Academic Program Review and Action Planning – YEAR ONE
Division
Program
Contact Person
Date
Science & Math
Physics
Nicholas Alexander, Timothy Dave, Scott Hildreth,
March 2011
Section A – Data Review and Analysis
I. Basic Success and Equity (Data from 3 previous years)
1) Program-wide trends based on available data from Fall 2007 through Spring 2010:
- Academic year enrollment for 09/10 is up 10% from 08/09 and 5% over 07/08. Enrollment in
Physics 2A was about 15% higher in 09/10 compared with two years prior; enrollment in Physics
4A was about the same.
- Success data for the program continues to be a bit higher than the campus average (74% average
for 09/10 compared with 66%), but lower in Autumn than in Spring; overall success in Spring
2010 was down slightly from that of the prior two years.
- Withdrawal rates across the program seem comparable to prior years, but fluctuate quite a bit
and conclusions difficult to draw. They averaged ~16% for 09/10, a bit under the campus
average of 19%.
- Men made up a higher percentage of the classes in 09/10 (~66%) compared with prior years
(~60%).
- Women are succeeding in the Spring semester much more than they are succeeding in Autumn,
most likely because Physics 2B sections are taught only in Spring, and women made up a
proportionately larger fraction of the overall physics program enrollment in Spring 2010
compared with prior years.
2) Trends in Physics 2A - College Physics with Algebra
This class is taught only during Autumn Semesters (2 sections, one day & one evening)
- Enrollment was higher for Fall 2009 by about 15% over two years ago
- Success rates were down, and withdrawal rates up, each by about 10%, in 2009.
- Non-success and withdrawal rates were higher for women in Fall 2009 and increased more
for women compared with prior years.
- No obvious trends were seen for success by ethnicity.
Chabot College Physics Program Review and Planning for 2011-14
March 2011 - Page 1 of 26
3) Trends in Physics 4A - General Physics with Calculus
This class is taught in both Autumn & Spring semesters, (2 sections each semester)
- Overall success for the year (averaged between both terms) was the same for the last three
years (about 66%, identical to the campus-wide average for 2010). In the prior two years
(07/08 and 08/09) autumn semester success was notably lower compared with Spring. This
result was not seen in 09/10 data.
- Withdrawal rates for Autumn were down significantly in 2009 compared with prior years.
- Non-success rates for Spring were up significantly in 2010 compared with prior years,
especially among men.
- Most of our students enrolling in Physics 4A are self-identified as intending to transfer and
major in engineering. It is interesting to compare our success rates with engineering courses
taken earlier by those same students (11, 22) and later by those students (36, 43, 45). In all
cases it appears the success rate of Physics students in 4A is slightly higher than in
engineering classes, but closest in Spring 2010. This is important to keep in mind; we do not
want a vastly different success rate in our classes compared with those offered in Engineering.
- Similarly, most of our Physics 4A students will have passed Math 1 (a pre-requisite) and be
taking Math 2 or Math 3. Success rates for Physics 4A students seem to slightly higher than
those of Math 2 students, and very comparable to those of students in Math 3. This is to be
expected, as the same students are taking both classes, but nevertheless important to verify.
4) Trends in English-language proficiency and success in Physics overall
In the algebra-based Physics 2 sequence, we saw one third of students in Fall 2009 taking the
program with no recorded previous English courses, but their success, non-success, and
withdrawal rates overall were comparable. This is encouraging, and perhaps may illustrate the
commitment of the faculty teaching that course (Alexander and Alegre) to ensure all of their
students can understand the very difficult word problems typically used as homework and
exam assessments. Dr. Alexander has participated in the Reading Apprenticeship program at
Chabot, and continues to apply that knowledge gained to the advantage of his students in both
Physics 2 and Physics 4 courses. We need more data to look at this question, and will
examine it in more detail with the help of our Institutional Research
In Physics 4A from Fall 2009, we again saw more than one-third of the entry students without
prior English coursework, succeeding as well as students who had English 1A, 4, or 7 in prior
semesters. One major difference though was that relatively more students without those
English skills ended up unsuccessfully, rather than withdrawing. Perhaps this reflects a
different understanding of Chabot’s “W” policy, or perceived differences in the stigma of a
“W” grade on a transcript? This might be a question we address with more information about
the “W” policy provided in our syllabi for the courses. We had too few students in Fall 2009
with only English 102/101 courses to really draw valid conclusions from their success rates.
Chabot College Physics Program Review and Planning for 2011-14
March 2011 - Page 2 of 26
Analysis
Comparing success in Physics Programs in general with other community colleges* shows
Chabot to be about average; our overall program success is not as high as at our sister campus of
LPC, nor of College of Marin or CCC. This gives us something to examine over the next few
years – what are those programs doing differently than Chabot? Are there more student services
offered, better lab facilities, different delivery modes?
Physics Program Overall Success Rates (Fall 2008)
- College of Marin: 86%
- Las Positas College: 86%
- Contra Costa College: 84%
- Diablo Valley College: 75%
- Chabot College: 72%
- Ohlone College: 69%
- Laney College: 67%
- Bakersfield College 66% http://www.bakersfieldcollege.edu/irp/IRP_Home.asp
- Los Medanos College: 65%
- Foothill College: 64%
- Merritt College: 62%
- College of San Mateo: 54%
Source: California Community College Chancellor’s Office, “Program Retention/Success Rates for Credit Enrollments By Distance
Education Status: All Non-Distance Education Classes, Physical Sciences (19), Physics General (1902), Fall 2008 Data. ” DataMart.
