Chabot College
Program Review Report
2014 -2015
Year 3 of
Program Review Cycle
“You are in the same cycle as last year!”
Learning Connection
Submitted on Nov. 1, 2013
Contact: Deonne Kunkel
Final Forms, 1/18/13
Table of Contents
Divisions/Programs remain in the same cycle year for 2013-2014
___ Year 1
Section 1: Where We’ve Been
Section 2: Where We Are Now
Section 3: The Difference We Hope to Make
___ Year 2
Section A: What Progress Have We Made?
Section B: What Changes Do We Suggest?
__X_ Year 3
Section A: What Have We Accomplished?
Section B: What’s Next?
Required Appendices:
A: Budget History
B1: Course Learning Outcomes Assessment Schedule
B2: “Closing the Loop” Assessment Reflections
C: Program Learning Outcomes
D: A Few Questions
E: New Initiatives
F1: New Faculty Requests
F2: Classified Staffing Requests
F3: FTEF Requests
F4: Academic Learning Support Requests
F5: Supplies and Services Requests
F6: Conference/Travel Requests
F7: Technology and Other Equipment Requests
F8: Facilities
__X_ YEAR THREE
A. What Have We Accomplished? (Changes in red)
Complete Appendices A (Budget History), B1 and B2 (CLO's), C (PLO's), and D (A few questions) prior to writing
your narrative. You should also review your most recent success, equity, course sequence, and enrollment data
at http://www.chabotcollege.edu/ProgramReview/Data2013.cfm.
In year one, you established goals and action plans for program improvement. This section asks you
to reflect on the progress you have made toward those goals. This analysis will be used by the PRBC
and Budget Committee to assess progress toward achievement of our Strategic Plan and to inform
future budget decisions. It will also be used by the SLOAC and Basic Skills committees as input to
their priority-setting process. In your narrative of two or less pages, address the following questions:
What program improvement goals did you establish?
Did you achieve the goals you established for the three years? Specifically describe your
progress on goals you set for student learning, program learning, and Strategic Plan
achievement.
What best practices have you developed? Those could include pedagogical methods,
strategies to address Basic Skills needs of our students, methods of working within your
discipline, and more.
Are these best practices replicable in other disciplines or areas?
What were your greatest challenges?
Were there institutional barriers to success?
Cite relevant data in your narrative (e.g., efficiency, persistence, success, FT/PT faculty ratios,
CLO/PLO assessment results, external accreditation demands, etc.).
The mission of the Learning Connection is to ensure that instructors, staff, and students receive the support they
need to achieve their teaching and learning goals. Based on the vision that learning is at the heart of all the
college’s activities, we work with faculty and staff to identify student and professional development needs.
Once identified, we meet these needs by building infrastructure, providing academic support, and supporting
staff and faculty as needed. To evaluate effectiveness and inform revisions, we assess learning outcomes.
DESCRIPTION:
The Learning Connection has three foci: Instructional Support Services, Academic Learning Support, and the
intersection of the two.
Instructional Support Services works with faculty to enhance their teaching and assessment practices to
improve student learning. Within this area are:
The Center for Teaching & Learning, which organizes professional development opportunities and is a
repository and disseminator of instructional and research materials gathered and developed by
instructors. Faculty leadership within this area include the CTL Coordinator, the Faculty Inquiry
Projects Coordinator(s), Faculty Inquiry Groups (leaders and participants), and the New Faculty
Learning Community Coordinator.
The Learning Assessment Office, which coordinates the assessment activities of student learning at the
course, program, and institutional levels. The office develops assessment tools, provides faculty
training and support, and develops methods of reporting. The office coordinates efforts throughout the
assessment cycle (setting learning goals, determining best assessment methods, conducting meaningful
assessments, and determining actions to take based on the results). Faculty working in this area include
the Learning Assessment Coordinator and the Assessment Data Coordinator.
Academic Learning Support Programs provide support to students across the curriculum and encourages
innovation through ongoing dialogue among instructors around shared practice. Our programs include:
Tutoring: Math Lab, Writing and Reading Across the Curriculum (WRAC), Communications Lab,
Language Lab (ESL), and Peer Academic Tutoring Help (PATH). Depending on program needs, these
labs offer drop-in tutoring, scheduled recurring appointments, scheduled one-time appointments, and
conversation groups
Study Groups
Tutor Training Program(s)
Learning Assistants in Classrooms
Peer Advisors
Traditional tutoring and staff development programs silo services, engendering a culture of isolation prohibitive
to innovation. In contrast, the Learning Connection’s unique integration of faculty and student learning support
foments a vibrant culture of learning across campus. Jointly responsible for student learning, faculty across
campus work together and with staff to coordinate and run our various programs and encourage innovation.
As part of our efforts to integrate Academic and Student Support Services, six years previous the college placed
its supplemental instruction programs under Academic Services. The Center for Teaching and Learning, the
Office of Learning Assessment, and the Learning Connection’s Supplemental Instruction Programs have
collaborated to review their programs and produce a joint Program Review document complimentary to our
vision of integration. Below you will find Program Review for our Academic Learning Support Programs
Academic Learning Support:
Students who avail themselves of Learning Support have higher success rates and lower withdrawal rates
than students in the same courses who do not (See ―Tutoring VS Non-Tutoring – by Course‖ on the LC
website). Relative to success, the amount of time students spend with tutors matters; students who drop into
a tutoring lab occasionally do not experience the same success as students who receive some form of
sustained support (See ―English Basic Skills‖ and ―Math Basic Skills‖ on the LC website). This year, new
data confirms these conclusions. For instance:
students who come to PATH once for individual/group study pass their courses on an average of
63% while those who come 4+ times pass at a rate of 81%;
students who receive drop in tutoring in PATH once pass at a rate of 52% while those who come
4+ pass at 79%, etc… (See ―Success Rates by Number of Visits‖ on the LC website).
LA’s increase student engagement and lead to significant increases in student success in CTE programs
such as Fire Tech (See ―Student Engagement Surveys‖ on the LC website).
