Chabot College
Academic Services
Program Review Report
2016 -2017
Year in the Cycle: 1
Program:
Humanities-Philosophy-Religious
Studies
Submitted on October 26, 2015
Contact: Trish Shannon
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
1. Who We Are
Today, we are a two-person set of disciplines. We am extremely gratified that the college
prioritized the hiring of a second faculty member, Dr. Ryan Scherbart. Discipline work during
2014-15 included faculty evaluations of all adjuncts teaching in the division (completed during
October and November of 2014), working with adjuncts to complete assessment (the last
course data was submitted in June 2015), working with the dean and a hiring committee to hire
a new full-timer, and all of the other miscellaneous tasks for any discipline. I also played a role
in preparing for the six year external accreditation assessment.
As we have begun to work together, we have mapped a tentative three year schedule (as
requested by the dean), opened a pool for adjuncts (interviews in late October), and outlined
initial steps for the next three years. We are proud of the adjuncts in our disciplines, who until
this year have shouldered the bulk of the teaching and student contact. We are grateful for the
work of adjuncts in completing assessment and their “stepping” up to take on additional
students even when overload cannot be paid due to contractual limitations, which makes a
contribution to the college in achieving its FTES goal.
Students are generally successful in our classes, and tend to persist and succeed in greater
numbers in other courses after taking courses in our disciplines. Our enrollments of underrepresented populations continue to grow, although we haven’t done anything in particular to
attract these students. With additional FTEF allocated, we were able to restore key breadth
offerings, and if we receive the additional FTEF requested, we will continue to restore key
breadth offerings.
2. Where We Are Now
Our existing facilities are sufficient, and there is no particular growth or changing technology
that will substantially increase or decrease interest in the disciplines. Generally, we believe that
the WIFI signal across campus is uneven, and we would like to see that improved (as will be
noted in the technology request). In this same area, we know that various kinds of devices
(clickers, for example) have been purchased, but we do not know how to access/use these
devices or obtain training in their use.
With a new hire comes two critical areas of activity. First, we need to ensure that the hire
faculty member settles in and flourishes in this setting, which includes ensuring the quality of
his tenure process and mentoring. Second, we need to establish areas of interest and
improvement for the disciplines. Both of these are underway. Early in the semester, we met to
discuss both the tenure process as well as seeing where the disciplines are and could be over
the next three to five years. Our first and most immediate goal was to address the strong
demand for online sections of our courses. Enrollment data for the past two years, including
summers, document that we could double the number of sections currently offered online and
1
reduce class sizes, which would improve faculty-student interaction and remove an unfair (as
these large classes are often taught without compensation due to contractual limitations and
the desire of faculty to accommodate students). In order to do that, Ryan has begun the
process of becoming eligible to teach online classes with the goal of adding additional online
sections to our offerings in Fall 2016. To do this will require additional adjuncts (to handle the
face-to-face sections), so we have opened an adjunct pools.
3. The Difference We Hope to Make
Once Ryan is approved to teach online, our goal is to offer three additional sections per
semester online (what our online enrollments suggest could be supported). We intend to add
one course per semester so that we can track ongoing enrollments, success, and completion. In
addition to a significant bump in the number of student served, augmenting our online
offerings will allow us to potentially offer courses that have not been offered recently. In the
spring, we will begin evaluating the entire set of HUMN-PHIL-RELS offerings. We have some
interesting trends in place, where some section of courses are quite full, and others are not.
We want to review our current UC/IGETC approvals and consider what changes in the
curriculum would ensure that our courses are as fully articulated as possible. We also will be
evaluating what curriculum development will need to be done for TMCs in our disciplines
(where appropriate). As noted in the Spring 2015 Program Review Addendum, we need to
consider the program holistically and evaluate the curriculum and the programs carefully. We
will be considering development of AATs for all three disciplines. In particular, while evaluating
an AAT for philosophy, we will need to consider mirroring the AAT recently approved by Las
Positas. If we develop an AAT for philosophy, we are committed to ensuring that our TMC will
match theirs as much as possible. A major consideration for our disciplines is that we need to
carefully weigh the opposing needs, for example, small numbers of majors versus large
numbers of students completing courses to meet GE requirements, and the impacts of majorsonly courses (with likely lower enrollments) on productivity.
Appendix A: Budget History and Impact
We did not request any funding.