Accessed 3/10/11 from http://www.cccco.edu/SystemOffice/Divisions/TechResearchInfo/MIS/DataMartandReports/tabid/282/Default.aspx .
Physics 4A is considered to be a cornerstone of the program, taken by the largest number of students
and pre-requisite for the largest group of students in the Engineering major pattern. We need to look
at the success and retention data of the same course at local colleges to help us understand how we
are doing for that pivotal course. We also want to look at transfer and retention rates for these
campuses, but the CCCCO datamart server is unable to provide this data for Physics.
II. Course Sequence (Data from 2 previous years) - Scott Hildreth
Note: Answer this question if you have been provided data about course sequences in your discipline.
Reports were available for Physics 4A to 4B (Fall 08 to Spring 2010), and showed 89% of students
(eight of nine) succeeding in 4A and enrolling in 4B also succeeded in that second course. For
Physics 3A to 4C (Fall 08 to Spring 2010), 67% of students (two of three) succeeding in 4A went on
to success in 4C. Unfortunately Fall 2008 was an atypical semester for Physics 4A enrollment and
success (only 1 section offered, of 27 students, with 44% success reported). Consequently,
conclusions from this data are most likely not applicable to the program. We need to use a different
term, and also look at Physics 2A/2B retention and success. Those data were not available.
Chabot College Physics Program Review and Planning for 2011-14
March 2011 - Page 3 of 26
III. Course Review (Data from 5 previous years)
Course outlines were updated for Physics 2A/2B, Physics 22A/B, Physics 4ABC, Physics 11, and
Physics 18 were updated in 2009/2010 and are valid from 2010. Physics 5 (Modern Physics) is now
in need of a revision (last updated in 2005). Physics 5 was only recently added as a transferable
course for some schools (San Jose State), which we hoped would increase enrollment.
We plan to propose a major revision to our major’s transfer sequence in Fall 2011, including
replacing Physics 5 with a fourth semester of our Physics 4 sequence (4D) to better align our course
offerings with Las Positas College as well as other transfer institutions. Currently Physics 5 is a
three-unit, three-hour lecture course with no lab component. We created the course in this fashion
because:
a) Including Modern Physics in the Physics 4C course was not effective; faculty could not meet
the course outline expectations for Chabot’s students.
b) Chabot lacked sufficient lab equipment to offer students authentic lab activities in modern
physics, and did not have a budget adequate for the purchase and maintenance of that
equipment.
c) Offering the class in a lecture-only mode also allowed us to create an online delivery option
with the hope that we could attract more students.
After offering Physics 5 for four years, and trying twice to offer an online version of the course,
enrollment is still too low to permit its continuance as currently structured. Our plan is to put Modern
Physics back into the Physics 4 course sequence, and offer our classes in the same sequence as
colleagues at Las Positas College. We hope that this move will:
-
Allow students in our District greater flexibility in terms where we cannot offer the
entire physics sequence each term. Currently we offer Physics 4C only in Spring; Fall
enrollment was too low to sustain that course given limited FTEF allocations for the
Astronomy/Physics program.
-
Allow us to consider team-teaching Physics 4D with Las Positas using distance
education technologies, so that small classes might be more sustainable.
We are also considering whether Physics 2 might be even more successful as a calculus-based
program, rather than attempting to offer Physics 22A/22B as calculus bridge courses. This
investigation will take some time; we only recently completed the course review and outlines for
22A/22B to align with Math 15/16, and hope to see how enrollment in those courses will drive
interest in our Physics 2 and 22 sequences.
Chabot College Physics Program Review and Planning for 2011-14
March 2011 - Page 4 of 26
IV. Budget Summary (Data from 3 previous years)
During the last 10 years, the Physics equipment budget has varied from $800 to $1800 per academic
year. Typically, the small items used in the lab are less than $100 and often less than $25. However,
principal equipment like the Lab Pro Data collection system per data pro module average around
$250. This is typical for most more sophisticated physics equipment.
Thus had there not been at least two funding initiatives over the last decade, the Physics and
Astronomy departments would not have been able to keep up with normal wear and tear attrition of
current equipment nor would we have been able to attain any new equipment. Out last funding
“boom” came about 3 years ago with Bond Measure B funds allowing both Astronomy and Physics
to replace worn out equipment and modernize to the tune of $185,000. This resulted in a significant
ability to expose students to experimental techniques and instrumentation on a small scale mimicking
what they will see later in the working environment on the much larger scale.
For Physics, I might separate foresee short/medium term efforts of the department to be directed in
the following areas:
a.) A push by myself (Tim Dave) during Academic year 2011-2012 towards soliciting outside
donations, grants, and contributions outside the typical funding stream of the college to
provide some part of a part-time faculty member to pursue educational outreach both in
Physics and Astronomy.
b.) Likewise mobilizing a search for funding to help supplement funds most likely need for
equipment and instructional aides as both Physics and Astronomy move from Building 1700 to
Building 1800.
c.) With the pursuit of bringing Physics 5 in academic and articulation alignment with Physics 8D
at Las Positas and equivalent courses at UC and CSU campuses, purchasing equipment to
teach a lab component of this course. Typically the equipment for modern physics courses
(Physics 5) is considerably higher in cost than that in the Physics 4 series.
d.) Long-term efforts will be to establish a center of Science and Engineering Excellence with
multiple financial sponsors such as that established at Contra Costa College.
V. Enrollment Data (Data from 2 previous years)
Enrollment data from Spring 2008 through Spring 2011 showed predictably strongest demand for
Physics 11 (average =105%), 2A (average =102%), and 4A (average =100%); enrollments were
under capacity for Physics 4C (average =69%) and Physics 5 (two sections cancelled in previous
years; one running with 5 students in Spring 2011). Enrollment in Physics 2B overall is strong
(88%) as a required continuation course for biological science majors among others, and with Physics
4B (86%) as a required continuation course for Engineering and Physics Science majors.
