Instructional Program Review Update 2012/13 (fields will expand as you type) Section 1 ‐ Program Information 1.0 Name of Program: Humanities and Communications Date: 16 January 2013 1.1 Program Review Authors: George Potamianos, Kerry Mayer, Peter Blakemore (language information provided by Rachel Anderson) 1.2 Dean’s Signature: Rachel Anderson Date: 1/21/13 1.3 Individual Program Information # of Degrees # of Certificates 1 (Liberal Arts: Humanities and Communications) 0 # of Courses # of GE Courses 38 (This is from the current catalog, but Cinema courses were added with the passage of a non‐substantial change 511 last semester) 36 (This is from the current catalog, but Cinema courses were added with the passage of a non‐
substantial change 511 last semester) The shaded cells below are to be populated by the Program Review Committee as needed. # of Full Time Faculty 2010‐2011 # of Part Time Faculty 2011‐12 2010‐2011 # of Staff FTE 2011‐12 2010‐2011 2011‐12 Personnel Budget 2010‐2011 Discretionary Budget 2011‐12 2010‐2011 2011‐12 1.3.1 State briefly how the program functions support the college mission: The Humanities and Communications disciplines at CR provide a platform of transfer level coursework to support student success. Additionally, we teach courses which prepare students for technical programs (such as health occupations) and to enter the workforce with additional job skills. The Humanities and Communications faculty at CR participate actively in the ongoing assessment of student learning at the course and degree levels. 1.3.2 Program highlights/accomplishments: Since the last program review cycle, all of the departments have been engaged in ensuring currency in curriculum and for course‐ and program‐level assessment and dialog. The program benefitted greatly from the opportunities for program assessment provided by the Assessment Summit activities at the end of the spring 2012 semester. It was because of that dialog that Cinema courses were added to the Humanities and Communications degree. 12. cHumanities Program Review.docx 4/5/2013 Page 1 Section 2 ‐ Data Analysis 2.1 Enrollment & Fill Rate Review and interpret data by clicking here or going to: http://www.redwoods.edu/District/IR/Program_Select.asp Select your program and click on: Enrollments & fill rates Enrollment  Comment if checked: Both enrollment and the number of sections decreased between 2010‐11 and 2011‐12. The Humanities and Communications program lost almost twice as many sections (as a percentage) over this period of time than the district’s overall average. Humanities was disproportionally effected by the loss of the 101 corridor sites. When these sites were closed, the total number of sections could not be replaced at the EKA site (there simply is not enough classroom space). It is unclear why this is the case. Fill Rate ☐ Comment if checked: Fill rates for the program consistently exceed district averages by four percentage points in both 2010‐11 and 2011‐12. 2.2 Success & Retention Review and interpret data by clicking here or going to: http://www.redwoods.edu/District/IR/Program_Select.asp Select your program and click on: Success & Retention Success ☐ Comment if checked: Program success rates meet or exceeded the district average in both 2010‐11 and 2011‐12 (by 5% and 4% respectively). Retention ☐ Comment if checked: Retention figures essentially matched the district’s average for 2010‐11 and 2011‐12. 2.3 Persistence Review and interpret data by clicking here or going to: http://www.redwoods.edu/District/IR/Program_Select.asp Select your program and click on: Persistence ☐ Comment: Persistence rates met the district average in 2010‐11 and exceeded it in 2011‐12. 2.4 Completions Review and interpret data by clicking here or going to: http://www.redwoods.edu/District/IR/Program_Select.asp Select your program and click on: Completions & Transfers ☐ Comment: Program completion and transfer percentages exceeded the district average by almost a factor of 6. 12. cHumanities Program Review.docx 4/5/2013 Page 2 Student Equity Group Data 2.5 Enrollments Review and interpret data by clicking here or going to: http://www.redwoods.edu/District/IR/Program_Select.asp by group Select your program and click on ~ by Student Equity Group next to Enrollments & fill rates Comment: 2011‐12 enrollments by racial group match district numbers almost exactly. There seem to be slightly fewer basic skills students taking courses in this program than the district’s average. 2.6 Success & Retention Review and interpret data by clicking here or going to: http://www.redwoods.edu/District/IR/Program_Select.asp by group Select your program and click on ~ by Student Equity Group next to success & retention Comment: Success and retention figures match or exceed district averages for every racial group, for BSI students, and DSPS students. 