INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM REVIEW
Annual Program Review Update
Unit*:__Honors__
Campus:__Riverside__ _
Contact Person: ___Kathleen Sell_______
Due: May 15, 2009
Riverside Community College District
Office of Institutional Effectiveness
Web Resources: http://www.rccdfaculty.net/pages/programreview.jsp
Last Revised: March 18, 2009
* You may submit as a discipline, closely related disciplines, or by department. If this is a combined
submission please note which disciplines are included.
1
Annual Program Review Update
Instructions
The Annual Self-Study is conducted by each unit on each campus and consists of an analysis of
changes within the unit as well as significant new funding needs for staff, resources, facilities, and
equipment. It should be submitted or renewed every year by May 15th in anticipation of
budget planning for the fiscal year, which begins July 1 of the following calendar year.
Extensive data sets have been distributed to all Department Chairs and are linked to the Program
Review website (password 11111). Chairs have received training on the use of these data sets.
Please consult with your Department Chair or Raj Bajaj for assistance interpreting the data
relevant to your discipline. Note that you are only required to mention data relevant to your
analysis or requests. Should you wish assistance with research analysis please fill out the form at
http://academic.rcc.edu/ir/requestform.html and you will be contacted to schedule a time to discuss
analysis of your data. You may also request a labor market analysis using this form.
The questions on the subsequent pages are intended to assist you in planning for your unit. If
there is no change from your prior report, you may simply resubmit the information in that
report (or any portion that remains constant) from the prior year.
Please include pertinent documents such as student learning outcomes assessment reports and data
analysis specifically supporting any requests for new faculty, facilities or equipment. You are
encouraged to use lists, tables, and other formatting to clarify your requests and make them easy
for large committees to review quickly. If there may be negative consequences for enrollment,
safety or other important concerns if the funding is not provided please make this known in
context.
The forms that follow are separated into pages for ease of distribution to relevant subcommittees.
Please keep the pages separated if possible (though part of the same electronic file), with the
headers as they appear, and be sure to include your unit, campus, contact person (this may
change from topic to topic) and date on each page submitted. Don’t let formatting concerns slow
you down. If you have difficulty with formatting, the Administrative Support Center can adjust
the document for you. Simply add responses to those questions that apply and forward the
document to the Administrative Support Center with a request to format it appropriately.
If you cannot identify in which category your request belongs,, if you have complex funding
requests please schedule an appointment with your campus’ Vice President for Business Services
right away. They will assist you with estimating the cost of your requests. For simple requests
such as the cost of a staff member, please e-mail your Vice President. It is vital to include cost
estimates in your request forms.
Moreno Valley:
Norco:
Riverside:
Reagan Romali, 951-571-6341
Norm Godin, 951-372-7157
Becky Elam, 951-222-8307
Please retain this information for your discipline’s use and submit an electronic copy to the
Kristina Kauffman, (Kristina.kauffman@rcc.edu) in the Office of Institutional Effectiveness. The
Office of Institutional Effectiveness will use the document to create a database of requests and will
distribute the report to the relevant offices and committees.
2
Annual Program Review Update
Unit: _____Honors Program_______________
Campus: _____________Riverside_______________
Contact Person: ____________Kathleen Sell________________
Date: _________May 1, 2009___________________
Trends and Relevant Data (part 1)
1. Has there been any change in the status of your unit? (if not, skip to #2)
The RCCD Honors Program has grown from serving 51 students enrolled in four honors
seminars in its first semester (Fall 2005) to serving 162 students in 12 honors seminars
with classes on all three campuses this spring 2009. Riverside has 89 students enrolled in
seminars this semester. Several of these students take more than one honors seminar, so
this is an unduplicated headcount of students taking classes in the program this semester.
Riverside has 108 enrolled spaces this spring and had 111 in the fall.
The program has continued to solidify the range of course offerings, trying to be sensitive
to enrollment patterns and the needs of our students in Math/Science and Engineering as
well as in the Humanities and Social Sciences. We now have in place a track B for
completing the Honors Program for Math/Science/Engineering students, whose lower
division preparation in the major and related areas is extensive. We have worked with the
Chemistry, Physics and Math disciplines to identify courses in those areas that students
can use to complete two of their required six honors courses. Currently, students can use
any two of the following (completed with an A or B) to help them complete the Honors
Program: Physics 2B and C; Physics 4B and C; Chemistry 12A and B; and now also
Math 1C, 2, and 3. We continue to work with Biology and Math to develop honors
sections of courses and with faculty in other areas (Psychology, Anthropology,
Astronomy, etc) to continue to strengthen our math/ science offerings. We have
successfully offered an honors section of Math 12H in Spring 2008 and again this spring
2009.
