1 / 58

AY 2011 LBRT Instructional Program Review Process

AY 2011 LBRT Instructional Program Review Process. Data Description Process – Timeline Rev. 10-25-11. Intro.

kedem
Download Presentation

AY 2011 LBRT Instructional Program Review Process

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. AY 2011 LBRT Instructional Program Review Process Data Description Process – Timeline Rev. 10-25-11

  2. Intro • The purpose of this presentation is describe the process we follow for both our local Comprehensive and the system required Annual Program Reviews, as well as how the data is calculated. • We have been asked to produce an annual program review for each and every one of our instructional programs and units. They are required of each system CC and will be taken to the U of H Board of Regents for their purview. • If you are normally scheduled to do a comprehensive review or are “Jumping”, you will need to complete a comprehensive review this year. Additionally, every instructional and non-instructional program will do an Annual Program Review this year. • Not sure if you’re scheduled for a comprehensive review or not? Click here for the Comprehensive Program-Unit Review Cycle and Schedule

  3. What are we doing to improve our program review process? Upon conclusion of every program/unit review cycle, the IR Office takes extra care to ensure that we are improving our program/unit review process on campus. This is accomplished by sending out questionnaires specific to the groups, and by meeting with various groups across campus and collecting feedback. Your suggestions for improving this process are then posted on the Assessment Website and linked here for your convenience. 2010 Program-Unit Process Improvement Summary Based upon the feedback we received from everyone last year from our program-unit review process improvement focus groups, the following changes have been made and have been incorporated into the planning of this year’s review: • Timeline for program/unit reviews reevaluated. Reviews due this year November 18th to Joni. • We will continue to use our college website as the mode of delivery for your program-unit review documentation. • We will continue the practice of providing program-unit review training and presentation materials.

  4. What are we doing to improve our program review process cont.? • Continue practice of providing training specific to your group (i.e. a presentation just for LA) • The training you received last year regarding changes to the Instructional Program Review Comprehensive Template was helpful. We will continue to provide a brief overview of the templates upon conclusion of our normally scheduled training. • We will continue to schedule our trainings based on the scheduling requests we send out. We have 3 scheduled training sessions this year, one for Units, one for Liberal Arts, and one for CTE. We will continue to seek your scheduling input to consider room size and number of sessions. • Online submissions last year seemed to work quite well for most folks. Please plan to do any formatting to your report within the online tool to keep your formatting from getting scrubbed.

  5. What are we doing to improve our program review process cont.? • There is no need to wait for the IR Office this year to copy, paste, and format your 3 years of data into the comprehensive template because all 3 years data is now provided to you online. Additionally, the CERC made a change to the comprehensive template requiring you to paste the entire annual review into your comprehensive review template. You may also hyperlink the annual review in if you wish. More on template changes later in the presentation today. • There was an interest last year to have our annual review feedback given to the program initiators. This was accomplished through email last year from the VCAA to the Initiators. • There were suggestions last year that assessment needs to be better integrated into the comprehensive program reviews. The requirement for listing your unit outcomes and their assessments have now been added to the Instructional Program Review Comprehensive Template. • It was suggested that having writing assistance in the program review process would be helpful. Mary Goya has offered to help programs out until we have our Assessment Coordinator on-board. • All templates have been updated since last year based on your feedback and an evaluation of the templates by CERC.

  6. What is different this year? • Three separate training sessions will be given this year in order to focus on specific groups. They are: • 1. CTE Programs • 2. Liberal Arts Division Programs • 3. Units • 3 full years of data provided to the LA program this year • No upload capabilities with web submission tool. Your analysis should be on the data provided. • There is a new tab in the online submission tool, which was requested by our VCAA’s for inclusion of SLO’s. This is now required with your submission. • The new “due to VCAA” date this year is November 18th. • Your budget numbers will be made available to you this year on the Assessment website at AY 2011 Instructional Program Review Budget Table • Annual Reports of Program Data are completely on-line this year for Student Services. • Remedial/Developmental programs have a new data element this year called, “Success at the next level”

  7. What’s a Jumper? • A Jumper is a locally defined term that is used to describe an instructional program or non-instructional program (unit) that has decided to jump out of their normally scheduled slot for their comprehensive program reviews and into this years cycle. • Jumping into this years comprehensive cycle means that you will have an opportunity to be considered for any budgetary decisions that will be made in this years budget process. • Jumpers will still have to do their comprehensive review on their next scheduled review. Jumping does not affect the existing schedule—you are voluntarily doing an extra review to be considered in this budget cycle.

