Chabot College
Academic Program Review Report
Year Two of
Program Review Cycle
Digital Media
Submitted on February 28, 2013
Mark Schaeffer
Final Forms, 1/18/13
Table of Contents
Section A: What Progress Have We Made? .............................. 1
Section B: What Changes Do We Suggest? ................................ 2
Required Appendices:
A: Budget History .........................................................................................3
B1: Course Learning Outcomes Assessment Schedule .................................4
B2: “Closing the Loop” Assessment Reflections ..........................................5
C: Program Learning Outcomes....................................................................9
D: A Few Questions ...................................................................................11
E: New Initiatives ......................................................................................12
F1: New Faculty Requests ..........................................................................13
F2: Classified Staffing Requests ..................................................................14
F3: FTEF Requests ......................................................................................15
F4: Academic Learning Support Requests .................................................16
F5: Supplies and Services Requests ............................................................17
F6: Conference/Travel Requests ................................................................18
F7: Technology and Other Equipment Requests ........................................19
F8: Facilities Requests ................................................................................20
A. What Progress Have We Made?
Complete Appendices A (Budget History), B1 and B2 (CLO's), C (PLO's), and D (A few questions) prior to
writing your narrative. You should also review your most recent success, equity, course sequence,
and enrollment data at http://www.chabotcollege.edu/ProgramReview/Data2012.cfm.
In year one, you established goals and action plans for program improvement. This section asks
you to reflect on the progress you have made toward those goals. This analysis will be used by
the PRBC and Budget Committee to assess progress toward achievement of our Strategic Plan
and to inform future budget decisions. It will also be used by the SLOAC and Basic Skills
committees as input to their priority-setting process. In your narrative of two or less pages,
address the following questions:





What were your year one Program Review goals?
Did you achieve those goals? Specifically describe your progress on the goals you set for
student learning, program learning, and Strategic Plan achievement.
What are you most proud of?
What challenges did you face that may have prevented achieving your goals?
Cite relevant data in your narrative (e.g., efficiency, persistence, success, FT/PT faculty
ratios, CLO/PLO assessment results, external accreditation demands, etc.).
Most of the goals I set in my year-one Program Review dealt with curriculum. I said that I would
update expiring course outlines; I went beyond that and updated all of the Digital Media course
outlines, all of which have been approved by the Curriculum Committee. I also said that I would
make a decision about the future of Adobe Flash courses based on developments in the online
world; I did in fact decide to eliminate both Flash courses (DIGM 37, Flash ActionScript; and
DIGM 38, Flash Animation). I have replaced the former with a more up-to-date course: DIGM
34, JavaScript for Designers, which has also been approved by the Curriculum Committee.
The one curriculum-related goal that I did not follow through on was proposing a new course in
digital literacy. This had been suggested by our former dean, Gary Carter, based on his vision
for how Digital Media might integrate with other disciplines. With Gary’s departure, that vision
has become moot, and I’m now in discussions with our interim dean, Eric Schultz, about morerelevant ideas for the future of Digital Media. (For more about those ideas, see the next
section, “What Changes Do We Suggest?”.)
I said that I would provide needed resources for students by purchasing an expected new
version of Apple’s Final Cut Pro software, and by renewing our maintenance agreement for
Adobe Creative Suite software. The former has not been necessary, as Apple has been coming
out with a series of free minor updates, and there has no major (paid) upgrade to the software
so far. The latter, as it turns out, is not possible, since Adobe is discontinuing all of its software
maintenance agreements in favor of college-wide site licenses. Since a site license is
considerably more expensive than the per-seat prices we have been paying, any decision about
that will have to be made in consultation with other divisions who might also benefit from a
college-wide site license, and with IT.
1
Finally, I said that I would continue to advocate for the importance of broad-based, non-careerspecific Digital Media courses. I have resisted turning Digital Media into a strictly vocational
program that’s designed to funnel students into “the industry” — first, because it’s not clear
what “the industry” is (graphic artists, graphic designers, illustrators, web developers, digital
video editors, photographers, and photo editors all do very different things and work for
different types of employers), and second, because most of our Digital Media students do not
go on to work in those fields. Most of my students get jobs in offices, or retail establishments,
or churches, or government agencies, and they come back and tell me that they’re been given a
promotion (or kept on when their colleagues have been laid off) because they know how to
make a website or how to edit a photo in Photoshop. I want our Digital Media courses to
continue to serve these students, and not just the minority who are focused on careers in art
and design. However, this goal is seeming increasingly futile in the face of the Student Success
Task Force legislation, mandatory matriculation, and emphasis on strictly career-oriented
pathways.