This spring, with Debbie DiThomas leadership and Ellen Drinkwater’s efforts, we have
made great strides towards implementing an automated process for contacting honors
students each fall and spring about the need to update their SEP. This kind of follow up
will help to ensure that the process of matriculating and transferring works smoothly and
efficiently for these students who are well able to succeed, but often struggle to navigate
the process of transfer without taking advantage of all the resources RCCD provides them,
especially in Counseling and the Transfer/Career Center.
Membership in UCLA TAP and HTCC has validated and strengthened the direction the
program has taken, providing an important network of established Honors programs and
colleagues to provide experience and advice. HTCC membership has also made the
3
Building Bridges research conference available for our honors students, an important
enrichment to their academic work in their honors seminars. This year 19 Riverside City
College students participated in the conference, up from 11 in Spring 2008 and 9 in 2007.
Our contingent was the fourth largest of the 23 community colleges participating in the
conference. The UCLA TAP agreement offers a tremendous boost to our students seeking
to transfer to UCLA. This spring was the first time we were able to certify students under
this agreement, and we certified 6 students through UCLA TAP.
a. Has your unit shifted departments? No
b. Have new programs been created by your unit?
We are now part of the UCLA TAP agreement.
c. Have activities in other units impacted your unit? For example, a new
nursing program could cause greater demand for life science courses.
1. The Norco honors program has restarted.
2. The recommendations that UCLA made in response to our TAP application included
two areas in which our program is impacted by other units.

The first is counseling—counseling has limited resources available to dedicate to
the honors students and though we have a counseling contact person—Ellen
Drinkwater—she does not have any portion of her assignment dedicated to
counseling. (Please see appendix C p.2, bullet #4 for the UCLA recommendation
regarding the need for counseling support for the Honors Program)

Secondly, UCLA strongly encourages our program to continue to work to involve
math and science. During Spring 2008 and this AY, 2008-2009, the program has
worked to develop a track-B for program completion. Students may use any two
of the following courses towards completion of the six classes required to
complete the Honors Program:
Chemistry 12A, Organic Chemistry 1
Chemistry 12B, Organic Chemistry 2
Physics 2B, if completed with a B or better
Physics 4B, if completed with a B or better
Physics 4C, if completed with a B or better
Math 1C, 2, or 3 if completed with a B or better (just approved Spring 2009, so available
to students from this point forward)
This list was developed by consultation between the Chemistry, Physical Sciences, and
Math departments/ disciplines and the Honors Advisory Council. Biology is currently
looking into whether or not they’d like to see Biology 11 and/ or Biology 12 included
here. A biology faculty member is participating on the Honors Advisory Council, and he
is working with his discipline and the Advisory Council to find a workable solution for
offering honors biology given space and funding constraints.
4
Math is also currently looking into the feasibility of offering a stand alone section of
another Math class in addition to Math 12 by looking at the math placement levels of
students in the honors program, honors program eligibility of students in Math 1A classes,
and honors program eligibility of students in Math 35—the precursor class to Math 1A.
The data gathered indicates that across the district the number of students enrolled in
either MA-1A or MA-10 is 330 (Spring 09). Of this group, 146 had a GPA of 3.2 or
higher, and of this group 129 met the English eligibility requirement for the Honors
Program.1 We hope this data will help encourage the Math discipline to begin work on a
second honors math course.
2. Have there been any significant changes in enrollment, retention, success rates,
or environmental demographics that impact your discipline (See Dataset
provided to all chairs)? If there are no significant* changes in your unit’s
opinion, say “None” and skip to question #3.
Retention and Success
Although because of the small sample size to this point Institutional Research in most
cases has found not found a great many statistically significant differences between
success/ retention in honors and non-honors sections, it is quite clear nevertheless that the
honors seminars demonstrate a clear pattern of both high retention and success (see Charts
in Appendix C). As we have more semesters of data to work with, we’ll begin to track
cumulative data and percentages so that we can continue to develop our analysis.
Analysis:
Certainly the fact that students self-select into the program is likely an important factor in
the retention and success rates in the honors seminars. However, smaller class sizes, a
different learning environment, advising, a sense of community, and extra curricular
opportunities designed to enhance work in the classroom may also be important factors.
This is an area we’ll study carefully as we continue to gather data. Regardless, the Honors
Program is clearly “efficient” in the sense of retaining students and seeing them
successfully complete honors courses.
Demographics
The program continues to explore additional ways of recruiting so as to strengthen
enrollments as well as to continue to reach a diverse group of students and adequately
serve our underrepresented students. (See Appendix B for Demographic Data).
Age
As we anticipated, as the program has gained visibility, it is drawing heavily on traditional
freshman coming to us straight from high school. The statistics on age show a significant
majority of our students are in this age range, and we also are drawing a higher number of
concurrently enrolled students than the district average. Middle College High School
students and the close collaboration between the Middle College and Honors Program can
account for some of this. The outreach we have done with local area high schools over
the last three years in particular is paying off.
