Chabot College
Program Review Report
2015 -2016
Year 1 of
Program Review Cycle
Learning Connection
Submitted on: October 24, 2014
Contact: Jane Wolford
Table of Contents
__X_ Year 1
Section 1: Where We’ve Been
Section 2: Where We Are Now
Section 3: The Difference We Hope to Make
___ Year 2
Section A: What Progress Have We Made?
Section B: What Changes Do We Suggest?
___ Year 3
Section A: What Have We Accomplished?
Section B: What’s Next?
Required Appendices:
A: Budget History
B1: Course Learning Outcomes Assessment Schedule
B2: “Closing the Loop” Assessment Reflections
C: Program Learning Outcomes
D: A Few Questions
E: New Initiatives
F1: New Faculty Requests
F2: Classified Staffing Requests
F3: FTEF Requests
F4: Academic Learning Support Requests
F5: Supplies and Services Requests
F6: Conference/Travel Requests
F7: Technology and Other Equipment Requests
F8: Facilities
_X___ YEAR ONE
1. Where We’ve Been - Complete Appendix A (Budget History) prior to writing your
narrative. Limit your narrative to nomore than one page. As you enter a new Program
Review cycle, reflect on your achievements overthelastfew years. What did you want to
accomplish? Describe how changes in resources provided to your discipline or program
have impacted your achievements. What are you most proud of, and what do you want
to continue to improve?
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 learning 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 focuses on Academic Learning Support. Within this area are:
•
•
•
•
•
Tutoring: STEM Center, Writing and Reading Across the Curriculum (WRAC),
Communications Lab, Language Lab (ESL), and peer tutoring in the Learning Center. Depending
on program needs, these labs offer drop-in tutoring, scheduled recurring appointments, scheduled
one-time appointments, and conversation groups
Study Groups
Tutor Training Program(s)
Learning Assistants in Classrooms
World Language Lab
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, seven years previous the college placed its supplemental instruction programs
under Academic Services.
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). Learning Assistants 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 LC tutoring program has been sustained by
BSI/Title III funds for the last five years. The Title III grant ended this month, meaning we will lose close
to 50% of our funding. For the last two years we have asked for $110,000 (per year) in general funds and
have received an average of $42,000 each year. Without additional grants or general funds, we will not be
able to sustain our programs. 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.
1
Relative to Chabot’s strategic plan, maintaining funding, and promoting Building 100 have been 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 dedicated place to study ANYWHERE on campus, let alone
centralized space next to comprehensive support services associated with faculty.
The district’s reaction to our efforts to revise our compensation model crippled programs and,
hence, student success for 2013-2014
o The successful ESL program faculty worked to plan and implement was left without
needed Learning Assistants.
o In consequence of HR’s slow processing of hiring packets (2 months), tutoring wasn’t
available till mid-semester. In less than one month, usage data dropped over 60% for
lack of tutors in basic courses, such as Math.
o 100’s of students were left unscheduled.
o Over 30% of our tutors dropped out of the program unable to receive a paycheck or plan
their schedules.
The Learning Connection has built the structure (see bulleted list 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 approved for Building 100 provide the needed shared,
centralized space.
A brief listing of our accomplishments in the last cycle:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Promoting Building 100 plans by keeping campus informed and collaborating with user group
and architects to create a centralized, student-friendly learning environment.
Revising SLOs and assessing, using eLumen rubrics previously developed
Creating and assessing SAOs to meet accreditation recommendation
Hiring 0.5 FTE Classified Staff (20 hrs.) to restore LC front desk position eliminated in 20112012 AY
Switching to online scheduling in the LC
Building a website
Promoting and securing reassigned time for TUTR 2 instructors
2
•
•
•
Creating tutor video with “Making Visible” team
Leveling TUTR 1A and 1B to differentiate tutor training dependent of time in program
Implementing Accreditation Recommendation #3
Goals that were not realized due to underfunding, understaffing and/or lack of space:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Securing stable, sufficient funding to maintain our programs-lack of institutional funding
Centralizing services in one location-lack of space
Hiring staff for LC and STEM Center to scale up services-lack of funding
Differentiating Learning Assistant training from tutor training-need professional development
training
Offering online tutoring-lack of space/technology and infrastructure
Offering study groups in high impact GE courses in lieu of individual appointments-lack of
space, staffing and infastructure
Narrative Account:
Goals for this cycle that required primarily internal support have been accomplished jwhile those
dependent on adequate facilities and staffing have not. We are unable to develop the scalable model
we envision.
Of our many accomplishments last 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, the Learning
Connection, with direct support from IT, began using SARS-Grid, an electronic appointment scheduling
platform 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 conjunction
with the implementation of SARS-Grid, we were able to bring online scheduling for tutoring
appointments to our website through eSARS, the online scheduling component of SARS-Grid. Online
scheduling provides more flexibility and access for student across campus, in addition to our in-person
scheduling services.
3
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, last cycle we also re-designed our
compensation model. Unfortunately, our redesign failed as a consequence of the district’s refusal to work
with us to construct an HR process that meets program needs. These failed efforts to work with HR
began four and half years ago when we repeatedly met with district HR to discuss what wasn’t working.
Their model of projecting hours in addition to their 2 month hiring timeline crippled programs, leaving
students unserved and faculty across campus disenfranchised with student support:
• We are unable to recruit adequate numbers of students as HR’s timeline requires faculty to
recommend tutors mid-semester, three months in advance, before instructors are able to assess the
qualifications of their students. In the last three years, we have never been able to recruit
appropriate numbers of tutors in needed areas;
• Many tutors don’t receive approval to work until the semester is half over. Without consistent
paychecks they are unable to pay bills, buy food, etc…
• Potential tutors from historically underrepresented groups who may be new to academic culture
are unable to navigate the paperwork process. Most never make it past receiving a
recommendation, leaving our most vulnerable students underrepresented in our labs;
• Processing hiring and payroll paperwork is a full time job consuming over half of our staff
resources, crippling the development of quality programs.
