5.1 b
Program/Discipline: DT/Drafting Technology
Annual Program Review Update
Drafting Technology
Annual Program Review Template, Approved Spring 2009
Page 1 of 30
5/29/2016
5.1 b
Annual Program Review Update
*Be sure to include information from all three campuses.
Program/Discipline: DT
Submitted by (names): Jerry Murray & Steve Brown
Contact Information (phone and email): (707) 476-4376, jerry-murray@redwoods.edu
Dean / V. P.: Steve Brown
Validation Date:
1. Program/Discipline Changes
Has there been any change in the status of your program or area since your last Annual Update? (Have you shifted departments?
Have new degrees or certificates been created by your program? Have activities in other programs impacted your area or program?
For example, a new nursing program could cause greater demand for life-science courses.)
Note: curricular changes should be addressed under 12 (Curriculum).
No (go to next question)
Yes (describe the changes below):
For the academic year of 2009/20010, the former full time professor and program leader, Steve Brown, accepted an assignment as
acting Dean for Career and Technical Education programs. Jerry Murray was hired as a one year temporary full time faculty member
to maintain continuity of the Drafting Technology program.
Professor Brown, the only full time Drafting Technology professor, was on sabbatical during the spring semester of 2009.
Annual Program Review Template, Approved Spring 2009
Page 2 of 30
5/29/2016
5.1 b
2. Program/Discipline Trends
Review and analyze the Enrollment data (Table 2.01) provided by Institutional Research and answer the following questions:
Table 2.01 Enrollments
Number of students enrolled at census date
For the purposes of these charts here, course sections have been broken down by class start time. The definitions for each start time
are as follows:
 Early Morning
Before 10:00AM
 Prime Time
From 10:00AM to 2:30PM
 Late Afternoon
From 2:30PM to 5:30PM*/6:00PM
 Evening
5:30PM*/6:00PM and later
 Weekend
Saturday or Sunday classes
 TBA
No scheduled start time
* Evening is defined differently for semesters prior to Fall 2009
Each classification was weighted according to the following schedule:
 Weekend
 Evening
 Late Afternoon
 Early Morning
 Prime Time
If a section had start times that fell into more than one category, it would be placed in the higher weighted category. For example, if a
section met on a Saturday and started at 10:30AM, it would be considered a Weekend section.
Annual Program Review Template, Approved Spring 2009
Page 3 of 30
5/29/2016
5.1 b
Total
TBA
Weekend
Evening
Late Afternoon
Prime Time
Total
2008 - 2009
TBA
Evening
Late Afternoon
Prime Time
Early Morning
Total
2007 - 2008
TBA
Evening
Late Afternoon
Prime Time
Early Morning
Total
2006 - 2007
TBA
Evening
Late Afternoon
Prime Time
Early Morning
2005 - 2006
Drafting Technology Fill Rate
56% 51% 58% 30% 20% 46% 46% 52% 59% 42% 80% 48% 44% 63% 51% 46% 20% 51% 53% 42% 47% 32% 100% 48%
Enrollment
28
64
29
30
1
152
23
39
13
42
4
121
22
47
51
23
2
145
79
21
55
8
4
167
Sections
2
5
3
5
1
16
2
3
1
4
1
11
2
3
4
2
2
13
6
2
5
1
3
17
FTES
5.9 11.6 3.28 5.8 0.21 26.79 4.85 7.56 0.67 7.16 0.82 21.06 5.06 9.45 6.74 4.39 0.51 26.16 12.85 3.16 11.49 0.3 0.72 28.52
WSCH
216 450 207 450 108 1,431 216 270
27 297 108
918 216 288 238 180 162 1,084
470 128
468
20
270 1,355
a. Describe how changes in the discipline or area are impacting the data shown in the table above.
There were no significant program changes during this period that might impact the data shown. While there was a drop in enrollment
in‘06/’07 and ‘07/’08, enrollment has increased in ‘08/’09 by 15% over the previous year. The program attempts to offer courses
across the full instructional week including significant offerings in the evening. A .50 unit Saturday offering in Spring 2009 did not
attract signficant numbers. Fill rates in the evening trend lower because we offer our 2nd year advanced courses at that time (due to
part time faculty availability). The evening fill rate is therefore victim to the overall program attrition between the first and second
year.
b. Describe how changes outside the discipline or area are impacting the data shown in the table above.
