Chabot College
Program Review Report
2015 -2016
ENGINEERING
Year One of the
Program Review Cycle
Author: Bruce Mayer, PE
Submitted on 23-Oct-14
© Bruce Mayer, PE • Chabot College •2015-16 Engineering Program Review • Page 1
Table of Contents
Executive Summary....................................................................................................................................... 3
Introduction to the Engineering Program ..................................................................................................... 4
Section 1 • Year1 : Where We’ve Been..................................................................................................... 11
Section 2 • Year1: Where We Are Now ..................................................................................................... 15
Section 3 • Year1: The Difference We Hope to Make ............................................................................... 20
Appendix A: ENGINEERING Budget History and Impact ............................................................................. 25
Appendix B1: Student Learning Outcomes Assessment Reporting Schedule ............................................ 27
Appendix B2: “Closing the Loop” Course-Level Assessment Reflections. ................................................. 28
Appendix C: Program Learning Outcomes ................................................................................................. 34
Appendix D: A Few Questions .................................................................................................................... 38
Appendix E: Proposal for New Initiatives (Complete for each new initiative) ........................................... 39
Appendix F3: FTEF Requests ...................................................................................................................... 51
Appendix F5: Supplies & Services Requests [Acct. Category 4000 and 5000] ........................................... 52
Appendix F6: Conference and Travel Requests [ Acct. Category 5000] ..................................................... 53
Appendix F7: Technology and Other Equipment Requests [Acct. Category 6000] .................................... 54
Appendix 1 • MATLAB SoftWare Quotation ............................................................................................... 55
Appendix 2 • UCBerkeley ME40, ThermoDynamics, Course Description................................................... 56
Appendix 3 • Harris Poll on Occupational Prestige..................................................................................... 57
Appendix 4 • Perspective on GRIT by the Engineering Instructor .............................................................. 63
© Bruce Mayer, PE • Chabot College •2015-16 Engineering Program Review • Page 2
Executive Summary














Engineering has STRONGLY emphasized the Transfer PATHWAY since 2003
Instituted a Continuous Pedagogy Improvement Process (CPIP) since 2003
Engineering enhances the Transfer PathWay thru optimum Articulation
Engineering secures from university professors PreApproval of Articulation requests
for new courses.
Engineering has been Teaching GRIT since 2003
Engineering Enrollments are UP almost 100% over the last 3-4 years
Engineering Student Success is near that of Chabot as a whole
Engineering Student Success shows no discernable trends over the last several
years
Engineering transfers about 20 students per year to University Colleges of
Engineering
Developed a “culture of connection” between Chabot Engineering and broader
Technical & Educational Community.
Contacted almost 4200 High School students in OutReach visits
Recruited over 50 practicing engineers to guest lecture
Secured 55 Field Trips for students
Made Personal Visits to Universities: UCBerkeley, SJSU, CSUEB, UCDavis,
UCSantaCruz, SantaClaraUniversity, Fresno State
Developed a “culture of continuity” between Current and Past Engineering Transfer
students; Over 50 former students have guest lectured to current students
Closed Loop on ENGR43 SLO’s
Closed Loop on Engineering PLO’s
Proposal for Engineering Program Progression & Improvement
Add a SECOND, FULL TIME Engineering Instructor who could also teach
SubCalculus Math
Improved MATLAB software Access → $3k OneTime, $500/year OnGoing
Articulation Enhancement for PathWay facilitation → 8.6 CAH + $2k OneTime
Pathway Improvemen by NEW Course, “ENGR40”, which would articulate to
UCBerkeley ME40 → 3 CAH OneTime, 4.3 CAH/year OnGoing
© Bruce Mayer, PE • Chabot College •2015-16 Engineering Program Review • Page 3
Introduction to the Engineering Program
The Engineering PathWay
Consider this statement1 taken from the Chabot College2012-15 Strategic Plani
The PRBC has committed to a single goal for our Strategic Plan. That goal is to:
“Increase the number of students that achieve their educational goal within a
reasonable time by clarifying pathways and providing more information and
support.”
Achieving this goal requires two fundamental shifts. First, as a college, we need to focus more
on student progress along educational pathways. While student retention and success in
individual courses and semester-to-semester persistence remain critically important, the
ultimate achievement of educational goals is most important.
Engineering has had a HIGH PRIORITY Focus on the Engineering “PathWay” for the
entire tenure of the current Engineering Instructor. Consider the Mission Statement for
Chabot Engineering:
To prepare students for Success
AFTER
they Transfer to a
University College of Engineering
Note the emphasis on the word AFTER. Success at Chabot is but a step in the process
of training to enter the Engineering Profession. The REAL measure of the effectiveness
of the Chabot Engineering program is how well the program prepares students for the
rigors of university-level engineering courses.
ALL Chabot engineering classes emphasize that the “PRICE OF ADMISSION” to the
PRACTICE of Engineering is the Academic “Golden Ticket” of a Bachelor’s Degree
in an Engineering Major from an
accredited University Engineering
Program.
Chabot
Engineering
Instructors
use
the
flowchart
displayed in Figure 2 to stress this
point, over-and-over-and-over again,
to the students.
1
Emphasis added by writer
Figure 1 • Except from the Chabot ASEngineering
Description
© Bruce Mayer, PE • Chabot College •2015-16 Engineering Program Review • Page 4
In fact the Chabot ASEngineering,
approved by the State Chancellor’s office
in 2008, was itself DESIGNED primarily as
a PATHWAY. All References to the Chabot
ASE degree underscore the fact that the
degree is but a STEP (albeit a significant
one) on the path to earning the
BSEngineering
degree.EvenDocumentation on the Chabot
ASE degree notes the importance of
COMPLETING the PATHWAY. See Figure
1
.
On the practical side, Chabot Engineering
provides ALL interested students with
Motivation to earn the Engineering
Baccalaureate - see Figure 3
A typical-case term-by-term Course
PLAN that leads to Transfer - see
Figure 4
Figure 2 • FlowChart use to Emphasize the
In keeping with the pedagogical axiom of need to Reach the END of the Engineering
“repetitio est mater studiorum” (Repetition
PathWay
is the mother of studies)ii. Chabot
Engineering instructors time-after-time-aftertime stress to the students the absolute requirement that they do well at ALL levels of
academia, and that they COMPLETE the PathWay.
This emphasis on PREPATION and COMPLETION produced many grateful responses
from former students. Consider these
comments2 from a very recent
Chabot student who transferred to
the
University
of
MASSACHUECETTS at Lowell:
>>> "Doane, Michael R" 09/27/14
6:30 PM >>>
Hi, Mr. Mayer,
I would have sent you an email
update sooner after we talked but I
wanted to get a feel for my classes
and job first.
2
Emphasis added by this report writer
Figure 3 • Excerpt of a page taken from the
Chabot College Engineering promotional brochure
© Bruce Mayer, PE • Chabot College •2015-16 Engineering Program Review • Page 5
So far I've received a 95% on my engineering differential equations midterm, a 90% on
my circuits midterm (tied for second in two sections of 36 students), and I'm averaging a
91.3% on my materialbalances quizzes, with the class average being a 63.3%(my C++
and ethics class have not had midterms yet but I am doing well so far).
I want to take the time to thank you personally, as well as your colleagues, especially
Scott Hildreth, Tim Dave, Egl Batchelor, Wayne Pitcher, et al, for the immense
support they had provided in my time at Chabot. When I elected not to continue in
Biochemistry, I didn't feel I was "smart enough" when it came to quantitative analysis
and pure math to continue in engineering, but the last few years have proven that
assertion to be incorrect. I had underestimated not just my abilities but the
instructional proficiency of the Chabot College Math and Science Department. 4
years later, I am happy to say that I am well on my way to completing my degree and
moving forward. For all the times I felt like quitting while doing triple integrals or
linspace() commands in MATLAB, I am SO SO SO SO SO SO happy that I did not. I
can't emphasize that enough, because quitting most certainly would have resulted in a
much lower level of satisfaction in a less lucrative area. (I'm even using those MATLAB
skills now in my classes.)
Furthermore, your study skills take-home assignments, which I used to see as an
annoying way to get 10 extra credit points, have honestly changed the way that I
prepare for classes. More than anything, the concept of studying with a pencil and
paper in hand to take notes has helped me tremendously when it comes to recalling
problem solving methods. This was also very useful in physics last year, and I had A's
in Tim Dave's Physics 4C and 5 classes as a result of the enhanced preparation.
All I can hope for is that you and your aforementioned colleagues continue for as
long as possible at Chabot. The engineering program was the most difficult academic
endeavor I had ever undertaken, and had I not been held to such a high standard of
performance, I would not have been as well prepared for these challenges as I now am.
Branden Andersen, Raymundo Flores, Tomasz Jagoda, Joshua Adam Merritt, and
COUNTLESS OTHERS arejustas grateful as I am.
Thank you so much.
© Bruce Mayer, PE • Chabot College •2015-16 Engineering Program Review • Page 6
Figure 4 • Course-by-Course model-plan used generally by Chabot Engineering students to
prepare for University Transfer
Figure 5 displays the result of the effort to encourage students to complete the transfer
pathway. Over 200 students have earned university engineering school transfer
© Bruce Mayer, PE • Chabot College •2015-16 Engineering Program Review • Page 7
acceptance during the tenure of the present engineering instructor. The California
Postsecondary Education Commission data shown in Figure 6 demonstrates that
Engineering transfers to UC’s about 30% MORE students than ANY OTHER MAJOR on
the Chabot College campus.
Transfer University
Chabot College Engineering Student Transfer Survey • 2004-2014
Other
2
UCSB
2
SacState
2
UoP
2
206 Transfers Total
• OutOf State → Cornell, OhioState,
OralRoberts, , Purdue, UMass-Lowell
• Other → UCRiverside, CSUEB
• Data Source → Student Surveys
SFSU
4
UCIrvine
4
5
OutofState
9
UCLA
12
CalPoly SLO
13
UCSanDiego
27
UCDavis
60
UCBerkeley
64
SJSU
0
5
10
file = Transfer_Acceptance_Summary_1405.xlsx
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
Number of Students
Figure 5 • Engineering PathWay Success as indicated in the form of transfer acceptances by
University Schools of Engineering. Chabot Engineering transfers to universities an average of
18.7 Students per year.
© Bruce Mayer, PE • Chabot College •2015-16 Engineering Program Review • Page 8
Chabot College UC-Transfer by Discipline • Total over 04-10
PHYS
1
CSCI
HIS
8
MTH
Discipline
Data Source
• http://www.cpec.ca.gov/OnLineData/SelectFinalOptions.asp
7
10
ENGL
18
ARCH
20
CHEM
30
BIOL
39
BUS
57
PSY
66
ENGR
86
0
10
20
Program_Rev_ENGR_Enrollment_History_1211.xlsx
30
40
50
60
70
80
UC Transfers
Figure 6 • Chabot-College to UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA (UC) Transfer Volume-Totals
by Academic-Major over the period of 2004-2010iii. Note that ENGINEERING produces about
30% MORE UC-Transfers THAN ANY OTHER discipline on the Chabot College Campus
© Bruce Mayer, PE • Chabot College •2015-16 Engineering Program Review • Page 9
90
Chabot College Engineering Student Tranfser Survey • 2004-2014
4
Other
Transfer Engineering-Discipline
Data Details
• Source ≡ Student Surveys
• Other ≡ Ag, EngrPhys, Environ, Nuclear
• n = 206
3
Industrial
4
Aero
6
Materials
9
Bio
12
Computer
19
Chemical
41
Electrical
42
Civil
64
Mechanical
0
5
10
Transfer_Acceptance_Summary_1405.xlsx
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
Number of Students
Figure 7 • Engineering PathWay Preferences of Chabot Engineering Transfer Students. Note that
MECHANICAL engineering is about 50% MORE popular than the second-place disciplines of
Civil & Electrical Engineering. Note also the WIDE RANGE of Engineering Majors. Chabot
students have earned transfer acceptance in 13 DIFFERENT Engineering Disciplines.
