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: Forestry and Natural Resources Date: 10/8/13 1.1 Program Review Authors (include names and campus locations): Tim Baker 1.2 Dean’s Signature: Date: 1.3 Individual Program Information # of Degrees offered: 1 (+ 4 legacy degrees) # of Certificates offered: 2 (+1 legacy certificate) 1.3.1 State briefly how the program functions support the college mission: The FNR program supports the College mission by providing career and technical training in forest technology and geospatial technology, by providing transfer education through articulation with Humboldt State University, and through improving regional economic activity by supporting the largest export sector of the local economy. 1.3.2 State briefly program highlights/accomplishments: The FNR program was given notice last spring of possible reduction or elimination. This led to a vigorous input from the local community in support of the program and energized the Forestry Advisory Committee. We also received substantial commitments for financial support from the Redwood Regional Logging Conference ($2000/year for the next 3 years to offset GIS site license fees) as well as donations from local industry (Humboldt Redwoods Company, $1000) for support of the FNR club. The program is currently assessing local industry needs and updating curriculum as appropriate as well as continuing to work with HSU to meet their changing curriculum and assessment needs. Additionally, the Klamath‐Trinity site, in cooperation with the Hupa tribe is offering the FNR program at KT through a grant‐supported program. However, the program has had problems meeting staffing needs for various courses at the K‐T site as well as the Eureka campus. 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: Enrollment ☐ Enrollment remained steady in the program in 2012‐13 despite late cancellation of a section last Spring due to a lack of cFNR 13‐14 Program Review.docx 3/6/2014 Page 1 instructor. Had that section not been cancelled we likely would’ve seen an increase – a trend opposite of the College as a whole. Overall enrollment is down 17% from a peak in 2010‐11 largely because the College has offered approximately 20% fewer sections. This is however a smaller decrease than the College as a whole which experienced a 30% decrease in enrollment. These numbers suggest a strong interest in the FNR program. Comment if checked: Fill Rate ☐ Overall FNR fill rates were well above College averages with an 82% fill in 2012‐2013. Fill rates are generally lower at the remote sites and with the higher level FNR courses but the introductory level courses generally fill completely each semester. These numbers also suggest a strong interest in the FNR program. 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 ☐ For the first time we are able to see the number of students who have declared FNR majors and the numbers are somewhat surprising. There are 138 A.S. degree seekers (108 in FNR, 30 in legacy degrees) and 44 certificate seekers. This number is larger than many of the multi‐faculty programs and strongly suggests we are not meeting the needs of all of these students because of limited course offerings. It also highlights a persistent problem with counseling and advising because not all of these students show up in FNR courses. For comparison, CR has 176 total FNR majors while Humboldt State has 228 undergraduate forestry majors. HSU has 8 full‐time faculty while CR has 1. Comment if checked: Fill Rate ☐ 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: Overall FNR success numbers appear to be higher than the College as a whole with a 72% overall success rate in 2012‐2013. However several courses, particularly the technically challenging ones, were lower than the College as a whole but were comparable with similarly challenging science courses. Retention ☐ Comment if checked: Retention in the program and courses was higher than the College as a whole with 91% retention across the FNR offerings. This suggests that student interest in the course material remains strong despite the challenging nature of the material. The cFNR 13‐14 Program Review.docx 3/6/2014 Page 2 program is working on increasing student success rates within individual course but we are hampered by a shortage of faculty and the lack of a dedicated tutor or educational assistant with the specialized knowledge needed for the program. The development of a program similar to the Math or English labs would likely increase success rates but we are hampered by a lack of resources to institute such a program for study outside the current class/lab paradigm. 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: The FNR program had a 100% persistence rate in 2012‐2013 of students. This implies a strong continuing interest in the program by students who had completed 3 or more courses. 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: See comments in section 2.6 below. 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: We had no ‘completers’ in 2011‐12 according to the data largely because of 2 reasons: 1) Our 2‐year cycle of courses means the higher‐end courses needed to complete the degree were not offered in 2012‐13 but will be in 2013‐14. This is a recurring problem for students seeking the full FNR A.S. degree. 