2015-16 program reviewresearch.gwchb.net/wp-content/uploads/2015-16...notes and definitions the...

Prepared By GWC Office of Institutional Effectiveness

2015-16 Program Review

Floral Design

2015-16 Program Review

Floral Design

NOTES AND DEFINITIONS ......................................................................................................... 3

SUMMARY DASHBOARD .......................................................................................................... 4

STUDENT DEMOGRAPHICS ....................................................................................................... 6

UNDUPLICATED HEADCOUNT AND DISTRIBUTION BY ETHNICITY .................................................................. 6 UNDUPLICATED HEADCOUNT AND DISTRIBUTION BY GENDER ..................................................................... 7 UNDUPLICATED HEADCOUNT AND DISTRIBUTION BY AGE GROUP ................................................................ 8 UNDUPLICATED HEADCOUNT AND DISTRIBUTION BY ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED STATUS ........................ 9 UNDUPLICATED HEADCOUNT AND DISTRIBUTION BY DISABILITY STATUS .....................................................10 UNDUPLICATED HEADCOUNT AND DISTRIBUTION BY VETERAN STATUS .......................................................11 UNDUPLICATED HEADCOUNT AND DISTRIBUTION BY FOSTER YOUTH STATUS ...............................................12

ENROLLMENT AND FILL RATE ................................................................................................. 13

RETENTION AND SUCCESS ...................................................................................................... 15

OVERALL RETENTION AND SUCCESS BY TERM ........................................................................................15 OVERALL RETENTION AND SUCCESS BY ACADEMIC YEAR ..........................................................................17 RETENTION AND SUCCESS BY SESSION TYPE...........................................................................................18 RETENTION AND SUCCESS BY ETHNICITY ...............................................................................................20 RETENTION AND SUCCESS BY GENDER ..................................................................................................23 RETENTION AND SUCCESS OF SPECIAL POPULATION GROUPS ....................................................................25

FULL‐TIME AND PART‐TIME FACULTY DISTRIBUTION ............................................................. 26

CERTIFICATES AND DEGREES AWARDED ................................................................................ 28

Notes and Definitions

The following data tables and charts have been provided to each department at Golden West College in

order to assist them in completing a comprehensive review of each of their programs. Program Review is

the primary mechanism by which Golden West College identifies the objectives and resources needed to

fulfill our educational mission. It is also an opportunity for each department to document its plans for

improving student success and sharing that information with the college community. Each department is

asked to review all of its programs (instructional and non‐instructional) on the same three‐year cycle. It is

important for all departments to participate in the Program Review process, since programs that do not

complete a review are not eligible to receive additional funding for one‐time requests, classified

positions, faculty positions, or facilities requests.

Enrollment refers to the count of students enrolled in courses in the specified discipline each term

or academic year. If a student enrolls in multiple courses in a discipline, they will be counted more

than once.

o Note: In some cases, enrollment counts differ slightly across the tables included in this report.

These minor discrepancies occur, because different data sets are needed for different parts of

the report. These unique data sets often contain some small discrepancies. However, the

larger trends over the multi‐year period being reviewed are consistent across the data sets

used.

Unduplicated headcount refers to the unduplicated count of students enrolled in courses in a given

discipline in the specified semester or academic year. It differs from the enrollment count, since

students will only be counted once in the unduplicated headcount, even if they enroll in multiple

courses in a given discipline.

o Note: The unduplicated headcounts included in this report are unduplicated for each

academic year by discipline. Counts across disciplines or for the entire college are duplicated.

Retention refers to the percentage of students who enrolled in a course in a specified discipline who

did not withdraw and received a valid grade.

Success refers to the percentage of students who enrolled in a course in a specified discipline and

received a passing or satisfactory grade (defined as grades of A, B, C, P, IA, IB, IC, or IPP).

o Note: Retention and success rates are calculated using the duplicated enrollment count of

students, since many students enroll in more than one course in a discipline in a given

semester.

PROGRAM REVIEW – SUMMARY DASHBOARD 2015‐16

Floral Design

Prepared by: GWC Office of Institutional Effectiveness

Column1 Three‐Year Trend

Enrollment

Total Enrollment ↓

Enrollment/Section ↓

Average Fill Rate ↓

Overall Retention and Success

Retention ↑

Success ↓

Success Rates by Student Ethnicity

Am. Indian/Alaska Native ‐‐

Asian ↑

Black or African American ‐‐

Hispanic/Latino ↓

Nat. Hawaiian / Pac. Islander ‐‐

White ↓

Two or More Races ‐‐

Unknown ‐‐

Success Rates by Gender

Female ↓

Male ‐‐

Column1 Three‐Year Trend

Enrollment

Total Enrollment ↓

Enrollment/Section ↓

Average Fill Rate ↓

Overall Retention and Success

Retention ↑

Success ↑

Success Rates by Student Ethnicity

Am. Indian/Alaska Native ‐‐

Asian ↑

Black or African American ‐‐

Hispanic/Latino ↑

Nat. Hawaiian / Pac. Islander ‐‐

White ↑

Two or More Races ‐‐

Unknown ‐‐

Success Rates by Gender

Female ↑

Male ‐‐

Awards Three‐Year Trend

Certificates Awarded ↓

Degrees Awarded ‐‐

FALL

SPRING

Three‐Year Trend Summary

Total

Enrolled

% of Total

Enrolled

Success

Rate

Avg. Success

Rate

Success Rate Gap

(Compared to Avg.)