I’m proudest of my having kept the Digital Media program active and vital in a time of
diminished resources. With the loss of a paid lab supervisor and adjunct faculty, the only Digital
Media courses that can be taught are those that fit into my load. I come from a background in
which you make do with what you have instead of complaining about what you don’t have.
With a streamlined course schedule, a lab staffed by volunteers, and the support of colleagues,
I’m continuing to teach a good number of students the technical and artistic skills that they
wish to learn.
B. What Changes Do We Suggest?
Review the Strategic Plan goal and key strategies at
http://www.chabotcollege.edu/prbc/StrategicPlan/SPforPR.pdf prior to completing your
narrative. Please complete Appendices E (New Initiatives) and F1-8 (Resources Requested) to
further detail your narrative. Limit your narrative to two pages, and be very specific about
what you hope to achieve, why, and how.
Given your experiences and student achievement results over the past year, what changes do
you suggest to your course/program improvement plan? What new initiatives might you begin to
support the achievement of our Strategic Plan goal? Do you have new ideas to improve student
learning? What are your specific, measurable goals? How will you achieve them? Would any of these
require collaboration with other disciplines or areas of the college? How will make that collaboration
occur?
There are three things that I’d like to see happen to Digital Media. One can be accomplished in
the short term, one in the medium term, and one in the long term.
2
Short term: As I mentioned in the preceding section, Adobe is about to stop offering per-seat
software maintenance agreements, and instead will offer only college-wide site licenses. A site
license would be wonderful not just for students, but for faculty, staff, and administrators who
would now have unrestricted access to Adobe’s suite of creative tools. It would also greatly
diminish the impact of our no longer having a paid lab supervisor: With students able to do
their work at any computer on campus, including the library, there would be much less need to
offer open hours in our Digital Media lab. The cost — currently $35,154 annually for the entire
Adobe Creative Suite, or $28,350 annually for the subset known as Design and Web Premium —
is high, but not nearly as expensive as hiring a lab supervisor. I can't legitimately include this in
my list of requested resources, since it would need to be approved and paid for on a collegewide level rather than on a division level.
(Note: Adobe has announced that the next PC version of its Creative Suite will require Windows
7 or later. If Chabot were to purchase a site license, and wanted everyone to have access to the
software, there would be an additional one-time expense of upgrading older computers that
are still running Windows XP.)
Medium term: The main thing that’s holding back the Digital Media program, in my view, is our
lack of a viable Graphic Design program. Our Digital Media courses teach students the skills
required to use software such as Illustrator or Dreamweaver, but those skills are useful only to
someone who knows design. Some students come into these courses with skill or experience in
graphic design, buy many do not, and those students are much less likely to be successful in the
professional world.
There are Graphic Design courses in our catalog, but they haven’t been offered for several
years. We need to find some way to revive them. One possibility, which Eric Schultz and I have
discussed, is to bring them under the Digital Media umbrella — which would make sense, since
almost all graphic design these days is done digitally. However, this would require dealing with
some knotty issues involving FTEF, personnel, and curriculum.
Long term: When I was first hired at Chabot, I was immersed in the digital world, having spent
20 years as a freelancer, author, and business owner. In the ten years since then, the digital
world has continued to change, and I cannot be as in touch with it as I once was. It’s not just a
matter of keeping up with the technology — I manage to do that pretty well, although “digital
media” is a catchall term for a number of different technologies that are all following different
paths — but a matter of being part of the culture in a way that’s possible only if you’re out in
the field doing work for clients. That’s why having adjunct faculty members is so important:
They bring current, real-world experience into the classroom. Students would benefit from
having more of them.
Ideally, there will come a time when Digital Media has enough FTEF so that I can concentrate on
teaching the fundamentals, which don’t change; and the more advanced courses can be taught
by adjunct instructors who are in touch with what’s happening now — who know what clients
like and expect, which developing technologies are worth keeping an eye on, and which
3
hardware items are the best buy. The combination of adjuncts’ current immersion with my long
experience and perspective would give students the best possible education.
4
Appendix A: Budget History and Impact
Audience: Budget Committee, PRBC, and Administrators
Purpose: This analysis describes your history of budget requests from the previous two years and
the impacts of funds received and needs that were not met. This history of documented need
can both support your narrative in Section A and provide additional information for Budget
Committee recommendations.
