Chabot College
Program Review Report
2015 -2016
Year 1 of
Program Review Cycle
History
Submitted on
October 24, 2014
Contact:
Rick Moniz
Mark Stephens
Michael Thompson
Jane Wolford
Sherri Yeager
1
____ YEAR ONE
1. Where We’ve Been–
Between Fall 2011-Spring 2013 our discipline success average was in the low 60th percentile,
trending up from the high 50th in previous years. We have maintained success rates in the
60th percentile in six of our eleven offerings. One offering has a total success rate in the 70t.
One offering is in the 50th, two in the 40th, ,and one in the 30th. History 7 is our most indemand offering, with a success average of 58%, and appears on the college’s top ten list of
General Education courses with the highest non-success rates. History classes have no
prerequisites, and are populated by many unprepared and underprepared students;
students that assess below college-level English.
Efforts to address the basic skills needs of our students include, but are not limited to:
•
Expanding context-based basic skills curriculum. Supplemental instruction one-unit
courses for History 27 (HIS 28) and History 7 (HIS 7S) were added to HIS course offerings
in our last program review cycle.
•
We offer sections of GNST 115 for History students each semester. History instructors
meet with students in the WRAC Center for individual and group tutorials. Success data
shows that students who receive credit for this class succeed at higher rates than those
who do not enroll.
•
One or more history faculty participates in the following college-wide efforts to improve
student success/persistence: the Daraja learning community, Habits of Mind Faculty
Inquiry Group, and Reading Apprenticeship professional development.
Efforts to maintain quality instruction include:
•
All of our long-time adjunct instructors have been evaluated over the last two years.
Two adjuncts were removed from the seniority list due to unsatisfactory evaluations.
Three new adjuncts have been hired by our discipline and will be evaluated over the
next few semesters.
•
Our attempt to replace faculty emeritus Lupe Ortiz (retired Fall 2009) was unsuccessful.
We currently lack a full-time instructor for HIS 22 (Mexican-American History) despite
Chabot’s designation as a Hispanic Serving Institution. The History AA-T requires at least
one course that is not focused on Europe or the United States. The History discipline
needs specialists in Asian, Latin American, and/or African History. It makes no sense to
create a History AA-T if we can’t staff the aligned courses.
2
2. Where We Are Now–
Academic Program Review and Action Planning – YEAR ONE
Division
Program
Contact Person
Date
Social Science
History
Rick Moniz, Mark Stephens, Michael Thompson, Jane Wolford, Sherri Yeager
October 24, 2014
Section A – Data Review and Analysis
I. Basic Success and Equity (Data from 3 previous years)
• What trends are you seeing over time? How does the basic success data compare to the
college as a whole and to statewide average success rates, if available? What might
explain the differences?
• What courses in your discipline show the greatest/least amount of success? What
accounts for success in these courses? How could you improve success in the less
successful areas?
• What do you see in the comparisons between men and women and between different
ethnicities? What accounts for differences? What concerns you? How could you
strategically address the concerns?
• What inferences can you draw from the data correlating the highest level of
Math/English completed and success in your discipline's courses?
• If you have online/hybrid/telecourse/CD-ROM courses, do the success rates differ from
the same courses offered on-campus? If so, should the success rates be the same, why
are they different, and is this a cause for concern? What areas of inquiry does this raise
about online/hybrid/telecourse/CD-ROM courses?
1. Success and Equity
a. Trends over time (from Fall 2011 – Spring 2015).
Category
Chabot
History
% Change in Success
OVERALL
+0%
+1%
GENDER
Men
Women
+0%
+1%
+1%
+1%
Chabot
History
Chabot
History
% Change in Non% Change in
Success
Withdrawal
+2%
+2%
-3%
-3%
+1%
+2%
3
+0%
+2%
-2%
-4%
-2%
-4%
ETHNICITY
Afr-Amer
Asian
Filipino
Latino
Mid East
Native Am
Pac Isl
White
+3%
+1%
+3%
-1%
?
-5%
+6%
-1%
0%
+0%
+2%
+4%
?
-17%
+31%
-5%
+2%
+1%
-2%
+3%
?
+6%
+0%
+2%
+8%
-2%
-1%
+0%
?
+8%
-11%
+4%
-6%
-2%
-2%
-2%
?
-1%
-6%
-2%
-8%
+3%
-2%
-6%
?
+33%
-3%
+0%
Analysis & Questions (Analysis of Trends Over Time)
·
In the Overall data, Chabot's overall success rate in a given semester was higher than
History's, but History continues to make gains over time.
o 1% more students were successful in History while the college as a whole
revealed no gains
o In all other categories, History still lags slightly behind College totals but lost no
ground.
o The decreasing number of Withdrawals can likely be attributed to changes in
Federal financial aid policy that decreases the time students have access to
financial aid
o While the overall number of students in the college fell during this time, the
number of History students grew by over 9%.
·
In the Gender data, Chabot's success rates -- for men & women in a given semester -are higher, but are basically flat over time, while History's rates -- for both men & women
-- are trending upward.
o For men:
§ Withdrawal rate decreases had no impact on non-success rates for men in
History while having a slight impact upon the college as a whole (+1%)
o For women:
§ As withdrawal rates decrease, non-success rates rose 2% for women, while
remaining flat for men. This pattern is true for both the College and
4
History.
§ 1% fewer women were unsuccessful in History than in the college as a
whole.
o Questions/Issues raised by the data:
§ Why did non-success rates in History spike in AY12-13?
§ As withdrawal rates for both the college and History trend
downward, how do we as a college and a discipline increase
success rates?
§ As more students persist, how do we increase success rates,
particularly for women?
