Chabot College
Program Review Report
2015 -2016
Year 1 of
Program Review Cycle
Biology
Submitted on: 10/24/14
Contact:
Zarir G. Marawala& Jennifer Lange
Final Forms, 1/18/13
Table of Contents
_X__ Year 1
Section 1: Where We’ve Been
Section 2: Where We Are Now
Section 3: The Difference We Hope to Make
___ Year 2
Section A: What Progress Have We Made?
Section B: What Changes Do We Suggest?
___ Year 3
Section A: What Have We Accomplished?
Section B: What’s Next?
Required Appendices:
A: Budget History
B1: Course Learning Outcomes Assessment Schedule
B2: “Closing the Loop” Assessment Reflections
C: Program Learning Outcomes
D: A Few Questions
E: New Initiatives
F1: New Faculty Requests
F2: Classified Staffing Requests
F3: FTEF Requests
F4: Academic Learning Support Requests
F5: Supplies and Services Requests
F6: Conference/Travel Requests
F7: Technology and Other Equipment Requests
F8: Facilities
_X___ YEAR ONE
1. Where We’ve Been - Complete Appendix A (Budget History) prior to writing your
narrative. Limit your narrative to nomore than one page. As you enter a new
Program Review cycle, reflect on your achievements overthelastfew years. What
did you want to accomplish? Describe how changes in resources provided to
your discipline or program have impacted your achievements. What are you most
proud of, and what do you want to continue to improve?
Our work throughout this and previous Program Review cycles represent a continued series of efforts to
improve student learning through:
Better (safer) facilities;
Adequate staffing and materials for courses;
Tailoring our course offerings to students’ needs in our present and future economy;
Increasing the number of students who complete our programs and the quality of their
knowledge and skills.
Implementation of an organic garden where students can learn about ecology, climate effects,
and soil readings.
Met with architects to see what the allotted funding by the BOT will give us with regards to
facilities with a reasonable update into 21st century standards and demands for serving an
increasing number of students.
We have still not been able to accomplish many of these ongoing goals including
increasing the biology supply budget to adequate levels
improving the physical environment of building 2100 which includes a safer learning
environment (though it is better than before), adequate facilities for environmental sciences,
and an overall stable infrastructure that includes proper ventilation and temperature control in
order to avoid episodes of mold, lawn fleas infestation indoors and the like.
providing adequate numbers of sections to meet the demand for our programs
providing adequate laboratory technician support for evening and weekend courses
beginning the development of new CTE programs for our allied health students
2. Where We Are Now - Review success, equity, course sequence, and enrollment
data from the past three years
athttp://www.chabotcollege.edu/ProgramReview/Data2013.cfm.
Please complete Appendices B1 and B2 (CLO's), C (PLO's), and D (A few
questions)before writing your narrative. Limit your narrative to twopages.
After review of your success and retention data, your enrollment trends, your
curriculum, and your CLO and PLO results, provide an overall reflection on your
program. Consider the following questions in your narrative, and cite relevant data (e.g.,
efficiency,persistence, success, CLO/PLO assessment results, external accreditation
demands, etc.):
• What are the trends in course success and retention rates (based on overall
results and CLO assessments) in your program? Do you see differences based
on gender and/or ethnicity? Between on-campus and online or hybrid online
1
courses? Provide comparison points (college-wide averages, history within
your program, statewide averages).
a. The overall success rate in Anatomy 1 is very high (83%) compared to the overall
campus average (69%). However, within this rosy picture, the success rate for African
American students is only 50%, for Pacific Islanders it is only 69%, and for Filipinos it is
only 74%. A potentially large factor in making this data outliers is that the number of
African American & Pacific Islander anatomy students is low (in the single digits for out
of an average of 133 students). The average total number of students in all of these
groups is 42 per semester, 25% of whom withdraw from the class.
CLO achievement has increased, but we are afraid that this progress will be lost because
our supply budget has not kept pace with increasing section numbers and with inflation.
Additionally, our faculty are stretched too thin to continue making whole course (all
section) updates during their “free summer time”.
b. The average success rate for all BIOL classes is 69%, right on the campus average. In
comparing classes however, the success rates for the entry points into our two
programs are significantly lower than average – BIOL 31 average success rate is 56% and
BIOL 4 average success rate is 62%. (Starting Fall 2014, BIOL 4 now has a prereq of
either BIOL 6 or CHEM 1A. It will be interesting to see how that affects the success rates
in both BIOL 4 and BIOL 6.) BIOL 10’s success rate has varied from 52%-81% in the last
three years. BIOL 25 was first offered in Fall 2013, so it only has one year of data, which
isn’t enough for a trend analysis.
Within each of the BIOL classes, the lowest performing ethnic groups are African
Americans, Pacific Islanders, Filipinos and Hispanics.
c. Filipino students also succeed at rates slightly below average in both MICR 1 and PHSI 1.
d. Physiology students have been holding their success rate has been consistently at 8090% or better over the last 2 years. This is satisfying since our student have to face
some fierce competition in their future programs like Nursing, Physician’s Assisting or
Physical Therapy. Keep in mind that this percentage like Anatomy is based on a C as
being a successful grade as that is what a student needs to move on to another course,
by this time, in their chosen professional school. And while it would be good to see the
stats on students who have gone on to gain admission in theirchosen school and the
percentage that completed the program, that info is not available to us.
Caveats to these concerns – we do not have any data looking at the grades of the students in
these Biology and Allied Health course series. While the college definition of success is a grade
of a D or higher, students need a C to move on to the next course. So, our definition of success
is actually higher but unrecorded.
3. The Difference We Hope to Make - Review the Strategic Plan goal and key
strategies at
http://www.chabotcollege.edu/prbc/StrategicPlan/SP forPR.pdf prior to completing your
narrative. Please complete Appendices E (New Initiatives) and F1-8 (Resource
2
Requests) to further detail your narrative. Limit your narrative to three pages, and be
very specific about what you hope to achieve, why, and how.what initiatives are
underway in your discipline or program, or could you begin,that would support the
achievement of our Strategic Plan goal? Over the next three years, what improvements
would you like to make to your program(s) to improve student learning? 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 that
collaboration occur?
In this program review cycle we plan to continue working on the projects that have been
ongoing:
1. Align Environmental Science program with community needs – Urban Agriculture Program
Debra Howell is currently on sabbatical working on this project.
2. Provide safe, secure, and up-to-date facilities
The college allocated $20 million of the remaining bond money to Biology for upgrading our
facilities. Over the summer we worked with architects to develop cost estimates for facilities
that would meet our current needs, and the estimates were all over budget. The best fit options
were $35-$37 million! (Note, these estimates would alleviate our current over-crowding, but
would not accommodate any new programs with unique space specifications. We were working
in reality, not looking ahead and dreaming about future new offerings that local industry and
students would want – i.e. reviving our biotech program, offering new programs in allied health
fields, etc.).
At the October 23 meeting of the Facilities Committee, we received approval to have the
architects design an Annex that would be within the $20 million budget. This allow for the
construction of the desperately needed new laboratory and lecture space, but would not
address any of the health/safety and instructional unmet needs in building 2100.
3. Identify and provide a variety of allied-health career options
Last program review cycle e identified potential programs that we could offer that would train
students for in-demand career fields. Since all required additional FTEF to offer new courses (or
restore those courses cut when the Biotechnology program was put on hold), we have not
further pursued these options in times of austerity. As growth is now becoming available, we
would like to further develop some of these options.
With funding provided by the Career Pathways Trust grant, we will slowly be able to develop a
pathway for students who are interested in health care careers. Our goals for year 1 (Spring
2015) are to 1) design a course that will introduce students to the variety of health care careers
that are offered by colleges in the area, and 2) adapt a PSCN 15 course to support studying for
science courses. These are the first steps that will eventually link Chabot with our local high
schools and provide a clear pathway from K-12 through college to career.
4. Increase student success
Not surprisingly, our courses with the lowest success rates are those with no prereqs: general
education courses, BIOL 31, and BIOL 4/6. When students enter these classes they typically are
underprepared for the style of learning required to remember, recall, and integrate large
quantities of information. Additionally, their habits of mind that are essential for success in Life
Sciences (striving for accuracy and precision; applying knowledge to new situations; thinking and
3
communicating with clarity and precision; and persistence) are under developed. While we all
work on these skills in our classrooms, we also recognize that there is a need for more
personalized work outside of the formal class environment. We have proposed changes to the
STEM Center that will begin to address these needs.
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
2012-13
Budget
Requested
1 (pm staff)
2012-13
Budget
Received
No change
Supplies:
GenFund $46,896
Supplies:
GenFund $39,849
Services:
Services:
$8,000 equip $4500
maint
Technology/Equipment
Bond $62,795
Bond $62,795
2013-14
Budget
Requested
At least
bring 2nd
lab tech to
12 mo.
assignment
Supplies:
GenFund $68,225
2013-14
Budget
Received
No change
Services:
$8,880
equip
maint
80,000
Services:
$4500
Supplies:
GenFund $39,850
80,000
(approved
but waiting
for
equipment)
Other
TOTAL
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.
Replacement of 30 year old autoclave has significantly improved quality of service offered to students
4
and a consequence bump in SLO as well.
Replacement of old and broken down models has improved learning in Anatomy and Bio 50 significantly.
The ability of students to complete dissections solo or in pairs has greatly improved students grasp of
the three dimensional features of organs.
