ANNUAL INSTRUCTIONAL UNIT PLAN
UNIT: History, Humanities, Philosophy
(department and including data for all three disciplines)
Please give the full title of the discipline or department.
You may submit as a discipline or department, as is easiest for your unit.
CONTACT PERSON: Richard Mahon
(department chair, humanities discipline)
Due: May 17, 2013
Please send an electronic copy to:
Vice President, Academic Affairs
Dr. Wolde-Ab Isaac at wolde-ab.isaac@rcc.edu
and send an electronic copy to your divisional dean.
Form Last Revised: March 11, 2013
Web Resources: http://www.rccd.edu/administration/educationalservices/ieffectiveness/Pages/ProgramReview.aspx
History, Humanities, Philosophy Sp 13 Unit Plan, page i
Instructional Unit Plan
Please retain this information for your discipline’s/department’s use (or forward to your chair). A database will be created and distributed
to the relevant councils and committees as requested.
The Unit Plan is conducted by each unit at the college and consists of an analysis of changes within the unit as well as significant new resource needs for staff, resources, facilities, and equipment. It should be submitted or renewed every year by mid May in anticipation of budget planning for the fiscal year, which begins
July 1 of the following calendar year.
Data sets are available on the Program Review website. Please consult with your Department Chair or Daniel Martinez daniel.martinez@rcc.edu for assistance interpreting the data relevant to your discipline. Also, review the course retention and success data provided at
http://www.rccdistrict.net/rcc-IE/accreditation2/self_study_2014/Data/Forms/AllItems.aspx
The data are disaggregated by gender, ethnicity, age, socioeconomic status, and delivery method (hybrid, online, face-to-face). Within these categories, course data
are further disaggregated by transfer, CTE, and developmental categories. Note that you are only required to mention data relevant to your analysis or requests.
Please utilize these data or data collected by your discipline to assess your goals and as rationale for resource requests.
The questions on the subsequent pages are intended to assist you in planning for your unit. The forms that follow are separated into pages for ease of distribution to
relevant offices, councils and committees. Don’t let formatting concerns slow you down. If you have difficulty with formatting, the Administrative Support Center
can adjust the document for you. Simply add responses to those questions that apply and forward the document to the Administrative Support Center with a request
to format it appropriately.
If you cannot identify in which category your request belongs or if you have general funding request questions, please contact the Vice President of Business Services, Charles Wyckoff at 951-222-8307 or charles.wyckoff@rcc.edu. Within each resource request form, a recommended contact person is listed to assist you
with estimating the cost of your requests. It is vital to include cost estimates in your request forms. Please cite the source for the cost estimates and indicate if the
costs are one-time or recurring. If the costs are recurring, provide cost of a service contract and length of time needed. Also, please indicate if grant funds have
been sought and denied. FAILURE TO PROVIDE COST ESTIMATES MAY RESULT IN YOUR REQUEST NOT BEING CONSIDERED. Please see Unit Plan
Rubric for the prioritization criteria. TO ACHIEVE MAXIMUM POINTS WRITE YOUR RATIONALES BASED ON THE RUBRIC CRITERIA. IF CRITERIA
ARE NOT ADDRESSED IT WILL BE GIVEN ZERO POINTS.
The college mission is available on the RCC home page, and the goals and strategies are available at
http://www.rcc.edu/riverside/riversidestp/files/Aug2012RevRCCStrategicPlan200914100510.pdf.
History, Humanities, Philosophy Sp 13 Unit Plan, page ii
Instructional Unit Plan Update
A. Trends and Relevant Data
What is your unit’s mission statement?
Responses in this document are based in part on the 2011 comprehensive programs reviews for history and philosopy and the 2013 program
review in humanities.
The three disciplines in the department of History, Philosophy, Humanities & Ethic Studies share a common mission statement: “The Riverside
City College Department of History, Philosophy, Humanities, and Ethnic Studies offers students rigorous instruction in humanist studies, leading
to a critically informed understanding of our traditions; and nurturing personal growth and reflection. Our department recognizes the central
role the humanities plays in any general course of study, providing the skills to think critically, evaluate original source material, and
communicate clearly and effectively. Learning about history, culture, and ideas provides students with the contexts needed to make informed and
successful decisions, tells us who we are as a people, and builds the personal sensitivity and public awareness that contribute to great individuals
and responsible citizens.”
The department’s mission aligns with the college mission because we teach a “diverse community of learners.” We help students “achieve their
goals,” and we offer “transfer level courses.” Our mission is highly compatible with that part of the college mission which states “the College fosters critical thinking, develops information and communication skills, expands the breadth and application of knowledge, and promotes community and global awareness.”
1. Has there been any change in the status of your unit?
a. Has your unit shifted departments? no
b. Have any new certificates or programs been created by your unit? The recently created American Studies Area of Emphasis was developed by a member of the department and includes courses from each of the three disciplines in the department.
c. Have activities in other units impacted your unit? Not significantly.
2. How have environmental demographics and external factors affected your discipline’s enrollment? If there have been significant changes, please
indicate those changes. Reductions in the college’s budget as a result of the ongoing recession have led to a significant loss of sections in all three
disciplines in the department.
3. In reviewing your unit’s enrollment data, does your unit have plans to improve any aspects of enrollment management (ex: persistence, scheduling patterns, etc.)? If your plan necessitates resource changes make sure those needs are reflected in the applicable resource request sections.
