Science & Math Division
Program Astronomy
Contact Person Scott Hildreth & Tim Dave
Date March 2011
I.
Reflect upon the last three years' analysis and activities.
Our 2009 Program review concluded that, in the next review cycle, we would focus upon two key areas:
1) Assessing and Evaluating student success in our astronomy classes; and,
2) Exploring how best to take advantage of new facilities and new equipment provided by the
Measure B Bond.
Key Program Review Focus Area #1: Assessing and Evaluating Student Success in Astronomy
Our 2009 program review looked both “inward”, comparing student success across the campus with that achieved in our astronomy lecture classes, and “outward” to community colleges across the Bay Area region, seeking to understand whether Chabot’s students were succeeding at a different rate than other schools. From the external data available at the time, Chabot’s students were succeeding in our two astronomy lecture classes at the same rate, or below that of other nearby schools – but this was a very limited survey. Since that time, the
Chancellor’s office makes program statistics available online for success rates by college, and with a few hours of research, Chabot’s astronomy program success can be ranked relative to other colleges:
College
Chabot
Las Positas
Ohlone
San Mateo
Diablo Valley
Foothill
Contra Costa
Fall 2010
Success
53.5%
53.6%
38.3% no data available no data available no data available no data available
Summer 2010
62%
52.6%
60.3%
80.2%
81.3% no data available no data available
Spring 2010
56.5%
54.6%
40.4%
70.7%
68.1%
84.1%
54.2%
Fall 2009
55.6%
48.7%
47.7%
68.7%
64.9%
69.3%
50%
Spring 2009
53.5%
43.6%
41.5%
73.4%
68.2%
81.9%
63.3%
Hartnell
De Anza no data available no data available no data available no data available
74.2%
79%
85%
82%
77.6%
82%
Avg Greater SF
Bay Area
Statewide
64.7%
64.5%
62%
63% 63% no data available
77%
Source: California Community Colleges Chancellors Office. (2011) Program Retention/Success Rates For Credit Enrollments By Distance
Education Status. Sub Discipline Astronomy (Program Code 1911). Accessed from https://misweb.cccco.edu/mis/onlinestat/ret_sucs_de_rpt.cfm?timeout=800 .
The success rate for Chabot students in Astronomy is comparable to that of students taking Bio 31, another introductory science course with no prerequisites, showing an average success rate for the past six full semesters from available institutional data as 53%. Presumably the same types of students take both courses.
Chabot College Astronomy Program Review – Year 3 – March 2011 – Scott Hildreth Page 1

Assessing and Evaluating Student Success in Astronomy (cont.)
It is apparent that, looking at Astronomy program success scores only, Chabot indeed ranks below both Bay
Area averages, and statewide averages. These results help to frame a larger inquiry that could form our next program review cycle – contacting the schools that are doing even better than Chabot, and looking critically at what they are doing to achieve the success rates they report. For example, Santa Barbara College shows both one of the largest astronomy programs (three to four times larger in enrollment each term than Chabot), and one of the highest success rates, in the state:
College Fall 2010
Success
Summer 2010 Spring 2010 Fall 2009 Spring 2009
Santa Barbara 79.3% 89.3% 79.0% 78.1% 79.9%
Are these success results due solely to different demographics? Or are they a result of larger lecture delivery and assessment modes compared with essay exams administered at Chabot by some faculty. Locally colleges like De Anza, Foothill, and Marin have higher success rates than Chabot for their Astronomy programs, but again demographics might logically be one reason for that difference. Still, we can reach out and see what factors those schools might be able to identify as key reasons for their success, and learn from that work.
Still, success by grades (A,B, C, or Pass) is just one measure of achievement. It will be important to use additional assessments through the SLO process to gauge student success on other terms. Using the CLO process, we are looking at doing even more assessment of student success in our classes across a variety of metrics, including appreciation for the process of science as illustrated in recent Astronomical discoveries, as well as appreciation for Astronomy’s impact on our students’ lives. We might be able to look at CLO’s of other schools, and compare how students are doing with identical assessments.
Key Program Review Focus Area #2: Exploring how best to take advantage of new facilities and equipment
This area was indeed the major focus of our time and energy over the past 3 years. The renovation of Building
1900, the move of all planetarium equipment to the Physics lab, teaching Astronomy in the first generation of
“smart” classrooms, and the subsequent move back to the new planetarium, consumed enormous amounts of faculty time, far beyond the hours associated contractually for professional collegial participation. The planetarium did indeed come online with new equipment in Summer 2010, and we have begun to learn how to use the new projector, as well as all of the new AV equipment. All lecture classes are being held in the planetarium for both Autumn 2010 and Spring 2011 terms, and students are very positive in their enjoyment and appreciation of the facilities. We would like to investigate retention and student success data from Chabot’s database over the next three years, to learn whether the new facilities might indeed be identified as playing a role in any improvements.
As with any advanced technology, we have encountered numerous problems with the sound system, AV system programming, and Software. We are spending at least 5-10 hours a week working with the systems, and much more time developing public programs, learning to program the system for more automated operations. We’ve continued our training with the system, including 6 additional hours in Spring 2011 from Spinitar.
With the challenges presented by the new lecture halls and planetarium equipment, and the required involvement of our two full-time faculty in the new Building 1800 project, we’ve not had the time to install and begin to use the 12” optical telescope and portable observatory dome.
Our goals continue to be learning how to integrate this equipment into both our lecture and laboratory classes, as well as for use with public shows. Public events will start that term with a grand opening, followed by a schedule of community and school shows over the academic year.
Chabot College Astronomy Program Review – Year 3 – March 2011 – Scott Hildreth Page 2

