Program Review and Action Planning – YEAR TWO
Action Plan Progress Report
Division
Program
Contact Person
Date
Language Arts
Learning Connection: Student Learning Support Services
Deonne Kunkel
3/15/2012
Audience: IPBC; Deans/Unit Administrators; Budget Committee; Technology Committee; Staff
Development Committee.
Purpose: To provide evidence of progress from previous year and to provide input into planning
for subsequent years.
Instructions: Please update your Year One timeline and answer the questions below. If you are
changing your timeline, list the appropriate year in which revisions were made.
IA. Problem Statement: Summarize your Program Review Year One conclusions.
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 keep recurring
appointments (See “English Basic Skills” and “Math Basic Skills” on the LC website). For students in
CTE courses that do not benefit from traditional tutoring, the Learning Connection offers the support of
Learning Assistants that can be embedded into classrooms. 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).
Underfunding and understaffing threaten our programs, and hence the success rates of students across
campus, particularly basic skills students who heavily rely upon our programs. Last year alone
general funds for our programs were cut 50 %. In the next two years, the LC will see a sharp decrease
in grant funding as Title III and BSI funds come to an end. Without additional grant or general funds,
we will not be able to sustain the program. Ironically, funds that have existed to hire tutors have at
times remained unspent due to understaffing; without staff to run labs and provide line-of-sight
supervision, tutors can’t work. As a college, understaffing programs shown to significantly increase
success and persistence in basic skills and general education courses is economically counterproductive; students who do not pass classes take up space and resources that could be expended
elsewhere. Our accomplishments and data, described below, verify the economic and pedagogical
advantage learning support affords the campus.
Lack of adequate centralized facilities also impedes access to our programs, inhibiting our ability to
innovate around budgetary constraints and pilot programs to address student needs. Students need a
centralized space to study and learn, a space easy to navigate, visible, and accessible. Faculty need space
to collaborate and innovate around student success.
Plans for building 100 provide the needed shared space. Learning Support programs, the Office of
Instructional Research, the Center for Teaching and Learning, Making Visible, and the Learning
Assessment Center will be centrally housed. The Learning Connection (LC) is working with faculty
1
across disciplines to ensure that the new labs are equipped to meet the software and other needs of
students. Relative to Chabot’s vision of excellence as an institution of learning and community,
maintaining necessary staff and funds as well promoting Building 100 are our highest priorities.
IB. Analysis: If there are any new data or conclusions, what is the basis for these new
conclusions?
Recent research, summarized below, verify the efficacy of intervention as well as the need to
sustain staff and funding.
Requests from departments across campus also affirm the primary role the Learning Connection
plays in meeting identified student needs across campus:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Business requests a dedicated TUTR1B.
Social Sciences requests a lab in bld 100.
Chemistry now offers drop-in tutoring hours in PATH and would like to expand
Peer Lead Team Learning once bld 100 is open.
Science is working to establish a lab in bld 100.
Departments request that their software be available in bld 100 tutoring labs:
o English – Inspirations
o ESL – See chart under Section VII
o BUS – Quickenbooks, Excel, Skype, current Office Suite,
webcams
o ARCH – autocad
o Computer Science – specific request pending
o Biology – specific request pending
o Art – Mac with Adobe Photoshop and a color printer station
o Sociology – Microcase Exporit
o Psychology Math requests 3 tutors instead of 2 tutors during Math lab’s open hours, 6 LA’s
for their math cohorts and potentially more. They would also like to hire an IA by
re-directing funds they currently use to staff the lab with faculty.
New Data and Conclusions:
• Students in core GE courses such as Anatomy, Business, Communication Studies,
English, Health, Biology, Math, Psychology, Sociology, and Geography who seek
tutoring succeed at rates 6%-33% higher than students who do not.
• Students who regularly meet with tutors succeed at rates higher than those who
only occasionally seek support. For instance, 101A students pass at a rate of 76%
and 102 at a rate of 84% if they meet with tutors once a week. Those who seek
support sporadically pass 101A at a rate of 57% and 102 at a rate of 52%. Data
from Math courses parallel: students who regularly spend time in the Math lab
pass Math 55 at 57%, Math 65 at 60%, and Math 104 at 75%. Those who
2
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
sporadically visit the Math lab pass Math 55 at 46%, Math 65 at 41%, and Math
104 at 45%.
Indirect data from Math 122 and English 115 suggest that our least prepared
students seek support (See “English Basic Skills” and “Math Basic Skills” on the LC
website).
Approximately 3,000 unique students visited our labs last year, averaging 6-7
visits each or 18,000-20,000 visits.
In Spring 2010, the number of visits to PATH and the Math lab was highest, at
6,507 and 10,579 respectively. Since then, hours at PATH, WRAC, and the Math
Lab have been reduced. Number of visits has since dropped between 1,000 and
1,500 per semester, depending on the semester. The number of hours the labs are
open directly affects the number of students served.
65% of students who participated in Chabot’s campus wide student survey are
satisfied with LC lab facilities (See “Chabot College Fall 2011 Student
Satisfaction Survey”). These results validate the need for better facilities.
Of students polled, 40% have used the WRAC, 36% the Math lab, 27% PATH,
18% the Language Center, and 19% the World Language center. Satisfaction
rates vary from 84% to 90% (See “Chabot College Fall 2011 Student Satisfaction
Survey”). These results confirm the central role learning support plays across
campus.
Use of PATH dropped during Fall 2011 when PATH transitioned from in-person
to online scheduling, due in part to understaffing. The online scheduling format
did not allow for recurring appointments and hence the support students received
suffered. Staff is needed to schedule recurring appointments.
