Academic Program Review and Action Planning – YEAR ONE
Division
Program
Contact Person
Date
Language Arts
Learning Connection: Learning Support Programs
Deonne Kunkel
4/11/2011
Section A – Data Review and Analysis
I. Basic Success and Equity (Data from 3 previous years)
• What trends are you seeing over time? How does the basic success data compare to the college
as a whole and to statewide average success rates, if available? What might explain the
differences?
• What courses in your discipline show the greatest/least amount of success? What accounts for
success in these courses? How could you improve success in the less successful areas?
• What do you see in the comparisons between men and women and between different
ethnicities? What accounts for differences? What concerns you? How could you strategically
address the concerns?
• What inferences can you draw from the data correlating the highest level of Math/English
completed and success in your discipline's courses?
• If you have online/hybrid/telecourse/CD-ROM courses, do the success rates differ from the
same courses offered on-campus? If so, should the success rates be the same, why are they
different, and is this a cause for concern? What areas of inquiry does this raise about
online/hybrid/telecourse/CD-ROM courses?
Explain:
• Students who use the Learning Connection’s Learning Support Programs have higher success
rates and lower withdrawal rates than students in the same courses who do not use these
services. (See attached “Course success and withdrawal rates”)
• Students in developmental English and Math courses who use our services have higher
success and lower withdrawal rates than those who do not. In comparison to non-LC students,
students in developmental Math pass at rates 6-12 percent higher. (See attached “Basic skills
English and Math success rates of Learning Connection student”)
• Structural changes to the Fire Tech program including the introduction of Learning Assistants
have increased student success from approximately 55% to 95% (See Fire Tech Program
Review for details).
• Student who regularly attend English, History, and Psychology 115 have higher success rates
and lower withdrawal rates in their corresponding discipline-based course than those who do
not take 115’s or enroll but don’t complete.
• The demographics of LC students parallel the demographics of the college with minor
deviations except with respect to gender. Relative to our student population, more females
than males are served.
• Relative to Chabot’s student population, the LC predominantly serves full time students. 57%
of LC students attend full time while 22% of Chabot’s students are full time. The LC’s hours
of operation may account for under serving part-time students. Over time, hours have been
Academic Program Review and Planning for 2011-14
Page 1 of 21
•
•
cut further decreasing access for part-time students. Line-of-sight regulations impede serving
these students online.
Reduced hours of operation have impacted the numbers of students we serve. For instance,
during Fall 2009, the LC served 2,002 students. Spring 2010, headcount dropped to 1,595
after WRAC, Math Lab, and PATH hours were reduced.
Inadequate facilities has lead to inaccurate reporting of WRAC success data since the SARS
machine in WRAC is at the back of the room and can’t be moved. Students do not see the
machine and thus do not sign-in which affects our reporting as well as state reimbursement.
Plans for building 100 include placing SARS stations at entrances monitored by current staff.
II. Course Sequence (Data from 2 previous years)
Note: Answer this question if you have been provided data about course sequences in your discipline.
• Is success in the first course a good indicator of success in the second course? What are the
curricular, pedagogical, and/or methodological implications of what you see?
• Do your successful students in the first course enroll at a high rate in the second course within
two years? What are the implications of what you see?
Explain:
• Our courses do not follow a sequence. Tutors and Learning Assistants concurrently enroll in
Tutor 1A and 1B (formally 49A and 49b).
• Tutor 1A, The Theory and Practice of Tutoring, compliments the content specific training
they receive in Tutor 1B from faculty in their discipline.
III. Course Review (Data from 5 previous years)
• Ed. Code requires that all courses are updated every five years. Are all of your courses
updated? If not, do you want to maintain or continue these courses? Please indicate your plans
in terms of curriculum. Have all of your courses been offered recently? If not, why? Are
students counting on courses to complete a program or major when these courses are not being
offered?
Explain:
• All courses have been updated, TUTR 1A and 1B (formally 49A and B) in Fall 2009 and
TUTR 200 and TUTR 31(formally 4902) in Fall 2010.
• All courses have been offered in the last year.
IV. Budget Summary (Data from 3 previous years)
Academic Program Review and Planning for 2011-14
Page 2 of 21
•
•
•
What budget trends do you see in your discipline? What are the implications of these trends?
Where is your budget adequate and where is it lacking? What are the consequences on your
program, your students, and/or your instruction?