Our evening sections of Physics 2A and 2B are the only offerings outside of typical daytime, and
continue to serve a working population not able to attend day classes. Enrollment in Physics 2B in
Spring terms is lower on average for the recent terms (2010, 2011) where sections were offered at
Chabot College Physics Program Review and Planning for 2011-14
March 2011 - Page 5 of 26
6:30 PM, compared with previous terms (2008,2009) because in those prior years only one section of
Physics 2B was offered, in the afternoon, as an attempt to satisfy both daytime and afternoon
demand. We recognized in 2009 that approach was flawed, and returned to our current standard of
offering both daytime and evening complete Physics 2 sequences in Autumn and Spring. We also
made a commitment to faculty continuity in teaching the evening course, with Jose Alegre taking on
the challenge of that evening program for multiple years, and for the first time, allowing flexibility in
textbook choice. Enrollment was up in Spring 2011 for that Physics 2B course compared with the
prior year.
Curriculum plans to redesign our Physics 4ABC sequence to 4ABCD were mentioned in Section III
above. We expect that this alignment will help our students who need Modern Physics before they
transfer, and possibly help students taking classes at LPC who might need another option for their last
term of calculus-based physics.
In 2009-2010 we participated in the block schedule realignment of math, science, and engineering
courses that has standardized Physics 4 offerings on MWF afternoons, with some Thursday morning
labs for double-lecture sections. With that realignment we have seen fewer student complaints about
course overlaps in general. We have noted some overlap problems with students in architecture,
though, and need to address that problem with the School of the Arts Division.
One of our faculty team (Dave) investigated student attendance and participation in non-traditional
days/times by offering Saturday discussion/lab sessions in prior years; we found that the weekday
sections were preferred by our students even if that meant trying to squeeze in more classes with less
time.
Chabot College Physics Program Review and Planning for 2011-14
March 2011 - Page 6 of 26
VI. Student Learning Outcomes Inventory






Percentage of courses in your discipline that have CLOs and rubrics developed:_________
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)_______
Date the CLO Assessment schedule was submitted:________
Percentage of courses in your discipline that have had all the CLOs assessed within the past three
years, as per Chabot’s Assessment policy: _______
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?
Percentage of courses in your discipline that have CLOs and rubrics developedWe offer four introductory, calculus-based courses for students in science and engineering (Physics
4A, 4B, 4C, and 5); We have added new transfer options for our life-science majors enrolled in trig
and pre-calculus based Physics 2A and 2B now that two one unit supplemental companion courses
have been resurrected--Physics 22A and 22B; Physics 18, a new preparatory mathematical methods
for physics class provides a supplemental review of prerequisite content-based problem solving and
opportunities for Faculty Inquiry Group (FIG) driven literacy and critical thinking skills projects
discussed below.
Of these courses, 4ABC, 2AB and 22AB have CLOS, the remainder are to be scheduled. 4A, 4B, 2A
and 2B each have two CLOS, qualitative and quantitative. 4C has one CLO, quantitative. The
calculus supplements 22AB each have one quantitative CLO. In addition , we are adding one more
CLO to each course pertaining to real world applications of physics. We will elevate that and the
quantitative CLO to a Program Level Outcome (PLO) applied to each sequence in its entirety.
Percentage of courses in your discipline that have the minimum number of CLOs developedAll the above mentioned courses, with the exception of Physics 4C, will have the minimum number
of CLOS once we add the real world application component into the inventory. 22AB are only one
unit each so they already meet the test. With respect to bringing 4C into compliance, we will be
adding another CLO easily generalized to the other laboratory courses. It deals with the scientific
method which incorporates laboratory experimentation by definition. Does the student understand the
difference between speculation and a scientific hypothesis with experimentation pertaining to course
content? The latter is susceptible to real world experimentation which can in practice disprove the
hypotheses within its range of validity. The former is not.. (According to these criteria, it’s
speculation to assert extra-terrestrial humanoid life exists but it’s within the scientific spirit to assert
the Moon is made of cheese.) We will easily generalize this CLO into a PLO.
All these CLOS will bring remaining un-assessed courses into minimum compliance once scheduled.
We will easily adopt to Physics 11 and 18 existing quantitative, qualitative , real world application,
scientific method and qualitative CLOS applied to other courses...
Date the CLO Assessment schedule was submitted SPRING 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: Courses 4ABC, 2AB, which have the above mentioned
CLOS, have all been assessed in the last three years and constitute the majority of units we offer.
Chabot College Physics Program Review and Planning for 2011-14
March 2011 - Page 7 of 26
Percentage of courses in your discipline that have had all the CLO assessments reflected upon,
or discussed with colleagues, within the past three years. All courses assessed have been reflected
upon one way or another in weekly subdivision meetings in we which explore pedagogy and other
topics related to student success discussed below.
What questions or investigations arose as a result of these reflections or discussions?
Technology and internet-based teaching tools such as the online homework service at
masteringphysics com have helped students achieve higher levels of mastery as measured on
quantitative and qualitative assessments attached to this report. The masteringphysics site has a
plethora of features to reinforce knowledge in addition to usual homework problem postings.
Student have also gained insights from their exposure to computer aided laboratories displaying
digital images of physical quantities.

What actions has your discipline determined that might be taken as a result of these reflections,
discussions, and insights?