History, Humanities, Philosophy Sp 13 Unit Plan, page iii
80% of the department’s students test below college level in reading and writing skills. The department has among the lowest student retention
and success rates in courses offered by the college. The implementation of a course prerequisite for college-level reading and writing would
greatly enhance student success in our courses. Now that the Board of Governors has made the process of implementing perquisites based on advisory entry skills easier (via changes to §55003), the department would like to selectively implement new college-level prerequisites, which, we
believe would improve student retention and success.
We repeatedly hear that disciplines set course caps based on what is pedagogically sound—this is even stated in our Faculty Association Contract. Yet the disciplines in the department have never been able to set our own course caps. We are scheduled to teach in classrooms that have
more seats than the stated course caps of 49—some classrooms have close to 60 seats. These large classrooms are not conducive to student success in the best of circumstances, and certainly not when 80% of our students test below college level in reading and writing skills. If we combine
college level reading and writing prerequisites with a reduction in course caps to a maximum of 42 students to align with the course caps in
online sections, we believe that we would see significant improvement in student success and retention. Since the corresponding decrease in efficiency would impact the fiscal status of the college, a partial and targeted reduction in course caps to evaluate the impact on student success
would provide a means of evaluating the impact on these changes in a graduated way.
The rapidity with which class sections fill suggests significant unmet student need. This is no doubt shared with many departments and disciplines across the college.
Please report on the progress made on any of your 2012-2013 unit goals.
Previous year’s unit plans have articulated needs for student support services from outside of the disciplines in the department, e.g, increased
support via the Writing Resource Center and Supplemental Instruction. Those requests remain vital and unmet.
Our goals for last year were the same as those stated above. Without the support of the administration, we will not be able to attain these goals.
We would like desks removed from dedicated classrooms that have more than 49 (Quad 25, 202, 218, 228). From there we would like to proceed
to lower the course cap to 42 and to implement the course prerequisites described above.
4. Please indicate your 2013-14 unit goals and/or strategies. You may insert relevant information from your CIPR Targets Addendum and/or your
CIPR. Please include the needed support on the resource request forms along with the supporting rationale.
In the Comprehensive Instructional Program Review (CIPR) Targets Addendum, your discipline is developing strategies to improve or maintain students’ levels of achievement in course retention, course success, persistence, and program completion. What goals and/or strategies has your discipline set to improve student achievement for the academic year 2013-14?
History: The history discipline has developed and promoted multiple strategies for increasing student success in past comprehensive program review and unit plan documents. These strategies are dependent on resources from outside of the department that have not been forthcoming.
Humanities: The humanities discipline has long sought both appropriate prerequisites and increased access for students to the Writing Resource
History, Humanities, Philosophy Sp 13 Unit Plan, page iv
Center, and aside from piecemeal responses, the Center continues to be available primarily to students enrolled in English composition classes. The
absence of appropriate prerequisites means that students with inadequate skills enroll in classes, a situation over which the discipline has no control,
and thus no significant improvement is likely to result in student success metrics.
Philosophy: The philosophy discipline has not identified discipline-specific strategies for improving student success, but would benefit from the
strategies proposed by the history and humanities faculty.
CIPR addendum:
The disciplines of history, humanities, and philosophy, which are collocated in the same department and share a common departmental mission
statement, have reviewed retention and success data supplied as part of the Program Review update. For fall semesters from 2006 2011, we see the
following data:
RCC All
Retention
Success
History
Retention
Success
Humanities
Retention
Success
Philosophy
Retention
Success
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
7 yr avg
78.7
45.9
79.9
46.1
79.3
51.4
82.3
52.2
81
53.2
79.7
51.9
81.5
56.9
81.5
51.1
78.7
45.9
79.7
46.1
79.3
51.4
82.3
52.2
81
53.2
79.7
51.9
81.5
56.9
80.3
51.1
81.4
66.4
81.3
59.5
86.8
68.9
83.9
64.5
84.5
64.5
84.3
67.4
77.2
60.8
82.8
64.6
83.8
56
80.4
50.1
81.3
52.8
82.6
56.4
85.2
60.1
82
60.1
76.8
54.9
81.7
55.8
The college has established the five-year mean (84.5%) in retention and success (66.2%) as the baseline for future benchmarking. Both are already
above the seven-year average in both areas.
On reviewing the averaged data, the following appear to be the case:




Humanities have the highest retention (82.8) with the department followed closely by philosophy (81.7) and history (80.3).
Humanities has the highest success (64.6) rate in the department followed by philosophy 55.8) and history (51.1)
Both humanities and philosophy have retention rates (82.8, 81.7) slightly above the average for the college as a whole (81.5).
Humanities has a success rate (64.6) above the college average (57.8) while both history and philosophy are below the college average
History, Humanities, Philosophy Sp 13 Unit Plan, page v






(51.1, 55.8).
The widest deviation within the data would seem to be the success rate in humanities, which is perhaps to be explained by the fact that all
humanities classes function as electives among a wide range of courses that meet particular transfer requirements. This contrasts with History 6 and 7 and Philosophy 11 which account for many sections offered and are taken to meet very specific transfer requirements.
All three disciplines saw peak enrollments in fall 2009
For history, while retention has been fairly flat, student success has been gradually improving with a marked uptick in fall 2011.
For humanities, while retention peaked in fall 2007 and then declined in 2008-10 (hovering around 85%), and then declined by 7% in 2011;
student success peaked in 2007 and 2010, with a 7% decline in 2011.
For philosophy, retention peaked in 2009, while student success peaked in 2009, held steady in 2010, and dropped by over 5% in fall 2011.