II. Briefly summarize the accomplishments of the discipline, and how they relate to the review of the program, the program-level outcomes (PLOs) and course-level outcomes (CLOs).
Our largest accomplishment in the program review cycle was re-establishing our planetarium as a state-of-the art lecture theater. We also made progress implementing SLO/CLO’s for our courses, integrating new labs, and testing out new curriculum delivery options with a year-long field test of a new textbook and online learning system offered by WH Freeman with four astronomy classes.
The table below summarizes our continuing Astronomy Program Goals from the Year Two
Program Review (March 2010), and notes the overall achievements for each major goal.
Astronomy Program Goals from March 2010 Program
Review Unit Plan
1.
Continue to assess student learning and success in both
Astronomy lecture and lab courses, using SLOs and online systems.
2.
Attend planetarium training for the new projector systems in
April and June 2010; receive AV systems training in March &
April 2010. Explore how the new planetarium equipment positively affects student success and satisfaction, as well as campus visibility in the community
3.
Explore how new laboratory telescopes and equipment can be integrated into the laboratory courses.
4.
Develop the pool of qualified applicants for adjunct teaching opportunities
Overall Achievement
Ongoing
Planetarium now in operation for all classes; assessments for student success starting
Still in progress
5.
Monitor the support time and costs required for maintaining the new planetarium projector and AV equipment, so that the college can adequately budget for the future. We face a preventative maintenance bill for the new projector of about
$6-7K a year – almost double the old amount; in addition, we face another maintenance agreement cost of about $4K per year for the new digital AV systems.
6.
Explore how to offer public programs at the planetarium, for the community and local schools, and fund the acquisition and/or development of new programs to attract the community and the student to Chabot.
7. Continue to lead the Building 1700-1800 user groups, specifically with the design of the physics labs, tutorial spaces, and storage.
Stopped due to limited FTEF allocation and continued program cuts – no classes to offer.
Warranty for the equipment lasts until the end of February 2012; by then we need to know if we can afford, or afford not, to contract for support.
Public Programs have started on a very limited basis. They can be extended with the hiring of additional program help, planned for Autumn 2011.
Ongoing.
Chabot College Astronomy Program Review – Year 3 – March 2011 – Scott Hildreth Page 3

The table below details the continuing program activities in support of these goals from March 2010, updated with our current achievements. We were successful with every major activity save for constructing a new portable planetarium and telescope, integrating its use into the lab curriculum, and developing more public and school programs for the new planetarium. It is important to note that the development and delivery of public programs are outside of our teaching and collegial professional loads, compensation, and hours. An additional spreadsheet with greater detail is also attached at the end of this report.
Year 2 -3 Program Review Activites
Spring 2010:
 Complete 1902 Renovation
 Training on AV systems: March/April 2010
 3-Day intensive training on planetarium systems: April 5-7
 Install and customize planetarium instructional computer system
 Use Planetarium for special class visits for current Spring 2010 classes: May

(if/when occupancy is granted)
Continue SLO development and assessment cycle
 Continue to assist in the definition of building 1700 and 1800
Summer 2010:
 Teach initial class in the planetarium
 Develop plans for grand opening
 Develop plans for portable observatory
 Continue SLOs
 Continue to assist in the definition of building 1700 and 1800
Autumn 2010:
 Teach all lecture classes in planetarium
 Develop initial public event
 Continue SLOs
 Continue to assist in the definition of building 1700 and 1800
 Revise Lab curriculum to utilize new telescopes and equipment
 Develop initial school shows
Spring 2011:
 Continue teaching all lecture classes in planetarium


Continue initial public shows
Assess first-year maintenance/operations costs for inclusion into subsequent year budget planning.

