Academic Program Review and Action Planning – YEAR ONE
Division
Program
Contact Person
Date
Mathematics, Science, Engineering and Computer Science
ENGINEERING
Bruce Mayer, PE
04-Feb-2011
Chabot UC+CSU Engineering Fall-Transfer Volume • 04-09
30
Data Source = California Postsecondary Education Commission (CPEC)
27
• http://www.cpec.ca.gov/OnLineData/OnLineData.asp
25
24
24
23
22.83
22
20
Number of Transfer Students
17
15
10
5
0
Fa04
Fa05
Program_Rev_ENGR_Enrollment_History.xlsx
Fa06
Fa07
Fa08
Fa09
AVG
Transfer Term
Figure 1 • Chabot Engineering University-Transfer Productivity1 during B. Mayer’s tenure as the College’s
Engineering Instructor
ENGINEERING Academic Program Review and Planning
Bruce Mayer, PE • 291219889 • Page 1 of 45
Chabot College UC-Transfer by Discipline • Total over 04-09
PHYS
1
CSCI
HIS
5
MTH
Discipline
Data Source
• http://www.cpec.ca.gov/OnLineData/SelectFinalOptions.asp
4
9
ENGL
15
CHEM
25
BIOL
36
ARCH
37
BUS
47
PSY
56
ENGR
71
0
5
10
15
Program_Rev_ENGR_Enrollment_History.xls
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
UC Tranfsers
Figure 2 • Chabot-College to UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA (UC) Transfer Volume-Totals by Academic-Major
over the period of 2004-20092. Note that ENGINEERING produces MORE UC-Transfers THAN ANY OTHER
discipline on the Chabot College Campus
Section A – Data Review and Analysis
I. Basic Success and Equity (Data from 3 previous years)
 What trends are you seeing over time? How does the basic success data compare to the college
as a whole and to statewide average success rates, if available? What might explain the
differences?
 What courses in your discipline show the greatest/least amount of success? What accounts for
success in these courses? How could you improve success in the less successful areas?
 What do you see in the comparisons between men and women and between different
ethnicities? What accounts for differences? What concerns you? How could you strategically
address the concerns?
 What inferences can you draw from the data correlating the highest level of Math/English
completed and success in your discipline's courses?
 If you have online/hybrid/telecourse/CD-ROM courses, do the success rates differ from the
same courses offered on-campus? If so, should the success rates be the same, why are they
different, and is this a cause for concern? What areas of inquiry does this raise about
online/hybrid/telecourse/CD-ROM courses?
ENGINEERING Academic Program Review and Planning
Bruce Mayer, PE • 291219889 • Page 2 of 45
Explain:
Over the Fa07-Sp10 time period Chabot Engineering produced a success rate3 of 51.7% (284/549).
Withdrawals accounted for 32.2% of the Engineering success outcomes. This compares with a
Chabot College OverAll success rate1 of 65% and Withdrawal rate of 19%.Chabot and ChabotEngineering had very nearly identical NONsuccess rates of approximately 16%. Statewide in the 0910 academic year, Community College Engineering programs produced an overall success rate 4 of
about 70.7% (8603/12157).
The Engineering Success-rate over Fa07-Sp10 varied between 49% and 60%, with no discernable
trend over time.
Regarding the Chabot-Engineering compared to Chabot-Overall success performance some possible
sources of the difference:
1. The Engineering instructors (B. Mayer and C. Baranouskas) are generally less effective at
producing successful students than are the average Chabot instructor
2. The Engineering course-content is more challenging in terms of difficulty and time-demands
than is the average Chabot Course.
3. The Engineering Instructors maintain more rigorous grading standards than does the average
Chabot Instructor.
For item-1, both instructors continue to work diligently to improve their methods through the
SLOAC Continuous Product Improvement Process (CPIP).
Item-3 could contribute substantially to the difference. Recall the Chabot Engineering “Mission
Statement”:
To prepare students for Success
AFTER
they Transfer to a University College of Engineering.
Also, after 5+ years of intense effort and professorial-level consultationi, ALL Chabot Engineering
courses articulate to San Jose State, and all but oneii articulate to UCBerkeley.
Given these circumstances rigorous grading standards are REQUIRED to
 serve the students by ensuring that upon transfer the students have gained the knowledge and
skills required to succeed in a University School/College of Engineering
 To protect the reputation of the Chabot Engineering Program at the University Level. About
58% (see Figure 3) of Chabot Engineering transfer students attend SJSU or UCBerkeley. At
these institutions Professors KNOW THE NAME of the Chabot Engineering instructor.
Sending to SJSU or UCB underprepared students will damage the reputation of the Chabot
i
Professors Johnson and Boser at UCBerkeley, and Professors Furman and Hsu at San Jose State Universities.
Almost NO Community College Engineering-Mechanics course articulates to the “New Style” for this course introduced
by UCBerkeley about 2 years ago. Much more detail on this issue can be provided upon request.
ii
ENGINEERING Academic Program Review and Planning
Bruce Mayer, PE • 291219889 • Page 3 of 45
Engineering Program as a whole, and will also reflect poorly on the instructor professionally.
Item-2 is perhaps the BEST explanation for the difference between Chabot-Engineering and ChabotOverall. Both Engineering and Chabot have similar NONsuccess rates of 16%, with Engineering
having a “W-rate” 13 percentage-points higher than Chabot. This is not totally unexpected in light of
the course content. Only TWO disciplines at Chabot College APPLY Calculus-Math; Engineering
25, 36, 43, 45, and Physics 4A, 4B, 4C. The applied-calculus and high levels of deductive problemsolving required to succeed in Engineering most likely accounts for the difference in W-rates
between Chabot-Engineering and Chabot-Overall.
Some possible explanations for the difference between Chabot-Engineering success and StatewideEngineering Success Include:
a. The Engineering instructors (B. Mayer and C. Baranouskas) are generally less effective at
producing successful students than are the average California Community College
Engineering instructor
b. The students taking Chabot Engineering courses are less well-prepared than are the average
California Community College engineering student
c. The amount of “Self-Selection” of engineering students at Chabot is less than that at the
average community college due to the OutReach efforts of Chabot Engineering. That is, the
intense outreach efforts to local high schools might produce more engineering students, but
with a slightly lower commitment to the engineering discipline, than would be the case if
students had to seek out Chabot Engineering on their own.
d. The Engineering Instructors maintain more rigorous grading standards than does the average
California Community College Engineering Instructor.
For item-a, please see the item-1 explanation above.
Item-b could be the case. The California Department of Education in March 2010 designated
Hayward High, Mt. Eden High and Tennyson High as “Persistently Lowest-Achieving Schools”5.
Item-c also may contribute to the difference between Chabot-Engineering and CCC-Engineering. At
most CCC’s SPECIFIC Engineering-Outreach is not done at the level which occurs at Chabot. The
“average” CCC engineering program thus receives only students who have the depth of commitment
needed to seek out the Engineering program at their community college.
In regards to item-d, the Engineering Instructors work hard to balance the need to fairly assess the
student to ensure that those who demonstrate subject mastery receive passing grades, while
maintaining the integrity and reputation of the Chabot Engineering Program. The balancing act
reconciles these two conflicting elements:
 Excessively demanding grading standards hold back all but the best students
 Excessively lax grading standards permit underprepared students to transfer to, and ultimately
FAIL at, the University School/College of Engineering. Recommendations from former
Chabot students who have gone on to earn University Engineering degrees suggest that the
courses should be made MORE rigorous, not less. See Figure 19.
ENGINEERING Academic Program Review and Planning
Bruce Mayer, PE • 291219889 • Page 4 of 45
An examination of success rates in the differing Engineering Courses (ENGR 10, 11, 22, 25, 36, 43,
45) show very similar success rates with large term-to-term variations in the single-section, calculus
bases courses 25, 36, 43, 45.
The Men/Women success data (See Figure 5) shows
 Women succeed at slightly higher rates than men. It should be noted that only about 12.4% of
Chabot Engineering students were women (67/542) making the data statistically unreliable at
the 95% confidence level.
 No discernable trends over time
The Ethnicity success data (See Figure 6) for the statistically significant groups shows
 White  63% (59/93) Success
 Asian  58% (119/205) Success
 Latino  42% (48/113) Success
The difference between the White and NonWhite groups is most likely attributable to EnglishLanguage fluency.
The reasons for the difference between the Asian and Latino groups are less clear. Perhaps cultural
norms6 influence the relative outcomes.
Analysis of the “Success Rates in other/uncategorized Courses By Highest Successful English
Course” indicates that students with English 1A (or better) perform slightly better than other students.
