academic program review year two_021413.docx program reviews/es… · web viewit would be best...

Chabot CollegeAcademic Program Review Report

Year Two of Program Review Cycle

English as a Second Language

Submitted on 2/28/13Hisako Hintz, Angela Hobbs,

Kent UchiyamaFinal Forms, 1/18/13

1

Table of Contents

Section A: What Progress Have We Made? 1Section B: What Changes Do We Suggest? 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

2

A. What Progress Have We Made?

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 were your year one Program Review goals?● Did you achieve those goals? Specifically describe your progress on the goals you set for

student learning, program learning, and Strategic Plan achievement.● What are you most proud of?● What challenges did you face that may have prevented achieving your goals? ● Cite relevant data in your narrative (e.g., efficiency, persistence, success, FT/PT faculty

ratios, CLO/PLO assessment results, external accreditation demands, etc.).

Year One Goals:

1. Create and pilot an ESL Writing Workshop course based on the model provided by Laney College’s and Berkeley City College’s ESL Writing Workshops.

2. Create one or more ESL certificates similar to those offered by other colleges in our area.

3. Continue the process of reevaluating and making changes to our curriculum to better support our students as they work towards their goals of graduation, transfer, or certification.

The primary goal that we set in Year One was to create and pilot a writing workshop course for all ESL students at Chabot. This course provides coaching and feedback for nonnative speakers as they compose and edit writing assignments for their classes at Chabot. In this way, it directly supports nonnative speakers in reaching transfer, graduation, or certification. Chabot’s Institutional Research Office has determined that 20% of our students speak English as their second language, which makes the importance of this and other support classes even more evident. The course also supports a number of aspects of the college’s Strategic Plan:

Reach out to underrepresented populations Multiple ways to deliver instruction and services for all Strengthen Basic Skills development Increase success for all students in our diverse learning community

3

We’re delighted to have launched the Writing Workshop for Nonnative Speakers of English this semester. In accomplishing this larger goal, we needed to achieve a number of intermediate goals outlined in our Year One Program Review, including

Holding meetings with the Writing Workshop faculty at Laney and Berkeley City Colleges to gather nuts-and-bolts information about their programs and how they run.

Attending Acceleration in Context summer workshop to network with community college colleagues from around the state and to plan our AIC project for the year.

Securing AIC funds for the ESL department retreat with adjunct and full-time ESL faculty, and for purchasing ESL 149O supplies.

Securing TRIO funds for purchasing instructional software and books for the use by both Excel and non-Excel students: additional Cambridge English Readers, How to Read for Everyday Living, Easy Writer Deluxe, Speak English like an American, and The Oxford Picture Dictionary Interactive CD-ROM.

Securing space and a computer lab for the workshop. (Originally we had planned to hold the workshop in the Language Center space in Building 100, which was supposed to have opened last year. When this did not happen, we were able improvise and find a workable space in rooms 307 and 303.)

Getting FETF to run the course. We applied for and received BSI funds to pilot the course and pay for six writing coach positions for its first semester. We have successfully secured FTEF to institutionalize two sections of the course next semester with TRIO providing funds for a third section. We have applied to TRIO to fund the writing coaches, and are hopeful that these will be forthcoming.

Devising methods to assess the success of the Writing Workshop. We’ll be working together with IR to implement these assessments. The results will appear in future Program Reviews.

We had also set the goal of creating one or more ESL certificates, but did not accomplish this in the past year. Instead, we focused on the planning, writing, and implementation of the Writing Workshop. We did, however, accomplish a number of preliminary steps as part of achieving our long-term goal of reassessing the entire ESL program and rewriting it to better serve our students.

We’ve met and are continuing to meet with English colleagues to discuss how well our program is preparing our students for mainstream English classes and to explore ways that we might improve the ESL curriculum and the structure of the program itself.

We’ve taken a number of steps toward developing our students’ familiarity with American culture, a long-term goal that we set in our Year One document: “Create sources to provide ESL

4

students with the cultural knowledge that they are likely to need in English classes, e.g.--a cultural vocabulary list, workshops, …”

o We have created a list of cultural topics with which our students will probably need to be familiar in their future English courses.

o We have incorporated links on civics and U.S. government in the Blackboard site for ESL 128.

o U.S. culture is now one of the topics covered in the ESL Study Groups.

In our Year One Program Review, we made it a continuing goal to “Actively promote Excel in 110C and 110D classes as well as in 101A and 102 classes.” ESL instructors worked together with the Excel counselors towards this end, and as a result, the Excel Program now has a full contingent of 140 students.

We met with Institutional Research to request and discuss data that would allow us to assess the success of our program. This data confirms the anecdotal evidence we’ve gathered that our ESL students are quite successful in their college careers. A few facts that were revealed:

o Graduates of the ESL program reach transfer, graduation, and certification at significantly higher rates than the average Chabot student, including native speakers of English.

o They pass college English and math class classes at higher rates that the average Chabot student.

o They earn 16% of the CTE certificates at Chabot even though they represent only 7% of the student population.

We also produced the first ESL Program Newsletter, a copy of which is attached to this document.

We’ve been discussing what changes we want to make next to our program. The certificates and American culture courses that we discussed in our Year One document continue to be candidates, but we’re also considering restructuring our speaking and listening courses.

Challenges that might have prevented us from reaching our goals this year include the fact Building 100 was not renovated as planned, which left us scrambling for a place to hold the Writing Workshop. In addition, the budget cuts continue to prevent us from providing quality instruction to as many students as we’d like. In Fall 2012, our 110C and 110D classes filled at 134% of capacity. We were able to get back one of our 110D’s for next semester; thanks are due to Marcia Corcoran and Tom Dewitt for their help with this. However, we still need to restore the program to its normal levels. As we pointed out in last year’s Program Review, we’re willing to pack our classes as temporary measure to help our students, but the quality of instruction is lessened, and we cannot sustain this measure indefinitely.

5

B. What Changes Do We Suggest?

Review the Strategic Plan goal and key strategies at http://www.chabotcollege.edu/prbc/StrategicPlan/SPforPR.pdfprior to completing your narrative. Please complete Appendices E (New Initiatives) and F1-8 (Resources Requested) to further detail your narrative. Limit your narrative to two pages, and be very specific about what you hope to achieve, why, and how.

Given your experiences and student achievement results over the past year, what changes do you suggest to your course/program improvement plan? What new initiatives might you begin to support the achievement of our Strategic Plan goal? Do you have new ideas to improve student learning? What are your specific, measurable goals? How will you achieve them? Would any of these require collaboration with other disciplines or areas of the college? How will make that collaboration occur?

