INSTITUTIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
2015-2016 PROGRAM REVIEW REPORT BY DISCIPLINE
The Best Place to Start
AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOGY
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
Viability Indicator scores 50% or lower or unmet Graduation and Student Success prompt 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: Career & Technical Program
Mandatory Accreditation: No
Report’s Recommendation Last Year: No Formal Review
Fully Accredited? (Y/N):
Program Review Committee Action required this year: No Formal Review - Viability above
50%
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
76.47%
88.89%
88.24%
88.89%
QUALITY
100%
100%
100%
87.50%
RECENT RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PROGRAM REVIEW COMMITTEE
2012-2013
None
2013-2014
None
2014-2015
None
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/PROGREVRPT 1516-YR AUTOMOTIVE
EPCC does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, gender, age, disability, veteran status, sexual orientation, or gender identity.
4/15/2016
1
VIABILITY (Overall viability score 50% or lower or unmet Graduation and Student Success prompts formal review by the Program Review Committee)
1516 Rpt
(District
Data as of
Aug. 31,
2015)
1213
1314
1415
Rpt
Rpt
Rpt
1. No. of Graduates Within latest 5-year period (Fall, Spring, Summer) provided by
the State (State counts graduates with more than 1 award more than once) (For info.
only, after the score: Latest 5-yr award total known to EPCC, if not the State) Source:
1 Standard: 25/<15
75. For
inf. Only,
EPCC
Data: 109
192. For
inf. Only,
EPCC
Data: 222*
222. For
inf. only,
EPCC
Data:
241*
238. For inf.
only, EPCC
Data: 270*
2. Student Success Percent of students employed/transfer/enter military w/in 1 yr
of grad., for last 3 years provided by the State. Source: 2 Standard: 90%/<50%
90.7%
90%
92.9%
93.9%
1. Workforce Demand Whether the no. of new and replacement jobs in the field
forecast for El Paso, Hudspeth, Dona Ana, Luna, & Otero counties during the 5
years following this report’s publication meets/exceeds the no. of graduates during
the 5 years preceding this report’s publication. (See end of report for data) Source:
3 Standard: Yes
Yes, for
205
graduates
in last 5
years.
Yes, for
139
graduates
in last 5
years.
Yes, for
148
graduates
in last 5
years.
Yes, for 163
graduates in
last 5 years.
2. 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
3. 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%
4. 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 calculated w/o
C.E. students.) (For info. only, appears the unduplicated no. of students by year)
Source: 6 Standard: Yes/>10% decrease
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
D: 94%
Dist. Seat
Count:
97.6%
D: 95%
Dist. Seat
Count:
98.8% **
D: 95.9%
Dist. Seat
Count:
99.4% **
D: 95.9%
Dist. Seat
Count:
98.8% **
95.9%
D: Yes,
2%,
Undupl.
2010:
224,
2012: 221
D: Yes,
12%,
Undupl.
2011: 229,
2013: 220
**
D: Yes,
5.8%,
Undupl.
2012:
221,
2014: 215
**
D: No,
-11.4%,
Undupl.
2013: 220,
2015: 195 **
No,
-11.4%
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
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
INDICATOR
ASC
FT.
BLISS
MdP
NW
RG
TM
VV
STATE-MANDATED
INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT
*2013-2014 revisions to the Program Review procedure increased the period of years covered from 3 to 5 and changed the standard from 15/<10 to 25/<15.
**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.
AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOGY 2
QUALITY
INDICATOR
1516 Rpt
(District Data
as of Aug. 31,
2015)
1213
1314
1415
Rpt
Rpt
Rpt
D: 98%
D: 97%
D: 96.8%
D: 95%
95%
D: 98%
D: 98%
D: 96%
D: 94.3%
94.3%
87%
97%
95%
96.9%
Lacks 3
yrs of data
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
99.4%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
88%
88%
75%
100%
13%
60%
67%
40%
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: 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%
3. Graduate Satisfaction with Program Based on percent of cumulative
graduates satisfied with “usefulness of my major courses w/ respect to my
job,” “availability of courses in my major,” & “level of technology in my
major.” (Combined average of all 3 responses) for previous 3 years. Source:
10 Standard: 80%
4. Employer Satisfaction Percent of surveyed employers satisfied with
graduates for last 3 years. Names of employers surveyed provided by the
Dean/District-wide Coordinator. (Surveys scored 1 or 0 based on the
combined average of the 8 responses: “Excellent” = 1, “Good” = 1,
“Acceptable” = 1, “Weak” = 0, “Unacceptable" = 0. An average of 1
indicates satisfaction) Source: 11 Standard: 80%
5. Advisory Committee Satisfaction with Program Percent of surveyed
members satisfied, based on averaged percent of satisfaction for the last 3
years. (Surveys scored 1 or 0 based on the combined average of the eleven
responses: “Excellent” = 1, “Good” = 1, “Acceptable” = 1, “Weak” = 0,
“Unacceptable" = 0. An average of 1 indicates satisfaction.) Source: 12
Standard: 80%
6. Student Licensure/Certification, As Applicable Percent of
graduates/completers receiving licensure/certification, based on annual pass
rate for the most recent year. Source: 13 Standard: 90%
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%
AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOGY 3
INDICATOR
3. Sections taught by Full-Time Faculty 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
5. Advisory Committee Meetings Held at least once annually, based on
the meeting date(s) of each program advisory committee for the last 3 years.
