Chabot College
Program Review Report
2015 -2016
Year 2 of
Program Review Cycle
ANTHROPOLOGY
Submitted on 10/27/2014
Contact: Mireille Giovanola
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
__X_ Year 2
Section A: What Progress Have We Made?
Section B: What Changes Do We Suggest?
___ Year 3
Section A: What Have We Accomplished?
Section B: What’s Next?
Required Appendices:
A: Budget History
B1: Course Learning Outcomes Assessment Schedule
B2: “Closing the Loop” Assessment Reflections
C: Program Learning Outcomes
D: A Few Questions
E: New Initiatives
F1: New Faculty Requests
F2: Classified Staffing Requests
F3: FTEF Requests
F4: Academic Learning Support Requests
F5: Supplies and Services Requests
F6: Conference/Travel Requests
F7: Technology and Other Equipment Requests
F8: Facilities
YEAR TWO
A. What Progress Have We Made?
Complete Appendices A (Budget History), B1 and B2 (CLO's), C (PLO's), and D (A few questions) prior to
writing your narrative. You should alsoreview your most recent success, equity, course sequence,
and enrollment data at http://www.chabotcollege.edu/ProgramReview/Data2013.cfm.
In year one, you established goals and action plans for program improvement. This section asks
you to reflect on the progress you have made toward those goals. This analysis will be used by
the PRBC and Budget Committee to assess progress toward achievement of our Strategic Plan
and to inform future budget decisions. It will also be used by the SLOAC and Basic Skills
committees as input to their priority-setting process. In your narrative of two or less pages,
address the following questions:
What were your year one Program Review goals?
Did you achieve those goals? Specifically describe your progress on the goals you set for
student learning, program learning, and Strategic Plan achievement.
What are you most proud of?
What challenges did you face that may have prevented achieving your goals?
Cite relevant data in your narrative (e.g., efficiency, persistence, success, FT/PT faculty
ratios, CLO/PLO assessment results, external accreditation demands, etc.).
A.1. GOALS SET IN YEAR ONE; PROGRESS MADE; CHALLENGES:
1. Inform students about the approved AA degree and the proposed AA-T degree in
Anthropology, and the approved AA degree in Environmental Studies.
The Anthropology AA-T degree was approved in June 2014 for fall 2014.
I participated in a workshoporganized by the Counseling Division to present the
Anthropology AA-T in spring 2014. The AA degree in Environmental Studies was also
presented at that time.I need to do more to publicize the Anthropology degrees. The
Environmental Studies program (primarily developed by Donald Plondke, but with my
participation) is addressing important and timely issues, and should also be highly
publicized.
2. Hire a full-time tenure-track faculty member in Anthropology.
The position still needs to be filled. We offer between 15 and 18 sections every semester,
and have served between 633 and 745 students every semester since fall 2011. There is
only 1 full-time anthropologist, so most sections are currently taught by part-time faculty.
ANTH 2, 3, 5, 7, and 12 are taught only by part-time faculty.
3. Evaluate all Anthropology instructors, and hire new ones as needed.
All current Anthropology instructors were evaluated between spring 2013 and spring 2014.
An instructor will be hired to teach Anthropology 4 (Linguistic Anthropology) in summer
2015.
1
4. Preserve and augment the breadth and number of course offerings.
In addition to our many sections of ANTH 1 we offer the following core courses:
- ANTH 1L (4 sections in fall; 3 sections in spring),
- ANTH 2 (1 section in spring), and
- ANTH 3 (3 sections in fall and 3 in fall).
We are also offering the following electives:
- ANTH 5 (1 section in spring 2014),
- ANTH 7 (1 section in spring),
- ANTH 12 (1 section in fall), and
- ANTH 13 (1 section in fall).
ANTH 4 will be offered for the first time in summer 2015 as an online course.
ANTH 8 was last taught in spring 2012. I hope we will offer it within the next three years,
possibly as an online course, within the next three years.
5. Discuss course offerings that satisfy the Life science requirements with discipline leads
from Science/Math.
Anthropology 1 and 1L are bottlenecks. Students who take ANTH 1 self select into it.
To alleviate the problem, an ANTH 1 section was added to the spring 2015 schedule.
However, I would like to see a better balance between these classes and other
Anthropology courses. The positive is that because ANTH 1 classes are overenrolled, they
support other, lower-enrolled Anthropology courses.
6. Request additional equipment for the Anthropology lab.
In our 2014-2015 Review, we joined some of our Social Sciences colleagues to request
computers for students’ use in the classroom use. Our joint request was funded.
We will request additional specimens this year. We will also request artifacts because most
of them were stolen from the lab last year.
7. Secure outdoor space to practice excavation and recovery methods.
Our request was not honored.
Anthropology 2 (Archeology) students would also use the to practice excavation
techniques, especially now that the course has become a methods course, in preparation
for the AA-T degree.Anthropology 13 (Forensic Anthropology) students need a space to
practice mapping and recovery of (fake) human remains and associated materials.
Anthropology 1L students could also use the space to do some flint knapping.
.
8. Revise course outlines:
All outlines have been updated. The outlines for Anthropology 2 and 3
Eligibility for English 1A is now strongly recommended.
9. CLOs and PLOs:
CLOs exist for all Anthropology courses. Two PLOs exist for the AA- and AA-T programs.
CLOs have been mapped to the PLOs.Courses are being assessed per the schedule
proposed in last year’s Program Review, except for ANTH 5. The course should have been
2
assessed this semester, but was unfortunately cut from the schedule, due to low
enrollment. It will be assessed in spring 2015.
10. Continued support for the Anthropology Club and Anthropology students.
Unfortunately, the Anthropology Club was disbanded, due to lack of strong student
leadership.
I am proudest of the fact that in Anthropology, we function as a team. My part-time colleagues
and I meet formally and informally to promote the discipline, to discuss SLO work, but most of
all, to talk about our students’ progress and ways to improve our teaching methods.
I am also very proud of our specimen collection. It is one of the best, if not the best, of
Community College collections in the Bay Area, and is extensively used to enhanceour students’
learning experience.
A.2. ENROLLMENT DATA
All numbers below are taken from or derived from the IR data posted on the Chabot website,
and CLASS-Web.
1. OVERALL ENROLLMENT TRENDS
Total number
of students
Number
of sections
Anth 1
sections
Others (ANTH 1L, 2, 3, 5, 7, 12, 13)
Fall 2011
745
17
9
8 (ANTH 1L and 3 = 3 sections each; ANTH
5 and 12 = 1 section each).
Spring 2012
653
16
7
9 (ANTH 1L and 3 = 3 sections each; ANTH
2, 5 ,7 = 1 section each)
Fall 2012
667
16
7
9 (ANTH 1L and 3 = 3 sections each; ANTH
5, 12, 13 = 1 section each)
Spring 2013
656
15
8
7 (ANTH 1L and 3 = 3 sections; ANTH 2 = 1
section. ANTH 5 and 7 were cancelled
Fall 2013
739
18
8
10 (ANTH 1L= 4 sections; ANTH 3 = 3
sections; ANTH 5, 12, 13 = 1 section each)
Spring 2014
670
17
8
9 (ANTH 1L and 3 = 3 sections each; ANTH
2, 1, 7 = 1 section each)
*Note: 1 section of Anth 1 is offered in PACE. This section is included here simply because the
total number of students also includes students in the PACE class.
