Chabot College Program Review Report 2015 ‐2016 Year 1 of Program Review Cycle Biology Submitted on: 10/24/14 Contact: Zarir G. Marawala& Jennifer Lange Final Forms, 1/18/13
1 Appendix B2: “Closing the Loop” Course‐Level Assessment Reflections. Course ANAT 1 Semester assessment data gathered Fall 2013 & Spring 2014 Number of sections offered in the semester 6 Number of sections assessed 3 Percentage of sections assessed 66% Semester held “Closing the Loop” discussion Spring 2014 Faculty members involved in “Closing the Loop” discussion J.Lange&P.Wu 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 Defined Target Actual Scores** (eLumen data) Scores* (CLO Goal) 80% of students 80% of students scored 3 (CLO) 1: or 4# Students will demonstrate competency with standard score 3 or 4 CONSIDER THE COURSE‐LEVEL OUTCOMES INDIVIDUALLY (THE NUMBER OF CLOS WILL DIFFER BY COURSE) equipment and techniques of the biological sciences. (CLO) 2: Students will express their understanding of major anatomical concepts by verbal, written, and illustrative means using correct terminology (CLO) 3: Students will identify observed microscopic and macroscopic structures. (CLO) 4: Students will apply biological principles to healthful vs. pathological conditions. #
Not all dissection elements were assessed due to construction in the cadaver room this term.
85% of students 98% of students scored 2 score 2 or or higher higher 85% of students 99% of students scored 2 score 2 or or higher higher 70% of students 96% of students scored 2 score 2 or or higher higher  If more CLOs are listed for the course, add another row to the table. 2 * 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? 3 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 the target score matched the actual score, during the term that assessment was done our cadaver room was under construction so several of the dissection elements could not be evaluated. 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? STRENGTH: Majority of the students demonstrated good microscope skill because an entire lab is dedicated to the microscope SOP. Every instructor is very keen on reminding the students on following the SOP through the semester. New slides were also purchased through bond to replace the faded broken slides. Students can now see the microscopic structures clearly which enhances their learning experience. DEFICIENCY: Students still do not have proficient dissection skills. During the last assessment cycle changes we recommended were:
1. providing more opportunity for dissection on a per-student basis by:
a. ensuring we have enough specimens so that students can dissect in pairs
instead of groups of 3 or 4
b. having cadavers for dissection in both spring and fall semesters instead
of just spring
c. having students do one individual project - eye - so that we can both
provide and see individual progress
2. adding more specific instructions to the lab manualfor tool usage (scalpel,
scissors, probes), cutting techniques, holding specimens, coordination between
group members (these will be added for dissections of the brain, eye, heart, and
cadaver)
3. Acquiring the proper tools for each dissection task, instead of trying to make
the tools we have work in ways they were not designed for. One identified
need is larger knives.