Actions planned: Maintain the above practices, that is, integrate computers with offline learning
protocols. Accelerate CLO assignments to courses while maintaining these approaches. .

What course-level and programmatic strengths have the assessment reflections revealed?
Strengths revealed: At the program level, the assessments reveal the benefits that may arise from the
use of computer based systems on the web and in the lab.. One significant feature is group work as
students, for example, gather around a computer screen to solve skill building exercises they will
turn in collectively. Group work of course can exist independently of the use of computers but may
be facilitated by them.. In that context, a course strength is the use of Reading Apprenticeship
approaches allowing students to discover the power of meta cognitive thinking and collaboration.



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
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: Nicolas Alexander—RA has provided an avenue for promoting critical thinking and
problem solving in the classroom through group work and think alouds Students can share and
develop problem solving strategies. I often model problem solving on book exercises and break
students up into small groups to work on another more difficult one.
Chabot College Physics Program Review and Planning for 2011-14
March 2011 - Page 8 of 26
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?
Quite simply, the Physics and Astronomy departments need support help through the hiring of a lab tech,
which all the other sciences have, short of engineering. The increase in efficiency and help that students will
gather from this additional help will be instrumental in increasing their success. If not a full time tech, we
would be about to work with a 15 hour a week part time tech or student assistant.
Computers are ubiquitous in education today as chairs and tables. Yet, as a collective here at Chabot college
we still view them as an afterthought. Our textbook publishers and our students are converging to a common
use, in some sense, of the online domain. To keep up and to make the promise and reality of increased
learning capabilities we need to have the technology, at the very least, that our students have. That is why we
have made a point in this report to request that our aging complement of computers in our labs be soon
replaced.
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.).
Our physics enrollment is driven mostly by students interested in careers in medicine, biological science, and
engineering. We typically have only one or two students interested in Physics as a major. We do note the
growth of architecture courses in the School for the Arts, which may attract more students interested in the field
and possibly in transfer as an major in Architecture, like UC Berkeley or Cal Poly SLO, both of which require a
year of lower-division undergraduate Physics as a pre-requisite.
When consulting the Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Outlook Handbook 20010-11 Edition we find:
A. Scientific research and development services firms and the Federal Government employ over half of all
physicists and astronomers.
B. Most jobs in basic research usually require a doctoral degree; master's degree holders qualify for some
jobs in applied research and development; bachelor's degree holders often qualify as research assistants or for
other physics-related occupations, such as technicians.
Applicants may face competition for basic research positions due to limited funding; however, those with a
background in physics or astronomy may have good opportunities in related fields, such as engineering and
technology.
Physicists explore and identify basic principles and laws governing the motion, energy, structure, and
interactions of matter. Some physicists study theoretical areas, such as the nature of time and the origin of the
universe; others apply their knowledge of physics to practical areas, such as the development of advanced
materials, electronic and optical devices, and medical equipment.
Physicists design and perform experiments with sophisticated equipment such as lasers, particle accelerators,
electron microscopes, and mass spectrometers. On the basis of their observations and analysis, they attempt to
discover and explain laws describing the forces of nature, such as gravity, electromagnetism, and nuclear
interactions. Experiments also help physicists find ways to apply physical laws and theories to problems in
nuclear energy, electronics, optics, materials, communications, aerospace technology, and medical
instrumentation.
Chabot College Physics Program Review and Planning for 2011-14
March 2011 - Page 9 of 26
While, a Ph.D. degree in physics or closely related fields is typically required for basic research positions,
independent research in industry, faculty positions, and advancement to managerial positions. Graduate study in
physics prepares students for a career in research through rigorous training in theory, methodology, and
mathematics. Most physicists specialize in a subfield during graduate school and continue working in that area
afterwards.
Master's degree holders usually do not qualify for basic research positions, but may qualify for many kinds of
jobs requiring a physics background, including positions in manufacturing and applied research and
development. Increasingly, many master's degree programs are specifically preparing students for physicsrelated research and development that does not require a Ph.D. degree. These programs teach students specific
research skills that can be used in private-industry jobs. In addition, a master's degree coupled with State
certification usually qualifies one for teaching jobs in high schools or at 2-year colleges.
Physicists and astronomers should experience faster than average job growth, but may face competition for basic
research positions due to limited funding. However, those with a background in physics or astronomy may have
good opportunities in related occupations.
Employment of physicists and astronomers is expected to grow 16 percent, faster than the average for all
occupations during the 2008-18 decade.
Federal research expenditures are the major source of physics-related and astronomy-related research funds,
especially for basic research. For most of the past decade there has been limited growth in Federal funding for
physics and astronomy research as most of the growth in Federal research funding has been devoted to the life
sciences. However, the America COMPETES Act, passed by Congress in 2007, sets a goal to double funding
for the physical sciences through the National Science Foundation and the Department of Energy’s Office of
Science by the year 2016, and recent budgets for these agencies have seen large increases. If these increases
continue, it will result in more opportunities in basic research for Ph.D. physicists and astronomers.
Although research and development expenditures in private industry will continue to grow, many research
laboratories in private industry are expected to continue to reduce basic research, which includes much physics
research, in favor of applied or manufacturing research and product and software development. Nevertheless,
people with a physics background continue to be in demand in information technology, semiconductor
technology, and other applied sciences. This trend is expected to continue; however, many of the new workers
will have job titles such as computer software engineer, computer programmer, or systems analyst or developer,
rather than physicist.
Opportunities should also be numerous for those with a master's degree, particularly graduates from programs
preparing students for related work in applied research and development, product design, and manufacturing
positions in private industry. Many of these positions, however, will have titles other than physicist, such as
engineer or computer scientist.