3
1. Generally speaking, enrollment is higher in fall semesters because
a) We offer more sections in fall (15-17) compared to spring (14-16).
b) In fall, we offer classes that end up being higher enrolled. ANTH 2 (Archeology) and 7
(Intro to Globalization), which are offered in spring, tend not to fill as well as other courses.
c) ANTH 5 and 7 were cancelled in spring 2013. An Anth 1 section was added.
2. According to fall 2010-spring 2013 data, enrollment in Anthropology courses was at an alltime high in fall 2010 (756 students) when we offered 18 Anthropology courses/sections.
According to the fall 2011-Spring 2014 data, enrollment in spring 2012 was at an all-time low
(653 students in spring 2012) when we offered 16 sections, two of which were ANTH 5 and
ANTH 7. Numbers for fall 2013 and spring 2014 give us hope that we are on an upward trend.
3. Anthropology 1 and 1L satisfy the Life science requirement and have been identified as
bottleneck courses. In Anthropology, we have agreed to overenroll students in Anthropology
1 and 1L to support lower-enrolled courses and preserve breadth of curriculum. This strategy
resulted in 102% enrollment and 643 WSCH/FTEF overall, between fall 2011 and spring 2014.
2. SUCCESS AND PERSISTENCE RATES
2.1 Overall success and persistence rates in Anthropology, compared with Chabot
Total # (# sections*)
Success (vs. Chabot) Persistence (vs. Chabot)
Fall 2011
745 (17 sections)
72% (69%)
86% (83%)
Spring 2012
653 (16 sections)
63% (69%)
83% (86%)
Fall 2012
667 (16 sections)
73% (69%)
84% (84%)
Spring 2013
656 (15 sections)
64% (68%)
82% (85%)
Fall 2013
739 (18 sections)
68% (69%)
82% (84%)
Spring 2014
670 (17 sections)
70% (69%)
87% (86%)
Our success and persistence rates are generally consistent with overall Chabot rates.
2.2. Success and persistence rates by sex in Anthropology, compared with Chabot
Total #
Success (vs. Chabot)
Persistence (vs. Chabot)
Fall 2011
388 Females
76%(68%)
86% (82%)
347Males
68% (69%)
87% (84%)
Spring 2012
352Females
66% (69%)
85% (85%)
291 Males
59% (69%)
81% (86%)
Fall 2012
363 Females
74% (69%)
84% (83%)
300Males
71% (69%)
85% (85%)
Spring 2013
324Females
69% (69%)
85% (84%)
328Males
59% (68%)
78% (85%)
Fall 2013
405Females
68% (69%)
81% (84%)
331Males
67% (69%)
83% (84%)
Spring 2014
338Females
70% (69%)
87% (86%)
316Males
70% (69%)
88% (86%)
*NOTE: In several cases, number of females + number of males do not add up to total numbers.
4
A detailed comparison of success and persistence rates by sex, from fall 2009 to spring 2012,
was provided in the Program Review submitted in March of 2013. I am providing here
information from fall 2011 through spring 2014, based on data supplied by our IR department.
1. Overall, there were more female (2170) than male (1913) students in Anthropology courses
during the fall 2011-spring 2014 period. This is also true if we look at enrollment for each
semester, except for spring 2013.
2. Overall, females have higher success rates than males in Anthropology courses. This is also
true if we look at individual semesters, with the exception of spring 2014 where males and
females were equally successful. Anthropology success rates for females are generally
comparable with or higher than Chabot success rates, with the exception of spring 2012.
Anthropology success rates for males are generally comparable with Chabot success rates,
except in spring 2012 when they were significantly lower.
3. Overall, males and females have comparable persistence rates in Anthropology courses,
except in spring 2012 and spring 2013, where females had higher persistence rates.
Anthropology persistence rates for females are comparable or higher than Chabot
persistence rates, except for fall 2013. Anthropology persistence rates for males are more
variable. Depending on the semester, they may be higher, lower, or comparable to Chabot
persistence rates.
2.3. Success and persistence rates by ethnicity in Anthropology, compared with Chabot.
A detailed comparison of success and persistence rates by ethnicity, from fall 2009 to spring
2012, was provided in the Program Review submitted in March of 2013.
Between fall 2011 and spring 2014, the highest number of students in Anthropology courses
are 1) Hispanics (Latinos), 2) Whites, 3) Asian or Asian Americans, and 4) African Americans.
Hispanics are always the most numerous, and African Americans the least numerous among the
four groups. Whites and Asian/Asian Americans have very similar numbers. Filipinos are in fifth
position. Relatively few Pacific Islanders and very few Native Americans take our courses.
Success rates and persistence rates in Anthropology vary by ethnic group and by semester, and
with respect to Chabot with no obvious pattern. Success and persistence rates for Latinos vary
widely from semester to semester. Success and persistence rates for Whites tend to be lower
than the success and persistence rates for Chabot (except for spring 2014). Success and
persistence rates for Asian/Asian Americans tend to be comparable to or lower than Chabot
success and persistence rates. Of the four largest groups, African Americans have the lowest
success rates overall, though their success and persistence rates are comparable or higher than
the Chabot success rates (except for spring 2014). Success and persistence rates for Filipinos
also vary from semester to semester. Rates for Pacific Islanders and Native Americans vary
tremendously because of low enrollment numbers.
5
Success and persistence rates by ethnicity in Anthropology, compared with Chabot
Total #
Success (vs. Chabot)
Persistence (vs. Chabot)
Fall 2011
African American: 86
63% (55%)
83% (75%)
American Indian: 2
50% (71%)
100% (81%)
Asian American: 124
77% (77%)
86% (87%)
Filipino: 67
79% (70%)
88% (84%)
Hispanic: 208
66%(67%)
87% (83%)
Pacific Islander: 15
73% (61%)
87% (79%)
Two or More: 62
76% (66%)
87% (82%)
White: 153
76% (77%)
85% (86%)
Spring 2012 African American: 84
56% (57%)
86% (79%)
American Indian: 1
100% (69%)
100% (92%)
Asian American: 107
70% (79%)
87% (90%)
Filipino: 57
58% (72%)
88% (87%)
Hispanic: 195
58% (66%)
80% (85%)
Pacific Islander: 13
31% (61%)
54% (81%)
Two or More: 49
71% (67%)
90% (85%)
White: 135
73% (77%)
84% (89%)
Fall 2012
African American: 77
57% (57%)
78% (78%)
American Indian: 2
100% (71%)
100% (86%)
Asian American: 108
79% (77%)
88% (88%)
Filipino: 59
80% (72%)
90% (86%)
Hispanic: 226
73%(66%)
84%(83%)
Pacific Islander: 15
80% (70%)
87% (86%)
Two or More: 54
67% (66%)
85% (80%)
White: 109
72% (76%)
82% (86%)
Spring 2013 African American: 76
61% (55%)
82% (79%)
American Indian: 0
N/A (68%)
N/A (84%)
Asian American: 116
66% (77%)
81% (88%)
Filipino: 74
70% (72%)
82% (86%)
Hispanic: 209
57%(66%)
77%(85%)
Pacific Islander: 16
69% (63%)
87% (84%)
Two or More: 50
64% (64%)
84% (83%)
White: 104
74% (77%)
87% (88%)
Fall 2013
African American: 89
58% (57%)
78% (78%)
American Indian: 2
0% (66%)
50% (82%)
Asian American: 130
78% (76%)
87% (87%)
Filipino: 65
66% (72%)
80% (85%)
Hispanic: 250
68%(66%)
82%(83%)
Pacific Islander: 23
61% (63%)
87% (83%)
Two or More: 41
71% (66%)
83% (83%)
White: 127
64% (76%)
81% (87%)
Spring 2014
African American: 92
American Indian: 0
Asian American: 100
53% (58%)
N/A (66%)
80% (78%)
6
78% (81%)
N/A (82%)
81% (89%)
Filipino: 64
Hispanic: 247
Pacific Islander: 17
Two or More: 34
White: 106
73% (73%)
68%(66%)
76% (67%)
76% (67%)
76% (76%)
90% (86%)
94%(85%)
85% (85%)
93% (83%)
93% (88%)
A.3. CHABOT ANTHROPOLOGY PERSISTENCE AND SUCCESS RATES vs. STATE RATES
According to spring 2013 data from the State Chancellor’s Office, Anthropology retention rates
were 87.69% statewide (vs. 82% at Chabot), while success rates were 69.01% (vs. 64% at
Chabot).I did not find more recent data.