© Bruce Mayer, PE • Chabot College •2015-16 Engineering Program Review • Page 10
Section 1 • Year1 : Where
We’ve Been
11
Visits to Off-Campus Engineering Operations
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?
Engineering Off-Campus Field Trips • 04-14
12
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Sp04
Sp05
Sp06
Sp07
Sp08
Sp09
Sp10
College Term
Sp11
Sp12
Sp13
Fa13
Fa14
Chabot_ENGR_Enrollment_History_1410.xlsx
Figure 8 • ENGR45Field Trips. Including about half-adozen visits made in other Engineering Courses
produces a total of about 60 field trips.
Chabot Engineering has focused, since DAY-1, on the need for students to transfer and
earn the Baccalaureate degree. See Figure 2. Along these lines engineering has
Instituted a Continuous Pedagogy Improvement Process (CPIP) within
engineering instruction to improve student learning.
o Work to Make classes more relevant
 Real World Case-Studies3 integrated into normal Instruction to give
the students insight on just how cool it is to be a practicingengineer.
This a designed attempt to INSPIRE the students. See
Figure 10
o Recruit More Guest Speakers in Engineering Classes
 Many are Former Chabot Students who are now
Studying Engineering at the University Level
Engaged in the Profession and getting PAID for it
o Had dozens of successful former students return to Guest Lecture to
current students. I always ask the Former students for their BEST ADVICE
on how to SUCCEED
 At the University School of Engineering
 On the Job while practicing engineering
o The Engineering Instructor is a founding Member of SLOAC committee.
Engineering has attempted to lead-by-example in the implementation of
the SLOAC process. Consider this comment from MTH Faculty Dr. R.
Yest, SLOAC committee systems (data) analyst in Feb13:
3
a.k.a “War Stories”
© Bruce Mayer, PE • Chabot College •2015-16 Engineering Program Review • Page 11
“If every discipline were like engineering, Chabot would be in great shape
[for meeting its SLOAC goals]”
o Demonstrate (even) More engineering principles by way of Detailed
Examples
 Organized a separate CRN problem-solving workshop to support
ENGR25
 Post to Course WebPages4 detailed examples for which there is not
sufficient class time to demonstrate
 Provide students with Exam Study-Guides in the form of the
previous term’s solved Exam
 Students are always provided with detailed solutions to all MidTerm
Exams to allow students to perform a “Post Mortem” analysis of the
test
 Added detailed problem-solving “Tutorials” to most classes
o Provide Students with RealTime and Substantial FeedBack
 At the suggestion of Prof. Emily Allen5 “MiniQuizzes” are
administered in almost every class meeting.
The quiz is then solved immediately after the students
complete the test
o Added OnLine homework, which provides RealTime & Incremental
FeedBack, to the ENGR36 and ENGR43 classes
 Students now submit hand-written notes on the solution process to
counter the tendency to view OnLine HW as a sort of Video Game
o Integrated Study Skills into EVERY Class
 Developed a 76 Slide presentationiv entitled “Study Skills
For College Students”
The Students then complete, for Extra Credit, a 20 page quiz
on the presentation.
The Presentation contains numerous testimonials from
previous about the effectiveness of using the skills
suggested; to whit:
>>> Robert Curry 03/14/08 4:00 PM
…I do have to tell you , my time at Chabot was VERY HELPFUL IN PREPARING
ME to go on to Sac State. I think that ALL THE ADVICE you gave us, and the
TYPE OF WORK YOU HAD US do put me in a GOOD POSITION TO DO WELL.
During my first semester at Sac State, I saw a lot of OTHER STUDENTS
STRUGGLING with things that I found to be familiar. Not necessarily the
material, but the WORK that was required AND THE METHOD to go about
learning the material. I've seen that everything that you are doing to help
your students will PAY OFF for them if they choose to use it. Thank you very
much Mr. Mayer. Without your help over the previous three years I don't
think I would be in such a good position to succeed in my goals.
4
5
ALL BMayer’s course maintain open WebSites to afford students 24/7X365 access to course materials.
Professor of Materials Engineering at SJSU, Now the Dean of Engineering at CSU-LA
© Bruce Mayer, PE • Chabot College •2015-16 Engineering Program Review • Page 12
Engineering has taught
“GRIT” since the author’s
first day at Chabot
o GRIT
=
o
“Perseverance
to
accomplish
longterm or higher-order
goals in the face of
challenges
and
setbacks, engaging
the
student’s
psychological
resources, such as
their
academic
mindsets, effortful
control,
and
strategies
and Figure 9 • Excerpt from The Engineering Study Skills
Figure 10 • A very nice commendation for Engineering
tactics.”6
Presentation.
Students should NOT be ClueLESS.
I inform students from the Chabot MESA team. Note in particular the
that I expect them recognition of “GRIT” components the improve student
to STRUGGLE just learning
AS MUCH as I did,
and as much as did all previously successful former Chabot Engineering
Students. See Figure 9and Figure 10.
Produced classes with a level of rigor and performance-expectations consistent
with university engineering classes.
o Students have even threatened the instructor with their moving to other
nearby community colleges that give “easy A’s”. Consider this statement
from a former student, Dianna Man, now a Mechanical Engineering Major
at San Jose State University
I want to say thank you for teaching and preparing us. I think you prepared
really well with your midterms! >>> mandianna10@gmail.com 10/18/14
10:37 AM >>>
Created NEW courses that Articulate to universities: ENGR[11, 22, 25]
o The engineering instructor traveled to UCBerkeley and San Jose State to
confer with engineering professors on the course content needed to
secure articulation
Evolved from a majority PowerPoint presentation method to a more balanced
“MultiMedia” approach of a combination of PowerPoint and White/Black Board
work.
Developed a “culture of continuity” between Current and Past Engineering
Transfer students. 53 times Past students returned to Chabot guest lecture to
current students.
o These academically and professionally successful students act as
POWERFUL ROLE MODELS for current students
o On several occasions the past students acted as mentors to the newly
transferred Chabot students on the university campus.
6
http://www.ed.gov/edblogs/technology/files/2013/02/OET-Draft-Grit-Report-2-17-13.pdf
© Bruce Mayer, PE • Chabot College •2015-16 Engineering Program Review • Page 13
Number of Guest Speakers
Introduction to Engineering (ENGR10) Guest Speakers • Fa03→Fa14
Developed a “culture of
14
connection”
between
STATISTICS
• 162 Speakers Total
• 10. 1 SpeakerS/Term on Avg
Chabot Engineering and
12
broader
Technical
10
Community.
EVERY
ONE of the following
8
interactions
improves
6
Chabot’s standing within
the
off-campus
4
community
o Inviting
2
Engineering
0
Guest Speakers
Fa03 Fa04 Fa05 Fa06 Fa07 Fa08 Fa09 Fa10 Su11 Fa11 Sp12 Fa12 Sp13 Fa13 Sp14 Fa14
Chabot College Academic Term
from Universities,
Figure 11 • Historical Summary of the Guest Speakers
Private-Sector
Firms, and Public- in the Chabot Introduction to Engineering (ENGR10)
Course. Every guest visit builds a CONNECTION
Sector
Organizations.See between the larger Engineering/Technical Community
and Chabot College. Guest speakers range from
Figure 11
University Professors, to Post-Doctoral Researchers,
 On
Practicing Engineering, to former Chabot Students now
almost200
occasions
at University Colleges of Engineering
guests
have addressed ENGR10, ENGR11, ENGR22, ENGR25, and
ENGR45 classes.
o Off Campus Field Trips raise the Chabot-awareness of ENTIRE
COMPANIES; not just a single guest speaker7
 Over the years the Engineering Instructor has come to realize the
values of fields trips
HyperLearning from Practicing Engineers in Practical
Circumstances
The practicing engineers are inspirational and motivational
Role Models
Exposure to State-of-the-Art engineering practices8 and
equipment
ENGR_UnitPlan_1410.xls
7
Chabot really should purchase Gladiator-Gold shirts for student to wear during these visits.
Such as “Lean” manufacturing which has been emphasized in recent visits
8
© Bruce Mayer, PE • Chabot College •2015-16 Engineering Program Review • Page 14
Cumulative Students Addressed (THOUSANDS)
A NetWork of Chabot-Aware firms that can provide
invaluable INTERNSHIPS to Chabot Engineering Students
o Raising Awareness of Chabot-Area High School Students to Effectiveness
and value of the transfer-preparation education they would receive at
Chabot.
 Over the years the Engineering Instructor has addressed nearly
4200 local high school students. See Figure 12
o Joined the Bechtel Grant Team at CSUEB
 The Goal of this Grant → Facilitate the transfer of community
college engineering students to the next level; i.e., improve the
PATHWAY to admission to the profession
o Delivered guest lectures at CalPoly-SLO on two separate occasions
Developed a “culture of collaboration” with Chabot Colleagues, both inside and
outside the Mathematics & Science SubDivison
o Designed CoTeaching pedagogy for ENGR43 with WaynePhillips of the
Applied Technology & Business Division
o Arranged for tours of sophisticated Machine Tool Technology Labs as
conducted by Mr. Ashley Long and Mr. Mike Abscher
o Shaved the College $-Cost by arranging to share with Mr. Adrian Huang in
Architecture expensive Computer AidedDesign Software
o The Engineering Instructor have been given the privilege of teaching MTH
classes. The Engineering Instructor is now a Contributing member of the
MTH SubDiv.
o Made approximately 32 On-Campus “INreach” visits in PHYS, CHEM,
MTH classes to
Chabot College High-School OUTreach • Feb-04-May14
4.2
inform these 717
3.9
students
about
3.6
Engineering as a
3.3
3.0
“Science Put To
2.7
Work” type of
2.4
Career. Also twice
2.1
addressed
the
1.8
1.5
Counseling
1.2
Subdivision
to
0.9
describe
the
0.6
0.3
Engineering
0.0
Program
and
answer questions.
Chabot_ENGR_Enrollment_History_1410.xlsx
Section 2 • Year1: Where
We Are Now
Figure 12 • Engineering-Instructor High-School
OutReach. The reduced rate of High School contact
starting in mid-2011 was the result of the OutReacher
suffering a heart-attack that physically impaired his
ability make visits. The instructor has now almost
completely recovered from this illness, but enhanced
efforts to improve student learning have reduced the
amount of time available for this type of Awarenessraising.
