Chabot College
Academic Services
Program Review Report
2016 -2017
Year in the Cycle: One
Program: Communication Studies
Submitted on: October 2015
Contact: Jason Ames, Veronica Martinez, and
Christine Warda
FINAL 9/24/15
Table of Contents
Year 1
Section 1: Who We Are
Section 2: Where We Are Now
Section 3: The Difference We Hope to Make
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 ONE
Resource Request Spreadsheet Directions: COMPLETED, ATTACHED
In addition to completing the narrative portion of program review, add all your requests to a
single Resource Request Spreadsheet.
1. Who We Are
Limit your narrative to no more than one page. Describe your program--your mission, vision,
responsibilities and the goals of your area. How does your area support the college? What
impact do you have on student learning? Describe the number and type of faculty in your area.
Vision: The Communication Studies Department works to empower students and faculty to
develop and evaluate verbal and nonverbal messages, their meaning, purpose, advocacy, and
context through rigorous and creative scholarship.
Responsibilities: The Communication Studies Department maintains the Chabot College climate
and culture of thoughtfulness and academic excellence, committed to creating a vibrant
community of life-long learners. We are committed to COMM majors, basic skills students, and
all students completing G.E. requirements. Communication is a basic skill, teaching students
critical thinking skills, listening skills, as well as oral presentation. We maintain a peer tutoring
center (Comm Lab) that serves the entire campus and an award winning Forensic team where
any student can hone their argumentation and delivery skills. Most identifiable, COMM offers
students three courses to fulfill the Oral Communication G.E. requirement. And we are also
integral parts of three learning communities: CIN , Daraja, and PACE. We offer a Speech
degree and AA-T in Communication Studies and combined serve 111 majors, the 4th largest
according to IR. We also have recently created three Communication Studies Certificates. And
we do all of this with three full-time instructors and 12-15 part-time instructors. Our three fulltime faculty are a significant presence on campus, participating on hiring committees and
tenure faculty evaluation committees. We have also held leading positions within Senate and
Staff Development. We help coordinate the campus Service Learning Program and the Peer
Advisor Program.
We are about to host the third annual “Great Debate” in downtown Hayward, coordinating
multiple disciplines on campus, community members, and the Chabot Forensics team to
present and debate a chosen them, this year the theme is Poverty. Community politicians, K-12
schools, other colleges, and the community will be invited to see our students present various
presentations, giving students a first-hand look at how government operates and how public
speaking/argumentation/performance interact with policy.
Our three full-time faculty are also official mentors in in Learning Communities, such as Puente,
and informal mentors to all of Communication Studies Alumni.
Communication Studies faculty also strive for improvement attending Western States
Communication Association Conferences, Student Success Conferences, and the Faculty
Experiential Learning Institute (FELI).
We also stay committed to creating cohesion for our students and faculty. We are a family, a
hard working family.
Goals: We will strive to maintain the progress we have made but this is contingent on our
number of full-time faculty. There is no way we will maintain/grow if we cannot match our
responsibilities and goals to our number of full-time faculty. (More on this later.) With enough
full-time faculty we can work to serve more students working toward any degree, COMM
majors, and returning students while maintaining the quality of education we have worked
hard to build. We want to grow in numbers but not at the expense of our student’s education.
Here is our three-fold plan for the next year: Improve our data collection, maintain strong
learning support, and continue to inform the campus community who we are and what we can
offer. First, we will capture more accurate WSCH in order to fully appreciate the number of
students we actually serve. For example, the Forensic team alone has many more hours that
we have not accounted for on any previous data collection. Second, we know that students
succeed when they have support (learning support and learning communities), for example,
students who use our Comm Lab succeed at a much higher rate than students who do not visit
the lab, so we will continue to put energy toward our peer tutoring center, forensic team, and
Pathways. Finally, improved communication about COMM. We have heard many myths:
“COMM is just about public speaking.”
“COMM is an easy major.”
“Do you even use a textbook in your classes?”
“You should easily be able to serve more students in your classes.”
And important questions such as:
“How is COMM different from MCOMM?”
“Couldn’t other teachers teach these concepts within other disciplines?”
When students, counselors, administrators and faculty outside of Communication Studies make
these comments and ask these questions, it is clear we have work to do. And from there, more
productive growth can occur.
We want to remain a vibrant, energetic and community based department. We want to be
ready to handle student demand. We also want to support students in taking these skills out
into the community.
2. Where We Are Now
Complete Appendices A (Budget History), B1, 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/Data2015.asp. Limit your
narrative to two pages.
As you enter a new Program Review cycle, reflect on your achievements over the last few
years. What did you want to accomplish? What are your Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs)
and Service Area Outcomes (SAOs), and what progress have you made toward achieving them?
What are you most proud of?
Reflect on your curriculum as well as your success, retention, and enrollment data. What trends
do you observe? Do you see differences based on gender and/or ethnicity? Between oncampus and online or hybrid online courses? Provide comparison points (college-wide
averages, history within your program, statewide averages).
Discuss other important trends that will have a significant impact on your unit over the next
three years. Those could include technology, facilities, equipment, and student demand.
Describe how changes in resources provided to your area have impacted your achievements.
What opportunities and challenges do your foresee in the next three years?
At this time, all of our PLOs and most of our CLO loops have been closed. We need to write
CLOs for COMM 12 this year and assess in Spring 2016. We also are due for COMM 48. We
have not assessed COMM 70B because no students have registered yet. COMM 2 has been a
struggle because it is taught by PT faculty. With the changes to the contract, we anticipate that
it will be assessed the next time it is offered.
In terms of curriculum, we have three relatively new courses: COMM 50, COMM 70 and COMM
12. COMM 50 was a much needed introduction to the discipline. COMM 70 turned our first
semester of tutor training into a learning goal and at the same time reduced our tutor budget.
COMM 12 offers students the diversity the Communication Studies discipline can offer. We
have also streamlined our course list by eliminating COMM 2B, 30, and 9, courses no longer
taught.
We average over 100% enrollment. Our cap is set at 25 yet we tend to add to 27-28 students
depending on the course and instructor. We have a 72% success rate according to IR, and
student achievement is consistent with the school’s overall success rate.
We can currently serve about 1500 students a year (with an average of 757 served each term).
While some may suggest that we increase our class capacity, we understand and hold firm that
this will NOT enhance learning but dramatically decrease learning. Our courses require
significant time allotted for student presentations/debates and opportunities for group
projects, role plays, and other communicative training activities. If the capacity is increased,
there will simply not be enough time to present and students will have even less individual
attention in courses that already bring up high anxiety. We know the result will be decreased
success rates and therefore increased “bottlenecks.”
In the 2009 Accreditation report, it notes there were approximately 6300 students looking to
transfer or receive an AA/AS. At this point, we are able to serve about ¼ of that number –
whereas all of these students must take a COMM course. We actually have two “bottlenecked”
requirements in our discipline: the Oral Communication requirement and the Critical Thinking
requirement. COMM 1, 20, and 46 fulfill the Oral Communication requirement, while 20 and 46
fulfill the Critical Thinking requirement. Thus, we have been asking for increases in COMM 1,
20 and 46 in order to facilitate and educate more students wanting to complete their
educational goals. We must also note that in Spring 2016 one of the COMM 46 classes will be a
CIN class and one COMM 1 class will be in Daraja.
Being a discipline that has two “bottlenecks,” we’ve had to make a number of tough decisions
over the past few years. We believe access to our classes, specifically the Oral Communication
requirement, is as good as it could be given the climate. We have done this while maintaining
the integrity of our discipline as a whole; maintaining our student to faculty ratio and avoiding
becoming a “speech factory” where we “just” teach speech (although a critical part of our
program). Our courses reflect the diversity of our discipline and students get the time and
attention needed to succeed. (We still argue more full-time faculty would allow us more time
with students outside of the classroom but we make that argument later.)
Also, our addition of COMM 50 each semester allows COMM majors (AA-T) to achieve their
Education Goal since COMM 50 is a required course for the major.
We are most proud of our students and alumni. Each day, we encourage and are witness to
outstanding efforts by current students and alumni to overcome major fear and anxiety of
public speaking; to try out new conflict management strategies; to appreciate spoken word,
storytelling, and dramatic readings; to relate to people with empathy; to become more mindful
listeners; to share vulnerable and personal information; and to develop communities within our
classrooms. Former students come by to share their successes in other classes, promotions at
work, and their continued dedication to complete their educational goals. We now have
students reaching graduate school and beyond. It is amazing to hear their stories and we
admire their perseverance. Our Forensics alumni come by to visit and mentor our current team
members. We’re exploring how they might be inspirational to more of our current students.
Possibly through our COMM club.
We are proud to show diversity in the student population in all of our classes. In terms of
gender, for example, COMM 1 has an average of 300 males and 350 females per semester. And
there is an even distribution of success ranging from 66%- 96% success for each gender. In
COMM 10 there seems to be a history of more females but the numbers are becoming more
balanced. The other COMM classes are fairly equal in terms of population and success.