2) A large number of students who are ostensibly FNR students have been getting the A.A. Liberal Arts – Science Exploration degree instead of the FNR degree and have not been counted as completers for the FNR program. This was possible because there were 8 FNR courses in the Science Exploration electives so students who were seeking to transfer to HSU and did not want to take the full 14 FNR courses required for the FNR A.S., some of which do not articulate for specific courses at HSU, sought out the Science Exploration degree instead. The data from 2012 indicate that there were 15 Science Exploration degrees awarded to students who took 9 or more FNR units, some with as many as 30 FNR units. Previously we had developed a program for that population of students but a previous College administration never forwarded the degree to the Chancellor’s Office so it was deemed invalid. We are working on developing a new degree to capture those students as completers and hope to have one before the Curriculum Committee this year. Another factor that weighs in to the discussion of completers has to be the lack of accreditation of the FNR program by the Society of American Foresters, the professional accrediting body for forestry and natural resources. While the program largely meets the curriculum standards to become accredited, we cannot meet the minimum standard for number of full‐
time faculty. The program and the Forestry Advisory Committee as well as outside program reviews by the Chancellor’s Office all strongly recommended College of the Redwoods work towards gaining this accreditation but every year other cFNR 13‐14 Program Review.docx 3/6/2014 Page 3 College needs seem to be rated more highly than FNR accreditation. This lack of accreditation means the degree we offer holds less value than it might otherwise and lead students to either seek out easier degrees (e.g. Science Exploration) or to transfer without completing a degree (the majority of FNR students). 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: The FNR program in general had somewhat higher proportions of males and somewhat older students than the College as a whole though this is in keeping with general trends in this profession. The forestry profession was historically a white male dominated field until the 1970’s and 80’s when a slow transition to greater gender equity began. The field is much more balanced today but still weighted towards a preponderance of males. Somewhat smaller strides have been made in racial diversity though the profession has made some positive strides in increasing diversity through preferential hiring in the government agencies over the past 30 years. The disparity is not unique to CR and may be partly due to the difference in rural vs. urban populations that are attracted to the profession. For comparison, at Humboldt State University in 2010‐2011, there were 26 completers. 24 males and 2 females. Racial identification indicates 18 white, 2 Hispanic, and 6 unknown. 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 Comment: Success and retention was similar or higher in the FNR program than for the College as a whole for most student groups reported in the data. An exception was the American Indian group though the 23% lower values for the FNR program compared to the College may be related in part to relatively low numbers (22) and in part to the lower success in the few FNR courses offered at the K‐T site. 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: Faculty Information cFNR 13‐14 Program Review.docx 3/6/2014 Page 4 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: The FNR program FTES/FTEF ratio is slightly higher than the College as a whole at 27.8. The FTEF number was down slightly in 2012‐13 because of the cycle of course offerings at the late cancellation of a section of FNR 77 due to loss of the associate faculty who taught the course. Overall FTES are relatively stable given the cycle of courses (43.9 in 10‐11, 40.1 in 11‐12, and 41.3 in 12‐13), much more so than the College as a whole which declined by 793 FTES over the same period. However, the program does have a problem finding qualified adjunct faculty and has experienced a high turnover rate in adjuncts, particularly in the GIS courses because of emigration out of Humboldt county for jobs elsewhere. And the program still cannot seek accreditation because we do not meet the minimum standards of the SAF for number of full‐time faculty. 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: Narrative: A) Current EDD data show steady employment numbers for Forest and Conservation workers overall with approximately 120 annual replacement positions. Over the 10 years span, this suggests 1200 new hires just for replacements. B) There are no other 2‐year FNR programs in the region and few in the state overall. The only SAF‐accredited program is at Reedley College near Fresno. Both Shasta College and Siskiyou College have been building forestry programs in recent years because of demand. C) We currently lack good tracking data on student employment and many of the FNR students pursue transfer prior to completion because of the limits on the number of credits they can transfer. Overall we believe the effectiveness of the program in preparing students for transfer is much higher than current data suggests. However program effectiveness might be increased by gaining full SAF‐