A.4. DISTANCE EDUCATION VS. FACE-TO-FACE COURSES
The Office of Institutional Research provided us with overall success rates for fall 2012, fall
2013, and spring 2014. Face-to-face classes have higher success and persistence rates than
either hybrid or fully online courses.
However, success rates vary by courses. At this time, we offer one hybrid course in
Anthropology every semester. The course had better success rates than face-to-face classes in
spring 2013 and 2014, but not in spring 2012 and fall 2013. It was not offered in fall 2012.
Because 1) success rates are not consistently higher in spring or fall, and 2) Anthropology
instructors tend to keep the same schedule from fall to fall, and spring to spring, these
differences should be attributed, in my view, to fluctuations in overall student performance.
I am planning to introduce additional online sections, both to make Anthropology core courses
more accessible to students, but also to get higher enrollment for courses that would probably
not fill if offered only on campus.
7
B. What Changes Do We Suggest?
Review the Strategic Plan goal and key strategiesat
http://www.chabotcollege.edu/prbc/StrategicPlan/SPforPR.pdfprior to completing your
narrative. Please complete Appendices E (New Initiatives) and F1-8 (Resources Requested) to
further detail your narrative. Limit your narrative to two pages, and be very specific about
what you hope to achieve, why, and how.
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.
Given your experiences and student achievement results over the past year:
What changes do you suggest to your course/program improvement plan?
What new initiatives might you begin to support the achievement of our Strategic Plan
goal?
Do you have new ideas to improve student learning?
What are your specific, measurable goals? How will you achieve them? Would any of
these require collaboration with other disciplines or areas of the college? How will
make that collaboration occur?
What is your longer term vision(s) or goals? (Educational Master Plan)
B. PLANNING FOR THE FUTURE.
The last three or so years have been spent defining and strengthening the discipline, and
catching up on important administrative tasks. The following have been accomplished:
-
-
Development of two Anthropology degrees (AA and AA-T). Both are state-approved.
Developmentand introduction of two new courses: Forensic Anthropology, taught since
fall 2012, and Linguistic Anthropology (proposed by Kip Waldo), scheduled to be taught
for the first time in summer 2015.
Development of CLOs and rubrics for all courses, and for PLOs for the degrees, and upto-date work on SLOs.
Update of all course outlines (ANTH 2: Fall 2013), all others: Fall 2015).
Evaluation of all part-time instructors, between spring 2013 and spring 2014.
8
It is now time to look ahead and plan for the next few years.
1. We NEED a full-time Anthropology instructor as soon as possible, and will need a second
one within 6 years.
We offer between 15 and 18 sections every semester, and have served between 653 and
745 students every semester since fall 2011. There is only 1 full-time anthropologist, so most
sections are taught by part-time faculty. ANTH 2, 3, 5, 7, and 12 are taught only by part-time
faculty.
The ideal candidate should have a strong background in Cultural Anthropology, and
must be able to teach Anthropology 3, as well as “specialty” courses in Cultural
Anthropology. He/she should be an advocate for Cultural Anthropology at Chabot and
have a strong commitment to issues pertaining to the environment, and to social justice.
There is a good chance that in six years, I will be ready to retire. We will then need to
hire a second person. This candidate should ideally be well versed in all aspects of
Biological Anthropology, and be able to teach the lecture course, the lab, and Forensic
Anthropology. The new hire should also keep developing the lab and its collections.
2. We must preserve and augment the breadth and number of course offerings, and offer
them in variousdelivery formats.
We are currently offering the following core courses:
- ANTH 1 (7 sections + 1 PACE section in fall; 2 in summer)
- ANTH 1L (4 sections in fall; 3 in spring; 1 in summer),
- ANTH 2 (1 section in spring), and
- ANTH 3 (3 sections in fall, 3 in spring, 1 in summer).
We are also offering the following electives:
- ANTH 5 (1 section in spring 2014),
- ANTH 7 (1 section in spring),
- ANTH 12 (1 section in fall), and
- ANTH 13 (1 section in fall).
ANTH 4 will be offered for the first time in summer 2015 as an online course.
I propose to:
- Add another online section of ANTH 1 to our popular, hybrid section.
- Add an ANTH 1L section to the spring schedule. The labs are overcrowded when we
offer three sections only. Since the addition of a fourth lab in the fall, students have
much better access to the specimens. They can interact more easily with each other and
with their instructor.
- Offer ANTH 2 every semester. We might possibly alternate having the class on campus,
and offering it online.
- Offer an online section of ANTH 3, either in addition to the three that are already
offered, or in lieu of the evening section of ANTH 3.
- Offer ANTH 4 during the summer, as an online course, starting in 2015.
- Offer ANTH 5 again each semester. The course satisfies, among other things, the
American Cultures requirement. We used to have good numbers, especially when the
course was offered on Wednesday afternoons (1:00-3:50). This coming semester, the
9
-
course is offered early in the morning in the hope that it will fill. The course could be
offered online every other semester. We must broadly advertise this course.
Keep offering ANTH 7 in spring, though at a different time, to boost enrollment.
Enrollment used to be decent when the class was offered on Tuesday (1:30-4:20 pm).
Plan to offer ANTH 8 within the next 3 years, possibly as an online section, and possibly
during a summer session.
Plan to offer ANTH 12 every semester, with a section either in the evening or online.
Consider offering ANTH 13 every semester, but on campus only.
3. Request additional specimens and equipment for the Anthropology lab.
- In our 2014-2015 Review, we joined some of our Social Sciences colleagues to request
computers for students’ use in the classroom use. Our joint request was funded. We are
looking forward to using the computers to enhance classroom learning.
