Service Areas Program Review Update 2012/13 (fields will expand as you type) Section 1 ‐ Program Information 1.0 Name of Program: Office of the Vice President of Instruction Date: November 15, 2012 1.1 Program Review Authors: Utpal K. Goswami, Vice President of Instruction; Crislyn Parker, Administrative Assistant to the VPI 1.2 Program Director Signature: Utpal K. Goswami Date: 11/15/12 1.3 Vice President Signature: Utpal Goswami
Date: 11/15/12
1.4 Primary Function: Plan, organize and direct the district‐wide programs, operations and activities of the academic service programs and functions, including leadership and support for accreditation, credit and non‐credit curricular and program development and revision, academic and compressed calendar matters, contractual issues; and collaboration and consultation on new and developing academic and vocational projects throughout the district. Maintains and updates the district's course and program inventory. Provides updates to the President/Superintendent, Board, and committee agendas. Develops and delivers training for district instructional support personnel on academic matters. Co‐chairs the Program Review Committee and Chairs the Institutional Effectiveness Committee.  Office of Instruction provides oversight for 1. Academic Affairs (MSE, ALSS, HumCom), 2. CTE, 3. HERO, 4. DE Courses/Support, 5. CRMC, 6. CRDN,  Office of Instruction houses Curriculum, Academic Senate, Associate Faculty Coordinator,  Office of Instruction has oversight of Program Review (co‐chairs with Student Development), IEC, Curriculum Committee, Dean’s Council 1.4.1 State briefly how the program functions support the college mission: Puts students first directly by ensuring quality programs are in place, assessments are ongoing, and curriculum and programs are evaluated regularly for continuous improvement to provide outstanding developmental and career technical, and transfer education. Puts students first indirectly, by providing leadership and oversight of the various processes of the college and accreditation standards, and providing faculty with professional development opportunities. 1.4.2 Program highlights/accomplishments: The OI, in cooperation with the Assessment committee, successfully established a process for a two year SLO rotation and assessment, successfully mapped all course SLOs to Program Learning Outcomes. Working with the Program Review Committee, the OI has improved and streamlined the program review process and resource allocation requests. The OI successfully organized the fall 2012, Accreditation Visiting Team logistics and supported the accreditation show‐cause report process. The Curriculum Specialist and Associate Faculty specialist are instrumental in working with faculty and associate faculty. The Associate Faculty coordinator works one on one with associate faculty, providing valuable information on policies and processes, including introduction to the various technical programs accessed by instructors. OI offers associate faculty “development days” each semester. Office of InstructionPR 11‐2012.docx 12/20/2012 Page 1 1.4.3 Program Data: # of Full Time Employees 2010‐2011 5 # of Part Time Employees 2011‐12 5 2010‐2011 0 Personnel Budget 2011‐12 2010‐2011 0 407,828.00 2011‐12 303,044.0 Discretionary Budget 2010‐2011 39,651.00 2011‐12 26,527.00 Section 2 ‐ Data Analysis 2.0 List Service Area Metrics/Indicators and provide information on changes over time (Steady/Increasing/Decreasing, etc.) 2.1 Metrics/Indicators a. 1. Completion of SLOs / Assessed 2. PLOs / Assessed 3. Institutional Outcomes / Assessed b. Curriculum proposals processed: total  Revisions  New  Inactivated  Inactivated Degrees  New/Revised Degrees c. Number of course sections scheduled Number of active courses Number of cancelled courses  Fall  Spring  Summer d. Associate Faculty Development Days attendance Two associate faculty orientation/trainings per year  January  August Office of InstructionPR 11‐2012.docx 2010/11 2011/12 Observations (steady/increasing/decreasing) N/A N/A 127 53 12 54 2 6 680 / 480 84 / 56 3 / 3 223 111 45 32 0 35 Increasing (2012 is a baseline for the two‐year rotation) Increasing (2012 is a baseline for the two‐year rotation) Increasing (2012 is a baseline for the two‐year rotation) Increased. Numerous course proposals were revised based on the 5 year update policy and to revise learning outcomes. Many courses that have not been offered were officially inactivated. 23degreeswererevised;12new
1827 1703 124 932 815 80 21 31 1722 1610 112 834 777 111 23 26 Currently decreasing; sections are scheduled to meet target FTES; due to budget issues, fewer sections are being scheduled. Both years have a 7% cancellation rate (cancelled courses/active courses). Number of sections offered in the spring is less than in the fall. 12/20/2012 degree/certificates,twoforthecreationofAB1440transfer
degrees. The associate faculty development day attendance has remained fairly static. Noticeable deviations seem to be when the stipend allotment was increased from $25.00 to $50.00 (August 2010). The associate faculty coordinator meets individually will all associate faculty new hires and provides them with detailed information on college processes, log‐in requirements, and other miscellaneous information to assist them with beginning a new class. Page 2 Increasing  Student online Orientations, remaining steady 13 24  Faculty online teaching and learning/education technology 1 8  2012 becomes a baseline year for these offerings for staff  Special offering; now 23 classes using the Tegrity program f. % of Course Syllabi posted online N/A 100% Improved to 100% 2.2 Describe how these changes affect students and/or the program: 2.1.a. As a compliance issue for accreditation, having all faculty on board with assessment keeps the college open, and provides for meaningful improvement of classes and programs. 2.1.b. Curriculum updates keep the college in compliance with ACCJC standards. 2.1.c. Reduction in sections is limiting student options for completing their chosen programs.2.1.d. Having knowledgeable associate faculty who have been oriented to CR positively affects student success and possibly retention. 2.1.e. Technical training keeps faculty and staff updated on technical matters. 