2016-17
Program Review
Handbook
1
Table of Contents

Overview

Program review schedules


Process descriptions
Comprehensive
Annual Update
2016-17 Timeline at a glance

Web-Enabled Program Review (WEPR)

Checklist and Tips for Success in Writing Program Review

Checklist for Validating the Program Review

Program Review Definitions and Clarifications Fall 2016

Resources (see U:drive - L:\ProgramReview\2016-17\Resources)
Institutional Standards
Refreshment cycles
Technology:
Faculty/staff computers
Computer labs
Projectors
Software
“Smart Classrooms”
Equipment
Scheduled Maintenance List
DVC Strategic Plan
Integration Council Ranking Rubric
Facilities Review List
B&G Ticket List
SysAid Ticket List
Professional Development Expenditures by program
Equipment Expenditures by program
2
Overview
During academic year 2014-2015, a Program Review Task Force, led by the Academic Senate and other
representatives, met many times to revise the program review templates and processes used by
Administrative Program Review, Instructional Program Review, and Student Services Program Review.
The goals of the revision were to better align timelines and processes, to improve the consistency and
quality of the information provided to the (then) Integration Council (now Program Review Committee,
PRC) and to develop a sustainable model for program review. The outcomes of this process
improvement Task Force were incorporated into 2015-16 Program Review. Writers of program review
were asked to comment and reflect on the process and template and suggest further improvements.
The Program Review Committee reviewed these suggestions in Spring 2016. Based on this feedback,
enhancements were made to the WEPR during Summer 2016.
Purpose of program review:
The purpose of program review is to focus instructional, student services, and administrative units on
their role in fulfilling the mission of the college and achieving the goals and objectives of the strategic
plan, consistent with the core values of the college.
To do so, each unit will:
1. Reflect on its purpose or mission, its relation to the college mission and its current and/or
potential impact on strategic plan goals and objectives;
2. Review and analyze unit data in terms of:
a. Areas in which the unit currently impacts strategic plan goals and objectives, consistent
with the core values of the college - this should include an analysis of costs and impact
of activities implemented in previous cycles;
b. Areas in which the unit's impact should be strengthened, based on the data.
3. Develop unit-level activities to address the areas identified in 2b. Strategies and activities
should be clearly connected to data analysis and reflection on unit purpose and/or mission;
4. Analyze current resources to determine whether they can be re-purposed effectively to
implement unit level activities; develop resource requests and cost projections if it is
demonstrated that current resources are not sufficient to implement these activities.
Program review is not intended to address "maintenance of effort" activities – these should be
addressed through day-to-day operational procedures of the college or individual unit (including Help
Desk tickets, Buildings and Grounds tickets, technology refreshment cycles, Facilities Review procedures,
etc.).
If there are “maintenance of effort” activities that are not being addressed through current operational
procedures that impact student success or institutional effectiveness, units should include the activities
and associated resource requests in their unit analysis and plan.
3
Program Review Process Overview:
 All programs participate in a comprehensive program review on a four-year cycle, 25% of
programs each year
 All eligible programs may participate in the resource allocation process each year
 For instructional program review, the instructional “unit” is defined and evaluated by the
faculty, with input of staff, if appropriate
 For student services program review, the “unit” or “program” is defined and evaluated by
Student Services deans and managers
 For administrative program review, the “unit” is defined by administration and evaluated by
administration with input of faculty and staff if appropriate
What is the difference between Annual and Comprehensive Reviews?
 The Program Review Committee will review all Section I submitted, whether from Annual or
Comprehensive reviews as part of the Resource Allocation process.
 Programs in annual review are NOT REQUIRED to complete the narrative sections of Section II
and Section III, as the entirety of the program review will not be subject to validation. However,
it is expected that plans outlined in Section I, and requests for resources, are substantiated by a
review, discussion and analysis of the data and information contained in Section III. Annual
reviews are to be reviewed at the division level prior to submission to ensure that plans and
resource requests have the support of the division.
 Programs in comprehensive review are REQUIRED to complete all sections and receive review
and feedback through the Validation process.
