ChabotCollege
Engineering /

Program Review

Proposal

Rev. January 2007

Bruce Mayer, PE

Instructor, Engineering and Math

Science, and Mathematics

ChabotCollege

9-Jan-07

College Private Material for Internal Use

file = Engineering_Program_Review_Proposal_B_Mayer_061121

Engineering Review Proposal • Rev. Jan07
Bruce. Mayer, PEChabotCollege / 9-Jan-07
Page 1

ChabotCollege Private Material for Internal Use

file = Engineering_Program_Review_Proposal_B_Mayer_061121

Engineering Review Proposal • Rev. Jan07
Bruce. Mayer, PEChabotCollege / 9-Jan-07
Page 1

Excecutive Summary

ENGINEERING MISSION

In a single sentence the Mission for Chabot Engineering:

To prepare students for Success
AFTER
they Transfer to a UniverisityCollege of Engineering.

Success for a pre-professional program such as ChabotEngineering is the attainment of professional status by the students who depend on the program. In private-sector engineering professional status is marked by the earning of a baccalaureate degree in engineering from an accredited university. Without the a baccalaureate degree the chances of a student finding a true engineering professional position fall by, in my estimation, about 98%. Thus Chabot Engineering must provide its students with the skills and knowledge required to earn the post-transfer degree.

INTRODUCTION

In a practical sense, engineering has been in program review since the day B. Mayer joined Chabot as the engineering instructor (03Jul03):

  • The curriculum has been completely built as described by the 139 page curriculum proposal that was approved in Dec04
  • The program program budget has been argressively right-sized
  • FTEF budget reduced from 1.71 to the current 1.09
  • Supplies & Services budgeted at a modest $3k/year; most of which is used to maintain the software required by a modern engineering program

Engineering is a ATTRACTIVE discipline that pulls to Chabot some of the most capable and motivated students on campus. Every engineering students has so many transfer required-courses that it appears as though the engineering student is also an advanced-math and advanced physics student.

COMMUNITY COLLEGE ENGINEERING – STRATEGIC ELEMENTS

To maintain a viable program an Engineering operation a community college must meet these requirements

  • Offer a Full & Complete Engineering, Math, and Physics Program
  • Ensure that the transferable course articulate broadly
  • Provide effective instruction to ensure student learning
  • Raise the awareness of potential students to the benefits of studying engineering at the community of college

STUDENT SUCESS

As a TRANSFER program engineering courses must be rigorous, and grading standards must be held high. Anything less would erode Chabot Engineering’s credibility with the transfer institutions. One of the WORST things that Chabot could do is send UNDER-prepared, but OVER-assesed students to a UniversityCollege of Engineering.

For these reasons we expect success to be lower in engineering than in the college as a whole. Specifically

  • Engineering SUCCESS is about 59% vs. 67% for the college
  • Engineering WITHDRAWL is about 23% vs. 21% for the college
  • Engineering NONsucess is about 18% vs. 12% for the college

This is probably in-line with expectations for a rigorous transfer program.

BUDGET TRENDS AND REQUIREMENTS

The current budget is adequate to support the currently sized Engineering program

  • 1.09 anuallized FTEF
  • Account 4000 Supplies →$1000 per year for lab-consumables
  • Account 6000 Service →$2000 per year for modern engineering software

Tentative plans call for additional modernization of the course content to include

  • SPICE™-software electrical circuit simulation in ENGR43
  • SolidWorks®-software for Mechanical 3D graphics in a successor course to ENGR22

Addition of these two pieces of software may require an increase in the 6000 account.

ENROLLMENT

Since the implementation of the modernized program, enrollment projects have been better than 90% accurate.

Engineering enrollment declined significantly after the “DotCom Bust”, reaching at lowpoint of about 9.8 FTES in 02-03 (the year before I joined Chabot). Enrollment has improved 10-15% since then due to, in part, an intense and personal recruiting effort by the engineering instructor.

ROCK PROPOSAL →STUDENT RECRUITING

This proposal is based on the fact that No-Students = No-Learning. In addition, having more dedicated students in a transfer-oriented discipline leads to reinforcing student collegiality and group learning. Figure 2 displays the concept behind this hypothesis of improved collegial learning as the number of students increases.

To improve this group learning, I propose for the Engineering Rock:

  • An INTENSIFIED in-person, and on-site High School Recruiting program

In the past 2.5 years I have talked to over 400 students at two Chabot Service Area high schools. I propose that I work to expand this effort to at least six other high schools.