Lack of facilities, underfunding, and understaffing threaten our programs and hence the success rates
of students across campus, particularly basic skills students. The year before last, general funds for our
programs were cut 50 %. Last year, they were cut an additional $6,000. In the next two years, the LC
will see a sharp decrease in grant funding as BSI funds come to an end. Without additional grant or
general funds, we will not be able to sustain the program. As a college, understaffing and
underfunding programs shown to significantly increase success and persistence in basic skills and
general education courses is economically counter-productive; students who do not pass classes take
up space and resources that could be expended elsewhere.
Relative to Chabot’s strategic plan, maintaining funding, revising our compensation model, and promoting
Building 100 are our highest priorities. Our work over the last three years confirms the need for adequate
centralized facilities, without which we are unable to design a scalable model of student support to ease
bottlenecks and see students through completion in a reasonable amount of time.
Data verifies that academic support increases student success; however, due to lack of centralized facilities,
students and faculty cannot access this support:
Location-wise our program is dysfunctional: the drop-in hours for Reading and Writing are in
one building while scheduled appointments are in another, housed under a different acronyms;
again, drop in for Math is in one building while scheduled appointments are in another with a
different acronym.
Students and Faculty are unable to navigate: too many acronyms, too many locations, too little
staff support (See Scaling Community on the LC website).
For lack of space, we are unable to offer larger study groups that could quadruple the number
of students served for the same cost, unable to build a lab for Social Science
For lack of space, we are unable to use computers for CAS, BUS, and other computer-based
programs
For lack of space, we are unable to invite counselors to a centralized space where students
work.
For lack of space, we are unable to offer workshops, let alone workshops in a centralized space
We have received requests from almost all divisions and sub-divisions we are unable to meet.
Faculty are willing to devote their time and energy to support students, if only they were
afforded space and a supportive structure.
Our students do not have a place to study ANYWHERE on campus, let alone centralized space
next to comprehensive support services associated with faculty.
The district’s reaction to our efforts to revise our compensation model crippled programs and
hence student success for 2013-2014
o The successful ESL program faculty worked to plan and implement was left without
needed Learning Assistants.
o In consequence of HR’s slow processing of hiring packets (2 months), tutoring wasn’t
available till mid-semester. In less than one month, usage data dropped over 60% for
lack of tutors in basic courses, such as Math.
o 100’s of students were left unscheduled.
o Over 30% of our tutors dropped out of the program unable to receive a paycheck or plan
their schedules.
The Learning Connection has built the structure (see narrative of progress below) but without space—
centralized, not scattered across campus in a labyrinthine system no one can navigate, and support at
the district level, our efforts to work with faculty to increase success rates are presently stalled. Plans
approved for Building 100 provide the needed shared, centralized space. With respect to our hiring
process, attempts to work with district have failed. The two months they need to process and approve
tutors does not allow us to maintain or build effective programs.
The chart below indicates goals that were been stalled or put on hold due to lack of facilities,
understaffing, underfunding, and HR’s refusal to work with us to understand our needs and revise their
process. A narrative account of our accomplishments and current direction follows our chart.
PLOs and/or Program Goal(s)
from Year One
Timeline
Activity
Support Needed to
Accomplish these
Activities*
Outcome(s) Expected
Person(s)
Responsible
Accomplished?
Yes/No/In
Progress
Promote Building 100 plans
2011-2013
Keep campus informed,
collaborate with user group
Institutional
Increase civic engagement, Institution
faculty collaboration and
innovation, program access
and support student learning
and community.
Approved and
moving forward
Revise SLO’s and assess
using eLumen rubrics
previously developed
2011-2012
Collaborate with TUTR 1B
sub-division representatives,
Assessment Office, LAC
Coordinator, and CTL
Coordinator
Institutional: 1 CAH for 1B
instructors, funding for a
CTL and LAC
Coordinators, and
professional development
Increase the success and
persistence of students in
CTE, transfer, and basic
courses
LC Coordinator
Accomplished
Provide better service and
document success
LC Coordinator
Accomplished
SAO Assessment to meet
2011-2012
accreditation recommendation
#3
Write SAO’s, construct and Institutional: additional 20
administer questionnaire,
hrs of Classified Staff, IR
close the loop
hours
Differentiate LA training
2011-2013
Collaborate with CTE
Institutional: professional
development
(Strengthening Student
Success and CRLA
Improve efficiency of
programs and increase
student success.
LC Coordinator
and instructors
with LA’s
In Progress,
Objective Revised
Evaluate Learning Support
needs across campus and
work to meet them
2011-2013
Read unit Program
Reviews, build
relationships across
campus
Institutional: professional
development
Increase faculty
participation
and support in meeting
student needs
LC Coordinator
On Hold: lack of
facilities to
implement faculty
requested
revisions/support
program
Promote the hiring of a Dean
of the Library & Learning
Connection
2013
Document need
Institutional
Institutionalized programs
Institution, Dean
and LC
coordinator
On Hold
Promote the hiring of
Classified Staff (20 hrs)
2013
Document need
Institutional
Meet
IT, SARS support
Meet accreditation
recommendation,
institutionalize programs
Institution, Dean
and LC
coordinator
Offers in progress
Reduce pressure on staff,
increase student access
Institution, IT, LC Partial, the rest on
Coordinator and
hold
Classified Staff
Faculty lead,
coordinator, and
institutional
(space)
Switch to online scheduling in 2011-2013
The Learning Connection, rm
2351
Pilot in online courses,
collaborate with 1B’s,
DSPS, and EOPS to
determine parameters
Offer Online Tutoring
2012
Pilot online support to
IT, Faculty
address needs of students
unable to come to campus or
those whose schedules don’t
fit our hours
Increase success and
persistence
Build a Website
2012
Build a user-friendly website Internal, possibly IT
to support students and
faculty and publicize
assessment
Meet accreditation
LC coordinator
recommendation #3, faculty and staff
and students able to access
needed information and
forms.
Accomplished
Secure program funding
2011-2013
Assess outcomes, Program
Review, publicize programs
and build faculty rapport.
Institutional
Increase the persistence and Institution, Dean
success of students in CTE, and
transfer, and basic skills
LC coordinator
courses.