TUTR 1A and 1B CLO assessment results show that tutors improve in their
abilities with practice and training. These results validate ongoing tutor training.
Students attending classes with embedded Learning Assistants (LA’s) ask more
questions, understand the material better, understand the expectations of
assignments better, and meet more often with others outside of class for help (See
“LA Student Engagement Survey Spring 2011” on the Learning Connection
website).
II. List your accomplishments: How do they relate to your program review and PLO
work? Please cite any relevant data elements (e.g., efficiency, persistence, success, FT/PT
faculty ratios, SLO/PLO assessment results, external accreditation demands, etc.).
Building 100: The Learning Connection has played a central role in coordinating an
interdisciplinary approach to building 100 plans. Rapport among faculty across disciplines has
been built by meeting with user groups individually, attending department/discipline meetings,
resolving concerns with the faculty senate president, soliciting software requests from
departments, and meeting with department deans, compromising between user groups, and
advocating for requests. Current plans call for two building phases, one requiring demolition and
the other not.
Tutor Training: First semester tutor training has been differentiated from the training
experienced tutors receive. Consequently, tutors now receive guidance particular to their needs.
3
The coordinator now meets with each tutor individually once a semester. As a result and in
combination with revision to training, general responsiveness to suggestions has increased and
problems have been identified and resolved quickly.
Staff support tutor training by maintaining tutor training handbook.
Staff: The LC has worked to maintain its programs despite decreases in staff.
LC staff support tutor training and management by facilitating the coordination of the tutor
recruitment, application & interview process; coordinating hiring for tutors and LA’s (TB tests,
TUTR 1A and 1B enrollment, academic units verification, employment forms, course
recommendations, HR follow-up)
They oversee LC records, data, and requests (LA requests forms, computer lab requests, LC
website, etc.) and serve as contacts for students, faculty, and other areas on campus for Learning
Connection labs and centers; serving as liaisons between LC and coordinators for labs and
centers (PATH, WRAC, Math Lab, Comm Lab, World Languages Lab).
They process student assistant payroll (over 100 student assistants) in conjunction with the
LC budget and manage accounts for student assistant payroll, program supplies, etc.
Staff coordinate tutor and lab schedules (scheduling tutor appointments, re-scheduling canceled
appointments, tracking and following up on tutor no-shows, screening all tutor reports,
processing changes in availability and personal contact info, organizing the schedules for PATH,
WRAC, Math Lab, World Language Lab, World Language Lab) and organize and maintain
faculty schedules for ESL 127, ESL 128, ENGL 115, and GNST 115.
They maintain records for and assist students who are enrolled in ENGL 115, GNST 115, ESL
127, ESL 128, and WORL 1L. They create and update handouts for Learning Connection
programs.
Staff maintain SARS/eSARS information relevant for the LC (inputting tutor schedules, updating
appointment attendance, verifying that the online scheduling system eSARS is working for
students, etc.), work directly with vendors to ensure the system meets program needs, and
troubleshoot data glitches with IT and the district.
LC staff support TUTR 1A and 1B’s by tracking enrollment, handling all class overlap and late
add cards, following up with tutors who haven’t enrolled, maintaining records of overlaps for
TUTR 1B instructors who do not have access to tutor schedules/records, maintaining databases
of instructor recommendations and tutor availability, and coordinating schedule notes for the
1A/1B training courses as well as ENGL/GNST 115.
LC staff interact with students across campus on a daily basis over the phone, via email and in
person. They provide information about LC programs, labs, and centers; help students identify
learning support resources; and answer questions about the campus in general. They maintain an
environment that is calm, positive, and conducive to learning throughout all LC labs and centers.
Due to staff shortages during Fall 2011, staff were unable to fulfill all responsibilities and open
4
hours were cut. Emergency closures during payroll periods ensued.
Accreditation Recommendation #3: Aside from the writing of the final report, accreditation
recommendation #3 has been met.
• SAO’s were written, vetted, and assessed. They are reassessed at the end of each
semester.
• Results are used to improve the quality of our program. For instance, the Learning
Connection implemented an online scheduling format in response to SAO assessment
then revised said format after re-assessment.
• Feedback boxes have been installed in all the labs and comment forms are now available
online.
• The Learning Connection redesigned its website to publicize its SAO’s, SLO’s,
assessment results, and program review. Faculty across campus have begun to use the
site to access data needed for program review. The website is well designed and easy to
navigate. It includes lab request forms, LA forms, hours of operation, etc…
LC staff have supported the project by collaborating in the writing of SAO’s and surveys,
administering surveys, tallying results, and maintaining the website where results and program
review are publicized.
SLO Assessment: The Learning Connection has integrated qualitative and quantitative
assessment of SLO’s. Within the last year, all CLO’s in 100% of TUTR 1A and 1B sections
were assessed in eLumen. Close-the-loop forms have been completed. Results and reflection
follow under section III.
“Making Visible”: The Learning Connection is currently producing a video documenting the
experience of students, tutors, faculty, and administration using our programs. Experienced
tutors trained in the theory and practice of teaching/learning are conducting interviews across
campus. In preparation, they devised interview questions, formulated a plan, gathered resources,
and vetted their ideas. They are now halfway through the interview process. The film is
scheduled to be completed by the end of the semester. Tutors non-directly involved have also
participated by each interviewing a tutee, writing interview questions, and providing feedback.