The department is asked to set goals for academic years beginning 2013-14 in the absence of any data later than fall 2011, a two-year gap.
The department would set the following three-year goal, such that by spring 2016, the following targets would be reached:
Retention
Success
82%
53%
Humanities 84%
66%
82%
58%
History
Philosophy
Each of these goals is above the seven-year average but below the peak year(s) during that time period. In other words, the disciplines in the department are willing to try to approximate their own past best performance. Meeting these goals would put each discipline above average performance
for the college. Should the college prove able to provide some combination of the resources called for in this unit plan, the affected disciplines would
be willing to reconsider these targets in light of the resources received.
While some correlations might be pointed out, it is very difficult to establish any causal factor that explains the variations in data. Staffing has been
relatively stable within the department. The decline in the number of course sections offered may have pushed students into more sections that would
not have been their first choice, or entirely external factors related to the economic slowdown might explain some of the data, but that information is
beyond the read of the disciplines.
If faculty are to produce significant and sustained improvements in retention and success, something about the status quo must change. The faculty
cannot be expected to retrain increased numbers of unprepared students when class caps are high (49 students per section) and without any extradepartmental support from the Writing Center or via Supplemental Instruction. A widely quoted quip says, “Insanity: doing the same thing over and
over again and expecting different results.” The faculty in the discipline would love to see student success and retention improve, but something has
to change on either the input end, or the support students receive while they are enrolled, for the outcome to improve in a sustained way.
History, Humanities, Philosophy Sp 13 Unit Plan, page vi
The institutional context within which the department seeks to improve student retention and success must be noted. The college has a long history
of under funding. Prior to the equalization of community college funding undertaken during the Schwarzenegger administration, RCCD had the second lowest funding per FTES in the California community college system. As a result of low funding, the percentage of instruction provided by fulltime faculty has historically been among the bottom 10 districts in the state. Retirements in the department have led to a state in which half or more
of the instruction in the department is provided by part-time faculty, who are almost entirely divorced from institutional conversations regarding retention and success. Added to these factors, the fact that full-time faculty have been in the top ten districts in the state for salary and benefits means
that the resources available to support student support services are scarce. And finally, the explosion of hiring of administrators prior to and accompany the transition from a single college to a multi-college district means that post-equalization funding hat might have supported student success
went to hiring administrators, especially at the district level. Evidence for the college’s deep and sustained commitment to student retention and success would be hard to find.
Here are the means faculty believe have the greatest potential to improve student retention and success:
Key Performance
Indicator
Discipline Strategy
Improve Retention Increase use of interactive instruction
in
History, Humanities, Philosophy
courses
Planned Activity
Increased use of inter- Once excess desks are
active teaching meth- removed
ods
Increase use of SI in Deploy SI support in
order to increase stu- targeted sections;
dent metacognition of evaluate impact
learning strategies
Increase consistency
of methods of instruction and evaluation
especially related to
college level reading
and writing
Improve Success in Focus instruction on
History, Humani- student prepared to
read and write at
ties, Philosophy
close-to college level
courses
Timeline
Focused authentic
assessment projects
Leads
Performance Indicator
Resources Needed
FT History Faculty
2% annual retention in
relevant sections
Removal of Desks
As SI support becomes Mahon; Masterson;
available
Woods
2% Improved retention
in relevant sections
Fiscal support for SI
As support becomes
available
Improved retention &
success, esp. in sections
taught by associate faculty (50% of discipline
offerings)
Provide stipends for focused participation in assessment by part-time faculty
3% initial annual improved success rates
Policy & procedure for
establishing prerequisites
using content review
Full-time faculty to
partner/mentor parttime faculty
Selectively add pre- Once content review is All faculty teaching
requisites to classes
available as a method classes with new prewith low success rates of establishing prereq- requisites
uisites
History, Humanities, Philosophy Sp 13 Unit Plan, page vii
Decrease class size
Increased use of authentic assessment
based on reduced
number of students
As resources become All instructors (includ- 3% initial improved stu- Support for reduction of
available to shrink class ing part-time) with re- dent success in impacted class size
size
duced class size
sections
Increased access to
WRC
Increased reliance on As WRC access inessays written outside creases
of class
All faculty (including 2% initial increased stu- Student access to WRC
part-time) requiring
dent success in impacted
out-side-of-class essay sections
assignments
a. In addition to completion, the college has identified improving student-faculty interaction as a priority. What goals and/or strategies
has your discipline set to improve faculty-student interaction for the academic year 2013-14? This document is the first clear
communication of “faculty-student interaction” as a college priority, and thus the discipline has not established a response. Even working
as a discipline is difficult given the fact that half or more of the instuction of each discipline within the department is provided by parttime faculty. Part-time faculty members are not even obliged to respond to an email message, and certainly cannot be compelled to
participate in broader planning efforts. It is worth pointing out, however, that the department has sought to involve some part-time faculty
more deeply. The CAP World Religions section is regularly taught by a part-time faculty member in humanities, and the department
supported a part-tiime philosophy faculty member in teaching a honors section in spring 2013.
The participation of the disciplines both the CAP and Honors programs means some sections involve lower caps and teaching methods
that result in greater faculty-student interaction, but the college does not suppport that goal throughout the curriculum.
b. Are there other goals aligned to college goals your discipline is pursuing in 2013-14? What other goals is the college pursuing? How are
these goals communicated to discipline lead faculty?