 To give English Learners additional opportunities to understand the course material, all the
lectures are done using a large amount of GRAPHICAL information contained in PowerPoint
files.
o The PowerPoint files are ALWAYS posted to course WebPages allowing students to
review lectures to further enhance comprehension.
ENGINEERING Academic Program Review and Planning
Bruce Mayer, PE • 291219889 • Page 5 of 45
UC-Other
2
Fresno State
2
Chabot Engineering-Student Transfer-University • 04-09
CSU-Other
3
CSU-Sacramento
3
137 Chabot Engineering Transfers, Total
• 71 UC Transfers
• 66 CSU Transfers
Data Source = California Postsecondary Education Commission (CPEC)
• http://www.cpec.ca.gov/OnLineData/OnLineData.asp
4
CalPoly-SLO
4
Tranfer Destination
San Francisco St.
UCLA
5
UC-Irvine
6
CSU-EastBay
6
UC-SanDiego
7
UC-Davis
16
UC-Berkeley
35
San Jose State
44
0
5
Program_Rev_ENGR_Enrollment_History.xlsx
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Number of Chabot Engineering Students
Figure 3 • Chabot Engineering Student Transfer Destination-Summary during B. Mayer’s tenure as the College’s
Engineering Instructor. Note that about 58% of Chabot students transferred to either UCBerkeley’s College of
Engineering, or the Charles W. Davidson College of Engineering at San José State University
ENGINEERING Academic Program Review and Planning
Bruce Mayer, PE • 291219889 • Page 6 of 45
Figure 4 • B. Mayer describes the elements of an effective new-grad employment resume with an Engineering
Student at the UCBerkeley Career-Center Resume Improvement Workshop on 21Jan2011. B. Mayer assisted
approximately 12 students during the workshop.
ENGINEERING Academic Program Review and Planning
Bruce Mayer, PE • 291219889 • Page 7 of 45
Figure 5 • Chabot Engineering Student Success by Gender. Women perform slightly better than men.
ENGINEERING Academic Program Review and Planning
Bruce Mayer, PE • 291219889 • Page 8 of 45
Figure 6 • Chabot Engineering Student Success by Ethnicity. White and Asian students have roughly comparable
success rates, while Latino students perform slightly less well.
Figure 7 • Comparison of Engineering Student Success to the similar discipline of Computer Science. ENGR and
CSCI share many students, and success rates are roughly comparable, this success performance consistency
indicates comparable content-rigor and grading-standards across these two highly technical disciplines.
ENGINEERING Academic Program Review and Planning
Bruce Mayer, PE • 291219889 • Page 9 of 45
II. Course Sequence (Data from 2 previous years)
Note: Answer this question if you have been provided data about course sequences in your discipline.
 Is success in the first course a good indicator of success in the second course? What are the
curricular, pedagogical, and/or methodological implications of what you see?
 Do your successful students in the first course enroll at a high rate in the second course within
two years? What are the implications of what you see?
Explain:
No “Course Sequences” data were provided for the Engineering Courses on WebSite
http://www.chabotcollege.edu/programreview/Data(2).cfm
III. Course Review (Data from 5 previous years)
 Ed. Code requires that all courses are updated every five years. Are all of your courses
updated? If not, do you want to maintain or continue these courses? Please indicate your plans
in terms of curriculum. Have all of your courses been offered recently? If not, why? Are
students counting on courses to complete a program or major when these courses are not being
offered?
Explain:
As noted earlier the Engineering Program has expended significant effort to maintain the value and
relevance of the program to students. If the Chabot Engineering courses do not ARTICULATE to UC
and CSU Colleges/Schools of Engineering, then the courses are essentially valueless to the transferoriented students. As previously noted ALL Chabot Engineering courses articulate to San Jose State,
and all but one articulate to UCBerkeley. See Figure 8 for Examples.
ALL courses have been offered over the past several years using the “Right-Sized” scheduling
pattern shown in Table 1. Note the “Once a Year” Courses that are critical to the maintenance of a
“Complete” Community College Engineering program: 10, 11, 36, 43, 45
Every Engineering Course Outline is currently up-to-date. Obsolete or Low-Demand courses,
ENGR20, ENGR21, ENGR31, have been eliminated and removed from the College Catalog. A brief
summary of ENGR Curriculum Proposals
 Fall 2004  137 page proposal which completely overhauled and modernized the ENGR
course offerings to ensure university articulation, and hence value to Chabot Engineering
Students. Included the design of the NEW course, ENGR25, which articulated to UCBerkeley
 Fall2007  68 page proposal which included the 42 page application to the California
Community College State Chancellor’s office to allow Chabot College to Grant A.S. Degrees
in Engineering. The Chancellor’s office APPROVED the Application 27Oct2008. See Figure
9.
 Fall2008  35 page proposal which included the design of a NEW course, ENGR11. The
Engineering-11 course content was design through face-to-face consultations with Prof.
George Johnson of UCBerkeley, and Prof. Ping Hsu of San Jose State. These preparatory
meetings ensured immediate articulation of ENGR1 to both these Colleges of Engineering
ENGINEERING Academic Program Review and Planning
Bruce Mayer, PE • 291219889 • Page 10 of 45


Fall2009  50+ page proposal for standard 5-year cyclical updates of Course Outlines for
Courses 22, 25, 36, and 43
Fall2010  12 page proposal which included extensive revision of the Electrical Engineering
Course; ENGR43. The contents of the revision were developed through face-to-face
Consultations with Prof. Bernhard Boser of UCBerkeley. As a result of these consultations
Chabot College became the secondiii Community College in California to earn direct
articulation to UCBerkeley EE40
FINAL, IMPORTANT, NOTE
The current Engineering course offerings are consistent with the major transfer destinations for
Chabot Engineering Students: UCBerkeley, SJSU, UCDavis, and CSU-EastBay. The course offerings
are tightly integrated with the requirements for transfer in the different Engineering Disciplines.
Failure by Chabot College to offer AT LEAST ONE-SECTION, ONCE-A-YEAR of each current
engineering course will very likely result in potential Chabot-Area students attending OTHER nearby
Community Colleges (e.g., Ohlone, DVC, CSM ) which DO offer a consistently COMPLETE set of
Engineering transfer courses.
Table 1• Chabot College Engineering-Course Scheduling Plan
Fall Semester
iii
Spring Semester
Course No.
FTEF
Course No.
FTEF
ENGR22
ENGR25
ENGR10
ENGR36
0.28
0.28
0.13
0.28
ENGR22
ENGR25
ENGR11
ENGR43
ENGR45
0.28
0.28
0.22
0.35
0.28
Σ-Total
0.98
Σ-Total
1.42
Based on extensive, but not exhaustive, review of ASSIST.ORG reports
ENGINEERING Academic Program Review and Planning
Bruce Mayer, PE • 291219889 • Page 11 of 45
Figure 8 • Chabot Engineering-Course Articulation Reports from ASSIST.ORG for: UCBerkeley, San Jose State
University, and UCDavis.
ENGINEERING Academic Program Review and Planning
Bruce Mayer, PE • 291219889 • Page 12 of 45
Figure 9 • State Chancellor’s office APPROVAL of the Chabot College Associate in Science Degree in
Engineering.
ENGINEERING Academic Program Review and Planning
Bruce Mayer, PE • 291219889 • Page 13 of 45
IV. Budget Summary (Data from 3 previous years)
 What budget trends do you see in your discipline? What are the implications of these trends?
 Where is your budget adequate and where is it lacking? What are the consequences on your
program, your students, and/or your instruction?
 What projected long-term (5-10 years) budget needs do you see? You will detail your short-term
needs in the action plan that follows. You do not need to cite them here.
Explain:
BUDGET TRENDS  Stable
Engineering Budget trends are stable. Engineering has a consumable-supplies budget of about $800
per year. This is “tight”, but adequate for the foreseeable future
BUDGET RISK  SoftWare
 ENGR25: The current software budget BARELY meets the needs of the MATLAB® software
maintenance contract of about $500/year
 ENGR 11/22: ENGR and ARCH current share the use of AutoCAD® software in the
Computer Aided Design (CAD) Lab, with ARCH accounting for 80+% of the AutoCAD use.
Fortunately, AutoCAD finds wide use in BOTH architecture and engineering, allowing for
greater software-asset utilization at Chabot. The ARCH program has investigated
Architecture-specific CAD software. Such a change would then require additional Budget for
the continued support of Engineering-required software.
LONG TERM BUDGET NEEDS  Materials of Engineering Lab
The Materials of Engineering (ENGR45) lab currently contains several “classic” instruments that
date back to the 1950’s. At some point in the next 10 years some of this gear will require
replacement. Anticipated expenditure would be in the range of $10k.
