Chabot College
Academic Program Review Report
Year Three of
Program Review Cycle
Final Summary Report
Learning Connection Academic Support
Programs & Instructional Support
Programs
Submitted February 28th, 2013
Deonne Kunkel & Jennifer Lange
Final Forms, 1/18/13
Table of Contents
Section A: What Have We Accomplished? ................................ 1
Section B: What’s Next? ........................................................... 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 Have We Accomplished?
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 program improvement goals did you establish?
Did you achieve the goals you established for the three years? Specifically describe your
progress on goals you set for student learning, program learning, and Strategic Plan
achievement.
What best practices have you developed? Those could include pedagogical methods,
strategies to address Basic Skills needs of our students, methods of working within your
discipline, and more.
Are these best practices replicable in other disciplines or areas?
What were your greatest challenges?
Were there institutional barriers to success?
Cite relevant data in your narrative (e.g., efficiency, persistence, success, FT/PT faculty ratios,
CLO/PLO assessment results, external accreditation demands, etc.).
The mission of the Learning Connection is to ensure that instructors, staff, and students receive the support
they need to achieve their teaching and learning goals. Based on the vision that learning is at the heart of all
the college’s activities, we work with faculty and staff to identify student and professional development needs.
Once identified, we meet these needs by building infrastructure, providing academic support, and supporting
staff and faculty as needed. To evaluate effectiveness and inform revisions, we assess learning outcomes.
DESCRIPTION:
The Learning Connection has three foci: Instructional Support Services, Academic Learning Support, and the
intersection of the two.
Instructional Support Services works with faculty to enhance their teaching and assessment practices to
improve student learning. Within this area are:

The Center for Teaching & Learning, which organizes professional development opportunities and is a
repository and disseminator of instructional and research materials gathered and developed by
instructors. Faculty leadership within this area include the CTL Coordinator, the Faculty Inquiry
Projects Coordinator(s), Faculty Inquiry Groups (leaders and participants), and the New Faculty
Learning Community Coordinator.

The Learning Assessment Office, which coordinates the assessment activities of student learning at the
course, program, and institutional levels. The office develops assessment tools, provides faculty
training and support, and develops methods of reporting. The office coordinates efforts throughout
the assessment cycle (setting learning goals, determining best assessment methods, conducting
meaningful assessments, and determining actions to take based on the results). Faculty working in this
area include the Learning Assessment Coordinator and the Assessment Data Coordinator.
Academic Learning Support Programs provide support to students across the curriculum and encourages
innovation through ongoing dialogue among instructors around shared practice. Our programs include:





Tutoring: Math Lab, Writing and Reading Across the Curriculum (WRAC), Communications Lab,
Language Lab (ESL), and Peer Academic Tutoring Help (PATH). Depending on program needs, these
labs offer drop-in tutoring, scheduled recurring appointments, scheduled one-time appointments,
conversation groups
Study Groups
Tutor Training Program(s)
Learning Assistants in Classrooms
Peer Advisors
Traditional tutoring and staff development programs silo services, engendering a culture of isolation
prohibitive to innovation. In contrast, the Learning Connection’s unique integration of faculty and student
learning support foments a vibrant culture of learning across campus. Jointly responsible for student learning,
faculty across campus work together and with staff to coordinate and run our various programs and encourage
innovation.
As part of our efforts to integrate Academic and Student Support Services, six years previous the college placed
its supplemental instruction programs under Academic Services. The Center for Teaching and Learning, the
Office of Learning Assessment, and the Learning Connection’s Supplemental Instruction Programs have
collaborated to review their programs and produce a joint Program Review document complimentary to our
vision of integration.
____________________________________________
Academic Learning Support:
Students who avail themselves of Learning Support have higher success rates and lower withdrawal rates
than students in the same courses who do not (See “Tutoring VS Non-Tutoring – by Course” on the LC
website). Relative to success, the amount of time students spend with tutors matters; students who drop
into a tutoring lab occasionally do not experience the same success as students who receive some form of
sustained support (See “English Basic Skills” and “Math Basic Skills” on the LC website). This year, new
data confirms these conclusions. For instance:
 students who come to PATH once for individual/group study pass their courses on an average of
63% while those who come 4+ times pass at a rate of 81%;
 students who receive drop in tutoring in PATH once pass at a rate of 52% while those who come
4+ pass at 79%, etc… (See “Success Rates by Number of Visits” on the LC website).
LA’s increase student engagement and lead to significant increases in student success in CTE programs
such as Fire Tech (See “Student Engagement Surveys” on the LC website).
Lack of facilities, underfunding, and understaffing threaten our programs and hence the success rates
of students across campus, particularly basic skills students. The year before last, general funds for
our programs were cut 50 %. Last year, they were cut an additional $6,000. In the next two years, the
LC will see a sharp decrease in grant funding as BSI funds come to an end. Without additional grant
or general funds, we will not be able to sustain the program. As a college, understaffing and
underfunding programs shown to significantly increase success and persistence in basic skills and
general education courses is economically counter-productive; students who do not pass classes take
up space and resources that could be expended elsewhere.
Relative to Chabot’s strategic plan, maintaining funding and promoting Building 100 are our highest
priorities. Our work over the last three years confirms the need for adequate centralized facilities,
without which we are unable to design a scalable model of student support to ease bottlenecks and see
students through completion in a reasonable amount of time .
Data verifies that academic support increases student success; however, due to lack of centralized
facilities, students and faculty cannot access this support:








Location-wise our program is dysfunctional: the drop-in hours for Reading and Writing are in
one building while scheduled appointments are in another, housed under a different
acronyms; again, drop in for Math is in one building while scheduled appointments are in
another with a different acronym.
Students and Faculty are unable to navigate: too many acronyms, too many locations, too
little staff support (See Scaling Community on the LC website).
For lack of space, we are unable to offer larger study groups that could quadruple the number
of students served for the same cost, unable to build a lab for Social Science,
For lack of space, we are unable to use computers for CAS, BUS, and other computer-based
programs
For lack of space, we are unable to invite counselors to a centralized space where students
work.
For lack of space, we are unable to offer workshops, let alone workshops in a centralized
space
We have received requests from almost all divisions and sub-divisions we are unable to meet.
Faculty are willing to devote their time and energy to support students, if only they were
afforded space and a supportive structure.
