1

Honolulu Community College Communication Arts ProgramFall 2009 Annual Assessment Report for Fall 2008-Spring 2009 Semesters

College Mission StatementHonolulu Community College’s mission is to:• Serve the community as an affordable, flexible, learning centered, open-door comprehensive Community

College that meets the post-secondary educational needs of individuals, businesses, and the community.• Serve the Pacific Rim as the primary technical training center in areas such as transportation, information

technology, education, communications, construction, and public and personal services.

Program Mission StatementThe Communication Arts program’s mission is to serve the community as a learning-centered program that provides hands-on technical training. The two-year career and technical curricula is for entry level employment or skill upgrading in keeping with the demands of the design, publishing, and printing industries as well as the needs of the individual.

2

Annual Report Program Data for 08 - 09 Notes: • Demand Indicators shows Demand Health as Cautionary. Item #8 - Total Number of Classes Taught shows 24. The program record shows this number should be 27 if not counting CA 150 or 28 if CA 150 is included.

• Effectiveness Indicators show Effectiveness Health as Cautionary. Item #20a. - Number of Degrees Awarded shows 9. The program records and campus records shows this number should be 16 since there were 7 students in Fall 2008 and 10 students in Spring 2009 of which only 1 student did not graduate. Was this inac-curate data that moved CA from Healthy to Cautionary status?

Annual Report of Program Data for Communication ArtsHonolulu Community College Program Major(s): CA

Overall Program Health Cautionary

Demand Indicators Academic Year08-09

1 New & Replacement Positions (State) 28

2 New & Replacement Positions (County Prorated) 193 Number of Majors 91 Demand Health4 SSH Program Majors in Program Classes 1,072 Cautionary5 SSH Non-Majors in Program Classes 966 SSH in All Program Classes 1,1687 FTE Enrollment in Program Classes 398 Total Number of Classes Taught 24

Efficiency Indicators Academic Year08-09

9 Average Class Size 12.910 Fill Rate 76%11 FTE BOR Appointed Faculty 2.012 Majors to FTE BOR Appointed Faculty 45.5 Efficiency Health13 Majors to Analytic FTE Faculty 26.7 Healthy

13a Analytic FTE Faculty 3.414 Overall Program Budget Allocation $358,163

14a General Funded Budget Allocation $272,24514b Special/Federal Budget Allocation $85,91815 Cost per SSH $30716 Number of Low-Enrolled (<10) Classes 3

Effectiveness Indicators Academic Year08-09

17 Successful Completion (Equivalent C or Higher) 80%18 Withdrawals (Grade = W) 819 Persistence (Fall to Spring) 68%20 Unduplicated Degrees/Certificates Awarded 9 Effectiveness Health

20a Number of Degrees Awarded 9 Cautionary20b Certificates of Achievement Awarded 020c Academic Subject Certificates Awarded 020d Other Certificates Awarded 021 Transfers to UH 4-yr 4

21a Transfers with degree from program 121b Transfers without degree from program 3C/P denotes that the measure is provided by the college, if necessary.Data current as of: 8/19/2009 - 3:30:PM

3

Evidence of discrepancy found in the number of degrees awarded. The Annual Report Program Data for 08 - 09 shows 9 yet 16 names appear on the following list of names that was published in the com-mencement program brochure. This list and number is identical to the roster of students in the portfolio classes and so how could the data provided for the review show only 9? The rosters for the CA 155 Portfolio Presentation and Review course ( the program’s exiting course) shows there were 7 students in Fall 2008 and 10 students in Spring 2009 of which only 1 student (Brian Zampaga) did not gradu-ate because of incomplete Math requirements.

Incorrect data has been a perpetual problem that has plagued the program for the past three years. If data in the specific areas are obvi-ously incorrect, it leaves one to question the validity of data in other areas as well.