The video will be used to promote and evaluate our programs, educate faculty, train tutors, and
evaluate our program. LC staff support the project by processing all paperwork.
Online Scheduling: In response to SAO assessment and tutor feedback, the Learning
Connection transitioned from in-person to on-line appointment scheduling in Fall 2011. The
transition did not go as well as expected since eSARS on-line format made scheduling recurring
appointments prohibitive; students who scheduled their own appointments prevented others from
scheduling recurring appointments by taking up regular spots and the system could provide no
remedy. In consequence, half way through the semester, funds were diverted to drop-in centers
to stem complaints from students and teachers that it was difficult to obtain support. Student and
tutor surveys administered at the end of the semester verified that the new format failed. Spring
2012, the Learning Connection returned to in-person scheduling of recurring appointments. This
move was made possible when a vacant position in the LC was temporarily filled. Whether we
are able to continue offering recurring appointments in the future depends on whether the
position is permanently filled.
5
Communications Lab: The communications lab has developed a hybrid tutoring lab. Two
positions are funded by the LC and the others staffed by students who enroll in a Communication
Studies tutoring course. 94% of CommStudies students who use the new lab pass their course in
comparison to 71% who do not. LC staff support the program by handling tutor reports,
advertising lab hours, collecting and publicizing data, troubleshooting SARS, and processing
hiring and payroll paperwork.
Chemistry Tutoring: Chemistry’s TUTR 1B instructor has played a lead role in organizing
drop-in tutoring for Chemistry. The results have been phenomenal. 15-20 students are being
served by 2 tutors during hours Chemistry tutors are available. LC supports the program by
funding the TUTR 1B instructor, signing Chemistry students into SARS, coordinating tutor
schedules, publicizing hours, and communicating with the Chemistry Dept.
LA training: Training for LA’s has been slightly differentiated from the training traditional tutors
receive. CTE LA’s no longer attend TUTR 1B and assignments have been adjusted. Further
revisions have been placed on hold due to lack of resources/time.
III. Student Learning Outcomes Inventory Update
Acronym Key:
SLO = Student Learning Outcome is a general term, for the following three levels of outcomes:
CLO = Course Level Outcome, i.e. what a student can do after completing a course
PLO= Program Level Outcome, i.e. what a student can do after completing a sequence of courses
CWLG = College-Wide Learning Goal
•
__________100%______ - Percentage of courses in your discipline that have the
minimum number of CLOs and rubrics developed:
o ≤1 unit = 1 or more CLO,
o >1 to <3 units = 2 or more CLOs,
o 3 or more units = 3 or more CLOs
For this information, please see the CLO spreadsheet on the SLOAC’s main webpage:
http://www.chabotcollege.edu/sloac/default.asp
•
______100%__________ - Percentage of courses in your discipline that have had all the
CLOs assessed within this program review cycle, as per Chabot’s Assessment policy
For this information, please see Chabot’s Assessment Policy from the SLO/Assessment
Guidelines webpage: http://www.chabotcollege.edu/sloac/guidelines.asp
•
_______100%_________ - Percentage of courses in your discipline that have had all the
CLO assessments reflected upon (discussed with colleagues) and an action plan developed,
if needed, within the past two years. <Attach “Closing the Loop Form” for each course
assessed this year.>
6
ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE:
Spring
Fall
Year 3
Year
1
SAO’s:
TUTR 1A
and 1B
CLO’s:
Learning
Assistants:
PLO’s:
Reflect and
Report
Lab
Surveys
Spring
Year 1
Fall
Year 2
Spring
Year 2
Fall
Year
3
Spring
Year 3
Fall
Year
1
Spring
Year 1
Lab
Surveys
Reflect and
Report
Lab
Surveys
Reflect and
Report
Reflect and
Report
Lab
Surveys
Reflect and
Report
Lab
Surveys
Reflect and
Report
Lab
Surveys
Reflect and
Report
Assess
(eLumen)
Reflect and
Report
Reflect and
Report
Reflect and
Report
Reflect and
Report
Reflect and
Report
Reflect and
Report
Reflect and
Report
Reflect and
Report
Engagement
Survey
Reflect and
Report
Engagement
Survey
Reflect and
Report
Engagement
Survey
Reflect and
Report
Engagement
Survey
Reflect and
Report
Engagement
Survey
Reflect and
Report
Lab
Surveys
Lab
Surveys
Lab
Surveys
Lab
Surveys
•
Which of the CWLGs do your discipline’s CLOs address?
1. Critical Thinking
yes
2. Global & Cultural Involvement
3. Civic Responsibility
4. Communication
yes
5. Development of the Whole
yes
Person
•
In which of any of the College-wide Learning Goals Faculty Inquiry Groups have
discipline member(s) participated?
_____none_______________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
Insights gained from CWLG Inquiry Groups: NA
PROGRAM LEVEL ANALYSIS:
Year Two should reflect any modified recommendations and/or activities from Year One.
Considering your feedback, findings, and/or information that have arisen from the course level
discussions, please reflect on each of your Program Level Outcomes.
7
Program: _____The Learning Connection___________________________________________
• 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: How can the Learning Connection meet the increasing demands for our services across
campus? What can be done to promote our hybrid training program?
What program-level strengths have the assessment reflections revealed?
Strengths revealed:
•
•
•
•
•
Tutor surveys validate the quality of our tutor training. With few exceptions, tutors indicate
they receive the support they need to meet student needs.
Faculty across campus value the LC’s hybrid training program which promotes ownership
and flexibility. Reductions in release time threaten the program as do staff shortages.