Appendix B1: Student Learning Outcomes Assessment Reporting Schedule
All courses were assessed during the previous cycle, ending June 2016 (last
received data was forwarded as an addendum to the 2014-15 Report on
October 26, 2015, as part of the preparation of this Program Review Report.
I.
Course-Level Student Learning Outcomes & Assessment Reporting
(CLO-Closing the Loop).
A. Check One of the Following:
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
2
year and include in this Program Review. Per instructions from Robert Yest, I am
entering the last course assessment data received in June 2012 for PHIL60. Everything
else was reported within multiple addenda forwarded by the end of May 2015 (as
adjuncts submitted data).
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.
PHIL60
This Year’s Program
Review
*CTL forms must be
included with this PR.
*Note: These courses
must be assessed in
the next PR year.
Assessed
Will be assessed this
semester.
HUMN50
Assessed
HUMN60
Assessed
HUMN65
Assessed
HUMN68
Assessed
RELS50
Assessed
RELS64
Assessed
RELS65
2-Years Prior
Forms included*
PHIL50
PHIL65
Last Year’s Program
Review
Course not offered.
Fall 2015 offering was
cancelled for low
enrollment. Will
assess when offered
RELS70
Assessed
This last assessment came in during June.
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
3
PHIL60
Spring 2015
3
1
33%
Spring 2015
2 (Shannon, Eagan)
NOTE: Contractually, adjunct faculty were not (Spring 2015) required to assess, and in this case, all
sections of the course were taught by adjuncts. One adjunct submitted data, the other did not. This
will not be a problem in the future.
PART I: COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOMES – DATA RESULTS
CONSIDER THE COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOMES INDIVIDUALLY (THE
NUMBER OF CLOS WILL DIFFER BY COURSE)
(CLO) 1 Explain three classical ethical theories.
(CLO) 2: Critique ethical decision-making processes
using alternative theories or processes.
(CLO) 3: Discuss, orally or written, the complexity of
an ethical problem and a coherent ethical decision
making process.
Defined Target
Scores*
(CLO Goal)
50% greater
than or equal to
2
50% greater
than or equal to
2
50% greater
than or equal to
2
Actual Scores**
(eLumen data)
26/36
29/36
30/36
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?
Exceed
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?
No changes needed.
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?
Exceed.
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?
No changes needed.
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?
Exceed.
4
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?
No changes needed.
PART III: COURSE REFLECTIONS AND FUTURE PLANS
1. What changes were made to your course based on the previous assessment cycle, the prior
Closing the Loop reflections and other faculty discussions?
None
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?
No recommendations were made.
5
Appendix B2: “Closing the Loop” Course-Level Assessment Reflections.
Based on a review of all the data and recommendations of faculty, the following
actions will be undertaken:
 Evaluate and revise all CLOs. As currently written, they are too general and
vague.
Appendix C: Program Learning Outcomes
Considering your feedback, findings, and/or information that has arisen from the course level
discussions, please reflect on each of your Program Level Outcomes.
Program: Humanities______

PLO #1: For oral and/or written form, differentiate between the arts as personal expression and
the arts as socially transformative.

PLO #2: For oral and/or written form, discuss both objective and subjective responses to a work
of art (literary, performing, or fine).
This was submitted as part of an Addendum in Spring 2015. It is provided here for continuity review.
What questions or investigations arose as a result of these reflections or discussions?
As noted in Spring 2015, We need to consider the program holistically. Develop AATs
possibly for all three disciplines. In particular, while evaluating an AAT for philosophy,
consider mirroring the AAT recently approved by Las Positas. We will need to carefully
weigh issues, for example, small numbers of majors versus large numbers of students
completing courses to meet GE requirements, and the impacts of majors-only courses (with
likely lower enrollments) on productivity.
What program-level strengths have the assessment reflections revealed?
Our courses continue to attract students, and student evaluations demonstrate both
academic and life-long learning.
What actions has your discipline determined might be taken to enhance the learning of
students completing your program?
A focus on reading and analyzing primary texts and introduction of contemporary areas of interest,
for example, social justice concerns in American Style, and religious pluralism and diversity of
practice in the local community.
6
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. Courses that haven’t been offered,
have been noted and placed in the three year schedule that has been developed. In spring
2016, we will be evaluating all our offerings, both in terms of scheduling and currency.
