Chabot College
Academic Services
Program Review Report
2016 -2017
Year in the Cycle: 2
Program:
Physics
Submitted on 10/26/15
Contact: Scott Hildreth, Jose Alegre, Nicholas Alexander
DRAFT 10/26/15
Table of Contents
Year 2
Section 1: What Progress Have We Made?....................... Page 1
Section 2: What Changes Do We Suggest?........... ............. Page 2
Required Appendices:
A: Budget History ……………….. ............................................................ Page 3
B1: Course Learning Outcomes Assessment Schedule….................... Page 4
C: Program Learning Outcomes……………........................................... Page 6
D: A Few Questions……………… .......................................................... Page 7
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
Chabot College Physics
YEAR TWO
1. What Progress Have We Made?

What were your previous Program Review goals?
Our Year 1 goals for this cycle were to revamp the CLO/PLOs used by our program, and to support the
launch of our new Physics 3AB sequence for biological science and architecture majors, among others.
We are continuing the assessment process in Year 2 for the CLOs and PLOs, but were not able to start
offering Physics 3AB in 2015-2016 because of the need to ensure new program articulation with key
transfer institutions before students registered in Spring 2015. Articulation agreements have now been
received from most of the schools that our students typically aspire to attend, and we anticipate offering
Physics 3AB in 2016-2017 for the first time.

Did you achieve those goals? Specifically describe your progress on the goals you set for student
learning, program learning, and Strategic Plan achievement.
We have not yet shared the evaluation of the new CLO data from two our courses (done in Spring 2015)
across the faculty team, but intend to do that in the coming term, as well as start the assessment in our
other classes. Once we are able to do that analysis, we will look at curriculum and pedagogy changes
that might be warranted to address student confidence in their ability to understand and correctly solve
standard physics problems.

What are you most proud of?
We continue to support our Physics students with some of the very best facilities on campus in terms of
open, accessible study space, flexible laboratory teaching spaces, and outstanding AV capabilities.
Building 1800’s lecture and lab facilities are among the very best on campus, and indeed compete well
with those available at 4-year schools.

What challenges did you face that may have prevented achieving your goals?
The largest challenge for our program has been the transfer of one full-time colleague from teaching to
administration, as Tim Dave graciously stepped in to fill a void left by the departure of the previous Dean
of Mathematics and Science, initially just as a temporary measure. Tim continued to step forward to
maintain leadership for the division over two hiring cycles, which has meant creating and then changing
teaching schedules for Fall 2014, Spring 2015, and now the entirety of the 2015-2016 academic year as
we did not know whether he would be kept in that position or not. Similarly, backfilling for Tim has
required significant amounts of time recruiting, interviewing, and evaluating adjunct colleagues, over and
above the continued need to maintain labs without any support from lab techs or student assistants. To
maintain the same number of lab classes (more than 20 each year), with effectively 25% less staff, and
have to hire and support more adjuncts, has been and continues to be an enormous challenge. To do this
while also trying to support the expansion of the STEM programs has been doubly challenging. The
amount of time required to support the labs, hiring, scheduling, budgeting, and reporting for our
subdivision with just 2 equivalent FTEF is far, far beyond what is contractually expected.
1
2. What Changes Do We Suggest?
1) Hiring of a part-time (15-20 hours/week) Laboratory Technician
The largest positive impact on our program, with the potential to improve student success at Chabot as
well as their success after transferring, would come from the hiring of a part-time laboratory technician.
Las Positas College has a lab tech supporting their Physics, Geology, and Astronomy programs. So do
most other local community colleges. Chabot still does not, which means that faculty must not only set
up and take down lab equipment before and after each class, we must inventory, store, maintain, order,
receive, and organize all of that equipment ourselves, and maintain the lab rooms themselves, while we
are expected to teach contractual loads. Conservatively this means faculty may have to spend 1-2 hours
extra, per lab, dealing with equipment and the lab facilities. Some faculty routinely spend even more
time.
Addressing this single issue would give faculty more time to work with students in additional office hours,
more time to participate in STEM planning, more time to work on grants, more time to participate in
campus governance and events, and ultimately improve the program by allowing us to run even better
experiments and activities with working equipment in quantities required to support our class sizes.
Addressing this single issue will also be key to growing the program. Even as interest in STEM grows, and
our engineering program grows, our current faculty cannot support what we are offering today. We have
neither the full-time staff nor the facilities to support expanding the number of classes we teach, and
without lab technician support, we will continue to struggle supporting what we already schedule.
2) Hiring of a full-time STEM director & administrative support for STEM in general
As one key element in a successful comprehensive STEM program , Physics recognizes the absolute,
imperative need to add dedicated staff – both at the director level, and administrative support that could
assist all involved programs. To really be successful for Chabot’s broad population, we need a multifaceted STEM program. One that serves engineering and biological science majors intent on transfer to
competitive local 4-year universities, allied health students taking STEM classes as part of required
programs, applied technology students looking to establish a stronger theoretical base as they learn the
technical skills, and also the GE student new to college, unsure of what might be a major, but still open
and interested in learning about science and its career possibilities.
