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 5/1/15 Contact: Zarir G. Marawala & Jennifer Lange Final Forms, 1/18/13
1 Appendix B2: Course‐Level Assessment Please note that Bio 31 is not a required class for the majors program and is a pre‐requisite course for the Anatomy 1 and Microbiology class. Course BIO 31 Semester assessment data gathered Fall 2010 & Spring 2011 Number of sections offered in the semester 6 Number of sections assessed 3 Percentage of sections assessed 50% Semester held “Closing the Loop” discussion N/A Faculty members involved in “Closing the Loop” discussion A. Braganza 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 Scores* data) (CLO Goal) 75% of students 85% of students scored 3 (CLO) 1: or 4 score 2 or Students will demonstrate competency with standard equipment and techniques of the biological sciences. higher CONSIDER THE COURSE‐LEVEL OUTCOMES INDIVIDUALLY (THE NUMBER OF CLOS WILL DIFFER BY COURSE) #
Not all dissection elements were assessed due to construction in the cadaver room this term.
(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. 2 75% of students 56% of students scored 2 or higher score 2 or higher 75% of students 93% of students scored 2 or higher score 2 or higher 75% of students 49% of students scored 2 or higher score 2 or higher Appendix B2: “Closing the Loop” Course‐Level Assessment Reflections. Course Environmental Science 10 Semester assessment data gathered Fall 2013, Spring 2014 Number of sections offered in the semester 1 Number of sections assessed 2 Percentage of sections assessed 100% Semester held “Closing the Loop” discussion Spring 2015 Faculty members involved in “Closing the Loop” discussion Debra Caldwell 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) CONSIDER THE COURSE‐LEVEL OUTCOMES INDIVIDUALLY (THE NUMBER OF CLOS WILL DIFFER BY COURSE) (CLO) 1: Apply environmental principles to everyday Actual Scores** (eLumen data) 78% 80% of students score 2 or higher occurrences, social issues, or novel situations (CLO) 2:Students will use and develop competency with 80% of students score 2 or higher 78% standard techniques of bio‐sciences (make and interpret graphs, interpret data)  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? 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? Actual scores were lower than target score by 2%. Scores may be inflated however, because the scores of students who drop at an early stage in the course are not included. 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? STRENGTHS: The majority of students can apply concepts. DEFICIENCIES: There was a decline in scores from 90% in 2011 to about 78% in the current cycle. A significant number of students are unable to deal with the complexity of the information. One reason is that students don’t read their text. They don’t have skills in organizing information. More emphasis will be placed on helping students develop learning skills and holding them accountable for doing necessary preparatory work. However, this may be difficult due to the increased class size. At the time of our last course level assessment in 2011, the number of students in the class was held at 24. Then the number was increased to 44. It is difficult to give individualized attention to the large number of students in a lecture 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? Actual scoreswere lower than the target score by 2%. Scores may be inflated however, because the scores of students who drop at an early stage in the course are not included. 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? STRENGTHS: The majority of students are competent in using standard techniques of bio‐
sciences. DEFICIENCIES: In 2011, 90% of students were at the competent level or accomplished level. Since then, we have seen a significant decline in levels of competency. This non‐major class is lecture only. Students don’t have hands on laboratory experiences. It is very difficult with the number of students in a lecture room to give them opportunities to work with data. We 4 can address this problem by trying to incorporate more exercises into the lecture class. It will be difficult given the constraints of the lecture room 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? The goals in 2011 were to emphasize development of critical thinking skills, increase the number of students who are competent or accomplished in applying environmental principles and Increase opportunities for students to complete a variety of assignments that include graphing, writing, presentations, posters, etc.Scores actually declined however because of the increase in class size. 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? Either reducing class size or adding an hour discussion section would help provide more individualized instruction. Years ago, Ecology 10, the precursor of ENSC 10, had a discussion section with a small group of students and greater student/instructor contact. 