Confer is superior in almost every respect, and it has the added benefit of being free. In week 10 of the Fall 2010 semester, the Online Tutoring FIG implemented its two pilots for online tutoring: English 4 taught by TJ Puckett and History 7 taught by Michael Thompson. We are currently collecting data on how students are using the online tutoring in these courses and whether or not they have found it to be beneficial for their learning needs. Funding has been approved to expand the availability of this service in Spring ‘11, and we are particularly interested in engaging students in the science disciplines. Increasing Student Information Literacy with a Course‐Library Partnership By Pedro Reynoso and Sara Parker Center for Teaching & Learning The objectives of the Student Research Symposium were to in‐
crease student information literacy capabilities and to enhance student research and writing skills. Activities specifically target‐
ing these goals involved support in developing a research ques‐
tion, conducting university quality research to answer that ques‐
tion, and presenting this research in a well constructed essay. We carried out this process by incorporating a research‐intensive focus in one of Sara Parker’s American Government classes and “embedding” Pedro Reynoso, the Chabot outreach librarian into Political Science Instructor Sara Parker addresses her American the class. The end product was a culminating Student Research Government (POSC 1) students Symposium (SRS). Every student enrolled in the pilot section of American Government was required to: 1) research a cur‐
rent topic of interest, 2) write a well‐researched paper, and had the option of 3) presenting their paper to Chabot’s campus community. We assessed the success of our goals in three ways: 1. An analysis of student final papers, including:  Quality of sources  Diversity of sources  Citation of sources  Use of appropriate sources  Delivery of paper (if applicable) 2. Analysis of student grades and retention. 3. Class survey and student feedback. The entire assignment‐related aspect of the class was structured around the research component. Stu‐
dents were assigned the task of writing an 8‐10 page research paper on a topic of their choosing that carried political significance. They were supported in this effort in the following ways: three library ori‐
entations, individual student visits with Pedro or Sara, and scaffolding of the assignment throughout the semester. Each research paper had separate components that the students completed individually at different points in the semester: research question, annotated bibliography, outline, rough draft and final draft. At the end of the semester ,a Symposium was held during which students who elected to participate presented their findings in a formal setting. Ten students participated (almost 25% of the class) in the Symposium. The Symposium on May 14th from 9:00 am to 12:30 pm was a great success, with over 45 people at‐
tending the event. With BSI funding for the pilot project, we were able to print professional programs for the audience and students and to fund four prizes that were awarded to four students for the qual‐
ity of their work. Information on the Symposium can be found online at www.chabotcollege.edu/
facutly/sparker/srs.html. Page 4 For those students who participated, it was a wonderful experience. The students worked for hours in the days prior to the Symposium preparing their PowerPoints and practicing their delivery and timing. Finally, there were at least 20 students in the audience of the symposium, exposing students to quality research conducted by their peers. ‐ SRS, continued on next page ‐ SRS, continued from previous page Supporting the Basic Skills Needs of Career Tech Students Center for Teaching & Learning Among the 41 students who completed in the class, 9 stu‐
dents did not submit final drafts of their papers—a 78% turn‐in rate. The quality of the reports by students who did submit papers was extremely high. Grades were calculated in accordance with a rubric that evaluated the number and quality of citations, correct citation and bibliographic for‐
matting, organization, and quality of writing, as well as the overall level of sophistication of their research. American Government student Kristine The feedback from students makes the success of the pro‐
Glenn presents the topic of abortion at ject quite clear, though there are also recommendations from the Student Research Symposium. the students and the instructors in order to make the project even more effective. Comments from students about their experience in the class and their assess‐
ment of their own improvement as researchers and users of library resources can be found on the Student Research Symposium page on the CTL website. By Rajinder Samra Automotive Technology Instructor Steve Small discusses concepts with his ATEC 60 students. FIG Members:  Rajinder Samra, Research Analyst  Mike Absher, Machine Tool Technology  Steve Small, Automotive Technology Page 5 The objective of the Core Issues and Practices in the Basic Skills Needs of the CTE Students FIG is to determine the best method for contextualized reading instruction in automotive technology and machine tool technology courses, so students who have challenges with English proficiency succeed and persist in their technology courses all the way to degree or certificate completion Students who take CTE courses have varying skill levels with regard to English reading, writing, and critical thinking. The overall data that has been collected to date indicate clearly that stu‐
