Chabot College
Academic Program Review Report
Year Three of
Program Review Cycle
Final Summary Report
Learning Connection Academic Support
Programs
th
Submitted February 28 , 2013
Deonne Kunkel
Final Forms, 1/18/13
Table of Contents
Section A: What Have We Accomplished? ................................ 1
Section B: What’s Next? ........................................................... 2
Required Appendices:
A: Budget History ......................................................................................... 3
B1: Course Learning Outcomes Assessment Schedule .................................4
B2: “Closing the Loop” Assessment Reflections ..........................................5
C: Program Learning Outcomes.................................................................... 9
D: A Few Questions ................................................................................... 11
E: New Initiatives ...................................................................................... 12
F1: New Faculty Requests .......................................................................... 13
F2: Classified Staffing Requests .................................................................. 14
F3: FTEF Requests ...................................................................................... 15
F4: Academic Learning Support Requests ................................................. 16
F5: Supplies and Services Requests ............................................................ 17
F6: Conference/Travel Requests ................................................................ 18
F7: Technology and Other Equipment Requests ........................................ 19
F8: Facilities Requests ................................................................................ 20
A. What Have We Accomplished?
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/Data2012.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,
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 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 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-- our efforts to
work with faculty to increase success rates are presently stalled. Plans for Building 100 provide the
needed shared, centralized space.
The chart below indicates goals that were been stalled or put on hold due to lack of facilities,
understaffing, and underfunding. 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.
On Hold
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
Promote the hiring of
Classified Staff (20 hrs)
2013
Document need
Document need
Institutional
Institutional
Meet
IT, SARS support
Institutionalized programs
Institution, Dean
and LC
coordinator
In Progress
Meet accreditation
recommendation,
institutionalize programs
Institution, Dean
and LC
coordinator
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
PATH
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
LC coordinator
transfer, and basic skills
courses.
Stalled: budget
constraints
Promote reassigned time for
TUTR 1B 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 with
exception of Math
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
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
Partially
accomplished: short
video produced,
longer in progress
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.
On Hold: Lack of
facilities (bld 100)
BUS TUTR 1B
2013
Dedicated TUTR for BUS
Institutional (funding)
Increase student success and
persistence
BUS faculty,
In Progress
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
Institutional
Increase student success and
persistence
LC coordinator,
deans, faculty
In Progress
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.
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
Revise Compensation
Model
2013
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
Accomplished
Complete
Accreditation Report
2012
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. We now offer student scholarships rather than hourly pay. Students compete for Learning Connection
Scholarships. Their new title, Leaning Connection Scholar, affords recognition for their expertise. Contrary to
what we anticipated, the number of applications we now receive has increased with the new compensation
model despite reduced monetary compensation. In addition to reducing costs and increasing the number of
tutor/LA’s, our new model decrease demands on staff. Although some staff time is still devoted to processing
paperwork for new tutors/LA’s and tracking their hours each week, staff no longer need to process timeconsuming hiring paperwork at the start of each semester, nor payroll each month.
Over the last cycle, Learning Connection Scholars have increasingly come to play a leadership role on campus.
They publicize programs through media and class visits, provide input to the LC as we re-structure our
programs, participate in FLEX day activities with faculty, interview students across campus and produce films,
and (attempt) to coordinate student life with learning support. Tutors frequently note 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 hope to continue to leverage their power across campus.
The structural foundation we have created parallels our effects across campus to build ties and facilitate faculty
in their development of programs to support student learning. In these efforts, we have seen some progress,
though not as much as we would hope due to lack of facilities and understaffing.
•
•
•
•
•
BUS now has a dedicated TUTR 1B;
we offer Chemistry drop-in hours;
World Language offers conversation groups;
ESL built a workshop to support ESL students in all courses across campus, not just those in the ESL
department;
Math and Science is piloting study groups.
These efforts represent the work of faculty and staff across campus to support students. As experts in their field,
faculty are able to design programs to meet student needs given tools, information (data), support, and space.
Unfortunately, these small pockets of change do not, at this point, reach the majority of students across campus,
who remain generally unaware of services. As previously discussed, faculty are willing to devote their time and
energy to support students, if only they were afforded space and a functional structure. The Learning
Connection has built the structure (compensation model, website, assessment) but without space—centralized,
not scattered across campus in a labyrinthine system no one can navigate-- our efforts to work with faculty to
increase success rates are presently stalled. Faculty need space to collaborate and innovate around student
success. We need space to offer scalable study groups. Students need a centralize space to study and learn,
become informed—a space easy to navigate, visible to faculty and staff, and accessible.
