Philosophy Program Review



Evergreen Valley College

Program Review Self-Study Document

Criteria

11-11

In preparing this Program Review, keep the college mission, strategic plan CTAs in mind as a reminder that Program Review is to ensure that all programs are aligned with the institutional mission.

Evergreen Valley College’s Mission: With student learning as our primary focus, Evergreen Valley College’s mission is to empower students to expand their human potential and to succeed in a global, multicultural society. We prepare students of all ages and backgrounds for balanced and productive lives, so they can ultimately improve the workforce and quality of life in our communities.

DEPARTMENT/PROGRAM NAME: Philosophy

PREPARED BY: Kelley Wells

LAST REVIEW: Unknown

CURRENT YEAR: 2010-2011

AREA DEAN: Mark Gonzales, SSHAPE Division

SUMMARY OF THE DEPARTMENT/PROGRAM

Provide a brief summary of the department/program including brief history (impetus for department/program initiation if applicable, years of existence, progress made or not made over time, any other major factors that affected the program and current status)

PART A: Overview of Program

1. Identify EVC’s CTA for this year.

A. Student Centered:

Provide access to quality and efficient programs and services to ensure student success.

B. Organizational Transformation

We create a trusting environment where everyone is valued and empowered.

C. Community Engagement:

Transform college image and enhance partnerships with community, business, and educational institutions.

2. Identify your program/department’s CTA for this year.

Student Centered:

• Increase number of courses that are available online

• Expand course offerings and explore the development of new courses

• Emphasize use of technology in the classroom

• Reevaluate materials and curriculum to keep current in the field

• Update curriculum to reflect academic trends

B. Organizational Transformation:

• Attend relevant educational development programs

• Apply relevant new pedagogies

C. Community Engagement:

• Participate in Constitution Day

• Participate in on-campus programs including Learning Communites and Honors

• Promote other on-campus resources, including the TLC and Tutoring Center

3. How did your program/department meet the overall CTA of the College?

Describe how your program/department met the overall CTA of the College.

Describe areas where your program/department needs improvement to meet the overall CTA of the College. Describe specific plan to achieve this goal.

A. Student Centered CTAs met:

• Update Curriculum

B. Organizational Transformation CTAs met:

• Members of the Philosophy faculty participated in shared governance by serving on:

o Academic Senate

o Faculty Association

o Professional Recognition Committee

o tenure review committees

o screening committees

C. Community Engagement met:

• Participated in Learning Communities

• Participated in Honors

• Supported Disabled Student Program

• Supported Student Athletics Program

Each of our department’s CTAs was created to help reach a goal set forth by the CTA of the college. Student Centeredness, Organizational Transformation and Community Engagement have been at the core of all our CTAs and each one relates to a desired area of focus for the College.

4. Identify

A. Analysis of unmet goals:

• Philosophy Degree

• Social Science Degree

• Establish Writing Standards for Philosophy Courses

• Develop enhanced online pedagogy

• Develop online curriculum

B. Accomplishments of the Philosophy Department:

Developed learning community course for Critical Thinking and English 102A

Developed learning community course for Critical Thinking and English 1A

Developed learning community course for Introduction to Philosophy and Mythology

Developed learning community course for Ethics 065 and Environmental Science

Applied new pedagogy to Ethics 065

Applied new pedagogy to Introduction to Philosophy 010

Applied new pedagogy to Critical Thinking 060

C. 3 new initiatives:

Develop pedagogy for Critical Thinking and English 1A Learning Community

Develop new pedagogy for Ethics 065, Philosophy 010 and Philosophy

Develop online access for Ethics 065, Philosophy 010 and Philosophy 060

Develop online courses for Philosophy 010 and Philosophy 60

5. State the goals and focus of this department/program and explain how the program contributes to the mission, comprehensive academic offerings, and priorities of the College and District.

The Philosophy Department fulfills EVC’s mission by emphasizing the development of student’s critical thinking skills, including an appreciation of opposing views. In addition our course present both a thematic and historical perspective of philosophy. All of our courses fulfill general education requirements that are necessary for transferring students. The Department’s courses fulfill transfer requirements to CSU, UC, and California’s private colleges and universities.

6. Identify current student demographics. If there are changes in student demo-

graphics, state how the program is addressing these changes.

