Annual Program Assessment (APA)

Transcription

1 The Business Department offers a non-transfer Associate degree in Office Administration designed to introduce the student to the study of a wide range of subjects related to positions and careers in the modern office. The program includes the training necessary to successfully perform in the many and varied Office Technician and Administrative Assistant type positions available in the job market. The non-transfer Certificate in Business, Clerical focuses more on the clerical aspect of the office. The non-transfer Certificate in Business, Office Administration Technician focuses more on the technical aspect of the office. The non-transfer Certificate in Microsoft Applications Specialist focuses on the application of several Microsoft products used in today s business environment. The Business Department is committed to providing a broad and flexible professional education. Recognizing the importance of office communications, office computer applications, records management, and virtual technology in the business community, these areas provide students with learning opportunities relevant to everyday business. For individuals currently working within these listed fields, there may be potential for salary and/or career advancement. A1. Program Achievement Data Please review the data for your program and respond to each prompt below. The instructions will be very, very helpful, vastly reducing the time it would otherwise take to complete this template (at least, that s what everyone is saying!!). If no data is available for a prompt, please respond with: no data. A1a. Program Fill Rate From fall 2013 through spring 2016, how does the program fill rate compare to the Institutional Average Fill Rate and Institutional Set Standard? The CT.BUS.OADM or OATP program is comparable with the district average trend which shows high and low fluctions over the same 5-year period. The program fill 1

2 rate each year has averaged consistently in the 80s. Over this same time frame, how do the site-specific fill rates for San Jacinto (SJC), Menifee Valley (MVC), San Gorgonio Pass (BAN), Temecula (TEM) and online (ONLIN) compare to the program fill rate? Please note the highest and lowest of these rates. ONLIN: The CT.BUS.OADM or OATP program showed a high fill rate in 2013, then, it dipped in spring 2014 and spring Since fall 2015 the program has been increasing. The highest rate for CT.BUS.OADM or OATP was 81.8% and the lowest was 75.9% SJC: 2

3 The CT.BUS.OADM or OATP program has been consistent and above the district and institutional average rates. The highest rate for CT.BUS.OADM or OATP was 96.8% and the lowest was 78.5% MVC: The CT.BUS.OADM or OATP program has greatly fluctuated, but remained above the district and institutional average rates. The highest rate for CT.BUS.OADM or OATP was 96.9% and the lowest was 85.5% BAN/TEM: 3

4 The CT.BUS.OADM or OATP program has been consistent and above the district and institutional average rates. The highest rate for CT.BUS.OADM or OATP was 91.8% and the lowest was 73.1% For the lowest rate above, please provide brief commentary/explanation and suggestions for increasing it. For example, to increase this fill rate while maintaining student access and equity, would adjusting course offerings and/or scheduling (e.g. adjusting the number of sections offered, mix of modalities, frequency, location) yield an improvement? Would some other change improve this rate? The lowest rate appears in the BAN/TEM area. One suggestion to increase fill rates is to market the program to local businesses. The program is designed for the career minded student, therefore marketing to local industries would be the first step to increase awareness of the program for professional development. A1b. Program Retention Rate From fall 2013 through spring 2016, how does the program retention rate compare to the District Average Retention Rate and Institutional Set Standard? 4

5 The CT.BUS.OADM or OATP have dipped below the District Average and above the Institutional Set Standard. While the variance is significant, the program shows consistent retention rates from high 70s to low 80s. Over this same time frame, how do the site-specific Retention rates for San Jacinto (SJC), Menifee Valley (MVC), San Gorgonio Pass (BAN), Temecula (TEM) and online (ONLIN) compare to the Program Retention Rate? 5

6 ONLIN: The CT.BUS.OADM or OATP are below the District Average and the Institutional Set Standard. While the variance is significant, the program shows consistent retention rates in the 70s. SJC: The CT.BUS.OADM or OATP are below the District Average and the Institutional Set Standard. While the variance is significant, the program shows consistent retention rates in the high 70s and low 80s. MVC: 6

7 The CT.BUS.OADM or OATP are below the District Average and the Institutional Set Standard. While the variance is significant, the program shows consistent retention rates in the high 70s and low 80s. BAN/TEM: Over the 3-year span the program retention rate has dipped from mid-80s to high 70s. It has dipped below the Institutional Set Standard and District Average. 7

