Learning Connection: Center for Teaching and Learning, Learning
Assessment Office, and Supplemental Instruction
Student Services Program Review
Staffing& Roles
STAFFING AND ROLES
1. Center for Teaching & Learning
a. Center for Teaching & Learning Coordinator
This position was initially funded as a half-time position by the Title III grant. Over
the five years of the grant funding is decreased by 20% each year, with the college
taking over that proportion of the costs. Thus, by the end of the grant, the position
would be institutionalized. Currently, the balance of the funding for this position is
being provided by state funds though the Basic Skills Initiative (BSI). These state
funds have been significantly decreased over the past three years, and we do not
expect this support to be available next year.
The duties of the CTL Coordinator include, but are not limited to:
• Organization of professional development events based on a yearly theme
that provides faculty with a lens through which to evaluate the effectiveness
of their teaching. The CTL Coordinator chooses the theme, with consultation
and input from the Staff Development Committee, researches the field, and
organizes and presents events related to the theme:
o Prepare and host workshops
o Recruit/solicit nominations for Faculty Fellows to present teaching
vignettes
o Select biweekly reading to email to campus
o Select a guest speaker based on recommendations and body of work
o Host a reading group that examines and discusses a book related to
the theme
o Write newsletter articles for Hotsheet and Faculty Spotlight
o Organize Flex Day activities and workshops
o Assess the effectiveness of CTL activities
• Co-Chair of Staff Development Committee
o Represent faculty interests in their educational needs
o Sit on PRBC
o Organize Flex Days (calendar, schedule the day, make all
arrangements, create program, update website, etc.)
o Review requests for professional development support in program
reviews
o Assess the effectiveness of Flex Day activities
1
•
•
•
•
•
o Work with workshop presenters to determine the best way to deliver
needed topics
o Review sign-in sheets to generate attendance report for Academic
Services
Website Development
o Staff Development Committee and Center for Teaching & Learning
o Constant updates on current thematic events, library books, reading
list, events calendar, etc.
Publish the CTL newsletter, Faculty Spotlight, once a semester (December 1
& May 1)
Great Teachers Award (May)
o Solicit nominations
o Create recipient profiles
o Photograph faculty
o Design, print, and frame certificates
o Coordinate announcement
o Make arrangements for conference attendance
Assist and support the Faculty Inquiry Groups by providing research support,
training, and conference information.
Oversee CTL budget (currently done by Title III Grant Activities Director)
b. Faculty Inquiry Group Coordinator(s)
At this time, we use a variety of techniques to facilitate our Faculty Inquiry Groups
(FIGs). When solicited, faculty propose research inquiries, which are approved by a
committee drawn from both the Title III and Basic Skills committees. These
proposals typically specify a lead for the effort, who coordinates the research effort.
The administrative work in support of FIGs is generally handled by the Title III Office,
which is currently supported by the grant. At the end of the grant (09/30/2013), in
order for FIGs to be a continued form of professional development and
programmatic investigation, the cost of coordination needs to be picked up by the
college.
• Oversee and support the work of the ongoing FIGs
• Track FIG progress
• Track funding and payments to participants
• Solicit proposals
• Review proposals
• Arrange for reporting and dissemination of findings
• Maintain FIGs section of CTL website
• Construct and edit FIG section of CTL newsletter
• Assist with expansion and/or institutionalization of successful inquiry pilots
c. New Faculty Learning Community Coordinator
2
This position provides needed support to faculty members who are in the first years
of tenure track positions.
• Design and host a monthly session for all new fulltime faculty to present
aspects of campus organization, teaching and assessment strategies, as well
as provide personal and professional support.
• Help organize the new faculty orientation
• Create introduction of new faculty for College Day
• Mentor new faculty
3
1.2.
The Learning Assessment Office
d. The Learning Assessment Coordinator
This position was initially funded as a half-time position by the Title III grant. Over the five years of the grant funding is
decreased by 20% each year, with the college taking over that proportion of the costs. Thus, by the end of the grant, the
position would be institutionalized. Currently, the balance of the funding for this position is being provided by state funds
though the Basic Skills Initiative (BSI). These state funds have been significantly decreased over the past three years, and
we do not expect this support to be available next year.
The duties of the LA Coordinator include, but are not limited to:
• Coordination of all assessment of student learning at the course, program, and college levels, for both qualitative
and quantitative measures.
• Draft, vet, and implement all policies, forms, guidelines, and practices related to student learning outcomes
assessment.
• Prepare reports for internal and external audiences including the annual WASC assessment reports.
• Coordinate college responses to WASC recommendations related to outcomes assessment and outcomes-based
program review.
• Educate, inspire, and motivate faculty to appreciate and take part in assessment for learning.
• Organize faculty development activities including:
o all stages of the assessment cycle
 for adjunct faculty
 for all new FT and PT faculty
 for departments
 for courses
 for faculty departmental leads
o assessment plans
o a learner-centered college
o how assessment relates to the annual professional development theme, e.g. cognition and learning
o technology, such as online forms and eLumen
4
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
o Flex Day activities and workshops on particular stages of the cycle needing the most attention and support
assess the effectiveness of LAC activities
Chair the SLOAC (Student Learning Outcomes and Assessment Cycle) Committee
o vet policies, decisions, receive valuable input and feedback
o sit on PRBC, maintain focus on accreditation needs
o organize faculty development activities
o mentor members to lead their own disciplines through the cycle, receive feedback for success, publish
results, present at conferences
Website Development
o Provide forms, up-to date results and progress reports, lists of outcomes, access to eLumen software,
committee members, policies, mission statement
o Provide educational materials and clear guidelines on all stages of the assessment cycle for all three levels
of outcomes
eLumen support
o confer with eLumen (the company) on reports, set-up, preferences, request adaptions, support
o train faculty, answer faculty questions
o run reports for disciplines of assessment activity and scores by programs
o supporteLumen specialist(s)
Assist and support the Faculty Inquiry Groups on Student Learning Outcomes by providing information, support,
training, and feedback
Oversee LAC budget (currently done by Title III Grant Activities Director)
Continue education for the assessment practices of the college, disseminate materials, including webpage
information, articles, books, discussions material, workshops material
Use the email and individual meetings to answer questions, provide support, clarify policies, present status
reports to facilitate goal setting
Set goals with eLumen specialist(s), IR, and the webmaster so that they can provide needed support
Confer with the IR Coordinator on the assessment and reporting of the institutional-level outcomes
5
e. eLumen Specialist(s)
Provide up to 20 hours a week in support on:
• Creating and maintaining spreadsheets of all course-level outcomes, and where they are in the assessment cycle
• As per faculty instruction: input, correct, maintain, organize all course-level and institutional-level outcomes in
eLumen (our assessment software)
2.3. Supplemental Instruction Programs:
a. The Learning Connection Coordinator (see attached description of responsibilities “Learning Connection: Learning
Connection Coordinator Position”)
b. Tutor 1B and 1A Instructors/Lab Coordinators:
• Faculty from disciplines across campus provide subject specific tutor training in areas such as ESL, English, Math,
Chemistry, World Language, and General Subjects, coordinate discipline specific programs, and act as liaisons to the
Learning Connection.
c. Online Faculty Inquiry Group Coordinator:
• Coordinates implementation of online pilot.
d. Classified Staff
• Includes one Administrative Assistant and two Staff Assistants who handle payroll, scheduling of all labs, tutors
reports, appointment scheduling, reporting, SARS, and computer lab scheduling
e. Other Staff
• Includes student assistants who staff the WRAC front desk and help in PATH.
