Chabot College
Academic Program Review Report
Year One of
Program Review Cycle
Welding Technology Program
Submitted on February 14, 2013
Dan Raveica
Table of Contents
Section 1: Where we’ve Been .................................................. 1
Section 2: Where We Are Now ................................................. 2
Section 3: The Difference We Hope to Make ............................. 3
Required Appendices:
A: Budget History .........................................................................................4
B1: Course Learning Outcomes Assessment Schedule .................................5
B2: “Closing the Loop” Assessment Reflections ..........................................6
C: Program Learning Outcomes....................................................................9
D: A Few Questions ...................................................................................12
E: New Initiatives ......................................................................................13
F1: New Faculty Requests ..........................................................................14
F2: Classified Staffing Requests ..................................................................15
F3: FTEF Requests ......................................................................................16
F4: Academic Learning Support Requests .................................................17
F5: Supplies and Services Requests ............................................................18
F6: Conference/Travel Requests ................................................................19
F7: Technology and Other Equipment Requests ........................................20
F8: Facilities Requests ...............................................................................21
1. Where We've Been
Complete Appendix A (Budget History) prior to writing your narrative. Limit your narrative to no more
than one page.
As you enter a new Program Review cycle, reflect on your achievements over the last few years. What
did you want to accomplish? Describe how changes in resources provided to your discipline or program
have impacted your achievements. What are you most proud of, and what do you want to continue to
improve?
During the past program cycle, many unique and uncharacteristic challenges have been
encountered by the Welding Program. Major building and laboratory renovations took place in building
1400. As a result of this needed renovation, the welding program suspended its course offerings for
Summer 2010, Spring 2011, and Summer 2011. The priority of the Welding Program during this time was
to aid in the renovation efforts through collaborative divisional efforts in making sure the welding
laboratory would be as safe and efficiently functional for the welding students as possible. Through these
combined efforts, the welding laboratory was designed in a way that increased efficiency and safety for
its students.
A major objective during this program cycle was to minimize the impact of the renovation for
the students. This was accomplished through various efforts, one example being that the welding
equipment and machinery (totaling approximately 100 pieces) were all installed and setup for use the
weekend before classes resumed for Fall 2011. During the Fall 2011 and still currently, the renovation
efforts have not been fully completed, causing the classes to work around the in-process renovation work.
A major concern during this renovation was if the enrollment would be negatively affected due to the
suspension of course offering, fortunately not only was enrollment strong for Fall 2011 but it was 13.24%
higher than the previous Fall 2010 semester that was offered1. The Welding Program has been able to
achieve high enrollment throughout this program cycle, averaging 29.69% more students than laboratory
capacity2. The Welding Program has also seen strong grading distribution throughout the program cycle.
When compared to Chabot College and Chabot/Las Positas College, the welding program had on the
average of the three years (only including active semesters) 5.44% more A’s, 22% more B’s, 5.38% less
C’s, 0.34% more D’s, 6.97% less F’s, and 1.80% less Withdraws3.
Since the renovation, the welding program has continually provided flexibility in its course
offerings, providing classes during the day, evening, night, and weekends with a limited staff of one full
time faculty member and two part-time instructors. During this program cycle the Welding Program has
achieved completing 100% of the required student learning outcome assessments and 100% of the course
learning outcomes have been assessed, discussed and submitted in a timely manner.
The Welding Program would not be able to provide its services and course offerings without vital
program funding. During this past program cycle, the welding program has had to receive 100% of its
funding from the Perkins fund4.This fund was established for the technological advancement of the
program, instead; out of necessity due to zero funding support from the general fund, the Perkins fund has
supplied the funding needed to purchase the consumables needed by the welding students. As
consumables such as gasses, metal, materials and machinery accessories have increased; the welding
program budget has also increased. Lack of funding would directly affect welding students in all courses.
Every welding class offered requires students to learn vital skillsets that directly require the use of
consumable, in order to pass the course. As seen through the CLO assessments, out of all the course
learning objectives, an average of 72.6% of CLO’s requires the use of consumables in order for the
students to master the learning objective5. If funding was to be reduced, the success of the student
learning outcomes would decline, and students would not receive the opportunity to practice these
skillsets. Although funding has not had major negative effects on the program in the past, the program is
1
running so lean that unless future increased funding, student’s quality of learning will certainly be
compromised.
Through thoughtful and detailed analysis of this past program cycle, the welding program has
established a number of priorities for areas of improvement. First and foremost, the welding program will
focus on increasing the number of students gaining a degree or certificate. This will be aided by
improving communication with student services and counselors on advocating the degree/certificate
roadmap to prospective students. Another priority for the welding program include increasing the results
of the course learned outcomes that fell short of the definition of success, 15.5% of all CLO’s in the
program cycle were considered a challenge6.
The welding program will also make it a priority to increase the productivity, safety and
efficiency of the student’s tangible learning environment in the laboratory by installing a projector in the
lab for ad hawk lectures when needed enhancing learning7. Another way the welding program will try to
increase student safety and laboratory efficiency is by adding a lab assistant that can properly setup,
support, and maintain the welding equipment and machinery8. Efforts will also be underway to complete
the renovation efforts by completing the ventilation system so that is in working order. The welding
program will also seek to increase its advisory committee with additional members that have a vested
interest in the welding program and start the process of revising its curriculum to keep the program
relevant to the latest industrial information, processes and innovations, while adhering to college policy.
1
Attachment: 1
Attachment: 2
3 Attachment: 3 (Averages were taken of all the terms from this an average was calculated for (Chabot + Chabot/Las Positas)/2
and assessed against the welding program average)
4 Appendix: A
5 Attachment: 4
6 Attachment: 5
7 Appendix: F8
8 Appendix: F2
2
2
2. Where We Are Now
Review success, equity, course sequence, and enrollment data from the past three years at
http://www.chabotcollege.edu/ProgramReview/Data2012.cfm. Please complete Appendices B1
and B2 (CLO's), C (PLO's), and D (A few questions)before writing your narrative. Limit your narrative
to two pages.
After review of your success and retention data, your enrollment trends, your curriculum, and your CLO
and PLO results, provide an overall reflection on your program. Consider the following questions in your
narrative, and cite relevant data (e.g., efficiency, persistence, success, CLO/PLO assessment results,
external accreditation demands, etc.):




What are the trends in course success and retention rates (based on overall results and CLO
assessments) in your program? Do you see differences based on gender and/or ethnicity?
Between on-campus and online or hybrid online courses? Provide comparison points (collegewide averages, history within your program, statewide averages).
What changes are you seeing in enrollments in your courses and overall program, and what is
driving those changes?
Describe how --or lack thereof (funding, adding units to courses or adding supplemental
instruction courses, adding or increasing student learning support, adding courses to sequences,
classified staff, etc.) have impacted student learning in both specific courses, course sequences,
and overall programs.
For PLOs, have you collaborated with colleagues in other disciplines to look at “whole
programs” or "whole GE areas"? What insights have you gained from these collaborations?
3
As an in-depth analysis is conducted on the Welding Program’s current condition, special note
must be made due to the irregular impact that the renovation has had on the Welding Programs data
trending. Due to the renovation efforts, the Welding Program did not offer course offerings for Summer
2010, Spring 2011, and Summer 2011.
An analysis of the enrollment trends shows distinct similarities between the enrollment counts of
the State of California, Chabot-Las Positas CCD, Chabot Hayward, and the Welding Program. The
general trending for the State of California, Chabot-Las Positas, and Chabot Hayward are almost
identical. When matched up with the Welding program, the trending is similar for Spring 2010 and Fall
2010, with very similar high enrollment counts. After the majority of the renovation efforts, in Fall 2011,
the welding program showed a higher enrollment of 13.24% from the previous Fall semester offered. This
high peak was most likely due to the suspension of classes, creating a backlog of students. Due to this
higher than average enrollment, as well as the suspension of classes, the following terms (Spring 2012
and Fall 2012) have been lower than average (with Fall 012 showing an increasing trend). We suspect that
the increasing trends will be evident in the future years until the program enrollment normalizes to its
previous behavior from before the renovation1. Also other considerations must be made in determining
the correct capacity, laboratory requirements must be considered when making these calculations, please
refer to Attachment 2: Enrollment Capacity Discrepancy.