Instructions: Please provide the requested information, and fully explain the impact of the budget
decisions.
Category
Classified Staffing (# of positions)
Supplies & Services
Technology/Equipment
Other
TOTAL
2011-12
Budget
Requested
½
$25,920
2011-12
Budget
Received
0
2012-13
Budget
Requested
0
2012-13
Budget
Received
0
$25,920
$0
$0
1. How has your investment of the budget monies you did receive improved student learning? When
you requested the funding, you provided a rationale. In this section, assess if the anticipated
positive impacts you projected have, in fact, been realized.
The money we received went toward updating the software used by Digital Media students to the latest
versions. This allowed students to learn more advanced skills based on newer technology, and to
become proficient with the up-to-date software that professionals use. It also presumably bolstered our
enrollment, since students generally want to take classes only at schools that are teaching the most
current versions of software.
The software we acquired for the 2011-12 academic year came with a two-year maintenance
agreement, so there was no need for a budget request for the 2012-13 academic year. That
maintenance agreement will expire in a few months, so I am making a new budget request with this
program review.
2. What has been the impact of not receiving some of your requested funding? How has student
learning been impacted, or safety compromised, or enrollment or retention negatively impacted?
We used to have a paid supervisor, Arlene DeLeon; when she took the early-retirement option, I
requested a half-time person to replace her. That request was not granted. The consequence is that we
rely on volunteers to staff our open lab hours, and because those volunteers are neither as
knowledgeable nor as pedagogically experienced as Arlene was, our students are not getting the same
high-quality help that they used to get.
Also, because Arlene was a qualified professional, time spent in the lab under her supervision counted
as class attendance. As a result, my teaching load could accommodate more courses, since students
could spend some of each course’s lab hours in open labs supervised by Arlene. Now that I have to
5
supervise each course’s required lab hours myself, the number of courses I can teach has been reduced.
The consequence is fewer course offerings for students and reduced productivity for the Digital Media
program.
Finally, because I rely on volunteers to keep the lab open, I never know at the beginning of a semester
how much lab time will be available. As a result, I have to tell students something I never had to tell
them before: that if they can’t afford their own hardware and software, they’re less likely to succeed in
Digital Media courses. That presents a serious equity issue.
(Note: I did not make a formal request for a lab supervisor in last year’s program review, since we were
told at that time only to make requests for personnel who were critical to our program’s continued
existence. I did express the need in my narrative, however.)
6
Appendix B1: Course Learning Outcomes Assessment Schedule
All courses must be assessed at least once every three years. Please complete this chart that
defines your assessment schedule.
ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE:
Spring
Fall
2013
2013
Courses:
Group 1:
32A, 32B
Group 2:
31A, 31B
Group 3:
35A, 35B,
34
Group 4:
36A, 36B
Full
Assmt
Spring
2014
Discuss
results
Report
Results
Full
Assmt
Discuss
results
& report
Full
Assmt
Fall
2014
Spring
2015
Fall
2015
Spring
2016
Full
Assmt
Discuss
results
Report
Results
Full
Assmt
Discuss
results
& report
Fall
2016
Spring
2017
Discuss
results
Report
Results
Note: This schedule differs slightly from the one in last year’s program review
because of curriculum changes: DIGM 40 has been discontinued, and DIGM 37
and 38 have been replaced by DIGM 34.
7
Appendix B2: “Closing the Loop” Assessment Reflections
Course
Semester assessment data gathered
Number of sections offered in the semester
Number of sections assessed
Percentage of sections assessed
Semester held “Closing the Loop” discussion
Faculty members involved in “Closing the Loop” discussion
36A: Final Cut I
Fall 2012
1
1
100%
Spring 2013
Mark Schaeffer
Form Instructions:
 Part I: CLO Data Reporting. For each CLO, obtain Class Achievement data in aggregate for all
sections assessed in eLumen.
 Part II: CLO Reflections. Based on student success reported in Part I, reflect on the individual
CLO.
 Part III: Course Reflection. In reviewing all the CLOs and your findings, reflect on the course as
a whole.
PART I: COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOMES – DATA RESULTS
CONSIDER THE COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOMES INDIVIDUALLY (THE
NUMBER OF CLOS WILL DIFFER BY COURSE)
(CLO) 1:
Demonstrate an ability to effectively and creatively
operate the Final Cut Pro application.