dents in CTE who were able to complete English courses had a success rate that was 20% higher in CTE courses than those who had not completed a college level English course. Additionally, stu‐
dents who did complete a college level English course also were more persistent in their CTE courses. Therefore, it was evident that CTE Faculty needed to be trained to use instructional tech‐
niques that were specific to their discipline to help students improve their English proficiency. In Fall of 2010 a pilot project is being implemented that sup‐
ports student using both Reading Apprenticeship techniques and additional classroom assistance from in‐class tutors. Stu‐
dents who are in the pilot took the English placement test. Then, the data collected from that test was analyzed to deter‐
mine the English profile of entering students. At FIG meet‐
ings, faculty discuss student progress, issues, and successes. The students in sections affected by this pilot will be tracked to determine their success and persistence rates in the pro‐
grams. Assessing our Teaching of Global & Cultural Involvement By Carolyn Arnold Center for Teaching & Learning Overview: The purpose of this faculty inquiry group (FIG) was to assess one of the college‐wide learning outcomes, global and cultural in‐
volvement, in a variety of disciplines. The FIG identified all of the Chabot College course‐
level student learning outcomes (CLOs) that had been designated as related to global and cultural involvement and categorized them Speech and Communication Instructor Jason Ames into four categories‐ awareness/
guides his students in constructing a verbal argument. understanding, analysis, action/involvement, and aesthetic appreciation. Each of these categories were represented by the CLOs of the faculty in this FIG, so the differ‐
ences between the categories and the relative representation of each category across campus were discussed. The group provided the first glimpse at the status of student learning of global and cultural involvement across the college, and discussed possible reasons for the results. Fall 2009 Discoveries: After investigating how other GCI‐related course‐level student learning outcomes (SLOs) at Chabot, as well as a sample of GCI‐related SLOs and rubrics from other colleges, the FIG mem‐
bers decided to categorize four types of SLOS: Awareness/Understanding, Analysis, Involvement/
Action, and Aesthetic. These categories encompassed the given categories for GCI (Aesthetic Re‐
sponsiveness, Human Context, Environmental, and Familiarity with multiple paradigms and methodologies) Thus, in the Fall 2009 semester the GIG members developed these CGI SLO's for their own courses. They then assessed their results and discussed them in their FIG meetings. One of the most significant realizations that they had was how diverse the these courses were and how much they intersected in their teaching either explicitly or implicitly with global/cultural involvement. Most of these courses assessed an Awareness/Understanding SLO or an Analysis SLO. Only one assessed an Involvement/Action SLO, and only one assessed an Aesthetic SLO. Members of the FIG discussed that courses not directly involved with global and cultural involve‐
ment, yet has an assignment that requires analyzing culture, SLOs that ask for GCI Analysis may need to be included in courses that either include or can already assume that students have a basic awareness/understanding of GCI to allow students to provide an in depth analysis. Page 6 Discoveries: Some instructors noted that the students performed higher on the SLO than the grade they got on the assignment, because the SLO did not take into account all the other factors or SLOs, such as writing ability. For courses that are not about culture explicitly, it is important to allow each instructor to choose to use an SLO related to global/cultural, so that it can be infused throughout the curriculum by the instructors who want to include it. This may support the idea of having ge‐
neric GCI SLOs available for all courses to use, just as the Critical Thinking SLOs are available. ‐ Global, continued on next page ‐ Global, continued from previous page In fact, all College‐wide Learning Outcomes (Critical Thinking, GCI, Communication, Civic Responsi‐
bility, and the Development of the Whole Person) could be made available for all courses, and in‐
structors could either agree to include one or more in their joint courses, or individual instructors could choose one or more for their own sections. FIG Members: 







