COLLEGE OF THE ALBEMARLE. Annual Program Review Summary (Culinary Technology) (A and D )

Transcription

1 COLLEGE OF THE ALBEMARLE Annual Program Review Summary (Culinary Technology) (A and D ) December 2004

2 ABSTRACT CULINARY TECHNOLOGY: PROGRAM REVIEW PURPOSE Program/unit review supports the continuous improvement of programs and administrative & educational support units by assessing the following: Curriculum Programs Administrative Units & Educational Basic Skills & Continuing Education Support Services Achievement of stated purpose Achievement of stated purpose Achievement of stated purpose Quality of instruction Quality of services Quality of instruction Curriculum design Functions and staffing Curriculum design Curriculum currency Outcomes Currency Student outcomes Contribution to overall mission of the Student outcomes College Contribution to overall mission of the College Contribution to overall mission of the College The process is designed to occur on a three-year cycle for: Collecting and presenting data to support annual planning and budgeting, Documenting program/unit strengths and weaknesses and recommendations for improvement, and Meeting NCCCS and Principles of Accreditation: Foundations for Quality Enhancement requirements. Methods of Review a. Survey Results Surveys conducted and utilized as a basis for the review process include: graduate/certificate completer survey, employer survey, non-completer survey, fail-to-register survey, non-returning student survey, annual services review, institutional climate & opinion survey, and the annual function-area services review. b. Review of Unit Action Plans Unit Action Plans provide review data relative to goal accomplishments, performance measures, budgeting, resources, evaluation activities and use of evaluation results. c. Program/Unit Review Templates & Checklists Data collected on enrollment, FTE, operating costs & expenditures, qualifications of faculty & staff, appropriateness of facilities, program currency, integration of technology, and overall strengths & weaknesses of the program or unit can be found within review templates and checklists. PROCEDURE Program/unit review is a primary function of the offices of instruction and institutional effectiveness. The Vice President of Instruction (who is the resource administrator for the program review committee) works closely with the Director of Institutional Effectiveness, division heads, and other college staff to coordinate the reviews. More specifically: 1

3 VPI, President s Staff, and Division Heads: confer with the Director of I.E. to develop a process that meets college, state, and accreditation needs, assist with development of surveys, evaluation instruments, and data collection tools, and edit program review data collection (templates) and approve final copies. Program Review Committee: use the review notebook contents (template & supporting documents) as a basis for the study and evaluation of the program or unit, a committee member is assigned responsibility for reviewing the program or unit and upon completion, will report his/or findings to the Director of Institutional Effectiveness via comments and recommendations and completion of the required checklist of review components. As a result of the evaluation/review of the curriculum program or unit, the Director of Institutional Effectiveness issues an informational report (summary) to the President, president s staff, division heads & department chairs, and unit heads containing the following: 1. strengths and weaknesses of the program/unit 2. recommendations and suggestions for improvement of the operation of the program/unit 3. a follow-up time line to report the actions taken in response to the recommendations 4. future issues 5. applicable completed checklist The recommendations, strengths and weaknesses will be used to make improvements in the curriculum programs or administrative units. Improvements made as a result of program review will be documented utilizing the prescribed Assessment Action Report {copy attached}. 2