Successful

Completions Lost

Am. Indian/ Alaska

Native ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 83.6% ‐‐ ‐‐

Asian 69 29.7% 88.4% 83.6% 4.8% ‐‐

Black or African

American ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 83.6% ‐‐ ‐‐

Hispanic/Latino 64 27.6% 81.3% 83.6% ‐2.4% 2

Nat. Hawaiian /

Pac. Islander ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 83.6% ‐‐ ‐‐

Two or More

Races ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 83.6% ‐‐ ‐‐

Unknown ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 83.6% ‐‐ ‐‐

White 83 35.8% 80.7% 83.6% ‐2.9% 3

Total 232

Note: For those discipl ines that have l abs , enrol lment data do not include dependent lab sections . In

cases where the tota l enrol lment for a particular ethnic group i s 10 or l ess , data have been excluded

from the analys is in order to protect individuals ' privacy.

Gaps in Success Rates by Student Ethnicity, 2014‐2015 Academic Year

of 28

PROGRAM REVIEW – SUMMARY DASHBOARD 2015‐16

Floral Design


Certificates and Degrees Awarded

2 2

3 3 3

14

13

10

9

13

4

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

2009‐2010 2010‐2011 2011‐2012 2012‐2013 2013‐2014 2014‐2015

Certificates and Degrees Awarded by Academic Year

Associate Degrees Certificates

FALL

Enrollment Max. Seats Total SectionsEnrollment

/ Section

Avg. Fill

Rate

2009‐2010 176 168 7 25.1 104.8%

2010‐2011 167 168 7 23.9 99.4%

2011‐2012 159 144 6 26.5 110.4%

2012‐2013 150 144 6 25.0 104.2%

2013‐2014 130 144 6 21.7 90.3%

2014‐2015 105 168 7 15.0 62.5%

SPRING

Enrollment Max. Seats Total SectionsEnrollment

/ Section

Avg. Fill

Rate

2009‐2010 180 168 7 25.7 107.1%

2010‐2011 149 168 7 21.3 88.7%

2011‐2012 151 144 6 25.2 104.9%

2012‐2013 130 144 6 21.7 90.3%

2013‐2014 121 168 7 17.3 72.0%

2014‐2015 127 168 7 18.1 75.6%

Enrollment, Sections, and Fill Rate

N % of Total N % of Total N % of Total N % of Total N % of Total N % of Total

Am. Indian/Alaska

Native‐‐ 0.0% 1 0.6% 2 1.1% 1 0.6% ‐‐ 0.0% ‐‐ 0.0%

Asian 67 32.5% 56 31.5% 53 28.8% 52 31.1% 44 28.8% 42 32.6%

Black or African

American3 1.5% 3 1.7% 4 2.2% 4 2.4% 2 1.3% 2 1.6%

Hispanic/Latino 31 15.0% 30 16.9% 41 22.3% 45 26.9% 35 22.9% 31 24.0%

Nat. Hawaiian / Pac.

Islander1 0.5% 2 1.1% 1 0.5% ‐‐ 0.0% 2 1.3% ‐‐ 0.0%

Two or More Races ‐‐ 0.0% 3 1.7% 2 1.1% 2 1.2% 6 3.9% 4 3.1%

Unknown 7 3.4% 5 2.8% 5 2.7% 3 1.8% 4 2.6% 4 3.1%

White 97 47.1% 78 43.8% 76 41.3% 60 35.9% 60 39.2% 46 35.7%

Total 206 100.0% 178 100.0% 184 100.0% 167 100.0% 153 100.0% 129 100.0%

Note: Data are unduplicated for each academic year by discipline. Data across multiple disciplines or for the entire college are duplicated.

Unduplicated Headcount and Distribution by Student Ethnicity

2009‐2010 2010‐2011 2011‐2012 2012‐2013 2013‐2014 2014‐2015

of 28

PROGRAM REVIEW – UNDUPLICATED HEADCOUNT BY ETHNICITY 2015‐16

Floral Design


Distribution of Student Headcount by Ethnicity

Unduplicated Headcount and Distribution by Student Ethnicity


Am. Indian/Alaska

Native‐‐ 0.0% 1 0.6% 2 1.1% 1 0.6% ‐‐ 0.0% ‐‐ 0.0%

Asian 67 32.5% 56 31.5% 53 28.8% 52 31.1% 44 28.8% 42 32.6%

Black or African

American3 1.5% 3 1.7% 4 2.2% 4 2.4% 2 1.3% 2 1.6%

Hispanic/Latino 31 15.0% 30 16.9% 41 22.3% 45 26.9% 35 22.9% 31 24.0%

Nat. Hawaiian / Pac.