Stalled: budget
constraints
Promote reassigned time for
TUTR 2 instructors
2011-2013
Document need
Institutional
Increase the success
and persistence of students
in CTE, transfer, and basic
courses by individualizing
programs to
student needs
On hold
Institution,
Division Deans,
LC coordinator,
and
program
On Hold: lack of
adequate facilities
(rms with
computers and
phone)
PLOs and/or Program
Goal(s) from Year Two
(and a half)
Timeline
Activity
Support Needed to
Accomplish these
Activities*
Outcome(s) Expected
Person(s)
Responsible
―Making Visible‖ tutor 2012
video
Interview tutors, deans, and
students to record their
experience
Equipment and guidance Increase program
from Making Visible
effectiveness: better train
staff, title III funds
tutors, educate faculty,
promote program, evaluate
program
LC Coordinator,
student coinvestigators
Social Science and
2013
Allied Health TUTR 2
Dedicated TUTR for BUS
Institutional (funding)
Coordinator
Revise Tutor Training
Model
2015
Gather inter-disciplinary team
(FIG), visit other colleges, redesign courses
Institutional (stipends for Expand and improve
FIG participants)
programs, increase
professional development
Coordinator and
faculty liaisons
Level TUTR 1A and
1B
2013
Differentiate tutor training
dependent on time in program
Curriculum Committee
Improve quality of training
and hence student outcomes
Coordinator
Accomplished
Social Science
Learning Lab with
SPSS software
2012-2013
Purchase SPSS software, plan
into bld 100
Institutional (funding)
Increase student success and
persistence
LC, Social Science
Dept.
In Planning
BUS TUTR 2
2013
Dedicated TUTR for BUS
Institutional (funding)
Increase student success and
persistence
BUS faculty,
Accomplished
Bld 100 software
expansion
2013
Coordinate with IT and dept.’s
Faculty, IT
across campus to install software
Increase student success and
persistence
LC coordinator,
Deans, IT
On Hold: Lack of
facilities (bld 100)
Science Lab
2013
Drop-in and scheduled tutoring
next to lab models
Increase student success and
persistence
LC coordinator,
deans, faculty
In Progress
Institutional
Increase student success and
persistence
Accomplished
Offer Study Groups in 2014
high impact GE
courses in lieu of
individual
appointments
Design and offer scalable study
groups for GE courses with low
success and high dropout rates.
Revise Compensation
Model
2013
Complete
Accreditation Report
2012
Internal, cross discipline
faculty involvement,
institutional (space and
funds)
Increase the success and
persistence of student; ease
bottlenecks and shorten time
to completion
LC coordinator,
Dean, Institution
On Hold: lack of
adequate space
Convert to offering scholarships Internal, District HR
in lieu of hourly pay
Increase flexibility, decrease
work load, decrease spending
LC coordinator,
staff, and faculty
leads
Failed due to lack
of district support
Implement Accreditation
Recommendation #3
Maintain accreditation,
improve quality of programs
LC coordinator,
dean, faculty, and
staff
Accomplished
Internal
Narrative Account:
Take Home: Goals for this cycle that required primarily internal support have been accomplished
while those dependent on adequate facilities and staffing have not. We are unable to develop the
scalable model we envision.
Of our many accomplishments this cycle, a few in particular bear note. First, we implemented WASC
accreditation recommendation #3 and wrote a stellar accreditation report that helped earn our college
recognition—in the form of continued accreditation—from WASC. In the process, we integrated both
quantitative and qualitative assessment including TUTR course assessments, tutor surveys, direct student
surveys, interviews/films, and success data (See LC website under ―Assessment and Planning‖). Each
semester as we make alterations to our program, we assess their impact on student success and delivery of
services. For instance, in response to previous assessment indicating the need to revise our training
model, last semester we administered a follow-up survey and have begun re-structuring with faculty and
tutor input. Also in response to assessment indicating confusion across campus regarding our services,
we interviewed students and faculty across campus and produced a film. Our film not only confirmed the
need for centralized space, but sparked conversation across campus. Our assessment, both qualitative and
quantitative, is a model for authentic program review; internal assessment and data fuel further
assessment leading to programmatic and institutional change.
To publicize our program and assessments we built a website. Our website is a resource to faculty and
students across campus who seek support in reaching their educational and teaching goals; faculty can
access data for program review, request LA’s, class visits and study groups, and find information on
specific programs; students can make one-time appointments online and view lab hours and locations;
Learning Connection Scholars can access our training handbook and forms.
Along with conducting qualitative and qualitative assessment and designing a website, this cycle The
Learning Connection implemented eSARS, an online appointment scheduling grid tied to the campus’
SARS data collection program. In consequence, we are now able to pull usage reports related to specific
courses, tutors, and programs, which allows us to track our budget, determine needs, and monitor
individual programs and study groups while simultaneously collecting success data. We are the first
tutoring program in the nation to use SARS in this fashion.
In large part, The Learning Connection owes these two major accomplishments—building a website and
restructuring our data collection and appointment scheduling platform—to dedicated staff who spent
countless hours modifying and re-modifying our formats .
In addition to implementing accreditation recommendation #3 (qualitative and quantitative assessment,
website, film project) and moving to an online scheduling platform, this cycle we also re-designed our
compensation model. Unfortunately, our redesign failed as a consequence of the district’s refusal to work
with us to construct an HR process that meets program needs. These failed efforts to work with HR
began three and half years ago when we repeatedly met with district HR to discuss what wasn’t working.
Their model of projecting hours in addition to their 2 month hiring timeline crippled programs, leaving
students unserved and faculty across campus disenfranchised with student support:
We are unable to recruit adequate numbers of students as HR’s timeline requires faculty to
recommend tutors mid-semester, three months in advance, before instructors are able to assess the
qualifications of their students. In the last three years, we have never been able to recruit
appropriate numbers of tutors in needed areas;
Many tutors don’t receive approval to work until the semester is half over. Without consistence
paychecks they are unable to pay bills, buy food, etc…
Potential tutors from historically underrepresented groups who may be new to academic culture
are unable to navigate the paperwork process. Most never make it past receiving a
recommendation, leaving our most vulnerable students underrepresented in our labs;
1
Processing hiring and payroll paperwork is a full time job consuming over half of our staff
resources, crippling the development of quality programs.