V. Enrollment Data (Data from 2 previous years)
 Please provide a brief description of: overall enrollment trends; enrollment trends by course; and
enrollment trends by time of day and Saturday.
 Describe what your discipline has done in terms of curriculum or scheduling in the last two years
that has effected enrollments.
 Describe plans or strategies that you have for the near future in terms of curriculum or
scheduling that could impact your enrollments.
 Lastly, look closely at whether the schedule you currently offer provides access to the broader
community that your discipline serves at Chabot College—day time, night time, Saturday,
distance education, special or targeted communities that would or do enroll in your courses.
Explain:
OVERALL ENROLLMENT TRENDS
Figure 11, Figure 12, Figure 13, Figure 14 display the Engineering Enrollment trends over time. Any
ENGINEERING Academic Program Review and Planning
Bruce Mayer, PE • 291219889 • Page 14 of 45
discussion of Engineering Enrollment should include these context elements.
1. Engineering is an ATTRACTIVE program. NO Engineering course is a prerequisite for any
other course, and very few students take Engineering courses for “fun”. Thus Engineering
ATTRACTS students to the college. In addition, Engineering courses have as prereqs highlevel courses in MATHEMATICS, PHYSICS, and CHEMISTRY. Thus engineering
GENERATES enrollment in MTH 1/2/3/4/6, PHYS 4A/4B/4C/5, CHEM 1A. In addition
Engineering TRANSFER Requirements7,8 often produce additional enrollment in BIOL 2A,
CHEM 1B/12A/12B.
2. Prerequisite Sophistication
 ENGR 10, 11, 22  NO Prerequisites
 ENGR25  MTH1 (Calculus)
 ENGR36  ENGR25, PHYS4A (Both have MTH1 PreReqs)
 ENGR43  ENGR25, PHYS4A
 ENGR45  CHEM1A, ENGR25, PHYS4A
3. The demanding nature of the UC-Articulated Course Content; particularly in the second-year
courses of ENGR 36/43/45
In examining overall enrollment as shown Figure 11, it should be noted that the FALL-term course
offerings have NOT changed over the time-period displayed. The SPRING-term offerings changed in
2010 with the introduction of the UCBerkeley/SJSU articulated ENGR11 course.
Enrollments, OVERALL, have improved in recent semesters. The Fa07-Sp09 period averaged about
75 engineering students, while Fa09-Sp11 averaged over 110 students. The Overall trend is toward
increasing enrollment, but within the shorter Fa09-Sp11 time-frame small declines are observed. The
Fa09 and Sp09 enrollments were probably unusually strong. It seems likely that the current
“Baseline” Engineering enrollment is roughly 100 students per semester.
Examination of the INDIVIDUAL course enrollments as indicated in Figure 13 and Figure 14
reveals:
 ENGR10 enrollments increased, with a plateau of about 50 students compared to the 44
student capacity
 ENGR11 enrollment is very stable at the capacity level of 30 students
 ENGR22 enrollment is very stable at about 26 students in recent terms. Capacity is 28
 ENGR25 student count is volatile and unpredictable. This is likely due to the “filtering effect”
of the calculus prerequisite. No Fall vs. Spring trends are apparent. “Baseline” enrollment
appears to be about 20 students.
 ENGR 36/43/45 are ONE-Section, ONCE-per-year courses with high-level prerequisites (see
item 2 above). These enrollments are very sensitive to the success of students in the calculusbased prerequisites of ENGR25 and PHYS4A. The “feeder” course for 36/43/45, ENGR25,
was quite academically weakiv in Sp10 and Fa10 – only 7 students succeeding each semester.
The lack of success in the calendar-year 2010 editions of ENGR25 constrained the number of
students qualified to enroll in 36/43/45. In addition, threev students expected to enroll in one
of 43 or 45 failed to do so for unknown reasons. Based on data contained Figure 13 and
iv
The alternative explanation is that the INSTRUCTION was unusually weak during these terms. Ms. Marcia Kolb, Chabot
MTH Instructor, took the course in Fa10. If needed Ms. Kolb can be consulted about the quality of the instruction during
this term.
v
Mr. Acosta, Mr. Tapia, Ms. Bautista
ENGINEERING Academic Program Review and Planning
Bruce Mayer, PE • 291219889 • Page 15 of 45
Figure 14, most likely the baseline enrollment for 36/43/45 is in the range of 10-15 students.
CURRICULUM OR SCHEDULING
Under the fine leadership of Dean T. Vo-Kumamoto Engineering worked with the Science and Math
Disciplines to eliminate, at the 98+% level, previously troublesome course-conflicts that impeded
simultaneous, with-semester student-access to courses in Physics, Math (Calculus), and Engineering
required for Engineering Transfer. See Figure 10.
This virtual ELIMINATION of such time-conflicts has been of great benefit to Chabot Engineering
Students.
After eight years of intense effort, design of two courses from scratch, consultations with Engineering
Professors at UCBerkeley, UCDavis, SJSU, and CSUEB the curriculum at Chabot has the most
student-useful articulation in the last 15 years. With the filling of the last articulation “hole”
(UCBerkeley’s Lower Division Electrical Engineering Course), the curriculum will likely remain
stable until the University course content or offerings change.
Widespread articulation of Chabot Engineering courses is an absolute requirement for delivering the
value of transfer-options to Chabot Engineering students. The status of Engineering Course
Articulation must be diligently maintained at a high level.
Articulation of theENGR43 Electrical Engineering course to UCBerkeley, while maintaining
articulation to SJSU and UCDavis (c.f. Figure 3) will likely improve enrollments in this course.
FUTURE PLANS
The student-based factors impacting Engineering Enrollment include
1. ACCESS to, and CONVENIENCE of, courses; both in terms of days/times and lack of
conflicts with other transfer-required courses.
2. Wide-ranging course-ARTICULATION; especially to the favored transfer destinations of
SJSU, UCBerkeley, and UCDavis – if a course does not articulate, then the transfersophisticated Engineering students will take the course at the transfer university.
3. Offering a COMPLETE Program – Failure to offer the transfer-critical courses 36/43/45 will
result in students moving to nearby institutionsvi where they will likely take math, physics,
and chemistry courses along with the transfer-required engineering courses.
4. AWARENESS of Chabot Area high school students about the career opportunities within the
Engineering Profession, and about the quality & value of studying engineering at Chabot prior
to University transfer.
ACCESS problems have largely been solved by Dean Vo-Kumamoto’s Math & Science Block
Scheduling plan. Convenience, on the other hand, is much more difficult to measure. All engineering
vi
E.g.; LPC, Laney, Ohlone, DVC, CSM, Canada San Jose City, and Mission Colleges are all within easy driving distance
ENGINEERING Academic Program Review and Planning
Bruce Mayer, PE • 291219889 • Page 16 of 45
courses are currently offered with a two-day-per-week format, and no Friday meetings. This allows to
students greater opportunities for self-sustaining gainful employment. The difficult side of the weekly
schedule is that, for example, a student taking both ENGR43 and ENGR11 in Sp11 must to be ONCampus from 9am to 6:30pm; a rather long day.
Several Engineering students have indicated in conversations with the Engineering instructor that
classes with a SINGLE-meeting per week are considerably more convenient than those with multiple
meetings. Courses 25, 36, 43, and 43 use a Lecture-Day + Lab-Day format. This condition lends
itself to HYBRID OnLine + LiveAction delivery; the lecture delivered online, with the labs
conducted on-campus in the physical lab facility. This single-day on-campus form of delivery should
make Chabot Engineering courses more accessible to students; particularly those students that
commute some distance to the campus. A tentative Plan would be to “Pilot” this format using the
ENGR36 course, learn from the experience, iterate on the methods, and within 5 years have 25, 43,
and 43 delivered in the Hybrid form.
ARTICULATION  See also the discussion under “CURRICULUM OR SCHEDULING” above.
Chabot currently offers a COMPLETE Engineering Transfer Program as recommended by the
California Engineering Liaison Council9 (CA-ELC). As noted in discussion item 3 above, offering
engineering courses less than once-per-year will encourage Chabot-Area Engineering students to
attend nearby Community Colleges that DO maintain a complete transfer program. Lack of a
complete program would also impede students from earning the recently-approved A.S. degree in
Engineering. See Figure 9.