cFNR 13‐14 Program Review.docx 3/6/2014 Page 5 accreditation and developing a transfer‐focused degree to capture the students who are currently getting the Science Exploration degree instead of an FNR degree. 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. 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 None 59 9 100% are up to date Yes, 4 times. 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. Both the program‐level outcomes and the course‐level outcomes have been significantly revised to better reflect the needs of assessment and current standards. For example, the program outcomes were changed from 14 specific outcomes that were originally tied independently to individual courses to 5 broad outcomes that encompass the major goals of the program. Similar revisions were undertaken for each course as well to allow more efficient mapping of CLOs to PLOs. cFNR 13‐14 Program Review.docx 3/6/2014 Page 6 3.2 (Optional) Describe assessment findings/observations that may require further research or institutional support. Outcome analysis suggests that where students are falling short in achieving individual outcomes is dependent upon their basic math skills and the availability of specialized tutors for specific topics. For example, in the FNR 51 course (Dendrology), the lack of a specialized tutor means students often rely on books or each other to discern the sometimes subtle differences that indicate one tree is a different species (or not) from another. One semester we had an exceptional student with previous plant taxonomy experience and she undertook to lead study groups prior to each ID quiz and the success rate jumped for that year. Similar gains would likely be possible if we had a specialized tutor or educational assistant for other FNR courses, especially the math intensive ones. 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) Update classroom computer/projection system in AT 127 Partially complete The classroom computer was replaced with a refurbished unit from the CADD lab but the projection system needs updating. Update Program Learning Outcomes/ update course outlines. Completed The number of PLO’s was significantly restructured to better map to course outcomes and make assessment more effective. cFNR 13‐14 Program Review.docx 3/6/2014 Page 7 Establish general fund for re‐occurring GIS Completed site license requirements Line item in budget established to fund annual site license fee. Additionally, we have secured a donation for the next 3 years to fully fund the site license. Additional Full‐time Faculty Not complete Request placed on hold until College budget allows for additional faculty Replace classroom furniture Partially Complete New chairs from closed sites installed but tables not replaced. Repair Nikon Total Stations Not complete Funds were not previously allocated and the technology is getting dated to the point where purchasing replacement units make more sense. Specialized FNR tutor Not complete Funds not allocated. 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. Action # Action to be taken: cFNR 13‐14 Program Review.docx Relationship to Institutional Plans 3/6/2014 5.1 Program Plans Expected Impact on Program/Student Learning Page 8 Relationship to Assessment Resources Needed (Y/N) 1 2 3 4 5 6 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. Annual Plan 2013‐14 Goal 1: Student Success: EP. 1 Ensure Students Success 1. Provide Develop a new FNR structured academic pathways. degree oriented And 4. Increase transfers and towards transfer degree and certificate students completions. EP.4 Maintain Technological Replace classroom Relevance 4. Effectively utilize projection system technology in teaching Describe the expected impact in a way that someone outside the program can understand. The impact should be measurable. The number of FNR completers should increases if a broader, transfer‐oriented degree were available to them. Increase the utility of photographic and video displays so students can more easily visualize discussion points. 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. Number of completers in the new degree. No Yes 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 cFNR 13‐14 Program Review.docx 3/6/2014 Page 9 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) Operational Personnel Professional Planning To be Development reviewed by To be Prioritization Committees To be To be reviewed by Action the of the reviewed reviewed by 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 2 High‐definition video display (repeat from 2011‐
12) Yes Section 7‐Author Feedback Provide any constructive feedback about how this template or datasets could be improved. 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
cFNR 13‐14 Program Review.docx 3/6/2014 Page 10 $7000 $ Annual Recurring Costs Contact Person (Name, email, phone) 0 Tim Baker x4348 in planning for the ongoing improvement of
my program.
Analysis of the program review data was
useful in assessing my program.
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
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. Good job of including advisory board information S.3. Critical Reflection of Assessment Activities: Exemplary: good example of tying everything together. Both program‐level outcomes and course‐level have been revised to better reflect the needs of assessment and current standards. Outcomes were reduced at both the program and course levels to allow for a more efficient mapping of CLOs to PLOs. S.4. Evaluation of Previous Plans: Exemplary. S.5. Planning: Exemplary; PRC suggestion: Item #2 does not indicate a relationship to assessment. S.6. Resource Requests: Exemplary. cFNR 13‐14 Program Review.docx 3/6/2014 Page 11