Academic Program Review and Action Planning – YEAR ONE
Division
Program
Contact Person
Date
Social Science
History
Rick Moniz, Mark Stephens, Michael Thompson, Jane Wolford, Sherri
Yeager
March 11, 2011
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?
1. Success and Equity
a. Trends over time (from Fall 2007 – Spring 2010).
Category
OVERALL
GENDER
Men
Chabot
History
Chabot
History
Chabot
History
% Change in Success
% Change in Non% Change in
Success
Withdrawal
+1%
+4%
+3%
=
-3%
-4%
+2%
+6%
+2%
1
=
-3%
-7%
Women
=
+3%
+2%
+1%
-2%
-2%
ETHNICITY
Afr-Amer
Asian
Filipino
Latino
Mid East
Native Am
Pac Isl
White
=
+1%
+4%
+2%
+4%
-7%
+4%
+1%
+9%
+4%
+5%
+7%
-42%
+6%
+1%
+5%
+2%
+1%
+1%
+2%
-2%
=
=
+3%
+2%
-4%
-5%
-1%
+33%
-29%
+3%
-1%
-2%
-3%
-5%
-4%
-4%
+7%
-2%
-3%
-10%
-1%
+1%
-7%
+8%
+24%
-3%
-3%
Analysis & Questions (Analysis of Trends Over Time)
·
In the Overall data, Chabot's overall success rate in a given semester was higher than
History's, but History is making larger gains over time.
o 3% more students were successful in History than in the college as a whole.
o In History, the % of Non-Successful students didn’t change over this time while
for the college as a whole 3% more students were Non-Successful.
o Withdrawals were 4% lower over this time in History while there were only 3%
fewer withdrawals in the college.
o The number of students grew during this time both in the college and in History.
·
In the Gender data, Chabot's success rates -- for men & women in a given semester - are higher, but are basically flat over time, while History's rates -- for both men &
women -- are steadily improving.
o For men:
§ 4% more men were successful in History than in the college as a whole.
§ 2% fewer men were unsuccessful in History than in the college as a whole.
§ 4% fewer men withdrew from History than from the college as a whole.
o For women:
§ 3% more women were successful in History than in the college as a whole.
2
§ 1% fewer women were unsuccessful in History than in the college as a
whole.
§ The number of women who withdrew from History and from the college as
a whole was equal.
o Questions/Issues raised by the data:
§ Why are the gains, both in History and college-wide, made with
men, but not with women?
§ 3% more students were successful in History than in the college as a
whole.
§ 5% fewer students were unsuccessful in History than in the college
as a whole.
§ 2% more students withdrew from History than from the college as a
whole.
·
In the Ethnicity data: Again, Chabot's overall rates are basically flat (although
higher in a given semester), but History's rates are making greater gains over time.
o For African-American students, History way outperformed the college as a
whole.
§ 9% more students were successful in History than in the college as a whole.
§ An equal number of students were unsuccessful in History than in the
college as a whole.
§ 8% fewer students withdrew from History than from the college as a whole.
o For Asian students, History outperformed the college as a whole except in the
number of students withdrawing.
§ 3% more students were successful in History than in the college as a
whole.
§ 5% fewer students were unsuccessful in History than in the college
as a whole.
3
§ 2% more students withdrew from History than from the college as a
whole.
o For Filipino students, History outperformed the college as a whole except in the
number of students withdrawing.
§ 1% more students were successful in History than in the college as a
whole.
§ 6% fewer students were unsuccessful in History than in the college
as a whole.
§ 6% more students withdrew from History than from the college as a
whole.
o For Latino students, History way outperformed the college as a whole.
§ 5% more students were successful in History than in the college as a
whole.
§ 3% fewer students were unsuccessful in History than in the college
as a whole.
§ 3% fewer students withdrew from History than from the college as a
whole.
o For Middle Eastern students, History way underperformed the college as a
whole.
§ 46% fewer students were successful in History than in the college as
a whole.
§ 35% more students were unsuccessful in History than in the college
as a whole.
§ 12% more students withdrew from History than from the college as
a whole.
o For Native American students, History mostly underperformed the college as a
whole.
