Chabot College
Program Review Report
Check one:
X SLO Portion of Upcoming ’16-’17
Program Review
(Submitted May 2015 in Preparation for Oct 2015)
___ Revision to ’15-’16 Program Review
(Originally Submitted Oct 2014)
___ Revision to ’14-’15 Program Review
(Originally Submitted Oct 2013)
Submitted on April 27, 2015
Contact: Jessica Gallucci
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
POSC 12 – California State and Local
Politics
1
1
1
100%
Fall 2014
Jessica Gallucci
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: Describe the structure of California state
government, explain the duties of each branch of
government, and compare/contrast its structure with
the federal government.
Defined Target
Scores*
(CLO Goal)
65% or more
of the class
scoring a 3 or
4.
(CLO) 2: Identify, discuss, and analyze contemporary 65% or more
policy issues facing California and local governments. of the class
scoring a 3 or
4.
(CLO) 3: Define direct democracy, explain its historical 65% or more
development in California, and analyze its strengths
of the class
and weaknesses.
scoring a 3 or
4.
Actual Scores**
73%
87%
89%
 If more CLOs are listed for the course, add another row to the table.
* Defined Target Scores: What scores from your students would indicate success for this CLO?
(Example: 75% of the class scored either 3 or 4)
**Actual scores: What is the actual percent of students that meet defined target based on the eLumen
data collected in this assessment cycle?
PART II: COURSE- LEVEL OUTCOME REFLECTIONS
A. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 1:
1. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course
level outcome?
While students met the level of 3 or 4 enough to reach the target, many were at the
“3” level of understanding. Overall, students did well making connections between
the core roles of the major California institutions and those on the federal level.
However, students had a tough time understanding the myriad roles of California’s
large executive branch and extensive bureaucracy in California. It was especially
important to understand the bureaucracy of California when researching ballot
initiatives because many ballot initiatives seek to make changes in the financing
and functioning of the executive branch agencies.
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?
It is not surprising that bureaucracy is difficult to grasp as it is very much a mystery to
almost anyone who is not a political “insider”. It can also be viewed as a boring topic, and
there is very little good instructional material available that is able to illuminate the roles
of bureaucracy to undergraduates.
B. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 2:
1. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course
level outcome?
Students surpassed the target. The majority demonstrated a sophisticated level of
understanding of at least one major issue at the forefront of California politics through
their reflections on the outcomes of the 2014 election ballot initiatives.
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?
I was not surprised that students were able to demonstrate the level of understanding that
they did as they were put into groups throughout the semester where they followed the
progress of one ballot initiative. It is very helpful to offer this class in semesters when
there is an election as much rich information is available for students to delve into this
CLO.
C. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 3:
1. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course
level outcome?
Students exceeded the defined target scores. As mentioned above, direct democracy was
a core theme throughout the class, and the students studied the history of ballot initiatives
extensively and followed a particular ballot initiative throughout the semester.
2. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and
your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
This is a topic that really illuminates this course. Students are able to grasp the importance
of direct democracy, and they seem to enjoy the topic above others.
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 I am assessing this course.
2. Based on the current assessment and reflections, what course-level and programmatic
strengths have the assessment reflections revealed? What actions has your discipline
determined might be taken as a result of your reflections, discussions, and insights?
The core challenge that I find is locating materials that are both engaging and informative
for students to learn the institutional structure and interworkings of California government.
I would like to look for better ways to bring this topic to life for students, and the lack of
literature may mean that I need to look towards more experiential opportunities to bring
these issues to the fore for students (for example, bringing students to an administrative
hearing on a particular issue we are covering). This will require funding to get students up to
Sacramento or perhaps a County Supervisors meeting. Alternately, it may mean doing more
extensive research into case studies that can bring to life the importance of bureaucratic
minutiae.
3. What is the nature of the planned actions (please check all that apply)?
X Curricular
X Pedagogical
X Resource based
 Change to CLO or rubric
 Change to assessment methods
 Other:_________________________________________________________________
Appendix 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
POSC 20 – Comparative Politics
1
1
1
100%
Spring 2015
Jessica Gallucci
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)
Defined Target
Scores*
(CLO Goal)
(CLO) 1: Student will be able to define “government”
65% or more
of the class
scoring a 3 or
4.