Learning Connection Learning Support Programs increase the success and persistence of
students in their courses.
The Learning Assistant program increases student engagement and has lead to significant
increase in student success in CTE programs such as Fire Tech.
Learning Connection tutors are innovative and engaged in activities that promote student
learning across campus.
What actions has your discipline determined might be taken to enhance the learning of students
completing your program?
Actions planned:
• Hire a permanent replacement for the front desk position vacated when Rachael TupperEoff moved into the vacant administrative assistant position. The person in this position
screens tutor reports, schedules recurring appointments, provides technical support,
administers SAO surveys, addresses student concerns, and publicizes programs.
To the detriment of students and tutors, these tasks were not fulfilled Fall 2011.
Consequently, open hours were cut, and the centers closed in emergencies without
8
notification in order to process paperwork. Funds had to be directed away from PATH to
drop-in labs and students complained, some crying in the hallways when appointments
vital to their success in class were canceled at the last minute.
•
•
•
•
Improve economic efficiency and flexibility of our programs by promoting the current
building 100 project.
Meet accreditation recommendation #3 by writing the final report.
Evaluate actions already taken in response to learning outcomes assessment, i.e. capstone
project, embedding LA into content specific.
Further promote hybrid training program.
VII. Academic Learning Support
What kinds of academic learning support does your discipline use or require to help students
succeed (e.g., tutoring, learning assistants, student assistants, peer advisors, lab support,
supplemental instruction, peer-led team learning, peer advisors)? How many hours per semester
do you use and/or how many hours per semester do you need?
Explain:
The Learning Connection sustains Learning Support Programs across campus, including the Math
Lab, PATH, WRAC, The Language Center, the Communications Lab, and Learning Assistant
Program. Excluding Learning Assistants who are embedded into content courses, we served between
1,138 and 2,002 students per semester. Contact hours range from 9.825 to 21.995 per semester
depending on funding. In the last 3 years, the LC offered tutoring in 341 courses, 52 regularly. While
many courses for which students have sought tutoring are not in high demand, our Math, Science,
ESL, World Language, and English courses frequently maintain a waitlist. Fourteen of the courses
for which we offer tutoring are developmental. A review of each department’s Learning Support
needs can be found in unit Program Reviews.
At present, lack of adequate staffing and facilities significantly impedes program access and
community building. Faculty and students across campus have difficulty negotiating a labyrinthine
system of labs unconducive to collaboration and learning. For instance, due to limited space,
scheduled tutoring and drop-in tutoring take place in different buildings; workshops are not always
held in logical locations; the same tutors work in multiple spaces using making management
difficult; SARS machines are not located logically due to wiring; oversight procedures vary from lab
to lab dependent on staff configurations; acronyms for similar services vary in order to differentiate
between locations, confusing both students and staff; lab materials, such as anatomy models, are in a
location separate from tutoring labs due to limited space. In short, students and faculty do not know
where to go for what. Centralized, staffed space is needed to run programs, foster community, and
unify both students and faculty around student learning.
The Math Lab
We will need tutors for the Math Lab and the PATH center. We would like at least two tutors in
the math lab at all times from 9:00 AM to 6:45 PM on Monday through Thursday and from 9:00
AM to noon on Friday.
9
Eventually, the size of the math lab will need to be increased to accommodate more students as
we are reaching full capacity. We will need more tutors, computers and software licenses. We
will need to increase the number of tutors from two per hour to three or four per hour.
Our goal is to hire an Instructional Assistant to supervise and manage the Math Lab.
We would like at least 4 learning assistants for four basic skills courses that will meet for five
hours a week for both semesters. We would also like two learning assistants for our MTH 54L
classes to help one hour a week in the lab.
When we start to offer our workshops again, we will need learning assistants for those too. The
workshops meet either once or twice a week for the semester.
Once our cohorts start, we would like to have a peer advisor for each cohort and a counselor.
We would like the counselor to meet at least three times a semester with each student for the first
semester. The first meeting would be to get their SEP done, the second would be a mid-semester
follow up, and the last would be a meeting for planning the next semester’s courses.
Writing and Reading Across the Curriculum Center (WRAC)
The WRAC Center is one of several tutorial programs offered at Chabot. WRAC, Math Lab,
and PATH are under the larger umbrella of the Learning Connection. WRAC is also an integral
part of the English department; however, it is important to note that WRAC tutors provide crossdisciplinary learning support in reading and writing, not just for the English department but for
all disciplines. The WRAC Center houses three student-support services: 1) drop-in peer
tutoring, 2) one-on-one faculty-student tutorial (English 115/General Studies 115), and 3)
computer-assisted instruction.
Overall Data:
The Fall 2009 – Spring 2011 “Course Success rates for students with and without Learning
Connection tutoring” shows the high success rate in tutoring programs, including WRAC.
Students in English courses (English 101B, English 102, and English 1A) with tutoring had an
average of 73% success rate, 10% higher than students who had no tutoring in these classes; the
average success for non-tutored students was 63%.
The number of visits to WRAC (which includes drop-in, 115, or computer lab use) has been
hovering around 4,000 visits for last few years. In the Spring of 2009 there were 3,199 visits. In
the Fall of 2009 it went up to 3,904 visits, and a year later, in the Fall of 2010, it peaked at 4,371
visits and 4,019 in the Spring 2011. In the Fall 2011 there were 3, 878 visits to WRAC.*
*it is important to note the data provided here is through SARS tracking; however, the numbers
are not accurate and do not reflect the actual number of students that used the WRAC center.