To be successful in this endeavor, Chabot must realize that we cannot continue to ask and assume fulltime faculty to do their full-time teaching jobs, participate in campus governance, support their current
students, and maintain their own facilities and equipment, and then also take on the job of planning and
establishing the STEM center. As our colleagues have shown - Donna Gibson with the establishment and
expansion of the successful MESA program, and Tim Dave with the solicitation and execution of Equity
Fund Grants for STEM program – doing new things takes enormous time and effort. We need to
recognize that an investment in support staff is needed to make some of the great ideas we have as a
college come to fruition.
2
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
(1) Lab Tech
2015-16
Budget
Received
(0)
2016-17
Budget
Requested
$1800
$5900
$1800
$3000
$2000
$4000
$7700
$5100
$6000
2016-17
Budget
Received
(1) Lab Tech
(1/2 time)
1. How has your investment of the budget monies you did receive improved student learning? When
you requested the funding, you provided a rationale. In this section, assess if the anticipated positive
impacts you projected have, in fact, been realized.
The anticipated positive impact of the new equipment has not yet been realized. Funds were used for
the purchase of additional oscilloscopes, and some ancillary lab equipment on top of what is typically
required to offer more than 20 different lab courses each year. But because we lack any lab support in
terms of student assistants or classified laboratory technicians, we cannot take full advantage of what
exists, let alone what additional opportunities might be possible with new systems.
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?
Some equipment requested by colleagues was not obtained because orders for that equipment weren’t
placed by required deadlines. Because full-time faculty are required to set-up, run, take-down, and
attempt to maintain the inventory of experimental equipment, and because we do not have any support
for the time-consuming tasks of investigating replacement parts, ordering, receiving, installing, and
testing, we often are unable to improve our lab offerings as much as they might be.
3
Appendix B: “Closing the Loop” Course-Level Assessment Reflections.
Course
Semester assessment data gathered
Number of sections offered in the semester
Number of sections assessed
Percentage of sections assessed
Semester held “Closing the Loop” discussion
Faculty members involved in “Closing the Loop” discussion
PHYS 11, 2A, 2B, 4A, 4B, 5
Fall 14 and Spring 15
All
All
100%
Spring 15
All
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 individual CLO.
 Part III: Course Reflection. In reviewing all the CLOs your findings, reflect on course as a whole.
PART I: COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOMES – DATA RESULTS
CONSIDER THE COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOMES INDIVIDUALLY (THE
NUMBER OF CLOS WILL DIFFER BY COURSE)
Defined Target
Scores*
(CLO Goal)
(CLO) 1: CRITICAL THINKING, COMMUNICATION :
Students shall be able to read, diagram and solve qualitatively
and quantitatively key physics applications aided by correct
and efficient lab experiments using industry standard
equipment.
(CLO) 2: CRITICAL THINKING, COMMUNICATION :
Students shall be able to effectively, efficiently, and correctly
run lab experiments using industry standard equipment.
(CLO) 3: COMMUNICATION: Demonstrates an
understanding of experimentation and real world
applications within the scientific method as well as a mastery
of physics lab experiments through the submission of a
complete lab report with all required elements present.
See Write-up
below
Actual Scores**
(data from
eLumen or your
own tracking)
See Write-up
below
See Write-up
below
See Write-up
below
See Write-up
below
See Write-up
below
(CLO) 4: DEVELOPMENT OF THE WHOLE PERSON:
Increase confidence in understanding qualitatively
and quantitatively physical concepts,
communicating ideas and thinking analytically
(CLO) 5: CIVIC RESPONSIBILITY, GLOBAL AND
CULTURAL INVOLVEMENT: Students should identify
the role and influence of ethics, morality and politics
in the development and application of physics.
See Write-up
below
See Write-up
below
See Write-up
below
See Write-up
below
4
PART II: COURSE- LEVEL OUTCOME REFLECTIONS
A. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO’S)
1. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course
level outcome?
See Write-up below
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?
See Write-up below
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?
See Write-up below
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?
See Write-up below
3. What is the nature of the planned actions (please check all that apply)?
X Curricular
X Pedagogical
X Resource based
X Change to CLO or rubric
STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES RESULTS FOR PHYSICS
As a discipline, we have adopted the structure that was developed by our Math peers to where
we use an indirect survey for our students querying them on their understanding of the
material. Students answered 10 questions on a scale of 1 (have no clue to solving the problem)
to 5 (knowing exactly what to do). Their individual median score was calculated. Any question
that scored one less than the median or lower was determined to be a low outlier. These
outliers were tallied for each course. In addition we asked students if their confidence in the
course improved as well as what they think their final grade will be.
This process is detailed in the 15-16 Program Review submitted by Mathematics. The results of
this are provided below. Like Math we took a multi-layered approach to the analysis: course
level, issues that span multiple courses, and physics as a whole.
5
Courses (CLO Discussion):
Our overall approach is to offer more discussions and projects for the identified topics—paired
with lab exercises.
Physics 11: Momentum–Collisions, First Law of Thermodynamics, and Coulomb’s Law. These
are followed by the topics of Energy Conservation and Temperature Definition.
Physics 2A: Transverse Waves
Physics 2B: AC Generator, Current, and Induced Electric Fields
Physics 4A: Rotational and Linear Dynamics, Energy Conservation, and Momentum Collisions
Physics 4B: Resistance Joule Heating and Induction Generator
Physics 5: The major issue in this class is addressing Climate Change. Students should identify
the role and influence of ethics, morality and politics in the development and application of
physics. A second area of focus would be with the Photoelectric Effect.
