Chabot College
Program Review Report
2015 -2016
Year One of
Program Review Cycle
ESYS
Submitted on October 24, 2014
Contact: Wayne Phillips
Table of Contents
___ Year 1
Section 1: Where We’ve Been
Section 2: Where We Are Now
Section 3: The Difference We Hope to Make
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
____ YEAR ONE
1. Where We’ve Been–
Since the launch of the ESYS program, we have developed and delivered 18 new courses
through the 13-14 academic year. Two of the courses replaced two of the original offerings, as
part of the effort to align our courses with skills required by industry and sought by students.
The ESYS program has developed an innovative approach to delivering multiple courses with
minimal FTEF requirements. This approach enables the ESYS program to maintain respectable
productivity, multiple Fall and Spring entry points for new students, and multiple certificate and
degree pathways with minimal department size.
The key to this approach is to offer every course as a hybrid, online lecture and in-class lab. The
trending terminology for this is the “flipped” classroom. In-class instructor time is spent
supporting lab activities, answering questions, and providing “mini-lectures.” All of the
traditional lecture content is delivered online. The “flipped” classroom model permits us to
schedule two classes meeting concurrently in the same lab. The instructor “shifts gears” to
support two different groups of lab activities. The major benefits are providing greater access
for students by doubling the course offerings for the given FTEF and higher productivity by
producing WSCH for both courses.
Overall productivity, from the startup phase 2009-2010 up to 2013-2014, was 389. We are
continuing to refine our scheduling, and productivity has shown continuous improvement yearto-year. Success rates are excellent, with overall success over 80% for the last three semesters.
Our intro sections have the lowest success, which is to be expected, and our advanced sections
are typically in the 90-100% success range.
FT/PT faculty ratios are 67%/33%, but will shift as the Cisco Networking courses are moved
from CAS to ESYS, most likely resulting in an 81%/19% ratio.
Upon completion of our CLO assessments, we determined that we should continue to refine
our online curriculum and, to a lesser extent, our in-class lab activities.
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.):
1
• What are the trends in course success and retention rates (based on overall
results and CLO assessments) in your program?
Compared to overall college averages, our course success and retention rates are in line with
these averages. However, our CLO results from the last year show a decline in success in some
courses. This may be an anomaly for only this year, but we are aware of the change and are
looking for factors that may be impacting student success.
Since we are a small program, with many courses having only one section offered each year,
the gender and ethnicity data do not have sufficient numbers to draw generalized conclusions
for these groupings.
All of our classes are offered as hybrid delivery, online lecture, in-class lab “flipped” design, so
we have no comparisons with other delivery methods.
Specific course and program recommendations and plans are listed in the CLO and PLO
assessments in the Appendix.
As noted in last year’s program review, we have expanded our Computer Networking
Technology courses and established two new Certificates of Proficiency in ICT Cloud Services
and ICT Cloud Infrastructure. We added eleven new courses to the schedule, two courses
replacing the retired CCNA curriculum, and nine new courses. By partnering with LPC to
concurrently schedule linked courses at both colleges, we were able to expand our course
offerings within the existing FTEF allotment.
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.
2
•
What initiatives are underway in your discipline or program, or could you begin,that
would support the achievement of our Strategic Plan goal?
By reorganizing and renaming the Computer Networking Technology courses, we are
highlighting our offerings for students to find career pathways in this industry. Our team
approach with LPC allows us to leverage the talents of senior faculty at both colleges to the
benefit of both programs.
•
Over the next three years, what improvements would you like to make to your
program(s) to improve student learning?
We would like to expand our CNT program, possibly teaming with the Computer Applications
Systems program, to offer an A.S. Degree and Certificate of Achievement program in
Information and Communication Technology.
Our ESYS program provides a well-rounded experience to prepare students for positions in a
wide range of positions. As we identify target industry areas, such as the proposed BART
electronic technician training, we would like to create additional courses to support additional
Certificates of Achievement for these targeted skill sets.
•
Over the next 6 years, what are your longer term vision(s) and goals? (Ed Master Plan)
The ESYS, CNT, and CAS programs all have unique characteristics that justify maintaining them
as independent program. However, there is a great potential for cooperation among the
programs. This has already started with ESYS and CNT cross-listing courses. Our plan is to
continue to explore areas of synergy and cooperation, while maintaining the individual
programs and the career paths supported by each of them.
•
What areyour specific, measurable goals? How will you achieve them?
We would like to complete the development of the A.S. degree in Information and
Communication Technology. This will require our continued collaboration with the CNT
program at LPC, and most likely the Chabot CAS program, in order to implement the plan with
reasonable costs and FTEF allocation. As we see where the three-year plan of expanding ESYS
and CNT lead, we will determine the
•
Would any of these require collaboration with other disciplines or areas of the college?
How will that collaboration occur?
Collaboration with the CNT program at LPC will continue. We have started discussion with the
Chabot CAS program for areas of cooperation and joint development.
3
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
1 student
$ 20,694
$27,000
2013-14
Budget
Received
1 student
$13,866
$27,000
2014-15
Budget
Requested
1 student
$33,945
$8,500
2014-15
Budget
Received
1 student
$33,945
$ 13,000
$ 47,694
$ 40,866
$ 42,445
$ 46,945
1. How has your investment of the budget monies you did receive improved student learning? When
you requested the funding, you provided a rationale. In this section, assess if the anticipated
positive impacts you projected have, in fact, been realized.
The continuation of funds allows the program to provide the necessary materials and equipment for the
students. This is critical for the student to learn hands-on skills required in the electronics industry.
The new funds allocated this year were used to launch the Netlab+ remote-access lab system, a joint
project between the Chabot and Las Positas Computer Networking Technology disciplines. This is
proving to be a valuable tool for students at Chabot and Las Positas, enabling online delivery of courses
that could not otherwise provide the critical hands-on activities.
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?
Funding has been adequate for program continuity.
4
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:
o 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.
Course
*List one course per line.
Add more rows as
needed.
ESYS 50, 51, 52, 54,
55AB, 56AB, 57AB,
58, 60, 61, 62
ESYS 63AB, CNT 83AB
(cross-listed courses)
ESYS 82ABCD,
CNT 82ABCD
(cross-listed courses)
This Year’s Program
Review
*CTL forms must be
included with this PR.
Submitted
Submitted
Submitted
5
Last Year’s Program
Review
2-Years Prior
*Note: These courses
must be assessed in the
next PR year.
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
ESYS 50
Fall ’13, Spring ‘14
3
3
100%
Fall ‘14
W. Phillips, D. Casini
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:
The student will describe and analyze the operation
of basic electronic circuits using appropriate
electronic terminology, theory, and
mathematical relationships.
(CLO) 2:
The student will use test and measurement
equipment to perform basic voltage, current,
resistance, and timing measurements on electronic
circuits.
Defined Target
Scores*
(CLO Goal)
80% of students
completing
course (not
scoring NS or 0)
at level 3 or 4
80% of students
completing
course (not
scoring NS or 0)
at level 3 or 4
Actual Scores**
(eLumen data)
35%
31%
 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?
6
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?
Scores for the 13-14 year were much lower than the target, and much lower than past
years.
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?