The numbers of visits should be higher. The problem has been that if a student signs in on the
SARS machine and then decides to use a computer (in the mezzanine lab), he or she will
automatically be kicked off of the SARS tracking because the PC computers have a separate
tracking system for the library.
10
Drop-In Peer Tutoring
WRAC tutors are trained to assist students in reading and writing assignments across the
curriculum. These 20 minute drop-in peer tutoring sessions are used to support classroom
instruction. WRAC tutors meet with students who are recommended for tutoring by an
instructor or counselor, ENG/GNST 115 students who are working on their Learning Plan, and
students who’ve sought out the service on their own. WRAC tutors also work with students in
the PATH Center for 50 minute scheduled appointments. Therefore, WRAC tutors are
responsible for all English tutoring on campus, irrespective of location.
Drop-In Data:
Number of Drop-In visits at WRAC : Fall 2010:186
2011: 329 Spring 2012: no data yet
Spring 2010:188 Spring 2011:163 Fall
Analysis: There has been an increase in drop-in tutoring in the last year; as a result, we have
doubled up on tutors during prime “busy” hours, from 11am-1pm. However, the busy hours
seem to be extending until 3pm. This mean more tutors or more hours for the tutors we have. The
tutors also like the idea of working with other tutors and creating a sense of tutor “community,”
as they do in the Math tutoring.
The need for more space and privacy has become more apparent as the demand for using WRAC
services has increased. The WRAC center is currently located in the mezzanine in the library.
The computer labs, the Drop-In tutoring area, and the 115 tutorials are all in the same area. The
mezzanine is also shared by the library computer labs and the library media services. With so
much activity in one place, it gets extremely noisy and crowded in the WRAC center. Tutors and
their tutees have to share tables with others and have no privacy. There are also many
distractions: individuals walking through to the computer labs, classes going through to
computer labs, and students signing up for 115 sessions. Tutors complain that their tutees often
get distracted and lose focus on what they’re working on.
English 115/General Studies 115
The faculty-student tutorial offers self-paced individualized instruction in reading and writing
effectiveness. Students meet with an instructor in 20 minute sessions to work on a Learning
Plan, which covers skills articulated in the course outline. Students can receive .5-3.0 units of
credit for completion of course content: 1) # of faculty-student sessions, 2) # of hours in WRAC
working on the Learning Plan independently and with a WRAC tutor, and 3) completion of a
reading and written reflection assignment.
115 Data:
According to success rate data collected from Fall 2007 – Fall 2010 focusing on Basic Skills
101A and 102’s and whether they met the required hours in 115 or did not meet the required
hours, 76% of 101A and 84% of 102 students passed if they met the required English 115 hours
(meaning they met instructors regularly and for a sufficient amount of hours) and only 38%
101A and 48% 102 of students passed their courses if they didn’t meet the required hours. In
both cases there is around a 38% difference.
11
Analysis: data shows that the success rate for students who sign up for the faculty tutorials is
high. Our goal is to further this success by finding way to increase enrollment, especially in
GNST 115s, and to involve more disciplines (besides English, Psychology, and History) across
campus in an effort to help students with reading and writing.
Computer-Assisted Instruction
The WRAC Center runs three computer labs for instructional use and general student use. Two
are located in the library mezzanine and the other the new lab is in the 300 building: 354. Classes
can sign in for weekly or bi-monthly sessions, and we also offer one time drop-in sessions.
Computer lab Data:
According to the actual computer lab sign up schedules, which are more accurate than the SARs
tracking data, in the last two years, there has been an increase in computer lab use for assisted
instruction. This semester (Spring 2012) with the opening of the new computer lab, 354, there
has been an obvious jump in the amount of usage.
Computer use per week: Spring 2010: average of 10 classes; Fall 2010, average of 15 classes;
Spring 2011 average of 13 classes; Fall 2011, average of 17 classes, and Spring 2012, average of
21 classes per week. With 21 classes using the computer labs per week, and averaging the
number of students to 27 students per class, that means 567 students use the computers in a
week; therefore, we can project that in a 16 week semester (not including Finals week), around
9,000 students will be using the WRAC computer labs this semester alone.
Analysis: WRAC now has a new computer lab in 300 building. Prior to Spring 2012, the only
WRAC computer labs were located in mezzanine in the library. Even though the mezzanine lab
was used frequently, as seen in the data provided above, the consensus among instructors who
take their classes there is that the environment in the mezzanine is not conducive to learning. The
space is too open, noisy, and there is no desk or overhead screen for the instructor to use. The
other consistent problem has been the poor conditions of the computers. Many of them do not
work and are in constant need of repair.
The new computer lab in 354 seems to fit the needs of our instructors and students. The feedback
has generally been positive: faculty and students enjoy the private classroom setting and the
updated technology. However, the one major complaint among instructors and students is that
the lab does not have a printer. A “writing” computer lab without a printer seems to be a
contradiction. A printer is a necessity in any computer lab.
Also, the WRAC computers in the labs are lacking in programs that could aid students in reading
and writing. There are many innovative programs out there that we need to look into. Our
students are comfortable with computers and use them for all aspects of their lives; therefore, it
makes sense to provide them with programs that make learning fun and creative. One of the
programs that is being used in many other schools is Inspiration Software. This program is
a learning tool that inspires students to develop and organize their ideas. It supports visual
thinking techniques by providing different ways of mapping, brainstorming, and outlining,
ultimately leading to a full draft. I think this program would help our students become better
thinkers and writers, and it would enrich the overall experience of assisted computer learning in
WRAC.