During the analysis of success rates, the State of California, Chabot-Las Positas CCD, Chabot
Hayward, and the Welding Program were included. During the Term 2010, the Welding Program
succeeded in having the highest success rated, second was Chabot-Las Positas. When comparing these
both, the Welding Program ranked 12.81% higher in the success rate (credit, degree applicable,
vocational) and 10.04% higher in the success rate (transferrable). The same trending is seen in the only
active semester in 2011, which is the fall semester. With an increased percentage of 8.08% for in the
success rate (credit, degree applicable, vocational) and 11.10% higher in the success rate (transferrable)
when being compared to the next highest results, Chabot-Las Positas. Looking at 2012, the welding
program, again, shows the highest success percentages, followed by Chabot Las Positas. The percentage
difference between the two being 4.08% for in the success rate (credit, degree applicable, vocational) and
3.78% higher in the success rate (transferrable) 2.
When analyzing the success rate in terms of ethnicity and sex, the welding program was matched
with the Chabot Hayward totals. From this data we observe that the male success rate for the Welding
Program declined slightly for 2010 and was stagnant for 2011, but all the findings for the Welding
Program still were higher than the Chabot Hayward Totals. For the success rate analysis for females,
again the success rates for the Welding Program were higher than the Chabot rates, with the exception of
Spring 2012, but a steadily declining trend is seen to take place. This trending is also seen with the
African American success rates. For the Asian success rate, the Welding Program observed a spike in Fall
2010 and stagnated Fall 2011, with Spring 2012 being one percentage point lower than Chabot Hayward.
The Filipino Welding Program success rate was trending up to 100% success for Fall 2011 and Spring
2012. Latino success rates for the welding program are relatively high (82%) with a slight dip in Fall
2010 (74%), where Chabot’s Latino rates are stagnant around 66%. The Native American’s success rate is
one of the strongest analyzed, being 100% for all terms offered. Pacific Islander’s success rate trending
has shown some oscillation between strong results and lower results. Finally, the white welding
technology success rates show a spike (86%) in Fall 2010 with a gradual decline in percentage to 78% in
Spring of 2012. During the past two semesters analyzed, we saw increasing trends with Latino’s and
Pacific Islanders. Stagnation trends were seen with males, Asians (results below Chabot Hayward),
Filipinos (100% results), Native Americans (100% results). Declining trends have been observed with
women (results below Chabot Hayward), African American, and Whites3.
Upon analysis of the student retention rates, we see for 2010, the welding program scored the
highest with 87.50% when looking at the retention rate (credit, degree applicable, and vocational), and the
highest at 85.55% when looking at the retention rate (transferable). The State of California had the second
4
highest results for 2010. Due to the renovation efforts, data was unusual for 2011. The Welding Program
scored the lowest in the retention rate (credit, degree applicable, and vocational), but was extremely
competitive when looking at the retention rate (transferable). These lower findings are also seen in the
2012 average retention rate as well4.
Overall, the enrollment, success and retention rates have been relatively strong for this program cycle,
decreasing a little towards the end of the cycle due to the suspension of course offerings for three terms in
the middle of the cycle. Special attention has been made to the specific demographics that have been
shown to have declining trending; efforts to increase results will be made a program priority.
On analysis of the Course learning objectives, approximately 85% of all the CLO’s results in the program
cycle term (year 2010-2012) have passed its definition of success. With an average of 0% scoring 0, 1.5%
scoring 1, 7.9% scoring 2, 40.4% scoring 3 and 50.2% scoring 45. These figures are also supported by the
strong grading distribution discussed in the previous section6. The success seen from the CLO results are
directly impacted by investments made to the Welding Program in the form of funding. Approximately
72.6% of all welding CLO’s requires the use of consumables in order for the students to master the
learning objective7. Please refer to the previous section and Appendix A for detailed discussion on the
impact of funding and investments.
The Welding Program offers vocational courses that are limited in scope in relation to other courses, with
the exception of the A.S. Degree requirements. Due to this narrow scope, the way in which the welding
program collaborates with other disciplines is by providing flexible course offerings. The Welding’s
course offerings include; day, afternoon, evening, and weekend courses. This flexibility allows students
added opportunities in taking general education classes when offered by other disciplines, thus ensuring
advancement in general education areas as well as the welding program.
1Attachement:1
2Attachement:6
3Attachement:7
4Attachement:8
5Attachement:5
6Attachement:3
7Attachement:4
5
3. The Difference We Hope to Make
Review the Strategic Plan goal and key strategies at
http://www.chabotcollege.edu/prbc/StrategicPlan/SPforPR.pdf prior to completing your
narrative. Please complete Appendices E (New Initiatives) and F1-8 (Resource Requests) to
further detail your narrative. Limit your narrative to three pages, and be very specific about
what you hope to achieve, why, and how.
What initiatives are underway in your discipline or program, or could you begin, that would support the
achievement of our Strategic Plan goal? Over the next three years, what improvements would you like
to make to your program(s) to improve student learning? What are your specific, measurable goals?
How will you achieve them? Would any of these require collaboration with other disciplines or areas of
the college? How will that collaboration occur?
The welding program currently has three initiatives that are designed to improve student learning
and forge stronger community-college ties. The first initiative is to revise the welding technology
program curriculum. This first initiative goal is to complete the welding curriculum revisions by Spring
2014. As required, the welding curriculum will be revised, and thus improve student learning outcomes
by updating the curriculum to reflect new advancement in the industry. This will result in students
attaining more relevant knowledge about industry processes, innovations and machinery. The first goal
for this initiative is to completely review the existing curriculum by the middle of Summer 2013. The
second goal is to conduct a thorough analysis of current welding industry changed by the end of Summer
2013. By Fall 2013, collaboration with the advisory committee through suggestions and input will be
gathered and the rough version of the revised curriculum will be completed. By the end of Spring 2014, a
refined version of the curriculum will be submitted1.
The second initiative increases student learning and safety in the laboratory environment. This
initiative is to hire a laboratory assistant for the labs in building 1400 (welding, machine shop, and
automotive). This assistant would be tasked with supporting the set-up maintenance of the laboratory
equipment. This would ensure the safety of the equipment and machinery, and free up the instructor to
actively interact with the welding students. This would increase laboratory safety and efficiency, as well
as increase student learning objective outcomes. The goals of this initiative would be to hire a flexible,
knowledgeable candidate by Spring 2014. Steps towards this goal would include collaborating with the
other relevant departments to write an appropriate job description by Summer 2013. By Fall 2013, the
goal would to gain divisional approval and to start interviewing applicants. By Spring 2014, the goal of
the initiative would be to hire the candidate with the most qualifications on meeting the departments
needs2.
The third and final initiative would result in fostering strong ties with the local community. It is
the welding department’s intent on connecting with the Chamber of Commerce. This would result in
expanding support for the welding program by directly connecting with local businesses. This support
could be in terms of advertisement of the college and program, monetary support, material support such
as scrap metal, and internships or jobs for students. The initiatives goal is to establish strong ties with the
Chamber of Commerce and businesses associated with them by Spring 2014. To accomplish this goal, the
welding program will first get in direct contact with the Chamber of Commerce, participating in events
directed towards related welding industries. Through this, contacts and professional relationships between
local businesses and the welding program will be strengthened.
1
Appendix: E
Appendix: F2
2
6
Appendix A: Budget History and Impact
Audience: Budget Committee, PRBC, and Administrators
Purpose: This analysis describes your history of budget requests from the previous two years and
the impacts of funds received and needs that were not met. This history of documented need
can both support your narrative in Section A and provide additional information for Budget
Committee recommendations.
Instructions: Please provide the requested information, and fully explain the impact of the budget
decisions.
Category
Classified Staffing (# of positions)
Supplies & Services
Technology/Equipment
Other
TOTAL
2011-12
Budget
Requested
No Change
30,159
No Change
No Change
30,159
2011-12
Budget
Received
No Change
30,159
No Change
No Change
30,159
2012-13
Budget
Requested
No Change
40,000
No Change
No Change
31,785
2012-13
Budget
Received
No Change
30,276
No Change
No Change
30,276
1. How has your investment of the budget monies you did receive improved student learning? When
you requested the funding, you provided a rationale. In this section, assess if the anticipated
positive impacts you projected have, in fact, been realized.