After repeated failed attempts to work with HR to address needs, we gave up and moved away from
hiring students to offering stipends. Before implementing our new model, we talked with HR and they
verbally approved plans. After the finish of our first successful semester—the numbers of tutors rose, we
served more students, programs such as ESL and Fire Tech were able to more flexibly meet student
needs, underserved areas received support, our tutor population diversified, student and faculty interest
rose—HR shut the model down threatening not to pay students their stipends over compliancy concerns
and arguing that general funds could not be used for stipends, an inaccuracy easily exposed by auditors.
Given that the entire board of trustees receives a stipend for their services to the district, their refusal to
work with us astounds.
The debilitating and unprofessional state of district HR is apparent when compared with other educational
institutions in the area. A short example confirms. As part of our participation in HPN, one of our local
high schools asked us to recruit 15 math tutors. Two weeks after having given them the names of
potential tutors, students received congratulatory invites in the mail, were hired, working, and awarded
certificates of recognition. Meanwhile, Chabot tutors were still trying to complete paperwork.
The failed revision of our compensation model also crippled plans to leverage the power of students
across campus. Over the last cycle, Learning Connection Scholars had began to play leadership roles on
campus. They publicized programs through media and class visits, provided input to the LC as we restructure our programs, participated in FLEX day activities with faculty, interviewed students across
campus and produced films, and (attempt) to coordinate student life with learning support. Tutors
frequently noted that they see themselves as a bridge between faculty and students, working to make both
aware of programs and perspectives. Given necessary space, i.e. a facility, we had hoped to continue to
leverage their power across campus. Unfortunately, the last minute shut down of our scholarship program
resulted in mass exodus from our programs. We lost almost all the tutor leaders with whom we had been
building capital and are now unable to coordinate with MESA due to consequent reductions in staff time
to coordinate and resulting differences in process. Without significant revision to HR’s process, we will
not be able to build human capital, streamline and increase recruitment. Faculty on campus are starting to
give up.
Our failed efforts to revise our compensation model undermined the work we were doing to scale
programs across campus and increase faculty involvement. In these efforts, we had been making some
progress, though not as much as we would hope due to lack of facilities and understaffing.
BUS obtained a dedicated TUTR 2;
ESL built a workshop to support ESL students in all courses across campus, not just those in the
ESL department;
Math and Science began piloting study groups.
Allied Health obtained a dedicated TUTR 2 section
Social Sciences obtained a dedicated TUTR 2 section
Unfortunately, without space and functional internal processes, these small pockets of change are not
increasing student success. The Learning Connection has built as much of the structure as it can on its
own (website, assessment, tutor training) but without effective district processes and space our efforts to
work with faculty to increase success rates are presently stalled.
Note: See ―Budget History and Impact‖ and ―Staff Requests‖ for a description of the impact staff
reductions has had on academic support. The number of students served has decreased and hence the
success rates of students across campus. We are unable to meet faculty requests or maintain programs we
once had.
2
B. What’s Next?
This section may serve as the foundation for your next Program Review cycle, and will inform the
development of future strategic initiatives for the college. In your narrative of one page or less, address
the following questions. Please complete Appendices E (New Initiatives) and F1-8 (Resources Requested)
to further detail your narrative and to request resources.
What goals do you have for future program improvement?
What ideas do you have to achieve those goals?
What must change about the institution to enable you to make greater progress in
improving student learning and overall student success?
What recommendations do you have to improve the Program Review process?
As a campus, we are presently stalled, unable to leverage the power of our student and the structure of
the Learning Connection to design scalable support for all our students. Students who come to our
campus might be offered the opportunity to belong to a community that disseminates accurate
information, supports them in their exploration of career options, and provides academic support.
Below under the section “New Initiatives,” we describe the direction we would like to move to make this
possible. However, these new initiatives will not be possible without centralized space and district’s
active cooperation in revising its approved processes.
3
Appendix A: Budget History and Impact
Audience: Budget Committee, PRBC, and Administrators
Purpose: This analysis describes your history of budget requests from the previous two years and
the impacts of funds received and needs that were not met. This history of documented need
can both support your narrative in Section A and provide additional information for Budget
Committee recommendations.
Instructions: Please provide the requested information, and fully explain the impact of the budget
decisions.
Category
Classified Staffing (# of positions)
Supplies & Services
Technology/Equipment
Other – Tutor/Learning Assistants
TOTAL
2012-13
Budget
Requested
20 hours
2,400
$110,000
2012-13
Budget
Received
0
9,000
2013-14
Budget
Requested
20 hours
2,400
2013-14
Budget
Received
20 hours
1,500
$42,000
$110,000
$42,000
1. How has your investment of the budget monies you did receive improved student learning? When
you requested the funding, you provided a rationale. In this section, assess if the anticipated
positive impacts you projected have, in fact, been realized.
All monies received directly increase success rates across campus. All our data verifies that student who
participate in our programs pass their courses as higher rates than those who don’t. For instance,
students who use the Communications lab pass their communications courses at a rate of 94% while
those who don’t pass at a rate of 71%. Please see previous sections, Program Review Yr 1 and Yr 2, and
the LC website’s “Assessment and Outcomes” for further data and narrative explanations.
Staffing History:
In 2009, The Learning Connection lost one of its only two full time positions. Requests for a
replacement were not met.
In 2011, our remaining administrative assistant moved to another program and was replaced by
a part time assistant already in the program. A temporary employee filled the part-time vacancy
left behind. When this temporary position timed out, the vacant 20 hours were not filled,
leaving the Learning Connection with half the staff it had had in 2009 when programs were
smaller
In 2012, we requested a permanent replacement for the vacated part time position as well as an
additional 20 hrs. Neither were met.
In 2013, a shared position was approved to replace the 20 hours left unfilled when our
administrative assistance moved to another area. Offers for this position are currently pending.
Supplies History:
Without notification, our supply budget was cut; thus, we are unable to purchase basis supplies
4
needed to run ALL the labs across campus (whiteboards and easels to pilot study groups, drop
cams to provide supervision for pilot study groups, paper, ink cartridges, etc…. )
Tutors/Learning Assistants:
In 2012, our general budget was cut 50% with an additional cut the following year. At the same
time, allocations from Title 3 were significantly reduced. We anticipate reduced funding from
BSI. If this occurs without increased funding from general, we will need to close labs. When
district cut our scholarship program, Title III stepped in at the last minute to pay tutor
scholarships, leaving approximately $10,000 in general funds. This year, these funds did not roll
over as they appeared seemingly unspent/unneeded. Consequently, over 70% of our funding
now comes from grants that are unlikely to continue.