(CLO) 2:
Defined Target
Scores*
(CLO Goal)
75% scored 3 or
4
Actual Scores**
(eLumen data)
100% scored 3 or
4
NA
NA
NA
NA
Demonstrate use of the software to output program to
various media including hard drives and DVD's.
(CLO) 3:
Identify editing techniques, terminologies, & aesthetic
concepts to create a workflow/design.
(CLO) 4:
 If more CLOs are listed for the course, add another row to the table.
* Defined Target Scores: What scores in eLumen from your students would indicate success for this
CLO? (Example: 75% of the class scored either 3 or 4)
**Actual scores: What is the actual percent of students that meet defined target based on the eLumen
data collected in this assessment cycle?
8
PART II: COURSE- LEVEL OUTCOME REFLECTIONS
A. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 1:
1. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course
level outcome?
This CLO was devised by the instructor who previously taught the course. Actual scores
exceed the target; however, this result is insignificant. See Course Reflections.
2. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and
your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
See Course Reflections.
B. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 2:
1. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course
level outcome?
This CLO was devised by the instructor who previously taught the course, and it cannot be
assessed because it is meaningless. Outputting a project to a hard drive is a simple thing;
every student must do it in order to turn in assignments. Outputting a project to DVD is not
required in the Course Outline of Record and was not required of students.
2. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and
your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
See Course Reflections.
9
C. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 3:
1. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course
level outcome?
This CLO was devised by the instructor who previously taught the course. I cannot assess it
because it is unintelligible to me; I have no idea what the instructor had in mind when he
wrote it.
2. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and
your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
See Course Reflections.
D. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 4:
1. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course
level outcome?
2. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and
your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
E. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 5: ADD IF NEEDED.
10
PART III: COURSE REFLECTIONS AND FUTURE PLANS
1. What changes were made to your course based on the previous assessment cycle, the prior
Closing the Loop reflections and other faculty discussions?
Not applicable; this was the first time I taught the course. The previous instructor never
discussed assessments with me.
2. Based on the current assessment and reflections, what course-level and programmatic
strengths have the assessment reflections revealed? What actions has your discipline
determined might be taken as a result of your reflections, discussions, and insights?
This course, 36A, and its continuation, 36B, were previously taught by an adjunct instructor
who is no longer here due to cutbacks in FTEF. Between the time he left and the time I took
over the courses, the video editing software on which the courses are based — Apple Final
Cut Pro — was completely revamped, with a new interface and new underlying technology.
Technical tasks that may have been challenging in older versions are relatively trivial in this
new version. My students were proficient at most of the technical aspects of video editing
by the end of the second week of classes.
Where they fell short was in the aesthetic aspects of video editing: how to make a sequence
flow smoothly, how to tell a story economically, how to suit the content to the audience.
Because I hadn’t taught these courses before, I had envisioned a more technical approach; it
took me a while to realize that I needed to change the emphasis from mechanical skills to
artistry. While I was working out how best to make that shift, my teaching was not as well
structured as I would have liked it to be, and I’m sure I lost some students because of this.
I’m currently teaching 36A for the second time, and I’ve changed my approach significantly
based on my experience from the last term, putting more weight on aesthetic
considerations much earlier in the course. My students are doing better work as a result.
The current CLOs are based almost entirely on the technical aspects of the software, so they
clearly need to be replaced. In addition, some require assessment of skills that are not called
for in the Course Outline of Record.
I must mention, as I always must, that I don’t find SLOs to be at all useful in these courses or
in my other courses. The reasons for which students enroll are much too varied: Some
intend to work professionally in a digital-media-related field; some work in fields unrelated
to the arts or media, but believe that having some media skills will make them more
valuable to their employers; some are professionals who already know most of what I’m
teaching but want to catch up on the latest technology; some wish to learn these skills for
personal reasons (e.g., a hobby); some need these courses to satisfy certificate or degree
requirements; some are retired and want to do something interesting with their time; some
are simply curious; and so on. The idea that all of these people are supposed to have the
same “outcomes” makes no sense. Each student comes in with his or her own set of goals
(which they note on a form that I give them on the first day of class). The ideal outcome is
for each student to reach those goals. I see my job as simply to help them do that.
11
Nevertheless, I recognize the legal and bureaucratic necessity for SLOs, and so I will revise
the CLOs for these courses before the next assessment cycle. I will also most likely make
changes to the course outlines based on the experiences I’ve had.
