Chabot College
Program Review Report
2015 -2016
Year ONE of
Program Review Cycle
Physics
Submitted on
Contact:
Table of Contents
___ Year 1
Section 1: Where We’ve Been
Section 2: Where We Are Now
Section 3: The Difference We Hope to Make
___ Year 2
Section A: What Progress Have We Made?
Section B: What Changes Do We Suggest?
___ Year 3
Section A: What Have We Accomplished?
Section B: What’s Next?
Required Appendices:
A: Budget History
B1: Course Learning Outcomes Assessment Schedule
B2: “Closing the Loop” Assessment Reflections
C: Program Learning Outcomes
D: A Few Questions
E: New Initiatives
F1: New Faculty Requests
F2: Classified Staffing Requests
F3: FTEF Requests
F4: Academic Learning Support Requests
F5: Supplies and Services Requests
F6: Conference/Travel Requests
F7: Technology and Other Equipment Requests
F8: Facilities
____ YEAR ONE
1. Where We’ve Been - Complete Appendix A (Budget History) prior to writing your narrative.
Limit your narrative to no more than one page. As you enter a new Program Review cycle,
reflect on your achievements over the last few 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?
2. Where We Are Now - Review success, equity, course sequence, and enrollment data from
the past three years at
http://www.chabotcollege.edu/ProgramReview/Data2014.asp
Please complete Appendices B1 and B2 (CLO's), C (PLO's), and D (A few questions)before writing
your narrative. Limit your narrative to two pages.
After review of your success and retention data, your enrollment trends, your curriculum, and
your CLO and PLO results, provide an overall reflection on your program. Consider the following
questions in your narrative, and cite relevant data (e.g., efficiency, persistence, success,
CLO/PLO assessment results, external accreditation demands, etc.):
• What are the trends in course success and retention rates (based on overall
results and CLO assessments) in your program? Do you see differences based
on gender and/or ethnicity? Between on-campus and online or hybrid online
courses? Provide comparison points (college-wide averages, history within
your program, statewide averages).
1. Success and persistence rates.
2. Distance education vs. face-to-face courses.
3. The Difference We Hope to Make - Review the Strategic Plan goal and key strategies at
http://www.chabotcollege.edu/prbc/StrategicPlan/SP for PR.pdf prior to completing your
narrative. Please complete Appendices E (New Initiatives) and F1-8 (Resource Requests) to
further detail your narrative. Limit your narrative to three pages, and be very specific about
what you hope to achieve, why, and how.
Note: Chabot is in the process of creating our next Educational Master Plan, to last six years.
Educational Master Plans are generally large enough in scope to be flexible. They are used in
particular at the District Level to guide in facility and community planning.
Please take this moment to reflect on your program’s larger term vision(s) and goals (6 years),
and to incorporate them into Program Review under the section below as a separate paragraph
or otherwise. The drafters of the Educational Master Plan will be mining Program Review for
contributions to the plan, with a commitment to read what programs have submitted. IR has
1
offered to work with programs to determine future market trends to be incorporated into this
year’s program review in relation to long-term goals. Please contact Carolyn Arnold for support.
We will have other avenues to communicate with the Educational Master Plan Consultants. This
is simply one avenue.
What initiatives are underway in your discipline or program, or could you begin, that
would support the achievement of our Strategic Plan goal?
Over the next three years, what improvements would you like to make to your
program(s) to improve student learning?
Over the next 6 years, what are your longer term vision(s) and goals? (Ed Master Plan)
What are your specific, measurable goals? How will you achieve them?
Would any of these require collaboration with other disciplines or areas of the college?
How will that collaboration occur?
____ YEAR TWO
A. What Progress Have We Made?
Complete Appendices A (Budget History), B1 and B2 (CLO's), C (PLO's), and D (A few questions) prior to
writing your narrative. You should also review your most recent success, equity, course sequence,
and enrollment data at http://www.chabotcollege.edu/ProgramReview/Data2013.cfm.
In year one, you established goals and action plans for program improvement. This section asks
you to reflect on the progress you have made toward those goals. This analysis will be used by
the PRBC and Budget Committee to assess progress toward achievement of our Strategic Plan
and to inform future budget decisions. It will also be used by the SLOAC and Basic Skills
committees as input to their priority-setting process. In your narrative of two or less pages,
address the following questions:
What were your year one Program Review goals?
Did you achieve those goals? Specifically describe your progress on the goals you set for
student learning, program learning, and Strategic Plan achievement.
What are you most proud of?
What challenges did you face that may have prevented achieving your goals?
Cite relevant data in your narrative (e.g., efficiency, persistence, success, FT/PT faculty
ratios, CLO/PLO assessment results, external accreditation demands, etc.).
2
B. What Changes Do We Suggest?
Review the Strategic Plan goal and key strategies at
http://www.chabotcollege.edu/prbc/StrategicPlan/SPforPR.pdfprior to completing your
narrative. Please complete Appendices E (New Initiatives) and F1-8 (Resources Requested) to
further detail your narrative. Limit your narrative to two pages, and be very specific about
what you hope to achieve, why, and how.
Note: Chabot is in the process of creating our next Educational Master Plan, to last six years.
Educational Master Plans are generally large enough in scope to be flexible. They are used in
particular at the District Level to guide in facility and community planning.
Please take this moment to reflect on your program’s larger term vision(s) and goals (6 years),
and to incorporate them into Program Review under the section below as a separate paragraph
or otherwise. The drafters of the Educational Master Plan will be mining Program Review for
contributions to the plan, with a commitment to read what programs have submitted. IR has
offered to work with programs to determine future market trends to be incorporated into this
year’s program review in relation to long-term goals. Please contact Carolyn Arnold for support.
We will have other avenues to communicate with the Educational Master Plan Consultants. This
is simply one avenue.
Given your experiences and student achievement results over the past year:
what changes do you suggest to your course/program improvement plan?
What new initiatives might you begin to support the achievement of our Strategic Plan
goal?
Do you have new ideas to improve student learning?
What are your specific, measurable goals? How will you achieve them? Would any of
these require collaboration with other disciplines or areas of the college? How will
make that collaboration occur?
What is your longer term vision(s) or goals? (Educational Master Plan)
3
___ YEAR THREE
A. What Have We Accomplished?
Complete Appendices A (Budget History), B1 and B2 (CLO's), C (PLO's), and D (A few questions) prior to
writing your narrative. You should also review your most recent success, equity, course sequence, and
enrollment data at http://www.chabotcollege.edu/ProgramReview/Data2013.cfm.