Carmen Johnston, English Christine Warda, Speech & Communications Dmitriy Kalyagin, Business & Technology Janet French‐Rafael, Spanish Jason Ames, Speech & Communication Lakhbir Singh, Anthropology Sara Parker, Political Science Veronica Martinez, Communication Studies Center for Teaching & Learning Most important, it is clear that having SLO's that are directly related to Global and Cultural Involve‐
ment raises awareness for our learners. When we as instructors are more conscious about how we integrate cultures into our curricula, we increase the level of global awareness for our students. Supporting Developmental Math Students Using Adaptive Learning Software By Ming Ho & Anita Wah ‐ ALEKS, continued on next page Page 7 Students often lack the necessary engagement and preparation that is important for success in developmental math classes. A "Leap Ahead in Math" workshop was piloted in the summer of 2007 by Ming Ho and Anita Wah to help students better prepare for their next math course. In this workshop they used the computer learning system ALEKS (Assessment and Learning in Knowledge Spaces), a computer program that created an individual study plan for students based on their cur‐
rent math knowledge. After determining the current knowledge level, the program scaffolds topics and problems of increasing difficulty. Mathematics Instructor The results of the 2007 pilot workshop were extremely promising: stu‐
Ming‐lun Ho dents were clearly more engaged with doing math. Learners were more focused and invested more time in their math studies. Addition‐
ally the software‐supported workshop reduced the frustration level for the students. Because ALEKS was so successful, ProfessorsHo and Wah decided to incorporate ALEKS in courses in order to implement an alternative developmental math pathway based on the current lecture sections: Math 105, Math 65 and Math 55. ALEKS enables both the instructor and the student to see the rate of learning, which is determined by the program through the number of new topics learned per hour. In Math 105, for example, the information provided offered insights into the high failure rates in developmental courses. In ALEKS, an initial assessment creates a picture of the individual student’s “knowledge space” that is updated each time the student answers a question, whether correctly or incorrectly. The type
‐ ALEKS, continued from previous page Center for Teaching & Learning and order of problems presented to the students are entirely individualized and depend on the computerized system’s determination of what the student knows and is ready to learn. This individualized curricular trajectory is perfectly suited for Chabot College students, many of whom have repeatedly taken courses beyond the level at which they can succeed. Additionally, ALEKS is able to monitor student progress very successfully, and it can be used in creating a flexibly‐paced program for each learner. The courses in which ALEKS is used are not self‐paced, because it is clear to the math faculty that our learners need structure in their math program. Therefore, pacing should not be left entirely to the students. Since ALEKS tracks the rate at which topics are learned and individualizes a learning trajectory for each student, organization of the learning process is no longer confined by book chapters. Instead, instructors can set benchmarks, such as the number of topics that need to be learned (regardless of what they are) as long as students demonstrate steady progress. Professors Ho and Wah have discussed their future plans for this program: "While we have a sense of the potential benefits of using ALEKS for a course, the devil’s in the details. We will need time to research how others have implemented ALEKS in a course and develop our own program design. We will need to address issues specific to this course format, as lectures are no longer the only major delivery method and grades are not determined by the traditional scheduled chapter tests. We will collaboratively create class policies and course structure for Ming’s two sections of Math 105 in Fall 2009, so they will be more reflective of a pilot for a subdivision, as opposed to one instructor’s effort. We want to get a speaker/consultant who have been involved with using ALEKS, such as Wade Ellis, math faculty at West Valley Commu‐
nity College." To further support students, investigations are underway to develop and implement options for students who need even more time than the current slower course sequence. For instance, maybe a student needs to take two semesters to complete Math 65A instead of just one. An‐
other way to encourage students to continue working on developmental math is to offer vari‐
able credit so students can, for example, receive ½ unit credit for completing the appropriate proportion of a course. However, a variable‐credit program might create problems for students on financial aid. Work is continuing to identify other potential roadblocks and to research op‐
tions to overcome them. Mathematics Instructor Anita Wah guides a student in the Math Lab. Page 8 Reading Apprenticeship: Expanding to More Classrooms in 2010—2011 Page 9 ‐ RA‐ continued on next page Center for Teaching & Learning The Reading Apprenticeship FIG investigated how to make the learning and cognitive process a visible and tangible experience to enhance student learning and teaching. Faculty work coopera‐