The Engineering Instructor has expended considerable effort to raise the AWARENESS of Chabot
Area high school students to the quality and value of the Engineering Transfer program offered by
Chabot College. Figure 15 shows that since Feb04 the Engineering Instructor has made in-person
outreach presentations in well over 100 high school classrooms, before nearly 4000 high school
students. The Engineering Instructor also recruited COLLEAGUES to make high outreach
presentations: Mr. Hildreth, Mr. Dave, Mr. Ho, Mr. Berland, Ms. W. Wong, and Mr. Crew.
The Engineering Instructor also makes “Internal” Engineering-Outreach presentations Chabot Math,
Physics, Chemistry, and Biology students who might otherwise “drift away” from these technical
disciplines without a clear view of the APPLICATION of these sciences.
Both the Internal and External Engineering-Outreach efforts continue.
ACCESS TO THE BROADER COMMUNITY
The block scheduling for the calculus-based Math, Physics, and Engineering courses discussed
previously eliminated the major barrier to access (course conflicts) for the transfer-oriented
Engineering students. Again, moving to the One-OnCampus-meeting-per-week hybrid-online
delivery format would likely make engineering courses more convenient for students.
ENGINEERING Academic Program Review and Planning
Bruce Mayer, PE • 291219889 • Page 17 of 45
Figure 10 • Block-Scheduling Plan for the Chabot Math & Science Division developed under the LeaderShip of
Dean T. Vo-Kumamoto.
Engineering-OVERALL Enrollment History • 07-11
150
Data Source
• http://www.chabotcollege.edu/programreview/Data(2).cfm
127
125
119
106
Enrollment
100
94
93
83
75
65
62
50
25
0
Fa07
Sp08
Fa08
Sp09
Fa09
College Term
Sp10
Fa10
Sp11
Program_Rev_ENGR_Enrollment_History.xls
Figure 11 • OverAll Engineering Enrollment. Note that the NEW, Spring-Only course ENGR-11 was added to the
Chabot Engineering Offerings starting in Sp10.
ENGINEERING Academic Program Review and Planning
Bruce Mayer, PE • 291219889 • Page 18 of 45
Engineering-22 Enrollment History • 07-11
Engineering-25 Enrollment History • 07-11
30
35
28
Data Source
• http://www.chabotcollege.edu/programreview/Data(2).cfm
33
28
26
30
25
24
Includes CROSS-LISTED Enrollment
• PHYS25: Fa08=1, Fa09=1, Sp10=1, Fa10=2, Sp10=1
• MTH25: Fa07=1, Fa09=1, Sp10=1, Fa10=21
24
26
21
25
20
20
24
23
17
Enrollment
Enrollment
21
15
20
20
16
15
13
10
10
5
5
0
0
Fa07
Sp08
Fa08
Sp09
Fa09
Sp10
College Term
Fa10
Sp11
Fa07
Sp08
Fa08
Sp09
Fa09
Sp10
College Term
Program_Rev_ENGR_Enrollment_History.xls
Fa10
Sp11
Program_Rev_ENGR_Enrollment_History.xls
Figure 12 • Enrollment in the “Every-Term” Courses 22 & 25.
Engineering-10 Enrollment History • 07-10
Engineering-36 Enrollment History • 07-10
60
16
56
55
Data Source
• http://www.chabotcollege.edu/programreview/Data(2).cfm
15
51
Data Source
• http://www.chabotcollege.edu/programreview/Data(2).cfm
14
50
44
45
Enrollment
Enrollment
40
35
30
30
25
10
10
7
20
5
15
10
5
0
0
Fa07
Fa08
Fa09
College Term
Fa10
Program_Rev_ENGR_Enrollment_History.xls
Fa07
Fa08
Fa09
College Term
Fa10
Program_Rev_ENGR_Enrollment_History.xls
Figure 13 • Enrollment in the “Fall-Only” Courses 10 & 36.
ENGINEERING Academic Program Review and Planning
Bruce Mayer, PE • 291219889 • Page 19 of 45
Engineering-11 Enrollment History • 10-11
35
EGNR11First Offered in Sp10
31
30
30
Enrollment
25
20
15
10
5
0
Sp10
Sp11
College Term
Program_Rev_ENGR_Enrollment_History.xls
Engineering-43 Enrollment History • 08-11
Engineering-45 Enrollment History • 08-11
21
20
Data Source
• http://www.chabotcollege.edu/programreview/Data(2).cfm
15
20
20
Data Source
• http://www.chabotcollege.edu/programreview/Data(2).cfm
15
14
10
8
Enrollment
Enrollment
13
12
11
10
7
5
5
0
0
Sp08
Sp09
Sp10
College Term
Sp11
Program_Rev_ENGR_Enrollment_History.xls
Sp08
Sp09
Sp10
College Term
Sp11
Program_Rev_ENGR_Enrollment_History.xls
Figure 14 • Enrollment in the “Spring-Only” Courses 11, 43,45. ENGR11 First offered in Sp10
ENGINEERING Academic Program Review and Planning
Bruce Mayer, PE • 291219889 • Page 20 of 45
Students Attending BMayer High School OutReach • Feb04-Dec10
Cumulative Students Present (k-Students)
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
Dec-10
Sep-10
Jul-10
Apr-10
Jan-10
Oct-09
Jul-09
Apr-09
Jan-09
Oct-08
Jul-08
Apr-08
Jan-08
Oct-07
Apr-07
Jul-07
Jan-07
Oct-06
Jul-06
Apr-06
Jan-06
Oct-05
Jul-05
Apr-05
Jan-05
Oct-04
Aug-04
May-04
Feb-04
HS_OutReach_Cumulative_1006.xls
Calendar Date
Figure 15 • Chronology of B. Mayer’s Chabot-Area High-School Outreach Project. Mr. Mayer has appeared before
3,955 high school students over Feb04 to Dec10
Figure 16 • Recent “Visitor Badges” from B. Mayer High-School Outreach Presentations.
ENGINEERING Academic Program Review and Planning
Bruce Mayer, PE • 291219889 • Page 21 of 45
VI. Student Learning Outcomes Inventory
Acronym Key:
SLO = Student Learning Outcome is a general term, for the following three levels of outcomes:
CLO = Course-level Outcome, i.e. what a student can do after completing a course
PLO= Program-level Outcome, i.e. what a student can do after completing a sequence of courses
CWLG = College-wide Learning Goal






Percentage of courses in your discipline that have CLOs and rubrics developed:_100_____
For this information, please see the list of which courses do and do not have CLOs on the
SLOAC’s main webpage:
http://www.chabotcollege.edu/sloac/default.asp
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)__100_
For this information, please see the CLO spreadsheet on the SLOAC’s main webpage:
http://www.chabotcollege.edu/sloac/default.asp
Date the CLO Assessment schedule was submitted:_ 3/19/2010_____
For this information, please see the Course-level Outcomes assessment schedules list from the
Assessment Progress and Plans webpage:
http://www.chabotcollege.edu/sloac/progress.asp
Percentage of courses in your discipline that have had all the CLOs assessed within the past three
years, as per Chabot’s Assessment policy: _100__
For this information, please see Chabot’s Assessment Policy from the SLO/Assessment
Guidelines webpage:
http://www.chabotcollege.edu/sloac/guidelines.asp
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?
Explain:
Questions:
Q1.How do I encourage students to dedicate more time and effort to mastering the course
material?
Q2.How do I make complicated material easier for students to understand?
Q3.What can I do to improve the Engineering-Problem-Solvingvii skills of students?
Q4.How can I give to students more immediate (daily) feedback on their learning?
Q5.How do I encourage students to stay-current with the course-material; i.e., what I do to ensure
that the students stay on the course schedule?
Q6.How can I assist students who missed occasional classes due to “life circumstances” such as
illness, or unexpected changes in gainful-employment work schedules?
Q7.Is there anything I can do to INSPIRE students to greater learning and academic
achievement?
vii
An extremely important “Critical Thinking” skill within the Engineering Discipline
ENGINEERING Academic Program Review and Planning
Bruce Mayer, PE • 291219889 • Page 22 of 45

What actions has your discipline determined that might be taken as a result of these reflections,
discussions, and insights?
Actions planned:
AP1.
Offer, for ExtraCredit, in all classes a Take Home Quiz10 on a presentation11
describing the STUDY SKILLS of effective College/University students. Reflecting on
incoming student preparation indicated that many students just did not recognize the
substantial difference between HIGH-SCHOOL studying and College/University Studying.
AP2.
97+% of the instructor’s preparation course-notes are in PowerPoint form. These notes
are then made available on a “24/7” basis for students who missed class for any reason (c.f.