In Physiology, electrophoresis is now being done by partners rather than a “quartet” of students. This
makes learning a lot more smooth, with more time left over to ponder, discuss, and just plain appreciate
the value of the lab being studies. We hope to maintain this trend by being able to have the budget to
replace equipment that breaks down and supplies that need to be replaced.
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?
As before, the cost of supplies and maintenance increases every year, run ahead of our budget
allocations for these items. Many new laboratory techniques that are in common use in science
laboratories cannot be implemented, so our students are at a disadvantage in both 4-year transfer
programs and in industry. We are constantly battling just to maintain our current levels of success and
enrollment. The fact they these measures did not decrease is a testament to the resourcefulness and
dedication of our faculty and lab techs.
5
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.
ANAT 1
This Year’s Program
Review
*CTL forms must be
included with this PR.
X
PHSI 1
X
BIOL 50
X
BIOL 10
X
BIOL 6
X
BIOL 2
X
6
Last Year’s Program
Review
2-Years Prior
*Note: These courses
must be assessed in the
next PR year.
Appendix B2: “Closing the Loop” Course-Level Assessment Reflections.
Course
Semester assessment data gathered
Number of sections offered in the semester
Number of sections assessed
Percentage of sections assessed
Semester held “Closing the Loop” discussion
Faculty members involved in “Closing the Loop” discussion
ANAT 1
Fall 2013 & Spring 2014
6
3
66%
Spring 2014
J.Lange&P.Wu
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:
Students will demonstrate competency with standard
equipment and techniques of the biological sciences.
Defined Target
Scores*
(CLO Goal)
80% of students
score 3 or 4
Actual Scores** (eLumen
data)
80% of students scored 3
or 4#
#
Not all dissection elements
were assessed due to
construction in the cadaver
room this term.
(CLO) 2:
Students will express their understanding of major
anatomical concepts by verbal, written, and
illustrative means using correct terminology
85% of students
score 2 or
higher
98% of students scored 2
or higher
(CLO) 3:
Students will identify observed microscopic and
macroscopic structures.
85% of students
score 2 or
higher
99% of students scored 2
or higher
(CLO) 4:
Students will apply biological principles to healthful
vs. pathological conditions.
70% of students
score 2 or
higher
96% of students scored 2
or higher
 If more CLOs are listed for the course, add another row to the table.
7
* 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?
8
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?
While the target score matched the actual score, during the term that assessment was
done our cadaver room was under construction so several of the dissection elements could
not be evaluated.
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?
STRENGTH: Majority of the students demonstrated good microscope skill because an
entire lab is dedicated to the microscope SOP. Every instructor is very keen on reminding
the students on following the SOP through the semester. New slides were also purchased
through bond to replace the faded broken slides. Students can now see the microscopic
structures clearly which enhances their learning experience.
DEFICIENCY: Students still do not have proficient dissection skills.
During the last assessment cycle changes we recommended were:
1. providing more opportunity for dissection on a per-student basis by:
a. ensuring we have enough specimens so that students can dissect in pairs
instead of groups of 3 or 4
b. having cadavers for dissection in both spring and fall semesters instead
of just spring
c. having students do one individual project - eye - so that we can both
provide and see individual progress
2. adding more specific instructions to the lab manualfor tool usage (scalpel,
scissors, probes), cutting techniques, holding specimens, coordination between
group members (these will be added for dissections of the brain, eye, heart, and
cadaver)
3. Acquiring the proper tools for each dissection task, instead of trying to make
the tools we have work in ways they were not designed for. One identified
need is larger knives.
4. Review and revise, if needed, the rubric used for evaluating dissection skills.
Changes made/still in progress:
Starting in F’12 we were able to have all students dissect organs in groups of 2 and to do
an individual dissection of the eye. In S’14 we also added the dissection of the kidney.
Each of these changes provided students with more individual experience in handling
specimens and proper tool usage. We have also acquired, through bond funding, the
proper tools for specific dissection tasks (new scalpels, retractors, bone saws, etc.) When
the tool actually works, the focus of the dissection can be on good technique and proper
outcome, instead of trying to figure out what is going wrong and how to adjust.
Adding more specific instructions to the lab manual is still a work in progress, mainly
9
because of the time required to do the rewrite. Typically, any writing is done over the
summer (when we aren’t actually working) because we just don’t have enough time while
classes are in session. However, we have added some information about specific ways to
hold tools and different ways to use the tools for various tasks. We still need to add
cadaver dissection instructions.
Concerns for this CLO:
As materials costs increase and our budget for consumable supplies does not, we are now
being forced to return to dissections in groups of three or four, which means one student
actually performs the dissection while the others just watch. This is the same with cadaver
dissection. Anatomy does not have the money to replace the cadavers every year, so
majority of the students don’t have a hands-on dissection experience with the cadavers.
We also have do not have the funds to purchase one cadaver each term. As a result, gains
seen in student learning will probably be lost. This deficiency is discussed every year in
the program review but the college has not done anything to help the discipline to make
improvements.
SOLUTION: The college needs to provide more supply money to help the discipline to
bridge the gap outlined above.
Future needs/thoughts for this CLO
As society becomes increasingly digital, learning in digital format is standard practice for
our students. They typically take a picture of the slides on their microscope (using their
smart phones) and then draw the slide off of the digital image. While I see great value in
having an image of the specimen they need to study, I also worry that digital images will
begin to replace the kinesthetic learning that drawing provides. If we go in the digital
direction, what pedagogy can we employ that will preserve the interaction with the
images?
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?
The students performed well above our target score!
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?
STRENGTH: Majority of the students do well expressing concepts verbally and through
illustration (drawing). There are now more models available and brand new slides
purchased through bond for students to make clear observations and ask appropriate
questions.
DEFICIENCY: Students still have the most difficulty expressing their ideas through writing.
10
In the previous cycle, writing was the students’ weakest area. Because of this, I have made
short answer questions part of every chapter’s homework assignment as well as doing inclass activities that evaluate and revise written answers. Additionally, I am trying to have
students explain (how, why, compare) instead of just giving a correct answer statement.
While many students find this extremely frustrating, I have seen great improvements in
the thoroughness of their written answers (even though, more often than not, their
explanations are incorrect!). I find the disconnect between knowing the correct answer
and knowing why that answer is correct disheartening.
While anatomy classes practice written skill, most other Allied Health classes (BIOL 31,
MICRO 1, and PHSI 1) do not. So when students come to anatomy and leave anatomy,
there is no continuity of this practice.
SOLUTION: Implement writing exercises across all Allied Health courses.
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?
The students performed well above our target score! (Although, this data is inflated
because students who drop after the first exams were not given scores in eLumen.)
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?
During the past cycle we have:
1. created test banks that instructors can deploy on Blackboard that serve as practice
practicals;
2. held additional open lab sessions - an instructor present in the classroom during
non-class hours so that students have access to the materials (models, slides,
specimens) to study. Many of these sessions are held on Fridays and Saturdays
(and the instructors aren’t being paid for their time);
3. acquired more models (particularly more of the same organ – i.e. multiple kidneys)
so that a class of 24-30 students aren’t all trying to use the same one model at the
same time;
4. I have also instituted a “check out” activity at the end of every lab session during
which students are required to identify structures learned that day. These
activities also serve as models of different methods that can be used to study the
material and to check one’s knowledge.
11
Success on practical examinations testing student’s recall of learned structure names
depends highly on the student’s ability to employ multiple study methods.
STRENGTH: This is especially apparent when students work with anatomical models
because more models are now available to students through bond purchases, so students
didn’t have to wait and take terms to use certain models. New slides also make
microscopic observation a pleasant learning experience for students.
DEFICIENCY: Students struggled more with identifying macroscopic structures with
preserved specimens and the cadavers. The allocated anatomy supplybudget remains the
same every year while inflation has gone up many folds. The insufficient amount of
supply money inhibited us to purchase enough preserved specimens for students. The goal
is to provide one preserved organ per student. Instead, 3 or 4 students had to share one
which means one student actually performs the dissection while the others just watch.
This is the same with cadaver dissection. Anatomy does not have the money to replace the
cadavers every year, so majority of the students don’t have a hands-on dissection
experience with the cadavers. Although more surgical equipment was purchased through
the bond, the merger amount of supply budget has really inhibited improvement in this
particular area. This deficiency is discussed every year in the program review but the
college has not done anything to help the discipline to make improvements. Also more
models are still needed to replace old broken models and to purchase multiple units of
models so students don’t have to wait around because they are taking turns to use them.
We also find that students still don’t know how to study for a practical examination in
which recall level knowledge is required. The A&P Revealed program that we utilize in
class does have a testing feature that allows students to step-wise increase the testing
method difficulty from multiple choice, to click to ID, to write in answers. We have also
modeled similar methods in class using worksheets and sticky notes. However, time
constraints during class hours limit how often this can be done and how many students we
can work with each time. We have also been emphasizing the mindset that “it is ok to be
wrong while you are still learning”, because we find that students are very uncomfortable
with not knowing the answer and would rather look up the answer than make a reasoned
guess. (Looking up the answer only teaches them to look up the answer, not to be able to
logically narrow the possibilities based on acquired knowledge.)
Having structured time outside of class to work with students on study strategies and to
bolster their habits of mind could improve students study skills more rapidly. Beginning to
learn how to study before getting to anatomy would be even more beneficial.
SOLUTION: The college needs to provide more supply money to help the discipline to
bridge the gap outlined above.
Students need more supported study activities. See STEM Center Proposal in New
Initiatives.
12
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?