12
Communications Lab
Over the past 3 years Communication Studies instructors have used student assistants in the
classroom, Learning Assistants, and peer advisors in WRAC and more recently in the dedicated
Communications Lab.
Our Director of Forensics, Jason Ames, has used student assistants in the classroom. We have
made it clear in every Program Review that the position of Forensic Coach is simply too much
for one coach. A paid Faculty Assistant is required and 1-2 Student Assistants. Student
Assistants rehearse with the Forensic team, travel with the team, help coordinate campus events,
and judge at tournaments. We will continue to use this form of support for our forensic students.
In 2008-2009, Christine Warda compiled a detailed plan for a designated Communication Lab at
Chabot College. At that time our peer advisors were located in an open space with English tutors
above the library (WRAC). The numbers of students served at this time were low due to it being
a new program with inadequate space for our needs. It takes time for instructors to learn about
the program and integrate it in to their lesson plans. Also, communication tutoring requires a
space not only for quiet reflection but dynamic rehearsal of presentations. Students coming to an
open area above the library did not have that opportunity, so our build-up was slow and limited.
In 2010 we decided to discontinue Communication tutoring temporarily. With inadequate space
it seemed a disservice to our students and faculty to continue in the same way. We let the space
and money go to another program that could benefit. During that semester we tried a Learning
Assistant in two COMM 1 courses. It was unusual to have a tutor in the classroom so the
Learning Assistant attempted to set-up hours outside class to review speech outlines and rehearse
with students. Once again we ran into the same obstacle, there was no enclosed space on the
entire campus to hold these tutoring sessions. The Learning Assistant moved locations 3 times
over the semester (to the confusion of the students) and ended up in an office in PATH. This
would have worked out better if the space was designated for Communication Studies but
sharing the space was challenging.
In Fall 2010, we found a space in building 800, room 803, and for the past 2 years have had a
steady growth of students coming to see our peer advisors. This space and drop-in method has
been working well for our students. For example, according to the Office of Instructional
Research, we had 287 visits in Spring 2011 and 391 visits in Fall 2011. (These numbers might
be low due to some technical difficulties with the SARS program.) In a study of success rates
from Fall 2009-Spring 2011, our COMM 1 students had a 94% success rate. That is a significant
improvement from the 71% success rate of those who did not use the Lab. Furthermore, in this
same study, the withdraw rate for students visiting the Lab was 0%, confirming students stay in
class when they receive support, as compared to 13% of students withdrew who did not use the
Lab. According to the Office of Instructional Research, “higher success rates mean more
students can go on to the next course rather than repeating the course and preventing others from
taking it. This increases the number of students that Chabot can serve as well as the number of
students who can succeed, persist, graduate, and transfer.” We can only further emphasize this
fact as COMM 1 is a GE requirement all students must pass.
The Comm Lab is currently open Monday -Thursday from 10am-5pm (depending on staff/tutor
availability). Ideally we would like to be open approx 28 hours per week with 2 tutors working
in the Lab at all times. This requires 3 things: staff supervision, Lead Tutors, and peer advisors.
Currently there is no pay for staff to oversee the Lab (as in other Labs on campus). We rely on
13
faculty to work office hours in the Lab and/or simply make themselves available. Many of our
faculty make themselves available because they know the value of the Lab but this is not ideal to
ask for continued service without compensation.
In Spring 2011, the Learning Connection informed us there would not be enough money to fund
the number of tutors in previously mentioned standards. At this time, tutors were paid and there
was only enough money to pay for 16 hours of peer advisor time. We knew this would not be
acceptable because the number of students visiting the Lab was growing. So we brainstormed an
alternative method. With the help of Title III grant money, we designed and implemented a new
course, a Communication Tutor course, COMM 4902 in Fall 2011. Now students earn units
instead of pay. The compromise seems to be a success at this point. The focus on tutoring as a
learned skill instead of job is more accurate and many students appreciate the units. But this still
requires money. Title III money will run out and we have to continue to pay for instructor time
(FTEF) to teach the course. We also determined there was still a need for paid tutors. Ideally we
need one experienced tutor in the Lab at all times; a tutor who has 1 or more semesters of tutor
training completed. We call these our Lead Tutors and they still get paid through the Learning
Connection.
This becomes more imperative as we plan to add 1 Lab unit to our COMM 1 courses, thus
dramatically increasing the number of students who visit the Lab. For example, this semester we
offer 23 sections of COMM 1. With approx 25 students per class this would be 575 total
students who drop-in repeatedly, as the research shows. (And the number of COMM 1 courses
will have to increase with the passing of AB 1440.) Further, COMM 1 students are not the only
students to visit the Lab. The Lab serves other courses within our discipline, and any student, in
any class, who has to give a presentation.
In terms of technology, currently the Lab has one laptop for tutors to input necessary data for the
Learning Connection. We need more laptops for students to research presentation topics, draft
outlines, and create visual aids. Our Comm Lab also lacks up-to-date presentation aides for
students to rehearse. In the future, we need a set-up as close to a SMART classroom as possible;
projector, screen, computer with internet access and Power Point, DVD player, CD player, and
document camera. We also need video-taping equipment to record student speeches. This is an
essential rehearsal tool and can be a requirement for some classes. This requires a video camera
with good microphone and tripod. Currently this is part of the plan for Building 100, but it is
still in planning stages. In these plans, there will also be computer stations. We require the
following programs: Word, Power Point, and a Dictionary with auditory pronunciation and
headphones.