Q6, above). The instructor’s PowerPoint notes are used for in-Class lecture presentations. In
effect, the instructor’s notes were made available to students as suggested in the “Share the
Wealth” section of the fine video presentation “Reading Between Lives” by Chabot Instructor
Sean McFarland12. Consider this comment from a Chabot English Instructor13 regarding the
contents of Mr. McFarland’s production: “This video makes me ask the question, “What is the
purpose of higher education? Why not give students the handout of a lecture?” Engineering
ALWAYS gives students the “handout of the lecture” by posting it to the Engineering-Course
WebPage.
However, one instructional-faculty colleague pointed out that, in his experience, students
respond better to “MultiMedia” presentations such as a combination of Screen (PowerPoint)
and Board (Chalk or Marker) work than they do to “single media” forms such a pure-board or
pure-PowerPoint formats. As a result, a concerted effort has been made by the Engineering
Instructor to move from majority-PowerPoint to a more balanced approach.
AP3.
To help students stay current with the course material, give them immediate feedback,
and encourage them to attend every class meetings the Engineering Instructor wrote DAILY
“MiniQuizzes”. The “MQ’s” are 5 minutes in duration, are “pop” in that they may be
administered at any time during the course period, and solved on the board immediately after
collection.
AP4.
Do more detailed “Problem Solving” tutorials in the calculus-based courses ENGR
25/36/43/45 to “model” how an Engineer might approach technical problems that are
described by a combination of words and math. Make the tutorial notes available on the
course webpage for student access.
AP5.
Try to act as a CommunityCollege→UCBerkeley→Stanford role-model for Chabot
Engineering students. Continue to encourage students with the “If I can do it, then YOU can
do it too…” mantra. See Figure 18. I also bring back former students who have moved-to, and
through, the University Engineering college/school to provide more recent models of the
success of, in this case, Chabot transfer students. See “Strengths revealed” below.
ENGINEERING Academic Program Review and Planning
Bruce Mayer, PE • 291219889 • Page 23 of 45
Figure 17 • A slide from Study Skills presentation11 that seeks to educated students about how to succeed in courses
taken at the College/University level.
ENGINEERING Academic Program Review and Planning
Bruce Mayer, PE • 291219889 • Page 24 of 45
>>> <WeiDay1337@gmail.com> 8/29/2010 9:28 PM >>>
Dear Bruce Mayer,
Hello, my name is Dawei Kuo and I am in your engr 10 class.
I really wanted to let you know how much you have
inspired me. The fact that you transferred to UCB and have
two master's degrees is amazing. Like you, I got my start in
community college and my goal is to transfer to UC Berkeley
for ME. I was simply blown away by how amazing your
accomplishments were since day one. I cannot wait to learn
more in your class. Thank you for teaching at Chabot.
Best wishes, Dawei Kuo
Figure 18 • Evidence of the efficacy of the inspirational message delivered by the
Engineering Instructor.

What course-level and programmatic strengths have the assessment reflections revealed?
Strengths revealed:
SR1.
Students REALLY DO appreciate having the Instructors Lecture Notes, and access to
course materials on the WebPage. Many times a student will printout the lecture-slides and
write on them his/her personal notes.
SR2.
Engineering students appreciate the FULL suite of TRANSFER COURSES offered by
Chabot. This full program often attracts students from nearby community colleges that do not
offer all of the ELC9 recommended courses.
SR3.
Transfer students who have returned to Chabot from the TRANSFER UNIVERSITY
generally express gratitude for the RIGOR of the courses offered by Chabot as these courses
well-prepared them to handle the Upper Division course material at the university
college/school of Engineering. SOME of the students who ultimately earned university
Engineering Degrees have returned to Chabot to give advice to current students:
 Thein Win - Civil Engineer UCBerkeley14
 Jose Servanda – Mechanical Engineer, UCBerkeley15
 Garrick Bornkamp – Mechanical Engineer, UCDavis16
 Ishmael Ayesh – Civil Engineer, UCBerkeley17
 Koo Hyun Nam – Mechanical Engineer (Ph.D.), UCBerkeley18
 Krishnil Mani – Mechanical Engineer, CalPoly-SLO19
 Lucas Huezo – Civil Engineer, UCBerkeley20
 Nicholas Vickers – Materials Engineer (M.S.) – CalPoly-SLO21
 Phil Cutino – Mechanical Engineer, UCBerkeley22
 Melissa Quemada – Chemical Engineer, UCBerkeley23
 Robert Irwin – Mechanical Engineer, UCBerkeley24
ENGINEERING Academic Program Review and Planning
Bruce Mayer, PE • 291219889 • Page 25 of 45








Robert Curry – Civil Engineer, CSU-Sacramento25
Emiliano Esparza – Civil Engineer, UCDavis26
Jim Havercamp – Mechanical Engineer, UCBerkeley27
Berhard Stonas – Mechanical Engineer (M.S.), San Jose State28
Yong Yin Chuah – Engineering Management (M.S.)viii, CSU-EastBay29
Joshua Merritt – Mechanical Engineer, the Ohio State University30
Tomasz Jagoda – Mechanical Engineer, UC Santa Barbara31
Robert Moore – Mechanical Engineer, UCBerkeley32
Figure 19 • Excerpts from the Guest Lecture to the Chabot ENGR10 Course made by Chabot Engineering Transfer
Student Robert Moore32.



Percentage of programs within your discipline that have established at least two PLOs33, and
mapped appropriate CLOs to them:___100_____
For this information, please see the Program-level Outcomes progress page from the Assessment
Progress and Plans webpage:
http://www.chabotcollege.edu/sloac/progress.asp
Which of the CWLGs do your discipline’s CLOs address? _Critical Thinkingvii_________
______________________________________________________________________________
In which if any of the College-wide Learning Goals Faculty Inquiry Groups have discipline
member(s) participated? _None; However, The Engineering Instructor has been a
contributing member of the SLOAC committee since Fall2008_________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
Insights gained:
viii
Mr. Chuah also earned a B.S. in Mechanical Engineering from UCDavis after transferring from Chabot
ENGINEERING Academic Program Review and Planning
Bruce Mayer, PE • 291219889 • Page 26 of 45
Not Applicable – No FIG participation at this time
ENGR25 "Linearization" CLO Time-Series Analysis
75.0%
72.0%
66.7%
66.7%
27.8%
20.0%
20%
Expand Instructor-Led Prolem-Solving Tutorials
40%
Scoring 3 or 4
Introduce MiniQuizzes
60%
Scoring 0 or 1
Introduce Study-Skills Presentation & Quiz
Fraction of Students Scoring 1+2 and 3+4
80%
33.3%
12.5%
0%
Sp09
(n=18)
SLO_Col_Charts_1101.xls
Fa09
(n=25)
Term
Sp10
(n=8)
Fa10
(n=18)
Figure 20 • Time-Series Analysis of the Linear-Regression Course Learning Outcome in Engineering 25. Note the
steady improvement with the introduction of new instructional methods until the collapse in the Fa10 Term.
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?
Explain:
Engineering Students benefit greatly from access to the rm3906B MathLab. Engineering strongly
recommends continued availability of this learning-producing resource. The current MathLab
Schedule is adequate to serve the learning needs of engineering students:
ENGINEERING Academic Program Review and Planning
Bruce Mayer, PE • 291219889 • Page 27 of 45





Monday 9:00 AM - 6:45 PM
Tuesday 9:00 AM - 6:45 PM
Wednesday 9:00 AM - 6:45 PM
Thursday 9:00 AM - 6:45 PM
Friday 9:00 AM - 12:00 PM
VIII. External Data
 Cite any relevant external data that affects your program (e.g., labor market data, community
demand, employment growth, external accreditation demands, etc.).
EXTERNAL ACCREDITATION DEMANDS  UNIVERSITY COURSE ARTICULATION
University-Course Articulation is CRITICAL to a TRANSFER-PROGRAM such as Engineering.
Additionally, Engineering in general is a very dynamic field of study. Within the Engineering
Profession new methods and areas of inquiry appear regularly. University Engineering-Course content
follows, and often leads, these engineering-practice changes. The evolution of university courseofferings requires constant diligence on the part of the Community College Engineering Program to
detect these changes, and respond to them such that the student-critical relevance of articulation is
maintained.
Major Articulation Efforts Accomplished by Chabot Engineering Include:
 CREATION of an “Engineering Computer Programming” course, ENGR25, which articulates
widely (e.g.; UCBerkeley, SJSU, UCDavis)
 CREATION of an Lower Division “Engineering Design” course, ENGR11, which articulates
to similar courses at UCBerkeley and SJSU
 Top-to-Bottom REMODEL of the Chabot Electrical Engineering Course, ENGR43, to earn
articulation to UCBerkeley EE40 while maintaining articulation at many other universities.