As discussed in Appendix E and the budget requests that follow, we have several specific goals for the ESL department over the following year that directly support the Strategic Plan goal and will positively impact student learning and retention. These initiatives will offer support to both current ESL students and students in other programs/pathways on campus.

1. Institute a comprehensive ESL Language Lab (see Appendix E)

Goals: Improve student ability to participate in classroom discussions

Improve student computer literacy

Incorporate workplace computing skills into our courses

Continue to provide adequate resources and space for students taking ESL 127, 128, and the Writing Workshop course.

Create a space for ESL Conversation and Study Groups

How we will achieve this:

Through either the renovation of Building 100, or the re-build (depending on the administration’s decision), we need a fully-functioning ESL Language Lab with 50 computers, all of the necessary hardware and software (see Appendix F5 for software requests), and designated spaces for ESL tutoring, conversation groups, and study groups. It is absolutely crucial that we collaborate with and have the support of our IT department in such a venture, including in the process of selecting, installing, and maintaining the ESL software.

6

The ESL Language lab will serve as a place for community building among ESL students, and perhaps a place where we can facilitate student-to-student mentoring, in addition to the faculty-student mentoring that already occurs through our ESL 128 course. The lab would have language learning software programs to assist in the development of language skills, and could also be reserved for whole ESL classes to use for guided development of writing skills and computer literacy. We envision this space as a place where ESL students on campus know they can turn to when they need help with an assignment, practice with individual language skills, or advice about a course or career pathway. This would be a “one-stop shop” for not only students who are currently in the ESL program, but ESL students taking other courses on campus who need support. In addition, it would be a place that instructors across campus know about and can send the ESL students taking their courses to for extra support.

In order to make sure this lab would be utilized by virtually all ESL students, we would like to explore the idea of revising our 6-unit core classes to 5 units, with 1 lab hour. We realize that employing someone full-time to staff the lab is probably not possible, so in order to make sure an instructor would be there during all open lab hours, we would take the FTEF for each of the lab hours for all of the core class sections and designate them toward paying a permanent lab instructor. This person could be an adjunct faculty member, or a rotating full-time faculty member.

Having a fully-functional ESL Language Lab on Chabot’s campus would also help meet the demand of students who need help with workplace computing skills, basic computer literacy, and other courses to help them on their path toward CTE certificates or re-entering the workforce.

In addition, should we receive funding for a lab, we would like to investigate changing the 6-unit core courses to 5-hour lecture and 1-hour lab courses, thereby providing students more opportunity for individual practice in all language skills and increasing our WSCH/FTEF.

This initiative aligns with many of our strategic plan goals, including:

providing information and support to students as they move along their pathways;

leveraging peer mentoring;

providing space and time for informal student advising, instructor office hours, and collaboration among students and faculty;

fostering collaboration among disciplines/programs

2. Institutionalize the Writing Workshop for Non-Native Speakers course (ESL 115).

Goals: Offer support for ESL students after they leave the ESL program and enter GE courses or courses

in their major/certificate programs

Offer support for students who speak English as a Second Language, but may not have ever taken an ESL course

Create better alignment between course content in ESL courses with that of English courses7

How we will achieve this:

We have secured funding through the Trio grant to offer one section of ESL 115 in Fall 2013, and one section in Spring 2014. We have asked for additional FTEF to offer two additional sections in Fall 2013. We have also asked Trio to fund nine writing coaches for Fall 2013/Spring 2014.

We will increase our recruitment of students across disciplines to take ESL 115 by asking writing coaches to visit classrooms at the beginning of Fall 2013 semester.

With the help of Institutional Research and in-class surveys, we will track the success rates of students who take ESL 115.

ESL 115 helps us have better alignment with English and other departments on campus, as we are directly working with students on assignments they are completing for their courses in these disciplines. We will continue to solicit sample writing assignments and feedback from English and other instructors across campus.

Appendix A: Budget History and Impact 8

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 0Supplies & Services $0 $0 $81,549 $0Technology/Equipment $0 $0 $0 $0OtherTOTAL $81,549 $0

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.

We received monies from the Trio grant (not listed above) to purchase instructional software and books for the use by both Excel and non-Excel program students: additional Cambridge English Readers, How to Read for Everyday Living, Easy Writer Deluxe, Speak English like an American, and The Oxford Picture Dictionary Interactive CD-ROM. Since we did not receive funding for any of the network licenses we requested above, these supplemental materials funded by the grant will be very useful for students working on reading, writing, vocabulary and listening/speaking skills in the Language Center. We have not yet received How to Read for Everyday Living or Easy Writer Deluxe, and we are currently still seeking support from IT to have The Oxford Picture Dictionary installed.

2 What has been the impact of not receiving some of your requested funding? How has student learning been impacted, or safety compromised, or enrollment or retention negatively impacted?

The entire budget request for supplies for 2012-2013 was for software for the existing Language Centerspace (Room 2351). The requests made (and our current requests) are for network licenses, so that should werenovate or rebuild Building 100, or receive funding for a fully-equipped ESL Language Lab elsewhere on campus,we will have available software to serve our students. In addition, network licenses would enable us to install anduse the software on any computer on campus.

We currently serve over 75 students per semester in our ESL 127 and ESL 128 courses, and now an additional 50per semester with our Writing Workshop course. Next semester, we’ll be serving 75 students (3 sections) in the Writing Workshop course. These courses are designed to give support to students not onlyas they move through our program, but as they matriculate in their desired pathway. Currently, we have seven designated computers with language learning software for ESL students in the Language Center. This is notnearly adequate to serve the population of ESL students on this campus. Please see our Proposal for New Initiatives and Appendix F8 for a more complete vision of the type of ESL Language Lab we hope to implement.

9

In 2011, we received a two year license of Pronunciation, Writing and Vocabulary support software for ESL studentsthat is set to expire in June 2013. Our students in ESL 127 and ESL 128 rely on this software to complete their workfor these courses. If we do not receive funding to renew these licenses, retention and success rates for these courseswill be compromised.Please see Appendix F5 for a complete description of the software we are requesting.