B. Student Learning Outcomes Assessment Summary and Update
As a matter of good practice and in alignment with Accrediting Commission of Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC) standards, RCC faculty
participate in ongoing and systematic efforts to assess courses, programs, and degrees. Reports on specific assessment projects undertaken by
individual faculty or groups of faculty in your discipline should be referenced here, but the primary purpose of this update is to provide an overview of your discipline’s assessment activities (data, responses to data, results, reports, etc.) since your last unit plan update as well as your current plans for assessing student learning. Please note, since unit plans are completed during the spring semester, we are asking you to report on
the previous spring semester data along with the current spring semester plans.
I. Course-level Student Learning Outcome (SLO) Assessment Report(s)
The Riverside Assessment Committee and the Office of Institutional Effectiveness developed a process to report and store Course-level SLO assessment information. Upon completion of a Course-level SLO assessment project please utilize one of the two methods listed below for reporting
History, Humanities, Philosophy Sp 13 Unit Plan, page viii
and/or summarizing your results.
The fulltime member of the humanities discipline uses the following assessment method in all class sections on an ongoing basis. Students are
required to write multiple formal essays. They are provided an essay template, which elaborates on the assignment and provides multiple suggestions for improving the quality of the essay. It also addresses plagiarism in more detail. It includes standard formatting items like page numbers.
The instructor notes after the first essay how many students lost points as a result of failing to use or follow the instructions in the template. He
notes to the class the number of students (usually high) that lost points unnecessarily, and looks to see how many students repeat these errors in
subsequent essays, with the result that the number of essays with these deficiencies declines.
a. Enter into a Survey Monkey report at www.surveymonkey.com/s/Student-Learning-Outcomes, or
If faculty in your discipline/department have already entered assessment information into another format, it is not necessary to re-enter the information, simply send your documentation to sloassessment@rcc.edu Program-level Learning Outcome (PLO) Assessment Reports
The Riverside Assessment Committee and the Office of Institutional Effectiveness developed a process to report and store Program-level PLO assessment information. Upon completion of a Program-level PLO assessment project (Career Technical Education) please utilize one of the two
methods listed below for reporting and/or summarizing your results.
All courses in history, humanities, and philosophy are part of other, much broader programs and assessment of these programs does not take
place within either the discipline or department. Member of the department have been participating in initial efforts to assess program level
learning in the American Studies and Humanities, Philosophy and Arts areas of emphasis.
b. Enter into a Survey Monkey report at www.surveymonkey.com/s/Program-Learning-Outcomes, or
c. If faculty in your discipline/department have already entered assessment information into another format, it is not necessary to reenter the information, simply send your documentation to sloassessment@rcc.edu.
History, Humanities, Philosophy Sp 13 Unit Plan, page ix
II. Course-level Assessment Summary Spreadsheet
Please summarize the current status for assessment of all the courses in your discipline using the Course Assessment Summary spreadsheet.
Please indicate for each course on the Course Assessment Summary spreadsheet:
a. Assessment Status
b. Most Recent Assessment (Year)
c. Assessment Method for Most Recent Assessment
d. Next Planned Assessment (Year)
e. Faculty Lead (s)
Please contact Jim Elton at jim.elton@rcc.edu or (951) 222-8264 for your spreadsheet so that you may simply cut and paste here.
History, Humanities, Philosophy Sp 13 Unit Plan, page x
History, Humanities, Philosophy Sp 13 Unit Plan, page xi
III. Please answer the following Course-level SLO questions:
Please describe your discipline’s dialogue on assessment results. Where would one find evidence of this dialogue?
This unit plan is being submitted by a multi-discipline department (history, philosophy, humanities, ethnic studies). We regularly discuss assessment at department meetings, and the individual disciplines also meet and discuss assessment projects independently. We talk
about ways to assess student learning and what has worked in our individual classrooms. All of our disciplines have writing assignments
and use of primary texts as disciplinary requirements. We often discuss how well/consistently we are adhering to writing requirements in
our various courses. Department and discipline meeting minutes are evidence.
History, Humanities, Philosophy Sp 13 Unit Plan, page xii
For example: in Fall, 2012 one of the fulltime philosophy instructors collaborated with an English instructor in a Basic Skills Project. A
section of Philosophy 11 was used as the “site” for a writing workshop; this lead to increased student contact and data collection–the faculty hope to repeat the activity in the future. The project was reported on at a spring 2013 department meeting.
Beginning in the 2012-13 academic year, the department began sharing meeting agendas and minutes more formally with part-time faculty (in history, 8 out of 12 individual faculty members are part-time; in humanities the number if 7 out of 8, which in philosophy, it is
“only” 3 out of 5. Lack of compensation and scheduling conflicts prevent most part-time faculty from attending department meetings, but
at least awareness of the issues is enhanced if and when part-time faculty review minutes. Minutes typically also include the assignments
prompts, and tools faculty have developed to try to improve student success as they have been discussed at department meetings.
Please summarize what your discipline learned from your assessments. How does your discipline plan to use the results to improve student learning?
Faculty have discovered what works/doesn’t work in their individual courses and shared the results at the department level; whether quiz
questions make sense; whether assignments are easily understood, whether students comprehend the assigned readings, are just a few examples of what we have learned. Many conversations reinforce the suspicion that many students lack a basic understanding of the difference between rote learning—which they associate with high school and a depressing number even of RCC class—and courses that require
them to develop an opinion informed by critical analysis of evidence, and to express that analysis in college level interpretive writing.
The Humanities Comprehensive Program review was reviewed and commented on by almost all part-time faculty as it was being finalized in fall 2012 that student success is most impacted by students’ reading and writing abilities, but the improvement of these skills is
outside the expertise and scope of the discipline.