Our students do not have a place to study ANYWHERE on campus, let alone centralized space
next to comprehensive support services associated with faculty.
The Learning Connection has built the structure (see narrative of progress below) but without
space—centralized, not scattered across campus in a labyrinthine system no one can navigate-- our
efforts to work with faculty to increase success rates are presently stalled. Plans for Building 100
provide the needed shared, centralized space.
The chart below indicates goals that were been stalled or put on hold due to lack of facilities,
understaffing, and underfunding. A narrative account of our accomplishments and current direction
follows our chart.
PLOs and/or Program Goal(s)
from Year One
Promote Building 100 plans
Timeline
2011-2013
Revise SLO’s and assess using 2011-2012
eLumen rubrics previously
developed
Activity
Support Needed to
Accomplish these
Activities*
Outcome(s) Expected
Person(s)
Responsible
Accomplished?
Yes/No/In
Progress
Keep campus informed,
collaborate with user group
Institutional
Increase civic engagement, Institution
faculty collaboration and
innovation, program access
and support student
learning and community.
On Hold
Collaborate with TUTR 1B
sub-division representatives,
Assessment Office, LAC
Coordinator, and CTL
Coordinator
Institutional: 1 CAH for 1B
instructors, funding for a
CTL and LAC Coordinators,
and professional
development
Increase the success and
persistence of students in
CTE, transfer, and basic
courses
LC Coordinator
Accomplished
Write SAO’s, construct and Institutional: additional 20
administer questionnaire, hrs of Classified Staff, IR
close the loop
hours
Provide better service and
document success
LC Coordinator
Accomplished
SAO Assessment to meet
accreditation
recommendation #3
2011-2012
Differentiate LA training
2011-2013
Collaborate with CTE
Institutional: professional
development
(Strengthening Student
Success and CRLA
Improve efficiency of
programs and increase
student success.
LC Coordinator
and instructors
with LA’s
In Progress,
Objective Revised
Evaluate Learning Support
needs across campus and
work to meet them
2011-2013
Read unit Program
Reviews, build
relationships across
campus
Institutional: professional
development
Increase faculty
participation
and support in meeting
student needs
LC Coordinator
On Hold: lack of
facilities to
implement
faculty requested
revisions/support
program
Promote the hiring of a Dean
of the Library & Learning
Connection
2013
Promote the hiring of
Classified Staff (20 hrs)
2013
Document need
Document need
Institutional
Institutional
Meet
Institutionalized programs
Institution, Dean
and LC
coordinator
In Progress
Meet accreditation
recommendation,
institutionalize programs
Institution, Dean
and LC
coordinator
In Progress
Switch to online scheduling in 2011-2013
PATH
Pilot in online courses,
collaborate with 1B’s,
DSPS, and EOPS to
determine parameters
IT, SARS support
Reduce pressure on staff,
increase student access
Institution, IT, LC
Coordinator and
Classified Staff
Partial, the rest
on hold
Offer Online Tutoring
2012
Pilot online support to
address needs of students
unable to come to campus
or those whose schedules
don’t fit our hours
IT, Faculty
Increase success and
persistence
Faculty lead,
coordinator, and
institutional
(space)
On Hold: lack of
adequate
facilities (rms
with computers
and phone)
Build a Website
2012
Build a user-friendly website Internal, possibly IT
to support students and
faculty and publicize
assessment
Meet accreditation
LC coordinator
recommendation #3,
and staff
faculty and students able to
access needed information
and forms.
Accomplished
Secure program funding
2011-2013
Assess outcomes, Program
Review, publicize programs
and build faculty rapport.
Institutional
Increase the persistence
and success of students in
CTE, transfer, and basic
skills courses.
Institution, Dean
and
LC coordinator
Stalled: budget
constraints
Promote reassigned time for
TUTR 1B instructors
2011-2013
Document need
Institutional
Increase the success
and persistence of students
in CTE, transfer, and basic
courses by individualizing
programs to
student needs
Institution,
On hold with
Division Deans, LC exception of
coordinator, and Math
program
PLOs and/or Program
Goal(s) from Year Two
Timeline
Activity
Support Needed to
Accomplish these
Activities*
Outcome(s) Expected
Person(s)
Responsible
“Making Visible” tutor 2012
video
Interview tutors, deans, and
students to record their
experience
Equipment and guidance Increase program
from Making Visible
effectiveness: better train
staff, title III funds
tutors, educate faculty,
promote program, evaluate
program
LC Coordinator,
student coinvestigators
Partially
accomplished:
short video
produced, longer in
progress
Social Science
Learning Lab with
SPSS software
2012-2013
Purchase SPSS software, plan
into bld 100
Institutional (funding)
Increase student success and
persistence
LC, Social Science
Dept.
On Hold: Lack of
facilities (bld 100)
BUS TUTR 1B
2013
Dedicated TUTR for BUS
Institutional (funding)
Increase student success and
persistence
BUS faculty,
In Progress
Bld 100 software
expansion
2013
Coordinate with IT and dept.’s
across campus to install
software
Faculty, IT
Increase student success and
persistence
LC coordinator,
Deans, IT
On Hold: Lack of
facilities (bld 100)
Science Lab
2013
Drop-in and scheduled tutoring
next to lab models
Institutional
Increase student success and
persistence
LC coordinator,
deans, faculty
In Progress
Offer Study Groups in
high impact GE
courses in lieu of
individual
appointments
2014
Design and offer scalable study Internal, cross discipline
groups for GE courses with low faculty involvement,
success and high dropout rates. institutional (space and
funds)
Increase the success and
LC coordinator,
persistence of student; ease Dean, Institution
bottlenecks and shorten time
to completion
On Hold: lack of
adequate space
Revise Compensation
Model
2013
Convert to offering scholarships Internal, District HR
in lieu of hourly pay
Increase flexibility, decrease LC coordinator,
work load, decrease spending staff, and faculty
leads
Accomplished
Complete
Accreditation Report
2012
Implement Accreditation
Recommendation #3
Maintain accreditation,
improve quality of programs
Accomplished
Internal
LC coordinator,
dean, faculty, and
staff
Narrative Account:
Take Home: Goals for this cycle that required primarily internal support have been accomplished while those
dependent on adequate facilities and staffing have not. We are unable to develop the scalable model we
envision.
