instructional programs 2013 - santa monica college info/faculty information/from... ·...

Instructional Programs 2013

Program Review Each program or service area of Santa Monica College is expected to engage in an ongoing process of self reflection and assessment of program effectiveness. Program review is designed to facilitate and document this process, with program improvement as the intended outcome. Programs and service areas must complete an in-depth report every 6 years; a shorter report covering more limited information is due annually. Certain information included in the annual reports will be automatically aggregated in the 6 year report. Information submitted in both the 6 year and annual report will be considered by the Program Review Committee. Annual reports will be reviewed by the area vice-presidents and relevant information shared with appropriate planning bodies. Through an annual report to the District Planning and Advisory Committee (DPAC), the Program Review committee forwards information and makes recommendations that are considered in annual institutional planning processes.

Program Information Program name: ESL Department Academic year: Fall 2012-Spring 2013 Program contact: Toni Randall, Chair Extension: 4882

Program Type Check all boxes that apply to your program.

XX Instructional Career Technical Education (CTE) Student or Instructional Support Service Administrative Service

Review Period 6 year XX Annual

A. Program Description and Goals

This section addresses the big picture. Prompts should help you describe your program and goals and the relationship to the institutional mission, vision and goals, and how the program is funded.

1. Describe the program and/or service area under review and how the program supports the mission of Santa Monica College.

6 yr, annual The ESL Department offers both credit and non-credit courses designed to prepare students whose first language is not English for the reading, writing, listening, speaking, and study skills required for college success and career enhancement. Credit Program Each year, about 2,000 students are enrolled in the ESL credit program, which serves as the entry point for the majority of SMC’s international students, who comprise a little over 10% of the total college student body. In accordance with the mission of the college, through the content of its courses, the department strives to create “a learning environment that both challenges students and supports them in achieving their educational goals.” The department includes 11 full-time faculty, approximately 30 part-time faculty, a half-time administrative assistant (shared with the Dance Dept), and 2-4 temporary instructional assistants. In addition to offering low-intermediate to advanced level multi-skills courses and specialized support courses (see SMC Catalog flow chart, pg 197), we offer free tutoring services and workshops to all SMC ESL students (including those currently enrolled in non- ESL classes, e.g., Eng 1). All of our courses are geared towards academic ESL and contextualized learning. Through collaboration within the department (e.g., common mid-term and final examinations and

http://www.smc.edu/AcademicPrograms/ESL/Pages/default.aspx

http://www2.smc.edu/catalog/2012-2013/12-13_catalog_part_3.pdf

http://www2.smc.edu/catalog/2012-2013/12-13_catalog_part_3.pdf


norming/grading sessions; course, level, and whole department discussions; and periodic review of course objectives, textbooks, and SLOs and assessments), we help “prepare students for successful careers, develop college-level skills, enable transfer to universities, and foster a personal commitment to lifelong learning.” Through the content of our courses, which thematically cover issues and topics of global concern, we contribute to the college’s mission to “prepare and empower students to excel in their academic and professional pursuits for lifelong success in an evolving global environment.” The department further seeks to effectively serve all SMC’s ESL students by collaborating with colleagues across campus to assist the college in achieving its vision to “be a leader and innovator in student learning and achievement” (SMC Master Plan for Education 2011-2012). This includes participation by ESL Dept faculty on DPAC and its subcommittees, the Student Success Committee and its professional development workshops, the Global Council, the Honor Council, Grade Appeals, the Tutoring Task Force, and a variety of Academic Senate committees including the Curriculum Committee and Program Review. Over the past year, we have continued to work closely with the Dean and Associate Dean of the International Education Center to ensure successful matriculation of students from the Intensive English Program to the ESL Dept credit program, and we have assisted the IEP in hiring qualified instructors for their program. We are in regular communication with IEC counselors, monitoring numbers of incoming students, to ensure availability of classes and discussing concerns about individual students and their progress. We also collaborate with the English Department on the Eng/ESL Common Essay Examination, engage in mutual data collection, and hold joint meetings as needed. For the past five years, we have teamed up with the Modern Languages and Cultures Department to facilitate student learning through the Language Exchange Program, in which ESL students from our department and native English speakers taking foreign language classes in ML&C pair up to practice the language(s) they are studying. In addition, ESL14A/B (pronunciation) and ESL15 (conversation) students have limited access to the Modern Language Lab. Periodically, we confer with the Assessment Center to ensure that our cut scores are appropriate. We are also consulted by Workforce Development when they plan special programs that include an ESL component. Noncredit Program In 2005-06, the college decided to reinstate the noncredit ESL program after having discontinued it for several years. The program was again offered through the Community and Continuing Education program and was administered by the (then) Associate Dean of Community Education. Restoration of the program was initially very slow because students had been effectively diverted to programs offered by the local unified school districts’ adult education programs and curriculum outlines were outdated (or missing entirely) and did not reflect the college’s current standards. The Associate Dean and ESL Department Chair began collaborating on hiring decisions and initiated the much needed curricular updates as course outlines were out-of-date and, for several courses, nonexistent. It soon became apparent that a designated faculty member with discipline expertise was needed to focus on completely overhauling the program. The college established release time for a faculty leader to take responsibility for redesigning the curriculum, scheduling classes, and hiring qualified faculty. This strategy has been extremely effective in aligning the noncredit and credit curricula and ensuring that faculty, some of whom teach in both the credit and non-credit programs, understand the goals of the two programs and the differences as well as similarities of the student populations they serve. The Faculty Leader, working with both credit and noncredit faculty, rewrote all the course outlines, which were approved by the SMC Curriculum Committee and the Chancellor’s Office in spring 2007. Courses were also grouped together in sequences to take advantage of additional funding as Career Development and College Preparation (CDCP) programs, which provide slightly higher apportionment rate per FTES. The program supports SMC’s Mission Statement in that it assists students in the development of the skills needed to succeed in college, prepares students for careers and transfer, and nurtures a lifetime commitment to learning. Noncredit ESL is one of the (currently) 10 categories of noncredit education supported by the state. Noncredit programs serve some of the most vulnerable populations in the state, individuals who arrive in this country with little or no English literacy and sometimes, without literacy in their native language.