4
Program Review Schedules
Administrative Program Review
Administrative Unit
Vice President, Business and Administrative Services
Vice President, Student Services
Vice President, Instruction
Applied and Fine Arts Division Office
Business Services and Cashier’s Office
Math and Computer Science/Business Division Office
Bookstore
Professional Development
English and Social Science Division Office
Food Services
Information Technology and Services
Foundation
Biological/Health Sciences and Physical Sciences/Engineering Division Office
Kinesiology/Athletics/Dance Division Office
Library
President's Office
San Ramon Campus Administration
Maintenance and Operations
Distance Education
Marketing and Communications
Year
2016-17
2016-17
2016-17
2016-17
2016-17
2017-18
2017-18
2017-18
2017-18
2017-18
2018-19
2018-19
2018-19
2018-19
2018-19
2019-20
2019-20
2019-20
2019-20
2019-20
Instructional Program Review
Dean
Toni Fannin
Division
AFA
Program/Unit Name
Art and Art History
Art Digital Media, Broadcast
Communication Arts, and Film
AFA
AFA
Drama
Foreign Language
AFA
AFA
Humanities and Philosophy
Music
AFA
Communications Studies
Subject Codes Included
ART, ARTHS
ARTDM
BCA
FILM
DRAMA
ARABC/CHIN/FRNCH/
GRMAN/ITAL/JAPAN/
LATIN/PERSN/PORT/
RUSS/SPAN/TAGLG
HUMAN/PHILO
MUSIC
MUSX
COMM
YR
19-20
16-17
17-18
18-19
18-19
19-20
17-18
5
Mike Holtzclaw
SRC
Computer Information Systems and
Business
SRC
Applied Arts and Social Science
SRC
Language Arts
SRC
Math and Science
Rick Robison
L
Library
Obed Vazquez
ENGL
ENGL
ENGL
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
English
English as a Second Language
Journalism
Administration of Justice
Early Childhood Education
Economics
History
Political Science
Psychology
Social Sciences
Despina
Prapavessi
BUS
BUS
Culinary Arts
Business
MCS
MCS
Mathematics
Computer Science
Computer Science
Kinesiology
Christine
Worsley
Tish Young
Tish Young
PE
BHS
BHS
BHS
BHS
BHS
BHS
Dental Assisting
Dental Hygiene
Biological Science and Oceanography
Nutrition
Horticulture
Health Science and Addiction
Studies
ECON+
BUS+
CIS
CNT
KNACT
SOCIO+
ART/ARTHS
CARER/ COUNS
HIST
PSYCH
COMM
ENGL
SIGN/JRNAL
SPAN
CHEM+
BIOSC+
MATH
LT
LS
ENGL
ESL
JRNAL
ADJUS
EDUC, SIGN, ECE
ECON
HIST (& GEOG 130)
POLSC
PSYCH
SOCSC/ANTHR
SOCIO
CULN
BUS/BUSAC/BUSIM/BUSMG
/BUSMK/RE
MATH
COMSC
CNT
DANCE/KNACT/KNCMB/
KNDAN/KNICA/KINES
DENTL
DENHY
BIOSC/OCEAN
NUTRI
HORT
ADS
HSCI
16-17
18-19
17-18
19-20
16-17
17-18
17-18
18-19
19-20
16-17
19-20
18-19
19-20
16-17
18-19
17-18
18-19
19-20
16-17
17-18
18-19
18-19
17-18
19-20
17-18
19-20
6
Tish Young
PSE
PSE
COUNS
Counseling
HVACR/PLUMB/STMFT
ARCHI
IDSGN
CONST
ENGIN
ENGTC
CHEM
ELECT/ELTRN
ENSYS
ASTRO
GEOG (FA15-2 sections
GEOG-130)
GEOL
PHYS
PHYSC
COUNS/CARER
SPEDU
IO
Special Education
Cooperative Education
Interdisciplinary
SPEDU
COOP
INTD
PSE
PSE
PSE
PSE
PSE
Beth
Hauscarriague
Emily Stone
Kim Schenk
Apprenticeship
Architecture and Industrial Design
PSE
PSE
Construction
Engineering and Engineering
Technology
Chemistry
Electricity/Electronics and Energy
Systems
Astronomy
Geography
PSE
PSE
Geology
Physics and Physical Science
19-20
17-18
17-18
17-18
17-18
19-20
16-17
18-19
16-17
17-18
19-20
18-19
16-17
18-19
Student Services Program Review
DEPARTMENT
Assessment
Financial Aid
ISAS
Student Life
Career Services
Counseling - Courses
Counseling - Services
Transfer Services
A&R
CalWORKs
EOPS/CARE
Relations Schools/Welcome Services
DSS - SPEDU
DSS/Workability III
TRiO - UB/ETS
Learning Communities:
PUENTE
UMOJA
16-17
17-18
18-19
19-20
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
7
Program Review Process Descriptions
COMPREHENSIVE Program Review Process 2016-20
Administrative Program Review (APR)
Process
 APR team membership:
-Writing the APR includes classified input as
appropriate.
 Training in APR and Validation templates
 APR Validation team membership:
-Composed of 2 full-time administrators, 2 fulltime faculty members, 2 classified staff, and 2
students.
 The validation team may determine the chair
 Administrative units failing to meet the deadline
will not be included in resource allocation
processes.
Instructional Program Review (IPR)
Process
 IPR team membership:
-Composed of a minimum of two faculty and 1
classified if appropriate, and one student, if possible
-IPR Chair determined by the Instructional Unit
 IPR Validation team membership:
-Composed of a minimum of 2 full-time faculty
members, the division dean and classified, if possible.
The division validation team rosters will be forwarded
to the Academic Senate for approval.
 IPRs will be assigned to divisions for validation. All
divisions will be given program reviews to validate based
proportionally on the number of FT faculty in the
division.
 The validation teams will determine the chair
 The division will determine how the validations will be
accomplished within the timelines of the process.