10

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

Fall2014

Spring 2015

Fall2015

Spring 2016

Fall2016

Spring 2017

Courses:

Group 1:ESL 110A and ESL 110B

Discuss and Report Results

Full Assmt

Discuss results

Report results

Group 2: All other ESL courses

Full Assmt

Discuss results

Reportresults

Full Assmt

Discuss results

Report results

Here is the record of when we closed the loop on our program’s classes during the last CLO assessment cycle:

ESL 110A and 110B: Spring 2010 ESL 108: Spring 2012

ESL 110C and 110D: Fall 2010 ESL 109 and 114: Fall 2012

ESL 111A, 111B, and 127: Spring 2011 ESL 129 was not offered during this assessment cycle

ESL 127, 128, and 112: Fall 2011

Appendix B2: “Closing the Loop” Assessment Reflections

Course ESL 110A

Semester assessment data gathered Fall 2012

Number of sections offered in the semester 4

11

Number of sections assessed 3

Percentage of sections assessed 75%

Semester held “Closing the Loop” discussion Spring 2013

Faculty members involved in “Closing the Loop” discussion MaritezApigo, Ingrid Hufgard, Debbie Mejia, Kent Uchiyama

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: THE STUDENT DEMONSTRATES THE PROCESS AND PURPOSE OF MULTIPLE DRAFT-WRITING.

80% 3’s or 4’s. 93% 3’s or 4’s

(CLO) 2: THE STUDENT DEMONSTRATES UNDERSTANDING OF THE CONCEPT OF AN ENGLISH SENTENCE, INCLUDING SYNTACTIC CONVENTIONS OF SIMPLE SENTENCES AND QUESTIONS.

75% 3’s or 4’s 79% 3’s or 4’s

(CLO) 3: THE STUDENT IDENTIFIES CONVENTIONS OF FICTION, SUCH AS NARRATOR, CHARACTER, PLOT, AND SETTING.

80% 3’s or 4’s 91% 3’s or 4’s

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:

12

1 How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course level outcome?

Actual scores significantly exceeded the target scores for student success.

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?

Our scores indicate that the ESL faculty is meeting and exceeding the established standards for success for this CLO. We are fortunate to have an excellent ESL faculty, and this should be noted. In our discussion, the following points were raised regarding this CLO:

It helps to make the process and purpose of multi-draft writing explicit in class.

It helps to structure essay assignments in a way that encourages multi-draft writing (e.g., prewriting as the textbook describes it, taking advantage of software (such as ProofWriter or a tutor) to get feedback, taking advantage of the teacher's comments on drafts).

Some students have jobs and other obligations (e.g. family) while they are taking ESL courses. Consequently, not all students follow the writing process--even if they are aware of its value.

Giving points for following the writing process usually works as an incentive.

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?

Again, the scores are higher than benchmarks for success.

13


In addition to the excellence of our faculty noted above, we garnered the following reflections based on the data and the instructors’ experiences:

Of all the syntactic conventions we teach in ESL 110A, my students struggled the

most with demonstrating the syntactic convention of subject-verb agreement.

The irregular verbs need lots of repetition, so many students struggled with those

too.

Word order in questions can be challenging even for ESL students in higher-level

courses.

Punctuation at the end of a sentence can also be challenging for student. Many

students put commas rather than periods between sentences and for many

students that habit seems hard to break since it's a habit they developed when

writing in their native language.

Capitalizing the word after the period was something most students could do (if

the period was in the right place).

14

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?

The number of students successfully meeting this benchmark was 11% higher than defined targets.


Again, the scores for this CLO highlight the dedication and excellence of our faculty. The instructors also shared the following insights:

I found this CLO really helpful. It caused me go give students a quiz that helped me determine to what extent students were familiar with the conventions of fiction (e.g. narrator, plot, and setting). If students didn't do so well on that quiz, I talked to them individually, and then gave them a chance to revise their quizzes. Just as a step-by-step process helps students submit stronger final drafts, seeing quizzes as formative rather than summative helps students hone their learning and get a deeper understanding of the subject matter.

15

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? When 110A was last assessed, our area had just begun using the Closing the Loop form, and our responses were a lot briefer than what we would probably write now. But here they are:

Continued clarification and sharing of expectations and rubrics for multiple-draft writing. We may want to institutionalize this practice in our area.

We will continue to use the methods described above while continuing to explore new pedagogical methods to meet this CLO.

Although our students seem to be able to discuss these ideas, we want to be more explicit in teaching their exact definitions.

Although all of these have been implemented, none of them required a substantive change to our program, which was meeting and exceeding its pedagogical goals as defined by the CLOs.

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?

Our instructors shared these programmatic strengths in the course of our discussion: It is helpful that students can use a variety of resources during the writing process. The

more students become aware of the benefits of resources such as software, tutors, peers, and teachers, the more they tend to use those resources. When students get positive feedback on final drafts (e.g., a passing grades or positive comments such as "Nice revision here!"), they tend to appreciate the important role that the writing process plays in their success.

It is good that we get students into the habit of capitalizing the first letter in each sentence (that is, the letter that follows each period.) That is definitely something that students should master in ESL 110A.

It is great that we teach correct word order in questions, avoiding comma splice-errors, andcorrect subject-verb agreement not just in 110A, but also in 110B, C, and D.

Students benefit from formative assessment. Formative assessment gives teachers opportunities to make additional resources available to students (e.g., explaining something in a different way during a one-on-one conference, asking the student to do an Internet search on a topic and to report back to the teacher on what he or she found, or referring the student to The Language Center.)

16

The instructors went to suggest the following courses of action: Possibly use more CATs (classroom assessment techniques) to gauge how many

students are aware of the benefits of the writing process. That will allow the teacher to talk to those students that seem to resist the writing process. The teacher could talk to those students individually to determine why they may not appreciate the writing process and to try to persuade them of the value of that process.

Keep asking students to take advantage of a variety of resources (such as software, tutors, peers, and teachers) since those resources seem to be really helpful.

Keep asking students to underline subjects once and verbs twice. Talk to students in a basic way about certain "connecting words" (subordinating conjunctions and conjunctive adverbs) so that they can understand why in their readings, there are sometimes commas before subjects rather than periods.

Keep making students aware of mistakes they are most likely to make based on their native language (e.g., Spanish speakers tend to forget subjects and Mandarin speakers may forget verbs since they are not always necessary in their native language).

Encourage students to make a check list that makes them aware of their most common mistakes so that they can deal with them one by one.

Teach irregular verbs early on in the semester so that students have a whole semester to practice irregular verbs.

Emphasize to students that quizzes are learning opportunities.Keep giving low-stake formative quizzes to students, and give students additional opportunities to demonstrate their learning if the formative quiz suggests that they need more knowledge or practice.