  8. I belong to the Liberal Arts Program… which form do I use? COMPREHENSIVE REVIEWS The Liberal Arts program is required to do a comprehensive review this year using the following template: Comprehensive Instruction Program Review Template --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ANNUAL REVIEWS Your programs data table is available on-line using the link below. You should have everything you need to begin writing your review within the web submission tool. Plan to save your work often—especially when switching between screens, and plan to do most of your formatting within the tool if you are copying and pasting in from Word. UHCC Annual Report of Program Data Web Submission Tool

  9. Terminology / Timing • The Census freeze event is the fifth Friday after the first day of instruction. • The End of semester freeze event is 10 weeks after the last day of instruction. • FISCAL_YR_IRO: Fiscal year, where the value indicates the ending of the fiscal year. For example, a FISCAL_YR_IRO value of 2005 indicates the fiscal year 2004-2005 (July 1, 2004 to June 30, 2005) which includes Summer 2004, Fall 2004, and Spring 2005 semesters.

  10. Instructional Program Review Data Elements • Student information data this year comes exclusively from the Operational Data Store (ODS). Organizationally this means that all community colleges are getting the data from the same place and at the same snapshot in time (this is a good thing). • The following slides will explain in detail what data has been provided to you for your annual instructional program review write up and how it has been calculated.

  11. #1 Number of Majors • Count of program majors who are home‐institution at your college. • Count excludes students that have completely withdrawn from the semester at CENSUS. • This is an annual number. Programs receive a count of .5 for each term within the academic year that the student is a major. A maximum count of 1.0 (one) for each student.

  12. #2 Increase Majors from Prior Year • In alignment with UHCC Strategic Planning Goals, General and Pre‐Professional Education programs are expected to grow by 3% per year. • Data Source: Difference in item #2 from prior year divided item #2 current year.

  13. #3 SSH Program majors in Program Classes • The sum of Fall and Spring SSH taken by program majors in courses linked to the program. Captured at Census and excludes students who have already withdrawn (W) at this point. • Note: for programs where year‐round attendance is mandatory, Summer SSH are included. • Excludes Directed Studies (99 series). Differs from MAPS as UHCC data includes Cooperative Education (93 series) as there is a resource cost to the program. • Not sure what your program classes are? Click here to find out: Courses Taught Aligned to Instructional Programs

  14. #4 SSH Non-Majors in Program Classes • The sum of Fall and Spring SSH taken by non‐program majors (not counted in #3) in courses linked to the program. Captured at Census and excludes students who have already withdrawn (W) at this point. • Excludes Directed Studies (99 series). • Differs from MAPS as UHCC data includes Cooperative Education (93 series) as there is a resource cost to the program.

  15. #5 SSH in All Program Classes • The sum of Fall and Spring SSH taken by all students in classes linked to the program. Captured at Census and excludes students who have already withdrawn (W) at this point. • Excludes Directed Studies (99 series). • Differs from MAPS as UHCC data Includes Cooperative Education (93 series) as there is a resource cost to the program.

  16. #6 FTE Enrollment in Program Classes • Sum of Student Semester Hours (SSH) taken by all students in classes linked to the program (#5) divided by 30. Undergraduate, lower division Full Time Equivalent (FTE) is calculated as 15 credits per term. • Captured at Census and excludes students who have already withdrawn (W) at this point.

  17. #7 Total Number of Classes Taught • Total number of classes taught in Fall and Spring that are linked to the program. • Concurrent and Cross listed classes are only counted once for the primary class. • Excludes Directed Studies (99 series). • Differs from MAPS as UHCC data Includes Cooperative Education (93 series) as there is a resource cost to the program.

  18. LA Program Scoring Rubric Definitions Your program health is determined by 3 separate types of measures: Demand, Efficiency, and Effectiveness. This slide explains why these measures were chosen to determine program health. • Demand: A seeking or state of being sought after. i.e. your programs ability to attract new students every year based on your offering. • Efficiency: Acting or producing effectively with a minimum of waste, expense, or unnecessary effort. i.e. your programs ability to use its resources in the best possible way. • Effectiveness: Stresses the actual production of, or the power to produce an affect. i.e. your programs ability to produce the desired result.

  19. Determination of program’s health based on demand • This year the system office will calculate and report health calls for all instructional programs using academic year 2011 data. • If you are interested in how the Liberal Arts Health Calls were determined, refer to the rubric linked here: Liberal Arts Health Call Scoring Rubric

  20. #8 Average Class Size • Total number of students actively registered in Fall and Spring program classes divided by classes taught (#7). • Captured at Census and excludes students who have already withdrawn (W) at this point. • Excludes Directed Studies (99 series). • Differs from MAPS as UHCC data Includes Cooperative Education (93 series) as there is a resource cost to the program.