Relationships with other college units
Currently, learning support services fall under the administration of several units:
6
•
•
•
•
Communications Lab, Language Lab, WRAC Center, and PATH are in Language Arts
Math Lab is in Science and Mathematics
The Center for Teaching & Learning and the Learning Assessment Office are in Academic Services
Peer Advisors are in Student Services
Learning Support Services works closely with the faculty in all divisions to provide supplemental instruction for their courses. It
works with DSPS, EOPS, Aspire, and Project Excel to meet the needs of students. It also collaborates with lab coordinators from
various disciplines to hire, train, manage, and assess tutors.
We collaborate with the Institutional Research Office to assess the effectiveness of our learning support/supplemental instruction
programs, our Faculty Inquiry Groups, and our Professional Development events. The Institutional Research Office also assists in
tracking SLOs through eLumen.
We rely on the Chabot Webmaster for the development of the resources for reporting CLOs, PLOs, and assessment reflections; for
developing web applications for submitting and sharing project information; and for technical support in keeping the CTL/Staff
Development and LAC/SLOAC websites up to date.
Data Review & Analysis
The Institutional Research Office is tracking students enrolled in sections that have been affected by a Faculty Inquiry Project.
Between Fall ’08 and Fall ’10, The Basic Skills Initiative and Title III have provided funding for 27 FIGs (as well as funds for other forms
of direct student support and faculty development activities). The FIGs are concentrated in the traditional basic skills areas of Math,
English, and ESL, but also include many other subject areas as almost all courses have developmental students enrolled.
1. Learning Assistants (multi-disciplinary)
2. Geography Supplemental Instruction
3. Supplemental Instruction in History 27 and History 7
7
4. Adapting a WRAC Course for History and Psychology
5. Piloting Online Tutoring Methods
6. Jumpstart
7. Alternative Developmental Math Sequence
8. ALEKS Diagnostic Software (Math)
9. Online Support for Math 65
10. Assessment of Students Reading Practices
11. Reading Apprenticeship (multi-disciplinary)
12. ESL SLO Assessments for Adjunct Faculty
13. Early Decision Program Expansion
14. Study Methods in Physical Sciences
15. ESL Grammar in Narratives
16. ESL Program/Curriculum Development
17. Offering Early Childhood Development to Monolingual/Bilingual Classes to Spanish Speakers
18. Basic Skills for CTE Students
19. Assessment of Critical Thinking Skills
20. Student Learning Outcomes in Art
21. Student Learning Outcomes in Business
22. Student Learning Outcomes in Athletics
23. Assessing Global & Cultural Involvement
24. Group Counseling for Returning Students
25. New Faculty Learning Community
26. Assessment of Student’s Reading Practices
27. Assessing Speaking Across the College
Initial data from our developmental English and Math sequences is showing some positive trends:
8
Success in next level course in specific developmental English & Math courses
English 101B
Math 65
Math 55
Fall ’05 cohort
67%
22%
35%
Fall ’08 cohort
75%
35%
53%
These gains in success in the next level course is due to the work of faculty within those disciplines, some of which has been
supported by Title III and BSI projects:
• Jumpstart
• Alternative Developmental Math Sequence
• MiniMath Conference
• ALEKS Diagnostic Software
• Online Support for Math 65
• Assessment of Students Reading Practices
• Learning Assistants
• Reading Apprenticeship
Of particular note, the work the English faculty FIGs have conducted has led to larger inquiry into acceleration in basic skills courses.
This work has received national recognition and has just earned Chabot another grant to continue investigations in this field.
Increases in success have also been measured for students who regularly utilize learning support services in multiple discipline areas:
Success Rates in Courses Supported by Learning Support Services
Successful Students
9
Fall ‘07
Fall ‘09
Spring ‘10
52%
59%
62%
Compared to students who do not receive supplemental instruction, students in our Supplemental Instruction Programs succeed at
higher rates and withdraw at lower rates (See Academic Program Review and Action Planning – Year One form for details). Several
of these supplemental instruction pilots are receiving FIG funding through Title III and BSI, including:
• Learning Assistants
• Geography Supplemental Instruction
• Supplemental Instruction in History 27 and History 7
• Adapting a WRAC Course for History and Psychology
• Piloting Online Tutoring Methods
Looking more closely at the data from one of these projects, GNST 115 has been offered for History and Psychology students in Fall
‘09, Fall‘10, and Spring ‘11. This course is a faculty student tutorial based on the format of the ENGL 115 that provides direct
assistance for reading and writing assignments in these disciplines. With the initiation of this pilot, the number of visits to the WRAC
Center from these two disciplines increased markedly:
History and Psychology student use of the WRAC Center
Spring 2009, Fall 2009, Fall 2010
10
Analysis by Michael Thompson of the success data for History students using the WRAC Center revealed that success for students
taking History and receiving credit for GNST 115 was 14% greater than those not enrolled in 115 and was 23% greater than for those
who received no credit for 115. Taking GNST 115 and receiving credit for the course (primarily dependent upon session attendance)
leads to success in History. Additionally, concurrent enrollment in GNST 115 provided an 11% boost in History course retention
rates.
Surveys have also been conducted to assess the level of engagement in courses with Learning Assistants and whose instructors use
Reading Apprenticeship techniques (please see appendix). The survey results show higher levels of involvement with peers,
instructors, and the course material. While the impact of this as not yet been seen in success data, instructors in multiple disciplines
have reported that they see an increase in overall student performance (so while the same number of students receive passing
grades in the course, the successful students have higher scores/grades). Research shows that higher engagement levels typically
leads to higher success and retention rates, so this data will continue to be tracked.
11
The data generated from each Faculty Inquiry Group Project is presented to the Basic Skills Committee for analysis, for policy
considerations and for future planning.
Unit Accomplishments, Goals, and Objectives
ONGOING GOALS
Learning Assessment Office/Center for Teaching & Learning
The Center for Teaching & Learning and the Learning Assessment Office work to enhance student learning by providing faculty with
support for the assessment and modification of their teaching practices and the assessment of student achievement. These goals
align with WASC Accreditation Standards
• A.3 - Based on student achievement data, the school leadership and staff make decisions and initiate activities that focus on
all students achieving the expected schoolwide learning results and academic standards. The school leadership and staff
annually monitor and refine the single schoolwide action plan based on analysis of data to ensure alignment with student
needs.
• A.4 - A qualified staff facilitates achievement of the academic standards and the expected schoolwide learning results
through a system of preparation, induction, and ongoing professional development.
• A.5 - Leadership and staff are involved in ongoing research or data-based correlated professional development that focuses
on identified student learning needs.