- This year and in future years, we will request additional specimens.
Success rates for the lab are consistently high (above 82% between fall 2011 and spring
2014), and so are the persistence rates (usually above 90%).
ANTH 13 (Forensic Anthropology) could not be taught without access to forensic
specimens.
- Since ANTH 2 (Archeology) has become a methods course, we have acquired material to
enhance students’ learning experience in and outside the classroom. We will continue
requesting material, as needed.
- All of our beautiful artifacts were stolen last year. We need to replace them.
4. Secure outdoor space to practice excavation and recovery methods.
It is essential that we have access to outdoor space for
- ANTH 2: Students need the space to practice excavation techniques, especially now that
the course has become a methods course.
- ANTH 13: Students need a space to practice mapping and recovery of (fake) human
remains and associated materials.
-
ANTH 1L: Students occasionally participate in “flint knapping”.
5. Get a joint “Social Sciences” space in building 100.
A few of us participate in a FIG on student persistence. The results will be presented at a
PRBC meeting on November the 4th, 2015 and perhaps at the February Flex Day.
Students TELL us that seeing others work, and working in groups encourages them to
work. They are asking for study spaces.
I envision having a “Social Science” space with computers, round tables with chairs, as well
as comfortable couches and armchairs. The space should have an open feel. It should be
open late on weeknights, and be open on Saturdays. Social Sciences faculty could take
turns holding office hours there
.
6. We must to Inform students about the approved AA degree and the proposed AA-T degree
inAnthropology, and the approved AA degree in Environmental Studies.
Our website badly needs to be updated. We could also publicize our offerings with flyers,
and in various venues.
10
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.
Supplies & Services
Technology/Equipment
2013-14
Budget
Requested
2 learning
assistants
$6,283 + tax
$5,763.21
Faculty
TOTAL
1 FT
$12,046.21
Category
Classified Staffing (# of positions)
2013-14
Budget
Received
0
Received
Received
0
$12,046.21
though total
may be
lower
2014-15
Budget
Requested
0
2014-15
Budget
Received
0
$16,276+
Received
Chromebooks
and carts
(joint request
with other SS
disciplines)
1 FT
0
$16,276+
$16,276
(price may
be higher)
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.
1. 2013-2014 requests:
We have been requesting specimens with the intent to increase student access to hands-on
learning, to encourage collaborative work and group discussion, and to facilitate the
development of students’ analytical and critical thinking skills. Specimens are used in our
Anthropology classes, primarily Anthropology 1, 1L, and 13.
Anthropology 1L and 13 could not be offered without these specimens.
Success and persistence rates in Anthro 1L are well above Chabot rates.
In spring 2013, we submitted a large request that included forensic specimens to be used in
Anthropology 13, fossil specimens to be used in Anthropology 1, 1L, and 2, and measuring
instruments to be used in Anthropology 1L and 13. We were finally able to replace the
measuring instruments that were falling apart. These instruments are used to calculate stature
and other important demographic markers.
11
2. 2014-2015 requests:
The requested computers have just arrived. I am looking forward to having my students use
them in class for on-the-spot research, especially since all students will access to their “own”
computer.
2. What has been the impact of not receiving some of your requested funding? How has student
learning been impacted, or safety compromised, or enrollment or retention negatively impacted?
We have been very lucky that our requests have mostly been honored. So, we have been able
to acquire a fantastic collection that includes human and non-human skeleton and skulls, as
well as material for archeological survey.
12
Appendix B1: Student Learning Outcomes Assessment Reporting Schedule
I.
Course-Level Student Learning Outcomes & Assessment Reporting
(CLO-Closing the Loop).
A. Check One of the Following:
No CLO-CTL forms were completed during this PR year. No Appendix B2 needs to be
submitted with this Year’s Program Review. Note: All courses must be assessed once
at least once every three years.
Yes, CLO-CTL were completed for one or more courses during the current Year’s
Program Review. Complete Appendix B2 (CLO-CTL Form) for each course assessed this
year and include in this Program Review.
B. Calendar Instructions:
List all courses considered in this program review and indicate which year each course Closing
The Loop form was submitted in Program Review by marking submitted in the correct column.
Course
*List one course per line.
Add more rows as needed.
Anthropology 1
Assessment in F14
Discussion in S15
Anthropology 1L
Assessment in S14
Discussion in F14
Anthropology 2
Assessment in S14
Discussion in F14
Anthropology 3
Assessment in F14
Discussion in S15
Anthropology 5
Assessment in S15
Discussion in S15
Anthropology 7
Assessment in S15
Discussion in F15
Anthropology 12
Assessment in F14
Discussion in S15
Anthropology 13
Assessment in F13
Discussion in S14
This Year’s Program
Review
*CTL forms must be
included with this PR.
Last Year’s Program
Review
2-Years Prior
*Note: These courses
must be assessed in the
next PR year.
CTL submitted in F14
CTL submitted in F14
CTL submitted in F12
CTL submitted in S12
CTL submitted in F12
CTL submitted in S13
CTL submitted in S12
CTL submitted in F14
13
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
ANTHROPOPOLOGY 1L
Spring 2014
3
2
66.66%
Fall 2014
2 (M. Giovanola & N. Casqueiro)
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:
Evaluate genetic data to understand inheritance and
assess evolutionary processes.
(CLO) 2:
Evaluate human biological diversity through the
application of forensic analysis to the human
skeleton.
(CLO) 3:
Compare and contrast primate anatomy and
behavior through the examination of skeletal
material and direct observation of primate behavior.
(CLO) 4:
Evaluate the importance and timing of human
adaptations through the examination of fossil and
cultural replicas.
Defined Target
Scores*
(CLO Goal)
80% of students
will score 2 or
higher
Actual Scores**
(eLumen data)
79.16% of
students scored 2
or higher
85% of students
will score 2 or
higher
95.83% of
students scored 2
or higher
85% of students
will score 2 or
higher
94.74% of
students scored 2
or higher
85% of students
will score 2 or
higher
100% of students
scored 2 or higher
 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?
14
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?
Evaluate genetic data to understand inheritance and assess evolutionary
processes.
Target: 80%. Actual: 79.16%.
This CLO was assessed based on genetic problems (gamete formation, figuring out
phenotype from genotype, and genotype from phenotype, hybrid cross, di-hybrid
cross).
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?
Even though the actual results closely match the target, the results show a bimodal
distribution. About 75% of people scored 3 or 4 (50% of students scored 4; about
25% scored 3); about 25% scored either 1 or 0.
The section on genetics is covered over 3 labs (with different emphases). Part of
the first test covers the first two labs (Mendelian terminology, gamete formation,
and genetic problems using the Punnett square to figure out genotype and
phenotype). Students who only attend one lab usually do significantly more poorly
than those who attend both labs, but a few students who attend both labs have
trouble with genetics, and especially the Punnett Square.
Plan of action:
1) Review the concepts over several labs.
2) Since there is a bimodal distribution, pair up students who struggle with
students who seem to understand the concepts more easily.
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?
Evaluate human biological diversity through the application of forensic analysis
to the human skeleton.
Target: 85%. Actual: 95.83%.