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.
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 in the position 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.
These new initiatives will not be possible without centralized space. In terms of our progress in supporting
student to achieve their educational goal in a reasonable period of time, we are stalled.
1
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
2011-12
Budget
Requested
20 hours
$2,400
$100,000
2011-12
Budget
Received
0
$2,400
2012-13
Budget
Requested
20 hours
$2,400
2012-13
Budget
Received
0
$900
$45,000
$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.
• In 2012, we requested a permanent replacement for the vacated part time position as well as an
additional 20 hrs. Neither were met.
Supplies History:
• Without notification, our supply budget was cut; thus, we are unable to purchase basis supplies
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
2
occurs without increased funding from general, we will need to close labs.
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
EOPS, Aspire, and DSPS no longer receive 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
Unable to maintain basic communication lines, for instance, providing lists of tutors by subject on
website and in labs and centers.
3
Appendix B1: Course Learning Outcomes Assessment Schedule
All courses must be assessed at least once every three years. Please complete this chart that defines
your assessment schedule.
ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE:
Spring 2013
Fall
Spring 2014
2013
Yr 3
Yr 1
Fall
Spring 2015
2014
Yr 1
Fall
Spring 2016
2015
Fall
2016
Yr 2
Yr 2
Yr 3
Yr 3
Surveys
Surveys
Surveys Surveys
Yr 1
Spring
2017
Yr 1
SAO’s: Lab surveys
Lab
Lab Surveys
Surveys
Reflect and
Report
Reflect and
Report
TUTR
1A
and
1B:
Update
report
Update
report
LA’s:
Update
Report
Reflect and
Report
Update
Report
Update
Report
Update
Report
Engagement
Surveys
Engagement
Surveys
Engagement
Surveys
Engagement
Surveys
Engagement
Surveys
PLO’s:
Update
Report
Lab
Update
Surveys Report
Reflect and
Report
Full
Reflect and
Assmt
Report
(eLumen)
Lab
Surveys
4
Reflect and
Report
Reflect and
Report
Surveys Surveys
Reflect
and
Report
Update
report
Lab
Reflect and
Surveys Report
Update
Report
Appendix B2: “Closing the Loop” Assessment Reflections
Course
Semester assessment data gathered
Number of sections offered in the semester
Number of sections assessed
Percentage of sections assessed
Semester held “Closing the Loop” discussion
Faculty members involved in “Closing the Loop” discussion
TUTR 1A and TUTR 1B
Fall 2011
six
six
100%
Fall 2011 and Spring 2012
See Program Review Yr 2
Form Instructions:
• Part I: CLO Data Reporting. For each CLO, obtain Class Achievement data in aggregate for all
sections assessed in eLumen.
• Part II: CLO Reflections. Based on student success reported in Part I, reflect on the individual CLO.
• Part III: Course Reflection. In reviewing all the CLOs and your findings, reflect on the course as a
whole.
PART I: COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOMES – DATA RESULTS
CONSIDER THE COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOMES INDIVIDUALLY (THE
NUMBER OF CLOS WILL DIFFER BY COURSE)
(CLO) 1:
See Program Review Yr 2, 2012-2013
Defined Target
Scores*
(CLO Goal)
Actual Scores**
(eLumen data)
(CLO) 2:
See Program Review Yr 2, 2012-2013
(CLO) 3:
SEE PROGRAM REVIEW YR 2, 2012-2013
(CLO) 4: NA
 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?
5
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 Program Review Yr 2, 2012-2013
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?
See Program Review Yr 2, 2012-2013
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?
See Program Review Yr 2, 2012-2013
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?
See Program Review Yr 2, 2012-2013
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?
In consequence of our assessment, we are in the process of further revising our tutor training
program.
See Program Review Yr 2, 2012-2013 for previous revisions, for instance, differentiation made
between courses for training new and experienced tutors.
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?
See Program Review Yr 2, 2012-2013 for strengths and previous reflections.
In preparation for scaling study groups across campus and offering scholarships in lieu of hourly
pay, we continue to made revisions.
TUTR 1B 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 training program, we propose the following:
1.
Convert TUTR 1A and 1B to hybrid courses to decrease scheduling conflicts and maximize
flexibility.
2. Invite the General TUTR 1B instructor to attend TUTR 1A so as to inform instructors on
potential curricular overlaps.
3. Form a Math and Science FIG to consider Math and Science Pathway/Interest Group TUTR
1B’s, including training study group leaders.
