Chabot College
Academic Program Review Report
Year Three of the
Program Review Cycle
Final Summary Report
ENGINEERING
Submitted on 23-Feb-13
Bruce Mayer, PE
Final Forms, 1/18/13
6
Figure 1 • The Career Progression of Chabot Engineering Student Mr. Robert Irwin. After earning the BS Mechanical Engineering Degree
from UCBerkeley he joined NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory. At JPL he assisted with the design and testing of the Mars rover
“Curiosity”. In addition to his professional duties Mr. Irwin also attends UCLA where he hopes to earn an MS in Mechanical Engineering.
Table of Contents
Section A: What Have We Accomplished? ................................ 1
Section B: What’s Next? ........................................................... 2
Required Appendices:
A: Budget History .........................................................................................3
B1: Course Learning Outcomes Assessment Schedule .................................4
B2: “Closing the Loop” Assessment Reflections ..........................................5
C: Program Learning Outcomes....................................................................9
D: A Few Questions ...................................................................................11
E: New Initiatives ......................................................................................12
F1: New Faculty Requests ..........................................................................13
F2: Classified Staffing Requests ..................................................................14
F3: FTEF Requests ......................................................................................15
F4: Academic Learning Support Requests .................................................16
F5: Supplies and Services Requests ............................................................17
F6: Conference/Travel Requests ................................................................18
F7: Technology and Other Equipment Requests ........................................19
F8: Facilities Requests ................................................................................20
A. What Have We Accomplished?
Complete Appendices A (Budget History), B1 and B2 (CLO's), C (PLO's), and D (A few questions) prior to writing
your narrative. You should also review your most recent success, equity, course sequence, and enrollment data
at http://www.chabotcollege.edu/ProgramReview/Data2012.cfm.
In year one, you established goals and action plans for program improvement. This section asks you to
reflect on the progress you have made toward those goals. This analysis will be used by the PRBC and
Budget Committee to assess progress toward achievement of our Strategic Plan and to inform future
budget decisions. It will also be used by the SLOAC and Basic Skills committees as input to their
priority-setting process. In your narrative of two or less pages, address the following questions:







What program improvement goals did you establish?
Did you achieve the goals you established for the three years? Specifically describe your
progress on goals you set for student learning, program learning, and Strategic Plan
achievement.
What best practices have you developed? Those could include pedagogical methods, strategies
to address Basic Skills needs of our students, methods of working within your discipline, and
more.
Are these best practices replicable in other disciplines or areas?
What were your greatest challenges?
Were there institutional barriers to success?
Cite relevant data in your narrative (e.g., efficiency, persistence, success, FT/PT faculty ratios,
CLO/PLO assessment results, external accreditation demands, etc.).
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY



Funding Requests
o ENGR25: 30 Additional MATLAB seats to give student outside-of-class access to
the ENGR25 Software
 $2800 OneTime License purchase
 $500 annual maintenance
o ENGR25: Baccalaureate Degree Level Instructional Assistant to conduct 3 hour
per week Lab Tutorials
 Approx. $5000 ($5k) per year
The Engineering program at Chabot continues to produce a large number of highlycapable students. As shown in Figure 2 over 23 Chabot engineering students transfer to
UC or CSU engineering programs every year. The Engineering program also transfers
more students to UC’s than any other discipline on the Chabot Campus. See Figure 3.
Engineering enrollments and WSCH/FTEF climbed to the highest levels seen at Chabot
since the “Dot.Com” Boom. See Figure 4 and Figure 5. Some possible reasons for this
increase
o Improved articulation which encourages students from Chabot, and other
community colleges, to take the courses listed in ASSIST.ORG
Bruce Mayer, PE • Document1 • Page 1






1
o The founding at Chabot of a MESA1 program through the tireless efforts of
Instructor Donna Gibson, and Dean Tram Vo-Kumamoto
o The addition of 1 section each per year of the traditionally high-enrollment
ENGR10 & ENGR11 courses
o High School Outreach by the Engineering Instructor
o General, nationwide increase in engineering enrollments due to, perhaps,
economic conditions coupled with excellent employment opportunities for
engineers
Chabot Engineering instructors have engaged in a Continuous Improvement Process to
improve Student learning. Some items related to this process
o Writing numerous Tutorial Sessions for Lab Classes
o Instituting daily “MiniQuizzes” to help students keep up with the course
o Making the instructor’s notes available on the course webpage. See Figure 6.
o Using an OnLine HomeWork system, Mastering Engineering, for the one
engineering course (Engineering Mechanics) for which this system is available.
The students generally agreed that the real-time feedback provided by this
system helped them learn the course material. See also Figure 7 and Figure 8.
o Integrate Study-Skills instruction in ALL courses taught by the writer
o Inspire Chabot students by arranging Guest Lectures from Successful Engineers
in the Public, Private and Academic sectors. See Figure 10.
Engineering is a leader in the SLOAC process. Consider this comment from Dr. R. Yest,
SLOAC committee systems (data) analyst in Feb13: “If every discipline were like
engineering, Chabot would be in great shape [for meeting its SLOAC goals]”
o As of this writing Engineering is 100% compliant with the WASC SLOAC
requirements
After a decade-long effort Engineering achieved optimal articulation. New courses that
articulate widely, and very importantly to UCBerkeley and San Jose State University
include ENGR22, ENGR25, ENGR11, ENGR43
o About 56% of Chabot Engineering Transfer students attend either SJSU or
UCBerkeley. See Figure 9.
Assisted with the creation of a MESA program at Chabot. My thanks to Ms. Donna
Gibson, and Ms. Tram Vo-Kumamoto for doing the bulk of the work associated with this
effort. See Appendix f9 for B. Mayer’s designs for a MESA SweatShirt.
Designed Team Teaching methodologies for the Electrical Circuits and Devices Course;
ENGR43
o Engineering Instructor, Mr. Bruce Mayer, acts as the Instructor-of-Record, and
provides Lecture/Discussion instruction, and writes the midterm and final exams.
o Electrical Systems Instructor, Mr. Wayne Phillips, delivers the hands-on lab
instruction exercises and the writes the lab-practicum exam. See Figure 11
Worked closely colleagues during an early Jan13, two-day meeting session to better
align interdisciplinary course schedules that would then facilitate students’ progress
through several courses of study. See Appendix f10 for the session agenda. This effort
resulted in a revision of the ENGR scheduling plan as indicated in Table 1.
o Note the additions of ENGR10 an ENGR11 sections, and the movement of
ENGR45 from Spring to Fall.
Math Engineering Science Achievement
Bruce Mayer, PE • Document1 • Page 2
Table 1 • Chabot Engineering Scheduling Plan
OLD
Course
10
11
22
25
36
43
45


Fall
xx
xx
xx
xx
NEW
Spring
xx
xx
xx
xx
xx
Course
10
11
22
25
36
43
45
Fall
xx
XX
xx
xx
xx
Spring
XX
xx
xx
xx
xx
xx
Student Success remains the most difficult challenge within the Engineering Discipline.
Figure 12 shows significant recent improvement in engineering success, which is now
slightly better than that observed for the college as a whole.
o The Likely reason for this improvement is the increased offering of the HiEnrolled, Hi-Success, No-PreReq courses ENGR10 and ENGR11.
Examining recent results more deeply indicates that Success Rates in the CalculusBased courses ENGR25, ENGR36, ENGR43, and ENGR45 are not as high as in the
No-PreReq courses ENGR10, ENGR11, ENGR22. See Figure 13.
o Note the low success rate in ENGR25. ENGR25 is a PreReq for the 36, 43, and
45 courses. Improving learning in ENGR25 should provide a pipeline for more
36/43/45 students, and better prepare the students for the rigor of these courses.
Due to the positive impact imparted by improved ENGR25 success, this review
will propose the addition of an instructional assistant to give the students a
second weekly tutorial on the course material.
 One of our fine colleagues, the long-time and excellent Math instructor,
Marcia Kolb, took the ENGR25 course in Fa11. She called ENGR25 the
“hardest course she ever took”. ENGR25 IS a difficult, rigorous course as
it articulates to the likes of UCBerkeley’s ENGIN7, UCDavis ENGR6, and
SJSU ME30.
Engineering best practices replicable in other disciplines or areas

Implementing daily MiniQuizzes (MQs) to reinforce the learning about the current topic.
MQs are given every meeting on a “pop” basis, emphasize the topic covered during the
last meeting, take 5-minutes, and account for about 5% of the student’s course-score.
MQ’s
o Encourage students to attend every class meeting
o Require the Study of the last lecture-material prior to the next class creating a
smooth continuity of learning
o Produces in-class participation by the students
Bruce Mayer, PE • Document1 • Page 3

o The instructor often demonstrates the solution to the MQs, giving the students
RealTime FeedBack on their efforts
Integrating STUDY SKILLS into all courses. Engineering executes study skills
integration using a Take Home Quiz (THQ) which requires careful reading of an OnLine
Study Skills presentation. This Study Skills quiz is offered for Extra Credit in ALL
courses instructed by B. Mayer. Consider this comment on the effectiveness of the
Study Skills instruction:
>>> Evan Manrique <evanmanrique@yahoo.com> 10/24/2012 10:53 AM >>>
Hello Mr. Mayer,
I just wanted to thank you for the preparation you have provided me during my time
at Chabot College. Getting though the first round of midterms at Cal Poly, I found
myself in both of my EE classes, receiving the HIGHEST GRADE on the midterms. The
WORK ETHIC that I had to acquire in taking your classes at Chabot has truly made me a
more confident and stronger student. I hope everything is going well for you this
semester and thank you again for all your help and guidance.
Evan Manrique

Using “Introduction” course to encourage Education Plan construction by students. In
the Introduction to Engineering Course (ENGR10) an assignment is given for credit
wherein the students create a term-by-term course plan to achieve their academic goal.
This early planning prevents students from taking non-goal-applicable courses; e.g.,
taking GE course that do NOT apply to Engineering Transfer. Any course that students
take early their academic career is a candidate for this course-of-study improving
activity.
o I have received a great deal of positive feedback on this assignment from
students who have gone on to earn Engineering Degrees at Universities.