Program: |EVC Philosophy | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Current Term: |2008SP | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |# of Sections: |9 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |# of Courses: |4 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |# of Labs: |0 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |STUDENT CHARACTERISTICS BY TERM - SEATCOUNT TRENDS | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Fall 2006 | |Spring 2007 | |Fall 2007 | |Spring 2008 | |% Point Change | | | | | | | | | | |# |% |# |% |# |% |# |% |FA to FA |SP to SP | | | | | | | |Total Seatcount | |449 | |355 | |441 | |417 | | | | | | | | | | |Total Headcount | |439 | |345 | |435 | |403 | | | | | | | | | | |Gender | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Female | |208 |47% |151 |44% |188 |43% |174 |43% |-4.20% |-0.60% | | | | | | | |Male | |229 |52% |193 |56% |242 |56% |225 |56% |3.50% |-0.10% | | | | | | | |Unreported | |2 |0% |1 |0% |5 |1% |4 |1% |0.70% |0.70% | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Age | |Fall 2006 | |Spring 2007 | |Fall 2007 | |Spring 2008 | |% Point Change | | | | | | | | | | |# |% |# |% |# |% |# |% |FA to FA |SP to SP | | | | | | | | | |2 |0% |3 |1% |2 |0% |0 |0% |0.00% |-0.90% | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Fall 2006 | |Spring 2007 | |Fall 2007 | |Spring 2008 | |Change | | | | | | | | | | |# |% |# |% |# |% |# |% |FA to FA |SP to SP | | | | | | | |Capacity Percentage | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |@ Census (CAP) | | |84% | |90% | |99% | |100% |14.70% |10.60% | | | | | | | |Completion Rate | | |87% | |88% | |90% | |88% |2.90% |-0.80% | | | | | | | |Awards | |0 | |0 | |0 | |0 | |0 |0 | | | | | | | |WSCH | |1,670 | |1,332 | |1,605 | |1,488 | |-65.4 |156.5 | | | | | | | |FTES | |51.4 | |40.4 | |49.3 | |45.6 | |-2.1 |5.2 | | | | | | | |FTEF | |2 | |1.8 | |2 | |1.8 | |0 |0 | | | | | | | |Productivity | |835 | |739.8 | |802.3 | |826.7 | |-32.7 |86.9 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Enrollment Status | |Fall 2006 | |Spring 2007 | |Fall 2007 | |Spring 2008 | |% Point Change | | | | | | | | | | |# |% |# |% |# |% |# |% |FA to FA |SP to SP | | | | | | | |Day | |277 |63% |203 |59% |298 |69% |240 |60% |5.40% |0.70% | | | | | | | |Day & Eve | |148 |34% |115 |33% |122 |28% |146 |36% |-5.70% |2.90% | | | | | | | |Evening | |14 |3% |27 |8% |15 |3% |17 |4% |0.30% |-3.60% | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Full-time | |263 |60% |183 |53% |244 |56% |229 |57% |-3.80% |3.80% | | | | | | | |Part-time | |176 |40% |162 |47% |191 |44% |174 |43% |3.80% |-3.80% | | | | | | | |Units Attempted | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |.5-5.5 | |22 |5% |37 |11% |28 |6% |21 |5% |1.40% |-5.50% | | | | | | | |6-8.5 | |64 |15% |48 |14% |60 |14% |56 |14% |-0.80% |0.00% | | | | | | | |9-11.5 | |90 |21% |77 |22% |103 |24% |97 |24% |3.20% |1.80% | | | | | | | |12-14.5 | |196 |45% |133 |39% |175 |40% |156 |39% |-4.40% |0.20% | | | | | | | |15-17.5 | |54 |12% |40 |12% |59 |14% |52 |13% |1.30% |1.30% | | | | | | | |18+ | |13 |3% |10 |3% |10 |2% |21 |5% |-0.70% |2.30% | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Student Seatcount, Retention, and Success (Fall 2006 and Fall 2007) | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Fall 2006 | | | | | |Fall 2007 | | | | | |FA to FA | | | | | | |Seatcount | |Retention | |Success | |Seatcount | |Retention | |Success | |Seatcount |Retention |Success | | |Ethnicity of Students | |# |% |# |% |# |% |# |% |# |% |# |% | | | | | |African American | |20 |4% |18 |90% |15 |75% |15 |3% |14 |93% |10 |67% |-1.10% |3.30% |-8.30% | | |Asian (All other) | |26 |6% |22 |85% |21 |81% |32 |7% |31 |97% |28 |88% |1.50% |12.30% |6.70% | | |Asian/Cambodian | |9 |2% |8 |89% |6 |67% |16 |4% |16 |100% |8 |50% |1.60% |11.10% |-16.70% | | |Asian/Chinese | |18 |4% |17 |94% |14 |78% |10 |2% |10 |100% |10 |100% |-1.70% |5.60% |22.20% | | |Asian/Indian | |18 |4% |17 |94% |13 |72% |18 |4% |18 |100% |18 |100% |0.10% |5.60% |27.80% | | |Asian/Vietnamese | |93 |21% |80 |86% |73 |78% |94 |21% |82 |87% |70 |74% |0.60% |1.20% |-4.00% | | |Filipino | |73 |16% |59 |81% |42 |58% |79 |18% |67 |85% |62 |78% |1.70% |4.00% |20.90% | | |Latina/o | |102 |23% |89 |87% |69 |68% |108 |24% |93 |86% |73 |68% |1.80% |-1.10% |-0.10% | | |Native American | |2 |0% |2 |100% |1 |50% |1 |0% |1 |100% |1 |100% |-0.20% |0.00% |50.00% | | |Pacific Islander | |6 |1% |4 |67% |3 |50% |5 |1% |4 |80% |3 |60% |-0.20% |13.30% |10.00% | | |White | |53 |12% |49 |92% |37 |70% |37 |8% |36 |97% |26 |70% |-3.40% |4.80% |0.50% | | |Other/Unknown | |29 |6% |27 |93% |24 |83% |26 |6% |25 |96% |21 |81% |-0.60% |3.10% |-2.00% | | |Total: | |449 |100% |392 |87% |318 |71% |441 |100% |397 |90% |330 |75% | |2.70% |4.00% | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Student Seatcount, Retention, and Success (Spring 2007 and Spring 2008) | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Spring 2007 | | | | | |Spring 2008 | | | | | |SP to SP | | | | | | |Seatcount | |Retention | |Success | |Seatcount | |Retention | |Success | |Seatcount |Retention |Success | | |Ethnicity of Students | |# |% |# |% |# |% |# |% |# |% |# |% | | | | | |African American | |15 |4% |14 |93% |8 |53% |15 |4% |12 |80% |7 |47% |-0.60% |-13.30% |-6.70% | | |Asian (All other) | |17 |5% |17 |100% |14 |82% |33 |8% |29 |88% |25 |76% |3.10% |-12.10% |-6.60% | | |Asian/Cambodian | |4 |1% |3 |75% |2 |50% |9 |2% |9 |100% |7 |78% |1.00% |25.00% |27.80% | | |Asian/Chinese | |13 |4% |10 |77% |8 |62% |9 |2% |9 |100% |7 |78% |-1.50% |23.10% |16.20% | | |Asian/Indian | |13 |4% |11 |85% |10 |77% |13 |3% |13 |100% |11 |85% |-0.50% |15.40% |7.70% | | |Asian/Vietnamese | |68 |19% |62 |91% |45 |66% |83 |20% |71 |86% |50 |60% |0.70% |-5.60% |-5.90% | | |Filipino | |69 |19% |60 |87% |43 |62% |51 |12% |39 |76% |24 |47% |-7.20% |-10.50% |-15.30% | | |Latina/o | |73 |21% |62 |85% |43 |59% |106 |25% |95 |90% |68 |64% |4.90% |4.70% |5.20% | | |Native American | |1 |0% |1 |100% |1 |100% |1 |0% |1 |100% |1 |100% |0.00% |0.00% |0.00% | | |Pacific Islander | |6 |2% |6 |100% |1 |17% |7 |2% |7 |100% |6 |86% |0.00% |0.00% |69.00% | | |White | |47 |13% |43 |91% |35 |74% |60 |14% |52 |87% |35 |58% |1.10% |-4.80% |-16.10% | | |Other/Unknown | |29 |8% |27 |93% |18 |62% |30 |7% |27 |90% |21 |70% |-1.00% |-3.10% |7.90% | | |Total: | |355 |100% |316 |89% |228 |64% |417 |100% |364 |87% |262 |63% | |-1.70% |-1.40% | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |College Persistance Rates | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Fall 2006 to Spring 2007 | | |Spring 2007 to Fall 2007 | | |Fall 2007 to Spring 2008 | | |Spring 2008 to Fall 2008 | | |% Point Change | | | | | | |Fall 2006 |Persistence | |Spring 2007 |Persistence | |Fall 2007 |Persistence | |Spring 2008 |Persistence | |FA to FA |SP to SP | | | |Ethnicity of Students | |Headcount |# |% |Headcount |# |% |Headcount |# |% |Headcount |# |% | | | | | |African American | |19 |14 |74% |15 |8 |53% |14 |9 |64% |14 |10 |71% |-9.40% |18.10% | | | |Asian (All other) | |26 |20 |77% |16 |13 |81% |31 |28 |90% |33 |28 |85% |13.40% |3.60% | | | |Asian/Cambodian | |9 |7 |78% |4 |4 |100% |16 |12 |75% |8 |7 |88% |-2.80% |-12.50% | | | |Asian/Chinese | |17 |12 |71% |12 |5 |42% |10 |10 |100% |9 |7 |78% |29.40% |36.10% | | | |Asian/Indian | |18 |17 |94% |13 |10 |77% |17 |13 |76% |12 |8 |67% |-18.00% |-10.30% | | | |Asian/Vietnamese | |89 |75 |84% |65 |42 |65% |93 |72 |77% |82 |61 |74% |-6.90% |9.80% | | | |Filipino | |73 |57 |78% |68 |43 |63% |79 |70 |89% |47 |37 |79% |10.50% |15.50% | | | |Latina/o | |100 |81 |81% |73 |47 |64% |107 |82 |77% |103 |74 |72% |-4.40% |7.50% | | | |Native American | |2 |2 |100% |1 |0 |0% |1 |1 |100% |1 |0 |0% |0.00% |0.00% | | | |Pacific Islander | |6 |5 |83% |6 |1 |17% |5 |4 |80% |7 |4 |57% |-3.30% |40.50% | | | |White | |53 |38 |72% |44 |29 |66% |36 |30 |83% |58 |33 |57% |11.60% |-9.00% | | | |Other/Unknown | |27 |21 |78% |28 |18 |64% |26 |19 |73% |29 |20 |69% |-4.70% |4.70% | | | |Total: | |439 |349 |79% |345 |220 |64% |435 |350 |80% |403 |289 |72% |1.00% |7.90% | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Grade Distribution of All (EVC Philosophy) Students | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Fall 2006 | |Spring 2007 | |Fall 2007 | |Spring 2008 | |Change | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Grade | |# |% |# |% |# |% |# |% |FA to FA |SP to SP | | | | | | | |A | |180 |46% |95 |30% |98 |25% |108 |30% |-21.20% |-0.50% | | | | | | | |B | |75 |19% |70 |22% |146 |37% |78 |21% |17.70% |-0.80% | | | | | | | |C | |63 |16% |64 |20% |86 |22% |77 |21% |5.60% |0.80% | | | | | | | |D | |10 |3% |26 |8% |20 |5% |24 |7% |2.50% |-1.60% | | | | | | | |F | |64 |16% |62 |20% |46 |12% |79 |22% |-4.70% |2.00% | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Average Grade Received by Students (Fall 2006 and Fall 2007) | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Fall 2006 | | | | | |Avg |Fall 2007 | | | | | |Avg | | | |Ethnicity |Gender |4.0/A |3.0/B |2.0/C |1.0/D |0.0/F |Total |GPA |4.0/A |3.0/B |2.0/C |1.0/D |0.0/F |Total |GPA | | | |African American |F |2 |3 |1 |0 |1 |7 |2.71 |3 |1 |0 |1 |0 |5 |3.2 | | | | |M |4 |1 |4 |0 |2 |11 |2.45 |0 |3 |3 |1 |1 |8 |2 | | | |Asian (All other) |F |6 |3 |0 |0 |0 |9 |3.67 |6 |0 |1 |1 |1 |9 |3 | | | | |M |10 |2 |0 |0 |1 |13 |3.54 |8 |10 |3 |0 |1 |22 |3.09 | | | |Asian/Cambodian |F |2 |1 |1 |1 |0 |5 |2.8 |3 |1 |2 |0 |2 |8 |2.38 | | | | |M |0 |1 |1 |1 |0 |3 |2 |1 |1 |0 |1 |5 |8 |1 | | | |Asian/Chinese |F |8 |1 |0 |0 |0 |9 |3.89 |2 |1 |0 |0 |0 |3 |3.67 | | | | |M |4 |1 |0 |0 |3 |8 |2.38 |2 |4 |1 |0 |0 |7 |3.14 | | | |Asian/Indian |F |3 |1 |0 |0 |0 |4 |3.75 |1 |3 |3 |0 |0 |7 |2.71 | | | | |M |4 |5 |0 |1 |3 |13 |2.46 |3 |4 |4 |0 |0 |11 |2.91 | | | |Asian/Vietnamese |F |27 |7 |3 |1 |0 |38 |3.58 |9 |14 |8 |2 |2 |35 |2.74 | | | | |M |18 |10 |8 |0 |6 |42 |2.81 |6 |20 |11 |5 |3 |45 |2.47 | | | |Filipino |F |9 |6 |6 |0 |6 |27 |2.44 |11 |16 |4 |0 |1 |32 |3.13 | | | | |M |10 |3 |7 |0 |11 |31 |2.03 |3 |20 |8 |2 |2 |35 |2.57 | | | |Latina/o |F |24 |10 |9 |1 |5 |49 |2.96 |14 |22 |9 |0 |7 |52 |2.69 | | | | |M |14 |6 |6 |3 |11 |40 |2.23 |6 |8 |14 |3 |9 |40 |1.98 | | | |Native American |F |1 |0 |0 |0 |0 |1 |4 |0 |1 |0 |0 |0 |1 |3 | | | | |M |0 |0 |0 |0 |1 |1 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 | | | | |Pacific Islander |F |0 |0 |1 |0 |0 |1 |2 |0 |1 |0 |0 |1 |2 |1.5 | | | | |M |0 |2 |0 |0 |1 |3 |2 |1 |0 |1 |0 |0 |2 |3 | | | |White |F |13 |4 |2 |0 |7 |26 |2.62 |4 |3 |0 |0 |2 |9 |2.78 | | | | |M |10 |4 |4 |1 |4 |23 |2.65 |7 |4 |7 |4 |3 |25 |2.32 | | | |Other/Unknown |F |4 |2 |3 |0 |0 |9 |3.11 |4 |3 |1 |0 |2 |10 |2.7 | | | | |M |5 |2 |7 |1 |2 |17 |2.41 |4 |4 |5 |0 |2 |15 |2.53 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Average Grade Received by Students (Spring 2007 and Spring 2008) | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Fall 2006 | | | | | |Avg |Fall 2007 | | | | | |Avg | | | |Ethnicity |Gender |4.0/A |3.0/B |2.0/C |1.0/D |0.0/F |Total |GPA |4.0/A |3.0/B |2.0/C |1.0/D |0.0/F |Total |GPA | | | |African American |F |4 |1 |0 |0 |1 |6 |3.17 |2 |0 |1 |0 |0 |3 |3.33 | | | | |M |2 |0 |1 |2 |3 |8 |1.5 |1 |1 |2 |0 |5 |9 |1.22 | | | |Asian (All other) |F |1 |2 |1 |0 |2 |6 |2 |6 |4 |3 |1 |0 |14 |3.07 | | | | |M |5 |2 |3 |1 |0 |11 |3 |2 |5 |4 |3 |0 |14 |2.43 | | | |Asian/Cambodian |F |1 |1 |0 |0 |0 |2 |3.5 |3 |1 |1 |1 |0 |6 |3 | | | | |M |0 |0 |0 |0 |1 |1 |0 |0 |0 |2 |0 |1 |3 |1.33 | | | |Asian/Chinese |F |3 |1 |1 |0 |1 |6 |2.83 |1 |1 |1 |0 |1 |4 |2.25 | | | | |M |0 |3 |0 |1 |0 |4 |2.5 |1 |2 |1 |0 |1 |5 |2.4 | | | |Asian/Indian |F |2 |3 |0 |0 |0 |5 |3.4 |0 |0 |0 |0 |2 |2 |0 | | | | |M |3 |2 |0 |0 |1 |6 |3 |5 |4 |1 |0 |0 |10 |3.4 | | | |Asian/Vietnamese |F |8 |3 |6 |2 |0 |19 |2.89 |15 |6 |3 |1 |6 |31 |2.74 | | | | |M |12 |7 |8 |3 |12 |42 |2.1 |9 |6 |11 |5 |9 |40 |2.03 | | | |Filipino |F |9 |4 |9 |1 |4 |27 |2.48 |8 |1 |2 |0 |3 |14 |2.79 | | | | |M |8 |6 |7 |2 |10 |33 |2 |3 |5 |5 |4 |7 |24 |1.71 | | | |Latina/o |F |10 |7 |9 |3 |4 |33 |2.48 |5 |13 |18 |2 |8 |46 |2.11 | | | | |M |2 |7 |8 |6 |6 |29 |1.76 |10 |12 |10 |3 |14 |49 |2.02 | | | |Native American |F |1 |0 |0 |0 |0 |1 |4 |1 |0 |0 |0 |0 |1 |4 | | | | |M |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 | | | | |Pacific Islander |F |0 |0 |0 |0 |2 |2 |0 |3 |0 |0 |0 |1 |4 |3 | | | | |M |0 |0 |1 |2 |1 |4 |1 |2 |0 |1 |0 |0 |3 |3.33 | | | |White |F |10 |6 |2 |0 |2 |20 |3.1 |10 |3 |6 |0 |4 |23 |2.65 | | | | |M |7 |7 |3 |2 |4 |23 |2.48 |8 |7 |1 |4 |9 |29 |2.03 | | | |Other/Unknown |F |2 |4 |3 |1 |2 |12 |2.25 |5 |6 |0 |0 |1 |12 |3.17 | | | | |M |5 |3 |1 |0 |6 |15 |2.07 |5 |1 |4 |0 |5 |15 |2.07 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Credit/No Credit Received by Students | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Fall 2006 | | | |Spring 2007 | | | |Fall 2007 | | | |Spring 2008 | | | | |Ethnicity |Gender |CR |NC |Total |% |CR |NC |Total |% |CR |NC |Total |% |CR |NC |Total |% | |African American |F |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | | | |M |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | | |Asian (All other) |F |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | | | |M |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | | |Asian/Cambodian |F |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | | | |M |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | | |Asian/Chinese |F |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | | | |M |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | | |Asian/Indian |F |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | | | |M |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | | |Asian/Vietnamese |F |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | | | |M |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | | |Filipino |F |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | | | |M |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | | |Latina/o |F |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | | | |M |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | | |Native American |F |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | | | |M |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | | |Pacific Islander |F |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | | | |M |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | | |White |F |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | | | |M |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | | |Other/Unknown |F |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | | | |M |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Faculty Demographics | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Ethnicity | |Fall 2006 |Spring 2007 |Fall 2007 |Spring 2008 | | | | | | | | | | | | | |African American | |0 |0 |0 |0 | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Asian (All other) | |0 |0 |0 |0 | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Asian/Cambodian | |0 |0 |0 |0 | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Asian/Chinese | |0 |0 |0 |0 | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Asian/Indian | |0 |0 |0 |0 | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Asian/Vietnamese | |2 |1 |1 |0 | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Filipino | |0 |0 |0 |0 | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Latina/o | |0 |0 |0 |0 | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Native American | |0 |0 |0 |0 | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Other/Unknown | |0 |0 |0 |0 | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Pacific Islander | |0 |0 |0 |0 | | | | | | | | | | | | | |White | |3 |2 |3 |3 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Faculty Part-time/Full-Time | |Fall 2006 |Spring 2007 |Fall 2007 |Spring 2008 | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Female - Full-time | |0 |0 |0 |0 | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Female - Part-time | |1 |1 |2 |1 | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Male - Full-time | |1 |1 |1 |1 | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Male - Part-time | |3 |1 |1 |1 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Days of Week Classes Offered | |Fall 2006 | |Spring 2007 | |Fall 2007 | |Spring 2008 | |% Point Change | | | | | | | | | | |# |% |# |% |# |% |# |% |FA to FA |SP to SP | | | | | | | |MW | |6 |60% |4 |44% |6 |60% |4 |44% |0.00% |0.00% | | | | | | | |TTh | |3 |30% |3 |33% |3 |30% |3 |33% |0.00% |0.00% | | | | | | | |T | | | |1 |11% | | |1 |11% |0.00% |0.00% | | | | | | | |W | | | |1 |11% | | |1 |11% |0.00% |0.00% | | | | | | | |Th | |1 |10% | | |1 |10% | | |0.00% |0.00% | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