In terms of technology, currently the Comm Lab has one laptop for tutors to input necessary
data. And there are no laptops for students to research presentation topics, draft outlines, and
create visual aids. In addition, we need multiple laptops for the Forensics team. Technology has
become ever more necessary for Debate, as many students use it for research both in and out
of rounds. Additionally, we use google docs as a team in order to share files, teaching materials,
and for one on one coaching.
We are excited to see where we go from here. The number of COMM majors has increased by
over 1000% (from 10 to 111) since 2012. Our Comm Lab serves over 1000 students each
semester and is expanding to building 100, we are starting a new COMM club, and the Great
Debate is in it’s 3rd year.
Our number one challenge is clear. There has been no full-time faculty growth ever in COMM,
no replacement for Patti Keeling (retired 2012), christine warda put in her letter of resignation
October 2015, Jason Ames, Director of the Forensic team has no full-time faculty member(s) to
alternate director duties as most Directors have, including our sister college Las Positas, and no
reassigned time to coordinate the Comm Lab. We are at a significant disadvantage in terms of
faculty to share the load. Thus, less support for everything we do: Learning support, Learning
Communities, shared governance, the Great Debate as well as responsibilities such as outreach,
updating the website, and adjunct coordination.
3. The Difference We Hope to Make
Review the Strategic Plan goal and key strategies at
http://www.chabotcollege.edu/prbc/StrategicPlan/SPforPR.pdf prior to completing your
narrative. Please complete Appendices E (New and Ongoing Initiatives and Projects) and F1-8
(Resource Requests) as relevant to your needs to support your narrative. Limit your narrative
here to one page and reference appendices where further detail can be found.




Over the next three years, what improvements would you like to make to your
program(s) to support student learning outcomes, equity, and/or the College Strategic
Plan Goal?
What steps do you plan to take to achieve your goals? Describe your timeframe.
Would any of your goals require collaboration with other disciplines or areas of the
college? How will that collaboration occur?
What support will you need to accomplish your goals? (Complete Appendices and
Resource Request spreadsheet.)
Improvements:
1. Capture WSCH in Forensics. We need to continue to work with SARS on campus as well as
solidify a paper documentation for students to capture hours when traveling to tournaments.
2. Increased number of faculty, learning support, and access to learning communities.
3. Improved Communication about COMM.
Steps (Not necessarily in this order):
1. Distribute COMM brochure.
2. Create COMM documentary.
3. Visit Counseling meetings, Pathways, Gladiator Days to inform the campus about COMM.
3. Identify tech needs to update SARS for Forensics and possible the Comm Lab.
4. Use paper documentation to capture hours for traveling forensic team.
5. Obtain reassigned time for Comm Lab coordination.
6. Obtain a full-time faculty member to alternate Forensic Director duties each year
(permanent or temporary).
7. Continue to contribute time and COMM classes to Pathways.
8. Obtain 2-3 new permanent full-time faculty members.
Required collaboration:
Most of this work will be completed by the two full-time faculty members in Spring 2016.
We might need tech support for SARS improvements.
We will need to work within the Faculty Prioritization process and our Dean for new fulltime
faculty members (permanent and temporary).
We will also work with CIN, Daraja and PACE.
Support:
We feel support in increasing number of students in our classes but we want just as much
support in helping us to maintain the integrity/quality of our skills courses.
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
2015-16
Budget
Requested
0
12,000
0
2015-16
Budget
Received
0
8,000
0
2016-17
Budget
Requested
0
12,000
0
2016-17
Budget
Received
0
8,000
0
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.
Forensics changes lives; but not only the lives of the competitors, but the lives of nearly every
Communication Studies student on campus, and potentially every student on campus. The Forensics
team is extremely active within the College. Every semester the Forensics team puts on a fund raiser
known as the “Speak Up”, which serves nearly 250 people a year. Additionally, Forensics students are
the primary judges for the Chabot College Intramural Speech Tournament. This is open to all students on
campus and typically serves over 100 students, giving them more opportunity to refine their
communication skills in a fun and competitive environment. Forensics students are also a large part of
the Communication lab, as nearly half of the tutors are current or former Forensics students. Finally,
Forensics students are an integral part of “The Great Debate,” an interdisciplinary collaboration
between the Community and the College where we build Community through Advocacy. Last year the
Great Debate hosted over 200 students and took over City Hall. Thus, the training, coaching, and
experience Forensics students receive at tournaments positively affects the campus exponentially.
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?
We did not receive the computers we requested. Students cannot research nor prepare outlines for
speeches. Instead tutors must describe the process and then send students to other Labs on campus.
Then the student returns with the research or outline later. Time consuming and students lack the
guidance tutors can provide.
The Forensic team can be as competitive without the technology available to research and prepare.
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.
X 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.
Comm 1
This Year’s Program
Review
*CTL forms must be
included with this PR.
Last Year’s Program
Review
2-Years Prior
*Note: These courses
must be assessed in the
next PR year.
x
Comm 2 (taught by PT
faculty)
x
Comm 3
x
Comm 6
Comm 10
x
Comm 11
x
Comm 12
Needs to be assessed in
Spring 2016. 2nd time
offered and CLOs
created in Fall 2015
Comm 20
X
Comm 46
x
Comm 48
x
Comm 50
X
Comm 70A
X
Comm 70B
Needs to be assessed in
2015-2016
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
COMM 1
Spring 2015
25
Spring 2015
Veronica Martinez, Christine
Warda, and Jason Ames
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: Recognize, define, and apply the principles of
practical communication and communication theory
Defined Target
Scores*
(CLO Goal)
65% of students
score 3 or 4
Actual Scores**
(eLumen data)
41% scored a 3 or
4
NA
original ideas and/or incorporating the ideas of others
65% of students
score 3 or 4
(CLO) 3: Listen to, evaluate, and respond appropriately to
the ideas of others
65% of students
score 3 or 4
93% scored a 3 or
4
(CLO) 4: Understand the variety of value systems people
65% of students
score 3 or 4
34% scored a 3 or
4
(CLO) 2: Adopt an ethical perspective when presenting
use in communications
 If more CLOs are listed for the course, add another row to the table.
* Defined Target Scores: What scores in eLumen from your students would indicate success for this
CLO? (Example: 75% of the class scored either 3 or 4)
**Actual scores: What is the actual percent of students that meet defined target based on the eLumen
data collected in this assessment cycle?
PART II: COURSE- LEVEL OUTCOME REFLECTIONS
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?
The students in this COMM 1 class did not reach the target goal.
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 begin the course with a solid discussion of communication theory as it related to
public speaking. But as the semester progresses, it sometimes becomes more about
defining a practical list of public speaking skills. I need to spend more time connecting
theory and practice so by the time they complete this assigned assessment, they have
the potential to score higher.
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?
This particular assessment did not address ethics.
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?
NA
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?
This COMM 1 class far surpassed the target goal.
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 begin the semester with a discussion of becoming an effective audience member, a
significant part of the class. Then over the semester, students get to practice these skills
with a variety of written and oral critiques. In the end, it seems students show high
proficiency in listening skills.
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?
Students in this COMM 1 course did not reach the target goal.
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 assignment is completed before there is significant time to practice audience
analysis and adaption. I believe next time I will use a later assessment to measure this
criteria.
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 changes we have made are significant. We’ve created a list of acceptable textbook
options for all faculty of COMM 1. Our Comm Lab (student support to COMM 1) has grown.
And we have attended conferences related to teaching COMM 1 as well as improving the
Comm Lab.
We are still waiting for additional flex or reassigned time to work with our adjuncts.
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?
COMM 1 is an important course for all students. It is one option to use as a GE
requirement and more importantly it strengthens academic and career abilities for
students. Our students are getting a strong foundation is communication, learning how to
adapt to various value systems, and how to listen and respond effectively as an audience
member. Ethics are also a significant component to the class, although not assessed on
this particular assignment. We believe students in COMM 1 are getting vital life skills in
our classes.
Specifically, in the future we will consider waiting until the end of the semester to Close
the Loop as well as make more connections between theory and practice throughout the
semester.
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:_________________________________________________________________
COMM 3
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
Fall 14
1
1
100%
Spring 2015
Veronica Martinez
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
(CLO) 1: Practice collaborative problems solving and
group decision making skills
Defined Target
Scores*
(CLO Goal)
65% score a 3 or
4
75% scored a 3 or
4
(CLO) 2: Understand the variety of value systems people
use in group communication
65% score a 3 or
4
92% scored a 3 or
4
(CLO) 3: Listen to, evaluate, and respond appropriately to
65% score a 3 or
4
100% scored a 3
65% score a 3 or
4
100% scored a 3
or 4
CONSIDER THE COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOMES INDIVIDUALLY (THE
NUMBER OF CLOS WILL DIFFER BY COURSE)
the ideas of others
(CLO) 4: Recognize, define and apply the principles of
practical communication and group communication theory
Actual Scores**
(eLumen data)
or 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?