© Bruce Mayer, PE • Chabot College •2015-16 Engineering Program Review • Page 15
Feb-14
Aug-13
Feb-13
Aug-12
Feb-12
Aug-11
Feb-11
Aug-10
Feb-10
Aug-09
Feb-09
Aug-08
Feb-08
Aug-07
Feb-07
Aug-06
Feb-06
Aug-05
Feb-05
Aug-04
Feb-04
Calendar Date
Engineering Enrollment is UP substantially of thee path 3 years. See comments in
Figure 16.The enrollment expansion is at least partially due to the fact that Chabot
offers a COMPLETE suite of Engineering Courses that ARTICULATE widely.
Articulation of ENGR25, ENGR43, and ENGR45 in particular attract transfersophisticated students who would otherwise attend nearby community colleges.
Engineering Withdrawal is FLAT to DOWN-SLIGHTLY over time. See comments in
Figure 14
Engineering Success and NonSuccess show no discernable trend with time. See
comments in Figure 13 and Figure 15. The Instructor continues to work to design
instructional methods to improve student learning, and thus increase success.
Engineering Success Rates • Fa09-Sp14
Sucess Fraction
80%
68%
70%
69%
69%
60%
60%
55%
54%
50%
50%
56.8%
55%
54%
54%
Fa13
Sp14
49%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Fa09
Sp10
Fa10
Sp11
Fa11
Sp12
Fa12
College Term
Sp13
Avg
Chabot
Chabot_ENGR_Enrollment_History_1410.xlsx
Figure 13 • Engineering Success is volatile year-over-year, but roughly comparable to Chabot
OverAll. NO discernable TRENDS in the data over time.
© Bruce Mayer, PE • Chabot College •2015-16 Engineering Program Review • Page 16
Withdrawl Fraction
35%
35%
Engineering Withdrawl Rates • Fa09-Sp14
34%
30%
28%
26%
26%
25%
25.4%
24%
23%
22%
20%
20%
16%
15%
14%
10%
5%
0%
Fa09
Sp10
Fa10
Sp11
Fa11
Sp12
Fa12
College Term
Sp13
Fa13
Sp14
Avg
Chabot
Chabot_ENGR_Enrollment_History_1410.xlsx
Figure 14 • Engineering Withdrawal. Engineering endures significantly HIGHER withdrawal
rates than Chabot as a whole. This Behavior is most likely due to the RIGOR of the calculusbased curriculum wherein students take the first engineering-course midterm exam and then find
that they are either unprepared or unwilling to master the UNIVERSITY-required course
content. The data exhibits a large amount of volatility, indicated that withdrawal (and also
nonsuccess) are sensitive to the somewhat small sample size of engineering students. Most
classes contain fewer than 30 students, and the very difficult second year courses (36, 43, 45)
typical have about 15. Also Engineering has finally WON the Public’s Perception of
occupational Prestige, causing more students to become aware of the desirability of Engineering
as an Academic and Professional Career. See Appendix 3.
© Bruce Mayer, PE • Chabot College •2015-16 Engineering Program Review • Page 17
Engineering NONsuccess Rates • Fa09-Sp14
30%
NonSuccess Fraction
28%
25%
24%
20%
19%
19%
18.1%
18%
16%
15%
16%
16%
15%
13%
13%
10%
5%
0%
Fa09
Sp10
Fa10
Sp11
Fa11
Sp12
Fa12
College Term
Sp13
Fa13
Sp14
Avg
Chabot
Chabot_ENGR_Enrollment_History_1410.xlsx
Figure 15 • Engineering NONsuccess. Engineering NonSuccess statistics are roughly comparable
to that of Chabot. Why HIGHER Withdrawal, but comparable NonSucess rates? Engineering
students are, in general, SMART. They almost always recognize when they are overmatched by
the course-material, and withdraw rather than risk having a D or an F appear on the student’s
transcript. The same analysis of volatility applies to this data-set as it did for the Withdrawal
fraction shown in Figure 14; i.e., small sample size.
© Bruce Mayer, PE • Chabot College •2015-16 Engineering Program Review • Page 18
Engineering Enrollment • Fa09-Sp14
201
Number of Students in ENGR Courses
200
184
181
188
180
160
137
140
127
119
120
119
106
100
80
93
90
78
83
78
62
65
60
40
20
0
Fa06 Sp07 Fa07 Sp08 Fa08 Sp09 Fa09 Sp10 Fa10 Sp11 Fa11 Sp12 Fa12 Sp13 Fa13 Sp14
College Term
Chabot_ENGR_Enrollment_History_1410.xlsx
Figure 16 • Engineering Enrollment. The jump in enrollment in Sp12 was VERY likely due to
the College recognizing and meeting the demand for the high-enrolling Intro-To-Engineering
Course; ENGR10. Before Sp12 the college offered one-section per year of ENGR10. The FallOnly version of this course often attracted over sixty students for a 44 student class-limit. The
Engineering Instructor never turned away even a single student, but perhaps many students were
discouraged by the quick-filling nature of the enrollment. They then “disappeared”; never to
return. The current scheduling pattern calls for TWO sections EVERY semester. This appears to
have satiated demand; all four sections now enroll about 35-45 students.
© Bruce Mayer, PE • Chabot College •2015-16 Engineering Program Review • Page 19
Section 3 • Year1: The Difference We Hope to Make
From http://www.chabotcollege.edu/prbc/StrategicPlan/SPforPR.pdf
Learn more about our students:
o See comments in Figure 17
Figure 17 • The “W&W” Assignment in Engineering 10. This is an exercise designed to: 1) help
the student clarify for him/her self the SINGULAR goal for an engineering education at Chabot;
i.e., transfer to earn the baccalaureate degree; 2) to help the Instructor understand the goals and
aspirations of the students.
© Bruce Mayer, PE • Chabot College •2015-16 Engineering Program Review • Page 20
From http://www.chabotcollege.edu/prbc/StrategicPlan/SPforPR.pdf
Help the undecided to define a goal.
o See comments in Figure 18
Figure 18 • An excerpt from the ENGR10 Syllabus. The HIGHEST PRIORITY goal for this
course consists of giving the student sufficient information about engineering such that the
student can make a reasoned decision about whether or not to pursue engineering as a Major
course of Study.
© Bruce Mayer, PE • Chabot College •2015-16 Engineering Program Review • Page 21
From http://www.chabotcollege.edu/prbc/StrategicPlan/SPforPR.pdf
Get students onto their “critical path” quickly.
o See comments in Figure 19
Figure 19 • An excerpt from the ENGR10 Baccalaureate Degree-Exploration exercise. This task
demystifies the transfer and degree-earning processes, gives the students a concrete pathway to
success, and exposes the students to all the way-cool engineering course-descriptions reviewed
as part of the course-planning effort.
RESPONSES to USEFUL QUERIES
What initiatives are underway in your discipline or program, or could you begin, that would
support the achievement of our Strategic Plan goal?
The MOST IMPORTANT action that supports our students in completing the
engineering PathWay is, without a single doubt, ARTICULATION.
© Bruce Mayer, PE • Chabot College •2015-16 Engineering Program Review • Page 22
o Engineering has courses that could articulate (even) more widely except
for lack of awareness of the courses by the university PROFESSORS who
hold ultimate approval authority.
o Possibilities exist for ChabotCTE→UniversityEngineering articulation. The
author recently at the 23Oct14 meeting of California Engineering Liaison
Councilv (ELC). It was learned that opportunities exist for ChabotCTE →
UniversityEngineering Course Articulation9
o The Action Plan is for the Engineering Instructor to travel to the
universities to explain, person-to-person, how Chabot’s course content
might match that of the course designed by that specific professor.
Over the next three years, what improvements would you like to make to your program(s)
to improve student learning?
Continue with all the actions developed during the 11 years of Engineering
Instruction Continuous Pedagogy Improvement Process (CPIP) described in the
introduction to this report.
Secure funding to improve student access to the MATLAB software used in
ENGR25. This entails the purchase of additional seats for use in an OPEN Lab10.
Currently MATLAB is only available in the often occupied instructional Lab.
o Engineering has courses that could articulate (even) more widely except
for lack of awareness of the courses by the university PROFESSOR who
hold ultimate approval authority.
Over the next 6 years, what are your longer term vision(s) and goals? (Ed Master Plan)
The MOST IMPORTANT action that supports our students in completing the
engineering PathWay is, without a single doubt, is ARTICULATION
o Engineering has courses that could articulate (even) more widely except
for lack of awareness of the courses by the university PROFESSOR who
hold ultimate approval authority.
The other item of major consequence is the development of NEW courses
required to maintain currency with new lower division engineering courses
created by the transfer universities. That is, if the universities make a new
course, then Chabot needs to follow-suit.
What areyour specific, measurable goals? How will you achieve them?
The measure of articulation would be an analysis of ASSIST.ORG Reports
o Prior to the start of the Articulation Effort, current articulation would be
BaseLined relative to Chabot’s current level, or perhaps BenchMarked
against similar colleges11
o The success of the effort would then be judged against improvement
relative to the BaseLine or BenchMark
Would any of these require collaboration with other disciplines or areas of the college? How
will that collaboration occur?
9
Many University Engineering Programs maintain “Manufacturing Processes” course to which other community
colleges articulate CTE courses in Welding/Casting (additive) or Machining (subtractive). Chabot has excellent
courses in these area which might well articulate if brought to the attention of the universities.
10
Most likely the Math & Sci Center; rm3906
11
LPC, Oholone, and CSM come to mind as possible BenchMarks.
© Bruce Mayer, PE • Chabot College •2015-16 Engineering Program Review • Page 23
There MAY be opportunities to articulate against a small number of university
engineering courses SOME Chabot courses from the Applied Technology12&
Business division.
12
MTT and ESYS in particular might articulate to hands-on survey course within engineering
© Bruce Mayer, PE • Chabot College •2015-16 Engineering Program Review • Page 24
Appendix A: ENGINEERING Budget History and Impact
Audience: Budget Committee, PRBC,and Administrators
Purpose: This analysis describes your history of budget requests from the previous two years and
the impacts of funds received and needs that were not met. This history of documented need
can both support your narrative in Section A and provide additional information for Budget
Committee recommendations.
Instructions: Please provide the requested information, and fully explain the impact of the budget
decisions.
Category
Classified Staffing (# of positions)
Supplies & Services
Technology/Equipment
Other
TOTAL
2013-14
Budget
Requested
0
500
500
1000
2013-14
Budget
Received
0
500
500
2014-15
Budget
Requested
0
500
500
2014-15
Budget
Received
0
500
500
1000
1000
1000
1. How has your investment of the budget monies you did receive improved student learning? When
you requested the funding, you provided a rationale. In this section, assess if the anticipated
positive impacts you projected have, in fact, been realized.
The positive impacts have largely been realized; particularly in the learning of the sophisticated
MATLAB® engineering software. The students have learned how to use MATLAB to solve engineering
problems, at the University Level, in Engineering Internships13, and when engaging in the Engineering
Profession.