Bruce Mayer, PE • Document1 • Page 4
Goal Against Review • See YearOne Action Plan Timeline:
PLOs and/or
Program Goal(s)
Articulate Courses Widely,
Particularly to SJSU &
UCBerkeley • See Error!
Timeline
Support Needed to
Accomplish These
Activities*
Activity
May10
Reference source not
found.
Meet with the UCBerkeley
Supervising Professor, Bernhard
Boser2, in his office at UCB to
determine his requirements for
articulation
Articulate to UCBerkeley
Electrical Engineering 40
(EE40 course)
Aug10
Write new Course OutLine to
meet Prof. Boser’s needs for
Articulation
2
3
Outcome(s) Expected
Person(s)
Responsible
Progress
Against
Goals
None
Summary Specification of the
Chabot ENGR43 CourseContent changes needed to
Earn Articulation to UCB EE40
Bruce Mayer
COMPLETE
None
Curriculum proposal for new
Course Outline for the ReTitled Bruce Mayer
ENGR43 Course
COMPLETE
Aug10
Write Course Learning Outcome
(CLO’s) consistent with the new
course content. Write an
None
Assessment Rubric for
quantifying student performance
against the CLO’s
Write 3+ CLO’s as required for
this 4-unit class (5 CLO’s
actually written)
Bruce Mayer
COMPLETE
Sep10
Present to, and secure approval
from, the Curriculum Committee
for new ENGR43 course outline
None
Approval of the ENGR43
Course Content needed to
articulate to UCB EE40
Bruce Mayer
COMPLETE
Nov10
Write Articulation Proposal3 for
ENGR43UCB-EE40, work with
the Articulation Officer to
None
Articulation Proposal
submitted to A. Myrna Aguilar
(myrnaa@berkeley.edu) at
Bruce Mayer, Jane
Church
COMPLETE
http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/~boser/
See eMail to Jane Church >>> Bruce Mayer 11/14/10 10:52 AM >>>
Bruce Mayer, PE • Document1 • Page 1
formally submit it to UCB
UCB
Nov10
Confirm Receipt of the
articulation proposal by the UCB
College of Engineering (CoE)
None
Confirm receipt with Dale
Masterson4 - Director,
Engineering Student Services at Bruce Mayer
the UC-Berkeley College of
Engineering
COMPLETE
Nov10
Alert Prof. Boser that the
articulation Proposal is coming.
Answer any questions he might
have
None
Prof. Boser has all his questions
Bruce Mayer
answered5
COMPLETE
Dec10
Secure Prof. Boser’s approval,
and confirm articulation as listed
on ASSIST.ORG
None
Publication of Articulation on
ASSIST.ORG
COMPLETE
Required followUp
phone conversation
Dec10
Discuss with W. Phillips of the
ESYS program the use by the new
ENGR43 of the newly acquired
none
Electronics-Lab instructions
system; NI-ELVISError!
Bruce Mayer
Decision by W. Phillips on the
Use of the NI-ELEVIS® system in Bruce Mayer
the new ENGR43
COMPLETE
Decision by W. Phillips on the
his Team Teaching in the new
ENGR436
COMPLETE
Bookmark not defined.
Dec10
Discuss with W. Phillips the
possibility TEAM TEACHING in the
new ENGR43. B. Mayer to
none
instructor the Lecture/Discussion
Component While W. Phillips
would instruct the Lab
4
See eMail >>> Dale Masterson <dmasterson@berkeley.edu> 11/17/10 5:20 PM >>>
See for Example eMail from Prof. Boser: >>> Bernhard Boser <boser@eecs.berkeley.edu> 11/17/10 11:18 AM >>>
6
Mr. Phillips and B. Mayer both agreed that this arrangement would likely lead to enhanced learning of the new ENGR43 subject matter
5
Bruce Mayer, PE • Document1 • Page 2
Bruce Mayer
Component`
Jan11
Secure approval of the Team
Teaching concept from Deans T.
Clark and T. Vo-Kumamoto
Decision on the team structure
where B. Mayer is the
Bruce Mayer,
instructor of record, assisted by Wayne Phillips
Lab-Instructor W. Phillips
COMPLETE
thanks to T. Clark
and T. VoKumamoto
Mar11
Select New TEXT BOOK for the
New ENGR43
Textbook order placed
B. Mayer
COMPLETE
Aug11
Submit Request for ITS to install
the course-content required
Circuit Simulation Software
(PSPICE) on the Lab Computers
Software installed in Lab. If
possible the PSPICE software
will be installed the 3906A for
use by students when
Electronics Lab is closed
B. Mayer
COMPLETE
Thanks to the ITS
team
Sep11
Write New Lecture Set for the
NEW ENGR43
Full Set of Lecture Notes and
Slides Complete
Bruce Mayer
COMPLETE
Oct11
Develop Lab Exercise Plan to
complement the Lecture Plan
List of Lecture-complementary
Lab Exercises
Bruce Mayer,
Wayne Phillips
COMPLETE
Apr11
Develop PRACTICAL LAB
Examination to assess student’s
learning of the use of the Lab
Equipment and Systems
Design of HANDS-ON lab
practicum exam
Bruce Mayer,
Wayne Phillips
COMPLETE
done by W. Phillips
May11
Assess the FIVE CLOs written for
this course as part of the
Curriculum proposal
Assessment data entered into
eLumen
Bruce Mayer
COMPLETE
Bruce Mayer, PE • Document1 • Page 3
Engineering/Chabot
OutReach to Chabot Area
High Schools
7
Dec11
Analyze CLOs to determine
appropriateness and efficacy of
the Outcomes and Assessments
for the first-time-taught course
content
Iterate/Improve CLOs as
indicated by the analysis
Bruce Mayer
COMPLETE
Dec11
Analyze CLO Assessment results.
Identify weakness, and develop
strategies & methods to improve
student learning
New-Methods Planned
Bruce Mayer
COMPLETE
May12
Assess the (possibly improved)
CLOs for this course
Assessment data entered into
eLumen
Bruce Mayer
COMPLETE
Dec12
Analyze CLO Assessment results.
Identify weakness, and develop
strategies & methods to improve
student learning
New-Methods Planned
Bruce Mayer
COMPLETE
May13
Assess the (now stable) CLOs for
this course
Assessment data entered into
eLumen
Bruce Mayer
In Process
Nov-Dec10
Make OutReach Visits to High
Schools, Collect Data on the
number students contacted
Visit at Least Two Different
High Schools to present before Bruce Mayer7
at least Four different classes
On Hold due to
B.Mayer Health
Issues
Apr-May11
Make OutReach Visits to High
Schools, Collect Data on the
number students contacted
Visit at Least Two Different
High Schools to present before Bruce Mayer
at least Four different classes
On Hold due to
B.Mayer Health
Issues
Occasionally Chabot Instructional-Faculty Colleagues have assisted with the OutReach visits → S. Hildreth, T. Dave, M. Ho., D. Crew
Bruce Mayer, PE • Document1 • Page 4
Nov-Dec11
Make OutReach Visits to High
Schools, Collect Data on the
number students contacted
Visit at Least Two Different
High Schools to present before Bruce Mayer
at least Four different classes
On Hold due to
B.Mayer Health
Issues
Apr-May12
Make OutReach Visits to High
Schools, Collect Data on the
number students contacted
Visit at Least Two Different
High Schools to present before Bruce Mayer
at least Four different classes
On Hold due to
B.Mayer Health
Issues
Nov-Dec12
Make OutReach Visits to High
Schools, Collect Data on the
number students contacted
Visit at Least Two Different
High Schools to present before Bruce Mayer
at least Four different classes
On Hold due to
B.Mayer Health
Issues
Apr-May13
Make OutReach Visits to High
Schools, Collect Data on the
number students contacted
Visit at Least Two Different
High Schools to present before Bruce Mayer
at least Four different classes
On Hold due to
B.Mayer Health
Issues
UCBerkeley Electrical Engineering Professor Bernhard E. Boser graduated from ETH (Swiss Federal Institute of
Technology) in 1984 and received the MSEE and PhD degrees from Stanford University (1985/1988). He makes the
final decision about articulation to UCB Electrical Engineering 40 (EE40) to which Chabot’s ENGR43 now articulates
Bruce Mayer, PE • Document1 • Page 5
Chabot UC+CSU Engineering Fall-Transfer Volume • 04-10
30
Data Source = California Postsecondary Education Commission (CPEC)
• http://www.cpec.ca.gov/OnLineData/OnLineData.asp
27
Number of Engineering Transfer Students
26
25
24
24
23.29
23
22
20
17
15
10
5
0
Fa04
Fa05
Program_Rev_ENGR_Enrollment_History_1211.xlsx
Fa06
Fa07
Fa08
Fa09
Fa10
Transfer Year
Figure 2 • Chabot Engineering University-Transfer Productivityi during B. Mayer’s tenure as the
College’s Engineering Instructor
Bruce Mayer, PE • Document1 • Page 6
AVG
Chabot College UC-Transfer by Discipline • Total over 04-10
PHYS
1
CSCI
HIS
8
MTH
Discipline
Data Source
• http://www.cpec.ca.gov/OnLineData/SelectFinalOptions.asp
7
10
ENGL
18
ARCH
20
CHEM
30
BIOL
39
BUS
57
PSY
66
ENGR
86
0
10
20
Program_Rev_ENGR_Enrollment_History_1211.xlsx
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
UC Transfers
Figure 3 • Chabot-College to UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA (UC) Transfer Volume-Totals by
Academic-Major over the period of 2004-2010ii. Note that ENGINEERING produces MORE UCTransfers THAN ANY OTHER discipline on the Chabot College Campus
Bruce Mayer, PE • Document1 • Page 7
Annual Chabot College Engineering FTEStudents • 94-13
22
"Dot.Com Boom"
Averages Since Fa03:
• 14.0 FTES
• 1.17 FTEF
Full Time Equivalent STUDENTS (FTES)
20
Chabot_ENGR_Enrollment_History_1302.xlsx
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
1213
1112
1011
0910
0809
0708
0607
0506
0405
0304
0203
0102
0001
9900
9899
9798
9697
9596
9495
Figure 4 • Chabot-College Engineering Enrollment over the period for which detailed statistics are
available. Note that enrollments over the last two years have rivaled those generated during the
“Dot.Com Boom” of the mid 1990’s.