3. What is the nature of the planned actions (please check all that apply)?
X Curricular
X Pedagogical
 Resource based
X Change to CLO or rubric
 Change to assessment methods
 Other:_________________________________________________________________
12
Course
Semester assessment data gathered
Number of sections offered in the semester
Number of sections assessed
Percentage of sections assessed
Semester held “Closing the Loop” discussion
Faculty members involved in “Closing the Loop” discussion
36B: Final Cut II
Fall 2012
1
1
100%
Spring 2013
Mark Schaeffer
Form Instructions:
 Part I: CLO Data Reporting. For each CLO, obtain Class Achievement data in aggregate for all
sections assessed in eLumen.
 Part II: CLO Reflections. Based on student success reported in Part I, reflect on the individual
CLO.
 Part III: Course Reflection. In reviewing all the CLOs and your findings, reflect on the course as
a whole.
PART I: COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOMES – DATA RESULTS
CONSIDER THE COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOMES INDIVIDUALLY (THE
NUMBER OF CLOS WILL DIFFER BY COURSE)
(CLO) 1:
Demonstrate ability to develop titles and motion graphics
for video using the Final Cut Pro application.
(CLO) 2:
Defined Target
Scores*
(CLO Goal)
75% scored 3 or
4
Actual Scores**
(eLumen data)
100% scored 3 or
4
NA
NA
75% scored 3 or
4
100% scored 3 or
4
Demonstrate ability to troubleshoot and correct problems
with video and/or audio signal using Final Cut Pro.
(CLO) 3:
Demonstrate ability to understand and creatively make
use of advanced special effects for video using Final Cut
Pro.
(CLO) 4:
 If more CLOs are listed for the course, add another row to the table.
* Defined Target Scores: What scores in eLumen from your students would indicate success for this
CLO? (Example: 75% of the class scored either 3 or 4)
**Actual scores: What is the actual percent of students that meet defined target based on the eLumen
data collected in this assessment cycle?
13
PART II: COURSE- LEVEL OUTCOME REFLECTIONS
C. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 1:
3. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course
level outcome?
This CLO was devised by the instructor who previously taught the course. Actual scores
exceed the target; however, this result is insignificant. See Course Reflections for DIGM
36A.
4. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and
your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
See Course Reflections for DIGM 36A.
D. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 2:
3. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course
level outcome?
This CLO was devised by the instructor who previously taught the course, and it calls for
assessment of skills that are not mentioned in the Course Outline of Record.
4. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and
your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
See Course Reflections for DIGM 36A.
14
C. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 3:
3. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course
level outcome?
This CLO was devised by the instructor who previously taught the course. Actual scores
exceed the target; however, this result is insignificant. See Course Reflections for DIGM
36A.
4. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and
your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
See Course Reflections for DIGM 36A.
D. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 4:
3. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course
level outcome?
4. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and
your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
E. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 5: ADD IF NEEDED.
15
PART III: COURSE REFLECTIONS AND FUTURE PLANS
4. What changes were made to your course based on the previous assessment cycle, the prior
Closing the Loop reflections and other faculty discussions?
See Course Reflections for DIGM 36A.
5. Based on the current assessment and reflections, what course-level and programmatic
strengths have the assessment reflections revealed? What actions has your discipline
determined might be taken as a result of your reflections, discussions, and insights?
See Course Reflections for DIGM 36A.
6. What is the nature of the planned actions (please check all that apply)?
X Curricular
X Pedagogical
 Resource based
X Change to CLO or rubric
 Change to assessment methods
 Other:_________________________________________________________________
16
Appendix C: Program Learning Outcomes
Considering your feedback, findings, and/or information that has arisen from the course level
discussions, please reflect on each of your Program Level Outcomes.
Program: _Digital Media Certificate_______________________________________________
 PLO #1:
Use the tools available in one or more types of digital media to create a satisfying piece of work
 PLO #2:
Demonstrate a professional attitude in the preparation and completion of work

PLO #3:

PLO #4:
What questions or investigations arose as a result of these reflections or discussions?
Explain: None
What program-level strengths have the assessment reflections revealed?
Strengths revealed: None
What actions has your discipline determined might be taken to enhance the learning of
students completing your program?
Actions planned: Curricular changes are made, but these are in response to developments in
technology that are unrelated to PLOs.
Program: ________________________________________________
 PLO #1:

PLO #2:

PLO #3:
17
 PLO #4:
What questions or investigations arose as a result of these reflections or discussions?