Assessment results in both history and humanities support the proposal to institute prerequisites and lower course caps. Faculty need to
have the ability to work individually with our students and to be able to take time not just grading assignments, but providing the kinds of
guidance that can actually help students understand how to improve. Large classes result in a circular and inefficient process of allowing
students to enroll in classes we know they are not going to succeed in because 1) they don’t have the sufficient reading and writing skills
and 2) because the classes are too big to require meaningful assignments because the time needed to properly review and assess students’
course work becomes prohibitive in classes of 49 students (X 5 = 245 students) for each full-time faculty member.
IV. Please answer the following Program-level PLO questions:
a. Please explain what steps your program has taken to map and align your PLOs with your course SLOs (Curriculum Mapping Exercise).
History courses were selectively revised in spring 2012 in response to a University of California demand for revisions; the course outlines were and remain linked to the now superseded RCCD GE SLOs. All humanities course outlines were revised in February 2013
and subject to the curriculum review process in spring 2013; the primary focus of this revision was to de-link course SLOs from the
History, Humanities, Philosophy Sp 13 Unit Plan, page xiii
‘old” RCCD GE SLOs and to re-link to the four new RCCD GE SLOs. Philosophy course outlines also remain linked to the older GE
SLOs, but have been selectively revised to meet C-ID requirements to support the discipline’s pending AA-T proposal.
b. How have you shared and discussed assessment results (e.g., through Community Advisory Committee discussions, discussions with
employers, interviews of graduates, program faculty meetings)?
The Department has conducted ongoing conversations on assessment methods as a standing agenda item at department meetings. Because the underlying skills (close and critical reading of primary texts, interpretive communication skills, both oral and written) are
common to the disciplines in the department, these conversations have been very valuable.
c. What are your plans for further Program-level PLO assessments in the upcoming academic year?
Several members of the department are involved with recently launched initiatives to assess student learning in the college’s several
areas of emphasis.
History, Humanities, Philosophy Sp 13 Unit Plan, page xiv
Instructional Unit Plan Update
C. Human Resource Status
Faculty and Staff Employment Grid based on the 2012-2013 academic year.
2012-2013: Faculty Employed in the Unit
Teaching Assignment (e.g. Math, English)
Full-time faculty
Part-time faculty
History
4
8
Humanities
1
7
Philosophy
2
3
2012-2013: Classified Staff Employed in the Unit
Classified Employee Title (e.g. IDS, Lab Assistant)
Full-time staff
Part-time staff
IDS (shared with several other departments)
<1
0
Faculty and Staff Employment Grid based on anticipated changes for the 2013-2014 academic year.
2013-2014: Faculty Employed in the Unit
Teaching Assignment (e.g. Math, English)
Full-time faculty
Part-time faculty
History
4
8
Humanities
1
7
Philosophy
2
3
2013-2014: Classified Staff Employed in the Unit
Classified Employee Title (e.g. IDS, Lab Assistant)
Full-time staff
Part-time staff
IDS (shared with several other departments)
<1
0
History, Humanities, Philosophy Sp 13 Unit Plan, page xv
Unit Name: History, Humanities, Philosophy (department)
1. Staff Needs
History, Humanities, Philosophy Sp 13 Unit Plan, page xvi
List Faculty or Staff Positions Needed for Academic Year.
Rank
1.
(N) = New or
(R) = Replace
Annual TCP*
Please list in order (rank) of importance. Please justify and explain each faculty or staff request
based on rubric criteria. (See APC Ranking Rubric for faculty positions.)
Full Time History Instructor (Replacement for Al Parker and Ron Yoshino): For several years, six
fulltime history instructors served RCC students. That changed dramatically following the spring
golden-handshake retirements of two faculty members, one of whom routinely taught 20 sections a
year (7/3/7/3, fall through summer). This is evident in program review data that shows 5.0 FTE contract faculty in fall 2009, 5.4 in fall 10, and a drop to 3.4, the lowest level on in program review data,
in fall 2011. For fall 2011, the FTE part-time figure is 3.0 while the overload figure is .4, thus fully
half of history instruction in the college is offered by part-time faculty. From fall 2010 to fall 2011,
this represents a decline of 38%. Only 44% of the discipline’s instruction was provided by full-time
faculty as part of their contract load. Not surprisingly enrollment declined precipitously as the college
used the retirement of those two faculty members to justify disproportionate reduction of sections offered, despite the fact that the discipline’s core offerings, History 6 and 7, are central to the transfer
pattern of virtually all students transferring to a CSU campus.
R
$50,948$78,497
Col. C, Step 1- Col.
H. Step 6
The discipline’s WSCH/FTEF for fall 2009 was 857.66; for fall 2010 it was 795.95; for fall 2011 it
was 749.88. Thus there is a clear correlation between the loss of those two faculty members and declining efficiency in the discipline, though it remains well above the 525 contractual target. The department expects the student demand for all courses to increase. Enrollment for a typical class is set at
49 students. An instructor in the discipline teaches 5 classes during both the fall and spring semesters
will serve 490 students as part of their contract load.
Full Time Humanities/Philosophy Instructor (new): Program review data clearly shows significant
reliance on part-time faculty in humanities. For fall 2009-2011, the number of FTE contract offerings was 1.0, .8, and 1.2, while the figures for part-time and FTE overload were 2.2, 2.0, and 1.2, thus
half or part-time faculty has consistently taught less of the courses in the discipline. This is driven
in part by the fact that the sole full-time appointment in Humanities has a long history of reassigned
time for duties including service as academic senate president, curriculum committee chair, and he
currently serves as department chair as well.