12 26 3 N/A e. DE & Technology‐based Workshops offered  Student Workshops (DE 101)  Faculty Workshops  Staff  * Special Tegrity classes 2.3 Provide any other relevant information, or recent changes, that affect the program: (2.1.a.) Prior to spring of 2012, CR was working toward a five‐year assessment schedule, but changed to a two year rotation over the summer. Prior to spring 2012, not all courses had reviewable SLOs; there were almost no courses with program learning outcomes and no mapping had been completed. During the spring, (and summer), notable changes were made to the streamline the process making it faculty and reporting friendly. Consequently, 2012 is a baseline year for documenting completion of SLOs, PLOs and assessment. (2.1.e.) CR has established a Professional Development Committee that will track all professional development offerings, through various sub‐committees. Section 3 –Critical Reflection of Assessment Activities (2011/2012) 3.0 Describe Service Area Outcomes Assessed or reviewed in the current cycle: a. SLO process and cycle b. SLO and PLO mapping c. Scheduling of courses 3.1 Summarize the conclusions drawn from the data and the experience of staff working to achieve the outcomes: a. & b. SLO/PLO process/cycle is clearer. Documents and plans are now easily accessible, which is critical to maintain assessment initiative (sustainability). c. Course scheduling: An assumption of high FTES per section (2.8 FTE/section) has not been supported by actual data. There appears to be multiple factors contributing to enrollment volatility. Suggested future scheduling should be monitored closely in order to attain the FTES. 3.2 Summarize how assessments have led to improvement in Service Area Outcomes (top three.): 1. All course level SLOs have been assigned a two‐year rotation 2. Course level SLOs have been mapped to PLOs. 3. Scheduling of courses takes into account student needs Office of InstructionPR 11‐2012.docx 12/20/2012 Page 3 3.3 (Optional) Describe unusual assessment findings/observations that may require further research or institutional support: Section – 4 Evaluation of Previous Plans 4.1 Describe plans/actions identified in the last program review and their current status. What measurable outcomes were achieved due to actions completed. Actions Current Status Outcomes Coordinate accreditation team visit and provide logistical support Completed Show Cause report has been submitted. Evidence binders created and the team visit successfully coordinated. Work with faculty and staff to improve the assessment process Completed and ongoing The assessment website includes the two‐year rotation for each discipline and the degree/certificate mapping for all degrees and certificates. Work with faculty and staff to update the program review process Complete and ongoing The program review process is using the new template Schedule associate faculty development days Completed, September 10, 2011 and January 21, 2012 Two (2) associate faculty development days were scheduled and well attended by both new and returning associate faculty. 4.2 (If applicable) Describe how funds provided in support of the plan(s) contributed to program improvement: Office of InstructionPR 11‐2012.docx 12/20/2012 Page 4 Section – 5 Planning 5.0 Program Plans (2012/2013) Based on data analysis, service area outcomes and indicators, assessment and review, and your critical reflections, describe the program’s Action Plan for the 2012/13 academic year. If more than one plan, add rows. Include necessary resources. (Only a list of resources is needed here. Provide detailed line item budgets, timelines, supporting data or other justifications in the Resource Request). 5.1 Program Plans Relationship to Institutional Plans Improve the Sabbatical Process, to SP 1.6: Support staff make it more transparent and faculty development and instructional innovation Expected Impact on Service Area Outcomes No impact on service area outcomes. Improve Tenure Review process and communication Develop degree plans: 1. Identify list of courses for which student success rates are reasonable at each basic skills level 2. Map courses to program requirements for students based upon various basic skills levels 3. Develop recommended degree plans for all degrees and certificates based upon basic skills level. Provide professional development training for working with basic skills students Improved communications Action to be taken: Office of InstructionPR 11‐2012.docx Relationship to Assessment A review of the 2011/12 process indicated a need to keep both candidates and dean’s updated. SP 3.2, 3.5 Improve communications Annual Plan, IIC Develop Assess online readiness for students who intend degree plans to take a DE course for SP 1.1 Match student the first time readiness with educational pathways Resources Needed An ongoing budget ($60,000) that has been historically set aside for the sabbatical program N/A Student retention, student success, student persistence N/A Increased student success, retention, persistence Qualified personnel resources EP 1.1 Provide structured academic pathways. Annual Plan IID SP 1.6 Support staff and faculty development and 12/20/2012 Number of faculty development and instructional innovation Page 5 instructional innovation Annual Plan VI.B Noncredit enrollment Develop one non‐credit program: 1. Identify one program to develop SP 2.3/EP 2.5 Develop 2. Develop curriculum non‐credit programs 3. internal CR approvals 4. Submit to curriculum, to CCCCO Meeting community needs Personnel 5.2 Provide any additional information, brief definitions, descriptions, comments, or explanations, if necessary. Section 6 ‐ Resource Requests 6.0 Planning Related, Operational, and Personnel Resource Requests. Requests must be submitted with rationale, plan linkage and estimated costs. Request Check One Amount Recurring Rationale $ Cost Y/N Linkage Planning Operational Personnel N/A Section 7‐ PRC Response by section (completed by PRC after reviewing the program review) 7.0 The response will be forwarded to the author and the supervising Director and Vice President: S.1. Program Information: Ties to mission and planning. S.2. Data Analysis: Identified indicators S.3. Critical Reflection of Assessment Activities: Indicators are easy to assess, statistically based. PRC suggests that all key indicators be based on the annual plan and assessments. S.4. Evaluation of Previous Plans: Good S.5. Planning: Good S.6. Resource Requests: None Review Approved
Office of InstructionPR 11‐2012.docx 12/20/2012 Page 6