100% of the budget monies provided for the welding program needs was based on the availability of
Perkins fund rather than to originate from the college general fund. The received funding partially
satisfied the purchases of welding consumables, accessories and equipment maintenance needed to
accommodate students in the welding laboratory. These welding consumables consist of: industrial
welding gasses, welding rods, welding materials, welding metals, welding tips, hoses, cables, etc…
The purpose of Perkins fund is to promote technological advancement of the program; instead the fund
was spent to keep with the continuously increasing consumable prices. This program is striving to
uphold and improve student learning experiences even in these difficult and challenging circumstances.
In the 2011-2012 year, the total cost just for the shop consumables, industrial gasses and accessories
totaled to approximately $30,000 that was used on 361 students (there were no classes’ summer 2011
due to lab renovations). The average cost per student came to be $83.10 per semester for consumables.
This figure doesn’t take in consideration the costs of scrap metal, which comes to be a total estimated
cost of $20,000 annually. The total cost per student per semester for consumables and scrap metal is
$138.50. During this time all the prices for consumables and metal have drastically increased causing
more strain and pressure on a program that running very lean with no general funding support.
7
2. What has been the impact of not receiving some of your requested funding? How has student
learning been impacted, or safety compromised, or enrollment or retention negatively impacted?
The funding that was given was taken from the Perkins fund. This federal fund was established and
intended for the technological advancement of the program through the purchase of new welding
equipment, software, shop equipment and promoting new technology. Due to the lack of the general
fund, the welding program is forced to use this fund to sustain the students need for welding
consumables. Also the welding program heavily relies on company donations of scrap metal to keep the
program running, which costs approximately 20,000-25,000 annually. Currently the welding program
receives no support from the general fund for shop expenses and services, which are vital for student
learning. If the funding is not received, it will have a direct impact on the students. The students will not
be able to conduct the laboratory tasks and complete the student learning objectives without the use of
the required consumables and scrap metal to do so. Thus, lack of funding will directly negatively impact
each students learning experience and limit their academic growth.
8
Appendix B1: Course Learning Outcomes Assessment Schedule
All courses must be assessed at least once every three years. Please complete this chart that
defines your assessment schedule.
ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE:
Spring
Fall
2013
2013
Courses:
Group 1:
(All
Discuss
Welding results
course
CLO’s
have
been
fully
assessed,
discussed
and
reported)
Group 2:
Full
Assmt
Group 3:
Group 4:
Spring
2014
Fall
2014
Spring
2015
Report
Results
Spring
2016
Full
Asset
Discuss
results
& report
Full
Assmt
Fall
2015
Discuss
results
Report
Results
Full
Assmt
Discuss
results
& report
9
Fall
2016
Spring
2017
Discuss
results
Report
Results
Appendix B2: “Closing the Loop” Assessment Reflections
Course
Semester assessment data gathered
Number of sections offered in the semester
Number of sections assessed
Percentage of sections assessed
Semester held “Closing the Loop” discussion
Faculty members involved in “Closing the Loop” discussion
Welding 67A
Fall 2012
5
4
80%
Beginning of Spring 2013
Dan Raveica
Form Instructions:
 Part I: CLO Data Reporting. For each CLO, obtain Class Achievement data in aggregate for all
sections assessed in eLumen.
 Part II: CLO Reflections. Based on student success reported in Part I, reflect on the individual
CLO.
 Part III: Course Reflection. In reviewing all the CLOs and your findings, reflect on the course as
a whole.
PART I: COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOMES – DATA RESULTS
CONSIDER THE COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOMES INDIVIDUALLY
(THE NUMBER OF CLOS WILL DIFFER BY COURSE)
(CLO) 1: Prepare and complete 1 inch plate welds in
2G position using the SMAW process
(CLO) 2: Identify common metals, metal alloys and
their properties.
Defined Target
Scores*
(CLO Goal)
75% of the class
scored either 3
or 4
80% of the class
scored either 3
or 4
Actual Scores**
(eLumen data)
A total of 93.3% of the
class scored either 3 or
4 (40.0% scored 3,
53.3% scored 4, 6.7%
scored 2). This course
learning outcome is
considered a success.
A total of 92.9% of the
class scored either 3 or
4 (50.0% scored 3,
42.9% scored 4, 7.1%
scored 2). This course
learning outcome is
considered a success.
 If more CLOs are listed for the course, add another row to the table.
* Defined Target Scores: What scores in eLumen from your students would indicate success for this
CLO? (Example: 75% of the class scored either 3 or 4)
**Actual scores: What is the actual percent of students that meet defined target based on the eLumen
data collected in this assessment cycle?
10
PART II: COURSE- LEVEL OUTCOME REFLECTIONS
A. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 1:
1. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course
level outcome?
A total of 93.3% of the class scored either 3 or 4 (40.0% scored 3, 53.3% scored 4, 6.7%
scored 2). This course learning outcome is considered a success given the stated definition
of success being that 75% of the class scored either 3 or 4
2. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and
your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
All the students assessed proved the ability to identify the required; electrode needed,
base metal selection, current type and polarity, and the appropriate manipulation
technique required. Of these students, approximately ninety four percent of the students
were also able to adequately understand the specific and individual functional differences
of the equipment, as well as set up the equipment for its proper function. Finally, a total of
fifty three percent of students also showed the ability to correctly execute a one inch 2G
position weld using the SMAW process.
B. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 2:
1. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course
level outcome?
A total of 92.9% of the class scored either 3 or 4 (50.0% scored 3, 42.9% scored 4, 7.1%
scored 2). This course learning outcome is considered a success given the stated definition
of success being that 80% of the class scored either 3 or 4.
2. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and
your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
All the students displayed a general understanding of metals/metal alloys and their
chemical/physical/mechanical properties. Approximately forty three percent of these
students also displayed the ability to properly choose the appropriate welding process and
understand the particularities of welding the specific metal/alloy. Of these students, fifty
percent also showed the ability to modify and control these particularities during the
application of a weld/task/project.
11
PART III: COURSE REFLECTIONS AND FUTURE PLANS
1. What changes were made to your course based on the previous assessment cycle, the prior
Closing the Loop reflections and other faculty discussions?
Greater emphasis on tangible laboratory examples for individual students that showed a
need for added instruction was implemented, allowing a greater retention to students
struggling with the learning objectives.
2. Based on the current assessment and reflections, what course-level and programmatic
strengths have the assessment reflections revealed? What actions has your discipline
determined might be taken as a result of your reflections, discussions, and insights?
Due to the repetitive nature of both learning objective, most students were able to master
this task by the end of the semester. The lecture hour would introduce the theoretical
knowledge of the metallic properties and appropriate welding techniques and analysis, and
then they would then be able to see the tangible examples of these concepts in the
laboratory hour as they start their welding tasks. Again, employing the approach of
emphasizing tangible laboratory examples for individual students that shows greater need
will continue to be implemented, thus allowing a greater retention to students struggling
with the learning objectives.
3. What is the nature of the planned actions (please check all that apply)?
 Curricular
X Pedagogical
 Resource based
 Change to CLO or rubric
 Change to assessment methods
 Other:_________________________________________________________________
12
Appendix C: Program Learning Outcomes
Considering your feedback, findings, and/or information that has arisen from the course level
discussions, please reflect on each of your Program Level Outcomes.
Program: Welding Technology A.S. Degree

PLO #1: Upon the completion of the Chabot Welding Technology AS Degree Training,
students shall be able to demonstrate the proficiency needed to perform; manufacturing,
fabrication, maintenance and construction tasks to be in compliance with the industrial
norms, codes and standards. They should be able to apply their skills and knowledge in a
professional manner under minimum to no supervision.

PLO #2: Students completing the Chabot Welding AS Degree Training will be able to pass
the American Welding Society (A.W.S) tests in the appropriate areas of study.
What questions or investigations arose as a result of these reflections or discussions?