Approximately 800 students are enrolled in noncredit ESL classes. We offer classes at the beginning, intermediate, and advanced level. These classes are offered at the Bundy location. Noncredit ESL courses are offered in multi-skill format at various levels. Students do not undergo assessment as the college has not pursued the effort needed to validate an


assessment instrument. Thus, students “self-select” into the class they feel is appropriate for their skill level, and faculty make recommendations to students if they believe students have not enrolled in a course appropriate to their level. There are currently course outlines for seven levels of courses from beginning literacy to high advanced. Multi-skills courses include ESL 901, 902, 903, 904, 905, and 906, and special interest courses include speaking/listening (911, 913, 915), reading/writing (961, 963, 965), and vocabulary/idioms/prepositions (971, 973, 975). According to demand, currently only three multi-skills courses are regularly offered (902, 904, and 906), and all of the special interest courses are offered. Because the noncredit ESL courses are offered on an open-entry, open-exit basis, to accommodate the adult education student population served, students often move between classes either based on self assessment or on the recommendation of their instructors. Students may enroll in classes at any time during the semester if space allows. They may also stop attending these classes at any point in the semester. In addition, although most of our students are non-native speakers, students do not have to prove their residency status, unlike non-native speakers enrolled in credit courses. However, F-1 visa students are not eligible to take noncredit classes. There are no fees associated with our courses; however, students are urged to buy textbooks. Until recently, classes have been offered at four locations: the Performing Arts Campus, the Bundy Campus, St. Anne’s Catholic Church, and Menorah Senior Housing. Because of a surge in enrollment and space limitations at Menorah Senior Housing, the class was moved back to the Bundy campus in fall 2012. The ESL Department Chair and Faculty Leader collaborate on hiring faculty and staffing classes. Faculty who teach noncredit ESL classes must have the same qualifications as those who teach credit classes. All noncredit courses are taught by adjunct faculty. There are 10 noncredit ESL instructors, two or three of whom teach in both the credit and noncredit programs, and an administrative assistant who assists students with registration. 2. Identify the overarching goal(s) or charge/responsibilities of the program or service area. If appropriate,

include ensuring/monitoring compliance with state, federal or other mandates. 6 yr, annual At the beginning of each regular semester, the department meets to establish goals and objectives. In addition to specific projects, there are continuing goals deemed fundamental to the program. Among them:

refine the credit and non-credit programs through development of new courses and two-year updates of existing course outlines and SLOs;

maintain the size and diversity of our student population through outreach, online course offerings, the non-credit ESL program, and collaboration with the Intensive English Program;

participate on committees and projects that allow us to utilize our unique skills and expertise (basic skills and international education) for the benefit of all SMC students and the college;

promote high professional and academic standards through course/level meetings, workshops, and seminars;

refine SLOs and their assessment to improve student learning;

support our faculty and staff in their professional development;

raise student and faculty awareness of campus services and encourage their use and participation;

routinely update technology and equipment and improve our current facilities;

address faculty and student safety concerns;

keep all department members informed of ongoing college and departmental policies and procedures;

support tutoring for all SMC ESL students;

collaborate with the Assessment Center to increase the accuracy of our placement test as well as with the Welcome Center, counselors, Intensive English Program, and English Department to guide ESL students to the classes most appropriate for them;

participate in college-wide initiatives and projects (e.g., Student Success, Global Citizenship, GRIT, I3);

add new full-time faculty positions when possible and maintain a roster of excellent part-time faculty;

maintain a professional and collegial environment for our faculty, staff, and students.

Specific goals for 2012-2013 were to continue to work towards development of a certificate of achievement for the non-credit ESL program and to develop a new course, Introduction to Linguistics, in collaboration with the ML&C and Earth Sciences departments.


In addition, we began addressing the spring 2013 recommendations given us by the Program Review Committee following our six-year report, which were:

Use the annual program review process to determine which research information is essential and link it to annual program objectives.

Establish a systematic cycle for planning and review of department objectives and initiatives.

Follow up to ensure that consistent and common definitions and measures are used to assess and report SLOs among multiple sections of the same courses.

Explore strategies for more accurately identifying the educational goals of non-credit ESL students.

Review and revise existing certificates of completion for non-credit ESL and explore the efficacy of developing departmental certificates for the credit program.

Follow up with the Life Sciences department to discuss strategies for helping ESL students struggling in those courses.

Progress made on each of these is discussed in Part D.

Noncredit instruction is state-supported and regulated, authorized in Title 5 and the California Education Code. The courses are funded through an apportionment mechanism, but unlike credit courses, noncredit courses are funded based on positive attendance, meaning that the college is only funded for the time that a student is actually present in each class. Students sign in on attendance sheets which are then transferred to Positive Attendance Rosters approximately every four weeks, an immensely laborious task for faculty to complete each month. Also, the apportionment rate for noncredit is lower than the apportionment rate for credit. Until 2007, apportionment for noncredit courses was 56% of what the college received for credit courses. However, with the passage of SB 361, additional apportionment was provided for noncredit courses which met specific criteria. Known as CDCP (Career Development and College Placement), a series of classes grouped together earn approximately 75% of what credit classes earn per FTE with credit at $4,367, enhanced non-credit at $3092, and remaining noncredit at $2,626 (Non Credit Instruction: Opportunity and Challenge, ASCCC, 2009). 3. If applicable, describe how the Institutional Learning Outcomes (ILOs), Supporting Goals, and/or Strategic

Initiatives of the institution are integrated into the goals of the program or service area.

6 yr

4. If your program receives operating funding from any source other than District funds identify the funding

source. If applicable, note the start and end dates of the funding (generally a grant), the percentage of the program budget supported by non-District funding, and list any staff positions funded wholly or in part by non-District funds. Do not include awards for non-operational items such as equipment (ex. VTEA) or value added activities (ex Margin of Excellence).

6 yr, annual The program receives a very small amount of noncredit matriculation funding (approximately $20,000 per year), which is used to support a portion of the admissions and records functions of the program, but this funding is expected to be eliminated with the proposed changes to how matriculation funds are distributed to the colleges and the purpose for which those funds may be used.

B. Populations Served In this section you will provide information that describes who your program or service area serves. When comparing data from different periods, use a consistent time frame (ex. Compare one fall term to another fall term) Multi-discipline departments may find it more relevant to answer the following questions for each discipline. Please indicate the number of different disciplines for which information will be provided, and copy, insert and answer one set of questions per discipline. Set #1 Discipline _________________________________ 1. Describe your students in terms of ethnicity, race, gender, age, residency status, citizenship, educational goal,

enrollment status, and full/part-time status. Note any changes in student or enrollment data since the last six-year program review and the possible reasons for the changes.


6 yr, annual (first time)

Credit Program The population of students in the ESL Department is highly diverse, ranging in age from under 19 to over 50, with a steadily increasing number of international students who come from countries all over the world. There are slightly more female students than male, the majority of whom are between the ages of 20 and 24; many are Asian (a category which includes a culturally and linguistically diverse group); most have graduated from high school; and the majority are full-time continuing students with transfer as their goal. The most notable differences in demographics between the ESL credit program population and that of the college overall appear in the categories of: ethnicity, residence status, and full vs part-time.

Gender The percentage of female and male students in the ESL program (F11 53% female, 47% male) is consistent with the college-wide population (F11 54% female, 46% male), there being slightly more females than males.