Course content and faculty teaching the sections have not changed from past years. The
sharp decline in student achievement may be due to a change in student demographics. As
the economy has improved, the potential students with employable skills are at work
instead of in class.
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?
Scores for the 13-14 year were much lower than the target, and much lower than past
years.
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?
Course content and faculty teaching the sections have not changed from past years. The
sharp decline in student achievement may be due to a change in student demographics. As
the economy has improved, the potential students with employable skills are at work
instead of in class.
7
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?
No significant changes were made based on previous assessment cycle, since results were in
line with the targets.
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?
Students will be more closely monitored for adequate progress during the course, and
provided with opportunity for remedial work.
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:_________________________________________________________________
8
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
ESYS 51
Fall ’13, Spring ‘14
2
2
100%
Fall ‘14
W. Phillips, D. Casini
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
Defined Target
Actual Scores**
Scores*
(eLumen data)
(CLO Goal)
80% of students 81%
(CLO) 1:
The student will use standard software applications to completing
course (not
document the construction and assembly of an
electronic system.
scoring NS or 0)
at level 3 or 4
80% of students 100%
(CLO) 2:
completing
The student will use standard tools to perform
course (not
soldering, assembly, and fabrication tasks on
electronic assemblies and systems.
scoring NS or 0)
at level 3 or 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?
CONSIDER THE COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOMES INDIVIDUALLY (THE
NUMBER OF CLOS WILL DIFFER BY COURSE)
9
PART II: COURSE- LEVEL OUTCOME REFLECTIONS
C. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 1:
3. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course
level outcome?
Scores for the 13-14 year on target.
4. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and
your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
This course focuses on hands-on assembly skills, which easily engages even students that
are not inclined to study outside the classroom.
D. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 2:
3. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course
level outcome?
Scores for the 13-14 year were much higher than the target.
4. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and
your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
This course focuses on hands-on assembly skills, which easily engages even students that
are not inclined to study outside the classroom.
10
PART III: COURSE REFLECTIONS AND FUTURE PLANS
4. What changes were made to your course based on the previous assessment cycle, the prior
Closing the Loop reflections and other faculty discussions?
No significant changes were made based on previous assessment cycle, since results were in
line with the targets.
5. Based on the current assessment and reflections, what course-level and programmatic
strengths have the assessment reflections revealed? What actions has your discipline
determined might be taken as a result of your reflections, discussions, and insights?
When students are directly engaged with tasks that produce tangible results, interest, and
as a result, learning outcomes improve. To the extent possible, content in other courses
should link to tangible and relevant outcomes for the student.
6. 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:_________________________________________________________________
11
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
ESYS 52
Spring ’14, Summer 14
2
2
100%
Fall ‘14
W. Phillips, D. Casini
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
Defined Target
Actual Scores**
Scores*
(eLumen data)
(CLO Goal)
80% of students 100%
(CLO) 1:
The student will connect and configure a mixed-signal completing
course (not
oscilloscope to measure complex analog and digital
signals.
scoring NS or 0)
at level 3 or 4
80% of students 71%
(CLO) 2:
completing
The student will identify and/or describe circuit and
course (not
equipment elements and specifications that are
relevant to performing accurate measurements.
scoring NS or 0)
at level 3 or 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?
CONSIDER THE COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOMES INDIVIDUALLY (THE
NUMBER OF CLOS WILL DIFFER BY COURSE)
12
PART II: COURSE- LEVEL OUTCOME REFLECTIONS
E. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 1:
5. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course
level outcome?
Scores for the 13-14 year were much higher than the target.
6. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and
your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
Students in ESYS 52 have passed ESYS 50, and are motivated and capable of demonstrating
hands-on skills.
F. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 2:
5. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course
level outcome?
Scores for the 13-14 year were below target.
6. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and
your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
This again demonstrates the difference in engagement level between hands-on skills
training and study of required knowledge areas.
13
PART III: COURSE REFLECTIONS AND FUTURE PLANS
7. What changes were made to your course based on the previous assessment cycle, the prior
Closing the Loop reflections and other faculty discussions?
No significant changes were made based on previous assessment cycle, since results were in
line with the targets.
8. 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?
Students will be more closely monitored for adequate progress during the course, and
provided with opportunity for remedial work.
9. 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:_________________________________________________________________
14
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
ESYS 54
Fall ’13, Spring ‘14
2
2
100%
Fall ‘14
W. Phillips, D. Casini
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:
The student will identify op-amp circuit configurations
and calculate gain and impedances for the circuit.
(CLO) 2:
The student will identify the terminals and basic
internal construction of MOSFET transistors, and
describe the operation of MOSFET switching and
amplifier circuits.
Defined Target
Scores*
(CLO Goal)
80% of students
completing
course (not
scoring NS or 0)
at level 3 or 4
80% of students
completing
course (not
scoring NS or 0)
at level 3 or 4
Actual Scores**
(eLumen data)
40%
100%
 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?
15
PART II: COURSE- LEVEL OUTCOME REFLECTIONS
G. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 1:
7. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course
level outcome?
Scores for the 13-14 year were much lower than the target, and much lower than past
years.
8. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and
your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
The sections had low enrollment, so the sample size is insufficient to provide the basis for
reflection. Also, the low enrollment makes it more difficult for students to relate with their
cohort, which can cause the student to lose interest in the course.
H. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 2:
7. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course
level outcome?
Scores for the 13-14 year were much higher than the target.
8. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and
your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
The sections had low enrollment, so the sample size is insufficient to provide the basis for
reflection. Also, the low enrollment makes it more difficult for students to relate with their
cohort, which can cause the student to lose interest in the course.
16
PART III: COURSE REFLECTIONS AND FUTURE PLANS
10. What changes were made to your course based on the previous assessment cycle, the prior
Closing the Loop reflections and other faculty discussions?
No significant changes were made based on previous assessment cycle, since results were in
line with the targets.
11. 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?
ESYS 54 scheduling will be reduced to being offered only once a year, with the goal of
increasing class size to a meaningful cohort.
12. 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:___Scheduling_________________________________________________
17
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
ESYS 55A
Fall ’13, Spring ‘14
2
2
100%
Fall ‘14
W. Phillips, D. Casini
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:
The student will interpret manufacturers'' data sheets
and reference documentation and apply principles of
digital and microcontroller systems to describe the
operation of a given microcontroller system.
(CLO) 2:
The student will use standard test equipment, system
documentation, and software program listings to
measure and verify timing, inputs, and outputs of a
given basic microcontroller system.
Defined Target
Scores*
(CLO Goal)
80% of students
completing
course (not
scoring NS or 0)
at level 3 or 4
80% of students
completing
course (not
scoring NS or 0)
at level 3 or 4
Actual Scores**
(eLumen data)
93%
93%
 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?
18
PART II: COURSE- LEVEL OUTCOME REFLECTIONS
I. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 1:
9. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course
level outcome?
Scores for the 13-14 year were above target.
10. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and
your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
The curriculum focuses on a “learn while doing” approach, which engages students.
J. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 2:
9. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course
level outcome?
Scores for the 13-14 year were above target.
10. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and
your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
The curriculum focuses on a “learn while doing” approach, which engages students.