 Training will be offered for writing the IPR and the
validation process (coordinated between Staff
Development, Instruction Office and Academic Senate)
 Divisions may require division review of comprehensive
IPR prior to final submission, and may establish a
timeline for such review.
 Annual updates require divisional review prior to
submission.
 Units failing to meet the deadline will not be included in
resource allocation processes. These units may be
referred to the Program Revitalization Process.
Student Services Program Review (SSPR)
Process
 SSPR writing team membership: determined by the unit
 Deans and managers access forms and data; request
specialized data
 Program review and validation training
 Validation Team Membership
 SSPR Validation Team is composed of managers, faculty,
and classified personnel.
 Validation teams are chaired by the Vice President of
Student Services
 Division validation team roster is finalized by the Vice
President of Student Services
 Validation Chair distributes copies of SSPRs with
validation forms to the validation teams.
 Validation team questions/clarifications will be forwarded
to Student Services unit(s).
 The division will determine how the validations will be
accomplished within the timelines of the process.
 Group work will be offered during September, October,
and November covering the SSPR, and the validation
process through the Student Services manager’s meetings
 Student Services units failing to meet the deadline will not
be included in resource allocation processes.
 Copies will be available on the Student Services website.
8
Validation:
The validation team will ensure that the self-study
report is complete, analysis and plans are data driven
and aligned with the strategic plan, and resource
requests are tied to plans.
The Validation Team has three options:
1. ACCEPT – The Validation Team accepts the APR
and is forwards the completed and signed
Validation Form to the Office of the President.
2. CONDITIONALLY ACCEPT - APR is conditionally
accepted, pending revisions that must be
completed within established timelines. The
APR has minor inaccuracies/changes that can be
corrected. The Validation Team reviews the
amended APR and, if accepted, forwards the
completed and signed Validation Form to the
Office of the President
3. REJECT - The APR contains inaccurate
information and/or is largely incomplete.
Substantial revision would be required for
acceptance. The APR is not submitted to the
Office of the President, and is not eligible for
the program review process.
 President’s Office will post final versions of
the validated APRs on the U-drive by
February 3, 2017.
Validation:
 The validation team will ensure that the self-study report
is complete, analysis and plans are data driven and
aligned with the strategic plan, and resource requests
are tied to plans. .
The validation team has three options:
1. ACCEPT – The Validation Team accepts the IPR/HPR,
and forwards the completed and signed Validation
Form to the Instruction Office.
2. CONDITIONALLY ACCEPT – IPR/HPR is conditionally
accepted, pending revisions that must be completed
within established timelines. The IPR has minor
inaccuracies/changes that can be corrected. The
Validation Team reviews the amended IPR/HPR and, if
accepted, forwards the completed and signed
Validation Form to the Instruction Office.
3. REJECT - The IPR/HPR contains inaccurate information
and/or is largely incomplete. Substantial revision would
be required for acceptance. The IPR/HPR is not
submitted to the Office of the President, and is not
eligible for the program review process.
 Instruction Office will post final versions of the IPR/HPR’s
on the U-drive by February 3, 2017.
Validation:
 The validation team will ensure that the self-study report
is complete, analysis and plans are data driven and
aligned with the strategic plan, and resource requests are
tied to plans.
The Validation Team has three options in review of the
SSPR:
1. ACCEPT - The Validation Team accepts the SSPR, and
forwards the completed and signed Validation Form to
the Vice President of Student Services.
2. CONDITIONALLY ACCEPT – SSPR is conditionally accepted
pending revisions that must be completed with
established timelines. The self-study report contains
some inaccurate and/or is lacking in certain sections. The
Validation Team reviews the amended SSPR and, if
accepted, forwards the completed and signed Validation
Form to the Instruction Office.
3. REJECT - SSPR is rejected and must be resubmitted in the
next year’s SSPR cycle. The self-study report contains
inaccurate information and/or is largely incomplete.
Substantial revision would be required for acceptance.
The IPR/HPR is not submitted to the Office of the
President and is not eligible for the program review
process.
 Office of the Vice President of Student Services will post
validated SSPRs to the U-drive by February 3, 2017.
9
ANNUAL UPDATE Program Review Process 2016-20
APR, IPR, SSPR
Process:





Any program not in comprehensive program review process may complete an annual update in
order to revise program strategies and activities that result in a request for resource allocation.
The Annual Update to Program Review is the same template as the Section I in the
Comprehensive Program Review.
Annual Updates to Program Review require division review prior to final submission; divisions
establish a timeline for such review
Annual Updates to Program Review are due to the President’s Office, Office of the Vice
President of Instruction or Office of the Vice President of Student Services by the date
established for submission of comprehensive reviews.
Final versions of the signed Annual Update to Program Review will be posted to the U-drive.