4. Review and revise, if needed, the rubric used for evaluating dissection skills.
Changes made/still in progress: Starting in F’12 we were able to have all students dissect organs in groups of 2 and to do an individual dissection of the eye. In S’14 we also added the dissection of the kidney. Each of these changes provided students with more individual experience in handling specimens and proper tool usage. We have also acquired, through bond funding, the proper tools for specific dissection tasks (new scalpels, retractors, bone saws, etc.) When the tool actually works, the focus of the dissection can be on good technique and proper outcome, instead of trying to figure out what is going wrong and how to adjust. Adding more specific instructions to the lab manual is still a work in progress, mainly 4 because of the time required to do the rewrite. Typically, any writing is done over the summer (when we aren’t actually working) because we just don’t have enough time while classes are in session. However, we have added some information about specific ways to hold tools and different ways to use the tools for various tasks. We still need to add cadaver dissection instructions. Concerns for this CLO: As materials costs increase and our budget for consumable supplies does not, we are now being forced to return to dissections in groups of three or four, which means one student actually performs the dissection while the others just watch. This is the same with cadaver dissection. Anatomy does not have the money to replace the cadavers every year, so majority of the students don’t have a hands‐on dissection experience with the cadavers. We also have do not have the funds to purchase one cadaver each term. As a result, gains seen in student learning will probably be lost. This deficiency is discussed every year in the program review but the college has not done anything to help the discipline to make improvements. SOLUTION: The college needs to provide more supply money to help the discipline to bridge the gap outlined above. Future needs/thoughts for this CLO As society becomes increasingly digital, learning in digital format is standard practice for our students. They typically take a picture of the slides on their microscope (using their smart phones) and then draw the slide off of the digital image. While I see great value in having an image of the specimen they need to study, I also worry that digital images will begin to replace the kinesthetic learning that drawing provides. If we go in the digital direction, what pedagogy can we employ that will preserve the interaction with the images? 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? The students performed well above our target score! 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? STRENGTH: Majority of the students do well expressing concepts verbally and through illustration (drawing). There are now more models available and brand new slides purchased through bond for students to make clear observations and ask appropriate questions. DEFICIENCY: Students still have the most difficulty expressing their ideas through writing. 5 In the previous cycle, writing was the students’ weakest area. Because of this, I have made short answer questions part of every chapter’s homework assignment as well as doing in‐
class activities that evaluate and revise written answers. Additionally, I am trying to have students explain (how, why, compare) instead of just giving a correct answer statement. While many students find this extremely frustrating, I have seen great improvements in the thoroughness of their written answers (even though, more often than not, their explanations are incorrect!). I find the disconnect between knowing the correct answer and knowing why that answer is correct disheartening. While anatomy classes practice written skill, most other Allied Health classes (BIOL 31, MICRO 1, and PHSI 1) do not. So when students come to anatomy and leave anatomy, there is no continuity of this practice. SOLUTION: Implement writing exercises across all Allied Health courses. 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? The students performed well above our target score! (Although, this data is inflated because students who drop after the first exams were not given scores in eLumen.) 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? During the past cycle we have: 1. created test banks that instructors can deploy on Blackboard that serve as practice practicals; 2. held additional open lab sessions ‐ an instructor present in the classroom during non‐class hours so that students have access to the materials (models, slides, specimens) to study. Many of these sessions are held on Fridays and Saturdays (and the instructors aren’t being paid for their time); 3. acquired more models (particularly more of the same organ – i.e. multiple kidneys) so that a class of 24‐30 students aren’t all trying to use the same one model at the same time; 4. I have also instituted a “check out” activity at the end of every lab session during which students are required to identify structures learned that day. These activities also serve as models of different methods that can be used to study the material and to check one’s knowledge. 6 Success on practical examinations testing student’s recall of learned structure names depends highly on the student’s ability to employ multiple study methods. STRENGTH: This is especially apparent when students work with anatomical models because more models are now available to students through bond purchases, so students didn’t have to wait and take terms to use certain models. New slides also make microscopic observation a pleasant learning experience for students. DEFICIENCY: Students struggled more with identifying macroscopic structures with preserved specimens and the cadavers. The allocated anatomy supplybudget remains the same every year while inflation has gone up many folds. The insufficient amount of supply money inhibited us to purchase enough preserved specimens for students. The goal is to provide one preserved organ per student. Instead, 3 or 4 students had to share one which means one student actually performs the dissection while the others just watch. This is the same with cadaver dissection. Anatomy does not have the money to replace the cadavers every year, so majority of the students don’t have a hands‐on dissection experience with the cadavers. Although more surgical equipment was purchased through the bond, the merger amount of supply budget has really inhibited improvement in this particular area. This deficiency is discussed every year in the program review but the college has not done anything to help the discipline to make improvements. Also more models are still needed to replace old broken models and to purchase multiple units of models so students don’t have to wait around because they are taking turns to use them.
