Chabot College
Academic Program Review Report
Year Three of
Program Review Cycle
Final Summary Report
Physics
Submitted on Feb 28, 2013
Preparer: Timothy A. Dave, Nicholas Alexander, Scott Hildreth, Shannon Lee
Final Forms, 1/18/13
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.).
We had the following Program Goals for Year 1 of the Cycle for Physics:
1. Design, Build, and Move to New Physics Labs (Building 1800)
2. Install upgraded Physics laptop computers, and maintain computer carts, to provide students with required lab/discussion resources, simulations, data acquisition tools, analysis software, and group/homework tools.
3. Prepare curriculum proposal for realignment of Physics 4ABC to four-semester sequence
4. CLO/PLO completion and review
5. Examine Physics 18 preparation for students entering Physics 2A/4A
6. Examine Physics 22A/22B results vs. creation of specific calculus-lite Physics sequence.
7. Maintain Physics labs
8. Reestablish Physical Science 15
We were able to achieve Goals 1-7. Coal 8 has remained elusive due to FTEF limitations. But we will continue to pursue it because Physical Science 15 as a course offering, can be tied to CSUEB’s Environmental Studies 1000 course, which is a pre-requisite for science teachers.
We are pleased that we have our new facilities in Building 1800. What sets this effort apart is the innovation of the labs (ie. Configurable to any arrangement from lecture to lab experiment mode) and tutorial center as a place for student to gather, talk and study. Placement of this room between labs, with windows between, lends itself collaborative group efforts between each space. The recognition that the “learning space” is every bit an essential tool (as for instance the textbook) to foster greater learning is a first for Chabot. We continue to look for opportunities to share the facility with interested colleagues. The glass wall and wall-to-floor whiteboard had garnered continual praise from students and faculty alike, as a place that is inviting and “pulls you in” as a space for collaboration and study.
The greatest challenges to our efforts of the last few years are those that are largely out of our hands, namely the economic state of California and the Community College system. However, three fronts of concern that are within our ability to effect a change and are being addressed:
a) Using our innovative building and facilities in the most efficient and productive manner.
b) Establishing even greater collaboration, partnership and idea exchange between ourselves and our immediate administration and working that into achievable goals for furthering STEM development within the Math Science division.
c) Rearranging our curriculum to better serve the greatest number of our students in ways which increases their learning, information retention, and facilitates efficient articulation through our academic system.
d) A continued effort to lobby for and search for funding to help supplement funds most likely need for equipment and instructional aides.
e) A continued effort to establish a center of Science and Engineering Excellence, with multiple financial sponsors such as that established at Contra Costa College.
Just to take a moment to readdress a difference of opinion that we the Physics faculty still think is critical to future students success, is that of Physics 5. The proposal to replace Physics 5 with Physics 4D was cancelled by the Dean just before it was to be submitted, on the basis that it required Physics 4C as a pre-requisite. (Currently Physics 5 can be taken by students who have completed 4B as well as those who have completed 4C.) The Dean’s rationale for stopping the proposal was that it would require Chabot students to take more than two years to complete their necessary courses before transferring to a four-year institution like UC Berkeley.
The full-time faculty disagreed with this decision. We believe that making Physics 4C a pre-requisite to Modern Physics is necessary, as the concepts of waves and thermodynamics brought out in Physics 4C are essential to understanding concepts in Modern Physics. Las Positas faculty shared their belief in the proposal creation process that making their 8C a pre-requisite to their 8D class was the proper approach as well.
As a result of the decision to pull back the Physics 5 to 4D change, Chabot is left with its current plan of offering Physics 5, along with Physics 4C, only in Spring, to be taken simultaneously by students who might need both to transfer. We don’t have sufficient FTEF allocation to offer more sections of either course.
As the discussion about Physics 5 and 4D took place, and at the request of the Dean, we were asked whether Chabot could change its curriculum from its current four-semester model to a three-semester model, so that transfer could be accelerated for students who were able to do so. We compared the physics programs for many of the local community colleges (including LPC, Ohlone, CSM, CCSF, DVC, and Contra Costa) as well as for the local four-year schools (San Jose State, UC Berkeley, Davis, Cal Poly) that seem to be the most popular transfer institutions.
