INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS/COMPUTER SCIENCE

(1)

OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT OF RESEARCH AND ACCOUNTABILITY Z:RS/2014-2015 RPT/PROGREVRPT 1415-YR INFORMATIONTECHNOLOGYSYSTEMS 4/15/2015

1

EPCC does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, gender, age, disability, veteran status, sexual orientation, or gender identity.

INSTITUTIONAL EFFECTIVENESS The Best Place to Start

2014-2015 PROGRAM REVIEW REPORT

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS/COMPUTER SCIENCE

The Program Review Report assesses the viability and quality of credit and non-credit instructional programs to support program improvement through Area Improvement Plans,

as established by College Procedure 2.03.01.18: Program Review. The Office of Institutional Research provides the data, which are by academic year as of August 31, 2014; the Office of

Institutional Effectiveness produces the report, which presents the data by program. Standards are marked as “Met” or “Not Met” based on DISTRICT (“D”), not site, performance. Data

by site are shown where available (if unavailable, boxes are blank). Standards after slashes denote critical thresholds, which identify especially unacceptable performance (and if not met,

are marked "Not Met-Critical"). Results are color-coded, as follows:

STANDARD MET STANDARD NOT MET STANDARD NOT MET - CRITICAL

Overall Viability Indicator score 50% or lower or unmet Graduation and Student Success prompts formal review by the Program Review Committee. The Committee's authority

concerning program continuation is limited to recommending that the senior instructional administrators review the program's capacity to improve its service to students and the

community. The final decision on program continuation rests with the President.

Program Type: Career & Technical Program Report’s Recommendation Last Year: No Formal Review Program Review Committee Action required this year: No Formal Review - Viability above 50%, Chair informs VP of Unmet Student Success

Mandatory Accreditation: No Fully Accredited? (Y/N): Reason Why Not Fully Accredited:

THE PROGRAM’S RECENT PERFORMANCE

SCORES (Citation of a year such as "1415" or "2015" refers to the 2014-2015 academic year.)

VIABILITY

11-12 12-13 13-14 2014-2015 QUALITY

11-12 12-13 13-14 2014-2015

87.50% 87.50% 87.50% 75% 56.25% 88.24% 94.12% 77.78%

RECENT RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PROGRAM REVIEW COMMITTEE

2011-2012 None

2012-2013 None

2013-2014 None

SOURCES 1. State Annual Data Profile, Mainframe, 2. Annual Data Profile and/or Automated Student and Adult Learner Follow-up System, 3. Mainframe/State Lonestar, EMSI proprietary database, 4. Program Review Status Form completed by Dean of District

Discipline Coordinator/CE Dean/Director, 5. Master Class Schedule (Mainframe), 6. Banner, 7. Master Class Schedule (Mainframe), Fac. Employment Status (Mainframe), 8. SLO Assessment Task Force; TracDat database (All fields must have data for applicable cycle—no blank fields), 9. Credit Student Faculty Evaluation, 10. Graduate Survey, 11. Employer Survey, 12. Advisory Committee Survey & Minutes, 13. THECB Statewide Annual Licensure Report, 14. Faculty Development Records, 15. Non-Credit Faculty Evaluation, 16. Course Syllabus (Curriculum Office), 17. Advisory Committee Survey & Minutes, Program Review Status Form completed by Dean of District Discipline Coordinator/CE Dean/Director, 18. DACUM Audit (Curriculum Office), 19. Curriculum Office, 20. Advisory Committee Survey & Minutes, Employer Survey, 21. Student Banner Files, Budget Office, Public Community/Junior & Technical College Basis of Legislative Appropriations, 22. Credit Academic History.

(2)

OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT OF RESEARCH AND ACCOUNTABILITY Z:RS/2014-2015 RPT/PROGREVRPT 1415-YR INFORMATIONTECHNOLOGYSYSTEMS 4/15/2015

2

EPCC does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, gender, age, disability, veteran status, sexual orientation, or gender identity.

VIABILITY

(Overall viability score 50% or lower or unmet Graduation and Student Success prompts formal review by the Program Review Committee)

INDICATOR

1112 _Rpt 1213 _Rpt 1314 _Rpt 1415 Rpt (District Data as of Aug. 31, 2014) ASC FT. BLISS MdP NW RG TM VV STATE-MANDATED

1. No. of Graduates Within latest 5-year period (Fall, Spring, Summer)

provided by the State (State counts graduates with more than 1 award more than once) (For info. only, after the score: Latest 5-yr award total known to EPCC, if not the State) Source: 1 Standard: 25/<15

101. For inf. Only, EPCC Data: 207 110. For inf. Only, EPCC Data: 197 270. For inf. Only, EPCC Data: 403* 401. For inf. only, EPCC Data: 459* 2. Student Success Percent of students employed/transfer/enter military

w/in 1 yr of grad., for last 3 years provided by the State. Source: 2

Standard: 90%/<50%

93.1% 93.6% 91% 89.1%

INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT

1. Workforce Demand Whether the no. of new and replacement jobs in

the field forecast for El Paso, Hudspeth, Dona Ana, Luna, & Otero counties during the 5 years following this report’s publication meets/exceeds the no. of graduates during the 5 years preceding this report’s publication. (See end of report for data) Source: 3 Standard: Yes

Yes, for 281 graduates in last 5 years. Yes, for 314 graduates in last 5 years. Yes, for 250 graduates in last 5 years. Yes, for 273 graduates in last 5 years.