12
•
•
•
•
•
C.2 - All teachers use a variety of strategies and resources, including technology and experiences beyond the textbook and
the classroom, that actively engage students, emphasize higher order thinking skills, and help them succeed at high levels.
D.1 - The school uses a professionally acceptable assessment process to collect, disaggregate, analyze and report student
performance data to the parents and other shareholders of the community.
D.2 - Teachers employ a variety of assessment strategies to evaluate student learning. Students and teachers use these
findings to modify the teaching/learning process for the enhancement of the educational progress of every student.
D.3 - The school with the support of the district and community has an assessment and monitoring system to determine
student progress toward achievement of the academic standards and the expected schoolwide learning results.
D.4 - The assessment of student achievement in relation to the academic standards and the expected schoolwide learning
results drives the school's program, its regular evaluation and improvement, and the allocation and usage of resources.
Center for Teaching & Learning
The overall mission of the Center for Teaching & Learning is currently driven by the desired outcomes of the Title III Grant: to
increase the success, persistence, and engagement of basic skills students by engaging faculty in active dialog and reflection about
teaching. As stated on the CTL homepage – we strive to advance teaching in order to improve learning. The CTL contributes to the
attainment of these goals by creating a campus environment in which cutting edge research (local, regional, and national) is shared
and teaching practices are observed, evaluated, shared, and modified in order to enhance student learning. To do this,
opportunities to learn techniques of reflective practice and to conduct research or implement pilot projects are provided and
methods for sharing both our successes and our lessons learned are being developed. Specific activities include:
•
Focused research projects that investigate a question that has arisen from programmatic review, with sharing of the inquiry
methods and results
•
Forums by which faculty can converse about issues they face, questions they ponder, and successful strategies they have
found
•
Annual thematic activities that provide a focus for looking at pedagogical practices
•
Recognizing and honoring great teaching.
Learning Assessment Office
13
The overall mission of the Office of Learning Assessment is also currently driven by the desired outcomes of the Title III Grant: to
increase student learning outcomes assessment at the course, program, and institutional levels. The office continues to:
• advance the development of all three levels of outcomes: at the course, program, and institutional-levels
• advance assessment in both qualitative and quantitative inquiries
• advance all stages of the assessment cycle: outcomes, assessment, reflection, action
• advance the use of results to improve the courses, programs and institution via improvements of a curricular, pedagogical,
resource-based , or other nature
• improve our institution with the inclusion of student learning needs in outcomes-based program review
• mentor discipline leads to lead the work in departments via the SLOAC committee and other venues, including disciplinary
and one-on one meetings
• report for internal and external audiences of our progress and our assessments of our processes
• educate, inspire the college on outcomes assessment
• vet an provide policies, guidelines, training materials, educational materials, forms, on all policies and uses of software
• hold the process to a high ideal of assessment for learning, transparency, thoughtful and deliberated faculty-driven
processes,
• respond to regional accreditation requirements for outcomes assessment and program review, lead the college forward in
our response
Learning Support Services
The ongoing mission of the Learning Connection’s Supplemental Instruction Program is to increase the success, persistence, and
engagement of students in courses across campus. Collaborating with faculty and staff across campus, we identify student needs
then design, implement, and maintain SI programs to meet them. Current research and outcomes assessment guides decision
making. WASC accreditation standards 1 and 2 speak to our goals:
1. The institution….organizes its key processes and allocates its resources to effectively support student learning.
2.a. The institution identifies and seeks to meet the varied educational needs of its students through programs consistent
with their educational preparation and the diversity, demographics, and economy of its communities. The institution relies
14
upon research and analysis to identify student learning needs and to assess progress toward achieving stated learning
outcomes.
2.b. The institution utilizes delivery systems and modes of instruction compatible with the objectives of the curriculum and
appropriate to the current and future needs of its students.
2.c.1.The institution provides students and personnel responsible for student learning programs and services adequate
access to …learning support services, regardless of their location or means of delivery.
The Learning Connection’s 2009-2010 unit plan sets forth the following more specific objectives: lay the foundation for Program
Review; participate in planning the renovation of Building 100; eliminate the need for waitlists; promote the hiring of a Dean for the
Library & Learning Connection; and create a data set that can be used to assess learning outcomes.
This year’s completion of program review integrating both qualitative and quantitative data marks the completion of our goal to
fully implement Program Review and create a data set that can be used to assess learning outcomes. The LC has worked closely with
building 100 stakeholders to revise plans and hopes to break ground Summer 2011. We have been unable to eliminate our waitlist
as the current budgetary situation hinders our ability maintain adequate numbers of tutors to meet demand. Though we continue
to promote the institutionalization of the Learning Connection, budget constraints hinder the hiring of a Dean to oversee The
Learning Connections and Library.
In addition to the aforementioned goals, we’re involved in a number of innovative pilots, described under “Accomplishments” and
have made a number of improvement to our programs in response to learning outcomes assessment.
For a full description of our plans in response to outcomes assessment, including timelines, see accompanying “Academic Program
Review and Action Planning--Year One.”
15
ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Center for Teaching & Learning
It is difficult to quantify the change and support that the CTL provides. It is easier to state what will disappear if funding for the CTL
disappears, but that begs the question of the value and impact of the CTL. The CTL has been a critical part of the institutional team
that has fostered and supported the culture of inquiry cited in the Accreditation Report. As a working team of faculty, the CTL has
endeavored to be present in major committees, bringing a particular attitude, a base of information, and a commitment to
improving student learning and success in every venue. Working together with key leadership across the campus, the team involved
with the CTL facilitates change that supports students and faculty, and strives to improve campus climate and culture daily. A look at
the accomplishments of the CTL over the past year also shows what will be lost if funding is not provided.
Key Research Endeavors and Findings:
Between Fall 2008 and Fall 2010 BSI and Title III have sponsored 27 Faculty Inquiry Groups investigating questions in all college
divisions, and 10 projects offering direct support to students or faculty training. These endeavors are documented, with research
results are available on the CTL website. Many have been reported on in college meetings. In several cases, the research has been
presented at regional and, in some cases, national conferences.
• Research and analysis of pathways for students, series duration, loss points, acceleration models, etc.
• Research and analysis of the decision and support frameworks for matriculation
• Reading Apprenticeship training and mentoring for faculty
• Research and analysis of assessment and placement practices and policies
• Pilots of group and peer counseling
• Supplemental instruction and direct support methods in science and social science disciplines
• Case studies with Basic Skills English students, causal factors in success and retention
• Examination of various approaches to tutoring and interventions in mathematics
• Efficacy of learning assistants and tutors
• Assessment practices in critical thinking, global & cultural involvement, and speaking
• Practices for generating adjunct involvement in SLO writing and evaluation
• Delivery methods and techniques for online tutoring
16
•
ESL Program and Curriculum Development
Center for Teaching & Learning Website
• Framework and layout for site developed in Spring 2009
• Skeleton site went live in May 2009
• Sharing of Faculty Inquiry Group questions asked, investigations conducted, and discoveries made. Promote and support
sharing of this information at campus meetings and events, through videos, and at outside conferences.