Bruce Mayer, PE • Document1 • Page 8
500
Annual Chabot College Engineering WSCH/FTEF 94-13
450
400
100
150
200
250
300
350
"Dot.Com Boom"
0
50
WSCH/FullTimeEquivalentFaculty (WSCH/FTEF)
Chabot_ENGR_Enrollment_History_1302.xlsx
1213
1112
1011
0910
0809
0708
0607
0506
0405
0304
0203
0102
0001
9900
9899
9798
9697
9596
9495
Figure 5 • Chabot-College Engineering WSCH/FTEF over the period for which detailed statistics are
available. Note that over the last two years WSCH/FTEF metric has far exceeded those observed in the
“Dot.Com Boom” of the mid 1990’s.
Bruce Mayer, PE • Document1 • Page 9
Figure 6 • A certificate of appreciation from Chabot students. Obviously the students find my use of
PowerPoint software to be an effective teaching/learning tool.
Bruce Mayer, PE • Document1 • Page 10
Figure 8 • Mr. Scott Hildreth of Chabot College
testifies to the efficacy of the “Mastering” OnLine
HomeWork software produced by Pearson Higher
Figure 7 • Mean scores of midterm and final exams Education publishingiv
with standard errors, academic years 2008 & 2009
at the Colorado School of Mines (M.midterm and
M.final are with Mastering Engineering)iii.
Bruce Mayer, PE • Document1 • Page 11
Other States
3
UC-Other
3
Chabot Engineering-Student Transfer-University • 04-10
CSU-Other
6
CSU-Sacramento
4
CalPoly-SLO
4
Tranfer Destination
167 Chabot Engineering Transfers, Total
• 86 UC Transfers
• 78 CSU Transfers
• Out of State Transfers: Purdue, Ohio State, Cornell
• 01-10 Data Source = California Postsecondary Education Commission (CPEC)
• CA-Data = http://www.cpec.ca.gov/OnLineData/OnLineData.asp
• Out of State Data = Student Surveys
UC-Irvine
6
CSU-EastBay
6
SFSU
7
UC-LA
7
UC-SanDiego
8
UC-Davis
20
UC-Berkeley
42
SJSU
51
0
5
10
Program_Rev_ENGR_Enrollment_History_1211.xlsx
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
Number of Chabot Engineering Students
Figure 9 • The distribution of Engineering Transfer Destinations for Chabot Engineering Students who
actually transferred to a university engineering program. Note that about 56% of Chabot Engineering
Transfer students attend SJSU and UCBerkeley.
Bruce Mayer, PE • Document1 • Page 12
Figure 10 - Former Chabot Engineering Transfer Students (left to Right) Zhiwei Huang, Sangam Rawat,
and Hoang Nguyen return to Chabot to give a guest lecture to the Fall12 edition of the Introduction to
Engineering course. All three of these Engineers-to-Be Transferred from Chabot to UCBerkeley. Mr.
Huang (3.75 GPA) and Mr. Rawat (3.70 GPA) are majoring in Mechanical Engineering. Mr. Nguyen
(3.48 GPA) is Majoring in Civil Engineering.
Bruce Mayer, PE • Document1 • Page 13
Figure 11 • Examples of sophisticated Electrical Engineering Lab Exercises developed by the Lab
Instructor, Mr. Wayne Phillips, for ENGR43.
Bruce Mayer, PE • Document1 • Page 14
Engineering Success Rates • Fa09-Sp12
Student Sucess Ratio
80%
70%
Ref:
1)
http://www.chabotcollege.edu/ProgramReview/Data/Overall_College_Succ
ess_F08-Sp11.pdf
2)
http://www.chabotcollege.edu/ProgramReview/Data/Science%20&%20Mat
hematics/Engineering/Prog_Rev_SEP_F09-Sp12/ENGR_Overall.pdf
68%
69%
66%
58%
60%
55%
54.0%
50%
50.0%
49%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Fa09
Sp10
Fa10
Sp11
Fa11
College Term
Sp12
Total
Chabot
Program_Rev_ENGR_Enrollment_History_130213.xls
Figure 12 • Student success in aggregated engineering courses compared to Chabot as a whole. Note the
recent improvement in success rates. Engineering as a discipline now has success rates that exceed those
of Chabot.
Bruce Mayer, PE • Document1 • Page 15
Chabot
Engineering Student Success Course • Avg over Fa09-Sp12
45
66% (n=248 727)
36
55% (n=49)
25
44% (n=36)
22
47% (n=134)
62% (n=173)
11
ENGR Course Number
43
78% (n=40)
10
74% (n=85)
59% (n=213)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Student Success Rates
60%
70%
80%
90%
Program_Rev_ENGR_Enrollment_History_130213.xls
Figure 13 • Student success in individual engineering courses. The small sample size for the highly
prerequisited courses ENGR36, ENGR43, and ENGR43. The small sample precludes statistically
significant analysis of success time-series trends.
Bruce Mayer, PE • Document1 • Page 16
Chabot College Engineering Student Tranfser Survey • 2004-2012
2
Other
1
Nuclear
Transfer Engineering-Discipline
152 Students Surveyed
2
Materials
Industrial
3
Aero
3
7
Bio
9
Computer
17
Chemical
24
Electrical
36
Civil
48
Mechanical
0
5
Transfer_Summary_120530.xlsx
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Number of Students
Figure 14 • Engineering Transfer student Engineering Declared Major upon acceptance to a University
School of Engineering. Note that about 55% of students transfers in the physical design disciplines of
Mechanical or Civil Engineering
B. What’s Next?
This section may serve as the foundation for your next Program Review cycle, and will inform the development of
future strategic initiatives for the college. In your narrative of one page or less, address the following questions.
Please complete Appendices E (New Initiatives) and F1-8 (Resources Requested) to further detail your narrative
and to request resources.




What goals do you have for future program improvement?
What ideas do you have to achieve those goals?
What must change about the institution to enable you to make greater progress in improving
student learning and overall student success?
What recommendations do you have to improve the Program Review process?
Potential Improvement Actions/Tasks

Find and train an Instructional Assistant for ENGR25
Bruce Mayer, PE • Document1 • Page 17











8
Continue to optimize the instructional mix of PowerPoint-Presentations vs. WhiteBoardDemonstrations. Both these techniques have strengths and weaknesses.
Change TextBook in ENGR45 to take advantage of the recently developed OnLine
Homework System developed for the Engineering Materials course by Pearson
Publishing
o Introduction to Materials Science and Engineering: A Guided Inquiry with
Mastering Engineering with Pearson eText -- Access Card Package Elliot P.
Douglas, University of Florida
o ISBN-10: 0133354733 • ISBN-13: 9780133354737©2014 • Prentice Hall • Spiral
Bound, 400 pp Estimated Availability: 01/01/2013 • Not Yet Published
Develop an additional “Hands On” Lab exercise for the Engineering Materials Class
(ENGR45)
o Perhaps a “Drill-and-Tap” exercise done in conjunction with the MTT or ESYS
programs
Design and build an example machine for ENGR11 to give the students a CONCRETE
understanding of how 100% accurate “BluePrints” are absolutely required to construct a
designed object
Convert the paper-based output from the Metallurgical MicroScope to Computer-Image
Capture
Develop a new Term-Long Design Project for ENGR11
Now that courses are optimized for articulation, embark on expanding the articulation by
finding universities that have not articulated due to a lack of awareness of the newcontent courses.
In ENGR36 (Engineering Mechanics –Statics) use the Concept Assessment Tool for
Statics (CATS) from http://cihub.org/8 to assess the readiness of students for the course
content.
o This could be used as an assessment tool by having the student take Concept
Assessment at the beginning and end of the course, and then examining the
difference.
Recommence High School Outreach to the maximum extent possible
Recommend INTERNAL OutReach to Math, Chemistry, and Physics classes
Provide additional support for Chabot’s MESA program
ciHUB.org is supported by the National Science Foundation.
Bruce Mayer, PE • Document1 • Page 18
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.
2011-12
Budget
Requested
Category
Classified Staffing (# of positions)
Supplies9 & Services
Technology10/Equipment
Other
TOTAL
0
$500
$500
0
$1000
2011-12
Budget
Received
0
$500
$500
0
1000
2012-13
Budget
Requested
0
$500
$500
0
1000
2012-13
Budget
Received
0
$500
$500
0
1000
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.
The Above Budget could be characterized as a “treading water” budget. The Engineering Budget has basically
remained unchanged since the initial purchase of the MATLAB software in the Fall of 2005.
Note that Engineering has been resourceful in utilizing excess capacity in OTHER Divisions:
 ENGR22 (Engineering Graphics/BluePrints) uses the expensive AutoCAD software provided by the
College to the heavy-using Architecture program
 ENGR43 (Electrical Engineering) uses sophisticated lab equipment and software provided by the College
to the heavy-using ESYS program
o Note that B. Mayer (Engineering) and Wayne Phillips (Electrical Systems) CoTeach ENGR43 to
the great benefit of the students. B. Mayer initiated and organized this effort with great support
from Deans Tom Clark and Tram Vo-Kumamoto.
 Gaining access to Wayne’s expertise and the up-to-date ESYS lab equipment were
critical factors in gaining Articulation to UCBerkeley’s EE40. Chabot is just one of three
California community colleges to earn such articulation.
Student Learning has NOT been negatively impacted by this small budget due to the assistance from ARCH and
ESYS.
9
Consumable supplies for Engineering Labs
Annual Maintenance for MATLAB Software
10
Bruce Mayer, PE • Document1 • Page 19
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?
Due to perennially tight budgets Engineering did not request additional resources during this time. If Engineering
had made such requests they would most likely have been these:
1. Hire a B.S. Level Instructional Assistant for the ENGR25; the MATLAB course
2. Hire an Adjunct to instruct ENGR11, and provide Release time for B. Mayer to allow Mr. Mayer to work
with the universities to improve ARTICULATION
 Articulation is critical in maintaining/improvement enrollment for a highly TRANSFER-ORIENTED
program such as engineering.