We also find that students still don’t know how to study for a practical examination in which recall level knowledge is required. The A&P Revealed program that we utilize in class does have a testing feature that allows students to step‐wise increase the testing method difficulty from multiple choice, to click to ID, to write in answers. We have also modeled similar methods in class using worksheets and sticky notes. However, time constraints during class hours limit how often this can be done and how many students we can work with each time. We have also been emphasizing the mindset that “it is ok to be wrong while you are still learning”, because we find that students are very uncomfortable with not knowing the answer and would rather look up the answer than make a reasoned guess. (Looking up the answer only teaches them to look up the answer, not to be able to logically narrow the possibilities based on acquired knowledge.) Having structured time outside of class to work with students on study strategies and to bolster their habits of mind could improve students study skills more rapidly. Beginning to learn how to study before getting to anatomy would be even more beneficial. SOLUTION: The college needs to provide more supply money to help the discipline to bridge the gap outlined above. Students need more supported study activities. See STEM Center Proposal in New Initiatives. 7 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? The students performed well above our target score! (This one has a lower target score than the other CLOs because we know it is the hardest skill for students to acquire.) 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? Of all of the desired outcomes, this one is the hardest for students because it not only requires recall and understanding of topics, but it also requires application of that knowledge. STRENGTH:Models and slides are part of the instructional tools to help students to understand the anatomical changes from normal to pathological conditions. DEFICIENCY:The most difficult thing for the students is to see and understand is how disease affects the entire body. This is difficult to implement because of class time constraints. It is difficult to find a solution to increase more structured learning of the whole body under the time constraints. Clinical cases or problem sets may be given as project or homework but it will hard to find to discuss in class. We have found that applying their knowledge isn’t usually the hurdle for students, but that recognizing where they can apply their knowledge is lacking. They often don’t see the pieces, so they can’t even begin to make them fit together. Even if they have all the pieces, they often don’t see the logic flow between them to connect cause and effect through multiple steps. For example – lack of calcium in the diet results in bone matrix resorption, which results in lower bone density/mass that causes bones to have less resistance to external stresses, which, when experienced, is more likely to result in a fracture. The majority of students trace the lack of calcium in the diet to weak bones that are more prone to fracture, but they fail to see the need to explain the anatomy behind “weak”. Again, starting the process of recognizing what they know requires modeling and scaffolded practice. This is difficult to do during class hours because of time constraints and lack of one‐on‐one contact. SOLUTION:This skill needs to be practiced across all Allied Health Courses. One‐on‐one support can also be given during structured study hours. See STEM Center Proposal in New Initiatives. 8 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 individual CLOs above. 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? Faculty have been able to identify and, to some degree, implement needed changes in pedagogical techniques and materials to support student learning. Actions identified to maintain and to improve upon current student achievement levels:  funding for materials needs to keep pace with cost inflation  continue making adjustments to the lab manual exercises to explicitly write out/visualize dissection techniques and procedures  provide students with more individualized support in developing and practicing good study techniques  provide students with more individualized support in developing and practicing their scientific writing skills.  skills need to be practiced in all Allied Health courses. 3. 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:_________________________________________________________________ 9 Appendix B2: “Closing the Loop” Course‐Level Assessment Reflections. Course PHYSIO 1 Semester assessment data gathered Spring 2014 Number of sections offered in the semester 4 Number of sections assessed 2 Percentage of sections assessed 50% Semester held “Closing the Loop” discussion Spring 2014 Faculty members involved in “Closing the Loop” discussion Z.G.Marawala 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 principles of physiology to everyday occurrences, social issues or novel situations. nces, so (CLO) 2: Collaborate with fellow students to design, conduct, and evaluate scientific experiments. (CLO) 3: Communicate physiological concepts through verbal, written, and graphical/illustrative means. (CLO) 4: Perform controlled experiments; collect and report data. (CLO) 5: Demonstrate proper laboratory techniques and use of scientific instruments. 10 Defined Target Actual Scores** (eLumen data) Scores* (CLO Goal) 80% of students 93% of students scored 2, score2, 3, or 4 3, or 4 85% of students 94% of students scored 2 score 2 or or higher higher 85% of students 99% of students scored 2 score 2 or or higher higher 70% of students 94% of students scored 2 score 2 or or higher higher 75% of students 94% of students scored 2 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 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? Our target scores were matched and beat by actual scores. 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? During the last assessment cycle changes we recommended were:
With some improvement in available supplies/equipment, students are now able to do more labs in pairs rather than in groups of 4 or 5. This appears to have brought students “out of the shadows” who in the past were too afraid to ask or were simply riding on other peoples achievements. Now, they have to produce an outcome and account for it which has increased the amount of questions asked in class and made for a better overall performance. Changes made/still in progress: The goal is to allow students to do their own work whenever possible and then collaborate with their data, thereby creating a “symposium” like atmosphere. While this can be achieved in most cases, there is of course some limitation with regards to available material. Concerns for this CLO: No concerns per se—as long as we can at least hold what we have achieved (i.e. no more budget cuts in supplies), we should be able to hold our students to the continually improving standards. Future needs/thoughts for this CLO I encourage students to use technology in education as it becomes a valuable tool for learning and understanding what has been defined, described or perhaps just introduced in class. I design specific questions at the end of exercises to make the students do an impromptu research project to answer some thought provoking questions in the CONCLUSIONS section of their lab manuals. I use the course textbook that is both in print and virtual (that I authored) , where students can access the pages by scanning a QR code and not only access their text online but also the highlights I put up for them that reflect the day’s or week’s lecture points. 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? 12 The students performed well above our target score! 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? We maintain about 20‐25 lab exercises. These have proven useful but more can be done. The lack so some equipment was a hindrance in the past but now, it is also a matter of the instructor having the spare time to generate these projects on his own, what with committee work, program review, facilities issues and others that detract from things that one would like to do in their own spare time to better their pedagogy and student learning. 13 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? The students performed well above our target score. 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? During the past cycle we have: Held additional open lab sessions ‐ an instructor present in the classroom during non‐class hours so that students have access to the materials (models, slides, specimens) to study. Many of these sessions are held on Fridays and Saturdays (and the instructors aren’t being paid for their time); Call it synchronicity, but I also (like Anatomy) use a “check out” activity at the end of many lab sessions during which students are asked to show the graph(s) generated by data for the lab of that day. These activities also serve as models of different methods that can be used to study the material and to check one’s knowledge. Since many of my students come to me the next semester after Anatomy, it make good sense to use what they are used to and adapt it to something different, may be even something difficult only to make it appear easier as they have had some experience with it. Lab performance is always an issue. Students overall, either don’t pay as much attention to lab or find it more difficult to learn as they cannot simply memorize the subject material when it comes to Physiology. By recruiting technology in pedagogy and mixing it with a little of the old fashioned interaction, where students have to get up and demonstrate formation of a thrombus (requires an entire class participation), I find that I can make students more enthusiastic about lab. Now if I can just apply that to every concept in lab D. COURSE‐LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 4: 3. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course level outcome? The students performed well above our target score. 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? 14 While labs are not logistically that hard, students find some aspects of recording experiments a chore. In particular, graphs present a stumbling block and based on the many comments from students, I get the impression that the standards that are meant to be followed in graphing scientific data is not being drilled as rigorously if at all, probably due to the advent of computerized graphing. To that extent, students are not allowed to use any computer assisted graphing and must train mind and hand with paper and pencil (and ruler and compass and whatever else is needed) to produce the best graphic representation of their work. The students are pleasantly surprised (most of them anyway) at the end of the semester when they see their near perfect graphing compared to that which they had on the initial third of the semester. E. COURSE‐LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 5: ADD IF NEEDED. 1. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course level outcome? The students performed well above our target score. 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? As best as can be achieved, I would say students do reasonably well. The key, I believe is taking that extra mile to see if a student sneaking out early during lab and speaking with them in a concerned tone, engage them in conversation and make them understand the value of lab practice and how their future profession will be one continuous “practice” session. 15 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? See individual CLOs above. 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? The faculty have been able to identify and, to some degree, implement needed changes in pedagogical techniques and materials to support student learning. Actions identified to maintain and to improve upon current student achievement levels:  funding for materials needs to keep pace with cost inflation  continue making adjustments to the lab manual exercises to explicitly write out/visualize techniques and procedures  provide students with more individualized support in developing and practicing good study techniques  provide students with more individualized support in developing and practicing their scientific writing skills.  