6
Physics Course Learning Outcome Results
11
Momentum-Collisions
First Law Thermodynamics
Coulomb's Law
Energy Conservation
Temperature Defintion
Scientific Method
Electric Charge
1D Motion
Equilibrium
Newton’s 3rd Law
2A
Transverse Waves
Rotational Dynamics
Momentum Collisions
Fluid Statics
Linear Dynamics
Energy Conservation
Simple Harmonic Motion
Rotational Kinematics
Linear Kinematics
Gravity 2D Kinematics
2B
AC Generator
Current
Induced Electric Fields
Magnetic Field Wire
Climate Change Essay
Ohms Law Heating
Equivalent Resistance
Coulombs Law Force
Coulombs Law Field
Capacitance
Out of 18 students
q5
33.33%
q8
33.33%
q10
33.33%
q6
27.78%
q7
27.78%
q1
22.22%
q9
16.67%
q2
11.11%
q3
5.56%
q4
0.00%
Out of 43 students
q9
29.55%
q5
22.73%
q7
22.73%
q8
20.45%
q4
15.91%
q6
15.91%
q10
13.64%
q2
9.09%
q1
6.82%
q3
4.55%
Out of 41 students
q8
51.22%
q4
31.71%
q9
26.83%
q7
24.39%
q10
21.95%
q5
19.51%
q6
17.07%
q1
12.20%
q2
7.32%
q3
7.32%
4A
Out of 50 students
q6
42.00%
q5
32.00%
q7
32.00%
q8
26.00%
q2
24.00%
q10
20.00%
q4
14.00%
q1
8.00%
q9
8.00%
q3
4.00%
4B
Out of 30 students
Resistance Joule Heating
q5
43.33%
Induction Generator
q8
30.00%
Electric Field-Integration
q2
23.33%
Lrc Circuit Resonance
q9
23.33%
Magnetic Field Wire
q7
20.00%
Experiment Purpose Hypothesis q10
16.67%
Potential Energy Conservation q3
13.33%
Gauss’ Law Conductor
q4
10.00%
Equivalent Resistance Network q6
6.67%
Coulomb’s Law-Vector
q1
3.33%
5
Out of 7 students
Climate Change Essay
q10
57.14%
Photoelectric Effect
q3
28.57%
Relativity Dynamics
q2
14.29%
Quantum Energy States
q4
14.29%
Hydrogen Energy States
q5
14.29%
Compton Effect
q6
14.29%
Relativity Kinematics
q1
0.00%
Debroglie Wave Mechanics
q7
0.00%
Debroglie Relatvistic Mechanics q8
0.00%
Uncertainty Principle
q9
0.00%
Rotational Dynamics
Linear Dynamics
Energy Conservation
Momentum Collisions
Rotational Kinematics
Statics
Vectors 2D Kinematics
Linear Kinematics
Calculus Linear Kinematics
Angular Momentum
* – Percents represent percent of students having the
question as a low outlier (defined as a topic with a
student score at least one unit below the student's
individual median). The higher the percentage the
larger number of students viewed this as a topic in
need of more assistance when compared to the other
questions.
7
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:
X No CLO-CTL forms were completed during this PR year. No Appendix B2 needs to be
submitted with this Year’s Program Review. Note: All courses must be assessed once at
least once every three years.

Yes, CLO-CTL were completed for one or more courses during the current Year’s
Program Review. Complete Appendix B2 (CLO-CTL Form) for each course assessed
this year and include in this Program Review.
B. Calendar Instructions:
List all courses considered in this program review and indicate which year each course Closing
The Loop form was submitted in Program Review by marking submitted in the correct column.
Course
This Year’s Program
Review
*CTL forms must be
included with this PR.
Last Year’s Program
Review
Not done in Year 1
Physics 2A
Initial Results provided
in Spring 2015; CTL to
be done in Spring 2016
“
*Note: These courses
must be assessed in the
next PR year.
submitted
“
submitted 2A
Physics 2B
“
“
submitted 2B
“
“
Physics 4B
“
“
submitted 4B
Physics 4C
“
“
submitted 4C
Physics 5
“
“
submitted 5
*List one course per line.
Add more rows as
needed.
Physics 11
Physics 4A
8
2-Years Prior
submitted 4A
PART III: COURSE REFLECTIONS AND FUTURE PLANS
4. What changes were made to your course based on the previous assessment cycle, the prior
Closing the Loop reflections and other faculty discussions?
Physics implemented a completely new CLO process for this Program Review cycle, which
was tried out on two courses in Spring 2015 (Physics 2B and Physics 5). Data from those
evaluations still needs to be shared and analyzed by the team, and any changes to the
methodology made in advance of surveying students in the remaining physics classes in
Spring 2016.
The largest change that will occur in 2016-2017 for the program will be the start of our
Physics 3AB sequence, with a calculus pre-requisite of Math 15 or Math 1, and the
concurrent retirement of the Algebra-based Physics 2AB sequence. We anticipate some
percentage of students now taking Physics 2A to be unable to take Physics 3A because of the
increased math requirement. Whether that percentage is low (<10-15%) or high (>40-50%)
remains to be seen. And the expected loss of some students who won’t have calculus could
be more than replaced by students moving from the Physics 4 sequence, who are majoring in
Biological Sciences or Architecture and who do not need the engineering level physics for
transfer.