3. Purchase new equipment to modernize the Materials Engineering (ENGR45) Laboratory
Bruce Mayer, PE • Document1 • Page 20
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
2013
Fall
2013
Spring
2014
Fall
2014
Spring
2015
Fall
2015
Spring
2016
Fall
2016
Spring
2017
Courses:
Group 1:
ENGR43
Full
Assmt
Group 2:
ENGR10
ENGR25
ENGR22
ENGR45
ENGR10
ENGR36
Report
Results
Full
Assmt
Discuss
results
& report
Full
Assmt
Group 3:
Group 4:
Discuss
results
Discuss
results
& report
Full
Assmt
Discuss
results
Report
Results
Full
Assmt
Discuss
results
& report
Bruce Mayer, PE • Document1 • Page 21
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
ENGR10
Fa11
1 per year
1
100%
Spring2012
Bruce Mayer, PE (Only Instructor11)
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: CRITICAL THINKING - ASSIGNMENT ENGR 10 DESCRIBE THE ETHICAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF PRACTICING
ENGINEERING IN TERMS OF THREE COMPONENTS: A) DESCRIBE
THE GENERAL NATURE OF ETHICS, B) LIST ONE (OUT OF 3)
OF THE GENERAL ETHICAL MODELS, C) THE NATIONAL
COUNCIL OF EXAMINERS OF ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING
(NCEES) MODEL RULES FOR PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT NOTES
THAT PRACTICING ENGINEERS HAVE ETHICAL OBLIGATIONS
TO THREE MAJOR GROUPS OR PERSONS. LIST AT LEAST ONE
THESE GROUPS OR PERSONS TO WHICH ENGINEERS ARE
ETHICALLY OBLIGATED. JUL2011
(CLO) 2: CRITICAL THINKING - ASSIGNMENT ENGR 10 DESCRIBE THE ENGINEERING-PRACTICE IN THREE MAJOR
ENGINEERING FIELDS (E.G.: CHEMICAL, CIVIL, ELECTRICAL,
INDUSTRIAL, MATERIALS, MECHANICAL) ENGINEERING.
INCLUDE AT LEAST TWO SPECIFIC EXAMPLES OF PROJECTS,
PRODUCTS, OR PROCESSES WHICH AN ENGINEER IN EACH OF
THESE FIELDS MIGHT DESIGN. JUL2011
Defined Target
Scores*
(CLO Goal)
2/3 (67%) of
Students score
3 or better
75 % of
students scores
3 or better
11
Actual Scores**
(eLumen data)
49% scored 3 or
better; 77.6%
scored 2 or
better.
81.6% of students
scored 3 or better
B. Mayer Discussed general Student Learning with Engineering Colleagues from other CA Community Colleges during the
“Teaching Techniques” segment of the annually attended California Engineering Liaison Council meeting. Ref:
http://www.caelc.org/
Bruce Mayer, PE • Document1 • Page 22
 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?
Bruce Mayer, PE • Document1 • Page 23
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?
The students, at about ½ mastering the material, were not close to the 2/3 goal of
substantial mastery.
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?
I spend significant time on Engineering Ethics; stressing that Engineers have special
responsibility, as technology creators & leaders, to behave ethically. I think that in this
introductory course that students view engineering as making “BluePrints”, doing
calculations, designing technical objects, and creating products for the better of humankind. They do not seem to associate ethics with the day-to-day activities of engineering
practice. B. Mayer
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?
81.6% of students scored 3 or better on this CLO; a very solid performance relative to the
goal of 75%
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?
I designed a special assignment wherein the students are asked to study, in detail, the
different forms of engineering. They then write 1 paragraph reports on the different
engineering disciplines. This has improved student performance in this area. Also I
recruit GUEST SPEAKERS from several different engineering disciplines. Guest speakers,
currently practicing or learning engineering, intensify student interest. The remarks from
the Guest Speakers definitely contributed to the student’s ability to distinguish between
the engineering disciplines. B. Mayer
Bruce Mayer, PE • Document1 • Page 24
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?
Design of the Special Homework Assignment where-in the students write their thoughts on the
different engineering disciplines. This improved learning in this area.
Design of The “Why-and-Where” FIRST Homework assignment. Students are asked to reflect on
WHY they (might) want to become engineers. They are also asked to choose a TRANSFER
UNIVERSITY. This assignment focuses the students on the GOAL of this survey course which is to
provide every student with sufficient information to allow him/her to decide about engineering as a
career.
Continue to recruit practicing engineers and University Engineering-Transfer Students to make the
goal of become an engineer more real for the sometimes very-young students.
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?
Strength is that for a survey class, guest speakers are a powerful learning tool.
3. What is the nature of the planned actions (please check all that apply)?
 Curricular
 Pedagogical ←
 Resource based
 Change to CLO or rubric
 Change to assessment methods
 Other:_________________________________________________________________
Bruce Mayer, PE • Document1 • Page 25
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
ENGR11
Sp11
1 per year
1
100%
Spring2012
Bruce Mayer, PE (Only Instructor12)
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 CRITICAL THINKING - ASSIGNMENT ENGR 11 STUDENT ARE TO CREATE A DESIGN FOR TIDE-POOL WAVE
MAKER WHICH WILL GENTLY AGITATE A BENCHTOP MARINE
Defined Target
Scores*
(CLO Goal)
3/4 (75%) of
Students score
3 or better
BIOLOGY TANK CONTAINING TIDE-POOL ORGANISMS. STUDENTS
WILL LEARN HOW CREATE A DETAILED AND JUSTIFIED CONCEPT-
Actual Scores**
(eLumen data)
83.8% of the
student scored
Three or better
on the first design
review.
LEVEL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED DESIGN AND PRESENT
AND DEFEND THE DESIGN, CONCEPT BEFORE A KNOWLEDGEABLE
AND SKEPTICAL AUDIENCE IN ENGINEERING PRACTICE THIS
PRESENTATION IS KNOWN AS CRITICAL DESGIN REVIEW (CRDR)
(CLO) 2: CRITICAL THINKING - ASSIGNMENT ENGR 11 STUDENT ARE TO CREATE A DESIGN FOR TIDE-POOL WAVE
MAKER WHICH WILL GENTLY AGITATE A BENCHTOP MARINE
3/4 (75%) of the
class scores 3 or
better
BIOLOGY TANK CONTAINING TIDE-POOL ORGANISMS. STUDENTS
84.2% of the
student scored
Three or better
on the Final
Design Review.
WILL LEARN HOW CREATE A DETAILED AND JUSTIFIED
PRODUCTION-READY DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED DESIGN
AND PRESENT AND DEFEND THE DESIGN, CONCEPT BEFORE A
KNOWLEDGEABLE AND SKEPTICAL AUDIENCE IN ENGINEERING
PRACTICE THIS PRESENTATION IS KNOWN AS FINAL DESIGN
REVIEW (FDR)
12
B. Mayer Discussed general Student Learning with Engineering Colleagues from other CA Community Colleges during the
“Teaching Techniques” segment of the annually attended California Engineering Liaison Council meeting. Ref:
http://www.caelc.org/
Bruce Mayer, PE • Document1 • Page 26
 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?
Bruce Mayer, PE • Document1 • Page 27
PART II: COURSE- LEVEL OUTCOME REFLECTIONS
C. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 1:
3. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course level
outcome?
At 83.8% success the students appear to be learning sufficiently well to exceed the goal.
We need to keep up this fine performance.
4. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and your
discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
Providing the students with clear descriptions of the schedule, “deliverables”, and
SCORING RUBRIC gave the students strong indications on how to succeed on BOTH design
reviews.
D. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 2:
3. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course level
outcome?
At 84.2% success the students appear to be learning sufficiently well to exceed the goal.
We need to keep up this fine performance
4. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and your
discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
84.2% of the student scored Three or better on the Final Design Review. This is very
satisfying in that it is almost identical to that attained in the first design review. There was
basically very strong learning of the design process demonstrated in both of these major
reviews.
Providing the students with clear descriptions of the schedule, “deliverables”, and scoring
rubric gave the students strong indications on how to succeed on BOTH design reviews.
Bruce Mayer, PE • Document1 • Page 28
PART III: COURSE REFLECTIONS AND FUTURE PLANS
4. What changes were made to your course based on the previous assessment cycle, the prior Closing
the Loop reflections and other faculty discussions?
During every-other class meeting show the schedule, and/or deliverables-list. Also remind that
the scoring rubric is posted to the course webpage
5. 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?
That setting clear expectations is very motivating to the students. Also in this class students work
in Teams, rather than individually. Within-Team “Peer-Pressure” might contribute to this strong
performance.
6. What is the nature of the planned actions (please check all that apply)?
 Curricular
 Pedagogical ←
 Resource based
 Change to CLO or rubric
 Change to assessment methods
 Other:_________________________________________________________________
Bruce Mayer, PE • Document1 • Page 29
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
ENGR22
Fall 2011
1
4
100
Spring 2012
Carolyn Slutz-Baranouskas
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: EFFECTIVELY DESCRIBE THE SPACIAL SHAPE AND/OR
FORM OF A MACHINED MECHANICAL OBJECT DEPICTED IN A 3DIMENSIONAL PICTORIAL REPRESENTATION OF THE OBJECT.
DESCRIBE THE HEIGHT, WIDTH, AND DEPTH (HWD) OF THE
OBJECT.
(CLO) 2: USE CORRECT MECHANICAL ENGINEERING
TERMINOLOGY TO IDENTIFY SIGNIFICANT FEATURES OF A
MACHINED MECHANICAL OBJECT DEPICTED IN A 3-DIMENSIONAL
PICTORIAL REPRESENTATION OF THE OBJECT.
Defined Target
Scores*
(CLO Goal)
70% of the class
scores 3 or
better
70% of the class
scores 3 or
better
USE TECHNICAL
TERMS RO DESCRIBE ROUNDED ENDS, DRILLED HOLES OF FLANGE,
AND BOSS AROUND CENTER HOLE.
Actual Scores**
(eLumen data)
The class of
twenty had 8
students who
were ranked
competent (3)
and 12 who
demonstrated
accomplishment
(4), consistent
with this goal.