This CLO was assessed based on 2 types of exercises:
1) Osteometric problems, using calipers and the metric system to calculate
various indices on the skull.
2) Anthroposcopic problems, using traits to determine
15
a. Sex, based on the skull and the pelvis, and
b. Age, based on dental formation and eruption and long bone
formation.
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?
At first glance, the actual results are very satisfactory, but it is necessary to look at
each of components of the assessment methods.
In lab, students were eager to learn how to determine sex and age based on traits.
They generally did well with anthroposcopic methods. In fact, 100% students
scored 85% or higher on the test.
However, fewer than 85% of students scored 2 or higher on osteometric methods,
and the results have a bimodal distribution. According to the results, students who
did not do well either 1) did not know what to do at all, or 2) knew how to take the
measurements with the measurement instruments but did not know how to read
the values, or 3) did not know how to figure out an index. It should be noted that
even though we are now covering measuring techniques over 2 lab periods,
students who miss one lab are not doing as well as students who do not miss any
(as would be expected). On the other hand, there also are students who attend
both labs, but are clearly intimidated by measuring methods, measuring
instruments, and the math involved in calculating an index.
Plan of action:
1) Continue to offer the osteometric lab over two lab periods. Continue to
explain the concepts sequentially: a) using the metric system, b) + c) getting
used to different types of measuring instruments and taking distance
measurements, d) figuring out how to calculate indices to say something
meaningful about a skull or skull feature.
2) Pair up students who have difficulty with those who seem to have an easier
time with measuring instruments and the metric system.
C. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 3:
1. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course
level outcome?
Compare and contrast primate anatomy and behavior through the examination
of skeletal material and direct observation of primate behavior.
Target: 85%. Actual: 97.74%.
Knowledge of Primate anatomy and behavior was assessed based on skeletal
specimens and pictures. Students had to identify primates based on crania,
mandibles, and/or skeletons, and behaviors based on teeth (diet), skeletons
(locomotion), and pictures.
16
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?
Students did very well overall. The majority (70.17%) earned a score of 3 or 4. We
have a wonderful collection of primate and non-primate skulls and skeletons.
Students learned to identify different primate groups, and dietary and locomotor
adaptations
Plan of action:
We will request additional specimens to complement our comparative collection,
and our primate collection.
D. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 4:
1. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course
level outcome?
Evaluate the importance and timing of human adaptations through the
examination of fossil and cultural replicas.
Target: 85%. Actual: 100%
Knowledge of hominin/d fossils were assessed based on identification of different
skulls and postcranial parts (pelvis, femur, foot) and supporting arguments
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?
Students did well on this section. The majority (68.42%) earned a score of 3 or 4. By
the time we get to the fourth part of the course, they are able to identify skulls and
skeletal parts and justify their answer, i.e. support their choice with anatomical
data.
Plan of action:
We will request additional specimens to complement our fossil hominin/d
collection.
PART III: COURSE REFLECTIONS AND FUTURE PLANS
1. What changes were made to your course based on the previous assessment cycle, the prior
Closing the Loop reflections and other faculty discussions?
In lab, students work in small groups. They compare specimens and learn how to
support their choices. This approach carries over to test performance.
In general, students do very well on bone identification, identification of trauma and
pathologies, functional anatomy, identification of primates, identification of
hominin/d fossils, and identification of artifacts.
17
Students did not do as well, when it comes to genetics and osteometry. This was
also something we noted in the previous cycle.
We have been giving students more time to work on genetics (i.e. over three rather
two labs). Two years ago, following CLO assessments, we requested additional
measuring instruments so each student could practice taking measurements on
skulls and skeletons. We also decided to teach the section on osteometry over two,
rather than one lab. Students are doing better, but there is room for improvement.
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?
The small-group, hands-on approach seems to be working very well for the sections
on osteology, identification of sex and age, trauma, primates, and hominin/d fossils
and artifacts. So we will enhance it by requesting additional specimens.
We need to continue covering genetics and osteometry over several labs, to give
students more time to learn and absorb the material. Because we get a bimodal
distribution for both the genetic exercises and the osteometric exercises, we will try
to pair up students who need additional help with students who seem to grasp the
concepts more easily.
3. What is the nature of the planned actions (please check all that apply)?
 Curricular
X Pedagogical
X Resource based
 Change to CLO or rubric
 Change to assessment methods
 Other:_________________________________________________________________
\
18
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
ANTHROPOPOLOGY 2
Spring 2014
1
1
100%
Fall 2014
2 (N. Casqueiro& M. Giovanola)
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:
Apply archeological methodology to interpret the
material remains of cultures.
(CLO) 2:
Evaluate the cultural and social changes with the
shift from hunting-gathering to food-producing
societies.
(CLO) 3:
Compare and contrast prehistoric societies in
different parts of the world, based on their material
remains.
Defined Target
Scores*
(CLO Goal)
80% of students
will score 2 or
higher
Actual Scores**
(eLumen data)
84.21% of
students scored 2
or higher
70% of students
will score 2 or
higher
90% of students
scored 2 or higher
70% of students
will score 2 or
higher
95% of students
scored 2 or higher
 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?
19
PART II: COURSE- LEVEL OUTCOME REFLECTIONS
B. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 1:
1. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course
level outcome?
Apply archeological methodology to interpret the material remains of cultures.
Target: 80%. Actual: 84.21%.
This CLO was assessed based on 1) a surface survey done out of doors, 2) an inclass exercise on stratigraphy and dating methods, 3) an in-class exercise on the
interpretation of the archeological record, 4) responses to questions on a video on
archeological interpretation and 5) a take-home exam on archeological
methodology and interpretation.
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?
47% of the students performed at score level 2. In general, students did well on the
surface survey and in their answers to the questions on the video. However, they
did poorly overall on the stratigraphic/dating exercises, the interpretation
exercises, and the test. For the exercises and the test, it was essential that reading
be done ahead of time. Students in some groups could not answer questions
because they had not the reading.
Plan of action: Try reading-apprenticeship methods:
1) Pair-share approach
2) Reading to the text
3) Sharing with the whole 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?
Evaluatethe cultural and social changes associated with the shift from huntinggathering to food-producing societies.
Target: 70%. Actual: 90%.
The assignment pertaining to this SLO was based on 1) in-class faunal analysis,
2) an in-class bioarcheology analysis, and 3) a test on the analysis of the
archaeological record in relation to hunting and gathering and the changes to food
production.
20
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?
Students did well in part because these were hands-on projects working with
specimens. Students worked well in groups where they could discuss and debate
the specimens and how they related to the archaeological record.
Plan of action:
Keep using a variety of methods. They help students to develop critical thinking
skills, and succeed.
C. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 3:
1. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course
level outcome?
Compare and contrast prehistoric societies in different parts of the world, based
on their material remains.
Target: 70%. Actual: 95%.
This CLO was assessed based on a group presentation of research and a written
assignment of an article summary and critique relating to the research.
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?
These assignments allowed students to gather information from various resources
and creatively present to the class information about the material remains of a
prehistoric culture.The students that were successful participated in research and
developing a creative way to present their research to the class, while working with
a small group. Some students had a previous interest in a specific region or
civilization, while others became interested as they began to research. Students
became fully engaged through choosing their own topics and manner to present
and then preparation and presentation.