• Campus calendar of professional development events developed and continuously updated.
• Established “Virtual CTL Library” containing links to articles on teaching and learning topics as well as descriptions of books
available for check-out from the CTL office.
• Cognition pages containing links, Book Club activities, a Book Club blog, and workshops offered.
• Expanding list of links to other Teaching and Learning Centers around the country that have useful tools and materials
posted.
• Publication of the Great Teachers Award recipients profiles.
• Electronic publication of the CTL newsletter Faculty Focus
Research resources to establish and expand CTL knowledge and activities
• Conducted virtual visits to 20+ centers across the country at variety of schools (Spring 2009, Fall 2010)
• Attended conferences with CTL development/learning theory focus: Innovations 2009, Student Success Conference 2009,
Professional & Organizational Development (POD) Network Annual Conference 2009 and 2010, POD Organizational
Development Conference 2011, 3csn LINKS Conference on Student Completion 2010, Reading Apprenticeship STEM training
2010. The CTL endeavors to send at least two people, and when the conference is local, to send teams of faculty and staff to
conferences. In the absence of state budget funding for professional development, Basic Skills and Title III have funded these
efforts, which have been critical in supporting the inquiry-based culture here at Chabot.
• Participate in POD Network listserv to engage in conversations with professional development coordinators at other
campuses.
• Research in books and journals to provide faculty with up-to-date information on current theory and practice in specific areas
of higher education.
17
Hold college-wide symposia where faculty/counselors share the progress and results of their projects
• Flex-day, October 2009 - FIGs sharing their project work:
o Reading Apprenticeship
o Global & Cultural Involvement
o Learning Assistants
• Faculty Forum, February 18, 2010 (video recordings to be shared online) – FIGs sharing their project work:
o Critical Thinking
o Involving Adjuncts in the SLO Process (Art SLO FIG, Business SLO FIG)
o Physical Science Study Skills
o Global & Cultural Involvement
o Peer Tutoring in Geography
o Writing in ESL – The Use of Personal Narratives
• Faculty Forum (in conjunction with the FIN Network Conference), March 3 & 4, 2011 – FIGs sharing their project work:
o Assessing Student’s Speaking Skills
o ESL Curriculum Review
o Learning Assistants
o Reading Apprenticeship
• CTL newsletter, Faculty Spotlight, containing articles focused on individual faculty and FIG work:
o December 2009
o December 2010
• Presentation of FIG and other project findings to the Basic Skills Committee (with video recordings to be posted online)
o Assessment at Chabot – September 22, 2009
o Early Decision Program Expansion – September 22, 2009
o Supplemental Instruction in History – October 13, 2009
o Sharing Instructional Methods in Math – October 13, 2009
o Peer Tutoring in Geography – October 27, 2009
o New Pedagogical Approaches in Social Sciences – October 27, 2009
o Study Skills in Physical Sciences – November 10, 2009
18
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
ESL Student Learning Outcomes: Adjunct Involvement – December 8, 2009
Jumpstart – February 23, 2010
Math and Basic Skills: Curriculum & Technology – March 23, 2010
ESL Curriculum Evaluation – April 13, 2010
General Studies 115 for Social Sciences – April 27, 2010
Research Skills in Social Science – September 14, 2010
Learning Assistants – October 12, 2010
Reading Apprenticeship – September 8, 2009, March 9, 2010, November 30, 2010
Conduct training for faculty and counselors in learning theory, curriculum design, effective pedagogy, and assessment practices
o Workshop on assessment on Flex Day, October 2009
o Thirteen workshops on assessment techniques held in Fall 2009
o Fourteen workshops on assessment techniques held in Spring 2010
o Three workshops on assessment techniques held in Fall 2010
o Twenty-five workshops for adjunct faculty held on developing, assessing, and recording student learning outcomes
(Fall 2009) - 142 faculty attended
o Ten workshops for adjunct faculty held on developing, assessing, and recording student learning outcomes (Spring
2010) –approximately 35 faculty attended (sign-in sheets incomplete)
o Seven workshops on Cognition & Learning held in Fall 2010
o Guest Speaker on Cognition & Learning will present the keynote at Flex Day on March 3, 2011.
Sponsor Faculty & Staff Participation in State and National Conferences related to Improving Student Success
o Innovations 2009 (Reno, NV) – 3 attendees
o Student Success Conference 2009 (San Francisco, CA) –11 attendees
o Professional & Organizational Development Conference 2009 (Houston, TX) – 2 attendees
o Great Teachers Seminar 2009 (Santa Barbara, CA) – 4 attendees
o WASC Level 1 Assessment Retreat, September 2009 – 3 attendees
o 3csn LINKS Conference on Student Completion, April 2010 (Berkeley, CA) – 3 attendees
o Reading Apprenticeship Institute for STEM Teachers, June 2010 (San Francisco, CA) – 6 attendees
19
o
o
o
o
o
Student Success Conference 2010 (Orange County, CA) – 6 attendees
Professional & Organizational Development Conference 2010 (St. Louis, MO) – 1 attendee
WASC ARC , April 2010 – 1 attendee
Great Teachers Seminar 2010 (Santa Barbara, CA) – 4 attendees
Professional & Organizational Development Network Organizational Development Institute, January 2011 (San
Francisco, CA) – 3 attendees
Office of the Learning Assessment Coordinator
Regarding our progress on the goal to develop student learning outcomes and appropriate assessments at the course, program and
college level, we continue to have exceptional success. SLOs were made a priority of the Title III Grant team in 2009 and 2010, and
this is an investment that has already paid off handsomely. The Grant team works closely and collaboratively together, and in 2010
the Activity Director, the Center for Teaching & Learning Coordinator, and the Coordinator of Institutional Research all supported
the Student Leaning Outcomes and Assessment Cycle committee in hosting workshops and providing guidance in the development
of a culture which values assessment of student learning.
In October of 2009, Chabot hosted a WASC Accreditation visitation, and in January of 2010 Chabot had its accreditation reaffirmed
with a recommendation to accelerate the SLO timeline. We were aware of this need, as it was Strategic Plan Goal 14 in addition to
being a focus of this Grant. With our introduction of program-level outcomes and matrixes, we moved from the Awareness to the
Development stage of the WASC SLO rubric.
The chair position of the Student Learning Outcomes and Assessment Cycle committee is supported by this Grant, and this was a
very productive year for the highly dedicated committee. We drafted policy, forms, researched PLOs and websites, built the website
into the excellent resource it is today, and hosted faculty workshops. In the Fall of 2010 we recruited 6 new members, and now we
average 2 members per discipline, plus Counseling and Special Services, and Administration representatives. The committee and the
workshops were at first heavily supported by other members of the Title III Grant team, but as the committee grew and mentored
new members, those team members were able to move on into other committees which support grant initiatives: Basic Skills, and
Staff Development.