8 For the lowest rate above, please provide brief commentary/explanation and suggestions for increasing it. For example, to improve this rate while maintaining equity, would adjusting course offerings and scheduling(e.g. adjusting mix of modalities, course length, frequency, location) yield an improvement? What other changes would improve this rate? The lowest rate appears in the online area. One suggestion to increase retention in this area to provide more interactive activities to keep students interested and engaged. Additionally, adding more industry relevant content could also be a strategy to keep students interested by relating the course content to their community. A1c. Program Success Rate From fall 2013 through spring 2016, how does the program success rate compare to the District Average Success Rate and Institutional Set Standard? The success rate for the CT.BUS.OADM or OATP program has consistently been below the District Average and the Institutional Set Standard; however, the program success rate has remained consistent over the 3-year span. Over this same time frame, how do the site-specific success rates for San Jacinto (SJC), Menifee Valley (MVC), San Gorgonio Pass (BAN), Temecula (TEM) and online (ONLIN) compare to the program success rate? 8

9 ONLIN: The success rate for the CT.BUS.OADM or OATP program has consistently been below the District Average and the Institutional Set Standard; however, the program success rate has remained consistent over the 3-year span. The variance range is less than 8%. SJC: The success rate for the CT.BUS.OADM or OATP program has consistently been below the District Average and the Institutional Set Standard; however, the program success rate has remained consistent over the 3-year span. The variance range is less than 8%. 9

10 MVC: The success rate for the CT.BUS.OADM or OATP program has consistently been below the District Average and the Institutional Set Standard; however, the program success rate has remained consistent over the 3-year span. The variance range is less than 8%. BAN/TEM: The success rate for the CT.BUS.OADM or OATP program has consistently been below the District Average and the Institutional Set Standard; however, the program success rate has remained consistent over the 3-year span. The variance range is less than 8%. For the lowest rate above, please provide brief commentary/explanation and suggestions for increasing it. For example, to increase this rate while ensuring equity, would changes to course offerings and/or 10

11 scheduling (e.g. length of course (short-term vs. full semester), location, offering program courses in learning communities) yield an improvement? What other changes would increase this rate? The lowest success rates are in the SJC location. Surveying the student would provide insight into the student perspective of success. A2. Demographics Success Rate: Ethnic/Race Your program success data has been disaggregated by ethnicity/race, age, gender, program enrolled, financial aid, enrollee type, first generation status, etc. To complete an analysis of the ethnic/race data, please respond to the prompts below. If no data is available for a particular prompt, please say no data. A2a. Program (all sites, all modalities (face-to-face and online and hybrid)) Using the Ethnic/Race Group Headcount data on the Demographics Headcount spreadsheet tab, what are the three largest student subpopulations? Please list each subpopulation and its size. The three largest subpopulations for this program are: 1. Hispanic 2. White 3. Multi-race Using the Ethnic/Race Group Success Rate data on the Demographics Success Rate spreadsheet tab, what are the success rates for each of the three subpopulations above? Please list each subpopulation and its rate. The success rates are: o Hispanic 56.7% o White 63.8% o Multi-race 56.1% Using the Success Rate data on the Program Rates spreadsheet tab, how do the success rates for each of the three subpopulations above compare to a) the program success rate, b) the institutional average success rate and c) the institutional set standard success rate? Please list each subpopulation and its comparisons with these (three) rates. The Hispanic subpopulation is below the aggregate average for the program, District Average and Institutional Set Standard. The White subpopulation is above the program rate, but it is below the aggregate average for the District Average and Institutional Set Standard. 11