19
PART III: COURSE REFLECTIONS AND FUTURE PLANS
13. What changes were made to your course based on the previous assessment cycle, the prior
Closing the Loop reflections and other faculty discussions?
No significant changes were made based on previous assessment cycle, since results were in
line with the targets.
14. 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?
Continue to focus on a hands-on, learn-while-doing approach.
15. 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:_________________________________________________________________
20
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
ESYS 55B
Fall ’13, Spring ‘14
2
2
100%
Fall ‘14
W. Phillips, D. Casini
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:
The student will identify basic digital logic elements
and analyze the operation of digital logic circuits in
simulations and FPGA implementations
(CLO) 2:
The student will use standard test equipment, system
documentation, logic diagrams, and VHDL listings to
measure and verify timing, inputs, and outputs of a
given basic logic circuit implemented in an FPGA.
Defined Target
Scores*
(CLO Goal)
80% of students
completing
course (not
scoring NS or 0)
at level 3 or 4
80% of students
completing
course (not
scoring NS or 0)
at level 3 or 4
Actual Scores**
(eLumen data)
90%
100%
 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?
21
PART II: COURSE- LEVEL OUTCOME REFLECTIONS
K. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 1:
11. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course
level outcome?
Scores for the 13-14 year were above target.
12. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and
your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
The curriculum focuses on a “learn while doing” approach, which engages students.
L. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 2:
11. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course
level outcome?
Scores for the 13-14 year were far above target.
12. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and
your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
The curriculum focuses on a “learn while doing” approach, which engages students.
22
PART III: COURSE REFLECTIONS AND FUTURE PLANS
16. What changes were made to your course based on the previous assessment cycle, the prior
Closing the Loop reflections and other faculty discussions?
No significant changes were made based on previous assessment cycle, since results were in
line with the targets.
17. 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?
Continue to focus on a hands-on, learn-while-doing approach.
18. 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:_________________________________________________________________
23
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
ESYS 56A
Fall ’13, Summer ‘14
2
2
100%
Fall ‘14
W. Phillips, D. Casini
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
Defined Target
Actual Scores**
Scores*
(eLumen data)
(CLO Goal)
80% of students 67%
(CLO) 1:
completing
The student will describe the major components,
course (not
operating parameters, benefits, and challenges of
alternative energy systems.
scoring NS or 0)
at level 3 or 4
80% of students 100%
(CLO) 2:
completing
The student will measure and calculate output power
course (not
and efficiency of a power supply system.
scoring NS or 0)
at level 3 or 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?
CONSIDER THE COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOMES INDIVIDUALLY (THE
NUMBER OF CLOS WILL DIFFER BY COURSE)
24
PART II: COURSE- LEVEL OUTCOME REFLECTIONS
M. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 1:
13. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course
level outcome?
Scores for the 13-14 year were below target.
14. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and
your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
The sections had low enrollment, so the sample size is insufficient to provide the basis for
reflection. Also, the low enrollment makes it more difficult for students to relate with their
cohort, which can cause the student to lose interest in the course.
N. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 2:
13. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course
level outcome?
Scores for the 13-14 year were above target.
14. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and
your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
The sections had low enrollment, so the sample size is insufficient to provide the basis for
reflection. Also, the low enrollment makes it more difficult for students to relate with their
cohort, which can cause the student to lose interest in the course.
25
PART III: COURSE REFLECTIONS AND FUTURE PLANS
19. What changes were made to your course based on the previous assessment cycle, the prior
Closing the Loop reflections and other faculty discussions?
No significant changes were made based on previous assessment cycle, since results were in
line with the targets.
20. 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?
ESYS 56A scheduling will be reduced to being offered only once a year, with the goal of
increasing class size to a meaningful cohort.
21. 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:___Scheduling__________________________________________________
26
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
ESYS 56B
Fall ’13
1
1
100%
Fall ‘14
W. Phillips, D. Casini
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
Defined Target
Actual Scores**
Scores*
(eLumen data)
(CLO Goal)
80% of students 71%
(CLO) 1:
completing
The student will identify, compare, and contrast the
configuration and operation of buck, boost, and buck- course (not
boost switch-mode power supplies
scoring NS or 0)
at level 3 or 4
80% of students 83%
(CLO) 2:
completing
The student will measure, identify characteristic
course (not
waveforms, and troubleshoot a switch-mode power
supply.
scoring NS or 0)
at level 3 or 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?
CONSIDER THE COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOMES INDIVIDUALLY (THE
NUMBER OF CLOS WILL DIFFER BY COURSE)
27
PART II: COURSE- LEVEL OUTCOME REFLECTIONS
O. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 1:
15. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course
level outcome?
Scores for the 13-14 year were below target.
16. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and
your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
The sections had low enrollment, so the sample size is insufficient to provide the basis for
reflection. Also, the low enrollment makes it more difficult for students to relate with their
cohort, which can cause the student to lose interest in the course.
P. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 2:
15. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course
level outcome?
Scores for the 13-14 year were on target.
16. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and
your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
The sections had low enrollment, so the sample size is insufficient to provide the basis for
reflection. Also, the low enrollment makes it more difficult for students to relate with their
cohort, which can cause the student to lose interest in the course.
28
PART III: COURSE REFLECTIONS AND FUTURE PLANS
22. What changes were made to your course based on the previous assessment cycle, the prior
Closing the Loop reflections and other faculty discussions?
No significant changes were made based on previous assessment cycle, since results were in
line with the targets.
23. 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?
By only offering the prerequisite course, ESYS 56A, once a year, we hope to increase class
size and create a more supportive cohort.
24. 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:___ Scheduling __________________________________________________
29
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
ESYS 57A
Fall ’13
1
1
100%
Fall ‘14
W. Phillips, D. Casini
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
Defined Target
Actual Scores**
Scores*
(eLumen data)
(CLO Goal)
80% of students 100%
(CLO) 1:
The student will describe the functions and operations completing
course (not
of a process control system at the block level.
scoring NS or 0)
at level 3 or 4
80% of students 100%
(CLO) 2:
completing
The student will implement and troubleshoot a basic
course (not
functional control system using ladder-logic
programming.
scoring NS or 0)
at level 3 or 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?
CONSIDER THE COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOMES INDIVIDUALLY (THE
NUMBER OF CLOS WILL DIFFER BY COURSE)
30
PART II: COURSE- LEVEL OUTCOME REFLECTIONS
Q. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 1:
17. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course
level outcome?
Scores for the 13-14 year were above target.
18. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and
your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
Scores for the 13-14 year were above target. Most students in the cohort are working in
the industry and are highly motivated to learn the course skills.
R. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 2:
17. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course
level outcome?
Scores for the 13-14 year were above target.
18. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and
your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
Scores for the 13-14 year were above target. Most students in the cohort are working in
the industry and are highly motivated to learn the course skills.
31
PART III: COURSE REFLECTIONS AND FUTURE PLANS
25. What changes were made to your course based on the previous assessment cycle, the prior
Closing the Loop reflections and other faculty discussions?
No significant changes were made based on previous assessment cycle, since results were in
line with the targets.
26. 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?
No changes planned, as efforts can be better applied to other courses.
