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: Drafting Technology Date: 10‐14‐13 1.1 Program Review Authors (include names and campus locations): Steve Brown, Eureka 1.2 Dean’s Signature: Date: 1.3 Individual Program Information # of Degrees offered: 3 # of Certificates offered: 3 1.3.1 State briefly how the program functions support the college mission: The Drafting Technology (DT) degrees, certificates, and individual courses provide both career preparation and transfer opportunities for students. In addition to students who are seeking a degree or certificate in DT in order to gain entry into the profession, there are some incumbent workers who take DT courses to allow career advancement opportunities. Other students take course in the DT area in order to prepare for transfer to studies in engineering, architecture, and design. The DT program provides courses to support several other programs including Construction Technology, Manufacturing Technology, Computer Information Systems, Digital Media, Historic Preservation and Restoration, and Electrician Certification. It is common for HSU students to take ENGR23 (same as DT23) because it’s articulated and meets their freshman design requirement at HSU as well as other universities. 1.3.2 State briefly program highlights/accomplishments: ・ The Drafting Technology program continues to stay current with contemporary industry trends in technology and employer needs. The program relies on input from its industry advisory committee, follow‐up surveys, participation in program accreditation through the Association for Technology, Management, and Applied Engineering (ATMAE), and professional development activities of its faculty. ・ The DT program is current with all outcomes assessment requirements and curriculum updates. ・ The DT program is preparing its self‐study report for a spring ATMAE accreditation team visit. ・ The DT program has submitted program revisions to the Curriculum Committee that would consolidate the current three degrees and three certificates into a single AS degree and Certificate of Achievement. The proposed change recognizes that the separate programs have gradually become very similar in response to industry needs for technicians who are generalists rather than specialists. ・ Funding through CTEA and SB70 provided a new plotter, two 3D printers, and a 3D scanner for the CAD lab during the past academic year. The new equipment allow students to gain experience using the most contemporary technologies found in the design and drafting industry. ・ Funding through an NSF grant allowed the purchase of a laser cutter for use in model making. DraftTechProgramReview13‐14‐1.docx 5/1/2014 Page 1 ・ DT professor Brown worked with Manufacturing Technology (MT) faculty to develop a new course in the area of industrial robotics. An experimental course was prepared and is being offered this semester. SB70 funds were used to purchase the robotics equipment and provide training for DT and MT faculty. ・ The DT program participated in middle school and high school tours during the past year and provided a course for the Middle School Career Camp. ・ DT professor Brown attended several professional development activities during the past year including Autodesk University and the ATMAE annual conference. ・ DT professor Brown, as a co‐principle investigator for an NSF STEM grant, assisted with conducting a workshop in Orange County California during summer 2013. ・ DT professor Brown served as a team chair for an ATMAE accreditation visit to Nunez Community College in Chalmette Louisiana and served on the visiting team to IVY Tech Community College in South Bend Indiana. ・ DT faculty participated in the pilot offering of the renewed Cooperative Work Experience program. 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 ☐ Comment if checked: Fill Rate ☒ The Drafting sections have a 78% fill rate but the Industrial Technology sections are at 55%. The IT courses are required by several programs and are not an indicator of the health of DT. The IT46 class will likely be removed from active status this year since it will no longer be a required course for any program. The IT152 course is suffering enrollment because it can no longer be repeated. Faculty are discussing strategies to remedy this situation. 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: The number of majors reported (60) matches faculty expectations. The DT program also serves students in a variety of other majors including Construction Technology, Manufacturing Technology, Computer Information Systems, Digital Media, Historic Preservation and Restoration, and Electrician Certification. 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: DraftTechProgramReview13‐14‐1.docx 5/1/2014 Page 2 Retention ☐ Comment if checked: 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: DT persistence is 92% compared to the district rate of 89% 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: While there are no students completing who started new in 11‐12, the raw completion numbers show that students are receiving awards. We need to track a cohort that is longer than two years since most students take longer to complete an award. 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: The number of completers is on par with expectations. There were fewer completers in 12‐13 than 11‐12 but 11‐12 was well beyond the regular trend for unknown reasons. 