Instructional Program Review Template for Academic Year 2013‐2014 (fields will expand as you type) Please provide a concise response to all questions, and include relevant details in direct support of your responses. Bulleted lists may be used to clearly organize information. Section 1 ‐ Program Information 1.0 Name of Program: Business / Econ Date: 10/11/2013 1.1 Program Review Authors (include names and campus locations): Chris Gaines, Michael Dennis 1.2 Dean’s Signature: Date: 1.3 Individual Program Information # of Degrees offered: 2 # of Certificates offered:4 1.3.1 State briefly how the program functions support the college mission: Business is both a transfer and career‐technical discipline. It also contributes to the economic vitality of the community by addressing workforce development needs. 1.3.2 State briefly program highlights/accomplishments: We have achieved 100% success in assessing course and program‐level SLOs. Many courses have been updated to make their assessment more sustainable. We have updated many degrees to make them better focused and differentiated them. We have taken the lead in developing cooperative work experience education to make the school‐to‐work transition more effective. We have begun a student‐driven market research and development project. 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 Comment if checked: District wide, sections are down 2% and enrollments are down 12% vs. last year. Relative to 2008‐
Enrollment ☐ 2009, district sections and district enrollments are both down about 25%. BusinessEcon Instructional13‐14 101013.docx 5/1/2014 Page 1 In the Business discipline, sections are down 13% and enrollments are down 18% vs last year. Relative to 2008‐2009, Business sections are down about 34% and enrollments are down 33%. In the Economics discipline, sections are down 0% and enrollments are down 25% vs. last year. Relative to 2008‐2009, Economics sections are up 22% and enrollments are up 20%. Anecdotally, it seems that fewer non‐Business students are taking Economics to meet their Social Science general education requirement, which is probably sensible, since those planning on transferring to the CSU system will find PoliSci 10 or History 8/9 the most efficient way to meet CSU general education requirements. The Humboldt and Online locations have the largest number of enrollments and sections. Since the end of 2012‐2013, there are no full time Business or Economics faculty at Del Norte or Mendocino. Comment if checked: Fill Rate ☒ District wide, fill rates have fluctuated from a low of 64% in 2008‐2009 to a high of 79% in 2010‐2011 back down to 66% in 2012‐2013. The Business and Economics disciplines have followed a similar pattern: low fill rate in 2008‐2009, higher fill rates in 2010‐
2011, then lower fill rates in 2012‐2013. 2.2 Program Majors 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: # of Majors Comment: BUS: 7 BUS.AS: 307 BUS.CA: 70 BUS.CA.SMALL.BUS: 2 BUS.CC.BOOK: 3 BUS.CR.BOOK: 30 BUS.CR.MANAGEMENT: 1 BUS.CR.PAYROLL.CLERK: 10 BUS.LA.A.AA: 110 BUS.LA.B.AA: 130 BUS.LA.C.AA: 14 BUS.LA.D.AA: 2 BusinessEcon Instructional13‐14 101013.docx 5/1/2014 Page 2 We are unsure how many students are double‐counted or how many students declare Business as a sort of ‘default’ major while shopping around for their eventual final choice. It is difficult to know if the number of declared majors is below or above expectation since we are unable to see what percent of CR students are declaring Business as a major and then compare that percentage to other similar institutions. That said, it seems like we have several hundred declared majors, which seems fairly healthy. 2.3 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: Success rates in Business are not significantly different than district wide averages. Success rates in Economics are lower than district wide averages and more closely resemble success rates in the physical sciences or mathematics. Retention ☒ Comment if checked: Retention rates in both Business and Economics closely resemble district averages. 2.4 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 & Completion rates Comment: Our persistence rate (88.14%) is virtually identical to the district‐wide persistence rate (89.05%) 2.5 Completers 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 & Completion rates Comment: Our reported completion rate is below the district average. We are confused by the data. It seems to indicate that we have very few (6) graduates getting degrees and certificates. But the data for section 2.6 seem to contradict this. If we understand the data correctly, it seems that there have been no degrees awarded in BUS.AS nor have there been any certificates awarded at all. Based on what we’ve seen at commencement and the list of degrees awarded, this seems wrong. BusinessEcon Instructional13‐14 101013.docx 5/1/2014 Page 3 2.6 Program Completers 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: # of Completers Comment: This data seems to show that we have 18 Business AALA completers, 6 Liberal Arts Business, 3 AS General Business Completers, but 0 completers in Payroll Clerk and Bookkeeping. Except for the 0 completers in Payroll Clerks and Bookkeeping, this data looks more plausible. Student Equity Group Data 2.7 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 below the Enrollments & fill rates Comment: Business students are approximately 60% male, 40% female at the Eureka campus, but about 60% female, 40% male at the different locations. The ethnic and age composition of Business students closely mirrors district averages. DSPS and Basic Skills students are somewhat less common in our program than the district as a whole. It is always worth remembering that the ‘Basic Skills’ measurement only includes those who have actually taken a placement test. 2.8 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 below success & retention Comment: Success and retention among male students matches the district averages. Success and retention rates among female students are somewhat lower than the district average. It is worth noting that online students in business skew female, and that online classes often have lower success and retention rates. Success