College of Marin - Program Review

College of Marin - Program Review

Signature Page SI ENGG-Spring 2008

I. Team Members

Name Specialty Signature Date

II. Program Review Committee

Name Committee (Chairs) Signature Date

Derek WilsonCurriculum Committee Chair (Program Review Web Tool Designer/Developer)

Peggy Dodge Educational PLanning Committee

Fernando Agudelo-Sil

Facilities Committee

Yolanda BellisimoInstitutional Planning Committee/

Academic Senate President

Anita MartinezInstructional Equipment Committee

(and Other Expenses)

Patricia O'Keefe SLO Coordinator

Joetta Scott Student Access and Success Committee

III. Vice President of Academic Affairs

Name Signature Date

Anita Martinez

IV. Board of Trustees President

Name Signature Date

Carole Hayashino

College of Marin Program Review Signature Page• CG v.I February 2008

http://programreview.marin.edu/2007/SIReport.jsp7/19/2012 9:14:28 AM


Program Overview–Introductory Report PO ENGG-Spring 2008

I. Program Definition* The Engineering Transfer Program is a sub-program within the Physical Sciences Transfer Program, and comprises all of the courses needed by other Physical Science majors (MATH, CHEM, PHYS, ENGL, and various GE courses), plus COMP and ENGG courses (see Figure ENGG PO1).

* Note that courses within the Engineering (ENGG) Discipline represent a small fraction of the Engineering Program. In fact, some engineering students are able to successfully transfer without taking any ENGG courses.

II. Program PurposePrimary Goal: Secondary Goal: Other Goal:Degree/Transfer Career/Work Training

Primary and Secondary Goals Description:* The program predominantly serves students who intend to transfer to a university to complete a Bachelor's degree, but occasionally includes students with other objectives (e.g., professional development).

* As with most CC Engineering programs, few students obtain an A.S. degree, since it often requires some additional coursework beyond what is needed for transfer, and since it is of little value professionally.

III. Students ServedNumber: Current student data collection at COM makes it impossible to determine with certainty the total number of Engineering Majors. However, surveys conducted by the department in Spring 2005 and Spring 2008 provide an estimate of the number and distribution, as follows (see Figures ENGG PO2a-c for details):

* 95 and 69 total Engineering majors (census unduplicated headcounts) during S05 and S08, respectively.

* 11 and 9 unduplicated students, respectively, in ENGG courses (ENGG 220 & 245).

* 6 and 9 non-ENGG classes, respectively, with more than 25% enrollment from ENGG majors.* 8 and 5 non-ENGG classes, respectively, that would appear to have single-digit enrollments without ENGG majors.

Demographics: Students enrolled in ENGG courses, when compared to the general COM population, are (see Figure ENGG PO3):

* younger (50-60% are 18-24 years old, vs. 33% for COM)* similar in ethnic diversity (both about 66% white)* more often Asian (13% vs. 9% for COM)* less often African-American (1% vs. 5% for COM)* less often female (25% vs. 60% for COM)

IV. Program History The program was well respected and highly enrolled until the late 1980's or early 1990's, at which point, due to unclear reasons, the program was essentially (though not officially) discontinued via the retirement of all full-time ENGG faculty. Although some attempt was made to offer ENGG courses with part-time faculty, these courses were frequently cancelled due to "low" enrollment (~15-20), creating a reputation among the community that the college was no longer committed to offering an Engineering Program.

In 2000, a new full-time faculty member was hired, split between engineering and chemistry, in an attempt to resurrect the program. However, due to numerous retirements among Physical Science faculty (85% of dept. faculty retired from 2000-2004, with delayed and only partial replacement), changes in transfer requirements at the state level, and a persistent belief among the community that the program has been discontinued, enrollment in the program (especially in ENGG courses) has never fully recovered.

IV. Program Review Questions

http://programreview.marin.edu/2007/POReport.jsp (1 of 2)7/19/2012 9:16:03 AM


1. Is the ENGG enrollment at COM unusually low compared to other CCC Engineering Programs, and if so, what are the causes and possible remedies?

2. Is the current program successful in terms of achieving student learning and transfer objectives? Which areas might need improvement, and what corresponding resources are necessary?

3. What future data collection, research, and planning is needed to better answer remaining questions and to establish a long-term plan for the Engineering program?

Attachments:Fig ENGG PO1. Engineering Program Course DiagramFig ENGG PO2a. Distribution of Engineering StudentsFig ENGG PO2b. Engineering Enrollment Survey S05Fig ENGG PO2c. Engineering Enrollment Survey S08Fig ENGG PO3. Demographic Comparison between ENGG and COM

http://programreview.marin.edu/2007/POReport.jsp (2 of 2)7/19/2012 9:16:03 AM


Student Access and Success AS ENGG-Spring 2008 I. Program EnrollmentHow has changed from to and by how much?Classes (Total) Fa02

Sp07Decreased

by 17%

Why has this occurred?Reduced offerings of 1-unit introductory course (ENGG 110) from each semester to once per year as a result of low enrollment.

How does this compare with the following?

COM Trends Regional trends CA trends National trendsNA NA NA NA

Other trends: NAOther Trend Type:

How can the positive results be maintained or the negative results be improved?Opportunities may exist to offer the introductory course in coordination with the local high schools (at COM or at the high schools), thereby serving as an effective outreach tool.

If there are courses you wish to highlight, please describe changes and trends.see above

How has changed from to and by how much?

FTES Sp03Sp07

Remained at 2

Why has this occurred?Reflects stable (but low) enrollment in upper-level ENGG courses (220 and 245) which are offered in Spring. Exception occurred in Sp06 when both courses were cancelled due to low enrollment; this coincided with a statewide dip in Engineering FTES.


COM Trends Regional trends CA trends National trendsNA NA Equal to Equal to


see attachment for dicussion

How can the positive results be maintained or the negative results be improved?Enrollments could be increased through effective outreach and retention strategies. In particular, early identification of and academic advising for engineering students may increase the percentage who "survive" to the upper level ENGG courses.

If there are courses you wish to highlight, please describe changes and trends.

How has changed from to and by how much?

FTES Fa02Fa06

Decreased by 35%

Why has this occurred?Primarily reflects decreased enrollment in introductory graphics course (ENGG 125). Increases and decreases in FTES over this time period mirror trends at statewide level in Engineering, though COM decreases are slightly larger in magnitude.


COM Trends Regional trends CA trends National trends

NA NABelow average NA


http://programreview.marin.edu/2007/ASReport.jsp (1 of 7)7/19/2012 9:16:27 AM


How can the positive results be maintained or the negative results be improved?More effective outreach and recruitment needed to increase number of entry-level engineering students.

If there are courses you wish to highlight, please describe changes and trends.As noted above, most of recent decrease in discipline FTES is due solely to ENGG 125 course. This may in part be due to low quality/recency of software used in course. Maintaining current professional level software would be prohibitively expensive (>$20k per year); unfortunately, Autodesk donates this software free of charge to most local high schools, thereby creating a negative impression of COM for entering students.

