Chabot College Program Review Report 2015 ‐2016 Year 2 of Program Review Cycle ANTHROPOLOGY Submitted on 10/27/2014 Contact: Mireille Giovanola 1 Appendix B2: “Closing the Loop” Course‐Level Assessment Reflections. Course ANTHROPOPOLOGY 1L Semester assessment data gathered Spring 2014 Number of sections offered in the semester 3 Number of sections assessed 2 Percentage of sections assessed 66.66% Semester held “Closing the Loop” discussion Fall 2014 Faculty members involved in “Closing the Loop” discussion 2 (M. Giovanola & N. Casqueiro) Form Instructions:  Complete a separate Appendix B2 form for each Course‐Level assessment reported in this Program Review. These courses should be listed in Appendix B1: Student Learning Outcomes Assessment Reporting Schedule.  Part I: CLO Data Reporting. For each CLO, obtain Class Achievement data in aggregate for all sections assessed in eLumen.  Part II: CLO Reflections. Based on student success reported in Part I, reflect on the individual CLO.  Part III: Course Reflection. In reviewing all the CLOs and your findings, reflect on the course as a whole. PART I: COURSE‐LEVEL OUTCOMES – DATA RESULTS CONSIDER THE COURSE‐LEVEL OUTCOMES INDIVIDUALLY (THE NUMBER OF CLOS WILL DIFFER BY COURSE) (CLO) 1: Evaluate genetic data to understand inheritance and assess evolutionary processes. (CLO) 2: Evaluate human biological diversity through the application of forensic analysis to the human skeleton. (CLO) 3: Compare and contrast primate anatomy and behavior through the examination of skeletal material and direct observation of primate behavior. (CLO) 4: Evaluate the importance and timing of human adaptations through the examination of fossil and cultural replicas. Actual Scores** Defined Target (eLumen data) Scores* (CLO Goal) 80% of students 79.16% of will score 2 or students scored 2 higher or higher 85% of students 95.83% of will score 2 or students scored 2 higher or higher 85% of students 94.74% of students scored 2 will score 2 or or higher higher 85% of students 100% of students scored 2 or higher will score 2 or higher  If more CLOs are listed for the course, add another row to the table. * Defined Target Scores:What scores in eLumen from your students would indicate success for this CLO? (Example: 75% of the class scored either 3 or 4) **Actual scores: What is the actual percent of students that meet defined target based on the eLumen data collected in this assessment cycle? 2 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? Evaluate genetic data to understand inheritance and assess evolutionary processes. Target: 80%. Actual: 79.16%. This CLO was assessed based on genetic problems (gamete formation, figuring out phenotype from genotype, and genotype from phenotype, hybrid cross, di‐hybrid cross). 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? Even though the actual results closely match the target, the results show a bimodal distribution. About 75% of people scored 3 or 4 (50% of students scored 4; about 25% scored 3); about 25% scored either 1 or 0. The section on genetics is covered over 3 labs (with different emphases). Part of the first test covers the first two labs (Mendelian terminology, gamete formation, and genetic problems using the Punnett square to figure out genotype and phenotype). Students who only attend one lab usually do significantly more poorly than those who attend both labs, but a few students who attend both labs have trouble with genetics, and especially the Punnett Square. Plan of action: 1) Review the concepts over several labs. 2) Since there is a bimodal distribution, pair up students who struggle with students who seem to understand the concepts more easily. 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? Evaluate human biological diversity through the application of forensic analysis to the human skeleton. Target: 85%. Actual: 95.83%. This CLO was assessed based on 2 types of exercises: 1) Osteometric problems, using calipers and the metric system to calculate various indices on the skull. 2) Anthroposcopic problems, using traits to determine 3 a. Sex, based on the skull and the pelvis, and b. Age, based on dental formation and eruption and long bone formation. 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? At first glance, the actual results are very satisfactory, but it is necessary to look at each of components of the assessment methods. In lab, students were eager to learn how to determine sex and age based on traits. They generally did well with anthroposcopic methods. In fact, 100% students scored 85% or higher on the test. However, fewer than 85% of students scored 2 or higher on osteometric methods, and the results have a bimodal distribution. According to the results, students who did not do well either 1) did not know what to do at all, or 2) knew how to take the measurements with the measurement instruments but did not know how to read the values, or 3) did not know how to figure out an index. It should be noted that even though we are now covering measuring techniques over 2 lab periods, students who miss one lab are not doing as well as students who do not miss any (as would be expected). On the other hand, there also are students who attend both labs, but are clearly intimidated by measuring methods, measuring instruments, and the math involved in calculating an index. Plan of action: 1) Continue to offer the osteometric lab over two lab periods. Continue to explain the concepts sequentially: a) using the metric system, b) + c) getting used to different types of measuring instruments and taking distance measurements, d) figuring out how to calculate indices to say something meaningful about a skull or skull feature. 