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: Residential Construction Date:10/11/13 1.1 Program Review Authors (include names and campus locations): Paul Kinsey (Eureka Main), Ted Stodder (Eureka Main) 1.2 Dean’s Signature: Date: 1.3 Individual Program Information # of Degrees offered: 1 # of Certificates offered: 5 1.3.1 State briefly how the program functions support the college mission: In support of the college mission the Residential Construction Program provides career technical education. In doing so it
contributes to the economic vitality and lifelong learning needs of its service area. The program faculty assesses course and
program level outcomes in an effort to improve the program offerings.
1.3.2 State briefly program highlights/accomplishments: Construction Technology : Residential Construction : During the 12‐13 academic year we were able to return to the student‐built house method of instruction that has proven so successful in the past. We completed House #38 and sold it on the open market ($269 K). Proceeds from last year’s house were approximately $40,000. In returning to the student‐built house construction model, we are once again able to integrate instruction within the following courses: 

DT 73: Architectural Drafting‐ Residential Design CT 80: Carpentry Theory I pResidential ConstructionProgram Review 2013.docx 5/1/2014 Page 1 








CT 81: Carpentry Theory II CT 90: Beginning Carpentry I CT 91: Beginning Carpentry II CT 95: Intermediate Carpentry I CT 96: Intermediate Carpentry II CT 57A, B: Cabinetmaking and Millwork I,II CT 78 A,B,C,D: Residential Wiring I,II, III, IV CT 50: Construction Estimating CT 56: Construction Lay‐Out 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: Although enrollment has declined it is very near the district average. Not building a house in 2011/12 Enrollment ☒ had an adverse effect on enrollment. Comment if checked: Low fill rates are reflective of outdated Curriculum with high/unrealistic Maximum Class Sizes. Fill Rate ☒ During the 2013‐14 academic year we will be rewriting many C.O.R.s to accurately reflect the maximum class sizes for our courses. 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: Enrollments & fill rates Comment if checked: Enrollment ☐ Comment if checked: Fill Rate ☐ pResidential ConstructionProgram Review 2013.docx 5/1/2014 Page 2 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: We are significantly above the district average. Retention ☒ Comment if checked: We are significantly above the district average. 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 of Concentrators ☒ Comment: Data is inaccurate. 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 of Concentrators ☒ Comment: Data is inaccurate. 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: Completions & Transfers ☒ Comment: Data is inaccurate. 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 next to Enrollments & fill rates Comment: Data indicates the Residential Construction program is above the district average. 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 next to success & retention pResidential ConstructionProgram Review 2013.docx 5/1/2014 Page 3 Comment: Data indicates we are above the district average. 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: The decline in one year certificates was reflective of outdated certificate requirements. Changes in the requirements are under revision. 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: Looks good. 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). 2.9 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: a. Occupational Wages Area Year Period Hourly Mean Hourly by Percentile 25th Median 75th California 2012 1st Qtr $27.15 $19.84 $26.29 $34.27 b. This program is not duplicated in the service area. c. Students that complete a degree or certificate in this program and seek work, generally find it. pResidential ConstructionProgram Review 2013.docx 5/1/2014 Page 4 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. Demand for labor in construction is on the rise with the resurgent building industry on the north coast and California. 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 pResidential ConstructionProgram Review 2013.docx 5/1/2014 Page 5 CT 56 – not offered in 2012/13. CT 70 – This course is being inactivated. 102 10 69% Submitted this fall: CT 57C, 57D, 80, 81 and CT42 as of this writing. CT 90, 91, 50, 30, 32 will be submitted this semester. Yes. May, 2013 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’ve actually made quite a few changes basses upon assessment. We have made curricular changes to CT 21A, 21B, 57A‐B‐C&D, 80, 81, 90, 91, 95 & 96. Changes to CA.Res I, CA.Res II, and AS Construction Technology have resulted from assessment findings. 3.2 (Optional) Describe assessment findings/observations that may require further research or institutional support. 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) 1. Purchase lot for House #40 Completed 1. Write Self‐Study for external accreditation by A.T.M.A.E. (Association of Technology, Management and Applied Engineering) Accreditation was postponed until this year pResidential ConstructionProgram Review 2013.docx 5/1/2014 Page 6 4.2 (If applicable) Describe how funds provided in support of the plan(s) contributed to program improvement: 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. Purchase a building Provide a well‐educated, well lot for House #41. trained workforce to the service (2015‐2016 year) area and the North Coast region. The Construction pResidential ConstructionProgram Review 2013.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. Huge. The Construction Technology Program revolves around the design and building of a home on a building lot.
$65,000 ‐ $75,000. These funds Page 7 Relationship to Assessment Resources Needed (Y/N) 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. A yes here requires a corresponding request in the next section. Yes 2 3 4 5 6 Technology Program revolves around the design and building of a home on a building lot. Write Self‐Study for external accreditation Relates directly to Institutional by A.T.M.A.E. Plans for an outcomes based, (Association of data driven assessment process.
Technology, The accreditation is an Management and outcomes based assessment.
Applied Engineering) will be from the sale of House #39. The accreditation is an outcomes based assessment. The accreditation is based directly on Program level goals, and SLOs. Administrative support from department and I.R. 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 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) pResidential ConstructionProgram Review 2013.docx 5/1/2014 Page 8 $ $ Annual Contact Action # use # above Request Describe your request here in a way that someone outside the program can understand. 1 2 Funds for the purchase of a building lot for house #41. Funds for the construction of house #40 Planning To be reviewed by Prioritization Committees of the Budget Planning Committee Operational To be reviewed and grouped by Associate Deans. Personnel Professional Development To be To be reviewed by reviewed by the Faculty Professional Prioritization Development Committee. Committee $70 K – 80 K $165K Section 7‐Author Feedback Provide any constructive feedback about how this template or datasets could be improved. We are very appreciative of Dr. Hill’s work and her service to the College. How much do you agree with the following statements? (mark your choice with an x )
Strongly Somewhat
Somewhat Strongly
Neutral
Agree
Agree
Disagree Disagree
This year’s program review was valuable
[]
[]
[x]
[]
[]
in planning for the ongoing improvement
of my program.
Analysis of the program review data was
useful in assessing my program.
[]
[ x]
[]
[]
[]
pResidential ConstructionProgram Review 2013.docx 5/1/2014 Page 9 Amount
Recurring
Costs Person
(Name, email, phone) Ted Stodder
, ted‐
stodder
@redw
oods.e
du, 476‐
4344 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: title is for “residential” construction. Should be under construction technology. List certs sand degrees tht fall under this program – for exec summary of notes. Inconsistency…with title and review. S.2. Data Analysis: (Confusion over name of program.) Acceptable/Developing. Curriculum revisions noted as being needed from data analysis were not included in the planning section. Issues with indicators resulting in what was thought to be inaccurate data were not explained. S.3. Critical Reflection of Assessment Activities: Acceptable/Developing. In general the CT program assessment reports are minimal with little evidence of dialogue or discussion of findings, and discussion of changes/improvements is lacking. Many program level assessment reports have been submitted, but they lack detail beyond the numbers of courses in each category. The program review authors state that changes were made based upon assessment, but they do not provide connections between assessment results and specific changes. Program changes are not well described and they are only loosely linked to assessment findings. S.4. Evaluation of Previous Plans: Developing. Impact was not noted. S.5. Planning: Developing. Core information is good, but planning is not directly linked to assessment or institutional documents. S.6. Resource Requests: Resource requests are not linked to assessment and institutional documents. pResidential ConstructionProgram Review 2013.docx 5/1/2014 Page 10