Age As of fall 2011, the majority of students in the ESL program was between the ages of 20-24 (49%). Second were students 19 and younger (24%) followed by those 25-29 (13%), 30-39 (9%), 40-49 (3%), and 50 or older (2%). The vast majority of international (F1 visa) students in our program are between the ages of 20 and 24 (42.7%), followed by those 19 or younger (24%). Ethnicity

As of fall 2011, the ethnicity of our population was: Asian (60%), White (20%), Hispanic (10%), and Black (2%). The SMC

student body includes international students from over 100 countries. In fall 2010, the largest groups (those with over 100) were: South Korea – 798; China - 645 (500 from mainland China and 145 from Hong Kong); Japan – 370; and Sweden – 357. In fall 2011, the number of Chinese speakers exceeded Korean speakers and the number of Swedish speakers exceeded the number of Japanese speakers: China - 837 (702 from mainland China and 135 from Hong Kong); South Korea – 734; Sweden – 437; and Japan – 291 (data provided by IEC). The trend of growth in the number of international students continues. In fall 2011, 777 international students attended IEC pre-enrollment seminars, and in fall 2012, that number increased to 1037. Not all students who attend seminars decide to enroll in classes at SMC, but international student interest in SMC appears to be on the rise. Enrollment overall in our program has steadily risen from 1,473 in fall 2007 to 1,821 in fall 2011 and no doubt reflects the growth in numbers of international students (data provided by IEC). Residence As of fall 2011, the percentage of out-of-state residents was 5% and the percentage of foreign students 61%. While “Asians” comprise our largest population, that category encompasses international students from a variety of different cultural and linguistic backgrounds including: mainland China, South Korea, Japan, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Taiwan, Mongolia, Vietnam, Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia, and the Philippines. Enrollment Status Most ESL students are continuing students (F11 52%). The percentage of first-time students in the department is 34% (F11). The combined percentages of first-time students and first-time transfer students for the department equaled 44% in fall 2011. Educational Goal The number of first-time students declaring “transfer” as their educational goal was in F11 79%. This coincides with the growth in percentage of international students within our program. Education Status The vast majority of our program’s students have high school degrees or the equivalent (F11 91%).

Part-time vs Full-time


Most ESL Dept students are full-time (F11 74%), which is not surprising since international students, who comprise around 61% of our student population, are required to take 12 units per semester to remain in status.


Noncredit Program Since its reinstatement, the program has experienced tremendous growth. In fall 2007, there were 502 students enrolled in courses. By fall 2011, there were 823 students enrolled, which represents a little over a 60% increase in the number of students that the program serves. This growth has continued and is expected to accelerate as local K-12 adult schools continue to reduce or eliminate their adult education offerings as a result of the “flexibility” option the K-12 districts have with the funds.

Gender The percentage of males and females hasn’t changed significantly. In fall 2007, out of 507 students, there were 137 males (27%) and 365 females (73%). In fall 2011, out of 823 students, there were 231 males (28%) and 592 females (72%).

Ethnicity In fall 2007, noncredit ESL students self-reported their ethnicity as:

167 (33%) Asian/Pacific Islanders

154 (31%) White

142 (28%) Hispanic

11 (2%) Black

14 (3%) Unreported/other

(none of the students identified themselves as multi-racial or Native American)

The data for fall 2011, however, are unusual. The reported ethnicity demographics indicated that 90% (744) of the students opted not to report their ethnicity. The cause of such reluctance to self-report is a mystery, but there may be several explanations. Students often come into the program with limited or virtually no English skills, and they may not understand the information that they are being asked to provide on the application. Another possible cause may lie in the wording of the application form itself. Among the choices for ethnic background are two fields: “other than white” and “decline to state.” After students complete the application for enrollment, their information is recorded into ISIS by the admissions services clerk. If either of these options is selected, it is recorded as “unreported” in ISIS. The program will work with the admissions clerk and the noncredit ESL faculty to ensure that students interpret the options correctly and complete the form accurately.

Age The ages of our students didn’t change significantly from fall 2007 to fall 2011. Our students’ ages range from 19 to 50 years and older. The majority of our students are between 30 to 39 years old.

Residence Status In fall 2007,143 students (29%) were California residents, 344 (68%) were from out-of-state, and 16 (3%) were from foreign countries (note that the program may serve nonresidents but not F-1 visa students). In fall 2011, 192 (23%) students were California residents, 629 (76%) were from out-of-state, and four (1%) were from foreign countries. While it is possible that the number of out-of-state noncredit students could exceed the number of California resident noncredit students, we would expect that these numbers would be the reverse. Data was double-checked with OIR to ensure accuracy, and the program plans to review the application form to ascertain whether or not students understand the questions.

Enrollment Status Comparing the enrollment status in fall 2007 and fall 2011, although the number of students has increased, the percentages associated with the student type are not significantly different. The percentage of first-time college students in fall 2007 was 30% (149), and in 2011, it was again 30% (252). Also, the number of returning students remained relatively the same, 7% (37) in fall 2001 and 8% (67) in fall 2011. In fall 2007 and 2011, the percentage of students who reported themselves as first time transfer students decreased slightly, from 54% (271) in fall 2007 to 48% (393) in fall 2011. Finally, there was an increase in the percentage of continuing students, from 8% (37) in fall 2007 to 13% (107) in fall 2011.

2. Compare your student population with the college demographic. Are your students different from the college population?


6 yr

3. What percentage of students in your program place in basic skills and, if applicable, how does this impact your

program goals and/or curriculum?

6 yr


C. Program Evaluation In this section programs/units are to identify how, what, and when program evaluation takes place and summarize the results from data collected. Please use Section D to address program responses to the findings described in this section.

. Programs/units with multiple disciplines or functions may choose to answer the following questions for each area. Please indicate the number of different disciplines or functions for which information will be provided, and copy, insert and answer one set of questions per discipline, function, or program.

Set #1 Program or Discipline: _______________________

Set #2 Program or Function:

Set #3 Administrative Unit/Service Area:

1. List the specific SLOs your program or discipline has chosen to focus on this year for discussion of program improvement. 6 yr, annual

In this section, we review not only SLO assessment data but also success and retention rate data since all three in combination demonstrate student success. In our six-year review, we spent a great deal of time closely examining factors that may have contributed to the drop in success rates in ESL classes and we continue to be concerned about our success rates. After having remained fairly constant between fall 2008 and fall 2010, overall success rates in ESL courses dropped from 76.1% to 68.6% from fall 2010 to fall 2011 (compared to the college rates of 68.2% in F10 and 68.8% in F11), and they remain lower than we would like in some courses. On the other hand, retention rates remain high, which may in fact contribute to lower success rates in that students who might otherwise withdraw early from a class in which they are not likely to succeed choose to take a failing grade or a W in their ESL classes. This is especially true for international students, who must retain 12 units to remain in status.