2. What has been the impact of not receiving some of your requested funding? How has student
learning been impacted, or safety compromised, or enrollment or retention negatively impacted?
Services cut, reduced or denied that directly impact course pass rates:
Reduced hours of service: labs/centers opening later and closing earlier now, none open on
Friday
Reduced drop-in hours for Chemistry
Waitlist for students requesting tutoring appointments in many subjects, particularly Math
DSPS no longer receives additional support
We are no longer able to fund the LA program, a successful program serving Learning
Communities such as Daraja; courses not served by traditional tutors (fire tech etc…), and large
GE courses.
Altercations between students in the hallways over who is in line to receive service
No longer able to send Tutor Reports to inform instructors that their student go to the labs
Unable to offer requested conversation groups for World Language
Unable to offer study groups for courses as requested (high volume, low cost)
No bathroom or lunch breaks for staff—no staff time or lab/center supervision
Unable to answer emails from faculty, i.e. support them in the development of their programs—
no staff time
5
Appendix B1: Student Learning Outcomes Assessment Reporting Schedule
I. Course-Level Student Learning Outcomes & Assessment Reporting (CLOClosing the Loop).
A.
Check One of the Following:
X No CLO-CTL forms were completed during this PR year. No Appendix B2 needs to be
submitted with this Year’s Program Review. Note: All courses must be assessed once at
least once every three years.
Yes, CLO-CTL were completed for one or more
courses during the current Year’s Program Review. Complete Appendix B2 (CLO-CTL
Form) for each course assessed this year and include in this Program Review.
B. Calendar Instructions:
List all courses considered in this program review and indicate which year each course Closing
The Loop form was submitted in Program Review by marking submitted in the correct column.
Course
*List one course per line.
Add more rows as
needed.
TUTR 1A (now 1A, B, C,
and D)
This Year’s Program
Review
*CTL forms must be
included with this PR.
Last Year’s Program
Review
2-Years Prior
*Note: These courses
must be assessed in the
next PR year.
Submitted: See
Program Review Yr 2,
2012-2013
TUTR 1B (now 2A, B, C,
and D)
Submitted: See
Program Review Yr 2,
2012-2013
6
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: __Academic Learning Support___
PLO #1: Students who take advantage of the Learning Connection's Learning Support Programs
will succeed and persist in the course(s) for which they receive support at higher rates than
students who do not.
PLO #2: Students who receive Learning Support will actively engage in the learning process at
higher rates than those who do not.
SAO #1: The Learning Connection will maintain a supportive environment that enhances student
learning.
What questions or investigations arose as a result of these reflections or discussions?
See Program Review Yr 2, 2012-2013 for strengths and previous reflections.
In further preparation for scaling study groups across campus we continue to made
revisions.
TUTR 1B (now TUTR 2A-D) instructors and faculty who use LA’s in their class have met
multiple times to discuss needed modifications. Assessments taken into consideration
include our Spring 2012 Tutor Training Survey and TUTR 1B and 1A assessment results.
Assessment reveals the need to differentiate traditional tutor training from study group
training. Further, tutors no longer receive hourly pay and are thus not longer compensated
for the time they invest in training. To improve our TUTR 1A and 1B (now TUTR 2) training
program, we propose the following:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Convert TUTR 1A and 1B (now TUTR 2) to hybrid courses to decrease scheduling
conflicts and maximize flexibility.
Invite the General TUTR 1B instructor to attend TUTR 1A so as to inform instructors on
potential curricular overlaps.
Form a Math and Science FIG to consider Math and Science Pathway/Interest Group
TUTR 1B’s (now TUTR 2’s), including training study group leaders.
Request additional section of TUTR 2 for Arts and Humanities
Visit other colleges to investigate study group and training models.
What program-level strengths have the assessment reflections revealed?
See Program Review Yr 2, 2012-2013.
7
What actions has your discipline determined might be taken to enhance the learning of
students completing your program?
Actions planned:
See “New Initiatives” below and narrative sections above. All our plans directly support our
PLO’s.
See also Program Review Yr 2, 2012-2013.
8
Appendix D: A Few Questions
Please answer the following questions with "yes" or "no". For any questions answered "no",
please provide an explanation. No explanation is required for "yes" answers :-)
1. Have all of your course outlines been updated within the past five years? Yes
2. Have all of your courses been offered within the past five years? If no, why should those
courses remain in our college catalog? Yes
3. Do all of your courses have the required number of CLOs completed, with corresponding
rubrics? If no, identify the CLO work you still need to complete, and your timeline for
completing that work this semester Yes
4. Have you assessed all of your courses and completed "closing the loop" forms for all of your
courses within the past three years? If no, identify which courses still require this work, and
your timeline for completing that work this semester. Yes
5. Have you developed and assessed PLOs for all of your programs? If no, identify programs which
still require this work, and your timeline to complete that work this semester. Yes
6. If you have course sequences, is success in the first course a good predictor of success in the
subsequent course(s)? Yes
7. Does successful completion of College-level Math and/or English correlate positively with
success in your courses? If not, explain why you think this may be. Yes
9
Appendix E: Proposal for New Initiatives (Complete for each new initiative)
Audience: Deans/Unit Administrators, PRBC, Foundation, Grants Committee, College Budget Committee
Purpose: A “New Initiative” is a new project or expansion of a current project that supports our Strategic Plan. The project will require the support
of additional and/or outside funding. The information you provide will facilitate and focus the research and development process for finding both
internal and external funding.
How does your initiative address the college's Strategic Plan goal, or significantly improve student learning?
Scale small and large study groups across campus targeting GE courses with the lowest success rates and highest drop-out rates. Begin small
study group pilots Spring 2013.
What is your specific goal and measurable outcome?
Increase success rates across campus and alleviate bottlenecks so students can achieve their educational goal in a reasonable period of time.
What is your action plan to achieve your goal?
Activity (brief description)
Visit identified successful programs with TUTR 1B, MESA, and
HIS work group then visit them. (San Jose City College, Butte
College, and Fresno City College)
Obtain space (Bld 100)– study group rms large and small next
to SARS machines, supervised
Request additional Arts and Humanities TUTR 2 to increase
representation, gather faculty input, improve coordination,
and support study group training.