1 Data provided by Daniel Martinez and Sylvia Thomas May 1, 2009.
5
The numbers also point out clearly something we know we need to work on—offering
classes at a time that works better for returning students, working adults who are trying to
balance school and work. We would like to offer some evening sections of honors classes
though we must balance doing so with our need to maintain healthy enrollments.
Gender
The data here show we are very close to the District profile.
Ethnicity
The data show that here, too, we are close to the District profile. The majority of our
students are not Caucasian, and our enrollments are 30% Hispanic and 8% AfricanAmerican. We will continue outreach efforts to ensure that the Program continues to draw
a diverse student population.
3. What changes does the unit plan to make to advance enrollment management
goals? If your plan necessitates resource changes make sure those needs are
reflected in the applicable resource request sections.
A close look at the fill ratio data (see Appendix A for courses offered and fill ratio data
on those courses) indicates that more honors seminars are more consistently filling to 80%
capacity and above since Fall 2007 and continuing through this spring, and during the 0809 AY we had only 1 class cancellation—Econ 7H at City in the fall. This cancellation
was as much due to staffing concerns as to questions about enrollment. We continue to
work on ensuring that we offer students a balanced set of offerings so they have a
reasonable opportunity to complete 6 honors courses during their two years, especially
important for those trying to complete the program in order to access transfer agreements.
We will continue to balance courses that tend to enroll at lower rates with those that
typically fill very well so that the average fill rate for the program over the course of an
academic year remains at 75% and above, a goal that the City campus has already met in
each of the four years of the program.
In addition to monitoring this data and striving to maintain that AY enrollment goal of a
fill ratio of 75% and above, here is what the Honors Program currently does to address
college wide issues of enrollment management:

From its inception, course offerings in honors have been coordinated across the
campuses in an effort to serve the needs of the students.

Since Fall 07 (the beginning of the program’s third year) a course rotation was
implemented. The program now has a sufficient number of available honors
courses to work with to ensure that it can offer a variety of courses covering a
variety of transfer requirements each semester. A solid slate of classes that
students can count on each semester and increased awareness of the program has
helped to bring enrollment numbers up to a consistently solid level.

The program does have a course cancellation policy in place though this has been
6
applied somewhat flexibly in recognition that the program is still growing and now
because of the recognition that many students are attempting to complete the
required number of courses in order to be eligible for Honors Program transfer
agreements. The policy is that an honors section that doesn’t have 10 students one
week prior to the start of term will be cancelled or converted to a non-honors
section. We hope that this flexibility will continue to be granted so long as the
average fill ratio for honors sections in a given semester / academic year is within
reasonable limits. For example, a small section might be allowed to go if balanced
by two or three other very strongly enrolled sections. In any case, the program
asks that chairs and honors faculty work closely with the Dean of Instruction, the
VP of Academic Affairs, and the Program coordinator when making decisions
about cancelling or letting an honors section go. This ensures that students can be
notified in a timely way and that enrollment management concerns can be
balanced with program integrity concerns about offering a sufficient variety of
course so students have a reasonable expectation of being able to complete the
required six courses within a two year period.

A key part of enrollment management for a program such as Honors is continued
efforts to recruit. The program has solidified an annual calendar of recruitment
efforts (e.g. letters to local high school principals and counselors, letters to
students who make the Dean’s list, flyers included in the mailing that goes from
the District to all local high school students, invitations and applications given to
students in the Assessment Center in summer and winter, etc). This spring,
acceptance letters have begun going out to students accepted into the program and
an information/ orientation session for new and prospective students is scheduled
for May 21rst in an effort to recruit earlier and have students ready to enroll in fall
honors classes earlier. These strategies as well as the lure of transfer agreements
are helping us work toward consistently healthy enrollment in honors sections.
We also anticipate that a weak economy and the decline in the admissions rate for
UC eligible students will provide an incentive for high school students who might
otherwise have begun college careers at four-year institutions to begin at RCCD
instead and a healthy, thriving honors program makes that an even more attractive
choice.
*Your unit may define “significant change” in this context for itself. If your unit thinks it’s a
“significant change” then for purposes of this review please note it.
7
Annual Program Review Update
Unit: ________Honors___________________
Campus: _________Riverside__________________
Contact Person: _______Kathleen Sell_____________________
Date: _______May 1, 2009_____________________
Learning Outcomes Assessment Update
Honors Program and Assessment
The RCC Honors Program has been working on assessment on three fronts:
(a) identifying learning outcomes for Honors seminars, which was critical to developing
a curriculum for the program (which meant individual faculty developing honors course
outlines and moving these through the curriculum process, which now includes a checkoff for the Honors Advisory Council for any new Honors course outlines, and moving the
courses on to Articulation—all current honors courses have been successfully articulated
as of Spring 20092). (See Appendix G for these outcomes)
(b) working to develop program (or service) outcomes for students who complete/
participate in the program
(c) working to develop a program review that aids us in addressing resource, policy,
scheduling, and other issues
As an Honors Program, the critical component of assessment that we have addressed so
far and will need to continue to address has to do with programmatic rather than course
based assessment. The challenges (and questions about the appropriateness) of course
based assessment for an Honors Program include, among other factors, the fact that
honors students don’t all take the same mix of honors courses nor the same number of
honors courses. Some take six courses and complete the program; many take fewer than
six (See Appendix F for a chart on the number of honors courses taken by students in the
program as of Spring 2008). The NCHC monograph on Assessing and Evaluating Honors
Programs has a single page in an appendix on learning outcomes assessment—the rest of
the document is devoted to programmatic assessment. Thus our focus has been primarily
on programmatic assessment. The disciplines will be responsible for assessing individual
courses, since they are the content experts in the area.