  21. #9 Fill Rate • Total active student registrations in program classes (number of seats filled) at Fall and Spring census divided by the maximum enrollment (number of seats offered). • Captured at Census and excludes students who have already withdrawn (W) at this point.

  22. #10 FTE BOR Appointed Faculty • Sum appointments (1.0, 0.5, etc.) of all BOR appointed program faculty (excludes lecturers and other non BOR appointees). • Uses the “hiring status” of the faculty member – not the teaching/work load. • Uses the Employing Agency Code (EAC) recorded in the Human Resources (HR) database to determine faculty’s program home. • Faculty Teaching solely Remedial and/or Developmental Reading, Writing, or Mathematics are excluded from the counts in Liberal Arts and included in the counts for the Remedial/and or Developmental programs. Faculty with “split” assignments among Remedial/Developmental classes and Transfer level classes are reflected proportionally. • Data as of October 31 2010. • Data provided by UH Human Resources Office. • Click here to find the number of BOR Appointed Program Faculty for your program: 2011 BOR Appointed Program Faculty

  23. #11 Majors to FTE BOR Appointed Faculty • Number of majors (#1) divided by sum appointments (#10) (1.0, 0.5, etc.) of all BOR appointed program faculty. • Data show the number of student majors in the program for each faculty member (25 majors to 1 faculty shown as “25”)

  24. #12 Majors to Analytic FTE Faculty • Number of majors (#1) divided by number of Analytic FTE faculty (12a).

  25. #12a Analytical FTE Faculty (Workload) • Calculated by sum of Semester Hours (not Student Semester Hours) taught in program classes divided by 27. • Analytic FTE is useful as a comparison to FTE of BOR appointed faculty (#10). Used for analysis of program offerings covered by lecturers.

  26. Where can I find my budget numbers? • Again this year we will use the actual expenditures of both B-Budgets and salaries, as part of your overall budget. • The budget numbers you need for your program review are now available on the Assessment website at AY 2011 Instructional Program Review Budget Table

  27. How do I get the budget numbers into the web submission tool? • Go to theUHCC Annual Report of Program Data (ARPD) Web Submission Tool • Click on the 2011 Instructional ARPD(*) link. • Click on Web submission link. • Log in, using your UH username and password. • Select the “Cost per SSH” tab. • Click the “Edit” button for your program. • Go to the link on the assessment website for your budget and… • Enter the value of general funds. (this is b-budget plus salary) • Enter the value of federal funds. • Enter any other funds that you wish to add. • Click the “Save Cost per SSH Data” button at bottom of page. • Your overall budget allocation (sum of everything you entered) and the cost per SSH will automatically populate the data table in your review.

  28. #13 OverallProgram Budget Allocation • The overall program budget allocation = General Funded Budget Allocations (13a) + Special/Federal Budget Allocations (13b)

  29. #13a General Funded Budget Allocation • The general funded budget allocation = actual personnel costs + b budget expenditures • Personnel costs this year include the salaries for : faculty, lecturers, overload, APT, student help, and clerical.

  30. #13b Special/Federal Budget Allocation • The expenditure of dollars from Federal grants

  31. #14 Cost per SSH • Overall Program Budget Allocation (#13) divided by SSH in all program classes (#5)

  32. #15 Number of Low Enrolled (<10) Classes • Classes taught (#7) with 9 or fewer active students at Census. • Excludes students who have already withdrawn (W) at this point. • Excludes Directed Studies (99 series). • Includes Cooperative Education (93 series) as there is a resource cost to the program.

  33. Determination of program’s health based on efficiency • This year the system office will calculate and report health calls for all instructional programs using academic year 2011 data. • If you are interested in how the Liberal Arts Health Calls were determined, refer to the rubric linked here: Liberal Arts Health Call Scoring Rubric

  34. #16 Successful Completion (Equivalent C or higher) • Percentage of students actively enrolled in program classes at Fall and Spring census who at end of semester have earned a grade equivalent to C or higher. • Captured at Census and excludes students who have already withdrawn (W) at this point.

  35. #17 Withdrawals (grade = W) • Number of students actively enrolled (at this point have not withdrawn) at Fall and Spring census who at end of semester have a grade of W.

  36. #18 Persistence Fall to Spring • Count of students who are majors in program at fall census (from Fall semester #1) and at subsequent Spring semester census are enrolled and are still majors in the program. • Excludes students who have already withdrawn (W) at this point. • Example: 31 majors start in Fall 21 majors of the original 31 persist into Spring 21/31 = .6774 or 67.74%

  37. #19 Unduplicated Degrees/Certificates Awarded Prior Fiscal Year • Unduplicated headcount of students in the fiscal year reported to whom a program degree or any certificate has been conferred. (Sum of 19a, 19b, 19c, and 19d). • Uses most recent available freeze of fiscal year data. • For ARPD year 2009, the most recent fiscal data on August 15, 2009, was from FY 2008. • For ARPD year 2010, the most recent fiscal data on August 15, 2010, was from FY 2010.  • For ARPD year 2011, the most recent fiscal data on August 15, 2011, was from FY 2011.