While success rates remained steady in 10G and 10W (with a dip in Sp13), in 11B, 21A, and 21B, success rates fell between F12 and F13. On the other hand, they rose in 11A for the same time period. See table below for exact percentages. Retention rates remained high throughout.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

F12 Success

Retention Sp13 Success

Retention F13 Success

Retention

Fig 1 Success and Retention F12 - F13 Core Courses

10G

10W

11A

11B

21A

21B


Fig 2 Success and Retention F12 - F13 Core Courses

10G 10W 11A 11B 21A 21B F12 Success 76% 74% 60% 81% 70% 85% Retention 92% 94% 95% 93% 90% 95%

Sp13 Success 76% 65% 62% 75% 73% 78% Retention 94% 90% 94% 97% 93% 90%

F13 Success 75% 75% 68% 71% 64% 79% Retention 96% 91% 92% 95% 92% 92%

Success rates and SLO achievement for all core courses (10G, 10W, 11A, 11B, 21A, 21B) for fall 2012, spring 2013, and fall 2013 are as follows:

In Fig 3 above, the average achievement of key SLOs is presented. The second SLO for 10G and 10W and the third SLO for 11A, 11B, 21A, and 21B regard academic behavior, i.e. “demonstrate academic behavior by attending class regularly and punctually, following instructions, completing assignments, and adhering to the academic integrity policies,” and were omitted from the averaged SLO achievement rates since that particular SLO is determined by a student’s conduct in class rather than by the quality of the student’s work. While we gathered data from F12 to F13, as a department we reviewed the most recent semester’s data since most of the spring 2014 instructors taught in fall 2013 as well while the faculty roster of fall 2012 and spring 2013 do not necessarily reflect the current roster. We examine SLOs and final grades after every semester in order to evaluate our curriculum and continue to work towards standardized practices in assessment amongst all our instructors.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

F12 Success

F12 SLOs

Sp13 Success

Sp13 SLOs

F13 Success

F13 SLOs

Fig 3 F12-F13 Success Rates and SLO Achievement, Core Courses

10G

10W

11A

11B

21A

21B


SLO achievement in the core courses roughly corresponds to success rates. There are at least three identifiable factors that might influence the data overall. First, while a W is factored into the success rate (as a failing grade), a student who receives a W would be entered as “not assessed” for SLO achievement. In 11A, for example, there was a significant number of W’s, which could have caused the success rate to be lower than the SLO achievement rate. Thus, SLO achievement may be slightly higher than successful completion of the course in some cases (e.g., 10G, 10W, 11A). Second, while a student may be deemed to have achieved the SLOs, missing assignments or a zero on a major assignment due to cheating may prevent a student (who achieves the first two SLOs but not the third) from passing the course. Thirdly, not all instructors reported SLOs in F13. While 100% of sections included SLO assessment in 10G, 10W, and 21B, and 96% were reported in 21A, only 75% were reported in 11A and 11B. Thus, while all students are represented in the success rate for grades, in 11A and 11B, only ¾ of students were assessed for SLOs. More problematic is disparity resulting from a lower achievement rate of SLOs but a higher success rate in passing the course (11B, 21A, 21B). However, four sections (out of a total of 17) of 21B (2233, 2243, 2245, 4220) were identified as having inaccurate enrollment numbers (therefore, inaccurate success rates) on the TIMS grades report. That is, only half the number of students who were enrolled appeared in the statistics. The instructors of those courses confirm that the number of students who received non-passing grades was much higher than the numbers appearing on the TIMS grades report. Thus, the success rate for 21B (nearly 80%) is, in fact, somewhat lower than that. In addition, we may expect that the courses that students place into would exhibit somewhat lower success rates (11A, 21A in particular) than the courses they migrate to (11B, 21B), which is indeed the case. Finally, we in the department have for many semesters now felt that the cut scores on the placement tests for 11A and 21A need to be higher. The current placement test does not include a writing sample even though students are placed into classes for which writing is paramount in determining the final grade. To fill this gap, all core course instructors administer common diagnostic writing tests to their students during the first week in order to more accurately assess their writing ability. Students who are not proficient enough writers for the course they have placed into are encouraged to enroll in a lower level course. However, most do not take this advice, and they end up failing the course they placed into and repeating it. Our hope is that the validation process (conducted this spring 2014) will raise cut scores, which could help mitigate this problem and result in higher success rates in those courses. Each semester, we compare success rates between full-time and part-time faculty members in an effort to ensure that part-time faculty, especially newer instructors to our program, hold students to the same standards as their experienced colleagues do.

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

10G 10W 11A 11B 21A 21B

Fig 4 F13 Success Rate and SLO Achievement

Success

SLO 1

SLO2

SLO 3


In spring 2014, at our department flexday, we reviewed the results of fall 2013 in detail as most of the instructors who taught in fall continued teaching with our program in the spring and in spring only one new part-time instructor joined our faculty. We discovered that in 10G, 11A, and 21B classes taught by part-time instructors had a higher success rate, while in 10W, 11B, and 21A the success rate in classes taught by full-time faculty was higher though the difference in success rates between full-time and part-time faculty in 11B and 21A was marginal.

To examine this more closely, we compared final grades of part-time and full-time instructors, class by class. See Figs 7-12.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

F12 PT F12 FT Sp13 PT Sp13 FT F13 PT F13 FT

Fig 5 % Success Part-time and Full-time Faculty F12-F13

10G

10W

11A

11B

21A

21B

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

10G 10W 11A 11B 21A 21B

Fig 6 Success Rates, PT and FT Faculty Fall 2013

F13 PT

F13 FT


In 10G, it appears that both part-time and full-time faculty are awarding more B’s than C’s, in marked contrast to instructors of 11A, 11B, 21A, and 21B. In 10W, there were slightly more C’s awarded, but again, there is a noticeable difference between the grades in 10W and those in the higher level core courses, in which the number of C’s far exceeded the number of B’s and A’s given.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