Islander1 0.5% 2 1.1% 1 0.5% ‐‐ 0.0% 2 1.3% ‐‐ 0.0%

Two or More Races ‐‐ 0.0% 3 1.7% 2 1.1% 2 1.2% 6 3.9% 4 3.1%

Unknown 7 3.4% 5 2.8% 5 2.7% 3 1.8% 4 2.6% 4 3.1%

White 97 47.1% 78 43.8% 76 41.3% 60 35.9% 60 39.2% 46 35.7%

Total 206 100.0% 178 100.0% 184 100.0% 167 100.0% 153 100.0% 129 100.0%

2009‐2010 2010‐2011 2011‐2012 2012‐2013 2013‐2014 2014‐2015

of 28

PROGRAM REVIEW – UNDUPLICATED HEADCOUNT BY GENDER 2015‐16

Floral Design


Distribution of Student Headcount by Gender

Unduplicated Headcount and Distribution by Student Gender

Note: Observations without a gender indicated were excluded from the analysis.


Female 199 97.5% 170 96.6% 173 95.1% 158 95.2% 145 95.4% 121 94.5%

Male 5 2.5% 6 3.4% 9 4.9% 8 4.8% 7 4.6% 7 5.5%

Total 204 100.0% 176 100.0% 182 100.0% 166 100.0% 152 100.0% 128 100.0%

2013‐2014 2014‐20152009‐2010 2010‐2011 2011‐2012 2012‐2013

of 28

PROGRAM REVIEW – UNDUPLICATED HEADCOUNT BY AGE GROUP 2015‐16

Floral Design


Distribution of Student Headcount by Age Group

Unduplicated Headcount and Distribution by Student Age Group

9.7%12.4%

9.2%

16.8% 16.3%

4.7%

19.4%

23.0%26.1%

23.4%21.6%

14.0%

15.0%

15.2%11.4%

10.8%12.4%

10.9%

10.2%

8.4%

6.0%

7.8% 7.8%

13.2%

5.8%

4.5%

4.9%

4.2% 5.9%

7.0%

17.0%16.3%

16.8%

17.4% 17.0%

18.6%

22.8% 20.2%25.5%

19.8% 19.0%

31.8%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

2009‐2010 2010‐2011 2011‐2012 2012‐2013 2013‐2014 2014‐2015

50 or older

40 to 49

35 to 39

30 to 34

25 to 29

20 to 24

19 or less


19 or less 20 9.7% 22 12.4% 17 9.2% 28 16.8% 25 16.3% 6 4.7%

20 to 24 40 19.4% 41 23.0% 48 26.1% 39 23.4% 33 21.6% 18 14.0%

25 to 29 31 15.0% 27 15.2% 21 11.4% 18 10.8% 19 12.4% 14 10.9%

30 to 34 21 10.2% 15 8.4% 11 6.0% 13 7.8% 12 7.8% 17 13.2%

35 to 39 12 5.8% 8 4.5% 9 4.9% 7 4.2% 9 5.9% 9 7.0%

40 to 49 35 17.0% 29 16.3% 31 16.8% 29 17.4% 26 17.0% 24 18.6%

50 or older 47 22.8% 36 20.2% 47 25.5% 33 19.8% 29 19.0% 41 31.8%

Total 206 100.0% 178 100.0% 184 100.0% 167 100.0% 153 100.0% 129 100.0%

2009‐2010 2010‐2011 2011‐2012 2012‐2013 2013‐2014 2014‐2015

of 28

PROGRAM REVIEW – UNDUPLICATED HEADCOUNT BY ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED STATUS

2015‐16

Floral Design


Distribution of Student Headcount by Economically Disadvantaged Status

Unduplicated Headcount and Distribution by Economically Disadvantaged Status


Not Economically

Disadvantaged 150 72.8% 126 70.8% 123 66.8% 100 59.9% 88 57.5% 88 68.2%

Economically

Disadvantaged 56 27.2% 52 29.2% 61 33.2% 67 40.1% 65 42.5% 41 31.8%

Total 206 100.0% 178 100.0% 184 100.0% 167 100.0% 153 100.0% 129 100.0%

2009‐2010 2010‐2011 2011‐2012 2012‐2013 2013‐2014 2014‐2015

of 28

PROGRAM REVIEW – UNDUPLICATED HEADCOUNT BY DISABILITY STATUS

2015‐16

Floral Design


Distribution of Student Headcount by Disability Status

Unduplicated Headcount and Distribution by Student Disability Status


No Disability 202 98.1% 168 97.1% 179 97.8% 157 94.0% 144 94.1% 123 95.3%

Disability 4 1.9% 5 2.9% 4 2.2% 10 6.0% 9 5.9% 6 4.7%

Total 206 100.0% 173 100.0% 183 100.0% 167 100.0% 153 100.0% 129 100.0%

2009‐2010 2010‐2011 2011‐2012 2012‐2013 2013‐2014 2014‐2015

of 28

PROGRAM REVIEW – UNDUPLICATED HEADCOUNT BY VETERAN STATUS

2015‐16

Floral Design


Distribution of Student Headcount by Veteran Status

Unduplicated Headcount and Distribution by Veteran Status

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

2009‐2010

2010‐2011

2011‐2012

2012‐2013

2013‐2014

2014‐2015

Veteran

Not Veteran


Not Veteran 206 100.0% 173 100.0% 183 100.0% 167 100.0% 153 100.0% 129 100.0%

Veteran ‐‐ 0.0% ‐‐ 0.0% ‐‐ 0.0% ‐‐ 0.0% ‐‐ 0.0% ‐‐ 0.0%