In year one, you established goals and action plans for program improvement. This section asks
you to reflect on the progress you have made toward those goals. This analysis will be used by
the PRBC and Budget Committee to assess progress toward achievement of our Strategic Plan
and to inform future budget decisions. It will also be used by the SLOAC and Basic Skills
committees as input to their priority-setting process. In your narrative of two or less pages,
address the following questions:
What program improvement goals did you establish?
Did you achieve the goals you established for the three years? Specifically describe your
progress on goals you set for student learning, program learning, and Strategic Plan
achievement.
What best practices have you developed? Those could include pedagogical methods,
strategies to address Basic Skills needs of our students, methods of working within your
discipline, and more.
Are these best practices replicable in other disciplines or areas?
What were your greatest challenges?
Were there institutional barriers to success?
Cite relevant data in your narrative (e.g., efficiency, persistence, success, FT/PT faculty
ratios, CLO/PLO assessment results, external accreditation demands, etc.).
B. What’s Next?
This section may serve as the foundation for your next Program Review cycle, and will inform the
development of future strategic initiatives for the college. In your narrative of one page or less, address
the following questions. Please complete Appendices E (New Initiatives) and F1-8 (Resources Requested)
to further detail your narrative and to request resources.
Note: Chabot is in the process of creating our next Educational Master Plan, to last six years.
Educational Master Plans are generally large enough in scope to be flexible. They are used in
particular at the District Level to guide in facility and community planning.
Please take this moment to reflect on your program’s larger term vision(s) and goals (6 years),
and to incorporate them into Program Review under the section “The Difference We Hope to
4
Make” as a separate paragraph or otherwise. The drafters of the Educational Master Plan will
be mining Program Review for contributions to the plan, with a commitment to read what
programs have submitted. IR has offered to work with programs to determine future market
trends to be incorporated into this year’s program review in relation to long-term goals. Please
contact Carolyn Arnold for support. We will have other avenues to communicate with the
Educational Master Plan Consultants. This is simply one avenue.
What goals do you have for future program improvement?
What ideas do you have to achieve those goals?
What must change about the institution to enable you to make greater progress in
improving student learning and overall student success?
What are your longer term vision(s) and goals for your program? (Educational Master
Plan)
5
Appendix A: Budget History and Impact
Audience: Budget Committee, PRBC, and Administrators
Purpose: This analysis describes your history of budget requests from the previous two years and
the impacts of funds received and needs that were not met. This history of documented need
can both support your narrative in Section A and provide additional information for Budget
Committee recommendations.
Instructions: Please provide the requested information, and fully explain the impact of the budget
decisions.
Category
Classified Staffing (# of positions)
Supplies & Services
2013-14
Budget
Requested
1(LAB TECH)
1800
SUPPLIES
2013-14
Budget
Received
0
1800
SUPPLIES
Technology/Equipment
Other
TOTAL
1800
1800
2014-15
Budget
Requested
1(LAB TECH)
2014-15
Budget
Received
0
1,800
supplies
Oscopes3000; PASCO
electronics500;
LABPROS-11
UNITS AT
2420
1,800
supplies
Oscopes3000;
PASCO
electronics500
7,720
5,300
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 oscilloscopes, WITH GRAPHIC DISPLAYS, are tied --- though SLOS --- to the CWLG –college wide
learning goal—COMMUNICATION and sub-concept VISUALIZATION that will enhance verbal, visual and
written language with clarity and purpose in an academic context
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 labpros better allow simultaneous scheduling of labs using these analog to digital converters for
our computer displays of raw data.. They also, when given higher sampling rates, simulate o-scopes
6
above under 1., so they is also in an under-handed way get us more of those units and better alignment
with the visualization containing cwlg – communication. .
7
Appendix B1: Student Learning Outcomes Assessment Reporting Schedule
I. Course-Level Student Learning Outcomes & Assessment Reporting (CLOClosing the Loop).
A.
Check One of the Following:
X CHECKED 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.
□ NOT CHECKED 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.
2A
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.
SUBMITTED
2B
SUBMITTED
4A
SUBMITTED
4B
SUBMITTED
4C
SUBMITTED
11
SUBMITTED
5
SUBMITTED
8
2-Years Prior
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
Form Instructions:
Complete a separate Appendix B2 form for each Course-Level assessment reported in this
Program Review. These courses should be listed in Appendix B1: Student Learning Outcomes
Assessment Reporting Schedule.
Part I: CLO Data Reporting. For each CLO, obtain Class Achievement data in aggregate for all
sections assessed in eLumen.
Part II: CLO Reflections. Based on student success reported in Part I, reflect on the individual
CLO.
Part III: Course Reflection. In reviewing all the CLOs and your findings, reflect on the course as
a whole.
PART I: COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOMES – DATA RESULTS
CONSIDER THE COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOMES INDIVIDUALLY (THE
NUMBER OF CLOS WILL DIFFER BY COURSE)
(CLO) 1: SEE ATTACHED SHEETS FOR 2A, 4A, 4B AND
11 CLOS. We closed the loop last term—
YEAR THREE --- and are now starting the
cycle by embarking on an entirely new
paradigm of assessment: self-evaluation or
indirect assessment, where students express
their confidence levels about doing a
problems using a standard rubric, 0 I have
no idea how to do this problems and 4 I can
do it immediately without notes, I’ve just
completed a massive SLO overhaul just in
time for this report, which is less about past
results and more about future new
procedures in year one of our parallel
assessment cycle. That entry point
coincides with the Program Review’s first
year though it’s possible to offset cycles as
9
Defined Target
Scores*
(CLO Goal)
Actual Scores**
(eLumen data)
long as each is three years long. We will
assess 2B and 5 next term under the
condition of this pilot project which
bypasses Illumen. Each CLO, taken from
the college course outline’s ―content‖
section --- is tied to CWLG college wide
learning goal framing our teaching.
(CLO) 2:
(CLO) 3:
(CLO) 4:
 If more CLOs are listed for the course, add another row to the table.
* Defined Target Scores: What scores in eLumen from your students would indicate success for this
CLO? (Example: 75% of the class scored either 3 or 4)
**Actual scores: What is the actual percent of students that meet defined target based on the eLumen
data collected in this assessment cycle?
10
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?