Of our many accomplishments this cycle, a few in particular bear note. First, we implemented WASC
accreditation recommendation #3 and wrote a stellar accreditation report that helped earn our college
recognition—in the form of continued accreditation—from WASC. In the process, we integrated both
quantitative and qualitative assessment including TUTR course assessments, tutor surveys, direct student
surveys, interviews/films, and success data (See LC website under “Assessment and Planning”). Each semester
as we make alterations to our program, we assess their impact on student success and delivery of services. For
instance, in response to previous assessment indicating the need to revise our training model, last semester
we administered a follow-up survey and have begun re-structuring with faculty and tutor input. Also in
response to assessment indicating confusion across campus regarding our services, we interviewed students
and faculty across campus and produced a film. Our film not only confirmed the need for centralized space,
but sparked conversation across campus. Our assessment, both qualitative and quantitative, is a model for
authentic program review; internal assessment and data fuel further assessment leading to programmatic and
institutional change.
To publicize our program and assessments we built a website. Our website is a resource to faculty and
students across campus who seek support in reaching their educational and teaching goals; faculty can access
data for program review, request LA’s, class visits and study groups, and find information on specific programs;
students can make one-time appointments online and view lab hours and locations; Learning Connection
Scholars can access our training handbook and forms.
Along with conducting qualitative and qualitative assessment and designing a website, this cycle The Learning
Connection implemented eSARS, an online appointment scheduling grid tied to the campus’ SARS data
collection program. In consequence, we are now able to pull usage reports related to specific courses, tutors,
and programs, which allows us to track our budget, determine needs, and monitor individual programs and
study groups while simultaneously collecting success data. We are the first tutoring program in the nation to
use SARS in this fashion.
In large part, The Learning Connection owes these two major accomplishments—building a website and
restructuring our data collection and appointment scheduling platform—to dedicated staff who spent
countless hours modifying and re-modifying our formats .
In addition to implementing accreditation recommendation #3 (qualitative and quantitative assessment,
website, film project) and moving to an online scheduling platform, this cycle we also re-designed our
compensation model. We now offer student scholarships rather than hourly pay. Students compete for
Learning Connection Scholarships. Their new title, Leaning Connection Scholar, affords recognition for their
expertise. Contrary to what we anticipated, the number of applications we now receive has increased with the
new compensation model despite reduced monetary compensation. In addition to reducing costs and
increasing the number of tutor/LA’s, our new model decrease demands on staff. Although some staff time is
still devoted to processing paperwork for new tutors/LA’s and tracking their hours each week, staff no longer
need to process time-consuming hiring paperwork at the start of each semester, nor payroll each month.
Over the last cycle, Learning Connection Scholars have increasingly come to play a leadership role on campus.
They publicize programs through media and class visits, provide input to the LC as we re-structure our
programs, participate in FLEX day activities with faculty, interview students across campus and produce films,
and (attempt) to coordinate student life with learning support. Tutors frequently note that they see
themselves as a bridge between faculty and students, working to make both aware of programs and
perspectives. Given necessary space, i.e. a facility, we hope to continue to leverage their power across
campus.
The structural foundation we have created parallels our effects across campus to build ties and facilitate
faculty in their development of programs to support student learning. In these efforts, we have seen some
progress, though not as much as we would hope due to lack of facilities and understaffing.





BUS now has a dedicated TUTR 1B;
we offer Chemistry drop-in hours;
World Language offers conversation groups;
ESL built a workshop to support ESL students in all courses across campus, not just those in the ESL
department;
Math and Science is piloting study groups.
These efforts represent the work of faculty and staff across campus to support students. As experts in their
field, faculty are able to design programs to meet student needs given tools, information (data), support, and
space.
Unfortunately, these small pockets of change do not, at this point, reach the majority of students across
campus, who remain generally unaware of services. As previously discussed, faculty are willing to devote their
time and energy to support students, if only they were afforded space and a functional structure. The Learning
Connection has built the structure (compensation model, website, assessment) but without space—
centralized, not scattered across campus in a labyrinthine system no one can navigate-- our efforts to work
with faculty to increase success rates are presently stalled. Faculty need space to collaborate and innovate
around student success. We need space to offer scalable study groups. Students need a centralize space to
study and learn, become informed—a space easy to navigate, visible to faculty and staff, and accessible.
Note: See “Budget History and Impact” and “Staff Requests” for a description of the impact staff reductions
has had on academic support. The number of students served has decreased and hence the success rates of
students across campus. We are unable to meet faculty requests or maintain programs we once had.
_______________________________
Instructional Support Services – ongoing goals
Goal 1 – Continue to Utilize and Support Inquiry as a Method of Professional Development that Contributes
to the Discovery of Ways to Increase Student Success
The Institute for the Study of Knowledge Management in Education (ISKME), as the research partner and
outside evaluator for the Faculty Inquiry Network (FIN) grant project has concluded that Faculty Inquiry is a
highly effective practice for both the professional development of faculty and for the identification and
implementation of practices that increase student success. Chabot is the hub for Inquiry in California, due to
our leadership on the FIN grant and the support received via Title III and BSI funding. The CTL will investigate
how inquiry based practices for professional development can be effectively sustained and expanded across
campus as grant funding for these projects recedes. Currently, faculty and staff can propose Inquiry Projects
as a part of their Program Review. How can we support these identified areas and apply their findings?
Goal 2 – Improve Student Success by Advancing Teaching to Improve Learning
Provide methods and data by which instructors will critically reflect on their program, curriculum, pedagogy,
and assessments in order to improve their teaching. This will include:




Forums by which faculty can converse about issues they face, questions they ponder, and successful
strategies they have found;
Presenting faculty with current theories and best practices in higher education that provide insights
into the effectiveness of their teaching practices;
Guiding faculty through different approaches to developing and evaluating their current teaching
practices;
Encouraging faculty to utilize a wider variety of pedagogical techniques when presenting material in
their courses
Goal 3 – Institutionalization of Successful Practices and Instructional Support Programs
The Title III Grant outlines the timeline for the institutionalization of both the Center for Teaching & Learning
and the Learning Assessment Offices. We have been and will continue to work with the necessary campus and
district entities to accomplish this goal and to acquire the necessary facilities, materials and conference funds,
and administrative support to enable these offices to continue supporting the learning of faculty. Findings
from supplemental instruction pilots, tutoring programs, and several Inquiry Projects point to good practices
that increase student success. We need to being determining how to expand and, where warranted,
institutionalize these practices through integration into the curriculum and college budget.