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?
The COMM 3 students surpassed the target scores this semester.
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 are getting sufficient practice with group problem solving. There is also room
for improvement. I was able to discuss with faculty and with the students at the end of
the semester and we brainstormed ways to start group problem solving a bit sooner in
the semester, thus giving them more time to hone their skills.
B. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 2:
1. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course
level outcome?
The COMM 3 students surpassed the target scores this semester.
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 in this COMM 3 course understood a key component to effective group work,
which is adaption. The principle is repeated in various ways that value systems vary
from person to person. And we practice various ways to adapt. It seems that I should
keep this a priority in the course.
C. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 3:
1. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course
level outcome?
The COMM 3 students surpassed the target scores this semester.
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?
Listening is a key component in group communication. There seemed to plenty of
practice for students and they showed their proficiency. I will continue to highlight this
important part of the class.
D. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 4:
1. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course
level outcome?
The COMM 3 students surpassed the target scores this semester.
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 also seemed to grasp the overall principles of group communication. We build
a strong foundation at the beginning of the semester and build on this all semester.
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?
We plan to alternate instructors who teach this course (occasionally). In this way,
instructors can have time to step away and revise this course. Also there can be more
brainstorming and discussion from a variety of instructors.
2. Based on the current assessment and reflections, what course-level and programmatic
strengths have the assessment reflections revealed? What actions has your discipline
determined might be taken as a result of your reflections, discussions, and insights?
The principles of group work and listening practice are strengths of our program. We also
have strong results in adapting to diverse group members and practice in group problem
solving. These are academic, career, and personal life skills. We are giving our COMM 3
students a solid foundation in group communication.
In addition to highlighting principles of group communication and listening skills, I plan to
get students practicing group problem solving a bit sooner in the semester. The more time
spent on this, the better.
3. What is the nature of the planned actions (please check all that apply)?
 Curricular
X Pedagogical
 Resource based
 Change to CLO or rubric
 Change to assessment methods
 Other:_________________________________________________________________
Course
Semester assessment data gathered
Number of sections offered in the semester
Number of sections assessed
Percentage of sections assessed
Semester held “Closing the Loop” discussion
Faculty members involved in “Closing the Loop” discussion
Comm 6
Fall 2015
1
1
100%
Fall 2015
Christine warda
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
Defined Target
Scores*
(CLO Goal)
70% receive 3
or 4
33.3% received 3
or 4
ideas and performances of others.
70% receive 3
or 4
75% received 3 or
4
(CLO) 3: Recognize, define, and apply the principles of
aesthetic communication and performance theory.
70% receive 3
or 4
33.3% received 3
or 4
CONSIDER THE COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOMES INDIVIDUALLY (THE
NUMBER OF CLOS WILL DIFFER BY COURSE)
(CLO) 1: Appraise, analyze, and synthesize traditional and
nontraditional texts for performance and production.
(CLO) 2: Listen to, evaluate, and respond appropriately to the
Actual Scores**
(eLumen data)
 If more CLOs are listed for the course, add another row to the table.
* Defined Target Scores: What scores in eLumen from your students would indicate success for this
CLO? (Example: 75% of the class scored either 3 or 4)
**Actual scores: What is the actual percent of students that meet defined target based on the eLumen
data collected in this assessment cycle?
PART II: COURSE- LEVEL OUTCOME REFLECTIONS
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?
Significantly lower than the target.
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?
More examples of the range of possibilities for traditional and nontraditional text
performance are important. It is good to use a variety of live and video performances. It
is also useful to assign nongraded activities or small graded assignments to develop this
CLO further.
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?
Slightly 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?
Continue to establish and encourage a safe place for comments and constructive
criticism. Have them do partner and group work often to allow for trust and relationship
building. This allows for greater listener participation. Also, model effective listening and
evaluative strategies – using one specific example from a performance to establish a
lesson. These are ‘best practices’ in Communication Studies already.
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?
Significantly lower
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?
Find better texts for explaining Performance theories and Aesthetic Communication.
Develop a game or trivia to help students associate theory with theorist. Additionally,
use activities to demonstrate practical application of theories.
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?
No changes to the course outline. It is still a useful framework, as are the CLOs. Within the
course, development of specific activities and assignments to help students articulate
differences in theories and ideas.
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?
This course should probably be cross-listed with Theater Arts…perhaps even co-taught.
The performance theoretical framework would be enhanced with conversations with
colleagues in the Theater Arts.
X
3. What is the nature of the planned actions (please check all that apply)?
Curricular
X Pedagogical
 Resource based
 Change to CLO or rubric
 Change to assessment methods
 Other:_________________________________________________________________
Course
Semester assessment data gathered
Number of sections offered in the semester
Number of sections assessed
Percentage of sections assessed
Semester held “Closing the Loop” discussion
Faculty members involved in “Closing the Loop” discussion
COMM 10
Fall 2014
2
1
50%
Spring 2015
Veronica Martinez
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: Understand the variety of value systems people
use in interpersonal communication
(CLO) 2: Analyze, select, and demonstrate relational
Defined Target
Actual Scores**
Scores*
(eLumen data)
(CLO Goal)
65% score 3 or 4 94% scored 3 or 4
65% score 3 or 4 88% scored 3 or 4
management in dyadic communication
(CLO) 3: Recognize, define, and apply the principles of
practical communication and interpersonal
communication theory
65% score 3 or 4 88% scored 3 or 4
(CLO) 4: Listen to, evaluate, and respond appropriately to
65% score 3 or 4 94% scored 3 or 4
the ideas of others
 If more CLOs are listed for the course, add another row to the table.
* Defined Target Scores: What scores in eLumen from your students would indicate success for this
CLO? (Example: 75% of the class scored either 3 or 4)
**Actual scores: What is the actual percent of students that meet defined target based on the eLumen
data collected in this assessment cycle?
PART II: COURSE- LEVEL OUTCOME REFLECTIONS
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?
This section of COMM 10 far exceeded the target goal.
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?
Interpersonal Communication is a personal and career passion for me. This course has a
balance of planned curriculum and student input. The assignments and discussion
highlight principles, diversity, listening, and relational management. At the same time
students are able to bring their individual needs into the class thus creating a space
where everyone is motivated to work. I do not even reward daily attendance anymore
as there is no need to motivate students in this way. They come to class because they
value the work. The scores on this assessment seem to show the results of their
personal motivation.
There is always room for improvement. In the future I plan to spend more time at
conferences focusing on Interpersonal Communication. Theories and strategies of
Interpersonal Communication can change over time, with technology for example. It is
important to stay current in the discipline.
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?
This section of COMM 10 far exceeded the target goal.
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?
Interpersonal Communication is a personal and career passion for me. This course has a
balance of planned curriculum and student input. The assignments and discussion
highlight principles, diversity, listening, and relational management. At the same time
students are able to bring their individual needs into the class thus creating a space
where everyone is motivated to work. I do not even reward daily attendance anymore
as there is no need to motivate students in this way. They come to class because they
value the work. The scores on this assessment seem to show the results of their
personal motivation.
There is always room for improvement. In the future I plan to spend more time at
conferences focusing on Interpersonal Communication. Theories and strategies of
Interpersonal Communication can change over time, with technology for example. It is
important to stay current in the discipline.
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?
This section of COMM 10 far exceeded the target goal.
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?
Interpersonal Communication is a personal and career passion for me. This course has a
balance of planned curriculum and student input. The assignments and discussion
highlight principles, diversity, listening, and relational management. At the same time
students are able to bring their individual needs into the class thus creating a space
where everyone is motivated to work. I do not even reward daily attendance anymore
as there is no need to motivate students in this way. They come to class because they
value the work. The scores on this assessment seem to show the results of their
personal motivation.
There is always room for improvement. In the future I plan to spend more time at
conferences focusing on Interpersonal Communication. Theories and strategies of
Interpersonal Communication can change over time, with technology for example. It is
important to stay current in the discipline.
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?
This section of COMM 10 far exceeded the target goal.
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?
Interpersonal Communication is a personal and career passion for me. This course has a
balance of planned curriculum and student input. The assignments and discussion
highlight principles, diversity, listening, and relational management. At the same time
students are able to bring their individual needs into the class thus creating a space
where everyone is motivated to work. I do not even reward daily attendance anymore
as there is no need to motivate students in this way. They come to class because they
value the work. The scores on this assessment seem to show the results of their
personal motivation.
There is always room for improvement. In the future I plan to spend more time at
conferences focusing on Interpersonal Communication. Theories and strategies of
Interpersonal Communication can change over time, with technology for example. It is
important to stay current in the discipline.
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?
There still needs to more discussion with other faculty teaching COMM 10 as well as
discussions with other campus departments that would benefit from COMM 10 courses
offered in their degree. The nursing department, for example, still recommends COMM 10
but there is still some confusion on whether it is a requirement for the degree. Flex and/or
reassigned time would help create time to collaborate with other faculty/disciplines.