The Metrics for the effectiveness of this effort would be statistical correlation between factors:

  • [Total Engineering Enrollment] vs. [No. of High School Students Contacted]
  • [Women Engineering Enrollment] vs. [No. of High School Students Contacted]
  • [Engineering Student’s Overall Success] vs. [No. of High School Students Contacted]
  • [Engineering Student Succees in the 2nd year courses: 36, 43, 43] vs. [No. of High School Students Contacted]

The resources requested for this effort are modest – 4.25 CAH of release time in the fall-term for the next 3-4 years.

Figure 2 • One view of how increased number of students within a transfer-oriented discipline might enhance student learning. Note how group-learning takes root when the number of students reaches some “critical mass”. The writer estimates that Chabot Engineering is currently just slightly above the critical mass; leaving much room for improved group-learning. The “ROCK INTRODUCTION” section of this report provides examples of HOW group interations improve student learning.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

I thank the Program Review Committee for taking the time to consider this report and proposal. I hope the committee will approve the above proposal as it will improve the institution that is ChabotCollege.

Bruce Mayer, PE

ChabotCollege

Hayward,California

December 2006

ChabotCollege Engineering

MISSION STATEMENT

Prepare Engineering Students for
Academic Success
at the
Transfer-University
College of Engineering

The design of the instructional content and methods associated with the Chabot Engineering program strongly support this mission. The textbooks books selected are mainstream, and widely used at universities. The structure of the courses are made purposely similar to that found at many transfer institutions. The level of expectations for student effort and performance are kept high to prepare students for the demands of subsequent study at a university College of Engineering (CoE). Much is asked of Chabot Engineering students, and the overwhelming majority of them respond by working hard to master the material and build their engineering skills base. Anything less than this level of rigor and subject-mastery would not prepare the students for transfer to a CoE.

Engineering Program Review - Introduction

Program review in Engineering essentially started the day the writer joined ChabotCollege (03Jul03). Even before joining Chabot I analyzed the Engineering course content. The analysis revealed that the curriculum had become somewhat stale and dated. I immediately embarked upon a curriculum modernization program that culminated with a 139 page curriculum proposal submitted to the Chabot curriculum committee in Fa04. The committee approved proposal as summarized in Table I.The new and revised courses commenced in Fa05. Thus Engineering is, in a practical sense, in the third year of a self-initiated review.

Note that Engineering is a small discipline consisting of a single instructor, with 1.09 FTEF, with a materials & services budget of $3k per year. While a small program engineering is important to the college in that it is an ATTRACTIVE discipline. With a pre-professional curriculum, engineering attracts transfer students who would attend other institutions if Chabot did not offer Engineering. Engineering students are very transfer oriented, as a requirement for engineering practice is earning a bacalaurate degree from an accredited university. Table II contains a listing of recent engineering transfer students. Note the high number of UC acceptances.

Engineering pulls into Chabot some of the most capable and motivated students on campus. These students produce a “ripple effect’ in the most sophisticated courses offered by Chabot. The transfer requirements are such that engineering students must take so much mathematics and physics that they appear to be full-time math, and full time physics students. Without engineering, upper-level calculus, and calculus-based physics courses would see significant declines in enrollment.

Table I – Dec04 Engineering Curriculum Proposal

DIVISION DEAN’S CHECKLIST FOR PROPOSALS
DIVISION:
Math, Science
And
Applied Health
COURSE/PROGRAM
Engineering / / / / / / / / / / / COMMENTS
ENGR20
Engineering Graphics / YES / YES / N/A / N/A / N/A / N/A / YES / N/A / N/A / N/A / REMOVE from Catalog
Replace w/ ENGR22
ENGR 21
Descriptive Geometry / YES / YES / N/A / N/A / N/A / N/A / YES / N/A / N/A / N/A / REMOVE from Catalog
Replace w/ ENGR22
ENGR 22
Engr Design Graphics / YES / YES / YES / NO / NO / YES / YES / YES / N/A / YES / Combines ENGR 20 & 21 into ONE Course
ENGR 25
Computational Methods / YES / YES / YES / YES / NO / YES / YES / YES / N/A / YES / NEW Course – CrossList as MATH25, PHYS25
ENGR 36
Engr Mechanics – Statics / YES / YES / YES / NO / NO / NO / YES / YES / N/A / N/A / Revise PreReqs, Renumber from 35
ENGR 43
Engr Circuit Analysis / YES / YES / YES / NO / NO / NO / YES / YES / N/A / N/A / Revise PreReqs, Renumber from 44
ENGR 45
Materials of Engineering / YES / YES / YES / NO / NO / NO / YES / YES / N/A / N/A / Revise PreReqs, Update Course Outline

Figure 3 • Bacalaurate Degree Salaries from the National Association of Colleges and Employers (NACE) 2006 survey.

