Earth Sciences (GIS/Geography/Geology)
2023-2024 Program Review

The Geosciences Department encompasses Geography and GIS (Geographic Information Systems), and Geology.

(Please note that Geosciences is not an official department, as it does not appear in the catalog, SOCRATES, or the ARC web site. It replaces our old unofficial department name, Earth Sciences.)

Geography is the science of space and place on Earth’s surface. It focuses on the physical and human phenomena that make up the world’s environments and places. Geographers describe the changing spatial patterns of places in words, maps, and graphics. GIS is a computer-based tool used to map, manage, analyze, display, and model spatial information. A GIS is a data management system capable of analyzing patterns and relationships between many different layers of mapped data.

Geology is the study of the origin and evolution of the Earth, using the principles of mathematics, chemistry, physics, and biology. Geologists study rocks, minerals, and fossils in an effort to draw conclusions about the Earth’s observable surface processes, as well as those processes taking place inside the Earth.

We recognize and welcome the diversity of our students in terms of race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, gender, sexual preference, age, religion, and other factors.

The following categories list the most disproportionately impacted (DI) groups for courses that appear in the course level data. We focus here on course success only (A, B, or C), as opposed to A-B rates and completion (A-D), because it best reflects how we view success in terms of applicability toward our degrees and certificate, as well as transferability toward degrees at other institutions.

Course Success, Course Level Data (range of DI% gap)

 All Geography Courses with DI Groups:

• Low Income (6-28%)
• Hispanic/Latino (12-27%)
• African American (15-26%)

 All Geology Courses with DI Groups:

• African American (32%)
• Female (7-23%)
• Low Income (12%)

 Core Geography Courses (GEOG 300/301, Physical Geography Lecture and Lab):

• African American (15-26%)
• Hispanic/Latino (12%)
• Low Income (6%)

GIS Courses:

• Low Income (16-28%)
• Hispanic/Latino (26-27%)
• Male (16%)

Core Geology Courses (GEOL 300/301, Physical Geology Lecture and Lab):

• Low Income (11%)
• Female (7%)

 Other Geology Courses (Earth Science, Global Climate Change, etc.):

• African American (32%)
• Female (23%)
• Low Income (12%)

Taken together, the three most highly impacted groups are African American, Low Income, and Hispanic/Latino.

We have taken the following actions since our last program review:

• Established and expanded more flexible grading and due date policies.
• Integrated examples of DI groups in geosciences curricula.
• Encouraged adoption of OER and ZTC instructional materials.
• Developed OER resources for Geology that have been used district-wide.
• Informed students of support services including the Science Success Center, DSPS, RAD, and WAC.
• Communicated personally with students.
• Connected students with student clubs.
• Informed students of transfer degrees and program maps.
• Impressed upon students how geosciences impact them.
• Obtained faster virtual desktops for online GIS students.
• Fought for modern classrooms of suitable size with ample room for storage and lab preparation.
• Fought for sufficient storage and lab preparation space in our existing classrooms.
• Fought for modern, efficient lab desks and chairs.
• Fought for a lab technician.

We will continue the actions we have already begun, as listed above. In some cases, we will continue to find suitable balances between reducing and eliminating disproportionate impacts and maintaining college-level rigor, as spelled out in our Course Outlines of Record (CORs). For example, at what point does implementing more flexible due dates become the effective removal of due dates, and the weakening of rigor?

 We will also employ the following equity-based strategies: 

• Announce in the early days of a class that we recognize the diversity of our students--diversity in many different forms--and that we continue to make efforts to address the inequities that can result from such a diverse student body. Our goal is to make all students feel that they belong in our classes.
• Have faculty participate in equity-minded professional development opportunities involving the Equity Action Institute, Culturally Relevant Teaching Institute, and the Accessible Course Creation Academy.
• Further establish a relationship with the STEM homebase to discuss equity-driven approaches to teaching.
• Explore additional methods for equity-minded grading, such as those in Joe Feldman’s Grading for Equity.
• Explore additional methods for integrating examples of DI groups into our curricula, such as those in Gholdy Muhammad's Unearthing Joy.
• Create student surveys to elicit equity ideas directly from disproportionately impacted students.
• Pursue reduced class sizes for labs held in Rooms 424 and 425.

We hope to obtain the following. Together with our previously stated strategies, these items will help to reduce or eliminate disproportionate impacts not just for DI students, but for all students. 

• Modern classrooms of suitable size with ample room for storage and lab preparation.
• Sufficient storage and lab preparation space in our existing classrooms.
• Modern, efficient lab desks and chairs.
• A lab technician.
• Faster virtual desktops for online GIS students.
• Continued fiscal support for the GIS program through Perkins funding.
• Release time for faculty to develop department-wide approaches.

We feel that the actions we have already taken in regard to DI groups, together with our proposed actions, have the potential to reduce or remove disproportionate impacts, but we do not clearly see this result in the DI success rates over the years since our last program review in 2017. The overall success rates for both Geography and Geology have increased by 8% since 2017, which we are glad to see, but the success rates for DI groups have remained comparatively low.

Many of the actions we have taken are fairly recent, which might account for the lack of significant improvement in the most recent DI statistics. We hope that as our actions become more firmly established over the coming years, that we will see corresponding improvements in the DI statistics.

Finally, we suspect that some barriers to success have their roots in K-12 education, the family environments that students grow up in, and society at large (sexism, racism, etc.). No amount of work on our part can completely compensate for the factors that lead to disproportionate impact.