2.
The Humanities discipline’s WSCH/FTEF for fall 2009 was 759.82; for fall 2010 it was 677.21; for
fall 2011 it was 661.41. Efficiency is declining, though it remains well above the 525 target. The department expects the student demand for all courses to continue. Enrollment for a typical class is set at
49 students. An instructor in the discipline teaches 5 classes during both the fall and spring semesters
and will thus serve 490 students as part of their contract load.
For Philosophy, program review data that shows less reliance on part-time faculty than in humanities. For fall 2009-2011, the levelHistory,
of FTE Humanities,
contract offerings
was 1.95,
1.55,
while
thexvii
figures for
Philosophy
Sp 13
Unit1.6,
Plan,
page
part-time and FTE overload was 2.05, 2.25, and 1.6 thus half or fewer of the courses in the discipline
have consistently been taught by part-time faculty.
N
$50,948$78,497
Col. C, Step 1- Col.
H. Step 6
List Faculty or Staff Positions Needed for Academic Year.
Rank
Please list in order (rank) of importance. Please justify and explain each faculty or staff request
based on rubric criteria. (See APC Ranking Rubric for faculty positions.)
NEW OR REPLACEMENT STAFF (Faculty or Classified)1
History, Humanities, Philosophy Sp 13 Unit Plan, page xviii
(N) = New or
(R) = Replace
Annual TCP*
Unit Name: History, Humanities, Philosophy (department)
2. Equipment (excluding technology) Needs Not Covered by Current Budget2
List Equipment or Equipment Repair Needed for Academic Year.
Rank
1.
2.
Please list in order (rank) of importance. Please justify and explain each equipment request
based on rubric criteria.
*Indicate whether
Equipment is for (I)
= Instructional or
(N) = NonInstructional purposes
Rationale:
Rationale:
History, Humanities, Philosophy Sp 13 Unit Plan, page xix
Annual TCO**
Cost per item
Number
Requested
Total Cost
of Request
Unit Name: History, Humanities, Philosophy (department)
3. Technology (Computers and equipment attached to them)++ Needs Not Covered by Current Budget: 3
NOTE: Technology: excludes software, network infrastructure, furniture, and consumables (toner, cartridges, etc)
Annual TCO*
Rank
List Technology Requested for Academic Year. Please list in order (rank)
of importance. Please justify and explain each technology request based
on rubric criteria.
1.
Provide 17” replacement laptop computer for Cyn-D Gobatie.
2.
Provide new Macintosh computer for
Rom Masterson (instructor currently has
no college-provided computer.)
New (N)
or Replacement
(R)?
R
N
Program:
New (N) or
Continuing
(C)?
Location (i.e
Office,
Classroom,
etc.)
C
office
C
office
Is there
existing
Infrastructure?
yes
Yes
How
many
users
served?
Has it been
repaired
frequently?
1
yes
1
No current
computer
History, Humanities, Philosophy Sp 13 Unit Plan, page xx
Cost per
item
Number
Requested
Total Cost
of Request
$900
1
$900
$1,400
1
$1,400
Unit Name: History, Humanities, Philosophy (department)
4. Facilities Needs Not Covered by Current Building or Remodeling Projects*4
RANK
1.
List Facilities Requests for Academic Year. Please list in order (rank) of importance. Please justify and explain each facility request based on rubric criteria. Requests should be for remodels, renovations or added
new facilities and not basic repair and maintenance.
Rationale:
History, Humanities, Philosophy Sp 13 Unit Plan, page xxi
Annual TCO*
Total Cost of Request
Unit Name: History, Humanities, Philosophy (department)
5. Professional or Organizational Development Needs Not Covered by Current Budget*5
List Professional Development Needs for Academic Year. Please list in order (rank) of importance. Please justify and explain each professional development request based on rubric
RANK criteria. Professional or Organizational development needs may include workshops, guest speakers,
training on equipment and/or software, attending conference, training needed to comply with state
and/or federal regulations, and ongoing training in the field.
Rationale: Stipend to support participation of all part-time faculty (8 history, 7 humanities, 3 philosophy) in assessment activities. Six two-hour meetings per academic year @ $50/hour.
1.
2.
Annual TCO*
Cost per
item
Number
Requested
Total Cost of Request
$300
18
$5,400
$1,000
2
$2,000
Rationale: Associate faculty members teach a large number of courses in our department, utilize
department common assessments, and per ACCJC standards must be included in the dialogue for
the improvement of assessment. Since associate faculty are not required or compensated for this
work, the department would like to compensate them through a stipend. These workshops are critical for the completion of the assessment cycle and for faculty to use the results in helping students
achieve their goals.
Provide annual support for Professional Conference participation, two department faculty annually
History, Humanities, Philosophy Sp 13 Unit Plan, page xxii
Unit Name: History, Humanities, Philosophy (department)
6. Student Support Services
List Student Support Services Needs for the Academic Year.
RANK Please justify and explain each request based on rubric criteria. These are services needed by your unit over and
above what is currently provided by student services at the college. Examples of needs that fall under student support services are provided6.
EX
Annual TCO*
Our unit needs either a permanent part-time or reassigned Outreach staff member to assist our discipline with providing course, program and college
information to the local community, either through partner high schools, community based organizations and/or non-credit sites.