2) Pair up students who have difficulty with those who seem to have an easier time with measuring instruments and the metric system. 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? Compare and contrast primate anatomy and behavior through the examination of skeletal material and direct observation of primate behavior. Target: 85%. Actual: 97.74%. Knowledge of Primate anatomy and behavior was assessed based on skeletal specimens and pictures. Students had to identify primates based on crania, mandibles, and/or skeletons, and behaviors based on teeth (diet), skeletons (locomotion), and pictures. 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? Students did very well overall. The majority (70.17%) earned a score of 3 or 4. We have a wonderful collection of primate and non‐primate skulls and skeletons. Students learned to identify different primate groups, and dietary and locomotor adaptations Plan of action: We will request additional specimens to complement our comparative collection, and our primate collection. D. COURSE‐LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 4: 1. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course level outcome? Evaluate the importance and timing of human adaptations through the examination of fossil and cultural replicas. Target: 85%. Actual: 100% Knowledge of hominin/d fossils were assessed based on identification of different skulls and postcranial parts (pelvis, femur, foot) and supporting arguments 2. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have? Students did well on this section. The majority (68.42%) earned a score of 3 or 4. By the time we get to the fourth part of the course, they are able to identify skulls and skeletal parts and justify their answer, i.e. support their choice with anatomical data. Plan of action: We will request additional specimens to complement our fossil hominin/d collection. 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? In lab, students work in small groups. They compare specimens and learn how to support their choices. This approach carries over to test performance. In general, students do very well on bone identification, identification of trauma and pathologies, functional anatomy, identification of primates, identification of hominin/d fossils, and identification of artifacts. 5 Students did not do as well, when it comes to genetics and osteometry. This was also something we noted in the previous cycle. We have been giving students more time to work on genetics (i.e. over three rather two labs). Two years ago, following CLO assessments, we requested additional measuring instruments so each student could practice taking measurements on skulls and skeletons. We also decided to teach the section on osteometry over two, rather than one lab. Students are doing better, but there is room for improvement. 2. Based on the current assessment and reflections, what course‐level and programmatic strengths have the assessment reflections revealed? What actions has your discipline determined might be taken as a result of your reflections, discussions, and insights? The small‐group, hands‐on approach seems to be working very well for the sections on osteology, identification of sex and age, trauma, primates, and hominin/d fossils and artifacts. So we will enhance it by requesting additional specimens. We need to continue covering genetics and osteometry over several labs, to give students more time to learn and absorb the material. Because we get a bimodal distribution for both the genetic exercises and the osteometric exercises, we will try to pair up students who need additional help with students who seem to grasp the concepts more easily. 3. What is the nature of the planned actions (please check all that apply)?  Curricular X Pedagogical X Resource based  Change to CLO or rubric  Change to assessment methods  Other:_________________________________________________________________ \ 6 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 ANTHROPOPOLOGY 2 Spring 2014 1 1 100% Fall 2014 2 (N. Casqueiro& M. Giovanola) Form Instructions:  Complete a separate Appendix B2 form for each Course‐Level assessment reported in this Program Review. These courses should be listed in Appendix B1: Student Learning Outcomes Assessment Reporting Schedule.  Part I: CLO Data Reporting. For each CLO, obtain Class Achievement data in aggregate for all sections assessed in eLumen.  Part II: CLO Reflections. Based on student success reported in Part I, reflect on the individual CLO.  Part III: Course Reflection. In reviewing all the CLOs and your findings, reflect on the course as a whole. PART I: COURSE‐LEVEL OUTCOMES – DATA RESULTS CONSIDER THE COURSE‐LEVEL OUTCOMES INDIVIDUALLY (THE NUMBER OF CLOS WILL DIFFER BY COURSE) (CLO) 1: Apply archeological methodology to interpret the material remains of cultures. (CLO) 2: Evaluate the cultural and social changes with the shift from hunting‐gathering to food‐producing societies. (CLO) 3: Compare and contrast prehistoric societies in different parts of the world, based on their material remains. Actual Scores** Defined Target (eLumen data) Scores* (CLO Goal) 80% of students 84.21% of will score 2 or students scored 2 higher or higher 70% of students 90% of students scored 2 or higher will score 2 or higher 70% of students 95% of students scored 2 or higher will score 2 or higher  If more CLOs are listed for the course, add another row to the table. * Defined Target Scores:What scores in eLumen from your students would indicate success for this CLO? (Example: 75% of the class scored either 3 or 4) **Actual scores: What is the actual percent of students that meet defined target based on the eLumen data collected in this assessment cycle? 