The Above Budget could be characterized as a “treading water” budget. When BMayer joined Chabot
in Fall-2003 the Engineering Supplies Budget stood at $2000. The current Engineering Budget has
basically remained unchanged since the initial purchase of the MATLAB software in the Fall of 2005.
Note that Engineering has been resourceful in utilizing excess capacity in OTHER Divisions:
ENGR22 (Engineering Graphics/BluePrints) uses the expensive AutoCAD software provided by
the College to the heavy-using Architecture program
ENGR43 (Electrical Engineering) uses sophisticated lab equipment and software provided by
the College to the heavy-using ESYS program
o Note that B. Mayer (Engineering) and Wayne Phillips (Electrical Systems) CoTeach
ENGR43 to the great benefit of the students. B. Mayer initiated and organized this
effort with great support from former Deans Tom Clark and Tram Vo-Kumamoto.
 Gaining access to Wayne’s expertise and the up-to-date ESYS lab equipment
were critical factors in gaining Articulation to UCBerkeley’s EE40. Chabot is
just one of three California community colleges to earn such distinction.
Student Learning has NOT been negatively impacted by this small budget due to the assistance from
ARCH and ESYS.
13
See in particular Mr. Robert Dueball to guest lectured in ENGR25 (the MATLAB course) in Sp13 on his use of
MATLAB as part of his duties as an Engineering Intern at NASA-Ames
© Bruce Mayer, PE • Chabot College •2015-16 Engineering Program Review • Page 25
As do ALL engineers, Chabot Engineering endeavors to always DO MORE with LESS.
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?
The relatively small number of MATLAB seats has impeded student’s efforts to learn the. Chabot has 30
seats, three of which are reserved for instructors. NO MATLAB seats are available outside of the LimitedAccess Computer-Lab Room. The College should consider adding 30 more seats: 3 for installation in the
MATLAB lab (rm1813), and 27in the STEM Center (rm3906) for Extra-Hours access . The costs for this
addition:
Approximately $3k ONE time costs. See $-quotation in Figure 20
INCREASES annual Maintenance Costs: $500/year → $1000/year
The alternative to this investment is that students must purchase the $99 STUDENT Version of MATLAB.
The vast majority of students currently DO purchase the software, but a few cannot afford the
additional $-expenditure.
Figure 20 • Quote for additional 30 seats of MATLAB software.
© Bruce Mayer, PE • Chabot College •2015-16 Engineering Program Review • Page 26
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.
This Year’s Program
Review
*CTL forms must be
included with this PR.
Last Year’s Program
Review
*Note: These courses
must be assessed in
the next PR year.
ENGR10
Submittedvi
ENGR11
Submittedvii
ENGR22
Submittedviii
ENGR25
Submittedix
ENGR36
Submittedx
ENGR43
ENGR45
2-Years Prior
Submitted
Submittedxi
© Bruce Mayer, PE • Chabot College •2015-16 Engineering Program Review • Page 27
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
ENGR43 (Circuits & Devices)
Sp13, Sp14
One (“Singleton” CapStone Course)
One
100%
Sp14
B. Mayer, W. Phillips
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 OUTCOMESxii INDIVIDUALLY (THE
NUMBER OF CLOS WILL DIFFER BY COURSE)
(CLO) 1:ANALYZE A STEADY-STATE DIRECT CURRENT CIRCUIT
TO DETERMINE UNKNOWN ELECTRICAL QUANTITIES AND/OR
RESPONSES.
(CLO) 2:ANALYZE STEADY-STATE SWITCHED TRANSIENT
CIRCUITS.
(CLO) 3:ANALYZE STEADY-STATE ALTERNATING CURRENT
CIRCUIT
(CLO) 4:GIVEN A TRANSISTOR-LEVEL CMOS LOGIC GATE
SCHEMATIC: * CONSTRUCT THE TRUTH TABLE * WRITE A
BOOLEAN ALGEBRA EQUATION FOR OUTPUT Z IN TERMS OF THE
INPUTS A, B, AND C * DRAW AN EQUIVALENT LOGIC CIRCUIT
USING STANDARD LOGIC GATES: INVERTOR, AND/NAND,
OR/NOR
(CLO) 5:LABORATORY PRACTICUM TO DEMONSTRATE THE
ABILITY TO CONSTRUCT AN AC SINUSOIDAL ELECTRICAL CIRCUIT
AND THEN USE A DMM AND OSCILLOSCOPE TO MEASURE
CIRCUIT VOLTAGES & CURRENTS, AND TO CALCULATE VOLTAGE
AMPLITUDES & PHASE-ANGLES.
Defined Target
Scores*
(CLO Goal)
70% of Students
score 3 or
Better
Actual Scores**
(eLumen data)
50% of students
scored 3 or better
60% of Students
score 3 or
Better
70% of Students
score 3 or
Better
60% of Students
score 3 or
Better
46% scored 3 or
more
70% of Students
score 3 or
Better
100% of students
scored 3 or better
95% scored
acceptably
45% scored in the
proficient range
© Bruce Mayer, PE • Chabot College •2015-16 Engineering Program Review • Page 28
 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?
Table 1 • Student Learning OutCome Scores from Chabot College ENGR43 in Spring 2014
No. Students
DC Ckt
Switched Transient
10
10
5
5
0
0
1
2
3
4
0
0
No. Students
AC SteadyState
10
5
5
0
1
2
3
4
0
No. Students
Lab Practicum
10
5
5
0
1
2
3
CLO Score
3
4
0
1
2
3
4
PLACEHOLDER; NOT DATA
10
0
2
CMOS Logic
10
0
1
4
0
0
1
2
3
CLO Score
© Bruce Mayer, PE • Chabot College •2015-16 Engineering Program Review • Page 29
4
Figure 21 • Histogramsxiii for the data contained in Table 1 . Students did particularly well on the
AC-SteadyState and Lab-Practicum Assessments.
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?
Students performed below expectation. A well instructed, and well-motivated class of
second year engineering students should produce 70% proficiency
2. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and
your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
The students generally have not grasped fundamental concepts, or more likely, how to
APPLY the concepts of
(Voltage Drops Around a ClosedLoop) = 0
(Currents Into a CircuitNode) = 0
The Voltage across a CURRENT-SOURCE is Unknown, and is defined by the REST
OF THE CIRCUIT
It was hoped that the OnLine HomeWork System, with RealTime Error-FeedBack would
improve student’s development on this point. The results have been disappointing, but
In my professional opinion the OnLine HomeWork is a small improvement over the
traditional handed-in then later-scored alternative. To help students use the
examination-encounter with DC circuit analysis as a learning experience, detailed
SOLUTIONS are provided, and the students are STRONGLY ENCOURAGED to ReWork the
problem until UNDERSTANDING.
Also, everyday experiences offer little guidance in support of analysis of electrical
engineering devices, circuits, and systems. Unlike mechanical systems, operation of
electrical systems can NOT be: Touched, Tasted, Felt, Seen, or Heard. Development of a
“feel” for this topic takes some time, and DC circuits are assessed on the first of three
exams; giving students one chance to demonstrate mastery. Perhaps a later-in-course
assessment would be in order.
The instructor already spends extra time on the Current-Source topic. The instructor will
continue to search-for and/or develop innovative methods of instruction to improve
student performance on this issue.
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?
© Bruce Mayer, PE • Chabot College •2015-16 Engineering Program Review • Page 30
The 46% score is within striking distance of the 60% goal against the difficult and
complicated topic of the switching in-to or out-of a power source in a passive electrical
circuit
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?
This is a very difficult topic in that it combines circuit analysis with the sophisticated
mathematical topic of Ordinary Differential Equations (ODE’s). In particular, students
have difficultly discerning a PHYSICALLY based INTIAL CONDITION based on a RATE of
CHANGE. In most MATH treatments of ODE’s the Initial Conditions (ICs) are GIVEN.
The engineering instructor’s current methods POWERFULLY STRESS the need to THINK
PHYSICALLY, and not in a Pure-Math sense when encountering this type of situation
during engineering design. Solution to ODE’s are also covered in the PreRequiste
Computational Methods Class, ENGR25
The plan for improvement continues along the lines of stressing the need to consider
circuit operation, and to not view this type of situation as merely a non-contextual
mathematics problem.
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 extremely well on the AC Steady-State Circuit Learning OutCome.
95% of the students demonstrated proficiency in this area.
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?
In past years student performance was degraded by the calculational complication of the
using COMPLEX Numbers. The addition of the math of the complex unit(
)
to the computation increases the complexity of the AC-SS topic exponenitally14.
The instructor tried to address the complex-algebra side of this issue by emphasizing this
topic in the prerequisite Computational Methods course (ENGR25). Apparently this
proved effective as most students appear to have mastered not only the circuit analysis,
but also the Complex-Number calculations.
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?
14
c.f. the Euler Relation
© Bruce Mayer, PE • Chabot College •2015-16 Engineering Program Review • Page 31
Complementary Metal↔Oxide Silicon Field-Effect Transistor Logic gate design and
analysis. This outcome showed a very uniform mastery-level distribution as indicated by
the “CMOS Logic” histogram in Figure 21
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?
Master of this topic requires skills in TWO-value math known as Boolean Algebra. The
Boolean formulation is quite different from the analog, infinite-values analysis used in
the balance of the course. Students must understand the relationship between
complementary-transistor circuits and completely theoretical logic-constructs such as
AND/OR. In a binary environment, thinking physically is less important, and tracing HI or
LO signal flow becomes of utmost importance.
Often times students understand a some, but not all, of the subtopics related to this type
of analysis. This leads to the relatively uniform mastery distribution shown in in Figure
21
The plan for improvement includes increasing the number of OnLine HomeWork
problems related to Logic Gates, and to devote more Lecture-Time to the Topic if
possible.
E. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 5: ADD IF NEEDED.
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?
CoTeaching with the Electrical Systems instructor; Mr. Wayne Phillips. Mr. Phillips teaches
the labs to the great benefit of the students by way of
Mr. Phillips 20+ years of practice in the Electrical Systems field during his private sector
career
Mr. Phillips 20+ years of Electrical Engineering Lab instruction
Access to the otherwise unavailable sophisticated lab equipment that Mr. Phillips
maintains for the ESYS program
Added Electrical DEVICES to the course content as Required for articulation by Prof. Paul
Boser of UCBerkeley
Added the use of an OnLIne HomeWork System.
© Bruce Mayer, PE • Chabot College •2015-16 Engineering Program Review • Page 32
2. Based on the current assessment and reflections, what course-level and programmatic
strengths have the assessment reflections revealed? What actions has your discipline
determined might be taken as a result of your reflections, discussions, and insights?
The greatest issue for student learning is the tension between how to prioritize in-Class
time. The students could benefit from MUCH MORE in-class Problem-Solving TutorialTime, but UCBerkeley requires for articulation coverage of a very wide range of topics at
the conceptual level.
The instructor continues to struggle with this balancing-issue as the greatest barrier to
improved success rates.
Mr. Phillips has been a tremendous asset in terms of student learning. On the Lab
Practicum Exam approximately 90% of the students score 90% or better.