Total 206 100.0% 173 100.0% 183 100.0% 167 100.0% 153 100.0% 129 100.0%

2012‐2013 2013‐2014 2014‐20152009‐2010 2010‐2011 2011‐2012

of 28

PROGRAM REVIEW – UNDUPLICATED HEADCOUNT BY FOSTER YOUTH STATUS

2015‐16

Floral Design


Distribution of Student Headcount by Foster Youth Status

Unduplicated Headcount and Distribution by Foster Youth Status

100.0%

99.4%

99.5%

98.2%

98.7%

97.7%

0.6%

0.5%

1.8%

1.3%

2.3%

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

2009‐2010

2010‐2011

2011‐2012

2012‐2013

2013‐2014

2014‐2015

Foster Youth

Not Foster Youth


Not Foster Youth 206 100.0% 172 99.4% 182 99.5% 164 98.2% 151 98.7% 126 97.7%

Foster Youth ‐‐ 0.0% 1 0.6% 1 0.5% 3 1.8% 2 1.3% 3 2.3%

Total 206 100.0% 173 100.0% 183 100.0% 167 100.0% 153 100.0% 129 100.0%

2012‐2013 2013‐2014 2014‐20152009‐2010 2010‐2011 2011‐2012

of 28

PROGRAM REVIEW – ENROLLMENT AND FILL RATE 2015‐16

Floral Design


Average Fill Rates for Each Semester by Academic Year

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

120.0%

2009‐2010 2010‐2011 2011‐2012 2012‐2013 2013‐2014 2014‐2015

Average Fill Rate (Fall)

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

120.0%

2009‐2010 2010‐2011 2011‐2012 2012‐2013 2013‐2014 2014‐2015

Average Fill Rate (Spring)

of 28

PROGRAM REVIEW – ENROLLMENT AND FILL RATE 2015‐16

Floral Design


Key Enrollment Data for Each Semester by Academic Year

FTES/FTEF by Academic Year

FALL

Enrollment Max. Seats Total SectionsEnrollment/

Section

Avg. Fill

Rate

2009‐2010 176 168 7 25.1 104.8%

2010‐2011 167 168 7 23.9 99.4%

2011‐2012 159 144 6 26.5 110.4%

2012‐2013 150 144 6 25.0 104.2%

2013‐2014 130 144 6 21.7 90.3%

2014‐2015 105 168 7 15.0 62.5%

SPRING


Section

Avg. Fill

Rate

2009‐2010 180 168 7 25.7 107.1%

2010‐2011 149 168 7 21.3 88.7%

2011‐2012 151 144 6 25.2 104.9%

2012‐2013 130 144 6 21.7 90.3%

2013‐2014 121 168 7 17.3 72.0%

2014‐2015 127 168 7 18.1 75.6%

SUMMER


Section

Avg. Fill

Rate

2009‐2010 0.0 0.0%

2010‐2011 0.0 0.0%

2011‐2012 0.0 0.0%

2012‐2013 0.0 0.0%

2013‐2014 0.0 0.0%

2014‐2015 0.0 0.0%

2009‐2010 2010‐2011 2011‐2012 2012‐2013 2013‐2014 2014‐2015

GWC Total 38.8 40.8 42.6 41.8 37.6 35.8

Floral Design 30.8 29.0 30.8 31.5 25.8 20.6

of 28

PROGRAM REVIEW – OVERALL RETENTION AND SUCCESS 2015‐16

Floral Design


Notes

Retention is the percentage of students who enrolled in a course who did not withdraw and received a valid grade.

Success is the percentage of students who enrolled in a course and received a passing or satisfactory grade (defined as grades of A,B,C,P,IA,IB,IC, or IPP)

Data are unduplicated by semester for each department. Data for multiple semesters or departments are not unduplicated.

Key Data

The overall retention rate for Fall Floral Design courses increased between Fall 2012 and Fall 2014, while the success rate decreased. The retention rate rose from 87.3% to 92.4%, while the success rate decreased from 80.7% to 79.0%.

Overall retention and success rates for Spring Floral Design courses increased between Spring 2013 and Spring 2015. The retention rate increased from 91.5% to 95.3%, and the success rate rose from 76.9% to 87.4%.

Floral Design did not offer Summer courses between the 2009‐2010 and 2012‐2015 academic years.

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

2009‐2010 2010‐2011 2011‐2012 2012‐2013 2013‐2014 2014‐2015

Overall Retention & Success Rates (Fall)

Retention

Success

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

2009‐2010 2010‐2011 2011‐2012 2012‐2013 2013‐2014 2014‐2015

Overall Retention & Success Rates (Spring)

