Chabot College Academic Services Program Review Report 2016 ‐2017 Year in the Cycle: 3 Program: ANTHROPOLOGY Submitted on 10/30/14 Contact: Mireille Giovanola FINAL 9/24/15 Table of Contents Year 3
Section 1: What Have We Accomplished? Section 2: 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 and Ongoing Initiatives and Projects F1A: New Faculty Requests F1B: Reassign Time Requests F2A: Classified Staffing Requests F2B: Student Assistant Requests F3: FTEF Requests F4: Academic Learning Support Requests F5: Supplies Requests F6: Services/Contracts and Conference/Travel Requests F7: Technology and Other Equipment Requests F8: Facilities
YEAR THREE
Resource Request Spreadsheet Directions: In addition to completing the narrative portion of program review, add all your requests to a single Resource Request Spreadsheet: a. Follow the link to the spreadsheet provided in Appendix F1A, save the spreadsheet where you can continue to access it and add requested resources from each appendix to it as appropriate. Once completed, submit to your Dean/Area Manager with this finalized Program Review Narrative. b. Requests should be made for augmented/ additional resources (more than what you are already receiving). If you have questions about what constitutes an “additional/augmented” request, please talk with your administrator who can tell you what maintenance resources you are already receiving. c. Prioritize your requests using the criteria on the spreadsheet. Your Administrator will compile a master spreadsheet and prioritize for his or her entire area. d. Submit resource requests on time so administrators can include requests in their prioritization and discuss with their area at November division meetings.
A. GOALS SET IN YEAR ONE. PROGRESS MADE. CHALLENGES. LOOKING AHEAD. To avoid tedious redundancy, I have opted to treat “What have we accomplished?” and “What’s Next?” at the same time. Many of the goals for this past three‐year cycle will be the same for the new cycle, especially if they have not yet been met. 1. Inform students about the approved AA degree and the proposed AA‐T degree in Anthropology, and the approved AA degree in Environmental Studies. 1.a. In fall 2015 (preliminary reporting), we had 32 declared Anthropology major (more for the AA‐T than for the AA degree). I realize that Anthropology is not a field that is likely to attract many community‐college students, but I need to make sure that all the Anthropology classes we offer (not just ANTH 1 and 1L) fill, so we can preserve curricular breadth for the sake of our majors. 1.b. Environmental Studies ought to be addressed in a separate program review. 2. Hire a full‐time tenure‐track faculty member in Anthropology. I was hired in fall 2010, and am currently the only full‐time Anthropology faculty. We need another full‐time instructor to replace the faculty member who retired in June 2011 and to advocate for the cultural side of Anthropology. Relevant data are cited in Appendix F1A. 3. Evaluate all Anthropology instructors by the end of spring 2014, and hire new ones as needed. 3.b. All part‐time instructors who were hired prior to spring 2014 were evaluated by the end of spring 2014. Part‐time Anthropology instructors are typically evaluated when they first start teaching, then at least once every three years. The only exception is the instructor who taught ANTH 4 online this summer. Evaluation will be done in summer 2016. 1 3.b. Since spring 2014, we have hired or are hiring three new part‐time instructors, with the expectation that they would or will teach specialty classes such as ANTH 4 (first offered online at Chabot in summer 2015), ANTH 7 (which will be reoffered in spring 2016), and possibly ANTH 8 which has not been offered in a while. 4. Preserve and augment the breadth and number of course offerings. We are slowly starting to offer courses that are part of our curriculum, but were never offered, due to budgetary constraints. ANTH 4 was taught for the first time in summer 2015. Number at census was 33. I am planning to offer this online section every summer, at the very least. One section of ANTH 5, 12, and 13 ought to be offered every semester. ANTH 12 and 13 are in demand and bring in FTES. ANTH 5 is low enrolled, when one would expect it to fill because it satisfies the American Cultures requirement. I am looking closely at the delivery format as well as possible scheduling conflicts with similar class offerings. ANTH 8 was last taught in spring 2012. I would like to offer the class again, possibly as an online section during the summer. 5. Discuss course offerings that satisfy the Life science requirements with discipline leads from Science/Math. In this case, we are constrained by factors outside the discipline. ANTH 1 satisfies the natural science requirement and, together with ANTH 1L, satisfies the lower‐division science requirement for many students. ANTH 1 has a cap of 44, and is routinely overenrolled. This is consciously done in our discipline to support the lower‐enrolled Anthropology classes. 6. Request additional equipment for the Anthropology lab. We request specimens and equipment on an ongoing basis, to 1) keep up with new fossil discoveries, 2) have a more diverse collection of modern primates as new specimens become available, 3) augment our forensic collection, 4) teach field techniques in both ANTH 2 and ANTH 13, and 5) replace damaged specimens or equipment. 7. Secure outdoor space to practice excavation and recovery methods. This will be the third year I request outdoor space for our ANTH 2 and ANTH 13 students. Students in Forensic Anthropology need a space to practice mapping and recovery of (fake) human remains and associated materials. Archeology students would use the space to practice excavation techniques, especially now that the course has become a methods course. 8. Revise course outlines. All course outlines were revised during the last three‐year cycle. Eligibility for English 1A is now strongly recommended for all courses. 9. SLO assessment and discussion. All the courses that were taught in the last three years were assessed, with the exception of ANTH 7. ANTH 7 was due to be assessed in spring 2015, but was cancelled because of low enrollment. The course will be offered again in spring 2016 and assessed then. 2 CLOs, and PLOs for the AA and the AA‐T degrees are addressed in Appendices B2 and C. Also see http://www.chabotcollege.edu/sloac/current/ahss.asp 10. Continued support for the Anthropology Club and Anthropology students. Unfortunately, the Anthropology Club was disbanded, due to lack of strong student leadership. The following are added goals/requests for the next three‐year cycle: 11. Increase support for struggling students. Strategies include the following: - Identify struggling students as early as possible. - Offer individual attention: Contact students by e‐mail; set appointments with individual students, or groups of students. - Encourage students to organize themselves in groups outside of class. - Refer students to appropriate Student Services programs. The above recommendations will be made to individual instructors. - Offer students incentives to work with tutors. We now have several Anthropology tutors for ANTH 1, 1L, and 3. However, our tutors report that they are under‐employed. We need to publicize the fact that tutors are available by asking them to visit our classrooms. We could take ten or fifteen minutes out of class time to visit the Learning Connection center. This year again, I will request Anthropology tutors. What can the College do? The College needs to support the Learning Connection to a much greater degree. Staff is minimal. At the very least, there ought to be a Learning Connection director. 12. Request a good Wi‐Fi system in 500. B. ENROLLMENT DATA All numbers below are taken from or derived from the IR data posted on the Chabot website, and CLASS‐Web. 1. OVERALL ENROLLMENT TRENDS Total number Number Anth 1 Others (ANTH 1L, 2, 3, 5, 7, 12, 13) of students of sections sections Fall 2012 667 16 7 9 (ANTH 1L and 3 = 3 sections each; ANTH 5, 12, 13 = 1 section each) Spring 2013 656 15 8 7 (ANTH 1L and 3 = 3 sections; ANTH 2 = 1 section. ANTH 5 and 7 were cancelled 3 Fall 2013 739 18 8 10 (ANTH 1L= 4 sections; ANTH 3 = 3 sections; ANTH 5, 12, 13 = 1 section each) Spring 2014 670 17 8 9 (ANTH 1L and 3 = 3 sections each; ANTH 2, 5, 7, 12 = 1 section each) Fall 2014 674 17 8 9 (ANTH 1L = 4 sections; ANTH 3 = 3 section; ANTH 12 and 13 = 1 section each) Spring 2015 644 18 9 9 (ANTH 1L = 4 sections; ANTH 3 = 3 sections; ANTH 2, 5 = 1 section each. ANTH 7 was cancelled) Note: 1 section of Anth 1 is offered in PACE. This section is included here simply because the total number of students also includes students in the PACE class. Classes offered off‐campus are not factored in. 1. Generally speaking, enrollment is higher in fall semesters because a) We offer more sections in fall (15‐17) compared to spring (14‐16). b) In fall, we offer classes that end up being higher enrolled. ANTH 2 (Archeology) and 7 (Intro to Globalization), which are offered in spring, tend not to fill as well as other courses. c) ANTH 5 and 7 were cancelled in spring 2013. An ANTH 1 section was added. 