FT PT Total

Fig 7 Grades ESL10G, FT and PT Instructors Fall 2013

A

B

C

D

F

W

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

FT PT Total

Fig 8 Grades ESL10W PT and FT Instructors Fall 2013

A

B

C

D

F

W


0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

FT PT Total

Fig 9 Grades ESL11A, PT and FT Instructors Fall 2013

A

B

C

D

F

W

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

FT PT Total

Fig 10 Grades ESL11B, PT and FT Instructors Fall 2013

A

B

C

D

F

W

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

FT PT Total

Fig 11 Grades 21A, PT and FT Instructors Fall 2013

A

B

C

D

F

W


Overall, part-time faculty tend to be more generous with A’s and B’s than their full-time colleagues, but not drastically so. Generally, new instructors take a semester or two to fully understand our program and our rigorous standards. Level meetings and grading/norming sessions of mid-term and finals, led by course coordinators, serve to educate new instructors and help ensure that all sections of the same course are comparable. With the addition of new instructors each semester (seven in fall 2013), this is an ongoing effort. The data were reviewed and discussed by the whole group followed by in-depth discussions led by course coordinators (including re-examination of textbooks, assessments, and assignments) attended by the instructors currently teaching those courses. Based on these discussions, some changes to the content of our core courses will be implemented in fall 2014. Specifically, major assignments and course content will emphasize not only writing skills but will incorporate systematic teaching of specific vocabulary from the Academic Word List (Coxhead, 2002) including collocations and word forms, more structured instruction of reading comprehension skills, more thorough grammar review, and greater emphasis on the process of writing, especially in 21A and 21B. We anticipate that these changes will result in better writing and, hopefully, a rise in success rates in 11A, 11B, 21A, and 21B. We requested data from OIR that would indicate how many ESL students currently taking ESL courses are also enrolled in one of our support courses (14A, 14B, 15, 16A, 16B, 16C, 17, 20A, 20B, 23, and 28). Not surprisingly perhaps, we find a larger percentage of C level students enrolled in support courses than we do B level students, many of whom opt to take non-ESL classes instead (see Fig 13).

Fig 13 Percentage of Credit ESL Students Concurrently Enrolled in Core and Support Courses F12

Cohort Enrolled Concurrently Enrolled in Support Percent ESL 11A 260 70 26.9% ESL 11B 176 44 25.0% ESL 21A 701 82 11.7% ESL 21B 418 27 6.5% Total 1555 223 14.3% We examine the success rates, SLO achievement, retention, and grades in each of the support courses separately from the core courses. Please see Section C6 for a detailed discussion of ESL student achievement in non-ESL classes.

0

50

100

150

200

250

FT PT Total

Fig 12 Grades ESL21B, PT and FT Instructors Fall 2013

A

B

C

D

F

W


Some retention rates are lower than they are in the core courses, but this varies from semester to semester. Nine of the support courses (14A/B, 16A/B/C, 20A/B, 23, 28) are offered online as well, and data from these can vary greatly depending upon the individual students enrolled that semester.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

14A

14B

15

16A

16B

16C

17

20A

20B

23

25

28

Fig 14 F13 Success, Retention, SLOs

Retention

SLOs

Grades

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

14A

14B

15

16A

16B

16C

17

20A

20B

23

25

28

Fig 15 F13 Grades Support Courses

A

B

C

D

F

W


The data indicate that students in many support courses receive more A’s and B’s than they do in core courses. This is not surprising as students self-select into support courses and most of the courses do not include a heavily weighted writing component. In fact, only ESL25 is a writing course, and final grades in that course closely resemble those received by students in the core courses. Instructors routinely recommend to their students with weaker language skills that they take support courses concurrently with their core course. In addition, there is an advisory attached to all core courses recommending that students who receive a C in that course should take support courses. To confirm that students who take support courses are indeed more successful than students who do not, we asked OIR to generate such data. Note that ESL10 students are not represented because they must pass ESL10G and 10W to be eligible for support courses. First, we wanted to know how many students in the ESL program in fact enroll in support courses. OIR supplied the following data for fall 2012.

Roughly a quarter of ESL11A and ESL11B students in fall 2012 were enrolled in a support course concurrently with their core course (11A – 26.9%, 11B – 25%), but that percentage dropped markedly with ESL21A and ESL21B students (21A – 11.7%, 21B 6.5%). The data below indicate that students concurrently enrolled in a support course and core course are more successful in their core course.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

ESL11A ESL11B ESL21A ESL21B Total

Fig 16 Number of ESL Students Concurrently Enrolled in a Core Course and a Support Course -

F12

Total Enrolled

Enrolled in Support Course


Given the data results, we conclude that our support courses achieve their goal of helping our students to be more successful in their core courses. We will continue to advise students who may benefit from more practice in reading, grammar, listening/speaking, and vocabulary to enroll in those support courses. 2. Describe when and how the program assesses these SLOs and uses the results for program

improvement including:

how outcomes are assessed and how often

how and when the program or discipline reviews the results and engages program/discipline faculty in the process.

6 yr

3. If your program or discipline issues a degree or certificate, list each degree or certificate and the core

competencies that students are expected to achieve on completion.

6 yr

4. What other evaluation measures does your program or discipline use to inform planning? (For example, student surveys, enrollment trends, student success, retention, degrees/certificates awarded, job placement, transfer rates, TIMS reports, tutor usage, etc.) Note trends and differences in performance by group (ethnicity, gender, age) or enrollment type (day/evening, onground/on-site).

6 yr, annual To continue the analysis begun during our six-year review, this year, we requested data from OIR comparing success rates of ESL students who are enrolled in Eng 1 (who placed into Eng 1 and those who migrated from the ESL program), students who are enrolled in Eng 1 and other non-ESL classes, and students who were enrolled in ESL classes and non-ESL classes. We compared resident and international students (US and foreign). The following data are from fall 2012.

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

ESL11A ESL11B ESL21A ESL21B Total

Fig 17 Success Rates in ESL Core Courses of Students Enrolled and Students Not Enrolled in Support

Courses - F12

Enrolled in Support Course

Not Enrolled in Support Course


.

The number of students who took the ESL Placement Exam and placed into Eng 1 and then enrolled in Eng 1 in fall 2012 was equal. Of that number, more domestic than international students successfully completed Eng 1. Retention was also higher for domestic than international students. In Fig 19 below, we see that ESL domestic students who placed into Eng 1 were more successful (82.2%) than their international student counterparts (78.1%) and their retention rates were higher as well (domestic – 93.2%, international – 86.3%).

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Total # Success Retention

Fig 18 Success and Retention of ESL Students Enrolled in Eng 1 who placed into Eng 1 - F12

US

Foreign

70.00%

75.00%

80.00%

85.00%

90.00%

95.00%

% Success % Retention

Fig 19 Success and Retention Rate ESL Students Placed into Eng 1 and Enrolled in Eng 1 - F12

US

Foreign


Of nearly 393 ESL students who placed into Eng 1 and were concurrently enrolled in both Eng 1 and other college classes, more domestic students than international were successful in their non-Eng 1 classes.

As can be seen in Fig 21 above, the success rate of ESL students enrolled in Eng 1 in their non-Eng 1 classes for domestic students was above that of international students (domestic – 88%, international 81%). A number of our ESL students choose to enroll in non-ESL classes while they are concurrently enrolled in an ESL class. Data were collected to determine the success and retention rates of those students in their non-ESL classes. Again, comparisons were between international and domestic students as well.

