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.