2008-2010

Program: |EVC Philosophy | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Current Term: |2010SP | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |# of Sections: |9 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |# of Courses: |4 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |# of Labs: |0 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |STUDENT CHARACTERISTICS BY TERM - SEATCOUNT TRENDS | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Fall 2008 | |Spring 2009 | |Fall 2009 | |Spring 2010 | |% Point Change | | | | | | | | | | |# |% |# |% |# |% |# |% |FA to FA |SP to SP | | | | | | | |Total Seatcount | |518 | |359 | |466 | |498 | | | | | | | | | | |Total Headcount | |505 | |352 | |459 | |489 | | | | | | | | | | |Gender | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Female | |217 |43% |152 |43% |211 |46% |222 |45% |3.00% |2.20% | | | | | | | |Male | |288 |57% |200 |57% |248 |54% |267 |55% |-3.00% |-2.20% | | | | | | | |Unreported | |0 |0% |0 |0% |0 |0% |0 |0% |0.00% |0.00% | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Age | |Fall 2008 | |Spring 2009 | |Fall 2009 | |Spring 2010 | |% Point Change | | | | | | | | | | |# |% |# |% |# |% |# |% |FA to FA |SP to SP | | | | | | | | | |0 |0% |1 |0% |3 |1% |1 |0% |0.70% |-0.10% | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Fall 2008 | |Spring 2009 | |Fall 2009 | |Spring 2010 | |Change | | | | | | | | | | |# |% |# |% |# |% |# |% |FA to FA |SP to SP | | | | | | | |Capacity Percentage | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |@ Census (CAP) | | |114% | |109% | |101% | |117% |-13.10% |8.50% | | | | | | | |Completion Rate | | |87% | |93% | |93% | |91% |6.10% |-2.40% | | | | | | | |Awards | |0 | |0 | |0 | |0 | |0 |0 | | | | | | | |WSCH | |1,844 | |1,258 | |1,629 | |1,742 | |-214.7 |483.6 | | | | | | | |FTES | |56.6 | |38.5 | |50 | |53.3 | |-6.6 |14.8 | | | | | | | |FTEF | |2 | |1.4 | |2 | |1.8 | |0 |0.4 | | | | | | | |Productivity | |921.8 | |898.5 | |814.4 | |967.5 | |-107.4 |69 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Enrollment Status | |Fall 2008 | |Spring 2009 | |Fall 2009 | |Spring 2010 | |% Point Change | | | | | | | | | | |# |% |# |% |# |% |# |% |FA to FA |SP to SP | | | | | | | |Day | |310 |61% |206 |59% |245 |53% |238 |49% |-8.00% |-9.90% | | | | | | | |Day & Eve | |178 |35% |130 |37% |176 |38% |213 |44% |3.10% |6.60% | | | | | | | |Evening | |17 |3% |16 |5% |38 |8% |38 |8% |4.90% |3.20% | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Full-time | |300 |59% |194 |55% |267 |58% |264 |54% |-1.20% |-1.10% | | | | | | | |Part-time | |205 |41% |158 |45% |192 |42% |225 |46% |1.20% |1.10% | | | | | | | |Units Attempted | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |.5-5.5 | |18 |4% |11 |3% |36 |8% |33 |7% |4.30% |3.60% | | | | | | | |6-8.5 | |77 |15% |55 |16% |60 |13% |79 |16% |-2.20% |0.50% | | | | | | | |9-11.5 | |110 |22% |92 |26% |96 |21% |113 |23% |-0.90% |-3.00% | | | | | | | |12-14.5 | |223 |44% |147 |42% |193 |42% |189 |39% |-2.10% |-3.10% | | | | | | | |15-17.5 | |64 |13% |38 |11% |64 |14% |61 |12% |1.30% |1.70% | | | | | | | |18+ | |13 |3% |9 |3% |10 |2% |14 |3% |-0.40% |0.30% | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Student Seatcount, Retention, and Success (Fall 2008 and Fall 2009) | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Fall 2008 | | | | | |Fall 2009 | | | | | |FA to FA | | | | | | |Seatcount | |Retention | |Success | |Seatcount | |Retention | |Success | |Seatcount |Retention |Success | | |Ethnicity of Students | |# |% |# |% |# |% |# |% |# |% |# |% | | | | | |African American | |20 |4% |19 |95% |13 |65% |15 |3% |15 |100% |10 |67% |-0.60% |5.00% |1.70% | | |Asian (All other) | |42 |8% |37 |88% |31 |74% |25 |5% |23 |92% |19 |76% |-2.70% |3.90% |2.20% | | |Asian/Cambodian | |10 |2% |8 |80% |4 |40% |6 |1% |5 |83% |3 |50% |-0.60% |3.30% |10.00% | | |Asian/Chinese | |15 |3% |14 |93% |10 |67% |10 |2% |9 |90% |7 |70% |-0.70% |-3.30% |3.30% | | |Asian/Indian | |11 |2% |10 |91% |9 |82% |20 |4% |19 |95% |16 |80% |2.20% |4.10% |-1.80% | | |Asian/Vietnamese | |117 |23% |103 |88% |83 |71% |77 |17% |69 |90% |58 |75% |-6.10% |1.60% |4.40% | | |Filipino | |65 |13% |52 |80% |38 |58% |55 |12% |52 |95% |38 |69% |-0.70% |14.50% |10.60% | | |Latina/o | |144 |28% |122 |85% |82 |57% |126 |27% |119 |94% |93 |74% |-0.80% |9.70% |16.90% | | |Native American | |6 |1% |6 |100% |5 |83% |6 |1% |6 |100% |3 |50% |0.10% |0.00% |-33.30% | | |Pacific Islander | |10 |2% |10 |100% |10 |100% |2 |0% |2 |100% |2 |100% |-1.50% |0.00% |0.00% | | |White | |52 |10% |47 |90% |41 |79% |46 |10% |41 |89% |31 |67% |-0.20% |-1.30% |-11.50% | | |Other/Unknown | |26 |5% |23 |88% |17 |65% |78 |17% |76 |97% |51 |65% |11.70% |9.00% |0.00% | | |Total: | |518 |100% |451 |87% |343 |66% |466 |100% |436 |94% |331 |71% | |6.50% |4.80% | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Student Seatcount, Retention, and Success (Spring 2009 and Spring 2010) | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Spring 2009 | | | | | |Spring 2010 | | | | | |SP to SP | | | | | | |Seatcount | |Retention | |Success | |Seatcount | |Retention | |Success | |Seatcount |Retention |Success | | |Ethnicity of Students | |# |% |# |% |# |% |# |% |# |% |# |% | | | | | |African American | |15 |4% |14 |93% |7 |47% |21 |4% |20 |95% |9 |43% |0.00% |1.90% |-3.80% | | |Asian (All other) | |27 |8% |26 |96% |17 |63% |33 |7% |30 |91% |25 |76% |-0.90% |-5.40% |12.80% | | |Asian/Cambodian | |8 |2% |8 |100% |6 |75% |17 |3% |17 |100% |13 |76% |1.20% |0.00% |1.50% | | |Asian/Chinese | |8 |2% |8 |100% |5 |63% |14 |3% |12 |86% |10 |71% |0.60% |-14.30% |8.90% | | |Asian/Indian | |8 |2% |8 |100% |7 |88% |13 |3% |12 |92% |11 |85% |0.40% |-7.70% |-2.90% | | |Asian/Vietnamese | |65 |18% |58 |89% |48 |74% |70 |14% |64 |91% |48 |69% |-4.00% |2.20% |-5.30% | | |Filipino | |49 |14% |46 |94% |34 |69% |49 |10% |43 |88% |24 |49% |-3.80% |-6.10% |-20.40% | | |Latina/o | |104 |29% |98 |94% |56 |54% |141 |28% |125 |89% |73 |52% |-0.70% |-5.60% |-2.10% | | |Native American | |1 |0% |1 |100% |1 |100% |4 |1% |4 |100% |1 |25% |0.50% |0.00% |-75.00% | | |Pacific Islander | |5 |1% |5 |100% |5 |100% |1 |0% |1 |100% |1 |100% |-1.20% |0.00% |0.00% | | |White | |43 |12% |40 |93% |30 |70% |44 |9% |42 |95% |34 |77% |-3.10% |2.40% |7.50% | | |Other/Unknown | |26 |7% |23 |88% |21 |81% |91 |18% |83 |91% |52 |57% |11.00% |2.70% |-23.60% | | |Total: | |359 |100% |335 |93% |237 |66% |498 |100% |453 |91% |301 |60% | |-2.40% |-5.60% | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |College Persistance Rates | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Fall 2008 to Spring 2009 | | |Spring 2009 to Fall 2009 | | |Fall 2009 to Spring 2010 | | |Spring 2010 to Fall 2010 | | |% Point Change | | | | | | |Fall 2008 |Persistence | |Spring 2009 |Persistence | |Fall 2009 |Persistence | |Spring 2010 |Persistence | |FA to FA |SP to SP | | | |Ethnicity of Students | |Headcount |# |% |Headcount |# |% |Headcount |# |% |Headcount |# |% | | | | | |African American | |19 |12 |63% |15 |10 |67% |15 |12 |80% |18 |8 |44% |16.80% |-22.20% | | | |Asian (All other) | |42 |29 |69% |26 |21 |81% |25 |22 |88% |32 |24 |75% |19.00% |-5.80% | | | |Asian/Cambodian | |10 |9 |90% |6 |5 |83% |6 |6 |100% |17 |12 |71% |10.00% |-12.70% | | | |Asian/Chinese | |14 |13 |93% |8 |6 |75% |10 |8 |80% |13 |8 |62% |-12.90% |-13.50% | | | |Asian/Indian | |11 |9 |82% |8 |6 |75% |20 |18 |90% |12 |8 |67% |8.20% |-8.30% | | | |Asian/Vietnamese | |113 |89 |79% |62 |48 |77% |73 |60 |82% |70 |46 |66% |3.40% |-11.70% | | | |Filipino | |62 |51 |82% |49 |35 |71% |55 |44 |80% |49 |28 |57% |-2.30% |-14.30% | | | |Latina/o | |142 |110 |77% |103 |69 |67% |124 |104 |84% |140 |99 |71% |6.40% |3.70% | | | |Native American | |6 |4 |67% |1 |1 |100% |6 |4 |67% |4 |2 |50% |0.00% |-50.00% | | | |Pacific Islander | |10 |8 |80% |5 |2 |40% |2 |2 |100% |1 |1 |100% |20.00% |60.00% | | | |White | |50 |40 |80% |43 |33 |77% |46 |36 |78% |44 |25 |57% |-1.70% |-19.90% | | | |Other/Unknown | |26 |20 |77% |26 |21 |81% |77 |58 |75% |89 |55 |62% |-1.60% |-19.00% | | | |Total: | |505 |394 |78% |352 |257 |73% |459 |374 |81% |489 |316 |65% |3.50% |-8.40% | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Grade Distribution of All (EVC Philosophy) Students | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Fall 2008 | |Spring 2009 | |Fall 2009 | |Spring 2010 | |Change | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Grade | |# |% |# |% |# |% |# |% |FA