program reviews... · web viewbruce mayer, pe • academic program review year three...

Chabot College

Academic Program Review Report

Year Three of theProgram Review Cycle

Final Summary Report

ENGINEERING

Submitted on 23-Feb-13Bruce 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? .................................1Section B: What’s Next?............................................................2

Required Appendices:

A: Budget History..........................................................................................3B1: Course Learning Outcomes Assessment Schedule..................................4B2: “Closing the Loop” Assessment Reflections ...........................................5C: Program Learning Outcomes.....................................................................9D: A Few Questions ....................................................................................11E: New Initiatives ........................................................................................12F1: New Faculty Requests...........................................................................13F2: Classified Staffing Requests...................................................................14F3: FTEF Requests........................................................................................15F4: Academic Learning Support Requests ..................................................16F5: Supplies and Services Requests.............................................................17F6: Conference/Travel Requests.................................................................18F7: Technology and Other Equipment Requests.........................................19F8: 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 highly-

capable 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

o The founding at Chabot of a MESA1 program through the tireless efforts of Instructor Donna Gibson, and Dean Tram Vo-Kumamoto

1 Math Engineering Science Achievement

Bruce Mayer, PE • document.docx • Page 1

http://www.chabotcollege.edu/ProgramReview/Data2012.cfm

o The addition of 1 section each per year of the traditionally high-enrollment ENGR10 & ENGR11 courses

o High School Outreach by the Engineering Instructoro 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 Classeso Instituting daily “MiniQuizzes” to help students keep up with the courseo 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.

Table 1 • Chabot Engineering Scheduling Plan


OLDCourse Fall Spring

10 xx11 xx22 xx xx25 xx xx36 xx43 xx45 xx

NEWCourse Fall Spring

10 xx XX11 XX xx22 xx xx25 xx xx36 xx43 xx45 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 Hi-Enrolled, Hi-Success, No-PreReq courses ENGR10 and ENGR11.

Examining recent results more deeply indicates that Success Rates in the Calculus-Based 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 meetingo Require the Study of the last lecture-material prior to the next class creating a

smooth continuity of learningo Produces in-class participation by the studentso 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 <[email protected]> 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.


Goal Against Review • See YearOne Action Plan Timeline:

PLOs and/or Program Goal(s)

Timeline ActivitySupport Needed to Accomplish These

Activities*Outcome(s) Expected

Person(s) Responsible

ProgressAgainstGoals

Articulate Courses Widely, Particularly to SJSU & UCBerkeley • See Error: Reference source not found

May10

Meet with the UCBerkeley Supervising Professor, Bernhard Boser2, in his office at UCB to determine his requirements for articulation

None

Summary Specification of the Chabot ENGR43 Course-Content changes needed to Earn Articulation to UCB EE40

Bruce Mayer COMPLETE

Articulate to UCBerkeley Electrical Engineering 40 (EE40 course)

Aug10Write new Course OutLine to meet Prof. Boser’s needs for Articulation

NoneCurriculum proposal for new Course Outline for the ReTitled ENGR43 Course


Aug10

Write Course Learning Outcome (CLO’s) consistent with the new course content. Write an Assessment Rubric for quantifying student performance against the CLO’s

NoneWrite 3+ CLO’s as required for this 4-unit class (5 CLO’s actually written)


Sep10Present to, and secure approval from, the Curriculum Committee for new ENGR43 course outline

NoneApproval of the ENGR43 Course Content needed to articulate to UCB EE40


Nov10

Write Articulation Proposal3 for ENGR43UCB-EE40, work with the Articulation Officer to formally submit it to UCB

None

Articulation Proposal submitted to A. Myrna Aguilar ([email protected]) at UCB

Bruce Mayer, Jane Church

COMPLETE

2 http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/~boser/3 See eMail to Jane Church >>> Bruce Mayer 11/14/10 10:52 AM >>>


mailto:[email protected]






Nov10Confirm Receipt of the articulation proposal by the UCB College of Engineering (CoE)

None

Confirm receipt with Dale Masterson4 - Director, Engineering Student Services at the UC-Berkeley College of Engineering


Nov10

Alert Prof. Boser that the articulation Proposal is coming. Answer any questions he might have