·
In the Ethnicity data: Chabot's overall rates showed gains, but History's rates are flat
over time and trailing the institution's rate of success.
o For African-American students, History underperformed the college as a whole.
§ 10% more students were successful in the college as a whole than History.
§ As withdrawal rates trend downward, non-success rates are trending
upward. This is true for both the college and History. The rate of
increase for History is higher (+2% vs +8%)
o For Asian students, the college slightly outperformed the high success rates of
History
§ Bucking the downward trend in withdrawals, there was an increase
of 3%
§ While the number of overall students is increasing, success rate are
being maintained and non-success rates are trending downward (2%)
o For Filipino students, the college outperformed History.
§ 5% more students were successful in college than in the History
discipline.
5
§ 1% more students were unsuccessful in History than in the college
as a whole.
§ 3% more students withdrew from History than from the college as
a whole. This is a downward trend
o For Latino students, the college outperformedthe discipline, but the gap is
closing.
§ 3% more students were successful in the college than in History.
This gap has been cut in more than half from the previous
measurements (7%)
§ 1% more students were unsuccessful in History than in the college
as a whole.
§ 2% more students withdrew from History than from the college as
a whole. Again, the college is trending downward in this category
with history trending downward at a faster rate than the college
as a whole for Hispanic/Latino students (22% to 17%)
o For Native American students, History mostly underperformed the college as a
whole.
§ The falling number of Native American students in the college and
in History is a disturbing trend. For the purpose of this report, the
numbers in History have reached the point (1 student in 3 of the 6
semesters under consideration) beyond true statistical calculation
o For Pacific Islander students, History mostly outperformed the college as a whole.
The numbers, however, are relatively small which might account for the large
swing in rates.
§ As the number of Pacific Islander students increase in History,
however, success rates are steadily climbing (40% to 71%)
o For White students, The college outperformed History.
§ The success rate fell significantly (-5%) only to rise just as
dramatically (+8%) and fall again. These results, to be honest are
puzzling.
§ Non-success rates tend to be increasing (+4%) while withdrawal
rates are fluctuating almost as dramatically as success rates.
6
•
Questions/Issues raised by the data: What practices in History account for the success
rates over time?
How might the success rate for African American students be increased? This is a
question for the college as well as the discipline?
How might the closing success gap seen in Hispanic/Latino students be replicated
for African American students?
What accounts for the upward and downward swing in the success rates of White
students? Overall the success rates are relatively good. There is, however, no present
explanation for the fluctuating trend.
Trends:
§ As Hispanic/Latino students represent an increasing percentage of the student
body, they are succeeding at a rising rate in the college and the discipline.
African-American students, however, continue to trail in their success at the
college and the discipline.
§ African-American in History lag behind the success rates of the
college and discipline as a whole?
§ Why are gains for Latino students in History so much more
dramatic than for other racial/ethnic groups?
§ As gains are made in the discipline in Withdrawal rates, nonsuccess rates are rising slightly.
By Semester: Do the heavy literacy demands of History account for the lower
success rates? Is this due to the fact that this is a general education
requirement, so all students must take it regardless of interest and/or
readiness?
b. Compare/contrast courses within discipline:
7
·
In the Overall data:
o Almost all courses have shown success in increasing the number of
students demonstrating success and lowering the number of students
Withdrawing. The course with the largest enrollment, Hist 7, has
outperformed the remaining courses in the amount of increase success
rate.
o Although overall trends are up, the greatest variation in gains and losses
from semester to semester was seen in Hist 1, 2, & 20.
o The American Cultures courses showed the greatest achievement in
lowering the number of students identified under Non-Success than
other courses, but did less well in Withdrawals than the other courses.
o Across all courses, there were greater advances in lowering the number of
students Withdrawing than in lowering the number of students identified
as Non-Successful.
o The data for Hist 7 is better than for Hist 8. Students in Hist 7
demonstrated 10% greater Success from Fa 2011 – Sp 2014 and 9% fewer
Withdrawals.
o Questions/Issues raised by the data:
§ Why have students in Hist 7 made stronger gains than those in
other courses? Does it have anything to do with the demographics
of the students taking these courses? With the fact that it is a
requirement and not a choice on the part of the students?
§ Why do some courses show such great variation from semester to
semester? As an example, in Hist 20, the percentage of students
demonstrating Success went from 49% in Sp 2012 to 31% in Sp
2013 to 40% in Fa 2014. What role does varying student
preparedness play in this fluctuating rates?
§ What accounts for the greater improvement in the number of
students who demonstrate Non-Success for American Cultures
classes as contrasted to non-American Cultures courses? Is it due
to the fact that these courses are required for transfer?
·
8
In the Gender data (for Hist 7 & 8 ONLY):
o In Hist 7, women now outnumber and outperform men.
§ 3% more women were successful in Hist 7.
§ 2% fewer men were unsuccessful in Hist 7.
§ 5% fewer women withdrew from Hist 7 than men.
o In Hist 8, men and women are essentially equal in Success.
§ 64% men and women were successful in Hist 8 in Spring 2014.
§ 1% more women were unsuccessful in Hist 8.
§ 1% more men withdrew from Hist 8.
o Questions/Issues raised by the data:
§ Why do women outperform men in in Hist 7?
§ What accounts for the dramatic increases in success for women in
History 7 and modest increases in History 8?
§ Why have men generally remained stagnant in success over this
program review period?
§ Are the ethnic breakdowns generally the same for men and
women?
·
In the Ethnicity data:
o The results are mixed. Some observations:
§ African-American students' success in Hist 8 and Hist 7 is roughly
equal.