$0 if Reassigned
Time
Rationale: Based on enrollment data, the lower level courses in our discipline are typically cancelled due to low enrollment. However, based on our conversations with our community and as evidenced by the demographics, there is a demand and need. Potential students need information on how to enroll,
take placement exams, and understanding the sequence of courses and pathways to potential careers. They need this information prior to coming to RCC
to increase their likelihood of success.
$25,000 for Permanent part-time
w/benefits
1.
Rationale:
2.
Rationale:
History, Humanities, Philosophy Sp 13 Unit Plan, page xxiii
Unit Name: History, Humanities, Philosophy (department)
7. Library Needs Not Covered by Current Library Holdings7
RANK
List Library Needs for Academic Year. Please justify and explain each request based on rubric criteria.
These library resources are unit needs that are over and above what is currently provided by the library.
Please list in order (rank) or importance.
1.
Rationale:
2.
Rationale:
History, Humanities, Philosophy Sp 13 Unit Plan, page xxiv
Annual TCO
Unit Name: History, Humanities, Philosophy (department)
8. Learning Support Center Services
Total Cost of Requests
List Learning Support Center Services Needs for Academic Year. Please justify and
explain each request based on rubric criteria.8 If your unit is responsible for running a
RANK
learning support center such as the Writing and Reading Center, the Math Learning Center, Computer lab or similar learning support center please address those needs here. These do not include
laboratory components that are required of a course.
1.
Rationale: Institutionalize the Supplemental Instruction (SI) Program to provide SI leaders for our disciplines—History, Philosophy, Humanities, Ethnic Studies.
Rationale: Students in our disciplines have benefited greatly from the SI’s. In the 20072008 academic year, students who participated in SI had a 62.1% success rate in comparison to 24.7% who did not participate in SI, a difference of 37.4% between the two
groups. Students need the assistance of SI’s to succeed with course student learning outcomes. Faculty with SI’s have continuously expressed the benefit of receiving professional
development for SI instructional strategies and the in-class and out-of-class support SI
provides to their instruction.
2.
Rationale: Access for all history, humanities & philosophy students to Writing Resource Center.
Cost per
item
$2400
per semester
per SI
History, Humanities, Philosophy Sp 13 Unit Plan, page xxv
Number
Requested
Total Cost
4 SI’s x 2 $19,200
semesters
=8
Ongoing
(O) or
one-time
(OT) cost
Unit Name: History, Humanities, Philosophy (department)
9. OTHER NEEDS not covered by current budget
RANK
List Other Needs that do not fit elsewhere. Please justify and explain each
request based on rubric criteria. Not all needs will have a cost, but may require a reallocation of current staff time. Place items on list in order (rank) or
importance.
1.
Rationale:
2.
Rationale:
Annual TCO*
Cost per item
History, Humanities, Philosophy Sp 13 Unit Plan, page xxvi
Number
Requested
Total Cost of
Request
Ongoing (O) or
one-time (OT)
cost
Unit Name: History, Humanities, Philosophy (department)
10. MID-RANGE FINANCIAL PLAN: The Resources Council and Institutional Effectiveness Council have asked for information that will make it easier
for us to complete and update our Mid-Range Financial Plan. This information will help us to plan and to meet ACCJC requirements.
ITEM NAME
Ex
2015
The department requires an updated facility with state of the art equipment to meet industry standards and train students on the most current
equipment. This information is included in the CIPR from 2011.
X
History, Humanities, Philosophy Sp 13 Unit Plan, page xxvii
X
Other
Learning Support
Library
Student Support
Prof Development
(i.e. Facilities Master Plan, Comprehensive Instructional
Program Review)
Facilities
If no, where do you plan on putting this item?
Technology
If so, where?
Staff
YEAR
Equipment
Is the item referenced in another planning document?
Appendix
Instructional Unit Plan Update
Rubrics - Riverside City College
Appendix Table of Contents
Ranking Criterion for Faculty Position ......................................................................... i-iii
Resource Request Common Rubric ................................................................................ iv
Guidelines for Distinguishing between Equipment and Supplies.....................................v
These criteria and rubric apply to requests for faculty in Table 1. Ranking Criterion for Faculty Positions
Rationale Form for Faculty Positions based on Data Supplied in Annual Program Review
1.
Discipline Needs based on Ratio of Full-Time to Part-Time Faculty for the Discipline (35 points Total)
a.
Ratio of Full-Time to Part-Time Faculty based on # sections taught by F/T:P/T
(15 Points. Points will be earned on a reverse sliding scale.)
b. Part Time FTEF (i. + ii. = __________)
i. Hourly FTEF _________ + Overload FTEF ______ = P/T FTEF
ii. FTEF due to reassigned time, load bank or other leaves = ________
(10 Points. Discipline data will be ranked and points awarded based on ranking.)
c. Students served based on Enrollment Load with qualifier(s)
Qualifiers may include, but are not limited to, lecture/lab courses, lab components, and/or linked courses.
Enrollment Load (students served) by the Discipline = __________
(10 Points. Points will be awarded based on the strength of the argument. See Rubric.)
2.
Other Discipline Need (20 points Total)
a.
WSCH/FTEF w/ qualifier
Qualifiers may include, but are not limited to, external regulating agency requirements or standards (State/National), Accreditation requirements/regulatory requirements (not recommendations), Health & Safety (OHSA, HazMat, Violations, Injury Issues), space limitations and institutional demands for specialty course
History, Humanities, Philosophy Sp 13 Unit Plan, page xxviii
offerings.
(10 Points. Points will be awarded based on the strength of the argument. See Rubric.)
b.
Trends (anticipated retirements; discipline specific trends; expertise; technology shifts/influences, recruitment efforts/issues)
(10 Points. Points will be awarded based on the strength of the argument. See Rubric.)