3. What is the nature of the planned actions (please check all that apply)? X Curricular X Pedagogical XResource based  Change to CLO or rubric  Change to assessment methods  Other:_________________________________________________________________ 5 Appendix B2: “Closing the Loop” Course‐Level Assessment Reflections. Course Biology 25, Human Heredity Semester assessment data gathered Spring 2015 Number of sections offered in the semester One Number of sections assessed One Percentage of sections assessed 100% Semester held “Closing the Loop” discussion Spring 2015 Faculty members involved in “Closing the Loop” discussion Rebecca Otto and Jennifer Lange 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: Explain how genetic information is transferred from generation to generation (CLO) 2: Describe how generic information is stored, communicated, controlled and expressed. (CLO) 3: Discuss mechanisms of heredity and analyze patterns of inheritance. (CLO) 4: Relate genetic principles to population genetics and evolution. 70% Actual Scores** (data from eLumen or your own tracking) 80% 70% 80% 70% 50% 70% 80% Defined Target Scores* (CLO Goal)  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 (or your own) data collected in this assessment cycle? 6 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? Current scores exceed our target. 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? Although scores suggest success, it needs to be pointed out that only 52% of the students originally enrolled completed the class and are reflected in these numbers. Considering the original enrollment, only 38% met the target in the semester assessed. A similar drop rate also occurred in previous semesters taught by two other instructors. 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? Current scores exceed our target. 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? Although scores suggest success, it needs to be pointed out that only 52% of the students originally enrolled completed the class and are reflected in these numbers. Considering the original enrollment, only 38% met the target in the semester assessed. A similar drop rate also occurred in previous semesters taught by two other instructors. 7 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? Current scores are 20% below our target. 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 outcome required problem solving, and application. These are higher‐level skills than required for the other outcomes. This may explain the lower achievement. 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? Current scores exceed our target. 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? Although scores suggest success, it needs to be pointed out that only 52% of the students originally enrolled completed the class and are reflected in these numbers. Considering the original enrollment, only 38% met the target in the semester assessed. A similar drop rate also occurred in previous semesters taught by two other instructors. 8 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 this course was assessed. 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? Currently we use a custom textbook that is a combination of sections from two separate texts. Students are only able to purchase the text at the bookstore for full price. Many Chabot students typically purchase all of their texts online at a greatly reduced cost. This is not possible with the custom textbook. We have discovered that many students have not purchased the text and we believe this has contributed to the high drop rate. We are changing our text to a single book that can be purchases new or used, at the Bookstore or online in hopes that more students will purchase the text, read it, and succeed. 6. What is the nature of the planned actions (please check all that apply)?  Curricular  Pedagogical X Resource based  Change to CLO or rubric  Change to assessment methods  Other:_________________________________________________________________ 9 Appendix B2: “Closing the Loop” Course‐Level Assessment Reflections. Course Environmental Science 11 Semester assessment data gathered Spring 2012, Fall 2013, Spring 2014 Number of sections offered in the semester 1 Number of sections assessed 3 Percentage of sections assessed 100% Semester held “Closing the Loop” discussion Spring 2015 Faculty members involved in “Closing the Loop” discussion Debra Caldwell 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) CONSIDER THE COURSE‐LEVEL OUTCOMES INDIVIDUALLY (THE NUMBER OF CLOS WILL DIFFER BY COURSE) (CLO) 1: Apply environmental principles to everyday 80% of students score 2 or higher occurrences, social issues, or novel situations (CLO) 2:Students will design, perform, and evaluate experiments (CLO) 3: Develop competency with standard equipment and techniques of biosciences (balance, graduate, pipette, metric ruler, chemical indicators, microscopes, making and interpreting graphs, & interpreting data) CLO) 4: Communicate environmental concepts by verbal, written, and graphic/illustrative means. Actual Scores** (eLumen data) 82.8% 80% of students score 2 or higher 81.4% 80% of students score 2 or higher 86.1% 80% of students score 2 or higher 87%  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) 10 **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 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? Actual scores exceeded target score by almost 3%. Scores may be inflated however, because the scores of students who drop at an early stage in the course are not included. 