2. Anthropology 1 and 1L satisfy the Life science requirement and have been identified as bottleneck courses. In Anthropology, we have agreed to over‐enroll students in Anthropology 1 and 1L to support lower‐enrolled courses and preserve breadth of curriculum. This strategy resulted in 98% enrollment and 624.38 WSCH/FTEF overall, between fall 2012 and spring 2015. 3. Additional enrollment data are included in Appendix F1A. 2. SUCCESS AND PERSISTENCE RATES 2.1. Overall success and persistence rates in Anthropology, compared with Chabot Total # (# sections*) Success (vs. Chabot) Persistence (vs. Chabot) Fall 2012 667 (16 sections) 73% (69%) 84% (84%) Spring 2013 656 (15 sections) 64% (68%) 82% (85%) Fall 2013 739 (18 sections) 68% (69%) 82% (84%) Spring 2014 670 (17 sections) 70% (69%) 87% (86%) Fall 2014 674 (17 sections) 69% (67%) 82% (83%) Spring 2015 644 (18 sections) 69% (69%) 84% (84%) Our success and persistence rates are generally consistent with overall Chabot rates. 4 2.2. Success and persistence rates by sex in Anthropology, compared with Chabot Total # Success (vs. Chabot) Persistence (vs. Chabot) Fall 2012 363 Females 74% (69%) 84% (83%) 300 Males 71% (69%) 85% (85%) Spring 2013 324 Females 69% (69%) 85% (84%) 328 Males 59% (68%) 78% (85%) Fall 2013 405 Females 68% (69%) 81% (84%) 331 Males 67% (69%) 83% (84%) Spring 2014 338 Females 70% (69%) 87% (86%) 316 Males 70% (69%) 88% (86%) Fall 2014 358 Females 68% (68%) 81% (83%) 310 Males 68% (67%) 82% (83%) Spring 2015 340 Females 72% (69%) 85% (84%) 310 Males 67% (69%) 84% (84%) Note: A detailed comparison of success and persistence rates by sex, from fall 2009 to spring 2012, was provided in the Program Review submitted in March of 2013. I am providing here information from fall 2012 through spring 2015 based on data supplied by our IR department. 1. Overall, we have more female than male students in Anthropology courses during the fall 2012‐spring 2015 period. This is also true if we look at enrollment for each semester, except for spring 2013. 2. Overall, females have higher success rates than males in Anthropology courses. This is also true if we look at individual semesters, with the exception of spring 2014 where males and females were equally successful. Anthropology success rates for females are generally comparable with, or higher than Chabot success rates. Anthropology success rates for males are generally comparable with Chabot success rates, except in spring 2012 when they were significantly lower. 3. Overall, males and females have comparable persistence rates in Anthropology courses, except in spring 2013, where females had higher persistence rates. Anthropology persistence rates for females are comparable to Chabot persistence rates. Anthropology persistence rates for males are comparable to Chabot persistence rates, with the exception of fall spring 2013, when they were lower. 2.3. Success and persistence rates by ethnicity in Anthropology, compared with Chabot. A detailed comparison of success and persistence rates by ethnicity, from fall 2009 to spring 2012, was provided in the Program Review submitted in March of 2013. Between fall 2012 and spring 2015, the highest number of students in Anthropology courses are Latinos (who far outnumber the other groups), followed by Whites and Asian or Asian Americans, and African Americans. Latinos are always the most numerous, and African Americans the least numerous among the four groups. Whites and Asian/Asian Americans have 5 very similar counts. Filipinos and Multiracial people are next. Relatively few Pacific Islanders and very few Native Americans take our courses. 2.3. Success and persistence rates by ethnicity in Anthropology, compared with Chabot Total # Success (vs. Chabot) Persistence (vs. Chabot) Fall 2012 African American: 77 57% (57%) 78% (78%) Native American: 2 100% (71%) 100% (86%) Asian American: 108 79% (77%) 88% (88%) Filipino: 59 80% (72%) 90% (86%) Latino: 226 73% (66%) 84% (83%) Pacific Islander: 15 80% (70%) 87% (86%) Multiracial: 54 67% (66%) 85% (80%) White: 109 72% (76%) 82% (86%) Spring 2013 African American: 76 61% (55%) 82% (79%) American Indian: 0 N/A (68%) N/A (84%) Asian American: 116 66% (77%) 81% (88%) Filipino: 74 70% (72%) 82% (86%) Latino: 209 57% (66%) 77% (85%) Pacific Islander: 16 69% (63%) 87% (84%) Multiracial: 50 64% (64%) 84% (83%) White: 104 74% (77%) 87% (88%) Fall 2013 African American: 89 58% (57%) 78% (78%) Native American: 2 0% (66%) 50% (82%) Asian American: 130 78% (76%) 87% (87%) Filipino: 65 66% (72%) 80% (85%) Latino: 250 68% (66%) 82% (83%) Pacific Islander: 23 61% (63%) 87% (83%) Multiracial: 41 71% (66%) 83% (83%) White: 127 64% (76%) 81% (87%) Spring 2014 Fall 2014 African American: 92 Native American: 0 Asian American: 100 Filipino: 64 Latino: 247 Pacific Islander: 17 Multiracial: 45 White: 106 African American: 83 Native American: 1 Asian American: 130 Filipino: 62 Latino: 241 Pacific Islander: 11 Multiracial: 34 White: 96 53% (58%) N/A (66%) 80% (78%) 73% (73%) 68% (66%) 76% (67%) 73% (67%) 76% (76%) 61% (58%) 100% (66%) 80% (78%) 68% (73%) 66% (66%) 64% (67%) 76% (67%) 65% (76%) 6 78% (81%) N/A (82%) 81% (89%) 81% (86%) 94% (85%) 85% (85%) 87% (83%) 93% (88%) 78% (81%) 100% (82%) 86% (89%) 77% (86%) 82% (85%) 91% (85%) 93% (83%) 79% (88%) Spring 2015 African American: 70 Native American: 4 Asian American: 108 Filipino: 55 Latino: 268 Pacific Islander: 13 Multiracial: 54 White: 96 60% (58%) 25% (66%) 78% (78%) 75% (73%) 67% (66%) 54% (67%) 61% (67%) 80% (76%) 81% (81%) 75% (82%) 87% (89%) 85% (86%) 84% (85%) 62% (85%) 85% (83%) 90% (88%) Success rates and persistence rates in Anthropology vary by ethnic group and by semester, and with respect to Chabot with no obvious pattern. Success and persistence rates for Latinos vary widely from semester to semester. Success and persistence rates for Whites tend to be lower than the success and persistence rates for Chabot (except for spring 2014). Success and persistence rates for Asian/Asian Americans tend to be comparable to or lower than Chabot success and persistence rates. Of the four largest groups, African Americans have the lowest success rates overall, though their success and persistence rates are comparable or higher than the Chabot success rates, except for spring 2014 and spring 2015 when they were a little higher. Success and persistence rates for Filipinos also vary from semester to semester. Rates for Pacific Islanders and Native Americans vary tremendously because of low enrollment numbers. It is not good enough to simply remark on persistence and success rates, and note that these rates are similar (or not) to Chabot rates. We must provide greater support to students who are struggling to remain in a class, and to help them be successful. For several semesters, I participated in a FIG (Faculty Inquiry Group) which focused on persistence. Students themselves told us what helped persist in a class. High on their list was space to work with other students, better access to library space and resources, peer tutoring, and individual attention. I am gratified to see that the library is now opened on Saturday morning. We have great Student Services programs that are in place, and we have academic support available for students. We must refer students to these programs, possibly offer incentives to encourage their participation in these programs, and provide individual attention to at‐risk students. 2.4. Chabot Anthropology Persistence and Success Rates vs. State Rates According to spring 2013 data from the State Chancellor’s Office, Anthropology retention rates were 87.69% statewide (vs. 82% at Chabot), while success rates were 69.01% (vs. 64% at Chabot). I did not find more recent data. 3. DISTANCE EDUCATION VS. FACE‐TO‐FACE COURSES Success rates in distance education vs. face‐to‐face courses vary by courses. Until summer 2015, we offered one hybrid course in Anthropology every semester. The course had better success rates than face‐to‐face classes in spring 2013, 2014, and 2015, but not in spring 2012 and fall 2013 (so earlier on). It was not offered in fall 2012. Because this class is taught by the 7 same instructor, the differences could be attributed to changes in format and content delivery, and to fluctuations in overall student performance. This past summer, we introduced an online section of ANTH 1 and ANTH 4; this spring, we will have an online section of ANTH 3. Online courses are generally more easily accessible to students and, in our case, probably get higher enrollment than if they were offered on campus. 8 Appendix A: Budget History and Impact