0

50

100

150

200

250

Total # Success Retention

Fig 20 Success and Retention of ESL Students (Placed into Eng 1) in Non-Eng 1 Classes - F12

US

Foreign

74.00%

76.00%

78.00%

80.00%

82.00%

84.00%

86.00%

88.00%

90.00%

92.00%

94.00%

Success Retention

Fig 21 Success Rate ESL Students Enrolled in Eng 1 Concurrently with Non-Eng 1 Classes - F12

US

Foreign


The data demonstrate the difference between the number of domestic compared with the number of international students who concurrently enroll in non-ESL classes. International students are required to enroll in 12 units each semester while domestic students are not. That international students opt to take non-ESL classes to fulfill that requirement (even at the C level) may reflect their desire to complete their program at SMC within a limited time period, a constraint that domestic students may not feel as acutely. International students account for more than 60% of the ESL credit program student body, which contributes to the higher number of international students concurrently enrolled in ESL and non-ESL classes. Retention in non-ESL classes appears to be fairly high and consistent in both groups.

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

ESL11A ESL11A ESL11B ESL11B ESL21A ESL21A ESL21B ESL21B

US Foreign US Foreign US Foreign US Foreign

Fig 22 Success and Retention of ESL Students (Domestic and Foreign) in Non-ESL Classes by ESL Class - F12

Total #

Success

Retention


Fig 23 demonstrates that while retention of both foreign and domestic ESL students taking non-ESL classes is fairly high in their non-ESL classes, success rates are consistently lower for domestic students in those classes than their international student counterparts. In addition, we requested data on success and retention rates of ESL students who migrated from the Intensive English Program to the ESL program.

The success rate of IEP students is slightly below that of all credit ESL program students in ESL courses. IEP students enter the credit program without necessarily having previously obtained a TOEFL score of 450, which is required of all non-IEP entering students. The ESL Placement Exam determines at which level IEP students will enter the credit ESL program. The retention rates for IEP students are higher,

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

100.00%

11A US 11A Foreign

11B US 11B Foreign

21A US 21A Foreign

21B US 21B Foreign

Fig 23 Rate ESL Students Foreign and Domestic in Non-ESL Classes - F12

Success

Retention

0.00%

20.00%

40.00%

60.00%

80.00%

100.00%

120.00%

Success Retention

Fig 24 Success and Retention Rate IEP Students in ESL Classes - F12

All Students

IEP Students


which may influence the success rates in that international students who are not succeeding in a class are more likely to remain in that class since they need to maintain 12 units per semester. We requested data from fall 2010 through spring 2012 that would indicate how many students from IEP migrated to the ESL credit program and into which level/course those students placed. The total number of students who migrated from the IEP during this time period was 215 (out of 282 total), or 76%.

Finally, we requested data that would indicate how many ESL students who place and enroll in the ESL program at the D (ESL10) and C (ESL11A) levels complete ESL21B within four regular semesters. The data were collected from fall 2011 through spring 2013. The results indicated that of a cohort of 182 students who entered the ESL Credit program in fall 2011, 19.8% had completed ESL 21B by the end of spring 2013. The percentage was roughly equal between U.S. and foreign students (18.3% U.S. and 20.5% foreign). The usefulness of such data is twofold. 1) Many students enter our program assuming that within two years they will complete all the required courses. This is clearly not the case, and new students should probably be made aware of this. In fact, a student who enters at the D or C level has only a 1 in 5 likelihood of accomplishing that goal within four regular semesters (which may include summer and winter intersessions). .

D. Program Improvement In this section, please document what you did last year as a result of what you described in Section C and what you are planning to do for the coming year.

Part 1: Looking back In this section, please summarize your response to last year’s planning efforts. 1. Note the status of the previous year’s objectives.

Specific goals for 2012-2013 were to work towards development of a certificate of achievement for the non-credit ESL program and to develop a new course, Introduction to Linguistics, in collaboration with the ML&C and Earth Sciences departments. Regarding the first objective, it was determined that further information gathered through a survey of noncredit students and their academic goals is needed before work on development of a noncredit certificate of achievement is begun.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

ESL10 ESL11A ESL21A

Fig 25 IEP Student Placement in ESL Credit Program - F10-Sp12


Regarding the second objective, development of Ling 1, the course was approved and is being offered for the first time in spring 2014, team-taught by faculty from ML&C and ESL. In addition, we began addressing the spring 2013 recommendations given us by the Program Review Committee following our six-year report, which were:

Use the annual program review process to determine which research information is essential and link it to annual program objectives. Action: SLOs and TIMS grades reports from the previous semester are reviewed every department flexday (fall and spring) with the goal of increasing success rates and SLO achievement in all our courses, particularly the core courses (11A, 11B, 21A 21B).

Establish a systematic cycle for planning and review of department objectives and initiatives. Action: At the end of spring semester, the department meets to review progress on that school year’s objectives and goals and identifies areas of concern. We request data from OIR, if needed in order to make progress on continuing goals and to support or refute identified areas of concern. We review tutoring data to identify any issues that might indicate modifications we should make to the contents of our courses, e.g., if many students are requesting help with paraphrasing, we may need to include more instruction in that in our core courses. The following fall, at the department flexday meeting, we review the data requested from OIR and, based on the results of that data, we establish new goals for the school year.

Follow up to ensure that consistent and common definitions and measures are used to assess and report SLOs among multiple sections of the same courses. Action: At a spring 2013 department meeting, the meaning of “mastery” of SLOs was discussed and a consensus reached as to its meaning. For our program’s purposes, “mastery” of an SLO means that the student has developed his/her language skills sufficiently to meet the objectives and SLOs for the course and to receive a passing grade. Regarding SLO assessments, all instructors in all core courses use the same assessment tool (final exam) and meet at the end of the semester to norm and grade the final exam together with their colleagues teaching the same course. This has resulted in far greater consistency between SLO achievement and grades between all sections of the same course. Furthermore, instructors’ SLO achievement rates are, in most cases, comparable between sections of the same course. In instances when notable differences exist between one instructor’s SLO achievement rates and those of his/her colleagues teaching the same course, the department chair meets with the instructor to discuss the discrepancy. Common measures are used in all courses as part of the final examination. Instructors join with their colleagues to norm and grade final examinations.

End of Spring Department Meeting Review previous fall-spring objectives; identify those that have been met and those

that are continuing; identify any new areas of concern; request data from OIR in support of both to be reviewed the following fall.

Beginning of Fall Department Flexday Meeting Establish goals and objectives for fall-spring, both continuing and new, based on

review of data requested from OIR the previous spring.


Explore strategies for more accurately identifying the educational goals of non-credit ESL students. Action: The coordinator of noncredit ESL is currently working with Institutional Research to design a survey which identifies the educational goals of noncredit ESL students. The goal is to distribute the survey in Fall 2014.

Review and revise existing certificates of completion for non-credit ESL and explore the efficacy of developing departmental certificates for the credit program. Action: At a department meeting, the efficacy of developing a certificate of completion for the credit program was discussed. It was decided that, for now, we lack the data necessary to support certificate development, but we will consider it in the future as such data become available. In noncredit ESL, we are currently looking at data from MIS which shows the scheduling patterns of noncredit ESL students. This information will enable us to create a departmental certificate for noncredit ESL students.