It would be best for instructors to know the CLOs at the beginning of the semester so that they could incorporate them in their instruction and prepare their methods of assessing them in advance.

I believe that the students who received scores lower than “4” are students who are not appropriately placed in ESL 110A to begin with. I have a few students who have struggled all semester long because ESL 110A is too difficult for their level of English at this time. They would likely benefit from attending adult school classes before 110A.

Based on what I have observed, The Big Wave, the novel that I assigned for this course may not be the best choice. While I have tried to select a novel that has a universal theme, I believe that my students should read a novel that offers a story line and, at the same time, gives the student some insight into American culture. I've come to this conclusion because being ready for English courses includes having some knowledge of American culture and society. Therefore, introducing American culture should begin at the 110A level.

17

I recommend one change to the program. I believe that we need to add an additional semester of reading and writing after ESL 110D. This course should be equivalent to English 101A, yet taught for the second language learner. Once the student passes the course, he/she goes on to English 101B or 102. (This observation applies to a course that was not assessed last semester, but since it arose from the 110A discussion, we’ve included it here.)

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:_________________________________________________________________

Appendix B2: “Closing the Loop” Assessment Reflections

Course ESL 110B

Semester assessment data gathered Fall 2012

Number of sections offered in the semester 4

Number of sections assessed 2

Percentage of sections assessed 50%

Semester held “Closing the Loop” discussion Spring 2013

Faculty members involved in “Closing the Loop” discussion Angela Hobbs, Kent Uchiyama, Hisako Hintz

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.

18

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: THE STUDENT USES THE PARAGRAPH AS AN ORGANIZING CONVENTION

75% of the students scored either a 3 or 4.

80.5% scored a 3 or 4 (average of 2 sections)

(CLO) 2: THE STUDENT USES VERB TENSES APPROPRIATELY FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES


78.4% scored a 3 or a 4 (average of 2 sections)

(CLO) 3: THE STUDENT USES A VARIETY OF APPROACHES TO READ TEXTS, SUCH AS PREVIEWING, SCANNING, DISCOVERING MEANING THROUGH CONTEXT.


89.8% scored a 3 or a 4 (average of 2 sections)

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

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?

Students scored higher than our target for this CLO (80.5% scored a 3 or 4 vs the target of 75%).


This CLO is broken down into three parts:

1. Student writes an effective topic sentence.

19

2. Student writes effective support.3. Student writes an effective concluding sentence.

The data shows that students were slightly more successful in writing effective support than in writing effective topic sentences and concluding sentences. ESL 110B is usually the first exposure for many students to this type of organization, so these results are not surprising. For this assessment, the final in-class writing exam was used to collect data, which may not be the best representation of students’ writing, as it is often written in a high-pressure environment without the benefit of extensive pre-writing and revision. In Fall 2012, the teaching of paragraph organization was done from the first two weeks of the semester, so that students received ample time and practice with the TS, SS, CS structure. Providing students with model paragraphs, peer review and editing, and the opportunity to provide individual feedback and instruction have all made the teaching of paragraph organization more successful.

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?

Students scored slightly above target for this CLO (78.4% scored a 3 or 4 vs. 75% target).


It should be noted that this CLO is broken into two parts:

1. Student can correctly provide the appropriate verb tense for multiple choice or short answer exam questions.2. Student can correctly use the appropriate verb tenses in a writing assignment.

ESL 110B is a course with heavy emphasis on students learning a number of verb tenses, many of which they have never seen before. In addition to the reading and writing content, this course can prove to be quite a challenge for both students and instructors. Students at the 110B level, particularly if they did not take 110A at Chabot, are often not as self-sufficient or academically-savvy as a 110C or 110D student. Many students who place directly into 110B, and did not take 110A, have very little knowledge of verb tenses at all, so even though the present tenses should technically be skipped at this level, some instructors choose to review them anyway because so many students are not proficient in using them. We need to consider how to provide additional support to students who are

20

still struggling with verb tenses that are covered in 110A and also cut down on the amount of grammar that is covered in ESL 110B.

Fairly consistently in the two sections of ESL 110B that were assessed, it was found that students performed better in using verb tenses correctly in their writing than they did in providing the appropriate verb tense on a quiz or exam. Looking at an average of the two sections assessed, 89% of students scored a 3 or higher in using correct verb tenses in their writing, but only 66% of students scored a 3 or higher in choosing an appropriate verb tense on an exam. This could be due to a number of factors. First, students often feel a great deal of anxiety about grammar quizzes and exams. In addition, if not designed carefully, some grammar quizzes and exams ask students to choose an appropriate verb tense for a given sentence that includes difficult vocabulary and syntax. This can cause students to make mistakes that they would not necessarily make in their own writing. We may want to consider sharing quizzes and exams among faculty so that in each level, students are seeing the same types of exam questions.

In addition to the use of grammar exercises in the book and in software programs that often come with textbooks, we have found that actively using the tenses in a meaningful context is also necessary for mastery of this CLO. Many students can self correct their verb tenses once an error is pointed out. In addition, observing the use of different tenses in various readings (short articles, the required novel for the course, etc.), helps students understand verb tense usage in a broader and more meaningful context.

C. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 3:3 How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course

level outcome?

Students scored higher than our target for this CLO (89.8% scored a 3 or 4 vs the target of 75%).


Many of the reading textbooks we use provide multiple opportunities for students to practice and for the teacher to perform informal assessment of this CLO even though these skills do not appear on all of our exams. The end outcome that we seem to be aiming for is actually comprehension, as is stated when this CLO is broken down to what is actually assessed:

“The student can scan a selected reading text for information.”

For this particular assessment, the instructor used the reading section of the final exam to

21

score the students. This part of the exam requires students to do a number of things. First, they have to read through an article approximately 6 paragraphs in length, and identify the main idea of each paragraph in their own words, by taking notes in the margins of the article. Then, students have to answer True or False and multiple choice questions, the answers to which they would find by scanning the article for additional details. In addition, there are several questions which ask the students to identify the meaning of a word from context and identify the word’s part of speech. The instructor attempted to include assessment of the various aspects of this CLO on this exam, including identifying main ideas, scanning a text for information, and discovering meaning through context. While we certainly teach students to preview and scan a text, it is difficult to actually assess this formally.

PART III: COURSE REFLECTIONS AND FUTURE PLANS

4 What changes were made to your course based on the previous assessment cycle, the prior Closing the Loop reflections and other faculty discussions?