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? STRENGTHS: The majority of students can apply concepts. DEFICIENCIES: There was a decline in scores from 86% in 2011 to about 83% in the current cycle. A significant number of students are unable to deal with the complexity of the information. One reason is that students don’t read their text or lab manual. They don’t have skills in organizing information. More emphasis will be placed on helping students develop learning skills and holding them accountable for doing necessary preparatory work. In an effort to increase student engagement, the lab manual will be rewritten to emphasize student responsibility to prepare for laboratory exercises. Students must complete pre‐lab exercises including reading the text and lab manual, preparing flash cards on terminology and other activities such as on‐line tutorials. 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? Actual scoresexceeded the target by 1.4%. Scores may be inflated however, because the scores of students who drop at an early stage in the course are not included. 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? STRENGTHS: The majority of students are able to design, perform and analyze experiments. DEFICIENCIES: Years of inadequate supply budgets have taken a toll on our ability to offer quality 12 laboratory experiences. Students perform laboratory exercises in groups of four. Often one or two students do most of the work while others look on. Many of the lab exercises have online components. However, at present there are only four computers in the lab. Unless students bring their own laptop, there is a wait to access the computers. Our requested supply budget is routinely reduced to only 50‐60% of what is required. This problem is highlighted every year in our Program Review, but is ignored. Full funding of our supply budget would make it possible to buy more models, specimens and other supplies. The college needs to provide the funds needed for ALL students to have hands on laboratory experiences. 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? Actual scores exceeded target score by 6%. Scores may be inflated however, because the scores of students who drop at an early stage in the course are not included. 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? STRENGTHS: Most students are competent in using standard laboratory equipment and techniques. DEFICIENCIES: As outlined above, students must work in groups of three or four when doing experiments. This reduces the opportunity for students to actually work with equipment. 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? Actual scores exceeded target score by 7%. Scores may be inflated however, because the scores of students who drop at an early stage in the course are not included. 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? 13 STRENGTHS: Most students are able to communicate environmental concepts by verbal, written, and graphic/illustrative means. DEFICIENCIES: Some students have difficulty in writing coherently. There is no prerequisite for the course and many students have not taken college English courses. Students are not able to graph. Although they may have had math courses, graphing is not a skill that they have developed before taking ENSC 11. Several exercises that require graphing are included in the course. 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? The goals in 2011 were to emphasize development of critical thinking skills, increase the number of students who are competent or accomplished in applying environmental principles andincrease opportunities for students to complete a variety of assignments that include graphing, writing, presentations, posters, etc. 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 long as our supply budget is inadequate, it will be a struggle to achieve significant changes. Pedagogical techniques may be adjusted and improved, but providing each student with hands on experiences in the laboratory is key to improving instruction. 9. What is the nature of the planned actions (please check all that apply)?  Curricular X Pedagogical XResource based  Change to CLO or rubric  Change to assessment methods  Other:_________________________________________________________________ 14 Appendix B2: “Closing the Loop” Course‐Level Assessment Reflections. Course Biology 4 Semester assessment data gathered Fall 2013‐Summer 2014 Number of sections offered in the semester 2 Number of sections assessed 6 Percentage of sections assessed 100% Semester held “Closing the Loop” discussion Spring 2015 Faculty members involved in “Closing the Loop” discussion Debra Caldwell 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) CONSIDER THE COURSE‐LEVEL OUTCOMES INDIVIDUALLY (THE NUMBER OF CLOS WILL DIFFER BY COURSE) (CLO) 1: Describe how form and function are interdependent in living organisms at levels of organization ranging from atomic to biome levels (CLO) 2:Design, perform and evaluate experiments (CLO) 3:Develop competency with standard equipment and techniques of biosciences (balance, graduate, pipette, metric ruler, chemical indicators, microscopes, making and interpreting graphs, & interpreting data) 80% of students score 2 or higher Actual Scores** (eLumen data) 79.1% 80% of students score 2 or higher 79.2% 80% of students score 2 or higher 78.2%  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? 15 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? Actual scores were very close to target score. Scores may be inflated however, because the scores of students who drop at an early stage in the course are not included. 