Current Plan to improve
Use the CLO data in Figure 21 as guide to spend more InClass time on Transient-Circuits
and CMOS-Logic
With great trepidation: Reduce the number of Hands-On labs by 1-2, and instead
conduct problem-solving tutorials
Iterate on the use of the OnLine HomeWork System
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:_________________________________________________________________
© Bruce Mayer, PE • Chabot College •2015-16 Engineering Program Review • Page 33
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: Engineering (AA [should be AS]) • from
http://www.chabotcollege.edu/sloac/plo_results.cfm?program=Engineering (AA) _
PLO #1: ENGRINEERING STUDENTS SHALL DEMONSTRATE AN ABILITY TO APPLY
KNOWLEDGE OF MATHEMATICS, SCIENCE, AND ENGINEERING. Ref: Outcome (a) from
E001 10-11 EAC Criteria 1-27-10.pdf, DownLoaded from
http://www.abet.org/forms.shtml#For_Engineering_Programs_Only 27Feb2010
PLO #2: ENGINEERING STUDENTS SHALL DEMONSTRATE AN ABILITY TO DESIGN A
SYSTEM, COMPONENT, OR PROCESS TO MEET DESIRED NEEDS WITHIN REALISTIC
CONSTRAINTS SUCH AS ECONOMIC, ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL, POLITICAL, ETHICAL,
HEALTH AND SAFETY, MANUFACTURABILITY, AND SUSTAINABILITY. Ref: Outcome (c) from
E001 10-11 EAC Criteria 1-27-10.pdf, DownLoaded from
http://www.abet.org/forms.shtml#For_Engineering_Programs_Only 27Feb2010
What questions or investigations arose as a result of these reflections or discussions?
Questions:
Q1. How do I encourage students to dedicate more time and effort to mastering the course
material? That is, how do I help the students to develop “GRIT15”
Q2. How do I make complicated material easier for students to understand?
Q3. What can I do to improve the Engineering-Problem-Solving16 skills of students?
Q4. How can I give to students more immediate (daily) feedback on their learning?
Q5. How do I encourage students to stay-current with the course-material; i.e., what I do to ensure
that the students stay on the course schedule?
Q6. How can I assist students who missed occasional classes due to “life circumstances” such as
illness, or unexpected changes in gainful-employment work schedules, etc.?
Q7. Is there anything I can do to INSPIRE students to greater learning and academic achievement?
What program-level strengths have the assessment reflections revealed?
Strengths revealed:
SR1.
Students REALLY DO appreciate having the Instructors Lecture Notes, and access to
course materials on the WebPage. Many times a student will printout the lecture-slides and
write on them his/her personal notes.
SR2.
Engineering students appreciate the FULL suite of TRANSFER COURSES offered by
15
GRIT = “Perseverance to accomplish long-term or higher-order goals in the face of challenges and
setbacks, engaging the student’s psychological resources, such as their academic mindsets, effortful
control, and strategies and tactics.”
16
An extremely important “Critical Thinking” skill within the Engineering Discipline
© Bruce Mayer, PE • Chabot College •2015-16 Engineering Program Review • Page 34
Chabot. This full program often attracts students from nearby community colleges that do NOT
offer all of the ELC17 recommended courses.
SR3.
Students, as evidenced by unstructured data in the from commendations from former
students, really do benefit from the inclusion of Study Skills suggestions and the emphasis on
the professional importance of developing “GRIT”
SR4.
Transfer students who have returned to Chabot from the TRANSFER UNIVERSITY
generally express gratitude for the RIGOR of the courses offered by Chabot Engineering as these
courses well-prepared them for the Upper Division course material at the university
college/school of Engineering. SOME of the students who ultimately earned university
Engineering Degrees have returned to Chabot to give advice to current students:
Thein Win - Civil Engineer UCBerkeley
Jose Servanda – Mechanical Engineer, UCBerkeley
Garrick Bornkamp – Mechanical Engineer, UCDavis
Ishmael Ayesh – Civil Engineer, UCBerkeley
Koo Hyun Nam – Mechanical Engineer (Ph.D.), UCBerkeley
Krishnil Mani – Mechanical Engineer, CalPoly-SLO
Lucas Huezo – Civil Engineer, UCBerkeley
Nicholas Vickers – Materials Engineer (M.S.) – CalPoly-SLO
Phil Cutino – Mechanical Engineer, UCBerkeley
Melissa Quemada – Chemical Engineer, UCBerkeley
Robert Irwin – Mechanical Engineer, UCBerkeley
Robert Curry – Civil Engineer, CSU-Sacramento
Emiliano Esparza – Civil Engineer, UCDavis
Jim Havercamp – Mechanical Engineer, UCBerkeley
Berhard Stonas – Mechanical Engineer (M.S.), San Jose State
Yong Yin Chuah – Engineering Management (M.S.)18, CSU-EastBay
Joshua Merritt – Mechanical Engineer, the Ohio State University
Tomasz Jagoda – Mechanical Engineer, UC Santa Barbara
Robert Moore – Mechanical Engineer, UCBerkeley
Elijah Rosas – Mechanical Engineer, UCDavis
Baoying (Stephenie) Zhang – Chemical Engineer, UCBerkeley
Nic Celeste – Mechanical Engineer, San Francisco State University
Hoang Si Nguyen – Civil Engineer, UCBerkeley
Sangam Rawat – Mechanical Engineer, UCBerkeley
Zhiwei Huang – Mechanical Engineer, UCBerkeley
Huy Nguyen – Civil Engineer, UCDavis
George Greer – Civil Engineer, UCBerkeley
Artos Cen – Chemical Engineer, UCBerkeley
Cesar Urbano – Chemical Engineering Student, UCBerkeley
Joel Christensen – Chemical Engineering Student, UCBerkeley
Phillip Swanson – Mechanical Engineering Student, San Jose State University
Stephanie J. Sibert – Bio Engineering Student, UCBerkeley
Branden Andersen – Mechanical Engineering Student, San Jose State University
17
http://www.caelc.org/
Mr. Chuah also earned a B.S. in Mechanical Engineering from UCDavis after transferring from Chabot
18
© Bruce Mayer, PE • Chabot College •2015-16 Engineering Program Review • Page 35
Mr. Rizalino de Guzman – Electrical Enginering Student, San Jose State University
Mr. Andrew Koth - UCBerkeley Double-Major in Electrical Engineering and Materials Science
& Engineering
Mr. Elijah Rosas - UCDavis Mechanical & AeroSpace Masters Degree Student
Mr. Tony Delas, Esq. - BS-EECS UC Berkeley • Attorney at Law
Mr. Evan Manrique - Electrical Engineering Student at Cal Poly (SLO) • Former Chabot
College Transfer Student
Mr. Joshua Benz - Mechanical Engineer, UCBerkeley Graduate
What actions has your discipline determined might be taken to enhance the learning of
students completing your program?
Actions planned:
AP1.
Continue to Offer, for ExtraCredit, in all classes a Take Home Quizxiv based on a
presentationxv describing the STUDY SKILLS of effective College/University students. Reflecting
on incoming student preparation indicated that many students just did not recognize the
substantial difference between HIGH-SCHOOL studying and College/University Studying.
Periodically UpDate and improve the Study-Skills Presentation/Quiz. Continue to improve the
effectiveness of the quiz.
AP2.
97+% of the instructor’s preparation course-notes are in PowerPoint form. These notes
are then made available on a “24/7” basis for students who missed class for any reason (c.f. Q6,
above). The instructor’s PowerPoint notes are used for in-Class lecture presentations. In effect,
the instructor’s notes were made available to students as suggested in the “Share the Wealth”
section of the fine video presentation “Reading Between Lives” by Chabot Instructor Sean
McFarlandxvi. Consider this comment from a Chabot English Instructorxvii regarding the contents
of Mr. McFarland’s production: “This video makes me ask the question, “What is the purpose of
higher education? Why not give students the handout of a lecture?” Engineering ALWAYS gives
students the “handout of the lecture” by posting it to the Engineering-Course WebPage.
However, one instructional-faculty colleague pointed out that, in his experience, students
respond better to “MultiMedia” presentations such as a combination of Screen (PowerPoint)
and Board (Chalk or Marker) work than they do to “single media” forms such a pure-board or
pure-PowerPoint formats. As a result, a concerted effort has been made by the Engineering
Instructor to move from majority-PowerPoint to a more balanced approach.
AP3.
To help students stay current with the course material, give them immediate feedback,
and encourage them to attend every class meetings the Engineering Instructor wrote DAILY
“MiniQuizzes”. The “MQ’s” are 5 minutes in duration, are “pop” in that they may be
administered at any time during the course period, and solved on the board immediately after
collection. Piloted in the Engineering Mechanics course (ENGR36), the use of an OnLine
Homework system that gives students immediate feedback and solution “hints”. The plan is to
use Pearson Publishing’s Proven Mastering19 Engineering OnLine HomeWork System. Since the
Pilot proved fairly successful, the OnLine HomeWork system has been expanded to the Electrical
Circuits and Devices course (ENGR43).
19
Chabot’s own Scott Hildreth is a PIONEER user of the “Mastering” system.
© Bruce Mayer, PE • Chabot College •2015-16 Engineering Program Review • Page 36
AP4.
Do more detailed “Problem Solving” tutorials in the calculus-based courses ENGR
25/36/43/45 to “model” how an Engineer might approach technical problems that are described
by a combination of words and math. Make the tutorial notes available on the course webpage
for student access.
AP5.
Try to act as a CommunityCollege→UCBerkeley→Stanford role-model for Chabot
Engineering students. Continue to encourage students with the “If I can do it, then YOU can do it
too…” mantra. I also bring back former students who have moved-to, and through, the
University Engineering college/school to provide more recent models of the success of, in this
case, Chabot transfer students. See also “Strengths revealed” Above.
Program:Engineering (Transfer Prep) from
http://www.chabotcollege.edu/sloac/plo_results.cfm?program=Engineering (Transfer Prep)
PLO #1: ENGRINEERING STUDENTS SHALL DEMONSTRATE AN ABILITY TO APPLY
KNOWLEDGE OF MATHEMATICS, SCIENCE, AND ENGINEERING. Ref: Outcome (a) from
E001 10-11 EAC Criteria 1-27-10.pdf, DownLoaded from
http://www.abet.org/forms.shtml#For_Engineering_Programs_Only 27Feb2010
PLO #2: : ENGINEERING STUDENTS SHALL DEMONSTRATE AN ABILITY TO DESIGN A
SYSTEM, COMPONENT, OR PROCESS TO MEET DESIRED NEEDS WITHIN REALISTIC
CONSTRAINTS SUCH AS ECONOMIC, ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL, POLITICAL, ETHICAL,
HEALTH AND SAFETY, MANUFACTURABILITY, AND SUSTAINABILITY. Ref: Outcome (c)
from E001 10-11 EAC Criteria 1-27-10.pdf, DownLoaded from
http://www.abet.org/forms.shtml#For_Engineering_Programs_Only 27Feb2010
What questions or investigations arose as a result of these reflections or discussions?
Explain:: See Above discussion under Engineering AS program
What program-level strengths have the assessment reflections revealed?
Strengths revealed:See Above discussion under Engineering AS program
What actions has your discipline determined might be taken to enhance the learning of
students completing your program?