65% or more
of the class
scoring a 3 or
4.
65% or more
of the class
scoring a 3 or
4.
and describe the structure, institutions, and major
policy challenges of at least five countries (other than
the United States) spanning at least three continents.
(CLO) 2: Student will be able to compare and contrast
different governmental systems, national institutions,
and political problems of selected governments.
(CLO) 3: Student will be able to analyze the relationship
between the historical and cultural value systems upon
which national governments are based, and
government type, structure, and policies.
Actual Scores**
92%
83%
79%
 If more CLOs are listed for the course, add another row to the table.
* Defined Target Scores: What scores from your students would indicate success for this CLO?
(Example: 75% of the class scored either 3 or 4)
**Actual scores: What is the actual percent of students that meet defined target based on the eLumen
data collected in this assessment cycle?
PART II: COURSE- LEVEL OUTCOME REFLECTIONS
C. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 1:
3. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course
level outcome?
Students did very well on this CLO. Virtually all students have a grasp of the definition of
government, as they have almost all already taken a Political Science course. Describing
the structure, institutions and major policy challenges of foreign countries is the basis of
the course, and students demonstrate widespread proficiency in this area.
4. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and
your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
Despite the fact that students did very well on this CLO, I do feel that the textbook used
does not separate institutional issues from policy challenges in clearly delineated sections.
The students end up understanding the differences, but there might be a better way to
present these segments as distinct in class.
D. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 2:
3. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course
level outcome?
Students surpassed the target. Nearly all students taking the class this semester have
already taken American Government class. As undergraduate students living in the US it is
not surprising that students often make connections between the systems, institutions and
political issues in the United States, heling to facilitate their learning of comparative
method.
4. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and
your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
While students are engaging in comparison as a “knee jerk reaction,” the textbook doesn’t
do a great job of going into detain on the comparative method. This may be appropriate
for this level in the country-by-country approach to teaching this class, as there is so much
to absorb in such a short period of time. It may be useful, however, for students to be
exposed to perhaps 2-3 basic methods that comparativists use and revisit them as each
country is covered.
It might also be interesting to think about breaking countries into groupings, and having
students clearly compare countries that are similar and countries that are different and see
how the basic methods stand up in each type of inquiry.
C. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 3:
3. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course
level outcome?
Students exceeded the defined target scores. In the introduction to this course we took
additional time to break down contemporary and historical domestic and global factors
that affect the development of states. Students did a small group project in class on these
topics and demonstrated a good grasp of the issues. I was not surprised, then, when most
students were able to apply this perspective when responding to the country-by-country
questions that require them to make these types of connections.
4. 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 students exceeded our defined target scores, I still struggle with the fact that
it is difficult students to truly grasp an organic, or more “experiential” understanding or
“feeling” of the historical and cultural value systems in each of these countries. There is a
big tension between covering a sufficient number of countries in this course and allowing
more time for students to go more in depth into the political and cultural history of each
country.
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?
This is the first time I am assessing this course.
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?
One of the core challenges of teaching Comparative Politics is the fact that students
generally have little or no personal experiences in the countries studied or with people who
come from all but one or two of the countries. My key reflections have been that I would
like to try teaching this course focusing on fewer countries – possibly 5 or 6 countries
instead of 8 in order to leave more time to delve into the histories and contemporary
cultures of the countries studied in order to provide more context for the political issues
that are most relevant.
Furthermore, I would evaluate ways to include basic comparative method in this course in a
way that is appropriate and useful for student learning.
Finally, I would like to develop a uniform way to carve out segments in class that distinguish
systems from institutions from political issues and other important factors such as culture,
nationality and ethnicity. It remains to be seen if I can do this with the current textbook
organized as it is or if it is more appropriate to move to another textbook that I almost
adopted that is more structured (but perhaps too dense).