ENGINEERING Academic Program Review and Planning
Bruce Mayer, PE • 291219889 • Page 28 of 45
Section B – Data Summary



From what you have learned in your basic data review, what does the information tell you
about your program?
Overall, what improvements would you like to make to your program? How do you plan
to address these concerns? Are there any immediate issues that require immediate
attention (e.g., outdated course outlines)?
Where appropriate, please cite relevant data in your discussion (e.g., efficiency,
persistence, success, FT/PT faculty ratios, SLO/PLO assessment results, external
accreditation demands, etc.).
Data Summary and Plan of Action Description/Rationale:
The BASIC DATA REVIEW suggests that improvement is needed in these areas
 Student Success; Particularly a reduction in the WITHDRAWL rate
 Low Enrollment in the calculus-based courses 36/43/45
IMPROVMENTS
 Complete the current phase of the Articulation improvement effort by implementing
the course content required by approval of the new ENGR43 Course Outline which
articulates to the UCBerkeley second-year Electrical Engineering course.
o Work with the Electrical Systems (ESYS) Group to leverage the recent
investment in the National Instruments Educational Laboratory Virtual
Instrumentation Suite (NI ELVIS)34 for teaching electrical-circuits and
electronics. Articulation to UCBerkeley EE40 requires significantly greater
ELECTRONICS content in the ENGR43 lab componentix than is currently
the case. The NI ELVIS platform is specifically designed for delivery of
Electronic Lab content. The ESYS instructor, Mr. Phillips, has gained
considerable expertise in the use of this platform to improve student-learning.
Tentative plans call for Team Teaching of the “new” ENGR43: B. Mayer will
instruct the lecture and write exams; W. Phillips will provide instruction for
the Lab using the ELVIS hardware and software.
 Continue the High School OutReach program to fill the Chabot engineering-course
“PipeLine” with more students
 Continue to have available to Chabot Engineering Students the Computer Aided
Design Software (AutoCAD), and Computational Methods Software (MATLAB)
 Move to OnLine+LiveAction course content delivery for courses in which this format
improves student access and/or convenience
The items requiring IMMEDIATE attention
 Remodeling the ENGR43 course Content to meet the articulation requirements of
UCBerkeley.
 Continue the HIGH SCHOOL OutReach Efforts to encourage Chabot-Area students
to study Engineering at Chabot College
ix
The current ENGR43 lab-component consists of primarily, but not exclusively, ELECTRIAL content.
ENGINEERING Academic Program Review and Planning
Bruce Mayer, PE • 291219889 • Page 29 of 45
Note that in the “ACCREDITATION FOLLOW-UP REPORT OF CHABOT COMMUNITY
COLLEGE”35, dated October 15, 2010, Articulation and InterDisciplinary Activities were
prominently mentioned. The Report includes this statement on page-6:
 Following the review of our program review and unit planning processes, ten
recommendations were brought forward; (1) congratulate the college community for
well-deserved program review success at every opportunity… (9) examine program
review measures for completeness and consider adding additional components, such as
workforce training, staff development, interdisciplinary activities, articulation issues,
technology and pedagogical inquiry…
Section C – Action Planning
Please propose a two-year plan of action and timeline to address any immediate and/or long-term
concern(s). This includes activities to assess the CLO(s) to discover a plan of action. It may also
include specific activities that address improving CLO(s) and their assessment, that is to say
evaluating the CLO(s) and the assessment activities.
Examples of activities include:
 Research and inquiry project – why is this happening?
 Innovation and Pilot Projects – this is something I want to try
 Intervention activities such as support services – this is what I want to do about it
 Program and curriculum modification – this is what I want to do about it
ENGINEERING Academic Program Review and Planning
Bruce Mayer, PE • 291219889 • Page 30 of 45
Figure 21 • Former Chabot Student Emiliano Esparza26 (Left) and Garrick Bornkamp 36 Assist B. Mayer with
an outreach presentation At Tennyson High School on 18May10. The outreach team presented to FOUR
different classes on this day.
ENGINEERING Academic Program Review and Planning
Bruce Mayer, PE • 291219889 • Page 31 of 45
I.
Action Plan Timeline: Detail the timeline for accomplishing your goals
PLOs and/or Program
Goal(s)
Articulate Courses Widely,
Particularly to SJSU &
UCBerkeley • See Figure 3
Articulate to UCBerkeley
Electrical Engineering 40
(EE40 course)
Timeline
Activity
Support Needed to
Accomplish These
Activities*
Outcome(s) Expected
Person(s)
Responsible
May10
Meet with the UCBerkeley
Supervising Professor, Berhard
Boserx, in his office at UCB to
determine his requirements for
articulation
None
Summary Specification of the
Chabot ENGR43 CourseBruce Mayer
Content changes needed to
Earn Articulation to UCB EE40
Aug10
Write new Course OutLine to
meet Prof. Boser’s needs for
Articulation
None
Curriculum proposal for new
Course Outline for the ReTitled Bruce Mayer
ENGR43 Course
Aug10
Write Course Learning Outcome
(CLO’s) consistent with the new
course content. Write an
Assessment Rubric for
quantifying student performance
against the CLO’s
None
Write 3+ CLO’s as required for
this 4-unit class (5 CLO’s
Bruce Mayer
actually written)
Sep10
Present to, and secure approval
from, the Curriculum Committee
for new ENGR43 course outline
None
Approval of the ENGR43
Course Content needed to
articulate to UCB EE40
Nov10
Write Articulation Proposalxi for
ENGR43UCB-EE40, work
with the Articulation Officer to
formally submit it to UCB
None
Articulation Proposal submitted
to A. Myrna Aguilar
Bruce Mayer, Jane
(myrnaa@berkeley.edu) at
Church
UCB
Nov10
Confirm Receipt of the
articulation proposal by the UCB
College of Engineering (CoE)
None
Confirm receipt with Dale
Mastersonxii - Director,
Engineering Student Services at Bruce Mayer
the UC-Berkeley College of
Engineering
Nov10
Alert Prof. Boser that the
None
Prof. Boser has all his questions Bruce Mayer
Bruce Mayer
Accomplished?
Yes/No/In
Progress
YEAR
ONE
LEAVE
BLANK
x
http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/~boser/
See eMail to Jane Church >>> Bruce Mayer 11/14/10 10:52 AM >>>
xii
See eMail >>> Dale Masterson <dmasterson@berkeley.edu> 11/17/10 5:20 PM >>>
xi
ENGINEERING Academic Program Review and Planning
Bruce Mayer, PE • 291219889 • Page 32 of 45
answeredxiii
articulation Proposal is coming.
Answer any questions he might
have
xiii
xiv
Dec10
Secure Prof. Boser’s approval,
and confirm articulation as listed
on ASSIST.ORG
Dec10
Discuss with W. Phillips of the
ESYS program the use by the new
ENGR43 of the newly acquired
none
Electronics-Lab instructions
system; NI-ELVIS34
Decision by W. Phillips on the
Use of the NI-ELEVIS® system Bruce Mayer
in the new ENGR43
Dec10
Discuss with W. Phillips the
possibility TEAM TEACHING in
the new ENGR43. B. Mayer to
instructor the Lecture/Discussion none
Component While W. Phillips
would instruct the Lab
Component`
Decision by W. Phillips on the
his Team Teaching in the new
ENGR43xiv
Jan11
Secure approval of the Team
Teaching concept from Deans T.
Clark and T. Vo-Kumamoto
Decision on the team structure
where B. Mayer is the
Bruce Mayer,
instructor of record, assisted by Wayne Phillips
Lab-Instructor W. Phillips
Mar11
Select New TEXT BOOK for the
New ENGR43
Textbook order placed
B. Mayer
Aug11
Submit Request for ITS to install
the course-content required
Circuit Simulation Software
(PSPICE) on the Lab Computers
Software installed in Lab. If
possible the PSPICE software
will be installed the 3906A for
use by students when
Electronics Lab is closed
B. Mayer
Sep11
Write New Lecture Set for the
NEW ENGR43
Full Set of Lecture Notes and
Slides Complete
Bruce Mayer
Oct11
Develop Lab Exercise Plan to
complement the Lecture Plan
List of Lecture-complementary Bruce Mayer,
Lab Exercises
Wayne Phillips
None
Publication of Articulation on
ASSIST.ORG
Bruce Mayer
Bruce Mayer
See for Example eMail from Prof. Boser: >>> Bernhard Boser <boser@eecs.berkeley.edu> 11/17/10 11:18 AM >>>
Mr. Phillips and B. Mayer both agreed that this arrangement would likely lead to enhanced learning of the new ENGR43 subject matter
ENGINEERING Academic Program Review and Planning
Bruce Mayer, PE • 291219889 • Page 33 of 45
Engineering/Chabot
OutReach to Chabot Area
High Schools
xv
Apr11
Develop PRACTICAL LAB
Examination to assess student’s
learning of the use of the Lab
Equipment and Systems
Design of HANDS-ON lab
practicum exam
Bruce Mayer,
Wayne Phillips
May11
Assess the FIVE CLOs written for
this course as part of the
Curriculum proposal
Assessment data entered into
eLumen
Bruce Mayer
Dec11
Analyze CLOs to determine
appropriateness and efficacy of
the Outcomes and Assessments
for the first-time-taught course
content
Iterate/Improve CLOs as
indicated by the analysis
Bruce Mayer
Dec11
Analyze CLO Assessment results.