to FA |SP to SP | | | | | | | |A | |127 |28% |100 |30% |137 |31% |129 |28% |3.30% |-1.40% | | | | | | | |B | |120 |27% |70 |21% |109 |25% |84 |19% |-1.60% |-2.40% | | | | | | | |C | |97 |21% |67 |20% |86 |20% |89 |20% |-1.80% |-0.40% | | | | | | | |D | |47 |10% |30 |9% |30 |7% |45 |10% |-3.50% |1.00% | | | | | | | |F | |61 |13% |68 |20% |75 |17% |107 |24% |3.70% |3.30% | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Average Grade Received by Students (Fall 2008 and Fall 2009) | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Fall 2008 | | | | | |Avg |Fall 2009 | | | | | |Avg | | | |Ethnicity |Gender |4.0/A |3.0/B |2.0/C |1.0/D |0.0/F |Total |GPA |4.0/A |3.0/B |2.0/C |1.0/D |0.0/F |Total |GPA | | | |African American |F |3 |3 |2 |1 |1 |10 |2.6 |4 |0 |0 |0 |2 |6 |2.67 | | | | |M |1 |1 |3 |3 |1 |9 |1.78 |2 |3 |1 |2 |1 |9 |2.33 | | | |Asian (All other) |F |7 |0 |3 |1 |1 |12 |2.92 |7 |3 |1 |2 |0 |13 |3.15 | | | | |M |8 |8 |5 |1 |3 |25 |2.68 |3 |3 |2 |0 |2 |10 |2.5 | | | |Asian/Cambodian |F |0 |1 |1 |1 |0 |3 |2 |2 |0 |0 |0 |1 |3 |2.67 | | | | |M |0 |2 |0 |3 |0 |5 |1.8 |1 |0 |0 |0 |1 |2 |2 | | | |Asian/Chinese |F |4 |0 |0 |1 |0 |5 |3.4 |1 |0 |2 |0 |1 |4 |2 | | | | |M |2 |3 |1 |1 |2 |9 |2.22 |2 |1 |1 |0 |1 |5 |2.6 | | | |Asian/Indian |F |1 |5 |1 |1 |0 |8 |2.75 |3 |4 |1 |0 |1 |9 |2.89 | | | | |M |2 |0 |0 |0 |0 |2 |4 |2 |6 |0 |1 |1 |10 |2.7 | | | |Asian/Vietnamese |F |9 |10 |10 |2 |4 |35 |2.51 |9 |12 |7 |0 |4 |32 |2.69 | | | | |M |15 |22 |17 |6 |8 |68 |2.44 |12 |11 |7 |3 |4 |37 |2.65 | | | |Filipino |F |5 |6 |3 |1 |2 |17 |2.65 |5 |4 |3 |3 |4 |19 |2.16 | | | | |M |6 |10 |8 |9 |2 |35 |2.26 |11 |6 |9 |4 |3 |33 |2.55 | | | |Latina/o |F |14 |19 |12 |7 |11 |63 |2.29 |17 |14 |16 |3 |6 |56 |2.59 | | | | |M |16 |9 |12 |3 |19 |59 |2 |15 |17 |14 |1 |16 |63 |2.22 | | | |Native American |F |1 |3 |1 |0 |0 |5 |3 |0 |1 |0 |0 |0 |1 |3 | | | | |M |0 |0 |0 |1 |0 |1 |1 |0 |1 |1 |1 |2 |5 |1.2 | | | |Pacific Islander |F |1 |0 |4 |0 |0 |5 |2.4 |0 |0 |2 |0 |0 |2 |2 | | | | |M |1 |2 |2 |0 |0 |5 |2.8 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 | | | | |White |F |8 |5 |3 |1 |0 |17 |3.18 |10 |5 |0 |0 |3 |18 |3.06 | | | | |M |13 |6 |6 |2 |3 |30 |2.8 |6 |6 |4 |3 |4 |23 |2.3 | | | |Other/Unknown |F |5 |3 |2 |2 |1 |13 |2.69 |16 |7 |3 |5 |8 |39 |2.46 | | | | |M |5 |1 |1 |0 |3 |10 |2.5 |9 |5 |11 |2 |10 |37 |2.03 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Average Grade Received by Students (Spring 2009 and Spring 2010) | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Fall 2008 | | | | | |Avg |Fall 2009 | | | | | |Avg | | | |Ethnicity |Gender |4.0/A |3.0/B |2.0/C |1.0/D |0.0/F |Total |GPA |4.0/A |3.0/B |2.0/C |1.0/D |0.0/F |Total |GPA | | | |African American |F |3 |0 |0 |0 |2 |5 |2.4 |3 |1 |0 |0 |6 |10 |1.5 | | | | |M |1 |1 |2 |0 |5 |9 |1.22 |4 |1 |0 |2 |3 |10 |2.1 | | | |Asian (All other) |F |3 |0 |3 |3 |3 |12 |1.75 |4 |2 |3 |2 |1 |12 |2.5 | | | | |M |3 |3 |5 |2 |1 |14 |2.36 |7 |4 |5 |0 |2 |18 |2.78 | | | |Asian/Cambodian |F |1 |0 |0 |0 |0 |1 |4 |1 |3 |0 |1 |1 |6 |2.33 | | | | |M |4 |0 |1 |2 |0 |7 |2.86 |1 |2 |6 |0 |2 |11 |2 | | | |Asian/Chinese |F |1 |1 |0 |1 |2 |5 |1.6 |2 |0 |3 |1 |0 |6 |2.5 | | | | |M |1 |2 |0 |0 |0 |3 |3.33 |1 |2 |2 |1 |0 |6 |2.5 | | | |Asian/Indian |F |1 |2 |1 |0 |1 |5 |2.4 |1 |1 |3 |0 |0 |5 |2.6 | | | | |M |2 |1 |0 |0 |0 |3 |3.67 |3 |2 |1 |0 |1 |7 |2.86 | | | |Asian/Vietnamese |F |10 |4 |3 |0 |3 |20 |2.9 |13 |6 |6 |4 |4 |33 |2.61 | | | | |M |10 |10 |11 |1 |6 |38 |2.45 |10 |5 |8 |3 |5 |31 |2.39 | | | |Filipino |F |5 |5 |5 |2 |6 |23 |2.04 |4 |2 |3 |3 |6 |18 |1.72 | | | | |M |7 |4 |8 |2 |2 |23 |2.52 |11 |1 |3 |5 |5 |25 |2.32 | | | |Latina/o |F |16 |6 |10 |5 |8 |45 |2.38 |13 |12 |12 |9 |16 |62 |1.95 | | | | |M |10 |6 |8 |9 |20 |53 |1.57 |13 |11 |12 |4 |23 |63 |1.79 | | | |Native American |F |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 | |1 |0 |0 |1 |0 |2 |2.5 | | | | |M |0 |0 |1 |0 |0 |1 |2 |0 |0 |0 |1 |1 |2 |0.5 | | | |Pacific Islander |F |1 |0 |0 |0 |0 |1 |4 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 | | | | | |M |1 |2 |1 |0 |0 |4 |3 |0 |0 |1 |0 |0 |1 |2 | | | |White |F |4 |4 |4 |1 |4 |17 |2.18 |10 |2 |2 |2 |0 |16 |3.25 | | | | |M |8 |7 |3 |1 |4 |23 |2.61 |9 |7 |4 |0 |6 |26 |2.5 | | | |Other/Unknown |F |3 |5 |0 |1 |0 |9 |3.11 |9 |9 |8 |4 |7 |37 |2.24 | | | | |M |5 |7 |1 |0 |1 |14 |3.07 |8 |11 |7 |2 |18 |46 |1.76 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Credit/No Credit Received by Students | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Fall 2008 | | | |Spring 2009 | | | |Fall 2009 | | | |Spring 2010 | | | | |Ethnicity |Gender |CR |NC |Total |% |CR |NC |Total |% |CR |NC |Total |% |CR |NC |Total |% | |African American |F |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | | | |M |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | | |Asian (All other) |F |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | | | |M |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | | |Asian/Cambodian |F |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | | | |M |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | | |Asian/Chinese |F |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | | | |M |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | | |Asian/Indian |F |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | | | |M |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | | |Asian/Vietnamese |F |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | | | |M |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | | |Filipino |F |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | | | |M |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | | |Latina/o |F |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | | | |M |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | | |Native American |F |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | | | |M |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | | |Pacific Islander |F |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | | | |M |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | | |White |F |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | | | |M |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | | |Other/Unknown |F |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | | | |M |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | |0 |0 |0 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Faculty Demographics | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Ethnicity | |Fall 2008 |Spring 2009 |Fall 2009 |Spring 2010 | | | | | | | | | | | | | |African American | |0 |0 |0 |0 | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Asian (All other) | |0 |0 |0 |0 | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Asian/Cambodian | |0 |0 |0 |0 | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Asian/Chinese | |0 |0 |0 |0 | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Asian/Indian | |0 |0 |0 |0 | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Asian/Vietnamese | |0 |0 |0 |0 | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Filipino | |0 |0 |0 |0 | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Latina/o | |0 |0 |0 |0 | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Native American | |0 |0 |0 |0 | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Other/Unknown | |0 |0 |0 |0 | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Pacific Islander | |0 |0 |0 |0 | | | | | | | | | | | | | |White | |3 |3 |3 |2 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Faculty Part-time/Full-Time | |Fall 2008 |Spring 2009 |Fall 2009 |Spring 2010 | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Female - Full-time | |0 |0 |0 |0 | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Female - Part-time | |1 |1 |1 |0 | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Male - Full-time | |1 |1 |1 |1 | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Male - Part-time | |1 |1 |1 |1 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Days of Week Classes Offered | |Fall 2008 | |Spring 2009 | |Fall 2009 | |Spring 2010 | |% Point Change | | | | | | | | | | |# |% |# |% |# |% |# |% |FA to FA |SP to SP | | | | | | | |MW | |6 |60% |3 |43% |6 |60% |4 |44% |0.00% |1.60% | | | | | | | |TTh | |3 |30% |3 |43% |3 |30% |3 |33% |0.00% |-9.50% | | | | | | | |T | | | |1 |14% | | |1 |11% |0.00% |-3.20% | | | | | | | |Th | |1 |10% | | |1 |10% | | |0.00% |0.00% | | | | | | | |W | | | | | | | |1 |11% |0.00% |11.10% | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