Spring 2009 Commencement Brochure

4

Fall of Year 2005 2006 2007Annual New and Replacement Positions State C/P 10 / 56 24

Annual New and Replacement Positions County C/P 7 / 40 18

Number Majors 98 102 89

SSH for Program Majors all Program Classes 593 620 546

SSH for non program majors in all program classes 35 41 85

SSH for all students in all program classes 628 661 631

FTE Program Enrollment 41.87 44.07 42.07

Number of Classes Taught 15 15 15

Average Class Size 11.73 12.00 11.53

Class Fill Rate 61.75 60.00 55.81

FTE (headcount) of BOR Appointed Program

Faculty

2.0 2.0 2.0

Student/ Faculty Ratio (calculated field) 49.0 51.0 44.5

Number of Majors Per FTE (workload) Faculty 27.22 28.33 25.21

Program Budget Allocation $203,212 $225,869 C/P

Cost Per SSH (Calculated field) $324 $342 C/P

Number of classes that Enroll less than 10 students 5 5 4

Persistence Fall to Spring 62.24 58.82 69.66

Number of Degrees Earned 14 4 16

Number Certificates Earned 0 0 0

Number of Students Transferred 2 0 2

Perkins Core Indicator - 1P1 80.56 81.82 90.00

Perkins Core Indicator - 1P2 88.89 88.24 94.44

Perkins Core Indicator - 2P1 26.67 17.65 44.44

Perkins Core Indicator - 3P1 66.67 75.00 100.00

Perkins Core Indicator - 3P2 87.50 88.89 66.67

Perkins Core Indicator - 4P1 N/A N/A N/A

Perkins Core Indicator - 4P2 N/A N/A N/A

Part I: Quantitative Indicators for Program Review

The following data was originally received September 10, 2008 for Fall 2008 Annual Assessment Report, at which time it was brought to the Dean’s attention that some of the data were incorrect. This same data, uncorrected has been distributed again for the Fall 2009 Annual Assessment Report. Why was the same ques-tionable data wdistributed again for the Fall 2009 Annual Assessment Report?

DEMAND

EFFICIENCY

EFFECTIVENESS

Academic Achievement

Vocational Skills

Credential Conferred

Indicates data that were inconsistent with the data provided for Fall 2007 Comprehensive Assessment Report.

5

Perkins Performance Indicators

2006/2007 Report :

Covers 2005/2006 Cohort

UHCC System Data Compared to

Hon CC Data

State UHCC HonCC

Actual

Performance Indicator Target Actual AJ CA CENT COSM FT HSERV

1P1 Academic Achievement 81.87% 85.66% 88.69% 85.71% 90.00% 93.02% 84.44% 92.86% 87.01%

1P2 Vocational Skills 90.42% 92.78% 95.68% 90.00% 94.44% 95.74% 94.42% 100.00% 98.06%

2P1 Credential Conferred 38.17% 47.94% 47.65% 33.33% 44.44% 27.66% 52.54% 42.86% 35.92%

3P1 Placement in Employment 71.07% 77.98% 88.25% 91.67% 100.00% 84.00% 81.58% 66.67% 69.44%

3P2 Retention in Employment 92.00% 94.31% 97.08% 90.91% 66.67% 90.48% 96.77% 100.00% 92.00%

4P1 Non Traditional Participation 14.60% 15.94% 12.80% 39.62% N/AP N/A 9.60% N/AP 8.57%

4P2 Non Traditional Completion 12.19% 16.52% 13.90% 60.00% N/AP N/A 12.12% N/AP 9.52%

NOTE: The shaded cells indicates

that the actual performance did

NOT meet the standard perfor-

mance target.

N/AP: Not applicable

N/AV: Data Not Available

This data appears in Fall 2007 in the Fall 2008 Annual Assessment Report, while the report below cov-ers 2005/2006. It is strange that data shifts under various dates. What is the correct data and for which time periods is it reflective of?

6

The data from the above table correspond to page 4 - 2007’s Demand: Annual New and Replacement Positions - 24 and the Annual New and Replacement Positions County - 18. Please note that this table was provided by Dean Gary Boydell to clarify where data came from. It covers 2007 - 2015 and yet there are dif-ferent numbers for 08 - 09 on page 2 of this report.

The following data table on page 7 of this report (provided by Dean Gary Boydell) indicates for 2007 - 2008, H, H, H, H in regards to Overall, Demand, Efficiency, and Effectiveness respectively. I don’t know how accurate this report is and therefore with the data discrepancy in 2008 - 2009, there is no way to determine the pro-gram’s position as far as the health indicators are concerned.

If the CA program is to be held responsible to address data provided, then the data should be accurate and consistent with past data. As an example, if part of the effectiveness of a program hinges on the number of graduates, then how could important data distributed to the program differ from the campus and program records?

For the record, the Communication Arts program has always been interested in improving retention as it impacts enrollment in higher level courses. Low enrolled courses are of utmost concern as it impacts students and graduation if courses are cancelled. Data, when accurate and specific, aides in the pursuit of finding pos-sible solutions. It is data that are inaccurate that is not only frustrating, but gives an inaccurate picture of the true health of a program. After three years of requesting accurate and detailed data, I have not received any as of this date.