Explain:
Upon reflection and discussions of the course learning outcomes that the majority of the
students had varying levels of success in fulfilling the program level outcome one. All the
students were able to correctly identify and use electrodes, flux-core wires, and welding
consumables and identify and select the appropriate welding power supplies for the flux and
gas shielded welding applications. Where varying levels of difficulty was found when students
had to demonstrate the ability to perform practical performance tests in 3G, 3F and 4G, 4F
position, using one of the three welding processes ( GMAW, GTAW, SMAW). These welding
positions required advanced welding skills. Due to the perishability nature of welding skills,
progression of this skill is only achieved through constant repetition of the task. This needed
repetition due to welding being a perishable skill needs to be taken in account when
determinations are made on how many times a student can take the course. Because of these
varying levels of difficulty on conducting the practical performance test, some students found it
difficult to pass the American Welding Society (A.W.S) tests.
13
What program-level strengths have the assessment reflections revealed?
Strengths revealed:
A strength that were visible in the program from the student assessments came from the fact
that students could take the same course over again. Due to the specificity of the welding
skillset, the students not only need to fulfill the requirements of the program itself but also the
current requirements of the welding industry. For example, for a student to retain a American
Welding Society Certification Test, they must conduct welds within six months or they will have
to be recertified. Many of these students cannot afford the expensive equipment or shop so
their best option is to retake a welding course to maintain their certificates.
What actions has your discipline determined might be taken to enhance the learning of
students completing your program?
Actions planned:
Establishing greater detailed metrics on assessing each student’s skillset during the semester.
Taking these findings and accommodating the one-on-one instructor to student teaching
approach to best suit the student’s skillset.
Program: Welding Technology Certificate of Proficiency

PLO #1: Upon the completion of the Chabot Welding Technology Certificate of Proficiency
training, students shall be able to demonstrate the qualifications needed to gain interim
welding positions required by the; manufacturing, fabrication, maintenance and
construction industrial activities. They should be able to apply their skills and knowledge
in a professional manner under supervision.

PLO #2: Students completing the Chabot Welding Technology Certificate of Proficiency
will be able to pass the American Welding Society (A.W.S) tests in the appropriate areas
of study.
What questions or investigations arose as a result of these reflections or discussions?
Explain:
Upon assessment, reflection and discussions regarding the SLO objectives, both program level
objectives were successful. The majority of the students were able to correctly identify and use
electrodes, flux-core wires, and welding consumables and appropriately identify and select the
welding power supplies and consumable best suited for the welding applications required by
welding job circumstances. With continued repetition, students were able to demonstrate the
ability to perform practical performance tests in 1G, 2G, 1F and 2F positions using one of the
14
three welding processes mentioned below: SMAW, TMAW or GMAW. The students that had
some previous welding experience were able to master this learning objective at a quicker
pace. The 1G, 2G, 1F and 2F positions are easier to work in and therefore students were able to
master the skillset easier. More students were also able to pass the American Welding Society
(A.W.S) tests in 1G, 2G, 1F and 2F positions in the appropriate areas of study.
What program-level strengths have the assessment reflections revealed?
Strengths revealed:
Student repetition of the skillset during the laboratory hours has been a major determinant on
their success in achieving the learning objective. Also, tangible instructor examples on a one-toone basis with the student have proven to be of great aid.
What actions has your discipline determined might be taken to enhance the learning of
students completing your program?
Actions planned:
Due to the success of this learning objective, no new actions will take place, but existing
strengths proven to be successful will be continued.
Program: Welding Technology Inspection and Pipe Welding Certificate

PLO #1: Upon the completion of the Chabot Welding Technology Inspection and Pipe
Welding Certificate training, students shall be able to demonstrate the proficiency
required to perform advanced; manufacturing, fabrication, and maintenance welding
tasks compatible with the industrial norms for higher skilled work force. They should be
able to apply their skills and knowledge in a professional manner under minimum to no
supervision.

PLO #2: Students completing the Chabot Welding AS Degree Training will be able to pass
the American Welding Society (A.W.S) tests in the appropriate areas of study.
What questions or investigations arose as a result of these reflections or discussions?
Explain:
Upon reflection and discussions of the course learning outcomes that the majority of the
students were able to demonstrate correct usage of blue print details, dimensions,
specifications, and welding symbols in designing projects by correctly applying them in the
course of assigned projects. We did discover that a few students had varying levels of difficulty
15
with the theoretical understanding the application of welding metallurgy principles in justifying
the quality of a welding fabrication task. The greatest difficulty seen through the assessment
was for the students to perform welds in all positions (flat, horizontal, vertical, overhead) with
the five basic welding processes: Shielded Metal Arc, Gas Metal Arc, Flux Cored Arc, and Gas
shielded, Gas Tungsten Arc. This is due to the requirement of advanced welding skillsets due to
the positions of the welding processes. This difficulty fed into the difficulty for some of the
students to pass the American Welding Society (A.W.S) Pipe welding tests in 5G position.
What program-level strengths have the assessment reflections revealed?
Strengths revealed:
The certificate program is designed in a way that the students take specific classes specializing
in the specific welding process and position. This allows the student to grow their skillset for
each welding process in each position. Also, students that have difficulty in one process are able
to take the specific course over again to grow that specific skillset. This program allows the
student to grow their welding skillsets in a way that gradually advances the difficulty.
What actions has your discipline determined might be taken to enhance the learning of
students completing your program?
Actions planned:
This program certificate is the most difficult to achieve due to the difficult nature of the
positions and the stringent industrial codes and requirements that the students must satisfy.
The solution to growing these learning objectives is to give the students enough laboratory
hours to be able to practice and repeat this skillset.
16
Appendix D: A Few Questions
Please answer the following questions with "yes" or "no". For any questions answered "no",
please provide an explanation. No explanation is required for "yes" answers :-)
1. Have all of your course outlines been updated within the past five years? If no, identify the
course outlines you will update in the next curriculum cycle. Ed Code requires all course
outlines to be updated every six years. YES
2. Have all of your courses been offered within the past five years? If no, why should those
courses remain in our college catalog? YES
3. Do all of your courses have the required number of CLOs completed, with corresponding
rubrics? If no, identify the CLO work you still need to complete, and your timeline for
completing that work this semester. YES
4. Have you assessed all of your courses and completed "closing the loop" forms for all of your
courses within the past three years? If no, identify which courses still require this work, and
your timeline for completing that work this semester. YES
5. Have you developed and assessed PLOs for all of your programs? If no, identify programs which
still require this work, and your timeline to complete that work this semester. YES
6. If you have course sequences, is success in the first course a good predictor of success in the
subsequent course(s)? YES
7. Does successful completion of College-level Math and/or English correlate positively with
success in your courses? If not, explain why you think this may be. YES applied math
17
Appendix E: Proposal for New Initiatives (Complete for each new initiative)
Audience: Deans/Unit Administrators, PRBC, Foundation, Grants Committee, College Budget Committee
Purpose: A “New Initiative” is a new project or expansion of a current project that supports our Strategic
Plan. The project will require the support of additional and/or outside funding. The information you
provide will facilitate and focus the research and development process for finding both internal and
external funding.
How does your initiative address the college's Strategic Plan goal, or significantly improve student
learning?
As required, the welding curriculum will be revised. This will improve the student learning outcomes by
updating the curriculum to reflect the new advancements in industry processes and new institutional
requirements and recent industrial innovations. As a result, the students will be more competitive in
the job market within the welding and fabrication industry.
What is your specific goal and measurable outcome?
The goal is to complete the welding curriculum revisions by Spring 2014.
What is your action plan to achieve your goal?
Required Budget (Split out
personnel, supplies, other
categories)
N/A
Seek advisory committee input and suggestions
Target
Completion
Date
Summer
2013
Summer
2013
Fall 2013
Revision of curriculum reflecting previous steps
Fall 2013
N/A
Submit the final revision of the curriculum
Spring
2014
N/A
Activity (brief description)
Review existing curriculum
Analysis of welding industry changes
N/A
N/A
How will you manage the personnel needs?
New Hires:
Faculty # of positions
Classified staff # of positions
X Reassigning existing employee(s) to the project; employee(s) current workload will be:
Covered by overload or part-time employee(s)
Covered by hiring temporary replacement(s)
X Other, explain Covered under the full-time faculty member
At the end of the project period, the proposed project will:
X Be completed (onetime only effort)
Require additional funding to continue and/or institutionalize the project
(obtained by/from):
Will the proposed project require facility modifications, additional space, or program relocation?
