FINAL REPORT – 6/29/10
SHORELINE COMMUNITY COLLEGE
BUSINESS TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM REVIEW
SPRING 2010
Prepared by Karen Demetre, Consultant
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Purpose...... 3
Methodology...... 4
Report Elements
1. Assessment of Learning……………………….. 6
2. Program Information…………………………… 7
3. Student Data Trends……………………………. 9
4. Access/Success - Under-Represented Stds. 21
5. Curriculum………………………………………. 22
6. Faculty……………………………………………..25
7. Resources…………………………………………26
8. Revenue Potential………………………………. 28
9. Partnerships………………………………………28
10. Schedule of Classes……………………………..29
11. Support Services…………………………………30
12. Facilities……………………………………………31
13. Program Budget Overview…………………….. 31
14. Comparison with Programs in Region………. 32
15. Employment Prospects………………………… 35
16. Analysis of Findings……………………………. 36
17. Recommendations………………………………. 38
Appendix: Summary of Responses
1. Students…………………………………………… 41
2. Faculty………………………………………………49
3. Advisory Committee…………………………….. 56
4. Comparison of Group Ratings………………… 58
5. Industry Focus Group…………………………... 60
PURPOSE
The purpose of the program review process at Shoreline Community College is continuous quality improvement. This process is scheduled on a five year cycle across all instructional areas at the college.
This process also serves to meet standards established by the State Board for Community and Technical College Education and the Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities. Relevant accreditation standards are listed below:
4.A Assessment
4.A.1 The institution engages in ongoing systematic collection and analysis of
meaningful, assessable, and verifiable data – quantitative and/or qualitative, as appropriate to its indicators of achievement – as the basis for evaluating the accomplishment of its core theme objectives.
4.A.2 The institution engages in an effective system of evaluation of its
programs and services, wherever offered and however delivered, to evaluate achievement of clearly-identified program goals or intended outcomes. Faculty has a primary role in the evaluation of educational programs and services.
4.A.3 The institution documents, through an effective, regular, and comprehensive system of assessment of student achievement, that students who complete its educational courses, programs, and degrees, wherever offered and however delivered, achieve identified course, program, and degree learning outcomes. Faculty with teaching responsibilities are responsible for evaluating student achievement of clearly-identified learning outcomes.
4.A.4 The institution evaluates holistically the alignment, correlation, and integration of programs and services with respect to accomplishment of core theme objectives.
METHODOLOGY
First Committee Meeting
(Orientation to process with full-time faculty, division dean, workforce dean, institutional researcher, and consultant)
Qualitative Information Collected
· College website, planning guides, brochures
· Schedule of Classes
· Class Cancellations and Wait Lists
· Full-Time Faculty Input (written assignment)
· Samples: Course Syllabi + Master Course Outlines
· Student Focus Group (current students)
· Student Surveys (online + former students)
· Full-Time Faculty Interviews
· Division Dean Interview
· Advisory Committee Interview + Meeting Minutes
· Employment Information and Projections
· Programs at Other Colleges (degrees/certificates/schedules)
Quantitative Information Collected
· Faculty teaching loads (full-time and part-time)
· Division budget figures
· Annualized FTES, Headcount, and % of Enrollment
(by program and by certificate + degree)
· Student demographics (age, gender, ethnicity, academic
disadvantage + economic disadvantage)
· Completion of degrees and certificates
· Student grade distributions
· State comparative data on S:F ratios
· State employment data on former students
METHODOLOGY (continued)
Consultant Preparation of Report
· Compile/analyze data + information
· Write findings/recommendations
· Email draft report to committee for review
· Meet with committee to discuss draft report
· Finalize report and distribute to committee
PROGRAM REVIEW REPORT
Business Technology – Spring 2010
ELEMENTS REVIEWED, FINDINGS, + ANALYSIS
1. ASSESSMENT OF LEARNING
TOOLS TO ASSESS PROGRAM OUTCOMES
1.1 At the present time there is no formal system for measuring and tracking aggregate data to assess achievement of program outcomes. Faculty monitors student performance in their classes and receives feedback informally from advisory committee members and graduates to assess program outcomes. Faculty indicates that class outcomes support program outcomes and thus passing a class is an indicator for assessing program outcomes. The capstone class provides helpful samples of student work for this purpose, but it was cancelled this year. Faculty wants to reinstate this class in the future. Student respondents gave favorable reactions when asked how well their learning needs were met and how well prepared they were for employment in the field.