Audience: Budget Committee, PRBC, and Administrators Purpose: This analysis describes your history of budget requests from the previous two years and the impacts of funds received and needs that were not met. This history of documented need can both support your narrative in Section A and provide additional information for Budget Committee recommendations. Instructions: Please provide the requested information, and fully explain the impact of the budget decisions. Category Classified Staffing (# of positions) Supplies & Services Technology/Equipment Other TOTAL 2014‐15 Budget Requested 0 0 $16,500 Chromebooks & carts (joint request with other Social Sciences disciplines $16,500 2014‐15 Budget Received 0 0 Received 2015‐16 2015‐16 Budget Budget Requested Received 0 0 $3,580 $2,180 $10,200 $9,755 $16,500 $13,780 $11,935 1. How has your investment of the budget monies you did receive improved student learning? When you requested the funding, you provided a rationale. In this section, assess if the anticipated positive impacts you projected have, in fact, been realized. 1. Requests for 2014‐2015. Several Social Sciences faculty ordered Chromebooks for classroom use. Unfortunately, I have not been able to use them because the Wi‐Fi system in 500 is inadequate. The Wi‐Fi system in 500 must be updated. 2. Request for 2015‐2016. a) Specimens for ANTH 1, 1L and 13. We have been requesting specimens with the intent to increase student access to hands‐on learning, to encourage collaborative work and group discussion, and to facilitate the development of students’ analytical and critical thinking skills. Anthropology 1L and 13 could not be offered without those specimens. Persistence (95%) and success (85%) rates in ANTH 1L are much higher than either the overall Chabot or the overall Anthropology (identical for Persistence 84% and success 69%). b) Additional measuring instruments for ANTH 1L and 13. Damaged instruments needed to be replaced. Additionally, students now each have access to 9 their own measuring instruments. c) Equipment for fieldwork in ANTH 2 and ANTH 13. The equipment is meant to be used in the recovery and mapping of (fake) human remains and associated materials (ANTH 13), and to provide hands‐on excavation experience in ANTH 2. We have been using the equipment, but have not been able to put it to good use because my request for a place to do fieldwork has not been met. I am grateful to the College who has very generously allowed us to purchase specimens and equipment for our classes. 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? I requested, but did not receive Atlases for ANTH 1L. This means that students either have to purchase the Atlas, or have to share the copies we make available to them in the lab. I do not think it impacts persistence or success, but I would prefer students not to have to purchase a book that they will not use in the future and that is not easily sold back. 10 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. ANTH 1 This Year’s Program Review *CTL forms must be included with this PR. Last Year’s Program Review X 2‐Years Prior *Note: These courses must be assessed in the next PR year. ANTH 1L X X ANTH 2 ANTH 3 X ANTH 4 X ANTH 5 X ANTH 7 ANTH 12 ANTH 13 X CtL submitted in S13 X 11 Appendix B: “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 ANTHROPOLOGY 1 Fall 2014 8 4 50% Spring 2015 4: Mireille Giovanola, Steve Gravely, Nancy Casqueiro, Lakhbir Singh 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: Explain the difference between and significance of scientific and nonscientific methodology. Apply the concepts to everyday life. (CLO) 2: Integrate knowledge of genetics and evolutionary processes to analyze diversity in modern human populations. (CLO) 3: Interpret human anatomy and behavior in the context of non‐human primate anatomy and behavior. (CLO) 4: Comparatively evaluate the paleo‐anthropological evidence for hominin/d evolution 12 Defined Target Scores* (CLO Goal) 80% of the students will score 2 or better. 75% of the students will score 2 or better. 75% of the students will score 2 or better. 75% of the students will score 2 or better. Actual Scores** (eLumen data) 91.03% of the students scored 2 or better. 65.52% scored 2 or better. 77.24% scored 2 or better. 38.62% scored 2 or better. 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? Target: 80%. Current: 91% scoring 2 or better. B.
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? All of us emphasize the scientific methodology in class, and give examples of how it is applied to everyday life, even if it done unconsciously. Most students seem to have a good grasp of the difference between science and non‐science. COURSE‐LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 2: 1. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course level outcome? Target: 75%. Current: 66% scoring 2 or better. 2. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have? Students traditionally have difficulty with Mendelian genetics and the effect of genes on the phenotype. Many of them also have difficulty understanding how diversity comes about. A few also have trouble with the idea of evolution. 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? Target: 75%. Actual: 77% scoring 2 or better. 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? We think that this may be due to two different factors: methodology and theory. 1) Some students have trouble using a comparative approach. 2) Many students have their own apprehensions about studying non‐human primates to understand humans, especially with respect to behavior. 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? Target: 75%. Actual: 39% scoring 2 or better. 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? 13 The results were very disappointing. The section on human evolution comes at the end of the course, when we might anticipate that students have enough tools to evaluate the fossil evidence in order to understand human evolution. In the lecture course (but not the lab course), many students have trouble using a comparative approach to the study of human fossils in order to study human evolution. Some are resistant to the idea that humans evolve at all, but others simply have little experience comparing fossils. Also, it may very well be that the assessment method that we used in this case (multiple choices) was simply not effective. An essay question may better allow our students to tell us what they know. 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? The following changes were made: 1) Two of us changed texts: we chose texts that we felt were more approachable than the ones we had been using. 2) Some of us quiz students about each chapter on a regular basis. This strategy was discussed as a way to coax students to read – which is something many do not bother to do. This was already discussed during the previous assessment cycle. 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? 1) Students are more engaged when they participate in a discussion, as might be expected. So we need to encourage student participation by increasing the frequency of small‐group discussions. 2) Students love handling casts of modern primates and fossil humans in the lecture class. Exposing students to casts a) stimulates students’ critical thinking skills, encourages them to use a comparative approach, and helps visual learners to understand the information better. So we should all use a hands‐on, comparative approach in our lecture course. We could also encourage students to take the lab course as they take the lecture course because the two complement each other. 3) We should review our assessment methods, in order to give our students more freedom to tell us what they know. 3.