PLOs and/or Program
Goal(s)
1A - Focused research
projects (FIGs) that
investigate a question
that has arisen from
programmatic review,
with sharing of the
inquiry methods and
results
1B - Investigate potential
ways to institutionalize
Faculty Inquiry Groups as
a form of professional
development
Timeline
Activity
Support Needed to
Accomplish These Activities*
Outcome(s) Expected
Varies by
project
Faculty Inquiry Groups
Some funding available
through BSI, but majority
needed from college
Increase the success,
retention, and engagement
of basic skills students and
those using Learning
Support Services
Completed
prior to end
of Title III
Grant
(09/30/13)
Research Project
Funding for release time
and/or stipends
Provide professional
development to support
teaching, learning, and
institutional needs
1C& 2A - Inspire a
Annual Events Workshops, Flex Day
campus culture of inquiry
Activities, Campus
and innovative teaching
Communications
2A - Provide methods and
Annual Events Workshops, Flex Day
data by which instructors
Activities
will critically reflect on
Person(s)
Responsible
Accomplished
? Yes/No/In
Progress
In progress,
will continue
to advocate
for funding to
PRBC, College
President, and
District Office
Basic Skills
Committee, Staff
Development
Committee, Title
III Grant Team
In progress,
will continue
to advocate
for funding to
PRBC, College
President, and
District Office
Funding for CTL Coordinator Support effective
Title III Grant
Position and LAC Coordinator communication in the
Team, Institutional Ongoing – this
college around questions of Research
Position
one never
assessment, learning, and
ends!
instructional practices.
Funding for CTL Coordinator Increase the success,
Position and LAC Coordinator retention, and engagement
of students by improving
Ongoing – this
CTL Coordinator,
one never
LAC Coordinator,
ends!
Staff Development
their program,
curriculum, pedagogy,
and assessments in order
to improve their
teaching.
Position
programs and teaching
practices
Committee, SLOAC
Committee
Institutional Planning and
Adequate funds
Increase institutional
effectiveness by combining
streamlining supplemental
instruction services.
CTL Coordinator,
LAC Coordinator,
Title III Activities
Director, VP of
Academic
Services, Dean of
Language Arts
3A - Permanent facilities 3+ years
for Learning Support
Programs and
Supplemental Instruction
Programs
Work with stakeholders
and architects to design
facility that meets user
needs.
3B – Identify ongoing
means of financial
support for successful
student success
initiatives
Fund the expansion of
Institutional Planning and
pilot programs that have Adequate funds
shown strong results in
increasing student
success.
3+ years
In Progress –
building 100
will receive a
light remodel,
currently in
design phase
In progress,
Increase student success by Basic Skills
will continue
institutionalizing successful Committee, PRBC,
to advocate
Title III Grant
initiatives
for funding to
Team
PRBC, College
President, and
District Office
Center for Teaching & Learning – Major Accomplishments
It is difficult to quantify the change and support that the CTL provides. It is easier to state what will disappear
if funding for the CTL disappears. The CTL has been a critical part of the institutional team that has fostered
and supported the culture of inquiry cited in the Accreditation Report. As a working team of faculty, the CTL
has endeavored to be present in major committees, bringing a particular attitude, a base of information, and a
commitment to improving student learning and success in every venue. Working together with key leadership
across the campus, the team involved with the CTL facilitates change that supports students and faculty, and
strives to improve campus climate and culture daily. A look at the accomplishments of the CTL over the past
three years also shows what will be lost if funding is not provided.
Faculty Inquiry Groups
Between Spring 2010 and Spring 2013 BSI and Title III have sponsored 37 Faculty Inquiry Groups. These
endeavors are documented with research results are available on the CTL website. Many have been reported
on in college meetings. In several cases, the research has been presented at regional and, in some cases,
national conferences and has influenced conversations and practices beyond Chabot.
Current Inquiry Projects
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Retention Rates in Online & Hybrid Courses
Development of an Accelerated Stats Pathway
Creating Engagement in the Classroom
Habits of Mind of a Healthy Student
ChabotUp! (The Passion Project)
Success & Equity
Student Voices Projects & Enhancing Campus Knowledge About Our Students
In the 2011-12 academic year, the CTL produced a well received student voices piece entitled Tuning the Voice,
that has been screen on campus for faculty, staff, and students as well as at both state and national
conferences. Themes, previously known but brought to the forefront by the students in this film, of
community, integrated support, and student engagement became drivers for many of the current
conversations on campus surrounding the strategic plan goal. It has also changed the vocabulary used on
campus, as the ideas of community and student pathways are now present in myriad settings across campus.
The film also supplied idea and footage for subsequent Voices projects including the videos Focusing the
Lasers, Kicking Assessment, and Changing the Stakes. The CTL coordinator has also been integral in involving
students in college-wide activities such as the schedule planning at our February 2013 Flex Days.
In addition to these Student Voices actions, the CTL Coordinator, with support from Carolyn Arnold in the
Institutional Research office, developed multiple data presentations investigating the issue of student
bottlenecks in class enrollment. This data-mining project was initially envisioned to investigate causes of
swirling (students taking classes they don’t need because they ones they do need are not available), but has
expanded into conversations about balance in the number of GE offerings, schedule development, program
capacity, and both general and specific ways we can ease our students progression to their educational goal.
This project is a part of the ongoing effort to incorporate data on the needs of our students into college
planning.
B. What’s Next?
This section may serve as the foundation for your next Program Review cycle, and will inform the
development of future strategic initiatives for the college. In your narrative of one page or less, address the
following questions. Please complete Appendices E (New Initiatives) and F1-8 (Resources Requested) to
further detail your narrative and to request resources.




What goals do you have for future program improvement?
What ideas do you have to achieve those goals?
What must change about the institution to enable you to make greater progress in
improving student learning and overall student success?
What recommendations do you have to improve the Program Review process?
Academic Learning Support
As a campus, we are in the position to leverage the power of our student and the structure of the Learning
Connection to design scalable support for all our students. Students who come to our campus might be
offered the opportunity to belong to a community that disseminates accurate information, supports them in
their exploration of career options, and provides academic support. Below under the section “New
Initiatives,” we describe the direction we would like to move to make this possible.
These new initiatives will not be possible without centralized space. In terms of our progress in supporting
student to achieve their educational goal in a reasonable period of time, we are stalled.