People with only a bachelor's degree in physics or astronomy are usually not qualified for physics or astronomy
research jobs, but they may qualify for a wide range of positions related to engineering, mathematics, computer
science, environmental science, and some nonscience fields, such as finance. Those who meet State certification
requirements can become high school physics teachers, an occupation in strong demand in many school
districts. Some States require new teachers to obtain a master's degree in education within a certain time. (See
the statement on teachers—kindergarten, elementary, middle, and secondary elsewhere in the Handbook.)
Despite competition for traditional physics and astronomy research jobs, graduates with a physics or astronomy
degree at any level will find their knowledge of science and mathematics useful for entry into many other
occupations.
Chabot College Physics Program Review and Planning for 2011-14
March 2011 - Page 10 of 26
Median annual wages of physicists were $102,890 in May 2008. The middle 50 percent earned between $80,040
and $130,980. The lowest 10 percent earned less than $57,160, and the highest 10 percent earned more than
159,400.
Median annual wages of astronomers were $101,300 in May 2008. The middle 50 percent earned between
$63,610 and $133,630, the lowest 10 percent less than $45,330, and the highest 10 percent more than $156,720.
The average annual salary for physicists employed by the Federal Government was $118,971 in March 2009; for
astronomy and space scientists, it was $130,833.
All the above information is put forward as some small justification for the necessity to pursue efforts to bring
back the Physics AS degree, with the hope another avenue of success would be provided our students as they
achieve their educational goals.
Chabot College Physics Program Review and Planning for 2011-14
March 2011 - Page 11 of 26
Section B – Data Summary
Data Summary and Plan of Action Description/Rationale:
Our physics program faces two immediate challenges for the remainder of 2011 and throughout the
2011/2012 academic year:
1. Working with the architects and builders for the new 1800 building, and planning for the move of
our labs to that facility in Summer 2012 in the hope of scheduling classes there for Fall 2012. We
had direct experience in the planning of Building 1900, and the move of the planetarium
equipment in 2010, and recognize that this task alone will necessarily consume a huge amount of
our time and energy. Given that we have no lab assistants, just moving equipment and organizing
its placement in the new facilities will be a huge task for 2011-2012.
2. Replacing (24) existing laptops in our physics labs with new units, customizing them with
required applications, and integrating them into our lab assignments. This will start in Spring
2011, but take many weeks without a lab tech, as individual labs are performed and their
applications migrated to the new systems. We expect we’ll have to do the same with the (12)
existing physics computer cart systems, but do not have a timeline from Computer Support about
those replacements.
3. Preparing the realignment of our Physics 4ABC and Physics 5 curriculum to a four-semester
model to match LPCs, so that we might pave the way for a future team-teaching opportunity - or
deciding we *don't* want to do that, and dropping modern physics altogether as a requirement so
we don't keep it in the curriculum.
4. Completing the CLO cycle for all of our courses, adding new CLOs as well as PLO’s.
5. Looking at ways to generate more student success in 4A as the key class for students heading
towards engineering, and in tracking how Physics 18 is leading to greater success with students
who go on to take Physics 4ABC.
6. Examining offering Physics 22A/22B (for which we do not have sufficient FTEF allocation at the
current time), or looking at changing Physics 2A/B to a “calculus-lite” version, and exploring
whether that would that help or hurt our current students.
7. Maintaining a lab ourselves without a lab tech to help with equipment setup, maintenance, while
all of our colleagues at LPC and in the Biology and Chemistry programs at Chabot do have that
support.
8. Restoring Physical Science 15 as a course offering, tied to CSUEB’s Environmental Studies 1000
course, which is a pre-requisite for science teachers.
We are hopeful that the new lab and lecture facilities planned for 1800, as well as the new Physics
Tutorial/Discussion center in that building, will lead to even better student success, retention, and overall
program success. It will take a huge amount of time and effort on our part outside of just teaching our
classes to take advantage of the new facilities.
12
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
There are 3 projects/initiatives we would like to pursue:
1.
Physics 5 Initiative (P5A) – Adding a lab component to a lecture only course –
.
Program and curriculum modification
Objective: P5A objective is to align course offering in Modern Physics to match that of Las Positas,
CSU and UC’s
Outcome: P5A: A functional educational pathway that will allow students to mix and match their
calculus based physics courses between Las Positas and Chabot, that will meet the requirement of
Higher Ed (CSU, UC) institutions thus resulting in an increase in enrollment in Physics 5 (or Physics
4D if name is changed) and in the general Physics 4 series.
2.
iPad Learning Initiative (iPad)
Innovation and Pilot Projects
Objective: iPad objective is to find, create, and implement new techniques in classroom and a
collection of labs using the iPad learning device to be shared with other local community college
astronomy faculty.
Outcomes: iPad: Increased access to current and relevant course material (E-Books, online sites)
thus providing increased student learning.
3.
Center for Science Excellence, Grants and Other Funding Source Initiative (Center/Grants)
Additional Funding Support and Innovation and Pilot Projects
Objective: Center/Grants is to increase the capabilities of both Physics and Astronomy departments by
actively seeking out, writing, and obtaining additional operational funds through grants and donationss
Outcome: Center/Grants: More funds for Physics program activities and a coordination of these
activities into coordinated educational pathways for students.
13
I.
Action Plan Timeline: Detail the timeline for accomplishing your goals
PLOs and/or Program
Goal(s)
1. Design, Build, and Move
to New Physics Labs
(Building 1800)
Timeline
Spring 2011 –
Spring 2013
Activities
- Attending/Participating in
Design Meetings
- Working with contractor on
building 1800 Physics lab spaces
- Plan for equipment move in
summer/fall 2012
- Inventory and Move Physics
labs to 1800
- Set up new labs, integrate
computers into new building
systems, etc.