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?
From this assessment we recognize the importance of the four CLO’s academically,
professionally and personally. And the scores show most students are successful.
There is even the potential for more programs to recommend or require this class in their
program.
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
X Other:___Discussion across campus_____________________________________________
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
COMM 11
Fall 2014
1
1
100%
Spring 2015
Veronica Martinez
Form Instructions:
 Complete a separate Appendix B2 form for each Course-Level assessment reported in this
Program Review. These courses should be listed in Appendix B1: Student Learning Outcomes
Assessment Reporting Schedule.
 Part I: CLO Data Reporting. For each CLO, obtain Class Achievement data in aggregate for all
sections assessed in eLumen.
 Part II: CLO Reflections. Based on student success reported in Part I, reflect on the individual
CLO.
 Part III: Course Reflection. In reviewing all the CLOs and your findings, reflect on the course as
a whole.
PART I: COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOMES – DATA RESULTS
CONSIDER THE COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOMES INDIVIDUALLY (THE
NUMBER OF CLOS WILL DIFFER BY COURSE)
(CLO) 1: Students should be able to identify and explain
the basic creation of culture(s). This should include the
recognition of how patterns of behavior, values, and
beliefs are shared/transmitted via verbal and non-verbal
communication.
(CLO) 2: Recognize, define, and apply the principles of
practical communication and intercultural communication
theory
(CLO) 3: Listen to, evaluate, and respond appropriately to
ideas of others
(CLO) 4: Understand the variety of value systems people
use in intercultural communication
Defined Target
Actual Scores**
Scores*
(eLumen data)
(CLO Goal)
65% score 3 or 4 83% scored 3 or 4
65% score 3 or 4 75% scored 3 or 4
65% score 3 or 4 83% scored 3 or 4
65% score 3 or 4 83% scored 3 or 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?
PART II: COURSE- LEVEL OUTCOME REFLECTIONS
A. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 1:
1. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this
course level outcome?
Students in this section of COMM 11 far exceeded the target goal.
2. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and
your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
The components of culture and identifying values, beliefs, and norms are the foundation
to Intercultural Communication. It was valuable to see students are more than capable
in this area.
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?
Students in this section of COMM 11 far exceeded the target goal.
2. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and
your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
The principles of communication are the core to all of our communication courses. It
seems this class has a firm grasp of this foundation. More could be done. We would like
to create a reader for this class at some point. Attending more conferences on the
subject as well as spending time with other faculty discussing the overall objectives and
specific curriculum would also be beneficial.
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?
Students in this section of COMM 11 far exceeded the target goal.
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?
Listening skills are emphasized in most/all COMM classes. We accomplished this in
COMM 11 through class discussion, role-playing, and observations. Effective listening
skills create a more positive climate, reduce miscommunication, and reduce conflict. In
Intercultural Communication this is vital. It was valuable to see these students showed a
high proficiency.
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?
Students in this section of COMM 11 far exceeded the target goal.
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?
Diverse value systems are the focal point of the class. Identifying and managing diversity
is our ultimate goal. We use theory and taxonomies, self-analysis, observation, roleplaying, and discussion of current events all semester. It was valuable to see the results.
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?
“Analyze diverse communication systems and perspectives employed when
communicating within & across cultures.” 75% scored 3 or 4
Students in this section of COMM 11 far exceeded the target goal.
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?
Toward the end of the semester students are asked to take what we have learned and
analyze hypothetical and actual cultures outside of their own. This analysis brings the
course concepts to life. It is sensitive material and the discussions can sometimes
become personal in nature but still a valuable learning moment. It was good to see their
hard work paid off in terms of successful scores.
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?
We would still like to create a reader for this class. Attending more conferences on the
subject, as well as, spending time with other faculty discussing the overall objectives and
specific curriculum would also be beneficial.
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 live in a diverse and dynamic community. There is much to be celebrated yet
sometimes the communication can be challenging. Our program, and this class in
particular, offers the community an environment to learn the known theories and explore
our communication options.
In the future, we will work more with other faculty to explore ways to teach this sensitive
and important class.
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
 Change to assessment methods
 Other:_________________________________________________________________
Course
Semester assessment data gathered
Number of sections offered in the semester
Number of sections assessed
Percentage of sections assessed
Semester held “Closing the Loop” discussion
Faculty members involved in “Closing the Loop” discussion
COMM 20
Fall 2014
2
1
50%
Spring 2015
Jason Ames
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: Listen to, evaluate and respond
Defined Target
Scores*
(CLO Goal)
65% 3 or 4
Actual Scores**
(eLumen data)
80% scored 3 or 4
appropriately to the ideas of others.
(CLO) 2: Recognize, define and apply principles of
practical communication and communication theory.
(CLO) 3: Understand the variety of value systems
people use in communication.
65% score 3 or 4 68% scored 3 or 4
65% score 3 or 4 75% scored 3 or 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?
PART II: COURSE- LEVEL OUTCOME REFLECTIONS
A. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 1:
1. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this
course level outcome?
Students had a high level of success in this 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?
Students demonstrated their listening skills by constructively and actively listening to
other student speeches. Additionally, students gave constructive feedback to students
after their speeches, demonstrating strong listening skills.
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?
Students did well over the target.
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?
Since this theory is a bit of a theory/presentation hybrid, students need to understand
and apply theory in their speeches. Many students were able to not only understand the
theoretical concepts but also were able to put them into action during their speeches.
Additionally, this model of teaching theory and then applying it gives context to the
students rather then simply lecturing or discussing theory. This makes the students able
to understand persuasion in multiple perspectives.
C. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 3:
1. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course
level outcome?
The students were able to apply and understand value propositions in a persuasive
context.
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 were often able to understand how audiences’ value systems affected their
speeches and presentation. This is typically demonstrated by students giving credibility
statements in the beginning of their speech and discussion costs/benefits of their
speech.
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?
Group speeches have been dropped as students were not successfully demonstrating skills
required in those speeches. Additionally, students have been showing more interest in the
mass media and social media so these aspects of the class are now being incorporated into
the class and should remain in the course.
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?
Students are becoming proficient at public speaking and applying theory to persuasive
speeches. Additionally, the Forensics team continues to be a valuable asset for this class,
providing tutoring in the Comm. Lab, sample debates, and guidance to students.
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
 Change to assessment methods
 Other:_________________________________________________________________
Course
Semester assessment data gathered
Number of sections offered in the semester
Number of sections assessed
Percentage of sections assessed
Semester held “Closing the Loop” discussion
Faculty members involved in “Closing the Loop” discussion
COMM 46
Fall 2014
3
1
33%
Spring 2015
Jason Ames
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: Listen to, evaluate and respond
appropriately to the ideas of others.
Defined Target
Scores*
(CLO Goal)
65% 3 or 4
Actual Scores**
(eLumen data)
77% scored 3 or 4
(CLO) 2: Recognize, define and apply principles of
65% score 3 or 4 70% scored 3 or 4
practical communication and communication theory.
(CLO) 3: Understand the variety of value systems
people use in communication.
65% score 3 or 4 25% scored 3 or 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?
PART II: COURSE- LEVEL OUTCOME REFLECTIONS
A. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 1:
1. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course
level outcome?
Students exceeded the target for success, demonstrated by their ability to listen to debate
rounds, judge them appropriately and provide strong feedback.
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?
Judging debates continues to be a strong way of teaching active listening and critical
thinking skills. Over the last two years I’ve added post-debate feedback from the
students to the performing students with much success. I will continue this practice.
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?
Students did well over the target.
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 were able to apply skills taught in the classroom, including debate theory and
discussing how people make critical decisions and then applying their skills to this
decision making theory.
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?
Students did not succeed to expected levels.
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?
Values are not discussed thoroughly in class, but students also tend to make more
factual arguments rather than value arguments. This demonstrates the need to perhaps
discuss and/or debate values more in the class.
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 stated earlier, more feedback is given by students, enabling better listening skills and
more improvement for the debaters as the class progresses. The reader is not working the
way I would have liked it to work, so that needs to be revisited, perhaps including more
value-based arguments in order to incorporate this type of argument into the classroom.
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?
Students are becoming proficient at public speaking and challenging their own critical
thinking as well as others. As stated before we will continue to revise and update the
reader or look for better textbooks to help students work. Additionally, the Forensics
team continues to be a valuable asset for this class, providing tutoring in the Comm. Lab,
sample debates, and guidance to students.
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
 Change to assessment methods
 Other:_________________________________________________________________
Course
Semester assessment data gathered
Number of sections offered in the semester
Number of sections assessed
Percentage of sections assessed
Semester held “Closing the Loop” discussion
Faculty members involved in “Closing the Loop” discussion
COMM 50
Fall 2015
1
1
100%
Fall 2015
Christine warda
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: Listen to, evaluate and respond
appropriately to the ideas of others.