When 110B was last assessed, our area had just begun using the Closing the Loop form. Because our assessments were all above target in the last cycle as well, we noted very few changes that we wanted to make. However, a couple of things were noted and suggested:

Keeping class sizes small is essential to allow for individual instruction and feedback; If provided resources, we would like to study the amount of use and perceived benefit of the

grammar programs in the Language Center; It seems that cultivation of editing skills is pertinent even to students at more advanced levels.

Tutors should be trained in basic editing techniques, which they could then share with their students;

Our requirement of multiple-draft writings helps reinforce what is learned in the explicit instruction of grammar;

Since all aspects of CLO #3 are difficult to assess formally, we may want to reword this CLO to reflect this.

Of these comments and suggestions, the only one which would require a substantive change is the last suggestion to reword CLO #3. This is something we did not do in the last cycle, but we may still want to consider given the results from this assessment cycle. Please see below.

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?

22

In the last year, we have sustained numerous cuts to our program which have resulted in many instructors taking well above the 25 student capacity in our core classes. While many instructors have been willing to do this in lean times, it should be noted that this is not a sustainable or pedagogically sound practice, particularly at our lower levels, where students require so much individual attention. The integrated teaching of reading, writing, and grammar in our core classes necessitates small class sizes.

Given that in the assessment of CLO #2, there was a substantial difference in the number of students who succeeded in using correct verb tenses on an exam versus those who were successful in using correct verb tenses in their writing, we need to continue the practice of integrating as much as possible explicit grammar instruction within a more meaningful context. Giving students the opportunity to notice and correct the use of verb tenses in reading and writing assignments is more meaningful than teaching verb tenses in a separate, more isolated context. Not all instructors will agree with the idea of limiting or eliminating grammar quizzes and exams, but it should be noted that not all students are equally capable of succeeding on an exam and producing error-free writing. In other words, success on one type of assessment (exams) is not necessarily a reflection of success on the other (writing). As a department, we may want to look at the types of grammar exams that are given at each level to make sure they areconsistent and are assessing students appropriately for their level.

As mentioned above in CLO #2, we may want to consider scaling back the grammar that needs to be covered in ESL 110B. In addition to all of the verb tenses, we are expected to cover modals and comparatives/superlatives. Given that almost all students require a review of the present tenses at the beginning of this course, we may want to eliminate comparatives/superlatives from the course outline, as there simply isn’t enough time to cover them.

The textbook series Grammar in Context has also proven effective instead of the use of Azar’s Fundamentals of English Grammar for a number of reasons. The GIC series provides a reading as a context for each grammatical point that is covered so that grammar and reading instruction (finding main idea, deducing meaning from context, etc) can be integrated. This not only saves time, but makes grammar instruction more meaningful for the students. Using this text also allows the instructor to teach reading and writing without a specific reading/writing textbook, so it saves students money. Reading, writing, and grammar instruction are integrated within the contexts of the GIC book and the novel, Esperanza Rising (or whichever novel an instructor chooses). This also more closely parallels what students experience in mainstream English courses, in which they are expected to read, analyze, and write about a full-length work.

In regards to CLO #3, we may still want to consider rewording this to reflect that while we teach previewing and scanning in ESL 110B, these are skills that are difficult to formally assess. Instead, the outcome we aim for in ESL 110B is that students can identify the main idea of a reading and paragraph(s), can scan a text for specific details, and can identify the meaning of a word from context. These are skills that can be easily measured, whereas previewing and scanning are skills that are often assessed more informally.

23

We want to continue to provide language learning software to all of our students, as it helps reinforce the reading, grammar, and editing skills they are learning in the classroom. As we consider introducing a lab component to our core courses, we may want to consider having set 110B-level lab assignments, so that the content covered in the lab can complement what is covered during class time across all sections. This initiative is of course dependent on the funding of a new lab and accompanying software. Encouraging students to take advantage of all of the resources available to them (language learning software, tutoring, conversation groups) will further help in their mastery of the skills taught in ESL 110B, and in the integration of these skills.

As we look at revising our core curriculum, we need to recognize that ESL 110B is a course in which students really need to grasp necessary “studenting” skills before they move to the next level. Computer literacy, study skills, and the ability to comprehend as well as begin to analyze a text are all necessary outcomes for a student to be prepared to succeed in ESL 110C. We may want to consider adding CLOs that specifically reflect these skills.

6 What is the nature of the planned actions (please check all that apply)?● Curricular● Pedagogical● Resource based● Change to CLO or rubric● Change to assessment methods● Other:_________________________________________________________________

24

Appendix C: Program Learning OutcomesConsidering your feedback, findings, and/or information that has arisen from the course level discussions, please reflect on each of your Program Level Outcomes.

Program: _____ESL___________________________________________● PLO #1: Write at least 750 words of clear and coherent prose using largely error-free

standard American English.

● PLO #2: Decode, summarize, and paraphrase shorter and book-length texts of academic, artistic, and journalistic prose.

● PLO #3:

● PLO #4:

What questions or investigations arose as a result of these reflections or discussions?

Explain: To allow for individualized attention, it’s imperative to have small class sizes, access to a lab

space, and availability of tutors and/or learning assistants; we need to work on ways to preserve and expand such instruction and support services.

We have found that coherence in essays is a difficult skill to teach to an entire class, and individual practice and feedback is essential for students to improve in this area, hence the need for more individualized instruction.

What program-level strengths have the assessment reflections revealed?

Strengths revealed: Students leave each level with strong writing and grammar skills. Tutoring in PATH for ESL students provides an ancillary benefit to our ESL Program as a whole. Tutor training continues to be beneficial in helping our students achieve both our PLO’s. Level meetings are useful in increasing consistency of course content and expectations. Our students are able to discuss fiction deeply and meaningfully, even though we may need to

be more precise in the instruction of literary terms.

25

Our requirement of multiple-draft writings definitely seems to reinforce the explicit instruction in grammar.

Anchor grading at level meetings, group editing in class, modeling, and especially the opportunity to provide individual feedback and instruction have all made teaching writing skills more successful.

Based on discussions with our colleagues and a study by Institutional Research, it has been found that students who take our upper-level ESL courses have higher success rates, particularly in editing their own writing than students who don't.

As supported by Institutional Research data, the students who complete 110C or 110D reach transfer, graduation, and certification at significantly higher rates than the average Chabot student, including native speakers of English, pass college English and math class classes at higher rates that the average Chabot student, and earn 16% of the CTE certificates at Chabot even though they represent only 7% of the student population.