The RCCD Honors Program gained membership to the UCLA TAP program last year,
which involved a thorough vetting of our program after completing its first two years.
The recommendations for the program that came along with the TAP membership,
though, give us some concrete program goals to work towards. This accountability to an
2 Notification that Geography 1H and Math 12H (the two most recent courses) had been successfully articulated was
provided in an April 23rd email from Judy Haugh.
8
outside agency and adherence to nationally recognized standards, such as those developed
by the National Collegiate Honors Council (CHC) are driving much of our early
assessment efforts.3
Beyond that, we also must assess course offerings and patterns of enrollment to ensure the
program is responsive to campus and district concerns about efficiency, assess
demographics and patterns of enrollment to identify how effectively we are reaching out
to and serving a diverse student population and identify areas we need to strengthen, and
assess (to the extent possible) the value-added provided by our students’ participation in
the Honors Program measure by participation in student conferences (discussed earlier in
this document) and to the extent that we are able to gather this data, information about
where our students transfer and their success at transfer institutions. This latter is an area
that still needs a great deal of work as the only data we are able to gather at the moment is
anecdotal, soft data self-reported by students with whom we have stayed in contact.
Earlier in this program review document is an analysis of course offering, fill ratio,
student completion and success, and demographic data. This analysis will drive some of
our program goals moving forward. Below, we address assessment driven by outside
agencies (I) and plans for assessing the program based on student success after
transferring from RCCD (II).
I.
Inclusion in the UCLA TAP program required the RCCD Honors Program to submit an
extensive application and supporting documentation detailing our structure, administrative
support and budgeting, our curriculum and specific enrichment strategies, our outreach
efforts to underserved populations, and our recruitment efforts among other things. This
application was reviewed by a group that included UCLA faculty and staff as well as
faculty from other community colleges with TAP partnerships.4
Our application was accepted and we now have the TAP agreement in place for ten years
(see Appendix A for the acceptance letter and recommendations). The acceptance did also
come with recommendations for further strengthening the program, with the
understanding that we would diligently work towards addressing any areas of concern
before a written mid-term report due in 2012 and a thorough self study and site visits to
review the program at each of our three campuses in 2015-1016.
Review by what is essentially an outside accrediting group for our honors program
provides a standard by which we can measure how our program performs in a number of
key areas: curriculum, student and faculty diversity, student services/ counseling support
for honors students, adequate administrative and budgetary support within each of our
institutions, vibrancy of the program as seen in the allocation of a physical space, extracurricular activities for honors students, etc. UCLA TAP along with HTCC (Honors
3 The NCHC monograph Assessing and Evaluating Honors Programs and Honors Colleges: A Practical Handbook is
a text the program now has that has helped to shape our understanding of assessment of this kind of program and will
provide resources and examples as our assessment of the program evolves.
4 A copy of the application and supporting documents can be provided upon request.
9
Transfer Council of California) and NCHC (National Collegiate Honors Council) offer
benchmarks by which we can measure the quality of the structure and curriculum of our
program. See Appendix H for HTCC membership application and criteria and Appendix I
for the NCHC statements on Basic Characteristics of a Fully Developed Honors Program,
Honors Teaching, Honors Course Design—these provide concrete guidelines that help us
to gauge how effectively our honors program and curriculum measure up to national and
local standards.5
Here are the specific UCLA recommendations:
1. At this point in the program’s development more math and science courses are needed. It is
recommended that more faculty from these disciplines be encouraged to participate in the program
and teach courses.
2. Requiring students to complete 6 honors courses may discourage students interested in highly
selective majors at UCLA since a strong GPA is required along with a high number of major prep
courses. Such students may self select out of the Honors Program given the course load already
required to fulfill major prep. This is especially a problem for students interested in the life and
physical sciences and business economics.
3. You acknowledge that 3.0 completion GPA is a bit low in comparison with other Honors
Programs. Students interested in highly selective majors will not fare well with an overall 3.0
GPA and will need to understand how this positions them for admission.
4. Given the size of the program at least two counselors should be assigned to support students. It
is unclear as to the exact role played by the designated counselor and whether or not she actually
interacts with students in the program or serves in a more administrative capacity, referring
students to counselors who are note assigned to the program. Are counselors who see Honors
students supportive of and familiar with the goals and requirements of the program?