It is likely that the enrollment increase for 08/09 and continuing into 09/10 is the result of the poor economic conditions in the region.
Many people are returning to school for retraining into new occupations. The DT program is recognized by EDD as a viable retraining
option and they refer students regularly. The program added a third section of the intro DT23/ENGR23 course in fall 2009 to address
demand after the first two sections had full waiting lists.
Annual Program Review Template, Approved Spring 2009
Page 4 of 30
5/29/2016
5.1 b
Review and analyze the Enrollment data (Table 2.02) provided by Institutional Research and answer the following questions:
2.02 Course Success Rates
Percentage of students enrolled at census receiving a grade of A, B, C, or Credit
DT-23
DT-24
DT-25
DT-31
DT-32
DT-40
DT-44
DT-50
DT-62
DT-63
DT-71
DT-73
DT-80
Total
2004 - 2005
2005 - 2006
2006 - 2007
2007 - 2008
2008 - 2009
Success Total Enrolled Success Total Enrolled Success Total Enrolled Success Total Enrolled Success Total Enrolled
49%
41
95%
21
88%
16
90%
20
91%
23
96%
28
88%
25
100%
22
91%
22
68%
19
76%
17
63%
8
71%
17
79%
19
72%
18
56%
16
89%
9
86%
7
80%
10
100%
2
100%
1
100%
4
67%
3
100%
4
92%
13
93%
14
88%
16
100%
7
93%
14
76%
17
86%
7
92%
13
78%
9
80%
10
86%
7
74%
23
100%
20
92%
13
95%
22
92%
26
87%
15
80%
10
79%
14
100%
9
92%
13
94%
33
86%
28
100%
23
79%
24
92%
13
87%
166
89%
158
90%
129
83%
155
77%
177
a. Describe how changes in the discipline or area are impacting the data shown in the table above.
The 49% success rate for DT23 is very much an outlier compared to the other courses. DT23 was formerly known as ENGR23 and
that is why it does not appear earlier in the data. DT44 was eliminated in 06/07. DT faculty have identified a couple of reasons for the
low success rate. This was the first year of teaching this class for the professor, and challenges for new drafting students may not have
been identified in time to ensure a greater success rate. We have since identified many of these trouble spots, and we have revised the
curriculum to provide scaffolding for these students. Another reason for the low success rate is that this is an entry level course with
Annual Program Review Template, Approved Spring 2009
Page 5 of 30
5/29/2016
5.1 b
no prerequisites. Drafting requires a moderate amount of math and the ability to recognize spatial relationships, and many students
who sign up for DT23 may simply not have the aptitude for it.
b. Describe how changes outside the discipline or area are impacting the data shown in the table above.
There is no indication of changes outside the discipline having impacted the data shown.
Review and analyze the Enrollment data (Table 2.03) provided by Institutional Research and answer the following questions:
Table 2.03 Course Retention Rate
Percentage of students enrolled at census receiving a grade other than W (Withdraw)
DT-23
DT-24
DT-25
DT-31
DT-32
DT-40
DT-44
DT-50
DT-62
DT-63
DT-71
DT-73
DT-80
Total
2004 - 2005
2005 - 2006
2006 - 2007
2007 - 2008
2008 - 2009
Retained Total Enrolled Retained Total Enrolled Retained Total Enrolled Retained Total Enrolled Retained Total Enrolled
95%
41
95%
21
94%
16
95%
20
96%
23
96%
28
92%
25
100%
22
95%
22
89%
19
82%
17
100%
8
82%
17
84%
19
89%
18
81%
16
100%
9
100%
7
100%
10
100%
2
100%
1
100%
4
67%
3
100%
4
100%
13
100%
14
100%
16
100%
7
100%
14
94%
17
86%
7
100%
13
100%
9
90%
10
86%
7
91%
23
100%
20
92%
13
95%
22
96%
26
93%
15
80%
10
86%
14
100%
9
100%
13
97%
33
100%
28
100%
23
92%
24
92%
13
95%
166
95%
158
94%
129
94%
155
94%
177
Annual Program Review Template, Approved Spring 2009
Page 6 of 30
5/29/2016
5.1 b
a. Describe how changes in the discipline or area are impacting the data shown in the table above.