Explain:
What program-level strengths have the assessment reflections revealed?
Strengths revealed:
What actions has your discipline determined might be taken to enhance the learning of
students completing your program?
Actions planned:
18
Appendix D: A Few Questions
Please answer the following questions with "yes" or "no". For any questions answered "no",
please provide an explanation. No explanation is required for "yes" answers :-)
1. Have all of your course outlines been updated within the past five years? If no, identify the
course outlines you will update in the next curriculum cycle. Ed Code requires all course
outlines to be updated every six years.
Yes.
2. Have all of your courses been offered within the past five years? If no, why should those
courses remain in our college catalog?
Yes.
3. Do all of your courses have the required number of CLOs completed, with corresponding
rubrics? If no, identify the CLO work you still need to complete, and your timeline for
completing that work this semester.
DIGM 34 is a new course that was just approved by the Curriculum Committee. It will be
taught for the first time in Spring 2014, and CLOs will be developed before that time.
4. Have you assessed all of your courses and completed "closing the loop" forms for all of your
courses within the past three years? If no, identify which courses still require this work, and
your timeline for completing that work this semester.
Yes.
5. Have you developed and assessed PLOs for all of your programs? If no, identify programs which
still require this work, and your timeline to complete that work this semester.
Yes.
6. If you have course sequences, is success in the first course a good predictor of success in the
subsequent course(s)?
Yes.
7. Does successful completion of College-level Math and/or English correlate positively with
success in your courses? If not, explain why you think this may be.
I couldn't find any applicable data online, but my common-sense response would be
that successful completion of college-level math and/or English courses would make success in any
course more likely, since math and English courses require discipline and logical thinking.
19
Appendix E: Proposal for New Initiatives (Complete for each new initiative)
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 our Strategic
Plan. 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 both internal and
external funding.
How does your initiative address the college's Strategic Plan goal, or significantly improve student
learning?
What is your specific goal and measurable outcome?
What is your action plan to achieve your goal?
Target
Required Budget (Split out
Completion personnel, supplies, other
Date
categories)
Activity (brief description)
How will you manage the personnel needs?
New Hires:
Faculty # of positions
Classified staff # of positions
Reassigning existing employee(s) to the project; employee(s) current workload will be:
Covered by overload or part-time employee(s)
Covered by hiring temporary replacement(s)
Other, explain
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?
No
Yes, explain:
Will the proposed project involve subcontractors, collaborative partners, or cooperative agreements?
No
Yes, explain:
Do you know of any grant funding sources that would meet the needs of the proposed project?
No
Yes, list potential funding sources:
20
Appendix F1: Full-Time Faculty/Adjunct Staffing Request(s) [Acct. Category
1000]
Audience: Faculty Prioritization Committee and Administrators
Purpose: Providing explanation and justification for new and replacement positions for full-time faculty
and adjuncts
Instructions: Please justify the need for your request. Discuss anticipated improvements in student
learning and contribution to the Strategic Plan goal. Cite evidence and data to support your request,
including enrollment management data (EM Summary by Term) for the most recent three years, student
success and retention data , and any other pertinent information. Data is available at
http://www.chabotcollege.edu/ProgramReview/Data2012.cfm .
1. Number of new faculty requested in this discipline: ____
2. If you are requesting more than one position, please rank order the positions.
Position
Description
1.
2.
3. Rationale for your proposal. Please use the enrollment management data. Additional data that will
strengthen your rationale include FTES trends over the last 5 years, persistence, FT/PT faculty ratios,
CLO and PLO assessment results and external accreditation demands.
4. Statements about the alignment with the strategic plan and your student learning goals are
required. Indicate here any information from advisory committees or outside accreditation reviews
that is pertinent to the proposal.
21
Appendix F2: Classified Staffing Request(s) including Student Assistants [Acct.
Category 2000]
Audience: Administrators, PRBC
Purpose: Providing explanation and justification for new and replacement positions for full-time and
part-time regular (permanent) classified professional positions (new, augmented and replacement
positions). Remember, student assistants are not to replace Classified Professional staff.
Instructions: Please justify the need for your request. Discuss anticipated improvements in student
learning and contribution to the Strategic Plan goal, safety, mandates, accreditation issues. Please cite
any evidence or data to support your request. If this position is categorically funded, include and
designate the funding source of new categorically-funded position where continuation is contingent
upon available funding.