What projected long-term (5-10 years) budget needs do you see? You will detail your short-term
needs in the action plan that follows. You do not need to cite them here.
Explain:
• The budget for the Learning Connection has been reduced, impacting our ability to serve
students and faculty. For the academic year 2008-2009, the budget was $314.741.36. The
budget for 2009-2010 was $220,451.19 (See attached “Learning Connection 08-09 and 09-10
Student Assistant Payroll”). Since then, we have maintained a student waitlist.
• Between Fall 2009 and Spring 2010, we lost a classified staff position and reduced the
number of hours the labs were open. Consequently, the numbers of students served dropped
from 2,002 to 1,595 between Fall 2009 and Spring 2010.
• Hours of operation were further cut due to budgetary constraints Fall 2010. While we do not
yet have access to data from Fall 2010, we expect that the numbers of students served will be
fewer as our waitlist has been expanding relative to the budget.
• The effects budget reductions have been compounded by last minute allocations which
impede budgetary planning. For instance, last year funding for the LA program and tutors was
not received until August 2010, when it was too late to hire adequate numbers of tutors and
LA’s.
• Faculty across campus express frustration at shifting program policies due to unstable funding
and last minute budgetary measures which impede their ability to develop and sustain
programs.
• Decreasing funding support from grants necessitates increased funding from the general
budget. $100,000.00 from general funds, representing 43% of our budget, was allocated for
2010-2011. $132,000.00, representing 57% of our budge, was allocated from grants,
primarily BSI and Title III which provided $50,000 for the Learning Assistant Program. Next
year, the LC loses most of its funding from grants. In addition to the $100.000 currently
allocated from the general fund, the LC needs $120,000.00 to keep our programs running.
• Lack of adequate facilities significantly inhibits our ability to innovate around budgetary
constraints. For instance, we could move towards an SI model but lack the necessary
supervised space. Plans for building 100 allow for simultaneous line of sight supervision of
one-on-one tutoring, small group tutoring, and larger workshops.
• Our present model of serving students in small lab pockets across campus in economically
inefficient and inflexible. Plans for building 100 will reduce the need for multiple student
assistants.
V. Enrollment Data (Data from 2 previous years)
• Please provide a brief description of: overall enrollment trends; enrollment trends by course; and
enrollment trends by time of day and Saturday.
• Describe what your discipline has done in terms of curriculum or scheduling in the last two years
that has effected enrollments.
• Describe plans or strategies that you have for the near future in terms of curriculum or
Academic Program Review and Planning for 2011-14
Page 3 of 21
•
scheduling that could impact your enrollments.
Lastly, look closely at whether the schedule you currently offer provides access to the broader
community that your discipline serves at Chabot College—day time, night time, Saturday,
distance education, special or targeted communities that would or do enroll in your courses.
Explain:
• To accommodate differing schedules, two sections of TUTR 1A were offered starting Fall
2010.
• In response to outcomes assessment indicating the need to differentiate between new and
experienced tutors, the curriculum for section 1 and section 2 of TUTR 1A was revised and a
capstone project was introduced. Section 001 of TUTR 1A now serves as a learning
community for new tutors. Section 002 advances the training of tutors beyond basic tutoring
practice while continuing to reinforce fundamentals necessary to the program’s functioning.
This curricular change impacted the original intent behind splitting TUTR 1A into two
sections.
• Outcomes assessment indicates the need to further differentiate the training of traditional
tutors from CTE LA’s.
• Total WSCH for TUTR 1A is high at 750 while the WSCH for 1B and 31 are lower, at 214
and 225 respectively (See attached unit load reports). The Learning Connection’s unique
hybrid training program and interdisciplinary vision accounts for the difference. Unlike
traditional Learning Support programs, which isolate services into silos, the Learning
Connection fosters cross-curricular collaboration and innovation. Faculty from various
disciplines offer content-specific tutor training and serve as advisors to the Learning
Connection Coordinator. The fruits of interdisciplinary interchanges--supported by the
Learning Connection, BSI, and Title III--can be seen in the rise of Reading Apprenticeship,
GNST 115’s for History and Psychology, and tutoring in subject areas beyond Math and
English.
• Underfunding TUTR 1B instructors threatens interdisciplinary interchange and innovation.
For instance, the Life Science TUTR 1B instructor previously offered study skills workshops
to Science students and interviewed prospective Science tutors when she had release time.