Although the total enrollment has increased slightly in 2007/2008, retention rates have remained constant. Changes in the discipline
have not affected this data.
b. Describe how changes outside the discipline or area are impacting the data shown in the table above.
There is no indication of changes outside the discipline having impacted the data shown.
Review and analyze the Enrollment data (Table 2.04) provided by Institutional Research and answer the following questions:
Annual Program Review Template, Approved Spring 2009
Page 7 of 30
5/29/2016
5.1 b
Table 2.04 English and Mathematics Basic Skills Data for Course Success (F2005-F2008)
DT-23
DT-25
DT-31
DT-32
DT-40
DT-50
DT-62
DT-63
DT-71
DT-73
DT-80
Total
DT-23
DT-25
DT-31
DT-32
DT-40
DT-50
DT-62
DT-63
DT-71
DT-73
DT-80
Total
PASSED 1A
ENGL-1A
ENGL-150
ENGL-350
READ-360
UNKNOWN
Success Enrolled Success Enrolled Success Enrolled Success Enrolled Success Enrolled Success Enrolled
33%
3
100%
1
75%
4
33%
3
100%
1
67%
9
100%
17
76%
17
80%
5
100%
1
87%
23
100%
8
67%
12
40%
5
76%
29
83%
6
100%
3
82%
17
100%
2
83%
6
100%
2
100%
6
100%
11
80%
5
75%
16
75%
8
90%
10
100%
1
90%
10
100%
1
100%
1
80%
5
100%
10
100%
19
100%
1
100%
2
91%
23
86%
14
92%
13
67%
3
100%
2
86%
14
95%
21
83%
24
91%
11
100%
1
87%
31
92%
96
87%
117
77%
35
78%
9
100%
1
83%
179
TRANSFER-LVL
MATH-120
MATH-380
MATH-375
MATH-371
UNKNOWN
Success Enrolled Success Enrolled Success Enrolled Success Enrolled Success Enrolled Success Enrolled
100%
5
100%
1
33%
3
0%
1
0%
1
60%
10
89%
27
75%
4
78%
9
100%
1
91%
22
79%
14
67%
6
71%
7
100%
1
100%
1
72%
25
88%
8
100%
4
100%
1
100%
1
75%
12
100%
4
100%
1
80%
5
86%
14
100%
7
100%
3
100%
1
77%
13
86%
14
80%
5
100%
4
83%
6
100%
1
100%
1
80%
5
100%
21
100%
7
100%
6
100%
1
100%
1
89%
19
88%
16
90%
10
75%
8
100%
1
100%
1
90%
10
91%
34
100%
8
83%
12
100%
5
83%
29
90%
158
91%
54
81%
53
91%
11
80%
5
81%
156
Annual Program Review Template, Approved Spring 2009
Page 8 of 30
5/29/2016
5.1 b
Given the data, what patterns can be identified in the success rate in individual courses based on the students' skill level? Identify any
important changes since the last review.
It appears that a majority of DT students have not taken the matriculation exam. Those who have taken the exam seem do better as a
whole. Those who have taken the exam tend to be ENG150 proficient or greater and students with higher English proficiency tend to
do better in Drafting Technology. The data also shows that math scores are a good indicator of success rates in DT. This stands to
reason as DT does require students to use math. There are no significant changes since the last review.
How has the discipline/program responded to these patterns and how will the discipline/program respond in the next three years?
Faculty will discuss the merits of recommending an appropriate math level for some DT courses.
3. Labor Market Review (for occupational programs)
Occupational programs must review their labor market data.
Provide a narrative that addresses the following issues
a. Documentation of lab market demand
b. Non-duplication of other training programs in the region.
c. Effectiveness as measured by the employment and completion success of its students.