tively together sharing how they use reading and teaching strategies with each other so that each of them fully understands how these strategies work visually in the classroom. They use this greater understanding to facilitate their learners' process in each of their respective disci‐
plines. Reading Apprenticeship is fully recognized as a truly effective pedagogical application to facilitate reading instruction for both composition and reading courses in discipline‐based classes. The Reading Apprenticeship (RA) FIG completed its second year at Chabot College in 2009‐10. The five original RA LIRA‐trained FIG members remained in this year’s FIG, as did the additional four faculty who joined in Winter 2009. Two new faculty joined this year, bringing the FIG to eleven members from disciplines across the curriculum. Four of the members attended the RA 2009 Summer Conference, and five attended the RA 2010 Winter Conference. In short, each member has received RA professional development training, and two of the original members, Cindy Hicks and Patricia Wu, provide RA professional development to community college faculty throughout the state. In 2010 the group discussions focused on: 1. What do you want to understand better about your students and how they learn? More specific topics in this area include how to help students:  Find their way into a text  Build confidence in themselves as readers  Develop a reader identity  Become independent readers  Build stamina to persist with difficult text 2. How can you more fully incorporate metacognitive routines into your classroom?  Introducing metacognitive routines early in the semester so that they become em‐
bedded in classroom culture  Trusting more in our students by pulling back as instructors; students talk more/
instructors talk less  Encouraging students to engage each other metacognitively on a routine basis‐
discussing how they make sense of text to each other and allowing ample class time to do this  Grappling with the content coverage issue; recognizing that metacognitive conversa‐
tion requires class time and adjusting content to accommodate this shift 3. How will you assess the impact of these classroom routines on student learning?  Develop assessments that measure engagement and persistence, as well as success  Work with IR to refine the Learning Engagement Survey to more closely align with our learning goals and outcomes  Share and discuss student work to inform our pedagogical practices and build better assessment tools ‐ RA‐ continued from previous page Center for Teaching & Learning Most of the discussions focused on the first two questions during August, September, and Oc‐
tober. The conversation shifted to the third question in November, and continued throughout the rest of the academic year. These inquiries included:  Classroom videos that showed “think aloud/modeling” and “talking to the text” in practice  Student case studies (following an individual student’s progress through the semester)  Examples of adequate, good, and excellent student CERAs (Curriculum‐ Embedded Reading Assessments)  Student reading log samples  Examples of business/accounting word problems given to students to solve in small groups  Pre‐ and post‐ MARSI (Metacognitive Awareness Reading Strategies Inventory) results. The positive results measured for the Reading Apprenticeship pilot drove us to begin expand‐
ing the program across campus. In Summer 2010, six Chabot faculty members attended the first Reading Apprenticeship training that specifically targeted instructors in the STEM disci‐
plines (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math) and four more were trained at WestEd’s summer institute. In Fall 2010, Cindy Hicks facilitated on‐campus RA professional development in Fall 2010 for 12 more faculty members. This large group of newly trained faculty will be mentored in their im‐
plementation of RA techniques by members 2 of the 09‐10 FIG. In January 2010, another on‐campus training session will be conducted for Math & Science fac‐
ulty at the request of Dean Tram VoKumamoto. If you would like a training session to be con‐
ducted specifically for your division, please contact Jane Wolford. Page 10 FIG Members 2009‐2010: Newly Trained Faculty Summer/Fall 2010: 






























Nicholas Alexander, Physics Homeira Foth, English Katie Hern, English Ming Ho, Mathematics Alisa Klevens, English Kent Uchiyama, ESL Jane Wolford, History Wanda Wong, Business/Computer Science Patrica Wu, Biology Mike Absher, Machine Tool Technology Steve Small, Automotive Technology Rajinder Samra, Research Analyst Doris Hanhan, Mathematics Jonathan Traugott, Computer Science Jennifer Lange, Biology Marcia Corcoran, Dean: Language Arts Tram VoKumamoto, Dean: Science and Math Amparo Ramos, ESL Rachel LePell, Theater Arts Aldrian Estepa, Psychology Mark Hauck, English Ingrid Huffgard, ESL Svetlana Korzun, Physical Education Deonne Kunkel, English Michael Langdon, English Marianna Matthews, English Don Plondke, Geography Dorothy Sole, ESL Linnea Wahamaki, ESL Kip Waldo, Anthropology Barbara Worthington, English Reading Apprenticeship: Using “Think Pair Share” in Physiology By Patricia Wu Center for Teaching & Learning Page 11 The lecture style in the physiology class has changed significantly. Instead of lecturing for 50 minutes straight, 10 minutes of lecture time before the break is now reserved for student discussions and re‐