NoneProf. Boser has all his questions answered5 Bruce Mayer COMPLETE

Dec10Secure Prof. Boser’s approval, and confirm articulation as listed on ASSIST.ORG

NonePublication of Articulation on ASSIST.ORG

Bruce MayerCOMPLETERequired followUp phone conversation

Dec10

Discuss with W. Phillips of the ESYS program the use by the new ENGR43 of the newly acquired Electronics-Lab instructions system; NI-ELVIS

noneDecision by W. Phillips on the Use of the NI-ELEVIS® system in the new ENGR43


4 See eMail >>> Dale Masterson <[email protected]> 11/17/10 5:20 PM >>>5 See for Example eMail from Prof. Boser: >>> Bernhard Boser <[email protected]> 11/17/10 11:18 AM >>>







Dec10

Discuss with W. Phillips the possibility TEAM TEACHING in the new ENGR43. B. Mayer to instructor the Lecture/Discussion Component While W. Phillips would instruct the Lab Component`

noneDecision by W. Phillips on the his Team Teaching in the new ENGR436


Jan11Secure approval of the Team Teaching concept from Deans T. Clark and T. Vo-Kumamoto

Decision on the team structure where B. Mayer is the instructor of record, assisted by Lab-Instructor W. Phillips

Bruce Mayer, Wayne Phillips

COMPLETEthanks to T. Clark and T. Vo-Kumamoto

Mar11Select 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. MayerCOMPLETEThanks to the ITS team

Sep11Write New Lecture Set for the NEW ENGR43

Full Set of Lecture Notes and Slides Complete


Oct11Develop Lab Exercise Plan to complement the Lecture Plan

List of Lecture-complementary Lab Exercises


COMPLETE

6 Mr. Phillips and B. Mayer both agreed that this arrangement would likely lead to enhanced learning of the new ENGR43 subject matter







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


COMPLETEdone by W. Phillips

May11Assess the FIVE CLOs written for this course as part of the Curriculum proposal

Assessment data entered into eLumen


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


Dec11

Analyze CLO Assessment results. Identify weakness, and develop strategies & methods to improve student learning

New-Methods Planned Bruce Mayer COMPLETE

May12Assess the (possibly improved) CLOs for this course



Dec12

Analyze CLO Assessment results. Identify weakness, and develop strategies & methods to improve student learning

New-Methods Planned Bruce Mayer COMPLETE







May13Assess the (now stable) CLOs for this course


Bruce Mayer In Process

Engineering/Chabot OutReach to Chabot Area High Schools

Nov-Dec10Make OutReach Visits to High Schools, Collect Data on the number students contacted

Visit at Least Two Different High Schools to present before at least Four different classes

Bruce Mayer7

On Hold due to B.Mayer Health Issues

Apr-May11Make OutReach Visits to High Schools, Collect Data on the number students contacted


Bruce MayerOn Hold due to B.Mayer Health Issues













7 Occasionally Chabot Instructional-Faculty Colleagues have assisted with the OutReach visits → S. Hildreth, T. Dave, M. Ho., D. Crew


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


http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/~boser/

2423

17

27

22

24

26

23.29

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Fa04 Fa05 Fa06 Fa07 Fa08 Fa09 Fa10 AVG

Num

ber o

f Eng

inee

ring

Tran

sfer

Stu

dent

s

Transfer Year

Chabot UC+CSU Engineering Fall-Transfer Volume • 04-10

Program_Rev_ENGR_Enrollment_History_1211.xlsx

Data Source = California Postsecondary Education Commission (CPEC)• http://www.cpec.ca.gov/OnLineData/OnLineData.asp

Figure 2 • Chabot Engineering University-Transfer Productivityi during B. Mayer’s tenure as the College’s Engineering Instructor


86

66

57

39

30

20

18

10

8

7

1

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

ENGR

PSY

BUS

BIOL

CHEM

ARCH

ENGL

MTH

HIS

CSCI

PHYS

Dis

cipl

ine

UC Transfers

Chabot College UC-Transfer by Discipline • Total over 04-10


Data Source• http://www.cpec.ca.gov/OnLineData/SelectFinalOptions.asp

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 UC-Transfers THAN ANY OTHER discipline on the Chabot College Campus


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

94-95

95-96

96-97

97-98

98-99

99-00

00-01

01-02

02-03

03-04

04-05

05-06

06-07

07-08

08-09

09-10

10-11 11-12

12-13

Full T

ime

Equi

vale

nt S

TUD

ENTS

(FTE

S)Annual Chabot College Engineering FTEStudents • 94-13

Chabot_ENGR_Enrollment_History_1302.xlsxAverages Since Fa03:• 14.0 FTES• 1.17 FTEF

"Dot.Com Boom"

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.