After repeated failed attempts to work with HR to address needs, we gave up and moved away from
hiring students to offering stipends. Before implementing our new model, we talked with HR and they
verbally approved plans. After the finish of our first successful semester—the numbers of tutors rose, we
served more students, programs such as ESL and Fire Tech were able to more flexibly meet student
needs, underserved areas received support, our tutor population diversified, student and faculty interest
rose—HR shut the model down threatening not to pay students their stipends over compliancy concerns
and arguing that general funds could not be used for stipends, an inaccuracy easily exposed by auditors.
Given that the entire board of trustees receives a stipend for their services to the district, their refusal to
work with us astounds.
The debilitating and unprofessional state of district HR is apparent when compared with other educational
institutions in the area. A short example confirms. As part of our participation in HPN, one of our local
high schools asked us to recruit 15 math tutors. Two weeks after having given them the names of
potential tutors, students received congratulatory invites in the mail, were hired, working, and awarded
certificates of recognition. Meanwhile, Chabot tutors were still trying to complete paperwork.
The failed revision of our compensation model also crippled plans to leverage the power of students
across campus. Over the last cycle, Learning Connection Scholars had began to play leadership roles on
campus. They publicized programs through media and class visits, provided input to the LC as we restructure our programs, participated in FLEX day activities with faculty, interviewed students across
campus and produced films, and (attempt) to coordinate student life with learning support. Tutors
frequently noted 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 had hoped to continue to
leverage their power across campus. Unfortunately, the last minute shut down of our scholarship program
resulted in mass exodus from our programs. We lost almost all the tutor leaders with whom we had been
building capital and are now unable to coordinate with MESA due to consequent reductions in staff time
to coordinate and resulting differences in process. Without significant revision to HR’s process, we will
4
not be able to build human capital, streamline and increase recruitment. Faculty on campus are starting to
give up.
Our failed efforts to revise our compensation model undermined the work we were doing to scale
programs across campus and increase faculty involvement. In these efforts, we had been making some
progress, though not as much as we would hope due to lack of facilities and understaffing, including:
•
•
•
•
•
•
BUS obtained a dedicated TUTR 2;
ESL built a workshop to support ESL students in all courses across campus, not just those in the
ESL department;
Math and Science began piloting study groups.
Allied Health obtained a dedicated TUTR 2 section
Social Sciences obtained a dedicated TUTR 2 section
SOTA obtained a dedicated TUTR 2 section
Unfortunately, without space and functional internal processes, these small pockets of change are not
increasing student success. The Learning Connection has built as much of the structure as it can on its
own (website, assessment, tutor training) but without effective district processes and space our efforts to
work with faculty to increase success rates are presently stalled.
2. Where We Are Now - Review success, equity, course sequence, and enrollment data from
the past three years at
http://www.chabotcollege.edu/ProgramReview/Data2014.asp
Please complete Appendices B1 and B2 (CLO's), C (PLO's), and D (A few questions)before writing
your narrative. Limit your narrative to twopages.
After review of your success and retention data, your enrollment trends, your curriculum, and
your CLO and PLO results, provide an overall reflection on your program. Consider the following
questions in your narrative, and cite relevant data (e.g., efficiency,persistence, success,
CLO/PLO assessment results, external accreditation demands, etc.):
• What are the trends in course success and retention rates (based on overall
results and CLO assessments) in your program? Do you see differences based
on gender and/or ethnicity? Between on-campus and online or hybrid online
courses? Provide comparison points (college-wide averages, history within
your program, statewide averages).
1. Success and persistence rates.
• Students who use the Learning Connection’s Learning Support Programs have higher success
rates (+5.82% average) and lower withdrawal rates than students in the same courses who do not
use these services. (See Success Rates by Term w/ LC Tutoring Fall ‘12 - Spring ‘14 on LC
website)
•
Students in all developmentalEnglish courses who use our services have higher
success (+14% average) and lower withdrawal rates than those who do not.The data for
developmental Math courses is mixed, with Math 104 and 65 showing higher success for those
who use our services and lower success for Math 103 and 53 (the new accelerated algebra class
first offered in Fall 2013) for students who use our services. (See Success Rates of Learning
5
Connection Students in Tutored Courses vs. Non-Learning Connection Students on LC website)
This is most likely related to unmonitored SARS sign-in in the STEM Center. Not all students
who use our services in the STEM Center are tracked.
•
Students who regularly attend English115 have higher success rates and lower withdrawal rates in
their corresponding discipline-based course than those who do not take 115’s or enroll but don’t
complete. (See Success Rates of English 101A, 102, and 1A by English 115 Outcomes, Fall
2011-2013 on LC website)
•
The demographics of LC students parallel the demographics of the college with minor
deviations except with respect to gender. Relative to our student population, more females than
males are served.
•
Relative to Chabot’s student population, the LC predominantly serves full time students. 50-60%
of LC students attend full time while approximately 1/3 of Chabot’s students are full time. The
LC’s hours of operation may account for under-servingparttime students. Over time, hours have
been cut due to underfunding and understaffing. A history of our shifting hours of operation are
outlined in our Accreditation Report, Standard II, C1.c. The duplicated number of students served
directly correlates to our hours of operation. See chart below:
# Students
Students Served by Semester
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
Fall
2008
Sprin
Sprin
Sprin
Sprin
Sprin
Sprin
Fall
Fall
Fall
Fall
Fall
g
g
g
g
g
g
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Series1 10,01 23,42 46,38 47,49 45,19 47,25 40,09 44,71 42,60 39,17 33,91 36,04
Our data is compromised by our tracking system. The WRAC Center has one computer (with SARS
tracking) in the back of the room but many (faculty and students) don’t even know it’s there. The STEM
Center has three points of entry with oneSARS computer, so many students do not sign in. Also SARS is
set up to track only Math tutoring, so other STEM discipline usage is not reliably tracked. Plus, the STEM
Center is unstaffed, so tracking student usage is not monitored.