5. Based on the current assessment and reflections, what course-level and programmatic
strengths have the assessment reflections revealed? What actions has your discipline
determined might be taken as a result of your reflections, discussions, and insights?
Enrollments in Physics continue to be very high, indicative of the strong demand Chabot
students have for majors that require physics as part of a degree or transfer plan. Success
rates continue to be similar to past levels, although we still struggle with attracting more
students from under-represented backgrounds.
We believe that our curricular and programmatic actions for 2016-2017 must include:
- Supporting the transition to Physics 3AB, working with Counseling Faculty colleagues to
ensure that students are aware of their options and that they make informed and
appropriate choices to the proper sequences.
- Taking better advantage of laboratory equipment by keeping labs clean and organized, and
equipment inventoried and maintained.
6. What is the nature of the planned actions (please check all that apply)?
X Curricular
X Resource based
X Change to CLO or rubric
9
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.

PLO #1: CRITICAL THINKING, COMMUNICATION : Students shall be able to read,
diagram and solve qualitatively and quantitatively key physics applications aided by
correct and efficient lab experiments using industry standard equipment.

PLO #2: CRITICAL THINKING, COMMUNICATION : Students shall be able to
effectively, efficiently, and correctly run lab experiments using industry standard
equipment.

PLO #3: COMMUNICATION: Demonstrates an understanding of experimentation and
real world applications within the scientific method as well as a mastery of physics lab
experiments through the submission of a complete lab report with all required elements
present.

PLO #4: DEVELOPMENT OF THE WHOLE PERSON: Increase confidence in understanding
qualitatively and quantitatively physical concepts, communicating ideas and thinking
analytically

PLO #5: CIVIC RESPONSIBILITY, GLOBAL AND CULTURAL INVOLVEMENT: Students should
identify the role and influence of ethics, morality and politics in the development and
application of physics.
What questions or investigations arose as a result of these reflections or discussions?
See Discussion Below
What program-level strengths have the assessment reflections revealed?
See Discussion Below
What actions has your discipline determined might be taken to enhance the learning of students
completing your program?
See Discussion Below
10
What questions or investigations arose as a result of these reflections or discussions?
Given that we have just established new CLO’s and PLOs, and have yet to complete the cycle of
assessment and evaluation, we plan to:
1. Look at the "weak" points as indicated by the top percentage getters--- those skills in which
a large percentage of students indicated they were having the greatest difficulty.
2. Design and implement a plan in our teaching to address strengthening these skills
Our next batch of CLO questions could be the same and we could see if the outlier percentages,
difficulty indexes, did shrink as a sign of pedagogical improvement. We may
design new questions which explore other skills educationally linked to outliers, i.e. a prerequisite skill we might address.
What program-level strengths have the assessment reflections revealed?
These have yet to be assessed in our second year of the cycle.
What actions has your discipline determined might be taken to enhance the learning of students
completing your program?
Active participation in the STEM projects (including MESA), planning for the expansion of a STEM center
and hiring of directors and staff,
11
Multiple Courses (Physics PLO Discussion, Part 1):
4A, 4B, 4C, and 5: In the above-mentioned interdisciplinary Photoelectric Effect area of Physics
5, students need to understand the connection to mechanical and electromagnetic waves—
involving diagramming and solving qualitatively and quantitatively word problems. This suggests
introducing a lab component into Physics 5 to enhance visualization; effectively this would
continue the Physics 4 sequence to include Physics 4D—a lecture and lab Modern Physics just
like what is taught at other institutions.
2B, 5 Climate Change – We saw a big outlier with Climate Change; Students should be able to
identify the role and influence of ethics, morality and politics in the development and
application of physics. That Climate Change result seemed surprising from advanced students
who have essentially had the entire sequence and much time to think about social issues
compared to the 2B students who scored higher on this question in terms of lower outlier
status. Perhaps, though, 2B students have done more thinking about the ethics of science
having chosen medicine, ripe with questions of morality and social responsibility.
2B, 4B Induction (AC) Generators appear be to a multi-course problem, worthy of increased
remediation given the importance of electric energy generation.
Discipline (PLO Discussion, part 2):
Our larger outlier population, where students are having difficulty, tend to be at the more
advanced levels of problem solving. This indicates we are building a good foundation at the
more basic levels.
12
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?
Physics course outline updates were prepared for submission to the Curriculum Committee to
2016 for Physics 4ABC, 5, and 11.
2. Have you deactivated all inactive courses? (courses that haven’t been taught in five years or
won’t be taught in three years should be deactivated)
Yes.
3. Have all of your courses been offered within the past five years? If no, why should those courses
remain in our college catalog?
Yes.
4. Do all of your courses have the required number of CLOs completed, with corresponding rubrics?
If no, identify the CLO work you still need to complete, and your timeline for completing that
work this semester
Yes.
5. Have you assessed all of your courses and completed "closing the loop" forms for all of your
courses within the past three years? If no, identify which courses still require this work, and your
timeline for completing that work this semester.
Yes.
6. Have you developed and assessed PLOs for all of your programs? If no, identify programs which
still require this work, and your timeline to complete that work this semester.
We have developed PLOs for our programs, but have not assessed them in the past year. We
will need to revisit this for our Physics 4ABC/5 program, and start the assessment for our new
Physics 3AB program, in 2016-2017 (Year 3).
7. If you have course sequences, is success in the first course a good predictor of success in the
subsequent course(s)?