X No
Yes, explain:
Will the proposed project involve subcontractors, collaborative partners, or cooperative agreements?
18
X
No
Yes, explain:
Do you know of any grant funding sources that would meet the needs of the proposed project?
X No
Yes, list potential funding sources:
19
Appendix F1: Full-Time Faculty/Adjunct Staffing Request(s) [Acct. Category
1000]
Audience: Faculty Prioritization Committee and Administrators
Purpose: Providing explanation and justification for new and replacement positions for full-time faculty
and adjuncts
Instructions: Please justify the need for your request. Discuss anticipated improvements in student
learning and contribution to the Strategic Plan goal. Cite evidence and data to support your request,
including enrollment management data (EM Summary by Term) for the most recent three years, student
success and retention data , and any other pertinent information. Data is available at
http://www.chabotcollege.edu/ProgramReview/Data2012.cfm .
1. Number of new faculty requested in this discipline: __ N/A __
2. If you are requesting more than one position, please rank order the positions.
Position
Description
1. N/A
N/A
2.
3. Rationale for your proposal. Please use the enrollment management data. Additional data that will
strengthen your rationale include FTES trends over the last 5 years, persistence, FT/PT faculty ratios,
CLO and PLO assessment results and external accreditation demands.
N/A
4. Statements about the alignment with the strategic plan and your student learning goals are
required. Indicate here any information from advisory committees or outside accreditation reviews
that is pertinent to the proposal.
N/A
20
Appendix F2: Classified Staffing Request(s) including Student Assistants [Acct.
Category 2000]
Audience: Administrators, PRBC
Purpose: Providing explanation and justification for new and replacement positions for full-time and
part-time regular (permanent) classified professional positions (new, augmented and replacement
positions). Remember, student assistants are not to replace Classified Professional staff.
Instructions: Please justify the need for your request. Discuss anticipated improvements in student
learning and contribution to the Strategic Plan goal, safety, mandates, accreditation issues. Please cite
any evidence or data to support your request. If this position is categorically funded, include and
designate the funding source of new categorically-funded position where continuation is contingent
upon available funding.
1. Number of positions requested: _ 1__
2. If you are requesting more than one position, please rank order the positions.
Position
Description
1. N/A
N/A
2.
3. Rationale for your proposal.
The proposal is to add a laboratory assistant solely for the laboratory purposes. This assistant would
assist the labs in building 1400 (welding, machine shop, and automotive). This assistant would be tasked
with supporting and preparation of the equipment, ensuring equipment and machinery safety, minor
administrative tasks when required. The candidate required must have a flexible schedule.
4. Statements about the alignment with the strategic plan and program review are required. Indicate
here any information from advisory committees or outside accreditation reviews that is pertinent to
the proposal.
First and foremost, this laboratory assistant would increase the laboratory safety by making sure all
machinery and equipment are properly set up and maintained. This will allow more time for the
instructors to actively teach the students and it will allow the laboratory to run more efficiently.
21
Appendix F3: FTEF Requests
Audience: Administrators, CEMC, PRBC
Purpose: To recommend changes in FTEF allocations for subsequent academic year and guide Deans and
CEMC in the allocation of FTEF to disciplines. For more information, see Article 29 (CEMC) of the Faculty
Contract.
Instructions: In the area below, please list your requested changes in course offerings (and
corresponding request in FTEF) and provide your rationale for these changes. Be sure to analyze
enrollment trends and other relevant data at
http://www.chabotcollege.edu/ProgramReview/Data2012.cfm .
All the current course offerings are adequate in serving the current welding major and certificates
with the exception of one visible bottleneck located in the welding 70 introductory lecture and lab.
The majority of students chose to take the introductory course before they enroll in other
intermediary and advanced welding courses. As it stands now, this introductory course is only offered
during Saturday sessions, which is inconvenient for a number of students. Our request is to offer this
section during the day on a weekday with dedicated laboratory hours. Due to the size of the class and
the limitations of welding stations and safety restrictions, it is vital that dedicated laboratory hours are
arranged for this new section. The welding 70 course is not only a requirement in fulfilling the welding
major but it also is included as a requirement for other vocational majors and is a transferable course
to California State Universities.
As stated above all the FTEF allocations adequately enable the students to progress in their welding
major in a timely way, with the exception of the welding 70 course which was proposed to be added
during Fall 2013. The current FTEF allocation for Fall 2013 will be 2.27, our suggested allocation which
includes this Welding 70 Introductory weekday section would increase the FTEF allocation to 2.42,
increasing the FTEF allocation by 0.15.
22
Appendix F4: Academic Learning Support Requests [Acct. Category 2000]
Audience: Administrators, PRBC, Learning Connection
Purpose: Providing explanation and justification for new and replacement student assistants (tutors,
learning assistants, lab assistants, supplemental instruction, etc.).
Instructions: Please justify the need for your request. Discuss anticipated improvements in student
learning and contribution to the Strategic Plan goal . Please cite any evidence or data to support your
request. If this position is categorically funded, include and designate the funding source of new
categorically-funded position where continuation is contingent upon available funding.
1. Number of positions requested: __N/A__
2. If you are requesting more than one position, please rank order the positions.
Position
Description
1. N/A
N/A
2.
3.
4.
3. Rationale for your proposal based on your program review conclusions. Include anticipated impact
on student learning outcomes and alignment with the strategic plan goal. Indicate if this request is
for the same, more, or fewer academic learning support positions.
N/A
Appendix F5: Supplies & Services Requests [Acct. Category 4000 and 5000]
Audience: Administrators, Budget Committee, PRBC
Purpose: To request funding for supplies and service, and to guide the Budget Committee in allocation of
funds.
Instructions: In the area below, please list both your current and requested budgets for categories 4000
and 5000 in priority order. Do NOT include conferences and travel, which are submitted on Appendix
M6. Justify your request and explain in detail any requested funds beyond those you received this year.
Please also look for opportunities to reduce spending, as funds are very limited.
Project or Items
Requested
Consumables&
Supplies
Services & Repair
2012-13 Budget
Requested Received
$ 36,000
30,276
2013-14
Request
$38,000
4,000
0
5,000
24
Rationale
Welding consumables and supplies
are needed for any student laboratory
activity to take place. It is vital that
the students have access to the
consumables in order to conduct the
necessary welds and fabrications. The
prices of consumables and supplies
are incrementally increasing.
The welding laboratory currently has
approximately 98 pieces of equipment
that need to be maintained and
repaired when needed in order to
maintain student safety while the
equipment are in use.
Appendix F6: Conference and Travel Requests [ Acct. Category 5000]
Audience: Staff Development Committee, Administrators, Budget Committee, PRBC
Purpose: To request funding for conference attendance, and to guide the Budget and Staff Development
Committees in allocation of funds.
Instructions: Please list specific conferences/training programs, including specific information on the
name of the conference and location. Note that the Staff Development Committee currently has no
budget, so this data is primarily intended to identify areas of need that could perhaps be fulfilled on
campus, and to establish a historical record of need. Your rationale should discuss student learning goals
and/or connection to the Strategic Plan goal.
Conference/Training
Program
N/A
2013-14 Request
$0
Rationale
N/A
25
Appendix F7: Technology and Other Equipment Requests [Acct. Category 6000]
Audience: Budget Committee, Technology Committee, Administrators
Purpose: To be read and responded to by Budget Committee and to inform priorities of the Technology
Committee.
Instructions: Please fill in the following as needed to justify your requests. If you're requesting classroom
technology, see http://www.chabotcollege.edu/audiovisual/Chabot%20College%20Standard.pdf for the
brands/model numbers that are our current standards. If requesting multiple pieces of equipment,
please rank order those requests. Include shipping cost and taxes in your request.
Please note: Equipment requests are for equipment whose unit cost exceeds $200. Items which are
less expensive should be requested as supplies. Software licenses should also be requested as
supplies.
Project or Items
Requested
Millermatic® 252 MIG
Welder 230/460/575V
Purchase and
installation of one
ceiling projector
system to be install in
the welding
laboratory
2012-13 Budget
Requested Received
2
0
1
0
2013-14
Request
$2821.00
$6500
Rationale*
These will replace two obsolete
machines that are becoming to be
safety concerns. These MIG machines
will be used in many tasks and be
used to fulfill course learning
objectives.