7. Identify enrollment patterns of the department/program in the last 6 years and

analyze the pattern.

Philosophy 10 has been successfully offering 4 sections each semester since Fall 2006.

Philosophy 60 has been successfully offering 4 sections each semester since Fall 2006.

Philosophy 65 has been successfully offering 1 section per year in the Fall of 2006 since the Fall of 2006.

Philosophy 70 has been successfully offering 1 section per year in the Spring since the Fall of 2006.

Retention rates are identified in the chart below.

|F05 |S06 |F06 |S07 |F07 |S09 |F09 |S010 |F010 |S11 | |Phil 60 |N/A |N/A |N/A |N/A |N/A |91% |95% |90% |87% |92% | |Phil 10 |N/A |N/A |N/A |N/A |N/A |95% |93% |92% |95% |88% | |Phil 65 |N/A |N/A |N/A |N/A |N/A |96% |91% |89% |91% |93% | |Phil 70 |N/A |N/A |N/A |N/A |N/A |N/ A |N/A |93% |N/A |94% | |

8. Identify department/program productivity.

Statistics for the productivity of Philosophy courses are derived from the Fall 2006 semester through the Spring 2010 semester, not including Summer or Intersession.

Philosophy 60 meets the requirement for Critical Thinking in G.E. Philosophy 10, 60, 65 and 70 each count toward fulfilling the 9 unit G.E. distribution.

The following chart provides the WSCH/FTEF averages for each semester for these four courses.

| | | | |S09 |F09 |S10 |F10 |S11 | |Phil 010 |N/A |N/A |N/A |N/A |861.2 |875.5 |1006.2 |973.3 |950.3 | |Phil 060 |N/A |N/A |N/A |N/A |952.0 |931.7 |977.5 |780.0 |879.8 | |Phil 065 |N/A |N/A |N/A |N/A |850.0 |765.0 |799.0 |969.0 |748.0 | |

Phil 070 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 980.0 N/A 825.0

The average WSCH/FTEF for all semesters for Philosophy 010 is 933.3

The average WSCH/FTEF for all semesters for Philosophy 060 is 904.2

The average WSCH/FTEF for all semesters for Philosophy 065 is 826.2

The average WSCH/FTEF for all semesters for Philosophy 070 is 902.5

This department produces extraordinary WSCH/FTEF for the college. Only a few single-section classes have fallen below the target 800 mark. Overall, the college benefits from the productive, highly enrolled History courses offered.

9. Identify student success rate and patterns within the department/program paying

particular attention to our college’s target groups.

The following chart shows success rates for each course by semester.

| | | | | |S09 |F09 |S10 |F10 |S11 | |010 | | | | | |65% |64% |60% |67% |69% | |060 | | | | | |73% |82% |63% |80% |80% | |065 | | | | | |46% |73% |55% |67% |67% | |070 | | | | | | | |55% | |67% | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

Generally, the retention rates for all Philosophy courses are in the 90% range. Success rates for most Philosophy courses are in the 60% range. This indicates many students who remain in the class, but do not pass the class. It is the experience of the faculty members that these students generally do not possess enough English skills (writing and listening) to be able to pass the examinations, and therefore constitute the bulk of the disparity between the retention rate and the success rate.

10. If the program utilizes advisory boards and/or professional organizations, describe their roles.

Although the department actively engages with other groups, colleagues, and community members, we do not currently utilize advisory boards.

PART B: Curriculum

1. Identify all courses offered in the program and describe how the courses offered in the program meet the needs of the students and the relevant discipline(s).

These are the Philosophy courses offered at EVC:

Philosophy 10 Introduction to Philosophy CSU GE: C2 District GE: C2 IGETC: 3B, Transfer Status CSU/UC Degree Applicable: AA/AS

Philosophy 60 Logic/Reasoning (Critical Thinking CSU GE: A3 District GE: A3 IGETC: None, Tansfer Status CSU/UC Degree applicable: AA/AS

Philosophy 65 Introduction to Ethics CSU GE: C2 District GE: C2 IGETC: 3B, Transfer Status: CSU/UC Degree Applicable: AA/AS

Philosophy 70 Religion: The Live Hypothesis CSU GE: C2 District GE: C2 IGETC: 3B, Transfer Status: CSU/UC Degree Applicable: AA/AS

2. State how the program has remained current in the discipline(s).

Those figures regarded to be significant in the discipline of Philosophy do not change much over time. However their interpretation does. Because of this, the philosophy department is committed to ensuring that all courses reflect the latest scholarly work in the appropriate fields of study pertinent to that course. In addition, the department will always be open to more effective pedagogy. The department has broadened it’s content to reflect multiculturalism and diversity.

3. All course outlines in this program should be reviewed and, if appropriate, revised every six years. If this has not occurred, please list the courses and present a plan for completing the process. (curriculum recency)

Philosophy 10 will be updated in the Spring of 2012. Philosophy 60 will be updated in the Fall of that same year. Philosophy 65 will be updated Spring 2013. Philosophy 70 was updated Spring 2010.

4. Identify and describe innovative pedagogy your department/program developed/offered to maximize sudent learning and success. How did they impact student learning and success?

The Philosophy Department is in the process of changing all course structures from survey to thematic. Rather than focus on chronology, courses will focus on fundamental philosophical problems such as free will, metaphysics, relativism (both ethical and ontological), artificial intelligence, political philosophy and the problem of evil. Essay and paper writing will count for more in student assessment. In addition lecture will be significantly reduced. Learning will be based more on group discussion and be contextualized through the use of contemporary movies. Students are finding the courses more engaging and relevant. As a result it is expected that learning outcomes will improve.

5. Discuss plans for future curricular development and/or program (degrees & certificates included) modification. Use the Curriculum Mapping form to lay out your plan.

Develop online accessibility for all courses.

Develop online versions of Philosophy 10 and 60 by Spring 2013

6. Describe how your program is articulated with the High School Districts, CCOC (if

applicable), and/or other four year institutions. (Include articulation agreements, common course numbering etc.)

All Philosophy courses are transfer-level baccalaureate courses that have been articulated for CSU GE. Philosophy 60 meets the Critical Thinking requirement for admission to CSU. Philosophy 10, Philosophy 60, Philosophy 65 and Philosophy 70 are transferable to CSU/UC.