20
In the year 2010, we had four Faculty and Staff Development (Flex) days devoted to SLOs, and many more workshops on SLOs and
our assessment recording software, eLumen. We trained half of our adjunct faculty (~150 people) in addition to many of our fulltime faculty in these workshops. We continued to support the Physical Education department with a Faculty Inquiry Group, this
time to lead the large discipline (with 200 courses) forward in assessment and PLO writing. We are supporting the development of a
Faculty Inquiry Group which will pursue Qualitative Assessment. We developed excellent forms and processes for Course
Assessment Plans, and 40% of our disciplines have attended workshops or agreed to pilot them.
Other highlights include:
• We moved from 84% of courses having course-level outcomes to 88%, realizing that with every new semester new courses
are added that require outcomes.
• We moved from most classes having one outcome each, to 50% having 3-4 outcomes, all with analytic rubrics.
• 65% of disciplines completed Course-level Assessment schedules, taking on the ownership and responsibility for assessment
within their own disciplines.
• We moved from 11% of courses having assessment to 42%.
• We moved from 3% of programs /disciplines having program-level outcomes defined and matrixed to course-level outcomes,
to 49%.
• We moved from 2 out of 5 of our College-wide Learning Goals being piloted in assessment practices, to 3 out of 5.
• The 40% of courses that have assessment are now beginning to record discussions in which they have “closed the loop”.
• The college successfully responded to WASC Accreditation recommendation #2 that we develop and begin to implement a
clear and systematic process for program review that includes outcomes assessment, and is used by the institution to make
improvements at the course, program, and institutional levels.
The Title III Learning Assessment Coordinator participated in the Inaugural class of the WASC Assessment Leadership Academy, with
the College’s sponsorship. This excellent program has provided an expansive education in the history of assessment in America,
academic leadership, program review, and assessment for learning. The Learning Assessment Coordinator’s office now holds 15
books and many more articles on assessment that have been shared with the campus. The LAC is presenting at WASC Academic
Resource conference in April of 2011 on the Academy itself, and, with the CTL Coordinator, on developing a culture of learning.
21
The most exciting change however has probably been our shift away from speaking about assessment to meet accreditation needs,
to encouraging and inspiring faculty to begin using assessment to improve student learning. With the leadership and support from
the Center for Teaching & Learning, we have offered workshops in practices for developing a learner-centered classroom, applying
knowledge of practices that support learning, and assessment for higher levels of cognition. We believe these practices bring us
forward on the most meaningful and productive path for Chabot’s assessment practice.
Supplemental Instruction Programs:
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 Supplemental Instruction. 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. In its first semester of implementation we have
• Revised our LA brochure
• Hired tutors to meet increased demand
• Coordinated with Student Services to open PATH longer to meet Project Excel needs
• Trained Project Excel staff in how to run the front desk at PATH
• Provided training to project excel tutors and LA’s
• Met regularly with Student Services and ESL to problem solve
Online Tutoring FIG Pilot:
• Expanded offerings to include Business and History.
• Built infrastructure: CC Confer, E-SARS
• Investigated state law, line of sight supervision
Learning Assistants FIG:
22
•
In collaboration with IR, expanded learning outcomes data to include a student survey (See attached results “Chabot
College Student Engagement in Learning: Learning engagement and outcomes with Learning Assistant: Spring 2010”
and “Chabot College Student Engagement in Learning: Learning Engagement and Outcomes with Learning Assistant:
Fall 2010”)
• Expanded learning outcomes assessment to include feedback from LA’s and instructors who use LA’s (See attached
“Responses from Instructors: Assessment of Learning Assistants” and “ Tutor Feedback: Responses from Learning
Assistants”)
• Along with Fire Tech, presented program results at the Faculty Inquirye Network Conference, March 4-5
• Presented LA program to Basic Skills committee November 9, 2010.
• Revised LA training in response to feedback from instructors, embedding LA’s into subject specific TUTR 1B’s
Assessment of Learning Outcomes:
• Revised SLO’s for TUTR 1A and 1B
• Assessed one SLO using eLumen rubric in TUTR 1B
• Expanded data to include LA instructor feedback, tutor feedback, and student feedback, and LA feedback.
• Updated SARS and ClassWeb data comparing the success of students who receive SI to those who do not (See
attached “Student Success” and “Student Success: Basic Skills”)
Program Review:
• Completed Program Review
Cross-Campus Faculty and Staff Collaboration:
• Met with DSPS coordinator to discuss alternatives and devise a plan to meet needs of DSPS students within our current
budget.
• Met with IT to build rapport.
• Met with EOPS to build rapport and discuss shared goals
• Created new online form for requesting additional tutoring hours to be used by DSPS, EOPS, Aspire, and Project Excel
• Visited Math and Science Division to explain new Program Review forms
• Visited Life Science Department to discuss the Life Science tutor training program.
• Visited counseling to build rapport and discuss SARS.
23
• Met with faculty across campus individually.
• Developed plans to meet CAS student needs in response to closing of CAS labs.
• Answered faculty emails promptly.
• Collaborated with student services and ESL to implement Project Excel grant.
• Met with instructors who use LA’s in the classroom to revise assessment tool and discuss Title III reporting.
• Met with TUTR 1B instructors to revise tutor policies and construct timelines.
Tutor Hiring and Training:
• Created a Tutor Training Handbook available in print and online.
• In response to outcomes assessment, redeveloped TUTR 1A to provide differential training to new and experienced tutors,
dividing the course into two sections, one for 1st and 4th semester tutors and the other for 2nd and 3rd semester tutors.
• Created a Hiring Checklist
• Oriented each tutor applicant prior to hiring.
• Expanded Assessment to include survey feedback from tutors.
Tutoring Labs: (see also sub-division Program Reviews for the WRAC center, Math Lab, and Communications Lab)
• In response to feedback, re-housed Speech Communications in a room with a door. Communications lab continues to
track usage of new lab.
• Expanded WRAC’s 115 offerings to include History and Psychology.
• Moved Math Lab to a new site.
Tutoring:
• Eliminated colored folders and DSPS checkboxes to preserve anonymity of DSPS students
• Extended soft skills training of new tutor.
• Followed-up on tutor reports
• Maintained waitlist
• Offered drop-in tutoring when tutees cancel to meet demand for tutors
• Revised Policies and Procedures
• Updated forms and websites
• Build rapport with tutors
Building 100:
24
•
Collaborated with divisions across campus to revise plans according to stake holder needs.
Service:
Providing timely, efficient support to students who come to our labs and maintaining our infrastructure continues to be a challenge.
Due to staffing constraints, the hours when students can schedule appointments have been cut back. Consequently, during peak
times, students wait up to three hours to make an appointment. Also, the hours we offer tutoring have been cut back. Currently,
we employ 102 tutors, down 150. Elaborate payroll procedures and lack of SARS support in implementing changes to the program
further impede our ability to serve students and have led to inaccurate reporting. Juggling multiple responsibilities, staff members
work to the best of their ability to maintain our programs, often skipping breaks and handling complaints when service breaks down.
In addition to their regular responsibilities, they did the following this year:
• Worked with district and the vender to maintain SARS and correct reporting.
• Maintained waitlist, personally calling students when spots opened.
• Revised payroll procedures to meet district requirements.