There is a documented labor market demand for Drafting Technology program completers. California Employment Development
Department (EDD) statistics for Humboldt County indicate considerable employment growth (approx 16%) in job classifications that
could be filled by AS and BS graduates of Computer Aided Design programs. Jobs in the drafting and design fields pay well. For
example, California EDD data show Architecture and Engineering Occupations median salary is $32.12; Architectural and Civil
Drafters median salary is $21.53; and Mechanical Drafters median salary is $22.36.
(http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/cgi/career/)
Annual Program Review Template, Approved Spring 2009
Page 9 of 30
5/29/2016
5.1 b
The DT program does not duplicate other training programs in the North Coast region. The program is part of a non-duplicative
sequence of courses that begins in the region's high school and ROP programs and continues to HSU's Industrial Technology program.
The DT program evaluates its effectiveness in a variety of ways, including Advisory committee input, ATMAE accreditation, and
follow-up surveys. The Drafting Technology Advisory Committee is comprised of local employers in the architectural, engineering,
and design industries. The committee meets annually to review student learning outcomes, evaluate program curriculum, and update
faculty on current industry trends and employment opportunities. Advisory committee minutes are on file in the Business and
Technology Division office.
The three Drafting Technology AS degrees are fully accredited by the Association of Technology, Management and Applied
Engineering (ATMAE). The programs received initial accreditation with ATMAE in 2003 and, at the ATMAE Board of Accreditation
hearings on October 23, 2007, were granted a 6 year accreditation extension without a requirement for a progress report. The
accreditation is based on our response to the 62 ATMAE standards and an onsite validation of the self study by a 3 member peer
review team. While not unprecedented, it is rare that the ATMAE Board has enough confidence in a program to accredit it without a
report along the way. It speaks well of our programs, but we must sustain our efforts and continue to improve. We received 3 partial
compliances among the 62 standards - all of them having to do with closing the loop on assessment and broadly disclosing our
program data. The renewed college-wide efforts in this regard and our internal program review process will make the next ATMAE
accreditation cycle much easier to manage and the standards easier to validate. The ATMAE self-study and visiting team report are
available in the Business and Technology Division Office.
A follow-up survey of DT graduates was conducted in 2007. The survey was conducted with assistance from Title III staff but the
data from the study were not very useful due to a very low response rate. The DT program along with all programs would benefit from
a formalized, institution-led follow-up system of our graduates. Also, since students are not assigned to programs, it is very difficult
to obtain data regarding why a student leaves a particular program prior to completion. Were they not satisfied with the program, did
they obtain their employment goal with obtaining a degree or certificate, or was it a non program related reason? Systems of tracking
and follow-up of students needs to be established before faculty can fully analyze program effectiveness.
4. Budget Resources
List your area’s budget for the following categories in the table below. Restricted funds have a sponsor/grantor/donor (federal,
state, local government, etc). The funds are restricted by the sponsor/grantor/donor. Everything else is unrestricted.
Annual Program Review Template, Approved Spring 2009
Page 10 of 30
5/29/2016
5.1 b
Category
Supply and printing budget
Equipment replacement and repair
budget
Professional Development
Work-study funding
Additional Budget Items
Unrestricted Funds
$2,100
Restricted Funds
0
0
$29,296 CTEA
0
0
$8,500 annual software contract
$3,800 CTEA
0
Is the funding for these areas adequate?
Yes
No
If not, describe the impact of unaddressed needs on your discipline or program.
Annual Program Review Template, Approved Spring 2009
Page 11 of 30
5/29/2016
5.1 b
5. Learning Resource Center Resources
Is the level of resources provided by the Library (Learning Resource Center) adequate?
Yes
No If No, Complete the following:
Library Needs Not Covered by Current Library Holdings1 Needed by the Unit over and above what is currently provided.
These needs will be communicated to the Library
List Library Needs for Academic Year
Please list/summarize the needs of your unit on your campus below. Please be as specific and as brief as possible. Place items on
list in order (rank) or importance.
1.
Reason:
2.
Reason:
3.
Reason:
4.
Reason:
5.
Reason:
6.