The tutor-training courses were leveled in 2013. SLOs were revised and assessed in 2011-12, and will be
revised and assessed again in 2014-15. Student surveys show that tutors find the training helpful, with
70% indicating that they want our courses to be offered in online format (see Student Surveys on LC
website).
SAO student surveys from the last cycle show that the majority of students find LC staff helpful, and the
scheduling system easy to use. (see Student Surveys on LC website)
6
3. The Difference We Hope to Make - Review the Strategic Plan goal and key strategies at
http://www.chabotcollege.edu/prbc/StrategicPlan/SP forPR.pdf prior to completing your
narrative. Please complete Appendices E (New Initiatives) and F1-8 (Resource Requests) to
further detail your narrative. Limit your narrative to three pages, and be very specific about
what you hope to achieve, why, and how.
Note: Chabot is in the process of creating our next Educational Master Plan, to last six years.
Educational Master Plans are generally large enough in scope to be flexible. They are used in
particular at the District Level to guide in facility and community planning.
Please take this moment to reflect on your program’s larger term vision(s) and goals (6 years),
and to incorporate them into Program Review under the section below as a separate paragraph
or otherwise. The drafters of the Educational Master Plan will be mining Program Review for
contributions to the plan, with a commitment to read what programs have submitted. IR has
offered to work with programs to determine future market trends to be incorporated into this
year’s program review in relation to long-term goals. Please contact Carolyn Arnold for support.
We will have other avenues to communicate with the Educational Master Plan Consultants. This
is simply one avenue.
•
•
•
•
•
What initiatives are underway in your discipline or program, or could you begin,that
would support the achievement of our Strategic Plan goal?
Over the next three years, what improvements would you like to make to your
program(s) to improve student learning?
Over the next 6 years, what are your longer term vision(s) and goals? (Ed Master Plan)
What areyour specific, measurable goals? How will you achieve them?
Would any of these require collaboration with other disciplines or areas of the college?
How will that collaboration occur?
Big-picture goal for this cycle and beyond: To expand our programs and services to reach
more students (supplemental instruction, study groups), so that they can succeed in their
courses in a reasonable amount of time. Providing early academic intervention access to all
students so that they can pass their classes on the first/second attempt.
7
See chart below for supplemental goals:
Supplemental
Goal
Relocate to
Building 100
Activity
Secure/maintain
stable funding
Work with
administration to
arrive at fair budget
allocation
Seek funding
through Equity and
Program Review
Hire LC STEM
Center staff
Move scheduled for Institutional
Summer ‘15
Hire STEM
Center Faculty
Coordinator
Seek funding
through Equity and
Program Review
Hire additional
LC staff to scale
up services
Seek funding
through Program
Review
Secure funds to
“refresh” STEM
Center (Rm.
3906)
Work with Math/Sci
Division faculty and
students to identify
needs/seek funds
through Facilities
Committee small
projects funding/
Program Review
Collaborate with
faculty to develop
more effective
models
Improve
Learning
Assistant
program
Support needed
Institutional
Expected
Outcome
Centralize
services/more
students served
Maintain/scale
up our
programs/more
students served
Institutional/
Scale up study
possibleEquity
groups/more
funding
students
served/higher
success rates for
developmental
math
students/STEM
students
Institutional/possible Higher success
Equity funding
rates for
developmental
math
students/STEM
students
Institutional
Extended hours
of operation/
scale up study
groups/more
students served
Institutional
Student-friendly
environment to
counter-balance
student anxiety
around STEM
subjects/
higher success
rates
Institutional/
More effective
possible Basic Skills
program that
funding
can be
implemented
across
disciplines
8
Person(s) Responsible
Institution
Institution/LC
Coordinator
Institution/LC
Coordinator
Institution/LC
Coordinator/Math/Sci
Division Dean
Institution/LC
Coordinator
Institution/LC
Coordinator/
Math/Sci Dean
LC Coordinator/
TUTR 2 faculty/faculty
using LAs
Supplemental
Goal
Build
infrastructure
for study groups
in Bldg. 100 and
STEM Center
Pilot
supplemental
instruction
workshops
across
disciplines
Collapse four
SLOS for tutortraining courses
to one and
access this cycle
Pilot online
tutoring
Reinstate “Tutor
Report” forms
Add additional
section of TUTR
2 for Math
Activity
Support needed
Develop study group
leader training
model/designate&
monitor space in
Bldg. 100 & STEM
Center
Collaborate with
faculty to develop
supplemental
workshops across
disciplines
Institutional
Collaborate with
TUTR 2 faculty
Continued
institutional support
Collaborate with
faculty who teach
online
Institutional/
Bldg.100
space/equipment
Generate tutor
reports addressing
tutoring session
objectives/progress
Math currently has
30 students enrolled
in this class (double
to triple the
enrollment of any
other TUTR 2 class.)
We need two
sections to meet
needs of tutors,
possibly each
section covering
specific courses
Webmaster
Institutional/
possible Basic Skills
funding
Institutional
9
Expected
Person(s) Responsible
Outcome
Scale up learning LC Coordinator/LC &
support to serve STEM Center staff
more students
efficiently
Add another
intervention
service that has
proved effective
here and at
other colleges
More
streamlined
process
LC Coordinator/
Supplemental
Instruction FIG
Expand services
to online
students/higher
success rates
Inform
instructors
about student
progress
Smaller class
size, creating
15:1 in each
section instead
of 30:1 which
has proved to be
extremely
problematic
LC Coordinator/
online faculty
LC Coordinator/
TUTR 2 faculty
LC Coordinator/LC &
STEM Center staff
LC Coordinator/Math
faculty
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
2013-14
Budget
Requested
Two 20 hour
(0.5 FTE)
positions
2013-14
Budget
Received
One 20 hour
(0.5 FTE)
position
$2,400
$6,000 (for 15
laptops)
$1,500
$2,000 (for 5
laptops)
2014-15
Budget
Requested
100 hours (40
hr. IA for STEM
Center/20 hr.
