Annual Program Assessment (APA)

Academic Year 2015-16

Program Description

The Dance Program at MSJC provides a two-year concentration for students pursuing academic studies in dance, culminating in a non-transfer Associates of Art degree in Dance and/or a Certificate in Musical Theater. Multi-faceted curricula in the theory and practice of the discipline facilitate matriculation to a four-year institution. Challenging coursework, touring and production opportunities are presented in order to prepare the serious student. A hallmark of the program is the ability for students to commit to professional technical training, choreographic inquiry, performance and historical studies of dance within a nurturing, liberal arts college environment. Course offerings include dance history, ballet, modern, jazz and tap dance techniques, augmented by social dance forms including ballroom, hip hop, and world dance, as well as conditioning and alignment for dance. Additionally, the program provides extended training of the emerging choreographic and performing artist through advanced coursework in dance composition and technique, annual Dance on Camera screenings and numerous concerts and informal showings throughout the year.
A balanced program of critical thinking, choreographic inquiry and performance contextualizes the student’s understanding of the impact of dance within the contemporary world. For individuals currently working within these fields, there may be potential for salary and/or career advancement.

I. Program, Course and Assessment

A. Awards and CompletionUsingthe2015 Program Review Datafor your discipline, please provide the number of Associate degreesand 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 certificatesawarded by your program per year. (Please see instructions for suggested response formatsfor thisand all subsequentprompts).

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?

A2. Average Years to Completion

Under “Program Average Years to Completion,”reportthe 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 theseawards, theircompletion times and providesuggestions 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 CoursesPlease review the data for your program and courses and respond to each prompt below. NOTE: Please utilizethe Fall 2015 Convocation input for Fill, Retention and Success Rate responses.

B1. Fill Rate

B1a. Program Fill Rate

Providethetypical ProgramTotal 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 theProgramTotal Fill Rate compare to the Institutional Average Fill Rate?

Click here to enter text.

  • Over this same time frame, how do the site-specific programfill 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 oneanother?

Click here to enter text.

  • Note any significant differencesfound 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 programfill rates while maintaining student access and equity, does the data analysisabove suggest changes to
  • course offerings and/or scheduling (e.g. adjusting the number of sections offered, mix of modalities,frequency, location)
  • 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 programfill rates are low, can the number of coursesoffered 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 thetypical course fill rates for courses in your disciplinecompare to the programtotal 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 differencesfound 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 coursefill rates while maintaining student success, access and equity, does the data analysis above suggest changes to
  • course offerings or scheduling (e.g. adjusting length of course (17.5 vs. 8 weeks), days/times, modality)
  • curriculum (e.g. increasing or decreasing content, prerequisites)
  • pedagogy (e.g. lecture vs. groupwork, use of technology)
  • 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 coursefill 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 programwaitlist 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 disciplinewith 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 thecourses 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 informationsuggest changes to
  • course offerings or scheduling (e.g. adjusting frequency, day vs. evening, location, modality),
  • curriculum (e.g. prerequisites, class cap size),
  • initial placement (e.g. using high school GPA for initial placement of English and math students)
  • 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 thetypical ProgramRetention Rate and the Institutional Standard and typical District Average Retention Rates. NOTE: Please utilizethe Fall 2015 Convocation input for Retention Rate responses.

Click here to enter text.

  • From fall 2010 through spring 2015, how does theProgramRetentionRate compare to the District Average Retention Rate?

Click here to enter text.

  • Over this same time frame, how do the site-specific programretention rates for San Jacinto (SJC), Menifee Valley (MVC), San Gorgonio Pass (BAN), Temecula (TEM) and online (ONLIN) compare to the ProgramRetention 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 differencesfound 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 programretention while maintaining equity, does the data analysis above suggest changes to
  • course offerings and scheduling(e.g. adjusting mix of modalities, course length, frequency, location)
  • 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, ifcourses 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 disciplinecompare to the program’sretention 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 differencesfound 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
  • course offerings or scheduling (e.g. adjusting length, days/times, modality)
  • curriculum (e.g. increasing or decreasing content, prerequisites)
  • pedagogy (e.g. lecture vs. groupwork, use of technology)
  • 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 coursesection from 17.5 weeks to 8 weeks would increase student motivation (and, hopefully, improve student engagement andretention), isaroom 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 utilizethe Fall 2015 Convocation input for Success Rate responses.