If a program is assessed on data that is inaccurate, or more reprehensible, decisions made based on inaccurate data, I feel the administration has intentionally failed the program, faculty, and students.

7

8

Part II: Analysis of the Program

1. Instructional faculty who taught in the Fall 2008 / Spring 2009 semester : Budd Brooks and Sandra Sanpei

2. Instructional lecturers who taught in the Fall 2008 / Spring 2009 semesters: Lee Schaller, Scott Kawamura, Michael Harada, Glenn Matsumoto, Lowell Gillia

3. Non-instructional (support) faculty or staff in your program for the Fall 2008 / Spring 2009 semesters (if not applicable, just skip). Not applicable.

4. What are the strengths of this program? The strength of the program lies in the quality of content that is delivered in all of the Communication Arts courses. The students are prepared for entry level jobs in the field of design, printing, and publishing. The number of students placed in industry will attest to that fact. As a result, industry has supported the Communication Arts Program through attendance at our Portfolio Presentation and Review events, donations, scholarships, as well as the Yutaka Wada Endowment account, just to name a few examples.

5. What are the weaknesses of this program? Our program weaknesses are not weaknesses per se, but rather program problems. CA’s overall program design, course content, academic rigor, etc. are very sound. It is problem areas that warrant address and consideration. The major problem of the program is the attempt to support three tracks: Design, Print, and Multimedia of which only Design is actively offered currently due to enrollment, cost, and staffing hardships. This structure is not good for the program as it separates important content. The print and design industry recognizes that mul-timedia is part of the skillset needed in this day and age. Not offering multimedia causes students to migrate to other campuses. Part of the problems we face with low enrollment has its basis in other campuses creating courses identical to our program courses and thereby becoming major competi-tors. Because of this, the program needs to reassess the addition or integration of multimedia and print as a single track with design as the primary focus.

6. What opportunities exist for the program? Not sure what this question is asking.

7. What challenges (threats) exist for the program? Because comprehensive data on the CA program provided by Institutional Research for the sake of addressing items in this program review in itself contains errors admitted to by that department. Data recently received for the current assessment is still inaccurate, therefore, significant and substantive commentary based on these sources of informa-tion are currently not possible.

9

8. Are the measurement of your Program and Course SLOs providing adequate information to evalu-ate student learning or should new measures be developed? Current Program and Course SLOs providing adequate information to evaluate student learning.

9. How do you know that students are achieving your stated Program SLOs? The program courses are project driven. It demonstrates skillsets required by all of the courses in the CA program.

Amor, Kenneth L. Young, Chanelle M.

Natividad, Janel J.(left)

Soriano, Jeffrey T.(right)

2009 PELE Award recepients:

The Pele is the highest award and of course the most coveted. As much as we have taken the Pele seven times out of nine, this year was very special. In addition to receiving the Pele, these four students were formally recognized by the national judges as the “Best in Show”. Since the student division is not eligible for this award, the judges took it upon themselves to publicly rec-ognize and honor them at the event with their own award since they believed it to be truly the best in show. They also received cash reimbursement of the entry fee.

Kenneth, in addition to the Pele, received an Award of Excellence for another project, which he did as an individual.

10

Chanelle M. Young, Janel J. Natividad, Kenneth L.Amor, and Jeffrey T. Soriano at the Hilton Hawaiian Village’s Tapa Ballroom after receiving the Pele Award from the Hawaii Advertising Federation which is the local chapter of the American Advertising Federation.

Judged “best in show” as well as awarded the Pele for 2009 Student Division, this book “Alone, Judged & Unheard” was written, photographed, and designed by the above four students in the special projects course. This book has since gone on to compete in the nationals.

11

2009 Award of Excellencefor a page composition project brochure.

Chang, Dustin K. (left)Bonsato, Jeffrey S. (right)

below:Leong, Kalena M. (left)

Campbell, Quintin H. (center)Waterfall, Zachary M. (right)

2009 Award of Excellencefor a new ID system and mar-keting campaign for the Pacific Center for Advanced Technol-ogy Training.