§ Asian students did nearly equally well in both Hist 7 & 8 with
Success rates in History 7 increasing, but decreasing in History 8
§ Filipino students did better in Hist 8 than in Hist 7.
§ Latino students’ results were mixed. The Success rates grew in
History 7 and fell slightly in History 8 (-2%).
9
§ White students' success improved steadily in Hist 7 and fluctuated
wildly in Hist 8.
o Questions/Issues raised by the data;
§ Why are all students do better in Hist 7 than in Hist 8?
§ Why do African American students withdraw at greater rates than
other students?
ü Answer:
o Due to the fact that “success” does not objectively mean the same thing
from teacher to teacher, from course to course, and from student to
student, it is impossible to answer what accounts for success or how we
could improve success. Below are some of the reasons:
§ With the wide variety of instructors teaching in high demand
courses, it is impossible to ensure standardization in grading, work
required, and effort rewarded.
§ Preliminary Habits of Mind research data suggest family and work
responsibilities and problems create significant barriers for many
of our students. How and if the college can have and impact in
helping students address these issues is an unanswered question.
§ Since each course focuses on a very different content and meets
different graduation requirements, it is difficult to draw useful
conclusions from the success data. The significant increase in
success in History 7, however, is worth some study.
§ While data about how many students pass, fail, or withdraw from a
course is important to know, it is not the only way to measure
success. It is a very blunt tool.
c. Comparisons between men and women and between different ethnicities (data is indicated
above):
10
ü Answer:
o Some tentative suggestions have been made above about what might
account for the differences between ethnicities. Again, it is hard to
ascertain the impact that different instructors with different styles and
different expectations might have on student achievement.
d. Inferences drawn from data correlating highest level of Math/English achievement &Hist
success:
·
Hist 7:
o 64% of students in transfer-level English classes were Successful while 47% of
those in Engl 102, etc. were Successful and 44% of those in No English class
were.
o 9% of students in transfer-level English classes were Non-Successful while 29% of
students in Engl 102 etc., were and 25% of those in No English class were.
o 26% of students in transfer-level English classes Withdrew while 24% of students
in Engl 102, etc. Withdrew and 32% of those in No English class did.
·
Hist 8:
o 72% of students in transfer-level English classes were Successful while 65% of
those in Engl 102, etc. were Successful and 54% of those in No English class
were.
o 7% of students in transfer-level English classes were Non-Successful while 23% of
the others were.
o 21% of students in transfer-level English classes Withdrew while 13% of students
in Engl 102, etc. Withdrew and 22% of those in No English class did.
ü Answer(Questions/Issues Raised by the data):
o The data clearly demonstrates that students who have the requisite
literacy skills, as demonstrated by their enrollment in transfer-level
11
English, have much greater Success and much lower rates on NonSuccess than all of the other students.
o A major surprise is that the number of students withdrawing from courses
is about the same regardless of the English course. This points to the
possibility that the reasons which cause students to withdraw are more
personal than academic and cut across differing levels of literacy
readiness.
e. Face-to Face vs. Online success rates:
·
Overall:
o Fall 2011 (History 7)
§ 60% of on campus students achieved Success while 47% of online
students did.
§ 18% of on campus students demonstrated Non-Success while 14%
of online students did.
§ 22% of on campus students Withdrew while 39% of online students
did.
o Fall 2013
§ 59% of on campus students achieved Success while 65% of online
students did.
§ 16% of on campus students demonstrated Non-Success while 7% of
online students did.
§ 25% of on campus students Withdrew while 27% of online students
did.
o Fall 2011 (History 8)
§ 63% of on campus students achieved Success while 73% of online
students did.
§ 21% of on campus students demonstrated Non-Success while 14%
of online students did.
12
§ 22% of on campus students Withdrew while 39% of online students
did.
o Fall 2013 (History 8)
§ 63% of on campus students achieved Success while 69% of online
students did.
§ 21% of on campus students demonstrated Non-Success while 7% of
online students did.
§ 17% of on campus students Withdrew while 20% of online students
did
o Questions/Issues raised by the data:
§ What explains the wild swing in the numbers for History 7 from Fall
2011 to Fall 2013?
§ How do we address the consistently hire withdrawal rates for
online courses?
§ The difference in Success rates can be largely attributed to the
greater number of students Withdrawing as Non-Success rates for
the students who remain are lower for online classes.
§ Greater Withdrawal rates might be attributed to (1) the increased
importance of participation necessary for an online class.
Students do not receive points for attendance alone and MUST
read and write in order to succeed. They cannot be passive
students, as participation is mandatory. (2) the early-semester
difficulty in knowing whether online students intend to remain in
the class & participate. It is likely – even more so during summer
school – that some students who received Ws could have received
NGRs – which do not deflate “success” percentages.
13
II. Course Sequence (Data from 2 previous years)
Note: Answer this question if you have been provided data about course sequences in your
discipline.
• Is success in the first course a good indicator of success in the second course? What are
the curricular, pedagogical, and/or methodological implications of what you see?
• Do your successful students in the first course enroll at a high rate in the second course
within two years? What are the implications of what you see?
Explain:
The History discipline offers no courses with prerequisites or in mandatory sequence.
III. Course Review (Data from 5 previous years)
• Ed. Code requires that all courses are updated every five years. Are all of your courses
updated? If not, do you want to maintain or continue these courses? Please indicate
your plans in terms of curriculum. Have all of your courses been offered recently? If
not, why? Are students counting on courses to complete a program or major when
these courses are not being offered?
Explain:
Three courses are due for review: Hist 5, Critical Thinking in History; Hist 25, American Indian
History and Culture; and Hist 19, History of Modern China and Japan.