2.7 Persistence Review and interpret data by clicking here or going to: http://www.redwoods.edu/District/IR/Program_Select.asp by group Select your program and click on ~ by Student Equity Group next to persistence Comment: The total persistence rate for all categories exceeded that of the district. However, there are some specific places where the program rate was lower than the district (for African American students, BSI Both students, and DSPS). Notably, program persistence for Hispanic students was almost 10% greater than that of the district. Additional Indicators 2.8 Faculty Information Review and interpret data by clicking here or going to: http://www.redwoods.edu/District/IR/Program_Select.asp Select your program and click on: Faculty (FT/PT) & FTES/FTEF Comment: FTES per FTEF has gotten higher in this program than for the district as a whole. In 2010‐11, the district ratio was 29.12 and the Program’s was 29.86 but in 2011‐12 the district ratio was 28.52 and the Program’s 30.54. The Program also is far, far below the district’s average in FT/PT ratio. The district ratio is 51% FT, 49% PT but the Humanities and Communications ratio is 30% FT, 70% PT. It is also worth noting that the Humanities and Communications Program‐level data on the IR site does not include the information for History, which is a big part of the program and would certainly lower the FT/PT ratio in the program even more, based on the History department data that is in the Behavioral and Social Sciences data set. This year, the FT/PT ratio for the program will be even worse than 30/70 because of the retirement of the only full‐time Foreign Language professor and a professor of History on the Del Norte campus. There continues to be a shortage of associate faculty in Speech Communication throughout the District with a 1 to 3 FT/PT ratio. This shortage is particularly acute at the Del Norte and Klamath‐Trinity sites which have been relying on associate faculty 12. cHumanities Program Review.docx 4/5/2013 Page 3 members from Arcata to commute to their sites in order to teach courses. This is unsustainable due to the huge demands on associates to travel long distances over sub‐optimal roads in order to reach the instructional sites. Furthermore, Mendocino Coast has had one long‐term associate faculty member in Speech Communication who will, eventually, retire from teaching. 2.9 Labor Market Data (CTE/Occupational programs only) Refer to the California Employment Development Division: http://www.edd.ca.gov/ www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov
Provide a narrative that addresses the following: a. Documentation of labor market demand b. Non‐duplication of other training programs in the region c. Effectiveness as measured by student employment and program completions. Narrative: Overall, what has been the impact of the change in indicators on student achievement and learning: This is just an observation, but clearly there is a disproportion of younger students enrolled in humanities courses as compared to district averages. These are also the most vulnerable group for success and retention. Provide narrative on the factors that may have contributed to the improvement or decline in the identified population: For Humanities probably the most significant change to the program was the closing of the downtown centers. We offered many sections of languages, philosophy, history and speech at these sites, which negatively affected sections numbers and enrollment. How much this as decreased student’s ability to complete their degree will not be observed for a little while, hopefully students can be supported with the diminished course offerings. Also, this might have resulted in the decline of an older population of students. Section 3 – Critical Reflection of Assessment Activities Curriculum & Assessment Data Are all courses on track for complete assessment of all outcomes in two years? Y/N All courses have been mapped to a two year cycle NA 2 What courses, if any, are not on track with regard to assessment? Explain. # of PLOs Assessed and Reported during the 2011‐2012 academic year. 12. cHumanities Program Review.docx 4/5/2013 Page 4 % of Course Outlines of Record updated If there is no plan for updating outdated curriculum, when will you inactivate? View curriculum status: click here or go to: http://www.redwoods.edu/District/IR/Program_Select.asp Select your program and click on: Curriculum Status There are several course listed that are planned to be removed from active curriculum. The language curriculum may be delayed in update due to lack of fulltime faculty. The rest are either on schedule for update, or as in the case of History/Cinema are at 100% Assessment Reporting completed? Y/N NA Program Advisory Committee Met? Y/N NA 3.0 How has assessment of course level SLO’s led to improvement in student learning (top three):
History and Cinema assessments have led to an important discussion about establishing cross-disciplinary English pre-requisites to
the courses in the disciplines, as a way to improve student success and keep on track with the SSTF mandated by the state. The
History Area Coordinator is a member of the curriculum committee’s ad hoc committee on cross-disciplinary pre-requisites and is
working on data analysis to determine which English course would be the appropriate pre-requisite. We would like to open these
discussions to Political Science, so that all of the courses in the transfer categories (IGETC and CSU) would have identical prerequisite English courses.