A class of twenty
scored (1) by 3
students, (2) by 4
students, (3) by 6
students, and(4)
by 7 students.
with 35% below
competency.
 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?
Bruce Mayer, PE • Document1 • Page 30
PART II: COURSE- LEVEL OUTCOME REFLECTIONS
E. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 1:
5. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course level
outcome?
80% of students scored three or better, exceeding the 70% goal. We need to build on this
success.
6. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and your
discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
Learning to assess the height, width, and depth of an object is the first step towards form
definition. Pivotal to success in engineering is the ability totrain yourself to look at parts
in a totally different way. The steps to communicate graphically must be laid out
methodically and systematically.
Not every student who thinks he or she wants to be engineer will succeed. A student's
performance in this class is a good indication as to whether they have the interest,
intellect, and problem-solving ability that the career requires.
F. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 2:
5. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course level
outcome?
A class of twenty scored (1) by 3 students, (2) by 4 students, (3) by 6 students, and(4) by
7 students. with 35% below competency. This is an area the instructor has been striving
to improve upon by adding an illustrated handout of feature terminology that is
discussed with dimensioning. It has been added to the syllabus as a dedicated topic of
discussion.
6. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and your
discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
It has been a challenge as many students know English only as a second language.
Learning the technical language of engineering is particularly difficult for them.
Illustration and example reinforcement are being injected into course content to further
improve this deficiency.
Bruce Mayer, PE • Document1 • Page 31
PART III: COURSE REFLECTIONS AND FUTURE PLANS
7. What changes were made to your course based on the previous assessment cycle, the prior Closing
the Loop reflections and other faculty discussions?
It is important to use technology and real world example to bring concepts alive for students. Their
passions must be fed on a regular basis to retain their attention and participation.
8. 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?
The typical community college student seems less and less prepared with the basic skills to become
a good college student, let alone a good engineering student. The difference in abilities is getting
broader and broader and the instructor must be more creative in bridging those gaps as quickly as
possible before students fall through the cracks.
9. What is the nature of the planned actions (please check all that apply)?
 Curricular
 Pedagogical ←
 Resource based
 Change to CLO or rubric
 Change to assessment methods
 Other:_________________________________________________________________
Bruce Mayer, PE • Document1 • Page 32
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
ENGR25
Fa10 & Sp11 & Fa11
1 per semester
3
100
Fall2011
Bruce Mayer, PE (Only Instructor)
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: CRITICAL THINKING - ASSIGNMENT
ENGR 25 - GIVEN A DATA SET THAT CAN BE MODELED BY
EITHER A POWER-FUNCTION OR AN EXPONENTIAL-FUNCTION
LINEARIZE THE DATA, AND THEN PERFORM A LINEAR REGRESSION
USING MATLAB OR EXCEL SOFTWARE TO DETERMINE THE
BEST-CASE FITTING CONSTANTS M & B. APPLY THE FITTING
CONSTANTS TO THE ORIGINAL FUNCTION TO DETERMINE THE
FITTING PARAMETERS M & B THAT APPLY TO THE POWER OR
EXPONENTIAL FUNCTION MODEL
(CLO) 2: CRITICAL THINKING - ASSIGNMENT
ENGR 25 - USE MATLAB S SIMULINK INTERCONNECTEDICON BASED PROGRAMMING ENVIRONMENT TO CREATE A
SIMULINK FEEDBACK DIAGRAM THAT PRODUCES A GRAPH OF
THE NUMERICAL SOLUTION TO A NONLINEAR,
NONHOMOGENEOUS, SECOND ORDER DIFFERENTIAL EQUATION
(CLO) 3: CRITICAL THINKING - ASSIGNMENT
ENGR 25 - SOLVE BY HAND, USING DIFFERENTIAL CALCULUS,
FOR AN INDEPENDENT VARIABLE THAT WILL
Defined Target
Actual Scores**
Scores*
(eLumen data)
(CLO Goal)
2/3 (67%) of
Fa10 = 54.5%.
class scored 3 or Sp11 = 87.5%.
better
Fa11 = 65%. There
is significant
variation term-toterm on this
topic. Overall we
are close to the
goal, but
improvement is
needed.
80% of the class 80% of the class
scores 2 or
scores 2 or better
better
75% of the class
scores 3 or
better.
OPTIMIZE/MINIMIZE/MAXIMIZE SOME DEPENDENT VARIABLE
QUANTITY THAT RESULTS FROM THE ANALYSIS OF A REAL-WORLD
SITUATION-SCENARIO
 If more CLOs are listed for the course, add another row to the table.
Bruce Mayer, PE • Document1 • Page 33
Fa10 = 81.1%.
Sp11 = 75%. Fa11
= 75%.
* 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?
Bruce Mayer, PE • Document1 • Page 34
PART II: COURSE- LEVEL OUTCOME REFLECTIONS
G. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 1:
7. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course level
outcome?
Fa10 = 54.5%. Sp11 = 87.5%. Fa11 = 65%. There is significant variation term-to-term on this
topic. Overall we are close to the goal, but improvement is needed.
8. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and your
discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
The students seem to get “stuck” at the beginning of the problem. Some students do not
seem to fully understand the phrase “Linearize” in the context of the problem.
H. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 2:
7. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course level
outcome?
Fa10 = 81.9%. Sp11 = 87.5%. Fa11 = 82.3%. Basically the goal has been met. The minimum
score is set at 2 due to the unique nature of this particular topic. The students have not
seen ANYTHING similar to the SimuLink topic in other classes. Becoming fully familiar with
this topic takes much more time than that allowed by the course schedule.
8. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and your
discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
In Sp11 we had an extra class meeting. This meeting was devoted entirely to the
SimuLink topic through a detailed example.
C. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 3:
1. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course level
outcome?
Fa10 = 81.1%. Sp11 = 75%. Fa11 = 75%.
This topic is also covered in the PreReq course; Calculus-I (MTH1 at Chabot). Students who
failed to earn at least a 3 on this problem most likely did poorly on this topic in Calc-I as
well, and the ENGR25 Instructor’s methods failed to break this barrier.
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?
Bruce Mayer, PE • Document1 • Page 35
This CLO shows consistent performance. This is some evidence of solid preparation in the
PreReq course
More carefully explain the WhiteBoard example that I perform as a refresher on this
topic.
Also Keep repeating to the students when someone in a technical capacity uses the
terms minimize/maximize/optimize, then the student should immediately think "Take
the first derivative, and set it to ZERO"
Bruce Mayer, PE • Document1 • Page 36
PART III: COURSE REFLECTIONS AND FUTURE PLANS
10. What changes were made to your course based on the previous assessment cycle, the prior Closing
the Loop reflections and other faculty discussions?
More In-Class Emphasis that the Exponential and Power Functions can be linearized using
semilogarithmic and logarithmic-logarithmic functions and graphs
Try to work in more SimuLink Examples whenever the schedule permits. The more workedexamples, the better.
The students are well prepared for this topic by the PreReq Course (Calc-I = Chabot MTH-1) and the
ENGR25 instruction reinforces this mastery.
11. 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?
The Sp11 results show that students can, indeed, master this topic.
More In-Class Emphasis that the Exponential and Power Functions can be linearized using
semilogarithmic and logarithmic-logarithmic functions and graphs
Clear explanations of detailed examples has a positive impact on “brand new” subjects.
Continue with board examples, and the emphasis that in engineering the word “Optimize” strongly
implies taking the first mathematical derivative and setting it equal to zero.
12. What is the nature of the planned actions (please check all that apply)?
 Curricular
 Pedagogical ←
 Resource based
 Change to CLO or rubric
 Change to assessment methods
 Other:_________________________________________________________________
Bruce Mayer, PE • Document1 • Page 37
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
ENGR36
Fall2012
1
1
100
Spring2013
Bruce Mayer, PE (Only Instructor)
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: CRITICAL THINKING - ASSIGNMENT ENGR 36 - GIVEN
A MECHANICAL SYSTEM THAT INCLUDES MULTIPLE FORCES
(PUSHES AND/OR PULLS) AND/OR MULTIPLE MOMENTS
(TWISTS) DETERMINE THE RESULTANT FORCE+COUPLE
SYSTEM COMPRISED OF A SINGLE-FORCE (R) AND SINGLECOUPLE (MR)
Defined Target
Scores*
(CLO Goal)
75% of Students
score 3 or
Better
Actual Scores**
(eLumen data)
Out of 18:
4 → 6 ea
3 → 4 ea
2 → 6 ea
1 → 2 ea
(CLO) 2: CRITICAL THINKING - ASSIGNMENT ENGR 36 ANALYZE A STATIC (NONMOVING), FORCE/MOMENT LOADED
FRAME OR MACHINE (FM) USING NEWTONIAN MECHANICS TO
DETERMINE UNKNOWN INTERNAL FORCE(S) AND/OR
MOMENT(S)
(CLO) 3: CRITICAL THINKING - ASSIGNMENT ENGR 36 ANALYZE A STATIC (NONMOVING), FORCE/MOMENT LOADED
STRUCTUAL TRUSS USING NEWTONIAN MECHANICS TO
DETERMINE UNKNOWN INTERNAL FORCE(S) AND/OR
MOMENT(S)
75% of Students
score 3 or
Better
Out of 18:
4 → 6 ea
3 → 4 ea
2 → 5 ea
1 → 3 ea
75% of Students
score 3 or
Better
(CLO) 4: CRITICAL THINKING - ASSIGNMENT ENGR 36 CONSTRUCT THE SHEAR (V) AND BENDING-MOMENT (M)
DIAGRAM FOR A TRANSVERSELY-LOAD STRUCTURAL BEAM
75% of Students
score 3 or
Better
Out of 18:
4 → 4 ea
3 → 6 ea
2 → 6 ea
1 → 2 ea
0→1
Out of 18:
4 → 10 ea
3 → 6 ea
2 → 1 ea
1 → 1 ea
 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)
Bruce Mayer, PE • Document1 • Page 38
**Actual scores: What is the actual percent of students that meet defined target based on the eLumen data
collected in this assessment cycle?
Bruce Mayer, PE • Document1 • Page 39
PART II: COURSE- LEVEL OUTCOME REFLECTIONS
I. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 1:
9. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course level
outcome?
