Chabot College Program Review Report 2015 ‐2016 Year ONE of Program Review Cycle Physics Submitted on Contact: 1 Appendix B2: “Closing the Loop” Course‐Level Assessment Reflections. Course Semester assessment data gathered Number of sections offered in the semester Number of sections assessed Percentage of sections assessed Semester held “Closing the Loop” discussion Faculty members involved in “Closing the Loop” discussion 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: SEE ATTACHED SHEETS FOR 2A, 4A, 4B AND 11 CLOS. We closed the loop last term—
YEAR THREE --- and are now starting the
cycle by embarking on an entirely new
paradigm of assessment: self-evaluation or
indirect assessment, where students express
their confidence levels about doing a
problems using a standard rubric, 0 I have
no idea how to do this problems and 4 I can
do it immediately without notes, I’ve just
completed a massive SLO overhaul just in
time for this report, which is less about past
results and more about future new
procedures in year one of our parallel
assessment cycle. That entry point
coincides with the Program Review’s first
2 Actual Scores** (eLumen data) year though it’s possible to offset cycles as
long as each is three years long. We will
assess 2B and 5 next term under the
condition of this pilot project which
bypasses Illumen. Each CLO, taken from
the college course outline’s “content”
section --- is tied to CWLG college wide
learning goal framing our teaching.
(CLO) 2: (CLO) 3: (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? 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? See Attached sheets for each question, from which we derive the percentage of “outliers.” We are using a standard rubric of self‐confidence , ranging from a 4: can do problem immediately to 0: have no clue. These are students who on a problem score below a certain threshold that varies from student to student. It sheds light on difficult areas for students. For an “outlier” , the question was quite difficult at a certain threshold that is calculated in a way that prevents the student from scoring herself higher than what she would actually earn. The outlier percentages of students who have trouble on a problem are ranked in descending order. The top three problems with the highest percentage of outliers are considered weak points for the entire class. These top three problem of difficulty are grist for collective discussion on how to strengthen students in those areas and also identify common issues between different courses when the data is presented in concise tabular form . 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? 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? 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? 4 5 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? 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? 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? 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? E. COURSE‐LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 5: ADD IF NEEDED. 6 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? For the current new untested battery of “indirect” assessments given later this term: We will run them at the end of the term; any changes may happen after a review of the results the next year. From a study of the “outliers” and issue areas, we will initiate a cross‐discipline conversation with math for example and chemistry – which is also doing and “indirect” assessment pilot‐‐‐ to correlate their teaching with our strengths and weaknesses reflected in our battery of new assessment which correlate with the following CWLGS” 2. Civil responsibility, 3. communication, 4. critical thinking and the 5. development of the whole person which hones on the self‐ confidence angle we embed. I am currently working on adding questions pertaining to 1. global awareness and cultural development though our inquiries – under civics ‐‐‐ about climate change or modern warfare that have global implications. But I’m interested in asking students if they how who invented math: correct answer, the Egyptians 6000 BC, when most students might jump the European conclusion. With regard to last cycles slo‐assessment conclusions and resultant changes in the courses her is what we wrote last time: We are in the process of assessment of a “flipped classroom environment”. And when coupled with our physical learning environment in the form of building 1800 with our physics tutorial center and reconfigurable labs, we are encouraged like Dr.Eric Mazur, Professor of Physics at Harvard…” “I think the answer to this challenge is to rethink the nature of the college course, to consider it as a different kind of animal these days….A course can be a communication across time about a discrete topic, with a different temporal existence than the old doing‐the‐homework‐for‐the‐lecture routine. Students now tap into a course through different media; they may download materials via its website, and even access a faculty member’s interests and bio. It’s a different kind of communication between faculty and students. “ We all actively use the internet fully displayed in front of our classes and encourage students to use that resource for research on classic and more obscure topics within the lecture. Last term we of experimented with project based learning causing communication across a small group about concrete physics applications ‐‐‐ resulting in a public poster show with professional displays worthy of a scientific conference .. But this term, in a sense we are starting from scratch with qualitatively new assessments—by‐passing clunky elumen ‐‐‐ that streamlines our work while more directly linking to the CWLGs—college wide learning goals ‐‐‐ and by implication the STRATEGIC PLAN. 7 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? Out main action is improving our assessments with better alignment with the STRATeGIC PLAN: SEE ABOVE 3. What is the nature of the planned actions (please check all that apply)?  Curricular x  Pedagogical x  Resource based x  Change to CLO or rubric x  Change to assessment methods x  Other:_________________________________________________________________ 8 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. FIRST OFF, LET’S DEFINE OUR TERMS, TO CLARIFY EDUCATIONAL LINGO THAT MIGHT CONFUSE THE READER. A program in SLOAC language is known as a sequence of courses with the same lead number: In that paradigm we have two major programs Physics 2AB and PHYSICS 4ABC; Physics 11 is a program as well with one member. Physics 5, which uses a different prefix, could be lumped in 4ABC as a “D” since the course corresponds to an added semester but with no formal lab to study MODERN PHYSICS. Program(S): 2AB, PHYSICS 4ABC AND 5. PHYSICS 11 . We’re using the indirect method of evaluation – pioneered by math. We simply list the cwlg’s – college level learning goals – as our PLOS  PLO #1: CRITICAL THINKING

PLO #2: COMMUNICATION

PLO #3: DEVELOPMENT OF THE WHOLE PERSON

PLO #4: Civic Responsibility with a nod to Global and Cultural Awareness The proportions of each varies from class to class with bigger representation, for example, of PLO#4 in PHYSICS 11, which has a required paper on the application of science for good and bad, depending on who’s talking. Typical subjects have been climate change and hydraulic fracking capturing the news and our concerns, depending on what side of the debate you fall – including within internal discussions on the appropriate tactics to get one’s voice heard. What questions or investigations arose as a result of these reflections or discussions? While these concepts are at the PLO level, they apply at course level using material from the course outline. Within the test battery for a given course, we ask more than one question that targets each of these 5 PLOS in some way. What program‐level strengths have the assessment reflections revealed? Both the strengths and weakness reveal both needed topic reinforcement within the unit and no communication between units own to collaborate on raising student understanding . What actions has your discipline determined might be taken to enhance the learning of students completing your program? THE MAIN ACTION IS RE‐PROGRAMMING THE ASSESSMENT PROCESS AND TAKING IT OUT OF 9 ELUMEN, , STREAMLINING EVALUATIONS AND FREEING UP TIME FOR LAB AND CURRICULUM WORK IN A WAY FREE OF BUREAUCRATIC FORMALITIES AND INERTIA. THE ELUMEN EXPERIENCE SYMBOLIZED EVERYTHING WRONG WITH THE CURRENT SET UP, FROM COMMUNICATION OF HOW IT WORKS, TO ITS IMPLEMENTATION. WE LOOK FORWARD TO THE REVAMPED CURRICUNET INTEGRATING NEW SLO METHODS AND PROGRAM REVIEW FORMS SEAMLESSLY. SEE THE ATTACHED SHEET FO OUT CLOS, CARRIERS OF OUR PLOS VIA OUR MAPS. Program: _____  PLO #1: 
PLO #2: 
PLO #3: 
PLO #4: What questions or investigations arose as a result of these reflections or discussions? What program‐level strengths have the assessment reflections revealed? What actions has your discipline determined might be taken to enhance the learning of students completing your program? 10