7 PART II: COURSE‐ LEVEL OUTCOME REFLECTIONS B. COURSE‐LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 1: 1. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course level outcome? Apply archeological methodology to interpret the material remains of cultures. Target: 80%. Actual: 84.21%. This CLO was assessed based on 1) a surface survey done out of doors, 2) an in‐
class exercise on stratigraphy and dating methods, 3) an in‐class exercise on the interpretation of the archeological record, 4) responses to questions on a video on archeological interpretation and 5) a take‐home exam on archeological methodology and interpretation. 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? 47% of the students performed at score level 2. In general, students did well on the surface survey and in their answers to the questions on the video. However, they did poorly overall on the stratigraphic/dating exercises, the interpretation exercises, and the test. For the exercises and the test, it was essential that reading be done ahead of time. Students in some groups could not answer questions because they had not the reading. Plan of action: Try reading‐apprenticeship methods: 1) Pair‐share approach 2) Reading to the text 3) Sharing with the whole class 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? Evaluatethe cultural and social changes associated with the shift from hunting‐
gathering to food‐producing societies. Target: 70%. Actual: 90%. The assignment pertaining to this SLO was based on 1) in‐class faunal analysis, 2) an in‐class bioarcheology analysis, and 3) a test on the analysis of the archaeological record in relation to hunting and gathering and the changes to food production. 8 2. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have? Students did well in part because these were hands‐on projects working with specimens. Students worked well in groups where they could discuss and debate the specimens and how they related to the archaeological record. Plan of action: Keep using a variety of methods. They help students to develop critical thinking skills, and succeed. 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? Compare and contrast prehistoric societies in different parts of the world, based on their material remains. Target: 70%. Actual: 95%. This CLO was assessed based on a group presentation of research and a written assignment of an article summary and critique relating to the research. 2. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have? These assignments allowed students to gather information from various resources and creatively present to the class information about the material remains of a prehistoric culture.The students that were successful participated in research and developing a creative way to present their research to the class, while working with a small group. Some students had a previous interest in a specific region or civilization, while others became interested as they began to research. Students became fully engaged through choosing their own topics and manner to present and then preparation and presentation. Plan of action: Continue giving this type of assessment. This was a great way to engage students in the subject, particularly by applying principles and methods learned throughout the course lectures, exercises and readings. 9 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? More hands‐on projects were added, because students seem to do better and to be more engaged with the material when they work in groups. In 2012‐13, we ordered archeological supplies (screens, trowels, etc.) for a section on archeological survey methods. The survey lab was first introduced in spring 2014. 2. Based on the current assessment and reflections, what course‐level and programmatic strengths have the assessment reflections revealed? What actions has your discipline determined might be taken as a result of your reflections, discussions, and insights? Students did particularly well on the projects and exercises that required them to do small‐group work (survey lab), and hands‐on work that required critical thinking skills (in‐class faunal analysis, in‐class bioarcheology analysis). They also did well when they were given some latitude in choosing a topic and working on a capstone presentation (poster project). However, students did not do as well on assignments that required them to read material ahead of time. I will try reading‐apprenticeship techniques in the classroom to nudge students to read the material, and to help them develop good reading skills. NOTE: The ANTH 2 outline was modified for F2014 so it would fit the course CI‐D for transfer. Greater emphasis is placed on methods, and less emphasis is placed on prehistory and cultural change. As a result, CLOs have been revised, and CLO assessment will be revised as well in the next cycle. 3. What is the nature of the planned actions (please check all that apply)? 