Defined Target
Scores*
(CLO Goal)
65% 3 or 4
Actual Scores**
(eLumen data)
81% scored 3 or 4
(CLO) 2: Recognize, define and apply principles of
65% score 3 or 4 82% scored 3 or 4
practical communication and communication theory.
(CLO) 3: Adopt an ethical perspective when
presenting original ideas and/or incorporating the
ideas of others.
65% score 3 or 4 100% scored 3 or
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?
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?
This class is full of Communication Studies majors, so I anticipated the numbers would be
strong.
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?
Continue to use speaking activities and partner exercises to encourage strong listening.
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?
Students did well over the target.
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 demonstrated strong ability to apply theories and key concepts in their written
work. Utilizing speeches, papers, and activities to explore theoretical concepts seems to
be working.
C. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 3:
1. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this
course level outcome?
The target was met and then some.
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 understand the importance of giving credit where credit is due. Perhaps what
they are learning in other Comm classes is giving them a strong ability to draw in and cite
sources appropriately. Continued demonstration of ethical teaching and transparency
about the impacts of losing credibility are key.
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?
No significant changes should be made to Comm 50. Since it is still new and it is a class
shared by several different instructors, several cycles of assessment by each should be done
first.
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?
Checking in with one another in future years is key to assess how this course is faring. It
seems to work as we discuss our different experiences teaching it. We each enjoy teaching
the course and like working with our Major students. How to keep it new in some areas
may be the challenge more than dealing with a concept that is confusing.
3. What is the nature of the planned actions (please check all that apply)?
X Curricular
X Pedagogical
Resource based
 Change to CLO or rubric
 Change to assessment methods
 Other:_________________________________________________________________
Course
Semester assessment data gathered
Number of sections offered in the semester
Number of sections assessed
Percentage of sections assessed
Semester held “Closing the Loop” discussion
Faculty members involved in “Closing the Loop” discussion
COMM 70A
Spring 2014
1
1
100%
Spring 2015
Veronica Martinez
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: Listen to, evaluate and respond appropriately to
the ideas of others
(CLO) 2: Recognize, define, and apply the principles of
practical communication and communication theory
Defined Target
Actual Scores**
Scores*
(eLumen data)
(CLO Goal)
75% score 3 or 4 75% scored 3 or 4
75% score 3 or 4 100% scored 3 or
4
original ideas and/or incorporating the ideas of others
75% score 3 or 4 100% scored 3 or
4
(CLO) 4: Understand the variety of value systems people
75% score 3 or 4 75% scored 3 or 4
(CLO) 3: Adopt an ethical perspective when presenting
use in communication
 If more CLOs are listed for the course, add another row to the table.
* Defined Target Scores: What scores in eLumen from your students would indicate success for this
CLO? (Example: 75% of the class scored either 3 or 4)
**Actual scores: What is the actual percent of students that meet defined target based on the eLumen
data collected in this assessment cycle?
PART II: COURSE- LEVEL OUTCOME REFLECTIONS
A. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 1:
1. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this
course level outcome?
Students in this section of COMM 70A did reach the target goal.
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?
These students tutor any students on campus preparing a presentation. For this reason
we hold them to a slightly higher standard. Even with these high expectations, these
tutors seem to be highly effective listeners, a vital skill for tutors.
There is always room for improvement. In addition to their handbook and practice in
the lab, additional role-playing for listening would be helpful.
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?
These students far exceeded the target goal.
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?
These students tutor any students on campus preparing a presentation. For this reason
we hold them to a slightly higher standard. Even with these high expectations, these
tutors were able to show a mastery of communication principles and theory. They have
all taken more than one COMM course and continue to review in this class so it expected
they would shine in this area.
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?
These students far exceeded the target goal.
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?
These students tutor any students on campus preparing a presentation. For this reason
we hold them to a slightly higher standard. Even with these high expectations, these
tutors were able to show a high level of ethical decision-making. They have all taken
more than one COMM course and continue to review in this class so it expected they
would shine in this area.
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?
Students in this section of COMM 70A did reach the target goal.
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?
These students tutor any students on campus preparing a presentation. For this reason
we hold them to a slightly higher standard. Even with these high expectations, these
tutors seem to understand how to adapt to a variety of value systems.
There is always room for improvement. In addition to their handbook and practice in
the lab, additional discussion of diversity and adaption would be helpful.
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?
Our Communication Lab has grown significantly over the last few years making tutors even
more necessary to the success of the Lab and consequently to the success of students
presenting speeches in their classes. For that reason we expanded our program by adding
this Tutor Training course to our curriculum. This course works as a learning environment
for tutors while they prepare to move up to a paid tutor position. The course has been
successful in saving the Lab money and more importantly creating a space where tutors can
refine their tutoring skills.
2. Based on the current assessment and reflections, what course-level and programmatic
strengths have the assessment reflections revealed? What actions has your discipline
determined might be taken as a result of your reflections, discussions, and insights?
The Lab serves over 1000 students per year, from various disciplines. And we grow in
numbers every year. We have collected data to prove students who use the Comm Lab
are more successful than students who do not. And this assessment shows our tutor
training program is successful at preparing tutors for this responsibility.
In the Fall of 2015 our Lab will expand with additional space in Building 200. We will
undoubtedly grow. We believe the preparation of the tutor training program may need to
grow as well. Maybe holding retreats for tutors and/or faculty will be involved. And
attendance at the National Communication Lab Conference would be beneficial.
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
 Change to assessment methods
 Other:_________________________________________________________________
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.
Programs: Communication Studies AA-T / Speech Communication AA

PLO #1: Pursue and evaluate knowledge through the skills of inquiry, research, and
critical thinking

PLO #2: Demonstrate effective skills in written and spoken communication.
What questions or investigations arose as a result of these reflections or discussions?
Is listening contained in the language we use in our PLOs? How do we assess “pursuit?”
What program-level strengths have the assessment reflections revealed?
That we are strong in written/spoken communication, as well as, critical thinking skill
development.
What actions has your discipline determined might be taken to enhance the learning of
students completing your program?
Continue to use co-curricular (forensics) and lab spaces to support application and development of
communication skills. We need to meet and discuss more with our part-time faculty who teach more
than 70% of our courses.
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) Yes
3. Have all of your courses been offered within the past five years? If no, why should those
courses remain in our college catalog? No (one was canceled due to low enrollment)
4. Do all of your courses have the required number of CLOs completed, with corresponding
rubrics? If no, identify the CLO work you still need to complete, and your timeline for
completing that work this semester
Yes
5. Have you assessed all of your courses and completed "closing the loop" forms for all of your
courses within the past three years? If no, identify which courses still require this work, and
your timeline for completing that work this semester. Yes (Comm 12 is new and will be assessed
in Spring 2016; Comm 2 has been taught by PT faculty for several years or not offered – we will
have it assessed immediately when it is offered.)
6. Have you developed and assessed PLOs for all of your programs? If no, identify programs which
still require this work, and your timeline to complete that work this semester. Yes
7. If you have course sequences, is success in the first course a good predictor of success in the
subsequent course(s)? N/A
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.
With some courses,
Engl 1A success is a determining factor in success.
Appendix E: Proposal for New and Ongoing Initiatives and Projects (Complete for each
initiative/project)
Audience: Deans/Unit Administrators, PRBC, Foundation, Grants Committee, Equity, BSC,
College Budget Committee
Purpose: The project will require the support of additional and/or outside funding.
How does your project address the college's Strategic Plan goal, significantly improve student
learning or service, and/or address disproportionate impact?
The Great Debate - We are about to host the third annual “Great Debate” in downtown
Hayward, coordinating multiple disciplines on campus, community members, and the Chabot
Forensics team to present and debate a chosen them, 2015 the theme is Poverty. Community
politicians, K-12 schools, other colleges, and the community will be invited to see our students
present various presentations.
What is your specific goal and measurable outcome? (Note: Complete the Equity/BSI proposal
in Appendix E1 if you would like to request these funds and indicate “see Equity/BSI proposal
for detail”)
Our goal is to give students a first-hand look at how government operates and how public
speaking / argumentation /performance interact with policy.
Our students should be able to synthesize course concepts with the given theme and then
apply this in the form of some kind of presentation, considering the context and audience.
What learning or service area outcomes does your project address? Where in your program
review are these outcomes and the results of assessment discussed (note: if assessment was
completed during a different year, please indicate which year).
OUR STUDENTS SHOULD BE ABLE TO ADDRESS ALL OF OUR BASIC LEARNING OUTCOMES:
(CLO) 1: Recognize, define, and apply the principles of practical communication and communication
theory.
(CLO) 2: Adopt an ethical perspective when presenting original ideas and/or incorporating the ideas of
others.
(CLO) 3: Listen to, evaluate, and respond appropriately to the ideas of others.
(CLO) 4: Understand the variety of value systems people use in communications.
What is your action plan to achieve your goal?