27. 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:_________________________________________________________________
32
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
ESYS 57B
Fall ’13
1
1
100%
Fall ‘14
W. Phillips, D. Casini
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
Defined Target
Actual Scores**
Scores*
(eLumen data)
(CLO Goal)
80% of students 100%
(CLO) 1:
completing
The student will measure inputs and outputs, identify
logic states during operation, and troubleshoot a PLC- course (not
controlled system.
scoring NS or 0)
at level 3 or 4
80% of students 100%
(CLO) 2:
completing
The student will measure, evaluate, and optimize the
course (not
open- and closed-loop response of a PID control
system
scoring NS or 0)
at level 3 or 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?
CONSIDER THE COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOMES INDIVIDUALLY (THE
NUMBER OF CLOS WILL DIFFER BY COURSE)
33
PART II: COURSE- LEVEL OUTCOME REFLECTIONS
S. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 1:
19. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course
level outcome?
Scores for the 13-14 year were above target.
20. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and
your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
Scores for the 13-14 year were above target. Most students in the cohort are working in
the industry and are highly motivated to learn the course skills.
T. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 2:
19. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course
level outcome?
Scores for the 13-14 year were above target.
20. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and
your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
Scores for the 13-14 year were above target. Most students in the cohort are working in
the industry and are highly motivated to learn the course skills.
34
PART III: COURSE REFLECTIONS AND FUTURE PLANS
28. What changes were made to your course based on the previous assessment cycle, the prior
Closing the Loop reflections and other faculty discussions?
No significant changes were made based on previous assessment cycle, since results were in
line with the targets.
29. 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?
No changes planned, as efforts can be better applied to other courses.
30. 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:_________________________________________________________________
35
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
ESYS 58
Fall ’13, Spring ’14, Summer ‘14
3
3
100%
Fall ‘14
W. Phillips, D. Casini
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
Defined Target
Actual Scores**
Scores*
(eLumen data)
(CLO Goal)
80% of students 63%
(CLO) 1:
completing
Describe modulation techniques used in electronic
course (not
communication.
scoring NS or 0)
at level 3 or 4
80% of students 81%
(CLO) 2:
completing
Use standard test equipment to troubleshoot and
course (not
apply software tools in the analysis and design of
communication circuits.
scoring NS or 0)
at level 3 or 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?
CONSIDER THE COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOMES INDIVIDUALLY (THE
NUMBER OF CLOS WILL DIFFER BY COURSE)
36
PART II: COURSE- LEVEL OUTCOME REFLECTIONS
U. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 1:
21. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course
level outcome?
Scores for the 13-14 year were below target.
22. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and
your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
The sections had low enrollment, so the sample size is insufficient to provide the basis for
reflection. Also, the low enrollment makes it more difficult for students to relate with their
cohort, which can cause the student to lose interest in the course.
V. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 2:
21. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course
level outcome?
Scores for the 13-14 year were on target.
22. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and
your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
The sections had low enrollment, so the sample size is insufficient to provide the basis for
reflection. Also, the low enrollment makes it more difficult for students to relate with their
cohort, which can cause the student to lose interest in the course.
37
PART III: COURSE REFLECTIONS AND FUTURE PLANS
31. What changes were made to your course based on the previous assessment cycle, the prior
Closing the Loop reflections and other faculty discussions?
No significant changes were made based on previous assessment cycle, since results were in
line with the targets.
32. 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?
ESYS 58 scheduling will be reduced to being offered only once a year, with the goal of
increasing class size to a meaningful cohort.
33. 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:__ Scheduling ____________________________________________________
38
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
ESYS 60
Spring ’14, Summer ‘14
2
2
100%
Fall ‘14
W. Phillips, D. Casini
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
Defined Target
Actual Scores**
Scores*
(eLumen data)
(CLO Goal)
80% of students No data
(CLO) 1:
completing
The student will analyze MOSFET and BJT class-A
course (not
amplifier circuits to determine DC biasing, AC
voltages, and amplifier gain.
scoring NS or 0)
at level 3 or 4
80% of students No data
(CLO) 2:
completing
The student will analyze RC, RL and RCL circuits to
course (not
determine impedances, voltages, currents, and
frequency response.
scoring NS or 0)
at level 3 or 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?
CONSIDER THE COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOMES INDIVIDUALLY (THE
NUMBER OF CLOS WILL DIFFER BY COURSE)
39
PART II: COURSE- LEVEL OUTCOME REFLECTIONS
W. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 1:
23. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course
level outcome?
Sample sizes were small, and students did not complete the online assessment for this
SLO.
24. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and
your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
The low enrollment is due to the math prerequisite for this course. This course is required
for the AS degree, but not the Certificates of Achievement.
X. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 2:
23. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course
level outcome?
Sample sizes were small, and students did not complete the online assessment for this
SLO.
24. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and
your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
The low enrollment is due to the math prerequisite for this course. This course is required
for the AS degree, but not the Certificates of Achievement.
40
PART III: COURSE REFLECTIONS AND FUTURE PLANS
34. What changes were made to your course based on the previous assessment cycle, the prior
Closing the Loop reflections and other faculty discussions?
No significant changes were made based on previous assessment cycle, since results were in
line with the targets.
35. 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?
As we anticipate that this course will continue to be low enrollment, we will offer the course
only once a year, and we will put greater attention on ensuring that the online activities and
assessments are completed.
36. 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:_________________________________________________________________
41
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
ESYS 61
Spring ‘14
1
1
100%
Fall ‘14
W. Phillips, D. Casini
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
Defined Target
Actual Scores**
Scores*
(eLumen data)
(CLO Goal)
80% of students 100%
(CLO) 1:
completing
The student will appreciate the effectiveness of
course (not
working in a team.
scoring NS or 0)
at level 3 or 4
80% of students 100%
(CLO) 2:
The student will plan, construct, document, track, and completing
course (not
report a prototype electronics project in a team
environment.
scoring NS or 0)
at level 3 or 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?
CONSIDER THE COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOMES INDIVIDUALLY (THE
NUMBER OF CLOS WILL DIFFER BY COURSE)
42
PART II: COURSE- LEVEL OUTCOME REFLECTIONS
Y. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 1:
25. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course
level outcome?
Scores for the 13-14 year were above target.
26. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and
your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
This is a capstone course, and students are highly motivated to complete the course to
finish work on their degree.
Z. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 2:
25. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course
level outcome?
Scores for the 13-14 year were above target.
26. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and
your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
This is a capstone course, and students are highly motivated to complete the course to
finish work on their degree.
43
PART III: COURSE REFLECTIONS AND FUTURE PLANS
37. What changes were made to your course based on the previous assessment cycle, the prior
Closing the Loop reflections and other faculty discussions?
No significant changes were made based on previous assessment cycle, since results were in
line with the targets.
38. 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?
No changes planned, as efforts can be better applied to other courses.
39. 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:_________________________________________________________________
44
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
ESYS 62
Fall ’13, Spring ‘14
2
2
100%
Fall ‘14
W. Phillips, D. Casini
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
Defined Target
Actual Scores**
Scores*
(eLumen data)
(CLO Goal)
80% of students 91%
(CLO) 1:
completing
The student will install, configure, troubleshoot, and
course (not
operate a home theatre system and a home security
and surveillance system.
scoring NS or 0)
at level 3 or 4
80% of students 85%
(CLO) 2:
completing
The student will produce a configuration and
course (not
operation manual for a home theater system and a
home security and surveillance system.
scoring NS or 0)
at level 3 or 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?