II. Faculty UnitsHow has change from to and by how much?Faculty Units Fa02 Sp07

Decreased by 1 unit

Why has this occurred?Decreased offering of 1-unit ENGG 110 course from each semester to once per year, due to low enrollments.



Other trends:Other Trend Type:

How can the positive results be maintained or the negative results be improved?If there are courses you wish to highlight, please describe changes and trends.

III. Demographic Trends-AgeAge DistributionHow has the total of students change from to and by how much?18-24 0 0

Are there any age groups over or under represented? If so, why has this occurred? Due to small sample size, no statistically significant trends can be determined over time. However, comparison can be made with general COM student population. ENGG has much larger proportion of younger students (18-24) as compared to COM, 55% vs 33%, respectively.



Other trends:Other trends Type:


Age DistributionHow has the total of students change from to and by how much?35-49 Sp08 0 0

Are there any age groups over or under represented? If so, why has this occurred? Due to small sample size, no statistically significant trends can be determined over time. However, comparison can be made with general COM student population. ENGG has smaller proportion of adult students (35-49) as compared to COM, 15.5% vs 21.5%, respectively.





Age DistributionHow has the total of students change from to and by how much?50+ 0 0

Are there any age groups over or under represented? If so, why has this occurred?



Due to small sample size, no statistically significant trends can be determined over time. However, comparison can be made with general COM student population. ENGG has much smaller proportion of older students (50+) as compared to COM, 2% vs 20%, respectively.





IV. Demographic Trends-EthnicityEthnic DistributionHow has change from to and by how much?African-American 0

Why has this occurred?Due to small sample size, no statistically significant trends can be determined over time. However, comparison can be made with general COM student population. ENGG has smaller proportion of Black students as compared to COM, 1% vs 5%, respectively.





Ethnic DistributionHow has change from to and by how much?Asian 0

Why has this occurred?Due to small sample size, no statistically significant trends can be determined over time. However, comparison can be made with general COM student population. ENGG has larger proportion of Asian students as compared to COM, 13% vs 9%, respectively.





V. Demographic Trends-GenderGender Distribution change from to and by how much? 0

Why has this occurred?Due to small sample size, no statistically significant trends can be determined over time. However, comparison can be made with general COM student population. ENGG has much smaller average proportion of female students as compared to COM, 25% vs 60%, respectively.





VI. Student Retention RatesStudent Retention Rate Within The Program (All courses combined)

Rentention: % of students completing courses (First Census Roster/Final Grade Roster Total) change from to and by how much?

Fa02 Sp07Increased

by 10



Why has this occurred?Possibly due to gradually more experienced instructor, smaller class sizes, and perhaps to better preparation in lower level MATH and PHYS courses.


COM Trends Regional trends CA trends National trendsAbove average NA

Above average NA

Other trends: NAOther trends Type:

How can the positive results be maintained or the negative results be improved?Maintain quality and standards of preparatory MATH and PHYS instruction.


VII. Student Success RatesStudent Success Rate Within The Program (All courses combined)

Success = % Grades of (A, B,C,CR)/(A,B,C,CR,D,F,NC,W, I) change from to and by how much?

Fa02 Sp07Increased

by 20

Why has this occurred?May not be statistically significant. But if it is, possibly due to gradually more experienced instructor, smaller class sizes, and perhaps to better preparation in lower level MATH and PHYS courses.


COM Trends Regional trends CA trends National trendsAbove average NA

Above average NA

Other trends: NA

How can the positive results be maintained or the negative results be improved?Maintain quality and standards of preparatory MATH and PHYS instruction.


VIII. Certificates, Degrees, and TransferHow has the number of awarded changed from to Awards have FTES

Transfers Sp01 Sp05Increased

by 4

Why has this occurred?* See Figure ENGG AS8 for data from the CPEC on transfers to UC and CSU. * In addition to an almost doubling of reported transfers, ENGG was the 8th largest discipline at COM in 2005 in terms of transfers.




How can the positive results be maintained or the negative results be improved?It is likely that the results can be improved further, following the suggestions offered elsewhere in this review.

If there are courses or awards you wish to highlight, please describe changes and trends.

IX. Recruitment and Access Strategies

Our program requires to improve

This strategy should take place from to and would impact # FTES

Advisors Access Fa08 Sp99 60

Why has this occurred?



The survey results mentioned in the Program Overview indicate that there are many more purported ENGG majors than there are students in the ENGG courses (Figures ENGG AS2a-c). Better data acquisition and tracking could help to determine what portion of this discrepancy can be attributed to, for example, successful transfer without completion of ENGG courses, relocation to another CC, change of major, or ?attrition? due to academic, personal, or institutional barriers.




How can the positive results be maintained or the negative results be improved?Early and ongoing identification of Engineering majors could provide an opportunity for better institution initiated (rather than student initiated) academic advising to ensure that students understand the rather complex and dynamic transfer requirements and scheduling constraints in ENGG, in order to optimize their chance for success.

If there are courses or awards you wish to highlight, please describe changes and trends.Currently, students are not adequately identified and tracked by the college in an ongoing manner, in terms of their academic goal (e.g., major). This will be necessary in order to achieve the objectives above.

Our program requires to improve

This strategy should take place from to and would impact # FTES

Outreach Enrollment Sp09 Sp11 ?

Why has this occurred?* Robust ENGG enrollments would strengthen all Math and Science programs at COM.

* The negative impacts of current low enrollments in ENGG courses are as follows: ** Severely limited offerings (once per year for each course), which greatly limits scheduling flexibility for students (which further discourages enrollment) ** "Collateral" low enrollments in PHYS 207 series and upper level MATH ** Concerns among students and faculty regarding possible course cancellations, which further discourages student enrollment in COM Engineering program. ** Difficulty in justifying financial resources for much-needed equipment replacement and upgrades.


COM Trends Regional trends CA trends National trendsNA Equal to Equal to Equal to

Other trends: NAOther trends Type:

How can the positive results be maintained or the negative results be improved?* An effective outreach program, particularly to K12 community, could help to address many of the issues related to low Engineering enrollments at the national, state, and local levels.

* Because national leaders have recognized the importance of K12 outreach in addressing the national Engineering supply crisis, there are numerous resources available currently which COM could leverage in this effort.

If there are courses or awards you wish to highlight, please describe changes and trends.

X. Justification for Student Success and Access RequirementsPrimary Goal Secondary Goal Other Goal(s):Degree/Transfer Career/Work Training

Application: Please indicate how the projected requirements will be applied.

Instruction: How will the projected requirements improve instruction for Student Learning and Success?

Access: How will access be improved for Student Learning and Success?



* Outreach will increase the awareness of K-12 students regarding career opportunities in Engineering, academic requirements for Engineering study, and the value of COM in pursuing an Engineering education.

* Student tracking and advising will hopefully increase the number of prospective Engineering majors that progress through the ENGG program and successfully transfer.