Students scored 10/18 = 55.5%. This is well below the goal of 75%
10. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and your
discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
Students do well with the easier of the two issues, which is calculating the Resultant force.
Most of the difficulties in determining the resultant moment (Mr) arises from a sign error.
The typical sign errors
 Running the position vector BACKWARDS (the vector runs FROM the pivot-point
TO the Force)
 Commuting the Cross Product (M = rXF; NOT Fxr)
J. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 2:
9. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course level
outcome?
Students scored 10/18 = 55.5%. This is well below the goal of 75%
10. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and your
discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
Students often
 Do NOT apply 2 or 3 force member analysis when they should
OR
 DO apply apply 2 or 3 force member analysis when they should NOT
K. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 3:
11. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course level
outcome?
Students scored 10/16 = 55.5%. This is slightly below the goal of 75%
Bruce Mayer, PE • Document1 • Page 40
12. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and your
discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
Errors tend to creep into the analysis in two areas:
 Failure to properly construct the Free Body Diagram for the pin
 Making a wrong sign assignment for an unknown force.
L. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 4:
13. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course level
outcome?
Students scored 16/18 = 88.9%. This is well ABOVE the goal of 75%
14. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and your
discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
The students are well prepared by their Calculus, Mechanical Physics, and ENGR25 classes.
The quickly grasp the calculus relationship between Load, Shear, and Moment.
PART III: COURSE REFLECTIONS AND FUTURE PLANS
13. What changes were made to your course based on the previous assessment cycle, the prior Closing
the Loop reflections and other faculty discussions?
Based on discussions with colleagues in Phyics ENGR36 adopted the use of an OnLine HomeWork
system called Mastering Engineering for the textbook used in this class. The students reported
generally positive assessments of the OnLine Homework system. They particularly appreciated the
real-time feedback provided during the problem-solving process.
14. 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?
Continue the use of the “Mastering Engineering” OnLine HomeWork System. Adjust the mix of
PowerPoint and WhiteBoard work toward more WhiteBoard problem solving demonstrations.
Bruce Mayer, PE • Document1 • Page 41
15. What is the nature of the planned actions (please check all that apply)?
 Curricular
 Pedagogical ←
 Resource based
 Change to CLO or rubric
 Change to assessment methods
 Other:_________________________________________________________________
Bruce Mayer, PE • Document1 • Page 42
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
ENGR45
Sp 2011
1 Section Per Year
2 (2 years of data)
100
Fall 2011
Bruce Mayer, PE (Only Instructor)
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: GIVEN TEMPERATURE AND DIFFUSION COEFFICIENT
INFORMATION USE THE EQUATION FOR SOLID-STATE DIFFUSION
TO FIND THE EXPONENTIAL-PREFACTOR, DO, AND ACTIVATION
Defined Target
Scores*
(CLO Goal)
70% of Students
score 3 or
Better
ENERGY, QD, FOR THE DIFFUSION COEFFICIENT.
(CLO) 2: OUTCOME:
GIVEN DATA RELATED TO A VOLUME-WEIGHTED-AVERAGE
MATERIAL PROPERTY USE THE RULE-OF-MIXTURE EQUATIONS TO
70% of Students
score 3 or
Better
DETERMINE THE AVERAGE MATERIAL PROPERTY OF A
MULTICOMPONENT MATERIAL
70% of Students
(CLO) 3: OUTCOME:
score 3 or
GIVEN THE GEOMETERY, ELASTIC MODULUS, AND DATA TAKEN
Better
FROM STRESS-STRAIN DIAGRAM FOR A SOLID MATERIAL
SPECIMEN DETERMINE THESE VALUES: (A) THE MAXIMUM LOAD
THAT MAY BE APPLIED WITHOUT CAUSING PLASTIC
DEFORMATION, (B) THE MAXIMUM LOAD THAT MAY BE
APPLIED WITHOUT CAUSING PLASTIC DEFORMATION, (C) THE
MAXIMUM LOAD THAT MAY BE APPLIED WITHOUT TEARING
Actual Scores**
(eLumen data)
This was a small
class; 7 students
total. On this CLO
six students
scored “4’s”, and
one scored a “3”.
Overall this was
an excellent
performance
Six students took
this assessment.
Five students
scored a “2”, and
the other student
scored a “1”.
The Students
performed fairly
well on this CLO.
Five of the six
scored “3’s”,
while one student
scored a “2”
APART THE SPECIMEN
(CLO) 4: GIVEN POLYMER CRYSTALLINITY AND DENSITY DATA
CALCULATE THE EXPECTED DENSITY FOR A 100% CRYSTALLINE
POLYMER
70% of Students
score 3 or
Better
Bruce Mayer, PE • Document1 • Page 43
4 of 6 students
scored a “4”. One
student scored
(CLO) 5: ANALYZE THE CLASSIC IRON-CARBON ROOM-PRESSURE 70% of Students
PHASE-DIAGRAM TO DETERMINE FOURTEEN QUANTITIES WORTH score 3 or
Better
22 POINTS ON AN EXAM. FOR EXAMPLE INCLUDES: (I) PHASES
PRESENT @ 2WT%C & 1300, (II) THE EUTECTIOD
TEMPERATURE, (III) WT%C @ THE EUTECTIOD TEMPERATURE,
(IV) THE PURE-IRON MELTING TEMPERATURE, (V) MAXIMUM
WT%C FOR SOLID SOLUBILITY IN THE GAMMA-PHASE, (VI)
WEIGHT-FRACTION(S) OF ALL PHASE(S) PRESENT @ 3WT%C &
1000 °C
“3”, and the
remaining
student scored
“2”
Four of six
student scored
“4”. The
remaining two
students scored
“2”
 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?
Bruce Mayer, PE • Document1 • Page 44
PART II: COURSE- LEVEL OUTCOME REFLECTIONS
M. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 1:
11. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course level
outcome?
This was a small class; 7 students total. On this CLO six students scored “4’s”, and one
scored a “3”. Overall this was an excellent performance.
12. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and your
discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
Doing WhiteBoard examples, and emphasizing the logarithmic nature of the equations,
results is students mastering this material
N. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 2:
15. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course level
outcome?
Six students took this assessment. Five students scored a “2”, and the other student scored
a “1”. Clearly these students did not have an adequate grasp of this material
16. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and your
discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
The students seem of have had difficulties with the phrase “rule of mixtures” In the
context of this assessment problem on the final exam. A better explanation of the fact
that the students must determine to total volume, and then use that as the divisor of the
PARTIAL volumes to arrive at the volume fractions.
This topic was delivered in PowerPoint and textbook format only. From the results of
CL1, a WhiteBoard Explanation/Example would seem to be a path to increased learning
O. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 3:
17. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course level
outcome?
The Students performed fairly well on this CLO. Five of the six scored “3’s”, while one
student scored a “2”. Thus the class met the success criteria for this item.
Bruce Mayer, PE • Document1 • Page 45
18. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and your
discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
The good news is that most students UNDERSTOOD the difference between temporary
ELASTIC deformation, and permanent PLASTIC definitions. But some confusion still exists
on this point.
P. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 4:
19. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course level
outcome?
4 of 6 students scored a “4”. One student scored “3”, and the remaining student scored
“2”. Thus the students on this CLO met the 70%@3 criteria for a successful overall
outcome.
20. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and your
discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
The current methods of PowerPoint explanations, along with TextBook reading and
(more importantly) graded homework assignments look to be effective in producing
student learning.
Q. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 5:
21. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course level
outcome?
Four of six student scored “4”. The remaining two students scored “2”. Generally a Good
outcome, but showing some weakness
22. 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 students did well on Identifying phases present, but several had a difficult time
identifying the “ProEutectic” phase.
Bruce Mayer, PE • Document1 • Page 46
Bruce Mayer, PE • Document1 • Page 47
PART III: COURSE REFLECTIONS AND FUTURE PLANS
16. What changes were made to your course based on the previous assessment cycle, the prior Closing
the Loop reflections and other faculty discussions?
Emphasize to students that deformation is FULLY reversible ONLY if the loading is within the
elastic range.
The current methods of PowerPoint explanations, along with TextBook reading and (more
importantly) graded homework assignments look to be effective in producing student learning.
All students did well on Identifying phases present, but several had a difficult time identifying the
“ProEutectic” phase.
17. 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?
Need to emphasize that deformation UNDER LOAD may produce of ONE or TWO results: 1) Elastic
deformation within the elastic range of the material. This is completely REVERSIBLE. 2) a
combination of ELASTIC and INELASTIC deformation. In this case ONLY the ELASTIC Component is
reversible, leaving a “permanent set” due to the INelastic component.
The Strength is that the current methods of fairly classical lecture-discussion, followed by studentexercises appear to be effective.
Continue with current methods, refining the explanations incrementally which the instructor tries
to do in every class.
Explain that the ProEuctectoid is the ROOM temperature stable phase that does transform when
SOLID steel cools thru the transforming (of some phases) Eutectoid temperature
The Strength is that the current methods of fairly classical lecture-discussion, followed by studentexercises appear to be effective
18. What is the nature of the planned actions (please check all that apply)?
 Curricular
 Pedagogical ←
 Resource based
 Change to CLO or rubric
 Change to assessment methods
 Other:_________________________________________________________________
Bruce Mayer, PE • Document1 • Page 48
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: Engineering (AA [should be AS]) • from
http://www.chabotcollege.edu/sloac/plo_results.cfm?program=Engineering (AA) _
 PLO #1: ENGRINEERING STUDENTS SHALL DEMONSTRATE AN ABILITY TO APPLY KNOWLEDGE OF
MATHEMATICS, SCIENCE, AND ENGINEERING. Ref: Outcome (a) from E001 10-11 EAC Criteria 127-10.pdf, DownLoaded from
http://www.abet.org/forms.shtml#For_Engineering_Programs_Only 27Feb2010

PLO #2: ENGINEERING STUDENTS SHALL DEMONSTRATE AN ABILITY TO DESIGN A SYSTEM,
COMPONENT, OR PROCESS TO MEET DESIRED NEEDS WITHIN REALISTIC CONSTRAINTS SUCH AS
ECONOMIC, ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL, POLITICAL, ETHICAL, HEALTH AND SAFETY,
MANUFACTURABILITY, AND SUSTAINABILITY. Ref: Outcome (c) from E001 10-11 EAC Criteria 127-10.pdf, DownLoaded from
http://www.abet.org/forms.shtml#For_Engineering_Programs_Only 27Feb2010
What questions or investigations arose as a result of these reflections or discussions?