4. Convert the General TUTR 1B and request 2 additional sections of TUTR 1B:
TUTR 1B for Business
TUTR 1B for Social Science, Arts and Humanities
TUTR 1B for Allied Health
3. What is the nature of the planned actions (please check all that apply)?
xCurricular
xPedagogical
xResource based
 Change to CLO or rubric
 Change to assessment methods
 Other:_________________________________________________________________
7
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?
Explain:
See Program Review Yr 2, 2012-2013 and previous sections.
What program-level strengths have the assessment reflections revealed?
Strengths revealed:
See Program Review Yr 2, 2012-2013 and previous sections.
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? If no, identify the course
outlines you will update in the next curriculum cycle. Ed Code requires all course outlines to be
updated every six years.
Yes. In addition, we began leveling them last semester.
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, in general. Learning Connection Scholars are Chabot’s top students. With few
exceptions, they have completed both their Math and Science general ed
requirements.
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. (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 2 additional TUTR 1B’s for faculty input, coordination,
and study group training. Social Science, Arts and Humanities
needs representation in particular.
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
eliminated at the end of the 11-12 fiscal year
Target
Completion
Date
Spring
2014
Required Budget (Split out
personnel, supplies, other
categories)
800 for gas to visit
conferences
Fall 2013
Allocated Bld 100 budget
2014-2015 .07 FTEF
2013-2014 Possible Title II stipend to
get started
2014
20 hours personnel
How will you manage the personnel needs?
New Hires:
Faculty # of positions
xx
Classified staff # of positions 1/2
Reassigning existing employee(s) to the project; employee(s) current workload will be:
Covered by overload or part-time employee(s)
Covered by hiring temporary replacement(s)
Other, explain
10
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
(obtained by/from): maintain TUTR 1B’s and staff
Will the proposed project require facility modifications, additional space, or program relocation?
No
x
Requires space
Will the proposed project involve subcontractors, collaborative partners, or cooperative agreements?
No
x Bld 100
Do you know of any grant funding sources that would meet the needs of the proposed project?
No
x
Yes, list potential funding sources: current Title 3 and possible future title V
11
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/Data2012.cfm .
1. Number of new faculty requested in this discipline: ____
2. If you are requesting more than one position, please rank order the positions.
Position
Description
1. 6 CAH for faculty leads
2.
3. Rationale for your proposal. Please use the enrollment management data. Additional data that will
strengthen your rationale include FTES trends over the last 5 years, persistence, FT/PT faculty ratios,
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…)
4. 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.
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”).
12
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, 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. If you are requesting more than one position, please rank order the positions.
Position
Description
1. 20 hrs staff support
Run programs
2.
3. 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.
4. 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.
13
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 at
http://www.chabotcollege.edu/ProgramReview/Data2012.cfm .
.07 FTEF for two additional TUTR 1B’s.
Business; Social Sciences, Arts and Humanities; and Allied Health need TUTR 1B’s to support the
development of their academic Learning Support Programs. Our goal is to increase pass rates across
campus.
14
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. $27,000 from Perkins
Current allocation, without which we couldn’t
run the program.
4.
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.
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.
15
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.
Project or Items
Requested
Easels (8)
DropCam (8)
Whiteboards (8)
2012-13 Budget
Requested Received
$320 ($40
ea)
$
2013-14
Request
$1200
($150 ea)
$200 ($25
ea)
16
Rationale
For use by Study Group leaders to
maximize learning support for larger
groups of students
To assist with staff supervision of
tutors and students
For use by Study Group leaders to
maximize learning support for larger
groups of students
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.
Conference/Training
Program
$1000 for Interest Area
research
CRLA conference
2013-14 Request
$4000
$1000
Rationale
Research study group alternatives and interest area
models with faculty discipline leads
Research scalable study group models
17
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.
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.
Project or Items
Requested
Laptops (5)
2012-13 Budget
Requested Received
$4000
($800 ea)
$
2013-14
Request
Rationale*
Faculty check out to work with SS in
labs without computer access. Faculty
to donate time. (See requests in
Discipline PR including psychology)
* Rationale should include discussion of impact on student learning, connection to our strategic plan
goal, impact on student enrollment, safety improvements, whether the equipment is new or
replacement, potential ongoing cost savings that the equipment may provide, ongoing costs of
equipment maintenance, associated training costs, and any other relevant information that you believe
the Budget Committee should consider.
18
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 re-prioritizing 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: 100
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 dropout 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, 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.
19