Hist 5 and Hist 25 have not been offered for 3 years due to budget constraints and cuts in
sections. Both are valuable courses, and will be updated so they can be offered in the future as
budget constraints lessen. Hist 19 has not been offered in over 5 years, and its future could be
tied to student interest and any decision concerning the availability of a History transfer degree.
With the expertise represented in the discipline in gender studies, ethnic studies, military
history, political history, and travel, we plan on writing several new courses, including adding
14
someonline versions of more courses We are also in the process of making permanent some of
theworkshop courses developed to enhance basic skills and the learning of history. These
courseswill enrich our offerings, provide access to students for expanded learning and
experiences, andtake advantage of the strengths and knowledge of our faculty.
History 21 (African American History from Reconstruction to the Present) continues to be
incorporated into the Daraja Program. Beginning in Fall 2015, History 7 will be added to the
Daraja Program as well. It is clear that more coordination support is needed to ensure that
there is an easy transition from semester to the semester. Ensuring that students are enrolled
in the right section, for example, would be better facilitated by additional support dedicated to
the program. Also, this support is also needed to serve and coordinate the varied counseling
needs of the students in this program. This type of support is vital for student retention and
program maintenance. In addition, the History sections of Daraja would be better served by the
presence of a Learning Assistant (or equivalent), to aid the students transition into and work in
a college, transfer-level Social Science class. Experience has shown that students need
assistance adjusting to larger courses in which lectures play a significant role.
IV. Budget Summary (Data from 3 previous years)
• What budget trends do you see in your discipline? What are the implications of these
trends?
• Where is your budget adequate and where is it lacking? What are the consequences on
your program, your students, and/or your instruction?
• What projected long-term (5-10 years) budget needs do you see? You will detail your
short-term needs in the action plan that follows. You do not need to cite them here.
Explain:
Recent budget cuts have greatly reduced the number of sections that the History discipline can
offer. The result has been an increase in the average section size. While the History faculty has
been able to achieve some success gains, these gains are threatened by larger classes. (See
History success data.) As budget constraints relax and sections are added it will be important to
focus upon balancing continued productivity and student success. The History discipline (like
many other disciplines) needs more FTEF in order to: (1) teach classes of a reasonable size that
will reach students with a variety of learning styles, strengths and basic skills needs, and ; (2)
reach more students, enabling them to move through their education here in a reasonable
amount of time.
In addition, History needs more FTEF to begin offering courses that both reflect the diversity of
our student body and meet the requirements of a possible transfer degree. While the discipline
has not reached a consensus on the efficacy of offering this degree, we cannot truly begin this
discussion without offering the full range of required courses. Offering sections of the histories
of Latin America, Asia (and possibly Africa) would allow the discipline to gauge student interest,
15
adjunct instructor availablility and, ultimately, the capacity of the college to create and sustain
the full offerings of a college History program. One way the History discipline could begin to
achieve this goal is to hire, finally, a retirement replacement for Lupe Ortiz. Such a full-time
hire could combine teaching responsibilities in Mexican-American and Latin American histories
and program lead responsibilities in Ethnic Studies. The discipline has made this hiring request
for several years and has been ignored. As an Hispanic Serving Institution, Chabot College is in
danger of woefully underserving this student population by ignoring this significant part of the
curriculum.
V. Enrollment Data (Data from 2 previous years)
• Please provide a brief description of: overall enrollment trends; enrollment trends by
course; and enrollment trends by time of day and Saturday.
• Describe what your discipline has done in terms of curriculum or scheduling in the last
two years that has effected enrollments.
• Describe plans or strategies that you have for the near future in terms of curriculum or
scheduling that could impact your enrollments.
• Lastly, look closely at whether the schedule you currently offer provides access to the
broader community that your discipline serves at Chabot College—day time, night time,
Saturday, distance education, special or targeted communities that would or do enroll in
your courses.
Explain:
Simply put, History classes are full and achieving improved success rates. In fact, according to
enrollment management data, the WSCH/FTEF ratio (689.17) for the History Discipline (Fall
2011 –Spring 2014) is above capacity average. These numbers continue to be impressive and
reflect the continued commitment of the History faculty to accommodate and teach effectively
as many students as is feasible. They also reveal the continuing enrollment trend of larger class
sizes. This trend certainly reflects a response to budget cuts that resulted in a reduction of the
number of sections available. As, for example, the number of sections of History 7 and 8
decreased, the class size of the remaining sections of the courses increased. If we compare
enrollment data from the first semester of the analysis period to the period average, almost
every section of History 1, 7 8 and 21 increased its WSCH/FTEF ratio. Other sections of History
courses (e.g. History 22, History 27) remain at or are significantly above capacity. As
withdrawal rates decrease across campus and in History and budget constraints decrease, it will
be important for the discipline to balance an increase in the number of sections offered,
productivity and the capacity to continue to increase student success. That is, at what point
does an increase in productivity negatively impact the capacity of instructors to adequately
teach all the students --not just those sufficiently prepared and at college level, but those
underprepared students who need more individual attention. Productivity does not occur in a
vacuum, but must be balanced against the educational goals of the college, the History
discipline and instructors. Research numbers suggest that most of are students and un- and
16
underprepared for college level work. The college must be willing to experiment and risk the
possibility of lower productivity in an effort to reach and successfully teach these students.
The History Discipline plans to continue offering sections of GNST 115 to provide students with
individual tutoring with full-time faculty. In addition, (as discussed elsewhere in this review),
the discipline plans to increase the number of tutors and begin exploring the use of learning
assistants in the classroom. The Daraja section of History 21 may be the first course in which
such experimentation may occur. History instructors remain open to new initiatives that will
enable them to sustain productivity while increasing student success.