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: Female participation in Drafting/ Engineering remains low compared to the district (7.3 % vs 49.3%). This will probably not change much but the program is doing all they can to encourage women to participate. Our brochures feature women, posters in the lab show women working in technological fields, and the promotional video for the program contains an interview with one of our women graduates. Also, the program advisory committee has regular participation by women. We keep trying! 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 DraftTechProgramReview13‐14‐1.docx 5/1/2014 Page 3 Comment: Retention of female students is lower than the district average but the sample size is fewer than 15 and should not be interpreted. As stated in the Enrollments for Student Equity Groups section above, we are doing what we can to encourage women to participate. While there are no students completing who started new in 11‐12, the raw completion numbers show that students are receiving awards. We need to track a cohort that is longer than two years since most students take longer to complete an award. 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: When looking at Drafting and Engineering, the FTES/FTEF ratio is 22 (Engineering FTEs was added to DT FTES because the only classes taught in Engineering were co‐listed with DT)This number is lower than the district average for two reasons: first, all DT courses have a cap of 25 in the course outline of record and most courses are taught in a room that can accommodate only 20 students; second, the program has experienced what we expect to be a temporary drop in enrollment due to issues with the CT Residential Construction program described in the summary of Section 2. 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: There is a documented labor market demand for Drafting Technology program completers. California Employment Development Department (EDD) DraftTechProgramReview13‐14‐1.docx 5/1/2014 Page 4 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/) The DT program does not duplicate other training programs in the North Coast region, public or private. The program is part of a non‐duplicative sequence of courses that begins in the region's high school and ROP programs and may continue to university level Industrial Technology, Architecture, and Engineering Technology programs. 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 CTE Division office. The DT program worked with CR Institutional Research staff to develop a graduate follow up survey as well as a student achievement report as required by our ATMAE accreditation. Some evidence from these efforts shows:  In spring 2012, the average GPA of CR students was higher than the statewide average in all areas except Civil Drafting.  The average salary of graduates employed after earning an AS in Architectural Drafting was $43,300 per year. Graduates reported earning on average approximately $21,425 more after their degree than before. Too few Civil Design and Mechanical Drafting students responded to the survey to allow for meaningful interpretation. The 2013‐2014 Core Indicator Report * provided by the Chancellor’s Office for Drafting Technology at CR shows: ・ Core Indicator 1 – Technical Skill Attainment is at 100% (11.2% above state level) ・ Core indicator 2 – Completions is at 66.7% (15.5% below state level) ・ Core Indicator 3 – Persistence and transfer is at 88% (22.2% below state level) ・ Core Indicator 4 – Employment is at 85.71% (8.3% above state level) ・ Core Indicator 5 – Non Traditional Participation is at 27.27% (10.2% ABOVE state level) ・ Core Indicator 6 – Non Traditional Completions is at 27.27% (10.2% ABOVE state level) *This report reflects students who have completed 12+ units in the 0953 (Drafting Technology) TOP Code. It appears that Core Indicators 2 and 3 are below the state negotiated level due to a lower than desired participation by economically disadvantaged students. Faculty are attempting to mitigate this issue by providing more course content through MyCR and using less expensive textbooks. 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. In the 2011/2012 academic year, it was decided that the college would not produce a student built house as it had been doing for several decades. This resulted in a significant decline in new and continuing students in the CT Residential Construction program. Because the DT71, DT73, ENGR23, and DT23 courses are required for the Residential Construction program, there were correspondingly fewer students in those courses during DraftTechProgramReview13‐14‐1.docx 5/1/2014 Page 5 the last two years. Enrollment in DT71 and DT73 was at a historic low last year and this year. We ran the courses, nonetheless, because several of the DT and CT students were in the middle of their programs and we would have caused them significant hardship. Therefore, the overall DT enrollment and fill rate numbers are not typical. Fortunately, the college has resumed the production of a student built house and we anticipate a turnaround. 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 All courses are on schedule for assessment except DT30. DT30 was not offered and is being considered for removal from the program. 24
13
100% up to date DT30 will likely be inactivated with some of the content moving to DT25 Y