flections. This technique is called “Think, Pair, Share”. The first 5 minutes of the “Think, Pair, Share”, each student will find a partner to reflect on the part of the lecture which they have difficulties understanding and discuss it. They may also use this time to “fill in the gap” which means to get missed information from the classmates. The last 5 minutes, stu‐
dents will share the questions with the class, and the questions will be answered by the instructor. The purpose of incorporating the “Think, Pair, Share” technique is to slow down the pace of the lecture, so the students have a chance to catch up with the new concepts and enhance deeper learning of the material. Also, the 10‐minute “time out” from lecture gives the shy students in the class to raise questions or confusions with their peers. Another significant change in the class is that students are now required to complete reading reflections (or reading logs) from the textbook. This is how it works: a reading reflection has two col‐
Instructor Patricia Wu umns. When students come across a statement/confusion/idea instructs one of her they read in the text, they will write or type (template is provided physiology students. on Blackboard) it in the left column. In the right column, students will respond or interpret the statement/confusion/idea which caught their attention in the first place. The idea of implementing the reading reflections is to: 1) encourage the students to read, 2) slow down students’ reading, so they will think about the material critically or engage the text metacognitively, and 3) enhance their understanding of important and basic concepts. Interesting statements, questions, or confusions are shared during the “Think, Pair, Share” time and during lab in group discussions. The reading reflec‐
tions are also collected and read by the instructor to provide feedback and gain insights into stu‐
dents’ confusions. The reading reflections will be expanded next semester to include a third column: Solutions. The ra‐
tionale for this expansion is that the students often raise good questions or state their confusions well in the second column, but they seldom try to find the answers to their problems. Often times, answers are apparent in their readings, but they just don’t bother with it since they are not “asked” to do it. Hopefully, the reading reflections will modify students’ behavior from not paying attention to reading critically, recognizing problems/confusions, and finding solutions. In other words, the reading reflections may change the students from passive to active learners. Midterm grades from different semesters are analyzed to assess the effectiveness of the RA routines. Students usually earn the highest grade from the first midterm then decline due to the increased dif‐
ficulty of the material. Midterm grades from spring 2007 to spring 2009 semesters (without RA) showed the declining or erratic trends. RA routines were implemented in the fall 2009 and spring 2010 semesters, and the midterm grades were fairly stable from the beginning to the end of the se‐
mester as the material got harder. In spring 2010, only three midterms were scheduled instead of the four administered in the past semester to accommodate the extra flex days, therefore, more mate‐
rial was covered for each of the three midterm as well. ‐ RA: Physio, continued on next page ‐ RA: Physio, continued from previous page Center for Teaching & Learning But the midterm grades did not decline. They were stable through the entire se‐
mester. In conclusion, RA routines which empha‐
size metacognitive skills, helped students’ performance in the physiology class. Figure 1 Midterm grades from spring 07 to spring 10 semesters Reading Apprenticeship: Using Metacognitive Routines in History Classes By Jane Wolford Page 12 Students in History courses have traditionally always had difficulty moving beyond the facts and dates in History, and the challenge has been to compel them to think more deeply and critically about the actual his‐
torical sources in order to understand how historical interpretation has changed over time. For the Reading Apprenticeship FIG in Spring 2009, I put together a reader for my students and imple‐