Maintenance of a viable community college engineering program entails four strategic elements:

  1. Offer a FULL & COMPLETE program that offers, at a minimum, these course on an annual basis[i]
  • Engineering Design Graphics (the language of physical design)
  • Engineering Computational Methods (learn a math processor such as MATLAB)
  • Engineering Mechanics – Statics
  • Engineering Electrical Circuits
  • Engineering Materials
  1. Broad ARTICULATION of the above courses to Unversity Colleges of Engineering (CoE’s)
  • Without course-to-course articulation the transfer-goal oriented engineering students will find another institution.
  1. Effective INSTRUCTION that enhances the LEARNING of students to prepare them for the of the rigors of upper-division engineering courses at the transfer CoE.
  • Asking any less of Chabot Engineering students than does San JoseState or UCBerkeley would NOT prepare them for post-transferSUCCESS at those CoE’s.
  1. Raise AWARENESS of the applied-math and applied-science inclined students to:
  • The ATTRACTIVENESS of Engineering as an academic and, more importantly, professional career. That is, inform potential students to these facts:
  • Engineering-practice is WAY-COOL[ii]
  • Engineering is THE BEST compensated of ALL the baccalaureate degrees as indicated inFigure 3
  • The VALUE of doing lower-division course-work at ChabotCollege in terms of both $-Cost (huge advantages) and instructional effectiveness as suggested by Figure 4

Table II – Fall05 Engineering Transfer Students

While much has been accomplished against these four strategic elements, much remains to be done as well. In particular, articulation needs attention to ensure that Chabot Engineering transfer students are learning the skills, and gaining the knowledge required by the university CoE’s.

In addition, improved instructional methods will expand the breadth and depth of student learning. The foundation for improved learning will be the Student Learning Outcome and Assessment Cycle (SLOAC). The SLOAC is essentially the Deming-Shewart Quality-Engineering process as applied to education. See Appendix 3 for a discussion of the Deming-Shewart cycle.

The following discussion includes a short summary of the efforts-to-date against the four strategic programmatic elements listed above. After the action-summary follow the details of the current proposal which focus on making additional gains against these requirements to ensure continuous improvement in Chabot’s Engineering Program.

Figure 4 •UCBerkeley College of Enginering Graduation rates for Community-College-Transfer and Native students. Note that Chabot sends a significant number of engineering students to UCBerkeley as indicated in Table II.

Strategic Elements Discussion

FULL & COMPLETE TRANSFER PROGRAM

I like to think that engineering runs a “full-featured”, but “lean-and-mean” operation. I replaced TWO venerable instructors-emeriti – Mr. Dean Severud and Mr. Adam Young. With the retirement of these two fine teachers, I endeavored to “right-size” the engineering program as indicated in Table IIIand Figure 5. Some significant elements of the programming sizing effort:

  • ENGR22 replaced the now obsolete combination of ENGR20 & ENGR22. This resulted a reduction of teaching load from 7.5 CAH to 4.25 CAH
  • Reduced the annualized engineering FTEF from 1.71 in the mid-1990’s to the current 1.09.

It may well be that Engineering is the most-transfer oriented of all the disciplines on the Chabot Campus. In support of this statement I offer these observations:

  • According to Chabot’s office institutional research Chabot sent about 140 to the UC system in Fa05. Table II indicates that engineering, ALONE, accounted for about 8.6% of the number of students sent by the entire campus
  • At the Chabot Transfer Advisory Board Meeting on 28Feb06, organized by Sandra Genera, I was the ONLY member of the instructional-faculty to attend.

Table III – Schedule Pattern for Engineering

BROAD ARTICULATION

Broad course articulation makes the Chabot Engineering Program more useful, and hence attractive, to current and potential students. Improving articulation is a critical element in the service of our students;it deserves high priority attention.

When I arrived at Chabot in Fall03 I had already determined that the program had become somewhat dated. The engineering graphics courses were based on pencil-and-paper methods while the universities and engineering-practice had long since moved to Computer-Aided Design/Drafting (CADD Software). The college offered no Computational Methods course, and the computer content of the existing courses consisted of word-processing (MSWord) only.

The staleness of the program severely threatened articulation with the much more sophisticated university programs. This situation lead to my creating the curriculum-modernization program as summarized in Table I.