Meet with TUTR 1B’s, HIS, Interest Group – coordinate
between the three
Replace position vacated when Chasity left the LC (had
requested 20 additional hours for Staff Assistant position in
11-12 to replace full time IA position lost in 2009, which was
not received; additionally, one 20 hour position was
Target
Completion
Date
Spring
2014
Fall 2013
Required Budget (Split out
personnel, supplies, other
categories)
800 for gas to visit
conferences, possible Title
III stipends
Allocated Bld 100 budget
Fall 2014
.035 FTEF
2013-2014 Possible Title III stipend to
get started
2014
20 hours personnel
10
eliminated at the end of the 11-12 fiscal year
How will you manage the personnel needs?
New Hires:
Faculty # of positions
Classified staff # of positions
x
Reassigning existing employee(s) to the project; employee(s) current workload will be:
X
Covered by overload or part-time employee(s)
Covered by hiring temporary replacement(s)
X
Other, explain stipend
At the end of the project period, the proposed project will:
Be completed (onetime only effort)
X
Require additional funding to continue and/or institutionalize the project
by/from):.035 FTEF by college
Will the proposed project require facility modifications, additional space, or program relocation?
No
x building 100
(obtained
Yes, explain:
Will the proposed project involve subcontractors, collaborative partners, or cooperative agreements?
x
No
Do you know of any grant funding sources that would meet the needs of the proposed project?
No
x
Yes, list potential funding sources: Title V for study groups
Appendix E: Proposal for New Initiatives (Complete for each new initiative)
Audience: Deans/Unit Administrators, PRBC, Foundation, Grants Committee, College Budget Committee
Purpose: A “New Initiative” is a new project or expansion of a current project that supports our Strategic Plan. The project will require the support
of additional and/or outside funding. The information you provide will facilitate and focus the research and development process for finding both
internal and external funding.
How does your initiative address the college's Strategic Plan goal, or significantly improve student learning?
Increase student success by building community and supporting the development of Pathways, increase success and persistence by
institutionalizing service learning opportunities and providing opportunities for students to actively engage in their learning, align existing
programs.
11
Yes, exp
What is your specific goal and measurable outcome?
Increase success rates across campus so students can achieve their educational goal in a reasonable period of time.
What is your action plan to achieve your goal?
Activity (brief description)
Obtain space for The Center for Civic and Community
Engagement (CCCCE) will be a hub for academic and service
Target
Completion
Date
Fall 2014
Required Budget (Split out
personnel, supplies, other
categories)
Current Bld 100 allocation
learning programs such as the Law and Democracy
Program, Change It Now, Opportunity and Freedom
Utilizing LC faculty liaisons, support the alignment of programs Fall 2015
including peer mentors and service learning.
14 CAH for faculty liaisons
How will you manage the personnel needs?
New Hires:
Faculty # of positions
Classified staff # of positions
x
Reassigning existing employee(s) to the project; employee(s) current workload will be:
X
Covered by overload or part-time employee(s)
Covered by hiring temporary replacement(s)
X
Other, grant
At the end of the project period, the proposed project will:
Be completed (onetime only effort)
X
Require additional funding to continue and/or institutionalize the project
by/from):.035 FTEF by college
Will the proposed project require facility modifications, additional space, or program relocation?
No
x building 100
Will the proposed project involve subcontractors, collaborative partners, or cooperative agreements?
XNo
Yes, explain:
Do you know of any grant funding sources that would meet the needs of the proposed project?
X
No
12
(obtained
Yes, explain:
13
Appendix F1: Full-Time Faculty/Adjunct Staffing Request(s) [Acct. Category 1000]
Audience: Faculty Prioritization Committee and Administrators
Purpose: Providing explanation and justification for new and replacement positions for full-time faculty and adjuncts
Instructions: Please justify the need for your request. Discuss anticipated improvements in student learning and contribution to the Strategic Plan
goal. Cite evidence and data to support your request, including enrollment management data (EM Summary by Term) for the most recent three
years, student success and retention data , and any other pertinent information. Data is available at
http://www.chabotcollege.edu/ProgramReview/Data2013.cfm.
1. Number of new faculty requested in this discipline: ___
PLEASE LIST IN RANK
ORDER
STAFFING REQUESTS (1000) FACULTY
Position
Description
Faculty (1000)
Program/Unit
14 CAH for faculty
leads
Faculty Leads
Learning Connection
Division/Area
Language Arts
Rationale for your proposal. Please use the enrollment management data. Data that will strengthen your rationale include FTES trends over
the last 5 years, FT/PT faculty ratios, recent retirements in your division, total number of full time and part-time faculty in the division, total
number of students served by your division, FTEF in your division, CLO and PLO assessment results and external accreditation demands.
To develop a scalable model of student support that intersects with our nascent Interest Areas (Pathways) model, faculty need time to build
study groups (design curriculum based on individual program needs, train study group leaders…).
2. Statements about the alignment with the strategic plan and your student learning goals are required. Indicate here any information from
advisory committees or outside accreditation reviews that is pertinent to the proposal.
14
Our goal is to increase success rates across campus and alleviate bottlenecks so students can achieve their educational goal in a reasonable
period of time. Success data verifies the effectiveness of our programs in achieving this end (See previous sections and the LC Website
“Assessment and Outcomes”).
15
Appendix F2: Classified Staffing Request(s) including Student Assistants [Acct. Category 2000]
Audience: Administrators, PRBC
Purpose: Providing explanation and justification for new and replacement positions for full-time and part-time regular (permanent) classified
professional positions (new, augmented and replacement positions). Remember, student assistants are not to replace Classified Professional
staff.
Instructions: Please justify the need for your request. Discuss anticipated improvements in student learning and contribution to the Strategic Plan
goal, safety, mandates, and accreditation issues. Please cite any evidence or data to support your request. If this position is categorically funded,
include and designate the funding source of new categorically-funded position where continuation is contingent upon available funding.
