INSTITUTIONAL EFFECTIVENESS The Best Place to Start 2017-2018 PROGRAM REVIEW REPORT COMPUTER AIDED DESIGN 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, 2017; 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). After the standard, the phrase in red followed by No or a number preceded by < (less than) or > (greater than) denotes 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 Report s Recommendation Last Year: No Formal Review Program Review Committee Action required this year: No Formal Review - Viability above 50% Mandatory Accreditation: Yes Fully Accredited? (Y/N): Yes Reason Why Not Fully Accredited: THE PROGRAM S RECENT PERFORMANCE SCORES (Citation of a year such as "1718" or "2018" refers to the 2017-2018 academic year.) VIABILITY 14-15 15-16 16-17 2017-2018 14-15 15-16 16-17 2017-2018 QUALITY 87.50% 75% 75% 75% 88.24% 94.44% 94.44% 94.44% RECENT RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PROGRAM REVIEW COMMITTEE 2014-2015 None 2015-2016 None 2016-2017 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/2017-2018 RPT/PROGREVRPT 1718YR COMPUTER AIDED DESIGN 2/27/2018 1 EPCC does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, gender, age, disability, veteran status, sexual orientation, or gender identity.
VIABILITY (Overall viability score 50% or lower or unmet Graduation and Student Success prompts formal review by the Program Review Committee) INDICATOR 1415 1516 1617 1718 (District Data as of Aug. 31, 2017) 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; in red if decreased <15 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%; in red if decreased <50% 81. For inf. only, EPCC Data: 84* 83. For inf. only, EPCC Data: 81* 65. For inf. only, EPCC Data: 81* 95% 91.3% 90.9% 90.9% 80. For inf. only, EPCC Data: 81 * INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT 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; in red if No 3. Class Fill Rate Percent of classes 75% full (Including concurrent 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. 2) For info. only, after score the measure is also calculated w/o concurrent students. 3) 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%; in red if decreased <50% 4. Enrollment Trends Seat count (Including concurrent 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. 2) For info. only, after the score measure is calculated w/o concurrent students. 3) For info. only, appears the unduplicated no. of students by year. Source: 6 Standard: Enrollment (Including concurrent) increased, level or decreased no more than 5%; in red if decreased >10%. 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; in red if 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, for 43 graduates in last 5 years. Yes, for 39 graduates in last 5 years. Yes, for 37 graduates in last 5 years. D: 32.3% Dist. Seat Count: 59.9% ** Error correction in progress D: 41.9% Dist. Seat Count: 62.2% Class Fill without concurrent, D: 40% ** Error correction in progress D: 39.7% 2) 35.9% 3) Dist. Seat Count: 62.6%.* Error correction in progress Yes, for 37 graduates in last 5 years. D: 34.8% 2) 32.7% 3) Dist. Seat Count: 59.3%.* D: -9.2%, 2) -5.6% 3) Undupl. 2015: 99, 2017: 87 * Lacks 3 yrs of data Lacks 3 yrs of data 34.1% -5.6% *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 concurrent students be included in the scored calculation. For information only, a second calculation was required to be made without including concurrent students. COMPUTER AIDED DESIGN 2
QUALITY INDICATOR 1415 1516 1617 1718 (District Data as of Aug. 31, 2017) 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. ( Certification does not refer to EPCC awards) 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% D: 94.7% D: 92.5% D: 93% D: 94.2% Lacks 3 yrs of data D: 97.7% D: 97% D: 97.3% D: 97% Lacks 3 yrs of data 87.1% 90.8% 87.1% 96.3% 100% 100% 99.4% 99.4% 96.7% 98.5% 99.5% 100% N/A N/A N/A N/A 100% 100% 100% 100% 94.3% 97% COMPUTER AIDED DESIGN 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, 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% 1415 1516 1617 36% 50% 57.1% 0% D: 44.1%*** 1718 (District Data as of Aug. 31, 2017) ASC FT. BLISS MdP NW RG TM VV D: 51%*** D: 54.8%*** D: 58.7%*** Lacks 3 yrs of data 100% 100% 100% 100% N/A Yes Yes Yes 86.7% 86.7% 90.3% 97% 100% 100% 100% 100% 92% 95% 100% 100% 56.9% ***2013-2014 revisions to the Program Review procedure reduced the standard from 60% to 50%.. COMPUTER AIDED DESIGN 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. SOC Code Occupation TOTAL NUMBER OF JOBS PER YEAR 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Total New/Replacement Jobs Average Hourly Wage (2017) 17-1011 Architects, Except Landscape and Naval 145 144 143 143 143 40 $34.95 Bachelor's degree Education Required 17-1012 Landscape Architects 14 14 14 14 15 <10 $31.13 Bachelor's degree 17-1021 Cartographers and Photogrammetrists 52 53 55 56 57 21 $22.70 Bachelor's degree 17-1022 Surveyors 86 86 85 85 85 25 $35.59 Bachelor's degree 17-3011 Architectural and Civil Drafters 198 196 194 193 192 57 $22.34 Associate's degree 17-3012 Electrical and Electronics Drafters 78 78 79 79 80 25 $27.73 Associate's degree 17-3013 Mechanical Drafters 39 39 40 40 40 13 $26.78 Associate's degree 17-3019 Drafters, All Other 29 29 29 29 29 <10 $21.01 Associate's degree 17-3031 Surveying and Mapping Technicians 178 175 173 171 170 52 $18.23 High school diploma or equivalent 19-3092 Geographers <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 Insf. Data Bachelor's degree 19-4041 Geological and Petroleum Technicians 12 13 13 13 14 <10 $23.07 Associate's degree 25-2032 Career/Technical Education Teachers, Secondary School 220 221 223 224 226 71 $27.95 Bachelor's degree COMPUTER AIDED DESIGN 5
SOC Code Occupation TOTAL NUMBER OF JOBS PER YEAR 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Total New/Replacement Jobs Average Hourly Wage (2017) Education Required 27-1021 Commercial and Industrial Designers 25 26 26 27 27 12 $27.67 Bachelor's degree 27-1025 Interior Designers 78 78 79 79 80 32 $23.32 Bachelor's degree 27-1029 Designers, All Other <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 Insf. Data Bachelor's degree 43-9011 Computer Operators 131 130 128 127 125 46 $16.79 High school diploma or equivalent 43-9021 Data Entry Keyers 1,099 1,097 1,094 1,089 1,087 473 $10.44 High school diploma or equivalent 47-2031 Carpenters 1,457 1,472 1,485 1,497 1,511 597 $14.93 High school diploma or equivalent 47-4011 Construction and Building Inspectors 238 241 244 246 249 101 $23.71 High school diploma or equivalent 51-7011 Cabinetmakers and Bench Carpenters 188 180 173 169 164 67 $13.23 High school diploma or equivalent 51-7032 Patternmakers, Wood <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 Insf. Data High school diploma or equivalent COMPUTER AIDED DESIGN 6