Plan of action:
Continue giving this type of assessment.
This was a great way to engage students in the subject, particularly by applying
principles and methods learned throughout the course lectures, exercises and
readings.
21
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?
More hands-on projects were added, because students seem to do better and to be
more engaged with the material when they work in groups.
In 2012-13, we ordered archeological supplies (screens, trowels, etc.) for a section on
archeological survey methods. The survey lab was first introduced in spring 2014.
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 did particularly well on the projects and exercises that required them to do
small-group work (survey lab), and hands-on work that required critical thinking skills
(in-class faunal analysis, in-class bioarcheology analysis). They also did well when they
were given some latitude in choosing a topic and working on a capstone presentation
(poster project).
However, students did not do as well on assignments that required them to read
material ahead of time. I will try reading-apprenticeship techniques in the classroom to
nudge students to read the material, and to help them develop good reading skills.
NOTE: The ANTH 2 outline was modified for F2014 so it would fit the course CI-D for
transfer. Greater emphasis is placed on methods, and less emphasis is placed on
prehistory and cultural change. As a result, CLOs have been revised, and CLO assessment
will be revised as well in the next cycle.
3. What is the nature of the planned actions (please check all that apply)?

Curricular
X
Pedagogical
X
Resource based
X
Change to CLO or rubric

Change to assessment methods

Other:_________________________________________________________________
22
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
ANTHROPOPOLOGY 13
Fall 2013
1
1
100%
Spring 2014
2 (M. Giovanola & N. Casqueiro)
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:
Demonstrate an understanding of the methodology
used in Forensic Anthropology by using proper
archeological techniques and following the Forensic
Anthropology protocol.
(CLO) 2:
Establish the decedent’s identity (sex, age, stature,
ancestry, individual markers).
(CLO) 3:
Determine cause and manner of death, and time
since death.
Defined Target
Scores*
(CLO Goal)
80% of students
will score 2 or
higher
Actual Scores**
(eLumen data)
86.21% of
students scored 2
or higher
80% of students
will score 2 or
higher
79.31% of
students scored 2
or higher
80% of students
will score 2 or
higher
79.31% of
students scored 2
or higher
 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?
23
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?
Demonstrate an understanding of the methodology used in Forensic
Anthropology by using proper archeological techniques and following the
Forensic Anthropology protocol.
Target: 80%. Actual: 86.21%.
This CLO was assessed based on questions about recovery of human remains and
associated materials, about the treatment of human remains after recovery, and
about the Forensic Protocol.
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?
Students seemed to understand the basic concepts. In class, I presented the main
concepts in a power-point presentation, and gave them handouts. Survey
techniques were part of a hands-on project, as were the recovery techniques.
Students worked in groups, and checked each other’s work.
Plan of action:
We should practice survey and recovery techniques in a more realistic setting.
I am hoping that we will have access to some outdoors space very soon.
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?
Establish the decedent’s identity (sex, age, stature, ancestry, individual markers).
Target: 80%. Actual: 79.31%.
This CLO was assessed based on anthroposcopy to determine two of the variables
used to identify a decedent:
a. Sex, based on the skull and the pelvis, and
b. Age, based on dental formation and eruption, long bone formation, and
pubic symphysis wear.
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?
The material was presented over two class periods. Students first watched a
power-point presentation aboutthe techniques/body parts that are best to assess
24
sex and age. They then learned to use the techniques on various specimens. Lastly,
they took a mock test to figure out what they needed to work on.
Plan of action:
1) Continue to present age and sex determination over two class periods.
2) Give students more time to absorb the material and quickly determine age
and sex .
C. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 3:
1. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course level
outcome?
Determine cause and manner of death, and time since death.
Target: 80%. Actual: 79.31%.
This CLO was assessed based on students’ knowledge of various traumas and their
causes, as well as the length of time that had elapsed since someone had died. The
latter was based on rate of decay under different conditions, scavenger damage,
and insect succession.
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?
Students did well overall. In class, they watched a power-point presentations that
exposed them to the basics of trauma and the evaluation of the postmortem
interval. They also looked at many different specimens with different kinds of
traumas, and spent time in groups discussing what might have caused the trauma.
Time since death was evaluated with the use of tables.
Plan of action:
1) We have a great forensic collection. Students have the opportunity to see many
different types of trauma. Keep building the collection.
2) Spend more time on evaluating time since death. The use of tables is a little
tricky at times because conditions are not always clear cut, and because there is a
good deal of overlap between time ranges.
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?
This is the first time that ANTH 13 is assessed, and only the second time it is offered.
We have acquired many forensic specimens, especially skulls and skeletal parts that
show traumatic injuries. Students have practical knowledge of what “blunt-force
trauma” looks like, and can recognize whether someone has survived an injury.
25
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?
The book that we use is detailed and has very good photographs and graphs, but it is
quite hard to read. In order to prepare students, I present the main concepts in a
power-point presentation, and summarize the chapter in class notes. Students also
work in groups to apply what they have learned. All power-point presentations and
notes are available to students on Blackboard.
The small-group, hands-on approach seems to be working very well for the sections
on osteology, identification of sex and age, stature, trauma, So we will be requesting
additional specimens.
3. What is the nature of the planned actions (please check all that apply)?
 Curricular
X Pedagogical
X Resource based
 Change to CLO or rubric
 Change to assessment methods
 Other:_________________________________________________________________
26
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: ANTHROPOLOGY AA
Program: ANTHROPOLOGY AA-T
PLO #1: Analyze human biological and cultural adaptations. In this context, evaluate the
different factors that have affected, and are affecting humans biologically and culturally.
PLO #2: Analyze the factors that cause modern humans biological and cultural diversity,
and demonstrate an appreciation for, and sensitivity to human biological and cultural
diversity.
What questions or investigations arose as a result of these reflections or discussions?
Both PLOs are addressed by various CLOs, in Biological and Cultural Anthropology courses.
PLO #1 is addressed by:
ANTH 1L, CLO #4 (see attached CTL form). Target: 85%. Actual: 100%.
ANTH 2, CLO #2 (see attached CTL form). Target: 70%. Actual: 90%.
By the end of the course/s, students are able to evaluate diversity based on either qualitative
or quantitative differences in anatomy (in the case of ANTH 1L) or culture (in the case of
ANTH 2), and understand how these differences came about.
PLO #2 is addressed by:
ANTH 1L, CLO #2 (see attached CTL form). Target: 85%. Actual: 95.83%.
ANTH 2, CLO # 3 (see attached CTL form). Target: 70%. Actual: 95%.
ANTH 13, CLO #2 (see attached CTL form). Target: 80%. Actual: 79.31%.
By the end of the course/s, students are able to compare and contrast different specimens,
and determine their sex and age, based on qualitative criteria (ANTH 1 and 13). In the case of
ANTH 2, students are able to discuss differences between hunting-gathering and food
production.
What program-level strengths have the assessment reflections revealed?
Students develop analytical and critical thinking skills (CWLG #4). They also learn to work
collaboratively, and to discuss their findings (CWLG #3). They are able to assess diversity both
culturally and biologically.
