1
CHABOT COLLEGE TITLE III INITIATIVE
Faculty Inquiry Group (FIG) to Investigate
Core Issues and Practices in the Basic Skills Needs of CTE Students
Name of FIG Leader(s)
Rajinder Samra
Division or Department
Office of Institutional Research
Phone
x6636
E-mail
rsamra@chabotcollege.edu
Interested applicants should submit a narrative describing the proposed
inquiry project. Proposals should address the following questions:
1. Which of the Title III Comprehensive Development Plan Goals does this
FIG address?

Increase success and persistence in developmental courses.

Increase success and persistence in courses supported by learning
support services.
Develop student learning outcomes and appropriate assessments at
the course, program and college level.

Maintain and increase enrollment by increasing persistence.
2. What is the problem at the heart of your investigation? What core issues and
practices in assessment and student learning will you address? What do you
expect to learn or accomplish as the result of this investigation?
Students enrolled in the career and technical education (CTE) programs of automotive
technology and machine tool technology succeed at higher rates than the average success rates
for the college. However, within these CTE programs, success rates of students vary greatly by
level of English proficiency. For example, CTE students who have completed college-level
English or basic skills English have had higher success rates in their technology courses (84%)
versus those students who did not complete an English course (70%). Furthermore, CTE
students who completed college-level English or basic skills English have had higher fall-tospring persistence rates in their technology courses (63%) versus those students who did not
complete an English course (44%)—a difference of nearly 20 percentage points. The data
indicate that English proficiency is critical for automotive technology and machine tool
technology students to succeed and persist in their technology courses.
2
Currently, the majority of the instruction to help students with English proficiency occurs on an
as-needed, student-by-student basis as the material is encountered in the process of instruction of
the CTE courses. This is not ideal because CTE faculty have not been trained in the pedagogical
techniques specific to these disciplines that will help students improve their English proficiency.
Additionally, it creates a time conflict by taking attention away from the course content during
class to work on basic reading.
The main area of focus for this inquiry group will be how to formalize instruction in automotive
technology and machine tool technology courses, and in what format, so that students who have
challenges with English proficiency can succeed and persist in their technology courses.
3. How have you arrived at these questions? What hunches do you have going
into this proposal? What data have you considered so far to develop and/or test
your hunches? If your thinking is informed by any specific research literature or
work underway at other colleges, please describe.
Automotive technology and machine tool technology faculty have noticed that students who
have challenges with English proficiency succeed and persist at lower rates than students who do
not have English proficiency challenges—the data produced by Chabot’s Office of Institutional
Research support this belief. In order to help more CTE students to succeed and persist through
their program of study, technology faculty must systemically address English proficiency issues.
According to research conducted by the California Basic Skills Initiative (chapter 13 of Basic
Skills Handbook) the most successful methods in CTE basic skills development lie in three areas:
1) learning communities, 2) directed learning activities, and 3) contextualized instruction. This
publication, along with research conducted by The Joyce Foundation’s Shifting Gears and by the
Workforce Strategy Center cite and describe programmatic changes undertaken by several
schools around the country that are addressing the same educational hurdle.
4. What are your plans for investigating these issues? That kinds of data do you
intend to consider? What external research literature will you include?
The plans for this inquiry group are three-fold:
1. Investigate approaches used at other institutions to address this area of concern.
2. Determine the approach(es) that will best suit the needs of Chabot’s students and
programs.
3. Develop and launch a pilot program that will apply the identified approach(es) to
increasing the success and persistence rates of CTE students
Institutional Research will collect data on CTE students in order to determine effect of
programmatic changes on student success and persistence in CTE courses.
3