Our ESL 112 and ESL 114 courses provide essential support and practice for the grammar taught in our ESL core courses, as well as courses in other disciplines. These courses are very important for ESL students because they give them the skills and language they need to become better communicators and editors. These courses would also be beneficial for native speakers of English, who often lack the ability to correctly identify and edit grammatical structures in their writing.

What actions has your discipline determined might be taken to enhance the learning of students completing your program?

Actions planned: We will continue to develop and refine the ESL Writing Workshop course, and may wish to

explore other forms of academic support for post-ESL students, such as peer-to-peer mentoring and developing instructional materials for an ESL Language Lab.

Although our primarily goal is to serve the people who live and/or work in our community, in order to secure more funds and expand the breadth of our program, we would like to investigate the idea of issuing I-20s to international students in the way that Las Positas College’s ESL department does.

We would like to consider re-writing the curriculum for our Listening/Speaking/Pronunciation courses, ESL 111A and ESL 111B, to reflect the fact that our students continue to need leveled and explicit instruction in academic listening tasks, strategies for participating in discussion groups, presentation skills, and pronunciation.

We want to explore the possibility of changing the 6-unit core courses to 5-hour lecture and 1-hour lab courses. This is dependent on the initiative proposed in Appendix E.

We want to find ways to increase non-native speakers’ participation in the ESL assessment as part of their matriculation and to increase ESL student population and their success in ESL and beyond. Increasing the number of students completing the ESL sequence means increasing the

26

number of non-native speakers effectively completing a CTE certificate or an AA degree, or transferring to a university.

We need to continue to offer ESL 112 and ESL 114, which are available to students in ESL 110C and beyond.

Without doing formal research, we have found that using texts that are typically used in 101A in ESL 110D helps increase students' awareness of what they need to prepare for. We will solicit input from 101A and 102 instructors in the choosing of texts for ESL 110D.

We want to explore team teaching ESL 110D and English 101A with English instructors to better align our programs and facilitate ESL students’ transition to mainstream English classes.

We want to add PLO’s that more directly reflect our commitment to prepare students for the workplace as well as for transfer or AA degrees.

We want to add PLO’s that more directly reflect our commitment to instill cultural literacy in our students.

We want to add PLO’s that more directly reflect our commitment to instill computer literacy in our students.

We want to continue clarifying and sharing expectations and rubrics for multiple-draft writing among instructors. We may want to institutionalize this practice in our area.

To allow for the individualized attention required for acquiring the language skills necessary for successful completion of goals, it is essential to have small class sizes, access to a lab space, and availability of tutors and/or writing coaches. We will continue to advocate for such support services and integrate them into our curriculum.

If provided sufficient resources, we would like to study the amount of use and perceived benefit of the grammar software in the Language Center. It also seems that cultivation of editing skills is pertinent even to students at more advanced levels. Tutors can also be trained in basic editing techniques, which they could then share with their tutees.

We want to find ways to ensure that our students are practicing the reading skills acquired in our core courses consistently. Having a lab component in these courses would provide students with more opportunities to practice and improve their reading skills.

27

Appendix D: A Few Questions

Please answer the following questions with "yes" or "no". For any questions answered "no", please provide an explanation. No explanation is required for "yes" answers :-)

1 Have all of your course outlines been updated within the past five years? If no, identify the course outlines you will update in the next curriculum cycle. Ed Code requires all course outlines to be updated every six years. Yes.

2 Have all of your courses been offered within the past five years? If no, why should those courses remain in our college catalog? Yes.

3 Do all of your courses have the required number of CLOs completed, with corresponding rubrics? If no, identify the CLO work you still need to complete, and your timeline for completing that work this semester. Yes.

4 Have you assessed all of your courses and completed "closing the loop" forms for all of your courses within the past three years? If no, identify which courses still require this work, and your timeline for completing that work this semester. Yes.

5 Have you developed and assessed PLOs for all of your programs? If no, identify programs which still require this work, and your timeline to complete that work this semester. Yes.

6 If you have course sequences, is success in the first course a good predictor of success in the subsequent course(s)? Yes.

7 Does successful completion of College-level Math and/or English correlate positively with success in your courses? If not, explain why you think this may be. Yes.

28

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?

Our initiative to create an ESL Language Lab directly addresses the strategic plan goal in that it will help clarifypathways for ESL students on campus, and provide more information and support as they move toward theiracademic or career goals. Specifically, this initiative will also:

leverage peer mentoring;

provide space and time for informal student advising, instructor office hours, andcollaboration among students and faculty;

foster collaboration among disciplines/programs

What is your specific goal and measurable outcome?

Our goal is to create an ESL Language Lab that will: Improve student ability to participate in classroom discussions Improve student computer literacy Allow us to incorporate workplace computer skills into our courses Allow us to continue to provide adequate resources and space for students taking ESL 127, 128,

and the Writing Workshop course. Allow for a space for Conversation and Study Groups Enable us to change the 6-unit core courses to 5-hour lecture and 1-hour lab courses

What is your action plan to achieve your goal?

Activity (brief description)Target Completion Date

Required Budget (Split out personnel, supplies, other categories)

Create an ESL Language Lab with 50 computer stations, a designated space for ESL tutoring, ESL study groups, and ESL conversation groups. This lab will serve as a place for community building among ESL students and perhaps a place where we can

This is dependent on the administration's decision about renovating Building 100.

The cost of creating a language lab will depend on the administration’s decision to either renovate Building 100 or rebuild it

29

facilitate student-to-student mentoring as well as faculty-student mentoring. The lab would have language learning software programs to assist in the development of language skills and could also be reserved for whole ESL classes to use for guided development of writing skills and computer literacy. We envision this space as a place where ESL students on campus know they can turn to when they need help with an assignment, practice with individual language skills, or advice about a course or career pathway. This would be a “one-stop shop” for not only students who are currently in the ESL program, but ESL students taking other courses on campus who need support. In addition, it would be a place that instructors across campus know about and can send the ESL students taking their courses to for extra support.

completely. Until we know this information, it is impossible for us to estimate the cost of this project.

How will you manage the personnel needs?New Hires: Faculty # of positions 0 Classified staff # of positions __0____

Reassigning existing employee(s) to the project; employee(s) current workload will be:___ Covered by overload or part-time employee(s)___ Covered by hiring temporary replacement(s)_X__ Other, explain:

Our proposal is that we would restructure our existing 6 unit core classes to 5 units, and reassign the additional 1 unit as a lab unit. The combined lab units for all sections of our 110 courses would be reassigned to one or more faculty members to cover an instructional position in the lab.