Reason:
1 If your SLO assessment results make clear that particular resources are needed to more effectively serve students please be sure to note that in the “reason” section of this form.
Annual Program Review Template, Approved Spring 2009
Page 12 of 30
5/29/2016
5.1 b
6. Faculty
Table 6.01 – Faculty Load Distribution by semester
2005 - 2006
2006 - 2007
2007 - 2008
2008 - 2009
FTEF % of Total FTEF % of Total FTEF % of Total FTEF % of Total
Associate Faculty
0.63
40% 0.10
11% 0.27
18% 0.57
38%
Regular Staff/Non-Overld 1.10
60% 1.00
89% 1.07
82% 0.70
62%
Total
1.73
100% 1.10
100% 1.33
100% 1.27
100%
a. Describe the status of any approved, but unfilled full-time positions.
None
 b. If you are requesting a Full-Time Faculty position, fill out the current faculty position request form and attach it to
this document.
c. If your Associate Faculty needs are not being met, describe your efforts to recruit Associate faculty and/or describe
barriers or limitations that prevent retaining or recruiting Associate Faculty
N/A - local advertising has proven effective
7. Staff Resources
Complete the Classified Staff Employment Grid below (please list full- and part-time staff). This does not include faculty, managers,
or administration positions. If a staff position is shared with other areas/disciplines, estimate the fraction of their workload dedicated
to your area. (To add additional rows to this table, press Tab when the cursor is in the far right-hand cell)
Staff Employed in the Program
Annual Program Review Template, Approved Spring 2009
Page 13 of 30
5/29/2016
5.1 b
Assignment (e.g., Math, Full-time (classified)
English)
staff (give number)
Part-time staff (give
number)
Gains over Prior Year
Losses over Prior Year
(give reason: retirement,
reassignment, health, etc.)
Instructional Aide CAD Lab
19
0
0
Do you need more full-time of part-time classified staff?
Yes
No
If yes, fill out the current staff request form (to be provided by Administrative Services)
Annual Program Review Template, Approved Spring 2009
Page 14 of 30
5/29/2016
5.1 b
8. Facilities, and Classroom Technology
Are teaching facilities adequate for achieving the educational outcomes of this discipline/program?
Yes
No
If No was checked, complete a Facility Form for each instructional space that does not meet the needs of this discipline/program.
Additional facilities forms are available at the end of this document for each separate facility being addressed.
Facilities, and Classroom Technology Form
Program/Disciplines: DT Submitted by: Jerry Murray
Year: 2009
List classroom or instructional space name/number: AT105, AT106, AT107 connected suite of rooms
Check if any of the following are not adequate:
Ventilation / room
ADA
temp
access
Other (briefly describe):
Number of seats / work stations
Technology (computers, projectors, internet)
Describe the specific action and cost to make this space adequate for your instructional needs: Unknown - faculty were told that the
issue would be resolved when the adjacent Health Occupations classrooms ventilation systems were updated with measure Q
funds. However, that did not happen and the problem persists.
List the average number of discipline/program sections scheduled in this room each semester, and the total number of students
enrolled in these sections.
Sections: 18
Students: 345
Describe how these changes will improve student learning outcomes: Currently, the suite of instructional spaces including AT105,
AT106, and AT107 have very inadequate ventilation. Because of the many computers in the rooms, it becomes quite hot and
uncomfortable. Students complain that the temperature in the room prevents them from thinking clearly and often leave early from
Annual Program Review Template, Approved Spring 2009
Page 15 of 30
5/29/2016
5.1 b
lab. Leaving doors open creates windy conditions, cold areas near the doors, and is not conducive to learning due to outside noises
in the corridors. Appropriate ventilation will contribute to an environment in which students can stay focused, retain information,
and produce higher quality work throughout the lecture and lab periods.
Since the building housing these classrooms is not slated for abandonment, it seems prudent to extend the modernization of the
HVAC system to the rest of the building. Maintenance will need to provide an estimate of this cost.
9. Equipment
Is the available equipment (other than classroom specific equipment described in the facilities section) adequate to achieve the
educational outcomes of your program/discipline?