6. What is the nature of the planned actions (please check all that apply)?
X Curricular
X Pedagogical
 Resource based
 Change to CLO or rubric
 Change to assessment methods
 Other:_________________________________________________________________
Appendix B2: “Closing the Loop” 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
POSC 25 - Introduction to Political
Theory
Spring 2015
1
1
100%
Spring 2015
John Fortuna, Jessica Gallucci
Form Instructions:
 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)
Defined Target
Scores*
(CLO Goal)
Actual Scores**
(eLumen data)
(CLO) 1: Ability to summarize, compare and analyze a
variety of primary source political philosophical texts.
At least 70% of
the class
scoring a 3 or
4.
Approximately
75% of the class
scoring a 3 or 4.
(CLO) 2: Ability to apply abstract political theoretical
concepts to concrete social issues.
65% or more
of the class
scoring a 3 or
4.
65% or more
of the class
scoring a 3 or
4.
Approximately
50% of students
scoring a 3 or 4.
(CLO) 3: Distinguish between various forms of
political organizations (governmental structures)
38% scoring a 3
or 4.
 If more CLOs are listed for the course, add another row to the table.
* Defined Target Scores: What scores in eLumen from your students would indicate success for this
CLO? (Example: 75% of the class scored either 3 or 4)
**Actual scores: What is the actual percent of students that meet defined target based on the eLumen
data collected in this assessment cycle?
PART II: COURSE- LEVEL OUTCOME REFLECTIONS
E. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 1:
5. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course
level outcome?
They are a little above the target level.
6. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and
your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
-I am happy with this outcome as it represents a marked improvement over the
previous assessment pertaining to this CLO. I would continue to emphasize to the
students that this is a central goal for this course (and in particular emphasize that
the essays they write are focused on developing their ability to do this)
F. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 2:
5. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course
level outcome?
Below target.
6. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and
your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
-While this outcome is still below the target, it is a slight improvement over the
previous assessment of this CLO. I have made some additional effort to link the
theories to their political experiences, but perhaps a modification in course
structure to more explicitly reinforce this is in order.
C. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 3:
5. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course
level outcome?
Below target.
6. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and
your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
-I decided to not change this CLO in order to see what change (if any) could be seen
on this second assessment cycle. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the students were well
below the target (with a marked decrease from the last time around). As I
mentioned in the previous assessment period, the course as structured does not
explicitly aim to achieve this CLO, though such distinctions are implicit as we move
through the material.
PART III: COURSE REFLECTIONS AND FUTURE PLANS
7. What changes were made to your course based on the previous assessment cycle, the prior
Closing the Loop reflections and other faculty discussions?
-This being only the second assessment I've done for this course, I made only minor
changes to the course material (dropping some readings in favor of others). I've
focused a little more on the relationship between the abstract ideas in the texts and
politics as it is currently practiced. But beyond this I wished to maintain a certain
consistency in both the course and the assessment tools in order to evaluate
whether the results of the first assessment were truly representative or an anomaly.
8. 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?
-As suggested in the previous assessment, modifying/replacing the third CLO with a
learning outcome more in line with the focus of the course is necessary.
9. What is the nature of the planned actions (please check all that apply)?
* Curricular
* Pedagogical
 Resource based
* Change to CLO or rubric
 Change to assessment methods
 Other:_________________________________________________________________
Appendix B2: “Closing the Loop” 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
POSC 30 - International Relations
Spring 2015
1
1
100%
Spring 2015
Jamilya Ukudeeva, Jessica Gallucci
Form Instructions:
 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)
Defined Target
Scores*
(CLO Goal)
(CLO) 1: Demonstrate basic understanding of international
system: actors, institutions, nature of actor interactions and
relationships.
65% or more
of the class
scoring a 3 or
4.
65% or more
of the class
scoring a 3 or
4.
65% or more
of the class
scoring a 3 or
4.
(CLO) 2: Apply international relations’ theoretical concepts
to real world situations.
(CLO) 3: Able to coherently express ideas and opinions
about international relations orally.
Actual Scores**
(eLumen data)
84%
87%
83%
 If more CLOs are listed for the course, add another row to the table.