Retention

Success

of 28


Floral Design


FALL

Enrollment Retention Success

2009‐2010 168 91.7% 85.7%

2010‐2011 160 96.3% 84.4%

2011‐2012 156 95.5% 82.7%

2012‐2013 150 87.3% 80.7%

2013‐2014 129 92.2% 79.1%

2014‐2015 105 92.4% 79.0%

SPRING


2009‐2010 185 93.5% 86.5%

2010‐2011 146 97.3% 89.0%

2011‐2012 149 93.3% 81.2%

2012‐2013 130 91.5% 76.9%

2013‐2014 121 90.9% 76.0%

2014‐2015 127 95.3% 87.4%

SUMMER


2009‐2010

2010‐2011

2011‐2012

2012‐2013

2013‐2014

2014‐2015

of 28


Floral Design


Overall Retention and Success Rates by Academic Year

Enrollment, Retention Rates and Success Rates by Academic Year


2009‐2010 353 92.6% 86.1%

2010‐2011 306 96.7% 86.6%

2011‐2012 305 94.4% 82.0%

2012‐2013 280 89.3% 78.9%

2013‐2014 250 91.6% 77.6%

2014‐2015 232 94.0% 83.6%

of 28

PROGRAM REVIEW – SUCCESS BY SESSION TYPE 2015‐16

Floral Design


Notes



Other for Session Type includes Honors, Saturday, Self‐Paced, Teach3, Independent/Directed Study, and Parachute classes.

Enrollment, retention and success data are duplicated, since many students enroll in more than one course in a semester.

Key Data

Floral Design has only offered daytime and evening courses in the Fall semester in recent years. The success rate of evening courses has generally been higher than that of daytime courses. The success rate of evening sessions increased between Fall 2012 and Fall 2014, while that of daytime courses decreased.

Floral Design has likewise only offered daytime and evening courses in the Spring semester in recent years. The success rate of evening courses has been higher than that of daytime courses in two of the past three years. The success rates of both day and evening sessions increased between Spring 2013 and Spring 2015.


0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

2009‐2010 2010‐2011 2011‐2012 2012‐2013 2013‐2014 2014‐2015

Success Rates by Session Type (Fall)

Day

Evening

Hybrid

Online

Other

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

2009‐2010 2010‐2011 2011‐2012 2012‐2013 2013‐2014 2014‐2015

Success Rates by Session Type (Spring)

Day

Evening

Hybrid

Online

Other

of 28

PROGRAM REVIEW – SUCCESS BY SESSION TYPE 2015‐16

Floral Design


Note: "Other" for Session Type includes Honors, Saturday, Self‐Paced, Teach3, Independent/Directed Study, and Parachute classes.

FALL

Enrollment

Day Evening Hybrid Online Other Total

2009‐2010 67 101 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 168

2010‐2011 64 96 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 160

2011‐2012 54 102 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 156

2012‐2013 54 96 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 150

2013‐2014 24 105 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 129

2014‐2015 60 45 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 105

Retention

2009‐2010 89.6% 93.1% ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 91.7%

2010‐2011 96.9% 95.8% ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 96.3%

2011‐2012 98.1% 94.1% ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 95.5%

2012‐2013 87.0% 87.5% ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 87.3%

2013‐2014 91.7% 92.4% ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 92.2%

2014‐2015 93.3% 91.1% ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 92.4%

Success

2009‐2010 80.6% 89.1% ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 85.7%

2010‐2011 79.7% 87.5% ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 84.4%

2011‐2012 79.6% 84.3% ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 82.7%

2012‐2013 79.6% 81.3% ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 80.7%

2013‐2014 70.8% 81.0% ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 79.1%

2014‐2015 76.7% 82.2% ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 79.0%

SPRING

Enrollment

Day Evening Hybrid Online Other Total

2009‐2010 101 84 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 185

2010‐2011 84 62 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 146

2011‐2012 56 93 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 149

2012‐2013 34 96 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 130

2013‐2014 59 62 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 121

2014‐2015 42 85 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 127

Retention

2009‐2010 92.1% 95.2% ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 93.5%

2010‐2011 96.4% 98.4% ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 97.3%

2011‐2012 92.9% 93.5% ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 93.3%

2012‐2013 91.2% 91.7% ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 91.5%

2013‐2014 83.1% 98.4% ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 90.9%

2014‐2015 95.2% 95.3% ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 95.3%

Success

2009‐2010 83.2% 90.5% ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 86.5%

2010‐2011 91.7% 85.5% ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 89.0%

2011‐2012 80.4% 81.7% ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 81.2%

2012‐2013 67.6% 80.2% ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 76.9%

2013‐2014 64.4% 87.1% ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 76.0%

2014‐2015 88.1% 87.1% ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 87.4%

of 28

PROGRAM REVIEW – SUCCESS AND RETENTION BY ETHNICITY 2015‐16

Floral Design


Notes



Enrollment, retention and success data are duplicated, since many students enroll in more than one course in a semester.

In cases where the total enrollment in a semester is 10 or less, data have been excluded from the analysis in order to protect individuals' privacy.

Key Data

Success rates for Fall Floral Design courses varied widely by student ethnic groups. Asian students have generally had the highest success rates over the last six years. The success rate for Asian students increased between Fall 2012 and Fall 2014, while it decreased for White and Hispanic students.

Success rates for Spring Floral Design courses have likewise varied widely by student ethnic groups, though the success rates for Asian, Hispanic and White students were very similar in Fall 2014. Asian students have generally had the highest success rates over the last six years. The success rates for all student ethnic group increased between Spring 2013 and Spring 2015.