Yes
No
If No was checked, complete an equipment form.
If No was checked, complete the following grid for each piece of equipment being requested for this area/discipline:
(To add additional rows to this table, press Tab when the cursor is in the far right-hand cell)
Equipment
Price, include
tax and
shipping
Number of
students using
equipment each
semester
Describe how the equipment
allows achievement of
program/discipline educational
outcomes
Equipment Repair
Does the equipment used for your discipline/program function adequately, and does your current budget adequately provide adequate
funds for equipment repair and maintenance? This does not include classroom specific equipment repair described in the facilities
section.
Yes
No
If No, provide the following information to justify a budget allotment request:
(To add additional rows to this table, press Tab when the cursor is in the far right-hand cell)
Annual Program Review Template, Approved Spring 2009
Page 16 of 30
5/29/2016
5.1 b
Equipment
requiring repair
Repair Cost /
Annual
maintenance
cost
Number of
students using
equipment each
semester
Annual Program Review Template, Approved Spring 2009
Page 17 of 30
Describe how the equipment
allows achievement of
program/discipline educational
outcomes
5/29/2016
5.1 b
10. Learning Outcomes Assessment Update
Program and Course Learning Outcomes
Refer to the assessment analysis forms that track discipline meetings held to summarize and discuss SLO assessment. Use that information to
complete the following table for each SLO and/or PLO analyzed during the previous academic year. Additional tables are available at the end of
this document to summarize the results for each SLO and/or PLO analyzed.
Course SLO Measured: DT23/ENGR23 - Students will be able to adhere to common industry standards when
preparing engineering drawings.
Or PLO Measured :
Describe assessment
tool/ assignments
faculty/staff used to
measure the SLO or
PLO.
Summarize the overall
results of your
department, including
performance data if
applicable.
How will your
department address the
needs and issues that
were revealed by your
assessment?
List the TOP 3 TO 6
actions/changes
faculty judge will most
improve student learning
Formative assessments of class drawing assignments against a rubric based on industry
standards were used as well as in class question and answer and a summative midterm
exam.
Faculty teaching DT23/ENGR23 compared results from a random sampling of drawings and an item analysis
of exams. Overall, students perform very well and the vast majority of students produce geometrically accurate
drawings. However, 20% of students have trouble with properly applying standards such as use of center lines,
line thickness, and page layout. It was also evident that student performance on the attributes mentioned above
varied depending on the instructor.
A meeting was held among the instructors of DT23/ENGR23 to develop ways to improve student performance
and consistency of instruction with industry drawing standards. The existing rubric of common drafting
standards was reviewed and the level of student performance was discussed. The rubric will be used to
reinforce consistent instruction and assessment in all sections. In addition faculty will prepare a reference card
for students with examples of "correct" and "incorrect" application of standards.
1 - Develop common drafting expectations among the different drafting professors. 2 - Place a greater emphasis
on standards at the beginning of each semester - reinforce use of "standards reference card". 3 - Exercise
diligence in using the rubric to evaluate student work and develop appropriate exam questions.
Annual Program Review Template, Approved Spring 2009
Page 18 of 30
5/29/2016
5.1 b
Provide a timeline for
implementation of your
top priorities.
The actions listed above will all be implemented at the onset of the spring semester of 2010. Faculty will meet
again after Spring 2010 midterms to review student work from multiple sections and check for improvement
and consistency of performance with the goal of 90% attainment of proper application of standards.
Course SLO Measured: DT50 - Use CAD software to create 3D CAD models using wireframe, surface, solid,
and feature-based parametric techniques.
Or PLO Measured :
Describe assessment
tool/ assignments
faculty/staff used to
measure the SLO or
PLO.
Formative assessments of class drawing assignments against a rubric based on industry
standards were used as well as in class question and answer and a summative midterm
exam.
Summarize the overall
results of your
department, including
performance data if
applicable.
A weakness in the understanding of surfaces and the difference between surface and solid models became
apparent after reviewing student work and test results. On an assignment in which students were to create four
complex SURFACE samples of their choosing using a given set of tools, almost 42% turned in samples that
included SOLIDS.