We also need reassigned time for faculty to make Lab improvements. We plan to visit and learn
from other Labs, attend conferences, create a webpage and media kit, create and implement
learning modules in the Lab, and explore the possibility of on-line tutoring.
The Communication Studies department will continue to benefit and grow with the help of
Student Assistants and Peer Advisors. We see them as an integral part of our area.
The Language Lab (ESL)
Our discipline makes available to our ESL students (current and former ESL students) the
following help:
14
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Orientations to PATH and the Language Center
WRAC computer labs
Drop-in tutoring
Peer Tutoring by appointments
Instructor tutoring/office hours in PATH
Conversation groups
Study groups
Language learning software & lab support
Blackboard access
Online Blackboard training/orientation workshops through Online Student Services in
B700
CTE workshops
Academic Transfer-track workshops
Excel Program workshops
Learning Assistants
Our ESL students benefit immensely from contact with tutors and other academic support
services. In fact, such services are an integral part of our program and curriculum. Thus, it is
very important to continue to offer expanded hours for PATH/Language Center and tutoring.
PATH is currently open 38 hours/week and our students take full advantage of these hours.
However, as mentioned in our budget concerns, we need more open hours for the Language
Center to include Fridays, Saturdays, and more evening hours.
The following academic learning support is required for ESL 127 and ESL 128 students:
•
•
•
•
Orientations to PATH and the Language Center
Tutoring services
Language learning software
Blackboard access
Our ESL 127 and ESL 128 courses have become very popular over the past few years. We are
offering 3 sections (2 TRIO-grant funded) of ESL 128 courses in Fall 2012; hence, it is very
important to continue to provide access to various academic learning support for as many hours
per semester as possible so that we can reach the largest number of students.
With the upcoming renovation of Building 100, the ESL department has the following
language learning software and resource needs:
Name of Program
Focus on Grammar
(Levels 1-5)
(already on 7
computers in PATH)
Description
Clear, contextualized,
and interactive.
Provides a
communicative
review of English
grammar that covers
# Students Served
All ESL students
(500 + per semester),
especially students in
ESL 128 (currently
offering sections for
75 + students per
15
# of Computers
all available for ESL
(20 + if possible)
Fundamentals of
English Grammar
(already on 7
computers in PATH)
Understanding and
Using English
Grammar
(already on 7
computers in PATH)
eEnglish by
Pronunciation Power
(online program)
Pronunciation in
English/Idioms in
English/Writing in
English (online
programs purchased
in bundle – all
currently on
computers in PATH)
Longman’s English
Interactive
all language skills
through a
comprehensive,
motivating, and fun
practice of grammar
points and skills.
Offers online
instruction through a
dynamic combination
of interactive
exercises, animation,
readings, audio and
voice recordings.
Students get instant
feedback and
remediation based on
their answers.
Offers online
instruction through a
dynamic combination
of interactive
exercises, animation,
readings, audio and
voice recordings.
Students get instant
feedback and
remediation based on
their answers.
See website for
description
semester)
See website for
description
See website for
description
All ESL students
(500 + per semester),
especially students in
ESL 128 (currently
offering sections for
75 + students per
semester)
all available for ESL
(20 + if possible)
All ESL students
(500 + per semester),
especially students in
ESL 128 (currently
offering sections for
75 + students per
semester)
all available for ESL
(20 + if possible)
All ESL students
(500 + per semester),
especially students in
ESL 128 and ESL
127 (currently
offering sections for
100 + students per
semester)
all available for ESL
(20 + if possible)
All ESL students
(500 + per semester),
especially students in
ESL 128 and ESL
127 (currently
offering sections for
100 + students per
semester)
All ESL students
(500 + per semester),
all available for ESL
(20 + if possible)
16
all available for ESL
(20 + if possible)
(now an online
program – previously
had individual
licenses in PATH)
Cambridge English
Readers (stories with
audio CDs)
Original stories at
seven levels from
starter to advanced,
written especially for
learners of English.
See website for
description
especially students in
ESL 128 and ESL
127 (currently
offering sections for
100+ students per
semester)
All ESL students
(500 + per semester),
especially students in
ESL 128 and ESL
127 (currently
offering sections for
100+ students per
semester)
These would be
purchased and stored
in the Language
Center, but do not
need to be loaded
onto any computers.
TRIO provided some
funding to purchase a
few titles, but we
would like to
purchase the rest of
the titles that we do
not yet have.
Chemistry
Our chemistry program currently employs 11 chemistry tutors working on both an appointment
and drop-in basis at the PATH center. These are student tutors whom we have recruited, and are
among our best students academically. We have tutors for every chemistry course offered:
CHEM 10, 31, 1A, 1B, 12A, 12B, 30A and 30B. Tutors can work for a maximum of 20 hours a
week, but most tutor for less due to schedule demands. Almost all of our tutors have the
maximum number of tutees they can handle; in fact, this semester demand is outstripping supply.
We have a need to recruit more tutors for next semester. One major change in our tutoring
program since last year is that we have began having drop-in tutoring.
In Chemistry 31, we have very successfully employed a Learning Assistant who comes to
instructor-facilitated study hall which takes place in a room near the lecture hall immediately
before or immediately after the lecture.
We would like to expand on this. The most popular type of tutoring among the students is dropin tutoring. We definitely need funding for more drop-in tutoring hours. Also, we will certainly
expand our tutoring program when we move into our new PATH center in building 100.
In summary, we are maintaining a successful program, and to keep it going we need to fund and
recruit more chemistry tutors as the demand continues to increase.