050

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

94-95

95-96

96-97

97-98

98-99

99-00

00-01

01-02

02-03

03-04

04-05

05-06

06-07

07-08

08-09

09-10

10-11 11-12 12-13

WSC

H/F

ullT

imeE

quiv

alen

tFac

ulty

(WSC

H/F

TEF)

Annual Chabot College Engineering WSCH/FTEF 94-13

Chabot_ENGR_Enrollment_History_1302.xlsx

"Dot.Com Boom"

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.


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.


Figure 7 • Mean scores of midterm and final exams with standard errors, academic years 2008 & 2009 at the Colorado School of Mines (M.midterm and M.final are with Mastering Engineering)iii.

Figure 8 • Mr. Scott Hildreth of Chabot College testifies to the efficacy of the “Mastering” OnLine HomeWork software produced by Pearson Higher Education publishingiv


51

42

20

8

7

7

6

6

4

4

6

3

3

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55

SJSU

UC-Berkeley

UC-Davis

UC-SanDiego

UC-LA

SFSU

CSU-EastBay

UC-Irvine

CalPoly-SLO

CSU-Sacramento

CSU-Other

UC-Other

Other States

Number of Chabot Engineering Students

Tran

fer D

estin

atio

nChabot Engineering-Student Transfer-University • 04-10


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

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.


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.


Figure 11 • Examples of sophisticated Electrical Engineering Lab Exercises developed by the Lab Instructor, Mr. Wayne Phillips, for ENGR43.


50.0%54.0%

49%

55%

68% 69%

58%

66%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Fa09 Sp10 Fa10 Sp11 Fa11 Sp12 Total Chabot

Stud

ent S

uces

s Rat

io

College Term

Engineering Success Rates • Fa09-Sp12

Program_Rev_ENGR_Enrollment_History_130213.xls

Ref:1) http://www.chabotcollege.edu/ProgramReview/Data/Overall_College_Success_F08-Sp11.pdf2) http://www.chabotcollege.edu/ProgramReview/Data/Science%20&%20Mathematics/Engineering/Prog_Rev_SEP_F09-Sp12/ENGR_Overall.pdf

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.


59% (n=213)

74% (n=85)

62% (n=173)

47% (n=134)

44% (n=36)

55% (n=49)

78% (n=40)

66% (n=248 727)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

1011

2225

3643

45C

habo

t

Student Success Rates

ENG

R C

ours

e N

umbe

rEngineering Student Success Course • Avg over Fa09-Sp12

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.


48

36

24

17

9

7

3

3

2

1

2

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Mechanical

Civil

Electrical

Chemical

Computer

Bio

Aero

Industrial

Materials

Nuclear

Other

Number of Students

Tran

sfer

Eng

inee

ring-

Disc

iplin

eChabot College Engineering Student Tranfser Survey • 2004-2012

Transfer_Summary_120530.xlsx

152 Students Surveyed

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


Continue to optimize the instructional mix of PowerPoint-Presentations vs. WhiteBoard-Demonstrations. 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 new-content 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

8 ciHUB.org is supported by the National Science Foundation.


http://cihub.org/

Appendix A: Budget History and Impact

Audience: Budget Committee, PRBC, and AdministratorsPurpose: 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.