IA for STEM
Center/40 hr.
IA for Learning
Center = 2.5
FTE)
$1,200
$4,000 (for 10
laptops)
2014-15
Budget
Received
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.
All monies received directly increase success rates across campus. All our data verifies that students 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 prior Program Review (previous cycle) and the LC website’s
“Assessment and Outcomes” for further data and narrative explanations.
In collaboration with the Library, a full-time (1.0 FTE) Library Tech I position was hired in January 2014,
to be split between the two service areas. The LC’s 20 staff hours (0.5 FTE) have been used to staff the
front desk in the Learning Connection center, relieving our Administrative Assistant of some coverage
and duties that were necessitated by the elimination of one 0.5 FTE Staff Assistant position in 2012.
Although we currently have coverage for day and evening students, we need additional coverage in the
early mornings to relieve the LC Administrative Assistant from front-desk duty. The Learning
Connection requested 15 laptops for faculty and tutors to check out to work with students in labs without
computers and received five. We continue to receive insufficient funding for staffing, supplies, and
technology.
10
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 continue to receive requests for tutoring & Learning Assistants, along with program expansion and
additional learning support pilots, that we cannot accommodate due to lack of institutionalized funding
and staffing. (See Academic Support Requests, Program Review Spreadsheet, 2014-15). Without
additional funding or staff, we cannot hire more tutors, expand service hours, or implement new learning
support services, such as study groups or online tutoring.
At present, LC staff can manage approximately 100 tutors/LAs. Additional staff are necessary to support
recruitment, hiring, payroll processing, scheduling, and supervision of all the student tutors in our
program if we want to scale up and serve more students. Currently, morning and evening staff are alone in
the center. If they are out sick, the center must close. If there are any incidents that require a staff
presence in any of our other labs, they cannot leave to address them.
Based on our user data, five laptops are insufficient to meet student need in our labs. We presently need at
least ten additional laptops to adequately serve our students. Students need laptops to study and work in
our centers, especially when working with tutors. Additional laptops will help students and tutors have
more productive sessions by allowing them to use Blackboard and other web-based learning support sites
or other software.
Online tutoring has come up repeatedly over the past few years; although we piloted this service through
a FIG, we were not able to sustain it due to lack of adequate space, supervision, and equipment. Although
our pending move to Bldg 100, planned for Summer 15, should resolve the space and supervision issues,
we need technology to support the online tutors in their work – dedicated computers and tablets to be used
in conjunction with CCC Confer so that the online tutors can appropriately interface with students.
Appendix B1: Student Learning Outcomes Assessment Reporting Schedule
I.
Course-Level Student Learning Outcomes & Assessment Reporting
(CLO-Closing the Loop).
A. Check One of the Following:
No CLO-CTL forms were completed during this PR year. No Appendix B2 needs to be
submitted with this Year’s Program Review. Note: All courses must be assessed once
at least once every three years.
Yes, CLO-CTL were completed for one or more courses during the current Year’s
Program Review. Complete Appendix B2 (CLO-CTL Form) for each course assessed
this year and include in this Program Review.
B. Calendar Instructions:
List all courses considered in this program review and indicate which year each course Closing
The Loop form was submitted in Program Review by marking submitted in the correct column.
11
Course
*List one course per line.
Add more rows as
needed.
TUTR 1A-D
This Year’s Program
Review
*CTL forms must be
included with this PR.
Last Year’s Program
Review
2-Years Prior
*Note: These courses
must be assessed in the
next PR year.
Assessed 2012-13
Assessed 2012-13
TUTR 2A-D
12
Appendix B2: “Closing the Loop” Course-Level 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
Form Instructions:
• Complete a separate Appendix B2 form for each Course-Level assessment reported in this
Program Review. These courses should be listed in Appendix B1: Student Learning Outcomes
Assessment Reporting Schedule.
• 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:
Defined Target
Scores*
(CLO Goal)
Actual Scores**
(eLumen data)
(CLO) 2:
(CLO) 3:
(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
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?
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?
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?
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?
14
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?
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?
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.
15
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?
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?
3. What is the nature of the planned actions (please check all that apply)?
 Curricular
 Pedagogical
 Resource based
 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: ______
•
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.
PLO #3:The Learning Connection will maintain a supportive environment that enhances
student learning.
•
•
PLO #4:
What questions or investigations ar ose as a r esult of these r eflections or discussions?
Why is tutoring producing higher success rates in some Math classes but not in others? Could this tie into
lack of staffing and coordination in the STEM Center? We only have two semesters’ data for Math 53
because it was first offered in Fall 2013. Let’s track over a longer period before we reach conclusions
about tutoring effectiveness in this course.
What pr ogr am-level str engths have the assessment r eflections r evealed?
Student surveys show that students find the tutor scheduling process easy (87% in Student Survey, Spring
2014). Over 90% of students found the LC staff to be knowledgeable and helpful, and the vast majority
also found the tutoring experience to be valuable, (Student Survey, Spring 2011).
What actions has your discipline deter mined might be taken to enhance the lear ning of
students completing your pr ogr am?
We are proposing the creation of an improved STEM Center learning support through the hiring of
Instructional Assistants and a STEM Coordinator. (seeFaculty Staffing, Classified Staffing and Facilities
Requests, and Equity Proposal) Also, we are proposing to improve TUTR 2 curriculum in Math by
adding a section and dividing the sections up by course level to improve tutor training in Math/Stat.