At the end of the project period, the proposed project will:___Be completed (one time only effort)_X__Require additional funding to continue and/or institutionalize the project

(obtained by/from): It would only require us to reassign FTEF from lab units each semesterto cover an instructor’s time in the lab. If we receive network licenses for software, these are one-time costs.

Will the proposed project require facility modifications, additional space, or program relocation?___ No _X__Yes, explain: It would require the renovation or re-building of Building 100 (or some other space on campus).

Will the proposed project involve subcontractors, collaborative partners, or cooperative agreements?_X_ No ___ Yes, explain:

Do you know of any grant funding sources that would meet the needs of the proposed project?_X__ No ___ Yes, list potential funding sources:It is possible that the Trio grant could continue to fund some of our ESL software/resource needs.

30

Appendix F1: Full-Time Faculty/Adjunct Staffing Request(s) [Acct. Category 1000]Audience: Faculty Prioritization Committeeand 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__2 If you are requesting more than one position, please rank order the positions.

Position Description

1 Full-time faculty

2 Full-time faculty

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.

According to the enrollment management data, the overall FT/PT faculty ratio is 3.35 to 4.38. The FT/PT ratio for corecourses is about the same (3.08 to 3.55), while supplemental courses are taught by three times more part-timers (0.48 to 1.41).

We currently have 9 part-time faculty members and 4 full-time faculty members, which is two fewer than we havehistorically had. This semester we have only 3 full-timers because one is on a medical leave. Level meetings have been very instrumental in providing opportunities for both part-time and full-time faculty to come together and discuss the CLOs and assessment results, promote material, and course content coverage and grading consistency, share assignments, rubrics, and new ideas, and identify and resolve issues. However, in recent years, we have been holding increasingly fewer meetings due to the full-time faculty’s shortage of time to coordinate such activities in addition to part-timers’ time conflicts. As a result, it seems even the suggested changes based on the valuable insights gained from the “Closing the Loop” Assessment Reflections can hardly be disseminated or implemented.

Ideally in the next 5-10 years, with the realization of our revised curriculum and the budget to regain theclasses that have been cut, we need a budget to hire at least 2 more full-time faculty members to help alleviate thesituation.

We also have a need for both an ESL coordinator and advisor/counselor dedicated solely to ESL students. It shouldbe noted that Las Positas College has retained their ESL coordinator position, even through the current economiccrisis.

31

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.

Our ESL program is crucial in supporting many non-native speaking students (at least 20% of the student population) who work toward certificates, degrees, and transfer at rates higher than the overall population.

However, as noted above, one of the obstacles that ESL faces in best helping our students “achieve their educational goals within a reasonable time” is that we are currently understaffed. At present, we have to fight to keep our program coherent and on track because this semester we are trying to achieve with four faculty members what we previously accomplished with five along with a program coordinator.

One of the requirements stated in the WASC “Eligibility Requirements” is that “The institution has a substantial core of qualified faculty with full-time responsibility to the institution. The core is sufficient in size and experience to support all of the institution’s educational programs.” We see this importance as we try to fully engage in professional responsibilities and make sure our students are benefitting from our efforts.

We currently don’t have an advisory committee. However, we will explore the idea of creating one consisting of former ESL students who have completed BA/BS degrees and/or reached their career goals. It will be voluntary, so we won’t have to pay them.

32

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: ___0___

2 If you are requesting more than one position, please rank order the positions.


1

2

3 Rationale for your proposal.

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.

33

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 .

As mentioned above under Appendix A, due to the budget cuts, we haven’t been able to serve as many students as we would like to.We are continuing to fill our core classes at a rate well above capacity (approximately 110%). We are willing to make this sacrifice on a temporary basis, but this practice is not sustainable. Supplemental courses fill at a lower rate of 92.3% (excluding 129, which has not been offered since Fall 2010). However, they are as important as core courses for a couple of reasons: First, supplemental courses serve language learners’ needs that cannot be adequately addressed in core courses whose focus is on developing college reading and writing skills. Second, supplemental courses provide many beginning and intermediate students with an opportunity to get acclimated in an American college environment, gain American college “studenting” skills, and become better prepared for a much heavier demand of the 6-unit courses. In addition, their small units help ESL students fulfill financial aid eligibility. Therefore, we would like to make the following FTEF requests:

1. Add a section of 110B (115% fill rate) and 110C (110% fill rate) for both Fall 13 and Spring 14 to offer 4 sections of these courses year around (FTEF requested: 1.41 = 0.47 x 3 sections).

2. Add a section of 111A (109% fill rate), which has been offered only in the fall since the academic year 2009, so that it will be offered year around (FTEF requested: 0.07). In 111A, students learn the importance of intonation, rhythm and stress, and sound discrimination tied to spelling (e.g. live vs. leave, feel vs. fill vs. fell). While 111A is not a prerequisite to 111B, having one section of 111A every semester helps more students improve their pronunciation in an invaluable face-to-face context. It also improves the fill rate of 111B (71% fill rate).

3. Beginning in Fall 14, add a section of 111B, which has been offered only in the Spring since 2009. In 111B, students improve academic listening, note-taking, and speaking skills which are important for their success in all college course work and workplace. If these courses are to be revised and submitted to curriculum in time, we would like to offer it every semester (FTEF requested: 0.07).

4. Add a section of 112 (72% fill rate) in Spring 14, and a section of 114 (100% fill rate) in Fall 13. 114 has been offered only in the Spring since 2011, but along with 112, we would like to offer it year round, thereby helping ESL students gain grammar and editing skills needed in post 110 course work and in the workplace. (FTEF requested: 0.20 + 0.13 = 0.33)

Total FTEF requested: 1.68

Other Considerations:

We understand the importance of “productivity.” However, the analysis of our student enrollment pattern seems to reveal important factors that are not reflected in the Enrollment Management Data but deserve attention because they affect the fill rates and the overall WSCH/FTEF value. Our discussion here will focus

34

primarily on late-start classes and why those courses may lag behind, but at the end, it will also address possible inaccuracy of the 2009-2012 Enrollment Management Data for the ESL program:

1. Late-start courses such as 114 and 149O need additional time to fill. For example, this semester the new writing workshop course started on February 22, but instructors teaching various courses needed time to identify students who need extra help and then refer them to the writing workshop. In fact, several instructors have asked if they could send their students to the workshop from the 2nd week of class.