Category2011-12 Budget

Requested

2011-12 Budget

Received

2012-13 Budget

Requested

2012-13 Budget

ReceivedClassified Staffing (# of positions) 0 0 0 0Supplies9 & Services $500 $500 $500 $500Technology10/Equipment $500 $500 $500 $500Other 0 0 0 0TOTAL $1000 1000 1000 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 programo 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 Labs10 Annual Maintenance for MATLAB Software


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 course2. 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


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

Discuss results

Report Results

Full Assmt

Discuss results

Report Results

Group 2:

ENGR10ENGR25

Full Assmt

Discuss results & report

Group 3:

ENGR22ENGR45ENGR10

Full Assmt

Discuss results

Report Results

Group 4:

ENGR36


Full Assmt



Appendix B2: “Closing the Loop” Assessment Reflections

Course ENGR10Semester assessment data gathered Fa11Number of sections offered in the semester 1 per yearNumber of sections assessed 1Percentage of sections assessed 100%Semester held “Closing the Loop” discussion Spring2012Faculty members involved in “Closing the Loop” discussion 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)

Defined Target Scores*

(CLO Goal)

Actual Scores** (eLumen data)

(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

2/3 (67%) of Students score 3 or better

49% scored 3 or better; 77.6% scored 2 or better.

(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

75 % of students scores 3 or better

81.6% of students scored 3 or better

If more CLOs are listed for the course, add another row to the table.

11 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/


* 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?


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 human-kind. 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%


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


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:_________________________________________________________________


Course ENGR11Semester assessment data gathered Sp11Number of sections offered in the semester 1 per yearNumber of sections assessed 1Percentage of sections assessed 100%Semester held “Closing the Loop” discussion Spring2012Faculty members involved in “Closing the Loop” discussion Bruce Mayer, PE (Only Instructor12)






(CLO Goal)


(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 BIOLOGY TANK CONTAINING TIDE-POOL ORGANISMS. STUDENTS WILL LEARN HOW CREATE A DETAILED AND JUSTIFIED CONCEPT-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)

3/4 (75%) of Students score 3 or better

83.8% of the student scored Three or better on the first design review.

(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 BIOLOGY TANK CONTAINING TIDE-POOL ORGANISMS. STUDENTS 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)

3/4 (75%) of the class scores 3 or better

84.2% of the student scored Three or better on the Final Design Review.

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/


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?



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.


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


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.



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.



Course ENGR22Semester assessment data gathered Fall 2011Number of sections offered in the semester 1Number of sections assessed 4Percentage of sections assessed 100Semester held “Closing the Loop” discussion Spring 2012Faculty members involved in “Closing the Loop” discussion Carolyn Slutz-Baranouskas






(CLO Goal)


(CLO) 1: EFFECTIVELY DESCRIBE THE SPACIAL SHAPE AND/OR FORM OF A MACHINED MECHANICAL OBJECT DEPICTED IN A 3-DIMENSIONAL PICTORIAL REPRESENTATION OF THE OBJECT. DESCRIBE THE HEIGHT, WIDTH, AND DEPTH (HWD) OF THE OBJECT.

70% of the class scores 3 or better

The class of twenty had 8 students who were ranked competent (3) and 12 who demonstrated accomplishment (4), consistent with this goal.

(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. USE TECHNICAL TERMS RO DESCRIBE ROUNDED ENDS, DRILLED HOLES OF FLANGE, AND BOSS AROUND CENTER HOLE.


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.




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.


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.


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.



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.



Course ENGR25Semester assessment data gathered Fa10 & Sp11 & Fa11Number of sections offered in the semester 1 per semesterNumber of sections assessed 3Percentage of sections assessed 100Semester held “Closing the Loop” discussion Fall2011Faculty members involved in “Closing the Loop” discussion Bruce Mayer, PE (Only Instructor)






(CLO Goal)


(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

2/3 (67%) of class scored 3 or better

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.

(CLO) 2: CRITICAL THINKING - ASSIGNMENTENGR 25 - USE MATLAB S SIMULINK INTERCONNECTED-ICON 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 OPTIMIZE/MINIMIZE/MAXIMIZE SOME DEPENDENT VARIABLE QUANTITY THAT RESULTS FROM THE ANALYSIS OF A REAL-WORLD SITUATION-SCENARIO

75% of the class scores 3 or better.

Fa10 = 81.1%. Sp11 = 75%. Fa11 = 75%.



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.


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.


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.



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"



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 worked-examples, 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.