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? STRENGTHS: The majority of students grasp the concepts of levels of organization. DEFICIENCIES: Anumber of students are unable to deal with the complexity of the information. One reason is that students don’t read their text or lab manual. They don’t have skills in organizing information. More emphasis will be placed on helping students develop learning skills and holding them accountable for doing necessary preparatory work. In an effort to increase student engagement, the lab manual will be rewritten to emphasize student responsibility to prepare for laboratory exercises. Students must complete pre‐lab exercises including reading the text and lab manual, preparing flash cards on terminology and other activities such as on‐line tutorials. 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? Students performed 1% below our target. Scores may be inflated however, because the scores of students who drop at an early stage in the course are not included. 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? STRENGTHS: The majority of students are able to design, perform and analyze experiments. DEFICIENCIES: There are two major problems that prevent us from exceeding the target goal: 1. Years of inadequate supply budgets have taken a toll on our ability to offer quality 16 laboratory experiences. Students perform laboratory exercises in groups of four. Often one or two students do most of the work while others look on. There may be only one model or specimen for an entire class to examine. Our requested supply budget is routinely reduced to only 50‐60% of what is required. This problem is highlighted every year in our Program Review, but is ignored. Full funding of our supply budget would make it possible to buy more models, specimens and other supplies. The college needs to provide the funds needed for ALL students to have hands on laboratory experiences. 2. Students have difficulty writing laboratory reports. In the past, we had one major lab report. A second experiment and lab report have been added to the course with the goal of giving students more practice. 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? Actual scores were 2% less than target score. Scores may be inflated however, because the scores of students who drop at an early stage in the course are not included. 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? STRENGTHS: Most students are competent in using standard laboratory equipment and techniques. Each student does have a microscope to use and we see the greatest competency in microscopy. DEFICIENCIES: As outlined above, students must work in groups of three or four when doing experiments. This reduces the opportunity for students to actually work with equipment. 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? None. This is a new course. 17 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? As long as our supply budget is inadequate, it will be a struggle to achieve significant changes. Pedagogical techniques may be adjusted and improved, but providing each student with hands on experiences in the laboratory is key to improving instruction. 12. What is the nature of the planned actions (please check all that apply)?  Curricular X Pedagogical XResource based  Change to CLO or rubric  Change to assessment methods  Other:_________________________________________________________________ 18 Appendix B2: “Closing the Loop” Course‐Level Assessment Reflections. Course MICR1 Semester assessment data gathered Spring 2015 Number of sections offered in the semester 5 Number of sections assessed 3 Percentage of sections assessed 60 Semester held “Closing the Loop” discussion Spring 2015 Faculty members involved in “Closing the Loop” discussion Carlos Enriquez 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: Actual Scores** Defined Target (eLumen data) Scores* (CLO Goal) 80% of students 89% of students score 2or more scored 2 or more Students express their understanding of the structure of the bacterial cell in relation with their function 80% of students 94% of students (CLO) 2: score 2 or more scored 2 or more Students distinguish the characteristics of special bacteriological media and their applications 80% of students 68% of students (CLO) 3: Students assess antibiotic mechanisms of action and differentiate types of antimicrobial resistance score 2 or more scored 2 or more (CLO) 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? 19 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? Students performance was higher than 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? This CLO assessed students’ understanding of a lecture topic. Most students were able to identify cellular structures and relate them to their functions. In particular, they demonstrated an understanding of the structure and function of the cytoplasmic membrane and flagella as a complementary units of the cell. Some students; however, still were not capable to develop a broad conceptual view of the cell, instead, the cellular structures were seen as individual and unrelated cell components. 