These visual add device will be
utilized in the program to positively
impact student learning outcomes
and be used to fulfill course learning
objectives.
* Rationale should include discussion of impact on student learning, connection to our strategic plan
goal, and impact on student enrollment, safety improvements, whether the equipment is new or
replacement, potential ongoing cost savings that the equipment may provide, ongoing costs of
equipment maintenance, associated training costs, and any other relevant information that you believe
the Budget Committee should consider.
26
Appendix F8: Facilities Requests
Audience: Facilities Committee, Administrators
Purpose: To be read and responded to by Facilities Committee.
Background: Following the completion of the 2012 Chabot College Facility Master Plan, the Facilities
Committee (FC) has begun the task of re-prioritizing Measure B Bond budgets to better align with current
needs. The FC has identified approximately $18M in budgets to be used to meet capital improvement
needs on the Chabot College campus. Discussion in the FC includes holding some funds for a year or two
to be used as match if and when the State again funds capital projects, and to fund smaller projects that
will directly assist our strategic goal. The FC has determined that although some of the college's greatest
needs involving new facilities cannot be met with this limited amount of funding, there are many smaller
pressing needs that could be addressed. The kinds of projects that can be legally funded with bond
dollars include the "repairing, constructing, acquiring, and equipping of classrooms, labs, sites and
facilities." Do NOT use this form for equipment or supply requests.
Instructions: Please fill in the following as needed to justify your requests. If requesting more than one
facilities project, please rank order your requests.
Brief Title of Request (Project Name): Installation of ceiling projector system for the welding laboratory
Building/Location: Building 1400 Room 1416
Description of the facility project. Please be as specific as possible.
Purchase and installation of one ceiling projector system to be install in the welding laboratory
What educational programs or institutional purposes does this equipment support?
This project will greatly improve the ability of conveying technical information related to lab tasks on
hand the timely meter. This will also allow the students to encounter a different instructional medium
in a laboratory environment, such that all the students are able to respond simultaneously.
Briefly describe how your request relates specifically to meeting the Strategic Plan Goal and to
enhancing student learning?
These visual add device will be utilized in the program to positively impact student learning outcomes
and be used to fulfill course learning objectives. This would allow the instructor, when seeing the same
difficulties in multiple students, can have a spontaneous mini lecture to the class focused on correcting
the specific deficiency. This will allow for greater efficiency in the teaching strategy, impacting multiple
students in a shorter time period.
27
Attachment #1
Enrollment Trends
Report Run Date As Of : 2/24/2013 4:02:18 PM
http://datamart.cccco.edu/Courses/Credit_Course_Summary.aspx
Spring 2010
State of California
Enrollment
%
Count
Change
4,420,720
0.0
Chabot-Las Positas CCD
Enrollment
%
Count
Change
69,407
0.0
Chabot Hayward Total
Enrollment
%
Count
Change
41,703
0.0
Welding Technology
Enrollment
% Change
Count
191
0.0
Summer 2010
870,413
-80.3
12,168
-82.5
8,072
-80.6
0
-100.0
Fall 2010
4,431,140
409.1
70,897
482.7
43,487
438.7
190
undef
Spring 2011
4,372,811
-1.3
65,635
-7.4
40,434
-7.0
0
-100.0
Summer 2011
730,928
-83.3
8,563
-87.0
5,462
-86.5
0
undef
Fall 2011
4,209,903
476.0
63,648
643.3
39,034
614.6
219
undef
Spring 2012
4,123,960
-2.0
60,176
-5.5
36,672
-6.1
141
-35.6
Summer 2012
548,964
-86.7
7,147
-88.1
4,524
-87.7
24
-83.0
Fall 2012
1,664,531
203.2
60,597
747.9
36,099
697.9
161
570.8
28
29
Spring 2010
State of California
Enrollment
% Change
Count
4,420,720
0.0
Spring 2011
4,372,811
-1.1
65,635
-5.4
40,434
-3.0
0
Spring 2012
4,123,960
-5.7
60,176
-8.3
36,672
-9.3
141
undef
Sum
12,917,491
-6.8
195,218
-13.8
118,809
-12.3
332
-100.0
Summer 2010
Summer 2011
State of California
Enrollment
% Change
Count
870,413
0.0
730,928
-16.0
Chabot-Las Positas CCD
Enrollment
% Change
Count
69,407
0.0
Chabot-Las Positas CCD
Enrollment
% Change
Count
12,168
0.0
8,563
-29.6
30
Chabot Hayward Total
Enrollment
% Change
Count
41,703
0.0
Chabot Hayward Total
Enrollment
% Change
Count
8,072
0.0
5,462
-32.3
Welding Technology
Enrollment
% Change
Count
191
0.0
-100.0
Welding Technology
Enrollment
% Change
Count
0
0.0
0
0.0
Summer 2012
Sum
548,964
2,150,305
-24.9
-40.9
7,147
27,878
-16.5
-46.2
Fall 2010
State of California
Enrollment
% Change
Count
4,431,140
0.0
Fall 2011
4,209,903
-5.0
63,648
-10.2
39,034
-10.2
219
15.3
Fall 2012
1,664,531
-60.5
60,597
-4.8
36,099
-7.5
161
-26.5
Sum
10,305,574
-65.5
195,142
-15.0
118,620
-17.8
570
-11.2
Chabot-Las Positas CCD
Enrollment
% Change
Count
70,897
0.0
31
4,524
18,058
-17.2
-49.5
Chabot Hayward Total
Enrollment
% Change
Count
43,487
0.0
24
24
undef
undef
Welding Technology
Enrollment
% Change
Count
190
0.0
Attachment #2
Enrollment Capacity Discrepancy
**Due to specific welding laboratory capacity constraints, general enrollment
capacity figures are erroneous. These laboratory constraints are established for the
safety of the students and equipment usability, and must be adhered to**
(Due to lab requirements for the vocational study courses, a total of 24 students are assigned per time
period of lab, this is due to the number of welding stations in the laboratory, thus classes are nested
to form 6 nested groups to provide a maximum of 144 total students per semester)
Example of Nested Classes
32
Enrollment Capacity Discrepancies due to Laboratory Capacity Limitations
District
Capacity
Laboratory
Capacity
Actual
Census
221
348
281
215
266.25
144
144
144
144
144
191
193
222
141
186.75
Spring 2010
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Spring 2012
Average