7. If external accreditation or certification is required, please state the certifying agency and status of the program.

There is no external accreditation for the program.

PART C: Student Outcomes

On the course level, list all the courses that have current student learning outcomes (included in the course outline) and provide link to the course outlines for review purpose. Provide a plan and timeline to include student outcomes for the courses that do not have one.

See Part B., Item 1. All Philosophy courses possess student learning outcomes.

1. On the program level, list all programs (and degrees) that have current student

learning outcomes and provide the culture of evidence.

There is no Philosophy degree or certificate at this time.

2. List or describe all assessment mechanisms you are using to evaluate SLOs. Provide results of analysis.

Courses will measure SLOs in three ways.

First, critical thinking will be measured. Standardized questions similar to those on the Graduate Record Exam will be included in the midterm and final exam. The questions will measure the student’s ability to understand the logical relationships and implications between philosophical concepts and problems that exist within course content. Answering these questions will require that the student think critically about philosophic concepts and problems. Student performance on these standardized questions will be tracked from year to year. This will begin fall 2012.

Second, students will have to write essays demonstrating their ability to synthesize and categorize the relationship between philosophic ideas or arguments. The student will be asked to identify and explain areas of agreement and disagreement between philosophical positions. A rubric will be developed to quantify this. Results will be compared from year to year. This will begin fall 2012.

Third, student success will be measured and compared from year to year. This will be measured by grades. While an imperfect indicator of SLOs, when combined with SLOs one and two, it will be useful. This analysis will begin in the fall of 2012. No analysis is yet available.

PART D: Faculty and Staff

1. List current faculty and staff members in the program, areas of expertise, and how positions contribute to the program success.

FULL TIME INSTRUCTORS:

Kelley J. Wells

received his B.A. in English Literature from Drury University, M.Div. from Starr King School for the Ministry, M.A. (R) philosophy, St. Louis University, PhD philosophy, St. Louis University.

Area of Expertise: Dr. Wells teaches philosophy with an emphasis on the relationship between epistemological, ethical and metaphysical issues. He has adopted a thematic approach, giving immediacy and relevance to philosophy. Students appreciate how the thinking of the great minds of the past can inform their own thinking. Some of the themes or “philosophical problems” include ‘what is real,’ ‘free will,’ ‘artificial intelligence’ and ‘the problem of evil.’ Dr. Wells uses current movies on DVD to dramatize the themes. Dr. Wells’ academic Area of Specialization is American Pragmatism with an Area of Concentration in the History of Philosophy.

How My Position Contributes to Program Success: Dr. Wells has taught philosophy fulltime for the last 17 years, 2 years at Horry Georgetown Technical College, Myrtle Beach, SC, and 15 at Evergreen Valley College. Professor Wells believes that philosophy can be learned by anyone and is important to everyone. Today’s students learn socially. He has incorporated this fact into his pedagogical approach. Group learning is emphasized at every point of the learning process. Students do group exercises, exams and he uses student groups to critique each other’s papers. He uses Moodle extensively, making his notes and topic summaries available. He also regularly emails his students, informing them available material and upcoming events. He has taught classes in Introduction to Philosophy, Ethics, Critical Thinking and Religion. Before becoming a teacher he served as a Unitarian-Universalist parish minister, V.P. of marketing and sales and owner of a small pizza oven manufacturer. He also developed and patented a gas fired, infrared conveyorized pizza oven.

Professional Development in the Past Six Years: Professor Wells was awarded a Carnegie Fellowship in the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. The award is based on the candidates’ proficiency in teaching as well as his contribution to the scholarship in the discipline. He has attended numerous workshops and conferences on the application of technology in pedagogy. He attended a conference in Salzburg, Austria on “the world is flat,” the need for international exposure in community college education. He has published a paper on learning theory in a peer-reviewed journal. Dr. Wells has written two textbooks on ‘Critical Thinking.’ He has served the college as president of the academic senate, president of the faculty association, numerous screening, tenure review and shared governance committees. Currently he is a member of the academic senate and Professional Recognition Committee. He was acknowledged as “Teacher of the Year,” twice.

PART TIME INSTRUCTORS:

Sterling Harwood: Phi Beta Kappa 1979, B.A. in Philosophy, with General Honors and High Honors in Philosophy, University of Maryland 1980; J.D., Cornell Law School 1983; M.A. in Philosophy, Cornell University 1986; Ph.D. in Philosophy, Cornell University 1992. See, .

Areas of Expertise: Legal, Moral & Political Philosophy

How Professor Harwood’s Position Contributes to Program Success: Professor Harwood comes to the Philosophy Department with extensive teaching experience since 1982. He has taught in the San Jose/Evergreen Community College District since 1995. He started teaching at EVC in 2001 and achieved SRP status as an adjunct faculty member a few years later. He is also a law professor at Lincoln Law School in San Jose. He has also taught at Cornell University, Cornell Law School, San Jose State University (Assistant Professor, Philosophy Dept. 1989-1996; Adjunct Lecturer, Communication Studies Dept. 2008), Chabot College, Gavilan College, West Valley Community College, Illinois State University and University of Phoenix (1998-2004). Professor Harwood has edited or co-edited three textbooks: 1) co-edited with Michael J. Gorr of Illinois State University, Crime and Punishment: Philosophic Explorations (Wadsworth Publishing Co., 2000); 2) co-edited with Michael J. Gorr of Illinois State University, Controversies in Criminal Law (Westview Press, 1992); and 3) Business as Ethical and Business as Usual (Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1996). Professor Harwood regularly assigns textbook 3) above as a required textbook for his courses, all of which have major components on ethics. Professor Harwood brings to his teaching more than 13 years of practical experience in the practice of law in the State of California, allowing him to give real, practical examples to illustrate, more specifically, philosophical abstractions, general principles and theories. His practical experience also includes serving as the campaign manager for a Congressional candidate, Dick Lane, Ph.D., successfully managing two campaigns (1996 and 1998) which won the Democratic nomination for U.S. Congress in the 15th Congressional District of California.

Professional Development in the Past Six Years: Professor Harwood joined Lincoln Law School within the past six years as a law professor. Professor Harwood has spent all of the past six years practicing law in California (State Bar License #194746; see calbar. ). His practice currently serves more than 30 clients, which is a fairly typical level of service for the past six years. His law practice has grown over the past six years to include the following areas of law: 1) criminal law; 2) bankruptcy law in the federal courts; 3) debtor/creditor law and collections in the state courts; 4) family law; 5) real estate law; 6) contracts. Professor Harwood’s professional development includes Mandatory Continuing Legal Education for the past six years, including attending the Consumer Attorney’s Association of Los Angeles annual convention in Las Vegas, NV. Professor Harwood’s most recent presentations in philosophy in the last six years were: 1) a presentation on the philosophy of David Lyons at Boston University School of Law in 2010, 2) a presentation on immigration at San Jose City College broadcast on San Jose City College’s radio station; 3) a presentation with Dr. Gerald Grudzen of San Jose City College on the clash of civilizations and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Professor Harwood also received a contract to publish a new, updated edition of his book Judicial Activism: A Restrained Defense with University Press of America. In 2011, Professor Harwood worked again for San Jose State University as a paid researcher in the Communications Studies Dept. to help Professor Marquita Byrd work with some of her book projects.

Bhawana Kamil – B.S. in Chemistry, University of California, Berkeley, M.A. in Philosophy, San Jose State University

Area of Expertise: Ethics, Logic, Philosophical History of Race/Ethnicity, History of Philosophy

How My Position Contributes to Program Success: Professor Kamil has incredible passion for teaching and affecting the outlook of students. She has taught at San Jose State University and Menlo College in addition to Evergreen, reaching diverse groups of students. In all instances, she looks for ways to make class materials relevant to the lives of the students. Her goal is to ensure that students finish the class having gained knowledge about the field of philosophy, but more importantly the critical thinking skills required to ask the right questions and find the appropriate answers.

Professional Development in the Past Six Years: Professor Kamil has not been able to attend professional conferences, but continues to take advantage of campus resources. She ensures that the students in her classes are connected to the student services on campus, particularly the library and tutoring center. She also continues to learn more about and use various technology platforms in her class, including Moodle, , and the library’s electronic databases and resources.

2. List major professional development activities completed by faculty and staff in this department/program in the last six years and state proposed development and reasoning by faculty in this program.

Professional Development:

Faculty members attended conferences and seminars such as the Carnegie Workshop on Teaching and Learning, Palo Alto, CA, Edu@care, Teaching and Technology, San Francisco, CA. Faculty has also implemented profession development plans approved by PRC.

Philosophy department instructors have benefited from attending these conferences and have adopted new teaching techniques into their curriculum. They have developed better methods in dealing with a diverse population including modifying course content. The conferences have enabled the faculty to network with other philosophers and remain current with the latest scholarship.

3. Identify current schedule for tenure review, regular faculty evaluation, adjunct faculty evaluation, and classified staff evaluation.

