Annual Program Review Update Program/Discipline: Science Transfer Prep September 12, 2007 Date: Trends and Relevant Data 1. Has there been any change in the status of your program or area? This is a new program. It originated as a response to clear evidence that students interested in majoring in science were not getting necessary lower-division preparation to enable them to transfer as juniors in their chosen field. A common scenario involves a student interested in science who takes a variety of GE science courses along with other lower-division GE, and then transfers to discover they have at least two years of lower-division math, chemistry and physics before they can enter upper division courses of interest. It became clear to science faculty that we were failing in our mission to prepare students for transfer to a 4-year college. The Science Transfer Prep program aims to 1) identify prospective science majors early; 2) direct them to a two-pronged advising system that includes a counselor whose expertise is navigating GE curriculum, and a faculty advisor whose expertise is navigating university major’s requirements, and 3) help the student prepare a coordinated academic plan that gets them started immediately on math prerequisites, expediently moves them through their other prerequisites, and results in their ability to transfer as juniors in a reasonable period of time. 2. Have there been any significant changes in enrollment, retention, success rates, or student demographics that impact your discipline? If so, please include data sheets (Excel or Word format) showing these changes. We cannot address significant changes but we do have some baseline data that address numbers of entering and exiting students impacted by this new program. Data for how many students enter CR with interest in the sciences stem from admission application surveys. These check boxes indicate that several hundred students per year are potentially interested in some science field. We also know that from 2001 through 2006 approximately 50 students per year transferred to HSU with interest in some science field (ranging from math through various biological and natural resource sciences but excluding transfers into psychology and nursing). If we try to look more specifically at the subsidiary disciplines we are hampered by data limitations. For example, not all science students need to take calculus (MATH 50), yet more than just science students take trigonometry (MATH 25), making it hard to assess whether enrollment, retention or success trends in that field are due to or impacting Science Transfer Prep students. 1 3. Occupational programs must review the update of their labor-market data, some of it provided by Institutional Research, to illustrate that their program: a. Meets a documented labor market demand, b. Does not represent duplication of other training programs (in the region), and c. Is of demonstrated effectiveness as measured by the employment and completion success of its students. Not applicable. While nursing and forestry are occupational fields they represent autonomous programs and the Science Transfer Prep program is not designed to serve the needs of those students. Other Resources 4. Do you have needs (professional development, library resources, and so forth) not previously required by the discipline or not previously addressed in budget or equipment considerations? Please describe. There are some concerns with the quality of library resources for students in the sciences. Information in the sciences becomes quite specialized, even in lowerdivision education, and all fields change quite rapidly. The library needs to do more than keep current copies of textbooks on hand; periodicals and periodical databases are a high priority. Of course, peer reviewed scientific journals are often prohibitively expensive. This issue needs further analysis by Science Transfer Prep faculty with input from students and library staff. 5. Does your discipline need additional support from Student Services beyond that previously provided? Like all other disciplines, our students would benefit tremendously from increased numbers of counselors. Counseling has reported to us that some intended science students do get counseling in their academic program, but many simply never speak to a counselor. The various GE requirements (CR, CSU and UC) are hard enough for the counselors to navigate. Coupled with the complexities of science major lower-division requirements, students need the expertise and guidance of both counselors and faculty advisors. Our students would also benefit from increased numbers of tutors with training in the sciences. Math does well here, but there are few places for students to turn when their difficulties are in chemistry, physics, or biology. Human Resource Needs 6. Complete the Faculty Employment Grids below (please list full- and part-time faculty numbers in separate rows): The data we need here are not available for all disciplines, and are compromised by the problems mentioned above regarding lack of concordance between students in a course in the Science Transfer Prep program, and verifiable Science Transfer Prep students. Also, MATH has prerequisites to the required majors courses that are taken by many students, not just Science Transfer Prep students (i.e., MATH 105 and 120; data for these curses are not included). Given these caveats, the data listed below are summations for Science Transfer Prep courses. Faculty Load Distribution in the Program Discipline Name (e.g., Math, English, Accounting) Total Teaching Load for fall 2006 term % of Total Teaching