Program: _____
17
•
PLO #1:
•
PLO #2:
•
PLO #3:
•
PLO #4:
What questions or investigations arose as a result of these reflections or discussions?
What program-level strengths have the assessment reflections revealed?
What actions has your discipline determined might be taken to enhance the learning of
students completing your program?
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? Yes
2. Have you deactivated all inactive courses? (courses that haven’t been taught in five years or
won’t be taught in three years should be deactivated)Yes
3. Have all of your courses been offered within the past five years? If no, why should those
courses remain in our college catalog?Yes
4. 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 semesterYes
5. 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
6. 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
7. If you have course sequences, is success in the first course a good predictor of success in the
subsequent course(s)?N/A
8. 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.N/A
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?
Piloting Supplemental Instruction workshops across disciplines will increase the number of students who receive learning support in a more costefficient way. SI focuses on context-based learning support in a small-group environment. Like our LA program, instructors recommend highperforming students to serve as SI leaders. SI leaders have received a grade of A or B in a class and attend the same class in a succeeding semester
as SI leaders. These students lead study groups outside of class, focusing on course-specific learning/study skills and assignments. SI focuses on
group, in place of one-on-one, learning support. SI leaders know the curriculum and work directly with instructors. Data shows that SI is very
effective in increasing success rates. LC Coordinator/HIS Instructor Jane Wolford has offered SI workshops (HIS 28) for HIS 27 students since
Fall 2009. Data shows that between Fall 2009-Spring 2014 the HIS 27 overall success average was 63.8%, while those who completed HIS 28 had
an overall success average of 69.6%, a +5.8% difference.
What is your specific goal and measurable outcome?
Pilot SI workshops in approximately five GE bottleneck courses. Collect/track success data for courses with SI vs. same courses without SI over
four semesters. Measureable goal: Students who receive SI will succeed at greater rates than those who do not receive SI. Expand SI program
across disciplines if data shows increased student success.
What is your action plan to achieve your goal?
Activity (brief description)
Supplemental Instruction Faculty Inquiry Group (create
curriculum/recruit SI leaders in Fall 2015/offer SI, work
closely with SI leaders & make adjustments in Spring
2016)
Target
Completion
Date
Spring
2016
20
Required Budget (Split out
personnel, supplies, other
categories)
$750 stipend per semester
x 5 (or more) FIG
members=$3,750-$5,000 x
2 semesters =$7,500$10,000 total + $5,000$7,000 for SI leaders for
Spring 2016 pilot/6 hrs.
per week at $9.50 oer hour
perSI leader/Total cost
forFIG: $12,500-$17,000
Hold Flex Day and college-hour workshops on SI to
expand SI program (hosted by LC Coordinator & FIG
members)
Hire STEM Center and Learning Connection IAs to create
infrastructure to grow and sustain SI across the STEM
curriculum
Hire STEM Center Coordinator to coordinate SI in STEM
disciplines
Spring
2017
No funds required
Spring
2015
2 FT classified hires/1 PT
classified hire
Spring
2015
3 CAH
How will you manage the personnel needs?
X New Hires:
Faculty # of positions X Classified staff # of positions 2.5 FTE
X Reassigning existing employee(s) to the project; employee(s) current workload will be:3 CAH for STEM Coordinator
X
Covered by overload or part-time employee(s)
Covered by hiring temporary replacement(s)
X
Other, explain $750 stipend for participants per semester/$1,500 for year each FIG member + $5,000-$7,000 for
SI leaders
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
by/from):Learning Connection budget (General Fund)
Will the proposed project require facility modifications, additional space, or program relocation? X
Yes, explain: space for SI study groups
Will the proposed project involve subcontractors, collaborative partners, or cooperative agreements?
No X
Yes, explain:
Do you know of any grant funding sources that would meet the needs of the proposed project?
No
X
Yes, list potential funding sources: Basic Skills Initiative, Equity funds
21
(obtained
Appendix F1: Full-Time Faculty/Adjunct Staffing Request(s) [Acct. Category 1000]
Audience: Faculty Prioritization Committeeand 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. Discussanticipated improvements in student learning and contribution to the Strategic
Plangoal. 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/Data2013.cfm.
1. Number of new faculty requested in this discipline: _1 at 3 CAH__
PLEASE LIST IN RANK
ORDER
STAFFING REQUESTS (1000) FACULTY
Position
Description
Faculty (1000)
Program/Unit
Division/Area
STEM Center
Faculty Coordinator
(.20 FTEF)
Coordinate
STEM
Center/conduct
second-level
STEM tutor
interviews,
among other
duties (see
attached Equity
Proposal)
Learning Connection
Academic Services
22
Rationale for your proposal. Please use the enrollment management data. Data that will strengthen your rationale include FTES trends over
the last 5 years,FT/PT faculty ratios,recent retirements in your division, total number of full time and part-time faculty in the division, total
number of students served by your division, FTEF in your division, CLO and PLO assessment results and external accreditation demands.
More students seek learning support in the STEM Center than in any other Learning Connection lab, including the Learning Center. We have more
Math tutors (approximately 25 each semester) than in any other discipline. Chemistry is also among our most in-demand learning support subjects.
The large volume of Math students being served in the STEM Center is shown in the latest success data (see Success Rates Tutored v. NonTutored, Fall ‘11- Spring ’14, in specific courses on LC website). We need a designated coordinator to act as faculty liason for learning support,
recruit a more diverse tutor pool to address equity needs, conduct second-level content interviews for tutors, to teach TUTR 2 for Math/Sci., and to
work with STEM Center Instructional Assistants (fingers crossed) in managing the STEM Center. The WRAC Center Coordinator receives just
under 3CAH. WRAC Center visits total 24,752, and STEM Center visits total 66,708 (see LC Tutoring Students and Visits by Lab, Sp. ’10-Spring
’14 on LC website.) The data justifies the creation of this position. Coordinated learning support is critical to improving student success in STEM
disciplines. With overall Math success rates at 50% between Fall 2011-Spring 2014, we must and can do better in supporting our STEM students.