0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

2009‐2010 2010‐2011 2011‐2012 2012‐2013 2013‐2014 2014‐2015

Success Rates by Student Ethnicity (Fall)

Am. Indian/Alaska Native

Asian

Black or African American

Hispanic

Nat. Hawaiian / Pac. Islander

Two or More

White

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

2009‐2010 2010‐2011 2011‐2012 2012‐2013 2013‐2014 2014‐2015

Success Rates by Student Ethnicity (Spring)


Asian


Hispanic


Two or More

White

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

2009‐2010 2010‐2011 2011‐2012 2012‐2013 2013‐2014 2014‐2015

Success Rates by Student Ethnicity (Summer)


Asian


Hispanic


Two or More

White

of 28


Floral Design


FALL

Enrollment

Am. Indian/Alaska

Native Asian

Black or African

American Hispanic

Nat. Hawaiian /

Pac. Islander

Two or

More White Total

2009‐2010 ‐‐ 63 ‐‐ 24 ‐‐ ‐‐ 74 168

2010‐2011 ‐‐ 50 ‐‐ 26 ‐‐ ‐‐ 71 160

2011‐2012 ‐‐ 53 ‐‐ 32 ‐‐ ‐‐ 62 156

2012‐2013 ‐‐ 51 ‐‐ 37 ‐‐ ‐‐ 55 150

2013‐2014 ‐‐ 45 ‐‐ 25 ‐‐ ‐‐ 52 129

2014‐2015 ‐‐ 27 ‐‐ 30 ‐‐ ‐‐ 43 105

Retention

2009‐2010 ‐‐ 88.9% ‐‐ 95.8% ‐‐ ‐‐ 91.9% 91.7%

2010‐2011 ‐‐ 100.0% ‐‐ 96.2% ‐‐ ‐‐ 98.6% 96.3%

2011‐2012 ‐‐ 96.2% ‐‐ 96.9% ‐‐ ‐‐ 96.8% 95.5%

2012‐2013 ‐‐ 90.2% ‐‐ 91.9% ‐‐ ‐‐ 83.6% 87.3%

2013‐2014 ‐‐ 93.3% ‐‐ 88.0% ‐‐ ‐‐ 96.2% 92.2%

2014‐2015 ‐‐ 100.0% ‐‐ 93.3% ‐‐ ‐‐ 88.4% 92.4%

Success

2009‐2010 ‐‐ 85.7% ‐‐ 95.8% ‐‐ ‐‐ 83.8% 85.7%

2010‐2011 ‐‐ 94.0% ‐‐ 76.9% ‐‐ ‐‐ 83.1% 84.4%

2011‐2012 ‐‐ 86.8% ‐‐ 81.3% ‐‐ ‐‐ 80.6% 82.7%

2012‐2013 ‐‐ 86.3% ‐‐ 78.4% ‐‐ ‐‐ 78.2% 80.7%

2013‐2014 ‐‐ 84.4% ‐‐ 68.0% ‐‐ ‐‐ 82.7% 79.1%

2014‐2015 ‐‐ 88.9% ‐‐ 76.7% ‐‐ ‐‐ 74.4% 79.0%

SPRING

Enrollment

Am. Indian/Alaska

Native Asian

Black or African

American Hispanic

Nat. Hawaiian /

Pac. Islander

Two or

More White Total

2009‐2010 ‐‐ 66 ‐‐ 19 ‐‐ ‐‐ 91 185

2010‐2011 ‐‐ 46 ‐‐ 25 ‐‐ ‐‐ 65 146

2011‐2012 ‐‐ 48 ‐‐ 38 ‐‐ ‐‐ 51 149

2012‐2013 ‐‐ 42 ‐‐ 36 ‐‐ ‐‐ 47 130

2013‐2014 ‐‐ 31 ‐‐ 28 ‐‐ ‐‐ 52 121

2014‐2015 ‐‐ 42 ‐‐ 34 ‐‐ ‐‐ 40 127

Retention

2009‐2010 ‐‐ 92.4% ‐‐ 89.5% ‐‐ ‐‐ 95.6% 93.5%

2010‐2011 ‐‐ 100.0% ‐‐ 100.0% ‐‐ ‐‐ 95.4% 97.3%

2011‐2012 ‐‐ 95.8% ‐‐ 92.1% ‐‐ ‐‐ 94.1% 93.3%

2012‐2013 ‐‐ 95.2% ‐‐ 88.9% ‐‐ ‐‐ 89.4% 91.5%

2013‐2014 ‐‐ 90.3% ‐‐ 92.9% ‐‐ ‐‐ 90.4% 90.9%

2014‐2015 ‐‐ 92.9% ‐‐ 97.1% ‐‐ ‐‐ 95.0% 95.3%

Success

2009‐2010 ‐‐ 86.4% ‐‐ 84.2% ‐‐ ‐‐ 86.8% 86.5%

2010‐2011 ‐‐ 95.7% ‐‐ 96.0% ‐‐ ‐‐ 81.5% 89.0%

2011‐2012 ‐‐ 87.5% ‐‐ 76.3% ‐‐ ‐‐ 84.3% 81.2%

2012‐2013 ‐‐ 83.3% ‐‐ 77.8% ‐‐ ‐‐ 72.3% 76.9%

2013‐2014 ‐‐ 83.9% ‐‐ 64.3% ‐‐ ‐‐ 76.9% 76.0%

2014‐2015 ‐‐ 88.1% ‐‐ 85.3% ‐‐ ‐‐ 87.5% 87.4%

of 28


Floral Design


Note: In cases where the enrollment for a student racial or ethnic group is 10 or fewer students, data have been suppressed to

protect individuals’ privacy. Data for these students are still included in the total column, along with data for students whose race or

ethnicity is unknown. The subtotals for each student racial or ethnic group therefore may not add up to the total column.