Activity (brief description)
Target
Required Budget
Completio (Split out personnel,
n Date
supplies, other
categories)
Dec 2016 Time
Coordinate with the Communication
Majors/Tutors/Forensics Students for volunteer
teams/projects
Coordinate with interdisciplinary faculty team to
Dec 2016
identify a key annual theme, teach and apply projectbased learning (specifically working with Basic Skills
students), and schedule (and other logistics) student
work demonstration at the event.
Coordinate with community leaders and city hall
Dec 2016
representatives to secure spaces and relationships so
student work is facilitated/moderated by community
members.
Coordinate with community members and
Dec 2016
forensics team to set up The Main Event debate – identify
topic/resolution, share debate strategies, share
community expertise/knowledge, and rehearse.
Time, Professional
Development funding
Time
Time
How will you manage the personnel needs?
New Hires:
Faculty # of positions
Classified staff # of positions
x
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):Basic Skills has funded; Academic Services should also be pursued.
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: Collaboration with fellow faculty, community members and
students is key.
Do you know of any grant funding sources that would meet the needs of the proposed project?
No
x Yes, list potential funding sources: BSI, Academic Services, any civic
engagement or project-based learned funding opportunities.
Appendix E1: Equity and Basic Skills Initiative Fund Requests:
Project Name: The Great Debate
Contact Name: Jason Ames
Division/Discipline/Program/Office: SOTA/Communication Studies/Forensics 403F
Contact info: (email, campus phone, and cell phone) James@chabotcollege.edu
Check the student success indicator(s) your project will address
__ ACCESS: Enroll more of a population group to match their representation in community.
_x_ COURSE COMPLETION: Increase success rates in identified courses.
_x_ ESL AND BASIC SKILLS COMPLETION:
Increase success rates in ESL or Basic Skills courses, and
Increase the completion of degree/transfer courses by ESL or Basic Skills students.
__DEGREE AND CERTIFICATE COMPLETION:
Increase percent of degrees/certificates among degree/certificate-seeking students.
__TRANSFER
Increase percent of transfers to 4-year colleges among transfer-directed students.
Check the type of project you are proposing
___ Curriculum/Program improvement ____ Outreach
__x_ Direct student intervention
____ Instructional Support
__x_ Faculty development
____ Research and Evaluation
___Other:
__x__ Coordination and Planning
To determine whether your project can be funded by Equity funds:
1) Does your proposal address disproportionate impact for any of the following target student
populations marked with an “X”? Please highlight the “X” that corresponds with your target
populations. (Equity funds must address specific opportunity gaps identified below with an “X”)
GOALS
Goal A:
Goal B:
Goal C:
Goal D1:
Goal D2:
Goal E:
Access
Course
ESL/Basic Degree
Cert
Transfer
Completion Skills
Completion Completion
/ Success
Success
Rates
Males
X
Foster Youth
X
X
Students with
X
X
X
X
disabilities
Low-income
Veterans
X
American Indian
or Alaska Native
Asian
Black or African
American
Filipino
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Hispanic or Latino
Hawaiian or
Pacific Islander
White
X
X
X
X
X
2) COLLABORATIVE PARTNERS
In what ways does your project include collaboration between academic and student services
and/or with the community? (Equity proposals that partner to reach target populations are
prioritized over proposals that do not)
To determine how your project fits into your discipline’s or program’s planning:
1) Is your project mentioned in your area’s latest program review?
_x_ Yes
__ No
2) Does your immediate administrator support this project?
__ No _x_ Yes
3) How have you shared this proposal with others in the relevant area, discipline, or division?
When did this conversation take place and who was involved? 2016 will be the 4th Great Debate
– campus is getting really motivated and aware of this project and its size is growing!
PROJECT GOALS, ACTIVITIES, BUDGET, OUTCOMES, AND EVALUATION
GOAL
What does your project hope to achieve overall?
Increase retention and success for all students involved in the Great Debate. We believe that
Basic Skills students perform well in project-based learning situations and creating
community investment in the student’s education is a necessary part of supporting them to
completion.
DOCUMENTING NEED AND SOLUTION
Please provide data to support the need for your project and the solution you propose.
Over 70% of the students involved in previous Great Debates were basic skills students. We
will assess this year to see how this project impacts this specific population. In previous years,
we had focused on Civic Engagement and Communication learning goals. We have seen
significant results in those areas and are excited for the data to come.
ACTIVITIES
Please list all the activities (A.1, A. 2, A.3, etc.) that you propose to do to reach your goal.
List activities by target date in chronological order.
Identify the responsible person/group for each activity, and who will be involved.
Responsible Person: TBD (Jason Ames will be on sabbatical (probably) so we will identify a
director for this project soon.)
Target
Required Budget
Activity (brief description)
Completio (Split out personnel,
n Date
supplies, other
categories)
Coordinate with the Communication
Dec 2016 Time
Majors/Tutors/Forensics Students for volunteer
teams/projects
Coordinate with interdisciplinary faculty team to
Dec 2016 Time, Professional
identify a key annual theme, teach and apply projectDevelopment funding
based learning (specifically working with Basic Skills
students), and schedule (and other logistics) student
work demonstration at the event.
Coordinate with community leaders and city hall
Dec 2016 Time
representatives to secure spaces and relationships so
student work is facilitated/moderated by community
members.
Coordinate with community members and
Dec 2016 Time
forensics team to set up The Main Event debate – identify
topic/resolution, share debate strategies, share
community expertise/knowledge, and rehearse.
We believe 3 CAH of reassigned time is adequate to bring this event to fruition. Additionally,
for supplies and other resources, we will continue to seek Student Senate and other funding
sources.
BUDGET
Provide a budget that shows how the funds will be spent to support the activities.
3 CAH – 52.5 hours spent in meetings, rehearsals, curriculum development, emails, phone
calls, and workshops. This is a bare minimum time for this huge event.
EXPECTED OUTCOMES and EVALUATION
How will you know whether or not you have achieved your goal?
What measurable outcomes are you hoping to achieve for the student success indicator and
target population you chose?
How will you identify the students who are affected (are they part of a class, a program, or a
service, or will you need to track them individually)?
We are isolating data for Basic Skills students this year to see the impact. We are also
identifying learning community (CIN) students and their participation. We are hoping to see
that Basic Skills students have 5% higher success in course completion after participation in the
Great Debate.
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):
☒
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 ____Communication Studies _______
Criteria 1.
Percent of full-time faculty in department.
Fall 2012 Spring 2013
Fall 2013
Spring 2014
Fall 2014
FTEF
(Contract)
3
3
3
3
3
FTEF
(Temporary)
0
0
0
0
0
# of Contract
Faculty
3
3
3
3
3
Name of Recently Retired Faculty (in last 3 yrs) Christine Date Retired:
Warda. Additionally, even thought this document only 12/31/15
asks for the last 3 years, we believe it is important to note
that Patti Keeling retired in 2009 and was never replaced.
Criteria 2.
Semester end departmental enrollment pattern for last three years.
Fall 2012
Spring
2013
Fall 2013
Spring
2014
Fall 2014
Success Rate:
72%
72%
69%
76%
70%
FTES:
77.21
77.21
77.21
58.06
58.06
Briefly describe how a new hire will impact your success/retention rates.
1. The lack of FT faculty means students are underserved
Since Spring of 2013, our FTEF number have called for 7 Full time faculty (S’13:
6.94, F’13: 7.67, S’14: 7.27, F’14: 8.07, S’15: 7.27). Yet, Communication Studies
(CS) has only had 3 FT faculty members in this time and we are going to go
down to 2 in the Spring of 2016. CS is one of the “golden four” courses within
the College. We are termed as such not because of our silver tongues, but because
students CAN NOT receive a certificate or transfer to a CSU without completing
some of our classes. Despite this need, CS classes, particularly Comm. Studies 1
(public speaking) continue to be “bottlenecked”. Students are regularly denied
these classes because they are over-filled, denying their ability to graduate,
transfer, or complete other educational goals. More FT faculty members will
allow us to add classes, allowing more students to meet their educational goals.
Additionally, there is a devastating and dangerous overreliance on PT faculty in
the CS department. Chabot College, as a whole, has a 46.2% to 53.8% FT to PT
ratio, meaning that nearly ½ of all classes at the college are taught by FT’ers. The
CS department is currently at 35%, over 11% BELOW the college average. This
is going to become more dramatic with the impending retirement of christine
warda. In the Spring of 2016, the FT to PT ratio in CS will be 22%, which is 25%
below the college average. For a department that nearly two thousand students
MUST go through each year in order to meet their educational goals, having only
1.8 FT’ers is unsustainable. We are asking for 2 FT faculty members. We believe
that these FT’ers should be able to teach all the classes we have to offer,
including hiring another Forensics-capable instructor. Adding these 2 new FT’ers
will move our FT/PT ratio to 45%, still under the College average, but just barely.