Develop instructor driven programs that students can use to keep the lessons learned in front of them in a fun, informative format to where the information is second nature to them. 6. 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:_________________________________________________________________ 16 Appendix B2: “Closing the Loop” Course‐Level Assessment Reflections. Course BIOLOGY 50 Semester assessment data gathered Spring 2014 Number of sections offered in the semester 4 Number of sections assessed 2 Percentage of sections assessed 50% Semester held “Closing the Loop” discussion Spring 2014 Faculty members involved in “Closing the Loop” discussion Z.G.Marawala 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: Communicate anatomical and physiological concepts by written, verbal and graphic/illustrative means. (CLO) 2: Perform controlled experiments, collect and analyze data. (CLO) 3: Work collaboratively with fellow students to design, conduct and evaluate scientific experiments. Defined Target Actual Scores** (eLumen data) Scores* (CLO Goal) 80% of students 93% of students scored 2, score2, 3, or 4 3, or 4 75% of students 71% of students scored 2 score 2 or or higher higher 80% of students 93% of students scored 2 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) 17 **Actual scores: What is the actual percent of students that meet defined target based on the eLumen data collected in this assessment cycle? 18 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? Our target scores were matched and beat by actual scores. 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? During the last assessment cycle changes we recommended were:
Data is good; however, maintaining it requires constant vigil. Students in Bio 50 have to not only learn the subject matter but the jargon and “medical” terminology that goes with it. Some students like those who are HIT majors or paramedic majors do well in this regard as they are already prepared with the lexicon that this class generates but other have to learn it from scratch. Changes made/still in progress: The goal is to allow students to do their own work whenever possible and then collaborate with their data, thereby creating a “symposium” like atmosphere. While this can be achieved in most cases, there is of course some limitation with regards to available material. Concerns for this CLO: Getting student cooperation is a challenge as many don’t see this class as giving them lifelong skills even though they often realize it by the time the class is over. Since many students understandably focus on their majors, and this course is often used as a GE requirement fulfillment, student focus on the subject matter will always be a bit of a challenge. Future needs/thoughts for this CLO I encourage students to use technology in education as it becomes a valuable tool for learning and understanding what has been defined, described or perhaps just introduced in class. I design specific questions at the end of exercises to make the students do an impromptu research project to answer some thought provoking questions in the CONCLUSIONS section of their lab manuals. I use a tailored lab manual for materials we support and designed an interactive software for students to make use of the VAK system of learning by immersion into the subject matter. I display this tool at every orientation which catches student interest and it seems to help with student retention as well. 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? 19 The students performed a bit below the target score. 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? We maintain about 20lab exercises. These have proven useful. The lack so some equipment was a hindrance in the past but now, it is also a matter of the instructor having the spare time to generate more projects that engage students, esp. those for whom Biology is not their area of career interest. With committee work, program review, facilities issues and other non‐pedagogical activities, one often battles the paucity of spare time needed to better pedagogy and student learning but we have done the best we can and are committed to continue pushing for more quality. 20 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? The students performed well above our target score. 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? During the past cycle we have: Held additional open lab sessions ‐ an instructor present in the classroom during non‐class hours so that students have access to the materials (models, slides, specimens) to study. Many of these sessions are held on Fridays and Saturdays (and the instructors aren’t being paid for their time); Lab performance is always an issue. Students overall, either don’t pay as much attention to lab or find it more difficult to learn as they cannot simply memorize the subject material when it comes to the Physiology part of Bio 50. This combined with the fact that many students take the class for GE, makes for a greater challenge. Interestingly, our more mature students see the value in the course early on and relate to it esp. when we go through the systems. School teachers sometimes take this class to further their ranking and they are among those who work quite hard at making the grade. By recruiting technology in pedagogy and mixing it with a little of the old fashioned interaction, where students have to get up and demonstrate formation of a thrombus (requires an entire class participation), I find that I can make students more enthusiastic about lab. Now if I can just apply that to every concept in lab D. COURSE‐LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 4: 5. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course level outcome? 