5. Increased communication between the Honors Program and representatives of campus programs
devoted to support of historically underrepresented students should be a priority. This will assist
in developing strategies for increased involvement of these students.
6. Space for the program appears limited, especially at Moreno Valley. Clerical support resides at
the District rather than the campus level. As the programs grow, this needs to be addressed.
7. One significant area of concern is the number of courses offered for students who plan to
transfer to programs in math and science. We ask that each campus submit an update to us in
September 2012 which describes the Honors curriculum and efforts made over the next five years
to increase the number of faculty from math and science departments who are offering honors
courses. We will send you a reminder several months in advance of this date.
Below is a description of how the Honors Program, through the Honors Advisory
Council, has used the assessment of the program provided by UCLA to work on
5 All RCCD Honors Courses have separate course outlines of record. These can be viewed in Curricunet and
statements about specific enrichment strategies for each course written by honors faculty are available in the UCLA
application.
10
providing a better service to our students.
1, 2 & 7. Math and Science Courses in the Honors Program/ Number of Courses
required for Completion
During Spring 2008 and this AY, 2008-2009, the program has worked to develop a trackB for program completion. Students may use any two of the following courses towards
completion of the six classes required to complete the Honors Program:






Chemistry 12A, Organic Chemistry 1
Chemistry 12B, Organic Chemistry 2
Physics 2B, if completed with a B or better
Physics 4B, if completed with a B or better
Physics 4C, if completed with a B or better
Math 1C, 2, or 3 if completed with a B or better (just approved Spring 2009, so
available to students from this point forward)
This list was developed by consultation between the Chemistry, Physical Sciences, and
Math departments/ disciplines and the Honors Advisory Council. Biology is currently
looking into whether or not they’d like to see Biology 11 and/ or Biology 12 included
here. A biology faculty member is participating on the Honors Advisory Council, and he
is working with his discipline and the Advisory Council to find a workable solution for
offering honors biology given space and funding constraints.
Math is also currently looking into the feasibility of offering a stand alone section of
another Math class in addition to Math 12 by looking at the math placement levels of
students in the honors program, honors program eligibility of students in Math 1A classes,
and honors program eligibility of students in Math 35—the precursor class to Math 1A.
The data gathered indicates that across the district the number of students enrolled in
either MA-1A or MA-10 is 330 (Spring 09). Of this group, 146 had a GPA of 3.2 or
higher, and of this group 129 met the English eligibility requirement for the Honors
Program.6 We hope this data will help encourage the Math discipline to begin work on a
second honors math course.
At the May 1rst Honors Advisory Council meeting, the track A and track B (now
including the Math classes) were formally adopted. (See Appendix L for the minutes
reflecting this).
3. Program Entry and Completion GPA requirements
The RCCD Honors Program’s 3.25 GPA entry requirement is consistent with many
community college Honors Programs which have entrance GPAs ranging from 3.0 to 3.5.
Our petition for admission allows the Program to address the needs of students whose
GPA is not always an accurate reflection of their capabilities or ability to benefit from the
program. The District average GPA was 2.24 for Fall 2005; 2.23 for Spring 2006 and
6 Data provided by Daniel Martinez and Sylvia Thomas May 1, 2009.
11
Fall 2007.7 Our GPA requirement, then, is a significant threshold for our students to
meet—the petition allows the program to be more inclusive and flexible. The English 1A
requirement is the one about which the program is most stringent, and must be. No
exceptions are made to this requirement because of the writing intensive nature of the
honors seminars.
The completion GPA for the program—students need to have maintained at least a 3.0
overall GPA with no lower than a C in any honors course—is a little low at 3.0. Students
are reminded that what is critical for them individually when they prepare to transfer is the
required GPA for the school/ program into which they are seeking to transfer.
What the Honors Advisory Council has begun to discuss this AY is a reversal of entry and
completion requirements—3.0 for entry, honoring our commitment to access (and we
would still have the petition available) and a higher completion requirement of 3.2. No
decisions have been made yet. The conversation is ongoing in an attempt to carefully
weigh the UCLA concerns here but also be responsive to our local needs and student
population.
4. Counseling Concerns
Requests for assigned counselors for the Honors Program are in each Annual Program
Review and we reiterate that request here.
In the meanwhile, in response to the concern that counseling services to students in the
program are not sharply defined, the program has made strides toward systematizing the
counseling services provided to students in the program. A counseling services timeline
has been developed (see Appendix J) and a notification letter to students whose SEP
hasn’t completed or is out of date has been developed and will now be sent out
automatically to students in the Honors Program through Matriculation each semester.
5. Outreach to Underserved Students
The program continues to have informal relationships with EOPS, DSPS, CAP, Ujima,
Renaissance Scholars, Veteran services, and Puente.