Outcomes: What Student Learning or other outcomes are expected? Improved student preparation for Engineering study should contribute to improvement in all learning outcomes.

Assessment: How will the outcomes be measured for future planning? EnrollmentRetentionSuccess

Evidence: What data or evidence supports your projected requirements?The enrollment/access challenges in ENGG courses can be related to trends and causes at a variety of levels:

National

1. The total number of engineering degrees awarded nationally has just recently begun to recover after an almost 20-year decline. The percentage of students studying engineering continues to decline steadily (NSF Statistics).

2. The general public has limited understanding of the engineering profession (2004 Harris Poll), and may therefore be unlikely to encourage their children to study engineering.

3. Most K-12 teachers perceive engineering as one of the most difficult fields of study, and as a result believe that engineering is inaccessible to many of their students, especially women and minorities (Engineering in the K-12 Classroom, ASEE).

4. Many students do not receive sufficient training in math and science at the primary and secondary levels in order to be successful in engineering programs.

State

5. There is a complete lack of standardization among CA universities in the transfer requirements for engineering. The exact set of transfer requirements for any individual CC engineering student cannot be determined in advance, as it depends upon a complex combination of circumstances, including engineering discipline, transfer university, GPA, ad-hoc waivers, etc. (see Figure ENGG AS3).

6. The Engineering curriculum is characterized by a highly sequential set of courses. Failure to complete any single course on the first attempt may result in long delays in program completion, often leading to dropout (see ENGG Figure AS4).

7. Although enrollments in the 200-level ENGG courses at COM are quite low, they are actually ?above the trendline? for the state when compared to total college size (see Figure ENGG AS5). In fact, COM's Engineering Program is only slightly below the median in terms of the ratio of Engineering enrollment to total college enrollment.

Local

8. High school students who are most likely to succeed in the Engineering Program due to a high level of preparation and motivation, are also most likely to go directly to a university rather than to a community college (since cost is not a factor for most Marin students).

9. There is a widespread persistent belief in the community that COM has discontinued its Engineering Program (based upon personal anecdotal experience).

10. There are several nearby CC?s (e.g., CCSF, SRJC, LC) which have more robust Engineering Programs, in terms of enrollments, budgets, support services, and variety and frequency of course offerings.

Internal

11. Currently, there is no mechanism to identify and advise prospective Engineering students when they first enroll at COM, or to track their progress over time. Because of the complexities of Engineering transfer requirements and scheduling, good academic advising is needed to increase students' chances for successful completion of the program.

12. Most of the facilities, equipment, and computer technology utilized in the Physical Sciences and Engineering programs are outdated and of poor quality, often inferior to what is available at the local high schools. This



results in a negative impression among students about the quality of the educational program.

13. Course offerings are extremely limited in terms of both variety and frequency. This limits scheduling flexibility for students, and increases consequences in terms of time-to-completion if a student fails to complete a course or if a course is cancelled.

Attachments: Recent Awards DQD Data

Other: Fig ENGG AS1. Enrollment History of ENGG CoursesFig ENGG AS2a. Distribution of ENGG StudentsFig ENGG AS2b. ENGG Enrollment Survey S05Fig ENGG AS2c. ENGG Enrollment Survey S08Fig ENGG AS3. Sample Transfer Requirement GridFig ENGG AS4. ENGG Program FlowchartFig ENGG AS5. CCC ENGG EnrollmentsFig ENGG AS6. Demographic ComparisonFig ENGG AS7. Retention and Success RatesFig ENGG AS8. Transfers by Discipline 01-05

College of Marin Program Review Student Access and Success• CG v.I February 2008



PROGRAM REVIEW Curriculum and Articulation Report CC

ENGG-Spring 2008

I. Current Program Courses Report

Subject Course # Course TitleLast

UpdatedTOP Code SU TU

ENGG 110 Careers in Engineering and

Technology

1995 0901.00 1 1

ENGG 110B Introduction to Engineering Design

2003 0901.00 2 3.49

course has never been offered

ENGG 125 Introductory Engineering Graphics

1995 0924.00 4 6.2

ENGG 150B Programming in MATLAB for Engineers

2004 0901.00 2 2

ENGG 210 Engineering Surveying 1993 0924.00 3 4.49

course has not been offered in past 10 years

ENGG 220 Electric Circuit Analysis

1993 0901.00 3 3

ENGG 235 Engineering Mechanics--Statics

1993 0901.00 3 3

ENGG 245 Engineering Materials Science

1993 0901.00 3 4.49

II. Projected Course Actions Report

http://programreview.marin.edu/2007/CCReport.jsp (1 of 4)7/19/2012 9:17:14 AM


Course ID Course Title Action

ENGG 126 Intermediate Engineering Graphics Deletion

Course no longer offered. Consider whether to delete or revise.

ENGG 150 Construction Engineering: Materials and Methods I Deletion

Course is no longer offered.

ENGG 151 Construction Engineering: Materials and Methods II Deletion


ENGG 156 Intermediate Technical Drawing, with Intro to CADD Deletion


ENGG 220L Electric Circuits Laboratory Addition

Transfer Requirement for some universities.

ENGG 256 Practical Materials Science Deletion


ENGG 257 Practical Plane Surveying Deletion


Other Courses All currently offered program courses Revision

will be updated to reflect current forms, content, SLOs

III. Projected Certificate/Degree & Other Actions Report

Action Category Total Courses Total Units

Deletion Degree 10-14 Courses 33.0

Certificate/Degree Title:

A.S. in Engineering Technology, Occupational

Revision Degree 15-19 Courses 63.0

Certificate/Degree Title:



A.S. in Engineering

IV. Justification for Curriculum Requirements

Primary Goal: Secondary Goal: Other Goal:

Degree/Transfer Career/Work Training

Application: Please indicate when the projected requirements will be applied.

*Continue to offer the set of 5 ENGG transfer courses on a once per year basis according to the historical schedule (see Figure ENGG CC1).

*ENGG 220L--approved by Curr Comm; awaiting board approval. Intend to offer Spr 2009 if units available.

*Engineering Transfer--courses and degree will be updated/revised in Fall 2008, as follows:

**Update all ENGG course outlines to reflect current forms, content, and course-level SLOs.

**Make any necessary changes to A.S. degree requirements to reflect current offerings, and if possible, to increase the likelihood that transfer students will pursue the degree.

**Consider pros and cons of reconfiguring COMP 150A/B for F09 to better serve students and streamline articulation (will be analyzed in 08-09 P.R.).

**Explore viability of offering ENGG 110B starting F09 in order to improve attainment of program SLOs, to possibly attract more students to ENGG, and to comply with recent changes to UCB engineering curriculum (will be analyzed in 08-09 P.R.).

*Engineering Technology Curriculum--starting in Fall 2008, courses, degree, and program will be assessed and considered for deletion or reconfiguration. Discussion needs to take place with Dean of Workforce Devpt since many of the required courses for the degree are offered through that division.

Instruction: How will instruction be improved for Student Learning and Success?