•
The Difference We Hope to Make–
General Studies 115.High enrollment numbers in the History sections of General Studies
115 highlight both the need & value of supplemental learning for students, and the
institutional productivity of these sections. Given this reality, we believe it is time for
historians to control our own 115 classes rather than having them remain under the
purview of the Language Arts Division.
•
Tutoring. When students avail themselves of tutoring, it is easy & beneficial to track the
impact of tutoring on student success. Data shows that tutoring improves student
success, therefore we want to recruit greater numbers of students to seek tutoring with
the objective of improving student writing, critical-thinking capabilities and overall
success rates.
•
Learning Assistants. We will continue to engage in discussions to develop ideas for how
to better utilize learning assistants embedded within specified classes. Preliminary ideas
include, for example: discussion assignments in which a class is divided into several
groups, each of which is responsible for writing papers and leading a class discussion.
An embedded learning assistant could meet with individual groups in break-out sessions
(perhaps accompanying the group to the Learning Center) to assist them in organizing &
composing their individual papers and strategizing for leading the class discussion.
17
•
Big Picture Changes. Some of us believe that a glaring impediment for students
grappling with the study of history at the community college level is the survey course
itself – specifically how history is periodized in survey courses. With History 7
periodized from ancient Native America through Reconstruction, and with History 8
periodized from 1877 to the present, students are overwhelmed by a dizzying
chronological race through time that is pedagogically counterproductive. History 8 in
particular – which covers “to the present” continues to grow by the decade & in the
context of an evermore complex & globalized world. We will engage in discussions with
the objective of re-thinking the survey course format; discussions which include ideas
about how to re-periodize history, and – importantly - how to initiate a many-faceted,
dialogue about what it would take to make these changes happen.
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
2013-14
Budget
Received
2014-15
Budget
Requested
2014-15
Budget
Received
1. How has your investment of the budget monies you did receive improved student learning?
When you requested the funding, you provided a rationale. In this section, assess if the
anticipated positive impacts you projected have, in fact, been realized.
18
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?
19
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.
See Page 45
20
Program Review – Closing the Loop Form
Course Level Student Learning Outcomes
Course: History 8
Semester assessment data gathered: Spring 2014
Number of sections offered in semester: 12
Percentage of sections assessed: 50%
Semester held “Closing the Loop” discussion: Fall 2014
Faculty members involved in “Closing the Loop” discussion:
Rick Moniz, Mark Stephens, Michael Thompson, Jane Wolford, Sherri Yeager
Course-Level Outcomes (CLO)
#1 Synthesize factual information and historical evidence from a variety of sources and identify the
connections between them.
#2 Demonstrate possessing a body of knowledge about and critical understanding of historical eras
and events.
In the context of the course as a whole, what scores for your CLOs would indicate success for you?
(Example: 75% of the class scored either 3 or 4.
___________________________________________________
In the context of the course as a whole, we do not believe that these scores provide either a
quantitative or qualitative indication of “success”. The fact that we are required to submit scores for
individual students in one class in a single semester, but are not able to re-assess that same group of
students in subsequent semesters renders the “data” meaningless. Qualitatively, depending on each
individual student’s starting point (basic reading/writing ability, life circumstance, habits of mind, etc.),
the definition of “success” is unique and complex in myriad ways. There are potentially positive
learning “outcomes” that may not register for individual students until some time after their classroom
experience has ended; outcomes about which we as instructors may never witness. Positive learning
experiences may occur for some students who do not necessarily read, write or score well over the
course of a semester class. We are not, therefore, prepared to “measure” a particular degree of
student “success” based on a simply tallying of individual scores on a software system which is a mess.
___________________________________________________________________
How do your current scores match with your above definition of success?
_____________________________________________________
The scores are what they are for every individual student, based on one assignment, during the course
of a single semester. These scores alone offer virtually no meaningful information about what
constitutes student “success” nor do they allow for generalizations about the “success” of this course
or our history program. History instructors who entered “data” did so because this was mandated by a
flawed institutional process to which all of us are in opposition, and the essential premises of which we
do not believe. We, a group of intelligent, experienced, committed teachers have been reduced to
spending hours of precious time for the purpose of bureaucratic compliance.
21
Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and your discussions with
other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
Although we rarely have enough time to discuss and reflect amongst ourselves in meaningful ways
because so much of our time must be spent entering scores for SLOs and filling out pages and pages of
forms in a never-ending cycle of mostly repetitious “program review”, in the limited time we do have
we discuss in a very nuanced manner what “success” means for our extremely diverse students. We
discuss the variety of assignments we employ to (1) assess students’ understanding of history, and (2)
address the vast differences in individual students’ reading/writing abilities, and what kinds of tools
and recommendations we may provide to help them improve in these areas. We share our insights
and our ideas for interesting & effective assignments – as we have always done throughout our
professional careers, long before the “outcome” movement took control over higher education.
We discuss how individual students’ habits of mind and life circumstances are, without a doubt, the
most important factors that determine whether or not a student is capable of or willing to commit the
time/effort necessary to complete the preparatory work required to “succeed” on specific assignments
and in the course throughout the semester. We share the stories our students tell us about their lives
– stories which have everything to do with whether or not they will “succeed” in their college courses:
We know that most of our students struggle economically, have difficulties making ends meet, and are
frustrated by the demands of taking classes, making an income and caring for children and other family
members. Many of our students endure various crises around their housing situations, and for some of
them that includes homelessness. Some cannot afford textbooks and others fall behind while waiting
for financial aid to be distributed. Others do not have access to a reliable computer or internet
connection. There are students who have been the victims of random gun violence and young women
who have struggled with domestic violence. Since there are no course prerequisites for history classes,
many students do not really possess the necessary reading, writing, or vocabulary skills to excel in a
transfer-level history course. Many others do not seem to possess the intellectual curiosity, maturity
or seriousness needed to adequately prepare for class and for assignments. All of these – and many
other – life issues have everything to do with student “outcomes”, but these factors do not lend
themselves to measurement.