The students performed well above our target score! (This one has a lower target score
than the other CLOs because we know it is the hardest skill for students to acquire.)
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?
Of all of the desired outcomes, this one is the hardest for students because it not only
requires recall and understanding of topics, but it also requires application of that
knowledge.
STRENGTH:Models and slides are part of the instructional tools to help students to
understand the anatomical changes from normal to pathological conditions.
DEFICIENCY:The most difficult thing for the students is to see and understand is how
disease affects the entire body. This is difficult to implement because of class time
constraints.
It is difficult to find a solution to increase more structured learning of the whole body
under the time constraints. Clinical cases or problem sets may be given as project or
homework but it will hard to find to discuss in class.
We have found that applying their knowledge isn’t usually the hurdle for students, but that
recognizing where they can apply their knowledge is lacking. They often don’t see the
pieces, so they can’t even begin to make them fit together. Even if they have all the
pieces, they often don’t see the logic flow between them to connect cause and effect
through multiple steps. For example – lack of calcium in the diet results in bone matrix
resorption, which results in lower bone density/mass that causes bones to have less
resistance to external stresses, which, when experienced, is more likely to result in a
fracture. The majority of students trace the lack of calcium in the diet to weak bones that
are more prone to fracture, but they fail to see the need to explain the anatomy behind
“weak”.
Again, starting the process of recognizing what they know requires modeling and
scaffolded practice. This is difficult to do during class hours because of time constraints
and lack of one-on-one contact.
SOLUTION:This skill needs to be practiced across all Allied Health Courses. One-on-one
support can also be given during structured study hours. See STEM Center Proposal in
New Initiatives.
13
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?
See individual CLOs above.
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?
Faculty have been able to identify and, to some degree, implement needed changes in
pedagogical techniques and materials to support student learning.
Actions identified to maintain and to improve upon current student achievement levels:
funding for materials needs to keep pace with cost inflation
continue making adjustments to the lab manual exercises to explicitly write
out/visualize dissection techniques and procedures
provide students with more individualized support in developing and practicing good
study techniques
provide students with more individualized support in developing and practicing their
scientific writing skills.
skills need to be practiced in all Allied Health courses.
3. What is the nature of the planned actions (please check all that apply)?
 Curricular
 Pedagogical
 Resource based
 Change to CLO or rubric
 Change to assessment methods
 Other:_________________________________________________________________
14
Appendix B2: “Closing the Loop” Course-Level Assessment Reflections.
Course
Semester assessment data gathered
Number of sections offered in the semester
Number of sections assessed
Percentage of sections assessed
Semester held “Closing the Loop” discussion
Faculty members involved in “Closing the Loop” discussion
PHYSIO 1
Spring 2014
4
2
50%
Spring 2014
Z.G.Marawala
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 principles of physiology to everyday
occurrences, social issues or novel situations.
nces, so
Defined Target
Scores*
(CLO Goal)
80% of students
score2, 3, or 4
Actual Scores** (eLumen
data)
93% of students scored 2,
3, or 4
(CLO) 2:
Collaborate with fellow students to design, conduct,
and evaluate scientific experiments.
85% of students
score 2 or
higher
94% of students scored 2
or higher
(CLO) 3:
Communicate physiological concepts through verbal,
written, and graphical/illustrative means.
85% of students
score 2 or
higher
99% of students scored 2
or higher
(CLO) 4:
Perform controlled experiments; collect and report
data.
70% of students
score 2 or
higher
94% of students scored 2
or higher
75% of students
(CLO) 5:
Demonstrate proper laboratory techniques and use of score 2 or
higher
scientific instruments.
94% of students scored 2
or higher
15
 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?
16
PART II: COURSE- LEVEL OUTCOME REFLECTIONS
C. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 1:
3. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course
level outcome?
Our target scores were matched and beat by actual scores.
4. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and
your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
During the last assessment cycle changes we recommended were:
With some improvement in available supplies/equipment, students are now able to do
more labs in pairs rather than in groups of 4 or 5. This appears to have brought students
“out of the shadows” who in the past were too afraid to ask or were simply riding on other
peoples achievements. Now, they have to produce an outcome and account for it which
has increased the amount of questions asked in class and made for a better overall
performance.
Changes made/still in progress:
The goal is to allow students to do their own work whenever possible and then collaborate
with their data, thereby creating a “symposium” like atmosphere. While this can be
achieved in most cases, there is of course some limitation with regards to available
material.
Concerns for this CLO:
No concerns per se—as long as we can at least hold what we have achieved (i.e. no more
budget cuts in supplies), we should be able to hold our students to the continually
improving standards.
Future needs/thoughts for this CLO
I encourage students to use technology in education as it becomes a valuable tool for
learning and understanding what has been defined, described or perhaps just introduced
in class. I design specific questions at the end of exercises to make the students do an
impromptu research project to answer some thought provoking questions in the
CONCLUSIONS section of their lab manuals. I use the course textbook that is both in print
and virtual (that I authored) , where students can access the pages by scanning a QR code
and not only access their text online but also the highlights I put up for them that reflect
the day’s or week’s lecture points.
D. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 2:
3. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course
level outcome?
17
The students performed well above our target score!
4. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and
your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
We maintain about 20-25 lab exercises. These have proven useful but more can be done.
The lack so some equipment was a hindrance in the past but now, it is also a matter of the
instructor having the spare time to generate these projects on his own, what with
committee work, program review, facilities issues and others that detract from things that
one would like to do in their own spare time to better their pedagogy and student
learning.
18
C. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 3:
3. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course
level outcome?
The students performed well above our target score.
4. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and
your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
During the past cycle we have:
Held additional open lab sessions - an instructor present in the classroom during
non-class hours so that students have access to the materials (models, slides,
specimens) to study. Many of these sessions are held on Fridays and Saturdays
(and the instructors aren’t being paid for their time);
Call it synchronicity, but I also (like Anatomy) use a “check out” activity at the end
of many lab sessions during which students are asked to show the graph(s)
generated by data for the lab of that day. These activities also serve as models of
different methods that can be used to study the material and to check one’s
knowledge. Since many of my students come to me the next semester after
Anatomy, it make good sense to use what they are used to and adapt it to
something different, may be even something difficult only to make it appear easier
as they have had some experience with it.
Lab performance is always an issue. Students overall, either don’t pay as much
attention to lab or find it more difficult to learn as they cannot simply memorize
the subject material when it comes to Physiology.
By recruiting technology in pedagogy and mixing it with a little of the old fashioned
interaction, where students have to get up and demonstrate formation of a
thrombus (requires an entire class participation), I find that I can make students
more enthusiastic about lab. Now if I can just apply that to every concept in lab
D. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 4:
3. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course
level outcome?
The students performed well above our target score.
4. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and
your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
19
While labs are not logistically that hard, students find some aspects of recording
experiments a chore. In particular, graphs present a stumbling block and based on the
many comments from students, I get the impression that the standards that are meant to
be followed in graphing scientific data is not being drilled as rigorously if at all, probably
due to the advent of computerized graphing. To that extent, students are not allowed to
use any computer assisted graphing and must train mind and hand with paper and pencil
(and ruler and compass and whatever else is needed) to produce the best graphic
representation of their work. The students are pleasantly surprised (most of them
anyway) at the end of the semester when they see their near perfect graphing compared
to that which they had on the initial third of the semester.
E. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 5: ADD IF NEEDED.
1. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course
level outcome?
The students performed well above our target score.
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?
As best as can be achieved, I would say students do reasonably well. The key, I believe is
taking that extra mile to see if a student sneaking out early during lab and speaking with
them in a concerned tone, engage them in conversation and make them understand the
value of lab practice and how their future profession will be one continuous “practice”
session.
20
PART III: COURSE REFLECTIONS AND FUTURE PLANS
4. What changes were made to your course based on the previous assessment cycle, the prior
Closing the Loop reflections and other faculty discussions?
See individual CLOs above.
5. Based on the current assessment and reflections, what course-level and programmatic
strengths have the assessment reflections revealed? What actions has your discipline
determined might be taken as a result of your reflections, discussions, and insights?
The faculty have been able to identify and, to some degree, implement needed changes in
pedagogical techniques and materials to support student learning.
Actions identified to maintain and to improve upon current student achievement levels:
funding for materials needs to keep pace with cost inflation
continue making adjustments to the lab manual exercises to explicitly write
out/visualize techniques and procedures
provide students with more individualized support in developing and practicing good
study techniques
provide students with more individualized support in developing and practicing their
scientific writing skills.
Develop instructor driven programs that students can use to keep the lessons learned in
front of them in a fun, informative format to where the information is second nature to
them.
6. What is the nature of the planned actions (please check all that apply)?
 Curricular
 Pedagogical
 Resource based
 Change to CLO or rubric
 Change to assessment methods
 Other:_________________________________________________________________
21
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
BIOLOGY 50
Spring 2014
4
2
50%
Spring 2014
Z.G.Marawala
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:
Communicate anatomical and physiological concepts
by written, verbal and graphic/illustrative means.
Defined Target
Scores*
(CLO Goal)
80% of students
score2, 3, or 4
Actual Scores** (eLumen
data)
93% of students scored 2,
3, or 4
(CLO) 2:
Perform controlled experiments, collect and analyze
data.
75% of students
score 2 or
higher
71% of students scored 2
or higher
(CLO) 3:
Work collaboratively with fellow students to design,
conduct and evaluate scientific experiments.
80% of students
score 2 or
higher
93% 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)
22
**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
E. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 1:
5. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course
level outcome?