and retention among younger students match the district averages. Success and retention among older students is somewhat lower than district averages. Success and retention rates for most ethnic groups are comparable to district averages, though they are significantly lower BusinessEcon Instructional13‐14 101013.docx 5/1/2014 Page 4 than the district average for African‐American students. We are unsure about the cause of this difference or what to do about it. 2.9 Completers by group 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 ~ by Student Equity Group next to persistence Comment: Skip this item. Data not provided. Faculty Information 2.10 Faculty 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: Taking Business and Economics together, there are 5.2 FTEF. Of those, 2 are FT and 3.1 are PT, giving a rough 40%/60% split between FT and PT. This shows a slightly lower level of FT faculty support than the rest of the district. Our efficiency, as measured by FTES/FTEF, is comparable to the district average. CTE/Occupational programs The following Labor Market section should be completed by all CTE/Occupational programs. Only CTE/Occupational programs need to complete this section (2.9). 2.11 Labor Market Data 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: (The 2012 Targets of Opportunity report was not available for download from the Prosperity Network.) The 2007 Targets of Opportunity report identifies several high‐demand and high‐growth areas that our programs currently serve. Examples of areas of opportunity include: Management and Innovation Services, Bookkeeping / Accounting, BusinessEcon Instructional13‐14 101013.docx 5/1/2014 Page 5 Marketing, Customer Service / Sales, and Entrepreneurship. Our programs also peripherally support all areas of the Targets of Opportunity report due to the ubiquitous nature of general business and management principles in the operation of any for‐profit or non‐profit organization. The Targets of Opportunity sectors represent 39% of private sector employment with an employment growth rate of 37% during the period of 1990 ‐ 2004. The total number of firms in the Opportunity sectors grew 23% versus 1.5% for the entire regional economy during the same period. Summary of Section 2 Overall, what did you learn from the data provided in this section? Be sure to indicate if your discoveries apply to the entire district, or if they vary by site. We learned that we either need to learn how to interpret the completion data correctly or we need to work with Institutional Research to correct possible errors in the data. We learned that our program is broadly consistent with district‐wide averages. Section 3 – Critical Reflection of Assessment Activities Curriculum & Assessment Data What courses, if any are not on track with regard to a 2‐year assessment cycle? Explain if this is a consequence of how often the course is offered or other mitigating factors such as outcome updates that may have changed the assessment cycle. # of course SLO reports submitted during 2012‐2013. Reports submitted in 2012‐13 up to the Sept 15, 2013 deadline were included in 2012‐2013. # of degree/cert (PLO) reports submitted during 2012‐2013. Reports submitted in 2012‐13 up to the Sept 15, 2013 deadline were included in 2012‐2013. % of Course Outlines of Record up to date. Includes approvals through spring 2013. Explain any mitigating circumstances. Indicate if you have submitted updated Course Outlines of Record this fall. 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 Did the Program Advisory Committee Meet in the last year? Y/N Click here to view the Program Advisory Committee webpage BusinessEcon Instructional13‐14 101013.docx 5/1/2014 Page 6 Business 34, Econ 14, Econ 20 are not on track, but they are planned for inactivation. 49 12 100% Yes 3.1 What changes have been made to the program based on assessment findings? You may include results from your closing the loop reports that map to your program. We used our assessment findings to update our course outlines and SLOs to make them more clearly match and map the program learning outcomes. Our grading rubrics and peer evaluation processes for evaluating group projects to help students hold each other accountable and thus ensure that all members of groups have truly contributed towards the project. 3.2 (Optional) Describe assessment findings/observations that may require further research or institutional support. We need to strengthen the school‐to‐work transition to increase relevance (thus success and retention) and eventual job placement and/or promotion. Summary of Section 3 Provide any additional explanations for items described in section 3. 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. Action plans may encompass several years; an update on the current status, or whether the plan was discarded and why. Click here to view completed program reviews from last year. Actions Taken Current Status Impact of Action (describe all relevant data used to evaluate the impact) 2012 PR Plan: “Extensive updates /revisions to our course outlines.” 3 planned course deactivations did not occur. Compliance with mandate to regularly update course outlines; assessment made more sustainable. Other curriculum revisions were accomplished. BusinessEcon Instructional13‐14 101013.docx 5/1/2014 Page 7 4.2 (If applicable) Describe how funds provided in support of the plan(s) contributed to program improvement: N/A Section – 5 Planning Click here to link to Institutional Planning Documents 5.1 Program Plans Based on data analysis, student learning outcomes and program indicators, assessment and review, and your critical reflections, describe the actions to be taken for the 2013‐2014 academic year. Use as many rows as you have actions, and add additional rows if you have more than 5 actions. Please number all rows that you add. Please be specific. This section and section 6 should include a detailed justification so that the resource prioritization committees understand your needs and their importance. * Not all actions in this program plan section may require resources, but all resource requests must be linked to this section. 5.1 Program Plans Action # 1 Action to be taken: Relationship to Institutional Plans Include the specific plan and action item relevant to your action to be taken. For example: Annual Plan 2013‐