ENGG 220L Addition--helps to achieve Program SLOs a,b,c,d,e,g,k (below). Provides students with physical demonstration of theory, opportunities for active learning, and practical problem solving experience.


*Current course offerings--represent minimum number and frequency needed for an engineering transfer program (see Figure ENGG CC4). Increasing frequency might improve scheduling flexibility for students, but would be hard to justify financially given historical enrollments.

*ENGG 220L Addition--since it is a transfer requirement for some university majors, addition of this course will increase students' choices (and may therefore increase ENGG enrollment). Course is offered by most CCC engineering programs.

*Degree Revisions--More streamlined process for obtaining A.S. degree (avoidance of waivers/substitutions). May increase number of students who complete degree.

*Course Revisions--Ensure ongoing articulation of all courses.

Outcomes: What Student Learning or other outcomes are expected?

Program-level SLOs are aligned with national ABET criteria for engineering programs. After completing the entire Engineering Transfer program, students will have attained the following:

(a) an ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering

(b) an ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data

(c) an ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs within realistic constraints such as economic, environmental, social, political, ethical, health and safety, manufacturability, and sustainability

(d) an ability to function on multidisciplinary teams

(e) an ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems

(f) an understanding of professional and ethical responsibility

(g) an ability to communicate effectively

(h) an understanding of the impact of engineering solutions in a global, economic, environmental, and societal context

(i) a recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in life-long learning

(j) a knowledge of contemporary issues

(k) an ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering practice.



Assessment: How will the outcomes be measured for future planning?

A combination of assessments will be used, including (relevant SLOs indicated in parentheses):*Student surveys and peer evaluations (d,f,h,i,j)*Observations of lab performance (b,d,k)*Evaluation of lab reports (a,b,c,e,g,k)*Graded exams and assignments (a,b,e,k)*Evaluation of reports and presentations (a,c,e,f,g,h,i,j,k)

Evidence: What data or evidence supports your projected requirements?

*ENGG 220L addition--ASSIST website (www.assist.org) indicates currently unmet transfer requirements for this course at SFSU, SJSU, Cal Poly SLO, UCLA, UCSD, UCSC. An equivalent course is offered at nearly all CC's with Engineering programs (incl. Cabrillo, Chabot, ContraCosta, DVC, SFCC, SRJC).*see attachments below for evidence to support current offerings and necessity of degree revisions.

Certificates/Degrees Enrollments Program Blueprint Recent/Current Schedule

Other Attachment(s):

Fig ENGG CC1. F06-F08 Blueprint and 02-06 Historical OfferingsFig ENGG CC2. ABET Program OutcomesFig ENGG CC3. A.S. Degree RequirementsFig ENGG CC4. Engineering Transfer Curriculum

College of Marin Program Review Curriculum and Articulation Report• CG v.I February 2008



PROGRAM REVIEW Instructional Equipment and Materials Report IE

ENGG-Spring 2008 I. Instructional Equipment/Materials Requirements

Priority# of Support Expense Item Unit Cost Qty. Tax S&H Total Cost:

Urgent 3 Classes Anti-static Mats 93.00 4 80.00 452.0

Shared With:

Physics (207B and 108B)

One-time Expense:

Equipment needed for new ENGG 220L circuits lab course.

On-going Expenses:

High 3 Classes Digital Multimeter Flukes 280.00 2 90.00 650.0

Shared With:

Physics (207B and 108B)

One-time Expense:

Equipment for new ENGG 220L circuits lab course

On-going Expenses:

High 5 Classes Existing equipment budget which allows some minor upgrading and replacement of equipment in absence of major equipment modernization funding.

700.00 1 0.00 700.0

Shared With:

Some equipment shared with Physics Discipline (same Dept).

One-time Expense:

On-going Expenses:

Regular replacements and upgrades.

High 5 Classes Existing supplies budget which allows annual purchases of consumable supplies for Engineering courses and routine maintenance of lab equipment.

450.00 1 0.00 450.0

Shared With:

http://programreview.marin.edu/2007/IEReport.jsp (1 of 3)7/19/2012 9:18:25 AM


Sharing of some materials with Physics Discipline (same Dept).

One-time Expense:

On-going Expenses:

Annual supply purchasesMaintenance and repair parts for equipment

High 1 Classes Muffle Furnace (for heat treating materials specimens)

3490.00 1 525.00 4015.0

Shared With:

One-time Expense:

Replacement of antique, unreliable, and unsafe furnaces for thermal treatment of specimens in Materials Lab course. (Actually we could really use 2 of these, but due to cost, we can try to get by with one for a while and hopefully get a second in the future.)

On-going Expenses:

Urgent 3 Classes RLC Circuit Boards 98.00 2 20.00 216.0

Shared With:

Physics (207b and 108b classes)

One-time Expense:

Equipment needed for new ENGG 220L circuits lab course.

On-going Expenses:

II. External Funds/Resources

Allocation Source of Funding Funding Type Funding CycleFunding Duration

III. Student Material Fees

Current Fee Description of Required Materials Reason for Proposed Increase Proposed Fee

IV. Justification for Projected Expense Requirements


Degree/Transfer

Career/Work Training


*Previously budgeted supplies and equipment amounts will be used to maintain existing teaching program of 3 lecture-only classes and 2 lecture/lab classes.*Additional funding needed to replace old, non-operational furnace in Materials Lab.*Additional funding needed to purchase required instructional equipment for new ENGG 220L Circuits Lab course, to be offered starting Spring 2009. (This course has recently been approved by CC and is currently awaiting board approval.)

Instruction: How will the projected expenses improve instruction for Student Learning and Success?



*Program SLOs and transfer requirements demand that students have hands-on experience with laboratory equipment and modern digital technology.*Current budgets will allow the former and very limited achievement of the latter for existing courses.*New furnace needed for improved safety and reliability of experimental procedures carried out by students in Materials Lab.


*Addition of new Circuits lab course will allow more students to satisfy transfer requirements (which may also indirectly increase enrollments).*Upgrading equipment will create a more positive learning experience and a better impression of COM program quality, both of which will lead to higher enrollments.


*Improved engineering problem solving skills.*Improved ability to design and perform experiments, and to analyze and interpret data.*Enhanced teamwork skills.*Increased familiarity with modern engineering techniques and tools.*Improved reputation of ENGG program quality among students and community.


*Evaluation of lab reports*Observation of laboratory practices*Graded assignments and exams*Enrollment, retention, and success rates


*New ENGG 220L Circuits lab course cannot be offered without the equipment requested.*See attachment Fig ENGG IE1 for national level support of stated outcomes.*See attachment Fig ENGG IE2 for past regular ENGG budgets for equipment and supplies.

Current Inventory Recent Instructional Equipment & Material Allocations

Other Attachment(s):

Figure ENGG IE1. Program-level outcomes from national Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) that support requirements.