2. Install upgraded Physics
laptop computers, and
maintain computer carts, to
provide students with
required lab/discussion
resources, simulations, data
acquisition tools, analysis
software, and
group/homework tools.
Spring 2011 –
Fall 2011
3. Prepare curriculum
proposal for realignment of
Physics 4ABC to foursemester sequence
Fall 2011 –
- Research Student Success with
Spring 2012, for 2, 3, and 4-semester models at
introduction by other colleges.
Fall 2012
- Investigate which lab activities
can be done with simulation
software,
Support Needed to
Accomplish These
Activities*
When the actual move of
lab equipment occurs,
we’ll need lab assistant
time to inventory and
place existing materials in
the new facilities. A Lab
Tech, or student
assistants, will be
required.
Computer support
- Move lab software to new units; Computer Support
- Integrate computers to wireless
network in 1700.
To offer a lab component
in Physics 4D, we’ll need
an increase of 3.6 CAH
(0.24 FTEF) in our
program allocation, and
some one-time monies to
purchase new equipment.
- Establish orders for additional
14
Outcome(s) Expected
Person(s)
Responsible
Accomplished?
Yes/No/In
Progress
By 2013, run physics lectures
All physics faculty.
and labs successfully in the new
spaces.
By 2013, hold student
discussions and tutorial
sessions in new facility and
look at ways to assess
improvements in learning due
to the availability of peer and
instructor support.
By Fall 2011, be using newer
laptops for Mastering Physics,
Vernier Labs, PhET tutorials,
ACTIVEphysics tutorials, and
other online/computer
resources.
All physics faculty.
By Fall 2012, offer students a
smoother transfer pathway in
Physics that mirrors what LPC
offers, and possibly enables
teaching of the course
remotelyl.
All physics faculty.
YEAR
ONE
LEAVE
BLANK
lab equipment to support a
modern physics lab curriculum
PLOs and/or Program
Goal(s)
Timeline
4. CLO/PLO completion and Spring 2011 –
review
Spring 2012
Activities
- Establish at least (3) CLOs for
each of our Physics classes;
Support Needed to
Accomplish These
Activities*
Flex-Day Time
-Assess CLO’s administered this
year (FCI for Physics 4A, CSEM
for Physics 4B, as well as
additional quantitative lecture/lab
objectives.)
5. Examine Physics 18
preparation for students
entering Physics 2A/4A
Spring 2011 –
Spring 2012
Outcome(s) Expected
Ongoing evaluation of student
success relative to CLOs and
PLOs, and continuous change
in our teaching/delivery.
-Review success in long-term
Flex-day time
studies tracking student
achievement from Physics 18
through Physics 2 or 4 sequences.
Possible establishment of
Physics 18 as a pre-requisite for
Physics 4ABC(D).
6. Examine Physics
Fall 2011
22A/22B results vs. creation
of specific calculus-lite
Physics sequence.
- Review student enrollment
Increased FTEF allocation
to support offering
Physics 22A/B without
cutting existing program
offerings in Physics 11
and 18.
Establishing 22A/B as a desired
pathway for certain majors,
advertising that pathway, and
tracking student success for
those on that pathway
7. Maintain Physics labs
Ongoing
Continue to build awareness of
the need for lab assistance, and
the inequity in having lab tech
assistance at LPC and other
science areas in Chabot, but none
in Physics.
Student Lab assistants
Justification and funding of a
student lab assistant for Physics
(minimum 15 hours/week)
8. Reestablish Physical
Science 15
2011-2012
- Look at CSUEB program for
teachers, and create curriculum
proposal change for PhySci 15 to
match ES1000 course
Flex Day Time
Increasing enrollment in
Physical Science and student
success in transferring to
CSUEB in a teaching career
pathway.
sh 3/11
15
Person(s)
Responsible
All physics faculty
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
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
16
Unit Plan: Classified
Staffing Request(s) For Physics/Astronomy Lab Tech
Unit: Physics
Division or Area to Which You Report: Math and Science
Author(s) of this Unit Plan: Scott Hildreth, Nicholas Alexander and Timothy Dave
Date: March 2011
1. Rationale for your proposal. Please include the rationale from your program review and unit plan. Rationale should
include things such as student learning and service area data and outcomes, difficulty in serving students, health and
safety concerns and/or any other information that speaks to the criteria listed previously.
Position Requested: Part-time Laboratory Technician to support Astronomy & Physics labs
Physics and Astronomy is still in need of a Laboratory Technician to assist with the set-up and take-down of astronomy &
physics labs, and with the organization, upkeep, and repair of lab stockroom equipment and supplies. This position has
been requested consistently in every unit plan Physics and Astronomy have submitted in the past 10 years, and we still
are without help. Our colleagues in Astronomy and Physics at Las Positas have help. Our colleagues in Biology and
Chemistry have help. Why is Chabot’s Astronomy & Physics program the only lab science serving students who are
transferring to four-year schools without help?
It has been acknowledged that the workload for typical physics lab classes is worth the increased lab load factor, which
we have petitioned for and received. While this indicator is a confirmation of the workload (ie. Grading lab reports) it does
not fully appreciate the considerable time required in both set up and tear down of lab experiments, nor does it truly
realize the amount of time devoted to maintenance of lab equipment and repair of said equipment by the teaching faculty.