Explain:
Questions:
Q1. How do I encourage students to dedicate more time and effort to mastering the course material?
Q2. How do I make complicated material easier for students to understand?
Q3. What can I do to improve the Engineering-Problem-Solving13 skills of students?
Q4. How can I give to students more immediate (daily) feedback on their learning?
Q5. How do I encourage students to stay-current with the course-material; i.e., what I do to ensure that
the students stay on the course schedule?
Q6. How can I assist students who missed occasional classes due to “life circumstances” such as illness, or
unexpected changes in gainful-employment work schedules, etc.?
Q7. Is there anything I can do to INSPIRE students to greater learning and academic achievement?
What program-level strengths have the assessment reflections revealed?
Strengths revealed:
SR1.
Students REALLY DO appreciate having the Instructors Lecture Notes, and access to course
materials on the WebPage. Many times a student will printout the lecture-slides and write on them
his/her personal notes.
SR2.
13
Engineering students appreciate the FULL suite of TRANSFER COURSES offered by Chabot.
An extremely important “Critical Thinking” skill within the Engineering Discipline
Bruce Mayer, PE • Document1 • Page 49
This full program often attracts students from nearby community colleges that do not offer all of the
ELC14 recommended courses.
SR3.
Transfer students who have returned to Chabot from the TRANSFER UNIVERSITY generally
express gratitude for the RIGOR of the courses offered by Chabot as these courses well-prepared
them to handle the Upper Division course material at the university college/school of Engineering.
SOME of the students who ultimately earned university Engineering Degrees have returned to
Chabot to give advice to current students:
 Thein Win - Civil Engineer UCBerkeley
 Jose Servanda – Mechanical Engineer, UCBerkeley
 Garrick Bornkamp – Mechanical Engineer, UCDavis
 Ishmael Ayesh – Civil Engineer, UCBerkeley
 Koo Hyun Nam – Mechanical Engineer (Ph.D.), UCBerkeley
 Krishnil Mani – Mechanical Engineer, CalPoly-SLO
 Lucas Huezo – Civil Engineer, UCBerkeley
 Nicholas Vickers – Materials Engineer (M.S.) – CalPoly-SLO
 Phil Cutino – Mechanical Engineer, UCBerkeley
 Melissa Quemada – Chemical Engineer, UCBerkeley
 Robert Irwin – Mechanical Engineer, UCBerkeley
 Robert Curry – Civil Engineer, CSU-Sacramento
 Emiliano Esparza – Civil Engineer, UCDavis
 Jim Havercamp – Mechanical Engineer, UCBerkeley
 Berhard Stonas – Mechanical Engineer (M.S.), San Jose State
 Yong Yin Chuah – Engineering Management (M.S.)15, CSU-EastBay
 Joshua Merritt – Mechanical Engineer, the Ohio State University
 Tomasz Jagoda – Mechanical Engineer, UC Santa Barbara
 Robert Moore – Mechanical Engineer, UCBerkeley
 Elijah Rosas – Mechanical Engineer, UCDavis
 Baoying (Stephenie) Zhang – Chemical Engineer, UCBerkeley
 Nic Celeste – Mechanical Engineer, San Francisco State University
 Hoang Si Nguyen – Civil Engineer, UCBerkeley
 Sangam Rawat – Mechanical Engineer, UCBerkeley
 Zhiwei Huang – Mechanical Engineer, UCBerkeley
 Huy Nguyen – Civil Engineer, UCDavis
 George Greer – Civil Engineer, UCBerkeley
 Artos Cen – Chemical Engineer, UCBerkeley
What actions has your discipline determined might be taken to enhance the learning of students
completing your program?
Actions planned:
AP1.
14
15
Offer, for ExtraCredit, in all classes a Take Home Quizv based on a presentationvi describing
http://www.caelc.org/
Mr. Chuah also earned a B.S. in Mechanical Engineering from UCDavis after transferring from Chabot
Bruce Mayer, PE • Document1 • Page 50
the STUDY SKILLS of effective College/University students. Reflecting on incoming student
preparation indicated that many students just did not recognize the substantial difference between
HIGH-SCHOOL studying and College/University Studying. Periodically UpDate and improve the StudySkills Presentation/Quiz.
AP2.
97+% of the instructor’s preparation course-notes are in PowerPoint form. These notes are
then made available on a “24/7” basis for students who missed class for any reason (c.f. Q6, above).
The instructor’s PowerPoint notes are used for in-Class lecture presentations. In effect, the
instructor’s notes were made available to students as suggested in the “Share the Wealth” section of
the fine video presentation “Reading Between Lives” by Chabot Instructor Sean McFarlandvii.
Consider this comment from a Chabot English Instructorviii regarding the contents of Mr. McFarland’s
production: “This video makes me ask the question, “What is the purpose of higher education? Why
not give students the handout of a lecture?” Engineering ALWAYS gives students the “handout of
the lecture” by posting it to the Engineering-Course WebPage.
However, one instructional-faculty colleague pointed out that, in his experience, students respond
better to “MultiMedia” presentations such as a combination of Screen (PowerPoint) and Board
(Chalk or Marker) work than they do to “single media” forms such a pure-board or pure-PowerPoint
formats. As a result, a concerted effort has been made by the Engineering Instructor to move from
majority-PowerPoint to a more balanced approach.
AP3.
To help students stay current with the course material, give them immediate feedback, and
encourage them to attend every class meetings the Engineering Instructor wrote DAILY
“MiniQuizzes”. The “MQ’s” are 5 minutes in duration, are “pop” in that they may be administered at
any time during the course period, and solved on the board immediately after collection. Pilot in the
Engineering Mechanics course (ENGR36) the use of an OnLine Homework system that gives students
immediate feedback and and solution “hints”. The plan is use Pearson Publishing’s Proven (see
Figure 15) Mastering Engineering OnLine HomeWork System.
AP4.
Do more detailed “Problem Solving” tutorials in the calculus-based courses ENGR
25/36/43/45 to “model” how an Engineer might approach technical problems that are described by a
combination of words and math. Make the tutorial notes available on the course webpage for
student access.
AP5.
Try to act as a CommunityCollege→UCBerkeley→Stanford role-model for Chabot Engineering
students. Continue to encourage students with the “If I can do it, then YOU can do it too…” mantra. I
also bring back former students who have moved-to, and through, the University Engineering
college/school to provide more recent models of the success of, in this case, Chabot transfer
students. See Figure 16. See also “Strengths revealed” Above.
Program: Engineering (Transfer Prep) from
http://www.chabotcollege.edu/sloac/plo_results.cfm?program=Engineering (Transfer Prep)
Bruce Mayer, PE • Document1 • Page 51

PLO #1: PLO #1: ENGRINEERING STUDENTS SHALL DEMONSTRATE AN ABILITY TO APPLY
KNOWLEDGE OF MATHEMATICS, SCIENCE, AND ENGINEERING. Ref: Outcome (a) from E001 1011 EAC Criteria 1-27-10.pdf, DownLoaded from
http://www.abet.org/forms.shtml#For_Engineering_Programs_Only 27Feb2010

PLO #2: PLO #2: ENGINEERING STUDENTS SHALL DEMONSTRATE AN ABILITY TO DESIGN A
SYSTEM, COMPONENT, OR PROCESS TO MEET DESIRED NEEDS WITHIN REALISTIC CONSTRAINTS
SUCH AS ECONOMIC, ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL, POLITICAL, ETHICAL, HEALTH AND SAFETY,
MANUFACTURABILITY, AND SUSTAINABILITY. Ref: Outcome (c) from E001 10-11 EAC Criteria 127-10.pdf, DownLoaded from
http://www.abet.org/forms.shtml#For_Engineering_Programs_Only 27Feb2010
What questions or investigations arose as a result of these reflections or discussions?
Explain: : See Above discussion under Engineering AS program
What program-level strengths have the assessment reflections revealed?
Strengths revealed: See Above discussion under Engineering AS program
What actions has your discipline determined might be taken to enhance the learning of students
completing your program?
Actions planned: See Above discussion under Engineering AS program
Bruce Mayer, PE • Document1 • Page 52
Figure 15 – MASTERING ENGINEERING EFFECTIVENESS. Mean scores of midterm and
final exams with standard errors, academic years 2008 and 2009 (M.midterm and M.final
are with Mastering Engineering). Data From Colorado School of Mines16
16
http://www.pearsonhighered.com/resources/Pearson_Global_Whitepaper.pdf
Bruce Mayer, PE • Document1 • Page 53
Figure 16 • Excerpts from the Guest Lecture to the Chabot ENGR10 Course made by
Chabot Engineering Transfer Student Robert Moore.
Bruce Mayer, PE • Document1 • Page 54
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, see PLO evaluation in
Appendix-C.
6. If you have course sequences, is success in the first course a good predictor of success in the subsequent
course(s)? Not Applicable; No sequences
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
Bruce Mayer, PE • Document1 • Page 55
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?
What is your specific goal and measurable outcome?
What is your action plan to achieve your goal?
Activity (brief description)
Target
Required Budget (Split out
Completion personnel, supplies, other
Date
categories)
How will you manage the personnel needs?
New Hires:
Faculty # of positions
Classified staff # of positions
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)
Other, explain
At the end of the project period, the proposed project will:
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?
No
Yes, explain:
Will the proposed project involve subcontractors, collaborative partners, or cooperative agreements?
No
Yes, explain:
Do you know of any grant funding sources that would meet the needs of the proposed project?
No
Yes, list potential funding sources:
Bruce Mayer, PE • Document1 • Page 56
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: ____
2. If you are requesting more than one position, please rank order the positions.
Position
Description
1.
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.
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.
Bruce Mayer, PE • Document1 • Page 57
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: __1/6___
2. If you are requesting more than one position, please rank order the positions.
Position
Description
1. Custodian
Provide Custodial Services to the classroom in
buildings 1700, 1800, 1900, 2100, 3900
2.