Follow-up with former students consists of occasional conversations or contacts. Both faculty and advisory committee representatives expressed interest in using student exit surveys or interviews as well as graduate surveys (3 to 6 months after leaving) to research perceptions about meeting program outcomes.
Faculty has not received much helpful information about student data trends; and find it necessary to keep their own enrollment statistics for review. The recent hiring of a new institutional researcher may provide institutional data that better supports assessment of program outcomes.
TOOLS TO ASSESS GENERAL EDUCATION OUTCOMES
1.2 There is uncertainty about how to best approach this task. Master course outlines identify general education outcomes addressed in each course. Business technology faculty are experienced in assessing student learning in their discipline; and they utilize a variety of assessment methods including:
written assignments, demonstration documents and projects, discussion board posts, quizzes and tests. Since many courses and assignments or projects include multiple learning outcomes it is sometimes difficult to isolate and collect assessment data on the individual general education outcomes. Specific guidelines/criteria or performance levels for assessing achievement of general education outcomes have not been defined by the college. Although it is assumed that passing grades demonstrate satisfactory achievement of general education outcomes, this area of assessment could be further refined.
Faculty is concerned that the college does not provide clear criteria for content that fulfills the human relations requirement in professional-technical programs. This makes it difficult to ensure that content meets accreditation standards for related instruction (general education in prof-tech courses) and it compromises meaningful assessment in this area. Further, this situation raises questions about curriculum committee processes, since there is no panel of content experts for the human relations requirement (one exists for the multicultural requirement).
EVIDENCE OF ACTION BASED ON ASSESSMENT FINDINGS:
1.3 Faculty continually evaluates student learning in their courses and program. They have made progress in assessing the general education outcome for communication. Faculty reviewed the college description of this outcome, compared it to samples of student work (papers and assignments) and then changed instructors and revised curriculum based on their findings.
2. PROGRAM INFORMATION
(Website, catalog, planning guides, program descriptions, and
promotional materials)
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS:
2.1 Faculty is uncertain about college processes for updating program information on the website or revising the program brochure. Website updating does not involve faculty and they do not know how or when they can address concerns about accuracy, relevancy, currency, congruence, and accessibility of program information. It appears the college does not have enough resources devoted to keeping the website up-to-date. Many links do not work, some pathways are awkward, and there is no trained webmaster.
2.2 The apparent lack of a clear and consistent system at the college for improving program information hampers student advising and program promotion. College marketing efforts for the program seem minimal. Most student respondents learned about the program through word of mouth from counselors, advisors, financial aid staff, Work Source or Worker Retraining offices.
ACCURACY
2.3 The website states book costs for every degree and certificate as variable and approximately $200 per quarter. Curricula vary greatly among degrees and certificates, thus individualized cost estimates would be more helpful to students.
RELEVANCY
2.4 Program descriptions on the website and brochure provide clear and helpful information about career pathways from certificates to degrees. The Bus Tech degree is described as offering a selection of elective courses from Accounting, Business Technology, Computer Information Systems, Visual Communications Technology or other approved areas. An unmentioned distinction is that required courses give more background than a certificate in communication, computer skills, multicultural factors, and work experience which can increase employability.
2.5 The Office Assistant/Receptionist Certificate is very similar to the Customer
Service Specialist/Receptionist Certificate. Differences between these should be highlighted to help students easily distinguish the two certificates.
2.6 The college website includes Payroll Clerk Certificate under the Business
Technology Program offerings, but state coding assigns this certificate to the Accounting Program. Thus, it is not included in this report.
2.7 Program prerequisites are clearly described for all degree and certificate
options in the website. The Excel class (Bus Tech 150) is required for many of these, but there is no mention that Math 080 placement is a prerequisite for this class. Students’ academic planning would be enhanced by placing this reminder in the curricular planning guides for the Bus Tech AAAS as well as certificates in Bus Tech, Business Software Applications, Customer Service Specialist/
Receptionist, and Microsoft Software applications. Also, the program brochure describes prerequisites but does not mention that BusTech 100 or the equivalent for keyboarding is required for Word courses.
2.8 Footnotes alert students to courses offered once per year, which helps with
their academic planning.
CURRENCY
2.9 Website content provides salary information with some sources. This is helpful
for students, although content for 2006 is getting out-of-date.
CONGRUENCY
2.10 Website content provides a consistent presentation of headings for each
program option (i.e. quarterly costs, program description and outcomes, etc.). General education requirements are consistently identified.
2.11 Inconsistent references for job and wage information were noted in the
Website. Many certificate options do not provide these sources and variability is apparent in sources cited (bls.gov versus WOIS).