2. The time between the deadline for the Opening Day Roster and the deadline for Census Day is much shorter—3 days for 108 and 109 vs. 17 days for regular courses.

3. What compounds the problem is that most of these late-start courses meet only once a week, making it harder for the instructors to communicate with and accommodate students before the Census Date, which comes too soon as mentioned above.

4. Some faculty members have observed that late-start courses “throw the students off” schedule because some of them do not notice the “late-start” notation in the Class Schedule and end up coming to school during the 1st week of classes and then having trouble getting back a few weeks later.

5. The TBA class time can present unforeseeable time conflicts. For 128, the Learning Connection staff and instructors make concerted efforts before the semester starts to help the students have a smooth start, but instructors can only reach registered students during the break in order to provide the syllabus, inform them of the class times, and announce the orientation dates to sign up for.

6. The idea that students will enroll later may be inaccurate. By the time the students have completed a couple of weeks or a month of school, they are already too busy to add more courses. This makes us wonder if the classes would fill better if they were full-term.

7. There are courses that should not have been part of the 2009-2012 Enrollment Management data.The TRIO-grant-funded CTE ESL support courses 149M and 149N were offered only in the Spring and Fall of 2011, and not in Spring 2012. However, the courses appeared in the Spring 2012 Class Schedule. As a result, they pulled the 2011 WSCH/FTEF term average for 149M from 320 to 45.71 and for 149N, from 400 to 200.

35

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: ___At least 1___

2 If you are requesting more than one position, please rank order the positions.


1 Assistant in Learning Connection/PATH Center

2

3

4

3 Rationale for your proposal based on your program review conclusions. Include anticipated impact on student learning outcomes and alignment with the strategic plan goal. Indicate if this request is for the same, more, or fewer academic learning support positions.

4

Our ESL students benefit immensely from contact with tutors and other academic support services. In fact, such services are an integral part of our program and curriculum. Thus, it is very important to continue to offer expanded hours for PATH/Language Center and tutoring.PATH is currently open 38 hours/week and our students take full advantage of these hours. However, we need more open hours for the Language Center to include Fridays, Saturdays, and more evening hours.

We offer 2 sections (1 TRIO-grant funded) of ESL 128 courses as well as 1 section of ESL 127 in Fall 2013; hence, it is very important to continue to provide access to various academic learning supportfor as many hours per semester as possible so that we can reach the largest number of students.

36

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 Budget

Project or Items Requested Requested Received 2013-14 Request

Rationale

Network version (server or installable version) for Focus on Grammar 1-4 and Fundamentals of English Grammar, Understanding & Using English Grammar*

$46,944 $0 $46,944 This software would serve 500+students each semester, andsince it would be a network license,it could be installed on any computeron campus, not just on ESLcomputers in PATH or in therenovated/new Building 100. Thisprogram offers online instructionthrough a dynamic combination of interactive exercises, animation,readings, audio and voice recordings.Students get instant feedback andremediation based on their answers.

Longman English Interactive Levels 1-4 (Network version) (20% discount @ $6568 each)

$28,606 $0 $28,606 This would also serve 500+ studentsper semester and could be installedanywhere on campus. For a morecomplete description of the featuresof this software, please see theLongman website.

Pronunciation in English/Writing in English/Idioms in English (Bundle - permanent license for 30 computers)

$6,000 $0 $6,000 We currently have 6 licenses of eachof these programs in PATH, but theyare set to expire in June 2013. Theyare indispensable in terms of theirusefor ESL 127 and ESL 128. We needa permanent license so we cancontinueto make this softwareavailable to our students. Please seetheAmEnglish website for a morecomplete description.

37

Inspiration writing software – 30 additional licenses (currently have 10 through grant funding)

$0 $114 for 10 licenses from AIC grant money

$510 for 30 additional licenses

Allows students to work on visual mapping, outlining, writing, and presentation skills all in one place. This is currently used in WRAC, and we have 10 licenses for Room 307 for our Writing Workshop course. We are requesting an additional 20 licenses for either 307 or an eventual ESL lab space.

38

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

$

39

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 Budget

Project 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.

40

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): ESL Language Lab and Tutoring Center

Building/Location: Building 100, upon its reconstruction or renovation.

Description of the facility project. Please be as specific as possible.

The ESL department supports the use of funds for renovation or reconstruction of Building 100 in order to provide a fully-functioning language lab to support non-native English speaking students across campus disciplines. We need a lab with 50 computer workstations with ESL software along with standard word processing and Internet capabilities.

Designated space for ESL tutoring, ESL study groups, and ESL conversation groups. This space would require 7-8 tables with 4 chairs similar to those in the PATH center along with five bookshelves, three wall cabinets, and three file cabinets.

We will use this space for:

the Writing Workshop for Nonnative Speakers classes

ESL 127 and 128

41

drop-in tutoring and tutoring by appointment

lab hours

conversation groups

ESL study groups offered through the TRIO grant

a computer lab for ESL classes

an open study space

What educational programs or institutional purposes does this equipment support?

The English Language Lab will directly support the ESL program by creating a space to:

conduct the lab hours that we may incorporate into our core classes

hold our Writing Workshop for Nonnative Speaker classes

offer conversation groups

hold the ESL study groups

offer and manage our ESL 127 and 128 courses

offer ESL drop-in tutoring and tutoring by appointment

take ESL classes when the lesson requires computer access

offer a study area for students

cultivate computer literacy

hold the lab hours mentioned above with the support of tutors and the supervision of an instructor

The English Language Lab will also support all programs across campus with nonnative speakers as students:

The Writing Workshop classes will give direct writing support to all nonnative speakers at Chabot.

Drop-in tutoring will provide direct support for writing assignments, reading assignments, and other work

for ESL students who are taking other classes.

Conversation groups and tutoring will improve nonnative speakers’ confidence and ability to actively

participate in class discussion.

42

The study groups will directly support all nonnative speakers at Chabot by providing additional, free

instruction and practice opportunities in the following areas:

o American culture

o Academic vocabulary

o Find and adapting best practices for the student’s individual learning style

o Grammar

o Reading skills

o Writing skills

The English Language Lab directly addresses the strategic plan goal because it will help clarify pathways for ESL students on campus, and provide more information and support as they move toward their academic or career goals. Specifically, this initiative will also:

leverage peer mentoring;

provide space and time for informal student advising, instructor office hours, and collaboration among students and faculty; and

foster collaboration among disciplines/programs.

43

academic program review year two_021413.docx program reviews/es… · web viewit would be best...

Documents