2015-2016 PROGRAM REVIEW REPORT BY DISCIPLINE INTERIOR DESIGN TECHNOLOGY

advertisement
INSTITUTIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
The Best Place to Start
2015-2016 PROGRAM REVIEW REPORT BY DISCIPLINE
INTERIOR DESIGN 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
Overall Viability Indicator score 50% or lower or unmet Graduation and Student Success 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: Career & Technical Program
Mandatory Accreditation: No
Report’s Recommendation Last Year: No Formal Review
Fully Accredited? (Y/N): No
Program Review Committee Action required this year: No Formal Review - Viability above
50%, Chair informs VP of Unmet Student Success
Reason Why Not Fully Accredited: CIDA (Council For Interior Design Accreditation) does not allow 2 year college to be 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
77.78%
100%
100%
100%
QUALITY
87.50%
87.50%
87.50%
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 INTERIORDESIGNTECHNOLOGY
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)
INDICATOR
1213
1314
1415
Rpt
Rpt
Rpt
1516 Rpt
(District
Data as of
Aug. 31,
2015)
ASC
FT.
BLISS
MdP
NW
RG
TM
VV
STATE-MANDATED
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
29. For inf.
Only, EPCC
Data: 36
55. For inf.
Only, EPCC
Data: 53*
53. For inf.
only, EPCC
Data: 61*
61. For inf.
only,
EPCC
Data: 61*
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%
93.1%
89%
85.7%
88.9%
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
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, for 62
graduates in
last 5 years.
Yes, for 42
graduates in
last 5 years.
Yes, for 42
graduates in
last 5 years.
Yes, for 39
graduates
in last 5
years.
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
D: 94% Dist.
Seat Count:
93.9%
D: 87%
Dist. Seat
Count:
88.4% **
D: 81%
Dist. Seat
Count:
88.5% **
D: 84.5%
Dist. Seat
Count:
90.7% **
84.5%
D: No,
-22%,
Undupl.
2010: 58,
2012: 48
D: Yes,
0%,
Undupl.
2011: 50,
2013: 51**
D: Yes,
13.7%,
Undupl.
2012: 48,
2014: 51**
D: Yes,
22.4%,
Undupl.
2013: 51,
2015: 51**
Yes,
22.4%
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
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.
INTERIOR DESIGN TECHNOLOGY 2
QUALITY
INDICATOR
1213
1314
1415
Rpt
Rpt
Rpt
1516 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: 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%
Lacks 3
yrs of data
D: 92%
D: 91.7%
D: 94.2%
94.2%
D: 93%
D: 92%
D: 93%
D: 93%
93%
95%
84%
90.7%
90.7%
100%
100%
100%
100%
98%
99.6%
99.4%
99.4%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
100%
100%
100%
100%
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%
INTERIOR DESIGN TECHNOLOGY 3
INDICATOR
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 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, NBCO, 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%
1213
1314
1415
Rpt
Rpt
Rpt
1516 Rpt
(District Data
as of Aug. 31,
2015)
67%
100%
100%
100%
D: 64%
D: 64%***
D: 66.7%***
D: 64.5%***
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
100%
100%
100%
100%
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
N/A
N/A
Yes
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
96%
96%
95%
ASC
FT.
BLISS
MdP
NW
RG
TM
VV
64.5%
***2013-2014 revisions to the Program Review procedure reduced the standard from 60% to 50%.
INTERIOR DESIGN 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
17-3019
25-9041
27-1019
27-1025
41-2031
41-3099
Occupation
Drafters, All Other
Teacher Assistants
Artists and Related
Workers, All Other
Interior Designers
Retail Salespersons
Sales Representatives,
Services, All Other
36
2865
13
36
2963
13
37
3054
14
37
3141
14
37
3214
14
Total
New/Replacement
Jobs
<10
630
<10
47
15009
2425
47
15329
2480
47
15620
2530
48
15889
2576
48
16104
2616
<10
3248
470
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Average
Hourly
Wage
(2014)
Education Required
$27.87
$11.23
$22.82
Associate's degree
Some college, no degree
High school diploma or equivalent
$24.84
$11.38
$19.40
Bachelor's degree
Less than high school
High school diploma or equivalent
INTERIOR DESIGN TECHNOLOGY 5
Download
Related flashcards

Management

42 cards

Management

61 cards

Corporate governance

32 cards

Canadian Hockey League

15 cards

Create Flashcards