Yes. Data from Fall 2013- Summer 2015 shows that about 60% of successful Physics 4A
students go on to take 4B, and of them, 95% of students continuing on in Physics 4B are
succeeding. Note that for some majors, including architecture, students needed only one
semester of calculus physics. The prior sequence data from 2012 – 2014 was similar (67%
continuing, and 87% succeeding.)
13
7 (cont.) If you have course sequences, is success in the first course a good predictor of success in the
subsequent course(s)?
Considering students who take Physics 4ABC, Fall 2013-Summer 2015 data shows that just 21%
of successful Physics 4A students go on to take 4C – again reflecting that for some students 4C
is not a requirement for their transfer major. But of those that do go on, 86% are successful.
The prior sequence data from 2012-2014 was similar, with 33% of successful 4A students taking
4C, and 100% of them succeeding.
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.
Students in Physics 4ABC are also typically in Math 2, 3, and 4, and the continuing/success rates
of those courses are very similar.
14
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?
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”)
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).
What is your action plan to achieve your goal?
Target
Required Budget
Completion (Split out personnel, supplies,
other categories)
Date
Activity (brief description)
How will you manage the personnel needs?
New Hires:
Faculty # of positions
Classified staff # of positions
Reassigning existing employee(s) to the project; employee(s) current workload will be:
Covered by overload or part-time employee(s)
Covered by hiring temporary replacement(s)
Other, explain
At the end of the project period, the proposed project will:
Be completed (onetime only effort)
Require additional funding to continue and/or institutionalize the project
(obtained by/from):
Will the proposed project require facility modifications, additional space, or program relocation?
No
Yes, explain:
15
Will the proposed project involve subcontractors, collaborative partners, or cooperative agreements?
No
Yes, explain:
Do you know of any grant funding sources that would meet the needs of the proposed project?
No
Yes, list potential funding sources:
16
Appendix E1: Equity and Basic Skills Initiative Fund Requests:
The Physics program supports the hiring of a full-time STEM Center Director as part of the STEM
Program Support Proposal submitted by Donna Gibson of Chemistry.
Project Name: STEM Program Support Proposal
Contact Name: Donna Gibson
Division/Discipline/Program/Office: Science&Mathematics/Chemistry/STEM/2057
Contact info: dgibson@chabotcollege.edu/723-6895(office)/5103012676 (cell)
PROJECT GOALS, ACTIVITIES, BUDGET, OUTCOMES, AND EVALUATION
GOAL
What does your project hope to achieve overall?
The major goal of this proposal is to increase the number of students from the populations
highlighted on the disproportionately impacted student grid above to transfer to 4 year institutions,
specifically in STEM majors.
DOCUMENTING NEED AND SOLUTION
Please provide data to support the need for your project and the solution you propose.
Need:
It is difficult to details on actual transfer data, so we are going to provide the most complete picture
for need using the data that is available at this time. The most complete set of data is from Fall 2013.
Table 1 shows the breakdown of STEM majors on campus in Fall 2013 by ethnicity. The total number
of students who have self-declared an education goal of transfer in the STEM majors is 1368 with 904
(or 66.1%) representing the disproportionately impacted populations as provided on the initial
proposal grid under Goal E: Transfer. It is also important to note that enrollments have increased
since Fall 2013 and preliminary data for Fall 2015 shows the total number of STEM majors has
increased from 1368 to 1897. If the characteristic percentages stay similar, that would increase the
possible number of students served by this proposal from 904 to 1254 (66.1% of 1897).
Table 1: Fall 2013 Data on STEM Majors on Campus by Ethnicity
Ethnicity
% of all
# of students on # of students % of STEM
students on
campus by
in STEM
majors by
campus
ethnicity
majors
ethnicity
(n=13,512)
African American
13%
1757
111
6.3%
Filipino
8%
1081
111
10.3%
Latino
36%
4864
440
9.0%
Pacific Islander
2%
270
22
8.2%
White
18%
2432
220
9.0%
Total Possible
Number of
904
Students Served
by Proposal
17
% of
STEM
majors
(n=1368)
8.1%
8.1%
32.2%
1.6%
16.1%
66.1%
The data in Table 1 shows we have a large number of disproportionately impacted students who
potentially could be served by strengthening the supports for STEM majors on this campus to
ultimately increase the number of transfer students as listed as Goal E: Transfer.
This is where the lack of data makes it difficult. The actual data we need to know to discuss our
effectiveness as a program is how many of our students (broken down by ethnicity) are actually
transferring in STEM fields. Since we do not have that data, we are going to use the enrollment,
success and persistence data through our higher level STEM courses to show the need for additional
supports for students. What data we do have suggests students outcomes in the STEM fields shows
disproportionate success by ethnicity. Table 2 below highlights some of the disproportionate
outcomes using data from Fall 2012 through Summer 2015.