Actions planned:See Above discussion under Engineering AS program
© Bruce Mayer, PE • Chabot College •2015-16 Engineering Program Review • Page 37
Appendix D: A Few Questions
Please answer the following questions with "yes" or "no". For any questions answered "no",
please provide an explanation. No explanation is required for "yes" answers :-)
1. Have all of your course outlines been updated within the past five years?
Yes 
2. Have you deactivated all inactive courses? (courses that haven’t been taught in five years or
won’t be taught in three years should be deactivated)
Yes 
3. Have all of your courses been offered within the past five years? If no, why should those
courses remain in our college catalog?
Yes 
4. Do all of your courses have the required number of CLOs completed, with corresponding
rubrics? If no, identify the CLO work you still need to complete, and your timeline for
completing that work this semester
Yes 
5. Have you assessed all of your courses and completed "closing the loop" forms for all of your
courses within the past three years? If no, identify which courses still require this work, and
your timeline for completing that work this semester.
Yes 
6. Have you developed and assessed PLOs for all of your programs? If no, identify programs which
still require this work, and your timeline to complete that work this semester.
Yes 
7. If you have course sequences, is success in the first course a good predictor of success in the
subsequent course(s)?
No Sequences
8. Does successful completion of College-level Math and/or English correlate positively with
success in your courses? If not, explain why you think this may be.
Yes 
© Bruce Mayer, PE • Chabot College •2015-16 Engineering Program Review • Page 38
Appendix E: Proposal for New Initiatives (Complete for each new initiative)
Audience: Deans/Unit Administrators, PRBC, Foundation, Grants Committee, College Budget Committee
Purpose: A “New Initiative” is a new project or expansion of a current project that supports our Strategic Plan. The project will require the support
of additional and/or outside funding. The information you provide will facilitate and focus the research and development process for finding both
internal and external funding.
How does your initiative address the college's Strategic Plan goal, or significantly improve student learning?
MAJOR PROPOSAL  ADD a SECOND FULL-TIME ENGINEERINGInstructor
Engineering has WON the PUBLIC RELATIONS battle. According to a recent HARRIS Public-Opinion Poll a full 93% of those surveyed would
recommend to a young personENGINEERING as a CAREER. This exceeds other highly desirable occupations such as Medical Doctor and
Teacher. See Appendix 3.
This improvement in public perception, coupled with the instructors efforts to raise awareness of the benefits of an engineering career
(Figure 12 ), have dramatically Increased the demand for Chabot Engineering courses and Program-Amenities. In fact demand for engineering
course has MORE THAN DOUBLED over the last dozen years. See Figure 22.
The Course-Load Component of this demand can be accommodated by adjunct instruction; but the PROGRAMATIC component can NOT. As
the author has noted
“Adjunct Instruction allows a College to offer COURSES; but only FULL TIME faculty can create & maintain a
PROGRAM”
In recent years the need for the Full Time Instructor to manage adjunct instruction and teach more course has lead to “deferred
maintenance” of the extensive network community contacts that the instructor developed over the course of 10+ years.
Note also that the current Engineering instructor, when hired in Jul03, Replaced TWO Full-Time Instructors; the fine emeritus faculty Dean
Severud and Adam Young. See Table 2 and Table 3.Prior to the author joining Chabot Mr. Severud provided instruction for the Mechanical
Engineering based courses, while Mr. Young serviced the Electrical Engineering based courses. See Figure 23 and Figure 24 The current
instructor covers all the facets of these courses himself.
© Bruce Mayer, PE • Chabot College •2015-16 Engineering Program Review • Page 39
`To allow for flexibility in Load-Allocation, and to assist the Math Subdivision in the applied-math20 courses, the new instructor must have
sufficient mathematical skills to allow him/her to instruct “Sub-Calculus” courses. The current instructor was hired under these conditions as
described in the Memorandum of Understanding shown in Figure 25. The new instructor would be expected to meet similar math-instruction
capability requirements.
Qualifications & Criteria for Selecting a second Full Time Engineering (+Math) Instructor
Standard State-Legislated qualification of at least a Master’s Degree in any branch of Engineering
At least TEN YEARS of engineering Practice, preferably in Engineering DESIGN21
Capability and inclination to take the initiative to Engage with the Technical Community OUTSIDE of the Chabot Campus
Some Systems Engineering background in the management of a $-Budget and Time-Schedule
Pure or Applied Math background sufficient to teach “sub calculus” math courses. Reference Figure 25 for an example.
Desired: Significant “Hands-On” skill set to allow for implementation and maintenance of physical laborator exercises and lab-equipment
Desired: Evidence of ability to Write and Manage Engineering-Education Grant proposals
What is your specific goal and measurable outcome?
The Goals
Motivate and Inspire students toward the Engineering Profession using the instructor’s actual engineering-practice as a model. This will
result in improved
o Completion of the Engineering Transfer PathWay
o Improved Student Learning
o Improved Success in Engineering Course
Allow for more High School OutReach which has waned for lack of time within the current instructor’s schedule
Develop (even) more technical community relationships thru the contacts developed during the new instructor’s 10+ year engineering
practice career.
20
21
As opposed to “Pure” math
As evidenced by, say, US Patents, or “BluePrints” drawn or approved
© Bruce Mayer, PE • Chabot College •2015-16 Engineering Program Review • Page 40
What is your action plan to achieve your goal?
Activity (brief description)
Advertise Position for Engineering+Math FullTime Faculty
Target
Required Budget (Split out personnel, supplies, other categories)
Completion
Date
Jan16
none
Screen Applications and Conduct 1st-Round Interviews.
Includes ClassRoom Demonstration
Presidential Interview
Apr16
none
May16
none
Make Offer, Train New Instructor
Jul16
none
New Instructor teaches first Engineering Course at Chabot
Aug16
none
How will you manage the personnel needs?
New Hires:
Faculty # of positions1 Classified staff # of positions
Reassigning existing employee(s) to the project; employee(s) current workload will be:
Covered by overload or part-time employee(s)
Covered by hiring temporary replacement(s)
Other, explain
At the end of the project period, the proposed project will:
Be completed (onetime only effort)
Require additional funding to continue and/or institutionalize the project
(obtained by/from):General Fund
Will the proposed project require facility modifications, additional space, or program relocation?
No
Yes, explain:
Will the proposed project involve subcontractors, collaborative partners, or cooperative agreements?
No
Yes, explain:
Do you know of any grant funding sources that would meet the needs of the proposed project?
No
Yes, list potential funding sources:
© Bruce Mayer, PE • Chabot College •2015-16 Engineering Program Review • Page 41
Chabot College Engineering FTES • Sp02→Fa14
Full Time Equivalent Students (FTES)
25
20
15
10
5
0
Fa14
Sp14
Fa13
Sp13
Fa12
Sp12
Fa11
Sp11
Fa10
Sp10
Fa09
Sp09
Fa08
Sp08
Fa07
Sp07
Fa06
Sp06
Fa05
Sp05
Fa04
Sp04
Fa03
Sp03
Fa02
Sp02
Chabot College Academic Term
ENGR_UnitPlan_1410.xlsx
Figure 22 • Engineering course-demand over about the past dozen years. Note that the FTES in engineering has MORE THAN
DOUBLED since the early 2000’s. This additional demand has been accommodated with adjunct instruction, and by OverLoading the
current instructor. The overload and assisting the adjunct instructors has IMPEDED the effort by current instructor to continue to
Build and Maintain the extensive NetWork of OUTSIDE Engineering and Technical Contacts developed over by current instructor.
© Bruce Mayer, PE • Chabot College •2015-16 Engineering Program Review • Page 42
Table 2 • Fall 2002 Instructor Assignmentsxviii
Subject
ENGR
ENGR
ENGR
ENGR
ENGR
ENGR
Course
20
44
10
21
20
35
Instr Name
SEVERUD ORDEAN G
YOUNG D. ADAM
SEVERUD ORDEAN G
SEVERUD ORDEAN G
SEVERUD ORDEAN G
SEVERUD ORDEAN G
Table 3 • Spring 2002 Instructor Assignmentsxix
Subject
ENGR
ENGR
ENGR
ENGR
Course
20
21
44
45
Instr Name
SEVERUD ORDEAN G
YOUNG D. ADAM
YOUNG D. ADAM
SEVERUD ORDEAN G
© Bruce Mayer, PE • Chabot College •2015-16 Engineering Program Review • Page 43
Figure 24 • Fa03 Materials of Engineering (ENGR45) Syllabus
written by Engineering Instructor emeritus, Mr. Adam Young
Figure 23 • Sp03 Materials of Engineering (ENGR45) Syllabus
written by Engineering Instructor emeritus, Mr. Dean Severud
© Bruce Mayer, PE • Chabot College •2015-16 Engineering Program Review • Page 44
Figure 25 • Memorandum of Understanding between Bruce
Mayer and Chabot College OutLining the requirement that
current Engineering instructor teach math courses (below
calculus) should the college need such services to support the
needs of Chabot College students. The Author has, in fact,
provided instruction for MTH: 65, 55, 55A, 25, 16, 15.
© Bruce Mayer, PE • Chabot College •2015-16 Engineering Program Review • Page 45
Audience: Deans/Unit Administrators, PRBC, Foundation, Grants Committee, College Budget Committee
Purpose: A “New Initiative” is a new project or expansion of a current project that supports our Strategic Plan. The project will require the support
of additional and/or outside funding. The information you provide will facilitate and focus the research and development process for finding both
internal and external funding.
How does your initiative address the college's Strategic Plan goal, or significantly improve student learning?
To be maximally valuable to Chabot Engineering PathWay students, whose SINGLE academic goal is transfer, our Engineering course offerings
MUST articulate widely. Engineering is a dynamic and changing subject. As such the university Colleges of Engineering constantly change the
courses and course-content of Lower Division transfer course. The California Engineering Liaison council analyzed this evolution of the
university courses and termed it “Erosion of the Core” transfer courses.
In recent years articulation in engineering has become much more of a “moving target” than it was in past decades. Engineering has made
significant efforts to maintain articulation
Engineering visited UCBerkeley professors, TWICE, to secure PreApprovals of articulation proposals for ENGR10 & ENGR43
Engineering visited SJSU professors to secure PreApprovals of the articulation proposal for ENGR10
o Prof. Ping Hsu noted that NO OTHER Community College instructors had ever before MET with him to discuss articulation
Engineering visited SJSU professors to endure REJECTION of an articulation proposal for ENGR36
In the last several years the rate of change of lower division engineering course-content has accelerated. Articulation has suffered as a result.
As noted in Figure 5, about 85% of Chabot Engineering Transfer students complete their engineering education at just 5 institutions: SJSU,
UCBerkeley, UCDavis, UCSanDiego, and CalPoly-SLO
My proposal
Carefully analyze the lower division articulation deficiencies at these 5 universities
Develop an action plan to improve articulation
Write articulation proposals where feasible
TRAVEL to the universities to MEET with the Professors who have final authority to accept or reject Community College articulation
proposals. Discuss the proposals to obtain PreApproval or Rejection
Write Curriculum proposal based on the discussions at the universities
What is your specific goal and measurable outcome?
The Goal is improved articulation as measured by the Chabot vs University presentation on ASSIST.ORG.