CONSIDER THE COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOMES INDIVIDUALLY (THE
NUMBER OF CLOS WILL DIFFER BY COURSE)
45
PART II: COURSE- LEVEL OUTCOME REFLECTIONS
AA.
COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 1:
27. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course
level outcome?
Scores for the 13-14 year were on target.
28. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and
your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
This is a course heavily weighted with hands-on content, which boosts student
engagement.
BB.
COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 2:
27. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course
level outcome?
Scores for the 13-14 year were on target.
28. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and
your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
This is a course heavily weighted with hands-on content, which boosts student
engagement.
46
PART III: COURSE REFLECTIONS AND FUTURE PLANS
40. What changes were made to your course based on the previous assessment cycle, the prior
Closing the Loop reflections and other faculty discussions?
No significant changes were made based on previous assessment cycle, since results were in
line with the targets.
41. 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?
No changes planned, as efforts can be better applied to other courses.
42. 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:_________________________________________________________________
47
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
ESYS 63A / CNT 83A (cross-list)
Fall ’13, Spring ‘14
2
2
100%
Fall ‘14
W. Phillips, D. Casini
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:
The student will identify the fundamental principles,
components, and procedures for servicing and
maintaining Personal Computer Systems, as identified
by the Comp-TIA A+ certification competencies
(CLO) 2:
The student will install, perform fundamental
configuration tasks, and demonstrate basic
troubleshooting on the hardware and software of a
Personal Computer System
Defined Target
Scores*
(CLO Goal)
80% of students
completing
course (not
scoring NS or 0)
at level 3 or 4
80% of students
completing
course (not
scoring NS or 0)
at level 3 or 4
Actual Scores**
(eLumen data)
94%
94%
 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?
48
PART II: COURSE- LEVEL OUTCOME REFLECTIONS
CC.
COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 1:
29. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course
level outcome?
Scores for the 13-14 year were on target.
30. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and
your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
This is a course heavily weighted with hands-on content, which boosts student
engagement.
DD.
COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 2:
29. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course
level outcome?
Scores for the 13-14 year were on target.
30. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and
your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
This is a course heavily weighted with hands-on content, which boosts student
engagement.
49
PART III: COURSE REFLECTIONS AND FUTURE PLANS
43. What changes were made to your course based on the previous assessment cycle, the prior
Closing the Loop reflections and other faculty discussions?
No significant changes were made based on previous assessment cycle, since results were in
line with the targets.
44. 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?
No changes planned, as efforts can be better applied to other courses.
45. 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:_________________________________________________________________
50
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
ESYS 63B / CNT 83B (cross-list)
Fall ’13, Spring ‘14
2
2
100%
Fall ‘14
W. Phillips, D. Casini
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:
The student will identify the advanced principles,
components, and procedures for servicing and
maintaining Personal Computer Systems, as identified
by the Comp-TIA A+ certification competencies
(CLO) 2:
The student will update, perform advanced
configuration tasks, and demonstrate advanced
troubleshooting on the hardware and software of a
Personal Computer System
Defined Target
Scores*
(CLO Goal)
80% of students
completing
course (not
scoring NS or 0)
at level 3 or 4
80% of students
completing
course (not
scoring NS or 0)
at level 3 or 4
Actual Scores**
(eLumen data)
100%
100%
 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?
51
PART II: COURSE- LEVEL OUTCOME REFLECTIONS
EE. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 1:
31. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course
level outcome?
Scores for the 13-14 year were above target.
32. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and
your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
This is a course heavily weighted with hands-on content, which boosts student
engagement.
FF. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 2:
31. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course
level outcome?
Scores for the 13-14 year were above target.
32. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and
your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
This is a course heavily weighted with hands-on content, which boosts student
engagement.
52
PART III: COURSE REFLECTIONS AND FUTURE PLANS
46. What changes were made to your course based on the previous assessment cycle, the prior
Closing the Loop reflections and other faculty discussions?
No significant changes were made based on previous assessment cycle, since results were in
line with the targets.
47. 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?
No changes planned, as efforts can be better applied to other courses.
48. 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:_________________________________________________________________
53
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
ESYS 72A / CNT82A (cross-list)
Fall ’13, Spring ‘14
4
4
100%
Fall ‘14
W. Phillips, D. Casini
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
Defined Target
Actual Scores**
Scores*
(eLumen data)
(CLO Goal)
80% of students 79%
(CLO) 1:
The student shall configure, test, and troubleshoot a small completing
course (not
business network.
scoring NS or 0)
at level 3 or 4
80% of students 67%
(CLO) 2:
The student shall solve basic networking problems related completing
course (not
to home and small business.
scoring NS or 0)
at level 3 or 4
80% of students 92%
(CLO) 3:
The student will report on the weekly lab activities and the completing
course (not
related challenges and/or discoveries.
scoring NS or 0)
at level 3 or 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?
CONSIDER THE COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOMES INDIVIDUALLY (THE
NUMBER OF CLOS WILL DIFFER BY COURSE)
54
PART II: COURSE- LEVEL OUTCOME REFLECTIONS
GG.
COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 1:
33. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course
level outcome?
Scores for the 13-14 year were on target.
34. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and
your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
This course curriculum has been discontinued by Cisco, and we will be evaluating the new
curriculum in CNT 62AB, starting Fall ’14.
HH.
COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 2:
33. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course
level outcome?
Scores for the 13-14 year were below target.
34. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and
your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
This course curriculum has been discontinued by Cisco, and we will be evaluating the new
curriculum in CNT 62AB, starting Fall ’14. The assessment for this CLO is provided by Cisco,
and is intended to be a rigorous evaluation of the student’s knowledge, in preparation for
the CCNA certification exam.
55
II. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 3:
35. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course
level outcome?
Scores for the 13-14 year were above target.
36. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and
your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
This course curriculum has been discontinued by Cisco, and we will be evaluating the new
curriculum in CNT 62AB, starting Fall ’14.
56
PART III: COURSE REFLECTIONS AND FUTURE PLANS
49. What changes were made to your course based on the previous assessment cycle, the prior
Closing the Loop reflections and other faculty discussions?
No significant changes were made based on previous assessment cycle, since results were in
line with the targets.
50. Based on the current assessment and reflections, what course-level and programmatic
strengths have the assessment reflections revealed? What actions has your discipline
determined might be taken as a result of your reflections, discussions, and insights?
This course curriculum has been discontinued by Cisco, and we will be evaluating the new
curriculum in CNT 62AB, starting Fall ’14.