§ 13% more students were successful in History than in the college as
a whole.
§ 29% fewer students were unsuccessful in History than in the college
as a whole.
4
§ 17% more students withdrew from History than from the college as
a whole.
o For Pacific Islander students, History mostly underperformed the college as a
whole.
§ 3% fewer students were successful in History than in the college as
a whole.
§ 3% more students were unsuccessful in History than in the college
as a whole.
§ 1% fewer students withdrew from History than from the college as a
whole.
o For White students, History outperformed the college as a whole.
§ 4% more students were successful in History than in the college as a
whole.
§ 4% fewer students were unsuccessful in History than in the college
as a whole.
§ An equal number of students withdrew from History as from the
college as a whole.
o Questions/Issues raised by the data: What practices in History account for the
stronger growth in success rates over time?
Trends:
§ The ethnic groups for whom History underperformed the college as a whole had
350 or fewer students college-wide and 15 or fewer students in History. The
limited number of students represented in this data skewed the results as what
appears to be a dramatic change in percentages represented a change for only a
few students. As an example, over the course of the time data was available, Fa
2007 – Sp 2010, Middle Eastern students were 42% less successful in History.
This drop of 42% represents the achievement of only 4 students.
§ Why do African-American and Latino students do so much better in
History than in the college as a whole?
5
§ Why are the gains for African-American and Latino students in
History so much more dramatic than for other ethnic groups?
§ Why are the gains made in the discipline in Non-Success data
stronger than the gains made in Withdrawal data?
By Semester: Do the heavy literacy demands of History account for the lower
success rates? Is this due to the fact that this is a general education
requirement, so all students must take it regardless of interest and/or readiness? Is
this why the success rates for women are so much higher college-wide than in
History?
b. Compare/contrast courses within discipline:
·
In the Overall data:
o Almost all courses have shown success in increasing the number of
students demonstrating success and lowering the number of students
demonstrating Non-Success and Withdrawing, the courses with the largest
enrollment, Hist 7 & 8, have underperformed the remaining courses.
o Although overall trends are up, the greatest variation in gains and losses
from semester to semester was seen in Hist 1, 2, & 20.
o The American Cultures courses showed the greatest achievement in
lowering the number of students identified under Non-Success than other
courses, but did less well in Withdrawals than the other courses.
o Across all courses, there were greater advances in lowering the number of
students Withdrawing than in lowering the number of students identified
as Non-Successful.
o The data for Hist 8 is slightly better than for Hist 7. Students in Hist 8
demonstrated 1% greater Success from Fa 2007 – Sp 2010 and 2% fewer
Withdrawals.
o Questions/Issues raised by the data:
§ Why have students in Hist 7 & 8 made weaker gains than those in
other courses? Does it have anything to do with the greater number
of adjuncts teaching those courses? With the demographics of the
students taking these courses? With the fact that it is a requirement
6
and not a choice on the part of the students? Does it perhaps
suggest a weakness in the very nature of sweeping survey courses?
§ Why do some courses show such great variation from semester to
semester? As an example, in Hist 1 the percentage of students
demonstrating Success went from 52% in Fa 2007 to 80% in Sp
2008 to 61% in Fa 2008. Does the same instructor teach both
semesters? Is it due to the fact that there are generally half the
number of students in the better performing semesters, Spring, than
in the worse performing?
§ What accounts for the greater improvement in the number of
students who demonstrate Non-Success for American Cultures
classes as contrasted to non-American Cultures courses? Is it due
to the fact that these courses are required for transfer? Does this
also account for the greater Withdrawal numbers with students
withdrawing rather than failing because that is more acceptable on
a transcript?
·
In the Gender data (for Hist 7 & 8 ONLY):
o For men, Hist 8 outperformed Hist 7, except in Non-Success data.
§ 7% more men were successful in Hist 8 than in Hist 7.
§ 1% fewer men were unsuccessful in Hist 8 than in Hist 7.
§ 18% fewer men withdrew from Hist 8 than from Hist 7.
o For women, Hist 8 underperformed Hist 7, except in Success.
§ 2% more women were successful in Hist 8 than in Hist 7.
