INSTITUTIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
2015-2016 PROGRAM REVIEW REPORT BY DISCIPLINE
The Best Place to Start
KINESIOLOGY
The Program Review Report assesses the viability and quality of credit and non-credit instructional programs to support program improvement through Area Improvement Plans,
as established by College Procedure 2.03.01.18: Program Review. The Office of Institutional Research provides the data, which are by academic year as of August 31, 2015; the Office of
Institutional Effectiveness produces the report, which presents the data by program. Standards are marked as “Met” or “Not Met” based on DISTRICT (“D”), not site, performance. Data
by site are shown where available (if unavailable, boxes are blank). Standards after slashes denote critical thresholds, which identify especially unacceptable performance (and if not met,
are marked "Not Met-Critical"). Results are color-coded, as follows:
STANDARD MET
STANDARD NOT MET
STANDARD NOT MET - CRITICAL
Overall Viability Indicator score 50% or lower prompts formal review by the Program Review Committee. The Committee's authority concerning program continuation is
limited to recommending that the senior instructional administrators review the program's capacity to improve its service to students and the community. The final decision on program
continuation rests with the President.
Program Type: Credit Transfer Program
Program Review Committee Action required this year: No Formal Review - Viability above
50%
Report’s Recommendation Last Year: Viable Program
THE PROGRAM’S RECENT PERFORMANCE SCORES (Citation of a year such as "1415" or "2015" refers to the 2014-2015 academic year.)
12-13
13-14
14-15
2015-2016
VIABILITY
12-13
13-14
14-15
2015-2016
100%
83.33%
100%
83.33%
QUALITY
50%
50%
50%
66.67%
RECENT RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PROGRAM REVIEW COMMITTEE
2012-2013
The Kinesiology Program was found to be viable and was given the following recommendations: 1. Reduce the number of sections offered. 2. Market the program. 3. Increase the concurrent classes with the
Continuing Education side. 4. Evaluate the responsibility of the costs incurred by the Department from outside use. 5. Work with other disciplines to be added as an elective in the Disciplines area of study. This
addition needs to be made by October 1, 2013 for the 2014-2015 Catalog. 6. Request to be added to the core curriculum after the 2014 Core is established. This request can be made after Spring 2015 and beyond.
2013-2014
The Kinesiology Program was found to be viable and was given the following recommendations: 1. Continue what they are doing with an emphasis on marketing the program to other disciplines, specifically to Fire
Technology, Law Enforcement, EMT, and CE programs. 2. Use the Video Producer (available through the Curriculum Department) to add video clips to the College Catalog, produce a 30-second theatre spot, TV
advertising, and a billboard. 3. Contact the Marketing Department to develop a strategic marketing plan. 4. Contact IT (Doug Schirmer) to link CE sections to their concurrent academic classes. 5. Should be one of
the first applicants in Spring 2015 to present to the Curriculum Committee to request addition to the core curriculum.
2014-2015
The Kinesiology Program was found to be viable and was given the following recommendations: 1. Meet with the Curriculum Committee to discuss inclusion in Core. 2. Market other degrees. 3. Ensure
upcoming faculty advisers are aware how Program fits in with other degrees. 4. Distribute Program posters more widely throughout all campuses. 5. Create more contemporary and colorful posters. 6. Use web
banner
SOURCES 1. State Annual Data Profile, Mainframe, 2. Annual Data Profile and/or Automated Student and Adult Learner Follow-up System, 3. Mainframe/State Lonestar, EMSI proprietary database, 4. Program Review Status Form completed by Dean of District
Discipline Coordinator/CE Dean/Director, 5. Master Class Schedule (Mainframe), 6. Banner, 7. Master Class Schedule (Mainframe), Fac. Employment Status (Mainframe), 8. SLO Assessment Task Force; TracDat database (All fields must have data for applicable
cycle—no blank fields), 9. Credit Student Faculty Evaluation, 10. Graduate Survey, 11. Employer Survey, 12. Advisory Committee Survey & Minutes, 13. THECB Statewide Annual Licensure Report, 14. Faculty Development Records, 15. Non-Credit Faculty
Evaluation, 16. Course Syllabus (Curriculum Office), 17. Advisory Committee Survey & Minutes, Program Review Status Form completed by Dean of District Discipline Coordinator/CE Dean/Director, 18. DACUM Audit (Curriculum Office), 19. Curriculum
Office, 20. Advisory Committee Survey & Minutes, Employer Survey, 21. Student Banner Files, Budget Office, Public Community/Junior & Technical College Basis of Legislative Appropriations, 22. Credit Academic History.
OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT OF RESEARCH AND ACCOUNTABILITY
Z:RS/2015-2016 RPT/PROGREVRPT1516-YR KINESIOLOGY
4/15/2016
EPCC does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, gender, age, disability, veteran status, sexual orientation, or gender identity.
1
VIABILITY (Overall viability score 50% or lower prompts formal review by the Program Review Committee)
INDICATOR
1213
1314
1415
Rpt
Rpt
Rpt
1516 Rpt
(District
Data as of
Aug. 31,
2015)
ASC
FT.
BLISS
MdP
NW
RG
TM
VV
1. Contact/Credit Hours per FT Faculty Sufficient contact/credit hours for
all discipline courses, District-wide, disregarding lecturers, for FT faculty
workload for last 3 years (F/Sp). (Excluding C.E. courses) (Unduplicated)
(Cred. Tran. & Career & Tech. versions of programs share the same results)
Source: 4 Standard: Yes/No
2. Class Fill Rate Percent of classes 75% full (Including C.E. students),
based on optimum and no. of students in each section for last 3 years on
census date, excluding MILS (UTEP ROTC), MUAP (independent Music
study), MUSR (recitals), Independent Study, Virtual College of Texas,
NCBO, classes whose instructors are not paid by EPCC; if room capacity is
below optimum, score reflects room capacity. (For info. only, after score the
measure is also calculated w/o concurrent students.) (For info. only,
District average fill rate appears after foregoing data (No. of seats filled
divided by no. of seats available)) Source: 5 Standard: 80%/<50%
3. Enrollment Trends Seat count (Including C.E. students) is increasing,
level or decreasing no more than 5% from the benchmark year (1st yr. of
last 3 yrs.), based on program-specific courses. (For info. only, after the
score measure is calculated w/o concurrent students.) (For info. only,
appears the unduplicated no. of students by year) Source: 6 Standard:
Yes/>10% decrease
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
D: 71%
Dist. Seat
Count:
75.5%
D: 68%
Dist. Seat
Count:
71.7%*
D: 67.2%
Dist. Seat
Count:
72.5%*
D: 78.8%
Dist. Seat
Count:
80%*
50%
83.4%
D: No,
-12%,
Undupl.
2010: 823,
2012: 705
D: No,
-39%,
Undupl.
2011: 815,
2013: 546
*
D: No,
-30.5%,
Undupl.
2012: 705,
2014: 561 *
D: Yes,
17.9%,
Undupl.
2013: 546,
2015: 666 *
Yes,
188.7%
Yes,
2.6%
4. Revenue Sufficiency For each of the 3 previous years, program credit
hours x average fall tuition per credit hour + state reimbursement (dollar
reimbursement per contact hour by program x total contact hours per
program x current reimbursement percentage rate) is greater than or equal to
program budget + overhead costs (33% of entire program budget.) (For
information only, the surplus above, or the deficit below, the program
budget + overhead costs appears after the foregoing result and for each of
the 3 previous years, with “Yes” or “No” preceding the amounts as
appropriate) Excludes grant and external funding. Faculty salaries are
included in expenses. Source: 21 Standard: Yes
5. Full-Time Faculty in Discipline There is at least 1 FT instructor with
primary teaching load in the discipline. (Sept. 1-May 1 of latest year) (Cred.
