Annual Program Assessment (APA)
Academic Year 2015-16
Program Description
The A.A.-T in Geography transfers to a four-year college and prepares students for a future in a field related to Geography. The Geographic Information Science (GIS) non-transfer Certificate and AS degree prepares students for GIS related careers which are enhanced by completion of a bachelor or graduate program. For students currently working within these fields there may be potential for salary and/or career advancement.
From local to global scales, geographers study political organization, transportation systems, marketing, economics, climate and weather, urban planning, land use development, globalization, and more. They examine distribution of land forms, study soils and vegetation, analyze limited resources such as water, and human impacts on the surface of the planet. In general, Geographers work in government research, public agencies, and are environmental consultants for nonprofit organizations.
Geographic Information Science (GIS) involves basic to advanced analysis and scientific research methods for identifying patterns, trends and relationships that are represented spatially and temporally on maps, large databases, reports and animations. Recent advancements make it possible to analyze, interact and produce maps using cloud technology. Students enrolled in our GIS courses online have the advantage of learning advanced communication and mapmaking skills that prepare them for a career in GIS, anywhere.
I. Program, Course and Assessment
A. Awards and Completion Using the 2015 Program Review Data for your discipline, please provide the number of Associate degrees and certificates awarded. Also report the average time to completion for these degrees and certificates. Please respond to each prompt below.
A1. Awards
Under “Program Award Count”, provide the total number of Associate degrees and the total number of certificates awarded by your program per year. (Please see instructions for suggested response formats for this and all subsequent prompts).
Click here to enter text.
· For each degree type (AA/AS for Option B, Option C and Transfer) and certificate (CT), is the number of awards increasing, decreasing or constant?
Click here to enter text.
· If the number of any award is decreasing, please identify this award and suggest ways to reverse this trend.
Click here to enter text.
· Is there any additional information or commentary?
Click here to enter text.
A2. Average Years to Completion
Under “Program Average Years to Completion,” report the typical years to completion for each degree and certificate in your program.
Click here to enter text.
· For each degree type (AA/AS for Option B, Option C and Transfer) and certificate (CT), are the numbers increasing, decreasing or constant with time?
Click here to enter text.
· How do the rates for each degree and certificate compare to the District Average Time to Completion?
Click here to enter text.
· If any of these rates are much larger than the District Average Time to Completion, please list these awards, their completion times and provide suggestions to decrease their completion times.
Click here to enter text.
· Is there any additional information or commentary?
Click here to enter text.
B. Program and Courses Please review the data for your program and courses and respond to each prompt below. NOTE: Please utilize the Fall 2015 Convocation input for Fill, Retention and Success Rate responses.
B1. Fill Rate
B1a. Program Fill Rate
Provide the typical Program Total Fill Rate and the typical Institutional Average Fill Rate (see instructions to locate these rates in the data).
Click here to enter text.
· From fall 2010 through spring 2015, how does the Program Total Fill Rate compare to the Institutional Average Fill Rate?
Click here to enter text.
· Over this same time frame, how do the site-specific program fill rates for San Jacinto (SJC), Menifee Valley (MVC), San Gorgonio Pass (BAN), Temecula (TEM) and online (ONLIN) compare to the program’s total fill rate?
· BAN:
Click here to enter text.
· MVC:
Click here to enter text.
· ONLIN:
Click here to enter text.
· SJC:
Click here to enter text.
· TEM:
Click here to enter text.
· Over this same time frame, how do the site-specific rates compare to one another?
Click here to enter text.
· Note any significant differences found in the comparisons above. Please provide brief commentary and suggest explanations for these differences. For each site or modality (face-to-face or online) mentioned, please include its rate.
Click here to enter text.
· To increase program fill rates while maintaining student access and equity, does the data analysis above suggest changes to
o course offerings and/or scheduling (e.g. adjusting the number of sections offered, mix of modalities, frequency, location)
o other?
Click here to enter text.
· What will be required to implement these changes?