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? Students performance was higher than 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? This CLO assessed a laboratory component of the course. The majority of students were able to recognize the principles that govern the use of special bacteriological culture media, and how this can be used in the identification of bacteria. K. COURSE‐LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 3: 1. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course level outcome? Student performance was lower than the 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? This CLO assessed the students’ understanding of the mechanisms that govern antibiotic targets and how bacteria become resistant to them. Over two thirds of the students reached the target score. However, this result indicates that there are still a small number of students who are not learning those concepts properly. The lecture dedicated to antimicrobials needs to be revised, in particular, the concepts related to antibiotic mechanisms of action and microbial resistance to antibiotics. The inclusion of case studies 20 related to those aspects may help students to grasp those concepts. 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? 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? E. COURSE‐LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 5: ADD IF NEEDED. 21 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? No changes were made. The previous assessment evaluated the students’ proficiency in the handling and care of the microscope. It focused on the observation of bacterial specimens. Although the assessment results were satisfactory, it did not included aspects related to theory of the course. Therefore, the current assessment focuses on both practical and theoretical aspects of the course. 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? 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  Other:_________________________________________________________________ 22 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: Biology – Allied Health  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. 23 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). 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: Biology – AS  PLO #1: Communicate biological concepts by written, verbal, and graphical/illustrative means.  PLO #2: Students will design, perform and evaluate experiments Biology 4, 6, and 10 offer one 3‐hour laboratory session each week. Biology 2 includes two 3‐
hour laboratory sessions each week. Students practice scientific inquiry with the assistance of laboratory equipment in each of these sessions. Also, in each of these sessions students are required to submit written evidence of their understanding of the activity. This evidence varies from answering questions and making illustrations to recording and graphing data to formal laboratory reports. Over the course of a semester and over the course of the Biology 2,4,6 sequence students have multiple opportunities to practice and demonstrate competencies in laboratory techniques and the communication of biological concepts What questions or investigations arose as a result of these reflections or discussions? In the course sections that were assessed, students demonstrated a high level of success in achieving the above Program Level Outcomes. In addition we have received feedback from transfer students and students involved in the NIH Bridges to Baccalaureate Program that they measure‐up well in laboratory sills compared to their peers who received training at other Community Colleges. 24 Although our assessment results were positive, we have concerns regarding the non‐assessed sections. Biology 10 has a highly standardized laboratory program, but a high turn‐over of instructors. The lack of consistency in instructors results in some lack of consistency in laboratory instruction. Biology 2 has had six different instructors in the last six sections offered. This course has no permanent course coordinator to develop, modify and improve laboratory activities. Additionally some of the Biology 2 instructors have failed to assign the formal laboratory reports that are required by the course outline. The Biology 10 and Biology 2 sections with temporary one‐semester instructors were not the sections assessed so our overall assessment results are most likely skewed. What program‐level strengths have the assessment reflections revealed? Our strengths are in the Biology 4 and Biology 6 courses, which have consistent instructors and rigorous laboratory programs. We are able to maintain the quality of laboratory exercises thanks to two full‐time laboratory technicians. One 12‐month and the other 10‐month. What actions has your discipline determined might be taken to enhance the learning of students completing your program? 1. We are hiring a full‐time cellular and molecular biology instructor to lead the Biology 2 course. This should result in improvement of laboratory exercises and consistency in instruction. 2. We are in the planning process to add 3‐4 new biology laboratory classrooms. This will ease our scheduling problems and reduce the moving of faculty from course to course, again providing more consistency in instruction. 3. We have requested our 10‐month laboratory technician position to be changed to a 12‐
month position. This will allow us to expand our summer offerings, which will also ease our scheduling and staffing issues. 25