See Attached sheets for each question, from which we derive the percentage of
“outliers.” We are using a standard rubric of self-confidence , ranging from a 4: can do
problem immediately to 0: have no clue. These are students who on a problem score
below a certain threshold that varies from student to student. It sheds light on difficult
areas for students. For an “outlier” , the question was quite difficult at a certain
threshold that is calculated in a way that prevents the student from scoring herself
higher than what she would actually earn. The outlier percentages of students who
have trouble on a problem are ranked in descending order. The top three problems with
the highest percentage of outliers are considered weak points for the entire class. These
top three problem of difficulty are grist for collective discussion on how to strengthen
students in those areas and also identify common issues between different courses
when the data is presented in concise tabular form .
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?
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?
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?
11
12
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?
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?
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?
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?
E. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 5: ADD IF NEEDED.
13
PART III: COURSE REFLECTIONS AND FUTURE PLANS
1. What changes were made to your course based on the previous assessment cycle, the prior
Closing the Loop reflections and other faculty discussions?
For the current new untested battery of “indirect” assessments given
later this term: We will run them at the end of the term; any changes may happen after
a review of the results the next year. From a study of the “outliers” and issue areas, we will
initiate a cross-discipline conversation with math for example and chemistry – which is also
doing and “indirect” assessment pilot--- to correlate their teaching with our strengths and
weaknesses reflected in our battery of new assessment which correlate with the following
CWLGS” 2. Civil responsibility, 3. communication, 4. critical thinking and the 5. development
of the whole person which hones on the self- confidence angle we embed. I am currently
working on adding questions pertaining to 1. global awareness and cultural development
though our inquiries – under civics --- about climate change or modern warfare that have
global implications. But I’m interested in asking students if they how who invented math:
correct answer, the Egyptians 6000 BC, when most students might jump the European
conclusion.
With regard to last cycles slo-assessment conclusions and resultant
changes in the courses her is what we wrote last time: We are in the process
of assessment of a “flipped classroom environment”. And when coupled with our physical
learning environment in the form of building 1800 with our physics tutorial center and
reconfigurable labs, we are encouraged like Dr.Eric Mazur, Professor of Physics at
Harvard…” “I think the answer to this challenge is to rethink the nature of the college
course, to consider it as a different kind of animal these days….A course can be a
communication across time about a discrete topic, with a different temporal existence than
the old doing-the-homework-for-the-lecture routine. Students now tap into a course
through different media; they may download materials via its website, and even access a
faculty member’s interests and bio. It’s a different kind of communication between faculty
and students. “
We all actively use the internet fully displayed in front of our classes and encourage
students to use that resource for research on classic and more obscure topics within the
lecture. Last term we of experimented with project based learning causing communication
across a small group about concrete physics applications --- resulting in a public poster
show with professional displays worthy of a scientific conference ..
But this term, in a sense we are starting from scratch with qualitatively new
assessments—by-passing clunky elumen --- that streamlines our work while more directly
linking to the CWLGs—college wide learning goals --- and by implication the STRATEGIC
PLAN.
14
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?
Out main action is improving our assessments with better alignment with the STRATeGIC
PLAN: SEE ABOVE
3. What is the nature of the planned actions (please check all that apply)?
 Curricular x
 Pedagogical x
 Resource based x
 Change to CLO or rubric x
 Change to assessment methods x
 Other:_________________________________________________________________
15
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.
FIRST OFF, LET’S DEFINE OUR TERMS, TO CLARIFY EDUCATIONAL LINGO THAT MIGHT
CONFUSE THE READER. A program in SLOAC language is known as a sequence of courses with
the same lead number: In that paradigm we have two major programs Physics 2AB and
PHYSICS 4ABC; Physics 11 is a program as well with one member. Physics 5, which uses a
different prefix, could be lumped in 4ABC as a “D” since the course corresponds to an added
semester but with no formal lab to study MODERN PHYSICS.
Program(S): 2AB, PHYSICS 4ABC AND 5. PHYSICS 11 . We’re using the indirect method of
evaluation – pioneered by math. We simply list the cwlg’s – college level learning goals – as our
PLOS
PLO #1: CRITICAL THINKING
PLO #2: COMMUNICATION
PLO #3: DEVELOPMENT OF THE WHOLE PERSON
PLO #4: Civic Responsibility with a nod to Global and Cultural Awareness
The proportions of each varies from class to class with bigger representation, for example, of
PLO#4 in PHYSICS 11, which has a required paper on the application of science for good and
bad, depending on who’s talking. Typical subjects have been climate change and hydraulic
fracking capturing the news and our concerns, depending on what side of the debate you fall –
including within internal discussions on the appropriate tactics to get one’s voice heard.
What questions or investigations arose as a result of these reflections or discussions?
While these concepts are at the PLO level, they apply at course level using material from the
course outline. Within the test battery for a given course, we ask more than one question
that targets each of these 5 PLOS in some way.
What program-level strengths have the assessment reflections revealed?
Both the strengths and weakness reveal both needed topic reinforcement within the unit and
no communication between units own to collaborate on raising student understanding .
What actions has your discipline determined might be taken to enhance the learning of
students completing your program?
THE MAIN ACTION IS RE-PROGRAMMING THE ASSESSMENT PROCESS AND TAKING IT OUT OF
16
ELUMEN, , STREAMLINING EVALUATIONS AND FREEING UP TIME FOR LAB AND CURRICULUM WORK
IN A WAY FREE OF BUREAUCRATIC FORMALITIES AND INERTIA. THE ELUMEN EXPERIENCE
SYMBOLIZED EVERYTHING WRONG WITH THE CURRENT SET UP, FROM COMMUNICATION OF HOW IT
WORKS, TO ITS IMPLEMENTATION. WE LOOK FORWARD TO THE REVAMPED CURRICUNET
INTEGRATING NEW SLO METHODS AND PROGRAM REVIEW FORMS SEAMLESSLY. SEE THE ATTACHED
SHEET FO OUT CLOS, CARRIERS OF OUR PLOS VIA OUR MAPS.
Program: _____
PLO #1:
PLO #2:
PLO #3:
PLO #4:
What questions or investigations arose as a result of these reflections or discussions?
What program-level strengths have the assessment reflections revealed?
What actions has your discipline determined might be taken to enhance the learning of
students completing your program?
17
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? With the introduction
of key curriculum changes, we had to made needed updates when we check if our new course
fit the sequence, for example our new calculus based like course Physics 3AB, which caused aus
to take a look at 2Ab and the entire curriculum, especially 4A, which in the past has served as a
pathway to architecture, which is a big draw to the physics 3AB.