ACCESSIBILITY
2.12 Program information was easily accessed in the college website A-Z directory
and also the link to professional-technical programs. Most students give high ratings for helpfulness of program information, although older students with less computer skill prefer printed material over the website. A number of student comments described hearing about the program by word of mouth from advisors, counselors, Work Source, and the college Workforce Education Office.
2.13 The college catalog is in limited supply and presents more abbreviated content
than the website. Printed information is available in the form of program
brochures and curriculum planning guides available in the Advising Center and other offices across the campus.
3. STUDENT DATA TRENDS
(demographics, quarters and degrees/certificates, grades, transfer)
NOTE: Issues affecting accuracy of students’ program intent codes may
affect some institutional data used in this review.
Three-Year Enrollment - Annualized FTES
3.1 The Business Technology Program enrollment (annualized FTES) increased
each year from 2007-08 to 2008-09.
3.2 Factors supporting enrollment include: (1) a weak economy that prompts more people to attend college, (2) a broad and favorable job market for applicants with business technology skills, (3) development of online and hybrid courses with high demand, (4) clustering of course sections, (5) changing the program name from Office Administration to Business Technology and (6) updating titles of some positions and courses.
A67 / A78 / A89Bus Tech All / 27.71 / 38.83 / 42.98
STUDENT TO FACULTY RATIOS FOR PROGRAM
3.3 Official figures from the State Board identify student-to-faculty ratios for the last
three years in the Data Processing category, which includes Business Technology. The Shoreline Community College Business Technology Program has shown an upward trend between 2006-07 and 2008-09 and remains significantly above the state average for student-to-faculty ratio.
06-07 / 07-08 / 08-09Shoreline CC / 20.09 / 20.03 / 22.12
State average / 16.54 / 16.43 / 18.28
DEGREES AND CERTIFICATES: ENROLLMENT COUNT AND PERCENTAGE OF PROGRAM ENROLLMENT
3.4 About half (51%) the enrollment in 2008-09 was in the Business Technology
Certificate option (which has the strongest 3-year growth rate). The second
highest area (37%) was the Business Technology AAAS degree option.
3.5 Enrollment for the other certificates was dramatically smaller: Business
Software Applications (7%) and Bilingual Office Assistant (2%). Demand for other certificate options (Microsoft Applications, Customer Service, and Office Assistant/Receptionist) appears minimal.
EPC_TITLE / A67 / A78 / A89 / EPC_TITLE / A67 / A78 / A89AAAS-BusTech / 40 / 34 / 38 / AAAS-BusTech / 50.63% / 34.00% / 37.25%
Cert- BusTech / 19 / 53 / 52 / Cert- BusTech / 24.05% / 53.00% / 50.98%
Cert-MSApps / 5 / 5 / 1 / Cert-MSApps / 6.33% / 5.00% / 0.98%
Cert-BusSoftApps / 15 / 6 / 7 / Cert-BusSoftApps / 18.99% / 6.00% / 6.86%
Cert-CustService / 2 / 1 / Cert-CustService / 0.00% / 2.00% / 0.98%
Cert-OffAsst/Rec / 1 / Cert-OffAsst/Rec / 0.00% / 0.00% / 0.98%
Cert-BilingOffAsst / 2 / Cert-BilingOffAsst / 0.00% / 0.00% / 1.96%
Bus Tech All Totals / 79 / 100 / 102
DEGREES AND CERTIFICATES: ANNUALIZED STATE FTES
3.6 Annualized state FTES for the Certificate in Business Technology increased significantly from 2006 to 2009, comprising approximately half of the annualized FTES for the program. The AAAS degree also increased somewhat during that period and constituted about 40% of AnFTES in 2008-09.
EPC_TITLE / A67 / A78 / A89AAAS-BusTech / 14.71 / 11.84 / 17.16
Cert- BusTech / 6.47 / 22.99 / 21.25
Cert-BusSoftApps / 4.38 / 2.53 / 2.67
Cert-CustService / 0.67 / 0.156
Cert-OffAsst/Rec / 0.711
Cert-BilingOffAsst / 0.89
Cert-MSApps / 2.16 / 0.80 / 0.156
Bus Tech All Total / 27.71 / 38.83 / 42.98
STUDENT GENDER: ENROLLMENT COUNT AND PERCENTAGE
3.7 Female students constitute a vast majority in the Business Technology Program (around 81% in 2008-09). During the three years between 2006-07 and 2008-09 the number and percentage of females continued to increase, while the number and percentage of males declined to around 19% in 2008-09. Gender equity for males is steadily declining in the program.