Course
Total
Enrollment
% Success
Math 1
Math 20
Math 37
Phys 4A
Chem 1A
Chem 31
1055
1155
1428
334
805
905
59.1%
57.5%
45.4%
72.8%
67.0%
68.0%
African
American
Enrollment
54 (5.1%)
60 (5.2%)
114 (8.0%)
18 (5.4%)
47 (5.8%)
52 (5.7%)
% Success
Latino
Enrollment
% Success
50.0%
45.0%
35.1%
44.4%
46.8%
50.0%
233 (22.1%)
298 (25.8%)
430 (30.1%)
65 (19.5%)
197 (24.5%)
257 (28.4%)
49.8%
48.7%
40.2%
63.1%
56.9%
64.6%
This data shows that the overall success rates for African American and Latino students is consistently
lower than the overall success rates, and in addition, notice the trend of decreasing percent
enrollment through the sequence of courses. This is especially shown in the decrease in % enrollment
in Latinos from Math 37 to Math 20 to Math 1 (30.1% -25.8% - 22.1%). Also, the lower enrollment
numbers of students in Physics 4A shows that we are losing students disproportionately through our
sequences (8.1% of STEM majors are African American, yet only 5.4% of students enrolled in Physics
4A are African American and 32.3% of STEM majors are Latino yet only 19.5% of students enrolled in
Physics 4A are Latino).
We did run the numbers for the Chemistry 31 to Chemistry 1A sequence and found that the
enrollment continues to decrease for Latino students, but not for African American students, and in
contrast to the math sequence, where success rates increased as students moved through the
sequence, success rates in chemistry declined throughout the sequence. We only gave representative
data showing trends and chose to represent the Latino population because they are the largest
population disproportionately impacted in STEM majors and African American students are
disproportionately impacted in both transfer rates and in course completion/success rates.
The data presented is also not completely accurate since it is not unduplicated headcount data. This
means that the percentages shown are the highest possible and in fact, with students repeating
courses, the percentage of students making through the sequence is actually lower than shown in this
data.
18
Data from Fall 2013 through Summer 2015 show that the populations we are trying to reach are
already using the STEM Center, with approximately 69% of students using the STEM Center having
Transfer (with/without AA/AS) as their educational goal. Also, on average 74% of students using the
STEM Center are our targeted populations (19% African American, 8% Filipino, 34% Latino, 2% Pacific
Islander and 11% White). In addition, looking at a larger picture, 94% of students using the STEM
Center are low income students.
Our proposed solution to the issue of disproportionate impact on certain populations to succeed to
transfer in STEM majors is to offer many more services through our STEM Center. We believe that
improving engagement of and support to students who are both declared STEM majors and those
who are exploring STEM as an option will have a positive effect on transfer rates. (The focus of this
proposal is STEM, however the STEM Center also serves as a support center for students in basic skills
mathematics and those taking biology, chemistry and mathematics as part of the pre-Allied Health
(Health and Wellness ) pathway as well). We are requesting staff to run the center and to increase
the services offered. The additional services we would like to add include: formal supported study
groups for STEM courses, STEM speaker series, bootcamps in mathematics, chemistry and physics to
increase success in courses that show disproportionate success rates (Chem 1A, Physics 4A, Math 1).
We would also like to have staff for student support to better coordinate and tailor our tutoring
services and to be able to evaluate best practices and what interventions are successful at what doses
(Do students who study at the STEM Center for 5 hours/week show impact more than those at 1
hour/week? If so, how do we get students to come in more hours?). We need staff to implement and
help evaluate effectiveness to move forward and better serve our students. We would like to
organize a faculty inquiry group to look at equity within our science and math courses. In addition,
we would like to continue to support the STEM Peer Advising Program that was started out of last
year's equity proposal as a great way to do outreach and in-reach to effect the targeted populations.
Lastly, we would like to provide students with a STEM Speaker Series that would target impacted
populations to increase the sense of community and motivation for our students.
ACTIVITIES
Please list all the activities (A.1, A. 2, A.3, etc.) that you propose to do to reach your goal.
A1: Increase services offered at STEM Center (As soon as possible)
Hire a full time STEM Center Directo, Administrative Assistant, 1.5 full time instructional
assistants. This activity is in partnership with the Learning Connection and positions will support not
only the STEM Program but also students in Basic Skills level math courses (details can be found in
the proposal for basic skills mathematic support submitted directly by the Learning Connections) and
students in the Health and Wellness Pathway (supporting Math 53, 43 and Chem 30A, 30B).
Responsible Persons – STEM Advisory Council and Dean of Science and Mathematics
A2: Faculty Inquiry Group on Equity in STEM Program (Organize Fall 2015, Implement Spring 2016)
This activity serves to allow faculty in the classroom to explore equity issues and research
possible pedagogical solutions to achievement gaps in both mathematics and science courses as
described in the needs section. We will look to the National Equity Project for assistance in
starting this FIG. The FIG will meet monthly to discuss readings and/or discuss equity issues in the
STEM classes.
19
Responsible Persons – Donna Gibson (or other) and up to 10 Science/Math Faculty
A3: Classroom/Program Presentations (Fall 2015, Spring 2016 and ongoing)
STEM Peer Advisors to meet with various Special Programs and do class visits into Math 65, 55,
37, 20, Chem 31, 1A and Bio 6 and 4 to inform students of supports in place for STEM majors on
Campus. This activity is aimed at increasing both the overall number of students who use the
STEM Center but also at increasing the percentage of under-represented students using the
Center.
Responsible Persons – STEM Advisory Council, STEM Peer Advising Program and STEM Student
Clubs
A4: STEM Speaker Series (Spring 2016 and ongoing)
Organize a monthly speaker series targeting under-represented populations in STEM careers to
increase motivation and sense of community among STEM majors.
Responsible Persons - STEM Advisory Council but ultimately, the STEM Center Director
BUDGET
Provide a budget that shows how the funds will be spent to support the activities.