Our target scores were matched and beat by actual scores.
6. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and
your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
During the last assessment cycle changes we recommended were:
Data is good; however, maintaining it requires constant vigil. Students in Bio 50 have to
not only learn the subject matter but the jargon and “medical” terminology that goes with
it. Some students like those who are HIT majors or paramedic majors do well in this regard
as they are already prepared with the lexicon that this class generates but other have to
learn it from scratch.
Changes made/still in progress:
The goal is to allow students to do their own work whenever possible and then collaborate
with their data, thereby creating a “symposium” like atmosphere. While this can be
achieved in most cases, there is of course some limitation with regards to available
material.
Concerns for this CLO:
Getting student cooperation is a challenge as many don’t see this class as giving them
lifelong skills even though they often realize it by the time the class is over. Since many
students understandably focus on their majors, and this course is often used as a GE
requirement fulfillment, student focus on the subject matter will always be a bit of a
challenge.
Future needs/thoughts for this CLO
I encourage students to use technology in education as it becomes a valuable tool for
learning and understanding what has been defined, described or perhaps just introduced
in class. I design specific questions at the end of exercises to make the students do an
impromptu research project to answer some thought provoking questions in the
CONCLUSIONS section of their lab manuals. I use a tailored lab manual for materials we
support and designed an interactive software for students to make use of the VAK system
of learning by immersion into the subject matter. I display this tool at every orientation
which catches student interest and it seems to help with student retention as well.
F. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 2:
5. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course
level outcome?
24
The students performed a bit below the target score.
6. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and
your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
We maintain about 20lab exercises. These have proven useful. The lack so some
equipment was a hindrance in the past but now, it is also a matter of the instructor having
the spare time to generate more projects that engage students, esp. those for whom
Biology is not their area of career interest. With committee work, program review,
facilities issues and other non-pedagogical activities, one often battles the paucity of spare
time needed to better pedagogy and student learning but we have done the best we can
and are committed to continue pushing for more quality.
25
C. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 3:
5. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course
level outcome?
The students performed well above our target score.
6. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and
your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
During the past cycle we have:
Held additional open lab sessions - an instructor present in the classroom during
non-class hours so that students have access to the materials (models, slides,
specimens) to study. Many of these sessions are held on Fridays and Saturdays
(and the instructors aren’t being paid for their time);
Lab performance is always an issue. Students overall, either don’t pay as much
attention to lab or find it more difficult to learn as they cannot simply memorize
the subject material when it comes to the Physiology part of Bio 50. This combined
with the fact that many students take the class for GE, makes for a greater
challenge.
Interestingly, our more mature students see the value in the course early on and
relate to it esp. when we go through the systems. School teachers sometimes take
this class to further their ranking and they are among those who work quite hard at
making the grade.
By recruiting technology in pedagogy and mixing it with a little of the old fashioned
interaction, where students have to get up and demonstrate formation of a
thrombus (requires an entire class participation), I find that I can make students
more enthusiastic about lab. Now if I can just apply that to every concept in lab
D. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 4:
5. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course
level outcome?
6. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and
your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
26
E. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 5: ADD IF NEEDED.
3. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course
level outcome?
4. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and
your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
27
PART III: COURSE REFLECTIONS AND FUTURE PLANS
7. What changes were made to your course based on the previous assessment cycle, the prior
Closing the Loop reflections and other faculty discussions?
See individual CLOs above.
8. Based on the current assessment and reflections, what course-level and programmatic
strengths have the assessment reflections revealed? What actions has your discipline
determined might be taken as a result of your reflections, discussions, and insights?
Implement as needed, changes in pedagogical techniques and materials to support student
learning.
Actions identified to maintain and to improve upon current student achievement levels:
funding for fresh materials and supplies to keep pace with cost inflation and maintain
student interest.
continue making adjustments to the lab manual and look for ways to keep the material
in front of them by developing new forms of digital pedagogy as well as old school,
hands on type of interaction as in class participation in enacting formation of a
thrombosis.
provide students with more individualized support in developing and practicing good
study techniques
provide students with more individualized support in developing and practicing their
scientific writing skills.
Develop instructor driven programs that students can use to keep the lessons learned in
front of them in a fun, informative format to where the information is second nature to
them.
9. What is the nature of the planned actions (please check all that apply)?
 Curricular
 Pedagogical
 Resource based
 Change to CLO or rubric
 Change to assessment methods
 Other:_________________________________________________________________
28
PART III: COURSE REFLECTIONS AND FUTURE PLANS
10. What changes were made to your course based on the previous assessment cycle, the prior
Closing the Loop reflections and other faculty discussions?
See individual CLOs above.
11. Based on the current assessment and reflections, what course-level and programmatic
strengths have the assessment reflections revealed? What actions has your discipline
determined might be taken as a result of your reflections, discussions, and insights?
Faculty have been able to identify and, to some degree, implement needed changes in
pedagogical techniques and materials to support student learning.
Actions identified to maintain and to improve upon current student achievement levels:
funding for materials needs to keep pace with cost inflation
continue making adjustments to the lab manual exercises to explicitly write
out/visualize dissection techniques and procedures
provide students with more individualized support in developing and practicing good
study techniques
provide students with more individualized support in developing and practicing their
scientific writing skills.
12. What is the nature of the planned actions (please check all that apply)?
 Curricular
 Pedagogical
 Resource based
 Change to CLO or rubric
 Change to assessment methods
 Other:_________________________________________________________________
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
BIOL 10
Fall 2013
4
2
50%
Spring 2014
29
Faculty members involved in “Closing the Loop” discussion
R. Otto
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:
Students will apply biological principles to everyday
occurrences, social issues, or novel situations.
(CLO) 2:
Students will design, perform and evaluate
experiments.
(CLO) 3:
Students will use and develop competency with
standard equipment and techniques of biological
science.
(CLO) 4:
Students will collaborate with peers to share
information, ideas and responsibilities.
Defined Target
Scores*
(CLO Goal)
75% students
score 2 or
higher
Actual Scores** (eLumen
data)
71% of the students
scored 2 or higher
75% of students
score 2 or
higher
45% of students scored 2
or higher
75% of students
score 2 or
higher
77% of students scored 2
or higher
90% of students
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?
PART II: COURSE- LEVEL OUTCOME REFLECTIONS
G. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 1:
7. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course
level outcome?
The actual score was 4% below the target score.
30
8. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and
your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
Application of concepts involves higher–level cognitive skills. At the introductory level,
students expect to learn vocabulary and memorize concepts. Students act both surprised
and inexperienced in applying concepts to their everyday lives. Without application, the
material learned has little meaning. Instructors should model application during lecture
and provide additional opportunities for students to practice application skills.
H. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 2:
7. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course
level outcome?
The students performed 30% below the target score.
8. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and
your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
Based on observations of students during laboratory sessions at the beginning of the
semester, it appears that most Chabot students leave High School with little exposure to
scientific experimentation. As the semester progresses they become more comfortable
performing experiments. They appear highly engaged in the activities, yet many students
struggle with evaluating the results of the experiments. Assessments of student
understanding at the conclusion of laboratory activities fall well below our target. Oddly,
when asked their perceptions, students report that they have learned a great deal from
the laboratory activities.
The biology 10 laboratory program was originally entirely inquiry based. Over time some
of the formal experiments were replaced by purely observational lessons and simulations.
We need to return to the entirely inquiry based program to provide students more
opportunities to perform and evaluate experiments.
Currently Biology 10 is taught in double lecture sections of 48-60 students, which meet
twice per week for 75 minutes. Students are divided into single session laboratory
sessions of 24-30 students for one two hour and 50 min. laboratory session per week.
Perhaps reformatting the course to be taught in single sessions of 24-30 students offered
in two blocks per week would allow laboratory to be more completely integrated with
lecture to improve student performance of this CLO.
C. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 3:
7. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course
level outcome?
31
The students performed 2% above the target score.
8. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and
your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
Students performed satisfactorily on this CLO, although the equipment used in this course
is restricted to only the most basic tools of the biological laboratory.
D. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 4:
7. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course
level outcome?
100% of the students achieved this goal.
8. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and
your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
Chabot students are as a whole collaborative. They do an excellent job in applying this skill
to the science classroom.
PART III: COURSE REFLECTIONS AND FUTURE PLANS
13. What changes were made to your course based on the previous assessment cycle, the prior
Closing the Loop reflections and other faculty discussions?
Changed assessment methods.
14. Based on the current assessment and reflections, what course-level and programmatic
strengths have the assessment reflections revealed? What actions has your discipline
determined might be taken as a result of your reflections, discussions, and insights?
The largest obstacle to improving student performance on CLOs and the course in general
has been the erratic staffing of Biology 10. Typically two double-sections of Biology 10 are
taught each Spring and Fall semester. In the last six semesters in which Biology 10 has been
taught (F12, S13, Su13, F13, S14 & F14), the course has been staffed by seven different
instructors, only one of whom is full-time. Within this time frame, each instructor has taught
the course for an average of only 1.7 semesters. The high turnover of Biology 10 instructors
has resulted in a highly variable student success rate from F2011-S 2014 ranging from 52%
to 81%. It is likely that CLO performance is equally as variable and is not represented in the
one-semester assessment addressed within this document. If we are to have consistency in
the course from semester to semester and section to section, if we are to have adjunct
faculty learn eLumen and our assessment methods, and if we are to maintain quality
instruction, we need consistent staffing of Biology 10. Closing-the-loop discussions are not
32
valuable when the faculty involved in the discussion are not the same faculty who taught
the classes being discussed.