First Cut Goal is to secure at least 6 new course-articulation agreements
© Bruce Mayer, PE • Chabot College •2015-16 Engineering Program Review • Page 46
What is your action plan to achieve your goal?
Activity (brief description)
Target
Required Budget (Split out personnel, supplies, other categories)
Completion
Date
Dec15
4.3 CAH
Analysis of Current State of Articulation. Write Course
OutLines which serve as the bases for articulation proposals
Travel to Universities to Discuss. Write after-action reports and May16
plans
Write and submit to curriculum committee the Curriculum
Dec16
Proposals as PreApproved by the University Professors
4.3CAH, $2k in Travel Expenses
0
How will you manage the personnel needs?
New Hires:
Faculty # of positions
Classified staff # of positions
Reassigning existing employee(s) to the project; employee(s) current workload will be:
Covered by overload or part-time employee(s)
Covered by hiring temporary replacement(s)
Other, explain
At the end of the project period, the proposed project will:
Be completed (onetime only effort)
Require additional funding to continue and/or institutionalize the project
Will the proposed project require facility modifications, additional space, or program relocation?
No
Yes, explain:
Will the proposed project involve subcontractors, collaborative partners, or cooperative agreements?
No
Yes, explain:
Do you know of any grant funding sources that would meet the needs of the proposed project?
No
Yes, list potential funding sources:
© Bruce Mayer, PE • Chabot College •2015-16 Engineering Program Review • Page 47
(obtained by/from):
Audience: Deans/Unit Administrators, PRBC, Foundation, Grants Committee, College Budget Committee
Purpose: A “New Initiative” is a new project or expansion of a current project that supports our Strategic Plan. The project will require the support
of additional and/or outside funding. The information you provide will facilitate and focus the research and development process for finding both
internal and external funding.
How does your initiative address the college's Strategic Plan goal, or significantly improve student learning?
To be maximally valuable to Chabot Engineering PathWay students, whose SINGLE academic goal is transfer, our Engineering course offerings
MUST articulate widely. Engineering is a dynamic and changing subject. As such the university Colleges of Engineering constantly change the
courses and course-content of Lower Division transfer course. The California Engineering Liaison council analyzed this evolution of the
university courses and termed it “Erosion of the Core” transfer course.
In recent years UCBerkeley Mechanical Engineering moved the Pure-Substance ThermoDynamics course from the Upper Division (ME105) to
the Lower Division as ME40. To the author’s knowledge NO Community College course, anywhere, articulates to the UCB ME40 course. See
also Appendix 2 • UCBerkeley ME40, ThermoDynamics, Course Description
Chabot could be the FIRST to articulate to ME40, and thus ATTRACT students from surrounding Community Colleges. This course could easily
be offered in ON-LINE format, perhaps attracting students for Out-Of-Area colleges as well.
The addition of the ENGR40 course would greatly enhance the Engineering Transfer Pathway for students interested in transferring to UCB
ME. Consider this statement from Chabot→UCBerkeley ASSIST.ORG reportxx
Strongly recommended courses: (if your college offers the courses listed below
and they are articulated, taking them will strengthen your application)
-
UCB
UCB
UCB
UCB
UCB
Engin 7
Engin 10
Engin 28
Mec Eng 40
Mec Eng C85
Please Note CURRENT Articulation:
o UCB Engin 7 = Chabot ENGR25+CSCI14
o UCB Engin 10 = Chabot ENGR10+ENGR11
o UCB Engin 28 = Chabot ENGR22
© Bruce Mayer, PE • Chabot College •2015-16 Engineering Program Review • Page 48
The Addition of ME40 articulation would make (even) STRONGER Chabot Student’s applications to UCB for transfer admission in Mechanical
Engineering. Figure 5 and Figure 7 indicated that UCB is the second most popular transfer destination, while Mechanical Engineering is (by
far) the most popular transfer program of Major-Study.
The proposal and Action Plan
Engineering would design a new, “ENGR40” course, modeled on UCBerkeley ME40
Engineering would personally visit the UCBerkeley professor who supervises the ME40 course to secure PreApproval of ENGR40
articulation
Write Curriculum proposal based on the discussions with the UCBerkeley ME40 professor
Design the course instruction for maximum Student Learning
Deliver the course for the first time (perhaps in OnLine fashion) for the first time in Spring 2018
Project TimeLine for a SPRING offering
Sp15: BMayer on Sabbatical
Fa15: Design ENGR40 Course OutLine around ME40
Sp16: Consult with UCB ME40 Professor
o Iterate as needed to secure PreApproval
Fa16: SubmitENGR40 Curriculum Proposal
Sp17 & Fa17: Create Course Materials
Sp18: Deliver for the first time ENGR40 at Chabot
NOTE: With some release time the above schedule could be accelerated for First-Delivery in Sp17
What is your specific goal and measurable outcome?
The Goal is improved articulation and an transfer-acceptance competitive-advantage for Chabot Students applying for admission to UCBerkeley
Mechanical Engineering
© Bruce Mayer, PE • Chabot College •2015-16 Engineering Program Review • Page 49
What is your action plan to achieve your goal?
Activity (brief description)
Target Completion Required Budget (Split out personnel,
Date
supplies, other categories)
Design ENGR40 Course OutLine using ME40 as the model22
Dec15
0
Consult with UCB ME40 Professor
o Iterate as needed to secure PreApproval
May16
0
Submit ENGR40 Curriculum Proposal
Dec16
0
Create ENGR40 Course Materials
Dec17
3 CAH release
Deliver for the first time ENGR40 at Chabot
Jan18
4.3 CAH (OnGoing at rate of 1—section, once a year)
How will you manage the personnel needs?
New Hires:
Faculty # of positions
Classified staff # of positions
Reassigning existing employee(s) to the project; employee(s) current workload will be:
Covered by overload or part-time employee(s)
Covered by hiring temporary replacement(s)
Other, explain
At the end of the project period, the proposed project will:
Be completed (onetime only effort)
Require additional funding to continue and/or institutionalize the project
(obtained by/from):CEMC Allocation
Will the proposed project require facility modifications, additional space, or program relocation?
No
Yes, explain:
Will the proposed project involve subcontractors, collaborative partners, or cooperative agreements?
No
Yes, explain:
Do you know of any grant funding sources that would meet the needs of the proposed project?
No
Yes, list potential funding sources:
22
C.F. Appendix 2
© Bruce Mayer, PE • Chabot College •2015-16 Engineering Program Review • Page 50
Appendix F3: FTEF Requests
Audience: Administrators, CEMC, PRBC
Purpose: To recommend changes in FTEF allocations for subsequent academic year and guide Deans and
CEMC in the allocation of FTEF to disciplines. For more information, see Article 29 (CEMC) of the Faculty
Contract.
Instructions: In the area below, please list your requested changes in course offerings (and
corresponding request in FTEF) and provide your rationale for these changes. Be sure to analyze
enrollment trends and other relevant data
athttp://www.chabotcollege.edu/ProgramReview/Data2013.cfm.
COURSE
ENGR40
CURRENT
FTEF
(2014-15)
ADDITIONAL
FTEF
NEEDED
CURRENT
SECTIONS
ADDITIONAL
SECTIONS
NEEDED
CURRENT
STUDENT #
SERVED
ADDITIONAL
STUDENT #
SERVED
0
4.3
0
1
0
15
ENGR40 is a Proposed NEW course modeled after Mechanical Engineering 40 (ME40) at UCBerkeley23.
23
The Engineering Instructor took this course at UCBerkeley in 1976 when it was numbered ME105. The instructor
had the opportunity to USE the pure-substance thermodynamics in his professional engineering practice.
51
Appendix F5: Supplies & Services Requests [Acct. Category 4000 and 5000]
Audience: Administrators, Budget Committee, PRBC
Purpose: To request funding for supplies and service, and to guide the Budget Committee in allocation of funds.
Instructions: In the area below, please list both your current and requested budgets for categories 4000 and 5000 in priority order. Do NOT
include conferences and travel, which are submitted on Appendix M6. Justify your request and explain in detail any requested funds beyond
those you received this year. Please also look for opportunities to reduce spending, as funds are very limited.
Supplies Requests [Acct. Category 4000]
Instructions:
1. There should be a separate line item for supplies needed and an amount.
For items purchased in bulk, list the unit cost and provide the total in the "Amount" column.
2. Make sure you include the cost of tax and shipping for items purchased.
Priority 1: Are criticalrequests required to sustain a program (if not acquired, program may be in peril) or to meet mandated requirements of local,
state or federal regulations or those regulations of a accrediting body for a program.
Priority 2: Are needed requests that will enhance a program but are not so critical as to jeopardize the life of a program if not
received in the requested academic year.
Priority 3: Are requests that are enhancements, non-critical resource requeststhat would be nice to have and would bring additional benefit to the program.
2014-15
2015-16
Request
needed totals in all areas Request
Requested
Received
Description
Amount
Consumable Lab Supplies
$500
$500
$600
Vendor
Division/Unit
Math & Sci
Priority #1
Priority #2
XXXX
Priority #3
Appendix F6: Conference and Travel Requests [Acct. Category 5000]
Audience: Staff Development Committee,Administrators, Budget Committee, PRBC
Purpose: To request funding for conference attendance, and to guide the Budget and Staff Development Committees in allocation of funds.
Instructions:Please list specific conferences/training programs, including specific information on the name of the conference and location. Note
that the Staff Development Committee currently has no budget, so this data is primarily intended to identify areas of need that could perhaps be
fulfilled on campus, and to establish a historical record of need. Your rationale should discuss student learning goals and/or connection to the
Strategic Plan goal.
Description
Amount
Vendor
Division/Dept
California Engineering Liaison
Council meeting- Nothern CA.
Engineering Educators from the
CA Community Colleges, CSU,
and UC come together to discuss
issuesof Mutual Concern
including Curriculum alignment,
articulation, preparation for
engineering
transfer,accreditation, and
student learning & success.
≈$350 Hotel & Travel
Math & Sci
California Engineering Liaison
Council meeting- Southern CA.
≈$500 Hotel & Travel
Math & Sci
53
Priority Priority Priority
#1
#2
#3
Notes
NORHTERN CA meeting in FALL.
See also http://www.caelc.org/
XXXX
XXXX
SOUTHERN CA meeting in FALL.
See also http://www.caelc.org/
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
MATLAB Software for Math & Sci Center (Rm
3906); 30 Seats
Amount
$3000xxi
Vendor
Division/Unit
MathWorks
Math & Sci
54
Priority #1
Priority #2
XXXX
Priority #3
Appendix 1 • MATLAB SoftWare Quotation
55
Appendix 2 • UCBerkeley ME40, ThermoDynamics, Course Descriptionxxii
ME 40 - Thermodynamics (or Thermophysics and Thermodynamics) (3 units)
ONLINE RESOURCES: Course web page
CATALOG DESCRIPTION
This course introduces the fundamentals of energy storage, thermophysical properties of liquids and gases, and the basic principles
of thermodynamics which are then applied to various areas of engineering related to energy conversion and air conditioning.
Students will receive no credit for 105B after taking ME 40.