What course-level and programmatic strengths have the assessment reflections revealed?
_____________________________________________________
Courses have been developed to address the many basic skills issues faced by our students, along with
individual tutoring in the Learning Center. Evidence indicates that students who avail themselves of
these resources are more likely to succeed in their history courses. However, since tutoring &
remediation – in whatever form offered – are voluntary, many students who might benefit from such
remediation do not choose to avail themselves of these institutional resources. Each of us – in our
individual classrooms – provides our students with myriad tools & resources aimed at improving their
ability to read, write, take notes, and critically think. We develop new assignments on a regular basis
to promote critical thinking and to help our students learn more effectively.
What actions has your discipline determined might be taken as a result of your reflections,
discussions, and insights?
22
_____________________________________________________
Without prerequisites and in the absence of mandatory assessment and placement, whether or not
students avail themselves of institutional learning resources and whether or not students avail
themselves of the tools provided by instructors is up to them. Everything is voluntary and everything
depends on students being willing to make choices that will serve their learning interests. We as
instructors will continue to discuss & reflect about effective pedagogy and will experiment with
different practices and assignments to enhance our students’ learning outcomes. (Our efforts could be
much more collaborative if we weren’t burdened and burned out by the non-stop mandates of
outcome-movement compliance!) But we recognize that “outcomes” depend to a great extent on
students’ ability to and/or willingness to take responsible action and to make sound choices for
themselves.
_____________________________________________________
What is the nature of the planned actions?
__ Curricular
X Pedagogical
X Resource based
__ Change to CLO or rubric
__ Change to assessment methods
__ Other: _________________________
PART I: COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOMES – DATA RESULTS
CONSIDER THE COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOMES INDIVIDUALLY (THE
NUMBER OF CLOS WILL DIFFER BY COURSE)
(CLO) 1:
Defined Target
Scores*
(CLO Goal)
Actual Scores**
(eLumen data)
(CLO) 2:
(CLO) 3:
(CLO) 4:
 If more CLOs are listed for the course, add another row to the table.
* Defined Target Scores:What scores in eLumen from your students would indicate success for
this CLO? (Example: 75% of the class scored either 3 or 4)
**Actual scores: What is the actual percent of students that meet defined target based on the
eLumen data collected in this assessment cycle?
23
Appendix B2: “Closing the Loop” Assessment Reflections (See Attached forms)
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
History 21
Fall 2013
2
1
49%
Form Instructions:
• Part I: CLO Data Reporting. For each CLO, obtain Class Achievement data in aggregate
for all sections assessed in eLumen.
• Part II: CLO Reflections. Based on student success reported in Part I, reflect on the
individual CLO.
• Part III: Course Reflection. In reviewing all the CLOs and your findings, reflect on the
course as a whole.
PART I: COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOMES – DATA RESULTS
CONSIDER THE COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOMES INDIVIDUALLY (THE
NUMBER OF CLOS WILL DIFFER BY COURSE)
HISTORY 21 FOR FALL 2013
(CLO) 1: Synthesize factual information and historical
evidence from a variety of sources and identify the
connections between them.
(CLO) 2: The students will demonstrate a body of
knowledge about and critical understanding of
historical eras, their key events and ideas, and the
process of change over time.
(CLO) 3: Analyze the causes and consequences of
political, economic and social change.
(CLO) 4:
24
Defined Target Actual Scores**
Scores*
(eLumen data)
(CLO Goal)
41.4%
41 assessed:
assessed at 3
7 assessed at 4
or 4
10 assessed at 3
14 assessed at 2
7 assessed at 1
2 assessed at 0
1 assessed at NA
41.4%
41 assessed:
assessed at 3
7 assessed at 4
or 4
10 assessed at 3
14 assessed at 2
7 assessed at 1
2 assessed at 1
1 assessed at NA
41.4%
41 assessed:
assessed at 3
7 assessed at 4
or 4
10 assessed at 3
14 assessed at 2
7 assessed at 1
2 assessed at 0
1 assessed at NA
Course-Level Outcomes (CLO)
#1 Synthesize factual information and historical evidence from a variety of sources and identify the
connections between them.
#2 Demonstrate possessing a body of knowledge about and critical understanding of historical eras
and events.
In the context of the course as a whole, what scores for your CLOs would indicate success for you?
(Example: 75% of the class scored either 3 or 4.
___________________________________________________
In the context of the course as a whole, we do not believe that these scores provide either a
quantitative or qualitative indication of “success”. The fact that we are required to submit scores for
individual students in one class in a single semester, but are not able to re-assess that same group of
students in subsequent semesters renders the “data” meaningless. Qualitatively, depending on each
individual student’s starting point (basic reading/writing ability, life circumstance, habits of mind, etc.),
the definition of “success” is unique and complex in myriad ways. There are potentially positive
learning “outcomes” that may not register for individual students until some time after their classroom
experience has ended; outcomes about which we as instructors may never witness. Positive learning
experiences may occur for some students who do not necessarily read, write or score well over the
course of a semester class. We are not, therefore, prepared to “measure” a particular degree of
student “success” based on a simply tallying of individual scores on a software system which is a mess.