2. Contact/Credit Hours per FT Faculty Sufficient contact/credit hours

for all discipline courses, District-wide, disregarding lecturers, for FT faculty workload for last 3 years (F/Sp). (Excluding C.E. courses) (Unduplicated) (Cred. Tran. & Career & Tech. versions of programs share the same results) Source: 4 Standard: Yes/No

Yes Yes Yes Yes

3. Class Fill Rate Percent of classes 75% full (Including C.E. students),

based on optimum and no. of students in each section for last 3 years on census date, excluding MILS (UTEP ROTC), MUAP (independent Music study), MUSR (recitals), Independent Study, Virtual College of Texas, classes whose instructors are not paid by EPCC; if room capacity is below optimum, score reflects room capacity. (For info. only, after score the measure is also calculated w/o concurrent students.) (For info. only, District average fill rate appears after foregoing data (No. of seats filled divided by no. of seats available)) Source: 5 Standard: 80%/<50%

D: 76% Dist. Seat Count: 86.2% D: 78% Dist. Seat Count: 88.2% D: 76% Dist. Seat Count: 86.8% ** D: 72.6% Dist. Seat Count: 85.2% ** Lacks 3 yrs of data

†

Lacks 3 yrs of data

†

79.2% 83.4% 55.2% 80% 72.6%

4. Enrollment Trends Seat count (including C.E. students) is increasing,

level or decreasing no more than 5% from the benchmark year (1st yr. of last 3 yrs.), based on program-specific courses. (For info. only, after the score measure calculated w/o C.E. students.) (For info. only, appears the unduplicated no. of students by year) Source: 6 Standard: Yes/>10%

decrease D: Yes, 38%, Undupl. 2009: 2,491, 2011: 3,378 D: Yes, 16%, Undupl. 2010: 2,969, 2012: 3,562 D: Yes, 1%, Undupl. 2011: 3,378, 2013: 3,419** D: Yes, -4%, Undupl. 2012: 3,562, 2014: 3,268** Lacks 3 yrs of data

†

Lacks 3 yrs of data

†

No, -17.9% No, -10.2% No, -22.5% No, -17.4% Yes, 3.3%

5. Full-Time Faculty in Discipline There is at least 1 FT instructor with

primary teaching load in the discipline. (Sept. 1-May 1 of latest year) (Cred. Tran. & Career & Tech. versions of programs share the same results) Source: 7 Standard: Yes/No

Yes Yes Yes Yes

6. Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs) For each 2-year cycle, has the

program documented & implemented the recommendations for its active SLOs and completed its assessment process for its active SLOs? Source: 8

Standard: Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes

*2013-2014 revisions to the Program Review procedure increased the period of years covered from 3 to 5 and changed the standard from 15/<10 to 25/<15.

**2013-2014 revisions to the Program Review procedure required that C.E. students be included in the scored calculation. For information only, a second calculation was required to be made without including C.E. students; the change may affect Advanced Technology Industrial Manufacturing, Electrical Technology, HVAC, and Machining Technology.

†If a program has moved, or expanded, to another campus, during the three-year period specified by the indicator, the District score is calculated, but the finding for an individual campus offering the program is “Lacks 3 years of data” if the campus has hosted the program fewer than three years.

(3)

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS/COMPUTER SCIENCE 3

QUALITY

INDICATOR

1112 _Rpt 1213 _Rpt 1314 _Rpt 1415 Rpt (District Data as of Aug. 31, 2014) ASC FT. BLISS MdP NW RG TM VV STAKEHOLDER SATISFACTION/PROGRESS

1. Student Satisfaction with Program Based on fall/spring percent of

students satisfied with labs & technology averaged for the last 3 years. (Surveys scored 1 or 0 based on combined on averaged of responses: “Excellent”: 1, “Good”: 1, “Acceptable”: 1, “Weak”: 0, “Unacceptable” = 0. Average of 1=Satisfaction) Source: 9 Standard: 80%

D: 97% D: 96% D: 95% D: 95% Lacks 3 yrs of data

†

Lacks 3 yrs of data

†

98% 96.5% 98.5% 98.8% 93.5%

2. Student Evaluation of Faculty Percent of satisfaction in fall/spring

averaged for last 3 years, based on question: "Would you recommend instructor?" Source: 9 Standard 80%