A joint project on the Riverside campus between DSPS, CAP, Ujima, Puente, the Reading
and Writing Center, Teacher Prep, Workforce Prep, EOPS and CARE, Tutorial Services,
and the Honors Program created posters, flyers, and informational brochures to provide
students with a concise overview of the many services available to them on the campus.
This effort was an example of the collaboration between the Honors Program and other
campus programs reaching out to underserved student populations.
The Honors Program is formally requesting data on numbers of students in the Honors
Program who also receive services from or participate in these areas so we can first of all
get a clearer picture of the overlap between students in our program and in these other
programs, and then continue to work on developing strategies for reaching out to
7 Source for GPA data is Institutional Research, Daniel Martinez May 11 2007.
12
underserved populations.
6. Space and Clerical support
We are making requests through the Annual Program Review process to try to garner the
resources to address these concerns
II. Tracking Student Success
The Honors Program developed a FaceBook page during the Fall 2008 semester to
provide a means to reach out to and stay in contact with current and former students. An
exit survey to be posted to the page and the website as well as distributed to students
currently in the program but transferring in the following semester is in development.
The UCLA TAP Program will provide us with one small benchmark we can use to track
student success in so far as we will be able to track the numbers of students we certify for
the TAP Program from year to year. 2008-2009 was the first year the program was able to
certify TAP students, and we certified six.
We will continue to track data on the number of students completing the honors program
(See chart in Appendix F). One measure of our success will be to see an increase in this
number between now and our next program review cycle.
We will continue to work with Institutional Research to find ways to track student success
after leaving the Honors Program more formally. This is an area that still needs much
work.
Work is well underway on developing a Program exit survey for students. We are
soliciting a hypothesized list of what honors students perceive to be the “value added” in
taking honors seminars and participating in the Honors Program. This is being developed
by faculty. We are also drawing questions/ ideas from similar surveys done by other
Honors Programs. What we hope to accomplish is a way to capture students’ perceptions
of their experience in the program as well as data about how to stay in contact with them
so we can continue to follow their progress as they move on to their transfer institutions.
We will use Survey Monkey for the final document and it will be posted on the Program
website and FaceBook page. We anticipate completing and posting this survey by the end
of this AY so we can begin gathering data right away.
In terms specifically of assessment of learning outcomes, the Honors Program and
faculty have been involved in the following activities:
 The Honors Program has developed common learning outcomes for all seminars that
are embedded within the course outlines for honors classes and which are in addition
to the learning outcomes already identified for the parallel non-honors sections of
these courses.
 Three honors courses have been part of discipline based assessment projects (English
1AH—an assessment project, English 1BH a portfolio reading group, and
13
Humanities 10H—an assessment project). However, in each instance specific
Honors outcomes or outcomes for honors sections were not assessed independently.
Rather the honors courses participated along with the pool of non-honors courses.
 Three honors faculty members and their classes are participating in a state-wide eportfolio pilot project begun Spring 2009: English 1BH, taught by Thatcher Carter
at Riverside, English 1AH, taught by Jeff Rhyne at Moreno Valley, and Chemistry
1BH, taught by Diane Marsh at Moreno Valley.
 The common course outcomes for all honors seminars are
1. Students will demonstrate enhanced oral communication skills, increased
sensitivity, dialogical openness, receptivity, willingness to interrogate, the ability
to recognize multiple valid viewpoints and engage in authentic debate
2. Students will respond competently to more complex and sophisticated writing
assignments. They will demonstrate an ability to re-conceive their familiar worlds
in new ways, grapple with concepts that have no simple answers, think about and
grapple with complexity in their written work
3. Students will demonstrate an ability to analyze and respond to challenging and
diverse course readings, respond to these readings in writing, and put these texts
in dialogue with one another—and with communities of interpretation (historical,
personal, social, spatial)
4. Students will demonstrate a high degree of self-motivation and intellectual
independence
Fifteen RCCD students made oral presentations based on papers developed in their honors
seminars at the first annual RCCD Fall Honors conference and nineteen presented papers
at the UC Irvine Building Bridges annual Spring Honors conference, up from 11 last year
and 9 in the first year we presented. This level of participation suggests that many of our
students are meeting the outcomes underlined above.
With all that said, the question of course-based assessment remains tricky for the program
as each of the courses in the program has a home in a discipline which is responsible for
its own course-based assessment projects and because of the diverse range of courses
offered in the program.
The program is certainly open to advice/ suggestions about how to develop a common
assessment project for honors seminars, but again, the focus has been much more on
programmatic assessment as the program has developed thus far.
14
4. In order to help us complete the annual ACCJC report on our progress in assessing
student learning, please provide the following information by completing the form.
Please add lines as needed: [Units that perform these functions at a district level
may use the same response for all campuses.]