What is the nature of the planned actions (please check all that apply)? X Curricular X Pedagogical X Resource based  Change to CLO or rubric X Change to assessment methods  Other:_________________________________________________________________ 14 Appendix B: “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 ANTHROPOLOGY 3 Fall 2014 3 2 66.67% Spring 2015 2: Steve Gravely and Mireille Giovanola Form Instructions: • Complete a separate Appendix B2 form for each Course‐Level assessment reported in this Program Review. These courses should be listed in Appendix B1: Student Learning Outcomes Assessment Reporting Schedule. • Part I: CLO Data Reporting. For each CLO, obtain Class Achievement data in aggregate for all sections assessed in eLumen. • Part II: CLO Reflections. Based on student success reported in Part I, reflect on the individual CLO. • Part III: Course Reflection. In reviewing all the CLOs and your findings, reflect on the course as a whole. PART I: COURSE‐LEVEL OUTCOMES – DATA RESULTS CONSIDER THE COURSE‐LEVEL OUTCOMES INDIVIDUALLY (THE NUMBER OF CLOS WILL DIFFER BY COURSE ) Defined Target Actual Scores** Scores* (eLumen data) (CLO Goal) 85% of the 92.5% of the (CLO) 1: students will students scored 2 Describe and apply anthropological principles and score 2 or or better. methodologies to the study of human culture/s. better. 85% of the 90% scored 2 or (CLO) 2: better. Explain the importance of the ethnographic method to the students will score 2 or study of culture. better. 80% of the 76% scored 2 or (CLO) 3: better. Analyze various social constructions of identity and evaluate students will score 2 or the societal impact of these constructs. better. 85% of the 66% scored 2 or (CLO) 4: students will better. Appreciate and be sensitive to cross‐cultural differences score 2 or with the aim of developing a perspective of cultural better. relativism and an ability to recognize ethnocentrism.  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? 15 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? Target: 85%. Actual: 92.5% scoring 2 or better. B.
2. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have? Students obviously did well. Students at Chabot may well have a natural appetite for cross‐
cultural comparisons because of our ethnically diverse population. They hear about other cultures and cultural practices from their peers. COURSE‐LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 2: 1. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course level outcome? Target: 85%. Actual: 90% scoring 2 or better. 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? We have a diverse group of students in the classroom who enjoy learning from other students about their cultural background. To some degree, they already live with ethnographic awareness. They see how things can be done differently. 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? Target: 80%. Actual: 76% scoring 2 or better. 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 concept that is hard to master. Students seem to have a hard time understanding “identity formation”. 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? Target: 85%. Actual: 66% scoring 2 or better. 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? Many students have trouble understanding “shades of grey”, i.e. that things are often not all right, or all wrong, particularly when we talk about culture and cultural practices. This may partially be due to their young age and inexperience, their belief that they are supposed to have a clear‐cut answer to a question, and their reluctance to offer open‐
ended explanations. 16 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? An instructor who no longer teaches at Chabot led the discussion in the previous assessment cycle. Part‐time participation was limited, due to external circumstances. 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? We feel that the CLOs adequately address all aspects of the course. The following issues must be addressed: 1) Because students have trouble with “identity formation”, we must more explicitly refer to the process of identify formation with more specific examples and with small‐group work. 2) Additional small‐group discussion and more essay questions would give students the opportunity to express their opinions. On the other hand, students must do the assigned reading! Adding chapter questions might encourage them to do just that. 3. What is the nature of the planned actions (please check all that apply)?  Curricular X Pedagogical  Resource based  Change to CLO or rubric X Change to assessment methods  Other: _________________________________________________________________ 17 Appendix B: “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 ANTH 4 SUMMER 2015 1 1 100% Fall 2015 2: Theresa Murray and Mireille Giovanola Form Instructions: • Complete a separate Appendix B2 form for each Course‐Level assessment reported in this Program Review. These courses should be listed in Appendix B1: Student Learning Outcomes Assessment Reporting Schedule. • Part I: CLO Data Reporting. For each CLO, obtain Class Achievement data in aggregate for all sections assessed in eLumen. • Part II: CLO Reflections. Based on student success reported in Part I, reflect on the individual CLO. • Part III: Course Reflection. In reviewing all the CLOs and your findings, reflect on the course as a whole. PART I: COURSE‐LEVEL OUTCOMES – DATA RESULTS CONSIDER THE COURSE‐LEVEL OUTCOMES INDIVIDUALLY (THE NUMBER OF CLOS WILL DIFFER BY COURSE ) Defined Target Scores* (CLO Goal) (CLO) 1: 85% score 2 or higher Explain the anthropological approach to language and communication. (CLO) 2: Identify the structural properties of language (CLO) 3: Describe the biological basis for human language (CLO) 4: 80% score 2 or higher 75% score 2 or higher Actual Scores** (eLumen data) 89% 86% 81% Describe how the relationship between language and culture has social consequences 80% score 2 or higher 83% (CLO) 5: Describe how language and culture are interrelated 80% score 2 or higher 74% (CLO) 6 Describe both the biological and the cultural means children acquire language 75% score 2 or higher 76%  If more CLOs are listed for the course, add another row to the table. 18 PART II: COURSE‐ LEVEL OUTCOME REFLECTIONS C. COURSE‐LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 1: 1. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course level outcome? Target: 85% scoring 2 or better. Current: 89% scoring 2 or better 2. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have? Students exceeded my expectations. I was anticipating this subject might get lost in all the vocabulary they would be acquiring over a very short summer class (8 weeks total). So I was not sure if the 85% expectation would be met. But I think two factors allowed students to excel at this CLO. First, they acquired core concepts at the beginning of the term when they were the least fatigued by the accelerated nature of the summer course and they were tested on these core vocabularies at the midterm rather than on the final. Second, they were evaluated at the end of the term by completing a research project which employed the anthropological methods of data collection used by linguistic anthropologists. Students were motivated to complete this project and to do well since it represented 10% of their overall score in the class. So 89% of the students completed (and passed) the research project. D. COURSE‐LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 2: 1. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course level outcome? Target: 80% scoring 2 or better. Current: 86% scoring 2 or better 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? While students exceeded my expectations. I learned their knowledge decreased as the term progressed. They were evaluated on these topics at the midterm where 93% scored 2 or higher (which was closer in time to the students’ were introduced to these concepts). At the final students scored 82% on the same question. Likewise, a separate targeted question on the final scored 71% even though students had an exam review sheet that suggested they review grammar and its components. It is worth noting that the time constraints that an accelerated summer course probably places on students produces time challenges they must struggle meeting. I believe that juggling their other obligations and final exam study was probably too steep a learning curve in regard to material that was presented before the midterm (and retested). The students did very well considering these challenges. C. COURSE‐LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 3: 3. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course level outcome? 19 Target: 75% scoring 2 or higher. Current: 81% scoring 2 or higher. 4. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have? I believe I underestimated the student’s ability with this learning outcome. It could be raised, at least for a regular semester time span. Because this learning outcome included students’ introduction to universal grammar, I expected student acquisition of that topic to be difficult. For the accelerated summer course, I do not feel I could do more with this topic to help students grasp universal grammar. I also feel this concept is not necessarily one to be mastered in an introductory course. That students scored 75% on topics about the language centers in the human brain was a surprise, and it shows me I should reinforce those topics more thoroughly in another term. 