Faculty coordination is essential!
2. 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.
The overall Math success rate of 50% is far below the overall college success rate of 69%. Thus, 50% of our students are blocked from reaching
their learning goals because they can’t get through the Math course progression. How to remedy this? Changing the required course progression
has proved to be unworkable. Math instructors are continually adjusting curriculum, providing support outside the classroom and developing
innovative ways to teach students.Our dedicated Math instructors can’t do this alone. We have to work together to find a way to get students
through. Learning support is the one last chance many have in reaching their learning and life goals. The STEM Center needs leadership and
coordination to deliver targeted resources and support to our diverse student population.
23
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, and 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 1/2___
STAFFING REQUESTS (2000) CLASSIFIED PROFESSIONALS
Position
Instructional Assistant (1.0 FTE)
Instructional Assistant (0.5 FTE)
Instructional Assistant (1.0 FTE)
Classified Professional Staff (2000)
Description
Program/Unit
Staff STEM Center
Learning Connection
Staff STEM Center
Learning Connection
Staff Learning Connection
Learning Connection
PLEASE LIST IN RANK
ORDER
Division/Area
Academic Services
Academic Services
Academic Services
2. Rationale for your proposal.
STEM Center Instructional Assistants are new positions.Currently this lab is not staffed. SARS tracking is unreliable, the Center is busy and, at
peak times, chaotic. From Spring 2010 through Spring 2014 SARS tracked 187,594 student visits to LC labs across campus. 66,708 of these were
STEM Center visits (see LC Tutoring Students and Visits by Lab, Spring ‘10—Spring ‘14 on LC website). And this number tracked only those
who signed in. Students seeking drop-in support often do not get the help they need. No one manages the schedule, and instructors who assist in
the Center can’t handle the volume of logistical and discipline-specific questions. PACE students have complained that there is often one Math
faculty member in the STEM Center in the evenings and as many as fifty students needing learning support. The situation is untenable. What we
now have is a loud, intimidating, environment that alienates students, many who come to the center with little confidence in their academic
abilitiesThe STEM Center should be the most welcoming space on campus, a space where students see familiar faces and get questions
24
answered by friendly and knowledgeable personnel. We have had multiple verbal complaints from students about students using the space to
gather socially, including social networking on the Center’s computers. When LC staff refer students to the Center they often hear that the climate
is not conducive to learning due to reasons previously mentioned. We can’t scale up our services without infrastructure to create study groups,
something that is impossible without adequate staffing. These positions are being requested in the Learning Connection’s Equity Proposal. If not
funded through Equity, we are requestingGeneral Fund monies. If these positions are not funded by Equity or General Funds, the STEM Center
will continue to be a busy, chaotic, cavernous space where many of our most needy students will not feel welcome. STEM instructors will, no
doubt, continue to assist students as best they can and many students will fall by the wayside thinking that they just can’t succeed academically.
The non-success/withdrawal rates will continue to be low. How can we not hire these positions? I mean, really.
The LC Instructional Assistant is a new position. This position would guarantee that the LC could extend hours of operation to serve more
students. A new hire would free up our Administrative Assistant from front-desk duty to complete her multiple job-specific tasks. The LC front
desk is currently staffed by our Administrative Assistant and two 20-hour Staff Assistants. Our Administrative Assistant covers early morning
hours and fills in when one of our SAs is out. With additional staffing we could keep our labs open when one of our other staff members is out
sick or on break. At present we have to close if we only have one staff member scheduled, and that person is out or has to leave the center
temporarily. With additional staff we could build the necessary infrastructure for study groups. We could generate and track Tutor Report forms
(once our webmaster is in place.) The LC could operate much more efficiently and serve more students with an additional staff person; our entire
program is run with just 2.0 FTE, who provide service for four different labs around campus, roughly 100 student assistants (tutors, LA’s, etc.),
faculty across campus, and thousands of students each semester. We are requesting General Fund Monies for this position. Without this hire the
LC will continue to operate with a skeletal crew and our lab will close when staff members are unavailable. Our very-capable Administrative
Assistant, the heart of our program, will continue to be overworked and we won’t be able to meet the needs of our students. Outcome: lower
student success rates and employees stretched to the max.
All three hires would report to Dr. Stacy Thompson, VP, Academic Services.
3. 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 data review shows that learning support increases student success. If we are truly committed to helping ALL of our students achieve their
learning goals in a reasonable amount of time, we need to provide effective learning support for ALL on demand. Open-access learning labs,
centralized services, scheduled and drop-in tutoring support, online tutoring support, study groups, the needs are endless. Increasing student
success through expanded learning support services necessitates hiring support staff in the STEM Center, and an additional staff member in the
Learning Connection.
25
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
athttp://www.chabotcollege.edu/ProgramReview/Data2013.cfm.
COURSE
TUTR 2
CURRENT
FTEF
(2014-15)
ADDITIONAL
FTEF
NEEDED
CURRENT
SECTIONS
ADDITIONAL
SECTIONS
NEEDED
CURRENT
STUDENT
# SERVED
ADDITIONAL
STUDENT #
SERVED
.280
.035
8
1
95
No change
Rationale: .035 FTEF for one additional section of TUTR 2 for Math.) Every semester we have 25-30
Math/Stat tutors. All of these tutors must enroll in TUTR 2 (content training). The other TUTR 2 sections
have 10-15 tutors enrolled, some far less. This course requires a lot of small-group interaction and oneon-one instruction. TUTR 2 for Math needs to be split into two sections, so that our Math/Stat tutors get
the content training they need, and to ensure that all of their questions/needs are adequately addressed.