4 IDENTIFIED PROGRAM STRENGTHS Evidence is present that the Culinary Technology program is meeting its purpose of providing specific training required to prepare students to assume positions as trained culinary professionals in a variety of food service settings including full service restaurants, hotels, resorts, clubs, catering operations, contract food service, and health care facilities. Supporting evidence and other program strengths are summarized as follows: 1. Although relatively new program (beginning ), the program has increasing enrollments & FTE s. 2. Program has very experienced and qualified faculty with many years of relative experience and professional development. 3. Lead instructor created Food Service Technology program at PCI as well as creating the Culinary Technology program at Edenton-Chowan Campus. 4. More than adequate county support: Chowan county and Edenton-Chowan schools have helped this program greatly by allowing the use of the former D.F. Walker School cafeteria. In addition, the county purchased approximately $10, worth of kitchen equipment and utensils. For the school year, the school system will reimburse COA for the salary of the culinary instructor and for the cost of educational supplies. 5. Classes give practical experience plan to give CUL 110/110A completers the opportunity to sit for ServSafe National Certification test. Program coordinator states that students like the instructors. 6. Program incorporates technology in instruction by integrating Chef-Tec software into purchasing and menu planning coursework. 7. Favorable market trends: job opportunities in the food service industry continue to be strong. IDENTIFIED PROGRAM NEEDS/WEAKNESSES WITH RECOMMENDATIONS Program needs and weaknesses identified by the program coordinator, department chair, program reviewer, and director of institutional effectiveness are listed below with recommendations: 1. More of the classes listed in the catalog need to be offered. Recommendation: Offer more classes, increase teaching faculty by submitting additional personnel requests via unit action plan. 2. Students should be able to graduate in two years. Recommendation: Offer more classes, increase teaching faculty by submitting additional personnel requests via unit action plan. 3. Explore methods to continuously increase enrollments. Recommendation: Pursue active recruiting and marketing plans for the culinary program and document successes in unit action plan. 4. No faculty evaluation summary information provided within review. Recommendation: This data must be included in the next review. Positive changes occurring as a result of past faculty evaluation data should be documented utilizing Assessment Action Reports and included in the program s planning notebook. 3

5 5. Advisory committee: Although the culinary program does have an advisory committee, there is no evidence of a recent committee meeting. Last documented meeting held was May Recommendation: Convene advisory committee to provide feedback, help identify job opportunities and new techniques, record and file minutes. 6. No Assessment Action Reports located within review. Recommendation: Document how survey/evaluation results and other assessments were used to make improvements within the Culinary Technology program. 7. Equipment & space needs. Recommendation: Continue to address equipment & facilities needs by making improvements to current facility and possible Dare County expansion. Document related activities in unit action plans and future program reviews. 8. No data provided on operating costs. Recommendation: Make determinations of budget efficiency and cost effectiveness of the program. TIMELINE TO RESPOND TO RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendations should be responded to utilizing the Assessment Action Report within the year following this review or during the academic year. Assessment Action Reports showing what actions were taken as a result of program review or other evaluation tools are filed with the Office of Institutional Effectiveness and become part of the Culinary Technology planning process. Assessment Action Reports serve as official documentation on how evaluation was used to improve programs and services. In other words, it is the College s approved method of closing the loop. FUTURE ISSUES 1. Continue to make improvements to facilities. 2. Hire adjunct faculty as increased enrollment merits. 3. Possible expansion of program to Dare Campus. 4. Possible creation of Student Café to offer hands on opportunities for culinary students and food options for other students. 5. Future curricular change: inclusion of food science course; creation of culinary math course; addition of ProMgmt certificates and National Restaurant Association Education Foundation scholarships. CHECKLIST COMPLETED BY REVIEWER Attached. 4

6 COLLEGE OF THE ALBEMARLE CURRICULUM PROGRAM REVIEW CHECKLIST Culinary Technology Joe Turner Stan Nixon Name of Program Division Chair Department Chair AAS, Diploma, Certificate 2004 December 2004 Type of Degree Awarded Academic Year of Review COMPONENTS Clearly defined Statement of Purpose MEETS CRITERIA YES NO RECOMMENDATIONS/COMMENTS See Unit Action Plan. Data on operating costs Program was new in Fall Address in future reviews. Cost effectiveness No data provided. Appropriate admission requirements Admission requirements are consistent with COA admission requirements. Adequate enrollment to justify operating Presently 11 students seeking Associates in Applied Science degree. Faculty credentials meet SACS requirements Number of faculty meet program needs Master s degree in business, 7 years restaurant management experience, and 5 years of teaching in this field for lead instructor. Adjunct instructors also meet SACS requirements. Sufficient adjunct pool for classes when needed. Faculty participate in professional organizations & professional development activities Academic Affairs Committee Chowan Gates Perquimans Partnership for Children Three Rivers Healthy Carolinians College Tech Prep Consortium Edenton-Chowan Chamber of Commerce 5