Our planned action is to hire another full-time faculty member to staff Biology 10.
15. What is the nature of the planned actions (please check all that apply)?
 Curricular
 Pedagogical
 Resource based
 Change to CLO or rubric
 Change to assessment methods
X Other:____Hire faculty
_____________________________________________________________
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
BIOL 6
Spring 2014
2
2
100%
Fall 2014
R. Otto
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:
Perform experiments; collect, analyze, and report
data.
(CLO) 2:
Correctly place representative plants into major phyla
and classes and identify the distinguishing
characteristics of each major phylum.
33
Defined Target
Scores*
(CLO Goal)
70 % students
score 2 or
higher
70% of students
score 2 or
higher
Actual Scores** (eLumen
data)
82% of the students
scored 2 or higher
68% of students scored 2
or higher
(CLO) 3:
Demonstrate competency with standard equipment
and techniques of the biosciences (microscopes,
chemical indicators, instruments of measure,
elementary statistical analysis, etc.)
(CLO) 4:
Identify specific structures of algae, non-vascular
plants, seedless vascular plants, and seed plants at
both macroscopic and microscopic (cells and tissue)
levels.
70% of students
score 2 or
higher
98% of students scored 2
or higher
70% of students
score 2 or
higher
71% 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?
PART II: COURSE- LEVEL OUTCOME REFLECTIONS
I. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 1:
9. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course
level outcome?
The actual score is 12% above the target score.
10. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and
your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
Students will continue working on this CLO in Biol 4 and Biol 2. This is a good start. No
changes necessary.
J. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 2:
9. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course
level outcome?
The students performed 2% below the target score.
10. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and
your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
The students performed close to the target. The course should place a stronger emphasis
on classification in the future.
34
C. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 3:
9. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course
level outcome?
The students performed 28% above the target score.
10. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and
your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
Great results. We should use more advanced technology and equipment in the future to
see continued growth in skills.
D. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 4:
9. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course
level outcome?
The students performed 1% above the target score.
10. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and
your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
We hit target, but we should continue to upgrade laboratory exercises to give students
more exposure to plant structures.
PART III: COURSE REFLECTIONS AND FUTURE PLANS
16. What changes were made to your course based on the previous assessment cycle, the prior
Closing the Loop reflections and other faculty discussions?
None. This is a new course.
17. Based on the current assessment and reflections, what course-level and programmatic
strengths have the assessment reflections revealed? What actions has your discipline
determined might be taken as a result of your reflections, discussions, and insights?
We are generally meeting or surpassing our target. As a new course we are refining
instruction and would like to increase the use of modern technology in the classroom.
18. 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:_________________________________________________________________
35
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
BIOL 2
Spring 2014
2
1
50%
Fall 2014
R. Otto
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:
Describe how form and function are interdependent at the
cellular level
(CLO) 2:
Perform experiments; collect, analyze, and report
data.
(CLO) 3:
Use and develop competency with standard
equipment and techniques of biological science
Defined Target
Scores*
(CLO Goal)
80 % students
score 2 or
higher
Actual Scores** (eLumen
data)
92% of the students
scored 2 or higher
80% of students
score 2 or
higher
79% of students scored 2
or higher
80% of students
score 2 or
higher
92% 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?
PART II: COURSE- LEVEL OUTCOME REFLECTIONS
36
K. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 1:
11. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course
level outcome?
The actual score was 12% above the target score.
12. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and
your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
This CLO follows a common theme that runs throughout the semester. Students at first
have difficulty seeing how the structure of organic molecules and organelles are related to
their functions. Over several weeks of applying this theme to every topic covered, they
begin to consider on their own the interdependences at a cellular level.
No changes needed.
L. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 2:
11. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course
level outcome?
The students performed 1% below the target score.
12. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and
your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
Although student performance was essentially at the target score and acceptable, this is
the third semester they have worked on this CLO and we would like all students to achieve
these skills before transferring. We will continue to emphasize these skills.
C. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 3:
11. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course
level outcome?
The students performed 12% above the target score.
12. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and
your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
Students performed well on this CLO for the level of equipment we have. We would like to
upgrade our laboratory equipment to allow students to practice this CLO with the tools
they are more likely to encounter as upper-level students and in the workplace.
37
PART III: COURSE REFLECTIONS AND FUTURE PLANS
19. What changes were made to your course based on the previous assessment cycle, the prior
Closing the Loop reflections and other faculty discussions?
None. This is a new course.
20. Based on the current assessment and reflections, what course-level and programmatic
strengths have the assessment reflections revealed? What actions has your discipline
determined might be taken as a result of your reflections, discussions, and insights?
Based on the assessment of just a single section we are meeting or surpassing our target.
As a new course we are refining instruction. Like Biology 10, our largest obstacle to
improving student performance on CLOs and the course in general has been the erratic
staffing of Biology 2. We have been offering a total three sections per year. In the last two
years, four instructors have taught this course and the “course lead” has changed from
semester to semester. As our capstone course with two three-hour laboratory sessions per
week this is troubling. With the constant turnover of instructors, continuity in the
interpretation and assessment of CLOs and the course outline is lost. Instructors do not
have the opportunity to evaluate, and alter instruction.
Also the cost of laboratory supplies increases as each instructor implements new activities.
Our planned action for this course is to hire new faculty.
21. 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
X Other:___________Hire
faculty____________________________________________________
38
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:Explain the interdependence of molecular through organismal structure and function in
both health and disease.
PLO #2:Acquire, conduct, analyze, and interpret data using scientific terminology,
measurements, and protocols
What questions or investigations arose as a result of these reflections or discussions?
What can we do to make the student success better? Are we doing all that we can? Are more
pre-reqs necessary? Should pre-reqs be decreased? What can we do to improve student
learning and level of enthusiasm.
What can we do with the finances we have to come up with a solid structure which will become
a safe, learning environment—now and in the future.
What program-level strengths have the assessment reflections revealed?
Faculty innovations: writing our own manuals.
Participation by some faculty in the Bridge program.
Constantly striving to improve supplies, equipment and technology in the classroom.
Identifying needs for increase in staffing, budgeting and periodically updating the equipment.
Making sure that our course material relies on the prerequisite and revisit those prerequisites
to make sure they still make sense for the student to have spent their time to take it.
Being vigilant about any facility level issues that come up.
Bringing in case studies and “real life” examples to the classroom (e.g. Physiology) so students
see the value of what they are expected to study.
Bringing a sample of “real life” to the classroom through the efforts of the Environmental
Science faculty so that students can have a field experience right outside the classroom or on
the premises. The long term desire is for a fully functional greenhouse atop a Biology building
that can handle our plans to serving more students and help them achieve their goals.
39
What actions has your discipline determined might be taken to enhance the learning of
students completing your program?
Have District fully support faculty efforts in establishing an up-to-date Biological Science building instead
of taking a piece meal approach to a systemic problem of a building that is too old to tolerate any real
updates to make for a safe learning environment that is student /faculty/staff friendly with allowance
for expansion to keep up with a burgeoning demand for serving more students. To not do so would
make students leave for “greener pastures.” Moral of the story? Give us the financial support that we
need to have a proper Biological Science building that is commensurate with the efforts, knowledge and
passion of the faculty and staff so that we can put the Biological Sciences at Chabot a discipline for other
colleges to reckon with.
Making sure our faculty gets good staff support so that our existing staff support does not get
overworked.
Have admin maintain communication with faculty to identify the best part-time candidates for staffing
based on the needs of the program (being done recently by our pro-temp. Dean).
40
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 all of your courses been offered within the past five years? If no, why should those
courses remain in our college catalog? YES
3. Do all of your courses have the required number of CLOs completed, with corresponding
rubrics? If no, identify the CLO work you still need to complete, and your timeline for
completing that work this semester YES
4. Have you assessed all of your courses and completed "closing the loop" forms for all of your
courses within the past three years? If no, identify which courses still require this work, and
your timeline for completing that work this semester. NO:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
BIOL 4 – Assessing in summer 15
BIOL 2, 6, 10, 25, 31 – Assessing in S’15
ENSC 10 – Assessing in F’14
ENSC 11 – not offered this year
ENSC 12 – Assessing in S’15
MICR 1 – Assessing in S’15
5. Have you developed and assessed PLOs for all of your programs? If no, identify programs which
still require this work, and your timeline to complete that work this semester. Our programs
were assessed in Program Review in 2011. We will assess them again next year once all the
classes have assessed.
6. If you have course sequences, is success in the first course a good predictor of success in the
subsequent course(s)?Yes
7. Does successful completion of College-level Math and/or English correlate positively with
success in your courses? If not, explain why you think this may be.Yes
41
Appendix E: Proposal for New Initiatives (Complete for each new initiative)
PLEASE SEE ATTACHED PAGES. THANK YOU.
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
Appendix F1: Full-Time Faculty/Adjunct Staffing Request(s) [Acct. Category 1000]
Audience: Faculty Prioritization Committeeand Administrators
Purpose: Providing explanation and justification for new and replacement positions for full-time faculty and adjuncts
Instructions: Please justify the need for your request. Discussanticipated improvements in student learning and contribution to the Strategic
Plangoal. Cite evidence and data to support your request, including enrollment management data (EM Summary by Term) for the most recent
three years, student success and retention data , and any other pertinent information. Data is available at
http://www.chabotcollege.edu/ProgramReview/Data2013.cfm.