Follow up with the Life Sciences department to discuss strategies for helping ESL students struggling in those courses. Action: In fall 2013, the ESL and Life Sciences Departments requested data from OIR to assess whether there is a significant relationship between course outcome and English skills in all Life Sciences courses. Only the courses for which the sample was adequate are reported below. The data were aggregate from fall and spring semesters, 2008 through 2013.

The data indicate that ESL students enrolled in Biology 2, 3, 9, and Nutrition1 are significantly less successful in those courses if they do not possess the level of language skills required for English 1. In addition, OIR collected data for the same time period to discover if there is a significant difference between average course grades between English skill level groups for ESL students enrolled in Life Sciences courses. Again, only courses for which sample size was adequate are reported below.

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

100.00%

Bio 2 Bio 3 Bio 9 Nutr 1

Fig 26 Success Rates of ESL Students Eligible for Eng 1 and Not Eligible for Eng 1 - F08-Sp13

% Eligible for Eng 1

Eligible For Eng 1 Success Rate

Not Eligible for Eng 1 Success Rate


Data were also collected for the same time period (F08-Sp13) to determine whether or not there were significant differences in success rate between international and domestic students. Sample size was deemed adequate for only two Life Sciences courses, Bio 2 and Bio 15.

Data indicate that international students are significantly more successful than domestic students in Bio 2 and Bio 15. This tendency was true for all Life Sciences courses, but the sample size was only deemed adequate in these two. Finally, data were collected for F08-Sp13 to assess whether or not there are differences between international and domestic students’ grades in Life Sciences courses. Only those courses with adequate samples are included below.

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

Bio 2 Bio 3 Bio 9 Bio 15 Bio 15N

Nutr 1 Nutr 4

Fig 27 Average Grades of ESL Students Eligible for Eng 1 and Not Eligible for Eng 1

Grade Eligible for Eng 1

Grade Not Eligible for Eng 1

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

Success Rate Domestic Success Rate International

Fig 28 Success Rate ESL Students International and Domestic

Bio 2

Bio 15


Interestingly, while domestic students were less successful in their Life Sciences courses than international students overall, their grades were not necessarily lower. In fact, in Bio 15N, Bio 21, and Nutr 1, domestic students’ grades were higher than those of their international student counterparts. The data would seem to indicate that the most important factor in determining student success in Life Sciences courses is students’ eligibility for Eng 1, that is, whether or not the student possesses language skills sufficient to achieve success in Life Sciences courses. The chairs and faculty representatives of both departments plan to meet in spring or fall 2014 to discuss the results, after which both departments will discuss the data and suggest ways we might address areas of concern. . 2. List accomplishments, achievements, activities, initiatives undertaken, and any other positives the

program wishes to note and document.

6 yr

3. Summarize how the program or service area addressed the recommendations for program

strengthening from the executive summary of the previous six-year program review.

6 yr

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

Bio 2 Bio 15N Bio 21 Nutr 1

Fig 29 Mean Course Grade Domestic and International Students

Mean Course Grade Domestic

Mean Course Grade International


4. Describe any changes or activities your program or service area has made that are not addressed in the objectives, identify the factors that triggered the changes, and indicate the expected or anticipated outcomes.

6 yr, annual During the past year, ESL Department faculty members have engaged in a number of activities to better serve our students.

o In spring 2013, in consultation with the Honor Council, one of our part-time faculty members offered a workshop for ESL students to inform them of the serious consequences of cheating on their assignments. The workshop was well-attended.

o One of our full-time faculty participated in the Skills Advisory Validation Study. o Another of our full-time faculty members helped organize a Global Council-sponsored

tournament (May 2013) to help increase the level of involvement of our international students in campus-wide activities, and several ESL students who participated were among the finalists.

o In spring 2013, four visiting EFL professors from Quzhou College of Technology, Quzhou, (Zhejiang Province), China attended SMC for a three-week professional development program coordinated by Workforce and Economic Development. While at SMC, the visiting scholars attended various special lectures and visited Counseling 20 and History 11 classes. They observed three full-time instructors of ESL10W, 11A, and 21A and met with them for 3 three-hour sessions to debrief about the classes and discuss the ESL Program at SMC. One session revolved around content-based instruction and SMC’s ESL program; a second session focused more directly on methods and procedures employed by our instructors; and a third session focused on technology.

o Another full-time faculty member has been working closely with the Office of Academic Affairs to develop a hybrid program for students living in China. The first of these class(es) may be offered as early as fall 2014 if enrollment justifies it.

5. If your program received one time funding of any kind indicate the source, how the funds were

spent and the impact on the program (benefits or challenges).

6 yr, annual N/A

6. Describe departmental efforts to improve the teaching and learning environment.

6 yr

7. If there is a tutoring component or other learning support service associated with the program,

describe the relationship between the service(s) and the instructional program. If applicable, discuss any data you have compiled regarding student participation and the impact on student success.

6 yr

Part 2: Moving forward In this section, please indicate what your plans are for the coming year(s). 8. Discuss and summarize conclusions drawn from data, assessments (SLO, SUO, UO), or other

indicators identified in Section C and indicate any responses or programmatic changes planned for the coming year(s).

6 yr, annual Based on F13 success rates and SLO achievement for core courses (11A, 11B, 21A, 21B), changes to the content of these courses are planned for implementation beginning Su14. See Objective #1 below.

9. List the objectives or target goals your program or service area has identified for the coming

year. Indicate the number of objectives identified. _______ Use the comments section to indicate the reason for the objective (assessment results, changes in data, changes in


external factors, etc.). Boxes for reporting three objectives have been included here. Please copy and insert boxes if additional objectives are proposed.

Objective 1: Increase success rates in ESL11A, 11B, 21A, and 21B by modifying content to include: 1) a more systematic approach to teaching vocabulary from the Academic Word List; 2) more comprehensive grammar instruction; and, 3) greater emphasis on pre-writing activities.

Area/Discipline/Function Responsible:

Assessment Data and Other Observations:

x SLO Assessment Data and/or SUO Assessment Data and/or UO Assessment Data

x TIMS Report Data Institutional Research Data

Other data or observed trends (briefly describe in the comments field below)

External Factors:

Program Review Committee Commendation

Program Review Committee Recommendation

Program Review Recommendation for Institutional Support

SMC Strategic Initiative (indicate specific initiatives in the comments section below)

SMC Master Plan for Education Objective #___

Advisory Board Recommendation (for CTE only)

Other Factors (briefly describe below):

Timeline to accomplish the objective: Fall 2014 and Spring 2015 we hope to see increased success rates.

Describe how objective will be assessed/measured: Success rates and SLO achievements between F13 and F14 will be compared for ESL11A, ESL11B, ESL21A, and ESL21B.