§ 1% more women were unsuccessful in Hist 8 than in Hist 7.
§ 3% more women withdrew from Hist 8 than from Hist 7.
o Questions/Issues raised by the data:
§ Why do men outperform women in all categories in both Hist 7 &
Hist 8?
§ Why do men generally do better in Hist 8 than in Hist 7? Is this the
same for all ethnicities?
7
§ Why do women generally do better in Hist 7 than in Hist 8? Is this
the same for all ethnicities?
§ Are the ethnic breakdowns generally the same for men and women?
·
In the Ethnicity data:
o The results are mixed. Some observations:
§ African-American students did much better in Hist 8 than in Hist 7
in all three areas.
§ Asian students did nearly equally well in both Hist 7 & 8 in Success
and Non-Success, but showed a 6% decrease in Withdrawals in
Hist 8 and a 2% increase in Withdrawals in Hist 7 for the same
time period.
§ Filipino students did better in Hist 8 than in Hist 7.
§ Latino students’ results were mixed. The Success rates grew for
about the same amount for both courses. Students in Hist 8 showed
a 7% decrease in Non-Success but a 3% increase in Hist 7.
Students in Hist 8 demonstrated a 4% increase in Withdrawals but
a 7% decrease in Hist 7.
§ White students did better in Hist 7 than in Hist 8.
o Questions/Issues raised by the data;
§ Why do African-American students do so much better in Hist 8 than
in Hist 7? Is it due to the content, the instructor, the semester?
§ Why do White students do better in Hist 7 than in Hist 8? See above
questions.
§ Why do Filipino students withdraw in greater numbers than other
students?
ü Answer:
8
o Due to the fact that “success” does not objectively mean the same thing
from teacher to teacher, from course to course, and from student to
student, it is impossible to answer what accounts for success or how we
could improve success. Below are some of the reasons:
§ With the wide variety of instructors teaching even the same courses,
it is impossible to ensure standardization in grading, work
required, and effort rewarded.
§ Without anecdotal information from students about what causes
them to withdraw, what place school has in their lives, what their
level of skill is, it is impossible to know what exactly needs to
change in order to improve student achievement.
§ Since each course focuses on a very different content and meets
different graduation requirements, it is impossible to draw useful
conclusions from the success data.
§ While data about how many students pass, fail, or withdraw from a
course is important to know, it is not the only way to measure
success. It is a very blunt tool.
c. Comparisons between men and women and between different ethnicities (data is indicated
above):
ü Answer:
o Some tentative suggestions have been made above about what might
account for the differences between ethnicities. Again, it is hard to
ascertain the impact that different instructors with different styles and
different expectations might have on student achievement.
o The differences between men and women might be due to the fact that
women might have more family responsibilities than men but it is
impossible to know without polling students.
d. Inferences drawn from data correlating highest level of Math/English achievement &
Hist success:
9
·
Hist 7:
o 64% of students in transfer-level English classes were Successful while 47% of
those in Engl 102, etc. were Successful and 44% of those in No English class
were.
o 9% of students in transfer-level English classes were Non-Successful while 29%
of students in Engl 102 etc., were and 25% of those in No English class were.
o 26% of students in transfer-level English classes Withdrew while 24% of students
in Engl 102, etc. Withdrew and 32% of those in No English class did.
·
Hist 8:
o 72% of students in transfer-level English classes were Successful while 65% of
those in Engl 102, etc. were Successful and 54% of those in No English class
were.
o 7% of students in transfer-level English classes were Non-Successful while 23%
of the others were.
o 21% of students in transfer-level English classes Withdrew while 13% of students
in Engl 102, etc. Withdrew and 22% of those in No English class did.
ü Answer(Questions/Issues Raised by the data):
o The data clearly demonstrates that students who have the requisite literacy
skills, as demonstrated by their enrollment in transfer-level English, have
much greater Success and much lower rates on Non-Success than all of the
other students.
o A major surprise is that the number of students withdrawing from courses
is about the same regardless of the English course. This points to the
possibility that the reasons which cause students to withdraw are more
personal than academic and cut across differing levels of literacy
readiness.
e. Face-to Face vs. Online success rates:
·
Overall:
10
o Fall 2009
§ 55% of on campus students achieved Success while 50% of online
students did.