College of Marin Program Review Instructional Equipment• CG v.I February 2008


Program Review

Faculty Unit Allocation and Support Staff Report TU ENGG-Spring 2008

I. Program Faculty

Last Name First Name Status:Years

at COM:Faculty Units:

Reassigned Units:

Banos Robert Adjunct, ETCUM 3 6.2 00.000

Specialty:

Graphics

Leadership:



Reassigned Units:

Chavez Rob Full-time, probationary 3 4 00.000

Specialty:

Leadership:

Budget Committee



Reassigned Units:

Dunmire Erik Full-time, tenured 8 0 00.000

Specialty:

Leadership:

currently on sabbatical (previously served as Interim Dean, Chair, Budget Committee, Data Acquisition Group).



Reassigned Units:

Mohamed-Aly

Hossam Adjunct, ETCUM 2 7.49 00.000

http://programreview.marin.edu/2007/TUreport.jsp (1 of 4)7/19/2012 9:19:15 AM

Program Review

Specialty:

Leadership:

II. Instructional Support Staff

III. Projected Teaching Unit Requirements

Teaching Units: Degrees Certificates Health and Safety Scheduling Title 5 Waitlists

17.690

Specialty:

Other:

Existing TU allocation.

Teaching Units: Degrees Certificates Health and Safety Scheduling Title 5 Waitlists

2.490

Specialty:

Other:

Requested additional TU for new ENGG 220L course.

IV. Projected Staff Requirements

Hours Per Week: Purpose: Degrees Certificates

Health and

Safety Scheduling Title 5 Waitlists # of Supported

V. Justification for Teaching Unit & Staff Requirements




*Continue to offer the minimum possible set of five required ENGG transfer courses, at the minimum reasonable frequency (once each per year). (See Fig ENGG TU1.)

*Add new ENGG 220L course (lab to accompany ENGG 220) to satisfy transfer requirements and Program SLOs.

Instruction: How will instruction be improved for Student Learning and Success?


Program Review

ENGG 220L Addition--helps to achieve Program SLOs a,b,c,d,e,g,k (below). Provides students with physical demonstration of theory, opportunities for active learning, and practical problem solving experience.


*Current course offerings--represent minimum number and frequency needed for an engineering transfer program (see Fig ENGG TU4), as well as to achieve A.S. Degree (see Fig ENGG TU3). Increasing frequency might improve scheduling flexibility for students, but would be hard to justify financially given historical enrollments.

*ENGG 220L Addition--since it is a transfer requirement for some university majors, addition of this course will increase student' choices (and may therefore increase ENGG enrollment). Course is offered by most CCC engineering programs.


Program-level SLOs are aligned with national ABET criteria for engineering programs (see Fig ENGG TU2). After completing the entire Engineering Transfer program, students will have attained the following:

(a) an ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering

(b) an ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data

(c) an ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs within realistic constraints such as economic, environmental, social, political, ethical, health and safety, manufacturability, and sustainability

(d) an ability to function on multidisciplinary teams

(e) an ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems

(f) an understanding of professional and ethical responsibility

(g) an ability to communicate effectively

(h) an understanding of the impact of engineering solutions in a global, economic, environmental, and societal context

(i) a recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in life-long learning

(j) a knowledge of contemporary issues

(k) an ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering practice.


Program Review


A combination of assessments will be used, including (relevant SLOs indicated in parentheses):*Student surveys and peer evaluations (d,f,h,i,j)*Observations of lab performance (b,d,k)*Evaluation of lab reports (a,b,c,e,g,k)*Graded exams and assignments (a,b,e,k)*Evaluation of reports and presentations (a,c,e,f,g,h,i,j,k)


*ENGG 220L addition--ASSIST website (www.assist.org) indicates currently unmet transfer requirements for this course at SFSU, SJSU, Cal Poly SLO, UCLA, UCSD, UCSC. An equivalent course is offered at nearly all CC's with Engineering programs (incl. Cabrillo, Chabot, ContraCosta, DVC, SFCC, SRJC).

*see attachments below for evidence to support current offerings.

Certificates/Degrees Course Sections & Waitlists Faculty Changes

Other: Description of other attachment(s)

Fig ENGG TU1. F06-F08 Blueprint and 02-06 Historical OfferingsFig ENGG TU2. ABET Program OutcomesFig ENGG TU3. A.S. Degree RequirementsFig ENGG TU4. Engineering Transfer Requirements

College of Marin Program Review Faculty Unit Allocation and Support Staff • CG v.I February 2008


Student Learning

Program Level Student Learning Outcomes LS ENGG-Spring 2008

I. List 3-5 Student Learning Outcomes for students enrolled in your program. These should be broad overarching learning goals. They are bigger than objectives. After completing the entire Engineering Transfer program, students will have attained the following:

1) an ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering

2) an ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data

3) an ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems

4) an ability to communicate effectively

5) an ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering practice.

These SLO's represent a partial list of outcomes from "2008-2009 Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs", ABET (see Fig ENGG LS1).

II. Align the Program Level SLOs with the College Goals. Briefly discuss how your program meets the goals of the college. In general, the Engineering Transfer Program is an important part of the college's overall transfer program. It is integral to the viability of the Math program and the Physical Sciences program due to the large representation of Engineering students within chemistry, physics, and upper level math classes. Additionally, the success of Engineering transfer students in UC and CSU Engineering programs contributes to the reputation of COM as an excellent academic transfer institution, and the important professional contributions of COM Engineering alumni engenders good will within the community.

1. Educational excellence--faculty in all of the Physical Sciences and Engineering disciplines maintain high academic standards and use educational best practices to adequately prepare students to succeed after transfer. All part-time and full-time ENGG instructors are well qualified, with either an M.S. or Ph.D. in Engineering, professional work experience, and considerable post-secondary teaching experience.

2. Curricular diversity--the COM Engineering program is committed to offering the full range of courses needed by students to transfer into any Engineering major at UC or CSU.

3. Well-scheduled offerings--all disciplines within the Math, Life/Earth Sciences, and Physical Sciences departments work closely with each other to schedule courses with the goal of minimizing conflicts and maximizing flexibility for students so that they can complete their transfer requirements with optimal efficiency.

4. Strong relations with 4-year institutions--the FT Engineering instructor regularly attends annual meetings of the ELC, the statewide intersegmental organization that supports Engineering transfer education in CA. These meetings provide opportunities to discuss curriculum, transfer, and articulation issues with representatives of all UC, CSU, and independent universities, as well as to share educational best practices with other CC Engineering faculty.

5. Supportive Learning Environment--all faculty within the Physical Sciences are expected to create an interactive classroom environment in which students are encouraged to ask questions and are challenged to maximize their learning potential. Faculty also commit to making themselves accessible to students outside class, not only to answer course-related questions but also to provide guidance to students regarding academic and professional aspirations.

6. Inviting Physical Environment--Physical Sciences and Engineering faculty and staff have contributed extensively toward the design of a new Math/Sciences building (as well as contributing to campus-wide planning efforts). In addition to ensuring that the instructional spaces will function optimally to support future student learning, faculty and staff have provided considerable insights and support toward creating a building that is inviting to students, encourages informal learning opportunities, and adheres to sustainable architectural principles.