• Scheduling TUTR 1B’s during times when Science and Math tutors are available presents a
challenge. Their labs meet on Friday’s and their schedules are demanding. To maintain
adequate numbers of tutors to meet demand, instructors accommodate tutor schedules by
granting overlaps as needed and coordinating with each other when a student assistant tutors
in more than one subject.
• Student Services now coordinates the peer advisor program, overseeing TUTR 31, formally
TUTR 4902.
Academic Program Review and Planning for 2011-14
Page 4 of 21
VI. Student Learning Outcomes Inventory
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
•
•
•
•
•
•
Percentage of courses in your discipline that have CLOs and rubrics developed:____66%
For this information, please see the list of which courses do and do not have CLOs on the
SLOAC’s main webpage:
http://www.chabotcollege.edu/sloac/default.asp
Percentage of courses in your discipline that have the minimum number of CLOs developed:
(1 unit = 1 or more CLO, 2 units = 2 or more CLOs, 3 or more units = 3 or more CLOs)___66%_
For this information, please see the CLO spreadsheet on the SLOAC’s main webpage:
http://www.chabotcollege.edu/sloac/default.asp
Date the CLO Assessment schedule was submitted: March 16, 2011
For this information, please see the Course-level Outcomes assessment schedules list from the
Assessment Progress and Plans webpage:
http://www.chabotcollege.edu/sloac/progress.asp
Percentage of courses in your discipline that have had all the CLOs assessed within the past three
years, as per Chabot’s Assessment policy: ____66% (not through eLumen)
For this information, please see Chabot’s Assessment Policy from the SLO/Assessment
Guidelines webpage:
http://www.chabotcollege.edu/sloac/guidelines.asp
Percentage of courses in your discipline that have had all the CLO assessments reflected upon, or
discussed with colleagues, within the past three years___66%
What questions or investigations arose as a result of these reflections or discussions?
Explain:
• The Learning Connection’s Learning Support Services has broadened our assessment of
learning outcomes to include qualitative data, such as tutor surveys, LA surveys, instructor
surveys, and student surveys.
• LA Student Engagement Surveys: Students in courses that use LA’s are more engaged than
student in courses that to not (See “Student Engagement in Learning”). The college may want
to identify courses that would most benefit from using LA’s.
• LA Instructor Surveys: Instructors who use LA’s in their classroom credit LA’s for higher
success rates, in particular higher rates of success for at risk students. Some instructors note
that increased reporting requirements for title III present a time burden (See attached
“Responses from instructors: Assessment of Learning Assistants”).
• Tutor and LA Surveys: Tutor and LA surveys validate the quality of our tutor training. With
few exceptions, tutors indicate they receive the support they need to meet student needs.
Results indicate the need to differentiate the training of traditional tutors from LA’s in CTE
Academic Program Review and Planning for 2011-14
Page 5 of 21
•
•
•
•
courses (See attached “Tutor Program Assessment: Feedback from Tutors” and “Tutor
Feedback: Responses from Learning Assistants”)
eLumen Data: The LC’s eLumen data in incomplete. Of our two primary courses, only the
data for one SLO has been entered. Analysis of that data indicates that tutors would benefit
from further training in how to help students overcome specific stumbling blocks.
To meet accreditation recommendation #3, the Learning Connection’s Learning Support
Programs is in the process of writing and assessing SAO’s.
Our present model of offering Learning Support in small lab pockets across campus impedes
our ability to foster community, deliver support, adequately assess SLO’s and SAO’s, and
monitor the health of our programs. Plans for building 100 allow for a more centralized model
of assessment, management, and record keeping.
What actions has your discipline determined that might be taken as a result of these reflections,
discussions, and insights?
Actions planned:
• Build community and interdisciplinary cooperation between students, faculty and
administrators and increase economic efficiency by promoting the building 100 project
currently under design.
• Improve economic efficiency and flexibility of our programs by promoting the current
building 100 project.
• Meet accreditation recommendation #3 by writing SAO’s, assessing them, and promoting a
centralized facility.
• Differentiate the training of LA’s in CTE courses from traditional courses.
• Evaluate actions already taken in response to learning outcomes assessment, i.e. capstone
project, embedding LA into content specific.
• Reassess SLO’s using eLumen rubrics and enter scores.
• Further promote hybrid training program.
•
What course-level and programmatic 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.
• Instructor surveys confirm these results.
• Faculty across campus value the LC’s hybrid training program which promotes ownership
and flexibility.