§ 22% of on campus students demonstrated Non-Success while 15%
of online students did.
§ 23% of on campus students Withdrew while 34% of online students
did.
o Spring 2010
§ 58% of on campus students achieved Success while 50% of online
students did.
§ 20% of on campus students demonstrated Non-Success while 13%
of online students did.
§ 22% of on campus students Withdrew while 37% of online students
did.
o Questions/Issues raised by the data:
§ On campus students achieved Success 5 & 8% more, respectively,
than did online students.
§ On campus students demonstrated Non-Success 7% more than
online students.
§ 15% fewer On campus students Withhdrew than online students.
§ The difference in Success rates can be largely attributed to the
greater number of students Withdrawing as Non-Success rates for
the students who remain are lower for online classes.
§ Greater Withdrawal rates might be attributed to (1) the increased
importance of participation necessary for an online class. Students
do not receive points for attendance alone and MUST read and
write in order to succeed. They cannot be passive students, as
participation is mandatory. (2) the early-semester difficulty in
knowing whether online students intend to remain in the class &
participate. It is likely – even more so during summer school –
that some students who received Ws could have received NGRs –
11
which do not deflate “success” percentages.
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:
The History discipline offers no courses with prerequisites or in mandatory sequence.
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:
Recently the course, History of England, was retired and removed from our offerings. At the
same time two World History courses were added, which now serve students going into nursing
12
and teaching, programs that require these courses. Most course outlines are current, recently
updated and approved by the Curriculum Committee. Three courses are due for review: Hist 5,
Critical Thinking in History; Hist 25, American Indian History and Culture; and Hist 19, History
of Modern China and Japan.
Hist 5 and Hist 25 have not been offered for 3 years due to budget constraints and cuts in
sections. Both are valuable courses, and will be updated so they can be offered in the future.
Hist 19 has not been offered in over 5 years, and its future will be discussed when it is due for
review nest year.
With the expertise represented in the discipline in gender studies, ethnic studies, military history,
political history, and travel, we plan on writing several new courses, including adding some
online versions of more courses We are also in the process of making permanent some of the
workshop courses developed to enhance basic skills and the learning of history. These courses
will enrich our offerings, provide access to students for expanded learning and experiences, and
take advantage of the strengths and knowledge of our faculty.
Since the last Unit Plan, History 21 (African American History from Reconstruction to the
Present) has been incorporated into the Daraja Program. This class was taught in Spring 2010
and was paired with English 1A. Student participation in the program had a
significant impact upon the increased success rate of the History 21 sections as a whole. History
21 had an overall success rate of 50%, much higher than the success rate for the previous two
spring semesters (Spring 2008-43%, Spring 2009-27%). The retention rate also saw a significant
increase. Again, this increase can, in no small part, be attributed to student participation in the
Daraja Program. The rate of retention in the Spring 2010 semester was 76%. In comparison, the
retention rates in the previous two spring semesters were 67% (Spring 2008) and 59% (Spring
2009). These increases are impressive and speak to the success of the program in addressing the
basic skills needs of its students.
As this was the first semester History was included in the program, there were unexpected needs
that arose that need to be addressed. It is clear that more coordination support is needed to
ensure that there is an easy transition from the Fall semester to the Spring semester. Ensuring
that students are enrolled in the right section, for example, would be better facilitated by
additional support dedicated to the program. Also, this support is also needed to serve and
coordinate the varied counseling needs of the students in this program. This type of support is
vital for student retention and program maintenance.
In addition, the History section would be better served by the presence of a Learning Assistant
(or equivalent), to aid the students transition into and work in a college, transfer-level Social
Science class. Experience has shown that students need assistance adjusting to larger courses in
which lectures play a significant role.
IV. Budget Summary (Data from 3 previous years)
 What budget trends do you see in your discipline? What are the implications of these
trends?
13


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 cuts have greatly reduced the number of sections that the History discipline can offer.