1. Number of new faculty requested in this discipline: _2__
PLEASE LIST IN RANK
ORDER
STAFFING REQUESTS (1000) FACULTY
Position
Description
Faculty (1000)
Program/Unit
Specific focus on Biology Major
&GE offerings that do not
consistently have any full-time
faculty members teaching some
of the courses (and therefore do
not have leads for SLO
evaluation and
curriculum/pedagogical
development, including writing,
Full time General Biology
evaluating, and revising the lab
experiments.)
Instructor
Life Science
Focus on
microbiology/biotechnology/cell
Full time
biology and the development
Microbiology/Biotechnology new allied health
degree/certificate options
Instructor
Life Science
75
Division/Area
Science and Math—Biology
subdivision
Science and Math—Biology
subdivision
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.
This is the seventh year the Biology subdivision has made this request for additional Biology faculty. Since 2001, the number of
sections offered in the life sciences has almost doubled. Yet, we have had seven retirements and only six hires. Thus, courses taught
by adjuncts have increased significantly over the past eleven years (our FT/PT ratio is 56%), thus some courses consistently have no
full-time faculty teaching them. Because most of our courses have a lab component (this makes one “class” have two preps – lecture
and lab - while in many other areas (anthropology, geography, astronomy) lecture and lab are separate classes), instructors have
time-consuming responsibilities beyond just getting ready to teach each day:
Lab manual development & coordination with bookstore – writing our own experiments
o to match equipment we have (and to keep costs low),
o match the needs of our students, and
o to keep costs low for students.
Coordination with two lab techs and other leads for supply availability.
Coordination with part-time faculty.
Monitoring budgets, equipment maintenance, equipment and supplies purchase orders, etc.
Set-up and clean-up for experiments.
Adjunct faculty are not expected to take on these duties, which results in FT faculty attempting to coordinate classes that they do
not/do not regularly teach. Each full-time Biology faculty member is the lead for at least one multi-section course. The lead faculty
member is responsible for the curriculum of both lecture and laboratory portions for all sections and in most cases writes a
corresponding laboratory manual to be used by all students taking the course. This is a responsibility and workload that exceeds
contractual requirements and especially exacerbated as the number of adjuncts teaching the course increases because the lead
instructor must train and supervise them to ensure course objectives and laboratory exercises are taught in a manner that ensures
equality in student success.
Even though the number of sections has decreased in recent semesters because of budget cuts, all life science courses present a
severe student bottleneck and, thus, offerings will increase again as growth is received. At our previous maximum number of
sections, we were still not serving the entire community by meeting student demand. Life Science classes consistently have an
average enrollment of 110+% and countless students are turned away. They are some of the first courses to fill in the priority
enrollment period, and many have waitlists that also fill. This trend is seen in all of the courses in the Allied Health and Biology major
pathways and is also severe in the General Education laboratory courses. These two courses that are the entrance point for the
biology (BIOL 4/6) and allied health (BIOL 31) majors we have actually set up to be the “bottlenecks” for these programs – we don’t
76
want to let more students enter the program than we have spaces for them to complete the program. Demand is high, but courses
in these programs need to be added as blocks in order for students to be able to complete. Adding blocks of courses requires not
only large chunks of FTEF, it requires more full-time faculty to provide more flexibility in scheduling and in course development.
If the Biology subdivision starts to pursue other health-related programs to broaden Allied-Health majors’ career choices, other
faculty member(s) will be diverted from the subdivision. Before Biotechnology subdivision separated from Biology, Patricia Wu had
the sole responsibility of developing a career tech program. With limited resources, time, and college support, all of the effort and
time invested in Biotechnology was not enough to make it come to fruition. Learning from this experience, it is evident that having
more full-time instructors will allow the subdivision to develop new programs to diversity the Allied-Health program to meet
community demand more quickly and efficiently.
As in all areas, additional responsibilities are being given to full-time faculty in areas other than classroom instruction:
 The increase in the number of courses taught by adjunct faculty has increased the workload of full time faculty as full-time
faculty must interview, hire, train, mentor, and evaluate adjunct faculty.
 Full-time faculty carry increasing responsibility for activities such as program review, development of curricula, assessment of
student learning outcomes, etc.
 Working and reworking the STEM and Allied Health student pathways across the division in order to build
 Several of the Biology full-time instructors have duties, mostly without reassigned time, in addition to instruction:
o Agnello Braganza is the Coordinator for the NIH Bridges to Baccalaureate Program.
o Debra Howell is the lead for the Urban Agriculture Garden Project as well as a co-lead for biology MESA students, and
co-advisor to the Biology Club.
o Jennifer Lange is on the Basic Skills Committee. She also serves as the lead for the developing Career Pathways Trust
grant Health Science Pathway and is one of the leaders of the Passion & Purpose Initiative.
o ZarirMarawalais the Life Sciences Lead (does all of the duties of the coordinator who used to receive reassigned time),
is the chair of the Technology Committee, and serves on the COOL committee.
o Rebecca Otto serves on the Chabot & District Facilities Committees and is co-advisor to the Biology Club.
o Patricia Wu is the division Curriculum rep.
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.
77
The strategic goal as declared by our PRBC is as follows:
“Increase the number of students that achieve their educational goal within a reasonable time by clarifying pathways and providing more
information and support.”
Additional activities such as coordinating laboratory experiments and developing new programs, while welcome, put lots of strain on
the amount of time available to assess and improve student learning, counsel and provide learning support for students, participate
in subdivision evaluation and planning, and participate in college-wide planning. The hours that must be devoted to hiring, training,
and mentoring adjuncts and to developing laboratory materials for courses that they aren’t even teaching is stretching faculty in the
department extremely thin. (It is really hard to develop successful, coherent laboratory experiments that you never conduct with
the students because you aren’t teaching the course!) Additionally, having only limited time blocks in which rooms are available, fit
the students’ schedule and create a reasonable schedule for faculty imposes restrictions that are impacting other disciplines within
the Science & Mathematics division.
The lack of full-time faculty is taking a toll on multiple courses, on the program, and even on the division:
 Laboratory experiments are not adequately updated to reflect newer knowledge and techniques, as instructors are
developing and revising labs they rarely perform with students
 Expanding the biology majors program, which currently only has enough seats to serve 50% of declared students, would only
happen with an additional faculty member.
 Physics, engineering, and chemistry classes can only be offered at specific times, because they have to be scheduled around
the restricted times the biology majors courses can be offered
 the ability to complete the myriad of other tasks (curriculum updates, program review, SLOs, etc.) that are required of fulltime faculty keep getting delayed because everyone is stretched so thin that they don’t have time to meet and even
minimally discuss teaching and learning.
While the division faculty have been working hard to provide a reasonable course schedule for the students, we still are unable to
serve the majority of students who want to major in biology and allied health, and those we can serve are not receiving our best
because we are stretched too thin.
In the Pre-Allied Health pathway, not all students who enter with the goal of a nursing degree will be able to complete the rigorous
course sequence (attrition is approximately 50%), and even if they do complete the courses, not everyone who applies to nursing
school (or a medical tech program) will be accepted. We want to provide more options for these students. We have examined
multiple options and, so far, selected two that don’t require many additional courses beyond what the campus already offers – a
78
Laboratory Technician AA and a certificate/AA in Medical Translation.
Having two additional full-time faculty members to assist with the workload would enable each individual to perform the increasing
amount of work outside of the classroom that directly impacts their success inside the classroom and at their transfer institutions.
We could also develop more options for students to complete their education and transition into a career in the life sciences.
79
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: ___1 modified__
STAFFING REQUESTS (2000) CLASSIFIED PROFESSIONALS
Position
Evening Laboratory Technician,
½ time
Micro/Cell Biology Laboratory
Technician
Classified Professional Staff (2000)
Description
Program/Unit
PLEASE LIST IN RANK
ORDER
Division/Area
We need a lab tech who
can serve the needs of our
evening courses
Biology majors
Allied pathway
GE requirement classes
(STEM)
Science and Math--Biology
Increase contract from 10
months to 12 months
Microbiology, biology
majors
STAFFING REQUESTS (2000) STUDENT ASSISTANTS
Student Assistants (2000)
80
Science and Math--Biology
PLEASE LIST IN RANK
ORDER
Position
Description
Program/Unit
Division/Area
2. Rationale for your proposal.
#1: Biology needs to have an evening laboratory technician (20 hours/week Monday through Thursday). Sections of Anatomy 1, Biology 10 and
31, Microbiology 1, and Physiology 1 are offered in the evening. If instructors (usually adjuncts) need an item, they have to leave unsupervised
students in the laboratory while searching for materials. This poses serious safety (e.g. Bunsen burners or dissection equipment) and security
issues and possibly contributes to theft in the classroom. Electronic balances, anatomy models, and slides have been stolen in the past. With the
decreasing supply budget, these items are difficult to replace.
Evening sections fill first and have the longest waitlists, so we would like to offer more sections at these times. We have classroom space, but
without lab tech support in the evening we do not want to add more of these sections.
Having an evening lab tech could also provide more course scheduling options that might ease some of the strain across the division created by
the restrictions in the biology majors course offerings. If sections could be moved to the evenings, classroom space could become available at
other times.
#2: The laboratory technician that supports BIOL 2, BIOL 6 and MICR 1 has a 10-month contract (spring and fall semesters). Extending this
contract to 12 months would allow the offering of these high-demand courses during the summer. This would allow students to complete their
programs and apply for transfer in a shorter time frame. (Currently students in both biology and allied health take three years to be transfer
ready due to the small number of summer course offerings and the large number of courses required to transfer [different schools have their
own unique requirements, thus requiring students to take all of them in order to apply to multiple transfer schools].) Having more students who
can complete in two years would benefit the students in terms of both federal/state financial aid and in total amount of time spent in school.