1. Number of positions requested: __2___
STAFFING REQUESTS (2000) CLASSIFIED PROFESSIONALS
Position
Instructional Assistant
Instructional Assistant
Classified Professional Staff (2000)
Description
Program/Unit
Staff Math and Science
Center
Learning Connection
Staff Learning Connection
Learning Connection
STAFFING REQUESTS (2000) STUDENT ASSISTANTS
Position
Description
Student Assistants (2000)
Program/Unit
16
PLEASE LIST IN RANK
ORDER
Division/Area
Language Arts
Math and Science
PLEASE LIST IN RANK
ORDER
Division/Area
2. Rationale for your proposal.
Open hours for centers have been cut, reducing student access.
Centers are closed when the single staff member scheduled at a time is out due to illness or emergency.
Staff are no longer able to send tutor reports to faculty or to provide as much support as faculty request.
Staff have been forced to set specific scheduling times in order to manage all of their responsibilities, which frustrates students and
limits student access to services.
Understaffing also makes effective communication between various labs and centers and between faculty, tutors, and students difficult.
Staff work overtime with no pay in order to accomplish all the tasks that need to be done, including updating tutors schedules,
scheduling labs and centers, scheduling study groups, maintaining the website and SARS systems, and collecting and disseminating data.
Understaffing means that there is little overlap with staff and they are less able to collaborate effectively.
Unable to meet routine requests. For instance, we received multiple requests to post lists of tutors in areas on our website and in PATH. Staff
unable due to post or maintain due to time constraint.
3. Statements about the alignment with the strategic plan and program review are required. Indicate here any information from advisory
committees or outside accreditation reviews that is pertinent to the proposal.
The Learning Connection plans to scale small and large study groups across campus targeting GE courses with the lowest success rates and
highest drop-out rates. This will require significant room scheduling, data collection, and time to work with faculty. We will not be able to do
this without staff support.
Currently, services have been cut or reduced to lack of staff support, see above.
17
Appendix F3: FTEF Requests
Audience: Administrators, CEMC, PRBC
Purpose: To recommend changes in FTEF allocations for subsequent academic year and guide Deans and
CEMC in the allocation of FTEF to disciplines. For more information, see Article 29 (CEMC) of the Faculty
Contract.
Instructions: In the area below, please list your requested changes in course offerings (and
corresponding request in FTEF) and provide your rationale for these changes. Be sure to analyze
enrollment trends and other relevant data
athttp://www.chabotcollege.edu/ProgramReview/Data2013.cfm.
COURSE
TUTR 2
CURRENT
FTEF
(2013-14)
.245
ADDITIONAL
FTEF
NEEDED
.035
CURRENT
SECTIONS
7
ADDITIONAL
SECTIONS
NEEDED
1
CURRENT
STUDENT #
SERVED
80
ADDITIONAL
STUDENT #
SERVED
95
Rationale: .07 FTEF for two additional TUTR 1B’s.
Arts and Humanities needs a TUTR 2 to support the development of their academic Learning Support
Programs. It is the only division on campus without a TUTR 2. Our goal is to increase pass rates across
campus.
18
Appendix F4: Academic Learning Support Requests [Acct. Category 2000]
Audience: Administrators, PRBC, Learning Connection
Purpose: Providing explanation and justification for new and replacement student assistants (tutors, learning assistants, lab assistants,
supplemental instruction, etc.).
Instructions: Please justify the need for your request. Discuss anticipated improvements in student learning and contribution to the Strategic Plan
goal. Please cite any evidence or data to support your request. If this position is categorically funded, include and designate the funding source of
new categorically-funded position where continuation is contingent upon available funding.
Appendix F4: Academic Learning Support Requests [Acct. Category 2000]
Audience: Administrators, PRBC, Learning Connection
Purpose: Providing explanation and justification for new and replacement student assistants (tutors, learning assistants, lab assistants,
supplemental instruction, etc.).
Instructions: Please justify the need for your request. Discuss anticipated improvements in student learning and contribution to the Strategic Plan
goal. Please cite any evidence or data to support your request. If this position is categorically funded, include and designate the funding source of
new categorically-funded position where continuation is contingent upon available funding.
1. Number of positions requested: ______
2. If you are requesting more than one position, please rank order the positions.
Position
Description
1. $10,000 for LA’s
To replace a small percentage of what was previously cut to serve
faculty requests for support in large courses unable to meet in labs
2. $20,000
To offer scalable study groups in low success courses every study
must take (GE’s, basis skills)
3. $37,000 from Perkins
Current allocation, without which we couldn’t run the program.
3. Rationale for your proposal based on your program review conclusions. Include anticipated impact on student learning outcomes and
alignment with the strategic plan goal. Indicate if this request is for the same, more, or fewer academic learning support positions.
History: In the last three years, our total budget has been cut almost 60% and we have lost 1.5 staff positions.
We run waitlists for our many subjects, especially Math
We are unable to meet requests from faculty for study groups, conversation groups, drop-in hours, etc…
Offering these successful programs is an inexpensive way to meet our strategic plan goal to increase completion rates. Students who
pass a class the first time do not expend future college resources.
19
Altercations in PATH over who is in line first to schedule appointments
Appointments with tutors that are canceled can’t be replaced since list of tutors has shortened in primary areas.
No longer funding LA program
Drop-in hours cut (Chem and BUS)
NOTE: Disciplines across campus will complete this section of Program Review in hopes that the time and effort they expend to design and request student
support will be supported by the college. Our ability to implement their plans depends on adequate facilities, staffing, and tutors. Some requests do not
require additional funds. Even these requests will remain unmet due to lack of space. See chart in previous section.
Appendix F5: Supplies & Services Requests [Acct. Category 4000 and 5000]
Audience: Administrators, Budget Committee, PRBC
Purpose: To request funding for supplies and service, and to guide the Budget Committee in allocation of funds.
Instructions: In the area below, please list both your current and requested budgets for categories 4000 and 5000 in priority order. Do NOT
include conferences and travel, which are submitted on Appendix M6. Justify your request and explain in detail any requested funds beyond
those you received this year. Please also look for opportunities to reduce spending, as funds are very limited.
Supplies Requests [Acct. Category 4000]
Instructions:
1. There should be a separate line item for supplies needed and an amount.
For items purchased in bulk, list the unit cost and provide the total in the "Amount" column.