3. Have all of your courses been offered within the past five years? If no, why should those
courses remain in our college catalog? Courses that haven’t been offered, have been noted and
placed in the three year schedule that has been developed. Moreover, as part of the review of
the disciplines for TMCs, each area and its courses will be evaluated holistically and in terms of
transfer for four-year programs for currency and content.
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. All courses have CLOs, but we will be reviewing them.
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. We had difficulty getting assessment
complete, as so many courses are taught by adjuncts who were previously under no obligation
to complete assessment. All of those requested actually did complete the assessment, but the
data was not received until very late (the last one came in during June 2015). Due to the new
contract language, this will not be a problem in the future.
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. PLO review was
completed in the spring. It is included for continuity.
7. If you have course sequences, is success in the first course a good predictor of success in the
subsequent course(s)? No sequences.
8. Does successful completion of College-level Math and/or English correlate positively with
success in your courses? If not, explain why you think this may be. No. Data suggests that
taking a course in our disciplines actually improves the success of students in courses outside
our disciplines. We believe that this stems from our commitment to and integration of pedagogy
committed to building the necessary reading, writing, and thinking competencies students need,
rather than expecting that they have those skills when they enter our classrooms.
7
Appendix E: Proposal for New and Ongoing Initiatives and Projects (Complete for
each initiative/project)
No new initiatives or projects.
Appendix E1: Equity and Basic Skills Initiative Fund Requests:
No request made.
Appendix F1A: Full-Time Faculty Request(s) [Acct. Category 1000]
No request made.
Appendix F1B: Reassign Time Request(s) [Acct. Category 1000]
No request made.
Appendix F2A: Classified Staffing Request(s) [Acct. Category 2000]
No request made.
Appendix F2B: Student Assistant Requests [Acct. Category 2000]
No request made.
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.
COURSE
HUMN65
RELS50
PHIL60
CURRENT
FTEF
(2015-16)
.8*
1.2*
1.2
ADDITIONAL
FTEF
NEEDED
.4
.4
.4
CURRENT
SECTIONS
4
6
6
ADDITIONAL
SECTIONS
NEEDED
2
2
2
CURRENT
STUDENT #
SERVED
176
264
264
ADDITIONAL
STUDENT #
SERVED
264
352
352
One section of RELS50/HUMN65 is PACE, but the enrollment data is included here to substantiate our data. I
am reporting number of students served by contractual class size. One of the problems we have is that our
8
adjuncts take more students but are uncompensated for the large class sizes. We are trying to address that
situation by offering additional sections.
Appendix F4: Academic Learning Support Requests [Acct. Category 2000]
No request.
Appendix F5: Supplies Requests [Acct. Category 4000]
No request.
Appendix F6: Contracts & Services, Conference & Travel Requests [Acct.
Category 5000
No request.
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.
We are unsure how many repeaters or what the total cost would be, but we are noting that WIFI
reception is erratic in Buildings 400 and 500.
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 need to strengthen the WIFI across the campus. We are unsure how many repeaters or
what the total cost would be, but we are noting that WIFI reception is erratic in Buildings
400 and 500.
9
10
Appendix F8: Facilities Requests
Audience: Facilities Committee, Administrators
Purpose: To be read and responded to by Facilities Committee.
Background: Although some of the college's greatest needs involving new facilities cannot be met with
the limited amount of funding left from Measure B, smaller pressing needs can be addressed. Projects
that can be legally funded with bond dollars include the "repairing, constructing, acquiring, and
equipping of classrooms, labs, sites and facilities." In addition to approving the funding of projects, the
FC participates in addressing space needs on campus, catalogs repair concerns, and documents larger
facilities needs that might be included in future bond measures. Do NOT use this form for equipment or
supply requests.
Instructions: Please fill in the following as needed to justify your requests .If requesting more than one
facilities project, please rank order your requests.
Brief Title of Request (Project Name):
Building/Location:
Type of Request
___ Space Need
___ Small Repair
___ Large Repair
___ Building Concern
X___ Larger Facility Need
___ Other (grounds, signage…)
Description of the facility or grounds project. Please be as specific as possible.
The second floor of building 2200 is in dire need of renovation and major cleaning. This is also true
of all buildings, e.g., 1100, that have not been renovated during the Measure B bond.
What educational programs or institutional purposes does this request support and with whom are you
collaborating?
It serves students and faculty who use these buildings.
Briefly describe how your request supports the Strategic Plan Goal?
It is difficult to learn in very antiquated and dingy spaces.
11