2016-17 Program Review Timelines at a Glance
Program Review Timeline - APR
Date
Monday, August 29, 2016
Sept-Oct
Monday, November 28, 2016
Thursday, January 5, 2017
Friday, January 6, 2017
Monday, January 9-Friday,
January 13, 2017
Tuesday, January 17-Friday,
January 20, 2017
Monday, January 23, 2017
Friday, January 27, 2017
Wednesday, Feb 1, 2017
Wednesday, Feb 1, 2017
Friday, February 3, 2017
Program Review Timeline - IPR
Date
Monday, August 29, 2016
Monday, August 29, 2016
Sept-Oct
Wednesday, November 23, 2016
Wednesday, November 30, 2016
Friday, December 9, 2016
Activity
APR template available
Training in APR and Validation templates
Validation team members appointed by appropriate constituency leaders
and roster submitted to President’s Office
Validation Team meets to begin validation process
APR comprehensive and annual due to President’s office
Validation sub-groups read APRs
Units make revisions/corrections
Responses returned to Validation Team
Final Validation Team meeting
Validated comprehensive program reviews due to President’s Office (1
signed hardcopy)
Reviewed annual update program reviews due to President’s Office (1
signed hardcopy)
PRs (Comprehensive and annual) posted to the Portal
Activity
Department Chair grants access to IPR team/s
Validation team rosters submitted to Office of the VP of Instruction
Training in IPR and Validation templates
Comprehensive IPRs due to VP Instruction
PRs available to validation teams
Validation teams meet with PR leads; all-college variable FLEX
10
Friday, December 16, 2016
Wednesday or Thursday,
January 18 or 19, 2017
Wednesday, Feb 1, 2017
Wednesday, Feb 1, 2017
Friday, February 3, 2017
Program Review Timeline - SSPR
Date
August-September
Thursday, September 15, 2016
Monday, October 3, 2016
Monday, October 3, 2016
Friday, December 2, 2016
Wednesday, December 14, 2016
Friday, January 27, 2017
Wednesday, Feb 1, 2017
Wednesday, Feb 1, 2017
Friday, February 3, 2017
Requests for revisions delivered to PR leads
Second validation team meetings with PR leads if necessary
Validated comprehensive program reviews due to the Office of the Vice
President of Instruction (1 signed hardcopy)
Reviewed annual update program reviews due to the Office of the Vice
President of Instruction (1 signed hardcopy)
PRs (Comprehensive and annual) posted to the Portal
Activity
Program review and validation training
Baseline data finalized
Budget data finalized
Validation roster finalized
SSPRs submitted to Deans of Student Services (1 signed hardcopy)
Copies of SSPRs distributed to validation teams
Follow-up final review and revision with validation team
Validated comprehensive program reviews due to the Office of the Vice
President of Student Services (1 signed hardcopy)
Reviewed annual update program reviews due to the Office of the Vice
President of Student Services (1 signed hardcopy)
PRs (Comprehensive and annual) posted to the Portal
Integration Council Deadlines:
Preliminary Rankings
Final Report to College Council
Resource Allocation Process Deadlines:
Budget Committee Recommendations to College Council
College Council Recommendations to College President
President Approval
May 2017
September 2017
October 2017
November 2017
December 2017
11
Using Web-Enabled Program Review (WEPR)
GENERAL NOTES:
 WEPR works best in the browsers FireFox, Chrome or Safari. It does not function
optimally in Internet Explorer.
 It can be helpful to develop your text in a WORD document and then paste it into the
WEPR text boxes. You must disable “smart quotes” in WORD. WEPR does not support Rich
Text Format (.rtf).
 Report issues with WEPR immediately to the Instruction Office so that support and/or
troubleshooting can be provided.
 Complete Section III first, then Section II, then Section I. You will use the analysis of data
and reflection on the utilization of resources from Section III, along with the SelfReflection from Section II to formulate program improvement strategies and activities for
Section I. The Program Review Committee ONLY reads Section I; that is why it is first in the
document.
How do I find WEPR 2.0 and my pdfs?
1. Getting there
Web-enabled program review forms are found at the following URL: http://web.dvc.edu/wepr/
2. Signing in
Click the “sign in” link and use your 4CD log-in and password, just like you use for WebAdvisor,
Outlook Web Access, etc.
3. Accessing forms
You will be working in the “online form”. The pdfs update automatically throughout the day.
Department chairs and program leads have been granted access to “edit” in WEPR. This means
that they are able to enter text/information in any fillable field. Individuals with access to any
section can grant access to others up to that level of access. They can also lower access for anyone
with the same or lower access than themselves, except when that access has been granted at an
administrative level. Individuals cannot change their own access level.
12
To add a user, locate the correct
employee ID in the 4CD directory (linked
to every page in WEPR). If you encounter
difficulties, contact Kim Schenk
[email protected].
To work in the form, select Online
Form; to grant access, select Grant
Access….
To set access level, select “add a new
user”. You need the employee ID for
this step. You find that through the
link: 4CD Directory.
4. Sections of the Program Review
Each program review consists of 4 major sections:
1. Section I – Unit Plan
2. Section II – Overview
3. Section III- Data and Unit Analysis
4. Validation and Recommendation Form
For all units, Sections I and II are identical. Section III is differentiated for:





Administrative
Hybrid (Counseling and Library)
Instructional
Learning Communities
Student Services
13
Instructional program reviews may have multiple Section IIIs in order to present data and
analysis on individual subjects within a multi-subject unit.