Student Learning Outcomes
Supplemental Instruction Programs:
Our assessment of student learning outcomes has broadened to include qualitative data, the results of which guided changes we
continue to make to our programs.
Means of Assessment:
Student, instructor, tutor, and LA surveys, eLumen rubrics, and student success data from ClassWeb and SARS
Timeline:
The Learning Connection has fully assessed SLO’s and is in the process of closing the loop.
• 2009-2010 TUTR 1A and 1B eLumen assessment partially completed
• 2010-2011: student, tutor, and instructor surveys completed
25
• 2009-2011: SARS and ClassWeb success data updated
• 2011-2012: Complete eLumen rubric assessment
Responsibilities:
The coordinator of the Learning Connection works with IR, instructors who have LA’s, and TUTR 1B instructors to write and assess
learning outcomes.
Results:
TUTR 1A and 1B eLumen Rubrics: Assessment using eLumen rubrics is incomplete. One SLO was fully assessed in TUTR 1B and
entered into eLumen. Data indicates tutors would benefit from further training in how to help students overcome specific stumbling
blocks.
Tutor, LA, and Instructor Surveys: Assessment using surveys is complete. Results validate the quality of our tutor training. With few
exceptions, tutors indicate they receive the support they need to meet student needs. (See attached survey results). Instructor
surveys confirm these results.
Success data: validates the efficacy of our SI programs in increasing student success and persistence. Compared to student who did
not receive SI, student in our programs successfully completed their courses at rates 5-20% higher depending on the course (See
attached Success data).
See attached “Academic Program Review and Action Planning—YEAR ONE” form for details and planning.
Service Area Outcomes
Center for Teaching & Learning
In order to enhance learning the CTL strives to provide professional development opportunities that
• present faculty with current theories and best practices in higher education that provide insights into the effectiveness of
their teaching practices.
• allow faculty to utilize different approaches to developing and evaluating their current teaching practices.
• encourage faculty to utilize a wider variety of pedagogical techniques when presenting material in their courses.
26
•
inspire a campus culture of inquiry and innovative teaching.
Our campus culture necessitates a multi-pronged approach to professional development, one that incorporates both grass-roots
efforts that originate within departments and disciplines and one that provides a campus-wide and interdisciplinary focus. Both of
these approaches should be grounded in research data and reflected in campus discussions and policy decisions.
Evaluation of these goals will be done through workshop/event surveys and the faculty and student surveys.
We will also examine the ways in which findings from Faculty Inquiry have impacted campus processes (curricular changes,
assessment practices, data driven evaluation practices, etc.)
Supplemental Instruction Programs:
The Learning Connection’s Supplemental Instruction Program’s assessment of SAO’s is in the developmental stage. Coordinators
and staff are currently considering a draft proposal of SAO’s and a timeline to proficiency. Accreditation recommendation #3 speaks
to our ongoing work in this area:
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.
Assessment of SOA’s is needed to meet the recommendation.
Planned Means of Assessment: Feedback Questionnaire
Timeline to 2012 Proficiency:
• 2010-2011: Write SOA’s, create and begin administering questionnaire
• 2011-2012: Revise SOA’s and Questionnaire if needed, close the loop, and incorporate results into planning
27
See accompanying “Academic Program Review and Action Planning—YEAR ONE” for details.
Unit’s Support for College-Wide Learning Outcomes
Faculty Inquiry Groups have developed assessment methods that can be used by faculty in all disciplines to assess several of our
College-Wide Learning Outcomes: Speaking Skills (Communication), Reading Skills (Communication), Global & Cultural Involvement,
and Critical Thinking.
Faculty Inquiry Groups and BSI sponsored direct student support efforts are investigating methods by which to teach our students
the skills contained within our CWLG:
1. Reading Apprenticeship has trained over 40 faculty in techniques to enhance students reading skills within disciplines. (CWLG
– Communication)
2. Student Research Symposium brings the skills of library research to the political science classroom to enhance students’ skills
in locating, interpreting, and communicating information. (CWLGs – Communication, Global & Cultural Awareness)
3. Tutoring and Peer Mentoring Programs provide training for the tutors in interpersonal skills and enhance both their
leadership potential and their college success skills. They become involved in campus activities through their service to
fellow students. (CWLG – Communication, Development of the Whole Person, Civic Engagement).
Additionally, the LC’s Supplemental Instruction programs support students in mastering CLO’s and college-wide learning outcomes.
Tutor Training 1A and 1B SLO’s speak directly to the college’s learning outcomes: reinforce concepts necessary for course mastery in
the specific subject area being studied; overcome stumbling blocks to learning; model effective thinking process to solve or think
through a problem in the subject.
Budget Summary
28
Our current situation is cobbled-together from various grants (predominantly Title III and Basic Skills) and college funds. The longterm vision for the Learning Connection is the unification of all student learning support services under one roof (Building 100) with
a reorganization of the personnel and management structure. Therefore, we face two challenges. First, allocate funding to
adequately support the vital work currently being done from the very limited funding available, and second, to begin the transition
to the unified vision, which will commit additional funding over the next four years. Absent funding, both short- and long-term,
these programs will disappear. On the immediate horizon, the Title III grant mandates the institutionalization of the LAC and CTL.
Currently, BSI has paid for those costs. Limited BSI funding (from the 2010-11 allocation) is available for next year, using it to
support the LAC and CTL will mean that BSI will not be able to fund any FIG efforts, unless we decrease support for tutoring. We
have no expectation of state funding for BSI for 2011-12. The institutionalization of the CTL and LAC offices will also require funding
for the supplies, professional development activities, and conference travel that allow these coordinators (and other faculty working
on office activities) to conduct campus activities and to remain current with national trends (please see appendix for actual expenses
from BSI and Title III funds to support these activities in 2009-10 & 2010-11).
Proportional Funding Allocations from Title III and BSI Grants and the College
Position
Funding Source (minimums requested)
2010-11
2011-12
2012-13
2013-14 and beyond
CTL
0.5 FTEF - 100%
0.65 FTEF (10 months)
0.65 FTEF (10 months) 0.65 FTEF (10 months) – 100% by college
Coordinator
Title III and BSI
– 0.5 by grants, 0.15
– 0.2 by grants, 0.45 by 0.25 FTEF (2 months) – 100% by college
grants
from college
college
0.25 FTEF (2 months) – 0.25 FTEF (2 months) –
100% by college
100% by college
Learning
Assessment
Coordinator
0.5 FTEF - 100%
Title III and BSI
grants
Faculty
Inquiry
1 FTEF divided
among several
0.65 FTEF (10 months)
– 0.5 by grants, 0.15
from college
0.25 FTEF (2 months) –
100% by college
1 FTEF divided among
several faculty – 100%
0.65 FTEF (10 months)
– 0.2 by grants, 0.45 by
college
0.25 FTEF (2 months) –
100% by college
1 FTEF divided among
several faculty – 100%
29
0.65 FTEF (10 months) – 100% by college
0.25 FTEF (2 months) – 100% by college
100% by college
Groups
Coordinators
New Faculty
Learning
Community
Coordinator
Title III
Activities
Coordinator
faculty – 100% by
grants
0.3 FTEF – 100%
from BSI
by grants
by grants
0.25 FTEF – 100% from
college
0.25 FTEF – 100% from
college
0.25 FTEF – 100% from college
1 FTEF divided
among several
faculty
1 FTEF divided among
several faculty
1 FTEF divided among
several faculty
Hypothetically, this work would be
subsumed by the Dean of L&LC from
college
Budget allocated in Title III Grant for expenses of Activity Director, Center for Teaching & Learning, and Learning Assessment
Office.