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? 21 E. COURSE‐LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 5: ADD IF NEEDED. 3. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course level outcome? 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? 22 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? See individual CLOs above. 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? Implement as needed, changes in pedagogical techniques and materials to support student learning. Actions identified to maintain and to improve upon current student achievement levels:  funding for fresh materials and supplies to keep pace with cost inflation and maintain student interest.  continue making adjustments to the lab manual and look for ways to keep the material in front of them by developing new forms of digital pedagogy as well as old school, hands on type of interaction as in class participation in enacting formation of a thrombosis.  provide students with more individualized support in developing and practicing good study techniques  provide students with more individualized support in developing and practicing their scientific writing skills.  Develop instructor driven programs that students can use to keep the lessons learned in front of them in a fun, informative format to where the information is second nature to them. 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:_________________________________________________________________ 23 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? See individual CLOs above. 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? Faculty have been able to identify and, to some degree, implement needed changes in pedagogical techniques and materials to support student learning. Actions identified to maintain and to improve upon current student achievement levels:  funding for materials needs to keep pace with cost inflation  continue making adjustments to the lab manual exercises to explicitly write out/visualize dissection techniques and procedures  provide students with more individualized support in developing and practicing good study techniques  provide students with more individualized support in developing and practicing their scientific writing skills. 12. 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:_________________________________________________________________ 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 BIOL 10 Fall 2013 4 2 50% Spring 2014 24 Faculty members involved in “Closing the Loop” discussion R. Otto 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: Students will apply biological principles to everyday
occurrences, social issues, or novel situations. (CLO) 2: Defined Target Scores* (CLO Goal) 75% students score 2 or higher Actual Scores** (eLumen data) 71% of the students scored 2 or higher 75% of students 45% of students scored 2 score 2 or or higher higher Students will design, perform and evaluate
experiments. (CLO) 3: Students will use and develop competency with
standard equipment and techniques of biological
science. (CLO) 4: 75% of students 77% of students scored 2 score 2 or or higher higher 90% of students 100% of students scored 2 or higher score 2 or higher Students will collaborate with peers to share
information, ideas and responsibilities.  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? The actual score was 4% below the target score. 25 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? Application of concepts involves higher–level cognitive skills. At the introductory level, students expect to learn vocabulary and memorize concepts. Students act both surprised and inexperienced in applying concepts to their everyday lives. Without application, the material learned has little meaning. Instructors should model application during lecture and provide additional opportunities for students to practice application skills. 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 students performed 30% below the target score. 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? Based on observations of students during laboratory sessions at the beginning of the semester, it appears that most Chabot students leave High School with little exposure to scientific experimentation. As the semester progresses they become more comfortable performing experiments. They appear highly engaged in the activities, yet many students struggle with evaluating the results of the experiments. Assessments of student understanding at the conclusion of laboratory activities fall well below our target. Oddly, when asked their perceptions, students report that they have learned a great deal from the laboratory activities. The biology 10 laboratory program was originally entirely inquiry based. Over time some of the formal experiments were replaced by purely observational lessons and simulations. We need to return to the entirely inquiry based program to provide students more opportunities to perform and evaluate experiments. Currently Biology 10 is taught in double lecture sections of 48‐60 students, which meet twice per week for 75 minutes. Students are divided into single session laboratory sessions of 24‐30 students for one two hour and 50 min. laboratory session per week. Perhaps reformatting the course to be taught in single sessions of 24‐30 students offered in two blocks per week would allow laboratory to be more completely integrated with lecture to improve student performance of this CLO. 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? 26 The students performed 2% above the target score. 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? Students performed satisfactorily on this CLO, although the equipment used in this course is restricted to only the most basic tools of the biological laboratory. D. COURSE‐LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 4: 7. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course level outcome? 100% of the students achieved this goal. 