II. Assess the student success in your program. How do you know students learned the core SLOs by the completion of curriculum/program. Include data to support these findings.

http://programreview.marin.edu/2007/SLOreport.jsp (1 of 3)7/19/2012 9:20:25 AM

Student Learning

SLO(1): Because of the highly sequential nature of the Engineering transfer curriculum, upper level ENGG courses build heavily upon knowledge and skills developed in earlier Math, Chemistry, and Physics courses. The increasingly high rates (>90%) of retention and success in the ENGG courses suggests mastery of the pre-requisite math and science abilities at earlier levels, as well as the ability to apply this knowledge to engineering problems.

SLO(2): *All CHEM and PHYS courses in the ENGG program have laboratory components which require students to conduct experiments, and to analyze and interpret data from those experiments.*The in-house lab manual developed for the CHEM 131/132 courses emphasizes in particular an inquiry-based approach which requires students to demonstrate experimental design skills.*Although the Materials course (ENGG 245) is the only currently offered ENGG course with a formal lab component, this SLO has been partly addressed in the "lecture-only" courses by incorporating data analysis and interpretation problems within exams and assignments.*Additionally, the Statics course (ENGG 235) includes several "Activity Days", as well as take-home activity and design assignments, which require students to perform data collection and analysis, and to interpret data with respect to theoretical models.

SLO(3):*This SLO is at the core of traditional engineering academics and is evaluated in virtually all exams and assignments in the ENGG courses.*The highly interactive nature of ENGG "lectures", coupled with very small class sizes and engaged instructors, permits continual demonstration, evaluation, and improvement of problem solving skills.*The high success rates (>90%) and relatively high grade distributions in ENGG courses indicate that the vast majority of ENGG students are able to achieve this learning outcome at high levels of proficiency.

SLO(4):*ENGG courses address communication skills in terms of accepted professional standards for: Engineering notation and graphics, documentation of problem solutions, presentation of data and analysis, written technical prose, oral presentation skills, and interpersonal communication in work teams. These outcomes are assessed via homework assignments, exams, laboratory and design reports, oral presentations, and observations of group interactions.*ENGG transfer students are required to complete 2 courses in written communication (English 150 & 151), and most are also required to take a Speech course.

SLO(5): *Standard engineering problem-solving techniques and skills are addressed throughout ENGG courses, and are evaluated on all exams and assignments.*Use of computational tools (e.g., Excel, MATLAB, PSpice, AutoCAD, etc.) is incorporated into all of the ENGG courses. Students demonstrate mastery in application of tools via submitted assignments.*Standard laboratory instrumentation and testing equipment is incorporated into all CHEM, PHYS, and ENGG lab courses, with increasing upgrades to modern digitization and computer control, as instructional equipment budgets allow. Learning outcomes are assessed via observations of student performance during lab, and via presentation and interpretation of results in lab reports.

OVERALL:

*Evidence of successful overall attainment of program SLOs includes: **high transfer rates (virtually 100% of students who complete ENGG courses successfully transfer) **a high proportion of successful admits to UC Berkeley and UC Davis (two of the most well respected and competitive Engineering programs nationally) **anecdotal evidence of post-transfer success, including significant numbers of former students in graduate Engineering programs.

*Despite very low enrollments in ENGG courses, ENGG ranked 7th largest among all COM disciplines in terms of total transfers in 2005, based upon data from CPEC (see Fig ENGG LS3).

*It is likely that ENGG would rank even higher in terms of the number of students who complete their degrees after transfer. As reported in 2002 by the UC Office of the President (see Fig ENGG LS4), statewide CC transfers to UC in Engineering had the highest degree completion rate of all disciplines, and was the only discipline in which transfers achieved both higher GPA's and comparable completion rates, as compared to "native" UC students.

IV. Document student success/achievement in the program. Possible documentation materials might include Degrees, Awards, Transfer, Portfolios, Capstone Assignments, Success in Job Placement, etc.)


Student Learning

Please see the following attachments:Fig ENGG LS1. ABET Program OutcomesFig ENGG LS2. Retention and Success RatesFig ENGG LS3. Transfers by Discipline 01-05Fig ENGG LS4. Post Transfer Performance at UC by Discipline

V. Note areas for future improvement. Address needs of program like curricular innovation, resource allocation, upgrading facilities , technology, unit allocation, staffing, etc. 1. Addition of ENGG 220L lab course is needed to strengthen attainment of SLO's 2 and 5, especially for those students who are not required to take ENGG 245 (the only current ENGG course with a lab component). Resources needed for 08-09: additional 2.5 TU annually, and funding to purchase necessary instructional equipment.

2. Despite some recent significant funding of instructional equipment for chemistry and physics, considerable facilities and equipment modernization are still needed for the entire Physical Sciences program, and especially Engineering, in order to properly attain SLO's 2 & 5. Current bond modernization efforts will hopefully provide some further capital improvements in these areas, but predictable and appropriate ongoing equipment and supply budgets will also needed to maintain a modern equipment inventory.

3. The program is currently doing a poor job of addressing several program level SLOs not in the list above that relate to engineering design skills, and to a variety of "social science" knowledge and skills (see Fig ENGG LS1 for list). Although the ENGG 110B Intro to Engineering Design course was created in 2003 specifically to address these new national ABET SLO criteria for engineering programs, it has never been offered due to resource limitations and concerns about potential low enrollment. At the time, the course was a transfer requirement for SJSU, but was not required for UCB, UCD, or SFSU (the primary destinations of COM engineering students). A similar course has now been adopted as a transfer requirement for SFSU, and is likely to be soon at UCB. The need to offer and possibly to modify the ENGG 110B course will be evaluated and presented in next year's Program Review. Adding the course to the curriculum would have both resource (i.e., TU and equipment) and staffing implications, since the department is already burdened by a shortage of full-time faculty. However, the course provides interesting synergistic opportunities to attract additional students, to serve as an outreach tool, and to address a number of emerging societal/community issues such as energy sustainability.

College of Marin Program Review Student Learning Outcomes • SL I v.1 Febuary 2008


Program Review

Facilities General FA ENGG-Spring 2008

I. Current Offices (For the Program/Department, Faculty and Staff)

Office: Use: Shared Office:

SC119 Faculty, Full-time No

II. Preferred Instructional Rooms (Classrooms, Labs and Instructional Spaces)

Room: Type: Sections/Year Students/Section # of Sections

SC111 Other 1 10 1

Subject Course# M T W R F S U Start Time End Time Fa Sp Su

ENGG 110 1610 1800

Facility has limitations:

Lack of Smart classroom

Engineering Lecture/Lab room


SC125 Lecture 1 20 1


ENGG 125 1810 1900




SC144 Computer Lab 1 20 1


ENGG 125 1910 2200 Facility has limitations:


SC111 Other 1 10 1


ENGG 220 1610 1730





SC111 Other 1 10 1


ENGG 235 0940 1100




http://programreview.marin.edu/2007/FAReport.jsp (1 of 2)7/19/2012 9:20:52 AM

Program Review


SC111 Other 1 10 1


ENGG 245 1810 2100




III. Instructional Support Spaces (Storage, Conference Room, etc.)

Room: Purpose:

IV. Justification for Projected Facility RequirementsPrimary Goal: Secondary Goal: Other Goal:


Application: Please indicate how the projected requirements will be applied.Computer Projection needed in SC111 to allow use of computer for presentation and demonstration to students during lecture and lab (not only Powerpoint, but also a variety of software tools that students need to learn how to use).