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) We have deactivated inactive classes such
as Physics 122 AB, a stand-alone calculus obviated by Physics 3AB.
3. Have all of your courses been offered within the past five years? If no, why should those
courses remain in our college catalog? Phsyics 18 a has not; it’s a introduction to physics friendly
math to help fight attrition in Phsyics 4 and 2, obviating the need for P18. .
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. PLEASE READ THE EXTENSIVE EXPLANATION OF THE NEW
CLO SYSTEM; FOR US, THIS IS AN INAPPROPRIATE QUESTION SINCE THE PLOS ARE ALIGNED
WITH CLOS WHICH WE DELIVER TO THE STUDENTS
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, the Forms were filled in the last
Program Review, Year 3.
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. PLEASE survey
READ THE WIDE DISCUSSION OF THE FRESH “INDIRECT” CLO SYSTEM; FOR US, THIS IS AN
INAPPROPRIATE QUESTION SINCE THE PLOS ARE ALIGNED WITH CLOS WHICH WE DELIVER TO
THE STUDENTS
7. If you have course sequences, is success in the first course a good predictor of success in the
subsequent course(s)? THIS IS SO OBVIOUS IN PHYSICS IT ALMOST IS NOT WORTH A RESPONSE.
BUT THE IMPLICATIONS ARE ENORMOUS , PERSONS. But yes, a person who does bad in 4A,
mischance will do bad in the following course if the poor performance is based on the absence
of the mathematical skills and logical reasoning because of poor student time management.
recruited. This is true for the other sequences which referee to previous chapter content, IN the
case of physics 5 we have a raging debate as whether 4C should be taken before 5, I believe it
should because of back references to 4C. We need a detailed study comparing students with or
with out 4C exposures within the Physics 5 Modern Physics, synthesizing arena. As it stands,
Physics 5 allows student to take 4C while cross-enrolled, which I think is stretching it a bit.
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. This is the big question for
Physics 11, a fun GE course with a wide reach into health and teaching. I think the entry bar
should be raised to Math 65; currently it’s Math 104 pre-algebra. Most students in Physics 11
18
have had math 65 but a few have not. Certainly most have had the equivalent in his school
unless they are working on a GED. A higher entry floor may increase the discipline, GRIT and
analytical level of students , though the course tends to use the most elementary math which
every scientifically and language literate show know: addition , subtraction , multiplication,
division and an occasional square root. Math 104 does end the course in the basic level of
algebra we use in P11.
19
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?
This form does not ask what the initiative is, which could not bring lack of clarity if not addressed first. I envision a TITLE 3 basic skills
grant that brings in Daraja’s class room model into the realm of Mathematics with targeted seating just like the arrangement with English.
The initiative would bring in the best MESA students and teaching associates who would work with the lead instructor.
What is your specific goal and measurable outcome?
Statistically measurable higher improved pass rate in the gateway algebra courses where the wipe out rate is huge. The average MATH unit I
pass rate I stated was 53 %. If you take into account the higher average pass rates in the advance course at Trig or above, failure rate could
be as high as 60 % or more, which is unacceptable., So this problem will explore contrasts in pass rates when students are given a more
nurturing learning in environment as Daraja does though the initiative would target Striving Brothers as well.
What is your action plan to achieve your goal?
Activity (brief description)
Meet with Donna Gibson to explore the parameters of this
project against what already exists in the direction extending
Daraja like services to African American students in math.
Math.
REACH OUT TO DARAJA AND STRIVING BROTHERS
Target
Completion
Date
JAN
UARY 1ST ,
2015
JAN 0
UARY 1
2015
TARGET PRESONELL TO TEAM BUILD IN THIS PRJECT
SCHEDULE AND PREPARE TO RUN THE COURSE
SECTION OF MATH 55 OR 65 DEPENDING ON THE OUTCOME
Required Budget (Split out
personnel, supplies, other
categories)
0
ST
Feb
15th 2015
FAL
L 15
20
OF ABOVE DISCUSSION WITH ALL PARTIES TARGETING THE
BIGGEST NEED ; THIS COURSE WOULD BE RUN OVER SEVERAL
SEMESTERS TO OBSERVE TRENDS
How will you manage the personnel needs?
x New Hires:
Faculty # of positions 1
Classified staff # of positions
Reassigning existing employee(s) to the project; employee(s) current workload will be:
X 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)
x
Require additional funding to continue and/or institutionalize the project
(obtained by/from):
Will the proposed project require facility modifications, additional space, or program relocation?
X
No
Yes, explain:
Will the proposed project involve subcontractors, collaborative partners, or cooperative agreements?
No
X Yes, explain:
CLOSE COLLABORATION WITH DARAJA AND STRIVING BROTHERS ON SCHEDULING AND OPERATIONS
Do you know of any grant funding sources that would meet the needs of the proposed project?
No
x
Yes, list potential funding sources: TITLE 3 GRANT SOURCES AND NEW STATE EQUITY FUNDS
21
Appendix F1: Full-Time Faculty/Adjunct Staffing Request(s) [Acct. Category 1000]
Audience: Faculty Prioritization Committee and Administrators
Purpose: Providing explanation and justification for new and replacement positions for full-time faculty and adjuncts
Instructions: Please justify the need for your request. Discuss anticipated improvements in student learning and contribution to the Strategic Plan
goal. Cite evidence and data to support your request, including enrollment management data (EM Summary by Term) for the most recent three
years, student success and retention data , and any other pertinent information. Data is available at
http://www.chabotcollege.edu/ProgramReview/Data2013.cfm.
1. Number of new faculty requested in this discipline: ___
PLEASE LIST IN RANK
ORDER
STAFFING REQUESTS (1000) FACULTY
Position
Description
Faculty (1000)
Program/Unit
1
FT FACULTY
MEMBER
PHYSICS
Division/Area
MATH SCI
Rationale for your proposal. Please use the enrollment management data. Data that will strengthen your rationale include FTES trends over
the last 5 years, FT/PT faculty ratios, recent retirements in your division, total number of full time and part-time faculty in the division, total
number of students served by your division, FTEF in your division, CLO and PLO assessment results and external accreditation demands.
When I came there was David Perry, myself and Clare Chapin ---three FTE. Now, there are two counting Tim Dave,
currently the interim Dean, and Scott Hildreth, who are both 1/2 in Astro. With Dave’s possible exit from the classroom
as permanent Dean, the chasm widens and it becomes time to request at least one FTE to keep the current, degraded
status quo intact.