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? Target: 80% scoring 2 or higher. Current: 83% scoring 2 or higher 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? I expected this to be one learning outcome the students would excel. However, I found it difficult to implement class discussion on the social consequences of language and dialects because I had organized the course to present these topics at the very end of the eight‐week term. There was no time to let these topics sink in, and no time to really discuss them. Likewise, many of the students had little time to incorporate these concepts into their research project. So I plan to move the inter‐relationship between language and culture, along with this learning outcome, to the middle of the course next time I teach linguistic anthropology. E. COURSE‐LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 5: ADD IF NEEDED. 1. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course level outcome? Target: 80% scoring 2 or higher. Current: 74% scoring 2 or higher 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? CLO 4 and CLO5 are similar ideas but I wanted to evaluate them separately to tease out if students grasped cultural consequences of language, or if they grasped better the mechanisms that connect language to culture and how these mechanisms are studied. Evaluating these separately allowed me to define that the mechanisms of researching the interconnection between language and culture was the more difficult task for students. As I noted in the previous reflection, I plan to restructure the order of material 20 offered so that students have more time to master both research methods used to study the connection between language and culture and the theory behind them. And I will need to add thoughtful discussion to this section of the course to help student acquire a deeper understanding of the concepts I am asking them to master. F. COURSE‐LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 6: ADD IF NEEDED. 1. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course level outcome? Target: 75% scoring 2 or higher. Current: 76% scoring 2 or higher 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? CLO 6 and CLO 3 are connected learning outcomes because I introduced universal grammar into the learning outcome for both biology and for early acquisition of language. My expectations were low that students would grasp universal grammar in either capacity, especially in an online course. But they surprised me with 84% scoring 2 or above. What was more difficult for students, at least in the accelerated format, was modes of early language learning by children. Students struggled more than I expected with the models that children are neither imitating others (solely), and also they are not using analogy (always) when they do form grammatical sentences. Students scored 75% (2 or above) and 57% (2 or above) on these two topics respectively, which showed me that I will need to fine‐tune how to get them thinking about both topics. PART III: COURSE REFLECTIONS AND FUTURE PLANS 4. What changes were made to your course based on the previous assessment cycle, the prior Closing the Loop reflections and other faculty discussions? ANTH 4 was offered at Chabot for the first time in summer 2015 5. Based on the current assessment and reflections, what course‐level and programmatic strengths have the assessment reflections revealed? What actions has your discipline determined might be taken as a result of your reflections, discussions, and insights? 1. Students struggled with material introduced in the last week of the eight‐week course. This material covered the relationship between language and culture, and the social consequences of that relationship. I felt this was a deficit to the summer course because an anthropology of language course should include an analysis of the impact language can have (or does have) upon one’s own social universe. That students can learn to identify the consequences of how language influences culture is a positive tool they can use to shape and mold their social space, even their society, into one that promotes equality rather than unintentionally perpetuating injustice. Moving these last modules into early weeks will allow students to internalize the material more fully and consider for themselves how they 21 would use that information. The sections I’d move to the end of the class involve more rote learning (i.e., memorization) and since students studying at an accelerated are probably doing more memorization than critical thinking by the end of the class, I think giving them technical material, such as the structural components of language, would improve their own experience of learning anthropology of language overall. 2. Devise more extensive discussion that reinforces two concepts in early childhood language learning: use (or non‐use) of imitation and analogy. 3. Devise a short assignment that will reinforce the language brain centers to help students master these concepts. 6. What is the nature of the planned actions (please check all that apply)?  Curricular Pedagogical  Resource based Change to CLO or rubric  Change to assessment methods  Other:_________________________________________________________________ 22 Appendix B: “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 ANTHROPOLOGY 5 Spring 2015 1 1 100% Spring 2015 2: Ameena Saeed and Mireille Giovanola Form Instructions: • Complete a separate Appendix B2 form for each Course‐Level assessment reported in this Program Review. These courses should be listed in Appendix B1: Student Learning Outcomes Assessment Reporting Schedule. • Part I: CLO Data Reporting. For each CLO, obtain Class Achievement data in aggregate for all sections assessed in eLumen. • Part II: CLO Reflections. Based on student success reported in Part I, reflect on the individual CLO. • Part III: Course Reflection. In reviewing all the CLOs and your findings, reflect on the course as a whole. PART I: COURSE‐LEVEL OUTCOMES – DATA RESULTS CONSIDER THE COURSE‐LEVEL OUTCOMES INDIVIDUALLY (THE NUMBER OF CLOS WILL DIFFER BY COURSE ) Defined Target Actual Scores** Scores* (eLumen data) (CLO Goal) 80% of the 93% of the (CLO) 1: students will students scored 2 Demonstrate knowledge of the role racial and cultural score 2 or or better. minorities play in the structuring of American society. better. 80% of the 90% scored 2 or (CLO) 2: students will better. Demonstrate knowledge of the social, political, and score 2 or economic forces of race and ethnicity in developing a better. stratified society. 80% of the 93% scored 2 or (CLO) 3: better. Demonstrate knowledge of the importance of historical and students will score 2 or empirical perspectives in developing an objective analysis of the better. American society. 80% of the 85% scored 2 or (CLO) 4: better. Evaluate the concept and importance of cultural relativism students will score 2 or in the understanding of cultural diversity. better.  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) 23 PART II: COURSE‐ LEVEL OUTCOME REFLECTIONS A. COURSE‐LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 1: 1. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course level outcome? Target: 80%. Actual: 93% scoring 2 or better. B.
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? Most of the students in the class are minority students. They are interested in the subject matter, and relate to it on a personal basis. They understand the topic, bring personal anecdotes and experiences to the classroom, and contribute to the classroom discussion. I set aside a time for discussing the latest news, and relate them to the course matter. COURSE‐LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 2: 1. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course level outcome? Target: 80%. Actual: 90% scoring 2 or better. 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? I use a lot of videos and visuals to bring to life the topic of stratification and racial and ethnic minorities, then ask students pointed questions. I encourage students to talk about their personal experiences. Students have the opportunity to work on an assignment related to the topic of stratification, and make a class presentation for extra credit. 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? Target: 80%. Actual: 93% scoring 2 or better. 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? I use videos and movie clips to illustrate historical events that have created today’s minorities. For example, I show clips of Roots to show how African Americans came to this country, and to show the differences between them and today’s African immigrants. 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? Target: 80%. Actual: 85% scoring 2 or better. 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? Each student is asked to talk about a ritual or practice from their own culture that may seem out of place in mainstream American society. We debate who is likely to look at the practice from an ethnocentric viewpoint. I then ask the students which American 24 mainstream practices would be considered odd in their own culture, and why. Finally, we realize that we are all ethnocentric and that we need to practice cultural relativism across the board. 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? My participation in the prior Closing‐the‐Loop reflections was limited, as I am a part‐time instructor. 