What actions has your discipline determined might be taken to enhance the learning of
students completing your program?
1.We will request additional specimens to complement our fossil hominin/d collection.
2. We will request outdoor space so students can practice survey and recovery techniques in a
more realistic setting.
27
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) .
ANTH 8 was last offered in spring 2009 (so has not been taught in five years), but we
plan to offer it, probably as an online course, within the next three years.
3. Have all of your courses been offered within the past five years? If no, why should those
courses remain in our college catalog?
ANTH 4 and ANTH 8 have not been taught within the past five years, due to budget
constraints. Both are electives for the Anthropology AA-degree and AA-T degree.
ANTH 4 (proposed for fall 2012) is on schedule to be taught as an online course in
Summer 2015.
I would like to offer ANTH 8 (not taught since spring 2009) as on online course, within
the next three years.
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.Yes.
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.No.
Closing-the-Loop forms for ANTH 1L, 2, and 13 are submitted with this Program Review.
ANTH 1, 3, and 12 will be assessed this semester and discussed in spring 2015.
ANTH 5, which was scheduled to be assessed this semester, was canceled. It will be
assessed in spring 2015.
ANTH 7 is scheduled to be assessed in spring 2015.
6. Have you developed and assessed PLOs for all of your programs? If no, identify programs
which still require this work, and your timeline to complete that work this semester.
Yes. Anthropology offers two programs: an AA degree, and an AA-T degree. We have
two PLOs. I have mapped out CLOs to our PLOs, and we assess our PLOs as we assess
our CLOs.
7. If you have course sequences, is success in the first course a good predictor of success in the
subsequent course(s)?
We do not have course sequences, except in the case of Anthropology 1L (lab) for which
Anthropology 1 is a prerequisite or a corequisite. We have no data supporting the idea
that success in Anthropology 1 is a good predictor of success in 1L. One might expect so,
but because the delivery is very different (mostly lecture format for 1, and hands-on
28
work for 1L), some students might do better in the lecture course, or in the lab simply
because the delivery methods are different.
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.
-
-
-
There are no Math or English prerequisites for any of the Anthropology courses.
I am willing to bet that anyone who, regardless of English proficiency, does well in
our courses will be successful in other Social Sciences courses because in addition to
English, students have to master the scientific terminology appropriate to a specific
Anthropology course.
According to fall 2011 data, students who successfully completed English 1A/7 had
the highest success rates in Anthropology 1, 12, and 3, but were no more successful
in Anthropology 1L than students who had no preparation. The students with no
English preparation were just as, or more successful in Anthropology 1, 1L, and 3
than students who had successfully completed English 102/101A/101B.
Because our students are expected to read extensively in our classes, we now have
Included in our outlines the strong recommendation that they be eligible for English
1A.
29
Appendix E: Proposal for New Initiatives (Complete for each new initiative)
Audience: Deans/Unit Administrators, PRBC, Foundation, Grants Committee, College Budget Committee
Purpose: A “New Initiative” is a new project or expansion of a current project that supports our Strategic Plan. The project will require the support
of additional and/or outside funding. The information you provide will facilitate and focus the research and development process for finding both
internal and external funding.
How does your initiative address the college's Strategic Plan goal, or significantly improve student learning?
What is your specific goal and measurable outcome?
What is your action plan to achieve your goal?
Activity (brief description)
Target
Required Budget (Split out
Completion personnel, supplies, other
Date
categories)
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
30
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
Will the proposed project require facility modifications, additional space, or program relocation?
No
Yes, explain:
Will the proposed project involve subcontractors, collaborative partners, or cooperative agreements?
No
Yes, explain:
Do you know of any grant funding sources that would meet the needs of the proposed project?
No
Yes, list potential funding sources:
31
(obtained by/from):
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: 2 Full-time, tenure-track instructors
PLEASE LIST IN RANK
ORDER
STAFFING REQUESTS (1000) FACULTY
Position
Description
Faculty (1000)
Program/Unit
Faculty
Faculty
FT
FT
Anthropology
Anthropology
Division/Area
Social Sciences (AHSS)
Social Sciences (AHSS)
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.
There is only one full-time faculty member since the retirement of the other full-time faculty member in June 2011.
The full-time faculty member is required to coordinate Anthropology sections each semester, and is generally responsible for all
curricular and administrative duties. Also, the current full-time faculty member is not getting any younger.
Average enrollment rate, FTEs, and WSCH/FTEF for fall 2011 through spring 2014*:
% Enrollment at Census
FTES
WSCH/FTEF
102%
47.14
643.16
*Source: Division/Subject/Course/Section Summary by Term – Actual. Chabot College Fall 2010 thru Summer 2013.
32
FT/PT Ratios*:
Fall 2011
Spring 2012
Fall 2012
Spring 2013
Fall 2013
Spring 2014
# Sections
16
15
15
14
17
17
FT/PT Ratios
25%/75%
27%/73%
20%/80%
29%/71%
18%/82%
30%/70%
*Values were computed by Mireille Giovanola.
The Anthropology 1 section taught as part of the PACE program is not included here.
Off-campus sections offered at high schools are not included here.
While several adjunct faculty have been actively involved in extra-classroom program initiatives, they are not able to fulfill the roles
of full-time faculty in meeting the program’s goals and objectives. They are often not as available to students as full-time faculty
simply because they are not on campus as much. Our students need more support overall, and Anthropology majors need strong
mentoring.
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.
Having only one full-time faculty limits our programmatic development and participation in many of the college efforts, such as
development of CLOs, adjunct faculty mentoring and evaluation, curriculum planning and development, as well as representing our
discipline and division on college-wide committees. The demands placed on the full-time faculty also limits her participation in offcampus workshops and conferences, and the time to explore alternate sources of funding for various projects that would support
student persistence and success, as well as various program needs.
The addition of a full-time faculty would help
Integrate and streamline pathways (Strategic goal #6).
Create opportunities for pathway teams to collaborate (Strategic goal #2).
Develop a mentoring program (Strategic goal # 3).
Build pathway-learning communities to support students (Strategic goal #7).
Secure funding to support various proposals that support student persistence and success (Strategic goal #8).
33
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: _____
STAFFING REQUESTS (2000) CLASSIFIED PROFESSIONALS
Position
Classified Professional Staff (2000)
Description
Program/Unit
STAFFING REQUESTS (2000) STUDENT ASSISTANTS
Postion
Description
Student Assistants (2000)
Program/Unit
34
PLEASE LIST IN RANK
ORDER
Division/Area
PLEASE LIST IN RANK
ORDER
Division/Area
2. Rationale for your proposal.
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.
35
Appendix F3: FTEF Requests
Audience: Administrators, CEMC, PRBC
Purpose: To recommend changes in FTEF allocations for subsequent academic year and guide Deans and
CEMC in the allocation of FTEF to disciplines. For more information, see Article 29 (CEMC) of the Faculty
Contract.
Instructions: In the area below, please list your requested changes in course offerings (and
corresponding request in FTEF) and provide your rationale for these changes. Be sure to analyze
enrollment trends and other relevant data
athttp://www.chabotcollege.edu/ProgramReview/Data2013.cfm.