Simply put the learning experience attained in the lab environment is not realized if there are no labs that are available
because the instructor has not the time to fully set them up and prepare a adequate lesson plan to exploit the fullest
measure of educational value within a Physics experiment. Assistance is needed in the form of additional personnel to aid
in this process, which may take several hours. Likewise assistance is needed in maintenance and repair of equipment.
Ultimately the greatest benefactors of this added help are the students who will be able to perform lab experiments that
might not been available because the limited time of his or her instructor.
17
Laboratory technician assistance relates to our overall program goals of improving student success, and increasing the
number of transfer students heading to four-year schools. Specifically, lab tech support will enable:
a) Improving student success, as faculty currently devote as much as 2 hours a week in set-up and take down of
equipment per lab. That time could be spent with students, and improving curriculum relevance as well as
completing student and course learning outcome studies.
b) Accelerating introduction of new pedagogy proven to help students learn. New computer-based data acquisition
labs are available, showing great promise to help our students develop necessary skills in scientific critical thinking,
experimentation, and data analysis. These are some of the most difficult to set up, requiring as many as 10
different components per lab station to be arranged, connected, and tested.
c) Improve program efficiency with limited budget funds, by helping in the repair of broken equipment, rather than
leaving it to be discarded because no one has time to get it fixed.
2. Statements about the alignment with the strategic plan and program review are required. Indicate here any information
from advisory committees or outside accreditation reviews that is pertinent to the proposal.
Taken from our Data Summary:
Working with the architects and builders for the new 1800 building, and planning for the move of our labs to that facility in Summer 2012 in the
hope of scheduling classes there for Fall 2012. We had direct experience in the planning of Building 1900, and the move of the planetarium
equipment in 2010, and recognize that this task alone will necessarily consume a huge amount of our time and energy. Given that we have no lab
assistants, just moving equipment and organizing its placement in the new facilities will be a huge task for 2011-2012.
This effort taken from our data summary alone would warrant the addition of a lab tech to help in what will be a total makeover of the space and
facility that we now call the Physics and Astronomy department. Clearly this will help ameliorate excessive burden of creating and organizing a
new Physics and Astronomy space while simultaneously maintaining a high level of teaching provided in the laboratory environment.
18
Program Review — Proposal for New Initiatives
Discipline: Physics
Division or Area to Which You Report: Math and Science
Name of Person Completing this Form: Scott Hildreth, Nicholas Alexander and Timothy Dave
Date: March 2011
Audience: Deans/Unit Administrators, PRBC, Foundation, Grants Committee, College Budget Committee
Purpose: A “New Initiative” is a new project or expansion of a current project that supports college goals. The project will require the support of additional
and/or outside funding. The information you provide will facilitate and focus the research and development process for finding outside funding.
Instructions: Please fill in the following information.
Educational Master Plan and/or Strategic Plan Goal/Objective Addressed:
A. Build awareness of Chabot’s academic excellence, and ensure access to education for all who seek it.
B. Provide high-quality programs and services so all students can reach their educational and career goals.
D. Be an educational leader by continuously supporting and improving learning in our diverse institution.
(esp. D5 Provide safe, secure, and up-to-date facilities and technology.
Project Description:
4.
Physics 5 Initiative (P5A) – Adding a lab component to a lecture only course.
5.
iPad Learning Initiative (iPad)
6.
Center for Science Excellence, Grants and Other Funding Source Initiative (Center/Grants)
Project Objective: (include goal & outcome from Part II of your Unit Plan for reference)
a. P5A objective is to align course offering in Modern Physics to match that of Las Positas, CSU and UC’s
b. iPad objective is to find, create, and implement new techniques in classroom and labs using the iPad learning device.
c. Center/Grants is to increase the capabilities of both Physics and Astronomy departments by actively seeking out, writing, and obtaining additional operational
funds through grants and donations.
19
Expected Project Outcome:
a.
P5A: A functional educational pathway that will allow students to mix and match their calculus based physics courses between Las Positas and Chabot,
that will meet the requirement of Higher Ed (CSU, UC) institutions thus resulting in an increase in enrollment in Physics 5 (or Physics 4D if name is
changed) and in the general Physics 4 series.
b.
iPad: Increased access to current and relevant course material (E-Books, online sites) thus providing increased learning.
c.
Center/Grants: More funds for Physics program activities and a coordination of these activities into coordinated educational pathways for students.
Activity Plan to Accomplish the Objective:
ACTIVITY ACTIVITY (simple description)
NO.
PERSON(S)
RESPONSIBLE
TIMELINE (OR TARGET
COMPLETION DATE)
a
This is a course structural change by adding a lab component to the existing lecture only class.
All Faculty
N/A
b.
Physics 4A, 4B, 4C labs (also Astro 30 Labs)
All Faculty
N/A
c.
Grant writing
Tim Dave
6/11 to 1/12
Estimated Resource Requirements:
ACTIVITY BUDGET CATEGORY AND
NO.
ACCOUNT NUMBER
Supplies
b.
6000 - Bond
Total
DESCRIPTION
COST
Purchase of iPads
$7559
Proposed personnel workload may be covered by:
New Hires:
Faculty # of positions 0
Classified staff
20
# of positions 0
At the end of the project period, the proposed project will:
Be completed (onetime only effort)
Require additional funding to continue and/or institutionalize the project (obtained by/from):
Will the proposed project require facility modifications, additional space, or program relocation?
X No
Yes, explain:
Will the proposed project involve subcontractors, collaborative partners, or cooperative agreements?
X No
Yes, explain:
Do you know of any grant funding sources that would meet the needs of the proposed project?
X No
Yes, list potential funding sources:
We will also actively be pursuing funding for both initiatives A and B.