COURSE PREREQUISITES
Chemistry 1A, Mathematics 1B, Physics 7B, and Engin 7
TEXTBOOK(S) AND/OR OTHER REQUIRED MATERIAL
A supplement covering fundamentals of quantum molecular energy storage, plus: Thermodynamics, an Engineering Approach, Y.A.
Cengel and M.A. Boles, McGraw Hill, Fifth Edition, New York, 2006.
or:
Introduction to Thermodynamics, Classical and Statistical, R.E. Sonntag and G.J. Van Wylen, John Wiley & Sons, Third Edition 24, New
York, 1991.
COURSE OBJECTIVES
The objectives of this course are:
1) to provide fundamental background of thermodynamics principles, and
2) to develop analytic ability in real-world engineering applications using thermodynamics principles.
DESIRED COURSE OUTCOMES
After completion of the course, students are expected capable of performing basic analysis of performances for energy systems
using thermodynamics principles.
24
nd
The Engineering Instructor used the 2 edition of this same TextBook when he took ME105 at UCBerkely in Fa76
56
TOPICS COVERED
Conservation of energy; definitions of heat and work for a macroscopic system; system states; implications of molecular energy
storage and force interactions for systems containing large numbers of molecules, statistical nature of properties; internal energy.
Properties of solids, liquids and gases; phase equilibrium; First Law analysis for closed systems; enthalpy. First Law control volume
analysis; applications. Introduction to the Second Law; the Carnot Cycle. Definition and interpretation of entropy; entropy change for
substances; second law analysis of engineering systems; First and second law analysis of engineering systems. The Rankine cycle;
Analysis of gas power cycles. refrigeration cycles; Thermodynamic relations. Air/water vapor mixtures; psychrometrics. Introduction
to HVAC component analysis. Thermodynamics of reactive mixtures. Chemical equilibrium. Special topics, review.
CLASS/LABORATORY SCHEDULE
Three hours of lecture per week and one hour of discussion per week.
Appendix 3 • Harris Pollxxiii on Occupational Prestige
A presentation given by the writer at the Fall 2014 meeting of the California Engineering Liaison Council.
57
58
59
xxiv
NOTE: “Amelito” Refers to the Dr. Amelito Enriquez , the Engineering Instructor at Canada in Redwood City. Dr. Enriquez has earned a very favorable
reputation within the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE). Dr. Enriquez is a very active members of the California Engineering Liaison Council.
Data Tables taken from the Harris Interactive public opinion poll on occupational prestige and desirability.
60
61
62
Appendix 4 • Perspective on GRITxxv by the Engineering Instructor
Bruce Mayer, PE • 11Sep13
What is the main purpose of the Math and Science division? What is our primary objective?
Faculty Responses
Prepare for degree/transfer:
STEAMS majors (science, tech,
engineering, architecture and math)
Related areas (Allied Health and
Business)
GE & competency
Student Responses
Transfer
Recruit students to STEM
Support (tutoring, etc.)
Prepare for next level
Prepare for career in STEM
Build self-esteem/confidence
Problem-solving critical thinking
Develop:
Think critically and logically
Discipline and high standards in their
work
Your Observations:
Our main purpose, in my humble opinion, is to prepare student for success at the Transfer university
Our second mission is to provide math and science education to other disciplines on campus
I would also like to help student develop an achievement oriented attitude:
Personal Responsibility
Work Ethic
Self-Reliance and Independence
Self-Control and delayed-gratification
Helping others
Helping humanity
The students have it backwards → Self-Esteem is the RESULT of accomplishment; accomplishment is NOT the result of
self-esteem
63
How do we achieve our primary objective?
Faculty Responses
Offering quality instruction
Course preparation into a course
Problem-solving ---- relevant to course
content
Student services
Student expectation of work load for math/sci
Student Responses
Interaction – student/teacher, student/student, workshops, study groups, etc.
Group work in general
Building a community
Help students w/weaker backgrounds
STEM/MESA program
by “working harder"
Your Observations:
I would add that the faculty should have high expectations from our students, and give students honest feedback, i.e.,
GRADES, that reflect their mastery of the subject matter.
Also faculty should MODEL successful behavior, and we should expose students to successful former Chabot students as
additional role models
How do we know that we are successful in meeting our primary objective?
Faculty Responses
Objective quantitative measures:
GPA, graduation & transfer rates, CPEC
website data, common exam results
Qualitative information:
o Students have high confidence
& morale
o Student communication &
engagement
o Student anecdotes about
Student Responses
Transfer rates/scholarships
Formal feedback from students (surveys, evaluations)
Not grades, but demonstrate knowledge and skills
64
navigating college and career
Intellectual versatility
o Adaptability in problemsolving
Your Observations:
Students need to realize that they will be “graded” during ALL of their Professional Lives by employment Supervisors, by
colleagues, and by Customers/Clients.
If a Chabot Grade does NOT reflect knowledge and skills, then the Grading system must change IMMEDIATELY.
Law schools are ALWAYS judged by their BAR-EXAM passage rates. Their reputation depends on ONE SINGLE TEST.
What are our strengths?
Faculty Responses
Small classes to allow greater personal
interaction
Diversity of instructors in education,
experience, culture, will help students
identify with that instructor
Majors lead to possible employment
Well established rigorous curriculum
Observance of prerequisites as
foundations to advancement
A culture of high expectations in a
supportive learning environment
Respect of academic independence
Student Responses
Faculty
Facilities
Tutors
Teams, clubs, community, groups, MESA, workshops
Curriculum
Scheduling and time for study
Attributes:
Knowledge
Openness
Helpfulness
Community
Availability
Relevance
Communication
65
Your Observations:
Our greatest strength is, without a doubt, discipline-accomplished instructors who are friendly, welcoming and
approachable. We have NO imperious UCBerkeley/Stanford professor types here. Our students are never (I hope)
intimidated by Chabot Instructors.
But being NICE does not mean being EASY. We also need to call our students to account by giving them the grades they
EARN, not the grades they WANT. Also impose serious sanctions for academic dishonesty.
Chabot has created a WONDERFUL learning environment, we to keep up this excellent work.
What are our weaknesses?
Faculty Responses
Collegial communication/working
together
Innovation/creativity
Communication w/students
Student Responses
Lack of orientation to the STEM program and general threshold concepts in learning.
Barriers to tutoring/faculty mentoring
Availability of courses
Lack of technology for STEM courses
Miscommunication/lack of clear expectations
Your Observations:
Lack of Problem-Solving WORKSHOPS. I personally would like to add 2-3 hour workshops in ENGR25 (DONE → in the
Pilot Stage), ENGR43, and ENGR45
I also agree that more collegial communication would help. I CoTeach ENGR43 with Wayne Phillips. I do the Theory and he
does the Practical. I always attend his physical labs, listen to his lab-lectures, and then perform the labs he designed. Mr.
Phillips has taught me a great deal, and I am thankful to have had him as a teacher.
Do a better job of integrating GRIT instructions into our courses:
GRIT = “Perseverance to accomplish long-term or higher-order goals in the face of challenges and setbacks, engaging the
student’s psychological resources, such as their academic mindsets, effortful control, and strategies and tactics.”25
25
http://www.ed.gov/edblogs/technology/files/2013/02/OET-Draft-Grit-Report-2-17-13.pdf
66
Possible solutions:
Paradigm shift
At the level of individual faculty
At the institutional level
Place focus on entering students (Math and English prep)
Print Date/Time = 6-Nov-14/11:05
i
http://www.chabotcollege.edu/prbc/StrategicPlan/SPforPR.pdf • InterNet Accessed 05Oct14
http://latin-phrases.co.uk/quotes/learning-teaching/ • InterNet accessed 05Oct14
iii
http://www.cpec.ca.gov/OnLineData/SelectFinalOptions.asp
iv
http://www.chabotcollege.edu/faculty/bmayer/ChabotEngineeringCourses/All_Courses_ENGR/Study_Skills_for_Chabot_College_Students_140708.pptx
v
http://www.caelc.org/ The Fall2014 meeting held at Merced College
vi
Pg-229 http://www.chabotcollege.edu/prbc/201415%20Program%20Reviews/Academic%20Services/Science%20&%20Mathematics/Engineering%20Program%20Review%202014-2015.docx
vii
Pg-33 http://www.chabotcollege.edu/prbc/201415%20Program%20Reviews/Academic%20Services/Science%20&%20Mathematics/Engineering%20Program%20Review%202014-2015.docx
viii
Pg-37 http://www.chabotcollege.edu/prbc/201415%20Program%20Reviews/Academic%20Services/Science%20&%20Mathematics/Engineering%20Program%20Review%202014-2015.docx
ix
Pg-40 http://www.chabotcollege.edu/prbc/201415%20Program%20Reviews/Academic%20Services/Science%20&%20Mathematics/Engineering%20Program%20Review%202014-2015.docx
x
Pg-45 http://www.chabotcollege.edu/prbc/201415%20Program%20Reviews/Academic%20Services/Science%20&%20Mathematics/Engineering%20Program%20Review%202014-2015.docx
xi
Pg-50 http://www.chabotcollege.edu/prbc/201415%20Program%20Reviews/Academic%20Services/Science%20&%20Mathematics/Engineering%20Program%20Review%202014-2015.docx
xii
SLO_20rubric_WrkSht_ENGR43_Ckt-Anal_110720.doc
xiii
Plot produced by BMayer MATLAB file SubPlot_3x2_SLO_HistoGrams_1410.m Oct14
xiv
http://www.chabotcollege.edu/faculty/bmayer/ChabotEngineeringCourses/All_Courses_ENGR/College_Student_Study_Skills_Quiz_1010.doc
xv
http://www.chabotcollege.edu/faculty/bmayer/ChabotEngineeringCourses/All_Courses_ENGR/Study_Skills_for_Chabot_College_Students_1010.ppt
xvi
http://facultyinquiry.net/2009/01/15/capturing-student-voices-reading-between-lives/
xvii
http://www.chabotcollege.edu/accreditation/exhibits/Standard%20I%20B/B%201.8%20Discussion%20notes%20from%20Reading%20between%20the%20Li
nes%20discussions.%20Nov%202006%C3%AF%E2%82%AC%C2%A9/ReadingvideodiscDCnotes.pdf
xviii
Institutional Research file Chabot_fall_2002_izrxen1.csv
iiii
67
xixxix
Institutional Research file Chabot_spring_2002_izrxen1.csv
http://web1.assist.org/webassist/report.do?agreement=aa&reportPath=REPORT_2&reportScript=Rep2.pl&event=19&dir=1&sia=CHABOT&ria=UCB&ia=CHABOT&oia=UCB&aay=1415&ay=14-15&dora=ENGMECH
xxi
MathWorks Quote 3553680 dated Oct 2012; the value noted is an estimate of increased costs 2012→2014
xxii
http://www.me.berkeley.edu/ABET/2005/courses/ME40web.shtml
xxiiihttp://www.harrisinteractive.com/vault/Harris%20Poll%2085%20-%20Prestigious%20Occupations_9.10.2014.pdf
xxiv
http://www.smccd.net/accounts/enriquez/
xxv
Angela Lee Duckworth: The key to success? Grit → https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H14bBuluwB8
xx
68