mented metacognitve routines such as using think aloud modeling with primary source documents. Instead of going over the document with them in lecture, students shared out what their part of the document said, what they thought the author meant, and why certain “sentiments” were included and not others. Data were collected based on the following question: Does practicing metacognative routines over the course of the semester result in getting students to do the reading independently and making sense of what they read? The data analyzed were student responses to the eleven final exam multiple‐choice questions that are based on primary source reading from eight articles. The results of the data for Spring 2009 and Fall 2009 indicated that the success rates were 75.75% In the Spring 2010 semester, the data indicated a slight drop in success rates. As I try to make sense of the numbers, I am very encouraged by the 71% average for Fall ’09 regarding the readings‐based questions. This indicates that just over 70% were doing the readings and understanding/retaining what they read. On the other hand, I am discouraged by the 62.7% average for Spring ’10, especially when I compare this to the overall test average, which is a full ten points higher. Looking at the data from one particular reading, the results seem conflicting. For instance, in regard to the personal account of one Japanese American woman’s experience as an internee during WWII, how could only 58.7% know where she was interned (she mentions this frequently), yet 80.4% know why she was able to leave the camp during the year? I think these conflicting numbers show that most students did do the reading but did not pay much attention to some of the details. ‐ RA: History, continued on next page ‐ RA‐History, continued from previous page I actually see hope here despite the drop in Spring ’10. These are actually far better results than before RA entered my classroom. I think that the semester discrepancy indicates that RA in combination with supplemental workshops are interventions that complement each other in achieving greater student success. Questions Raised by Investigations into Serving English 101/102 Students Center for Teaching & Learning Part of the discrepancy could be that in Fall I offered supplemental instruction workshops for students, and most of the sessions were focused on the readings. But, we did not hold a session on these particu‐
lar readings. I like to think that students felt confident enough due to a great deal of exposure to RA routines both in the classroom and in the workshops that they could apply to these readings when read independently. As I look wholistically at this data I think I can safely answer my inquiry question as follows: based on student responses to readings‐based questions on the final examination for Fall ‘09, students were do‐
ing the reading outside of class, as evidenced by the 71% average. The 62.7% average for Spring ’10 indi‐
cates that a majority did do the reading, but fall short of what I expected. I think the numbers show that most students are doing the reading, but there is a disconnect in relating an understanding of the mate‐
rial. By Katie Hern Page 13 As part of the Basic Skills Initiative Jumpstart project, English faculty investigated the potential bene‐
fits of having basic skills students take English 102 rather than the English 101A/B sequence of classes. These are the questions explored:  Course success and persistence data comparing 102 vs. 101A/B  Accuplacer scores for students in our Jumpstart sections, compared with their performance in class  Case studies of students performing at different levels in each of our classes (strong, me‐
dium, struggling), including samples of student work  Pre‐ and post‐data from the survey on students’ usage of 30 different reading strategies (MARSI)  Students who withdrew or did not pass, analyzed with the following question: was it because their literacy skills required more than one accelerated pre‐1A semester, or was it due to other factors? Issues Identified for Consideration within Department: Programmatic Issues: In Jumpstart, English 102 was offered as the only developmental English option available to students registering after July 17. (Students could not self‐select between 101A and 102 because all sections of 101A were full when these late‐arriving students registered.) This provided a window into some larger questions that have been raised and are being considered by the English faculty members:  How should we direct students toward the appropriate path – 102 vs. 101A/B?  Which students need a two‐semester developmental pathway? What are their specific needs, and does the current 101A/B sequence meet them?  Do we have the right balance of sections – 101A/B vs. 102? ‐ English, continued on next page ‐ English, continued from previous page Center for Teaching & Learning The data from both Chabot and other colleges show a strong trend: When accelerated students get to transfer‐level English, they pass at exactly the same rate as stu‐
dents from two‐semester track. The major difference between the two pathways is that about twice as many students from accelerated sequences actually enroll in college level English. Pedagogical Issues: Affective issues lead many students to withdraw from or not pass developmental English courses, despite their having demonstrated a promising level of ability in the reading/thinking/writing of the course. These issues included relying on old high school habits (e.g., “doing the minimum to get by”), being forced by their parents to go to school, and a low‐level of intrinsic motivation to‐