26
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. $42,000
Our typical roll-over General Fund allocation, without which we
couldn’t run our program
2. $10,000 for LAs
To replace a small percentage of what was previously cut to serve
faculty requests for support in large courses unable to meet in labs
3. $20,000
To offer scalable study groups in low success courses every student
must take (GE, basic skills)
4. $37,000 from Perkins
Current allocation, without which we couldn’t run our programs
5. $40,000
To replace TIII/BSI funding which has maintained our program over
the past years. The TIII grant ended this year, and BSI funding will
be significantly reducedafter the current year.
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.
Historically in the last four years, our total budget has been cut almost 60% and we have lost 1.5 staff positions. Currently, we cannot scale up our
programs to serve more students without additional funding or staff support.
• We consistently run waitlists for tutoring appointments for 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 goal to increase completion rates. Students who pass a
class the first time do not expend future college resources.
• TIII is no longer funding LA program
• Drop-in hours have been cut or eliminated for some subjects; we have not been able to provide drop-in for other subjects such as Allied
Health/Biology due to lack of funding and infrastructure
• Appointments for subjects such as Math are limited due to overwhelming demand; the number of small-group (as opposed to one-on-one)
tutoring appointments has increased significantly over the past few semesters as we try to serve more students with the same, limited
number of tutors.
27
Appendix F5: Supplies & Services Requests [Acct. Category 4000 and 5000]
WILL SUBMIT WHEN REQUESTS ARE RECEIVED BY DISCIPLINE FACULTY/ADMINISTRATION
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.
Supplies Requests [Acct. Category 4000]
Instructions:
1. There should be a separate line item for supplies needed and an amount.
For items purchased in bulk, list the unit cost and provide the total in the "Amount" column.
2. Make sure you include the cost of tax and shipping for items purchased.
Priority 1: Are criticalrequests required to sustain a program (if not acquired, program may be in peril) or to meet mandated requirements of local,
state or federal regulations or those regulations of a accrediting body for a program.
Priority 2: Are needed requests that will enhance a program but are not so critical as to jeopardize the life of a program if not
received in the requested academic year.
Priority 3: Are requests that are enhancements, non-critical resource requeststhat would be nice to have and would bring additional benefit to the program.
2014-15
2015-16
Request
needed totals in all areas Request
Requested Received
Description
Amount
Vend
or
28
Division/Unit
Priority #1
Priority #2
Priority #3
Contracts and Services Requests [Acct. Category 5000]
Instructions:
1. There should be a separate line item for each contract or service.
2. Travel costs should be broken out and then totaled (e.g., airfare, mileage, hotel, etc.)
Priority 1: Are criticalrequests required to sustain a program (if not acquired, program may be in peril) or to meet mandated
requirements of local,
state or federal regulations or those regulations of a accrediting body for a program.
Priority 2: Are needed requests that w ill enhance a program but are not so critical as to jeopardize the life of a program if not received in
the requested academic year.
Priority 3: Are requests that are enhancem ents, non-critical resource requests that would be nice to have and would bring additional
benefit to the program.
augm entations only
Description
Amount
Vendor
Division/Unit
29
Priority #1
Priority #2
Priority #3
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.
Description
College Reading & Learning
Association Conference
2015-location TBA
Strengthening Student
Success Conference 2015Oakland, CA
Amount
$1500 x 2$3,000
Vendor
CRLA
$400 x 2 = Research &
$800 Planning Group
Division/Dept
Learning
Connection/Academic
Services
Learning
Connection/Academic
Services
30
Priority Priority Priority
#1
#2
#3
Notes
Registration fees, RT flights,
Accommodations for 2 -3
nights for Jane Wolford (LC
Coordinator)& Rachael
Tupper-Eoff (LC Admin Asst.)
X
X
Registration fees for Jane
Wolford (LC Coordinator) &
Rachael Tupper-Eoff (LC
Admin Asst.)
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.
Instructions:
1. For each piece of equipment, there should be a separate line item for each piece and
an amount. 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.
2.
For bulk items, list the unit cost and provide the total in the "Amount" column.
Make sure you include the cost of tax and shipping for items purchased.
Priority 1: Are criticalrequests required to sustain a program (if not acquired, program may be
in peril) or to meet mandated requirements of local,
state or federal regulations or those regulations of a accrediting body for a program.
Priority 2: Are needed requests that w ill enhance a program but are not so critical as to
jeopardize the life of a program if not received in the requested academic year.
Priority 3: Are requests that are enhancem ents, non-critical resource requests that would be
nice to have and would bring additional benefit to the program.