Yadao, Felmar B.(left)Cruz, Cynthia M. (right)

Nakayama, Kari K.( left)Nixon, Melissa L (right)

12

10. What kinds of evidence can you provide? Evidence of student learning: The portfolio review event is the ultimate assessment of our faculty, the program, and the students. The results of individual student portfolios year after year, as well as the ability of our program to successfully compete with four-year institutions are strong “health indicators” of our program’s excellence, our committed qual-ity faculty, and the effective design and delivery of our program courses. From the very beginning of the program, students and faculty strive toward excellence in the portfolio endeavor because in the field, one’s portfolio is the key to getting a job and/or continuing their education at a four-year insti-tution. Exiting requires a professional portfolio that meets industry standards. In order to accomplish this, students are required to accumulate “pieces” (projects) from the various courses beginning with the second semester’s CA 132 Page Composition I and CA 135 Typography courses. The bulk of student pieces are collected from their third semester classes (CA 142, CA 143, CA 145, CA 146). The fourth semester is the time for refining, as well as adding pieces from courses such as: CA 152 The Business of Advertising, and CA 150 Special Projects – “live jobs only”.

• CA 155 Portfolio Presentation and Review: The exit course, CA 155 Portfolio Presentation and Review, is the most stressful. Students are required to have a minimum of 12 – 15 very strong pieces that meet a level of quality in keeping with CA Advisory Board’s approval. The portfolio course is unusual in that it is not a “traditional” lecture type course. The hours outside of the designated class time in preparation for an event of the magnitude described below, and a separate exhibition of work done at the same time as one is refining an individual portfolio requires an average of 20 hours per week for students and the faculty member in charge. Since the year 2000, the portfolio course has been a very public event. Students are expected to have their portfolios available for re-view not only by the Advisory Board, but approximately 200 printing, publishing, and design industry professionals as well. Students in the portfolio class design and produce all the collateral material for the event, as well as put on an exhibition of their work. These industry professionals are invited to what we have named our “portfolio review” event. Based on Advisory Board and industry feedback, the time, energy, and effort of this event is well invested for the students as well as the program. Students get job offers during and because of the event; the program has gained high visibility and strong, increasing community support.

As mentioned previously, 2009 was a banner year with 1 Pele and 3 Awards of Excellence. I believe this clearly demonstrates that the fourth as well as some third semester students are able to pro-duce quality products inspite of our being a two year program competing with four year institutions. I believe this goes beyond PLO and SLO expectations.

13

11. Does the program have sufficient resources to promote student learning? Are other resources needed such as personnel, facilities, or equipment? If additional resources are required, what evi-dence/rationale is there to support this? For CA’s students to remain competitive in the job market, CA must have a budget that allows the yearly purchase of site licenses for current industry software. It must have a budget that allows the upgrade of the Macintosh operating system every two years on all computers. It must have a budget that allows the purchase of new Macintosh computers every three years for its teaching lab and faculty. Each year our program must have money for : repair of computers, printers, and other hardware; toner, ink, paper, and other printing supplies; replacement bulbs for overhead projectors; data storage; upgrade of Adobe’s Creative Suite and other software used by faculty; and, miscellaneous expenses. While CA, along with ICS and AEC, submitted a request for long-range computer replacement policy to be a part of the college’s five-year plan, currently there is no budget plan from admin. to meet our program needs. Our program needs a budget that allows us to plan for and count on replacement of lab machines every three years, annual site li-censes and OS upgrades, and money for new technology. Course or program changes, commitments to industry, keeping current or ahead of technology, could be planned with confidence if we had a predictable budget plan for program necessities: computers, monitors, and site license software.

Justification for CA’s Budget (Budd Brooks)

• Software licensing: Adobe suite is $14,000 every two years for 25 seats. It is an industry standard our students must be trained in to find jobs. There are no substitutes. The total for keeping current on Mac OS software is roughly $2,000 a year for 25 seats. Industry demands we train on the latest OS and machines.

• Replacement of lab machines: Since the college has no formal plan for replacement of lab machines – even though we have asked for 10 years, CA needs to have some predictability and stability in our lab. We have 25 machines, including two instructors’ and a station for part-time instructors. If we replace 8 machines a year, we need $21,000 a year to keep our lab current, or, go nuts and rush around and beg for money every three years to replace the whole lab. We have done this three times, and frankly, it is insane to continue to run a lab this way!

• Apple Remote Desktop, Server, and Server Software: CA needs its own server and ARD (Apple Re-mote Desktop software). This is on the advice of IT, as well as based on my research. With our own server and ARD I can maintain 25 machines’ OS, software, or other necessary deployment with ARD from the instructor’s station. Currently this process takes 20–30 hours a month for me to do, one machine at a time. For instructional and maintenance purposes, a server would offer us much better security, and allow faculty and students to store and retrieve their files on our server. Student files are in the 250–500 meg size.