___________________________________________________________________
How do your current scores match with your above definition of success?
_____________________________________________________
The scores are what they are for every individual student, based on one assignment, during the course
of a single semester. These scores alone offer virtually no meaningful information about what
constitutes student “success” nor do they allow for generalizations about the “success” of this course
or our history program. History instructors who entered “data” did so because this was mandated by a
flawed institutional process to which all of us are in opposition, and the essential premises of which we
do not believe. We, a group of intelligent, experienced, committed teachers have been reduced to
spending hours of precious time for the purpose of bureaucratic compliance.
Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and your discussions with
other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
Although we rarely have enough time to discuss and reflect amongst ourselves in meaningful ways
because so much of our time must be spent entering scores for SLOs and filling out pages and pages of
forms in a never-ending cycle of mostly repetitious “program review”, in the limited time we do have
we discuss in a very nuanced manner what “success” means for our extremely diverse students. We
discuss the variety of assignments we employ to (1) assess students’ understanding of history, and (2)
address the vast differences in individual students’ reading/writing abilities, and what kinds of tools
and recommendations we may provide to help them improve in these areas. We share our insights
25
and our ideas for interesting & effective assignments – as we have always done throughout our
professional careers, long before the “outcome” movement took control over higher education.
We discuss how individual students’ habits of mind and life circumstances are, without a doubt, the
most important factors that determine whether or not a student is capable of or willing to commit the
time/effort necessary to complete the preparatory work required to “succeed” on specific assignments
and in the course throughout the semester. We share the stories our students tell us about their lives
– stories which have everything to do with whether or not they will “succeed” in their college courses:
We know that most of our students struggle economically, have difficulties making ends meet, and are
frustrated by the demands of taking classes, making an income and caring for children and other family
members. Many of our students endure various crises around their housing situations, and for some of
them that includes homelessness. Some cannot afford textbooks and others fall behind while waiting
for financial aid to be distributed. Others do not have access to a reliable computer or internet
connection. There are students who have been the victims of random gun violence and young women
who have struggled with domestic violence. Since there are no course prerequisites for history classes,
many students do not really possess the necessary reading, writing, or vocabulary skills to excel in a
transfer-level history course. Many others do not seem to possess the intellectual curiosity, maturity
or seriousness needed to adequately prepare for class and for assignments. All of these – and many
other – life issues have everything to do with student “outcomes”, but these factors do not lend
themselves to measurement.
What course-level and programmatic strengths have the assessment reflections revealed?
_____________________________________________________
Courses have been developed to address the many basic skills issues faced by our students, along with
individual tutoring in the Learning Center. Evidence indicates that students who avail themselves of
these resources are more likely to succeed in their history courses. However, since tutoring &
remediation – in whatever form offered – are voluntary, many students who might benefit from such
remediation do not choose to avail themselves of these institutional resources. Each of us – in our
individual classrooms – provides our students with myriad tools & resources aimed at improving their
ability to read, write, take notes, and critically think. We develop new assignments on a regular basis
to promote critical thinking and to help our students learn more effectively.
What actions has your discipline determined might be taken as a result of your reflections,
discussions, and insights?
_____________________________________________________
Without prerequisites and in the absence of mandatory assessment and placement, whether or not
students avail themselves of institutional learning resources and whether or not students avail
themselves of the tools provided by instructors is up to them. Everything is voluntary and everything
depends on students being willing to make choices that will serve their learning interests. We as
instructors will continue to discuss & reflect about effective pedagogy and will experiment with
different practices and assignments to enhance our students’ learning outcomes. (Our efforts could be
much more collaborative if we weren’t burdened and burned out by the non-stop mandates of
outcome-movement compliance!) But we recognize that “outcomes” depend to a great extent on
students’ ability to and/or willingness to take responsible action and to make sound choices for
26
themselves.
_____________________________________________________
What is the nature of the planned actions?
__ Curricular
X Pedagogical
X Resource based
__ Change to CLO or rubric
__ Change to assessment methods
__ Other:
27
Appendix C: Program Learning Outcomes
Considering your feedback, findings, and/or information that has arisen from the course level
discussions, please reflect on each of your Program Level Outcomes.
Program: ______
•
PLO #1:
•
PLO #2:
•
PLO #3:
•
PLO #4:
What questions or investigations arose as a result of these reflections or discussions?
What program-level strengths have the assessment reflections revealed?
What actions has your discipline determined might be taken to enhance the learning of
students completing your program?
Program: _____
• PLO #1:
•
PLO #2:
•
PLO #3:
28
•
PLO #4:
What questions or investigations arose as a result of these reflections or discussions?
What program-level strengths have the assessment reflections revealed?
What actions has your discipline determined might be taken to enhance the learning of
students completing your program?
29
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?
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)
3. Have all of your courses been offered within the past five years? If no, why should those
courses remain in our college catalog?
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
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.
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.
7. If you have course sequences, is success in the first course a good predictor of success in
the subsequent course(s)?
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.
30
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
Completio out personnel, supplies,
n Date
other 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)
31
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
by/from):
Will the proposed project require facility modifications, additional space, or program relocation?
No
Yes, explain:
Will the proposed project involve subcontractors, collaborative partners, or cooperative agreements?
No
Yes, explain:
Do you know of any grant funding sources that would meet the needs of the proposed project?