3.
Program (Discipline) Growth Trends
a.
4.
with qualifier (5 points Total)
Enrollments/WSCH/FTES over the last three years (5 Points. Discipline data (% of growth) will be ranked and points awarded based on ranking.)
How a faculty hire supports the Discipline, Department, & College Goals as stated in the Educational Master Plan. (5 Points Total)
(5 Points. Points will be awarded based on the strength of the argument. See Rubric.)
5.
Additional Factors (Job Market & Outlook Data/ Transferability & Matriculation/
(5 Points Total)
Improved Quality of Student Experience {i.e., Puente, Honors, Summer Conservatory, Forensics}/ Other)
(5 Points. Points will be awarded based on the strength of the argument. See Rubric.)
History, Humanities, Philosophy Sp 13 Unit Plan, page xxix
1c. Students served based on enrollment load with qualifier(s)
9-10 Points
Compelling Argument
7-8 Points
Strong Argument
5-6 Points
Average Argument
3-4 Points
Weak/Average Argument
1-2 Points
Weak Argument
0 Points
No Argument Made
2a. WSCS/FTEF with qualifier(s)
13-15 Points
Compelling Argument
10-12 Points
Strong Argument
7-9 Points
Average Argument
4-6 Points
Weak/Average Argument
1-3 Points
Weak Argument
0 Points
No Argument Made
2b. Trends
13-15 Points
Compelling Argument
10-12 Points
Strong Argument
7-9 Points
Average Argument
4-6 Points
Weak/Average Argument
1-3 Points
Weak Argument
0 Points
No Argument Made
4. Faculty hire supports District/College/Discipline & Department Goals in Education Master Plan
9-10 Points
Compelling Argument
7-8 Points
Strong Argument
5-6 Points
Average Argument
3-4 Points
Weak/Average Argument
1-2 Points
Weak Argument
0 Points
No Argument Made
5. Additional Factors
9-10 Points
Compelling Argument
7-8 Points
Strong Argument
5-6 Points
Average Argument
3-4 Points
Weak/Average Argument
1-2 Points
Weak Argument
History, Humanities, Philosophy Sp 13 Unit Plan, page xxx
0 Points
No Argument Made
Resource Request Common Rubric
These criteria and rubric apply to requests in Tables 2-9
Criteria
Description for this category will:
Points
Supporting students in their
goals
Illustrate how the request is expected to lead to student course completion and success, term to term
persistence, [progress in basic skills attainment,] awards, certificates, or transfer. Narrative may also
show how the request aligns with college goals, mission statement, vision, and strategic initiatives.
/30
Supporting faculty in their
teaching
Explain how the request is a necessary and integral part of supporting faculty members' pursuit of
the program, department, or discipline goals and is essential to or useful in delivery of instruction.
Additionally, narrative may explain the degree to which the request supports the unit's comprehensive program review.
/25
Supporting faculty in professional development
Demonstrate how the request fulfills professional development needs and may include workshops,
guest speakers, training on equipment and/or software, attending conferences, training needed to
comply with state and/or federal regulations and ongoing training in the field.
/10
Improvement need resulting
from assessment
Explain how the request comes from objective (SLO / PLO) assessment results that show that this
request will result in improvement in unit. The request should illustrate what the specific intended
improvements are and how they relate to overall mission, goals, or function of the unit (and/or college goals or mission.)
/15
Obsolescence
Show obsolescence of equipment being replaced as primary cause for need. This request relates to
the replacement or updating of existing instructional technology and learning resources and should
provide details (such as length, frequency, and type of use) to help illustrate obsolescence.
/10
Safety and Compliance
Show how need meets American Disability Act (ADA), Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA), Federal, State, or Local regulations or laws, and/or how it addresses hazards or issues
that cause unfit conditions requiring mitigation from potential danger.
/10
30 Point Scale: 30 = Superior 23 = Above Average
15 = Average
8 = Below Average
0 = No Effort/Non Applicable
25 Point Scale: 25 = Superior 19 = Above Average
13 = Average
6 = Below Average
0 = No Effort/Non Applicable
15 Point Scale: 15 = Superior 11 = Above Average
8 = Average
4 = Below Average
0 = No Effort/Non Applicable
10 Point Scale: 10 = Superior
5 = Average
3 = Below Average
0 = No Effort/Non Applicable
8 = Above Average
NOTE: The above weighting scale point values will be used for ranking criteria. For example, a 30 point scale will not be given a 26 point value.
History, Humanities, Philosophy Sp 13 Unit Plan, page xxxi
Guidelines for Distinguishing Between Supplies and Equipment
Whether an item should be classified as equipment or as supplies is determined on the basis of the length of time the item is serviceable and on its
contribution to the value of the college. For example, supplies are constantly being consumed and replaced without increasing the value of the physical properties of the district. Equipment has relatively permanent value, and its purchase increases the value of the physical assets of the district.
Supplies are items of expendable nature that are consumed or worn out, deteriorate in use, or are easily broken, damaged or lost. Examples include
glassware, reagents, paper, and pencils, cleaning materials, nails, scissors, test tubes and keys. Items that have a relatively short service life (less than
one year) and that, therefore, must be replaced frequently are charged as supplies.
Equipment on the other hand are items that usually last more than two years and cost at least $ 200 and where repairs are more economical than replacement. Repair parts and accessories to equipment are however classified as supplies regardless of cost.
History, Humanities, Philosophy Sp 13 Unit Plan, page xxxii