How will your
department address the
needs and issues that
were revealed by your
assessment?
Many of the CAD tools used to create surfaces and solids are the same, but the outcome of these two types of
models is very different. Because solids had not been covered yet, many students were not able to make the
distinction. Lesson plans were revised to reinforce the concepts of solids, surfaces, and wireframes early on in
the semester. A formative quiz was added to check for understanding of these concepts before students start
learning the tools used to create them.
1 - Integrate the instruction of solids and surfaces rather than teach each concept individually. 2 - Revise lesson
plans to reinforce the concepts of solids, surfaces, and wireframes early. 3 - Add a formative quiz to check for
understanding.
List the TOP 3 TO 6
actions/changes
faculty judge will most
improve student learning
Annual Program Review Template, Approved Spring 2009
Page 19 of 30
5/29/2016
5.1 b
Provide a timeline for
implementation of your
top priorities.
The actions listed above will all be implemented the next time DT50 is taught.
Indicate where learning outcome assessment forms (Course-Discipline, Course-Section) are archived (e.g, Division Office, Dean’s
Office). This is required to provide accreditation documentation of the District’s assessment activities.
Online and in the dean’s office
11. Curriculum Update
Identify curricular revisions and innovations undertaken
a.
in the last year.
None
b.
planned for the coming year.
None
c. Complete the grid below. The course outline status report can be located at:
http://www.redwoods.edu/District/IR/Reports/Curriculum/Curriculum_Course_Outlines.htm
(To add additional rows to this table, press Tab when the cursor is in the far right-hand cell)
Course
DT-23
DT-24
DT-25
Annual Program Review Template, Approved Spring 2009
Page 20 of 30
Year Course Outline Last Updated
11/09/2007
02/09/2007
02/08/2008
Year Next Update Expected
2012
2012
2013
5/29/2016
5.1 b
DT-31
DT-32
DT-40
DT-50
DT-62
DT-63
DT-71
DT-73
DT-80
DT-81
02/08/2008
05/11/2007
03/14/2008
02/08/2008
02/08/2008
02/23/2007
02/08/2008
02/23/2007
02/08/2008
02/10/2006
2013
2012
2013
2013
2013
2012
2013
2012
2013
2011
If the proposed course outlines updates from last year’s annual update (or comprehensive review) were not completed, please
explain why.
12. Action Plans
List any action plans submitted since your last annual update. Describe the status of the plans. If they were approved, describe
how they have improved your area.
An action plan was submitted to fund, once again, the annual license for the CAD software used by students in DT, CT, DM, MT, and
IT courses. The plan stated that the funding should be part of the annual operating budget of the college and not an annual "crisis".
We know the cost is there every year. The plan was denied, as expected, but the issue was finally understood well enough that the
funds were placed where they belong, in the operating budget of DT. Case closed.
13. Goals and Plans. Address either item a. or b. in the section below
a. If you have undergone a comprehensive review, attach your Quality Improvement Plan (QIP) and address progress made on the
plan and list any new plans that have been developed (using a new QIP form).
Annual Program Review Template, Approved Spring 2009
Page 21 of 30
5/29/2016
5.1 b
QIP Attached
b. If you do not have a QIP, refer to the goals and plans from your previous annual update.
For each goal and/or plan, comment on the current status of reaching that goal and/or completing the plan.
List any new goals and plans your area has for the coming year, and indicate how they are aligned with the goals/objectives in
CR’s Strategic Plan. (CR’s strategic plan is located on the web at http://inside.redwoods.edu/StrategicPlanning/strategicplan.asp).
see QIP
Annual Program Review Template, Approved Spring 2009
Page 22 of 30
5/29/2016
5.1 b
Additional Forms
Facilities and Classroom Technology Form
List classroom or instructional space name/number:
Check if any of the following are not adequate:
Ventilation / room temp
ADA access
Number of seats / work stations
Technology (computers, projectors, internet)
Other (briefly describe):
Describe the specific action and cost to make this space adequate for your instructional needs:
List the average number of discipline/program sections scheduled in this room each semester, and the total number of students
enrolled in these sections.