3. Rationale for your proposal.
Custodial services to maintain the overall cleanliness of the rooms, and to maintain the WHITE or BLACK
boards. The “dirty” boards make it difficult to write high-contrast content on the boards.
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.
Bruce Mayer, PE • Document1 • Page 58
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 .
1) Funding to dedicate a counselor to the Math and Science. This counselor would assist STEM students
in the crafting of Student Education Plans.
2) 3 CAH per week release time for the Math and Science Discipline-Leads to become full CoOrdinators
3) Allocate a flex day to meet with high schools
4) Allocate a flex day to meet with Las Positas College
Bruce Mayer, PE • Document1 • Page 59
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: ___1_(2.25 hours/week)___
2. If you are requesting more than one position, please rank order the positions.
Position
Description
1. Instructional Assistant
Conduct Laboratory Tutorials for ENGR/MTH/PHYS25. Assist students with the use of MATLAB and
EXCEL software. Assist with grading of Homework
assignments. Bachelor’s Degree in Engineering,
Math or Science required. Strong working
knowledge of MATLAB software also required.
Desired: knowledge of EXCEL Software, proficiency
with applied mathematics. 3 Lab-Contact hours per
week
2.
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.
ENGR/MTH/PHYS-25 is a prereq for the applied-calculus courses ENGR[36, 43, 45]. In addition ENGR25 is a very
difficult course. UCBerkeley required this level of rigor before granting articulation to ENGIN7. This combination
of wide-ranging prereq and course-content rigor makes ENGR25 a very important course to students who hope
to transfer in engineering.
Historically the rigor of ENGR25 resulted in low success rate. Figure 13 shows a success rate of 47%, which
compares to 58% for engineering a whole, and 66% for Chabot College. The instructor has found that detailed
demonstration of problem-solutions (called Tutorials) has improved student learning. The current structure of
the course allows for ONE, 1.5 hour tutorial per week . The instructor follows up the Tutorial with a
“Consultation” lab wherein the instructor assists student on an individual basis.
As previously mentioned ENGR25 must have very rigorous course content to articulate widely to University
Engineering Schools.
Projected Cost:
>>> Tram VoKumamoto 2/11/2013 11:20 AM >>>
The cost for a 3CAH per term connected tutr 200 is only about $5000 for the year.
It's $727.44 per CAH per semester. So, if we did three CAH per term - it would be $2182.32. for two
terms - $4364.64 per year. 13% benefits - 567.40 --- so total is about $5000/year.
Bruce Mayer, PE • Document1 • Page 60
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
30 Seats of MATLAB
Software per Quote
3553680
2012-13 Budget
Requested Received
$
2013-14
Request
$2800
OneTime
License
$500 per year
maintenance
Rationale
Currently MATLAB is installed in ClassRoom
1813 which is NOT an open lab. This
restricts access to the course required
software. Thus the current seats are CLASS
seats. This request would permit the
addition of MATLAB to the Rm3906A
MathLab which open many more hours
than the class room
Bruce Mayer, PE • Document1 • Page 61
Bruce Mayer, PE • Document1 • Page 62
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
2013-14 Request
$
Bruce Mayer, PE • Document1 • Page 63
Rationale
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
2012-13 Budget
Requested Received
$
2013-14
Request
Rationale*
$
* Rationale should include discussion of impact on student learning, connection to our strategic plan goal,
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.
Bruce Mayer, PE • Document1 • Page 64
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, 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):
Building/Location:
Description of the facility project. Please be as specific as possible.
What educational programs or institutional purposes does this equipment support?
Briefly describe how your request relates specifically to meeting the Strategic Plan Goal and to enhancing
student learning?
Appendix F9: B. Mayer MESA SweatShirt Design
Bruce Mayer, PE • Document1 • Page 65
Bruce Mayer, PE • Document1 • Page 66
Bruce Mayer, PE • Document1 • Page 67
Appendix F10: Agenda for AY13 Scheduling Task Group
13-14 Division Scheduling Task Groups - January 15 and 16 2013
>>> Tram VoKumamoto 12/21/12 3:26 PM >>>
13-14 Scheduling Task Group:
Thank you to the following people who have responded to the doodle request: Robert, Des, Debra, Rebecca,
Cynthia, Keith, Jennifer, Sandra, Bruce , Patricia, Daryl, Wayne
Based on your feedback, we have chosen to meet on Tuesday, January 15 and Wednesday, January 16 from
9AM to 4PM (lunch will be provided) to compile a 13-14 schedule to present to the division at the February
division meeting. Hopefully we will be meeting in one of our new classrooms in 1800!!!
Yesterday, the following people were present and helped to build the GOALS and AGENDA for our work session
in January: Rebecca, Rob, Ming, Scott, Cindy, Wayne, Keith, Daryl and Jennifer. I want to thank all who came
and those who could not make it but provided feedback towards the shared thinking on how to get the work
done.
The following is what the group came up with:
GOAL: In the spirit of our strategic plan goal to "increase the number of students that achieve their educational
goal within a reasonable time by clarifying pathways and providing more information and support", our goal will
Bruce Mayer, PE • Document1 • Page 68
be to create a balanced schedule for students that incorporates study time, office hours, food breaks and
maximizes the M-F schedule. Either all day M-F 9-5 or M-F 12-8.
Our product from the January work sessions will be 1) a proposed schedule for 2013-2014 to present to the
division at the February division meeting that matches the prescribed education plan and 2) a prescribed
education plan for all new students starting in the Fall 2013 to follow.
AGENDA:
DAY ONE
1) Go over goals and firm guiding principles
The following are some guiding principles brought up at the meeting yesterday -- we hope to gather more when
we meet as a whole group:
-no summers except repeats, GE, and for students that start in Math 55 who need to complete Math 20 the
summer after their first year to get on track to Math 1 in Fall
-use the entire week M-F to schedule our courses
-Build STEM path starting with Math 37 and Allied Health path starting with new proposed math course Math 53
2) Acknowledge reality and constraints
3) Go over SEP and scheduling homework
***You will receive a homework assignment to create a schedule based on 1 assigned SEP and 1 SEP of your
choice using the Spring 2013 paper schedule. A more detailed email about this homework assignment will be
sent out on January 8, 2013.***
4) Where are we overlapping? (activity lead by Cindy)
5) Data on student demand and current capacity (presented by Jennifer)
6) Break out to do planning - Allied Health, STEM Math 2 and above courses, STEM Math 1 and below courses.
(break out groups)
We will tackle the GE together if we have time or hold until 2nd day.
7) Closing for Day One - sharing of progress (break out groups present to all)
***Homework for Day Two -- Redo schedules based on new schedules and SEP's provided***
DAY TWO
1) Review of homework and any issues encountered (all)
2) Make Adjustments to proposed schedule to address feedback (break out groups)
3) Presentation on final product (break out groups present to all)
4) GE scheduling (all together)
Bruce Mayer, PE • Document1 • Page 69
Bruce Mayer, PE • Document1 • Page 70
Appendix F11 Chabot College Institutional Core Values and Framework17
17
http://www.chabotcollege.edu/ipbc/Strategic%20Plan/StrategicPlan%20Pub_FINAL.pdf
Bruce Mayer, PE • Document1 • Page 71
Appendix F12 Chabot College Chabot Engineering Assessment Schedule
ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE Sp10 → Sp14:
Spring
2010
Fall
2010
Spring
2011
Fall
2011
Spring
2012
Fall
2012
Spring
2013
Fall
2013
Spring
2014
Courses:
Group 1:
ENGR36
Group 2:
ENGR43
Group 3:
ENGR10
Discuss
results
& report
Full
Assmt
Full
Assmt
Discuss
results
Report
Results
Full
Assmt
Discuss
results
& report
Full
Assmt
ENGR25
Group 4:
ENGR22
Full
Assmt
Discuss
results
Report
Results
Full
Assmt
Discuss
results
Report
Results
ENGR45
Group 5:
ENGR11
Discuss
results &
report
Bruce Mayer, PE • Document1 • Page 72
Discuss
results
Report
Results
Full
Assmt
Discuss
results
&
report
Full
Assmt
ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE Fa12 → Sp16:
Fall
2012
Spring
2013
Fall
2013
Spring
2014
Fall
2014
Spring
2015
Fall
2015
Spring
2016
Fall
2016
Courses:
Group 1:
ENGR36
Group 2:
ENGR43
Group 3:
ENGR10
Full
Assmt
Discuss
results &
report
Full
Assmt
Full
Assmt
Discuss
results
Report
Results
Full
Assmt
Discuss
results
& report
Full
Assmt
ENGR22
Full
Assmt
Discuss
results
Report
Results
Full
Assmt
Discuss
results
Report
Results
ENGR45
Group 5:
ENGR11
Discuss
results
Full
Assmt
ENGR25
Group 4:
Discuss
results
&
report
Bruce Mayer, PE • Document1 • Page 73
i
http://www.cpec.ca.gov/OnLineData/SelectFirstOptions.ASP?ReportType=Transfer
http://www.cpec.ca.gov/OnLineData/SelectFinalOptions.asp
iii
http://www.pearsonhighered.com/resources/Pearson_Global_Whitepaper.pdf - Accessed on 10Nov12
iv
http://www.masteringphysics.com/site/support/faculty-adv.html - Accessed on 10Nov12
ii
v
http://www.chabotcollege.edu/faculty/bmayer/ChabotEngineeringCourses/All_Courses_ENGR/College_Student_Study_Skill
s_Quiz_1010.doc
vi
http://www.chabotcollege.edu/faculty/bmayer/ChabotEngineeringCourses/All_Courses_ENGR/Study_Skills_for_Chabot_Co
llege_Students_1010.ppt
vii
http://facultyinquiry.net/2009/01/15/capturing-student-voices-reading-between-lives/
viii
http://www.chabotcollege.edu/accreditation/exhibits/Standard%20I%20B/B%201.8%20Discussion%20notes%20from%20Re
ading%20between%20the%20Lines%20discussions.%20Nov%202006%C3%AF%E2%82%AC%C2%A9/Readingvideodisc
DCnotes.pdf
Bruce Mayer, PE • Document1 • Page 74