For a discipline that is growing in both majors and students served, a discipline
that is a REQUIREMENT for a majority of students, a discipline that is
innovative, this isn’t a request: it’s a necessity. We are only asking to be average.
a. Fill rates of Comm. classes demonstrate the need
Communication Studies 1 (public speaking) is our main required course. 76% of
all our course offerings from 2012 – 2015 were Comm. 1. According to the
enrollment reports from 2012 – 2015, Comm. 1 classes were over-enrolled at
105%. As a discipline over the last 5 years we are at 109% of capacity. Other
classes that meet the Oral Communication requirement, Comm. 20 and Comm.
46 were also near or over capacity as well. Having more FT faculty members will
allow us to expand our offerings, allowing more students into the classrooms so
that they may meet their educational goals, many of which rely upon their
completion of these courses.
b. We serve the most students in the Arts and Humanities … and it’s not even
close.
According to the F’15 preliminary data, CS serves 957 students. This is larger
than our 3 year average of 711 students a semester, but we are growing as a
major and the school is growing itself, most likely explaining the increase in
students. The next largest discipline in our division is Theater at 530. Due to the
necessity of performance in our classes (speeches, obviously), we will never
generate the amount of WSCH that some of our colleagues generate. However,
even with this restraint, our FTEF is still above 7. Yet we only have 3 and will go
down to 2 in the Spring of 2016. Regarding WSCH, we are working on ways of
increasing that number including better accounting of Forensics hours, the
creation of a one-unit large lecture course about public speaking in the
community, and investigating the raising of caps in our non-performance classes.
However, due to our heavy workloads, we have not been able to develop these
new initiatives. Having 2 more FT instructors will allow us to continue to develop
new curriculum, be innovative, and allow more student contact with instructors.
c. We have a lot of majors
Looking at the Comm. Studies and Speech majors combined (a system we are
working to condense), the CS discipline has 111 majors. Math only has 86 and
English only has 80. There is a discrepancy, though, as we only have 10 – 15
degree earners. There are a couple of likely explanations for this: 1) due to our
unbalanced workload and the lack of a discipline head with reassigned time, we
have not been able to help our students follow through to their educational goals,
and 2) students may not realize that they are meeting all the requirements and are
not announcing/declaring their completion at graduation. New FT faculty
members will help our students matriculate through they system better, allow us
to better monitor our majors and help increase success rates by allowing them to
meet their educational goals.
d. An overreliance on dwindling PT faculty limit services, accessibility, and
collegial participation
1. We love our PT faculty and are truly blessed to have dedicated members of
academia working with us. However, there are a number of limitations with
having an over-reliance on PT faculty. First, PT faculty get jobs elsewhere. Over
the last three years, we have literally been at our last PT’er to fill classes. When
one of our instructors went on leave, a FT had to work overload to fill that need.
The Forensics team has had 5 Assistant coaches in the last 4 years, including
having 3 separate instructors turn the position down because of a “lack of
opportunity to apply for FT work”. Of those 5 Assistant coaches, 3 have left for
FT work elsewhere. We are nearly unable to staff classes, which would further
narrow the bottleneck in Comm, damaging student’s ability to meet their
education goals. Additionally, Chabot continues to lose out on talented instructors
in the Comm. Field because of its inability to hire them. As I write this, there are
4 members of the PT pool that are applying for FT jobs at other colleges. We are
falling behind.
2. The Discipline suffers
In a meeting about Jason Ames’ sabbatical proposal, the Dean of AHSS
pedagogically approved of his sabbatical, but sent a note to the VP along with his
proposal. The letter noted a hesitation from the Dean because she was unsure
Jason could be replaced if he were to leave. She noted that there could be a lack
of structure and sustainability if he were to be out. We agree. The overreliance on
PT’ers and the lack of any new hires is unsustainable. This also illuminates
another issue: the overreliance on PT faculty stagnates the growth of the FT’ers.
Additionally, our ability to create new curriculum has suffered since we are too
busy managing the day to day activities of running the department. Next, our
ability to participate in college wide work suffers as well. christine warda stepped
back from her wonderful work in Staff Development in order to be of more use to
the sagging Comm. Department. Jason Ames stepped back from his work on the
Academic Senate in order to work within the CS department.
3. Students suffer
Being a PT faculty member is awful. They are underpaid, underinsured, and
underappreciated. They also do not hold the same number of office hours or have
the same presence as a FT faculty member does. Additionally, they don’t
recommend tutors at the same level, they don’t recruit members to the Forensics
team at the same level, and nearly all of them regularly miss discipline meetings
where important decisions about textbooks, staffing, and direction are made. All
of these issues affect the success level of students.
4. Finally … we’re due.
The CS department has not had a new hire in 11 years. In 2005, Jason Ames was
hired as a 4th member of the Department. The next year, Terry Petersen left and
was replaced (re: not a growth position) by christine warda. Dave Arrovolla
retired a few years later and was replaced (re: not a growth position) by Veronica
Martinez. A couple of years after that, Patti Keeling retired and was NEVER
replaced. Since that retirement in 2009, we have asked for a new position
EVERY YEAR and always been denied. Since Jason was hired in 2005, we have
developed an AA-T, tripled our majors, created a Communication Lab,
maintained a national award winning Forensics team, and served the college in
myriad other ways. And we’re exhausted. In 11 years, Jason has traveled to every
tournament with the team but for 3 days due to a lack of institutional support. We
all work long hours. We all miss family, events, and sleep to work on our craft.
To ignore burnout and pretend it is merely something we all go through is to
ignore real issues about work life balance, stress, and mental health. So, one more
time: CS serves 950 students a semester. Our classes are overfilled. We have over
100 majors. And we have fewer instructors than other disciplines we serve 40%
fewer students than we do. It is time for Chabot College to step up and help one
of the most important, dedicated, and life changing disciplines in this college.
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.
Fall 2013
Spring 2014
Fall 2014
Meets established class size.
Fall 2012
Spring 2013
Fall 2013 Spring 2014
Fall 2014
405.52
390.06
393.07
400.93
377.70
FTES:
83.50
WSCH/FTES 540/7.6
87.70
540/7.6
98.83
540/7.6
94.95
540/7.6
100.09
540/7.6
WSCH

Spring 2013
I have no idea what the WSCH/FTES number is and I have no idea how to calculate
it. I’ve asked several people who also aren’t sure. If I am given some instruction on
how to calculate it, I’ll be happy to do the work and include that number.
If there are any external factors that limit class sizes, please explain.
Communication Studies students must, in all but 3 of our courses, MUST give
speeches and/or presentations. Using our biggest class (and the only class in the
College that meet the Oral Comm. Requirement outside of Comm. 20 and Comm.
46) Comm. 1: Public Speaking usually has 4 or 5 speeches. These speeches
average about 6 minutes (depending on instructor, or course). Thus, in a 75
minute class session, with feedback and transition time, we are able to get
through roughly 8 – 10 speeches per session. With a cap of 25, this means it takes
2 and a half days at LEAST to get through all speeches. In reality, it is usually 3.
That means, bare minimum, students are speaking 12 – 15 days a semester, or 3 –
4 weeks of the semester. This leaves only 14 weeks of actual instruction. When
you add in the standard tests and mid-terms (yes, we do that as well), we’re
talking (pun intended) 13 weeks of actual instruction. Any addition to that cap
further restricts the instruction time, making the classes pedagogically unsound. A
view of the 3 major 4 year institutions that offer Communication Studies degrees
will demonstrate that our caps are in line with their programs.
Criteria 4.
Current instructional gaps and program service needs. List the courses to fill
the gaps, if applicable.
With the retirement of christine warda, we will have 4 major instructional gaps:
1. Jason Ames will be the only instructor with Forensics coaching
experience. The Forensics team is the most successful competitive team
on the campus, regularly bringing home State and National awards.
Additionally it serves as a feeder program to the Communication Lab
(1/2 of all tutors have Forensics experience). Without another FT
instructor with Forensics experience, the program and the campus suffer.
2. On-line courses: there is no FT instructor with on-line/hybrid teaching
experience in our discipline.
3. Performance: A major part of our discipline is performance
communication. While Jason and Veronica have performance experience,
christine warda is an expert in this part of the field. With her retirement,
we lose a major part of a section of our discipline.
4. Health Communication: Health Communication is a growing part of the
Communication Studies discipline and we currently have no instructor
nor any curriculum for this portion of our field.
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: Program Health: new faculty will help to alleviate bottlenecks in the Oral
Communication requirement, will help eliminate program gaps in performance,
health communication, and Forensics. It will also allow us to move successful
initiatives like the Comm. Lab, CIN!, and The Great Debate forward.
Tier 3: We’ve listed above the significant holes in student equity, the major
bottlenecks in the Oral Communication requirement, and how we have more
majors than English and Math yet have less than ½ of their FT faculty
representation. This is clearly creating backlogs in meeting student educational
goals.
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.