SUMMER

Enrollment

Am. Indian/Alaska

Native Asian

Black or African

American Hispanic

Nat. Hawaiian /

Pac. Islander

Two or

More White Total

2009‐2010

2010‐2011

2011‐2012

2012‐2013

2013‐2014

2014‐2015

Retention

2009‐2010

2010‐2011

2011‐2012

2012‐2013

2013‐2014

2014‐2015

Success

2009‐2010

2010‐2011

2011‐2012

2012‐2013

2013‐2014

2014‐2015

of 28

Prep

ared by: GWC

PROGR

C Office of Ins

RAM REVIE

stitutional Eff

EW – SUCC2

Flor

fectiveness

CESS AND R2015‐16

ral Desig

RETENTIO

gn

N BY GEND

Retentstudenwho dia valid

Successtudenand recsatisfacgrades

Enrollmdata arstudencourse

In casein a semhave beanalysiindividu

Only fethan 10Design successdecreabetwee

Only fethan 10Design successincreasbetwee2015.

Floral Dcoursesand 20

DER

Notes

ion is the percets who enrolled d not withdraw grade.

s is the percentats who enrolled ceived a passingctory grade (defof A,B,C,P,IA,IB,

ment, retention are duplicated, sints enroll in morein a semester.

s where the totamester is 10 or leeen excluded fros in order to prouals' privacy.

Key Data

emale students h0 enrollments incourses in reces rate of female sed from 83.6% en Fall 2012 and

emale students h0 enrollments incourses in reces rate of female sed from 76.6% ten Spring 2013 a

Design did not os between the 214‐2015 academ

ntage of in a course and received

age of in a course

g or ined as ,IC, or IPP)

and success nce many e than one

al enrollment ess, data om the otect

had more n Fall Floral nt years. The students to 78.5% d Fall 2014.

had more n Spring Floral nt years. The students to 89.0% and Spring

ffer Summer 2009‐2010 mic years.

of 28

Prep

Note:

so ma

ared by: GWC

: Students who

ale and female

PROGR

C Office of Ins

ose gender is n

e enrollment do

RAM REVIE

stitutional Eff

ot known are i

oes not equal t

FAL

Enro

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

Rete

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

Succ

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

SPR

Enro

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

Rete

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

Succ

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

EW – SUCC2

Flor

fectiveness

included in the

the total in som

LL

ollment

Fem

9‐2010 16

0‐2011 15

1‐2012 14

2‐2013 14

3‐2014 11

4‐2015 9

ention

9‐2010 91

0‐2011 96

1‐2012 95

2‐2013 88

3‐2014 92

4‐2015 92

cess

9‐2010 85

0‐2011 84

1‐2012 82

2‐2013 83

3‐2014 79

4‐2015 78

RING

ollment

Fem

9‐2010 17

0‐2011 13

1‐2012 14

2‐2013 12

3‐2014 11

4‐2015 11

ention

9‐2010 93

0‐2011 97

1‐2012 93

2‐2013 91

3‐2014 91

4‐2015 94

cess

9‐2010 87

0‐2011 88

1‐2012 81

2‐2013 76

3‐2014 78

4‐2015 89

CESS AND R2015‐16

ral Desig

e total enrollme

me cases.

male Male

60 ‐‐

54 ‐‐

45 ‐‐

40 ‐‐

19 ‐‐

93 ‐‐

.3% ‐‐

.8% ‐‐

.9% ‐‐

.6% ‐‐

.4% ‐‐

.5% ‐‐

.0% ‐‐

.4% ‐‐

.8% ‐‐

.6% ‐‐

.0% ‐‐

.5% ‐‐

male Male

78 ‐‐

38 ‐‐

42 ‐‐

28 ‐‐

14 ‐‐

18 ‐‐

.3% ‐‐

.1% ‐‐

.0% ‐‐

.4% ‐‐

.2% ‐‐

.9% ‐‐

.1% ‐‐

.4% ‐‐

.7% ‐‐

.6% ‐‐

.1% ‐‐

.0% ‐‐

RETENTIO

gn

ent count but n

Total

168

160

156

150

129

105

91.7%

96.3%

95.5%

87.3%

92.2%

92.4%

85.7%

84.4%

82.7%

80.7%

79.1%

79.0%

Total

185

146

149

130

121

127

93.5%

97.3%

93.3%

91.5%

90.9%

95.3%

86.5%

89.0%

81.2%

76.9%

76.0%

87.4%

N BY GEND

not in the subto

DER

otals for males

s and females,

of 28

PROGRAM REVIEW – OVERALL RETENTION AND SUCCESS BY SPECIAL POPULATION GROUPS

2015‐16

Floral Design


Overall Retention Rates for Special Populations by Academic Year

Overall Success Rates for Special Populations by Academic Year

Note: In cases where the total enrollment in a semester is 10 or less, retention and success data have been excluded from

the analysis in order to protect individuals' privacy.