 Continue SLOs
 Continue to assist in the definition of building 1700 and 1800
 Continue ischool shows
Test lab curriculum with new telescopes
Status
All
Successfully completed
All
Successfully completed
Successfully completed
Not yet completed
Successfully completed
Not yet completed
Chabot College Astronomy Program Review – Year 3 – March 2011 – Scott Hildreth Page 4

III. Please list what best practices (e.g., strategies, activities, intervention, elements, etc.) you would recommend? What was challenging? Was there a barrier(s) to success?
Best practices to recommend:
1. Faculty Involvement in Building Renovation
From our work on the Building 1900 renovation (stretching more than 4 years), and the current work on Building 1700/1800 renovation, we have learned that faculty participation cannot stop with the initial user definitions. Given the specialized nature of the planetarium, we were called on almost daily to help decide construction dilemmas, call attention to details overlooked, review proposed changes, and explore new options. We expect similar requirements will be present in the construction of the new physics labs in 1800. The college should recognize that the best way to get the very best buildings built, serving the needs of the students and the faculty working within them, greater faculty participation is required – and should be reflected with at least some reassignment time. To expect faculty to do their ongoing teaching, committee, and professional work as well as handle building issues will not produce as much success.
2. Increased Local Faculty Responsibility for Maintenance of Office/Lab Computer Resources
Over the last program review cycle, we’ve seen numerous problems with our
Physics/Astronomy wireless system in Building 1700, as well as challenges getting software installed on lab computers that have long since been used beyond their intended lifetime. In the same time, online learning systems provided by our textbook publishers have exploded in sophistication and power – but they, too, often require installation of new java, flash, and other plug-ins. As more and more computers are deployed on campus – without an increase in
Chabot’s local computer support team – we face longer delays in getting equipment installed, and longer wait times for necessary software upgrades, unless we can learn to be more effective. One way to do that would be to grant selected users local administrative authority, which could be used to install simple plug-in’s and publisher software. With suitable training, and under the proper guidance of Chabot’s local team, a faculty team could speed response and provide greater local help to colleagues.
Challenges/Barriers to Success:
1.
Insufficient time for faculty to provide substantial comments to the building project management team. On many occasions in the development of our
Building 1900 project, we were provided with very limited windows to comment upon new plans, with an implied threat that if we made no comments by a deadline, the plans would go ahead as is. We need a more reasonable opportunity review and discuss changes that affect our teaching and ultimately, our students.
Chabot College Astronomy Program Review – Year 3 – March 2011 – Scott Hildreth Page 5

Challenges/Barriers to Success (cont.)
2.
Implementing SLOs, CLOs, and PLOs has been made extremely complex with the required use of eLumen. Only with the tremendous support of our campus webmaster, Abdullah Yahya, were we finally able in 2010 to use a simple webbased interface for the creation of new CLOs and PLOs – but unfortunately doing that work did not automatically translate into those objectives being included into the eLumen system for reporting. If we really want faculty to use the CLO/PLO process authentically, the interface and reporting needs major revision, and a simple web-based system for data entry and reporting must be devised.
3.
The lack of a laboratory assistant, or lab technician who can assist faculty in the maintenance of the physics/astronomy lab and in setting up experiments continues to be a huge barrier to our program success. When physics and astronomy faculty must spend hours setting up and taking down labs – something that other science faculty do not have to do at Chabot, nor at LPC, we are consequently not able to spend that time improving our teaching and helping our students learn.
4.
Establishing planetarium school programs, and a more vibrant community program, requires more help. Faculty already donate their time and energy for community education and special programs held on Friday and Saturday nights.
Developing a new community program with our equipment requires additional staff help, along the lines of what Hartnell College does with its paid planetarium educator, Andy Kreyche.
IV. Next Steps: Recommendations for program and institutional improvement.
Program Improvement:
1.
Hire an adjunct faculty colleague trained in the use and development of programs for digital planetarium projection. Develop community outreach planetarium programs that could be offered at least monthly, as well as limited school shows. For a very modest attendee cost at these programs, the time of that faculty member could be largely offset, and their work leveraged using it within our daytime classes.
2.
Hire a student lab assistant, or part-time lab coordinator to help with the inventory and preparation for moving the physics labs to the new Building 1800. As soon as such a person could be found, they could help faculty set up and take down labs, identify equipment no longer being used (and available for surplus, saving the cost to move it to the new lab space.)
3.
Fund attendance for at least one faculty member to the Spitz Institute training offered annually in Pennsylvania each summer, so that we might learn how to use our system even more effectively.
Chabot College Astronomy Program Review – Year 3 – March 2011 – Scott Hildreth Page 6