Single subject code:
Multi Subject Code:
5. Completing the Program Review Sections
The Unit Plan (Section I) will be developed based on analysis of data (Section III) and reflections
from the Overview (Section II). It is recommended that you complete the sections in this order:
FIRST: Section III
SECOND: Section II
THIRD: Section I
The Integration Council will ONLY REVIEW Section I. Validation Teams and Division review
is responsible to ensure that plans and resource requests presented in Section I are wellsubstantiated by evidence and reflection documented in Sections II and III.
Instructions/tips for all sections:


Using the TAB key after each entry and moving to the next entry facilitates saving.
Text is added by selecting the Edit radio button in the upper right menu.
Instructions:
Depending on individual permission levels, you are
able to view, edit, or enter data. Most users will have
“edit” or “view” access. Edit access permits entry of
analysis and commentary in most text boxes.
Select the “edit” option and the text boxes, radio buttons, and/or drop-down menus that require
input/commentary will turn pink on that page.
As soon as a change to a box is made and you leave
that box (TAB works great), the information that you
have entered is saved and the box will turn green.
14
Section III - INSTRUCTIONS
Section III – Data Analysis
1. The District Research Office has established that a percentage point difference of 3% or
greater is considered significant for research purposes. Units that note trends in the data
indicating a difference up-or-down of 3% or more will want to review carefully and
provide analysis and commentary.
2. Section III A.1 – These data are input by the Instruction Office. Data for 11-12 and 12-13
were carried over from previous Program Reviews cycles and were not revised if the
configuration of the IU changed for the 2015-16 or 2016-17 Program Review cycle.
3. Section III A.3 and D.1 – Data in these rows are input by the Instruction Office:
Data for 11-12 and 12-13 were carried over from previous Program Reviews and were not
revised if the configuration of the IU changed for the 2015-16 or 2016-17 Program Review
cycle. In some cases, the value N/A (Not Available) is entered, since the change in
configuration means that the historical data is not available.
4. For all other measures in Section III, all five years of data are supplied by District Office
Research and have been updated according to the units as designed for 2016-17. This
means that the data in the 2016-17 program reviews will not correspond one-to-one with
data in previous program reviews since:
a. programs have re-aligned or changed “included” disciplines
b. each data pull yields slightly different numbers because Colleague
is a dynamic system
5. The value NV = Null Value. This data element appears when the data query yields no result
and the database has a “blank”. NV is not equivalent to “0” – zero. Since the data query
can return a value of “0” for student achievement, another value needed to be identified
for “null” results. Note that there may be some 11-12 and 12-13 “0”results that were
previously posted and carried over. In most cases, those should be considered “NV”. As
the years roll forward, those results will drop off…
6. C.1 Row 4 – The SLOAC changed the SLO process effective 2013-14, so prior to that year,
the data element is not relevant and thus the entry “N/A” – not applicable, is entered
In Section III.D - Reflection on resources acquired in past cycles: indicate impact on college
initiatives:
 Student Success
 Student Learning
 Inclusive Excellence
 Institutional Effectiveness
 Other Key College Initiative.
15
A drop-down menu is included to ensure that impact is recorded relative to these initiatives. Click
in the text box and a drop-down menu will appear.
(Robert’s program doesn’t let me take a picture of the drop down, but here is what happens when
you make a selection:)
Depending on the specific program review (APR, HPR, IPR, SSPR), Section III will contain 4-8 subsections. Each sub-section requires input/commentary. DO NOT leave any text box empty. Enter
“Not Applicable” or “No Response at this Time” to indicate that you have reviewed but have no
comment.
Section II - Instructions
Section II is descriptive and reflective and will help the validators understand your program.
Provide as much detail as you think is important for an “outsider” to fully grasp how your program
serves the community.
16
Section I - Instructions
Remember that the PRC will ONLY read Section I. You have done the hard work of analyzing
student achievement, reflecting on past changes that were designed to improve those outcomes,
discussing challenges and successes with colleagues and formulating new plans to continue
program improvement efforts. Summarize those discussions in the text boxes provided in Section
I.A1 and 2 and B 2.3. and 4
Section I.B.1:
This section is your forward-looking planning and requires clear links of program-level strategies
and activities to DVC’s Strategic Plan Goals and Objectives. The drop down will prompt you to
select the relevant Goal 1 and Objective 1 that relates to your strategy/activity.
For example:
Strategic Plan Goals and Objectives
GOAL 1: The college will foster excellence by integrating best practices in academic programs and student
support services.
Objective 1: Increase the number of students who successfully complete courses
Objective 2: Increase the number of students who earn certificates and degrees and transfer to
four-year institutions
Objective 3: Increase equity in student success
Objective 4: Improve students’ experience navigating the college systems
Objective 5: Implement promising innovations while maintaining best practices and
institutionalizing successful ones.
GOAL 2: The college will align its governance, operational and planning processes to ensure institutional
effectiveness.
Objective 1: Move the college towards increased evidenced-based inquiry and decision-making.
Objective 2: Evaluate and adapt decision-making processes to be increasingly transparent,
collaborative and efficient.