Name of Program or Course (please
list programs first)
Student learning
outcomes have
been identified
(Yes = 1
No = 0)
Outcomes
assessment
information or
data has been
generated
(Yes = 1
No = 0)
Honors Program
1
0—not at the
program level
Please note that each of these
courses have a home discipline and
are/ should be included in
individual discipline assessment
plans
Courses:
English 1AH
English 1BH
Art 6H
Humanities 4H
Humanities 5H
History 6H
History 7H
Philosophy 10H
Political Science 1H
Math 12H
English
Discipline is at
DAC stage 5
Art Discipline is
at DAC Stage 2
Humanities
Discipline is at
DAC Stage 4
History
Discipline is at
DAC Stage 2
Philosophy
Discipline is at
DAC Stage 4
Political Science
Discipline is at
DAC Stage 2
Math Discipline
15
Assessment
information
or data has
been used
to improve
student
learning
(Yes = 1
No = 0)
0—not at
the
program
level
Economics 7H
Speech Com 1H
is at DAC Stage
5
Economics
Discipline is at
DAC Stage 3
Speech
Communication
Discipline at
DAC Stage 2
5. Fill out the chart on the next page for each assessment project your unit is engaged in (two
identical charts are included for your convenience. Copy and paste more charts as needed if
your unit has more than two assessment projects. For Steps 1 – 3, put an X on the line to
indicate your answers. For step four and five use the forms on the subsequent pages to add
your brief narrative. By 2012 our accreditation will require that you assess at least one SLO
for each course in your discipline.
NA
16
Annual Program Review Update
Unit: __________Honors Program________________
Campus: _______Riverside___________________
Contact Person: ______Kathleen Sell_____________________
Date: ______May 1, 2009______________________
Human Resource Status
6. Complete the Faculty and Staff Employment Grid below. Please list full and part time faculty numbers in separate rows. Please list classified
staff who are full and part time separately:
With the exception of the Program Coordinator, the faculty listed below are not employed by the Honors Program. They teach an honors course
housed in their discipline/ department and offered by the program in conjunction with the individual departments.
The program also does not currently employ any staff though Naomi Foley, in Sylvia Thomas’ office, provides administrative assistance for the
program, handling eligibility checks for students, budget and other paperwork, ordering of supplies, database, etc.
Faculty and Staff Employed in the Unit
Assignment (e.g. Math,
English)
Full-time faculty
or staff (give
number)
Part-time faculty
or staff (give
number)
Gains over Prior
Year
Losses over Prior
Year (given
reason, retirement,
reassignment,
health, etc.)
English
Kelly Douglass
.54 (1 class
each semester)
English
Thatcher Carter
.54 (1 class
each semester)
Art
Rhonda Taube
.20 (1 class)
History/Humanities Ron Yoshino
.40 ( 1 class
17
English /
Humanities
History
Math
Speech
Communication
Philosophy
Political Science
each semester)
Kathleen Sell
.40 (1 class
each semester)
+ .80 as
Program
Coordinator (.4
each semester)
Kristi Woods
.20 (1 class)
Amanda
Brown .20 (1
class)
Micherri
Wiggs .20 (1
class)
Rom
Masterson .20
(1 class)
Mark Sellick
.20 1 class
18
Unit Name: ______Honors Program___________________________________
7. Staff Needs—Not applicable
NEW OR REPLACEMENT STAFF (Faculty or Classified)8
List Staff Positions Needed for Academic Year___________________
Please justify and explain each faculty request based on rubric criteria for your campus. Place titles on
list in order (rank) or importance.
Indicate (N) =
New or (R) =
Replacement
Annual
TCP*
1.
Reason
:
NA
2.
Reason:
3.
Reason:
4.
Reason:
5.
Reason:
6.
Reason:
* TCP = “Total Cost of Position” for one year is the cost of an average salary plus benefits for an individual. New positions (not replacement positions) also require
space and equipment. Please speak with your campus Business Officer to obtain accurate cost estimates. Please be sure to add related office space, equipment and other
needs for new positions to the appropriate form and mention the link to the position. Please complete this form for “New” Classified Staff only. All replacement staff
must be filled per Article I, Section C of the California School Employees Association (CSEA) contract.
8 If your SLO assessment results make clear that particular resources are needed to more effectively serve students please be sure to note that in the “reason” section of this form.
19
Unit Name: _________Honors________________________________
8. Equipment (excluding technology) Needs Not Covered by Current Budget9--None
List Equipment or Equipment Repair Needed for Academic Year_______
Please list/summarize the needs of your unit on your campus below. Please be as
specific and as brief as possible. Place items on list in order (rank) or importance.
*Indicate whether
Equipment is for (I) =
Instructional or (N) =
Non-Instructional
purposes
Annual TCO**
Cost
per
item
Number
Requested
Total Cost of
Request
1.
Reason:
2.
Reason:
3.
Reason:
4.
Reason:
5.
Reason:
6.