2. Make sure you include the cost of tax and shipping for items purchased.
20
Priority 1: Are critical requests required to sustain a program (if not acquired, program may be in peril) or to meet mandated requirements of local,
state or federal regulations or those regulations of a accrediting body for a program.
Priority 2: Are needed requests that will enhance a program but are not so critical as to jeopardize the life of a program if not
received in the requested academic year.
Priority 3: Are requests that are enhancements, non-critical resource requests that would be nice to have and would bring additional benefit to the program.
2013-14
2014-15
Request
needed totals in all areas Request
Requested Received
Description
Amount
0
$1200
$1200
DropCam (8)
($150 ea)
($150 ea)
Vend
or
Division/Unit
Priority #1
Priority #2
Priority #3
X
Contracts and Services Requests [Acct. Category 5000]
Instructions:
1. There should be a separate line item for each contract or service.
2. Travel costs should be broken out and then totaled (e.g., airfare, mileage, hotel, etc.)
Priority 1: Are critical requests required to sustain a program (if not acquired, program may be in peril) or to meet mandated
requirements of local,
state or federal regulations or those regulations of a accrediting body for a program.
Priority 2: Are needed requests that will enhance a program but are not so critical as to jeopardize the life of a program if not received in
the requested academic year.
Priority 3: Are requests that are enhancements, non-critical resource requests that would be nice to have and would bring additional
benefit to the program.
21
augmentations only
Description
Amount
Vendor
Division/Unit
22
Priority #1
Priority #2
Priority #3
Appendix F6: Conference and Travel Requests [ Acct. Category 5000]
Audience: Staff Development Committee, Administrators, Budget Committee, PRBC
Purpose: To request funding for conference attendance, and to guide the Budget and Staff Development Committees in allocation of funds.
Instructions:Please list specific conferences/training programs, including specific information on the name of the conference and location. Note
that the Staff Development Committee currently has no budget, so this data is primarily intended to identify areas of need that could perhaps be
fulfilled on campus, and to establish a historical record of need. Your rationale should discuss student learning goals and/or connection to the
Strategic Plan goal.
Description
CRLA conference
Amount
$1000
Vendor
Priority Priority Priority
Division/Dept
#1
#2
#3
Research scalable
study group models
LC
23
X
Notes
Appendix F7: Technology and Other Equipment Requests [Acct. Category 6000]
Audience: Budget Committee, Technology Committee, Administrators
Purpose: To be read and responded to by Budget Committee and to inform priorities of the Technology Committee.
Instructions: Please fill in the following as needed to justify your requests .If you're requesting classroom technology, see
http://www.chabotcollege.edu/audiovisual/Chabot%20College%20Standard.pdf for the brands/model numbers that are our current standards.
If requesting multiple pieces of equipment, please rank order those requests. Include shipping cost and taxes in your request.
Instructions:
1. For each piece of equipment, there should be a separate line item for each piece and
an amount. Please note: Equipment requests are for equipment whose unit cost exceeds $200.
Items which are less expensive should be requested as supplies. Software licenses should also be
requested as supplies.
2.
For bulk items, list the unit cost and provide the total in the "Amount" column.
Make sure you include the cost of tax and shipping for items purchased.
Priority 1: Are critical requests required to sustain a program (if not acquired, program may be
in peril) or to meet mandated requirements of local,
state or federal regulations or those regulations of a accrediting body for a program.
Priority 2: Are needed requests that will enhance a program but are not so critical as to
jeopardize the life of a program if not received in the requested academic year.
Priority 3: Are requests that are enhancements, non-critical resource requests that would be
nice to have and would bring additional benefit to the program.
Description
Amount
Laptops (15) Faculty check out to work
with SS in labs without
$6000
($400 ea)
Rolling Computer Lab (100 labtops in cabinets)
400,000
($400 each)
Vendor
Division/Unit
Priority #1
Priority #2
Learning Connection
Campus
24
X (50 of them)
X
X (50 of
them)
Priority #3
25
Appendix F8: Facilities Requests
Audience: Facilities Committee, Administrators
Purpose: To be read and responded to by Facilities Committee.
Background: Following the completion of the 2012 Chabot College Facility Master Plan, the Facilities Committee (FC) has begun the task of reprioritizing Measure B Bond budgets to better align with current needs. The FC has identified approximately $18M in budgets to be used to meet
capital improvement needs on the Chabot College campus. Discussion in the FC includes holding some funds for a year or two to be used as match
if and when the State again funds capital projects, and to fund smaller projects that will directly assist our strategic goal. The FC has determined
that although some of the college's greatest needs involving new facilities cannot be met with this limited amount of funding, there are many
smaller pressing needs that could be addressed. The kinds of projects that can be legally funded with bond dollars include the "repairing,
constructing, acquiring, equipping of classrooms, labs, sites and facilities." Do NOT use this form for equipment or supply requests.
Instructions: Please fill in the following as needed to justify your requests .If requesting more than one facilities project, please rank order your
requests.
Brief Title of Request (Project Name):
Building/Location:
Description of the facility project. Please be as specific as possible.
Renovate Bldg 100 to centralize academic support series. See current approved plans which provide for supervised study
groups space. Plans will eliminate multiple acronyms and locations.
What educational programs or institutional purposes does this equipment support?
Our goal is to increase success rates across campus and alleviate bottlenecks so students can achieve their educational goal in a
reasonable period of time. The Learning Connection plans to scale small and large study groups across campus targeting GE
courses with the lowest success rates and highest drop-out rates. We would also like to meet staff requests for learning
support. None of our objectives—as a campus or individual disciplines—is possible without a space. Currently, we are stalled
and unable to meet any other additional requests or offer scalable support.
Briefly describe how your request relates specifically to meeting the Strategic Plan Goal and to enhancing student learning?
Our goal is to increase success rates across campus and alleviate bottlenecks so students can achieve their educational goal in a
reasonable period of time. To so this, we must provide opportunities for community tied to support (accurate information,
26
academic support, student life).
Plans include space for faculty, counselors, CTL, study groups, computer labs, data collection-all in the same location organized
around a rotunda to draw students in and up through the library.
We also envision a central marquee with information on clubs, etc… where Learning Connection Scholars (students) can provide
information to students and direct them as needed. These students will receive scholarships (not expensive hourly pay) for their
leadership.
27