Expense
Description
Travel
Project-specific travel for visits to
model programs at other colleges,
state/regional basic skills conferences,
Title III Symposia, and professional
organizations related to Coordinator
duties
Printing and reproduction of training
materials, program materials, posters,
displays, handouts, office supplies,
and books and professional/journal
subscriptions for Center for Teaching
and Learning and FIG Reference
Materials
Fees for Consultants and Speakers for
CTL activities
Supplies
Professional
Development
Year 1
2008-09
$3,000
Year 2
2009-10
$5,000
Year 3
2010-11
$5,000
Year 4
2011-12
$5,000
Year 5
2012-13
$5,000
$3,000
$3,276
$4,000
$4,000
$4,000
$4,000
$10,000
$6,000
$6,000
$6,000
30
To maintain the current level of service, the budget for tutors and learning assistants is $220,000.00
Staffing Requests
STAFFING REQUESTS – FACULTY
1. Learning Assessment Coordinator (0.65 FTEF for 10 months & 0.25 FTEF for 2 months, at a minimum, ideally 1 FTEF).
Rationale: This position is responsible for coordinating all academic assessment for the college at the course, program, and
institutional levels in both quantitative and qualitative assessment. This college serves 15,000 students and houses over 60
academic disciplines, and offers 700 courses a semester, which then differ across semesters. Not only does this position
coordinate activities, it is essential that it begins implementation of these activities so they can be performed routinely and in
a way that drives major decision-making at the college related to planning and resource allocation. The policies and
procedures regarding student learning assessment must be brought forth from the faculty via the SLOAC committee which
this position chairs and mentors, and then placed into existing college structures such as shared governance, curriculum
revision, program review, and top decision-making committees so that it is thoroughly institutionalized. The LAC also
provides reports to internal audiences to drive understanding and involvement, and to external audiences to protect the
accreditation status of the college.
Adding to the magnitude of the position is the pressure coming from the Regional Accreditor, WASC, that the college be at
the 3rd“proficiency” stage of the WASC SLO rubric by Fall 2012, one and a half years from now. As we were at the 1st
“Awareness” stage from 2002 to 2009, and only moved to the 2nd “Developmental” stage in 2010, it is extremely unrealistic
to think we would make the WASC-mandated “proficiency” stage without a serious drive by the entire college to accelerate
our efforts- as specified by WASC recommendation 1, that must be answered in the next year. Flex days must continue to be
31
slo and program review driven, the administration must help to support in asking units to complete work in a timely and
meaningful way, the SLOAC committee must continue to grow, and this position must be fully funded as 100% of load.
To think of this as other than a full-time position severely underestimates the scope and importance of this position.
Continued education, training, explanations, and mentorship is needed to institutionalize this huge undertaking. As systems
are set up and institutionalized and faculty resistance continues to weaken, the college may in years come to the 4th
“Sustainable continuous quality Improvement” phase on the WASC rubric. Only at that time should it be revisited that the
college may no longer require this position to remain at 100% of load. Furthermore, no individual should be asked to do this
job unless they are a seasoned faculty member who is receiving compensation and benefits, as is their right in a highly
stressful, dutiful, and thoughtful position.
The only failing of the current LAC was the inability to convince the college to fund the position adequately during her tenure.
Hopefully in the future an understanding will come to the college of the magnitude of the assessment undertaking.
2. Center for Teaching & Learning Coordinator (0.65 FTEF for 10 months & 0.25 FTEF for 2 months, at a minimum; ideally 1
FTEF).
Rationale: The planned professional development theme for the 2011-2012 academic year is “Creating Engagement” and the
tentative theme for the 2012-2013 academic year is “Investigating Your Teaching – the Scholarship of Teaching & Learning”.
Conducting the research on each topic, planning, coordinating, and presenting activities, and creating a virtual presence for
those unable to attend takes a considerable amount of time. With the additional duties required of the Staff Development
Committee Chair, 0.5 FTEF is not an adequate amount of release time in which to perform all of these functions, even with
assistance and support for the Faculty Inquiry Groups being shared with another faculty member. The base number of hours
to be worked for a 0.5 FTEF release is 328 hours. In Spring 2010, this base was exceeded by 102 hours, despite limited CTL
work during May. Title III funded an additional 85 hours for planning and development over Summer 2010. During the fall,
CTL coordination exceeded the base by 92 hours in Fall 2011 despite workload sharing. An anticipated increase in the work
of the Staff Development Committee with the influx of support requests from the new Program Review format will increase
the time demand.
Many tasks that are critical to achieving the goals for the CTL have been delayed or have yet to begin:
32
•
•
•
•
•
•
Working with district IT to host a video-streaming system that will allow for workshops, meeting, and teaching
demonstrations to be available for viewing asynchronously and securely.
Conducting workshops at the division and discipline levels in order to work with the cultural units on campus.
Working with professional development leaders on other local campuses in order to share and expand our knowledge
base as well as to share presenters and expertise.
Developing the teaching techniques section of the CTL website
Organization of the Faculty Forum (will be held in conjunction with the FIN Network Conference in Spring 2011, an
option which will not be available in the future, because FIN is ending).
Providing assistance to FIGs and working with them to determine how to apply their findings in a broader context and
to share/publish their results.
3. Faculty Inquiry Group Coordinators (1 FTEF, 10 months, allocated among multiple leaders).
Rationale: For this year, grants are providing this FTEF; however, there will be substantially less support from BSI next year,
and the Title III grant will end 9/30/2013.
4. New Faculty Learning Community Coordinator (currently 0.3 FTEF, 10 months; recommended 0.25 FTEF).
Rationale: For this year, BSI is funding this effort. However, we do not expect BSI support for future years.
5. Tutor Training 1B Instructors (1 CAH additional release time in addition to .5 for teaching TUTR 1B).
Rational: Faculty need time to participate in the interview process, train tutors, and collaborate with LC coordinators.
STAFFING REQUESTS – ADMINISTRATION
1. At this time, the Title III grant is paying for the coordination of the CTL, LAC, and FIG work. When the grant ends (September
30, 2013), presuming the level of effort continued this cost will need to be absorbed by the college. At present, this is 1 FTEF,
currently distributed among 3 people. The vision for the Learning Connection was to centralize the management of the
library, LAC, CTL, and all learning support services under the Dean of the Library & Learning Connection. A significant
commitment on the part of the college will be necessary to realize this vision.