See attached spreadsheets as part of Donna Gibson’s proposal
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)?
Overall Outcome – Data showing support of increasing numbers of successful STEM transfer students
will take several semesters (most likely a minimum of 2 years) to collect in a meaningful way.
Long Term Measureable Outcome: Increase the number of disproportionately impacted students
who are STEM majors successfully transfer to 4 year institutions.
As earlier indicators of impact of our proposal, short term measurable outcomes will be monitored and
are described below. Use of the STEM Center will be monitored by individual student identification
numbers when students log into the center. We will track not only how many students are using the
center, but for how many hours and have a breakdown by ethnicity. This data has been challenging to
verify, since we have not had staff in the center to ensure students are signing in and out. With correct
staffing, we hope to improve the quality of our data. Activities 1 and 3 and 4 play a part in increasing
the use of the STEM Center and on the ethnic breakdown of who is using it.
Measurable Outcome 1: Increase use of the STEM Center by targeted populations identified on
Proposal Grid by 3% by end of Fall 2016.
20
Measurable Outcome 2: Increase use of the STEM Center by students who identified "Transfer" as
educational goal by 3% by end of Fall 2016.
Measureable Outcome 3: Minimum of 150 students from targeted populations sign up for the STEM
Program by end of Spring 2016.
Measureable Outcome 4: We will use course CRNs to track the success rates of students who enroll in a
FIG participant’s courses. We anticipate that FIG participants courses will have an 2% increase in
success rates for targeted populations by the end of Spring 2017.
Measureable Outcome 6: Minimum of 50 students from targeted populations attend the guest speaker
events.
21
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 Physics
Criteria 1.
Percent of full-time faculty in department.
Fall 2012 Spring 2013
Fall 2013
Spring 2014
Fall 2014
FTEF
(Contract)
2.4
2.25
2.4
2.27
1.33
FTEF
(Temporary)
0
0.44
0
0
1.44
# of Contract
Faculty
4 fulltime
4 full-time,
1 adjunct
4 full-time 3 full time
22
2 full-time
3 adjunct
(one full-time
on leave, one
acting Dean)
1
Criteria 2.
Semester end departmental enrollment pattern for last three years.
Fall 2012
Spring 2013
Fall 2013
Spring 2014
Fall 2014
Success Rate:
77%
83%
69%
87%
79%
FTES:
35.03
37.32
41.58
34.99
40.72
Briefly describe how a new hire will impact your success/retention rates.
Our success rates are fairly constant, typically a bit lower in fall with new students
not yet as prepared for physics taking the entry Physics 2A and 4A classes, and
higher in spring with more students in Physics 2B, 4B, and 5. Adding another fulltime faculty member will help to maintain these rates in the face of significant
increasing demand.
The positives: We see a significant growth in interest towards STEM, along with
increased number of MESA students because of the excellent support offered. We
anticipate further increases in STEM students from the new TRIO grant, and increasing
popularity of engineering and biological sciences majors as prior Chabot College
students find success when they transfer. All of these majors require Physics.
As result of increased demand we’ve experienced in the past two years, we have started
to offer a third Physics 4A section each term (a 33% increase in that key offering
compared to prior years), and plan to offer a third Physics 4A section in Spring 2016 (a
20% increase).
The challenge: In the face of this increased demand, we have lost one full-time
colleague to serve as the acting Dean, and we are left with just (1) one colleague with
full-time responsibilities in Physics (Nicholas Alexander.) Jose Alegre teaches one
section of Physics 2A or 2B each term, and fills the remainder of his load with
Mathematics. Scott Hildreth teaches one double section of Physics 4A or 4B each term,
and fills the remainder of his load with Astronomy.
All of our physics classes are lab classes, requiring significant time to set-up and take
down lab equipment. The subdivision does not have a lab tech, requiring many hours of
preparation for labs that full time faculty must do. Adjuncts are not paid for this time,
and cannot be expected to do this when they are not required to do so at other schools
where lab techs are present
23
Criteria 3.
Meets established class size.
Fall 2012
Spring 2013
Fall 2013 Spring 2014
Fall 2014
WSCH
1091
1191
1267
1077
912
FTEF:
WSCH/FTEF
2.39
456
2.42
492
2.75
462
2.42
445
2.75
456
If there are any external factors that limit class sizes, please explain.
Our classes have official limits of 24 students for each lab section; maintain a
WSCH/FTEF level of~ 460 is testimony to our willingness to offer double lecture
sections and routinely accept far more than 24 students per lab section at the start
of each term. Our fill rates are far over 100%.
Criteria 4.
Current instructional gaps and program service needs. List the courses to fill
the gaps, if applicable.
None at this time.
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.)
Our need for an additional full-time faculty college falls under Tier 2 and Tier 3 criteria.
We currently have faculty are supporting the division as Dean, and faculty supporting STEM
initiatives as part of the STEM steering committee, as well as supporting the Physics and
Astronomy labs and planetarium. We cannot maintain our current labs with the increased
24
number of adjunct colleagues required to staff our classes, because we do not have a lab tech to
assist. The health of the program is absolutely at stake.
In the face of increased demand for participation on STEM and Equity grants, we have fewer
full-time faculty to do the work, even though all of the students in STEM courses are required to
be taking Physics. We cannot expand the engineering programs, nor support growth in
Biological Sciences, nor work constructively with colleagues on MESA and TRIO grants,
without additional full-time colleagues.