51. 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:_________________________________________________________________
57
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
ESYS 72B / CNT82B (cross-list)
Fall ’13, Spring ’14, Summer ‘14
5
5
100%
Fall ‘14
W. Phillips, D. Casini
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
Defined Target
Actual Scores**
Scores*
(eLumen data)
(CLO Goal)
80% of students 81%
(CLO) 1:
completing
The student shall configure, test, and troubleshoot a
course (not
business network with Cisco hardware and IOS.
scoring NS or 0)
at level 3 or 4
80% of students 63%
(CLO) 2:
completing
The student shall solve networking problems involving
course (not
basic routing and switching.
scoring NS or 0)
at level 3 or 4
80% of students 93%
(CLO) 3:
The student will report on the weekly lab activities and the completing
course (not
related challenges and/or discoveries.
scoring NS or 0)
at level 3 or 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?
CONSIDER THE COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOMES INDIVIDUALLY (THE
NUMBER OF CLOS WILL DIFFER BY COURSE)
58
PART II: COURSE- LEVEL OUTCOME REFLECTIONS
JJ. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 1:
35. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course
level outcome?
Scores for the 13-14 year were on target.
36. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and
your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
This course curriculum has been discontinued by Cisco, and we will be evaluating the new
curriculum in CNT 62AB, starting Fall ’14.
KK.
COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 2:
37. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course
level outcome?
Scores for the 13-14 year were below target.
38. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and
your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
This course curriculum has been discontinued by Cisco, and we will be evaluating the new
curriculum in CNT 62AB, starting Fall ’14. The assessment for this CLO is provided by Cisco,
and is intended to be a rigorous evaluation of the student’s knowledge, in preparation for
the CCNA certification exam.
59
LL. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 3:
39. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course
level outcome?
Scores for the 13-14 year were above target.
40. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and
your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
This course curriculum has been discontinued by Cisco, and we will be evaluating the new
curriculum in CNT 62AB, starting Fall ’14.
60
PART III: COURSE REFLECTIONS AND FUTURE PLANS
52. What changes were made to your course based on the previous assessment cycle, the prior
Closing the Loop reflections and other faculty discussions?
No significant changes were made based on previous assessment cycle, since results were in
line with the targets.
53. Based on the current assessment and reflections, what course-level and programmatic
strengths have the assessment reflections revealed? What actions has your discipline
determined might be taken as a result of your reflections, discussions, and insights?
This course curriculum has been discontinued by Cisco, and we will be evaluating the new
curriculum in CNT 62AB, starting Fall ’14.
54. 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:_________________________________________________________________
61
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
ESYS 72C / CNT82C (cross-list)
Fall ’13, Spring ’14, Summer ‘14
5
5
100%
Fall ‘14
W. Phillips, D. Casini
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
Defined Target
Actual Scores**
Scores*
(eLumen data)
(CLO Goal)
80% of students 78%
(CLO) 1:
completing
The student shall configure, test, and troubleshoot a
course (not
network with advanced routing and switching.
scoring NS or 0)
at level 3 or 4
80% of students 67%
(CLO) 2:
The student shall solve basic networking problems related completing
course (not
to advanced routing and switching.
scoring NS or 0)
at level 3 or 4
80% of students 100%
(CLO) 3:
The student will report on the weekly lab activities and the completing
course (not
related challenges and/or discoveries.
scoring NS or 0)
at level 3 or 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?
CONSIDER THE COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOMES INDIVIDUALLY (THE
NUMBER OF CLOS WILL DIFFER BY COURSE)
62
PART II: COURSE- LEVEL OUTCOME REFLECTIONS
MM.
COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 1:
37. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course
level outcome?
Scores for the 13-14 year were on target.
38. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and
your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
This course curriculum has been discontinued by Cisco, and we will be evaluating the new
curriculum in CNT 62AB, starting Fall ’14.
NN.
COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 2:
41. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course
level outcome?
Scores for the 13-14 year were below target.
42. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and
your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
This course curriculum has been discontinued by Cisco, and we will be evaluating the new
curriculum in CNT 62AB, starting Fall ’14. The assessment for this CLO is provided by Cisco,
and is intended to be a rigorous evaluation of the student’s knowledge, in preparation for
the CCNA certification exam.
63
OO.
COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 3:
43. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course
level outcome?
Scores for the 13-14 year were above target.
44. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and
your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
This course curriculum has been discontinued by Cisco, and we will be evaluating the new
curriculum in CNT 62AB, starting Fall ’14.
64
PART III: COURSE REFLECTIONS AND FUTURE PLANS
55. What changes were made to your course based on the previous assessment cycle, the prior
Closing the Loop reflections and other faculty discussions?
No significant changes were made based on previous assessment cycle, since results were in
line with the targets.
56. Based on the current assessment and reflections, what course-level and programmatic
strengths have the assessment reflections revealed? What actions has your discipline
determined might be taken as a result of your reflections, discussions, and insights?
This course curriculum has been discontinued by Cisco, and we will be evaluating the new
curriculum in CNT 62AB, starting Fall ’14.
57. 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:_________________________________________________________________
65
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
ESYS 72D / CNT82D (cross-list)
Fall ’13, Spring ’14, Summer ‘14
5
5
100%
Fall ‘14
W. Phillips, D. Casini
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
Defined Target
Actual Scores**
Scores*
(eLumen data)
(CLO Goal)
80% of students 85%
(CLO) 1:
completing
The student shall configure, test, and troubleshoot a
course (not
network with WAN and LAN segments.
scoring NS or 0)
at level 3 or 4
80% of students 69%
(CLO) 2:
completing
The student shall solve advanced networking problems
course (not
related to LAN and WAN design and configuration.
scoring NS or 0)
at level 3 or 4
80% of students 100%
(CLO) 3:
The student will report on the weekly lab activities and the completing
course (not
related challenges and/or discoveries.
scoring NS or 0)
at level 3 or 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?
CONSIDER THE COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOMES INDIVIDUALLY (THE
NUMBER OF CLOS WILL DIFFER BY COURSE)
66
PART II: COURSE- LEVEL OUTCOME REFLECTIONS
PP.
COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 1:
39. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course
level outcome?
Scores for the 13-14 year were on target.
40. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and
your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
This course curriculum has been discontinued by Cisco, and we will be evaluating the new
curriculum in CNT 62AB, starting Fall ’14.
QQ.
COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 2:
45. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course
level outcome?
Scores for the 13-14 year were below target.
46. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and
your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
This course curriculum has been discontinued by Cisco, and we will be evaluating the new
curriculum in CNT 62AB, starting Fall ’14. The assessment for this CLO is provided by Cisco,
and is intended to be a rigorous evaluation of the student’s knowledge, in preparation for
the CCNA certification exam.
67
RR.
COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 2:
47. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course
level outcome?
Scores for the 13-14 year were above target.
48. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and
your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
This course curriculum has been discontinued by Cisco, and we will be evaluating the new
curriculum in CNT 62AB, starting Fall ’14.
68
PART III: COURSE REFLECTIONS AND FUTURE PLANS
58. What changes were made to your course based on the previous assessment cycle, the prior
Closing the Loop reflections and other faculty discussions?
No significant changes were made based on previous assessment cycle, since results were in
line with the targets.
59. Based on the current assessment and reflections, what course-level and programmatic
strengths have the assessment reflections revealed? What actions has your discipline
determined might be taken as a result of your reflections, discussions, and insights?
This course curriculum has been discontinued by Cisco, and we will be evaluating the new
curriculum in CNT 62AB, starting Fall ’14. The assessment for this CLO is provided by Cisco,
and is intended to be a rigorous evaluation of the student’s knowledge, in preparation for
the CCNA certification exam.