2. Statements about the alignment with the strategic plan and your student learning goals are required. Indicate here any information from
advisory committees or outside accreditation reviews that is pertinent to the proposal.
22
There is pressure to increase class size not the number of sections and swap FTE with adjuncts. While our
adjuncts teach well, widespread research and logic shows the quality of education goes down when
instructors don’t have full-time perks: their own office and computer; FT faculty networks; health
benefits; a more straightforward commute; sufficient time to do meaningful, sometimes time consuming
committee work and curriculum development and other areas that spill over into the best possible
experience for our students under the strategic goal: creating the best pathways to shepherd our students
in a socially responsible way into technical and teaching careers , a four year university entry into science,
and the literacy and critical thinking skills to face today’s challenges.
23
Appendix F2: Classified Staffing Request(s) including Student Assistants [Acct. Category 2000]
Audience: Administrators, PRBC
Purpose: Providing explanation and justification for new and replacement positions for full-time and part-time regular (permanent) classified
professional positions (new, augmented and replacement positions). Remember, student assistants are not to replace Classified Professional
staff.
Instructions: Please justify the need for your request. Discuss anticipated improvements in student learning and contribution to the Strategic Plan
goal, safety, mandates, and accreditation issues. Please cite any evidence or data to support your request. If this position is categorically funded,
include and designate the funding source of new categorically-funded position where continuation is contingent upon available funding.
1. Number of positions requested: _____
STAFFING REQUESTS (2000) CLASSIFIED PROFESSIONALS
Position
Part-time Laboratory
Technician to support
Astronomy & Physics labs
Classified Professional Staff (2000)
Description
Program/Unit
physics
Rationale Physics and
Astronomy is still in need
of a Laboratory Technician
to assist with the set-up
and take-down of
astronomy & physics labs,
and with the organization,
upkeep, and repair of lab
stockroom equipment and
supplies. This position
has been requested
consistently in every unit
plan Physics and
Astronomy have submitted
in the past 10 years; see
more in rationale below.
24
PLEASE LIST IN RANK
ORDER
Division/Area
Math-Sci
STAFFING REQUESTS (2000) STUDENT ASSISTANTS
Postion
Part-time Laboratory Technician
to support Astronomy & Physics
labs
Student Assistants (2000)
Description
Program/Unit
This position serves a
support role the above
previous job offering
PLEASE LIST IN RANK
ORDER
Division/Area
2. Rationale for your proposal.
Physics and Astronomy is still in need of a Laboratory Technician to assist with the set-up and take-down of astronomy &
physics labs, and with the organization, upkeep, and repair of lab stockroom equipment and supplies. This position has
been requested consistently in every unit plan Physics and Astronomy have submitted in the past 10 years, and we still
are without help. Our colleagues in Astronomy and Physics at Las Positas have help. Our colleagues in Biology and
Chemistry have help. Why is Chabot’s Astronomy & Physics program the only lab science serving students who are
transferring to four-year schools without help?
It has been acknowledged that the workload for typical physics lab classes is worth the increased lab load factor, which
we have petitioned for and received. While this indicator is a confirmation of the workload (ie. Grading lab reports) it does
not fully appreciate the considerable time required in both set up and tear down of lab experiments, nor does it truly
realize the amount of time devoted to maintenance of lab equipment and repair of said equipment by the teaching faculty.
25
Simply put the learning experience attained in the lab environment is not realized if there are no labs that are available
because the instructor has not the time to fully set them up and prepare a adequate lesson plan to exploit the fullest
measure of educational value within a Physics experiment. Assistance is needed in the form of additional personnel to aid
in this process, which may take several hours. Likewise assistance is needed in maintenance and repair of equipment.
Ultimately the greatest benefactors of this added help are the students who will be able to perform lab experiments that
might not been available because the limited time of his or her instructor.
3. Statements about the alignment with the strategic plan and program review are required. Indicate here any information from advisory
committees or outside accreditation reviews that is pertinent to the proposal.
Simply put --- the learning experience attained in the lab environment is not realized if there are no labs that are available
because the instructor has not the time to fully set them up and prepare a adequate lesson plan to exploit the fullest
measure of educational value within a Physics experiment; we should not have to rob Peter to pay Paul by siphoning
valuable time away from creative collaboration on realizing the STRATEGIC GOAL. Also Labs are key visualization and
learning – under the COMMUNICATION’s college wide learning goal-- key elements in drawing in more students. ,
including the highly unrepresented African American population into the exciting effort to “clarify pathways and provide
more info and support.”
26
Appendix F3: FTEF Requests
Audience: Administrators, CEMC, PRBC
Purpose: To recommend changes in FTEF allocations for subsequent academic year and guide Deans and
CEMC in the allocation of FTEF to disciplines. For more information, see Article 29 (CEMC) of the Faculty
Contract.
Instructions: In the area below, please list your requested changes in course offerings (and
corresponding request in FTEF) and provide your rationale for these changes. Be sure to analyze
enrollment trends and other relevant data
athttp://www.chabotcollege.edu/ProgramReview/Data2013.cfm.
COURSE
CURRENT
FTEF
(2014-15)
ADDITIONAL
FTEF
NEEDED
CURRENT
SECTIONS
ADDITIONAL
SECTIONS
NEEDED
CURRENT
STUDENT #
SERVED
ADDITIONAL
STUDENT #
SERVED
Physics 11See FTEF
stats below
in grey
included in
SUMMER 15
UNIT PLAN
0.315
0.315
(double)
Fall 2014
Summer
2015
25
25
CAH
LOAD
FACTOR
Physics 11 Lec
3.0
1.00
Physics 11 lab
3.0
0.75
COURSE
FINAL
SEC. LOAD
1
1
3.0
2.3
27
FTEF
0.20
0.15
Appendix F4: Academic Learning Support Requests [Acct. Category 2000]
Audience: Administrators, PRBC, Learning Connection
Purpose: Providing explanation and justification for new and replacement student assistants (tutors, learning assistants, lab assistants,
supplemental instruction, etc.).
Instructions: Please justify the need for your request. Discuss anticipated improvements in student learning and contribution to the Strategic Plan
goal. Please cite any evidence or data to support your request. If this position is categorically funded, include and designate the funding source of
new categorically-funded position where continuation is contingent upon available funding.