12 The Multi-race subpopulation is below the program rate, aggregate average for the District Average and Institutional Set Standard. For any subpopulation success rates that are significantly above or below the program success rate, please offer an explanation for this difference. The multi-race population is the lowest. Explaining the decreased success rate would require surveying students in this group for their input. A2b. BAN Sites (face-to-face only; no online, no hybrid) Using the Ethnic/Race Group Headcount data on the Demographics Headcount spreadsheet tab, what are the three largest student subpopulations? Please list each subpopulation and its size. The three largest subpopulations for this program are: 1. Hispanic 2. White 3. Multi-race Using the Ethnic/Race Group Success Rate data on the Demographics Success Rate spreadsheet tab, what are the success rates for each of the three subpopulations above? Please list each subpopulation and its rate. The success rates are: o Hispanic 52.0% o White 63.2% o Multi-race 45.8% Using the Success Rate data on the Program Rates spreadsheet tab, how do the success rates for each of the three subpopulations above compare to a) the program success rate, b) the institutional average success rate and c) the institutional set standard success rate? Please list each subpopulation and its comparisons with these (three) rates. The Hispanic subpopulation is below the aggregate average for the program, District Average and Institutional Set Standard. The White subpopulation is above the aggregate average for the program, but below the District Average and Institutional Set Standard. The Multi-race subpopulation is below the aggregate average for the District Average and Institutional Set Standard. For any subpopulation success rates that are significantly above or below the program success rate, please offer an explanation for this difference. 12

13 The Hispanic and multi-race populations are the lowest. Explaining the decreased success rate would require surveying students in these groups for their input. Additionally, a better understanding of who is included in the multi-race group would be helpful. A2c. MVC Site (face-to-face only; no online, no hybrid) Using the Ethnic/Race Group Headcount data on the Demographics Headcount spreadsheet tab, what are the three largest student subpopulations? Please list each subpopulation and its size. The three largest subpopulations for this program are: 1. Hispanic 2. White 3. Multi-race Using the Ethnic/Race Group Success Rate data on the Demographics Success Rate spreadsheet tab, what are the success rates for each of the three subpopulations above? Please list each subpopulation and its rate. The success rates are: o Hispanic 56.6% o White 64.1% o Multi-race 59.5% Using the Success Rate data on the Program Rates spreadsheet tab, how do the success rates for each of the three subpopulations above compare to a) the program success rate, b) the institutional average success rate and c) the institutional set standard success rate? Please list each subpopulation and its comparisons with these (three) rates. The Hispanic subpopulation is below the aggregate average for the District Average and Institutional Set Standard. The White subpopulation is below the aggregate average for the District Average and Institutional Set Standard. The Multi-race subpopulation is below the aggregate average for the District Average and Institutional Set Standard. For any subpopulation success rates that are significantly above or below the program success rate, please offer an explanation for this difference. The Hispanic population is the lowest. Explaining the decreased success rate would require surveying students in this group for their input. 13

14 A2d. SJC Site (face-to-face only; no online, no hybrid) Using the Ethnic/Race Group Headcount data on the Demographics Headcount spreadsheet tab, what are the three largest student subpopulations? Please list each subpopulation and its size. The three largest subpopulations for this program are: 1. Hispanic 2. White 3. African American Using the Ethnic/Race Group Success Rate data on the Demographics Success Rate spreadsheet tab, what are the success rates for each of the three subpopulations above? Please list each subpopulation and its rate. The success rates are: o Hispanic 56.7% o White 62.1% o African American 43.6% Using the Success Rate data on the Program Rates spreadsheet tab, how do the success rates for each of the three subpopulations above compare to a) the program success rate, b) the institutional average success rate and c) the institutional set standard success rate? Please list each subpopulation and its comparisons with these (three) rates. The Hispanic subpopulation is below the aggregate average for the District Average and Institutional Set Standard. The White subpopulation is below the aggregate average for the District Average and Institutional Set Standard. The African American subpopulation is below the aggregate average for the District Average and Institutional Set Standard. For any subpopulation success rates that are significantly above or below the program success rate, please offer an explanation for this difference. All subpopulations are below the target rates. Surveying the students to get their input and implementing their suggestions would be the first step in identifying the decreased success rates. A2e. TEM Site (face-to-face only; no online, no hybrid) 14