The result has been an increase in the average section size. While the History faculty has been
able to achieve some success gains, these gains are threatened by larger classes. (See History
success data.) Most significantly, students, already in desperate need to find classes that satisfy
college and transfer requirements, find that they are unable to move through the college in a
timely fashion.
The History discipline (like many other disciplines) needs more FTEF in order to: (1) teach
classes of a reasonable size that will reach students with a variety of learning styles, strengths
and basic skills needs, and ; (2) reach more students, enabling them to move through their
education here in a reasonable amount of time.
In the long term, our budget needs will need to accommodate the fact that that our students
require greater access to technology. As the bond issue helped to upgrade the classrooms, our
faculty seeks to expand opportunities to integrate more audio and visual across our curriculum.
We are looking to take advantage of podcasts and video casting. These adoption of technologies
requested expand the realm of learning capabilities for our students and increases their ability to
learn in a manner that textbooks preclude. Moreover, since history faculty teach online courses,
this budget request enables our courses to be dynamic and innovative. In previous years our
efforts to integrate technology left us with many questions about how our classrooms could
effectively utilize the constant advances in the plethora of technological innovations. Today we
feel confident that we understand how to address those past questions. It is time to move forward
and use the technology to advance our students’ learning opportunities. History has not put forth
any significant request for funding for equipment in the past. We have used however,
documentaries, web based materials and our recording studio facilities. Our proposal seeks to
expand our access to more technology. Today all our classrooms are equipped with the necessary
equipment to expand our usage of diverse technologies. Therefore this budget proposal seeks to
gain access to some basic equipment: video editing, cameras, lighting and sound, and supporting
accessories. Initial investments for equipment will enable us to film and engage in podcasting.
Web based technologies-iTunes and You Tube-make this proposal timely and appropriate. The
attached list of equipment is a request for immediate adoption. The long-term needs for our
discipline will be in keeping with any upgrades that enable our discipline to maintain stay abreast
with changes in the adopted technologies.
V. Enrollment Data (Data from 2 previous years)
14




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:
Simply put, History classes are full and achieving improved success rates. In fact, according to
enrollment management data, the WSCH/FTEF ratio (666.61) for the History Discipline (Spring
2009 –Spring 2011) is slightly above capacity average.
While these numbers are impressive and, we feel, reflect the commitment of the History faculty
to accommodate and teach effectively as many students as is feasible, they also hide the
enrollment trends that are emerging. If we compare enrollment data from the first semester of
the analysis period to the last semester of the analysis period, it becomes clear that all class sizes
are rising at a significant rate and some have risen above capacity. In comparing those sections
of History 8, for example, that were taught both at the first and last semesters under analysis (11
sections), we see that the average enrollment at Census Spring 2009 was 37.73 students. In
Spring 2011, the average enrollment in these same sections is 43.91. This translates to an
increase of the WSCH/FTEF ratio from 565.91 (Spring 2009) to 658.64 (Spring 2011), an
increase of over 16 percent. In comparing those sections of History 7 that were taught both at
the first and last semesters under analysis (13 sections total), we see that average enrollment for
Spring 2009 was 43.23 students. In Spring 2011, the average enrollment in these same sections
is 46.15 students (over two students above the stated capacity). This translates to an increase of
the WSCH/FTEF ratio from 648.45 (Spring 09) to 692.25 (Spring 11), an increase of nearly 7
percent. In classes with fewer sections, the increases are are also dramatic. Many of these
classes were already nearly at or above capacity when this analysis period began. History 1, with
two comparable sections saw its classroom average size increase from 46.5 to 50 (WSCH/FTEH
ratio increase from 697.5 to 750). History 21, with two comparable sections, saw its classroom
average size increase from 46.5 to 49.5 (WSCH/FTEF ratio increase from 697.5 to 742.5)
Similar increases in the WSCH/FTEF ratio can be seen in other History classes as well. With
withdrawal rates hovering around 20 percent, the typical History class begins the semester with
over 52 students in the classroom (often more).