1
2
7
8
9
5
6
3
4
10
11
12
13
Goal
#
Original Timeline from March 2010
Unit Plan Program
Review (Year 2)
Spring 2010
Spring 2010
Spring 2010
Spring 2010
Spring 2010
Summer 2010
Summer 2010
Summer 2010
Autumn 2010
Autumn 2010
Autumn 2010
Autumn 2010
Spring 2011
Chabot College Astronomy Program
Milestone Activity
Complete 1902 Renovation
Begin using 1904, 6, 8 Lecture Halls for Astronomy & Physics lectures
Training on AV systems/ Customizing Audio systems
Begin training on use of new Spitz SciDome planetarium
Continue to work on Building 1700-1800 Definition & design
Use Planetarium for current class field trips if possible
Begin installation of 12” Reflector and Portable Dome
Begin using Planetarium for one class as a pilot
Develop Plans for Grand Opening
Begin using Planetarium for all astronomy lecture classes
Begin developing how to use new telescopes in Astronomy Laboratory
Start initial public shows in planetarium for community & schools
Begin exploring how to offer community nights with new planetarium
Begin student labs with new telescope equipment in Astro 30
Person(s)
Responsible
Hildreth/Dave
Hildreth/Dave
Hildreth/Dave
Hildreth/Dave
Hildreth/Dave
Hildreth Dave
Hildreth
Hildreth/Dave
Dave/Hildreth
Hildreth/Dave
Hildreth/Dave
Hildreth/Dave
Hildreth/Dave
Accomplished?
Yes/No/
In Progress*
Reviewed
March 2011
Yes
Revised?
Yes / No
If yes, list revision year
Yes (2009)
Do you need additional funds to support this activity?
Yes/No
If, yes, what type?** no no Yes
100 + person hours spent to date on
AudioVisual training
Yes
Yes
Yes
Still in progress
Yes
Still in progress Fall 2011
Yes
No
Yes
2011-2012
Still in progress
Still in progress no
YES travel no no no no no no
YES
YES staffing, supplies no
Chabot College Astronomy Program Review – Year 3 – March 2011 – Scott Hildreth Page 7

III. Student Learning Outcomes Inventory Update

Percentage of courses in your discipline that have CLOs and rubrics developed:_ 100%_

Percentage of courses in your discipline that have the minimum number of CLOs developed: (1 unit = 1 or more CLO, 2 units = 2 or more CLOs, 3 or more units = 3 or more
CLOs)___33%____ (Astro 30 only; Astro 10/20 have 2 CLOs, and need another).

Date the CLO Assessment schedule was submitted:_ 2/21/2010

Percentage of courses in your discipline that have had all the CLOs assessed within the past three years, as per Chabot’s Assessment policy: _
50%_
Some sections have not been assessed. Some faculty have the data, but not the time to enter the results.

Percentage of courses in your discipline that have had all the CLO assessments reflected upon, or discussed with colleagues, within the past three years__ 100%

What questions or investigations arose as a result of these reflections or discussions?
1) Does the use of online tutorials and simulations (such as those included in AstroPortal or
Mastering Astronomy) really improve student learning?
2) Are lab students really understanding what accuracy and precision mean in terms of lab course? What can we do to emphasize their difference and applicability in science?
3) Can we use a 30-question objective test as a common CLO shared by all faculty teaching the
Astro 10 and Astro 20 courses? What can we learn from the results.

What actions has your discipline determined that might be taken as a result of these reflections, discussions, and insights?
Actions planned:
1) Complete entry of CLOs for Astro 10 & 20, PLOs for the program in general, and reporting on data already gathered.
2) Investigate shared CLOs in use at other schools showing even better student success, and see what we can implement at Chabot.
3) Continue to develop CLOs that assess how the improved planetarium AV systems aid in student learning, retention, and success.
Chabot College Astronomy Program Review – Year 3 – March 2011 – Scott Hildreth Page 8


What course-level and programmatic strengths have the assessment reflections revealed?
Strengths revealed:
After implementing the first CLO for Astronomy 30 lab, we reviewed results, modified the instrument, and added a new lab activity on precision and accuracy (in use for the first time in Spring
2011). We will assess the results of this change this term. This is the first example in our program of a complete CLO cycle. We hope to use results from Astro 10’s new 30-question CLO online assessment of student learning this term as well, and review results in 2011-2012.

Percentage of programs within your discipline that have established at least two PLOs, and mapped appropriate CLOs to them:__ 0% __

Which of the CWLGs do your discipline’s CLOs address?
Communications and Critical Thinking.

In which if any of the College-wide Learning Goals Faculty Inquiry Groups have discipline member(s) participated?
None _______________________________________________________________
VII. Academic Learning Support
What kinds of academic learning support does your discipline use or require to help students succeed
(e.g., tutoring, learning assistants, student assistants, peer advisors, lab support, supplemental instruction, peer-led team learning, peer advisors)? How many hours per semester do you use and/or how many hours per semester do you need?
As shared earlier, student assistants or part-time lab support is essential for the maintenance of our astronomy and physics lab courses. With that help, we could much more easily implement new labs involving digital imaging, new telescopes, radio astronomy, and virtual telescopes.
Chabot College Astronomy Program Review – Year 3 – March 2011 – Scott Hildreth Page 9