15 Using the Ethnic/Race Group Headcount data on the Demographics Headcount spreadsheet tab, what are the three largest student subpopulations? Please list each subpopulation and its size. The three largest subpopulations for this program are: 1. Hispanic 2. White 3. Multi-race Using the Ethnic/Race Group Success Rate data on the Demographics Success Rate spreadsheet tab, what are the success rates for each of the three subpopulations above? Please list each subpopulation and its rate. The success rates are: o Hispanic 63.7% o White 68.4% o Multi-Race 61.5% Using the Success Rate data on the Program Rates spreadsheet tab, how do the success rates for each of the three subpopulations above compare to a) the program success rate, b) the institutional average success rate and c) the institutional set standard success rate? Please list each subpopulation and its comparisons with these (three) rates. The Hispanic subpopulation is below the aggregate average for the District Average and Institutional Set Standard. The White subpopulation is above the aggregate average for the District Average and Institutional Set Standard. The Multi-race subpopulation is below the aggregate average for the District Average and Institutional Set Standard. For any subpopulation success rates that are significantly above or below the program success rate, please offer an explanation for this difference. The Multi-race population is the lowest. Explaining the decreased success rate would require surveying students in this group for their input. A2f. Face-to-Face v. Online (all sites, hybrid included with online) For each site, compare the online success rate with the site face-to-face rate. If there is a significant difference (8% or more) for any of these comparisons, offer an explanation and suggestion for improvement. Program ALL Sites 15

16 Face-to-face Online There is a significant difference (8% or more) for the African American group. The variances for the other groups are not significant. Explaining the variance would require surveying students in this group for their input. Program MVC Site Face-to-face Online There is a significant difference (8% or more) for the Multi-Race, Filipino, and Asian groups. The variances for the other groups are not significant. Explaining the variance would require surveying students in these groups for their input. Program SJ Site Face-to-face Online 16

17 There is a significant difference (8% or more) for the Filipino, and Asian groups. The variances for the other groups are not significant. Explaining the variance would require surveying students in these groups for their input. Program TEM Site Face-to-face Online There is a significant difference (8% or more) for the Hispanic, Multi-Race, Filipino, and Asian groups. Comparisons for the TEM site are not valid since online sections originate from the MVC site. Program BAN Site NO HYBRID AND NO ONLINES A3. Demographics Success: Your Choice! Choose another demographic (age, gender, program enrolled, financial aid, enrollee type, first generation status, veterans, foster youth, athletes, DSPS) and analyze its data. If no data is available for a particular prompt, please say no data. If you choose "Age", please follow the instructions for ethnicity/race above (this template is not locked so you can copy/paste/delete as needed). Your choice: Gender A3a. Program (all sites, all modalities (face-to-face and online and hybrid)) Using the data for your demographic from the Demographics Headcount spreadsheet tab, please list each subpopulation and its size. Female 11,889 Male - 9,262 17

18 Unknown Using the data for your demographic from the Demographics Success Rate spreadsheet tab, what are the success rates for each of these subpopulations above? Please list each subpopulation and its rate. o Female 59.7% o Male % o Unknown 64.7% Using the Success Rate data on the Program Rates spreadsheet tab, how do the success rates for each of the these subpopulations above compare to a) the program success rate, b) the institutional average success rate and c) the institutional set standard success rate? Please list each subpopulation and its comparisons with these (three) rates. Males and Females are below the aggregate averages for the District Average and Institutional Set Standard The Unknown is below the District Average and Institutional Set Standard For any subpopulation success rates that are significantly above or below the program success rate, please offer an explanation for this difference. The subsets do not vary significantly (8%) from the District Average and Institutional Set Standard A3b. BAN Site (face-to-face only; no online, no hybrid) Using the data for your demographic from the Demographics Headcount spreadsheet tab, please list each subpopulation and its size. Female Male Using the data for your demographic from the Demographics Success Rate spreadsheet tab, what are the success rates for each of these subpopulations above? Please list each subpopulation and its rate. Female 55.2% Male 52.0% Using the Success Rate data on the Program Rates spreadsheet tab, how do the success rates for each of these subpopulations above compare to a) the program success rate, b) the institutional average success rate and c) the institutional set standard success rate? Please list each subpopulation and its comparisons with these (three) rates. 18