In serving the broader Hayward area, the travel studies program, Faces of Cuba, provides(ed)
unique cultural enrichment opportunities for our community. The institution’s American Culture
requirement enables students’ appreciation of Cuba’s diverse historical experience and
relationship to the United States. That experience reaches across ethnic boundaries. Today,
Cuban-Americans are over three million strong and maintain a century and half of contributions
to the United States. This program applies a constructive approach to learning: first hand
experiences through meetings and discussions with the Cuban people and their institutional
15
representatives. Faces of Cuba’s primary goal has been to appreciate the uniqueness of the
Caribbean’s largest island-nation. Moreover, the program seeks to provide learning opportunities
across the entire island in across all disciplines. The program began in 1996 and continued
through 2004 under United States then regulations. Recent changes, put into effect through an
Executive Order in February 2011 enable Chabot to return under similar provisions that lead to
the establishment of this program.
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:_________
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
16

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
· 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?
_________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_____
17
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: To date, Academic Learning Support for the History Discipline has been largely
staffed through faculty initiatives. Through General Studies 115 and History 49, the number
of history students accessing tutorial services has significantly increased. For example, the
number of student visits to the WRAC Center increased by nearly six-fold the first semester
a GS 115 section was dedicated to the History subject area (See attached chart, “Visits to
WRAC Center by Tutored Subject”)
While this increase in student participation in dedicated History tutorial services is certainly
significant and welcomed, it only underscores the need for additional academic learning
support. Some of this support will come online in the fail with the addition of one more
dedicated History section of GS 115. This additional section will certainly increase History
student usage of the WRAC Center.
There are, however, limitations with this particular type of learning support. The hours
available to students through GS 115 are limited. A typical instructor for GS 115 is
available three hours a week. Such limited availability (even with an additional section)
cannot adequately address the tutorial needs of students taking History classes.
Clearly, History tutorial services must expand from this Faculty-led model to one that
includes peer tutors both outside and within the classroom. While student use of tutorial
services within the WRAC Center has increased dramatically, student use of the PATH center
has remained comparatively low. (See attached chart, “Visits to PATH by tutored subject”)
The number of History tutors needs to be increased. Ideally, there would be at least one
tutor for those courses with multiple sections. For those History courses with in highest
demand (History 7 and History 8), there would certainly need to be more than one tutor.
Given the need to develop, train and supervise these tutors, the History discipline expects
to gradually build this type of the support. To begin, the History discipline needs the
resources to hire and train five to seven tutors to work in the PATH Center. In order to, at
least, double the current History student usage of PATH a wider range of tutor availability
must be created
In addition, the number of Learning Assistants utilized in the History discipline will need to
increase. Only now, are instructors throughout the campus discovering the advantages of
this type of tutorial support. In particular, Learning Assistants will be central in providing
online tutorial services. While this online tutorial support is currently being tested through
Title III support, early results are promising. Our current need for Learning Assistants will
evolve over the next year.
Chabot College
18
Number of visits to the WRAC Center by tutored subject
Spring 2009 to Spring 2010
WRAC Total (History Subject)
2008-2009 2009-2010
Spring 2009 Summer 2009 Fall 2009 Spring 2010
64
0
375
155
594 (Total)
Chabot College Office of Institutional Research
Learning Connection Data_Fall 07 to Spring 10
Chabot College
Number of visits to PATH by tutored subject (History)
Fall 2007 to Spring 2010
Fall 2007 Spring 2008 Summer 2008 Fall 2008 Spring 2009 Summer 2009
32
13
0
59
49
Fall 2009 Spring 2010
51
31
259 (Total)
Chabot College Office of Institutional Research
Learning Connection Data_Fall 07 to Spring 10
Thursday, February 17, 2011
VIII. External Data
19
24
·
Cite any relevant external data that affects your program (e.g., labor market data,
community demand, employment growth, external accreditation demands, etc.).
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:
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
I.