7 COMPONENTS MEETS CRITERIA YES NO RECOMMENDATIONS/COMMENTS Faculty integrate technology in instruction Use of ChefTec software is planned for appropriate courses. Performance measure: Goal completion of completers Performance measure: Employment of Graduates Performance measure: Employer Satisfaction With Graduates Performance measure: Student Satisfaction of Program Completers and Non-Completers The college met this goal all 4 years for which data is provided. 100% of Architectural Technology program completers met goal. The Culinary program is too new to generate this data. The college met this goal for all 3 years for which data is provided. 75% of Architectural Technology completers were employed. One certificate completer continued education. The Culinary program is too new to generate this data. College met this goal all 3 years for which data is provided. No in-house graduate employer surveys were provided within review. The Culinary program is too new to generate this data. The college met this goal all 4 years for which data is reported. The Culinary program is too new to generate this data. Clearly defined student educational outcomes See Unit Action Plans. Required Core Competencies (Degree Programs Only) a. Reading b. Writing c. Oral Communications Score out of RED 090 see graduation check sheets. ENG 111 see graduation check sheets. COM 120 see graduation check sheets. d. Fundamental Math Skills MAT 115 see graduation check sheets. e. Basic Use of Computers CIS 110 see graduation check sheets. 6

8 COMPONENTS Student educational outcomes reflect job market/transfer to higher education needs Procedures for evaluating outcomes/performance measures are in place MEETS CRITERIA YES NO RECOMMENDATIONS/COMMENTS Will study possibility of transfer agreements with UNC system schools that offer Culinary/Hospitality curriculum. Continuously monitoring job market for student needs and market trends. Often contacted by local businesses for names of potential employees. Review of co-op experience with student and host business. Survey results and performance measure results are in place Use of COA Graduate Survey and Employer Survey. Program too new to have any results measured. Documentation and evidence exists of using results to make improvements No assessment action reports showing how survey or evaluation results were used to make improvements were found within this program review. Program is too new to incorporate survey results. Accreditation by agencies other than SACS Not Applicable Articulation agreements in place High school articulation agreements in place. Advisory committee exists Instructor meets/speaks with advisory committee. Biannual committee meetings need to take place. Advisory committee minutes on file Minutes of initial meeting on file. Equipment and supplies are adequate to support program Program coordinator recommends initiation of additional course fees for all CUL classes. 7

9 COMPONENTS Facilities (classrooms, labs, shops, clinical sites) are adequate for student enrollment MEETS CRITERIA YES NO RECOMMENDATIONS/COMMENTS Current facilities adequate. Continue refurbishment, improvement, and replacement of obsolete equipment. Other Performance Measure: Program Enrollment Program on target for meeting this measure. Other Performance Measure: Curriculum Student Retention and Graduation This benchmark was met 3 out of the last 4 years. Other Consider expanding program to Dare County after acquisition of Manteo Middle School campus. 8

10 College of The Albemarle Assessment Action Report Planning Unit: Year: Assessment Description: In this section, the form s initiator describes what happened or took place that alerted you to a problem or concern. Action(s) Taken: This section describes what occurred as a result of the assessment. It explains the possible solution to the problem or concern. Improvement(s) Resulting from Action Taken: This section should describe how the actions taken have improved or enhanced the program or service. Submitted By: : 9

11 PROGRAM REVIEW APPROVALS: CULINARY TECHNOLOGY Approved by: Resource Adm./Program Review Comm. Department Chair/Program Coordinator Division Head Chair, Program Review Committee/ Director, Institutional Effectiveness Issued to: Division Head Department Chair/Program Coordinator 10