21
Program Review: Request for Resources
Discipline: Physics
Division or Area to Which You Report: Math and Science
Author(s): Scott Hildreth, Nicholas Alexander and Timothy Dave
Date: March 2011
Audience: Budget, Deans
Purpose: To be read and responded to by Budget Committee.
Instructions: Please fill in the following as needed to justify your requests. Text boxes below will expand as you type. To list the items you are requesting, please
complete the accompanying Excel spreadsheets for the items you are requesting in the 4000, 5000, and 6000 account categories, as needed, along with the
justification for these requests below.
Equipment Requests [Acct. Category 6000]
Please note: Equipment requests are for equipment whose unit cost is over $200
Brief Title of Request (Project Name): Upgrade of Astronomy/Physics computer resources
Building/Location: 1710
Request Amount (include tax and shipping): $25,000 (est).
Description of the specific equipment or materials requested:
(24) laptop computers, of at least 2Ghz processor speet, with 2 MB RAM, 1M Cache, 350GB drive, with DVD
@$1000
What educational programs or institutional purposes does this equipment support?
The astronomy/physics lab computers are used in all facets of our lab work, from data acquisition and analysis
through simulation.
Updating our aging computers is clearly part of our Strategic Goal D: Vision, Leadership, Innovation/ Strategy D5:
Providing safe, secure and up-to-date facilities and technology.
22
Briefly describe how your request relates specifically to meeting the Educational Master Plan and the Strategic Plan Goals and support the goals and
outcomes detailed in your Unit Action Plan (Part II, Section 2)?
Our physics students are intending to transfer to CSU and UC institutions prepared in their major fields, mostly Engineering and Biological
Sciences; to be successful they must be familiar with and capable in using computers for data acquisition, analysis, and reporting. With our current
outdated, slow, and graphically-limited laptops, we are unable to utilize current publisher software proven to help students learn.
By upgrading the computers, we can offer our students a visible example of Chabot’s excellence in education, display leadership and value to
students and the community, and improve student success when they transfer.
Why is this equipment necessary?
Immediate health, safety, or security issues
Increases enrollment
X Prevents further deterioration of facilities
X Replaces deteriorated equipment or facilities
Shows cost advantage due to rising prices
Provides visibility for the Bond Program
Briefly describe how the above criteria are satisfied:
Our Astronomy/Physics lab has (24) HP desktops dating from 2003 are slow and mechanically beginning to break and have inadequate
processing power to analyze captured astronomical images. With Bond funds, we have new physics and astro lab equipment that will not run on
these older computers.
What is the consequence of not funding the equipment?
While we have acquired new telescopes and a camera through the Bond, we will not have the ability for students to process photos or
analyze them scientifically with current image processing programs without upgrades to the aging computer system. In essence, we will be unable to
fulfill our goal of improving the Astronomy laboratory and learning experience for our program. The simple impact is 24 out of 36 computers we have
are laptops which are already past the end of their operational lifetime.
What alternative approaches have been considered to meet programmatic demands for this equipment?
23
We originally hoped and requested that the computers be upgraded as part of a campus-wide replacement for aging computers. But that still
has not happened yet. The computers are now at a point were we must make a move to replace them. They are used on a constant basis and with
breakdowns have now threatened the teaching modalities that we use requiring online access. It is critical that these computers be replaced or we
will not be able to adequately serve our students.
We were told the computers would be made available to us for Spring 2011, and verified they were in the warehouse. They still (as of 4/1/11) have
not been delivered, despite numerous requests. We need to find a way to get technology into the hands of teachers and students faster, so that
their benefits can be realized.
How many students will be impacted by the purchase of this equipment? All Physics and Astronomy students
Do students use this equipment?
X yes
no
Is this equipment a replacement?
X yes
no
Staffing requirements for new equipment (number of staff, are they available, training, etc.):
Number of Staff none
Will training be required?
yes
X no
What are the estimated ongoing costs (for maintenance, etc.)? none
Are there potential utility costs/savings? no
Is this request CTE (Career Technical Education) Eligible?
yes
X no
24
Priority 1: Are critical requests required to sustain a program (if not acquired, program may be in peril) or to meet mandated requirements of local,
state or federal regulations or those regulations of a accrediting body for a program.
Priority 2: Are needed requests that will enhance a program but are not so critical as to jeopardize the life of a program if not received in the requested acade
Priority 3: Are requests that are enhancements, non-critical resource requests that would be nice to have and would bring additional benefit to the program.
Description
Franck-Hertz Experiment [FH -3001]
Planck's Constant Experiment By PhotoElectric Effect [PC-101]
Charge of an Electron Experiment
Millikan Oil Drop Experiment
Complete Charge to Mass Ratio Experiment
Amount
Vendor
$2,697
$3,160.00
SVLabs.com
SVLabs.com
$2,982
PASCO.COM
$1,904
PASCO.COM
$3,269.00
PASCO.COM
PASCO.COM
Nuclear Spectroscopy Experiment
$4,497
PASCO.COM
Speed of Light Experiment
$3,958
PASCO.COM
$614
PASCO.COM
Cloud Chamber Experiment
Total
Division/Unit
Science & Math/Math Physics
Science & Math/Math Physics
Science & Math/Math Physics
Science & Math/Math Physics
Science & Math/Math Physics
Science & Math/Math Physics
Science & Math/Math Physics
Science & Math/Math Physics
Science & Math/Math Physics
$23,081
All requests above support the alignment of Physics 5 to mirror courses at Las Positas and california higher ed 4 year institutions.
25
Priority #1
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Priority
#2
P
26