Objective 3: Continue to foster a culture of collaboration.
GOAL 3: The college will effectively direct and augment its resources to increase student learning and
success.
Objective 1: Continue to revise the budget process to responsible, flexible and sustainable.
17
Objective 2: Plan, implement and evaluate a forward-thinking technology plan and IT operations
that provide professional maintenance and advance innovation
Objective 3: Increase and diversify funding sources
Objective 4: Design, construct and maintain buildings and grounds to provide quality and
sustainable learning/working environments
GOAL 4: The college will develop and implement a human resources plan to maximize the employee
expertise required to support the institution’s commitment to excellence and equity.
Objective 1: Develop an integrated human resources plan for faculty, classified, and managers
Objective 2: Optimize human resource decisions to improve student success and institutional
efficiencies
Objective 3: Offer a professional development program that supports best practices, stimulates
innovative practices and develops the skills, knowledge, and abilities of our employees.
Section I.D and E record the programmatic needs that support your ability to achieve the activities
and strategies in Section I.B.1. You indicate that relationship by entering the number of the
related program strategy/activity here:
WEPR will allow you to indicate up to ten “critical needs” in both Section I.D
and Section I.E. A ranking of “1” is high and a ranking of “10” is low.
Indicate whether the request is “Innovation”, “Replacement” or “Maintenance of Effort”.
“Innovation” means that the request is something new that you believe will positively impact the
program in some way. “Replacement” means that the request is to update, repair, or replace
current items. “Maintenance of effort” means that the request is recommended to be placed on a
regular replacement cycle because obsolescence in predictable.
18
Checklist and Tips for Success in Writing your Program Review
Getting Started
☐
Do I have Firefox or Chrome installed on my computer?
☐
Do I know how to access the U-drive (on-campus and off) to find important information,
documents and the PDF’s? Do I know how to check saved material on the PDF’s on the Udrive?
☐
Do I know when my completed Comprehensive Program Review is due?
☐
Does my Comprehensive Program Review require division review? Do I know what the
timeline is for that?
☐
Do I know when my completed Annual Program Update is due?
☐
Annual Program Updates require division review. Do I know what the timeline is for that?
☐
Do I know how to access my Program Review on the DVC website from campus and from
home?
☐
Do I have access to log onto WEPR as a program review writer?
☐
Have I familiarized myself with the PRC Ranking Rubric for Program Review to describe
and justify my requests? For example, do I know the difference between Technology,
Supply/Operating Budget, and Equipment requests?
Section I: Program/Unit Plan or Update
☐
Do the strategies identified in the program plan align with the directive, core values, and
goals of the strategic plan? Do they align with areas of focus identified in section II? Are
the projected outcomes clearly defined, and will the evaluation method effectively
measure the outcomes? Is the timeline reasonable?
☐
Do the impact statements in section I.B.2 and B.3 adequately connect the
strategies/activities to student learning outcomes and achievement examined in Section
III.C.1 and 2?
EXAMPLE: Cite a student learning outcome that students are struggling to master. In the plan, is
there an strategy that requires a supply or piece of equipment?
For instance: The Communication Studies department evaluated the SLO: “Students completing the course
will be able to support an idea using presentation aids correctly and confidently.” Instructors evaluated the
students using a rubric during a presentation and students were also surveyed regarding their confidence
level in their presentation aids. The results showed that students who used presentation aids not reliant on
technology were both more confident and more successful in achieving the learning outcome. However,
19
students who used technology based presentation aids (power point, video clips, etc) were severely
hampered by the faulty media equipment in the classrooms, most notably in the three Performing Arts
classrooms in which most classes are held. Students reported that they began to avoid using technology aids
due to the slow connections and faulty equipment, and faculty reported that the effectiveness of the aids
were greatly diminished by the technological troubles associated with the faulty and aged equipment. The
faculty determined that the equipment was negatively impacting learning in their classes and used this SLO
evidence to request improved equipment, IT support, and maintenance in these three classrooms.
☐
Are my resource requests aligned with specific activities/strategies identified in the unit
plan?
☐
Does the ranking in critical needs section of the Section I appropriately reflect the most
urgent needs of your program, based on the Program Plan?
☐
Does my IU include both CTE and GE programming? Have I provided clear plans that
address each program? Have I indicated any resource requests that are solely on behalf of
my CTE program?
Section II: Overview
☐
Have I updated the program description to account for any changes, accomplishments,
and/or new challenges since the last program review cycle? Have I accounted specifically
for my program’s accomplishment of the goals set forth in the last program review cycle?
Would someone who is unfamiliar with my program have a good idea of who we are and
what we do after reading this section? For example, the validation team?
☐
Does the analysis of student learning inform my unit self-reflection? (SLO and PLO
assessment and plans)
☐
Does the unit self-reflection include a description of strategies/activities to improve
student equity?
☐
Does my IU includes both CTE and GE programming? If so, have I explained the unique
needs and characteristics of both? Different student populations? Different resource
requirements?
Section III: Data Analysis
NOTE: Program review does not permit analysis of data at the course, section, day/night levels.