Instruction: How will instruction be improved for Student Learning and Success? Better incorporation of visual imagerydiscussion of data collection and analytical techniquesdemonstration of modern engineering software toolsetc.

Access: How will access be improved for Student Learning and Success?Increased use of multimedia for a variety of learning styles.

Outcomes: What Student Learning or other outcomes are expected? Improved problem solving skillsGreater proficiency in using technologyBetter understanding of conceptual material

Assessment: How will the outcomes be measured for future planning? Exam scoresAssignmentsLab reportsObservation of student performanceRetention rates

Evidence: What data or evidence supports your projected requirements?NA

Attachments: Current Blueprint Room Plans Room Chart(s)

College of Marin Program Review Facilities General • CG v.I February 2008

http://programreview.marin.edu/2007/FAReport.jsp (2 of 2)7/19/2012 9:20:52 AM

Program Review

College Goals Report CG ENGG-Spring 2008

I. Enhance and maintain educational excellence in General Education and Transfer offerings by providing: high quality instruction, excellent faculty and student support services, rich curricular diversity, well-scheduled offerings, and strong relations with four-year institutions.

Program Goals: Maintain educational excellence in Engineering Transfer.

Program Outcomes: 1. Maintain a well articulated and up-to-date transfer curriculum.2. Provide a complete and dependable set of course offerings needed by students for transfer.3. Schedule courses so as to avoid conflicts with other program courses in Math and Sciences, and to provide maximum flexibility for students.4. Advocate for higher full-time/part-time faculty ratio within department.5. Recruit highly qualified instructors for part-time assignments.6. Work closely with Math, Chemistry, and Physics faculty to ensure continuity of learning outcomes among sequential courses.7. Incorporate appropriate instructional innovations to improve attainment of learning outcomes.8. Maintain strong relationships with university engineering colleagues via annual ELC meetings and other professional conferences.

Evidence: 1. All ENGG courses currently articulate with most UC and CSU Engineering departments.2. COM offers the complete set of courses listed in the ELC's proposed Engineering Transfer Curriculum guidance document.3. Nearly all students in upper level ENGG courses successfully transfer, most to a UC.4. All part-time and full-time ENGG instructors are well qualified, with either an M.S. or Ph.D. in Engineering, professional work experience, and considerable post-secondary teaching experience.5. High rates (>90%) of retention and success in the ENGG courses suggest mastery of the pre-requisite math and science abilities in earlier courses, as well as the ability to apply this knowledge to engineering problems.

Attachments: asdf

II. Develop and maintain a supportive learning environment where individuals will be most likely to fulfill their personal and professional goals and expectations.

Program Goals: Create a supportive learning environment for students.

Program Outcomes: 1. Create welcoming and interactive classroom environments in which students are encouraged to ask questions and are challenged to maximize their learning potential.2. Program faculty will make themselves accessible to students outside class, not only to answer course-related questions but also to provide guidance to students regarding academic and professional aspirations. (This will be easier to achieve with a higher proportion of full-time faculty in the dept.)

Evidence: 1. Current ENGG "lectures" are highly interactive, with considerable student participation and individualized feedback, in part due to small class sizes.2. FT ENGG faculty member has maintained high availability to students outside class, provided academic and career advice, and has written numerous recommendation letters for students.

Attachments:

III. Respond to changing demographics and community need by incorporating flexibility into: scheduling, facilities usage, curriculum development, and faculty assignment.

Program Goals: Respond to changing demographic and societal needs.

http://programreview.marin.edu/2007/CGReport.jsp (1 of 4)7/19/2012 9:22:30 AM

Program Review

Program Outcomes: 1. Participate in outreach and support initiatives aimed at increasing students from underrepresented groups in science and engineering.2. Incorporate important contemporary issues wherever possible into ENGG courses.3. Modify existing courses or develop new courses in response to major new trends in society or in engineering education.

Evidence: 1. Plan to pursue establishment of a MESA program at COM.2. FT faculty member is currently conducting sabbatical research/study project on energy sustainability, with plans to incorporate aspects of sustainability and energy systems into existing ENGG courses.3. Developed project-based ENGG 110B design course in response to new national engineering trends spurred by ABET 2000 criteria. Hope to finally begin offering this course in the next couple years, now that local UC and CSU campuses are finally beginning to respond to this requirement.4. Plan to investigate viability of creating novel curriculum (e.g., Energy Systems Engineering) in order to anticipate major upcoming trends in engineering workforce needs.

Attachments:

IV. Encourage broader community involvement in and use of the college by means of curricular offerings in a variety of formats, as in the creation of a community cultural center, in cultivating partnerships with K-12 educators, and by establishing appropriate advisory committees.

Program Goals: Cultivate educational outreach partnership with K-12 community to promote preparation for and interest in engineering study.

Program Outcomes: 1. Develop K-12 Engineering outreach plan.2. Seek institutional and possibly external support to build an outreach program.

Evidence: 1. The FT ENGG faculty member, working with COM Outreach Coordinator, successfully planned and executed a major Engineering outreach event in 2003 which brought together H.S. students and teachers, University Engineering representatives, and Engineering professionals from the local community, for a full-day of activities on the COM campus.2. Faculty have in the past advertised the ENGG 110 Engineering Careers class to local High School science and math teachers, resulting in a substantial number of co-enrolled H.S. students in the course.3. The ENGG faculty, together with several other Math and Physical Science faculty, solicited and were awarded an Educational Excellence grant to plan and execute an outreach effort to the area high schools. Unfortunately, all of the participants in the project were unexpectedly "called to service" in other institutional capacities (Interim Dean, Academic Senate V.P., Department Chair, etc.), which precluded them from completing the project. It is likely that a similar effort could be revived if institutional support is still available.

Attachments:

V. Identify and address workforce development needs, including: vocational technology programs that have ancillary enrollment, partnerships with four-year colleges and industries, and specific training needed by government agencies, industry and business.

Program Goals: NA

Program Outcomes: NA

Evidence: NA

Attachments:

VI. As a “learning organization,” investigate our institutional and instructional performance by continually gathering and analyzing both qualitative and quantitative data as appropriate. As part of program review, use evidence of effectiveness, in an ongoing and systematic cycle of goal clarification, performance evaluation, and implementation of improved methods, to more fully accomplish our organizational mission.


Program Review

Program Goals: Evaluate our programmatic and instructional performance on a regular and ongoing basis.