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?
a.) We are considering adding a new intermediate 1-year physics sequence, to be called Physics 3AB, replacing 2AB, that includes calculus but offers our students the option of taking Math 15/16 rather than requiring the more rigorous Math 1-2-3 sequence.
The course would be designed primarily for students in the biological sciences that desire to transfer to universities, and who need a year of physics, but do not need the complete engineering-level sequence of Physics 4ABC (with their pre-requisite math courses). There are of course some majors in biochem and pre-med, and some four-year schools, where the more rigorous sequence of math and physics might still be required.
The proposed Physics 3AB courses would match those offered already at UC Davis, at UC Berkeley, and many other schools. However, we will not have the FTEF to offer this sequence *as well as* keep the existing Algebra-based Physics 2AB. If the proposal does move forward successfully, we would eliminate that sequence from our catalog by 2015.
b. We are considering swapping the content order of Physics 4B with that of Physics 4C. This effort would bring the presentation of content more in line with when particular subject are covered in the Math courses so that students would have a firm foundation established in Math before that knowledge would be needed and required to be applied in a Physics class.
c. We are in the process of re-establishing a Physics major, subsequently working with Jane Church with regard to curriculum requirements and articulation.
Appendix A: Budget History and Impact
Audience: Budget Committee, PRBC, and Administrators
Purpose: This analysis describes your history of budget requests from the previous two years and the impacts of funds received and needs that were not met. This history of documented need can both support your narrative in Section A and provide additional information for Budget Committee recommendations.
Instructions: Please provide the requested information, and fully explain the impact of the budget decisions.
Category / 2011-12 Budget Requested / 2011-12 Budget Received / 2012-13 Budget Requested / 2012-13 Budget ReceivedClassified Staffing (# of positions) / 1 / 0 / 1 / 0
Supplies & Services / 8,947
From Bond for Equipment Physics 4C
$1,800
supplies / 8,947
1,800
supplies / 0
1,800
supplies / 0
1,800
supplies
Technology/Equipment / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0
Other / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0
TOTAL / 10,747 / 10,747 / 1,800 / 1,800
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.
Because funds purchased equipment for Physics 5 which we are looking to realigned to include a lab , we are pursuing this effort and have been using equipment in Physics 5 classes offered this semester as as demonstration and lab curriculum creation.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?
So far, inquiries and surveys of students have not shown a indication of negative impact.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 / Fall2013 / Spring 2014 / Fall
2014 / Spring 2015 / Fall
2015 / Spring 2016 / Fall
2016 / Spring 2017
Courses:
Group 1: / Full Assmt / Discuss results / Report Results / Full Assmt / Discuss results / Report Results
Group 2: / Full Assmt / Discuss results & report
Group 3: / Full Assmt / Discuss results / Report Results
Group 4: / Full Assmt / Discuss results & report
Appendix B2: “Closing the Loop” Assessment Reflections
Course / Physics 4CSemester assessment data gathered / Spring 2012
Number of sections offered in the semester / 2
Number of sections assessed / 2
Percentage of sections assessed / 100%
Semester held “Closing the Loop” discussion / Fall 2012
Faculty members involved in “Closing the Loop” discussion / Timothy Dave, Nicholas Alexander,
Shannon Lee, Scott Hildreth
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:
Demonstrate knowledge of applied physics through research papers, projects, labs and/or assignments
/ 50% score 3 or 4 / 75% score 3 or 4
(CLO) 2:
An ability to identify, formulate, and solve applied physics problems.
/ 50% score 3 or 4 / 75% score 3 or 4
« 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?
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?
We are above the target goal for students demonstrating an understanding of precision and accuracy, based on this CLO and when it is assessed in the class.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?
We will continue to stress the the need for students to demonstrate knowledge of applied physics through research papers, projects, labs and/or assignmentsB. Course-Level Outcome (CLO) 2:
1. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course level outcome?
We are above the target goal for students demonstrating an understanding of precision and accuracy, based on this CLO and when it is assessed in the class.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?