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. 1. improved grading rubric for portfolio in DT23, ENGR23, DT50, DT25, DT60 2. added pre‐midterm assessments and review of Cartesian coordinate system entry systems 3. added a client‐based project to DT60 (simulation of industry design scenario) 4. additional focus on metric drawing units and scales included in DT25 3.2 (Optional) Describe assessment findings/observations that may require further research or institutional support. DraftTechProgramReview13‐14‐1.docx 5/1/2014 Page 6 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) Seek professional development opportunities for relevant technology training Completed and in‐progress Professor Brown is confident in incorporating and presenting new software applications and concepts. Several new projects have been added to various courses that reflect contemporary industry practices. Improve classroom/lab ventilation & heating in AT105 and AT107. This is a carryover from the 2011‐12 program review. Some work was done but it hasn’t improved the situation. When it became unbearably hot in the labs, maintenance staff turned off the boiler. The improvement was immediate but was short‐lived when adjacent classroom became unbearably cold. In addition to creating a very poor learning environment, the excessive heat is shortening the lives of the computers and peripherals in the lab. We are replacing hard drives and power supplies at a high rate. There is only one door to each room and no windows that can be opened. The problem persists. No effort is being made to remedy the situation. Students and faculty are subjected to a poor learning environment. Students leave class early because it is uncomfortable. The air handling systems need to be replaced so heating can be balanced across the classrooms in the AT building. This was promised when the Health Occ remodel was completed several years ago using Measure Q. We’re still waiting. Implement Assessments per the submitted plan and close the loop as appropriate Completed and in‐progress See section 3.1 Reinforce relationships with local high schools Worked with Mac and Eureka HS teachers to share information about articulation and technology Some articulations have been developed but more work needs to be done to help the high school teachers implement curriculum. DraftTechProgramReview13‐14‐1.docx 5/1/2014 Page 7 Prepare ATMAE self‐study This activity was put on hold for one year. When the college None yet was put on show cause, the DT program petitioned ATMAE for a one year extension until the college was on surer footing. The self‐study is being prepared now for a visit in spring 2014 Encourage students to declare a drafting major Faculty present students with information at the beginning of each semester and reinforce the need several times during the semester. No noticeable change Continue to enhance technology access for students in the CAD labs – 3D printing, computing infrastructure, modeling tools such as laser or CNC router This past year, through SB70, CTEA, and NSF funding the program was able to add several items of new technology: laser scanner, Makerbot 3D Printer, Stratasys FDM 3D printer, laser cutter, roll feed large format plotter. A variety of new projects have been added to several classes that give students access and familiarization to contemporary technology used in industry. 4.2 (If applicable) Describe how funds provided in support of the plan(s) contributed to program improvement: This past year, through SB70, CTEA, and NSF funding the program was able to add several items of new technology: laser scanner, Makerbot 3D Printer, Stratasys FDM 3D printer, laser cutter, roll feed large format plotter. 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 # Action to be taken: Relationship to Institutional Plans List the specific action to be taken in enough detail so that someone outside of your area can Include the specific plan and action item relevant to your action to be taken. For example: Annual Plan 2013‐
DraftTechProgramReview13‐14‐1.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. Page 8 Relationship to Assessment Resources Needed (Y/N) Include all assessment results that indicate that this action will yield the A yes here requires a corresponding request in the understand. 1 2 3 2014 Theme: Persistence; or
Goal 1: Student Success: EP.1.6.2 Develop a plan for narrowing the achievement gap for underrepresented student populations. Facilities Master Plan:
Objective 1.1 Modernize existing facilities, maximize functional space and utilization rates. Objective 3.1 Prioritize the enhancement of the student learning environment in all capital outlay projects. Strategic Plan: Improve classroom/lab Goal 4 Maintain Technological ventilation & heating in Relevance ‐ College of the AT105 and AT107. This Redwoods will support the is a carryover from the learning environment through 2011‐12 program appropriate technology and review. facilities. Facilities Master Plan:
Objective 1.1 Modernize existing facilities, maximize functional space and utilization rates. Objective 3.1 Prioritize the enhancement of the student learning environment in all capital outlay projects. Strategic Plan: Goal 4 Maintain Technological Replace filthy and worn Relevance ‐ College of the flooring in CAD labs Redwoods will support the AT105 and AT107. learning environment through Replace leak‐stained appropriate technology and ceiling tiles. facilities. Strategic Plan 1.2 ‐
Prepare ATMAE self‐
Continuously assess and study evaluate programs to provide DraftTechProgramReview13‐14‐1.docx 5/1/2014 desired impact on the program. If the assessment has yet to be conducted, explain when and how it will be conducted. next section.