1. Number of positions requested: __ ½ ____
2. If you are requesting more than one position, please rank order the positions.
Position
Description
1. Half-time lab supervisor
Supervises computer lab during open lab hours
and assists students with their projects
2.
3. Rationale for your proposal.
We formerly had a paid supervisor, Arlene DeLeon, who was not replaced when she took early
retirement at the end of the 2010-11 academic year. The consequence is that we now rely on volunteers
to staff our open lab hours, and because those volunteers are neither as knowledgeable nor as
pedagogically experienced as Arlene was, Digital Media students are not getting the same high-quality
help with their projects that they used to.
Also, because Arlene was a qualified professional, time spent in the lab under her supervision counted
as class attendance. As a result, my teaching load could accommodate more courses, since students
could spend some of each course’s required lab hours in open labs supervised by Arlene. Now that I
have to supervise each course’s required lab hours myself, the number of courses I can teach has been
reduced. The consequence is fewer course offerings for students and reduced productivity for the Digital
Media program. (Two examples: WSCH/FTEF for DIGM 35A dropped from 401.2 in Fall 2009 to 305.39 in
Fall 2011. WSCH/FTEF for DIGM 38 dropped from 618.03 in Fall 2009 to 540.77 in Fall 2011.)
Finally, because I now rely on volunteers to keep the lab open, I never know at the beginning of a
semester how much lab time will be available. As a result, I have to tell students something I never had
to tell them before: that if they can’t afford their own hardware and software, they’re less likely to
succeed in Digital Media courses. That presents a serious equity issue.
4. 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.
Our first PLO is for students to “use the tools available in one or more types of digital media to create a
22
satisfying piece of work.” Creating a satisfying piece of work requires time — more time than is available
during scheduled class hours. Open lab hours give students access to the hardware and software they
need to polish and perfect their projects.
Part of the strategic plan is to provide students with more information and support. A professional lab
supervisor can provide much more guidance to students than volunteers can.
23
Appendix F3: FTEF Requests
Audience: Administrators, CEMC, PRBC
Purpose: To recommend changes in FTEF allocations for subsequent academic year and guide Deans and
CEMC in the allocation of FTEF to disciplines. For more information, see Article 29 (CEMC) of the Faculty
Contract.
Instructions: In the area below, please list your requested changes in course offerings (and
corresponding request in FTEF) and provide your rationale for these changes. Be sure to analyze
enrollment trends and other relevant data at
http://www.chabotcollege.edu/ProgramReview/Data2012.cfm .
24
Appendix F4: Academic Learning Support Requests [Acct. Category 2000]
Audience: Administrators, PRBC, Learning Connection
Purpose: Providing explanation and justification for new and replacement student assistants (tutors,
learning assistants, lab assistants, supplemental instruction, etc.).
Instructions: Please justify the need for your request. Discuss anticipated improvements in student
learning and contribution to the Strategic Plan goal . Please cite any evidence or data to support your
request. If this position is categorically funded, include and designate the funding source of new
categorically-funded position where continuation is contingent upon available funding.
1. Number of positions requested: ______
2. If you are requesting more than one position, please rank order the positions.
Position
Description
1.
2.
3.
4.
3. Rationale for your proposal based on your program review conclusions. Include anticipated impact
on student learning outcomes and alignment with the strategic plan goal. Indicate if this request is
for the same, more, or fewer academic learning support positions.
25
Appendix F5: Supplies & Services Requests [Acct. Category 4000 and 5000]
Audience: Administrators, Budget Committee, PRBC
Purpose: To request funding for supplies and service, and to guide the Budget Committee in allocation of
funds.
Instructions: In the area below, please list both your current and requested budgets for categories 4000
and 5000 in priority order. Do NOT include conferences and travel, which are submitted on Appendix
M6. Justify your request and explain in detail any requested funds beyond those you received this year.
Please also look for opportunities to reduce spending, as funds are very limited.
Project or Items
Requested
Adobe Creative
Suite Web and
Design Premium
software
2012-13 Budget
Requested Received
$0
$0
2013-14
Request
$26,980 (for
76 Macs and
PCs at $355
per seat) or,
if that's not
possible,
$15,265 (for
43 Macs
only). This
request will
not be
necessary if
Chabot
purchases
the Adobe
site license
described in
the Section B
narrative.