A general timeline of what has occurred and what is planned for this inquiry:
Fall 2009
1. Attended the Student Success Conference (October 7-9, 2009) in order to learn about
best practices of helping CTE students to succeed and persist in their program of study.
Spring 2010
1. Researched how other schools have effectively addressed English proficiency issues in
CTE programs.
2. Determined scope of pilot (how many programs for initial run)
3. Identified potential tutors/LAs/etc. for fall classes as needed.
4. Identified/established data recording needs.
Summer 2010
1. Attended the Reading Apprenticeship Institute for Community College Science
Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) Teachers in order to learn about techniques
that help CTE students improve their reading and comprehension.
Fall 2010
1. Launch of new pilot.
2. Students who are in the pilot take the English assessment test.
3. Data recording begins and formative analysis is performed.
4. Meetings of involved faculty to discuss progress, issues, successes, etc.
5. Determine the percentage of students who succeed in CTE classes that are in the pilot.
Spring 2011 and onward
1. Alteration of pilot lessons as needed on an ongoing basis.
2. Possible expansion of pilot’s scope.
3. Ongoing tracking and evaluation of percentage of students:
 succeeding in CTE course
 persisting from fall-to-spring in CTE courses
5. Who will be involved? Please provide a list of the names and titles of
faculty/staff/administrators/students you expect to participate. For each
individual, describe the experience, knowledge and skills the participant will
bring to the proposed inquiry. For the FIG leader, describe any applicable
experience or skills that apply to coordinating the group (e.g. report writing,
meeting facilitation, research).
4
Participating Faculty/Staff
1. Steve Small – Automotive Technology
2. Mike Absher – Machine Tool Technology
3. Rajinder Samra – Research Analyst, Office of Institutional Research; FIG leader (Fall
2010 and Spring 2011) with knowledge of data acquisition and analysis methodology
6. How do you intend to organize the Inquiry, and what do you think it will
cost? Describe how your group will work together (e.g. how often you’ll
meet, how responsibilities will be divided and shared). Then, submit a draft
budget covering the relevant expenses.
Fall 2010
The focus of work this semester will be on the implementation of the pilot and the development
of the content delivery method within each specific topical area. The group will hold six
meetings of two hours each or the equivalent in order to monitor the effectiveness of the content
delivery and make modifications as needed. In addition, the FIG team will meet for four hours at
the end of the semester to review the pilot’s initial implementation and plan for the Spring 2011
semester.
Estimated Costs:
 FIG leader - $2,053 per CAH x 1 CAH
=$ 2,053.00
 Automotive Technology Instructor - $2,053 per CAH x 1 CAH =$ 2,053.00
 Machine Tool Technology Instructor - $2,053 per CAH x 1 CAH =$ 2,053.00
 Learning Assistants ( 1 Auto Tech, 1 Machine Tool Tech)
Auto Tech – 8 hours per week x 15 weeks x $8.75/hour
= $ 1,050.00
Machine Tool Tech – 16 hrs per week x 15 weeks x $8.75/hour
= $ 2,100.00
Note: Funds for the learning assistants are coming from the Learning Connection.
Spring 2011
The focus of work this semester will be on the continuation of the pilot, with the possible
expansion of the pilot to more classes. In addition, the content delivery method within each
specific topical area will be further developed and refined. To assist with development of the
content delivery method, the CTE faculty and FIG leader will attend a two-day conference on
Reading Apprenticeship offered by WestEd.
During the semester, the CTE FIG team will hold six meetings of two hours each or the
equivalent in order to monitor the effectiveness of the content delivery and make modifications
as needed. In addition, the FIG team will meet for four hours at the end of the semester to
review the pilot’s implementation and plan for future semesters.
5
Estimated Costs:
 FIG leader - $2,053 per CAH x 1 CAH
=$ 2,053.00
 Automotive Technology Instructor - $2,053 per CAH x 1 CAH =$ 2,053.00
 Machine Tool Technology Instructor - $2,053 per CAH x 1 CAH =$ 2,053.00
 Learning Assistants (1 Auto Tech, 1 Machine Tool Tech)
Auto Tech – 8 hours per week x 15 weeks x $8.75/hour
= $ 1,050.00
Machine Tool Tech – 16 hrs per week x 15 weeks x $8.75/hour
= $ 2,100.00
 Two-day Reading Apprenticeship Conference (including travel) = $ 600.00
Note: Funds for the learning assistants are coming from the Learning Connection.
Total Estimated Cost over Two Semesters (excluding costs for learning assistants): = $12,918
Note: Funds for the learning assistants are coming from the Learning Connection.