Instructional Support Services
The Learning Connection Program Review (our unit) for the past two years has cited the need and requested
funding. The Title III grant is coming to an end in September. Key leadership in professional development,
student learning outcomes, basic skills, and many campus-wide initiatives over the past five years has been
funded through either Title III and/or Basic Skills Initiative dollars. Funding for these reassigned faculty
positions was supposed to be gradually picked up by the college, but due to fiscal constraints of the last few
years these costs have been taken up by BSI funds. As Title III ends, there is increased pressure to apply Basic
Skills funding to very high potential activities or pilots (things that would make significant improvement in
completion/success) instead of toward continued funding of these positions. This means the end of funding
for the leadership of the CTL and for the data management of SLOs and assessment committee leadership
(only partially funded through the district/college per the new contract).
The significantly increased level of engagement across the college in the area of student-centered,
quantitative and qualitative data use, and the questions of success, completion, and persistence is such that
funding for the grant management/leadership is not a critical loss--particularly if the new dean in academic
services is charged with responsibility for some of this work. The vision of the proposed (which is not the
same as awarded) Title V grant is substantially different, thus we CANNOT rely on that proposal and the
possibility of an award to fund either the CTL or Learning Assessment offices and activities.
The need for funding for the CTL and the coordination and data management of SLOs is critical. There is a
feeling around campus that we are "done" with SLOs, but that is inaccurate. We completed and reported on
1
our first CYCLE of assessment. The new assessment cycle began in the Fall of 2012, and we must once again
assess all courses, programs, and college-wide learning goals during the next 2 years (the spring semester of
2015 must be 'held' for closing the loop and data reporting, as our report will need to be complete early in
the fall of 2015). Moreover, the accreditation visit will occur during that academic year, and the team will be
looking closely at whether this work is being completed, how it is embedded in program review, and whether
program review is linked to strategic planning and budgeting. Our last accreditation report cited inadequate
support for these areas, and additional support was funded through the grant.
For the past three years, the CTL and Learning Assessment coordinators, the SLO Data coordinator, and the
institutional research office have worked together to ensure that internal and external requirements were
met, that data was available, that reports were written and submitted, and strategic and tactical plans were
implemented in order for the college to achieve critical goals. Each of these leaders made possible some of
the achievements we took credit for in our mid-year accreditation report and are critical to completing
several of the tasks we told the commission we are currently undertaking to meet all of their
recommendations, particularly in regards to SLO assessment/reporting and the integration of assessments,
planning, and resource allocation. In order to continue providing these critical contributions on behalf of the
institution and in support of our next accreditation review, we must find funding.
The need to continue coordinating and managing the data in eLumen will not end, and the chair for the
SLOAC is a very important role that must continue to be staffed. The coordinator of the CTL provides critical
support for FACULTY through a focus on staff/professional development, facilitating dialogue, providing
research, etc., and that work will not end. It would be detrimental to the continued dialogue across campus
about students, assessment, and strategic planning for this support to end--the work undertaken by these
leaders sustains the dialogue. This ensures that when it comes time for accreditation, we meet or exceed the
standards because that's the kind of institution we are.
Funding from Title III has also been sustaining the minimal professional development the campus has been
able to provide over the last three years through Flex Days, inquiry projects, and conference attendance. The
CTL coordinator has also been acting as the Staff Development Committee chair, which requires nearly a
hundred hours a semester just to coordinate the campus Flex Days (this doesn’t take into account the hours
dedicated to planning by the committee co-chair Catherine Powell). At this point, the committee does not
have a chair for next year, which could, in the worst case scenario, result in no Flex time outside of
Convocation and College Day.
Including the 2 CAH for the SLOAC chair (provided by the district according to the new faculty contract) and
maintaining these positions at a minimum level will require a minimum of 9 CAH per semester (3 CAH for the
CTL coordinator, 3 CAH for the SLOAC chair, 3 CAH for the SLO Data Coordinator). Additional CAH would be
required to maintain an adequate Flex Program, based on the work needed to be done by the Staff
Development Committee chair.
Without funding for these positions, no goals for these offices can be set for the upcoming academic years,
and all work in professional development and SLO assessment will reside with the respective committees.
2
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.
Academic Learning Support
Category
Classified Staffing (# of positions)
Supplies & Services
Technology/Equipment
Other – Tutor/Learning Assistants
TOTAL
2011-12
Budget
Requested
20 hours
$2,400
$100,000
2011-12
Budget
Received
0
$2,400
2012-13
Budget
Requested
20 hours
$2,400
2012-13
Budget
Received
0
$900
$45,000
$110,000
$42,000
Instructional Support Services
Since the CTL and the LAC office have been supported using grant funding, we can only report the
costs that have been billed to the Title III and BSI grants and the amounts originally allocated:
Category
Conference travel
Supplies & Services
Professional Development
Activities
CTL Coordinator
LA Coordinator/Data Coordinator
FIG Coordinators
New Faculty Learning Comm Coord
FIG projects
TOTAL
2011-12
Budget
Allocated
$5,000
$4,000
$6,000
2011-12
Budget
Expenditures
$20,798
$5,000
$30,000
0.5 FTEF
0.7 FTEF
1.0 FTEF
0 FTEF
2012-13
Budget
Allocated
$5,000
$4,000
$6,000
2012-13
Budget
Expenditures
0.5 FTEF
0.7 FTEF
1.0 FTEF
0 FTEF
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.
3
All monies received directly increase success rates across campus. All our data verifies that student who
participate in our programs pass their courses as higher rates than those who don’t. For instance, students
who use the Communications lab pass their communications courses at a rate of 94% while those who don’t
pass at a rate of 71%. Please see previous sections, Program Review Yr 1 and Yr 2, and the LC website’s
“Assessment and Outcomes” for further data and narrative explanations.
Staffing History:
 In 2009, The Learning Connection lost one of its only two full time positions. Requests for a
replacement were not met.
 In 2011, our remaining administrative assistant moved to another program and was replaced by a
part time assistant already in the program. A temporary employee filled the part-time vacancy left
behind.
 In 2012, we requested a permanent replacement for the vacated part time position as well as an
additional 20 hrs. Neither were met.
Supplies History:
 Without notification, our supply budget was cut; thus, we are unable to purchase basis supplies
needed to run ALL the labs across campus (whiteboards and easels to pilot study groups, drop cams
to provide supervision for pilot study groups, paper, ink cartridges, etc…. )
Tutors/Learning Assistants:
 In 2012, our general busge was cut 50% with an additional cut the following year. At the same time,
allocations from Title 3 were significantly reduced. We anticipate reduced funding from BSI. If this
occurs without increased funding from general, we will need to close labs.