Having this lab tech working over the summer could also provide more course scheduling options that might ease some of the strain across the
division created by the restrictions in the biology majors course offerings. If sections could be moved to the evenings, classroom space could
become available at other times.
81
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.
Despite demand for evening and summer courses, we have been offering fewer sections in recent years because of the gap in technical support.
This hinders the ability of students to complete their program (particularly biology majors and GE) in a timely fashion.
To fulfill community demand, to promote more timely completion of a long course sequence, and to eliminate serious safety and security issues,
an evening lab technician and a 12 month Micro/cell biology lab technician is necessary for Life Sciences.
82
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.
Life Sciences primarily serves three major student groups:
1. Allied Health/Health Science students: 1,721 total students on campus (860 students per year)
a. Courses in program needed – BIOL 31, ANAT 1, MICR 1, PHSI 1
b. Courses in other programs needed – CHEM 30A, CHEM 30B, PSY 1, SOCI 1, HLTH 1, HLTH 51A,
HLTH 51B, NUTR 1, CAS 50, PSY 12, KINE 1
2. Biology AA & transfer students: 574 total students on campus (287 students per year)
a. Courses in program needed – BIOL 2, BIOL 4, BIOL 6
b. Courses in other programs needed – CHEM 31, CHEM 1A, CHEM 1B, CHEM 12A, CHEM 12B, MTH
1, MTH 20, MTH 37, PHYS 2A, PHYS 2B
3. Natural Science GE students ~1750 seats needed per year
a. Courses in program offered – BIOL 10, BIOL 25, BIOL 50, ENSC 10, ENSC 11, ENSC 12
b. Courses outside of program offered – ANTH 1, ANTH 1L, ANTH 13, PSY 4
For the current academic year, with an additional 0.55 FTEF, we were able to add a double section of BIOL 6. This
increased the number of biology majors that could begin their program by 48 students. (Other changes in
numbers of students served resulted from a one-time shift in class offerings due to Debra Howell’s sabbatical.
These will not remain in place in subsequent years unless additional FTEF is obtained.)
Our current FTEF is severely insufficient to serve the needs of these programs:
The Allied Health pathway can only accommodate 432 students entering each year, leaving over 400
students unable to start taking the classes they need. All total, the program can only accommodate
about 50% of the declared students who need it.
The Biology pathway can only accommodate 144 students entering per year, leaving 143 students unable
to start taking the classes they need (this also does not account for the Engineering and Environmental
Studies students who also need these classes). All total, the program can only accommodate about 50%
of the declared students who need it.
Every student who matriculates at Chabot with the educational goal of transfer needs to take a Natural
Science GE course as well as a science lab (which can be either Natural or Physical Science). Every student
who has an educational goal of associates degree needs one science course in either Physical or Natural
Science. Approximately 3000 new students enter Chabot each year (an additional 1000 transfer from
other colleges), 75% of whom need to complete the GE requirements.
Subtracting students who will complete this requirement through their major, approximately 1,750
lecture seats are needed in Natural Science General Education courses each year. Currently, our schedule
offers 1,660 lecture seats, an improvement from 1,548 the previous year. (Although 880 of these could
also be used to meet the Social & Behavioral Sciences GE). Of these seats, only 264 are lecture only
classes offered by Life Sciences.
Since students whose educational goal is an AA don’t need to take a lab class, approximately 1,575 lab
seats are need each year in all sciences. If half of these students complete their lab requirement in
83
Natural Science (and half in Physical Science), we each need 788 seats. Currently we have only 584 seats
the natural sciences, which, while still an improvement from the previous year, we can only accommodate
about 74% of the students who need it.Physical sciences is even worse, with only 245 lab seats. Thus,
overall we only offer 53% of the needed GE science laboratory seats!
Our courses are all in high demand, and most have been identified as amongst the most severe campus
bottlenecks – demand greatly exceeds capacity; sections all have waitlists early in the enrollment period, always
before new students can enroll; several courses have waitlists that completely fill, thus closing the course to
further enrollment.
In Fall 2014, a term at which the campus was worrisomely low in FTES, the Life Science department classes
averaged 109% full at census (this number was higher after the first week of classes) and we were still turning
students away.
Course
ANAT 1
BIOL 2
BIOL 4
BIOL 6
BIOL 10
BIOL 25 *(late start class)
BIOL 31
BIOL 50
ENSC 10
MICR 1
PHSI 1
Waitlist Open Dates –
first section/last section
May 4/June 2
July 17/na
July 1/July 29
May 3/May 19
May 13/August 5
Waitlist Closed –
date of first section
Number of closed
sections/total sections
--
May 1/May 20
July 24/July 27
July 31/na
April 29/August 11
April 29/August 4
May 7
4/8
May 14
1/5
Current FTEF in Life Sciences by program:
Allied Health/Health Science = 22.83
Biology = 8.25
GE = 5.36
In order to serve the total number of students declared in these programs (note – this excludes students in other
majors such as Engineering, Environmental Studies, and Psychology that also need these courses) as well as in the
Natural Sciences GE we would need:
COURSE
CURRENT ADDITIONAL CURRENT ADDITIONAL CURRENT ADDITIONAL
MAX # OF
FTEF
FTEF NEEDED SECTIONS
SECTIONS
STUDENT
STUDENT #
SECTIONS
(2014-15)
NEEDED
# SERVED
SERVED
OFFERED
(2005-08)
Allied Health/Health Science Transfer Majors
BIOL 31
4.68
4.16
18
16
432
384
32
ANAT 1
7.15
4.4
13
8
312
192
18
PHSI 1
5.5
3.3
10
6
240
144
12
MICR 1
5.5
3.3
10
6
240
144
12
Biology Majors
BIOL 2
1.65
2.3
3
6
72
144
New course
series
BIOL 4
3.3
3.3
6
6
144
144
BIOL 6
3.3
3.3
6
6
144
144
Natural Sciences General Education offered by Life Sciences Program
BIOL 10
2.6
1.56
10
6
240
144
16
84
BIOL 25
BIOL 50
ENSC 10
ENSC 11
ENSC 12
0.6
1.56
0.4
0
0.2
0.6
1.56
0.4
1.04
0.2
3
6
2
0
1
3
6
2
4
1
132
144
88
0
44
132
144
88
96
44
0
16
8
2
1
Conversation topics in these numbers:
Our Allied Health program is operating at approximately 50% of student demand
Our Biology program is operating at approximately 50% of student demand
In our program review last year we asked “Are these numbers on par with ALL other programs on
campus.”Based on 2013 data, the entry capacity versus student demand for other programs on campus
with 30 or more students declared are:
o Engineering – 13%
o Psychology – 23% (new degree with new courses started in S’14)
o Welding – 28%
o Allied Health – 50%
o Biology – 50%
o Architecture – 54%
o Fine Arts – 54%
o Administration of Justice – 71%
o Business & Accounting – 97%
o Kinesiology – 114%
o ECD (all) – 118%
o Fire Tech (all) – 120%
o Communications – 123%
o Auto Tech (all) – 130%
o Mass Communications – 153%
o Medical Assisting – 189%
o English (all) – 248%
o Anthropology – 293%
o Real Estate – 539%
Other than the Life Science programs, the only other impacted programs that had all its sections
waitlisted in the last year were Fine Arts (ART 2A) and Engineering (ENGR 25).
So we are essentially saying to students “Sorry, if you want to study the life sciences, go elsewhere.”
When these students go elsewhere, they also decrease enrollment in other classes across campus, as
they often are no longer taking the GE, math, communications, and English requirements at Chabot
either. We lose FTES by having to turn away hundreds of students from Life Science Courses.
We know that, in the current fiscal climate and with our current facilities restrictions, serving all of the students
that we need to serve is impossible. So, in order to begin moving toward meeting the needs documented above, for
2015-2016 we would like to offer:
Sections
Anatomy 1
Biology 2
Biology 4
Biology 6
Biology 10
Biology 25
Biology 31
14
4
5
6
12
3
20
Additional FTEF
needed
0.55
1.1
--0.52
-0.52
85
Term Could Offer
M/W eve Spring or summer
W/F morning Fall; evening Spring
summer
T/R afternoon, Spring or Fall
Biology 50
Environmental Science 10
Environmental Science 11
Environmental Science 12
Microbiology 1
Physiology 1
Total additional FTEF
8
3
2
1
11
11
0.52
0.2
--0.55*
1.1
4.51
T/R afternoon, Spring
summer
*Summer 2016
M/W morning, Fall and Spring
Rationale for this request:
1. With the addition of one section of BIOL 4 and two sections of BIOL 6 in 2014-15, we now have more
students in the Biology majors pipeline. (Horray!) But, in order for these students to complete their
program and transfer we need to add more seats in BIOL 2, which is the capstone course for the series. IF
TWO ADDITIONAL SECTIONS ARE NOT ADDED, THESE STUDENTS CAN’T COMPLETE THEIR PROGRAM.
2.