1. Number of positions requested:
2. If you are requesting more than one position, please rank order the positions.
Position
Description
1. MESA STUDENT TUTOR
MESA MEMBER HELPS RUN INSTRUCTIONAL, COLLABORATIVE
CONFIDENCE BUILDING WORKSHOPS TO SUPPORT STUDENTS;
STUDENT LEADER PASSED THE CLASS WITH GRADE OF “B” OR
ABOVE WITH DEMONSTRATED INTEREST IN GIVING BACK TO THE
COMMUNITY OF STUDENTS BEHIND HER.
2. “
“
3. “
“
4. “
“
3. Rationale for your proposal based on your program review conclusions. Include anticipated impact on student learning outcomes and
alignment with the strategic plan goal. Indicate if this request is for the same, more, or fewer academic learning support positions.
Obviously we want to fill our carefully thought our pathways optimally with a diverse array of students, including highly unrepresented
African Americans who are the focus of another project described above to support them. There is no redundancy here, just an add-on
support service to get the widest swath of our students through the high tech gateway.
28
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 critical requests 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 requests that would be nice to have and would bring additional benefit to the program.
ALL OF THE REQUESTS BELOW WERE MADE IN 2015 AND NONE RECEIVED; THEY ARE ALL PRIORITY #2; WE ARE TRYING AGAIN IN 2015-16
product
vendor # of units (quantity) price/unit total link
sonic-to-labpro-cords Vernier
labpro ac adapters
Vernier
12
5
5
12
Grand Total
60 http://www.vernier.com/products/accessories/mdc-btd/
60 http://www.vernier.com/products/accessories/ips/
29
3542
LABPROS
Vernier
11
Force sensors
Vernier
6
109
temperature sensors Vernier
4
29
116 http://www.vernier.com/products/sensors/temperature-sensors/
magnetic sensors
4
58
232 http://www.vernier.com/products/sensors/mg-bta/
Vernier
220 2420 http://www.vernier.com/products/interfaces/labpro/
654 http://www.vernier.com/products/sensors/force-sensors/
Contracts and Services Requests [Acct. Category 5000]
Instructions:
1. There should be a separate line item for each contract or service.
2. Travel costs should be broken out and then totaled (e.g., airfare, mileage, hotel, etc.)
Priority 1: Are critical requests 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 requests that would be nice to have and would bring additional
benefit to the program.
augmentations only
Description
CONTRACT SERVICES WITH
A MEDIATION
ORGANIZATION OPTIMIZE
COMMUNICATION WITHIN
THE UNIT.
Amount
Vendor
Division/Unit
$500.0/
NONPROFIT
PHYSICS
WORKSHOP EMPHASIZING
TEAM BUILDING
AND EFFECTIVE
COMMUNICATION
30
Priority #1
1
Priority #2
Priority #3
31
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
TRIP TO VERNIER WORKSHOP
ON USING COMPUTERS IN LABS
Amount
$1000.00
Vendor
VERNIER
Priority Priority Priority
Division/Dept
#1
#2
#3
PHYSICS
32
2
Notes
Vernier is an accessible company
with excellent public relations
and customer support; it plays a
huge role in our inventory of
experiments. See above supply
order sheet.
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 critical requests 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 requests that would be
nice to have and would bring additional benefit to the program.
Description
Amount
Vendor
laptops
24
hp
oscilloscopes
6 ADD
ONS
hp
Division/Unit
Priority #1
PHYSICS
PHYSICS
33
Priority #2
x
x
Priority #3
x
34
Appendix F8: Facilities Requests
Audience: Facilities Committee, Administrators
Purpose: To be read and responded to by Facilities Committee.
Background: Following the completion of the 2012 Chabot College Facility Master Plan, the Facilities Committee (FC) has begun the task of reprioritizing Measure B Bond budgets to better align with current needs. The FC has identified approximately $18M in budgets to be used to meet
capital improvement needs on the Chabot College campus. Discussion in the FC includes holding some funds for a year or two to be used as match
if and when the State again funds capital projects, and to fund smaller projects that will directly assist our strategic goal. The FC has determined
that although some of the college's greatest needs involving new facilities cannot be met with this limited amount of funding, there are many
smaller pressing needs that could be addressed. The kinds of projects that can be legally funded with bond dollars include the "repairing,
constructing, acquiring, equipping of classrooms, labs, sites and facilities." Do NOT use this form for equipment or supply requests.
Instructions: Please fill in the following as needed to justify your requests .If requesting more than one facilities project, please rank order your
requests.
Brief Title of Request (Project Name):
Building/Location:
Description of the facility project. Please be as specific as possible.
TRAINING ON USE OF THE PLANETARIUM TO ALL INSTRUCTORS SO THEY CAN USE THE FACILITIES ON THE FLY WITH PROPER
NOTICE --AND PROVIDE STUDENTS WITH AN ALL EMBRACING MULTI MEDIA EXPERIENCE THAT ENCOURAGES RETENTION.
What educational programs or institutional purposes does this equipment support?
THE PHYSICS PROGRAM HAS TRADITIONALLY USED TH E MULTIMEDIA POWER HOUSE IN BUILDING 1900 AS A WAY TO
CONVEY THE EXCITEMENT AND APPLICATION OF PHYSICS AS IT PERTAINS RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION- FILLING THE
PATHWAYS TO THE MAX BY INSPIRING INTEREST IN WIDE SCREEN. ALL PHYSICS INSTRUCTORS NEED TO BE TRAINED AND
UPDATED ON RECENT BOND UPGRADES SO THEY CAN PARTICIPATE.
Briefly describe how your request relates specifically to meeting the Strategic Plan Goal and to enhancing student learning?
Obviously we want to fill our carefully thought our pathways optimally with a diverse array of students, including highly
unrepresented African Americans who are the focus of another project described above to support them. There is no redundancy
here, just an add-on support service to get the widest swath of our students through the high tech gateway IN AN
ENTERTAINING WAY .
35
36
The Chabot Physics unit is a portal to the universe. Physics is fun, elevating and also extremely demanding even at
the conceptual, non-mathematical level. It’s ―labor intensive‖ requiring a delicate balance between creative drill, lab work
and spontaneous critical thinking grounded in logic and visual reasoning. In that challenging framework we offer a wide
spectrum of inter-related courses that enlighten, entertain and also rigorously prepare students for further study in their
chosen field -- in an epoch when physics is key to understanding an increasingly complex world whether or not students
choose to specialize in this or related areas. Understanding the basic physics of nuclear power, climate change or modern
warfare is crucial to making an informed decision when fence sitting is becoming darn near impossible.