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?
Services cut, reduced or denied that directly impact course pass rates:












Reduced hours of service: labs/centers opening later and closing earlier now, none open on Friday
Reduced drop-in hours for Chemistry
Waitlist for students requesting tutoring appointments in many subjects, particularly Math
EOPS, Aspire, and DSPS no longer receive additional support
We are no longer able to fund the LA program, a successful program serving Learning Communities
such as Daraja; courses not served by traditional tutors (fire tech etc…), and large GE courses.
Altercations between students in the hallways over who is in line to receive service
No longer able to send Tutor Reports to inform instructors that their student go to the labs
Unable to offer requested conversation groups for World Language
Unable to offer study groups for courses as requested (high volume, low cost)
No bathroom or lunch breaks for staff—no staff time or lab/center supervision
Unable to answer emails from faculty, i.e. support them in the development of their programs—no
staff time
Unable to maintain basic communication lines, for instance, providing lists of tutors by subject on
website and in labs and centers.
4
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 2013
Fall
Spring 2014
2013
Yr 3
Yr 1
Fall
Spring 2015
2014
Yr 1
Fall
Spring 2016
2015
Fall
2016
Yr 2
Yr 2
Yr 3
Yr 3
Surveys
Surveys
Surveys Surveys
Yr 1
Spring
2017
Yr 1
SAO’s: Lab surveys
Lab
Lab Surveys
Surveys
Reflect and
Report
Reflect and
Report
TUTR
1A
and
1B:
Update
report
Update
report
LA’s:
Update
Report
Reflect and
Report
Update
Report
Update
Report
Update
Report
Engagement
Surveys
Engagement
Surveys
Engagement
Surveys
Engagement
Surveys
Engagement
Surveys
PLO’s:
Update
Report
Lab
Update
Surveys Report
Reflect and
Report
Full
Reflect and
Assmt
Report
(eLumen)
Lab
Surveys
1
Reflect and
Report
Reflect and
Report
Surveys Surveys
Reflect
and
Report
Update
report
Lab
Reflect and
Surveys Report
Update
Report
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
TUTR 1A and TUTR 1B
Fall 2011
six
six
100%
Fall 2011 and Spring 2012
See Program Review Yr 2
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)
Defined Target
Scores*
(CLO Goal)
Actual Scores**
(eLumen data)
(CLO) 1:
See Program Review Yr 2, 2012-2013
(CLO) 2:
See Program Review Yr 2, 2012-2013
(CLO) 3:
SEE PROGRAM REVIEW YR 2, 2012-2013
(CLO) 4: NA
 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?
1
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?
See Program Review Yr 2, 2012-2013
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 Program Review Yr 2, 2012-2013
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?
See Program Review Yr 2, 2012-2013
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 Program Review Yr 2, 2012-2013
2
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?
In consequence of our assessment, we are in the process of further revising our tutor training
program.
See Program Review Yr 2, 2012-2013 for previous revisions, for instance, differentiation made
between courses for training new and experienced tutors.
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?
See Program Review Yr 2, 2012-2013 for strengths and previous reflections.
In preparation for scaling study groups across campus and offering scholarships in lieu of hourly
pay, we continue to made revisions.
TUTR 1B instructors and faculty who use LA’s in their class have met multiple times to discuss
needed modifications. Assessments taken into consideration include our Spring 2012 Tutor
Training Survey and TUTR 1B and 1A assessment results. Assessment reveals the need to
differentiate traditional tutor training from study group training. Further, tutors no longer
receive hourly pay and are thus not longer compensated for the time they invest in training. To
improve our TUTR 1A and 1B training program, we propose the following:
1.
Convert TUTR 1A and 1B to hybrid courses to decrease scheduling conflicts and maximize
flexibility.
2. Invite the General TUTR 1B instructor to attend TUTR 1A so as to inform instructors on
potential curricular overlaps.
3. Form a Math and Science FIG to consider Math and Science Pathway/Interest Group TUTR
1B’s, including training study group leaders.
4. Convert the General TUTR 1B and request 2 additional sections of TUTR 1B:
TUTR 1B for Business
TUTR 1B for Social Science, Arts and Humanities
TUTR 1B for Allied Health
3. What is the nature of the planned actions (please check all that apply)?
xCurricular
xPedagogical
xResource based
 Change to CLO or rubric
 Change to assessment methods
 Other:_________________________________________________________________
3
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: ___Academic Learning Support
 PLO #1: Students who take advantage of the Learning Connection's Learning Support Programs will
succeed and persist in the course(s) for which they receive support at higher rates than students who
do not.

PLO #2: Students who receive Learning Support will actively engage in the learning process at higher
rates than those who do not.

SAO #1: The Learning Connection will maintain a supportive environment that enhances student
learning.
What questions or investigations arose as a result of these reflections or discussions?
Explain:
See Program Review Yr 2, 2012-2013 and previous sections.
What program-level strengths have the assessment reflections revealed?
Strengths revealed:
See Program Review Yr 2, 2012-2013 and previous sections.
What actions has your discipline determined might be taken to enhance the learning of students
completing your program?
Actions planned:
See “New Initiatives” below and narrative sections above. All our plans directly support our PLO’s.
See also Program Review Yr 2, 2012-2013.
4
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. In addition, we began leveling them last semester.
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.
Yes
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.
Yes, in general. Learning Connection Scholars are Chabot’s top students. With few
exceptions, they have completed both their Math and Science general ed
requirements.
5
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?
Scale small and large study groups across campus targeting GE courses with the lowest success rates and
highest drop-out rates. Begin small study group pilots Spring 2013.
What is your specific goal and measurable outcome?
Increase success rates across campus and alleviate bottlenecks so students can achieve their educational
goal in a reasonable period of time.
What is your action plan to achieve your goal?
Activity (brief description)
Visit identified successful programs with TUTR 1B, MESA, and
HIS work group. (San Jose City College, Butte College, and
Fresno City College)
Obtain space (Bld 100)– study group rms large and small next
to SARS machines, supervised
Request 2 additional TUTR 1B’s for faculty input, coordination,
and study group training. Social Science, Arts and Humanities
needs representation in particular.