• 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.
Academic Program Review and Planning for 2011-14
Page 6 of 21
•
•
•
Percentage of programs within your discipline that have established at least two PLOs, and
mapped appropriate CLOs to them:____100%
For this information, please see the Program-level Outcomes progress page from the Assessment
Progress and Plans webpage:
http://www.chabotcollege.edu/sloac/progress.asp
Which of the CWLGs do your discipline’s CLOs address? __Critical Thinking, Communication,
Global and Cultural Involvement, Citizenship, and Development of the Whole Person
In which if any of the College-wide Learning Goals Faculty Inquiry Groups have discipline
member(s) participated?
___none______________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
Insights gained:
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, Learning Support,
peer-led team learning, peer advisors)? How many hours per semester do you use and/or how many
hours per semester do you need?
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 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. Adequate, centralized space is needed to run programs efficiently, foster community, and unify
both students and faculty around student learning.
Academic Program Review and Planning for 2011-14
Page 7 of 21
The Math lab:
• The Math Lab is a support service for students that provides drop-in tutoring to students
enrolled in any Math class at Chabot. The location moved from room 1712 to room 3906B in
the Spring semester of 2009 to accommodate the increase use of technology by faculty
members. The new Math Lab location is furnished with twenty-four desktop computers and
sixty seats. The computers have MathXL, ALEKS, and Minitab software installed for student
use. Having the computers as part of the Math Lab has given several students access to extra
help on their online homework programs and Statistics lab assignments.
•
Math Lab is staffed by Faculty members and student tutors. Since Spring 2008, student tutors
have been required to register for a tutor training class (TUTR 1B). It is a class that meets
several times a semester to review tutoring techniques and specific topics in Mathematics that
many students have difficulty with. Time is spent discussing issues that arise during tutoring
sessions or in the Math Lab, as well as the Socratic Method, study tips, test taking strategies
and techniques to reduce Math Anxiety. Tutors are encouraged to pass this information along
to their students. This course has been helpful in producing better tutors and provides a
cohesive unit that is a part of the larger campus goal to serve students in the PATH center.
•
The Math Lab has transitioned from being named Math 122 to Math 200. This serves a two
fold purpose. First of all, students registered in Math 200 don't need to pay for an extra unit
because it is now a non-credit course. This has allowed the department to develop Math 122
into the The Alternative Path in Developmental Math program. It is a flexible-paced math
sequence that provides students with an individualized math program. Students are given
guidance to progress through Mathematics content to help strengthen their weaknesses.
•
Learning Connection data shows that on average, 47% of their service is student use of the
Math Lab. This has a significant impact on student success in Math. With regards to our Basic
Skills Courses (Math 105, 65, 55 and 54), students using the Math Lab and one-on-one
tutoring through the Learning Connection have a 45% success rate. By comparison, students
in the same courses that have not had any tutoring have a success rate of only 39%. There is
also a drop in the withdrawal rate. Students that received tutoring boast only a 28%
withdrawal rate while students in the same course have a 35% withdrawal rate.
Writing and Reading Across the Curriculum Center (WRAC):
•
WRAC has expanded to offer History and Psychology 115’s, the data from which validates
their success. Budgetary constraints reduced WRAC’s hours of operation, decreasing student
access. (See attached “WRAC Program Review and Action Planning-Year Three”)
•
To accommodate the renovation of building 800 and prepare for the Learning Connection’s
move to a centralized space, WRAC temporarily relocated from its center in building 800 to
the mezzanine of the library. The move continues to negatively impact WRAC programs;
without walls or white boards, teachers are unable to teach necessary computer and writing
skills; the noise level in the library is now high; SARS data is inaccurate since the machine
cannot be located near student entrances; and supervision is difficult leading to arguments
between students and staff over computer space. Plans for building 100 include usable lab
space, SARS sign-ins near entrance points, and supervised small group rooms.
Academic Program Review and Planning for 2011-14
Page 8 of 21
Communications Lab:
• Public Speaking is a vital skill for academics, business, and personal situations. Most
employers name communication skills as critical and at the same time lacking in most
potential employees. Students need to be given many opportunities to present material aloud.
We are doing students a disservice if they graduate without these skills.
The Communications Lab will provide assistance and support to all students who need to
prepare oral presentations. Peer tutors will help drop-in students with topic selection,
research, organization/outlining, rehearsal, preparation and use of visual aids, reducing
anxiety, and evaluating any type of presentation.