No
Yes, list potential funding sources:
32
(obtained
Appendix F1: Full-Time Faculty/Adjunct Staffing Request(s) [Acct. Category 1000]
Audience: Faculty Prioritization Committeeand Administrators
Purpose: Providing explanation and justification for new and replacement positions for full-time faculty and adjuncts
Instructions: Please justify the need for your request. Discussanticipated improvements in student learning and contribution to the
Strategic Plangoal. Cite evidence and data to support your request, including enrollment management data (EM Summary by Term)
for the most recent three years, student success and retention data , and any other pertinent information. Data is available at
http://www.chabotcollege.edu/ProgramReview/Data2013.cfm.
1. Number of new faculty requested in this discipline: ___
STAFFING REQUESTS (1000) FACULTY
Position
History/Ethnic
Studies Instructor
Description
6 CAH/History
22 6 CAH/Ethnic
Studies 1/ 3 CAH
Class to fulfill
History AA-T
PLEASE LIST IN RANK ORDER
Faculty (1000)
Program/Unit
Division/Area
History/Ethnic Studies
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.
History needs more FTEF to begin offering courses that both reflect the diversity of our student body and meet the requirements of
a possible transfer degree. While the discipline has not reached a consensus on the efficacy of offering this degree, we cannot truly
33
begin this discussion without offering the full range of required courses. Offering sections of the histories of Latin America, Asia (and
possibly Africa) would allow the discipline to gauge student interest, adjunct instructor availablility and, ultimately, the capacity of
the college to create and sustain the full offerings of a college History program. One way the History discipline could begin to
achieve this goal is to hire, finally, a retirement replacement for Lupe Ortiz. Such a full-time hire could combine teaching
responsibilities in Mexican-American and Latin American histories and program lead responsibilities in Ethnic Studies. The discipline
has made this hiring request for several years and has been ignored. As an Hispanic Serving Institution, Chabot College is in danger
of woefully underserving this student population by ignoring this significant part of the curriculum.
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.
34
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
PLEASE LIST IN RANK ORDER
Classified Professional Staff (2000)
Description
Program/Unit
STAFFING REQUESTS (2000) STUDENT ASSISTANTS
Postion
Description
Division/Area
PLEASE LIST IN RANK ORDER
Student Assistants (2000)
Program/Unit
35
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.
36
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
CURRENT ADDITIONAL CURRENT ADDITIONAL
FTEF
FTEF
SECTIONS SECTIONS
(2014NEEDED
NEEDED
15)
37
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:
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.
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
needed totals in all areas Request
Requeste
Description
d
Receive
d
2015-16
Request
Amount
Ven
dor
39
Division/U
nit
Priority
#1
Priority
#2
Priority
#3
Contracts and Services Requests [Acct. Category 5000]
Instructions:
1. There should be a separate line item for each contract or service.
2. Travel costs should be broken out and then totaled (e.g., airfare, mileage, hotel, etc.)
Priority 1: Are criticalrequests required to sustain a program (if not acquired, program may be in peril) or to meet mandated
requirements of local,
state or federal regulations or those regulations of a accrediting body for a program.
Priority 2: Are needed requests that 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
Priority Priority Priority
Division/Dept
#1
#2
#3
41
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.
For bulk items, 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.
Description
Amount
Vendor
Division/Unit
42
Priority #1
Priority
#2
Priority
#3
43
Appendix F8: Facilities Requests
Audience: Facilities Committee, Administrators
Purpose: To be read and responded to by Facilities Committee.
Background: Following the completion of the 2012 Chabot College Facility Master Plan, the Facilities Committee (FC) has begun the
task of re-prioritizing Measure B Bond budgets to better align with current needs. The FC has identified approximately $18M in
budgets to be used to meet capital improvement needs on the Chabot College campus. Discussion in the FC includes holding some
funds for a year or two to be used as match if and when the State again funds capital projects, and to fund smaller projects that will
directly assist our strategic goal. The FC has determined that although some of the college's greatest needs involving new facilities
cannot be met with this limited amount of funding, there are many smaller pressing needs that could be addressed. The kinds of
projects that can be legally funded with bond dollars include the "repairing, constructing, acquiring, equipping of classrooms, labs,
sites and facilities." Do NOT use this form for equipment or supply requests.
Instructions: Please fill in the following as needed to justify your requests.If requesting more than one facilities project, please rank
order your requests.
Brief Title of Request (Project Name):
Building/Location:
Description of the facility project. Please be as specific as possible.
What educational programs or institutional purposes does this equipment support?
Briefly describe how your request relates specifically to meeting the Strategic Plan Goal and to enhancing student learning?
44
HIS 1
HIS 2
HIS 3
Fall 2011
Spring
2012
1
ASSESSED
1
ASSESSED
1
ASSESSED
2
ASSESSED
3
ASSESSED
HIS 4
HIS 7
HIS 8
HIS 12
5
ASSESSED
2
ASSESSED
HIS 20
2
ASSESSED
HIS 21
HIS 22
HIS 27
2
ASSESSED
3
ASSESSED
3
ASSESSED
2
ASSESSED
Fall 2012
Spring 2013
Fall 2013
Spring 2014
2 ASSESSED/GRP 2
1 ASSESSED
2 ASSESSED/GRP 3
1 TO BE
ASSESSED/GRP 4
1 ASSESSED/GRP 1
2
ASSESSED
1
ASSESSED
2 ASSESSED
8 ASSESSED/GRP 2
7 ASSESSED/GRP 3
1 ASSESSED
1 TO BE
ASSESSED/GRP 4
1 ASSESSED/GRP 1
1 ASSESSED/GRP 2
1 TO BE
ASSESSED/GRP 4
2
ASSESSED
1
ASSESSED
2
ASSESSED
Fall 2014
2 ASSESSED/GRP 1
45
1 ASSESSED
2 ASSESSED