Evaluation of Non –tenured Faculty: The philosophy department hired a full time

faculty member in 1996. The department followed the guidelines described in Article 20 of the Faculty Association Collective Bargaining Agreement (FACBA).

The non –tenured faculty member is evaluated for four years in order to give the faculty member an opportunity to demonstrate that they meet the performance criteria established by a Tenure Review committee which is composed of the

Discipline administrator and faculty. The tenure evaluation process consists of:

• Tenure Review committee in which faculty play a central role

• A pre-evaluation plan

• A Growth and Development Plan

• Observations of performance

• Student evaluations

• Progress review conferences

• Improvement plan, when applicable

• Summary Evaluation Report and recommendation prepared by the TRC

• Post evaluation conference

• Self- Evaluation

After the four-year process the TRC will make it’s recommendation to the Board of Trustees to grant tenure to the faculty member.

At the beginning of the non –tenured faculty member’s first semester of employment with the District a Tenure Review Committee is formed according to the selection procedure stated in section 20 .2 of the FACBA. The non – tenured faculty committee is composed of a faculty member selected from the appropriate subject area by the division administrator; the non- tenured member shall select the second faculty member. This must be done by the eighth week of the first semester of the first year. The Academic Senate must approve the tenured faculty members serving on TRC committees.

During this process the division administrator appoints the non- tenured faculty a mentor in the discipline. The mentor shall be available for assistance, discussions, and support related to the successful performance of new non-tenured faculty.

In the first three years of service the non-tenured faculty must be informed by the administrator of the rights and responsibilities concerning the evaluation process.

A Pre-evaluation Conference is convened by the end of the ninth week in the first semester and by the end of the fifth week in the third and fifth semesters. The non-tenured faculty member’s classes are then visited and the TRC members conduct student’s evaluations.

The non- tenured faculty member is responsible for designing a Growth and Development Plan according to FACBA 20.8.2. The Progress Review Conference is convened by the end of the fourteenth week of the first, third and fifth semesters to review the information from the TRC members and student evaluations as well as the Growth and Development Plan. A Post –Evaluation Conference is then convened by the fourth week of the non-tenured faculty member’s second, fourth, and sixth semesters to review and finalize the faculty member’s Growth and Development Plan.

In the fourth year, the Pre-Evaluation, Progress review Evaluation and the Post –Evaluation conferences are all completed by the end of the non-tenured faculty member’s seventh semester. The TRC chairperson drafts a Summary Evaluation Report based on classroom observations, administrator and student evaluations, job description and the non-tenured faculty member’s Growth and Development Plan. The TRC will proceed with tenure recommendation and submitted to the College President for approval. The Board of Trustees makes the final decision.

Evaluation of Tenured Faculty:

Tenured faculty are informed each term, by their respective deans, to have one of their classes visited by a faculty member who will conduct the student evaluation process. The student evaluations are summarized and kept in file in the dean’s office. If the dean perceives a problem, a conference will be convened by the dean with the faculty member, otherwise, a regular conference with the faculty member and the dean takes place once every three years to review student evaluations, issues and concerns related to the faculty members curriculum and teaching methods.

Evaluation of Adjunct faculty:

Adjunct faculty is evaluated according to article 19 of the Faculty Association Collective Bargaining Agreement (FACBA). An evaluation committee is formed and shall consist of the division dean and a peer full- time faculty member. At least one of the members of the Committee shall observe the performance of the adjunct faculty member.

The evaluation process is as follows:

• The adjunct faculty shall be informed in advance of the evaluation process

• Observations should be scheduled in advanced and the adjunct faculty must consent.

• Student evaluations will be conducted at the end of the observation and collected by the committee member

• The adjunct faculty is provided with a written summary of the evaluations by the division dean in charge.

• A post evaluation conference shall be held with the adjunct faculty member and the dean at the conclusion of the evaluation process.

Classified Staff Evaluation:

Classified staff is evaluated in accordance with the schedule set forth in Article 16.2 of the CSEA contract.

Probationary New-Hire Classified Employees

Probationary new-hire classified employees are evaluated three times during the first year (twelve months) of employment. The first two evaluations take place after the third and sixth months of employment, and a final evaluation after eleven months, using the full progress report form.

Probationary Promotional Classified Employees

Classified employees promoted to a higher classification (pursuant to Article 15.4 of the CSEA contract) serve a probationary period of at least six months. Probationary promotional classified employees are evaluated at the end of the third and fifth months of employment in the new classification.

Permanent Classified Employees

After the probationary period, all classified employees are evaluated annually, on the employee’s anniversary date of hire.

4. Describe the departmental orientation process (or mentoring) for new full-time and adjunct faculty and staff (please include student workers such as tutors and aides).

Orientation process for new faculty:

In addition to the orientation process given by the District, the department has a mentoring program for the new full –time faculty. During the first semester of service the new faculty member is appointed a mentor in the same discipline. The mentor serves as a guide and supporting person, assisting the new faculty in school procedures and deadlines. The mentor also advises the new faculty concerning curriculum development, college committees and tenure review.

The Teaching and Learning Center provides an orientation for all new faculty on the history of the college and shared governance. The center offers new faculty the opportunity to attend Friday Academies. The academy provides opportunities and discussions on teaching pedagogies and campus services. It offers a variety of workshops on education, service learning and has an extensive Faculty Resource center.

Orientation process for new adjunct:

The adjunct faculty is introduced to the campus by the division dean. The division dean assigns a faculty mentor to the adjunct faculty. The mentor familiarizes the adjunct with school procedures; teaching assignments, class syllabus and college deadlines.

The History department has an open door policy in which adjunct are encouraged to review the course syllabi, attend department meetings and ask for advice.

The adjunct faculty is encouraged to attend the Teaching and Learning orientation in order to become familiar with the history of the campus, shared governance and the opportunity to network with other faculty.

PART E: Facilities, Equipment, Materials and Maintenance

1. Identify facilities allocated to the program (including the facilities often used by the department/program)

Discuss the quality and accessibility of the facilities, equipment, equipment maintenance, and materials available to the program.

(faculty and staff can use the Instructional Equipment request form and process here as part of the information)

Identify facility needs and its rationale.

The Philosophy department conducts its classes in several rooms—C-102, C-104, RF-141, P-110, P-103, P-107A among others. (The rooms assigned vary from semester to semester.) Some of the classrooms are designated Smart classrooms, i.e., C-104 and RF141. The quality of the equipment in the remaining classrooms is out dated. Computers are out dated and the overhead projectors are difficult to operate. The temperature in some of the rooms is often too hot or too cold, to the extent that the students are uncomfortable and have difficulty concentrating. The philosophy curriculum uses multimedia and would like to have all of its rooms Smart classrooms. Because of the high level of group work, the rooms need to be equipped with desks that can be turned around into a circle where the students can face each other. Students need to be able to hook up their laptops and collaborate with each other and across the Internet.

2. Describe the use and currency of technology used to enhance the department/program. Identify projected needs and rationale.

The computers and overhead projectors used in C-102, P-110, P-103, P-107A need to be upgraded or replaced by Smart classrooms. In order for the instructor to develop a curriculum that meets the needs of the twenty-first century digital student we must assign philosophy faculty only Smart classrooms.

3. If applicable, describe the support the program receives from industry. If the support is not adequate, what is necessary to improve that support?

There is no industry support. The Philosophy Department is not a CTE program.

PART F: Future Needs

1. What faculty positions will be needed in the next six years in order to maintain or build the department?

The current full-time philosophy instructor will be reducing his teaching load to 50% in the fall of 2012. In order to maintain the diversity and number of sections offered it is recommended that one full-time philosophy instructor be hired in the spring of 2013.

2. What staff positions will be needed in the next six years in order to maintain or build the department? (staff, facilities, equipment and/or supplies) will be needed in the next six years? Provide rationale.

There is no need for a staff position.

3. Identify budget allocated for the department/program through the division budget (fund 10). Discuss its adequacy and needs if applicable along with rationale.

Identify any external (fund 17) funding the department/program receives and

describe its primary use.

Considering the Department’s productivity (WSCH/FTES), the Philosophy Department recommends that more sections be offered. There is a large demand for Philosophy 60, Critical Thinking in particular.

Additional money should be allocated for attendance of professional conferences to maintain staff development and currency in the field.

Additional money should be allocated for visiting speakers and student field-trips.

4. What equipment will be needed in the next six years in order to maintain or build the department? Provide specific purpose and rationale.

Classrooms with two-person tables/desks to promote cooperative learning and a different pedagogy than the traditional single-seat desk classrooms

More smart classrooms, much like the Cedro and PE classrooms.

5. What facilities will be needed in the next six years in order to maintain or build the department? Provide specific purpose and rationale.

Bigger classrooms to maintain the high WSCH/FTEF productivity of the department

PART G: Additional Information

1. Describe any other pertinent information about the program that these questions did not address?

PART H: Annual Assessment (Program Faculty and PR Committee)

10-5-09

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download