For more specific information on sections and variables, consult the enrollment reports located on
the U:drive.
☐
Have I reviewed comments and requests from the last program review cycle in order to
assess current and projected needs for the next 4-year cycle?
20
☐
Have I addressed and resolved any doubts or questions I have about the data (either by
contacting the Instruction Office or by making a comment in the appropriate box)?
☐
Have I provided commentary and analysis of data in Sections A-C that follows logically
from the data itself and respond thoughtfully to it, in consideration of the college’s
strategic directive, values and goals?
☐
Have I provided commentary and analysis of data in Section D that addresses the impact
of resources allocated in previous cycles in terms of the strategic plan directive, values,
and goals?
☐
If my IU includes both CTE and GE programming, have I provided explanation and
commentary?
☐
Have I avoided bundling “unlike” items?
☐
For example:
First priority: 1 set of microscopes
Second Priority: 1 projector
$ 60,000.00 ()
$ 500.00 ()
NOT:
First priority: 32 microscopes, 1 projector
$60,500.00 ()
Second priority: new van, 60 football helmets $100,000.00 ()
Do I know how to find the price or estimated price of an item requested?
Reviewing and Finishing Up
☐
Have I taken into account that program review is now on a 4-year cycle and have I
addressed the needs of my program accordingly, including short-term and long-term
goals?
☐
Have I left any blank spaces? If I have no comment have I said so, so that the validation
team know that I have addressed the section? For example “No response at this time.”
☐
Do I have all the required signatures? If not, do I have a plan for how I will get them all in
time to turn in my completed program review?
☐
Do I know where to turn in my completed program review?
Additional items to remember?
☐
☐
☐
21
Checklist for Validating the Program Review
Getting Started
☐
Do I have Firefox or Chrome installed on my computer?
☐
Do I know how to access the U-drive (on-campus and off) to find important information,
documents and the PDF’s? Do I know how to check saved material on the PDF’s on the Udrive?
☐
Do I know how to access my Program Review on the DVC website from campus and from
home?
☐
Do I have access to log onto WEPR as a validator?
☐
Have I familiarized myself with the PRC Ranking Rubric for Program Review to describe
and justify my requests? For example, do I know the difference between Technology,
Operating Budget/Supply and Equipment requests?
☐
Do I know when “Validation Day” is?
☐
Do I know when my completed Validation is due?
Section I: PLAN
☐
Do the strategies identified in the program plan align with the directive, core values, and
goals of the strategic plan? Do they align with areas of focus identified in section II? Are
the projected outcomes clearly defined, and will the evaluation method effectively
measure the outcomes? Is the timeline reasonable?
☐
Do the impact statements in section I.B.2 and B.3 adequately connect the
strategies/activities to student learning outcomes and achievement?
☐
plan?
Are the resources requested aligned with specific activities/strategies identified in the unit
☐
Does the ranking in critical needs section of Section I align with the most urgent needs of
the program, based on the Program Plan?
Section II: OVERVIEW
22
☐
Does the overview tell someone unfamiliar with the program what the area does? Did
they leave anything out that you can think of? If they make statements about the
program, are they specific and clear?
☐
Does the unit self-reflection identify strengths and areas for improvement with respect to
its role in achieving the goals of the strategic plan that are substantiated by data from
Section III, or other data included as an addendum to the program review?
☐
Does the unit self-reflection include a description of strategies/activities to improve
student equity?
Section III: DATA ANALYSIS
☐
Does the commentary and analysis of data in Sections A-C follow logically from the data
itself and respond thoughtfully to the data, in consideration of the college’s strategic
directive, values and goals?
☐
Does the commentary and analysis of data in Section D address impact of resources
allocated in previous cycles in terms of the strategic plan directive, values, and goals?
Finishing up
☐
Has the unit left any blank spaces or pink areas? Are all dollar amounts for requests
detailed, itemized, and not bundled together? If there is no comment have they said so?
For example “No response at this time.”
For example:
First priority: 1 set of microscopes
Second Priority: 1 projector
$ 60,000.00 ()
$ 500.00 ()
NOT:
First priority: 32 microscopes, 1 projector
$60,500.00 ()
Second priority: new van, 60 football helmets $100,000.00 ()
☐
Has the Validation Team agreed upon a rating for the program review and entered it in
Part A of the validation form?
☐
Has the Validation Team agreed upon a Validation Team Recommendation and entered it
in Part D of the validation form?
☐
Does the validation form have all of the required signatures? If not, do I have a plan for
how I will get them all in time to turn in the completed validation form?
☐
Do I know where to turn in my completed validation form?
23
Program Review Definitions and Clarifications Fall 2016
HUMAN RESOURCES (Section 1, D.1 and D.2)
Benefits rates for 16-17:
Part-time/adjunct employees – 15%
Full-time employees – 25%
EQUIPMENT (Section I, E.1)
Business Procedure 11.03
Equipment items are those with an individual value of $1,000 or greater. Tax, shipping and
handling is included in the cost of the item. Equipment is defined as tangible property which can
be used for a year or more without material change in form or appreciable deterioration of
physical condition. Many programs at DVC use equipment that is specific to academic or CTE
courses such as photovoltaic systems, electronic music keyboards, microscopes, and
spectrometers, etc. For the purposes of Program Review, enter any non-instruction or noninformational technology with a value of over $1,000 in this category.