19 Males and females are below the aggregate averages for the District Average and Institutional Set Standard For any subpopulation success rates that are significantly above or below the program success rate, please offer an explanation for this difference. The subsets vary significantly (8%) from the District Average and Institutional Set Standard. Explaining the variance would require surveying students in these groups for their input. A3c. MVC Site (face-to-face only; no online, no hybrid) Using the data for your demographic from the Demographics Headcount spreadsheet tab, please list each subpopulation and its size. Females- 5,861 Males 4,981 Unknown - 81 Using the data for your demographic from the Demographics Success Rate spreadsheet tab, what are the success rates for each of these subpopulations above? Please list each subpopulation and its rate. Females- 60.8% Males 59.3% Unknown 64.9% Using the Success Rate data on the Program Rates spreadsheet tab, how do the success rates for each of the these subpopulations above compare to a) the program success rate, b) the institutional average success rate and c) the institutional set standard success rate? Please list each subpopulation and its comparisons with these (three) rates. Males and females are below the aggregate averages for the District Average and Institutional Set Standard. The Unknown subpopulation is below too. For any subpopulation success rates that are significantly above or below the program success rate, please offer an explanation for this difference. The subsets do not vary significantly (8%) from the District Average and Institutional Set Standard A3d. SJC Site (face-to-face only; no online, no hybrid) 19

20 Using the data for your demographic from the Demographics Headcount spreadsheet tab, please list each subpopulation and its size. Female 4,198 Male - 3,335 Unknown - 49 Using the data for your demographic from the Demographics Success Rate spreadsheet tab, what are the success rates for each of these subpopulations above? Please list each subpopulation and its rate. Female 58.2% Male % Unknown 64.0% Using the Success Rate data on the Program Rates spreadsheet tab, how do the success rates for each of the these subpopulations above compare to a) the program success rate, b) the institutional average success rate and c) the institutional set standard success rate? Please list each subpopulation and its comparisons with these (three) rates. Males and females are below the aggregate averages for the District Average and Institutional Set Standard. The Unknown subpopulation is below too. For any subpopulation success rates that are significantly above or below the program success rate, please offer an explanation for this difference. The male subset varies significantly (8%) from the District Average and Institutional Set Standard. The male population may not be relating to the office administration careers. To rectify this, we could include more contemporary examples of male office administration associates in the course content. A3e. TEM Site (face-to-face only; no online, no hybrid) Using the data for your demographic from the Demographics Headcount spreadsheet tab, please list each subpopulation and its size. Female 1498 Male 1301 Unknown

21 Using the data for your demographic from the Demographics Success Rate spreadsheet tab, what are the success rates for each of these subpopulations above? Please list each subpopulation and its rate. Female 66.7% Male 64.8% Unknown 65.7% Using the Success Rate data on the Program Rates spreadsheet tab, how do the success rates for each of the these subpopulations above compare to a) the program success rate, b) the institutional average success rate and c) the institutional set standard success rate? Please list each subpopulation and its comparisons with these (three) rates. Females align with the aggregate averages for the District Average and Institutional Set Standard while Male and Unknown subpopulations are below. For any subpopulation success rates that are significantly above or below the program success rate, please offer an explanation for this difference. The subsets do not vary significantly (8%) from the District Average and Institutional Set Standard A3f. Face-to-Face v. Online (all sites, hybrid included with online) For each site, compare the online success rate with the site face-to-face rate. If there is a significant difference (8% or more) for any of these comparisons, offer an explanation and suggestion for improvement. Females Online FTF BAN None 55.2% MVC 57.0% 60.8% SJC 49.3% 58.2% TEM 69.4% 66.7% All Sites 57.3% 60.3% Males Online FTF BAN None 52.0% MVC 54.8% 59.3% SJC 46.6% 55.8% TEM 44.9% 64.8% All Sites 54.4% 58.6% The SJC female and male subset varies significantly (8%) in the online vs. FTF modality. Further study of the online offerings is warranted to determine the causes of the variances. The variances in the TEM site are not applicable since 21