Curricular X Pedagogical X Resource based X Change to CLO or rubric 
Change to assessment methods 
Other:_________________________________________________________________ 10 Course ANTHROPOPOLOGY 13 Semester assessment data gathered Fall 2013 Number of sections offered in the semester 1 Number of sections assessed 1 Percentage of sections assessed 100% Semester held “Closing the Loop” discussion Spring 2014 Faculty members involved in “Closing the Loop” discussion 2 (M. Giovanola & N. Casqueiro) Form Instructions:  Complete a separate Appendix B2 form for each Course‐Level assessment reported in this Program Review. These courses should be listed in Appendix B1: Student Learning Outcomes Assessment Reporting Schedule.  Part I: CLO Data Reporting. For each CLO, obtain Class Achievement data in aggregate for all sections assessed in eLumen.  Part II: CLO Reflections. Based on student success reported in Part I, reflect on the individual CLO.  Part III: Course Reflection. In reviewing all the CLOs and your findings, reflect on the course as a whole. PART I: COURSE‐LEVEL OUTCOMES – DATA RESULTS CONSIDER THE COURSE‐LEVEL OUTCOMES INDIVIDUALLY (THE NUMBER OF CLOS WILL DIFFER BY COURSE) (CLO) 1: Demonstrate an understanding of the methodology used in Forensic Anthropology by using proper archeological techniques and following the Forensic Anthropology protocol. (CLO) 2: Establish the decedent’s identity (sex, age, stature, ancestry, individual markers). (CLO) 3: Determine cause and manner of death, and time since death. Actual Scores** Defined Target (eLumen data) Scores* (CLO Goal) 80% of students 86.21% of students scored 2 will score 2 or or higher higher 80% of students 79.31% of students scored 2 will score 2 or or higher higher 80% of students 79.31% of students scored 2 will score 2 or or higher higher  If more CLOs are listed for the course, add another row to the table. * Defined Target Scores:What scores in eLumen from your students would indicate success for this CLO? (Example: 75% of the class scored either 3 or 4) **Actual scores: What is the actual percent of students that meet defined target based on the eLumen data collected in this assessment cycle? 11 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? Demonstrate an understanding of the methodology used in Forensic Anthropology by using proper archeological techniques and following the Forensic Anthropology protocol. Target: 80%. Actual: 86.21%. This CLO was assessed based on questions about recovery of human remains and associated materials, about the treatment of human remains after recovery, and about the Forensic Protocol. 2. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have? Students seemed to understand the basic concepts. In class, I presented the main concepts in a power‐point presentation, and gave them handouts. Survey techniques were part of a hands‐on project, as were the recovery techniques. Students worked in groups, and checked each other’s work. Plan of action: We should practice survey and recovery techniques in a more realistic setting. I am hoping that we will have access to some outdoors space very soon. 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? Establish the decedent’s identity (sex, age, stature, ancestry, individual markers). Target: 80%. Actual: 79.31%. This CLO was assessed based on anthroposcopy to determine two of the variables used to identify a decedent: a. Sex, based on the skull and the pelvis, and b. Age, based on dental formation and eruption, long bone formation, and pubic symphysis wear. 2. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have? The material was presented over two class periods. Students first watched a power‐point presentation aboutthe techniques/body parts that are best to assess 12 sex and age. They then learned to use the techniques on various specimens. Lastly, they took a mock test to figure out what they needed to work on. Plan of action: 1) Continue to present age and sex determination over two class periods. 2) Give students more time to absorb the material and quickly determine age and sex . 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? Determine cause and manner of death, and time since death. Target: 80%. Actual: 79.31%. This CLO was assessed based on students’ knowledge of various traumas and their causes, as well as the length of time that had elapsed since someone had died. The latter was based on rate of decay under different conditions, scavenger damage, and insect succession. 2. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have? Students did well overall. In class, they watched a power‐point presentations that exposed them to the basics of trauma and the evaluation of the postmortem interval. They also looked at many different specimens with different kinds of traumas, and spent time in groups discussing what might have caused the trauma. Time since death was evaluated with the use of tables. Plan of action: 1) We have a great forensic collection. Students have the opportunity to see many different types of trauma. Keep building the collection. 2) Spend more time on evaluating time since death. The use of tables is a little tricky at times because conditions are not always clear cut, and because there is a good deal of overlap between time ranges. 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? This is the first time that ANTH 13 is assessed, and only the second time it is offered. We have acquired many forensic specimens, especially skulls and skeletal parts that show traumatic injuries. Students have practical knowledge of what “blunt‐force trauma” looks like, and can recognize whether someone has survived an injury. 13 2. Based on the current assessment and reflections, what course‐level and programmatic strengths have the assessment reflections revealed? What actions has your discipline determined might be taken as a result of your reflections, discussions, and insights? The book that we use is detailed and has very good photographs and graphs, but it is quite hard to read. In order to prepare students, I present the main concepts in a power‐point presentation, and summarize the chapter in class notes. Students also work in groups to apply what they have learned. All power‐point presentations and notes are available to students on Blackboard. The small‐group, hands‐on approach seems to be working very well for the sections on osteology, identification of sex and age, stature, trauma, So we will be requesting additional specimens. 3. What is the nature of the planned actions (please check all that apply)?  Curricular X Pedagogical X Resource based  Change to CLO or rubric  Change to assessment methods  Other:_________________________________________________________________ 14 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: ANTHROPOLOGY AA Program: ANTHROPOLOGY AA‐T  PLO #1: Analyze human biological and cultural adaptations. In this context, evaluate the different factors that have affected, and are affecting humans biologically and culturally.

PLO #2: Analyze the factors that cause modern humans biological and cultural diversity, and demonstrate an appreciation for, and sensitivity to human biological and cultural diversity.
What questions or investigations arose as a result of these reflections or discussions? Both PLOs are addressed by various CLOs, in Biological and Cultural Anthropology courses. PLO #1 is addressed by: ANTH 1L, CLO #4 (see attached CTL form). Target: 85%. Actual: 100%. ANTH 2, CLO #2 (see attached CTL form). Target: 70%. Actual: 90%. By the end of the course/s, students are able to evaluate diversity based on either qualitative or quantitative differences in anatomy (in the case of ANTH 1L) or culture (in the case of ANTH 2), and understand how these differences came about. PLO #2 is addressed by: ANTH 1L, CLO #2 (see attached CTL form). Target: 85%. Actual: 95.83%. ANTH 2, CLO # 3 (see attached CTL form). Target: 70%. Actual: 95%. ANTH 13, CLO #2 (see attached CTL form). Target: 80%. Actual: 79.31%. By the end of the course/s, students are able to compare and contrast different specimens, and determine their sex and age, based on qualitative criteria (ANTH 1 and 13). In the case of ANTH 2, students are able to discuss differences between hunting‐gathering and food production. What program‐level strengths have the assessment reflections revealed? Students develop analytical and critical thinking skills (CWLG #4). They also learn to work collaboratively, and to discuss their findings (CWLG #3). They are able to assess diversity both culturally and biologically. What actions has your discipline determined might be taken to enhance the learning of students completing your program? 1.We will request additional specimens to complement our fossil hominin/d collection. 2. We will request outdoor space so students can practice survey and recovery techniques in a more realistic setting. 15