Program Outcomes: 1. Collect the relevant data, if available, that is needed to assess attainment of program and student outcomes. Currently, post-transfer performance data is needed to accurately assess overall program success. Also, better identification and tracking of Engineering students is needed to determine if persistence or other issues exist within the program.2. Meet regularly with other departmental faculty to discuss goals and methods.3. Regularly evaluate attainment of course-level SLO's, program-level SLO's, and effectiveness of methods, and analyze to produce recommendations.

Evidence: This program review.

Attachments:

VII. Develop and implement sound and coordinated planning processes Develop and implement sound and coordinated planning processes, utilizing data gathered through Program Review, and other data sources, to support institutional, instructional, and student support service goals, and to promote achievement of student learning outcomes.

Program Goals: NA (same as VI)

Program Outcomes: NA (same as VI)

Evidence: NA (same as VI)

Attachments:

VIII. Create a physical environment that is inviting to students, generates pride in the community, adheres to green principles, and supports the College’s Mission, Goals and Initiatives.

Program Goals: Participate in creating a physical environment that functionally supports educational needs, is inviting to all building occupants, and adheres to sustainable architectural principles.

Program Outcomes: 1. Participate as needed in further work on the design of the new Math/Science building.2. Ensure that all necessary equipment and services are included in the plans.3. Participate wherever possible in overseeing construction and commissioning of the new bldg.4. Collaborate on development of informal learning opportunities in public spaces (e.g., hallways, entries, exterior spaces).5. Encourage development of an ongoing maintenance and equipment replacement plan that will extend the lifetime of the new facilities.

Evidence: 1. Physical Sciences and Engineering faculty, staff, and students have contributed extensively toward the design of a new Math/Sciences building (as well as contributing to campus-wide planning efforts).2. A schematic design and detailed design have been completed, which has incorporated the needs and concerns of most users, creates an inviting atmosphere for building occupants, and achieves a fairly high level of performance and environmental sustainability.

Attachments:

IX. Other Program Specific Goals: briefly outline all goals for your program that are in addition to the college goals above.

Program Goals: NA

Program Outcomes: NA

Evidence: NA


Program Review

Attachments:

College of Marin Program Review College Goals• CG v.I February 2008


Program Review

Concluding Remarks FS ENGG-Spring 2008

Input Date Submit Date

2008-03-27 00:00:00.0

I. Program Best PracticesBriefly describe "best practices" being utilized successfully for your program (as cited in this review).The current Engineering Transfer Program successfully:

*maintains an appropriate (albeit minimum), well scheduled, and completely articulated set of course offerings that allows students to complete engineering transfer requirements.

*achieves high levels of retention and success within the ENGG discipline courses.

*appears to achieve relatively high transfer rates and post-transfer student success.

II. Program ResourcesBriefly describe key resources required to maintain or expand your program (as cited in this review).Despite apparent success in preparing students academically for transfer, the Engineering Program, especially the upper level ENGG courses, have been plagued by low enrollments for some time. While these enrollments are low in absolute terms, they are actually about average for CCC's in relation to overall college size, reflecting statewide systemic problems associated with engineering transfer education in CA. Nevertheless, any success in increasing these enrollments would bring considerable benefits to the ENGG program, to other math and science programs, and to the college as a whole (and, in a more indirect sense, to the county, state, and nation by increasing the number of domestically trained engineers).

OUTREACH--One obvious strategy, which is being pursued by colleges and universities around the U.S., is to enhance our K-12 outreach activities in order to promote both the engineering profession generally, and COM's Engineering Program specifically. An effective outreach program will require planning and a sustained commitment to provide adequate institutional support.

MATRICULATION--Additionally, since there appears to already be a substantial number of self-declared Engineering majors at COM, better identification, advising, tracking, and support of students could help to increase the percentage of those students who appear in ENGG courses, as well as help to clarify the academic pathways and existing barriers that may explain this apparent discrepancy.

INSTRUCTIONAL EQUIPMENT--As professions and as academic fields of study, the physical sciences and engineering are equipment intensive; consequently, adequate and predictable funding is essential to maintaining modern equipment inventories for both laboratory and "lecture" purposes. Modernizing equipment in all of the physical science disciplines will not only improve our ability to achieve learning outcomes, but will also likely lead to higher enrollments as a result of the improved student perception of our programs.

FACULTY--Any future expansion of ENGG offerings would necessitate additional full-time faculty hiring, at least within the department (to shift loads) if not the discipline. There is currently only one FT faculty member (Erik Dunmire) who is assigned less than half his teaching load to engineering, and who is often called upon to serve in other non-instructional capacities (e.g., Interim Dean, Department Chair, etc.). Because of the complexity of curricular requirements, instructional equipment, course scheduling, etc., maintaining a functional Engineering program requires considerable non-instructional work that can only be carried out by a FT faculty member (for example, note that this Program Review was completed by the above-mentioned faculty member while he was on sabbatical in Sweden). While it is not uncommon in CC's to share Engineering faculty with other Physical Science disciplines (e.g., Physics, Computer Science, Chemistry), the current dearth of faculty in the Physical Science Dept (less than 40% of units taught by FT instructors) tends to pull faculty away from, rather than toward, service to the Engineering program.

III. Objectives for Moving ForwardBriefly describe intended actions and strategies as a result of this program review.

http://programreview.marin.edu/2007/FSReport.jsp (1 of 2)7/19/2012 9:23:23 AM

Program Review

Strategy 1: Increase "self-awareness" via improved data gathering, in order to support decision making.

a) Improve student data collection, management, and documentation practices within ENGG courses so as to enhance and streamline assessment of course-level and program-level SLOs.

b) Work with the college to improve student data collection practices and matriculation processes to enhance the identification and tracking of prospective engineering students.

c) Seek access to post-transfer performance data in order to evaluate overall success of entire Engineering Transfer Program.

Strategy 2: Continually re-evaluate and update curriculum in response to a dynamic educational and occupational environment.

a) Update course outlines to ensure ongoing articulation.

b) Update A.S. degrees to reflect current course offerings.

c) Continue to attend annual ELC meetings in order to anticipate upcoming changes in transfer requirements and share best practices with other Engineering faculty.

d) Consider opportunities to incorporate current societal trends (e.g., sustainability, energy issues, etc.) into curriculum.

Strategy 3: Improve student access to Engineering transfer

a) Plan and seek institutional support for a K-12 Engineering outreach program to promote interest in, and preparation for, Engineering study.

b) Contingent upon availability of data, attempt to analyze streams of prospective Engineering students to identify potential barriers to persistence in the program or other reasons for low appearance of students in ENGG courses.

c) Investigate the establishment of a MESA program at COM to provide support to students from under-represented groups in Science and Engineering.

IV. Other Concluding RemarksPlease provide any additional insight necesaary to summarize this program review.

College of Marin Program Review Program Overview–Final Summary & Submission Form • FS v.1 February 2008

http://programreview.marin.edu/2007/FSReport.jsp (2 of 2)7/19/2012 9:23:23 AM

Documents

College of Marin - Program Review