Load by FullTime Faculty % of Total Teaching Load Taught by PartTime Faculty Changes from fall 2005 Explanations and Additional Information (e.g., retirement, reassignment, etc.) BIOL (3, 4, 5) 9 100% 0% -6 TLUs; 100% FT Two sections BIOL 4 were offered in 2005 CHEM (100, 1A, 1B, 3, 8) 23 100% except for 1A 36.4% for 1A No change TLUs; 100% FT for 1A 1 FT instructor serving as Division Chair MATH 79 (25, 30, 45, 50A, 50B,50C, 55) 100% 0% +6 TLUs; no change FT/PT ratio 16 100% 0% No change TLUs or FT/PT ratio PHYS (2A, 2B, 4A, 4B, 4C) 127 TOTAL SCIENCE PREP -9 TLUs Decreased BIOL and CHEM offerings responsible Faculty Load Distribution in the Program Discipline Name (e.g., Math, English, Accounting) Total Teaching Load for spring 2007 term % of Total Teaching Load by FullTime Faculty % of Total Teaching Load Taught by PartTime Faculty Changes from spring 2006 BIOL (3, 4, 5) 16.5 100% 0% No change CHEM (100, 1A, 1B, 3, 8) 27 100% except for 1A 57.4% for 1A No change TLUs; 100% FT for 1A 1 FT instructor serving as Division Chair 89% 11% -11.39 TLUs; 100% FT Loss of FT faculty due to retirement 100% 0% No change TLUs or FT/PT ratio MATH 55.09 (25, 30, 45, 50A, 50B,50C, 55) PHYS (2A, 2B, 4A, 4B, 4C) 15 113.59 TOTAL SCIENCE PREP -11.39 TLUs Explanations and Additional Information (e.g., retirement, reassignment, etc.) Decreased MATH offerings responsible Do you need more full-time faculty? Associate faculty? If yes, explain why and be sure to include data sheets justifying the need. The data demonstrate that we are offering fewer Science Prep Courses, though for different reasons in different fields. : BIOL and CHEM section cuts were made because of low enrollment numbers, while MATH cuts were made because of lack of qualified faculty. The low numbers in BIOL and CHEM were at odds with the numbers of students declaring interest in majors requiring these courses. Anecdotal information suggested that better advising might help students realize which courses they need for their intended majors, and thereby boost enrollment in BIOL and CHEM Science Transfer Prep courses. The data also suggest that we are doing a good job teaching our courses with FT faculty, however this may be a problem in MATH where it appears that offered courses will fill, but qualified faculty are in short supply, thereby reducing section offerings. One concern that is not apparent from the above data is that there are courses required at some point in the lowerdivision career of some Science Transfer prep students that are not being offered on a regular basis. For example, 8 was not offered during this time period, and PHYS has very limited offerings during the current year (again, due to an unreplaced loss of FT faculty). 7. Complete the Staff Employment Grid below (please list full- and part-time staff numbers in separate rows: We cannot separate out the staff employed in the Science Transfer Prep program from general support for BIOL, CHEM, MATH, and PHYS, and for the Division as a whole. Staff Employed in the Program Assignment Full-time Part-time staff (e.g., Math, (classified) staff (give number) English) (give number) Gains over Prior Year Losses over Prior Year (give reason: retirement, reassignment, health, etc.) Do you need more full-time staff? Part-time staff? If yes, explain why and be sure to include data sheets justifying the need. 8. If necessary, to clarify your needs, please comment on current available staff and distribution of FTE's for contract and part-time faculty. Describe strengths and weaknesses of faculty/staff as appropriate to program's current status or future development. It will become increasingly difficult to recommend CR as a place for science majors to get lower-division coursework if we fail to offer the all the necessary courses for these majors on some kind of regular schedule. It has become clear that MATH and PHYS are especially constrained by the absence of sufficient numbers of qualified PT faculty, and thus these fields have been especially hard hit by loss of FT faculty positions. Facilities 9. Comment on facilities the program uses, their current adequacy, and any immediate needs. Have your discipline’s facilities needs changed? If so, how? Please provide a data-based justification for any request that requires new or additional facilities construction, renovation, remodeling or repairs. Many aspects of the facilities that serve Science Transfer Prep (walls, doors, cabinets, light fixtures, computer access, etc.) across the district are in need of repair, and all lecture halls and laboratories are not ADA compliant (height of desk/benches, width of aisles, etc.). We invested a great deal of time planning improvements, and eagerly anticipated update during bond-funded construction. The seismic issues that have since arisen have caused drastic changes in facilities plans, and yet there has been little communication (at any of the campuses) regarding these changes during the last year. This lack of communication prevents us from making any reasonable plans, in the short- or long-term, to remedy our facilities shortfalls. Equipment 10. Have your discipline’s equipment needs changed? If so, how? Is equipment in need of repair outside of your current budget? Please provide a data-based justification for any request that requires a new or additional budget allotment. Partnership for Learning Enhancement (and former Partnership for Excellence) grants have helped to improve some equipment used in the Science Transfer Prep program. However, we are not keeping pace with repairs, maintenance, replacement, or technical advances in our fields that are typically