Students in Communications Studies courses, such as Public Speaking, will be the primary
audience, but other students will also greatly benefit. Students in Business, English, History,
ESL, etc. need help preparing oral presentations. This concept has been proven at numerous
colleges, including Cal State University East Bay, Ohlone Community College, and San Jose
State University.
• Project Objective:
As for student services, our primary new initiative is a Communication Lab. Our primary
need is space. The current plan is to continue to use room 803 for all drop-in tutoring. This
enclosed space works to give the speaker(s) the opportunity to deliver the speech in a
simulated speaker-audience style and the tutor a chance to evaluate. We will also hold
workshops with small groups on various presentation topics. This enclosed space will reduce
anxiety, give the opportunity to increase volume, and ensure no disruption to other students.
We are also open to using any space in Bldg 100 ( in the future) for appts./ recording.
Having a space for students to practice with visual aides and be recorded is necessary for
effective rehearsal, for the student, tutor and/or instructor.
The Comm. Lab will run more effectively with a companion webpage (a link from the
Communication Studies webpage). Students can obtain basic information (description of Lab,
services offered, and tutor information) as well as additional tutoring aides and speech library.
A live chat space would also be ideal. The website has endless possibilities, including
providing faculty from other disciplines with ideas for presentation assignments.
Peer Academic Tutoring Help (PATH):
• PATH served between 751-959 students per semester, regularly offering tutoring in 52
subjects. Contact hours and headcounts per semester fluctuate depending on our hours of
operation and hiring constraints.
• Lack of adequate space impedes our ability to meet student needs. When building 800
was renovated, ESL’s Language Center merged with PATH. The space is small and has
long overreached its capacity. It offers only one conversation room and seven computers
to serve ESL’s entire support program as well as scheduled tutoring for all other courses
across campus, including Math, Science, Reading, and Writing. Scheduled tutoring for
Math, Reading, and Writing cannot be relocated to the Math Lab or WRAC since staff
needed maintain scheduling and supervise are in PATH.
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
Academic Program Review and Planning for 2011-14
Page 9 of 21
Daraja.
Online Pilot:
• Due to inadequate facilities and provisions in the law require line-of-site supervision, our
online tutoring pilot will not be expanded. We lack phone lines, computers, and
supervised space.
Project Excel:
• In collaboration with Student Services and ESL, the Learning Connection is pleased to be
implementing Project Excel, one of only six grants of its kind in the nation, targeted to
assist ESL students to degree completion. Innovative in its structure, the program
integrates support from academic and student services and contextualizes Learning
Support. The Learning Connection provides the collaborative platform for the endeavor,
hiring and training tutors and LA’s, working to embed LA’s into CTE courses, and
opening our labs to Project Excel’s exclusive use. Improved facilities would allow us to
better implement the grant. For instance, we originally planned to offer one-stop tutoring
and counseling but do not currently have the space.
VIII. External Data
• Cite any relevant external data that affects your program (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.
Academic Program Review and Planning for 2011-14
Page 10 of 21
Section B – Data Summary
•
•
•
From what you have learned in your basic data review, what does the information tell you
about your program?
Overall, what improvements would you like to make to your program? How do you plan
to address these concerns? Are there any immediate issues that require immediate
attention (e.g., outdated course outlines)?
Where appropriate, please cite relevant data in your discussion (e.g., efficiency,
persistence, success, FT/PT faculty ratios, SLO/PLO assessment results, external
accreditation demands, etc.).
Data Summary and Plan of Action Description/Rationale:
•
Lack of adequate centralized facilities impedes access to our programs, civic engagement,
and community building among students, staff, administrators, and faculty. Students need
a centralized space to study and learn, a space easy to navigate, visible, and accessible.
Faculty need space to collaborate and innovate, to simply work with each other and see
each other’s students. Plans for building 100 provide the needed shared space. The office
of Instructional Research, Learning Support Labs, The Center for Teaching and Learning,
Making Learning Visible, and the Learning Assessment Center will be centrally housed.
Relative to Chabot’s vision of excellence as an institution of learning and community,
promoting the project is our highest priority.
•
The Learning Connection’s Learning Support Programs has broadened its outcomes
assessment to include qualitative data. Results indicate the quality of our tutor training
program and increased success rates of students who receive SI. Surveys indicate the
need to further support faculty collaboration and differentiate the training of CTE LA’s.