* Defined Target Scores: What scores in eLumen from your students would indicate success for this
CLO? (Example: 75% of the class scored either 3 or 4)
**Actual scores: What is the actual percent of students that meet defined target based on the eLumen
data collected in this assessment cycle?
PART II: COURSE- LEVEL OUTCOME REFLECTIONS
G. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 1:
7. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course
level outcome?
Students have done well to develop solid understanding of the main theories in
international relations. They have gained the knowledge of the key concepts, definitions
and basic assumptions of the theories. They also understand the debate between different
theories of international relations.
8. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and
your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
It is important to invest classroom time at the beginning of the semester to ensure that
students have solid understanding of the basic concepts and assumptions. Doing so allows
us to move at a faster rate later in the semester.
H. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 2:
7. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course
level outcome?
The outcome of students’ learning in this category is satisfactory. I think that students
have performed well, however there is a room for further improvement.
8. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and
your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
This part of the CLO tends to be the students’ favorite part – they enjoy applying
theoretical concepts to real world situations; it is very satisfying to students to apply
technical/theoretical terms to make sense of the contemporary international affairs.
Theory allows students to see things that they did not see prior to the course. They are
quite surprised to see that countries that are so different culturally, economically, and
politically often have similar goals, preferences, and responses.
C. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 3:
7. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course
level outcome?
Most students worked hard on their research and presentations. Students knew that they
would be graded on their oral presentations. There were only a couple of students who
had a very hard time expressing their ideas in front of the class, and would require
additional encouragement.
Otherwise, in overall, the students were enthusiastic and articulate when sharing their
research findings.
8. 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 skill to present one’s ideas and opinions is a valuable skill at a workplace. Classroom is
a perfect setting for students to develop this skill. Expressing ones ideas and opinions does
not come easy to all students. Giving students an opportunity to express their ideas and
opinions in a variety of settings – group work during the class, group work outside of
classroom, work in pairs, “whip up” activities, and games help students to develop their
ability to express their ideas effectively.
PART III: COURSE REFLECTIONS AND FUTURE PLANS
10. 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 my first time assessing CLOs in International Relations course at Chabot.
11. 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?
Course strength: a) Challenging. The material that students are learning in this class
requires intellectual imagination and good analytical skills.
b) Flexibility. My assignments are designed to allow students to choose topics of personal
interest to them.
c) Engaging material. Students get to discuss current day events and topical issues while
learning about international relations theory.
For the future, I would like to design a few short homework assignments to reinforce ideas
covered in class.
12. What is the nature of the planned actions (please check all that apply)?
* Curricular
X Pedagogical
 Resource based
 Change to CLO or rubric
X Change to assessment methods
Other:_________________________________________________________________
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: AA in Social Science
1. PLO #1: Students are expected to demonstrate critical understanding of the structure
of, and connections between, cultural and social groups historically and in current
condition
2. PLO #2: Students are expected to develop the ability to employ conceptual frameworks
of analysis to understand and evaluate social, cultural, economic, and/or political
systems in the United States and abroad.
The two PLOS were assessed using one of the three essay exams from the POSC 20:
Comparative Politics class in Spring 2015
What questions or investigations arose as a result of these reflections or discussions?
That the Comparative Politics curriculum could seek to do more to make more explicit
connections between countries’ cultural and social groups historically and in the current
condition.
What program-level strengths have the assessment reflections revealed?
The assessment revealed that students have reached a satisfactory level of achievement in
these two PLOs. The majority (88%) of students demonstrate the ability to understand and
make connections between the myriad cultural and social groups within one of the countries
being studied in this course (taught in a country-by-country approach). The majority of
students were also able to employ cultural frameworks of analysis with a notable level of
success (90%). This exam happened to ask students to apply Marxist and Marxist-Leninist
conceptual frameworks of analysis to bear on the creation of the Soviet Union, and the
majority of students’ answers were on a “3” or “4” level out of four. This course is really
structured around the two PLOS of this Associates Degree.
What actions has your discipline determined might be taken to enhance the learning of
students completing your program?
To build in a segment on the Comparative Method at the beginning of the semester (or
possibly at the end after having considered country studies).