% change
between
Capacities
-34.84%
-58.62%
-48.75%
-33.02%
-43.81%
% change between
Lab Capacity and
Census
32.63%
34.03%
54.17%
-2.08%
29.69%
(http://www.chabotcollege.edu/ProgramReview/Data/Applied_Tech&Bus/Welding/Prog_Rev_SEP_F09Sp12/EMC_09-12_WELD.pdf)
Attachment #3
Grading Distribution Summary
California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office
Grades Distribution Summary Report
Report Run Date As Of : 2/15/2013 10:09:48 AM
Spring
2010
Credit
Grade
Count
(%)
Summer
2010
Credit
Grade
Count
(%)
Credit
Grade
Count
(%)
Spring
2011
Credit
Grade
Count
(%)
Summer
2011
Credit
Grade
Count
(%)
Credit
Grade
Count
(%)
Spring
2012
Credit
Grade
Count
(%)
Summer
2012
Credit
Grade
Count
(%)
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
Grade A
Grade B
28.24%
34.66%
27.81%
16.99%
17.55%
16.96%
29.44%
35.15%
27.63%
29.39%
37.78%
18.08%
18.93%
18.18%
18.84%
19.06%
Grade C
11.73%
10.03%
11.80%
12.31%
11.20%
12.36%
13.02%
12.03%
Grade D
4.27%
3.28%
4.37%
4.53%
3.09%
4.59%
4.78%
3.75%
Grade F
7.89%
4.83%
8.22%
8.31%
4.61%
7.80%
8.22%
4.18%
Pass
10.50%
11.48%
12.62%
9.37%
8.23%
11.41%
9.09%
8.47%
No Pass
2.67%
3.00%
2.71%
2.15%
2.99%
1.96%
2.27%
0.92%
0.19%
0.00%
0.01%
0.00%
0.00%
0.23%
0.28%
0.11%
0.01%
0.00%
0.00%
0.02%
0.00%
0.01%
0.00%
0.39%
17.50%
15.18%
15.49%
15.78%
15.79%
15.84%
14.10%
13.31%
Chabot-Las Positas CCD
Total
Incomplete
No Credit
Report
Delayed
Withdrew
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office
Grades Distribution Summary Report Report Run Date As Of : 2/15/2013 10:07:34 AM
Chabot Hayward Total
Spring
2010
Credit
Grade
Count
(%)
Summer
2010
Credit
Grade
Count
(%)
100.00%
100.00%
Credit
Grade
Count
(%)
Spring
2011
Credit
Grade
Count
(%)
100.00%
100.00%
Fall 2010
33
Summer 2011
Fall 2011
Credit Grade
Count (%)
Credit
Grade
Count
(%)
Spring
2012
Credit
Grade
Count
(%)
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
Summer
2012
Credit
Grade
Count (%)
100.00%
Grade A
26.56%
33.61%
25.92%
27.95%
32.95%
25.53%
28.62%
36.60%
Grade B
15.76%
16.39%
16.15%
16.97%
18.18%
17.35%
18.15%
17.93%
Grade C
11.25%
9.32%
11.47%
12.17%
10.49%
11.79%
12.68%
11.21%
Grade D
4.59%
3.10%
4.49%
4.65%
2.78%
4.65%
5.02%
3.58%
Grade F
8.23%
4.29%
8.43%
8.67%
3.68%
7.53%
8.30%
3.36%
Pass
11.77%
14.51%
14.58%
11.11%
11.94%
14.17%
10.38%
12.67%
No Pass
3.20%
3.39%
2.88%
2.40%
4.65%
2.04%
2.57%
1.39%
0.12%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.17%
0.20%
0.13%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.01%
0.00%
0.01%
0.00%
0.00%
18.52%
15.40%
16.08%
16.06%
15.32%
16.75%
14.07%
13.13%
Incomplete
No Credit
Report
Delayed
Withdrew
California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office
Grades Distribution Summary Report
Report Run Date As Of : 2/15/2013 10:12:34 AM
Spring
2010
Summer
2010
Fall 2010
Spring
2011
Summer 2011
Fall 2011
Spring
2012
Summer
2012
Credit
Grade
Count (%)
Credit
Grade
Count (%)
Credit
Grade
Count (%)
Credit
Grade
Count (%)
Credit Grade
Count (%)
Credit
Grade
Count (%)
Credit
Grade
Count (%)
Credit
Grade
Count (%)
Welding Technology095650 Total
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
Grade A
31.94%
0.00%
51.58%
0.00%
0.00%
37.90%
36.17%
16.67%
Grade B
42.93%
0.00%
21.58%
0.00%
0.00%
31.05%
35.46%
66.67%
Grade C
8.90%
0.00%
7.89%
0.00%
0.00%
9.59%
6.38%
0.00%
Grade D
4.71%
0.00%
4.74%
0.00%
0.00%
4.57%
1.42%
8.33%
Grade F
0.52%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.71%
0.00%
Pass
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.46%
0.71%
0.00%
No Pass
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.71%
0.00%
Withdrew
10.99%
0.00%
14.21%
0.00%
0.00%
16.44%
18.44%
8.33%
Analysis:
Grade A Distribution
Spring
2010
Summer
2010
Fall 2010
Spring
2011
Summer
2011
Fall 2011
Spring
2012
Summer
2012
Chabot-Las Positas CCD
Total
28.24%
34.66%
27.81%
29.44%
35.15%
27.63%
29.39%
37.78%
Chabot Hayward Total
26.56%
33.61%
25.92%
27.95%
32.95%
25.53%
28.62%
36.60%
Welding Technology095650 Total
31.94%
0.00%
51.58%
0.00%
0.00%
37.90%
36.17%
16.67%
34
Grade B Distribution
Spring
2010
Summer
2010
Fall 2010
Spring
2011
Summer
2011
Fall 2011
Spring
2012
Summer
2012
Chabot-Las Positas CCD
Total
16.99%
17.55%
16.96%
18.08%
18.93%
18.18%
18.84%
19.06%
Chabot Hayward Total
15.76%
16.39%
16.15%
16.97%
18.18%
17.35%
18.15%
17.93%
Welding Technology095650 Total
42.93%
0.00%
21.58%
0.00%
0.00%
31.05%
35.46%
66.67%
Spring
2010
Summer
2010
Fall 2010
Spring
2011
Summer
2011
Fall 2011
Spring
2012
Summer
2012
Chabot-Las Positas CCD
Total
11.73%
10.03%
11.80%
12.31%
11.20%
12.36%
13.02%
12.03%
Chabot Hayward Total
11.25%
9.32%
11.47%
12.17%
10.49%
11.79%
12.68%
11.21%
Grade C Distribution
35
Welding Technology095650 Total
8.90%
0.00%
7.89%
0.00%
0.00%
9.59%
6.38%
0.00%
Spring
2010
Summer
2010
Fall 2010
Spring
2011
Summer
2011
Fall 2011
Spring
2012
Summer
2012
Chabot-Las Positas CCD
Total
4.27%
3.28%
4.37%
4.53%
3.09%
4.59%
4.78%
3.75%
Chabot Hayward Total
4.59%
3.10%
4.49%
4.65%
2.78%
4.65%
5.02%
3.58%
Welding Technology095650 Total
4.71%
0.00%
4.74%
0.00%
0.00%
4.57%
1.42%
8.33%
Grade D Distribution
Grade F Distribution
36
Spring
2010
Summer
2010
Fall 2010
Spring
2011
Summer
2011
Fall 2011
Spring
2012
Summer
2012
Chabot-Las Positas CCD
Total
7.89%
4.83%
8.22%
8.31%
4.61%
7.80%
8.22%
4.18%
Chabot Hayward Total
8.23%
4.29%
8.43%
8.67%
3.68%
7.53%
8.30%
3.36%
Welding Technology095650 Total
0.52%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.71%
0.00%
Spring
2010
Summer
2010
Fall 2010
Spring
2011
Summer
2011
Fall 2011
Spring
2012
Summer
2012
Chabot-Las Positas CCD
Total
17.50%
15.18%
15.49%
15.78%
15.79%
15.84%
14.10%
13.31%
Chabot Hayward Total
18.52%
15.40%
16.08%
16.06%
15.32%
16.75%
14.07%
13.13%
Welding Technology095650 Total
10.99%
0.00%
14.21%
0.00%
0.00%
16.44%
18.44%
8.33%
Withdrawal Distribution
37
Welding Technology Grades Distribution Summary
38
39
Attachment #4
Course Learning Outcome Direct Consumables Requirement
**Note: all courses offered require consumables to be used in gaining skillsets
needed to pass the course**
40
The average number of Course Learning Outcomes that requires consumables
(summer 2012 is taken out because it only has two clos) is 72.6%.