Click here to enter text.

  • From fall 2010 through spring 2015, how does theProgramSuccessRate 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 ProgramSuccess 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 differencesfound 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
  • course offerings and/or scheduling (e.g. length of course, location, learning communities)
  • 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 disciplinecompare to the ProgramSuccess 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 differencesfound 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 student success, access and to ensure equity, does the data analysis above suggest changes to
  • course offerings or scheduling (e.g. adjusting days/times, modality)
  • curriculum (e.g. increasing or decreasing content, prerequisites)
  • pedagogy(e.g. lecture vs. groupwork, use of technology)
  • other?

Click here to enter text.

  • What will be required to implement these changes?

Click here to enter text.

  • Specifically, are there any impediments to the implementation of these changes? For example, if supplemental instruction or tutoring would improve success, does a suitable population of qualified students exist?

Click here to enter text.

C. Assessment SummaryPlease list the CIPs completed during this program review cycle, note any suggested improvements to assessment and/or course delivery and review the three-year CLO schedule to determine which courses must be assessed at least once more by the end of Spring 2017. Please respond to each prompt below.

C1. Completed Fall 2014 Course Improvement PlansClick here to view the course improvement plans (CIPs).Choose “Fall 2014” for Fall 2014 data analysis completed by your discipline. Please list these below.

Click here to enter text.

Open each of these CIPs and…

  • Record any assessment improvements to be implemented the next time the course is assessed (e.g. improved or different assessment tool or rubric). See instructions to quickly locate these CIP text fields.
  • Also record any course improvements to be implemented the next time the course is taught (e.g. curriculum revision, utilization of technology). See instructions to quickly locate these CIP text fields.

C2. Completed Spring 2015 Course Improvement PlansClick here to view the course improvement plans (CIPs). Choose “Spring 2015” for Spring 2015 data analysis completed by your discipline. Please list these below.

Click here to enter text.

Open each of these CIPs and …

  • Record any assessment improvements to be implemented the next time the course is assessed (e.g. improved or different assessment tool or rubric). See instructions to quickly locate these CIP text fields.
  • Also record any course improvements to be implemented the next time the course is taught (e.g. curriculum revision, utilization of technology). See instructions to quickly locate these CIP text fields.

Click here to enter text.

C3. Three-Year CLO Assessment ScheduleClick here to view your Three-Year CLO Assessment Schedule. NOTE: each course that is offered at least once a year needs to be assessed twice during this program review cycle (Fall 2014 – Spring 2017). Please compare the courses in sections C1 and C2 above,along with those being assessed this semester (see your e-mail), with those in the assessment schedule and respond to each prompt below. See instructions for additional explanation.

  • Which courses still need to be assessed only once more before the end of Spring 2017?

Click here to enter text.

  • Which courses still need to be assessed twice before the end of Spring 2017?

Click here to enter text.

II. General Education, Remediation and Dual EnrollmentFor familiarization with the program data for general education and remediation, please respond to each prompt below.

A. General Education Under the “GEN.ED” section of your 2015 Program Review Data, please respond to the prompts below.

A1. Program Fill Rate

List the GEN.ED Program Total Fill Rate and the 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 theGEN. ED 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 GEN.ED fill rates for San Jacinto (SJC), Menifee Valley (MVC), San Gorgonio Pass (BAN), Temecula, (TEM) and online (ONLIN) compare to the Institutional Average Fill Rate?
  • BAN:

Click here to enter text.