Comments:


Objective 2: Collaborate with Life Sciences faculty to help increase success rates for ESL students concurrently enrolled in ESL classes and Life Sciences classes.



SLO Assessment Data and/or SUO Assessment Data and/or UO Assessment Data

x TIMS Report Data Institutional Research Data


External Factors:


x Program Review Committee Recommendation






Timeline to accomplish the objective: Fall 2014 – Fall 2016.

Describe how objective will be assessed/measured: Success rates of ESL students concurrently enrolled in ESL classes and Life Sciences classes.

Comments:

Objective 3: Gather information in the form of a survey of noncredit ESL students regarding their academic goals to determine the efficacy of developing a certificate of achievement for noncredit students.



SLO Assessment Data and/or SUO Assessment Data and/or UO Assessment Data

TIMS Report Data X Institutional Research Data


External Factors:


X Program Review Committee Recommendation






Timeline to accomplish the objective: F14-Sp15

Describe how objective will be assessed/measured: The percentage of current noncredit students who express a strong interest in earning a certificate of achievement.


Comments:


E. Curriculum Review The Program Review annual report will note whether course outlines are up to date. 1. Discuss how the department reviews, revises, and creates new curriculum. Include the following

information:

The process by which department members participate in the review and revision of curriculum.

How program goals and SLOS are integrated into course design and curriculum planning.

The relationship of program courses to other college programs (cross-listing, overlapping content,

The rationale for any changes to pre-requisites, co-requisites and advisories.

How the department ensures course syllabi are aligned with the course outline of record.

6 yr

F. Community Engagement

1. List the engagement of program members in institutional efforts such as committees and

presentations, and departmental activities.

6 yr, annual See Section A. In the college’s self-evaluation for reaffirmation of accreditation (for Jan 2016), one faculty member is co-chairing Standard III (resources) and another faculty member is co-chairing Standard IIIA (human resources).

2. If applicable, discuss the engagement of program members with the local community,

industry, professional groups, etc.)

6 yr, annual Many of our faculty attend and/or present at professional conferences: TESOL, CATESOL, AAL, ASCCC, etc. A few faculty are engaged in community neighborhood and educational organizations, e.g., PTSA, Families with Children from China www.fccsocal.org One faculty member attends statewide academic senate (ASCCC) and Area C meetings.

3. Discuss the relationship among and between full and part-time faculty, involvement of part-time

faculty in departmental activities, and part-time faculty access to resources and support.

6 yr

G. Future Trends, Program Planning, Conclusions and

Recommendations The following items are intended to help programs identify, track, and document unit planning and actions and to assist the institution in broad planning efforts. 1. Present any conclusions and recommendations resulting from the self evaluation process.

6 yr, annual One important area of college-wide planning that we support is a more unified tutoring center. We play an active role in the ongoing efforts in this area, and we expect to collaborate closely with other tutoring programs on campus to better serve our students. For example, tutoring in all areas is now tracked uniformly. However, we are continuing to use our own tracking system because it gives us more detailed information.

CURRENT TRENDS, PLANNING, RECOMMENDATIONS 2. Identify any issues or needs impacting program effectiveness or efficiency for which

institutional support or resources will be requested in the coming year. [This information will

http://www.fccsocal.org/


be reviewed and considered in institutional planning processes but does not supplant the need to request support or resources through established channels and processes].

6 yr, annual The appointment and tracking system for the tutoring program is woefully outdated and in need of being redesigned to meet industry standards, e.g., accessible for handheld devices. (The Math Department uses the same system and has encountered similar difficulties.)


3. If applicable, list additional capital resources (facilities, technology, equipment) that are needed to support the program as it currently exists. [This information will be reviewed and considered in institutional planning processes but does not supplant the need to request resources through established channels and processes].

6 yr, annual

4. If applicable, list additional human resources (staffing, professional development, staff

training) needed to support the program as it currently exists. [This information will be reviewed and considered in institutional planning processes but does not supplant the need to request resources through established channels and processes].

6 yr, annual The current ratio of full-time to part-time ratio is about 3 to 1. Within the next two-three years we anticipate at least two retirements. We have received a new full-time faculty position for fall 2014.

5. List all current positions assigned to the program.

6 yr, annual One half-time administrative assistant, 11 full-time faculty, approximately 30 part-time faculty, and 3-5 part-time, temporary instructional assistants.

FUTURE TRENDS, PLANNING, RECOMMENDATIONS 6. Projecting toward the future, what trends could potentially impact the program? What

changes does the program anticipate in 5 years; 10 years? Where does the program want to be? How is the program planning for these changes?

6 yr annual State-mandated changes to the adult education program will have an effect on our non-credit program. (Most recently the governor has suggested moving all non-credit from the unified systems to the CCS). At present it is uncertain what changes will occur, but we will adapt. In addition, discussions are underway at the federal level regarding a path to citizenship for undocumented residents. Depending on the outcome of these discussions, our program may be impacted, but we cannot predict exactly how. The number of international students, who now comprise over 60% of the credit program’s population, is inherently unpredictable. Natural disasters, global economic changes, political upheavals, and other unknown variables directly impact our program but are difficult to anticipate and prepare for. We work closely with the International Education Center to address changes as they occur. Shifts in the student population, e.g., percentage (and nationality) of international vs. domestic students have occurred and will continue to do so. We continually adjust the program to fit the needs of our students.

7. If applicable, list additional capital resources (facilities, technology, equipment) that will be

needed to support proposed changes. [This information will be reviewed and considered in institutional planning processes but does not supplant the need to request resources through established channels and processes].

6 yr, annual

8. If applicable, list additional human resources (staffing, professional development, staff

training) that will be needed to support proposed changes. [This information will be reviewed and considered in institutional planning processes but does not supplant the need to request resources through established channels and processes].

6 yr, annual


9. If applicable, note particular challenges the program faces including those relating to categorical funding, budget, and staffing.

6 yr, annual

10. Please use this field to share any information the program feels is not covered under any

other questions.

6 yr, annual


H. Executive Summary These fields to be filled out by the Program Review committee. Reports will be sent to the program and will be available on-line to populate relevant fields in the annual report and the next 6 year report. Can this be done automatically?

Narrative

Commendations

Recommendations for Program Strengthening

Recommendations for Institutional Support

Resources, note on appendices etc. DATA

Institutional Research website CalPASS Chancellor’s Office Data mart TIMS reports SLO Assessment Data ISIS data Placement data

RESOURCES

Program Review website Institutional Effectiveness website Curriculum website Mission, Vision, Goals ILOs Strategic Initiatives Definitions for course and program SLOs & SUOs VTEA Core indicators CPEC- Transfer data IPEDS- Federal data Clearing House data

instructional programs 2013 - santa monica college info/faculty information/from... ·...

Documents