Learning Assistant Program
Learning Assistants have been embedded into approximately 50 courses in 20 subject areas since
Spring 2009. The number of courses served fluctuates from semester to semester. The program has
been particularly beneficial to the Fire Tech program, which has seen dramatic increases in student
success, and to Learning Communities such as Daraja and Puente.
17
IV. External Data
• Cite any relevant external data that affects your programs (e.g., labor market data,
community demand, employment growth, external accreditation demands, etc.).
WASC Accreditation Recommendation Three relates exclusively to the library and Learning
Connection as follows:
In order to meet the Commission’s 2012 deadline, the team recommends that the library and
Learning Connection units develop and implement an outcomes assessment process linking their
respective planning for resources and services to the evaluation of student needs. Chabot should use
the evaluation of services to provide evidence that these services contribute to the achievement of
student learning outcomes and serve as a basis for improvement of student success. This work should
be done in conjunction with the office of research.
18
V.
Action Plan Timeline Update: Cut and paste your previous timeline from Year One and update the “Accomplished?”
column. List any new PLOs or program goals and activities you may have in the second chart.
PLOs and/or Program
Goal(s) from Year
One
Timeline
Activity
Promote building 100
plans
2011-2013
Keep campus informed,
collaborate with user group
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
2011-2012
SAO Assessment to
meet accreditation
recommendation #3
Write SAO’s, construct and
administer questionnaire,
close the loop
Differentiate LA
training
2011-2013
Evaluate Learning
Support needs across
campus and work to
meet them
2011-2013
Collaborate with CTE
Support Needed to
Accomplish these
Activities*
Institutional
Outcome(s) Expected
Person(s)
Responsible
Increase civic engagement, Institution
faculty collaboration and
innovation, program access,
and support student learning
and community
Accomplished?
Yes/No/In
Progress
In Progress
Accomplished
Institutional: 1 CAH for 1B
instructors, funding for a
CTL and LAC Coordinators,
and professional
development
Institutional: additional 20
hrs of Classified Staff, IR
hours
Institutional: professional
development (Strengthening
Student Success and CRLA
Increase the success and
persistence of students in
CTE, transfer, and basic
courses
LC Coordinator
Provide better service and
document success
LC Coordinator
Accomplished
Improve efficiency of
programs and increase
student success.
In Progress,
LC Coordinator
Objective
and instructors with Revised
LA’s
In Progress
Read unit Program
Reviews, build
relationships across
Institutional: professional
development
19
Increase faculty participation
and support in meeting
student
LC Coordinator
campus
Promote the hiring of a
Dean of the Library &
Learning Connection
needs
2013
On Hold
Document need
Promote the hiring of
Classified Staff (20 hrs) 2013
Institutional
Institutionalized programs
Institution, Dean
and LC coordinator
Meet accreditation
recommendation,
institutionalize programs
Institution, Dean
and LC coordinator
Institutional
Document need
In Progress
Switch to online
scheduling in PATH
2011-2013
Pilot in online courses,
collaborate with 1B’s,
DSPS, and EOPS to
determine parameters
IT, SARS support
Reduce pressure on staff,
increase student access
Institution, IT, LC
Coordinator and
Classified Staff
Objective reevaluated after
implementation,
Secure program
funding
2011-2013
Assess outcomes,
Program review,
publicize programs and
build faculty rapport
Institutional
Increase the persistence and
success of
students in
CTE, transfer,
and basic skills
courses.
Institution, Dean
and
LC coordinator
In Progress
Promote release 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
Institution,
Division Deans,
LC coordinator,
and
program
On hold with
exception of Math
New PLOs and/or
Program Goal(s)
Timeline
Activity
Support Needed to
Accomplish these
Activities*
20
Outcome(s) Expected
Person(s)
Responsible
Accomplished?
Yes/No/In
Progress
“Making Visible” tutor 2012
video
Interview tutors, deans, and
Equipment and guidance
students to record their experience from Making Visible
staff, title III funds
LC Coordinator,
Increase program
student coeffectiveness: better train
tutors, educate faculty, promote investigators
program, evaluate program
Social Science
Learning Lab with
SPSS software
2012-2013
Purchase SPSS software, plan into Institutional (funding)
bld 100
Increase student success and
persistence
LC, Social Science
Dept.
BUS TUTR 1B
2013
Dedicated TUTR for BUS
Institutional (funding)
Increase student success and
persistence
BUS faculty,
Bld 100 software
expansion
2013
Coordinate with IT and dept.’s
across campus to install software
Faculty, IT
Increase student success and
persistence
LC coordinator,
Deans, IT
Science Lab
2013
Drop-in and scheduled tutoring
next to lab models
Institutional
Increase student success and
persistence
LC coordinator,
deans, Science
faculty
21
YEAR
TWO
LEAVE
BLANK
Definitions of terms:
Program Goal = A general statement of what the program hopes to accomplish, for the long-term.
It may be in qualitative (narrative) rather than quantitative (numeric) terms. It may include the
integration of several program outcomes, or relate to class scores, credits, units, course completion,
retention term to term, progression to next course/level, program completion, degree and certificate
completion, transfer, success/scores on licensure exams, job placement, attitudes, fundraising,
media promotion, etc.
PLO = Program Level Outcome, i.e., what students can do, what knowledge they have, after
completing a sequence of courses. It is a subset of the Program Goals, related to student learning.
*Types of Support Needed to Accomplish Activities:
• Trainings, workshops and/or conferences
• Publications, library and/or resources
• Guidance to support research and/or inquiry projects
• Technology
• Flex Day activities/worktime
22