Identify weakness, and develop
strategies & methods to improve
student learning
New-Methods Planned
Bruce Mayer
May12
Assess the (possibly improved)
CLOs for this course
Assessment data entered into
eLumen
Bruce Mayer
Dec12
Analyze CLO Assessment results.
Identify weakness, and develop
strategies & methods to improve
student learning
New-Methods Planned
Bruce Mayer
May13
Assess the (now stable) CLOs for
this course
Assessment data entered into
eLumen
Bruce Mayer
Nov-Dec10
Make OutReach Visits to High
Schools, Collect Data on the
number students contacted
Visit at Least Two Different
High Schools to present before
at least Four different classes
Bruce Mayerxv
Apr-May11
Make OutReach Visits to High
Schools, Collect Data on the
number students contacted
Visit at Least Two Different
High Schools to present before
at least Four different classes
Bruce Mayer
Occasionally Chabot Instructional-Faculty Colleagues have assisted with the OutReach visits → S. Hildreth, T. Dave, M. Ho., D. Crew
ENGINEERING Academic Program Review and Planning
Bruce Mayer, PE • 291219889 • Page 34 of 45
Nov-Dec11
Make OutReach Visits to High
Schools, Collect Data on the
number students contacted
Visit at Least Two Different
High Schools to present before
at least Four different classes
Bruce Mayer
Apr-May12
Make OutReach Visits to High
Schools, Collect Data on the
number students contacted
Visit at Least Two Different
High Schools to present before
at least Four different classes
Bruce Mayer
Nov-Dec12
Make OutReach Visits to High
Schools, Collect Data on the
number students contacted
Visit at Least Two Different
High Schools to present before
at least Four different classes
Bruce Mayer
Apr-May13
Make OutReach Visits to High
Schools, Collect Data on the
number students contacted
Visit at Least Two Different
High Schools to present before
at least Four different classes
Bruce Mayer
ENGINEERING Academic Program Review and Planning
Bruce Mayer, PE • 291219889 • Page 35 of 45
Definitions of terms:
Program Goal = A general statement of what the program hopes to accomplish, for the long-term. It may be in qualitative (narrative) rather
than quantitative (numeric) terms. It may include the integration of several program outcomes, or relate to class scores, credits, units, course
completion, retention term to term, progression to next course/level, program completion, degree and certificate completion, transfer,
success/scores on licensure exams, job placement, attitudes, fundraising, media promotion, etc.
PLO = Program-level Outcome, i.e., what students can do, what knowledge they have, after completing a sequence of courses. It is a subset
of the Program Goals, related to student learning.
*Types of Support Needed to Accomplish Activities:
 Training or workshops
 Publications, library, resources
 Guidance to support research and/or inquiry projects
 Technology
II.
Strategic Plan Goals and Summaries: Which Strategic Plan goals and strategies does your action plan support?
Awareness and Access
Increase familiarity with Chabot
Reach out to underrepresented populations
Promote early awareness and college readiness to youth and families
Multiple ways to deliver instruction and services for all
Student Success
Strengthen basic skills development
Identify and provide a variety of career paths
Increase success for all students in our diverse community
Assess student learning outcomes to improve and expand instruction and services
Community Partnership
Increase experiential learning opportunities
Initiate/expand partnerships among the college, businesses and community organizations
Promote faculty and staff involvement in college and community activities
ENGINEERING Academic Program Review and Planning
Bruce Mayer, PE • 291219889 • Page 36 of 45
Engage the community in campus programs and events
Vision Leadership and Innovation
Improve institutional effectiveness
Streamline academic and student support services
Professional development to support teaching, learning and operational needs
Support effective communication both in the college and the community
Provide safe, secure and up-to-date facilities and technology
ENGINEERING Academic Program Review and Planning
Bruce Mayer, PE • 291219889 • Page 37 of 45
Program Review and Action Planning – YEAR TWO
Action Plan Progress Report
Division
Program
Contact Person
Date
Audience: IPBC; Program Review Committee; Deans/Unit Administrators; Budget Committee
Purpose: To provide evidence of progress on from previous year and to provide input into
planning for subsequent years.
Instructions: If you have completed your unit plan last year, please update your timeline and
answer the questions below. If you are updating/changing your timeline, list the appropriate
year in which revisions were made.
IA. Problem Statement: Summarize your Program Review Year One conclusions.
IB. Analysis: If there are any new data or conclusions, what is the basis for these new
conclusions?
II. List your accomplishments: How do they relate to your program review and PLO
work? Please cite any relevant data elements (e.g., efficiency, persistence, success, FT/PT
faculty ratios, SLO/PLO assessment results, external accreditation demands, etc.).
III. Student Learning Outcomes Inventory Update
Acronym Key:
SLO = Student Learning Outcome is a general term, for the following three levels of outcomes:
CLO = Course-level Outcome, i.e. what a student can do after completing a course
PLO= Program-level Outcome, i.e. what a student can do after completing a sequence of courses
CWLG = College-wide Learning Goal
ENGINEERING Academic Program Review and Planning
Bruce Mayer, PE • 291219889 • Page 38 of 45






Percentage of courses in your discipline that have CLOs and rubrics developed:_________
For this information, please see the list of which courses do and do not have CLOs on the
SLOAC’s main webpage:
http://www.chabotcollege.edu/sloac/default.asp
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)_______
For this information, please see the CLO spreadsheet on the SLOAC’s main webpage:
http://www.chabotcollege.edu/sloac/default.asp
Date the CLO Assessment schedule was submitted:________
For this information, please see the Course-level Outcomes assessment schedules list from
the Assessment Progress and Plans webpage:
http://www.chabotcollege.edu/sloac/progress.asp
Percentage of courses in your discipline that have had all the CLOs assessed within the
past three years, as per Chabot’s Assessment policy: _______
For this information, please see Chabot’s Assessment Policy from the SLO/Assessment
Guidelines webpage:
http://www.chabotcollege.edu/sloac/guidelines.asp
Percentage of courses in your discipline that have had all the CLO assessments reflected
upon, or discussed with colleagues, within the past three years_______
What questions or investigations arose as a result of these reflections or discussions?
Explain:

What actions has your discipline determined that might be taken as a result of these
reflections, discussions, and insights?
Actions planned:

What course-level and programmatic strengths have the assessment reflections revealed?
Strengths revealed:

Percentage of programs within your discipline that have established at least two PLOs, and
mapped appropriate CLOs to them:________
For this information, please see the Program-level Outcomes progress page from the
Assessment Progress and Plans webpage:
http://www.chabotcollege.edu/sloac/progress.asp
ENGINEERING Academic Program Review and Planning
Bruce Mayer, PE • 291219889 • Page 39 of 45

Which of the CWLGs do your discipline’s CLOs address?
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________

In which if any of the College-wide Learning Goals Faculty Inquiry Groups have
discipline member(s) participated?
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
Insights gained:
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?
Explain:
IV. External Data
 Cite any relevant external data that affects your program (e.g., labor market data,
community demand, employment growth, external accreditation demands, etc.).
ENGINEERING Academic Program Review and Planning
Bruce Mayer, PE • 291219889 • Page 40 of 45
V.
Action Plan Timeline Update: Cut and paste your previous timeline from Year One and update the “Accomplished?”
column. List any new PLOs or program goals and activities you may have in the second chart.
PLOs and/or Program
Goal(s) from Year
One
Timeline
Activity
Support Needed to
Accomplish these
Activities*
Outcome(s) Expected
Person(s)
Responsible
Accomplished?
Yes/No/In
Progress
New PLOs and/or
Program Goal(s)
Timeline
Activity
Support Needed to
Accomplish these
Activities*
Outcome(s) Expected
Person(s)
Responsible
Accomplished?