Yet despite our central role and wide academic reach we are a ―lower‖ productivity sector limited by campus politics
and laboratory constraints . Physics courses have high fill ratios – getting a boost from the high tech industry renewal in
the bio- engineering areas, energy and environmental preservation areas along with the up and down traditional defenserelated and security routes. But their WSCH/FTEF ratios are usually in the 400's or less given safety and space
considerations. There is strong pressure on us to enlarge class size --- not create new sections, with adjuncts playing a
larger role in operations to cut costs, a burgeoning national trend. When I came there was David Perry, myself and Clare
Chapin ---three FTE. Now, there are two counting Tim Dave, currently the interim Dean, and Scott Hildreth, who are
both 1/2 in Astro. With Dave’s possible exit from the classroom as permanent Dean, the chasm widens and it becomes
time to request at least one FTE to keep the current, degraded status quo intact.
With the unrelenting cascade of budget cuts, the stigma of ―low productivity‖ is
magnified, shrinking our FTEF targets relative to other disciplines scrambling for
crumbs. Over the past decade the physics division has been assigned a declining
FTEF goal beginning:
• Fall 2003 4.42
• Fall 2004 4.32
• Fall 2005 3.87
.
This Trend, which includes Astronomy and Geology, is shown just before the college cancelled GE geological science
courses- now at Los Positas.
As a result of this downward trend, in order to meet these goals we were forced to eliminate popular sections of
Astronomy to sustain a core transfer Physics curriculum. It’s been clear if this trend continues, not only would the
Astronomy curriculum be diminished, so could Physics. Robbing Peter to feed Paul was bringing a net reduction in the
general education enrichment and scientific literacy the study of the stars affords our student population; it was also a
reminder Physics was not immune.
Another consequence of shrinking allocations is cancelled ― shadow sections‖ – with the loss of 5 to 13 students per
course--- that might have absorbed the overload from a closed class. With the attrition, as Tim Dave confirmed with
painstaking research, we were looking at a loss of 50 to 150 students over a 5 year period that raises a debate over adopting
37
an ―instruction‖ or a ―learning‖ paradigm. In the first case, productivity is cost per hour of instruction per student. Price
per unit of learning per student, on the other hand, is more subtle but gets a big boost from smaller class size and more
individualized attention; in principle, a STEM student’s potential for learning -- and teaching physics to peers --- is
boundless under the correct circumstances, a inquiry based true-ism for disciplines generally.
In the last year or so we’ve seen a recent turn around in the downward FTEF allocation philosophically at least with an
extra section of 4C—easing academic pressure within a sequential pathway and Physics 11 in summer—embracing teachers
and health care workers thriving under ObamaCare. We now offer Physics 4C both Spring and Fall for example. While
Fall’s enrollment is relatively low, those students have less pressure during Spring’s big engineering rush and push to get out;
as word gets out low enlistment should become transitory and even out. Still, the ―low output‖ stigma has created tension
with the college which has marginalized physics by not granting another FTE or a lab tech in contrast to chemistry or biology.
We need a more detailed, transparent discussion of budget realities and allocation disbursement models used at the top that
should balance a variety of factors with properly vetted input from below.
But thanks to STEM program innovations like MESA and other targeted outreach, our overall demographics have
improved over the last few years - in terms of expanded enrollment and overall diversity—begging the question of a lab tech
and
more
FTE.
However, the number of African Americans remains low, indicating the need for a more systemic approach linking efforts
like MESA with Daraja, Striving Brothers or the Black Student Union or the Black Student Union addressing the issues of
mass incarceration and persistent inequality as templates to inspire progress.
Such outreach, coupled with additional lab equipment tied to a SLO overhaul, should increase Black enrollment. The
result of strong educational support and early nurturing , the statistics for STEM African non-citizens—from elite schools in
the ―homeland‖ --- are relatively excellent -- demolishing poor expectations and the ―nature vs nurture‖ hoax immediately:
When Black youth thrive in supported schools and communities, they excel to the highest levels in science and mathematics.
38
WHERE WE ARE NOW:
In contrast to Physics, the Astronomy program, with several large planetarium lecture sections and vibrant online scenarios,
continues to generate significant WSCH and general education magic at an extremely high level of productivity measured by
WSCH/FTEF. To compare is to understand Physics courses which, on the other hand, fill well, but their WSCH/FTEF ratios are usually
in the 400's or less – except for our advantageously large lecture, double laboratory courses --- given safety standards and space
constraints on section sizes, though reduced demand is not a factor like it was in the early 2000’s “Y2K” Silicon Valley bubble burst .
Demand over last three years has continued to increase, resulting in new Modern Physics 5 and 4C assignments, double 4B and
4A sections which did not previously exist and recent summer conceptual physics offerings.
Program-wide trends based on available data from Fall 2011 through Fall 2013:
- In every nearly class, academic year enrollment is over 100 % , evidence we are stretching our laboratory capacity to the limit by
over-capping from 24 to 30 in Physics 2AB and 4ABC and 11. Non-lab, lecture course Physics 5 meanwhile was up 17 % from
Spring 13 at 92 % a year later. The only dip was 4C in Fall 13, a transitory effect which should even out with time as the slot becomes
better known within scheduled pathways aimed at reducing the pressure of taking 4C, 5 and critical Engineering courses together
in Spring.
- Success data for the program is about 10 points lower than the campus average -- 69 % for the three years compared to the 79%
college average over the same period of time. This number compare well with chemistry, biology and engineering’s 73 % , 63 %
and 62 % respectively, and is much higher --- not surprisingly -- than Math’ s traditionally low, infamous 50 % pass rate—-- which
could have the effect of choking off the population entering physics or social sciences since too many students can’t seem to get
pass an apparently problematic, institutional barrier; a deeper investigation is needed to explore this. But superficially, one could
conclude chemistry and physics win and mathematics resoundingly fails an instructional effectiveness “contest” subject to a
deeper analysis breaking down specific offerings. For example the pass rate increases in advanced math classes --calculus and
higher --- populated by the relatively narrow tier of STEM students who passed the algebra hurdle and may be viewed subjectively as
“more able” or more “valuable ” to society as the teacher cuts borderline grade performers more slack and attention.
~ Withdrawal rates across the program seem comparable to prior years, but fluctuate quite a bit and conclusions are difficult to
draw. They averaged ~14% for the three years, a bit under the campus average of 15.33 %.