Enhance our existing program. The Communication Studies department is
obligated to be productive and we try to go above and beyond the requirements.
We simply need more full-time faculty to accomplish this.
Criteria 7.
CTE Program Impact.
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
# Awarded
2011-2012
2012-2013
2013-2014
(2015)
AA requirement
0
5
10
GE transfer requirement
40/42
16
40/42
40/42
32
56 (138)
Declared major

I wasn’t sure what “GE transfer requirement” was asking, so those numbers
reflect the number of classes we offer that meet a GE requirement.
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.
Everyone communicates. A large number of classes on campus have students
give presentations. COMM classes like COMM 46 also meet critical thinking
requirements. We teach students how to present their ideas in organized and
clear ways, we teach students how to formulate arguments and recognize
fallacies, we teach students how to see other perspectives, check their
perceptions, and manage conflict in healthy ways. We teach students how to
advocate for their positions, defend their positions, research their positions, and
how to see other sides of their positions.
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.
I think this is all noted in the narrative above. Thanks for reading!
Appendix F1B: Reassign Time Request(s) [Acct. Category 1000]
Audience: Administrators
Purpose: Provide explanation and justification for work to be completed. (Note: positions
require job responsibility descriptions that are approved by the appropriate administrator(s).)
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. Add your requests to your spreadsheet under the 1000b tab and check the box
below once they’ve been added.
Total number of hours requested and the type of contact
hour:
☒
.5 CAH
Summary of hours requested completed in Program Review Resource Request
Spreadsheet (please check box to left)
A large portion of time on campus for Veronica Martinez is coordinating the Communication Studies
Lab. The Lab has grown to serve over 1000 students from across campus each semester, Fall and
Spring. This year she piloted a successful summer tutoring center as well, with over 300 visitors to the
Lab. She recruits, interviews, schedules and trains all the tutors (15 tutors in Fall 2015). She also
advertises to the campus and finds ways to accommodate students from various disciplines. This
semester she even secured funds for an off campus retreat before the semester started. They spent
the day at Mt Eden Mansion on Tennyson Road, reviewing public speaking skills, tutoring skills, and
most importantly getting to know one another. At the end of each school year she is also an integral
part of planning the Comm Lab tutor awards/party and the Communication Studies Award Ceremony.
We believe it’s important to celebrate tutor and student efforts. Veronica works with tutors, faculty,
and administration to create the most helpful peer tutoring center possible. She loves what she does
but it is time she was compensated.
55
Appendix F2B: Student Assistant Requests [Acct. Category 2000]
Audience: Administrators, PRBC
Purpose: Providing explanation and justification for student assistant 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 these positions
are categorically funded, include and designate the funding source of new categorically-funded
positions where continuation is contingent upon available funding.
Rationale for proposed student assistant positions:
To provide supervision, information, and work as a laision between the Learning Connection
and Collaborative Projects areas.
Also see Learning Connection Program Review.
How do the assessments that you preformed to measure student learning outcomes (SLO’s) or
service area outcomes (SAO’s) support this request?
See Learning Connection Program Review.
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):
See Learning
Connection
PR
Summary of positions requested completed in Resource Request Spreadsheet (please
☒ check box to left)
56
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
Comm.
Studies 1
CURRENT
FTEF
(2015-16)
5.4
ADDITIONAL
FTEF
NEEDED
.6
CURRENT
SECTIONS
27
57
ADDITIONAL
SECTIONS
NEEDED
3
CURRENT
STUDENT #
SERVED
675
ADDITIONAL
STUDENT #
SERVED
75
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):
☒
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.
We know students are more successful when they visit the Comm Lab. 94% of students
succeed COMM 1 when they visit the Lab (IR). Our peer tutors are well trained and
supported. We set tutors up to succeed and therefore they can help visiting students
succeed. For the 2014-2015 school year (Fall, Spring, Summer) the Lab had over 2000
visitors. We project an even greater number this academic year due to the fact that
we’ve grown every year and we’ve also added 5 more tutors to the schedule Fall 15.
How do the assessments that you preformed to measure student learning outcomes (SLO’s) or
service area outcomes (SAO’s) support this request?
Tutors are available to provide guidance on any question a visiting student might have.
Therefore, our tutors are directly impacting any/all Student Learning Outcomes.
58
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.
☒
SUPPLIES tab (4000) completed in Program Review Resource Request Spreadsheet
(please check box to left)
How do the assessments that you preformed to measure student learning outcomes (SLO’s) or
service area outcomes (SAO’s) support this request?
Our supply list varies in item and purpose. It is difficult to attach an assessment to each
item on the supply list. In general, we know that each item on the list will improve student
research, organization, argument, and delivery of their work.
59
Appendix F6: Contracts & Services, Conference & Travel Requests [Acct. Category
5000]
Audience: Staff Development Committee, Administrators, Budget Committee, PRBC
Purpose: To request funding for contracts & services and 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. Your rationale should discuss student learning goals and/or
connection to the Strategic Plan goal.
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.
1.
2.
There should be a separate line item for each contract or service.
Travel costs should be broken out and then totaled (e.g., airfare, mileage, hotel, etc.)
☒
TRAVEL/SERVICES tab (5000) completed in Program Review Resource Request Spreadsheet
(please check box to left)
Rationale:
For the last 11 years, since Jason Ames has been Director of Forensics, the Forensics team budget
has either decreased or stayed stagnant. This was understandable during the Great Recession, but
now that the State and College are fiscally better, it is time to increase the Forensics budget. In
those 11 years, costs have risen significantly both for hotel rooms and for travel. For example,
the team has also grown and become more Nationally competitive, increasing costs. In quiet
moments of reflection, I ask myself what does this team need to do to get better funded? In the
last 3 years, we’ve taken 11 students to Nationals and come home with 9 awards. We continue to
serve the college through our intramural tournaments, “Speak Up” showcases, speaking at Flex
Days, doing ballot initiative debates, participating in The Great Debate, and compiling nearly ½ of
the Communication Lab. This team gives back. Why isn’t the College?
The budget hasn’t even been given COLA adjustments. This lack of funding impacts our program,
Communication Lab, and overall instruction/staffing. The budget for the Forensics team was
decreased from over $12,000 in 2008-09 to a little over $8,000 and has stayed at that level for 6
years. This hurts the program, but it also affects the discipline as well. First, it makes travel to
tournaments more difficult. For this season, the team has been unable to travel to any
tournaments outside the Northern California region (except for the National Tournament),
hurting the team’s National competitiveness. It also affects the education of the Forensics
student, as their exposure to speeches, arguments, performances, and critiques of their own
material is limited. And since forensics students are often our Communication Studies majors,
taking numerous Comm. classes from different instructors, this experience enriches the
classrooms they come back to. Forensics students also present speeches to COMM classes, and to
the College as a whole.
60
Every semester we have put on our semi-annual “Speak Up” which had over 100 students fill the
Little Theater, demonstrating all the skills that make a good communicator. Finally, in February
we host the “Keeling Invitational” a Northern California Forensics Association tournament,
exposing our campus to the best and brightest speakers in the nation.
However, the team is financially on the brink. ANY further cuts to the team will most likely result
in a restriction of tournaments, a restriction of students attending tournaments, and, almost
assuredly, an elimination of the National Tournament from our schedule. We will be limited to
only regional and State tournaments. This would effectively destroy the Forensics team as it has
been known for over 30 years. Thus, we ask for an increase in the budget from its current state
back to its previous state of $12,000 a year. With this rate, the team will be able to travel to one
or two tournaments outside of our region, enabling us to better prepare competitively but to also
better educate students in the Forensics class and better serve our campus as a whole. If Chabot
wants a National caliber team, it is time Chabot starts funding us at least like a State caliber one.
The Communication Lab is also in need of better funding. Veronica Martinez has been essential
and brilliantly creative in finding funding for the lab. She has also written curriculum that enables
us to staff the lab through units instead of financial compensation, but without institutionalized
money, we may not be able to staff “Lab Leads”, who are currently paid.
The Communication Lab is also in need of more supplies, equipment, and pedagogical materials
which also need a permanent funding source. The supplies budget is minimal at best, despite a
great need for funding. There is currently only one computer in the lab, limiting the ability for
students coming to the lab to receive support for research elements of the speech. This program
has been a great success, as it serves the campus. 94% of students who visit the Comm Lab pass
their COMM class and students who visit the lab have a higher success rate than students who
don’t visit the lab. This is a successful program and we need support to reach its enormous
capabilities and to enable us to serve more students more often.
Finally, the Communication Studies faculty are motivated to attend teaching conferences. For
example, the Western States Communication Association holds a massive conference every year.
It is vital to stay current in our field as well as share our accomplishments with other campuses.
How do the assessments that you preformed to measure student learning outcomes (SLO’s) or service
area outcomes (SAO’s) support this request?
61
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.
☒
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
We have requested more computers for use in the Comm Lab and Forensic Team on
our budget excel sheet and on the link provided.
62