D: 94% D: 94% D: 95% D: 95% Lacks 3 yrs of data

†

96.7% 93% 96.3% 95.3% 94.3%

3. Graduate Satisfaction with Program Based on percent of cumulative

graduates satisfied with “usefulness of my major courses w/ respect to my job,” “availability of courses in my major,” & “level of technology in my major.” (Combined average of all 3 responses) for previous 3 years. Source: 10 Standard: 80%

Deferred pending review

98% 97% 96.8%

4. Employer Satisfaction Percent of surveyed employers satisfied with

graduates for last 3 years. Names of employers surveyed provided by the Dean/District-wide Coordinator. (Surveys scored 1 or 0 based on the combined average of the 8 responses: “Excellent” = 1, “Good” = 1, “Acceptable” = 1, “Weak” = 0, “Unacceptable" = 0. An average of 1 indicates satisfaction) Source: 11 Standard: 80%

Lacks 3 yrs of data

98.6% 100% Lacks 3 yrs of data

5. Advisory Committee Satisfaction with Program Percent of surveyed

members satisfied, based on averaged percent of satisfaction for the last 3 years. (Surveys scored 1 or 0 based on the combined average of the eleven responses: “Excellent” = 1, “Good” = 1, “Acceptable” = 1, “Weak” = 0, “Unacceptable" = 0. An average of 1 indicates satisfaction.) Source: 12

Standard: 80%

100% 100% 99.5%

6. Student Licensure/Certification, As Applicable Percent of

graduates/completers receiving licensure/certification, based on annual pass rate for the most recent year. Source: 13 Standard: 90%

N/A N/A N/A 100%

INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT

1. Full-Time Faculty Development For most recent year, percent of FT

teaching Faculty at 2 prof. development activities during the fall semester (1st day of fall Faculty Development Week (FDW) through last day of final exams) and percent of FT teaching Faculty at 2 such activities during spring semester (1st day of spring FDW through last day of final exams). If FT faculty teach in 2 or more programs, their attendance is credited to all the programs. Source: 14 Standard: 100%

87% 92% 94% 88%

(4)

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS/COMPUTER SCIENCE 4

INDICATOR

1112 _Rpt 1213 _Rpt 1314 _Rpt 1415 Rpt (District Data as of Aug. 31, 2014) ASC FT. BLISS MdP NW RG TM VV

2. Part-Time Faculty Development For most recent year, percent of PT

teaching Faculty at 1 prof. development activity during fall semester (1st day of fall Faculty Development Week (FDW) through last day of final exams) and percent of PT teaching Faculty at 1 such activity during spring semester (1st day of spring FDW through last day of final exams). If PT faculty teach in 2 or more programs, their attendance is credited to all the programs. Source: 14 Standard: 75%

72% 73% 75% 70%

3. Sections taught by Full-Time Faculty Percent of sections taught by FT

Faculty for last 3 years, excluding MILS (UTEP ROTC), MUAP (independent Music study), MUSR (recitals), Independent Study, Virtual College of Texas, classes whose instructors are not paid by EPCC. Source: 7 Standard: 50% D: 67% D: 63% D: 62%*** D: 69.4%*** Lacks 3 yrs of data

†

58.3% 16.7% 70.7% 78.4% 73.5%

4. Course Syllabus Reviewed/revised within the last 3 years, based on no.

of course syllabi in the program and the revision date of each syllabus. Source: 16 Standard: Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes

5. Advisory Committee Meetings Held at least once annually, based on

the meeting date(s) of each program advisory committee for the last 3 years. Source: 17 Standard: Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes

6. DACUM Completion within last 5 years, based on completion date of

each program DACUM. Source: 18 Standard: Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

7. DACUM Findings Incorporated, as appropriate, into curriculum, based

on most recent DACUM Audit for each program. Source: 18 Standard:

Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes

8. Secondary Articulation Agreements, as appropriate Percent of ISD

requests for articulation addressed through analysis of EPCC course objectives for last 3 years. Source: 19 Standard: 100%

100% 100% 100% 100%

9. Post-Secondary Articulation Agreements, as appropriate Written

evidence of attempted/revised articulation within the last 3 years. Source: 4

Standard: Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes

10. Program Accreditation, As Applicable Maintains/actively seeking

voluntary accreditation, based on documentation of accreditation or application for accreditation for last 3 years. Source: 4 Standard: Yes

N/A N/A N/A N/A

11. Community Benefit/Service Percent of surveyed advisory committee

members acknowledging program meets community needs for each of the last 3 years. Source: 12 Standard: 85%

100% 100% 100%

12. Program Need Percent of surveyed employers acknowledging

program is needed for each of the last 3 years. Names of surveyed employers identical to those used by Employer Satisfaction indicator. Source: 11 Standard: 85%