In the Fall05 term I gave my highest priortity to preparation for instructional delivery of the newly modernized curriculum. Upon completing this task in Dec05, I turned my attention to improving articulation.

Figure 5 • Enrollment and Staffing trends for the ChabotCollege Engineering Program.

Having only superficial knowledge of the articulation process, I consulted with Chabot’s Articulation Technician, Patricia Posada. After some discussions Ms. Posada and I developed a plan for writing Engineering-Course Articulation Proposals for submission to the universities.

  • B. Mayer Articulation Tasks
  • Research university course content to determine articulation candidate-courses
  • Write the draft justification, or rationale, for the articulation in a concise format
  • P. Posada
  • Edit the justification as required to meet the needs of the university articulation office
  • Formally present to the university the proposed course-to-course articulation
  • Provide to the university any supporting information such as course outlines.

Ms. Posada and I have developed an effective and collegial relationship that resulted in significant progress for the college. As of Nov06 Ms. Posada and I had completed articulation proposals for approximately 50% of the California state public university Schools of Engineering as indicated byTable IV.

The articulation proposals that received a formal review have been accepted at an estimated rate of better than 75%. Some significant successes, and outstanding issues include:

  • Successes for the new computational methods course ENGR25
  • Articulated in combination with Chabot’s CSCI14 for UCBerkeley ENGIN77
  • Chabot becomes only the second community college[iii] in the state to articulate to ENGIN77
  • Articulated 1-for-1 with UCDavis ENG6
  • Articulated 1-for-1 with BOTH of UCIrvine ENGRMAE10ENGRCEE20
  • UCBerkeley partially (about 67%) articulated Chabot’s ENGR22 with ENGIN25
  • San JoseState has tentatively agreed to articulate Chabot’s ENGR22 with ME20

Table IV – 05-06 Engineering Articulation Proposals

Date / Institution
Nov06 / UC Berkeley
Nov06 / San JoseStateUniversity
Jan06 / UC Santa Cruz
Jan06 / UC Irvine
Feb06 / UC Davis
Feb06 / UC Los Angeles
Feb06 / UC Santa Barbara
Feb06 / CSU Chico
Mar06 / UC Merced
Apr06 / HumboltStateUniversity
Apr06 / UC Riverside
Apr06 / UC San Diego
Apr06 / Cal Poly – San Luis Obispo
Aug06 / University of the Pacific
Nov06 / San FranciscoState Univerisity

Several other institutions, such as UCLA and CalPoly-SLO, have yet to assess the Chabot proposals. Discussions with several representatives at the universities indicate that articulation proposals must be evaluated by busy Engineering Professors. Often these reviews do not receive high priority from the responisible CoE faculty member.

I learned that improving responses to articulation proposals is often a “retail” endeavor. For example, gaining articulation for ENGR25 & ENGR22 at UCBerkeley required personal contact with Dr. Robert Giomi, the Administrative Dean for the UCB CoE. I have also made personal contact regarding articulation with UCDavis, Cal-StateEastBay, SFSU, and SJSU. Clearly more of this is required.

EFFECTIVE INSTRUCTION

Chabot College Engineering students and I have a common customer: the universityColleges of Engineering. The student, Chabot, and the transfer CoE all have the common goal of the student earning his/her baccalaureate degree.. Thus the students benefit mightily from exposure to a university style class-format while at Chabot.

Based on my own experience as an engineering student at UC Berkeley, and StanfordUniversity, and on my discussions with just-graduating students during new-employee recruiting at several universities[1] I built course structures that follow the four-year institution model. The university-level engineering courses typically include these general components:

  • The use of a State-of-the-Art Textbook
  • Weekly or biweekly Homework assignments which are GRADED in some form
  • The Homework assignments typically entail the quantitative solution to engineering problems
  • Regular assignments, with letter-grade impact, encourages students to keep pace with the lectures and/or reading
  • One or two midterm examinations that are designed to test the student’s mastery of the material covered prior to the exam
  • In Lab-Content courses, hands-on exercises that reinforce lecture material, and that provide experience with real-world engineering tools/instruments/methodologies
  • Acomprehensive final Exam that requires the student to examine the course-content as a whole, rather than as unrelated segments.

Grading of multiple homework and lab assignments, along with three exams gives the instructor a good statistical profile of the student’s mastery of the material. This leads to greater equity in the final grade assignment, and also gives the student a realistic view of their probability of success in other engineering courses.

In addition, effective instruction and articulation are strongly coupled. To articulate courses Chabot course-content must match that of the CoE’s. Thus improving articulation enhances the value of the skills and knowledge gained at Chabot