39
- Female enrollment has significantly increased over the last 6 years. But men still make up a higher percentage of the classes than
women, indicating the need for better recruitment via MESA and other groups promoting genuine gender equity in science.
term
female male
f11
0.366667
0.633333
sp12
0.268156
0.731844
f12
0.454545
0.545455
sp13
0.306011
0.693989
f13
0.366492
0.633508
sp14
0.271676
0.728324
- However, Physics 11 – heavily linked to teaching and allied health ---- undergoes a gender inversion:
term
female
male
f11
0.75
f12
0.692308
0.307692
f13
0.782609
0.217391
0.25
40
.
Success by ethnicity indicates significantly lower enrollment rates for African-American compared to Filipinos and Latino
physics students --- the three tiers significantly under whites and Asians topping the list the last three years and longer. Over the last
6 years for example, Filipinos and Latinos have doubled their enrollments whereas no drastic increase occurs for African Americans
at the bottom of the well. I should note anecdotally a higher number of working class Black students seem to enroll in Physics 11, a
challenging conceptual course and gateway to teaching and allied heath under Obamacare .
Again, it would be interesting to compare these rates with those from other science disciplines, especially chemistry and biology
with a greater preponderance of females students from all ethnicities. By gender, men for example are typically less successful in
Astronomy than women, compared with campus averages.
With regard to CLOS, we closed the loop last term—YEAR THREE --- and are now starting the cycle by embarking on an entirely new
paradigm of assessment: self-evaluation. With a new focus on college wide learning goals which seem to have equity in mind, our
SLOS should increase funding for learning aids to help all students including the highly underrepresented. We’ve just completed a
massive SLO overhaul just in time for this report, which is less about past results and more about future new procedures in year one
of our parallel assessment cycle. That entry point coincides with the Program Review’s first year though it’s possible to offset cycles
as long as each is three years long.
41
The Chabot Physics unit is a portal to the universe. Physics is fun, elevating and also extremely demanding even at the
conceptual, non-mathematical level. It’s “labor intensive” requiring a delicate balance between creative drill, lab work and
spontaneous critical thinking grounded in logic and visual reasoning. In that challenging framework we offer a wide spectrum of
inter-related courses that enlighten, entertain and also rigorously prepare students for further study in their chosen field -- in an
epoch when physics is key to understanding an increasingly complex world whether or not students choose to specialize in this or
related areas. Understanding the basic physics of nuclear power, climate change or modern warfare is crucial to making an
informed decision when fence sitting is becoming darn near impossible.
Yet despite our central role and wide academic reach we are a “lower” productivity sector limited by campus politics and
laboratory constraints . Physics courses have high fill ratios – getting a boost from the high tech industry renewal in the bioengineering areas, energy and environmental preservation areas along with the up and down traditional defense-related and
security routes. But their WSCH/FTEF ratios are usually in the 400's or less given safety and space considerations. There is strong
pressure on us to enlarge class size --- not create new sections, with adjuncts playing a larger role in operations to cut costs, a
burgeoning national trend. When I came there was David Perry, myself and Clare Chapin ---three FTE. Now, there are two counting
Tim Dave, currently the interim Dean, and Scott Hildreth, who are both 1/2 in Astro. With Dave’s possible exit from the classroom
as permanent Dean, the chasm widens and it becomes time to request at least one FTE to keep the current, degraded status quo
intact.
With the unrelenting cascade of budget cuts, the stigma of “low productivity” is
magnified, shrinking our FTEF targets relative to other disciplines scrambling for
crumbs. Over the past decade the physics division has been assigned a declining
FTEF goal beginning:
• Fall 2003 4.42
• Fall 2004 4.32
42
• Fall 2005 3.87
.
This Trend, which includes Astronomy and Geology, is shown just before the college cancelled GE geological science courses- now at
Los Positas.
As a result of this downward trend, in order to meet these goals we were forced to eliminate popular sections of Astronomy
to sustain a core transfer Physics curriculum. It’s been clear if this trend continues, not only would the Astronomy curriculum be
diminished, so could Physics. Robbing Peter to feed Paul was bringing a net reduction in the general education enrichment and
scientific literacy the study of the stars affords our student population; it was also a reminder Physics was not immune.
Another consequence of shrinking allocations is cancelled “ shadow sections” – with the loss of 5 to 13 students per course--that might have absorbed the overload from a closed class. With the attrition, as Tim Dave confirmed with painstaking research,
we were looking at a loss of 50 to 150 students over a 5 year period that raises a debate over adopting an “instruction” or a
“learning” paradigm. In the first case, productivity is cost per hour of instruction per student. Price per unit of learning per student,
on the other hand, is more subtle but gets a big boost from smaller class size and more individualized attention; in principle, a
STEM student’s potential for learning -- and teaching physics to peers --- is boundless under the correct circumstances, a inquiry
based true-ism for disciplines generally.
In the last year or so we’ve seen a recent turn around in the downward FTEF allocation philosophically at least with an extra
section of 4C—easing academic pressure within a sequential pathway and Physics 11 in summer—embracing teachers and health
care workers thriving under ObamaCare. We now offer Physics 4C both Spring and Fall for example. While Fall’s enrollment is
relatively low, those students have less pressure during Spring’s big engineering rush and push to get out; as word gets out low
enlistment should become transitory and even out. Still, the “low output” stigma has created tension with the college which has
marginalized physics by not granting another FTE or a lab tech in contrast to chemistry or biology. We need a more detailed,
transparent discussion of budget realities and allocation disbursement models used at the top that should balance a variety of
factors with properly vetted input from below.
But thanks to STEM program innovations like MESA and other targeted outreach, our overall demographics have improved
over the last few years - in terms of expanded enrollment and overall diversity—begging the question of a lab tech and more FTE.
43
However, the number of African Americans remains low, indicating the need for a more systemic approach linking efforts like MESA
with Daraja, Striving Brothers or the Black Student Union or the Black Student Union addressing the issues of mass incarceration
and persistent inequality as templates to inspire progress.
Such outreach, coupled with additional lab equipment tied to a SLO overhaul, should increase Black enrollment. The result of
strong educational support and early nurturing , the statistics for STEM African non-citizens—from elite schools in the “homeland” -- are relatively excellent -- demolishing poor expectations and the “nature vs nurture” hoax immediately: When Black youth thrive
in supported schools and communities, they excel to the highest levels in science and mathematics.
44