COURSE
ANTH 1L
ANTH 5
ANTH 8
-
-
-
CURRENT
FTEF
(2014-15)
ADDITIONAL
FTEF
NEEDED
CURRENT
SECTIONS
1.12
0.16
Fall: 4
Spring: 3
Spring: 1
Fall: 0
0
0.20
0
0.20
0.20
ADDITIONAL
SECTIONS
NEEDED
1/spring
1/fall
1/summer
CURRENT
STUDENT #
SERVED
100
85
34
0
ADDITIONAL
STUDENT #
SERVED
25
44?
44
Add an ANTH 1L section to the spring schedule. The labs are overcrowded when we
offer three sections only. Since the addition of a fourth lab in the fall, students have
much better access to the specimens. They can interact more easily with each other and
with their instructor.
Offer ANTH 4 during the summer, as an online course, starting in 2015.
Note: course is already included in summer 2015.
Offer ANTH 5 again each semester. The course satisfies, among other things, the
American Cultures requirement. We used to have good numbers, especially when the
course was offered on Wednesday afternoons (1:00-3:50). This coming semester, the
course is offered early in the morning in the hope that it will fill. The course could be
offered online every other semester. We must broadly advertise this course.
Plan to offer ANTH 8 within the next 3 years, possibly as an online section, and possibly
during a summer session.
36
Appendix F4: Academic Learning Support Requests [Acct. Category 2000]
Audience: Administrators, PRBC, Learning Connection
Purpose: Providing explanation and justification for new and replacement student assistants (tutors, learning assistants, lab assistants,
supplemental instruction, etc.).
Instructions: Please justify the need for your request. Discuss anticipated improvements in student learning and contribution to the Strategic Plan
goal. Please cite any evidence or data to support your request. If this position is categorically funded, include and designate the funding source of
new categorically-funded position where continuation is contingent upon available funding.
1. Number of positions requested:
2. If you are requesting more than one position, please rank order the positions.
Position
Description
1. Tutor
A former Anth student who can tutor students in a variety of
Anthropology courses, but especially the core courses (ANTH 1, 1L,
2, and 3).
2. Tutor
A former Anth student who can tutor students in a variety of
Anthropology courses, but especially the core courses (ANTH 1, 1L,
2, and 3).
3. Learning Assistant
Specifically for ANTH 13 and 1L, where our students would benefit
from more individualized attention.
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.
Students in all our courses could benefit from a tutor’s help. This is especially true of ANTH 1, 1L, 13 and 2. The tutor could easily
work with small groups. Tutors would be of great help if students need to review skeletal material. I am planning to request
specimens for the libraryso students can study them outside of class.
37
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.
2014-15
2015-16
Request
needed totals in all areas Request
Requested Received Amount
Description
Lufkin Hi-VIZ Tapes
#39421 $16.25 each
Qty: 15
Heavy Duty
Marshalltown Trowels
#53696 $14.95 each
Qty: 30
0
0
Vendor
Division/Unit
Priority #1
Priority #2
$270
Forestry
Suppliers
Soc
Sci/ANTH
X
$500
Forestry
Suppliers
Soc
Sci/ANTH
X
0
0
38
Priority #3
Archeological
Provenience Drawing
Squares #53158
$179.95 each Qty: 2
Human Pelvis, Male
Item #247755.
$72 each. Qty: 1
Human Pelvis, Female
Item #247765.
$72 each. Qty: 1
Adult Human Skull
Item #246981.
$130 each. Qty: 4
A Photographic Atlas of
Physical Anthropology
13: 9780895825728
$62.50 each. Qty: 20
Bullet Comparison
Poster. Item #212157.
$11.49. Qty: 1
Bullet Display Set.
Item #212152.
$22.75. Qty: 3
Expo Dry-Erase Eraser
Item 272153.
$2.49/each. Qty: 5
Expo Low Odor Chisel
Tip Dry-Erase markers,
12/pack. Item 554359.
$12.89/pack. Qty: 5
Expo Chisel Tip DryErase Markers, Black
12/pack. Item 124511.
$16.49. Qty: 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$390
Forestry
Suppliers
Soc Sci/ANT
X
$90
Carolina
Biological
Soc
Sci/ANTH
X
$90
Carolina
Biological
Soc
Sci/ANTH
X
$600
Carolina
Biological
Soc
Sci/ANTH
X
$1400
Morton
Soc
Sci/ANTH
X
$14
Carolina
Biological
Soc
Sci/ANTH
X
$80
Carolina
Biological
Soc
Sci/ANTH
X
$15
Staples.c
om
Soc
Sci/ANTH
$75
Staples.c Soc
om
Sci/ANTH
X
$55
Staples.c Soc
om
SciANTH
X
0
0
0
0
0
0
X
0
0
39
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 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.
augmentations only
Description
Amount
Vendor
Division/Unit
40
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
Division/Dept
41
Priority Priority Priority
#1
#2
#3
Notes
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 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.
Description
Fossil Hominid Tools set of 6 MS-99SET. Qty 1
Set of 6 Fossil Hominid Tools from
East Africa MS0-201-SET. Qty 1
Set of 6 Neanderthal Mousterian
Industry Tools MS-100-6-SET. Qty 1
Indri Lemur Skeleton, Articulated
Amount
Vendor
Division/Unit
$450
Bone Clones
Soc Sci/Anth
X
$375
Bone Clones
Soc Sci/Anth
X
$340
Bone Clones
Soc Sci/Anth
X
$3400
Bone Clones
Soc Sci/Anth
X
42
Priority #1
Priority #2
Priority #3
SC-282-A. Qty: 1
Human Skeleton, disarticulated, in
Carrying Case. Item #246777
$530 each. Qty: 3
Basic Firearm Identification Kit
Item #212151. $200. Qty: 2
$1790
$450
Carolina
Biological
Carolina
Biological
43
Soc Sci/Anth
X
Soc Sci/Anth
X
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.
Brief Title of Request (Project Name): Open outdoor space somewhere on campus, large enough so that we can bury specimens and
practice excavation and recovery techniques (Anthropology 13 and 2).
Building/Location: Outdoors, close to 400 would be nice.
Description of the facility project. Please be as specific as possible.
Anthropology 13 students need a space to practice the proper mapping and recovery of (fake) human remains, and
conduct decomposition studies.
Anthropology 2 students need a space to practice archeological excavation skills
Anthropology 1L students need a space to practice flint-knapping.
What educational programs or institutional purposes does this equipment support?
Students will be required to work in groups. They will apply critical thinking skills to fieldwork, and will present their
conclusions to the whole class.
The project
Supports different learning modalities,
Encourages collaboration that fosters learning,
Provides an environment that is conducive to intellectual curiosity and innovation,
Cultivates critical thinking.
44
The project also supports two College-wide Learning Goals: Critical Thinking and Communication.
Briefly describe how your request relates specifically to meeting the Strategic Plan Goal and to enhancing student learning?
Anthropology 2 and 13 are very technical courses. We hope to increase student persistence and success in both.
Students use a hands-on, collaborative approach to learning in Anthropology 1L, and their persistence and success rates
are consistently very high.
45