Source: 17 Standard: Yes
6. DACUM Completion within last 5 years, based on completion date of
each program DACUM. Source: 18 Standard: Yes
7. DACUM Findings Incorporated, as appropriate, into curriculum, based
on most recent DACUM Audit for each program. Source: 18 Standard:
Yes
8. Secondary Articulation Agreements, as appropriate Percent of ISD
requests for articulation addressed through analysis of EPCC course
objectives for last 3 years. Source: 19 Standard: 100%
9. Post-Secondary Articulation Agreements, as appropriate Written
evidence of attempted/revised articulation within the last 3 years. Source: 4
Standard: Yes
10. Program Accreditation, As Applicable Maintains/actively seeking
voluntary accreditation, based on documentation of accreditation or
application for accreditation for last 3 years. Source: 4 Standard: Yes
11. Community Benefit/Service Percent of surveyed advisory committee
members acknowledging program meets community needs for each of the
last 3 years. Source: 12 Standard: 85%
12. Program Need Percent of surveyed employers acknowledging
program is needed for each of the last 3 years. Names of surveyed
employers identical to those used by Employer Satisfaction indicator.
Source: 11 Standard: 85%
13. Competitive Advantage: Quality Percent of surveyed respondents
acknowledging EPCC meets/exceeds quality of proprietary schools for each
of the last 3 years. (Combined average of responses on both the Advisory
Committee Survey and the Employer Survey) Source: 20 Standard: 85%
1516 Rpt
(District Data
as of Aug. 31,
2015)
1213
1314
1415
Rpt
Rpt
Rpt
D: 83%
D: 77%***
D: 77%***
D: 75.6%***
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
100%
100%
100%
100%
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
N/A
Yes
N/A
No
100%
100%
100%
100%
Lacks 3
yrs of data
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
ASC
FT.
BLISS
MdP
NW
RG
TM
VV
75.6%
***2013-2014 revisions to the Program Review procedure reduced the standard from 60% to 50%.
AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOGY 4
VIABILITY INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT INDICATOR 1 - WORKFORCE DEMAND
Measure: Whether the sum of new and replacement jobs in the field forecast for El Paso and Hudspeth Counties and the New Mexico counties of Dona Ana, Luna and Otero
during the 5 years following the publication of the Program Review Report meets or exceeds the number of graduates during the 5 years preceding the publication of the report. To ensure
that the data include career paths addressed by the program, each program shall provide the IE Office with a list of jobs for which it prepares graduates.
The listings are from the EMSI database, which was created in 2001, in consultation with the Association of Community College Trustees (ACCT), to track occupational demand and
wages nationally, by state and by region, drawing on some 91 databases, which include those of the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The number preceding each occupational title is the
unique Bureau of Labor Statistics SOC (Standard Occupational Classification) number assigned to each job title. Job titles were specified by the disciplines. Numerical anomalies may be
due to rounding.
TOTAL NUMBER OF JOBS PER YEAR
SOC
Code
11-3071
13-1032
25-1099
25-2032
25-3098
41-2022
49-3023
49-3031
49-3051
49-3052
49-3093
49-9098
53-6031
Occupation
Transportation, Storage,
and Distribution
Managers
Insurance Appraisers,
Auto Damage
Postsecondary Teachers
Career/Technical
Education Teachers,
Secondary School
Substitute Teachers
Parts Salespersons
Automotive Service
Technicians and
Mechanics
Bus and Truck
Mechanics and Diesel
Engine Specialists
Motorboat Mechanics
and Service Technicians
Motorcycle Mechanics
Tire Repairers and
Changers
Helpers--Installation,
Maintenance, and Repair
Workers
Automotive and
Watercraft Service
Attendants
213
217
220
224
227
Total
New/Replacement
Jobs
34
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
No Data
Postsecondary non-degree award
4716
417
4842
426
4958
434
5066
442
5154
449
739
80
$32.57
$25.55
Doctoral or professional degree
Bachelor's degree
3174
641
2164
3241
651
2193
3303
659
2219
3363
667
2244
3413
672
2265
467
99
326
$9.57
$15.60
$16.38
Bachelor's degree
Less than high school
High school diploma or equivalent
931
940
950
959
967
118
$17.16
High school diploma or equivalent
17
17
17
17
18
<10
$15.37
High school diploma or equivalent
25
638
25
647
25
655
24
662
24
666
<10
120
$15.43
$10.49
High school diploma or equivalent
High school diploma or equivalent
664
671
677
684
689
107
$11.33
High school diploma or equivalent
452
461
470
477
484
86
$11.27
Less than high school
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Average
Hourly
Wage
(2014)
$35.45
Education Required
High school diploma or equivalent
AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOGY 5