Click here to enter text.
· Are there any impediments to the implementation of these changes? For example, if program fill rates are low, can the number of courses offered be reduced without increasing student time-to-completion or impacting full-time instructor workloads?
Click here to enter text.
B1b. Course Fill Rates
· How do the typical course fill rates for courses in your discipline compare to the program total fill rate? Please see instructions for suggested response formats.
· BAN:
Click here to enter text.
· MVC:
Click here to enter text.
· ONLIN:
Click here to enter text.
· SJC:
Click here to enter text.
· TEM:
Click here to enter text.
· Note any significant differences found in the comparisons above. Please provide brief commentary and suggest explanations for these differences. For each site or modality (face-to-face or online) mentioned, please include its rate.
Click here to enter text.
· To increase course fill rates while maintaining student success, access and equity, does the data analysis above suggest changes to
o course offerings or scheduling (e.g. adjusting length of course (17.5 vs. 8 weeks), days/times, modality)
o curriculum (e.g. increasing or decreasing content, prerequisites)
o pedagogy (e.g. lecture vs. group work, use of technology)
o other?
Click here to enter text.
· What will be required to implement these changes?
Click here to enter text.
· Are there any impediments to the implementation of these changes? For example, if course fill rates are low, can the number of sections offered be reduced without increasing student time-to-completion or impacting full-time instructor workloads?
Click here to enter text.
B2. Waitlists
B2a. Program Waitlist
How has the Program Total Waitlist Count trended?
Click here to enter text.
Describe the program waitlist trends for San Jacinto (SJC), Menifee Valley (MVC), San Gorgonio Pass (BAN), Temecula (TEM) and online (ONLIN).
· BAN:
Click here to enter text.
· MVC:
Click here to enter text.
· ONLIN:
Click here to enter text.
· SJC:
Click here to enter text.
· TEM:
Click here to enter text.
B2b. Course Waitlists
· For each site (SJC, MVC, BAN, TEM, ONLIN), list a course (or two) in your discipline with a large waitlist. Please include the actual typical waitlist size for each course.
· BAN:
Click here to enter text.
· MVC:
Click here to enter text.
· ONLIN:
Click here to enter text.
· SJC:
Click here to enter text.
· TEM:
Click here to enter text.
· For the courses listed above, what scheduling improvements have been, or will be, devised to satisfy student demand and maximize schedule efficiency (i.e. decrease our waitlist sizes but still fill our classrooms!)?
Click here to enter text.
· What will be required to implement these changes?
Click here to enter text.
· Are there any impediments to the implementation of these changes? For example, does a lack of room or instructor availability limit the number or modality of additional sections that can be offered?
Click here to enter text.
· To decrease waitlists sizes (and increase student access) while maintaining equity, does the waitlist information suggest changes to
o course offerings or scheduling (e.g. adjusting frequency, day vs. evening, location, modality),
o curriculum (e.g. prerequisites, class cap size),
o initial placement (e.g. using high school GPA for initial placement of English and math students)
o other?
Click here to enter text.
· What will be required to implement these changes?
Click here to enter text.
· Are there any impediments to the implementation of these changes? For example, is room size an issue? Is a section typically offered in a room that has fewer seats than the curriculum cap?
Click here to enter text.
B3. Retention Rates
B3a. Program Retention Rates
List the typical Program Retention Rate and the Institutional Standard and typical District Average Retention Rates. NOTE: Please utilize the Fall 2015 Convocation input for Retention Rate responses.
Click here to enter text.
· From fall 2010 through spring 2015, how does the Program Retention Rate compare to the District Average Retention Rate?
Click here to enter text.
· Over this same time frame, how do the site-specific program retention rates for San Jacinto (SJC), Menifee Valley (MVC), San Gorgonio Pass (BAN), Temecula (TEM) and online (ONLIN) compare to the Program Retention Rate?
· BAN:
Click here to enter text.
· MVC:
Click here to enter text.
· ONLIN:
Click here to enter text.