Course ENGR36Semester assessment data gathered Fall2012Number of sections offered in the semester 1Number of sections assessed 1Percentage of sections assessed 100Semester held “Closing the Loop” discussion Spring2013Faculty members involved in “Closing the Loop” discussion Bruce Mayer, PE (Only Instructor)






(CLO Goal)


(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 SINGLE-COUPLE (MR)

75% of Students score 3 or Better

Out of 18:4 → 6 ea3 → 4 ea2 → 6 ea1 → 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)


Out of 18:4 → 6 ea3 → 4 ea2 → 5 ea1 → 3 ea

(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/ORMOMENT(S)


Out of 18:4 → 4 ea3 → 6 ea2 → 6 ea1 → 2 ea0 → 1

(CLO) 4: CRITICAL THINKING - ASSIGNMENT ENGR 36 - CONSTRUCT THE SHEAR (V) AND BENDING-MOMENT (M) DIAGRAM FOR A TRANSVERSELY-LOAD STRUCTURAL BEAM


Out of 18:4 → 10 ea3 → 6 ea2 → 1 ea1 → 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)


**Actual scores: What is the actual percent of students that meet defined target based on the eLumen data collected in this assessment cycle?



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%


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%


Students often Do NOT apply 2 or 3 force member analysis when they shouldOR 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%



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%


The students are well prepared by their Calculus, Mechanical Physics, and ENGR25 classes. The quickly grasp the calculus relationship between Load, Shear, and Moment.


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.


Course ENGR45Semester assessment data gathered Sp 2011Number of sections offered in the semester 1 Section Per YearNumber of sections assessed 2 (2 years of data)Percentage of sections assessed 100Semester held “Closing the Loop” discussion Fall 2011Faculty members involved in “Closing the Loop” discussion Bruce Mayer, PE (Only Instructor)






(CLO Goal)


(CLO) 1: GIVEN TEMPERATURE AND DIFFUSION COEFFICIENT INFORMATION USE THE EQUATION FOR SOLID-STATE DIFFUSION TO FIND THE EXPONENTIAL-PREFACTOR, DO, AND ACTIVATION ENERGY, QD, FOR THE DIFFUSION COEFFICIENT.


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

(CLO) 2: OUTCOME:GIVEN DATA RELATED TO A VOLUME-WEIGHTED-AVERAGE MATERIAL PROPERTY USE THE RULE-OF-MIXTURE EQUATIONS TO DETERMINE THE AVERAGE MATERIAL PROPERTY OF A MULTICOMPONENT MATERIAL


Six students took this assessment. Five students scored a “2”, and the other student scored a “1”.

(CLO) 3: OUTCOME:GIVEN THE GEOMETERY, ELASTIC MODULUS, AND DATA TAKEN 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 APART THE SPECIMEN


The Students performed fairly well on this CLO. Five of the six scored “3’s”, while one student scored a “2”

(CLO) 4: GIVEN POLYMER CRYSTALLINITY AND DENSITY DATA CALCULATE THE EXPECTED DENSITY FOR A 100% CRYSTALLINE POLYMER


4 of 6 students scored a “4”. One student scored


“3”, and the remaining student scored “2”

(CLO) 5: ANALYZE THE CLASSIC IRON-CARBON ROOM-PRESSURE PHASE-DIAGRAM TO DETERMINE FOURTEEN QUANTITIES WORTH 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


Four of six student scored “4”. The remaining two students scored “2”




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.


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


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.



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.


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


All students did well on Identifying phases present, but several had a difficult time identifying the “ProEutectic” phase.



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 student-exercises 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 student-exercises appear to be effective



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 1-27-10.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 1-27-10.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. Engineering students appreciate the FULL suite of TRANSFER COURSES offered by Chabot. This full program often attracts students from nearby community colleges that do not offer all of the ELC14 recommended courses.

13 An extremely important “Critical Thinking” skill within the Engineering Discipline


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. Offer, for ExtraCredit, in all classes a Take Home Quizv based on a presentationvi describing 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 Study-Skills Presentation/Quiz.

14 http://www.caelc.org/15 Mr. Chuah also earned a B.S. in Mechanical Engineering from UCDavis after transferring from Chabot


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 Figure15) 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)

PLO #1: 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 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 1-27-10.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


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


Figure 16 • Excerpts from the Guest Lecture to the Chabot ENGR10 Course made by Chabot Engineering Transfer Student Robert Moore.