Meet with TUTR 1B’s, HIS, Interest Group – coordinate
between the three
Replace position vacated when Chasity left the LC (had
requested 20 additional hours for Staff Assistant position in
11-12 to replace full time IA position lost in 2009, which was
not received; additionally, one 20 hour position was
eliminated at the end of the 11-12 fiscal year
Target
Completion
Date
Spring
2014
Required Budget (Split out
personnel, supplies, other
categories)
800 for gas to visit
conferences
Fall 2013
Allocated Bld 100 budget
2014-2015 .07 FTEF
2013-2014 Possible Title II stipend to
get started
2014
20 hours personnel
How will you manage the personnel needs?
New Hires:
Faculty # of positions
xx
Classified staff # of positions 1/2
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
6
At the end of the project period, the proposed project will:
Be completed (onetime only effort)
x
Require additional funding to continue and/or institutionalize the
project
(obtained by/from): maintain TUTR 1B’s and staff
Will the proposed project require facility modifications, additional space, or program relocation?
No
x
Requires space
Will the proposed project involve subcontractors, collaborative partners, or cooperative agreements?
No
x Bld 100
Do you know of any grant funding sources that would meet the needs of the proposed project?
No
x
Yes, list potential funding sources: current Title 3 and possible future title V
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?
As proposed in the Staff Development Committee’s self evaluation and proposed charter revisions:
The CTL would be comprised of trained campus experts in subjects that faculty need in order to provide
a quality learning environment for their students. Topics proposed, but not limited to, are: pedagogical
practices, online teaching & learning, communication tools, civic engagement, and experiential learning.
Campus experts would be trained and mentored, as needed, in their field and in conducting professional
development events. Each would serve a term of 5 years, and would receive a stipend each semester
they serve of approximately $750.
Coordinator of the Center’s activities and representation of the Center would be done by the CTL
coordinator (requiring a minimum of 3 CAH reassigned time).
What is your specific goal and measurable outcome?
This is a new model of providing access to professional development for all faculty on campus.
Outcomes measured typically rely on post-session surveys, but these don’t capture the actual impact of
these support services.
What is your action plan to achieve your goal?
Activity (brief description)
Identify areas in which professional development is needed;
recruit faculty to be trained as experts in these areas
Initial and ongoing training of local experts
7
Target
Completion
Date
Fall 2014
Required Budget (Split out
personnel, supplies, other
categories)
CTL Coordinator time
Start Fall
~$2000 per person
2014
Host events and personally support faculty
Ongoing,
start in
Spring
2014
- Stipends for each
semester of service ($750
per expert/semester)
- Supplies for workshops
and CTL office
(~$5,000/year)
- CTL Coordinator time
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) – for CTL Coordinator
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): general fund
Will the proposed project require facility modifications, additional space, or program relocation?
No
Requires space – utilize space currently planned for CTL in building 100
Will the proposed project involve subcontractors, collaborative partners, or cooperative agreements?
No
Yes
Do you know of any grant funding sources that would meet the needs of the proposed project?
No
Yes, list potential funding sources: A portion could come from proposed Title V, for a
campus expert on Equity in Education
8
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. Center for Teaching & Learning
Minimum of 3 CAH (requesting less CAH than
Coordinator
has been provided by grants)
2. Learning Assessment Coordinator
Minimum of 1 CAH, in addition to the 2 CAH
provided by contract (requesting less CAH than
has been provided by grants)
3. Learning Connection Liasons
6 CAH for faculty leads
4. SLO Data Coordinator
Minimum of 3 CAH (requesting less CAH than
has been provided by grants)
5. New Faculty Learning Coordinator
3 CAH – leader and mentor for newly hired
faculty, only required if enough new full-time
faculty are hired
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.
#3 - To develop a scalable model of student support that intersects with our nascent Interest Areas
(Pathways) model, faculty need time to build study groups (design curriculum based on individual
program needs, train study group leaders…)
#s 1, 2, 4 - The Learning Connection Program Review (our unit) for the past two years has cited the need
and requested funding. The Title III grant is coming to an end in September. Key leadership in
professional development, student learning outcomes, basic skills, and many campus-wide initiatives
over the past five years has been funded through either Title III and/or Basic Skills Initiative dollars.
Funding for these reassigned faculty positions was supposed to be gradually picked up by the college,
but due to fiscal constraints of the last few years these costs have been taken up by BSI funds. As Title
III ends, there is increased pressure to apply Basic Skills funding to very high potential activities or pilots
(things that would make significant improvement in completion/success) instead of toward continued
funding of these positions. This means the end of funding for the leadership of the CTL and for the data
management of SLOs and assessment committee leadership (only partially funded through the
district/college per the new contract).
9
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.
#3 - Our goal is to increase success rates across campus and alleviate bottlenecks so students can
achieve their educational goal in a reasonable period of time. Success data verifies the effectiveness of
our programs in achieving this end (See previous sections and the LC Website “Assessment and
Outcomes”).
#s 1, 2, 4 - The need for funding for the CTL and the coordination and data management of SLOs is
critical. There is a feeling around campus that we are "done" with SLOs, but that is inaccurate. We
completed and reported on our first CYCLE of assessment. The new assessment cycle began in the Fall
of 2012, and we must once again assess all courses, programs, and college-wide learning goals during
the next 2 years (the spring semester of 2015 must be 'held' for closing the loop and data reporting, as
our report will need to be complete early in the fall of 2015). Moreover, the accreditation visit will occur
during that academic year, and the team will be looking closely at whether this work is being completed,
how it is embedded in program review, and whether program review is linked to strategic planning and
budgeting. Our last accreditation report cited inadequate support for these areas, and additional
support was funded through the grant.
For the past three years, the CTL and Learning Assessment coordinators, the SLO Data coordinator, and
the institutional research office have worked together to ensure that internal and external requirements
were met, that data was available, that reports were written and submitted, and strategic and tactical
plans were implemented in order for the college to achieve critical goals. Each of these leaders made
possible some of the achievements we took credit for in our mid-year accreditation report and are
critical to completing several of the tasks we told the commission we are currently undertaking to meet
all of their recommendations, particularly in regards to SLO assessment/reporting and the integration of
assessments, planning, and resource allocation. In order to continue providing these critical
contributions on behalf of the institution and in support of our next accreditation review, we must find
funding.