· SJC:
Click here to enter text.
· TEM:
Click here to enter text.
· For this same time frame, how do the site-specific rates compare to one another?
Click here to enter text.
· Note any significant differences found in the comparisons above. Please provide brief commentary and suggest explanations for these differences. For each site or modality (face-to-face or online) mentioned, please include its rate.
Click here to enter text.
· To improve program retention while maintaining equity, does the data analysis above suggest changes to
o course offerings and scheduling(e.g. adjusting mix of modalities, course length, frequency, location)
o other?
Click here to enter text.
· What will be required to implement these changes?
Click here to enter text.
· Are there any impediments to the implementation of these changes? For example, if courses required for a degree or certificate are not offered regularly, so students are leaving MSJC before completing their degrees and certificates, are there sufficient numbers of instructors and rooms to schedule these courses more often?
Click here to enter text.
B3b. Course Retention Rates
· How do the course retention rates for your discipline compare to the program’s retention rate? Please see instructions (make “instructions” a link) for suggested response formats
· BAN:
Click here to enter text.
· MVC:
Click here to enter text.
· ONLIN:
Click here to enter text.
· SJC:
Click here to enter text.
· TEM:
Click here to enter text.
· Note any significant differences found in the comparisons above. Please provide brief commentary and suggest explanations for these differences. For each site or modality (face-to-face or online) mentioned, please include its rate.
Click here to enter text.
· To improve course retention rates while ensuring equity, does the data analysis above suggest changes to
o course offerings or scheduling (e.g. adjusting length, days/times, modality)
o curriculum (e.g. increasing or decreasing content, prerequisites)
o pedagogy (e.g. lecture vs. group work, use of technology)
o other?
Click here to enter text.
· What will be required to implement these changes?
Click here to enter text.
· Are there any impediments to the implementation of these changes? For example, if reducing the length of a course section from 17.5 weeks to 8 weeks would increase student motivation (and, hopefully, improve student engagement and retention), is a room and instructor available for this accelerated section?
Click here to enter text.
B4. Success Rates
B4a. Program Success Rates
List the typical Program Success Rate and the Institutional Standard and typical District Average Success Rates. NOTE: Please utilize the Fall 2015 Convocation input for Success Rate responses.
Click here to enter text.
· From fall 2010 through spring 2015, how does the Program Success Rate compare to the District Average Success Rate?
Click here to enter text.
· Over this same time frame, how do the site-specific success rates for San Jacinto (SJC), Menifee Valley (MVC), San Gorgonio Pass (BAN), Temecula (TEM) and online (ONLIN) compare to the Program Success Rate?
· BAN:
Click here to enter text.
· MVC:
Click here to enter text.
· ONLIN:
Click here to enter text.
· SJC:
Click here to enter text.
· TEM:
Click here to enter text.
· For the same time frame, how do the site-specific rates compare to one another?
Click here to enter text.
· Note any significant differences found in the comparisons above. Please provide brief commentary and suggest explanations for these differences. For each site or modality (face-to-face or online) mentioned, please include its rate.
Click here to enter text.
· To improve program success while ensuring equity, does the data analysis above suggest changes to
o course offerings and/or scheduling (e.g. length of course, location, learning communities)
o other?
Click here to enter text.
· What will be required to implement these changes?
Click here to enter text.
· Are there any impediments to the implementation of these changes? For example, if a learning community would increase student success, is creating the common assignments or projects a significant challenge?
Click here to enter text.
B4b. Course Success Rates
· How do the course success rates for your discipline compare to the Program Success Rate? Please see instructions for suggested response formats.
· BAN:
Click here to enter text.
· MVC:
Click here to enter text.
· ONLIN:
Click here to enter text.
· SJC:
Click here to enter text.
· TEM:
Click here to enter text.
· Note any significant differences found in the comparisons above. Please provide brief commentary and suggest explanations for these differences. For each site or modality (face-to-face or online) mentioned, please include its rate.