2015-2016 PROGRAM REVIEW REPORT BY DISCIPLINE EPCC LANGUAGE INSTITUTE

advertisement
INSTITUTIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
2015-2016 PROGRAM REVIEW REPORT BY DISCIPLINE
The Best Place to Start
EPCC LANGUAGE INSTITUTE
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: Non-Credit Program
Mandatory Accreditation:
Program Review Committee Action required this year: In Need of Formal Review - Viability 50%
or Less
Report’s Recommendation Last Year: Viable Program
Fully Accredited? (Y/N):
Reason Why Not Fully Accredited:
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%
75%
100%
100%
QUALITY
50%
40%
40%
40%
RECENT RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PROGRAM REVIEW COMMITTEE
2012-2013
2013-2014
2014-2015
Americana Language Program was found to be viable and was given the following recommendations: 1. Collaborate with the Workforce Division, Continuing Education, and GED Programs, to reduce the duplication of
courses and increase enrollments. 2. Identify enrollment management by identifying sections student can support with the Continuing Education Program to prepare ESL students concurrently. 3. Recommend the
tracking of students from the Americana Language Program to credit programs and other programs at the College.
Americana Language Program was found to be viable and was given the following recommendations: 1. Change the name of the program. 2. Recommendation for rebranding their name from Americana Language
Program to Intensive English Program for better marketing purposes. 3. Streamline their marketing strategies for the services they actually have. 4. Continue their strategies as they are. 5. Full time faculty need to bring
up attendance for faculty development to 100%.
Americana Language Program was found to be viable and was given the following recommendations: 1. Explore consequences of raising the TOEFL cut-off scores. Use well-researched data in presentations to
administration in favor of higher TOEFL cut-off scores. 2. Explore using internal resources for maintenance and construction—including Advanced Technology Center –in order to lower costs. 3. Optimize Program’s
planning for progression through courses, taking into consideration students’ varied attendance.
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 EPCCLANGUAGEINSTITUTE
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
14-15
Rpt
Rpt
Rpt
15-16 Rpt
(District Data as
of Aug. 31, 2015)
1. Contact/Credit Hours per FT Faculty Sufficient
contact/credit hours for all discipline courses, District-wide,
for FT faculty workload for last 3 years (F/Sp).
(Unduplicated) Source: 4 Standard: Yes/No
2. Class Fill Rate Percent of classes 75% full based on no.
of students in each section for last 3 years on census date.
(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 is increasing, level or
decreasing no more than 5% from the benchmark year (1st
yr. of last 3 yrs.). Seat counts for all area of study courses are
added together to determine the seat count. (For info. only,
appears the unduplicated no. of students by year) Source: 6
Standard: Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
D: 32.1%
Dist. Seat
Count:
69.4%
D: 60.2%, Dist.
Seat Count:
77%
D: 67%, Dist.
Seat Count:
78.3%
D: 75.6%, Dist.
Seat Count:
82.6%
D: No, 22%
D: No, -33.2%
D: No, -16.9%
D: No, -19.3%
4. Revenue Sufficiency For the academic year prior to the
academic year of the Program Review Report, revenue
(tuition and fees plus State reimbursement) meets or exceeds
expenditures. (For information only, the surplus above, or
the deficit below, the breakeven point appears after the
foregoing result.) Source: 21 Standard: Yes
5. 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
Pending
No. For
information
only: 2012-2013
No, - $60,155
No. For
information
only: 2013 -2014
No, - $108,423
No. For
information only:
2014 -2015
No, -$118,999.69
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
ASC
FT.
BLISS
MdP
NW
RG
TM
VV
EPCC LANGUAGE INSTITUTE 2
QUALITY
INDICATOR
1213
1314
14-15
Rpt
Rpt
Rpt
15-16 Rpt
(District Data as
of Aug. 31,
2015)
ASC
FT.
BLISS
MdP
NW
RG
TM
VV
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: 15
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: 15 Standard 80%
3. Retention to next level Percent from cycle to cycle, based on
the no. of students in each level of each funded IEP C.E. course, and
the number of students who proceed to the next IEP level during the
next cycle for previous 3 years. Source: 6 Standard 65%
D: 97%
D: 97%
D: 97.4%
D: 97.4%
D: 96%
D: 96%
D: 96.7%
D: 95.5%
Data Pending
Data Pending,
Anticipated
for 2014-2015.
Data
Pending
Data Pending
100%
89%
100%
100%
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
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. Course Outlines Reviewed/revised within last 3 years, based on
revision date of each program course outline. Source: 4 Standard:
Yes
EPCC LANGUAGE INSTITUTE 3
Download
Related flashcards

Corporate governance

23 cards

System administration

65 cards

Corporate governance

32 cards

Create Flashcards