Yes/No/In
Progress
YEAR
TWO
LEAVE
BLANK
ENGINEERING Academic Program Review and Planning
Bruce Mayer, PE • 291219889 • Page 41 of 45
Definitions of terms:
1. Program Goal = A general statement of what the program hopes to accomplish, for the
long-term. It may be in qualitative (narrative) rather than quantitative (numeric) terms. It
may include the integration of several program outcomes, or relate to class scores,
credits, units, course completion, retention term to term, progression to next course/level,
program completion, degree and certificate completion, transfer, success/scores on
licensure exams, job placement, attitudes, fundraising, media promotion, etc.
PLO = Program-level Outcome, i.e., what students can do, what knowledge they have, after
completing a sequence of courses. It is a subset of the Program Goals, related to student
learning.
*Types of Support Needed to Accomplish Activities:
 Training or workshops
 Publications, library, resources
 Guidance to support research and/or inquiry projects
 Technology
ENGINEERING Academic Program Review and Planning
Bruce Mayer, PE • 291219889 • Page 12 of 45
Program Review and Action Planning – YEAR THREE
Final Summary Report
Division
Program
Contact Person
Date
I. Reflect upon the last three years' analysis and activities.
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).
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:
Challenges/Barriers to Success:
IV. Next Steps: Recommendations for program and institutional improvement.
Program Improvement:
Institutional Improvement:
1
http://www.cpec.ca.gov/OnLineData/SelectFirstOptions.ASP?ReportType=Transfer
http://www.cpec.ca.gov/OnLineData/SelectFinalOptions.asp
3
http://www.chabotcollege.edu/programreview/Data(2).cfm
4
https://misweb.cccco.edu/mis/onlinestat/ret_sucs.cfm
5
http://www.ibabuzz.com/hayword/2010/03/08/five-hayward-schools-on-bottom-5-list/
6
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2011/01/21/2011-0121_why_tiger_cubs_excel_asianamerican_achievement_isnt_because_of_tiger_mothers_har.html
2
ENGINEERING Academic Program Review and Planning
Bruce Mayer, PE • 291219889 • Page 13 of 45
7
http://www.assist.org/webassist/report.do?agreement=aa&reportPath=REPORT_2&reportScript=Rep2.pl&event=19&dir=1&sia=CHABOT&ria=UC
B&ia=CHABOT&oia=UCB&aay=10-11&ay=10-11&dora=BIO+ENG
8
http://www.assist.org/webassist/report.do?agreement=aa&reportPath=REPORT_2&reportScript=Rep2.pl&event=19&dir=1&sia=CHABOT&ria=UC
B&ia=CHABOT&oia=UCB&aay=10-11&ay=10-11&dora=CHM+ENG
9
http://www.caelc.org/
10
http://www.chabotcollege.edu/faculty/bmayer/ChabotEngineeringCourses/All_Courses_ENGR/College_Student_Study_Sk
ills_Quiz_1010.doc
11
http://www.chabotcollege.edu/faculty/bmayer/ChabotEngineeringCourses/All_Courses_ENGR/Study_Skills_for_Chabot_
College_Students_1010.ppt
12
http://facultyinquiry.net/2009/01/15/capturing-student-voices-reading-between-lives/
13
http://www.chabotcollege.edu/accreditation/exhibits/Standard%20I%20B/B%201.8%20Discussion%20notes%20from%20
Reading%20between%20the%20Lines%20discussions.%20Nov%202006%C3%AF%E2%82%AC%C2%A9/Readingvideo
discDCnotes.pdf
14
http://www.chabotcollege.edu/faculty/bmayer/ChabotEngineeringCourses/ENGR10_Into_to_Engrng/E10_Guest_Speakers/UCB_UCD_Guests_07/TWin_Updated%20Resume2_Chabot.doc
15
http://www.chabotcollege.edu/faculty/bmayer/ChabotEngineeringCourses/ENGR10_Into_to_Engrng/E10_Guest_Speakers/UCB_UCD_Guests_07/JMServandaII_Resume_08_20_07.doc
16
http://www.chabotcollege.edu/faculty/bmayer/ChabotEngineeringCourses/ENGR10_Into_to_Engrng/E10_Guest_Speakers/UCB_UCD_Guests_07/Garrick_Bornkamp_CV_0708.doc
17
http://www.chabotcollege.edu/faculty/bmayer/ChabotEngineeringCourses/ENGR10_Into_to_Engrng/E10_Guest_Speakers/UCB_UCD_Guests_07/IAyesh_ResumeSummer07.doc
18
http://www-bsac.eecs.berkeley.edu/directory/zoom.php?PersonID=1169759727
19
http://www.chabotcollege.edu/faculty/bmayer/ChabotEngineeringCourses/ENGR10_Into_to_Engrng/E10_Guest_Speakers/K_Mani_GuestLecture_0710.ppt
20
http://www.chabotcollege.edu/faculty/bmayer/ChabotEngineeringCourses/ENGR10_Into_to_Engrng/E10_Guest_Speakers/Lucas%20Huezo%20-%20Resume_E10_Fa08.doc
21
http://www.chabotcollege.edu/faculty/bmayer/ChabotEngineeringCourses/ENGR10_Into_to_Engrng/E10_Guest_Speakers/NVickers_Resume_ENGR10_0809.pdf
22
http://www.chabotcollege.edu/faculty/bmayer/ChabotEngineeringCourses/ENGR10_Into_to_Engrng/E10_Guest_Speakers/PCutino%20Resume%20rev%209-29-08.pdf
23
http://www.chabotcollege.edu/faculty/bmayer/ChabotEngineeringCourses/ENGR10_Into_to_Engrng/E10_Guest_Speakers/MQuemada_CV_ENGR10_Fa08.doc
24
http://www.chabotcollege.edu/faculty/bmayer/ChabotEngineeringCourses/ENGR10_Into_to_Engrng/E10_Guest_Speakers/Robert%20Irwin%20Resume_0908.doc
25
http://www.chabotcollege.edu/faculty/bmayer/ChabotEngineeringCourses/ENGR10_Into_to_Engrng/E10_Guest_Speakers/rcurry_curriculum_vitae_20090824.doc
26
http://www.chabotcollege.edu/faculty/bmayer/ChabotEngineeringCourses/ENGR10_Into_to_Engrng/E10_Guest_Speakers/UCB_UCD_Guests_09/ENGR10_E_Esparza_CV_0910.ppt
27
http://www.chabotcollege.edu/faculty/bmayer/ChabotEngineeringCourses/ENGR10_Into_to_Engrng/E10_Guest_Speakers/Haverkamp_Jim_0910.doc
28
http://www.chabotcollege.edu/faculty/bmayer/ChabotEngineeringCourses/ENGR10_Into_to_Engrng/E10_Guest_Speakers/BStonas_resume_Fa09.doc
29
http://www.chabotcollege.edu/faculty/bmayer/ChabotEngineeringCourses/ENGR10_Into_to_Engrng/E10_Guest_Speakers/Yong-Chuah-Resume-Engineer_1008FT.pdf
30
http://www.chabotcollege.edu/faculty/bmayer/ChabotEngineeringCourses/ENGR10_Into_to_Engrng/E10_Guest_Speakers/ENGR10_MyTransferExperience_JMerrit_Fa10.pptx
31
http://www.chabotcollege.edu/faculty/bmayer/ChabotEngineeringCourses/ENGR10_Into_to_Engrng/E10_Guest_Speakers/TomaszJagodaResume%20v%202.1_ENGR10_Fa10.doc
32
http://www.chabotcollege.edu/faculty/bmayer/ChabotEngineeringCourses/ENGR10_Into_to_Engrng/E10_Guest_Speakers/Robert_Moore_ENGR10_14NOV10_.ppt
ENGINEERING Academic Program Review and Planning
Bruce Mayer, PE • 291219889 • Page 14 of 45
33
http://www.chabotcollege.edu/sloac/plo_results.cfm?program=Engineering (AA)
http://www.ni.com/nielvis/
35
http://www.chabotcollege.edu/accreditation/documents/Final%20%20Chabot%20College%20Follow%20Up%20Report%20Fall%202010%20Draft%20Revised%2082910.pdf
36
http://www.chabotcollege.edu/faculty/bmayer/ChabotEngineeringCourses/ENGR10_Into_to_Engrng/E10_Guest_Speakers/UCB_UCD_Guests_09/ENGR10_Garrick%20Bornkamp_CV_0910.ppt
34
ENGINEERING Academic Program Review and Planning
Bruce Mayer, PE • 291219889 • Page 15 of 45