•
Though the LC has assessed its learning outcomes, the data in eLumen in incomplete. To
complement our extensive qualitative research, the LC plans to reassess using eLumen
rubrics and enter the scores.
•
To meet accreditation recommendation three, the Learning Connection is in the process of
writing SAO’s to compliment our assessment of learning outcomes. Timeline:
2010-2011: Write SAO’s, design and administer assessment tool
2011-2012: Close the loop and document results
•
To function, the Learning Connection requires stable funding of staff, tutors, faculty, and
LA’s. The LC is currently hindered in its ability to meet the demands of the program and
collaborate with faculty by lack of staff support and faculty release time. 20 more hours
of staff support is needed. Further, Tutor 1B instructors should receive 1 additional CAH
for acting as liaisons to their respective departments, interviewing prospective tutors,
training tutors, running labs, and advocating for the specific needs of their department.
•
To maintain its programs, the Learning Connection must increase its funding through the
general budget.
11
•
Promote the hiring of a Dean of Library & Learning Connection to institutionalize the
Learning Connection
Section C – Action Planning
Please propose a two-year plan of action and timeline to address any immediate and/or long-term
concern(s). This includes activities to assess the CLO(s) to discover a plan of action. It may also
include specific activities that address improving CLO(s) and their assessment, that is to say
evaluating the CLO(s) and the assessment activities.
Examples of activities include:
• Research and inquiry project – why is this happening?
• Innovation and Pilot Projects – this is something I want to try
• Intervention activities such as support services – this is what I want to do about it
• Program and curriculum modification – this is what I want to do about it
12
I.
Action Plan Timeline: Detail the timeline for accomplishing your goals
PLOs and/or Program
Goal(s)
Timeline
Activity
Support Needed to
Accomplish These
Activities*
Outcome(s) Expected
Increase civic engagement,
faculty collaboration and
innovation, program access,
and support student learning
and community
Person(s)
Responsible
Promote building 100 plans
2011-2013
Keep campus informed,
collaborate with user group
Institutional
Revise SLO’s and assess
using eLumen rubrics
previously developed
2011-2012
Collaborate with TUTR 1B subdivision representatives,
Assessment Office, LAC
Coordinator, and CTL
Coordinator
Institutional: 1 CAH for
Increase the success and
LC Coordinator
1B instructors, funding for persistence of students in CTE,
a CTL and LAC
transfer, and basic courses
Coordinators, and
professional development
SAO Assessment to meet
accreditation
recommendation #3
2011-2012
Write SAO’s, construct and
administer questionnaire, close
the loop
Institutional: additional 20 Provide better service and
hrs of Classified Staff, IR document success
hours,
Differentiate LA training
2011-2013
Collaborate with CTE
Institutional: professional
development
(Strengthening Student
Success and CRLA
conferences)
Institution
LC Coordinator
Improve efficiency of programs LC Coordinator and
and increase student success.
instructors with
LA’s
YEAR
ONE
Evaluate Learning Support
needs across campus and
work to meet them
2011-2013
Read unit Program Reviews, build Institutional: professional Increase faculty participation
relationships across campus
development
and support in meeting student
needs
LC Coordinator
Promote the hiring of a
Dean of the Library &
Learning Connection
2013
Document need
Institutional
Institutionalized programs
Institution, Dean and
LC coordinator
Promote the hiring of
Classified Staff (20 hrs)
2013
Document need
Institutional
Meet accreditation
recommendation,
institutionalize programs
Institution, Dean and
LC coordinator
Switch to online scheduling
in PATH
2011-2013
Pilot in online courses,
IT, SARS support
collaborate with 1B’s, DSPS, and
EOPS to determine parameters
Reduce pressure on staff,
increase student access
Institution, IT, LC
Coordinator and
Classified Staff
Secure program funding
2011-2013
Assess outcomes, program
Increase the persistence and
Institution, Dean and
Institutional
13
Accomplished?
Yes/No/In
Progress
LEAVE
BLANK
review, publicize programs and
build faculty rapport
Promote release time for
TUTR 1B instructors
2011-2013
Document need
Institutional
success of students in CTE,
transfer, and basic skills
courses.
LC coordinator
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
faculty
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:
• Training or workshops
• Publications, library, resources
• Guidance to support research and/or inquiry projects
• Technology
II.
Strategic Plan Goals and Summaries: Which Strategic Plan goals and strategies does your action plan support?