60. 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:_________________________________________________________________
69
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: Electronic Systems Technology / AS Degree
•
PLO #1:
The program graduate will be able to specify, install, program, operate, troubleshoot, and modify
electronics systems.
•
PLO #2:
The program graduate will have effective oral and written communication skills.
What questions or investigations arose as a result of these reflections or discussions?
How do we motivate our students to address the communication and basic math skills with
the same vigor that they have for the hands-on electronic skills?
What program-level strengths have the assessment reflections revealed?
ESYS students excel at learning hands-on skills required in the electronics industry.
What actions has your discipline determined might be taken to enhance the learning of
students completing your program?
Incorporate more contextualized math and communication skills in the introductory courses.
Program: Electronic Systems Technology / Certificate of Achievement in Consumer Electronics
Technology
•
PLO #1:
The program graduate will be able to specify, install, program, operate, troubleshoot, and modify
consumer electronics systems.
•
PLO #2:
The program graduate will have effective oral and written communication skills.
What questions or investigations arose as a result of these reflections or discussions?
How do we motivate our students to address the communication and basic math skills with
the same vigor that they have for the hands-on electronic skills?
70
What program-level strengths have the assessment reflections revealed?
ESYS students excel at learning hands-on skills required in the electronics industry.
What actions has your discipline determined might be taken to enhance the learning of
students completing your program?
Incorporate more contextualized math and communication skills in the introductory courses.
Program: Electronic Systems Technology / Certificate of Achievement in Consumer Electronics
Technology
•
PLO #1:
The program graduate will be able to specify, install, program, operate, troubleshoot, and modify
electronics systems.
•
PLO #2:
The program graduate will have effective oral and written communication skills.
What questions or investigations arose as a result of these reflections or discussions?
How do we motivate our students to address the communication and basic math skills with
the same vigor that they have for the hands-on electronic skills?
What program-level strengths have the assessment reflections revealed?
ESYS students excel at learning hands-on skills required in the electronics industry.
What actions has your discipline determined might be taken to enhance the learning of
students completing your program?
Incorporate more contextualized math and communication skills in the introductory courses.
71
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)ESYS 72ABCD and CNT ABCD are at endof-life this semester and will be deactivated in the next curriculum cycle.
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 semester. The new CNT courses require CLOs, and they will be
completed by Dec. 19, 2014.
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.PLOs for the CNT
certificate program require PLOs, and will be completed by Dec. 19, 2014.
7. If you have course sequences, is success in the first course a good predictor of success in the
subsequent course(s)?Success in subsequent courses is typically above 80%, but the trend has
been downward over the last two years, possibly reflecting a greater percentage of younger
students. This is likely related to the improving economy, as older working adults find
employment instead of taking our courses.
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.Insufficient data to draw
conclusions. Working adult students typically are on the Certificate path, and will not take
Math or English courses, so we cannot evaluate the effect of taking these courses.
72
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?
Note: This is an update of the initiative submitted last year. Changes are shown in bold italics.
This initiative will provide additional pathways for students seeking careers in the computer networking field. We enhance student learning by
leveraging the expertise of senior faculty at Chabot and Las Positas.
What is your specific goal and measurable outcome?
Offer courses for certificates of proficiency in ICT Cloud Infrastructure and ICT Cloud Services at Chabot and Las Positas by cooperatively
providing online courses and on-campus support. We will leverage our resources by cross-listing online courses at both colleges, sharing load
between faculties at CC and LPC. This will generate WSCH for both colleges while effectively only requiring half of the FTEF at each college. The
NetLab+ online lab environment, started as a joint project last year, will provide online lab activities accessible from both colleges. The online
experience will be supported by existing on-campus CC and LPC lab facilities. A side benefit of this cooperative project will be that students at
both campuses will have greater exposure to the advanced certificate and degree offerings at CC and LPC, which may result in students pursuing
additional certificates and/or degrees.
What is your action plan to achieve your goal?
Activity (brief description)
Submit new course(s) and certificate proposal to curriculum
committees and both colleges
Schedule courses for Fall 2014 and Spring 2015
Target
Completion
Date
Fall 2013
DONE
Spring
2014
DONE
73
Required Budget (Split out
personnel, supplies, other
categories)
None
0 to 0.2 FTEF for Fa14-Sp15
and Fa15-Sp16
Deliver courses
Report on enrollments and certificates awarded
Fall 2014
and Spring
2015
Fall 2016
Five new or revised courses
running this Fall, and five
scheduled for Spring ‘15
How will you manage the personnel needs?
New Hires:
Faculty # of positions
Classified staff # of positions
Reassigning existing employee(s) to the project; employee(s) current workload will be:
Covered by overload or part-time employee(s)
Covered by hiring temporary replacement(s)
Other, explain
At the end of the project period, the proposed project will:
Be completed (onetime only effort)
Require additional funding to continue and/or institutionalize the project
allocation for FTEF
(obtained by/from):CEMC
Will the proposed project require facility modifications, additional space, or program relocation?
No
Yes, explain:
Will the proposed project involve subcontractors, collaborative partners, or cooperative agreements?
No
Yes, explain: This project requires collaboration, coordination, and continued cooperation with LPC Computer Networking
Technology department.
Do you know of any grant funding sources that would meet the needs of the proposed project?
No
Yes, list potential funding sources:
74
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: Two Part-time
PLEASE LIST IN RANK
ORDER
STAFFING REQUESTS (1000) FACULTY
Position
Part-time ESYS
Instructor
Description
Faculty (1000)
Program/Unit
Division/Area
Up to 0.5 FTEF
Electronic Systems
Technology
Applied Tech & Business
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.
Additional part-time instructorsare required to cover sections for sabbatical leave in ‘15-’16 and to support additional course sections for
proposed BART technician training grant. No additional FTEF allocation is needed (if awarded, grant will cover costs of additional sections).
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.
75
BART is proposing to fund a cohort of 25 students through a 33-unit program, starting Fall ’15. This cohort will come from non-technical BART
employees and from Oakland Workforce Development, and will feed directly into technician positions at BART, a direct pathway to employment.
76
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___
STAFFING REQUESTS (2000) CLASSIFIED PROFESSIONALS
Position
ESYS Lab Technician, halftime or full-time (pending
BART grant funding)
Classified Professional Staff (2000)
Description
Program/Unit
ESYS Lab Technician
Electronic Systems
Technology
STAFFING REQUESTS (2000) STUDENT ASSISTANTS
Postion
ESYS student lab assistant
Student Assistants (2000)
Description
Program/Unit
12-20 hrs/wk lab support for
Electronic Systems
evening classes
Technology
77
PLEASE LIST IN RANK
ORDER
Division/Area
App Tech & Business
PLEASE LIST IN RANK
ORDER
Division/Area
App Tech & Business
ESYS lab student assistant
12-20 hrs/wk lab support for
evening classes
Electronic Systems
Technology
App Tech & Business
2. Rationale for your proposal.
The set-up, maintenance, and organization of the lab equipment and supplies places a large burden on faculty, and reduces the time the
instructor has to interact directly with the students during their lab activities. The student lab assistant maintains an organized lab, which results
in a safer and more productive environment for students and faculty. As the utilization of the Netlab+ remote-access system increases, so does
the administrator workload. A permanent lab assistant could be trained to perform these administrator tasks.