  38. #19a Associate Degrees Awarded • Degrees conferred in the FISCAL_YEAR_IRO. • The count is of degrees and may show duplicate degrees received in the program by the same student. • Uses most recent available freeze of fiscal year data. • FISCAL_YEAR_IRO: “Fiscal year, where the value indicates the ending of the fiscal year. For example, a FISCAL_YR_IRO value of 2005 indicates the fiscal year 2004‐2005 (July 1, 2004 to June 30, 2005) which includes Summer 2004, Fall 2004, and Spring 2005 semesters…”

  39. #19b Academic Subject Certificates Awarded • The count is of program Academic Subject Certificates and may show multiple Academic Subject Certificates in the same program received by the student. • Uses most recent available freeze of fiscal year data.

  40. #19c Goal • The UH Community Colleges have established increasing the number of Associate Degrees awarded as a priority. • Beginning with the baseline of 2006 (see MAPS Degrees and Certificates Earned 2005‐2006) programs are expected to increase the number of Associate Degrees by 3% compounded annually. • The number in 19c reflects the goal for the appropriate year. • Uses most recent available freeze of fiscal year data. • Example: 119 degrees was goal for 0910, 123 is goal for 1011 year (a 3% increase)

  41. #19d Difference Between Unduplicated Awarded and Goal • The percent difference between the number of Associate degrees awarded (#19a) and the goal (#19c). • General Pre Professional Programs are expected to increase Associate Degrees awarded by 3% compounded annually. • Uses most recent available freeze of fiscal year data. • Example: The program’s goal is 123 (19c). The actual number of Associate degrees awarded (19a) is 132, which is 9 degrees more than the goal. • Nine is 7% greater than the goal.

  42. #20 Transfers to UH 4-yr • Students with home campus UH Manoa, UH Hilo, or UH West Oahu for the first time Fall 2010 who prior to Fall 2010 had UH community college as home campus. • Also includes students who for the first time in Fall 2010 show Maui CC, Applied Business Information Technology as home campus and major. • This is a program measure. A student is included in the count of program transfers in as many programs in which they have been a major at the college. • For new programs, the baseline is calculated in the year following the establishment of the program – specifically the year in which there are a critical mass of majors reported in IRO_Base_UH.

  43. #20a Transfers with degree from program • Students included in #20 who have received a degree from the community college program prior to transfer. • Does not include any certificates.

  44. #20b Transfers without degree from program • Students included in #20 who did not receive a degree from the community college program prior to transfer but did transfer.

  45. #20c Increase by 3% Annual Transfers to UH 4-yr Goal • The UH Community Colleges have established increasing the number of students who transfer to UH 4‐year institutions as a priority. • Beginning with the baseline of 2006, General Pre Professional programs are expected to increase the number of students who transfer by 3% compounded annually. • The number in 20c reflects the goal for the appropriate year. • Source: UHCC Strategic Plan 2.4. Subset of all transfers, filtering for specific program.

  46. #20d Difference Between Transfers and Goal • The percent difference between the number of Transfers to UH 4‐year institutions (20) and the goal (#20c). • General Pre Professional Programs are expected to increase transfers to UH 4‐year institutions by 3% compounded annually. • Example: The program’s goal is 60 (20c). The actual number of transfers (20) is 96, 36 transfers more than their goal. • 36 is 60% greater than the goal.

  47. Determination of program’s health based on effectiveness This year the system office will calculate and report health calls for all instructional programs using academic year 2011 data. If you are interested in how the Liberal Arts Health Calls were determined, refer to the rubric linked here: Liberal Arts Health Call Scoring Rubric

  48. Determination of program’s overall health This year the system office will calculate and report health calls for all instructional programs using academic year 2011 data. If you are interested in how the Liberal Arts Health Calls were determined, refer to the rubric linked here: Liberal Arts Health Call Scoring Rubric

  49. #21 Number of Distance Education Classes Taught • Measures the number of classes taught with the mode of delivery as “Distance Completely Online.” • In setting up the class, the college indicates the method of instruction used by the instructor in conducting the class. • If the method is Distance Education, and the college indicates the “mode” of distance delivery as “Distance Completely Online” the class will be included in this count.

  50. #22 Enrollment Distance Education Classes • At the Fall and Spring census, the number of students actively enrolled in all classes owned by the program and identified as Distance Completely On‐Line (#21). • Does not include students who at Census have already withdrawn from the class.

More Related