Description
Tablet PCs for use in
online tutoring via CCC
Confer (~$700 ea; 5
total)
Texas Instruments TI30XS Multiview
Amount
Vendor
Division/Unit
Academic Services/Learning Connection-ALL ITEMS BELOW
$3,500.00 as contracted per District IT
$105.00 staples.com
ARE PRIORITY #1 FOR LEARNING CONNECTION
Academic Services/Learning Connection
31
Scientific calculator
($19.19 ea; 5 total)
Texas Instruments TI83 Plus Graphing
Calculator ($98.05 ea;
2 total)
$213.75 staples.com
Academic Services/Learning Connection
Lithium battery ($1.98
ea; 5 total)
$10.80 staples.com
Academic Services/Learning Connection
ALL ITEMS BELOW ARE PRIORITY #2 FOR LEARNING
Life Science Models:
head (w /muscles)
model
altay muscular torso
CONNECTION
$225.00 566652A - Carolina
Learning Connection/Life Sciences
$1,339.00 566623- Carolina
Learning Connection/Life Sciences
skin model
$665.00 567673 - Carolina
Learning Connection/Life Sciences
blood cells
$173.00 813303 - Wards
Learning Connection/Life Sciences
mitosis model
$150.00 561623 - Carolina
Learning Connection/Life Sciences
Meoisis model
$150.00 561608 - Carolina
Learning Connection/Life Sciences
DNA model
$530.00 561708 - Carolina
Learning Connection/Life Sciences
Earthworm
$840.00 812520 - Wards
Learning Connection/Life Sciences
Hydra
$314.00 814793 - Wards
Learning Connection/Life Sciences
$3,245.00 815171 - Wards
Learning Connection/Life Sciences
$352.00 814786 - Wards
Learning Connection/Life Sciences
Terrestrial Snail
euglena
32
Animal cell
$554.00 814734 - Wards
Learning Connection/Life Sciences
Plant cell
$763.00 814735 - Wards
Learning Connection/Life Sciences
$175.00 812008 - Wards
Learning Connection/Life Sciences
$898.00 815020- Wards
Learning Connection/Life Sciences
crayfish
$148.00 814066- Wards
Learning Connection/Life Sciences
lancelet
$755.00 815022 - Wards
Learning Connection/Life Sciences
$179.00 812004 - Wards
Learning Connection/Life Sciences
$576.00 810020 - Wards
Learning Connection/Life Sciences
Ameoba
$354.00 814739 - Wards
Learning Connection/Life Sciences
Tapeworm model
$170.00 470212-488 - Wards
Learning Connection/Life Sciences
Grasshopper
$153.00 814067 - Wards
Learning Connection/Life Sciences
Leaf Model
$215.00 568802 - Carolina
Learning Connection/Life Sciences
Heart plastomount
$320.00 POM7610 - Carolina
Learning Connection/Life Sciences
Kidney biomount
$222.00 265254 - Carolina
Learning Connection/Life Sciences
Brain biomount
$258.00 265310 - Carloina
Learning Connection/Life Sciences
$196.00 265180 - Carolina
Learning Connection/Life Sciences
tendon
$7.80 312788 - Carolina
Learning Connection/Life Sciences
neuron smear
$7.10 313570 - Carolina
Learning Connection/Life Sciences
perch
Paramecium
Starfish
planaria
eye biomount
Slides:
33
blood (x4)
$21.00 313158 - Carolina
Learning Connection/Life Sciences
areolar
$6.45 312686 - Carolina
Learning Connection/Life Sciences
adipose
$4.80 312692 - Carolina
Learning Connection/Life Sciences
stratified squamous
$6.25 312510 - Carolina
Learning Connection/Life Sciences
simple cuboidal
$5.95 312366 - Carolina
Learning Connection/Life Sciences
simple columnar
$6.75 312420 - Carolina
Learning Connection/Life Sciences
eye
$17.00 938290 - Wards
Learning Connection/Life Sciences
spirogyra (x3)
$12.60 396554 - Carolina
Learning Connection/Life Sciences
ranculus stem cs (x3)
$13.50 302870 - Carolina
Learning Connection/Life Sciences
syrniga leaf (x3)
$16.35 303790 - Carolina
Learning Connection/Life Sciences
paramecium caudatum
(x3)
$11.10 296962 - Carolina
Learning Connection/Life Sciences
Physcia Thallus
(x3)
$14.25 298476 - Carolina
Learning Connection/Life Sciences
hydra (x3)
$14.25 306040- Carolina
Learning Connection/Life Sciences
rotifers (x3)
$16.95 306850 - Carolina
Learning Connection/Life Sciences
euglena (x3)
$12.00 295666 - Carolina
Learning Connection/Life Sciences
chlamydomonas (x3)
$14.40 296398 - Carolina
Learning Connection/Life Sciences
amoeba (x3)
$17.70 295384 - Carolina
Learning Connection/Life Sciences
sacchromyces (x3)
$12.45 297992 - Carolina
Learning Connection/Life Sciences
34
letter e (x3)
$11.40 291406 - Carolina
Learning Connection/Life Sciences
threads (x3)
$15.30 291418 - Carolina
Learning Connection/Life Sciences
mitosis slide set (x3)
$63.00 308816 - Carolina
Learning Connection/Life Sciences
animal/plant cells (x3)
$27.00 301699 - Carolina
Learning Connection/Life Sciences
slide boxes x3
$42.75 634217 - Carolina
Learning Connection/Life Sciences
$6,000.00 591300 - Carolina
Learning Connection/Life Sciences
$68.00 591152 - Carolina
Learning Connection/Life Sciences
digital microscopes x 4
spare lightbulbs x4
Locking storage
cabinets for the
models (x8)
Annual Liscense for
Anatomy & Physiology
Revealed Software
(x5)
$2,152.00 Office Depot Item #632398
Learning Connection/Life Sciences
https://paris.mheducation
.com/paris/purchaseprod
$235.00 uctsview.do
Learning Connection/Life Sciences
Tax for Life Science
Study materials (est.)
$1,859.31
Shipping for Life
Science Study
materials (est.)
$2,253.71
Technology
Requests
35
Description
Amount
Vendor
Division/Unit
http://www.retailtheftpreventio
n.com/antennas.html
http://www.sensormatic.com/P
roducts/EAS/DetectionSystem
s/DiscreetSystems/DigitalDoor
Max.aspx
EAS System
Description
~$10,000
http://www.checkpointsystems
.com/en/productsservices/Shrink-ManagementSolutions/Alpha-High-TheftSolutions/Nano%20Gate.aspx
Amount
Vendor
Learning Connection/Life Sciences
Division/Unit
36
Priority #1
Priority #2
Priority #3
Appendix F8: Facilities Requests
WILL SUBMIT WHEN REQUESTS ARE RECEIVED FROM DISCIPLINE FACULTY/ADMINISTRATION
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 reprioritizing 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?
37