Rationale
Keeping our software up to date allows
students to learn more current skills
based on newer technology, and to
become proficient with the same
versions of software that professionals
use. It also presumably bolsters our
enrollment, since students generally
want to take classes only at schools
that are teaching the most current
versions of software.
Unfortunately, software companies
never announce in advance when they
plan to release a new version of a
program, and even if a new version is
rumored to be imminent, the pricing
remains unknown. The request on this
form based on Adobe's current perseat price for the Web and Design
Premium package, but that price may
change after this request is submitted.
It's also quite possible that the new
version will be released before our
current software maintenance
agreement expires in October, in
which case there will be no budget
request needed at all.
The solution to all this uncertainty —
which I've mentioned in previous
program reviews — would be a
software fund that would have a
certain amount of money put into it
26
each year, from which money could be
withdrawn whenever it’s needed for
new software. Doing this wouldn’t cost
any more than we’re currently
spending on software, but it would
obviously require a significant change
in the system.
In the absence of such a fund, we have
problems like this: If Apple were to
release a new version of Final Cut Pro
later this spring — after my Program
Review has been submitted — I would
have to wait until spring of 2014 to
submit a budget request for it.
Assuming the request is approved, I
wouldn’t be able to order the software
until fall of 2014, and it wouldn’t be
installed until spring of 2015. As a
result, students would be using out-ofdate software for nearly two years,
and hence would be at a disadvantage
when trying to move into the
professional world.
27
Appendix F6: Conference and Travel Requests [ Acct. Category 5000]
Audience: Staff Development Committee, Administrators, Budget Committee, PRBC
Purpose: To request funding for conference attendance, and to guide the Budget and Staff Development
Committees in allocation of funds.
Instructions: Please list specific conferences/training programs, including specific information on the
name of the conference and location. Note that the Staff Development Committee currently has no
budget, so this data is primarily intended to identify areas of need that could perhaps be fulfilled on
campus, and to establish a historical record of need. Your rationale should discuss student learning goals
and/or connection to the Strategic Plan goal.
Conference/Training
Program
2013-14 Request
Rationale
$
28
Appendix F7: Technology and Other Equipment Requests [Acct. Category 6000]
Audience: Budget Committee, Technology Committee, Administrators
Purpose: To be read and responded to by Budget Committee and to inform priorities of the Technology
Committee.
Instructions: Please fill in the following as needed to justify your requests. If you're requesting classroom
technology, see http://www.chabotcollege.edu/audiovisual/Chabot%20College%20Standard.pdf for the
brands/model numbers that are our current standards. If requesting multiple pieces of equipment,
please rank order those requests. Include shipping cost and taxes in your request.
Please note: Equipment requests are for equipment whose unit cost exceeds $200. Items which are
less expensive should be requested as supplies. Software licenses should also be requested as
supplies.
Project or Items
Requested
2012-13 Budget
Requested Received
$
2013-14
Request
Rationale*
$
* Rationale should include discussion of impact on student learning, connection to our strategic plan
goal, impact on student enrollment, safety improvements, whether the equipment is new or
replacement, potential ongoing cost savings that the equipment may provide, ongoing costs of
equipment maintenance, associated training costs, and any other relevant information that you believe
the Budget Committee should consider.
29
Appendix F8: Facilities Requests
Audience: Facilities Committee, Administrators
Purpose: To be read and responded to by Facilities Committee.
Background: Following the completion of the 2012 Chabot College Facility Master Plan, the Facilities
Committee (FC) has begun the task of re-prioritizing Measure B Bond budgets to better align with current
needs. The FC has identified approximately $18M in budgets to be used to meet capital improvement
needs on the Chabot College campus. Discussion in the FC includes holding some funds for a year or two
to be used as match if and when the State again funds capital projects, and to fund smaller projects that
will directly assist our strategic goal. The FC has determined that although some of the college's greatest
needs involving new facilities cannot be met with this limited amount of funding, there are many smaller
pressing needs that could be addressed. The kinds of projects that can be legally funded with bond
dollars include the "repairing, constructing, acquiring, equipping of classrooms, labs, sites and facilities."
Do NOT use this form for equipment or supply requests.
Instructions: Please fill in the following as needed to justify your requests. If requesting more than one
facilities project, please rank order your requests.
Brief Title of Request (Project Name):
Building/Location:
Description of the facility project. Please be as specific as possible.
What educational programs or institutional purposes does this equipment support?
Briefly describe how your request relates specifically to meeting the Strategic Plan Goal and to
enhancing student learning?
30