Languages identified a need to incorporate be more cultural activities. There was discussion in light of the new mapping of course outcomes to degree outcomes of how to plan to do assessments in the future. It was decided to focus on one course outcome each term over the next two years which will more effectively coordinate with the Humanities and Communication program level outcomes. 3.1 How has assessment of program level outcomes led to degree/certificate improvement (top three): Dialog during the Assessment Summit revealed a significant gap in Programmatic offerings in moving image interpretation and analysis. This led to the inclusion of several Cinema courses in the Program. 3.2 (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. 12. cHumanities Program Review.docx 4/5/2013 Page 5 Actions Current Status Outcomes No plans were identified last year. This is the first year program review for the LA: Humanities and Communication 4.2 (If applicable) Describe how funds provided in support of the plan(s) contributed to program improvement: Section – 5 Planning 5.0 Program Plans (2012/2013) Based on data analysis, student learning outcomes and program 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, supporting data or other justifications in the Resource Request). 5.1 Program Plans Action to be taken: Replace lost Language faculty position. 12. cHumanities Program Review.docx Relationship to Institutional Plans Ed Master Plan: 1.3 Increase transfers and degrees 1.6 Improve success among underrepresented populations. 4/5/2013 Relationship to Assessment Maintain coordination of student learning and program learning outcomes. Update and coordinate program activities (especially those around cultural Expected Impact on Resources Needed Program/Student Learning Improvement on SLO’s and 1 FT needed at EKA PLO’s with the coordination of a Full‐time faculty oversight. Program updates and course outline updates that reflect the needs of the program and students. Page 6 All of Goal 3 Hire at least one Speech instructor Ed. Master Plan 1.1 Provide structured academic pathways 1.3 Increase transfers and degrees Student needs are not being met. We are not offering the number of sections to accommodate the needs of students district wide. enrichment). Improve transfer and retention. I FT position at EKA, ½ position at DN (dual qualified with another discipline) 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. If requesting full‐time staff, or tenure‐track faculty, submit the appropriate form available at inside.redwoods.edu/ProgramReview Requests will follow the appropriate processes. Check One Amount Recurring Rationale Request $ Cost Y/N Linkage Planning Operational Personnel 1 ½ Speech Instructors x $150,000 Y Tied to assessment and education master planning. 1 language instructor X $100,000 Y Tied to assessment and education master planning Section 7‐ Program Review Committee Response Do not type in this section. To be completed by the Program Review Committee following evaluation. 12. cHumanities Program Review.docx 4/5/2013 Page 7 7.0 The response will be forwarded to the author and the supervising Director and Vice President: S.1. Program Information: Satisfactory. S.2. Data Analysis: Note: FTES/FTE ratio below average. Good evaluation of the data, narrative is consistent with data and is clear and concise. S.3. Critical Reflection of Assessment Activities: Thoughtful analysis, model assessment, good ties to the student equity plan. S.4. Evaluation of Previous Plans: N/A S.5. Planning: Focused on hiring of faculty. Links to institutional plans and assessment are good. S.6. Resource Requests: Faculty requests tied to assessment and planning. 12. cHumanities Program Review.docx 4/5/2013 Page 8