33
STAFFING REQUESTS – CLASSIFIED & STUDENT ASSISTANTS
1. eLumen Specialist (20 hours/week)
o data entry of new SLOs,
o process and enter revisions to SLOs,
o field troubleshooting requests from faculty,
o track software updates and create new instructional guides as needed,
o train faculty in assessment results entry,
o assign courses for assessment each semester
o prepare data summary reports for Program Review
Rationale: It is commonly understood in the assessment world that is an institution adopts the use of a software for
assessment, it must have a dedicated staff member to understand, manage, set-up, enter assessment s into, provide training
and training materials, answer questions, and work with the software company regarding specifications for and responses to
recurrent systems upgrades. Faculty training will continue as the system is routinely upgraded, and our use of it expands
from CLO assessment to CLO analysis and reporting, PLO writing, assessment, analysis and reporting, and ILO assessment,
analysis, and reporting.
Much of the faculty frustration with eLumen was heightened by the fact that we were forced to rely on student assistants to
enter outcomes, and the work was sloppy and infrequent. We now have access to 20 hours a week from a staff member
who is very adept with the system and with answering faculty needs related to it. Additionally, this person updated and
enhanced a spreadsheet of CLOs, which was a very large undertaking. This spreadsheet was commended by the WASC revisiting team, as the college could use the spreadsheet to clear up confusion on the work that has been done and has yet to
be done, and to show the faculty that everyone is working on assessment now together.
If we lose the 20 hours a week dedicated to this position, it would seriously threaten the SLO effort and the faculty
participation therein.
2. Tutors and Learning Assistants.
Rationale: BSI and Title III have provided substantial support in recent years. This year the college allocated $100,000. This
support must be increased because of anticipated cuts to BSI funds and limited access to Title III funds. For 2011-12, we
34
expect less than $100,000 in BSI funds, which according to the BSI Committee allocation model would provide $50,000 to the
Learning Connection for direct support to students. In addition, Title III has been able to support the Learning Connection
through research inquiries around Learning Assistants. Due to the way in which our grant is worded, unless NEW pilots or
NEW research inquiries are proposed that meet grant objectives, no additional funding for learning assistants or tutors can
be provided EXCEPT for approximately $15,000, which is specified by the original grant budget for tutors.
3. 20 additional hours of Classified Staff for the Learning Connection’s Supplemental Instruction Programs
Rationale: Support is needed for the implementation of accreditation recommendation #3. Hours of operation have been
decreased from lack of staffing, impacting access to services. Please see “Academic Program Review and Action Planning—
Year One” for details.
4. Administrative Support is currently funded by Title III for 20 hours/week. This administrative assistant provides logistical
support, maintains documentation, and supports financial and administrative reporting. These tasks would become the
responsibility of the administrative support to the Dean of the Library & Learning Connection.
Action Plan for improving and/or strengthening the unit
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
35
Goal 1 – Continue to Utilize and Support Inquiry as a Method of Professional Development that Contributes to the Discovery of
Ways to Increase Student Success
The Institute for the Study of Knowledge Management in Education (ISKME), as the research partner and outside evaluator for the
Faculty Inquiry Network (FIN) grant project has concluded that Faculty Inquiry is a highly effective practice for both the professional
development of faculty and for the identification and implementation of practices that increase student success. Chabot is the hub
for Inquiry in California, due to our leadership on the FIN grant and the support received via Title III and BSI funding. The CTL will
investigate how inquiry based practices for professional development can be effectively sustained and expanded across campus as
grant funding for these projects recedes. Currently, faculty and staff can propose Inquiry Projects as a part of their Program Review.
How can we support these identified areas and apply their findings?
Goal 2 – Improve Student Success by Advancing Teaching to Improve Learning
Provide methods and data by which instructors will critically reflect on their program, curriculum, pedagogy, and assessments in
order to improve their teaching. This will include:
• Forums by which faculty can converse about issues they face, questions they ponder, and successful strategies they have
found;
• Presenting faculty with current theories and best practices in higher education that provide insights into the effectiveness of
their teaching practices;
• Guiding faculty through different approaches to developing and evaluating their current teaching practices;
• Encouraging faculty to utilize a wider variety of pedagogical techniques when presenting material in their courses
Goal 3 – Institutionalization of Successful Practices and Instructional Support Programs
The Title III Grant outlines the timeline for the institutionalization of both the Center for Teaching & Learning and the Learning
Assessment Offices. We will work with the necessary campus and district entities to accomplish this goal and to acquire the
necessary facilities, materials and conference funds, and administrative support to enable these offices to continue supporting the
learning of faculty. Findings from supplemental instruction pilots, tutoring programs, and several Inquiry Projects point to good
practices that increase student success. We need to being determining how to expand and, where warranted, institutionalize these
practices through integration into the curriculum and college budget.
36
See “Academic Program Review and Action Planning—YEAR ONE” for goals and timeline specific to Supplemental Instruction
Programs
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
1A - Focused research
projects (FIGs) that
investigate a question
that has arisen from
programmatic review,
with sharing of the
inquiry methods and
results
Varies by
project
Faculty Inquiry Groups
Funding from Title III
(and, if available,
BSI), beyond the
grants funding
needed from college
1B - Investigate
potential ways to
institutionalize Faculty
Inquiry Groups as a
form of professional
development
Completed
prior to end
of Title III
Grant
(09/30/13)
Research Project
Funding for release
Provide professional
time and/or stipends development to support
teaching, learning, and
institutional needs
1C& 2A - Inspire a
campus culture of
inquiry and innovative
teaching
Annual
Events
Workshops, Flex Day
Activities, Campus
Communications
Funding for CTL
Coordinator Position
and LAC Coordinator
Position
37
Person(s)
Responsible
Accomplishe
d? Yes/No/In
Progress
Increase the success,
Faculty working
retention, and
with Title III /BSI
engagement of basic skills grants
students and those using
Learning Support Services
Basic Skills
Committee, Staff
Development
Committee, Title
III Grant Team
Support effective
Title III
communication in the
Grant Team,
college around questions Institutional
of assessment, learning, Research
and instructional
practices.
YEAR
ONE
LEAVE
BLANK
2A - Provide methods Annual
and data by which
Events
instructors will critically
reflect on their
program, curriculum,
pedagogy, and
assessments in order to
improve their teaching.
Workshops, Flex Day
Activities
Increase the success,
retention, and
engagement of students
by improving programs
and teaching practices
CTL Coordinator,
LAC Coordinator,
Staff
Development
Committee,
SLOAC
Committee
3A - Permanent
facilities for
Instructional Support
Programs and
Supplemental
Instruction Programs
3+ years
Work with stakeholders and Institutional Planning Increase institutional
architects to design facility and Adequate funds effectiveness by
that meets user needs.
combining streamlining
supplemental instruction
services.
CTL Coordinator,
LAC Coordinator,
Title III Activities
Director, VP of
Academic
Services, Dean of
Language Arts
3B – Identify ongoing
means of financial
support for successful
student success
initiatives
3+ years
Fund the expansion of pilot Institutional Planning Increase student success
programs that have shown
by institutionalizing
strong results in increasing
successful initiatives
student success.
Basic Skills
Committee,
PRBC, Title III
Grant Team
Funding for CTL
Coordinator Position
and LAC Coordinator
Position
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)
38
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
39