• Maintenance Software: TechTool and DiskWarrior are necessary software tools, needed to fix problems on machines. They repair directories and other problems that can slow machines down, or cause machines to lock-up.

•Miscellaneous: We need laser toner for three printers, inkjet cartridges for three printers, and miscel-laneous supplies such as mount board, copy or laser paper for handouts, office supplies, emergency repairs, and so on.

14

2009–2010 Requested Budget for CA

OS X upgrades 1,500OS X server software 500Apple Remote Desktop 500Color Management software 550TechTool Pro, DiskWarrior, other lab maintenance software 500Laser toner for three printers 800Inkjet cartridges for three printers 800Inket cartridges and paper for Epson PictureMate print pack 400Tektronix 7750 Phaser ink and fuser 1,250Repair or replacement of hardware 1,200Portfolio event (postage, exhibition space, collateral, signage, etc.) 1,200

Program promotional materials, e.g., brochures, visitor giveaways for portolio event publicity, etc. 500Miscellaneous supplies (DVDs, CDs, office supplies,copy paper, etc.) 400 Total $10,100

12. Do all of your instructors (both faculty and lecturers)) include the course (not program) SLOs into their syllabus? Yes. How do you ensure that everyone is doing so? They are given copies of the course outlines of the courses they are teaching.

13. Where do the instructors get the course SLOs from? (Do they get them from the program coordi-nator? From the division secretary? From the HCC Website?) From fulltime faculty.

14. Are all safety issues addressed? Yes

15

Part III: Action Plan1. What tasks/goals have you accomplished from your previous action plan items on last year’s annual

review report (include any strategic planning items that were funded / not funded – if not funded, where was your item prioritized on the strategic plan)?

Action Plan for Fall 2008 / Spring 2009: Request additional data and review of corrected data to discern telling information shall be an on-going project in an effort to deal with program problems. Study on causes of low enrolled course and retention of students. Since no data came forward, noth-ing was accomplished.

Action Plan for Fall 2009 / Spring 2010: Request corrected data as well as additional data; upon receipt, review of corrected data . Study on causes of low enrolled course and numbers of program exiting students.

2. What tasks/goals have you set for the upcoming year (Fall 2009 / Spring 2010)? Requesting corrected data as well as additional data;

3. Who will be responsible for completing these tasks/goals? Not decided.

4. What is the timeline for achieving these tasks/goals? Not available.

16

Part IV: Resource Implications (physical, human, financial)1. Are there any budgetary impacts for carrying out your action plan?

2. Do any of your action plan items require integration into the strategic plan? (If so, have you notified your division chair / Dean of this action?)

The college needs to make clearer what must come out of our annual budget, and where monies will come for replacement equipment or new technology. To continue our excellence, we need a well planned budget that allows us to make commitments to industry and our students, as well as to keep them.

What is the lowest budget CA could operate with and still meet industry and student? It depends. If that budget was for required software site licenses, toner and printing supplies, repairs and maintenance, and other regular expenses, probably $12,000 would be our bare minimum to continue excellence. But CA needs some commitment and help with a budget that allows for regular, annual software updates and lab computer and monitor replacement every three years.

17

CA's 5-year plan. The equipment and software are critical to CA's continued success, as stated on page 17 of our 2007 Comprehensive Assessment Report.

In school years 2010–11 and in 2012–13, and 2014–15, CA will need:

$1,500 to upgrade OS software on lab and instructor computers

$12,000 to upgrade the Adobe Suite software used for instruction and on instructor computers

In school years 2010–11 and in 2013–14, CA will need: $5,550 to replace two powerbooks used for instruction, and demos to visiting students $75,000 to replace 25 Mac computers used for instruction and instructors $19,000 to replace monitors used for instruction and instructors

As in the past, computers, monitors, and powerbooks that are replaced would be in good condi-tion, and offered to any program that needs them.

While a machine's or monitor's life expectancy is roughly 5-years, CA has to keep current with, or lead, the industry it serves, as stated in CA's Assessment. That obligation necessitates that we have new Mac OS, Adobe software, computers, and graphic monitors.

Part V: Strategic Planning ItemsDoes your program have any funding requests on the current strategic plan (equipment, positions, etc.)? If yes, please write an explanation on how your program review report supports the need to fund the program’s strategic plan request.