The cost of disposal for a piece of equipment should be indicated at 10% of the purchase price.
Equipment quotes
All requests for equipment should be based on research and legitimate quotes. This information
does not have to be submitted with the Program Review, but will be useful if the request is
approved and a purchase requisition developed. Quotes should include tax, shipping and any
other costs. If equipment requires installation by a specialist, a quote for that work should also be
included. In the program review, indicate the lowest price obtained.
1. Orders (including tax and shipping) valued $1,000-$4,999 (total purchase) only require one
quote. This may be from a vendor, print outs from a website, or cut sheets from a
business.
2. Orders (including tax and shipping) over $5,000 require three comparable quotes. These
may be from vendors, print outs from websites or cut sheets from a business.
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (Section I, E.2 and E.3)
Note: only include expansion (“new-new”) of current assets in your program review. The
following current assets: personal work computers, computer labs and projectors have been
placed on a “refreshment schedule” and will be replaced in order of priority as established by
age/usage, etc., overseen by the Technology Committee and reviewed by the PRC. The
refreshment cycle list is on the U:drive (L:\ProgramReview\2016-17\Resources)
From the Technology Plan:
Technology is a broad subject that applies to many aspects of teaching, learning, research,
communication, and operations at DVC. Such technologies are typically categorized as
instructional technology or information technology. Instructional technology is associated with
resources for teaching and learning (academic) and information technology is associated with
resources for communication and operations (administrative). Both instructional and information
24
technologies typically include computers, servers, software, databases, printers, networks,
network applications, storage devices, video projectors, video conferencing, and the like. Many
such technologies are used for both academic and administrative purposes (e.g., computers,
networks, email, etc.).
For the purposes of Program Review, requested items under the category of TECHNOLOGY should
fall within the description above (instructional and information technologies). For the standard
technology items listed below, it is not necessary to obtain a quote.
The cost of disposal for a piece of technology should be indicated at 10% of the purchase price.
STANDARD PRICES FOR TECHNOLOGY ITEMS
PC
Desktop
SSF 3020 - $650 w/ 5-year warranty
Laptop
Latitude 15 - $1300
MAC/APPLE
Desktop w/ 4yr warranty
iMac 21 - $1450 / iMac 27 - $2525
Laptop
MacBook Pro 13-inch - $1500
Printers
$475 - $1800+ (based on model; toner and 3 year warranty)
Scanners
$250+ (based on model and requirement)
LCD Projectors
$2500 - $3200 (does not included installation)
Document Camera
$600
Software
Pricing based on requirement and quantity ALL software
orders are to be process through the Information
Technology and Services Department
SUPPLIES (Section I, E.8 and E.9)
Business Procedure 11.03
Supply items are those with a value less than $1,000 inclusive of tax, shipping and handling. Supply
items, small equipment, services for repair and/or maintenance are the most common type of
purchases the District makes. Such purchases range from individualized items purchased on an asneeded basis to large consolidated one-time purchases. These items should be indicated in the
Operating Budget section of the program review, with the note that the current Operating Budget
is insufficient to support the purchase.
One-time vs. Ongoing expenses (Section I, E.8 and E.9)
The Resource Allocation Process has thus far been used for the disbursement of one-time funds.
Requests for supplies, software licenses, etc. that are on-going should be included in a request for
augmentation to the Operating Budget, not as stand-alone, one-time items under equipment or
technology.
25
2016-2017 Definitions for “ONLINE” in IPR
A.1 Total # of unit courses offered online:
The number of courses approved for online delivery that were offered 100% online (no
face-to-face) in the academic year.
A.1 Total # of unit sections offered online:
The total number of sections offered 100% online (no face-to-face) in the academic year.
A.3 Total unit FTEF Online:
Sum of FTEF from sections defined as distance ed. Per Chancellor's Office distance
education is defined as sections with at least 51% online instruction.
B.1 Total unit /Discipline – Online:
The percentage of students in unit 100% online (no face-to-face) courses that receive A, B,
C, CR or P grade.
B.6 Total unit /Discipline – Online
The percentage of students in unit 100% online (no face-to-face) that receive A, B, C, D, F,
CR, NC, I, P, or NP grade.
C.4 Number of courses approved for online
All unit courses approved by the Curriculum Committee for online delivery listed in the
annual catalog and addendum.
Resources - L:\ProgramReview\2016-17\Resources
Institutional Standards
Refreshment cycles
Technology:
Faculty/staff computers
Computer labs
Projectors
Software
“Smart Classrooms”
Equipment
Scheduled Maintenance List
DVC Strategic Plan
Program Review Committee Ranking Rubric
Facilities Review List
B&G Ticket List
SysAid Ticket List
Professional Development Expenditures by program
Equipment Expenditures by program
26