Action Plan Timeline: Detail the timeline for accomplishing your goals
20
Program Goal
Timeline
Activity
Support Needed
to Accomplish
These Activities
Outcomes Expected*
Continue to develop learning support
for online students
 Institutionalize supplemental instruction
workshops for History 7 & 27
 Partnering across disciplines to improve
student success (Daraja, Reading
Apprenticeship)
Add second already-agreed-upon CLO to
SLOAC site, and develop third CLO for all
History courses
Title III/BSI
funding
transitioning
into
institutional
support
Increased student
success/retention/persis
History
Dean of Social Improved adjunct
Science
instruction that mee
«satisfactory» stand
across all course of
Institutional
One new full-time
funding
replacement hire

Increase student
2011-12
success/retention/persistence
in History
Three CLOs for each 3-unit
History course
Spring 2011
Improve adjunct instruction
in History
2010-2011
Evaluate all adjuncts currently teaching in our
discipline, and assist those that need
improvement
Hire one full-time
replacement faculty
As soon as
possible
Present proposal before Faculty Prioritization
Committee and follow with employment
procedures
Revive Faces of Cuba
Travel Program
2011-2012
Organization of travel program
Three CLOs for eac
History course
Adminstrative
Support
Renew community
Travel progam and
Revitalize connecti
To broader Haywar
community
Definitions of terms:
Program Goal = A general statement of what the program hopes to accomplish, for the longterm. 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.
21
*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
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
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
22
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

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
23

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:________
24
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:
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:
To date, Academic Learning Support for the History Discipline has been largely staffed through
faculty initiatives. Through General Studies 115 and History 49, the number of history students
accessing tutorial services has significantly increased. For example, the number of student visits
to the WRAC Center increased by nearly six-fold the first semester a GS 115 section was
dedicated to the History subject area (See attached chart, “Visits to WRAC Center by Tutored
Subject”)
While this increase in student participation in dedicated History tutorial services is certainly
significant and welcomed, it only underscores the need for additional academic learning
support. Some of this support will come online in the fail with the addition of one more
dedicated History section of GS 115. This additional section will certainly increase History
student usage of the WRAC Center.
There are, however, limitations with this particular type of learning support. The hours available
to students through GS 115 are limited. A typical instructor for GS 115 is available three hours a
week. Such limited availability (even with an additional section) cannot adequately address the
25
tutorial needs of students taking History classes.
Clearly, History tutorial services must expand from this Faculty-led model to one that includes
peer tutors both outside and within the classroom. While student use of tutorial services within
the WRAC Center has increased dramatically, student use of the PATH center has remained
comparatively low. (See attached chart, “Visits to PATH by tutored subject”) The number of
History tutors needs to be increased. Ideally, there would be at least one tutor for those courses
with multiple sections. For those History courses with in highest demand (History 7 and History
8), there would certainly need to be more than one tutor. Given the need to develop, train and
supervise these tutors, the History discipline expects to gradually build this type of the support.
To begin, the History discipline needs the resources to hire and train five to seven tutors to work
in the PATH Center. In order to, at least, double the current History student usage of PATH a
wider range of tutor availability must be created
In addition, the number of Learning Assistants utilized in the History discipline will need to
increase. Only now, are instructors throughout the campus discovering the advantages of this
type of tutorial support. In particular, Learning Assistants will be central in providing online
tutorial services. While this online tutorial support is currently being tested through Title III
support, early results are promising. Our current need for is now under study, but will likely be
two or more in the near future.
Chabot College
Number of visits to the WRAC Center by tutored subject
Spring 2009 to Spring 2010
WRAC Total (History Subject)
2008-2009 2009-2010
Spring 2009 Summer 2009 Fall 2009 Spring 2010
HIS 64
0
375
155
594 (Total)
Chabot College Office of Institutional Research
Learning Connection Data_Fall 07 to Spring 10
26
Chabot College
Number of visits to PATH by tutored subject (History)
Fall 2007 to Spring 2010
Fall 2007 Spring 2008 Summer 2008 Fall 2008 Spring 2009 Summer 2009
32
13
0
59
49
24
Fall 2009 Spring 2010
51
31
259 (Total)
Chabot College Office of Institutional Research
Learning Connection Data_Fall 07 to Spring 10
Thursday, February 17, 2011
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.).
27
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
Support Needed to
Program Goal(s)
Timeline
Activity
Accomplish these
Outcome(s) Expected
from Year One
Activities*
New PLOs and/or
Program Goal(s)
Timeline
Activity
Support Needed to
Accomplish these
Activities*
Outcome(s) Expected
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.
28
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
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:
29