For 2014-2015, we used FTEF from ENSC to add a section of PHSI 1. This additional course was needed in
order to accommodate the number of students succeeding in anatomy (the prereq). Even with this
additional section, the week before classes started the number of students on the waitlist for the course
was 35! Given these numbers and the request for additional sections of BIOL 31 and ANAT 1, we need to
keep the section we added in F14 and include an additional section next year. This course is crucial, as it
is the capstone course for most Allied Health majors. The other capstone course for Allied Health
students is MICR 1. If we enter more students into the pipeline, we need an additional section of MICR in
summer 2016. These additions would equalize the number of students who can enroll in the two
capstone classes.
Even with these additions, we are far below our pre-cut enrollment numbers. We would still be short:
4 sections of ANAT 1
1 section of PHSI 1
1 section of MICR 1
12 sections of BIOL 31
3.
In summer, we currently only have 48 lab seats available for non-majors, and an additional 44 lecture only
seats. No sections of general biology are offered as well as no environmental science courses. Summer
students have few other options for natural science GE, as there are only two sections of ANTH 1 offered.
We would like to add two additional courses to our summer offerings (neither of which are on the 20142015 summer schedule) – BIOL 10 (lecture and lab, 48 students) and ENSC 10 (lecture, 44 students).
Even with the addition of this double section of BIOL 10, we are still restoring cut sections. We would still
be four sections short of pre-cut numbers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------In order to improve access to learning support services to Life Science students, we also request 1.12 FTEF to offer
a TUTR 200 in the STEM Center that is dedicated only to students in Biology, Allied Health, and biological science
GE courses. Currently, there is only one Life Science faculty member available in the STEM Center for a total of
four hours a week. That pretty much takes half of the science out of STEM . . . Life Science faculty would staff the
center and provide direct assistance to students for 27 hours a week (out of the 44 hours a week the Center is
open). Finding tutors for these subjects is difficult (although we have many outstanding students and potential
tutors), mainly because of the high number of hours these students already spend in the classroom. For minimal
FTEF, faculty could fill this gap in supporting learning outside of class time.
86
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. Tutors/Study Group Leaders and Learning Assistants
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.
Life Sciences request more science tutors/study group leaders and Learning Assistants.
87
Appendix F5: Supplies & Services Requests [Acct. Category 4000 and 5000]
Audience: Administrators, Budget Committee, PRBC
Purpose: To request funding for supplies and service, and to guide the Budget Committee in allocation of funds.
Instructions: In the area below, please list both your current and requested budgets for categories 4000 and 5000 in priority order. Do NOT
include conferences and travel, which are submitted on Appendix M6. Justify your request and explain in detail any requested funds beyond
those you received this year. Please also look for opportunities to reduce spending, as funds are very limited.
Supplies Requests [Acct. Category 4000]
Instructions:
1. There should be a separate line item for supplies needed and an amount.
For items purchased in bulk, list the unit cost and provide the total in the "Amount" column.
2. Make sure you include the cost of tax and shipping for items purchased.
Priority 1: Are criticalrequests required to sustain a program (if not acquired, program may be in peril) or to meet mandated requirements of local,
state or federal regulations or those regulations of a accrediting body for a program.
Priority 2: Are needed requests that will enhance a program but are not so critical as to jeopardize the life of a program if not
received in the requested academic year.
Priority 3: Are requests that are enhancements, non-critical resource requeststhat would be nice to have and would bring additional benefit to the program.
needed totals in all areas
Description
These are for the consumable
supplies (including tax & shipping)
that are necessary for the
experiments conducted in our
laboratory classes. These costs
are detailed by class in the table
below.Please note that these costs
are lower than the actual cost of
2014-15
Request
Requested
Received
2015-16
Request
Amount
$78,965
$39,850
$92,670
88
Vendor
Division/Unit
Priority #1
All Life
Sciences
X
Priority #2
Priority #3
running these classes because we
have been regularly scrounging at
closing biotech companies for
usable glassware, probe tips,
gloves, etc. that are necessary for
our experiments.We make a great
effort to minimize our annual
requests!
Preserved Sheep Hearts
$7.35/each x 390 units
Preserved Sheep Brains
$12.60/each x 390 units
Preserved Cow Eyes $3.50/each x
390 units
Bench Spray and Wipe
Decontaminating Cleaner, BE047,
$13.50/each x 24
Lysol I.C. Disinfectant Concentrate,
BE022, $78.75/each x 5
EZ-Zyme Instrument Cleaner,
BE100, $106.25/each x 5
PathOdorizer Plus, BE042
$71.50/each x 6
Stainless Steel Cleaner & Polish,
BE048, $38.00/each x 12
Puritan Applicator Sticks Sterile
Wood PK/200, # 2991720
$19.25/each x 3
Ladies splash prove cadaver
dissection lab coats, XS, ceil,
DL151BJ, $70/each x 3
Ladies splash prove cadaver
dissection lab coats, S, ceil,
DL151BJ, $70/each x 2
Unisex (men) splash prove cadaver
dissection lab coats, S, royal,
Requested
in 2012-13
Requested
in 2012-13
Requested
in 2012-13
Biology –
Anatomy
Biology –
Anatomy
Biology –
Anatomy
Yes
3500
Carolina
Yes
5600
Carolina
Yes
1700
Carolina
Requested
in 2012-13
Yes
250
Mopec
NA
NA
300
Mopec
NA
NA
300
Mopec
NA
NA
300
Mopec
NA
NA
300
Mopec
NA
NA
100
Wards
Biology –
Anatomy
√
NA
NA
270
DenLine
Uniforms, Inc.
Biology –
Anatomy
√
NA
NA
230
DenLine
Uniforms, Inc.
Biology –
Anatomy
√
NA
NA
230
DenLine
Uniforms, Inc.
Biology –
Anatomy
√
89
Biology –
Anatomy
Biology –
Anatomy
Biology –
Anatomy
Biology –
Anatomy
Biology –
Anatomy
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
DL170BJ, $100/each x 2
Unisex (men) splash prove cadaver
dissection lab coats, M, royal,
DL170BJ, $100/each x 2
Unisex (men) splash prove cadaver
dissection lab coats, L, royal,
DL170BJ, $100/each x 2
Deluxe Aneroid
Sphygmomanometer, # 691202
$165.95/each x 15
Course
Anatomy 1
Biology 2
Biology 4
Biology 6
Biology 10
Biology 31
Biology 50
Envir. Sci. 11
Microbiology
Physiology 1
Bio/Micro
Prep
Central
Cadaver
NA
NA
230
DenLine
Uniforms, Inc.
Biology –
Anatomy
√
NA
NA
230
DenLine
Uniforms, Inc.
Biology –
Anatomy
√
NA
NA
3250
Carolina
Biology Physiology
√
2014-15 requests by Course
Sections Cost/sec
Total
13
$625
$8,125
3
$2400
$7,200
5
$605
$3025
4
$725
$2900
14
$380
$5320
18
$310
$5580
8
$345
$2760
2
$220
$440
10
$2592
$25,920
10
$762
$7620
Na
$665
$665
Na
Na
$2660
$6750
$2660
$6750
2015-16 requests by Course
Sections
14
4
5
6
12
20
8
2
10
11
Na
Cost/sec
$685
$2650
$665
$800
$410
$350
$375
$250
$2860
$850
$750
Na
Na
$3900
$7000
ADDITIONAL EQUIPMENT REQUEST ON NEXT PAGE.
90
Total
$9,590
$10,600
$2,660
$4,800
$4,920
$7,000
$3,000
$500
$28,600
$9,350
IF PRINTOUT IS NOT LEGIBLE, PLEASE REFER TO THE FOLLOWING SITE. THANK
YOU.https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/45589009/REQUESTED ITEMS BY BIO DEPT copy.png
91
92
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
Microscope maintenance
Autoclave maintenance
Flume hood maintenance
Amount
$4000
$1750
$1500
Vendor
Division/Unit
Sci&Math/Life Sciences
Sci&Math/Life Sciences
Sci&Math/Life Sciences
93
Priority #1
X
X
X
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.
Priority Priority Priority
#1
#2
#3
Description
Amount
Vendor
Division/Dept
HAPS 29th Annual Conference
2015 for 2, San Antonio, TX
4500
Human Anatomy &
Physiology Society
BiologyAnatomy
Yes
The American Society for Cell
Biology – ASCB/IFCB 2015
Annual Meeting for 3, San
Diego, CA
6000
The American Society
for Cell Biology
Biology
Yes
94
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
Amount
Cadaver (1)
3500
UCSF Willed Body
Program
Biology – Anatomy
√
500
Twin Supply Inc.
Biology – Anatomy
√
6,570
Carolina
Biology – Physiology
√
Kimwear Poly Aprons 500cs, KCC43745,
$411.60/each x 1
Portable Dry Spirometer, # 692670
$219.00/each x 30
Vendor
Division/Unit
95
Priority #1
Priority #2
Priority #3
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):
Building/Location:
Description of the facility project. Please be as specific as possible.
BIOLOGY BUILDING 2100 REQUESTED OVER MANY YEARS
What educational programs or institutional purposes does this equipment support?
ALL LIFE SCIENCE OFFERINGS
Briefly describe how your request relates specifically to meeting the Strategic Plan Goal and to enhancing student learning?
Building has several code and safety issues that desperately need remedy. The consensus of the school and the BOT is that a new
building must be built to keep all our students, staff and faculty safe. In addition, we have no room for expansion and accommodate
as many students as needed to fulfill the strategic goal as well noted by the PRBC. Currently, the monies available for such a facility
is woefully in adequate and only a partial annex may be built. The question remains—when? And when will be have a fully
functional Biology building that is commensurate with our fine faculty, our illustrious students and the fine name our Chabot College
has in serving a very diverse population in our global community.
96