N Retention Rate N Retention Rate N Retention Rate N Retention Rate N Retention Rate N Retention Rate

Economically Disadvantaged Status

Not Economically Disadvantaged 246 95.1% 226 96.5% 199 94.5% 163 95.1% 141 91.5% 168 93.5%

Economically Disadvantaged 107 86.9% 80 97.5% 106 94.3% 117 81.2% 109 91.7% 64 95.3%

Veterans

Not Veteran 353 92.6% 306 96.7% 305 94.4% 280 89.3% 250 91.6% 232 94.0%

Veteran ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

Disability Status

No Disability 344 92.4% 300 97.0% 297 94.9% 266 89.8% 234 92.7% 223 93.7%

Disability 9 ‐‐ 6 ‐‐ 8 ‐‐ 14 78.6% 16 75.0% 9 ‐‐

Foster Youth

Not Foster Youth 353 92.6% 303 96.7% 304 94.4% 275 89.1% 248 91.5% 228 93.9%

Foster Youth ‐‐ ‐‐ 3 ‐‐ 1 ‐‐ 5 ‐‐ 2 ‐‐ 4 ‐‐

Total 353 92.6% 306 96.7% 305 94.4% 280 89.3% 250 91.6% 232 94.0%

2009‐2010 2010‐2011 2011‐2012 2012‐2013 2013‐2014 2014‐2015

N Success Rate N Success Rate N Success Rate N Success Rate N Success Rate N Success Rate

Economically Disadvantaged Status

Not Economically Disadvantaged 246 88.6% 226 85.4% 199 78.9% 163 82.8% 141 79.4% 168 86.3%

Economically Disadvantaged 107 80.4% 80 90.0% 106 87.7% 117 73.5% 109 75.2% 64 76.6%

Veterans

Not Veteran 353 86.1% 306 86.6% 305 82.0% 280 78.9% 250 77.6% 232 83.6%

Veteran ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

Disability Status

No Disability 344 85.8% 300 87.0% 297 82.8% 266 80.8% 234 79.5% 223 84.3%

Disability 9 ‐‐ 6 ‐‐ 8 ‐‐ 14 42.9% 16 50.0% 9 ‐‐

Foster Youth

Not Foster Youth 353 86.1% 303 86.8% 304 81.9% 275 79.6% 248 77.4% 228 83.8%

Foster Youth ‐‐ ‐‐ 3 ‐‐ 1 ‐‐ 5 ‐‐ 2 ‐‐ 4 ‐‐

Total 353 86.1% 306 86.6% 305 82.0% 280 78.9% 250 77.6% 232 83.6%

2009‐2010 2010‐2011 2011‐2012 2012‐2013 2013‐2014 2014‐2015

of 28

PROGRAM REVIEW – COURSES TAUGHT BY FACULTY TYPE 2015‐16

Floral Design


Distribution of Courses Taught by Full‐Time and Part‐Time Faculty

71% 71%83% 83% 83%

57%

29% 29%17% 17% 17%

43%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2009‐10 2010‐11 2011‐12 2012‐13 2013‐14 2014‐15

Distribution of Courses by FT and PT Faculty (Fall)

Part‐time

Full‐time

71% 71%83% 83%

71% 71%

29% 29%17% 17%

29% 29%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2009‐10 2010‐11 2011‐12 2012‐13 2013‐14 2014‐15

Distribution of Courses by FT and PT Faculty (Spring)

Part‐time

Full‐time

of 28

PROGRAM REVIEW – COURSES TAUGHT BY FACULTY TYPE 2015‐16

Floral Design


Courses Taught by Full‐Time and Part‐Time Faculty

FALL

Full‐Time (%) Part‐Time (%) FT Courses PT Courses

2009‐10 71% 29% 5 2

2010‐11 71% 29% 5 2

2011‐12 83% 17% 5 1

2012‐13 83% 17% 5 1

2013‐14 83% 17% 5 1

2014‐15 57% 43% 4 3

Total 74% 26% 29 10

SPRING

Full‐Time (%) Part‐Time (%) FT Courses PT Courses

2009‐10 71% 29% 5 2

2010‐11 71% 29% 5 2

2011‐12 83% 17% 5 1

2012‐13 83% 17% 5 1

2013‐14 71% 29% 5 2

2014‐15 71% 29% 5 2

Total 75% 25% 30 10

of 28

PROGRAM REVIEW – CERTIFICATES AND DEGREES AWARDED 2015‐16

Floral Design



0

2 2

3 3 3

14

13

10

9

13

4

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

2009‐2010 2010‐2011 2011‐2012 2012‐2013 2013‐2014 2014‐2015



Certificates & Degrees Awarded


2009‐2010 0 14

2010‐2011 2 13

2011‐2012 2 10

2012‐2013 3 9

2013‐2014 3 13

2014‐2015 3 4

Total 13 63

of 28

2015-16 program reviewresearch.gwchb.net/wp-content/uploads/2015-16...notes and definitions the...

Documents