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? Chabot students are as a whole collaborative. They do an excellent job in applying this skill to the science classroom. PART III: COURSE REFLECTIONS AND FUTURE PLANS 13. What changes were made to your course based on the previous assessment cycle, the prior Closing the Loop reflections and other faculty discussions? Changed assessment methods. 14. 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 largest obstacle to improving student performance on CLOs and the course in general has been the erratic staffing of Biology 10. Typically two double‐sections of Biology 10 are taught each Spring and Fall semester. In the last six semesters in which Biology 10 has been taught (F12, S13, Su13, F13, S14 & F14), the course has been staffed by seven different instructors, only one of whom is full‐time. Within this time frame, each instructor has taught the course for an average of only 1.7 semesters. The high turnover of Biology 10 instructors has resulted in a highly variable student success rate from F2011‐S 2014 ranging from 52% to 81%. It is likely that CLO performance is equally as variable and is not represented in the one‐semester assessment addressed within this document. If we are to have consistency in the course from semester to semester and section to section, if we are to have adjunct faculty learn eLumen and our assessment methods, and if we are to maintain quality instruction, we need consistent staffing of Biology 10. Closing‐the‐loop discussions are not 27 valuable when the faculty involved in the discussion are not the same faculty who taught the classes being discussed. Our planned action is to hire another full‐time faculty member to staff Biology 10. 15. 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 X Other:____Hire faculty _____________________________________________________________ Course BIOL 6 Semester assessment data gathered Spring 2014 Number of sections offered in the semester 2 Number of sections assessed 2 Percentage of sections assessed 100% Semester held “Closing the Loop” discussion Fall 2014 Faculty members involved in “Closing the Loop” discussion R. Otto 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: Perform experiments; collect, analyze, and report
data. (CLO) 2: Correctly place representative plants into major phyla
and classes and identify the distinguishing
characteristics of each major phylum.
28 Defined Target Scores* (CLO Goal) 70 % students score 2 or higher Actual Scores** (eLumen data) 82% of the students scored 2 or higher 70% of students 68% of students scored 2 or higher score 2 or higher (CLO) 3: Demonstrate competency with standard equipment
and techniques of the biosciences (microscopes,
chemical indicators, instruments of measure,
elementary statistical analysis, etc.) (CLO) 4: Identify specific structures of algae, non-vascular
plants, seedless vascular plants, and seed plants at
both macroscopic and microscopic (cells and tissue)
levels. 70% of students 98% of students scored 2 score 2 or or higher higher 70% of students 71% of students scored 2 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? PART II: COURSE‐ LEVEL OUTCOME REFLECTIONS I. COURSE‐LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 1: 9. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course level outcome? The actual score is 12% above the target score. 10. 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 will continue working on this CLO in Biol 4 and Biol 2. This is a good start. No changes necessary. J. COURSE‐LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 2: 9. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course level outcome? The students performed 2% below the target score. 10. 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 students performed close to the target. The course should place a stronger emphasis on classification in the future. 29 C. COURSE‐LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 3: 9. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course level outcome? The students performed 28% above the target score. 10. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have? Great results. We should use more advanced technology and equipment in the future to see continued growth in skills. D. COURSE‐LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 4: 9. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course level outcome? The students performed 1% above the target score. 10. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have? We hit target, but we should continue to upgrade laboratory exercises to give students more exposure to plant structures. PART III: COURSE REFLECTIONS AND FUTURE PLANS 16. What changes were made to your course based on the previous assessment cycle, the prior Closing the Loop reflections and other faculty discussions? None. This is a new course. 17. 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? We are generally meeting or surpassing our target. As a new course we are refining instruction and would like to increase the use of modern technology in the classroom. 18. 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:_________________________________________________________________ 30 Course BIOL 2 Semester assessment data gathered Spring 2014 Number of sections offered in the semester 2 Number of sections assessed 1 Percentage of sections assessed 50% Semester held “Closing the Loop” discussion Fall 2014 Faculty members involved in “Closing the Loop” discussion R. Otto 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 Defined Target Scores* (CLO Goal) 80 % students (CLO) 1: Describe how form and function are interdependent at the score 2 or higher cellular level CONSIDER THE COURSE‐LEVEL OUTCOMES INDIVIDUALLY (THE NUMBER OF CLOS WILL DIFFER BY COURSE) (CLO) 2: Perform experiments; collect, analyze, and report
data. (CLO) 3: Use and develop competency with standard