If the proposed BART training grant is funded, we will need lab support in the afternoon, in addition to the current evening support. Although it
may be possible to find two qualified student lab assistants to fill this need, a permanent employee would add stability and continuity to the
program, and the grant will provide partial funding for the lab assistant.
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.
Hands-on skills training is a central element of the ESYS program, and the ESYS industry advisory committee has stressed the importance of these skills. The
additional support of a lab assistant provides a better organized, more efficient environment and directly results in improved student learning and enhanced
safety.
78
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.
No additional FTEF requested. Additional sections for proposed BART training funded through grant.
COURSE
CURRENT
FTEF
(2014-15)
ADDITIONAL
FTEF
NEEDED
CURRENT
SECTIONS
79
ADDITIONAL
SECTIONS
NEEDED
CURRENT
STUDENT #
SERVED
ADDITIONAL
STUDENT #
SERVED
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: 0
2. If you are requesting more than one position, please rank order the positions.
Position
Description
1.
2.
3.
4.
3. Rationale for your proposal based on your program review conclusions. Include anticipated impact on student learning outcomes and
alignment with the strategic plan goal. Indicate if this request is for the same, more, or fewer academic learning support positions.
80
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.
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.
needed totals in all
areas
Description
DreamSpark software
subscription
NetLab+ support renewal
Printer Paper 4 cases @ $50
Toner cartridges 2 @ $225
Misc pens, markers, folders
Electronic components and tools
2014-15
2015-16
Request
Request
Requested Received Amount
500
2,395
200
450
200
2000
Vendor
500
500.00
Microsoft
2,995
2,995.00
200
200.00
Staples
450
450.00
Staples
200
200.00
Staples
2,000
2,000.00
Jameco
NDG Netlab
81
Division/Unit
Applied Tech &
Business
Applied Tech &
Business
Applied Tech &
Business
Applied Tech &
Business
Applied Tech &
Business
Applied Tech &
Business
Priority #1
X
X
X
X
X
X
Priority #2
Priority #3
Printed circuit boards, 100 @
$10
Tools and electrical supplies
Electronic components and tools
Computer components
Lab Equipment Repair and
Calibration
NI-academic software license
Automation Studio software
support
PSoC trainer boards and
components
Solder mask application tools
and supplies
Soldering stations and hand
tools
1000
500
500
1000
2000
9,500
12,500
0
1,000
1,000.00
PCBFab Express
500
500.00
MCM Electronics
500
500.00
MP Jones
722
1,000.00
2,000
2,000.00
4,587.50
3,995
3,185
0
3,185
4,000
0
0
0
0
4,500
8,000
Amazon
Continental
Resources
National
Instruments
Famic
Technologies Inc.
Cypress
Semiconductor
Amazon
Pace, Weller,
Crescent
Applied Tech &
Business
Applied Tech &
Business
Applied Tech &
Business
Applied Tech &
Business
Applied Tech &
Business
Applied Tech &
Business
Applied Tech &
Business
Applied Tech &
Business
Applied Tech &
Business
Applied Tech &
Business
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
x
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
82
Description
Amount
Vendor
Division/Unit
83
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
Amount
Vendor
Priority Priority Priority
Division/Dept
#1
#2
#3
App
Tech/CNT
Cisco Academy Conference:
Travel (air/mileage)
$ 500
Hotel
$ 700
Registration
$ 250
Rental Car
$ 250
84
X
Notes
Location TBD
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
Amount
Vendor
Division/Unit
QCJ5 Printed Circuit Board Fabrication Tool
$ 38,900
T-Tech
App Tech & Business
X
Dell PowerEdge R720 Server
$ 13,700
Dell
App Tech & Business
X
Cisco CCNA Multi-Access Pods (2)
$ 12,000
SigmaNet
App Tech & Business
85
Priority #1
Priority #2
X
Priority #3
86
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 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.
Priority #1
Brief Title of Request (Project Name): ESYS Lab Chairs and Stools
Building/Location: Bldg. 1600, rooms 1602 and 1616
Description of the facility project. Please be as specific as possible.
Replace chairs and stools in lab classrooms 1602 and 1616 with adjustable-height stools and .
28 stools and 25 chairs in 1602
24 stools and 9 chairs in 1616
What educational programs or institutional purposes does this equipment support?
This supports the Electronics Systems Technology, Computer Networking Technology, and Engineering programs.
Briefly describe how your request relates specifically to meeting the Strategic Plan Goal and to enhancing student learning?
The current chairs and stools are a mix of leftovers from other rooms. Most of the bench stools are solid metal, with a flat wooden
seat. Most of the chairs are very uncomfortable, and many have broken height adjustment, adding to an uncomfortable work
posture. Several chairs and stools are broken or have been removed for safety concerns. ESYS labs are fours hours long, ENGR labs
are three hours, which makes it difficult to sit and concentrate for that length of time. The discomfort of the students distracts them
from making the most effective use of their lab time.
87
Priority #2
Brief Title of Request (Project Name): ESYS Electric Power and Network Upgrade
Building/Location: Bldg. 1600, room 1614
Description of the facility project. Please be as specific as possible.
Add two dedicated-circuit 120 volt, 20-Amp outlets and a 1 Gbit fiber network drop to support the Netlab+ system
What educational programs or institutional purposes does this equipment support?
This supports the Electronics Systems Technology, Computer Networking Technology, and Computer Science programs at
Chabot and Las Positas.
Briefly describe how your request relates specifically to meeting the Strategic Plan Goal and to enhancing student learning?
The Netlab+ remote-access lab system presently draws approximately 1.5 kW power from a single outlet in room 1614. The network
connection it through a 100 Mbit Ethernet line to the IDF closet. In order to support the projected additional student load from
additional Chabot and LPC courses utilizing the Netlab+ system, and from the regional support consortium currently in
development, additional hardware will increase the power load and network bandwidth requirements.
Priority #3
Brief Title of Request (Project Name): ESYS Lab Space Floorplan Re-alignment
Building/Location: Bldg. 1600, rooms 1602, 1614, and 1616
Description of the facility project. Please be as specific as possible.
Remove interior walls between 1602, 1614, and 1616. Create storage space at each end, and open class space in the middle,
with 18 benches, supporting up to 3 students each, networking lab space supporting 8 networking pods, a shop area for circuit
board and sheet metal tools, and an open area that can be arranged with tables and chairs for lecture, or moved to provide
space for portable lab stations, as used in ESYS 56A, 57A & B, and 62.
88
What educational programs or institutional purposes does this equipment support?
This supports the Electronics Systems Technology, Computer Networking Technology, and Engineering programs.
Briefly describe how your request relates specifically to meeting the Strategic Plan Goal and to enhancing student learning?
The layout of the lab space in 1602 and 1616 is inefficient, outdated, and was hastily assembled to accommodate the rapid relaunch of the ESYS program in 2009. A better-organized floor plan will enhance student learning by providing an environment more
conducive for performing the lab activities.
89