All assessments will most certainly be impacted by improving the basic learning environment. The contrast between the old and new buildings is very apparent to students and they have said they prefer taking Classrooms will be comfortable and safe classes in the new learning environments where students building where it is and staff will be able to work effectively comfortable, well lit, without distraction. and clean. Yes Classrooms will be comfortable and safe All assessments will most certainly be learning environments where students and staff will be able to work effectively impacted by improving the basic without distraction. Students and staff learning environment. will feel pride in coming to a well‐cared The contrast between for and modern learning environment. The CAD lab is full of expensive and the old and new highly sophisticated equipment. It should buildings is very be a showpiece for the college but is, apparent to students instead, an embarrassment when and they have said bringing industry partners to campus for they prefer taking class presentations and advisory classes in the new committees. The ATMAE accreditation buildings where the visiting team will come in April 2014 and learning environment certainly make note of the poor is comfortable, well condition of the classrooms. lit, and clean. Yes The program will be prepared to host an ATMAE visiting team in Spring 2014 Page 9 No effective educational programs and services for all learners Strategic Plan 1.6
Support staff and faculty development and instructional innovation 4.3 CTE programs will have technology relevant to their disciplines 5 Seek professional development opportunities for relevant technology training Continue to enhance technology access for students in the CAD labs – Smart Boards, high‐
Strategic Plan 4.3 CTE res projector, 3D printer programs will have technology consumable materials relevant to their disciplines 6 Submit revisions to the DT program that consolidate 3 degrees and 3 certificates into one general degree and one general certificate. 4 Faculty will be well‐versed in the latest CAD software and curriculum will be updated to reflect contemporary industry. Yes Students will learn using the most current and sophisticated technology available in the field. Yes If the change is approved, program level assessments will be easier to manage and more meaningful No The proposed change recognizes that the separate programs have gradually become very similar in Strategic Plan 1.2 ‐ Continuously assess and response to industry needs for evaluate programs to technicians who are generalists provide effective educational rather than specialists. The change programs has been endorsed by the DT and services for all learners Industrial Advisory Committee 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 DraftTechProgramReview13‐14‐1.docx 5/1/2014 Page 10 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 1 2 4 5 Improve classroom/lab ventilation & heating in AT105 and AT107. This is a carryover from the 2011‐12 & 2012‐13 program review. Replace filthy and worn flooring in CAD labs AT105 and AT107. Replace leak‐stained ceiling tiles.
Seek professional development opportunities for relevant technology training Enhance technology access for students in the CAD labs – Smart Boards, high‐res projector, 3D printer DraftTechProgramReview13‐14‐1.docx 5/1/2014 X CTEA
0 Contact Person (Name, email, phone) Steve Brown 4347 Steve‐
brown@
redwoo
ds.edu Steve Brown 4347 Steve‐
brown@
redwoo
ds.edu Steve Brown 4347 Steve‐
brown@
redwoo
ds.edu
X $16,400 from 0 Steve Brown X X $ Annual Recurri
ng Costs Unknown until a response to support ticket is received
0 Unknown until a response to support ticket is received
0 $5,300 from Page 11 consumable materials 4347
Steve‐
brown@
redwoo
ds.edu
CTEA Section 7‐Author Feedback Provide any constructive feedback about how this template or datasets could be improved. Dr. Hill was very helpful with correcting mistakes in the data sets. There remains some confusion about how TOP codes cohorts are developed and tied to completions. We need to track a cohort for more than two years since most students do not complete in two years. 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 ]
[]
[]
[]
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: Acceptable. S.3. Critical Reflection of Assessment Activities: Acceptable. 100% course outline updates. SLOs/PLOs moving along. Changes were made based on assessment findings. S.4. Evaluation of Previous Plans: Acceptable. Past plans well documented. S.5. Planning: Acceptable. Program plans #3, #4, #5 need to have a relationship to assessment. S.6. Resource Requests: No costs associated with the resource requests. DraftTechProgramReview13‐14‐1.docx 5/1/2014 Page 12 DraftTechProgramReview13‐14‐1.docx 5/1/2014 Page 13