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.
Physics is not a new program.
Criteria 7.
CTE Program Impact.
None at this time, unless we hope to link CTE to STEM programs, which will
again require more help from full-time colleagues.
Criteria 8.
Degree/Transfer Impact (Not applicable)
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.
Physics 2A/2B are required courses for many majors in the biological sciences and architecture
transfer students; Physics 4AB and sometimes 4C and 5 are required courses for engineering,
mathematics, chemistry, and many bio science majors intent on transferring to the UC system.
We will not be able to grow our offerings in Engineering, Chemistry, or Biological sciences
without having more physics courses, but we cannot support what we have now without
another full-time colleague and without a laboratory tech. Nor will we be able to support
growth in STEM, nor support equity proposals for those students.
25
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.
Our division has worked for years to collaboratively develop a shared schedule that attempts
to minimize student conflicts among the math, engineering, chemistry, biology, computer
science, and physics courses typically taken. As a result of that effort, we currently can
schedule our STEM major classes at very specific times; for example, Physics 4ABC lectures
are *only* offered MW afternoons from 2:30 – 4:20 PM, and labs are only offered on WF
afternoons, or Thursday mornings. Since full-time faculty in the program are scheduled at
these times, we cannot also be available for supporting adjunct colleagues in their labs, nor
can we be available for any outside meetings or collegial shared governance conversations at
those times.
And because physics is a demanding lab course, requiring 6-7 hours a week of on-campus
contact time, and taken by more students majoring in other programs that also require labs,
our schedule of key courses is extremely constrained. For example, we aren’t offering labs on
Tuesdays, or MW mornings, to avoid conflicts with math and biology courses. And because
of the challenge and rigor of the courses, student success has been proven to decline if we
offer the calculus-based sequence at night or on weekends. Consequently, we have few open
slots in our two lab rooms for additional courses.
Without restoring a full-time colleague to the program to help with training and supporting
adjuncts in the use of labs and technology in our labs, we simply cannot maintain the
program.
26
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:
☐
Summary of hours requested completed in Program Review Resource Request Spreadsheet
(please check box to left)
27
Appendix F2A: Classified Staffing Request(s) [Acct. Category 2000]
Audience: Administrators, PRBC, Classified Prioritization Committee
Purpose: Providing explanation and justification for new and replacement positions for full-time and
part-time regular (permanent) classified professional positions (new, augmented and replacement
positions). Remember, student assistants are not to replace Classified Professional staff.
Instructions: Please complete a separate Classified Professionals Staffing Request form for each position
requested and attach form(s) as an appendix to your Program Review.
Spreadsheet: To be considered, requests must be added to the Resource Request Spreadsheet AND a
separate Classified Professionals Staffing Request form must be completed for each position requested.
Add your requests to your spreadsheet under the 2000a tab and check the box below once they’ve
been added.
Please click here to find the link to the Classified Professional Staffing Request form:
http://www.chabotcollege.edu/prbc/APR/2016-17%20Classified%20Professionals%20Staffing%20Request%20Form.pdf
This is a fillable PDF. Please save the form, fill it out, then save again and check the box below once
you’ve done so. Submit your Classified Professionals Staffing Request form(s) along with your Program
Review Narrative and Resource Request spreadsheet.
Total number of positions requested (please fill in number of positions requested):
1
☒
Separate Classified Professionals Staffing Request form completed and attached to Program
Review for each position requested (please check box to left)
☐
Summary of positions requested completed in Program Review Resource Request
Spreadsheet (please check box to left)
28
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:
How do the assessments that you preformed to measure student learning outcomes (SLO’s) or service
area outcomes (SAO’s) support this request?
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 Resource Request Spreadsheet (please check
box to left)
29
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
CURRENT
FTEF
(2015-16)
ADDITIONAL
FTEF
NEEDED
CURRENT
SECTIONS
ADDITIONAL
SECTIONS
NEEDED
CURRENT
STUDENT #
SERVED
ADDITIONAL
STUDENT #
SERVED
The Physics program would love to propose additional FTEF to support
demonstrated increasing demand for the courses required in
engineering, science, math and computer science majors.
But we cannot adequately support what we have now without more
staff and restoration of a full-time faculty colleague. We also cannot
support the current lab load without the addition of a part-time
classified position as a laboratory technician.
Consequently we cannot, and will not ask for additional FTEF.
30
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.
How do the assessments that you preformed to measure student learning outcomes (SLO’s) or service
area outcomes (SAO’s) support this request?
31
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?
Students show that they learn concepts in lab even more effectively than they learn in lecture.
Students show that they gain confidence with problems that we also address in labs. Physics labs
are a required element of our course outlines, and maintaining the lab experiments is required if
we are to articulate our courses to transfer institutions.
32
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:
How do the assessments that you preformed to measure student learning outcomes (SLO’s) or service
area outcomes (SAO’s) support this request?
33
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
(3) Networked LaserJet printers for 1806, 1810, and 1902 (the planetarium) for access by
faculty and students.
34
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
___ Larger Facility Need
___ Other (grounds, signage…)
Description of the facility or grounds project. Please be as specific as possible.
What educational programs or institutional purposes does this request support and with whom are you
collaborating?
Briefly describe how your request supports the Strategic Plan Goal?
35