Evergreen Valley College
Program Review Feedback Form
Date: 4/22/09
Reviewed by: Math
SUMMARY OF THE DEPARTMENT/PROGRAM
Did the Review Team clearly articulate summary? If not, provide concrete feedback on information needed. Executive Summary: Briefly, what do you mean by the "student-centered education" ? (2nd paragraph)
(4th paragraph) briefly, what do you mean by "innovative padagogy"?
(5th paragraph) Instead of continue to add more individual labs that are specific to Math, is it possible for the department to collaborate with LRC to make this occur? Increasingly, it is proven that centers such as centuralized Learning Center and/or Success Center model are helping students who are on the basic skills level to succeed. (kuni)
In addition to Section III, we included Executive Summary (Section II) (RJ & Chris)
Page 2 last paragraph is too general
Did the Review Team clearly identify and assess strength and areas of improvements in relevant areas? Were there action plans included that would address areas of improvement? If not, provide concrete feedback on information needed in specific section.
P.4 #2. A. 1 (Improve Access) please clarify what outcome this is aiming for.
#2. A. 3 (Services) Would the collaboration with LRC to conduct these workshops possible?
2. C. #1: "Shared Governance hour" can possibly be confused with a joing meeting with the shared governance committees - recommend to identify another name for this concept.
p.5.#4, 3 initiatives, #2: The Equity Score card initial stage is already occurring. Suggest that this statement be connected with that effort to decrease gaps on overall success of students who are on the basic skills level. Therefore, recommencations would be helpful not so much to identify how to spend the basic skills funds but to produce concerete actions that will improve overall success on basics skills students.
#5: we can learn from what is already being done in the Math department here…can you describe or give us examples as to what type of things you are doing to be "student centered", as well as to cultivate consciousness in students
re: global and multicultural concepts through math courses?
#6: comprehensive data, thank you #7: after 3bullets, the first sentence does not make sense. Please notate that the Equity Scorecard and benchmarking project focuses the success of students who are struggling in the basic skills level for now.
#8, please add a brief analysis of the productivity. (kuni)For areas of improvement; see below (RJ & Chris)
PART A: Overview of Program
Did the Review Team answer all questions thoroughly? If not, identify additional information needed.
Did the Review Team provide necessary culture of evidence (data, references, etc.)? If not, identify additional information and analysis needed.
Did the Review Team include action plans for areas that need improvements? If not, identify areas and information needed. Question on page 4 under “C” organizational transformation. Question on page 5 under “5” accomplishments #5.
Yes, areas needing improvement are covered in Part 4; “new initiatives.” (RJ & Chris)
PART B: CURRICULUM
Did the Review Team answer all questions thoroughly? If not, identify additional information needed.
Did the Review Team provide necessary culture of evidence (data, references, etc.)? If not, identify additional information and analysis needed.
Did the Review Team include action plans for areas that need improvements? If not, identify areas and information needed. Page 11 Curriculum to include offering Algebra 11a & Math 13 in a two semester sequence would assist many students who are struggling. This is an extremely positive attempt to assist students. Also, it is a good idea to add math prerequisite sequence to every class schedule.
On pp. 12 and 13, several course#’s (e.g. for “oral communication”) are missing and needed. (RJ & Chris)
Well done.
PART C: STUDENT OUTCOMES
Did the Review Team answer all questions thoroughly? If not, identify additional information needed.
Did the Review Team provide necessary culture of evidence (data, references, etc.)? If not, identify additional information and analysis needed. In the future links to individual SLO’s for reference. Well done.
Did the Review Team include action plans for areas that need improvements? If not, identify areas and information needed.
PART D: FACULTY AND STAFF
Did the Review Team answer all questions thoroughly? If not, identify additional information needed.
Did the Review Team provide necessary culture of evidence (data, references, etc.)? If not, identify additional information and analysis needed.
Did the Review Team include action plans for areas that need improvements? If not, identify areas and information needed. Data provided on WSCH & FTEF up 10% & 9% respectively, while productivity remained relatively consistent; additional data on # of course offerings over the same period would be helpful to better understand the other measures, would like to see data on # adjunct and related FTEF. Areas of concern were not mentioned. Student retention in prerequisite courses should be stated. Many students do not pass algebra and other gate keeper courses needed to receive a degree and/or transfer. This is extremely critical information to have and would assist when measuring the success rate of the new proposed unit offerings with algebra 11a and math 13.
Well done.
PART E: FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT, MATERIALS AND MAINTENANCE
Did the Review Team answer all questions thoroughly? If not, identify additional information needed.
Did the Review Team provide necessary culture of evidence (data, references, etc.)? If not, identify additional information and analysis needed.
Did the Review Team include action plans for areas that need improvements? If not, identify areas and information needed. request included ""… one or two more computer labs… " need additional data on usage of existing labs (Mon-Sun; morning-evening); i.e. time keeper stats. what is rating rubric for facilities, instructional equipment and supplies?
PART F: FUTURE NEEDS
Did the Review Team answer all questions thoroughly? If not, identify additional information needed.
Did the Review Team provide necessary culture of evidence (data, references, etc.)? If not, identify additional information and analysis needed.
Did the Review Team include action plans for areas that need improvements? If not, identify areas and information needed. 1) provide additional data on FT vs PT and waitlists; attach relevant reports. what are growth projections? what is incremental cost incrase of replacing adjunct with FT. how will increased productivity affect buildings and maintaning department?
2) provide time keeper data; i.e. fall semester; Mon-Sun, 8am-9pm.
3/4) what is rubric for instructional supply, math software and eqiupment, travel and training?
5) how is this addressed in modernization? Suggest an early alert system for all basic skill math courses. Success in these courses are key to student persistence and educational goals. Also suggest having counselors and tutors visit algebra courses early in the semester for information on study skills and tutor availability.
PART G: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Provide concrete questions or feedback if needed. publish rubrics and matrics used to assess cariations aspects of PR.
Per discussion with the Dean, recommended Testing Center would be campus-wide. (RJ & Chris)
1
Math Program Review
Feedback 4_22_09
VP Academic Affairs