**Data taken from Chabot College Elumen Site
https://elumen.laspositascollege.edu:8443/elumen**
Attachment #5
Course Learning Outcome Results
**Data taken from Chabot College Elumen Site
https://elumen.laspositascollege.edu:8443/elumen**
41
42
43
Attachment #6
Success Rate Results
California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office
Credit Course Retention/Success Rate Summary Report
Report Run Date As Of : 2/27/2013 9:28:16 AM
44
Fall 2010
Credit, Degree
Applicable,
Vocational
Enrollment
Count
State of California Total
Fall 2010
Fall 2010
Credit,
Degree
Applicable,
Vocational
Success
Count
Credit,
Degree
Applicable,
Vocational
Success
Rate
3,867,944
2,693,150
69.63%
Chabot-Las Positas CCD Total
62,232
43,951
70.62%
Chabot Hayward Total
37,675
26,236
69.64%
190
154
81.05%
Welding Technology-095650
State of California Total
Fall 2010
Fall 2010
Fall 2010
Transferable
Transferable
Transferable
Enrollment
Count
Success
Count
Success
Rate
2,979,804
2,082,860
69.90%
Chabot-Las Positas CCD Total
51,148
36,718
71.79%
Chabot Hayward Total
31,051
21,976
70.77%
141
111
78.72%
Spring 2010
Spring 2010
Spring 2010
Credit, Degree
Applicable,
Vocational
Credit,
Degree
Applicable,
Vocational
Credit,
Degree
Applicable,
Vocational
Welding Technology-095650
45
Enrollment
Count
State of California Total
Success
Count
Success
Rate
3,807,117
2,631,478
69.12%
Chabot-Las Positas CCD Total
61,218
41,982
68.58%
Chabot Hayward Total
36,475
24,225
66.42%
191
160
83.77%
Spring 2010
Spring 2010
Spring 2010
Transferable
Transferable
Transferable
Enrollment
Count
Success
Count
Success
Rate
Welding Technology-095650
State of California Total
2,924,001
2,032,982
69.53%
Chabot-Las Positas CCD
Total
50,020
35,027
70.03%
Chabot Hayward Total
29,589
20,084
67.88%
101
84
83.17%
Welding Technology095650
46
Fall 2011
Credit, Degree
Applicable,
Vocational
Enrollment
Count
State of California Total
Fall 2011
Fall 2011
Credit,
Degree
Applicable,
Vocational
Success
Count
Credit,
Degree
Applicable,
Vocational
Success
Rate
3,659,848
2,557,979
69.89%
Chabot-Las Positas CCD Total
55,256
39,187
70.92%
Chabot Hayward Total
33,587
23,548
70.11%
219
173
79.00%
Fall 2011
Fall 2011
Fall 2011
Transferable
Transferable
Transferable
Enrollment
Count
Success
Count
Success
Rate
Welding Technology-095650
State of California Total
2,824,022
1,990,030
70.47%
Chabot-Las Positas CCD
Total
45,739
33,143
72.46%
Chabot Hayward Total
27,697
19,893
71.82%
146
122
83.56%
Welding Technology095650
47
Spring 2012
Credit, Degree
Applicable,
Vocational
Enrollment
Count
State of California Total
Spring 2012
Spring 2012
Credit,
Degree
Applicable,
Vocational
Success
Count
Credit,
Degree
Applicable,
Vocational
Success
Rate
3,551,877
2,488,921
70.07%
Chabot-Las Positas CCD Total
51,531
36,803
71.42%
Chabot Hayward Total
30,954
21,930
70.85%
141
111
78.72%
Spring 2012
Spring 2012
Spring 2012
Transferable
Transferable
Transferable
Enrollment
Count
Success
Count
Success
Rate
Welding Technology-095650
State of California Total
2,786,074
1,968,050
70.64%
Chabot-Las Positas CCD
Total
42,524
31,027
72.96%
Chabot Hayward Total
25,068
18,062
72.05%
79
62
78.48%
Welding Technology095650
48
Summer 2012
Summer 2012
Summer 2012
Credit, Degree
Applicable,
Vocational
Credit, Degree
Applicable,
Vocational
Credit, Degree
Applicable,
Vocational
Enrollment
Count
Success Count
Success Rate
State of California Total
411,711
334,040
81.13%
Chabot-Las Positas CCD Total
5,005
4,032
80.56%
Chabot Hayward Total
3,209
2,595
80.87%
24
20
83.33%
Welding Technology-095650
Summer 2012
Transferable
Enrollment
Count
Summer
2012
Transferable
Success
Count
Summer
2012
Transferable
Success
Rate
State of California Total
305,392
249,274
81.62%
Chabot-Las Positas CCD
Total
4,317
3,510
81.31%
Chabot Hayward Total
2,724
2,205
80.95%
24
20
83.33%
Welding Technology095650
49
Attachment #7
Success Rate by Gender & Sex
(http://www.chabotcollege.edu/ProgramReview/Data/Overall_College_Success_F08-Sp11.pdf)
(http://www.chabotcollege.edu/ProgramReview/Data/Applied_Tech&Bus/Welding/Prog_Rev_SEP_F09Sp12/WELD_Overall.pdf)
50
51
52
53
54
Attachment #8
Retention Rate Results
California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office
Credit Course Retention/Success Rate Summary Report
Report Run Date As Of : 2/27/2013 9:28:16 AM
Fall 2010
Fall 2010
Fall 2010
Credit, Degree
Applicable,
Vocational
Credit, Degree
Applicable,
Vocational
Credit, Degree
Applicable,
Vocational
55
Enrollment
Count
Retention
Count
Retention Rate
State of California Total
3,867,944
3,306,286
85.48%
Chabot-Las Positas CCD Total
62,232
53,378
85.77%
Chabot Hayward Total
37,675
32,142
85.31%
Welding Technology-095650
190
163
85.79%
Fall 2010
Fall 2010
Fall 2010
Transferable
Transferable
Transferable
Enrollment
Count
Retention
Count
Retention Rate
State of California Total
2,979,804
2,539,422
85.22%
Chabot-Las Positas CCD Total
51,148
43,990
86.01%
Chabot Hayward Total
31,051
26,552
85.51%
Welding Technology-095650
141
117
82.98%
Spring 2010
Spring 2010
Spring 2010
Credit, Degree
Applicable,
Vocational
Enrollment
Count
Credit, Degree
Applicable,
Vocational
Retention
Count
Credit, Degree
Applicable,
Vocational
3,807,117
3,230,722
84.86%
Chabot-Las Positas CCD Total
61,218
51,135
83.53%
Chabot Hayward Total
36,475
30,110
82.55%
191
170
89.01%
State of California Total
Welding Technology-095650
Spring 2010
Spring 2010
56
Retention Rate
Spring 2010
Transferable
Transferable
Transferable
Enrollment
Count
Retention
Count
Retention Rate
2,924,001
2,478,780
84.77%
Chabot-Las Positas CCD Total
50,020
42,018
84.00%
Chabot Hayward Total
29,589
24,514
82.85%
101
89
88.12%
State of California Total
Welding Technology-095650
State of California Total
Fall 2011
Fall 2011
Fall 2011
Credit, Degree
Applicable,
Vocational
Enrollment
Count
Credit, Degree
Applicable,
Vocational
Retention
Count
Credit, Degree
Applicable,
Vocational
3,659,848
3,135,187
57
Retention Rate
85.66%
Chabot-Las Positas CCD Total
55,256
47,182
85.39%
Chabot Hayward Total
33,587
28,418
84.61%
219
183
83.56%
Welding Technology-095650
State of California Total
Fall 2011
Fall 2011
Fall 2011
Transferable
Transferable
Transferable
Enrollment
Count
Retention
Count
Retention Rate
2,824,022
2,415,572
85.54%
Chabot-Las Positas CCD Total
45,739
39,174
85.65%
Chabot Hayward Total
27,697
23,483
84.79%
146
125
85.62%
Welding Technology-095650
Spring 2012
Spring 2012
Spring 2012
Credit, Degree
Applicable,
Vocational
Enrollment
Count
Credit, Degree
Applicable,
Vocational
Retention
Count
Credit, Degree
Applicable,
Vocational
3,551,877
3,044,425
85.71%
Chabot-Las Positas CCD Total
51,531
44,706
86.76%
Chabot Hayward Total
30,954
26,883
86.85%
141
115
81.56%
State of California Total
Welding Technology-095650
58
Retention Rate
State of California Total
Spring 2012
Spring 2012
Spring 2012
Transferable
Transferable
Transferable
Enrollment
Count
Retention
Count
Retention Rate
2,786,074
2,386,455
85.66%
Chabot-Las Positas CCD Total
42,524
37,078
87.19%
Chabot Hayward Total
25,068
21,793
86.94%
79
65
82.28%
Welding Technology-095650
Summer 2012
Summer 2012
Summer 2012
Credit, Degree
Applicable,
Vocational
Enrollment
Count
Credit, Degree
Applicable,
Vocational
Retention
Count
Credit, Degree
Applicable,
Vocational
411,711
374,265
90.90%
Chabot-Las Positas CCD Total
5,005
4,449
88.89%
Chabot Hayward Total
3,209
2,863
89.22%
24
22
91.67%
State of California Total
Welding Technology-095650
Retention Rate
Summer 2012
Summer 2012
Summer 2012
Transferable
Transferable
Transferable
Enrollment
Count
Retention
Count
Retention Rate
305,392
277,134
90.75%
Chabot-Las Positas CCD Total
4,317
3,864
89.51%
Chabot Hayward Total
2,724
2,437
89.46%
24
22
91.67%
State of California Total
Welding Technology-095650
59
60