ward the reading and writing demands of the course. These issues were more pronounced in our Jumpstart sections than in our typical heterogeneous sections, and they raise a question to wrestle with: As classroom teachers, how can we work with these kinds of affective issues to support stu‐
dent success in our classes? The results of the Jumpstart investigation provoked further significant questions regarding whether it is better to have students enroll in English 102 and thus directing students to enroll early in an accelerated English curriculum that integrates reading and writing and provides a one‐semester track to college‐English:  How should we direct students toward the appropriate path – accelerated vs. two‐semester track?  Which students need a longer sequence? What are their specific needs, and does our current sequence meet them? How do we identify these students?  Do we have the right balance of accelerated and non‐accelerated sections? English Instructors Katie Hern (left) and Angie Magallon (below) both taught Jumpstart English 102 sections and documented the progress of their students in order to in‐
form the questions being investigated in the English sub‐
division. Page 14 Student Learning Outcomes: We’re Making Significant Progress! By Carole Splendore Center for Teaching & Learning In order to reach the “Proficient” stage by 2012, our Accreditation Visiting Team recommended that we designate more time and more resources to accelerating our work on developing and assessing Student Learning Outcomes. As you can see from the graphs below, we have made significant progress over the last year; momentum that we need to continue in order to reach the goal set for us. Our progress to date includes:  In Spring '10, with the introduction of Program Level Outcomes and SLO mapping, we moved from the awareness to the development stage of the WASC SLO rubric.  As of Fall '10, 49% of our programs have named two Program Level Outcomes and have mapped Course Level Outcomes to them.  The Program Review process now contains areas for SLO assessment results, so the way in which dis‐
ciplines report their discussions about their programs' strengths and needs also now includes evi‐
dence of student learning.  We have assessment in 40% of our courses. The disciplines that have "closed the loop" on course‐
level assessment have started to enjoy the discussions about the goals of their programs and about what students are learning.  The SLOAC committee has several new members, bringing the total membership up to 15. Page 15 Upcoming Professional Development Events on Campus Creating Assessment Plans Center for Teaching & Learning  December 2, 10:30‐12:00  December 3, 1:45‐3:15 For those who will enter SLO assessment in Spring 2011 or Fall 2011, you can begin by mapping your as‐
sessment activities to the designated learning outcomes for your course(s). Preparing this plan prior to the start of the semester will allow for the identification of assignments of equivalent difficultly to those of others teaching the same course and will assist in managing your time throughout the data gathering proc‐
ess. Room 119 Entering Data in eLumen/eLumen Orientation  January 25, 12:00‐12:50  January 27, 12:00‐12:50 Drop‐in to receive guidance on entering your SLO assessment data in eLumen while SLOAC members are available for assistance if necessary. In room 119. Documenting Actions in eLumen  February 8, 12:00‐12:50  February 24, 12:00‐12:50 Already recorded assessment scores in eLumen? We will show you the next step: reviewing reports of stu‐
dent achievement for your courses and using the assessment analysis and actions pages to record your observations and actions you wish to take. Cognition Book Club  January 26, 12:00‐1:00 in room 553  February 15, 12:00‐1:00 in room 502 Discussion of The Art of Changing the Brain, by James Zull. Topics that will be explored include engaging multiple senses to intake information and closing the loop on learning by using the frontal cortex to inte‐
grate and act on new knowledge. Talk About Teaching ‐ on the first Tuesday of each month @ College Hour Upcoming Topics Include:  How do I get tutors and learning assistants for my discipline? Deonne Kunkel ‐ English, Tutoring Programs Coordinator  Using Blackboard’s Live Chat feature to connect with students. Ramona Silver ‐ English, COOL Com‐
mittee Chair Brown Bag Lunch with SLOAC  February 17, 12:00‐12:50 Bring your lunch for a chat about applying the science of learning to the classroom based on the article “Applying the Science of Learning to the University & Beyond” by Diane Halpern & Milton Hakel. Cognition & Learning Workshops Page 16  Exploring The Use of Learning Objects ‐ Friday, January 28, 10:00‐12:00  Advancing Our Students Through the Stages of Intellectual Development ‐ Thursday, February 10, 12:00‐2:00; Friday, February 11, 10:00‐12:00  Targeting Feedback to Guide Further Practice and Enhance Performance ‐ Thursday, March 10, 12:00‐1:00; Tuesday, March 15, 12:00‐1:00. Please see the Center for Teaching & Learning website for more
information and specific workshop locations.
www.chabotcollege.edu/learningconnection/ctl/news/newsandviews.asp
Support for the Center for Teaching & Learning provided by a Federal Title III grant.