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? I use a combination of several teaching modalities: lecture, discussion, video clips and, once in a while, we have a guest speaker. Because I show ethnographic clips in class, I would like to build a video library. Wall maps would complement the lectures and discussions as well. A field trip to a Native American reservation and/or a juvenile detention center and/or women’s prison would enhance the students’ classroom experience. 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 25 Appendix B: “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 ANTHROPOLOGY 12 Fall 2014 1 1 100% Spring 2015 2: Christina Milner‐Rose and Mireille Giovanola Form Instructions: • Complete a separate Appendix B2 form for each Course‐Level assessment reported in this Program Review. These courses should be listed in Appendix B1: Student Learning Outcomes Assessment Reporting Schedule. • Part I: CLO Data Reporting. For each CLO, obtain Class Achievement data in aggregate for all sections assessed in eLumen. • Part II: CLO Reflections. Based on student success reported in Part I, reflect on the individual CLO. • Part III: Course Reflection. In reviewing all the CLOs and your findings, reflect on the course as a whole. PART I: COURSE‐LEVEL OUTCOMES – DATA RESULTS CONSIDER THE COURSE‐LEVEL OUTCOMES INDIVIDUALLY (THE NUMBER OF CLOS WILL DIFFER BY COURSE ) Defined Target Actual Scores** Scores* (eLumen data) (CLO Goal) 80% of the 66.67% of the (CLO) 1: students will students scored 3 Distinguish between scientific, magical, and religious score 3 or or better. thinking. better. 80% of the 85.19% of the (CLO) 2: students will students scored 3 Apply anthropological principles in everyday life as they or better. relate to community, family, self, and professional careers, score 3 or better. Including the medical and faith fields. 80% of the 85.19% of the (CLO) 3: students scored 3 Appraise and be sensitive to cross‐cultural differences with students will score 3 or or better. the aim of developing a perspective of cultural relativism better. and an ability to recognize and avoid ethnocentrism. 75% of the 66.67% of the (CLO) 4: students scored 3 Critically compare and contrast religious and healing beliefs students will score 3 or or better. and behaviors, both past and present. better.  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) 26 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? Target: 80%. Actual: 66.67% scoring 3 or better. 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? We must spend more time distinguishing between magic and religion. Because magic is often part of religion, it is hard for students to be critical of their own practices. 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? Target: 80%. Actual: 85.19% scoring 3 or better. 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? It is gratifying to see that students can apply what they learn in class to their lives. 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? Target: 80%. Actual: 85.19% scoring 3 or better. 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 tells me that we are a very diverse student body, and that it is politically correct for students to self‐censor their biases. 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? Target: 75%. Actual: 66.67% scoring 3 or better. 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? Critical analysis, classification of types, cross‐cultural comparison is on the highest level in the academic field of anthropology of religion. I may need to add more assignments that focus closely on this skill to practice. 27 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? As a part‐time instructor, I did not participate in the prior Closing‐the‐Loop reflections. 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? Generally speaking, students are tolerant of religious and healing practices they are not familiar with. As stated earlier, we need to work on the difference between religion and magic, and help students develop critical thinking skills as they relate to religious and healing beliefs. 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:_________________________________________________________________ 28 Appendix C: Program Learning Outcomes Considering your feedback, findings, and/or information that have arisen from the course level discussions, please reflect on each of your Program Level Outcomes. Programs: Anthropology AA and Anthropology AA‐T • PLO #1: Analyze human biological and cultural adaptations. In this context, evaluate the different factors that have affected, and are affecting humans biologically and culturally. •
PLO #2: Analyze the factors that cause modern human biological and cultural diversity, and demonstrate an appreciation for, and sensitivity to biological and cultural diversity. What questions or investigations arose as a result of these reflections or discussions? Both PLOs are addressed by various CLOs, in all our Anthropology courses. PLO #1 is addressed by: ANTH 1 CLO #2. Target: 75% will score 2 or better. Actual: 65.5%. ANTH 3 CLO #3. Target: 80% will score 2 or better. Actual: 76%. CLO #4. Target: 85% will score 2 or better. Actual: 66%. ANTH 4 CLO #2. Target: 80% will score 2 or better. Actual: 89% CLO #3. Target: 75% will score 2 or better. Actual: 81% ANTH 5 CLO #1. Target: 80% will score 2 or better. Actual: 93%. CLO #2. Target: 80% will score 2 or better. Actual: 90%. CLO #4. Target: 80% will score 2 or better. Actual: 85%. ANTH 12 CLO #3. Target: 80% will score 3 or better. Actual: 85%. By the end of a course, many students are able to evaluate the concept of adaptation and the factors that cause diversity. Many have more trouble understanding how these differences come/came about, especially in ANTH 1 and 3. So in those courses, we need to spend more time talking about process. It is also important that students read the assigned reading beforehand. We need to encourage their doing so by increasing their opportunities to participate in small‐group discussions on the assigned reading, and by testing them on the reading with short chapter quizzes. PLO #2 is addressed by: ANTH 1 CLO #3. Target: 75% will score 2 or better. Actual: 77%. CLO #4. Target: 75% will score 2 or better. Actual: 39%. ANTH 3 CLO #2. Target: 85% will score 2 or better. Actual: 90%. CLO #4. Target: 85% will score 2 or better. Actual: 66%. ANTH 4 CLO #4. Target: 80% will score 2 or better. Actual: 83%. CLO #5. Target: 80% will score 2 or better. Actual: 74%. 29 CLO #6. Target: 75% will score 2 or better. Actual: 76%. ANTH 5 CLO #1. Target: 80% will score 2 or better. Actual: 93%. CLO #3. Target: 80% will score 2 or better. Actual: 93%. ANTH 12 CLO #3. Target: 80% will score 3 or better. Actual: 85%. CLO #4. Target: 75% will score 2 or better. Actual: 67%. PLO #2 really addresses two different things: the ability to analyze the factors that are shaping human diversity, and an appreciation of/sensitivity for human diversity. The first one involves critical thinking skills; the second is a function of cultural relativism and tolerance in the case of the ANTH 3, 5, and 12. In ANTH 1, we ask that students understand humans in a broader context. For example, we stress the importance of studying non‐human primate behavior in order to understand human behavior better, since humans are primates. We also stress the importance of understanding the development of human adaptations through time. These are concepts that not easy to grasp, but we have much higher success rates in the lab (ANTH 1L). In the lab course, students work in small groups. They compare casts, and discuss their findings with their peers before we all compare our results. In our view, this type of work encourages participation and the development of critical thinking skills. As a group, we have the following concerns: 1. Many students do not read the assigned material for various reasons. 2. Many students do not have the proper reading or writing proficiency that is necessary to succeed in class. 3. Students have difficulty using a formal comparative approach to understand human diversity (in ANTH 1, for example). What program‐level strengths have the assessment reflections revealed? Our courses address all five College‐wide learning goals. As a group, we agree that 1. Our CLOs reflect what we think students should have learned when they complete our courses. 2. Our assessment methods show the areas where we need to work with students. In a few cases, assessment methods will be changed so that students have greater opportunities to tell us what they know. 3. Students learn much better when a variety of delivery methods are used. We strive to use different media to present the material in class, and will request additional resources to that end. What actions has your discipline determined might be taken to enhance the learning of students completing your program? Actions planned: 1. Encourage students to read the assigned reading. ‐ Because many students do not have the money to buy textbooks, we propose to do the following: Put additional textbooks on reserve in the library. Propose cheaper alternatives (e‐