The need to continue coordinating and managing the data in eLumen will not end, and the chair for the
SLOAC is a very important role that must continue to be staffed. The coordinator of the CTL provides
critical support for FACULTY through a focus on staff/professional development, facilitating dialogue,
providing research, etc., and that work will not end. It would be detrimental to the continued dialogue
across campus about students, assessment, and strategic planning for this support to end--the work
undertaken by these leaders sustains the dialogue. This ensures that when it comes time for
accreditation, we meet or exceed the standards because that's the kind of institution we are.
Funding from Title III has also been sustaining the minimal professional development the campus has
been able to provide over the last three years through Flex Days, inquiry projects, and conference
attendance. The CTL coordinator has also been acting as the Staff Development Committee chair, which
requires nearly a hundred hours a semester just to coordinate the campus Flex Days (this doesn’t take
into account the hours dedicated to planning by the committee co-chair Catherine Powell). At this
point, the committee does not have a chair for next year, which could, in the worst case scenario, result
in no Flex time outside of Convocation and College Day.
10
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: ______
2. If you are requesting more than one position, please rank order the positions.
Position
Description
1. 20 hrs staff support
Run programs
2.
3. Rationale for your proposal.
 Open hours for centers have been cut, reducing student access.
 Centers are closed when the single staff member scheduled at a time is out due to illness or
emergency.
 Staff are no longer able to send tutor reports to faculty or to provide as much support as faculty
request.
 Staff have been forced to set specific scheduling times in order to manage all of their
responsibilities, which frustrates students and limits student access to services.
 Understaffing also makes effective communication between various labs and centers and
between faculty, tutors, and students difficult.
 Staff work overtime with no pay in order to accomplish all the tasks that need to be done,
including updating tutors schedules, scheduling labs and centers, scheduling study groups,
maintaining the website and SARS systems, and collecting and disseminating data. Understaffing
means that there is little overlap with staff and they are less able to collaborate effectively.
 Unable to meet routine requests. For instance, we received multiple requests to post lists of
tutors in areas on our website and in PATH. Staff unable due to post or maintain due to time
constraint.
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.
The Learning Connection plans to scale small and large study groups across campus targeting GE courses
with the lowest success rates and highest drop-out rates. This will require significant room scheduling,
data collection, and time to work with faculty. We will not be able to do this without staff support.
Currently, services have been cut or reduced to lack of staff support, see above.
11
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 .
.07 FTEF for two additional TUTR 1B’s.
Business; Social Sciences, Arts and Humanities; and Allied Health need TUTR 1B’s to support the
development of their academic Learning Support Programs. Our goal is to increase pass rates across
campus.
12
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. $10,000 for LA’s
To replace a small percentage of what was
previously cut to serve faculty requests for
support in large courses unable to meet in labs
2. $20,000
To offer scalable study groups in low success
courses every study must take (GE’s, basis
skills)
3. $27,000 from Perkins
Current allocation, without which we couldn’t
run the program.
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.
History: In the last three years, our total budget has been cut almost 60% and we have lost 1.5 staff
positions.







We run waitlists for our many subjects, especially Math
We are unable to meet requests from faculty for study groups, conversation groups, drop-in
hours, etc…
Offering these successful programs is an inexpensive way to meet our strategic plan goal to
increase completion rates. Students who pass a class the first time do not expend future college
resources.
Altercations in PATH over who is in line first to schedule appointments
Appointments with tutors that are canceled can’t be replaced since list of tutors has shortened
in primary areas.
No longer funding LA program
Drop-in hours cut (Chem and BUS)
NOTE: Disciplines across campus will complete this section of Program Review in hopes that the time and effort
they expend to design and request student support will be supported by the college. Our ability to implement
their plans depends on adequate facilities, staffing, and tutors. Some requests do not require additional funds.
Even these requests will remain unmet due to lack of space. See chart in previous section.
13
14
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
2012-13 Budget
Requested
Received
Easels (8)
$320 ($40
ea)
DropCam (8)
$1200
($150 ea)
$200 ($25
ea)
Whiteboards (8)
General supply
budget
Grant
allocation
$5,000
2013-14
Rationale
Request
Academic Learning Support
$
For use by Study Group leaders to
maximize learning support for larger
groups of students
To assist with staff supervision of
tutors and students
For use by Study Group leaders to
maximize learning support for larger
groups of students
Instructional Support Services
Expenditures 2013-14
Request
?
$5,000
Photocopies, supplies for
professional development activities
and for the LAC and CTL offices
15
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
$1000 for Interest Area
research
CRLA conference
CTL/Staff Development
Conference Budget
2013-14 Request
$4000
$1000
$20,000
Rationale
Research study group alternatives and interest area
models with faculty discipline leads
Research scalable study group models
Funding to support presentations made individuals
sharing Title III work and accomplishments; Funding
to provide small reimbursements to faculty
members attending conferences – to be distributed
by Staff Development Committee
16
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
Laptops (5)
2012-13 Budget
Requested Received
$4000
($800 ea)
2013-14
Request
$
Rationale*
Faculty check out to work with SS in
labs without computer access. Faculty
to donate time. (See requests in
Discipline PR including psychology)
* 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.
17
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: 100
Description of the facility project. Please be as specific as possible.
Renovate Bldg 100 to centralize academic support series. See current approved plans which provide
for supervised study groups space. Plans will eliminate multiple acronyms and locations.
What educational programs or institutional purposes does this equipment support?
Our goal is to increase success rates across campus and alleviate bottlenecks so students can achieve
their educational goal in a reasonable period of time. The Learning Connection plans to scale small and
large study groups across campus targeting GE courses with the lowest success rates and highest dropout rates. We would also like to meet staff requests for learning support. None of our objectives—as a
campus or individual disciplines—is possible without a space. Currently, we are stalled and unable to
meet any other additional requests or offer scalable support.
Briefly describe how your request relates specifically to meeting the Strategic Plan Goal and to
enhancing student learning?
Our goal is to increase success rates across campus and alleviate bottlenecks so students can achieve
their educational goal in a reasonable period of time. To so this, we must provide opportunities for
community tied to support (accurate information, academic support, student life).
Plans include space for faculty, counselors, CTL, study groups, computer labs, data collection-all in the
same location organized around a rotunda to draw students in and up through the library.
We also envision a central marquee with information on clubs, etc… where Learning Connection
Scholars (students) can provide information to students and direct them as needed. These students will
receive scholarships (not expensive hourly pay) for their leadership.
18