presented at the lower division level. Moreover, the suspension of the PLE program makes our meager progress unlikely to continue. For example, BIOL has new overhead projectors and videomicroscopes in some rooms through PLE funds, but there are no funds for regular servicing of dissecting or compound microscopes, no museum cabinets for most of the zoological specimens, and no thermocyclers or other genetic equipment typically used in a modern cell biology course. CHEM has a more ample repair and glass replacement budget, but no way to cover replacement of more expensive items such as spectrophotometers, which given their heavy use will eventually need replacement, and PLE funds are not an option. PHYS is in dire need of basic laboratory equipment, especially for 2B and 4B, which cover electricity and magnetism. Learning Outcomes Assessment Update 11. How has your area or program been engaged in student learning outcomes assessment? a. Summarize your results. b. What did your program learn from these results that enabled you to improve teaching and learning in the discipline? c. How have part-time faculty been made aware of the need to assess SLOs? We have not been explicitly engaged in program level student learning outcome assessment since we are a new program. However, the very inspiration for this program came from anecdotes from students, and CR and HSU faculty that our students were not arriving at HSU prepared to begin upper division coursework. These anecdotes were backed by data from HSU that indicated that only a few (1-3) CR students finished their degree programs within 8 semesters following transfer. Unfortunately, we don’t yet know how far beyond 8 semesters they required. On the bright side, CR students that transferred to HSU and graduated between 2001 and 2005 typically graduate with GPAs above 3.10, and have, on average, higher GPAs than all transfers or all students. More specifically, it is clear that our program outcome assessments are in part tied to those in BIOL, CHEM, MATH, and PHYS. As assessment strategies are further developed in these disciplines we will incorporate those that are relevant to Science Transfer Prep. Curriculum Update 12. Identify curricular revisions, program innovations, and new initiatives undertaken in the last year. Curriculum revision information is shown below. Many of the courses are in the process of undergoing course outline updates. Our goal is to have all of this completed by the spring of ’08. Much (if not all) of the Chemistry and Math courses can be updated this semester. However, the absence of a full-time physics professor makes updating the physics courses more problematic. 13. Identify curricular revisions, program innovations, and new initiatives planned for the next year. See Goals and Plans below. 14. Complete the grid below Course Phys 10 Phys 4A Phys 4B Phys 4C Phys 2A Phys 2B Math 25 College Trigonometry Math 30 College Algebra Math 45 Linear Algebra Math 50A Calculus I Math 50B Calculus II Math 50C Calculus III Math 55 Differential Equations BIOL3 BIOL4 BIOL5 Chem 100 Chem 1A Chem 1B Chem 2 Chem 3 Chem 8 Chem 152 Year Course Outline Last Updated 1996 1991 1995 1990 1999 1988 Year Next Update Expected Fall 2007/ 08 Fall 2007/ 08 Fall 2007/ 08 Fall 2007/ 08 Fall 2007/ 08 Fall 2007/ 08 12/9/94 Now 3/14/07 2012 2/20/98 Now 5/23/02 Now 5/14/02 Now 9/13/02 Now 9/16/02 Now 2005 2005 2005 1999 1999 1991 1999 1995 1993 2001 2010 2010 2010 F2007 F2007 F2007 F2007 F2007 F2007 Inactivate F2007 Goals and Plans 15. If you have recently undergone a comprehensive review, attach your Quality Improvement Plan if applicable. Not applicable. 16. If you do not have a QIP, what goals and plans does your area have for the coming year? Our goals for the coming year include the following: 1) Publicize the Science Transfer Prep program through counseling, Science Transfer Prep faculty announcements, advertisements in local media, and maintenance of a Science Transfer Prep kiosk in the Physical Sciences building. 2) Improve paper documentation of the Science Transfer Prep program, including creation of trifold flyers and program cards that can be easily picked up by students. 3) Define and start collecting relevant assessment data to measure program outcomes. This will entail: a. Better identification and tracking of incoming science students We need to know they are here, what their interests are (beyond admissions’ categories), which classes they are populating, and which schools they are transferring to. b. Definition of measures of program success These measures may include timeliness in finishing lower-division coursework, successful matriculation at a four-year school, and timeliness of completion of their degree program, and GPA in their degree program. c. Implementation of data collection strategies We will need to work with CR’s Institutional Research Office as well as the appropriate agencies within the four-year institutions attended by CR transfers. The dataset gathered from HSU has been an excellent starting point that with refinement can serve as a model for the data sets we need from all relevant institutions. d. Coordination of SLO assessment with subsidiary programs We will need to glean the appropriate program outcome assessment strategies from BIOL, CHEM, MATH and PHYS, as they work on similar tasks in the coming year. 4) Carefully construct a two-year schedule for the program that includes courses that are required for various majors but are plagued by low enrollment when offered too frequently (e.g., CHEM 8, PHYS 2B, 4A, 4B). 5) Complete the update of all Science Transfer Prep courses outlines.