texts, used editions). Post notes on Blackboard. ‐ Increase small‐group discussion opportunities in the classroom. ‐ Regularly quiz students on the assigned reading (chapter quizzes, for example). 2. Address the basic skills issue. There are unfortunately no pre‐requisites for any of the Anthropology classes, but as a result of the last assessment cycle, we determined that the recommendation that students be eligible for 30 English 1A to take any Anthropology course should be included in all course outlines. This has now been done. This advisory should be included in our syllabi. We should actively encourage our students (i.e. offer them extra credit) to work with tutors in the Learning Connection center. English and Communication Studies also offer labs for students who need help writing an/or presenting a paper. 3. Engage students in the classroom. ‐ Set time aside to discuss current events as they relate to the course subject matter. This works very well for ANTH 5. ‐ Increase opportunities for small‐group discussions, but do so in a controlled manner: set the time, and the goals. ‐ Whenever possible, use different media. Replicas of primates and fossil humans can easily be used in ANTH 1. Videos should be used in all classes, again with clear outcomes in mind. 4. In some cases, reexamine our assessment methods in order to give our students a greater opportunity to tell us what they know. 31 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. Write n/a if the question does not apply to your area. 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). NO. See rationale under #3. 3. Have all of your courses been offered within the past five years? If no, why should those courses remain in our college catalog? ANTH 8 was last offered in spring 2009. The course has not been offered, due to budgetary constraints. I would like to offer it, possibly as an online course as soon as possible. 4. Do all of your courses have the required number of CLOs completed, with corresponding rubrics? YES. If no, identify the CLO work you still need to complete, and your timeline for completing that work this semester, 5. Have you assessed all of your courses and completed "closing the loop" forms for all of your courses within the past three years? NO. If no, identify which courses still require this work, and your timeline for completing that work this semester. ANTH 7 was supposed to be assessed in spring 2015 but was cancelled, due to low enrollment. ANTH 8 will be assessed when it is offered. 6. Have you developed and assessed PLOs for all of your programs? YES. If no, identify programs which still require this work, and your timeline to complete that work this semester. 7. If you have course sequences, is success in the first course a good predictor of success in the subsequent course(s)? ANTH 1L may be taken either at the same time as, or after ANTH 1. We have no data supporting the idea that success in ANTH 1 is a good predictor of success in 1L, though one might expect so. ANTH 1L has very high persistence and success rates, but this is at least in part due to small class size, group work, and hands‐on work. 8. Does successful completion of College‐level Math and/or English correlate positively with success in your courses? If not, explain why you think this may be. There are no Math or English prerequisites for any Anthropology courses. According to fall 2011 data, students who successfully completed ENG 1A/7 had the highest success rates in Anthropology 1, 3, and 12, but were no more successful in Anthropology 1L than students who had no preparation. The students with no English preparation were just as, or more successful in ANTH 1, 1L and 3 than students who had successfully completed English 102/101A/101B. Because our students are expected to read extensively in our classes and master anthropological terminology, we now have included in all our outlines the strong recommendation that students be eligible for English 1A. 32 Appendix F1A: Full‐Time Faculty 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 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/Data2015.asp Spreadsheet: To be considered, requests must be added to the Resource Request Spreadsheet. You can find the template for the spreadsheet here: http://www.chabotcollege.edu/prbc/academicprogramreview.asp. Add your requests to your spreadsheet under the 1000a tab and check the box below once they’ve been added. Total number of positions requested (please fill in number of positions requested): X 1 Summary of positions requested completed in Program Review Resource Request Spreadsheet (please check box to left) CHABOT COLLEGE
CRITERIA FOR FILLING CURRENT VACANCIES
OR
REQUESTING NEW FACULTY POSITIONS
Discipline: ANTHROPOLOGY
Criteria 1.
Percent of full-time faculty in department.
Fall
2012
Spring
2013
Fall
2013
Spring
2014
Fall
2014
Spring
2015
FTEF
(Contract)
0.92*
0.72*
0.52*
0.72*
0.52*
0.72*
FTEF
(Temporary)
2.16
1.96
2.72
2.36
2.52
2.52
# of Contract
Faculty
1 + 1 on
pre-ret.
1+
1
1 (not
teaching)
1
1
1
*Full-time faculty also teaches ANTH 1 for the PACE program. Data are not included here.
Data for courses that are taught off-campus by part-time faculty, at middle and high schools were
also not included.
33 Criteria 2.
Name of Recently Retired Faculty (in last 3 yrs)
Date Retired
1 instructor, Cultural Anthropology
June 2013
Semester end departmental enrollment pattern for last three years.
Fall
2012
Spring
2013
Fall
2013
Spring
2014
Fall
2014
Spring
2015
Success Rate:
73%
64%
68%
70%
69%
69%
FTES:
60.80
62.76
67.93
65.56
62.73
64.26
Briefly describe how a new hire will impact your success/retention rates.
1) Since the departure of one full-time instructor at the end of spring 2012, the
Cultural side of Anthropology has been somewhat deemphasized. We need an
instructor who can reenergize the cultural side of Anthropology, is well versed in
Cultural Anthropology, and can teach not only ANTH 3 (Social and Cultural
Anthropology), but also more specialized courses such as ANTH 5 (Cultures of
the U.S. in Global Perspective), ANTH 7 (Introduction to Globalization: an
Anthropological Perspective), ANTH 8 (Native American Cultures) which has
not been taught recently, ANTH 12 (Magic, Religion, Witchcraft and Healing),
and possibly ANTH 4 (Language and Culture).
2) While several adjunct faculty have been actively involved in extra-classroom
program initiatives, they are not able to fulfill the roles of full-time faculty in
meeting the program’s goals and objectives. They are not often as available to
students as full-time faculty simply because they are not on campus as much. Our
students need more support overall, and Anthropology majors need strong
mentoring.
2b. Librarian and Counselor faculty ratio. Divide head count by the number of full
time faculty. For example, 8000 students divided by 3 full time faculty, 1:2666
Fall 2012
Criteria 3.
Spring 2013
Fall 2013
Spring 2014
Fall 2014
Meets established class size.
Fall
2012
Spring
2013
Fall
2013
Spring
2014
Fall
2014
Spring
2015
WSCH
1,875
1,942
2,071
2,023
1,906
1,973
FTES:
60.80
62.76
67.93
65.56
62.73
64.26
34 WSCH/FTES 651.04
674.31
602.03
656.82
626.97
608.95
If there are any external factors that limit class sizes, please explain.
The lack of availability of large classroom at popular times (i.e. MW and TTh at
10:30 am) limits class size.
Criteria 4.
Current instructional gaps and program service needs. List the courses to fill
the gaps, if applicable.
We need someone who can reenergize and develop the cultural side of
Anthropology. ANTH 8 is on the books, but has not been taught in the past five
years, yet it is an elective for both the AA and the AA-T degrees. We also must
spend more time promoting classes such as ANTH 5, a class that meets the
American Cultures requirement, and ANTH 7, a class that focuses on the effects
of globalization on different cultures.
Criteria 5.
Describe how courses and/or services in this discipline meet PRBC’s three
tier criteria. These include:
• Tier 1: outside mandates (e.g. to ensure the licensure of the program.)
• Tier 2: program health, (e.g. addresses gaps in faculty expertise and creates
pathways, alleviates bottlenecks, helps units where faculty have made large
commitments outside the classroom to develop/implement initiatives that
support the strategic plan goal, and helps move an already successful initiative
forward.
• Tier 3: Student need/equity, (e.g. addresses unmet needs as measured by
unmet/backlogged advising needs, bottlenecks in GE areas and basic skills,
impacted majors in which students cannot begin or continue their pathway.)
Tier 2:
ANTH 1 and 1L have been identified as bottleneck classes.
ANTH 1 satisfies the natural science requirement and, together with ANTH 1L, it
satisfies the lower-division science requirement for many students.
Tier 3:
ANTH 1 has a cap of 44, and is routinely overenrolled. This is consciously done in
our discipline to support the lower-enrolled Anthropology classes. All our courses
fulfill GE requirements and are transferable to CSU and UC schools.
35 Criteria 6.
Upon justification the college may be granted a faculty position to start a new
program or to enhance an existing one.
Is this a new program or is it designed to enhance an existing program? Please explain.
This is not a new program.
We offer an AA and an AA-T degree.
Criteria 7.
CTE Program Impact.
N/A
Criteria 8.
Degree/Transfer Impact (if applicable)
List the Certificates and/or AA degrees that your discipline/program offers.
Provide information about the number of degrees awarded in the last three years.
Degree/Certificate
AA requirement
# Awarded
2011-2012
2012-2013
2013-2014
2014-2015
0
0
1
1
N/A
30
35
F14: 8
F15: 33
GE transfer requirement
Declared major
Criteria 9.
Describe how courses and/or services in this discipline impact other
disciplines and programs. Be brief and specific. Use your program review to
complete this section.
ANTH 1 and 1L have been identified as bottleneck classes.
ANTH 1 satisfies the natural science requirement and, together with ANTH 1L,
it satisfies the lower-division science requirement for many students.