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


Appendix E: Proposal for New Initiatives (Complete for each new initiative)

Audience: Deans/Unit Administrators, PRBC, Foundation, Grants Committee, College Budget CommitteePurpose: 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 Completion Date

Required Budget (Split out personnel, supplies, other 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:


Appendix F1: Full-Time Faculty/Adjunct Staffing Request(s) [Acct. Category 1000]

Audience: Faculty Prioritization Committee and AdministratorsPurpose: 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 Description1.2.

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.



Appendix F2: Classified Staffing Request(s) including Student Assistants [Acct. Category 2000]Audience: Administrators, PRBCPurpose: 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.


Appendix F3: FTEF Requests

Audience: Administrators, CEMC, PRBCPurpose: 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



Appendix F4: Academic Learning Support Requests [Acct. Category 2000]

Audience: Administrators, PRBC, Learning ConnectionPurpose: 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/PHYS-25. 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.

Appendix F5: Supplies & Services Requests [Acct. Category 4000 and 5000]

Audience: Administrators, Budget Committee, PRBCPurpose: 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.

2012-13 BudgetProject or Items Requested

Requested Received 2013-14 Request

Rationale

30 Seats of MATLAB Software per Quote 3553680

$ $2800 OneTime License

$500 per year maintenance

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


Appendix F6: Conference and Travel Requests [ Acct. Category 5000]

Audience: Staff Development Committee, Administrators, Budget Committee, PRBCPurpose: 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 Rationale$


Appendix F7: Technology and Other Equipment Requests [Acct. Category 6000]

Audience: Budget Committee, Technology Committee, AdministratorsPurpose: 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.

2012-13 BudgetProject or Items Requested

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.


http://www.chabotcollege.edu/audiovisual/Chabot%20College%20Standard.pdf%20

Appendix F8: Facilities Requests

Audience: Facilities Committee, AdministratorsPurpose: 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


Appendix F10: Agenda for AY13 Scheduling Task Group13-14 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


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 ONE1) Go over goals and firm guiding principlesThe 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 TWO1) 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)


Appendix F11 Chabot College Institutional Core Values and Framework17

17 http://www.chabotcollege.edu/ipbc/Strategic%20Plan/StrategicPlan%20Pub_FINAL.pdf


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


Full Assmt


Group 2:

ENGR43

Full Assmt

Discuss results

Report Results

Full Assmt

Discuss results

Report Results

Group 3:

ENGR10

ENGR25

Full Assmt


Full Assmt


Group 4:

ENGR22

ENGR45

Full Assmt

Discuss results

Report Results

Full Assmt

Group 5:

ENGR11

Full Assmt

Discuss results

Report Results


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

Full Assmt


Full Assmt


Group 2:

ENGR43

Full Assmt

Discuss results

Report Results

Full Assmt

Discuss results

Group 3:

ENGR10

ENGR25

Full Assmt


Full Assmt

Group 4:

ENGR22

ENGR45

Full Assmt

Discuss results

Report Results

Group 5:

ENGR11

Full Assmt

Discuss results

Report Results


i http://www.cpec.ca.gov/OnLineData/SelectFirstOptions.ASP?ReportType=Transferii http://www.cpec.ca.gov/OnLineData/SelectFinalOptions.aspiii http://www.pearsonhighered.com/resources/Pearson_Global_Whitepaper.pdf - Accessed on 10Nov12iv http://www.masteringphysics.com/site/support/faculty-adv.html - Accessed on 10Nov12v http://www.chabotcollege.edu/faculty/bmayer/ChabotEngineeringCourses/All_Courses_ENGR/College_Student_Study_Skills_Quiz_1010.docvi http://www.chabotcollege.edu/faculty/bmayer/ChabotEngineeringCourses/All_Courses_ENGR/Study_Skills_for_Chabot_College_Students_1010.pptvii 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%20Reading%20between%20the%20Lines%20discussions.%20Nov%202006%C3%AF%E2%82%AC%C2%A9/ReadingvideodiscDCnotes.pdf

http://www.masteringphysics.com/site/support/faculty-adv.html

http://www.pearsonhighered.com/resources/Pearson_Global_Whitepaper.pdf

program reviews... · web viewbruce mayer, pe • academic program review year three...

Documents