2014 Theme: Persistence; or List the specific action Goal 1: Student Success: to be taken in enough EP.1.6.2 Develop a plan for narrowing the achievement gap detail so that someone outside of your area can for underrepresented student populations. understand. Student‐powered SP.2.2.1 “Review business and BusinessEcon Instructional13‐14 101013.docx 5/1/2014 Expected Impact on Program/Student Learning Describe the expected impact in a way that someone outside the program can understand. The impact should be measurable. Hands on real‐world project‐based Page 8 Relationship to Assessment Include all assessment results that indicate that this action will yield the desired impact on the program. If the assessment has yet to be conducted, explain when and how it will be conducted. We are halfway Resources Needed (Y/N) A yes here requires a corresponding request in the next section. Resources to marketing initiative industry and economic development survey data to inform program alignment and identify potential partnering opportunities. “ 2 Create our AT‐Business degree EP 1.1 “Provide structured academic pathways” and EP 1.4 “Increase transfers and degree and certificate completions” 3 4 5 6 Seek Chancellor’s Office approval for our local certificates. EP 1.4 “Increase transfers and degree and certificate completions” learning experience for Business students. Build collaboration between our program and the College more broadly and local economic development/business. through the first semester of this new project and will assess it at the end of the semester. The AT will be more structured and should replace the AALA: Business. The greater structure should ensure a more coherent mapping of course level Ensure that students take the courses most relevant to transferring to a 4 year outcomes to degree level outcomes. program in Business. Track completion rates and assess the effectiveness of the Ensure that the College’s success is being Chancellor’s Office measured accurately. approval. support the project have been provided out of the Dean’s budget. None. None. 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 accompanied by an action plan in the above section. Requests should include estimated costs. Submit a support ticket if you do not know the estimated costs. If you are requesting personnel resources, you must also include the “Request for Faculty or Staffing” forms, located at inside.redwoods.edu/program review. Submit one form for each request. Additional Instructions: 
Put down the full amount you are requesting in the “Amount” column. Put down the annual amount of any ongoing or recurring costs in the “Annual Recurring” column. For example, a personnel request for a permanent position might show an Amount of $30,000 and an Annual Recurring Cost of $30,000. A request for equipment might show an Amount of $5,000 and an Annual Recurring cost of $200. A professional development request might BusinessEcon Instructional13‐14 101013.docx 5/1/2014 Page 9 show an Amount of $800 and a recurring cost of $0.

If you have a grant or some other source of funding, include in the “Request” column a brief description of the source of funds and the dollar amount that is expected to be covered by the other source and if the other source covers any of the annual recurring costs. 
Note in the “Request” column if this is a repeat request, and how many times you have submitted this request. The item number must match the corresponding action # from section 5. Add rows as necessary. Type of Request (Check One) Operational Personnel Professional Planning To be Development reviewed by Prioritization To be Committees To be To be reviewed by Action of the reviewed reviewed by the Request # Budget and grouped Faculty Professional Describe your request here in a way that someone $ use # Planning by Associate Prioritization Development outside the program can understand. Amount
above Committee Deans. Committee. Committee $ Annual Recurring Costs Contact Person (Name, email, phone) Section 7‐Author Feedback Provide any constructive feedback about how this template or datasets could be improved. We were very happy to learn that program completion rate data are being calculated based on students who have completed 9 or more units in the program, thus demonstrated an earnest interest in the program. The deadline for submitting this program review did not allow us to thoroughly verify that all the TOPS codes used to calculate completion rates are accurate. Information on transfer rates and how these compare to degree/certificate completions would be useful. How much do you agree with the following statements? (mark your choice with an x )
Strongly Somewhat
Somewhat Strongly
Neutral
Agree
Agree
Disagree Disagree
BusinessEcon Instructional13‐14 101013.docx 5/1/2014 Page 10 This year’s program review was valuable
in planning for the ongoing improvement
of my program.
[]
[ X]
[]
[]
[]
Analysis of the program review data was
useful in assessing my program.
[X ]
[]
[]
[]
[]
Section 8‐ PRC Response by section (completed by PRC after reviewing the program review) 8.0 The response will be forwarded to the author and the supervising Director and Vice President: S.1. Program Information: Completed S.2. Data Analysis: Exemplary. Very strong analysis of the data. Kudos. S.3. Critical Reflection of Assessment Activities: Acceptable. Twelve different degree/cert programs are listed as part of this review. Most areas
are on track for PLO reports, although one area (BUS Mg AS) does not have any PLO reports submitted. Both course and program assessment is
ongoing. There are descriptions of how assessment results were used to implement changes, but it is not clear how these applied to each of the
twelve degree/cert areas listed, or even subsets of the twelve. Therefore specific program improvements cannot be linked to assessment based on
the limited discussion within the program review report.
S.4. Evaluation of Previous Plans: Acceptable S.5. Planning: Acceptable S.6. Resource Requests: None BusinessEcon Instructional13‐14 101013.docx 5/1/2014 Page 11