Criteria 10.
Additional justification e.g. availability of part time faculty (day/evening)
Please describe any additional criteria you wish to have considered in your
request.
We are currently relying on part-time faculty to teach online ANTH 1, ANTH 3,
and ANTH 4. Online instructors must submit a proposal for the courses they will
teach, and undergo thorough training. If a part-time instructor cannot or will not
teach an online class for which they have been trained, the class has to be
cancelled.
36 Appendix F3: FTEF Requests Audience: Administrators, CEMC, PRBC Purpose: To recommend changes in FTEF allocations for subsequent academic year and guide Deans and CEMC in the allocation of FTEF to disciplines. For more information, see Article 29 (CEMC) of the Faculty Contract. Instructions: In the area below, please list your requested changes in course offerings (and corresponding request in FTEF) and provide your rationale for these changes. Be sure to analyze enrollment trends and other relevant data at http://www.chabotcollege.edu/ProgramReview/Data2015.asp COURSE ANTH 7 CURRENT FTEF (2015‐16) 0.20 (Sp 16) ANTH 3 1.0 (0.40 F15 0.60 S16) ANTH 12 0.20 (F15) 0.20 (F15) ANTH 13 ADDITIONAL FTEF NEEDED No additional FTEF requested, but course should be offered in Fall, not Spr 0.20 0.20 (S17) 0.20 (for S17) CURRENT ADDITIONAL CURRENT ADDITIONAL SECTIONS SECTIONS STUDENT # STUDENT # NEEDED SERVED SERVED ! 0 N/A N/A 5 81 in F15 44 1 1 online in F16 (section with 44 students had to be cancelled in F15) 1 41 in F15 40 1 1 38 38 37 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. Spreadsheet: To be considered, requests must be added to the Resource Request Spreadsheet. Add your requests to your spreadsheet under the 2000b tab and check the box below once they’ve been added. Total number of positions requested (please fill in number of positions requested): X 4‐5 Tutors Summary of positions requested completed in Program Review Resource Request Spreadsheet (please check box to left) 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. This request is for the same number of tutors. Tutors for ANTH 1, 1L and 3 have been working with students for several semesters now. We recommend students who can tutor ANTH 1 and ANTH 1L. These tutors work with students on critical thinking skills and on a comparative approach to the study of humans. ANTH 3 students have difficulty with cross‐cultural comparisons. ANTH 13 is a course that requires good osteological knowledge, and sound critical thinking and communication skills. ANTH 13 students would do better with a dedicated tutor. Students with special needs take our classes on a regular basis. While they get support from DSRC staff, they need additional support from people who know the subject matter (i.e. tutors). How do the assessments that you performed to measure student learning outcomes (SLO’s) or service area outcomes (SAO’s) support this request? ANTH 1L students are doing very well overall, ANTH 1 students need extra support especially in genetics, comparative anatomy, and paleoanthropology. In general, they have trouble looking at humans comparatively, and with an evolutionary perspective. ANTH 3 students need support to understand humans cross‐culturally and apply cultural relativism when studying human cultures. Just like ANTH 1, ANTH 13 satisfies the natural science requirement. Students tend to self select into ANTH 1 and ANTH 13 (whch they often do not consider to be science). 38 Appendix F5: Supplies Requests [Acct. Category 4000] 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 anticipated budgets and additional funding requests for categories 4000. Do NOT include conferences and travel, which are submitted on Appendix F6. Justify your request and explain in detail the need for any requested funds beyond those you received this year. Please also look for opportunities to reduce spending, as funds are limited. Spreadsheet: To be considered, requests must be added to the Resource Request Spreadsheet. Follow the link below and check the box below once they’ve been added. X SUPPLIES tab (4000) completed in Program Review Resource Request Spreadsheet (please check box to left) How do the assessments that you performed to measure student learning outcomes (SLO’s) or service area outcomes (SAO’s) support this request? The supplies we request are of two types. 1) Classroom supplies, such as batteries (for use with iClickers) and maps. 2) Instructional specimens that cost less than $200. We simply could not offer ANTH 1L and ANTH 13 without specimens. Both courses use a hands‐on approach. ANTH 1 is enriched by the use of osteological material. We use archeological equipment in both ANTH 2 and ANTH 13. Specimens and equipment are requested on an ongoing basis so we can 1) keep up with paleoanthropological discoveries, 2) enrich our primate skeletal collection with new material, as it becomes available, 3) augment our forensic collection, and 4) replace damaged specimens. 39 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. Spreadsheet: To be considered, requests must be added to the Resource Request Spreadsheet. Follow the link below and check the box below once they’ve been added. X EQUIPMENT tab (6000) completed in Program Review Resource Request Spreadsheet (please check box to left) Please follow the link here to make your request and summarize below http://intranet.clpccd.cc.ca.us/technologyrequest/default.htm 1) We need a functional Wi‐Fi system in building 500, so that students can use the Chromebooks several AAHS faculty ordered, in the classroom. The request was sent using the website above this box. 2) I also ordered iClickers for use in the classroom. These are in addition to the ones we have already received. 3) Also requested: equipment and specimens that cost more than $200. We simply could not offer ANTH 1L and ANTH 13 without specimens. Both courses use a hands‐on approach. ANTH 1 is enriched by the use of osteological material. We use archeological equipment in both ANTH 2 and ANTH 13. Specimens and equipment are requested on an ongoing basis so we can 1) keep up with paleoanthropological discoveries, 2) enrich our primate skeletal collection with new material, as it becomes available, 3) augment our forensic collection, and 4) replace damaged specimens. 40 Appendix F8: Facilities Requests Audience: Facilities Committee, Administrators Purpose: To be read and responded to by Facilities Committee. Background: Although some of the college's greatest needs involving new facilities cannot be met with the limited amount of funding left from Measure B, smaller pressing needs can be addressed. Projects that can be legally funded with bond dollars include the "repairing, constructing, acquiring, and equipping of classrooms, labs, sites and facilities." In addition to approving the funding of projects, the FC participates in addressing space needs on campus, catalogs repair concerns, and documents larger facilities needs that might be included in future bond measures. Do NOT use this form for equipment or supply requests. Instructions: Please fill in the following as needed to justify your requests .If requesting more than one facilities project, please rank order your requests. Brief Title of Request (Project Name): Open outdoor space somewhere on campus, large enough so 44 students can practice mapping and recovery of (fake) human specimens and associated materials. Building/Location: Any location. Close to 500 if possible. GROUND NEEDS TO BE FREE OF VEGETATION Type of Request X Space Need ___ Building Concern ___ Small Repair ___ Larger Facility Need ___ Large Repair X Other (grounds, signage…) Description of the facility or grounds project. Please be as specific as possible. I have been, and am requesting an outdoor space where 44 students could practice archeological techniques. The space would not be used continuously, and need not be close to a building, if it easier to get such a space. I am not sure whether the space requested fits under “Space” or “Other/grounds”, so have checked both categories. What educational programs or institutional purposes does this request support and with whom are you collaborating? ANTH 13 need a space to practice proper mapping and recovery of (fake) human remains, and conduct decomposition studies. ANTH 2 students need a space to learn archeological methodology hands‐on. ANTH 1L students need a space to practice flint‐knapping. ANTH 1, 1L, and 13 instructors would share the space. Briefly describe how your request supports the Strategic Plan Goal? The students will be required to work in groups and use proper archeological equipment and tools. They will apply critical thinking skills to fieldwork, and will present their conclusions to the whole class. The project • Supports different teaching modalities • Encourages collaboration that fosters learning • Provides and environment that is conducive to intellectual curiosity and innovation • Cultivates critical thinking. 41 42