Tran. & Career & Tech. versions of programs share the same results) Source: 7
Standard: Yes/No
6. Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs) For each 2-year cycle, has the
program documented & implemented the recommendations for its active
SLOs and completed its assessment process for its active SLOs? Source: 8
Standard: Yes
No. For
info. only,
2010 No
-$371,233,
2011 No $232,075,
2012 No $293,564
No. For
info. only,
2011 No
-$232,075,
2012 No
-$293,564,
2013 No
-$378,283
No. For
info. only,
2012 No
-$293,564,
2013 No
-$378,283
2014 No
-$374,758
No. For
info. only,
2013 No
-$378,283
2014 No
-$374,758
2015 No
-$359,537
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
* 2013-2014 revisions to the Program Review procedure required that C.E. students be included in the scored calculation. For information only, a second calculation was required to be made without including C.E. students; the
change may affect Advanced Technology Industrial Manufacturing, Electrical Technology, HVAC, and Machining Technology.
†If a program has moved, or expanded, to another campus, during the three-year period specified by the indicator, the District score is calculated, but the finding for an individual campus offering the program is “Lacks 3 years of
data” if the campus has hosted the program fewer than three years.
KINESIOLOGY 2
QUALITY
INDICATOR
1213
1314
1415
Rpt
Rpt
Rpt
D: 90%
D: 90%
D: 92.3%
D: 97%
D: 96%
100%
1516 Rpt
(District
Data as of
Aug. 31,
2015)
ASC
FT.
BLISS
MdP
NW
RG
TM
VV
D: 92.5%
87.3%
93.3%
D: 95.3%
D: 95.3%
94%
96%
88%
100%
66.7%
100%
100%
100%
80%
D: 79%
D: 80%**
D:
88.9%**
D: 83.6%
70%
85.8%
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
STAKEHOLDER SATISFACTION/PROGRESS
1. Student Satisfaction with Program Based on fall/spring percent of
students satisfied with labs & technology averaged for the last 3 years.
(Surveys scored 1 or 0 based on combined on averaged of responses:
“Excellent”: 1, “Good”: 1, “Acceptable”: 1, “Weak”: 0, “Unacceptable” =
0. Average of 1=Satisfaction) Source: 9 Standard: 80%
2. Student Evaluation of Faculty Percent of satisfaction in fall/spring
averaged for last 3 years, based on question: "Would you recommend
instructor?" Source: 9 Standard 80%
INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT
1. Full-Time Faculty Development For most recent year, percent of FT
teaching Faculty at 2 prof. development activities during the fall semester
(1st day of fall Faculty Development Week (FDW) through last day of final
exams) and percent of FT teaching Faculty at 2 such activities during spring
semester (1st day of spring FDW through last day of final exams). If FT
faculty teach in 2 or more programs, their attendance is credited to all the
programs. Source: 14 Standard: 100%
2. Part-Time Faculty Development For most recent year, percent of PT
teaching Faculty at 1 prof. development activity during fall semester (1st
day of fall Faculty Development Week (FDW) through last day of final
exams) and percent of PT teaching Faculty at 1 such activity during spring
semester (1st day of spring FDW through last day of final exams). If PT
faculty teach in 2 or more programs, their attendance is credited to all the
programs. Source: 14 Standard: 75%
3. Sections taught by Full-Time Percent of sections taught by FT Faculty
for last 3 years, excluding MILS (UTEP ROTC), MUAP (independent
Music study), MUSR (recitals), Independent Study, Virtual College of
Texas, NCBO, classes whose instructors are not paid by EPCC. Source: 7
Standard: 50%
4. Course Syllabus Reviewed/revised within the last 3 years, based on no.
of course syllabi in the program and the revision date of each syllabus.
Source: 16 Standard: Yes
**2013-2014 revisions to the Program Review procedure reduced the standard from 60% to 50%.
†If a program has moved, or expanded, to another campus, during the three-year period specified by the indicator, the District score is calculated, but the finding for an individual campus offering the program is “Lacks 3 years of
data” if the campus has hosted the program fewer than three years.
KINESIOLOGY 3