Awareness and Access
Increase familiarity with Chabot
Reach out to underrepresented populations
Promote early awareness and college readiness to youth and families
Multiple ways to deliver instruction and services for all
Student Success
14
Strengthen basic skills development
Identify and provide a variety of career paths
Increase success for all students in our diverse community
Assess student learning outcomes to improve and expand instruction and services
Community Partnership
Increase experiential learning opportunities
Initiate/expand partnerships among the college, businesses and community organizations
Promote faculty and staff involvement in college and community activities
Engage the community in campus programs and events
Vision Leadership and Innovation
Improve institutional effectiveness
Streamline academic and student support services
Professional development to support teaching, learning and operational needs
Support effective communication both in the college and the community
Provide safe, secure and up-to-date facilities and technology
15
Program Review and Action Planning – YEAR TWO
Action Plan Progress Report
Division
Program
Contact Person
Date
Audience: IPBC; Program Review Committee; Deans/Unit Administrators; Budget Committee
Purpose: To provide evidence of progress on from previous year and to provide input into
planning for subsequent years.
Instructions: If you have completed your unit plan last year, please update your timeline and
answer the questions below. If you are updating/changing your timeline, list the appropriate
year in which revisions were made.
IA. Problem Statement: Summarize your Program Review Year One conclusions.
IB. Analysis: If there are any new data or conclusions, what is the basis for these new
conclusions?
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.).
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
16
•
•
•
•
•
•
Percentage of courses in your discipline that have CLOs and rubrics developed:_________
For this information, please see the list of which courses do and do not have CLOs on the
SLOAC’s main webpage:
http://www.chabotcollege.edu/sloac/default.asp
Percentage of courses in your discipline that have the minimum number of CLOs
developed:
(1 unit = 1 or more CLO, 2 units = 2 or more CLOs, 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
Date the CLO Assessment schedule was submitted:________
For this information, please see the Course-level Outcomes assessment schedules list from
the Assessment Progress and Plans webpage:
http://www.chabotcollege.edu/sloac/progress.asp
Percentage of courses in your discipline that have had all the CLOs assessed within the
past three years, 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
Percentage of courses in your discipline that have had all the CLO assessments reflected
upon, or discussed with colleagues, within the past three years_______
What questions or investigations arose as a result of these reflections or discussions?
Explain:
•
What actions has your discipline determined that might be taken as a result of these
reflections, discussions, and insights?
Actions planned:
•
What course-level and programmatic strengths have the assessment reflections revealed?
Strengths revealed:
•
•
Percentage of programs within your discipline that have established at least two PLOs, and
mapped appropriate CLOs to them:________
For this information, please see the Program-level Outcomes progress page from the
Assessment Progress and Plans webpage:
http://www.chabotcollege.edu/sloac/progress.asp
Which of the CWLGs do your discipline’s CLOs address?
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
17
•
In which if any of the College-wide Learning Goals Faculty Inquiry Groups have
discipline member(s) participated?
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
Insights gained:
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, Learning
Support, 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:
IV. External Data
• Cite any relevant external data that affects your program (e.g., labor market data,
community demand, employment growth, external accreditation demands, etc.).
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
Support Needed to
Accomplish these
Activities*
Outcome(s) Expected
Person(s)
Responsible
Accomplished?
Yes/No/In
Progress
New PLOs and/or
Program Goal(s)
Timeline
Activity
Support Needed to
Accomplish these
Activities*
Outcome(s) Expected
Person(s)
Responsible
Accomplished?
Yes/No/In
Progress
YEAR
TWO
LEAVE
BLANK
19
Definitions of terms:
1. 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:
• Training or workshops
• Publications, library, resources
• Guidance to support research and/or inquiry projects
• Technology
12
Program Review and Action Planning – YEAR THREE
Final Summary Report
Division
Program
Contact Person
Date
I. Reflect upon the last three years' analysis and activities.
II. Briefly summarize the accomplishments of the discipline, and how they relate to the review of the
program, the program-level outcomes (PLOs) and course-level outcomes (CLOs).
III. Please list what best practices (e.g., strategies, activities, intervention, elements, etc.) you would
recommend? What was challenging? Was there a barrier(s) to success?
Best practices:
Challenges/Barriers to Success:
IV. Next Steps: Recommendations for program and institutional improvement.
Program Improvement:
Institutional Improvement:
13