100% 100% Lacks 3 yrs of data

13. Competitive Advantage: Quality Percent of surveyed respondents

acknowledging EPCC meets/exceeds quality of proprietary schools for each of the last 3 years. (Combined average of responses on both the Advisory

Committee Survey and the Employer Survey) Source: 20 Standard: 85%

100% 100% 100%

***2013-2014 revisions to the Program Review procedure reduced the standard from 60% to 50%.

(5)

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS/COMPUTER SCIENCE 5

VIABILITY INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT INDICATOR 1 - WORKFORCE DEMAND

Measure: Whether the sum of new and replacement jobs in the field forecast for El Paso and Hudspeth Counties and the New Mexico counties of Dona Ana, Luna and Otero

during the 5 years following the publication of the Program Review Report meets or exceeds the number of graduates during the 5 years preceding the publication of the report. To ensure

that the data include career paths addressed by the program, each program shall provide the IE Office with a list of jobs for which it prepares graduates.

The listings are from the EMSI database, which was created in 2001, in consultation with the Association of Community College Trustees (ACCT), to track occupational demand and

wages nationally, by state and by region, drawing on some 91 databases, which include those of the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The number preceding each occupational title is the

unique Bureau of Labor Statistics SOC (Standard Occupational Classification) number assigned to each job title. Job titles were specified by the disciplines. Numerical anomalies may be

due to rounding.

SOC

Code Occupation

TOTAL NUMBER OF JOBS PER YEAR Total New/Re-placement Jobs Average Hourly Wage (2013) Education Required 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 11-3021 Computer and Information Systems Managers 326 336 346 356 362 56 $49.09 Bachelor's degree 15-1111 Computer and Information Research Scientists

69 70 71 73 74 10 $65.18 Doctoral or professional degree

15-1121 Computer Systems Analysts 629 654 677 698 713 127 $36.85 Bachelor's degree 15-1122 Information Security Analysts 102 106 110 115 118 23 $44.59 Bachelor's degree

15-1131 Computer Programmers 432 442 449 456 460 74 $30.62 Bachelor's degree

15-1132 Software Developers, Applications 345 363 378 395 406 81 $42.24 Bachelor's degree 15-1133 Software Developers, Systems Software 444 458 470 482 490 71 $36.84 Bachelor's degree

15-1134 Web Developers 172 177 182 186 189 29 $25.67 Associate's degree

15-1141 Database Administrators 225 230 236 240 244 37 $33.19 Bachelor's degree

15-1142 Network and Computer Systems Administrators

582 598 611 624 633 90 $30.49 Bachelor's degree

15-1143 Computer Network Architects

121 126 130 135 138 26 $27.97 Bachelor's degree

15-1151 Computer User Support Specialists

1654 1698 1736 1769 1794 250 $21.43 Some college, no degree

15-1152 Computer Network Support Specialists 355 363 369 374 377 46 $22.44 Associate's degree 15-1199 Computer Occupations, All Other 394 399 405 414 422 53 $31.53 Bachelor's degree 43-1011 First-Line Supervisors of Office and Administrative Support Workers

4324 4410 4488 4561 4619 725 $20.62 High school diploma or equivalent

43-2099 Communications Equipment Operators, All Other

<10 <10 <10 <10 <10 -- $0.00 High school diploma or equivalent

43-3051 Payroll and Timekeeping Clerks

(6)

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS/COMPUTER SCIENCE 6

SOC

Code Occupation

TOTAL NUMBER OF JOBS PER YEAR Total New/Re-placement Jobs Average Hourly Wage (2013) Education Required 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

43-3099 Financial Clerks, All Other

43-4021 Correspondence Clerks <10 10 10 11 11 -- $0.00 High school diploma or equivalent

43-4051 Customer Service Representatives

43-4141 New Accounts Clerks 175 177 178 179 180 24 $13.70 High school diploma or equivalent

43-4151 Order Clerks 374 376 379 382 384 51 $10.75 High school diploma or equivalent

43-4171 Receptionists and Information Clerks

43-4199 Information and Record Clerks, All Other

43-5081 Stock Clerks and Order Fillers

5220 5265 5308 5347 5377 801 $9.82 Less than high school

43-9011 Computer Operators 516 514 511 507 502 20 $17.15 High school diploma or equivalent

43-9021 Data Entry Keyers 1095 1077 1059 1040 1022 50 $10.06 High school diploma or equivalent

43-9022 Word Processors and Typists

43-9031 Desktop Publishers 17 17 17 17 18 2 $15.97 Associate's degree

43-9041 Insurance Claims and Policy Processing Clerks

43-9061 Office Clerks, General 8269 8381 8483 8576 8648 1095 $11.72 High school diploma or equivalent

43-9199 Office and Administrative Support Workers, All Other