Sections:
Students:
Describe how these changes will improve student learning outcomes:
Annual Program Review Template, Approved Spring 2009
Page 23 of 30
5/29/2016
5.1 b
Facilities and Classroom Technology Form
List classroom or instructional space name/number:
Check if any of the following are not adequate:
Ventilation / room temp
ADA access
Number of seats / work stations
Technology (computers, projectors, internet)
Other (briefly describe):
Describe the specific action and cost to make this space adequate for your instructional needs:
List the average number of discipline/program sections scheduled in this room each semester, and the total number of students
enrolled in these sections.
Sections:
Students:
Describe how these changes will improve student learning outcomes:
Annual Program Review Template, Approved Spring 2009
Page 24 of 30
5/29/2016
5.1 b
Facilities and Classroom Technology Form
List classroom or instructional space name/number:
Check if any of the following are not adequate:
Ventilation / room temp
ADA access
Number of seats / work stations
Technology (computers, projectors, internet)
Other (briefly describe):
Describe the specific action and cost to make this space adequate for your instructional needs:
List the average number of discipline/program sections scheduled in this room each semester, and the total number of students
enrolled in these sections.
Sections:
Students:
Describe how these changes will improve student learning outcomes:
Annual Program Review Template, Approved Spring 2009
Page 25 of 30
5/29/2016
5.1 b
Facilities and Classroom Technology Form
List classroom or instructional space name/number:
Check if any of the following are not adequate:
Ventilation / room temp
ADA access
Number of seats / work stations
Technology (computers, projectors, internet)
Other (briefly describe):
Describe the specific action and cost to make this space adequate for your instructional needs:
List the average number of discipline/program sections scheduled in this room each semester, and the total number of students
enrolled in these sections.
Sections:
Students:
Describe how these changes will improve student learning outcomes:
Annual Program Review Template, Approved Spring 2009
Page 26 of 30
5/29/2016
5.1 b
Program and Course Learning Outcomes
Course SLO Measured:
Or PLO Measured :
Describe assessment
tool/ assignments
faculty/staff used to
measure the SLO or
PLO.
Summarize the overall
results of your
department, including
performance data if
applicable.
How will your
department address the
needs and issues that
were revealed by your
assessment?
List the TOP 3 TO 6
actions/changes
faculty judge will most
improve student learning
Provide a timeline for
implementation of your
top priorities.
Annual Program Review Template, Approved Spring 2009
Page 27 of 30
5/29/2016
5.1 b
Program and Course Learning Outcomes
Course SLO Measured:
Or PLO Measured :
Describe assessment
tool/ assignments
faculty/staff used to
measure the SLO or
PLO.
Summarize the overall
results of your
department, including
performance data if
applicable.
How will your
department address the
needs and issues that
were revealed by your
assessment?
List the TOP 3 TO 6
actions/changes
faculty judge will most
improve student learning
Provide a timeline for
implementation of your
top priorities.
Annual Program Review Template, Approved Spring 2009
Page 28 of 30
5/29/2016
5.1 b
Program and Course Learning Outcomes
Course SLO Measured:
Or PLO Measured :
Describe assessment
tool/ assignments
faculty/staff used to
measure the SLO or
PLO.
Summarize the overall
results of your
department, including
performance data if
applicable.
How will your
department address the
needs and issues that
were revealed by your
assessment?
List the TOP 3 TO 6
actions/changes
faculty judge will most
improve student learning
Provide a timeline for
implementation of your
top priorities.
Annual Program Review Template, Approved Spring 2009
Page 29 of 30
5/29/2016
5.1 b
Program and Course Learning Outcomes
Course SLO Measured:
Or PLO Measured :
Describe assessment
tool/ assignments
faculty/staff used to
measure the SLO or
PLO.
Summarize the overall
results of your
department, including
performance data if
applicable.
How will your
department address the
needs and issues that
were revealed by your
assessment?
List the TOP 3 TO 6
actions/changes
faculty judge will most
improve student learning
Provide a timeline for
implementation of your
top priorities.
Annual Program Review Template, Approved Spring 2009
Page 30 of 30
5/29/2016