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