equipment and techniques of biological science Actual Scores** (eLumen data) 92% of the students scored 2 or higher 80% of students 79% of students scored 2 score 2 or or higher higher 80% of students 92% of students scored 2 or higher 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? PART II: COURSE‐ LEVEL OUTCOME REFLECTIONS 31 K. COURSE‐LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 1: 11. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course level outcome? The actual score was 12% above the target score. 12. 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 CLO follows a common theme that runs throughout the semester. Students at first have difficulty seeing how the structure of organic molecules and organelles are related to their functions. Over several weeks of applying this theme to every topic covered, they begin to consider on their own the interdependences at a cellular level. No changes needed. L. COURSE‐LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 2: 11. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course level outcome? The students performed 1% below the target score. 12. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have? Although student performance was essentially at the target score and acceptable, this is the third semester they have worked on this CLO and we would like all students to achieve these skills before transferring. We will continue to emphasize these skills. C. COURSE‐LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 3: 11. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course level outcome? The students performed 12% above the target score. 12. 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 performed well on this CLO for the level of equipment we have. We would like to upgrade our laboratory equipment to allow students to practice this CLO with the tools they are more likely to encounter as upper‐level students and in the workplace. 32 PART III: COURSE REFLECTIONS AND FUTURE PLANS 19. What changes were made to your course based on the previous assessment cycle, the prior Closing the Loop reflections and other faculty discussions? None. This is a new course. 20. 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? Based on the assessment of just a single section we are meeting or surpassing our target. As a new course we are refining instruction. Like Biology 10, our largest obstacle to improving student performance on CLOs and the course in general has been the erratic staffing of Biology 2. We have been offering a total three sections per year. In the last two years, four instructors have taught this course and the “course lead” has changed from semester to semester. As our capstone course with two three‐hour laboratory sessions per week this is troubling. With the constant turnover of instructors, continuity in the interpretation and assessment of CLOs and the course outline is lost. Instructors do not have the opportunity to evaluate, and alter instruction. Also the cost of laboratory supplies increases as each instructor implements new activities. Our planned action for this course is to hire new faculty. 21. 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 X Other:___________Hire faculty____________________________________________________ 33 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: ______  PLO #1:Explain the interdependence of molecular through organismal structure and function in both health and disease. 
PLO #2:Acquire, conduct, analyze, and interpret data using scientific terminology, measurements, and protocols
What questions or investigations arose as a result of these reflections or discussions? What can we do to make the student success better? Are we doing all that we can? Are more pre‐reqs necessary? Should pre‐reqs be decreased? What can we do to improve student learning and level of enthusiasm. What can we do with the finances we have to come up with a solid structure which will become a safe, learning environment—now and in the future. What program‐level strengths have the assessment reflections revealed? Faculty innovations: writing our own manuals. Participation by some faculty in the Bridge program. Constantly striving to improve supplies, equipment and technology in the classroom. Identifying needs for increase in staffing, budgeting and periodically updating the equipment. Making sure that our course material relies on the prerequisite and revisit those prerequisites to make sure they still make sense for the student to have spent their time to take it. Being vigilant about any facility level issues that come up. Bringing in case studies and “real life” examples to the classroom (e.g. Physiology) so students see the value of what they are expected to study. Bringing a sample of “real life” to the classroom through the efforts of the Environmental Science faculty so that students can have a field experience right outside the classroom or on the premises. The long term desire is for a fully functional greenhouse atop a Biology building that can handle our plans to serving more students and help them achieve their goals. 34 What actions has your discipline determined might be taken to enhance the learning of students completing your program? Have District fully support faculty efforts in establishing an up‐to‐date Biological Science building instead of taking a piece meal approach to a systemic problem of a building that is too old to tolerate any real updates to make for a safe learning environment that is student /faculty/staff friendly with allowance for expansion to keep up with a burgeoning demand for serving more students. To not do so would make students leave for “greener pastures.” Moral of the story? Give us the financial support that we need to have a proper Biological Science building that is commensurate with the efforts, knowledge and passion of the faculty and staff so that we can put the Biological Sciences at Chabot a discipline for other colleges to reckon with. Making sure our faculty gets good staff support so that our existing staff support does not get overworked. Have admin maintain communication with faculty to identify the best part‐time candidates for staffing based on the needs of the program (being done recently by our pro‐temp. Dean). 35