22 online courses originate from the MVC site, therefore this is not a valid comparison. Part C: Assessment Summary Please list the CIPs completed during this program review cycle and note any suggested improvements to assessment and/or course delivery. Please respond to each prompt below. C1. Completed Fall 2015 Course Improvement Plans Click here to view the course improvement plans (CIPs). Choose Fall 2015 for Fall 2015 data analysis completed by your discipline. Please list these below. ACCT076, OTEC 178 Open each of these CIPs and Record any assessment improvements to be implemented the next time the course is assessed (e.g. improved or different assessment tool or rubric). See instructions to quickly locate these CIP text fields. Only two courses offered; need more course offerings with multiple semesters to acquire and analyze data. More assessments are needed to determine and identify trends and improvements needed. Also record any course improvements to be implemented the next time the course is taught (e.g. curriculum revision, utilization of technology). See instructions to quickly locate these CIP text fields. Improve the assessment for social awareness, update the outline of record to include more content on personal and civic responsibility. C2. Completed Spring 2016 Course Improvement Plans Click here to view the course improvement plans (CIPs). Choose Spring 2016 for Spring 2016 data analysis completed by your discipline. Please list these below. ACCT077, CAPP122 Open each of these CIPs and Record any assessment improvements to be implemented the next time the course is assessed (e.g. improved or different assessment tool or rubric). See instructions to quickly locate these CIP text fields. None at this time Also record any course improvements to be implemented the next time the course is taught (e.g. curriculum revision, utilization of technology). See instructions to quickly locate these CIP text fields. None at this time. C3. Courses Assessed Twice This Program Review Cycle Click here to view last year s program review. Scroll down to Sections IC1 and IC2 and identify the courses assessed in Fall 2014 or Spring

23 Please list the courses that have been assessed (at least) twice this program review cycle (i.e. courses that were assessed in at least two of the following semesters: Fall 2014, Spring 2015, Fall 2015 (see C1 above) and Spring 2016 (see C2 above)). Here are instructions for this! BADM103 For each of these courses, were the innovations/improvements from the (initial) CIP implemented? If so, how much improvement occurred (e.g. how much improvement was documented in the subsequent CIP) the next time the course was taught? It was determined more data and assessments were needed in order to determine and identified the trend and apply appropriate improvements. C4. Fall 2017 Assessment Schedule Please review your current three-year CLO assessment schedule and make changes as needed to the Fall 2017 assessment schedule. If no changes are needed, simply write None. Here are instructions for this! Assess ACCT076, ACCT077, CAPP122, CAPP127, III. Planning and Resource Requirements Please briefly update the goals and needs included in the comprehensive program review (CPR) or last year s APA. Please include any updates to your program goals and objectives, along with any additional facilities, staff, technology, equipment, professional development and library resources that would improve student learning or increase program quality and/or efficiency. Specifically, connect your goals and needs with the analysis of program (Section A) and/or assessment data (Section C). A. Program Goals Update goals and objectives of your program and describe how you will attain them. The goals and objectives for the Certificate in Business, Office Administration Technician (CT.BUS.OAT-NT) program are to improve results in existing courses and create new courses and program paths that align with industry needs. When courses are due for curriculum update each course will be thoroughly reviewed for subject matter relevance, moreover the related degrees and/or certificates will also be reviewed. B. Facilities, Staffing, Technology, Equipment and Professional Development Update facility, staffing, technology, equipment and professional development needs here. Reconfigure 950 with hideaway computer desks. 23

24 C. Library Resources Identify library resources (databases, texts, etc.) that would improve student success, access and ensure equity. Supply the library with a copy of the textbook for student use. IV. Budget Allocation RAP (Resource Allocation Proposal) Submissions For which needs identified previously in this program review will you be submitting a RAP? The department has submitted a grant proposal to purchase hideaway desks in the room 950. The computers that sit on the desk do not support the collaborative activities the department participates in. V. Final Summary A. Based on the data and analysis contained in this review, please forward your three greatest needs to your dean/division. Tutors for the department including ACCT, BADM and CAPP. Reconfigure room 950 with hideaway computer desks B. Discuss any major activities/highlights/achievements and any student success innovations during the past year. The department has articulation agreements with K-12 partners. The San Marco CoHort is surviving MSJC students transferring to UCSan Marcos C. Please list all faculty who participated in this review. Caren Hennessy, Gloria Sanchez, Ron Bowman, Larry Barraza, David Candelaria, Belinda Heiden Scott D. Any suggestions, concerns or constructive criticism regarding the MSJC program review process? NO Once you have completed this entire form, please mailto:programreview@msjc.edu Due Date: February 24,

25 Thank you very much!!! 25