Reason:
* Instructional Equipment is defined as equipment purchased for instructional activities involving presentation and/or hands-on experience to enhance student
learning and skills development (i.e. desk for student or faculty use).
Non-Instructional Equipment is defined as tangible district property of a more or less permanent nature that cannot be easily lost, stolen or destroyed; but
which replaces, modernizes, or expands an existing instructional program. Furniture and computer software, which is an integral and necessary component
for the use of other specific instructional equipment, may be included (i.e. desk for office staff).
** TCO = “Total Cost of Ownership” for one year is the cost of an average cost for one year. Please speak with your campus Business Officer to obtain accurate cost
estimates. Please be sure to check with your department chair to clarify what you current budget allotment are. If equipment needs are linked to a position please be
sure to mention that linkage.
9 If your SLO assessment results make clear that particular resources are needed to more effectively serve students please be sure to note that in the “reason” section of this form.
20
Unit Name: __________Honors_______________________________
9.
Technology++ Needs Not Covered by Current Budget: 10 --None
NOTE: Technology; excludes software, network infrastructure, furniture, and consumables (toner, cartridges, etc)
Submitted by:
Title:
Phone:
Annual TCO*
Priority
EQUIPMENT REQUESTED
New (N)
or
Replacem
ent (R)?
Program:
New (N) or
Continuing
(C) ?
Location
(i.e.
Office,
Classroo
m, etc.)
Is there
existing
Infrastructu
re?
How
many
users
served?
Has it been
repaired
frequently?
Cost per
item
Number
Requeste
d
Total Cost
of Request
1.
Usage /
Justification
2.
Usage /
Justification
3.
Usage /
Justification
4.
Usage /
Justification
5.
Usage /
Justification
 TCO = “Total Cost of Ownership” for one year is the cost of an average cost for one year. Please speak with your campus Business Officer to obtain accurate
cost estimates. Please be sure to check with your department chair to clarify what you current budget allotment are. If equipment needs are linked to a position
please be sure to mention that linkage. Please speak with your Microsupport Computer Supervisor to obtain accurate cost estimates.
 ++Technology is (1) equipment that attaches to a computer, or (2) a computer is needed to drive the equipment.
Remember to keep in mind your campuses prioritization rubrics when justifying your request.
10 If your SLO assessment results make clear that particular resources are needed to more effectively serve students please be sure to note that in the “justification” section of this form.
21
Unit Name: __________Honors_______________________________
10. Facilities Needs Not Covered by Current Building or Remodeling Projects*11 --None
Annual TCO*
List Facility Needs for Academic Year___________________
(Remodels, Renovations or added new facilities) Place items on list in order (rank) or
importance.
Total Cost of Request
1.
Reason:
2.
Reason:
3.
Reason:
4.
Reason:
5.
Reason:
6.
Reason:
*Please contact your campus VP of Business or your Director of Facilities, Operations and Maintenance to obtain an accurate cost estimate and to learn if the facilities
you need are already in the planning stages.
11 If your SLO assessment results make clear that particular resources are needed to more effectively serve students please be sure to note that in the “reason” section of this form.
22
Unit Name: ________Honors_________________________________
11. Professional or Organizational Development Needs Not Covered by Current Budget*12
List Professional Development Needs for Academic Year__2009-2010______.
Reasons might include in response to assessment findings or the need to update
skills to comply with state, federal, professional organization requirements or the
need to update skills/competencies. Please be as specific and as brief as possible.
Some items may not have a cost per se, but reflect the need to spend current staff
time differently. Place items on list in order (rank) or importance.
1. NCHC Membership Renewal in January 2010
Renewed membership in National Collegiate Honors Council—this is an annual
membership. We were given funds for membership for 2009 and are requesting a
continuation of that membership for 2010.
Reason: This membership connects our program to the National Organization.
provides us with discounted rates for conferences and access to resources and
materials through NCHC at discounted rates.
2. Funds for Coordinator and 1 Faculty member to attend NCHC Conference
Reason: Professional development for the program coordinator and faculty.
Annual TCO*
Cost per
item
Number
Requested
Total Cost of Request
1
$500
@$3,000
$500
For 2
people,
@$3,00
estimated
3.
Reason:
4.
Reason:
*It is recommended that you speak with Human Resources or the Management Association to see if your request can be met with current budget.
12 If your SLO assessment results make clear that particular resources are needed to more effectively serve students please be sure to note that in the “reason” section of this form.
23
Unit Name: ____________Honors_____________________________
12. OTHER NEEDS not covered by current budget --None as long as current budget is maintained
13
List Other Needs that you are certain do not fit elsewhere.
Please be as specific and as brief as possible. Not all needs will have a cost, but
may require a reallocation of current staff time. Place items on list in order (rank)
or importance.
Annual TCO*
Cost per
item
Number
Requested
Total Cost of Request
1.
Reason:
2.
Reason:
3.
Reason:
4.
Reason:
5.
Reason:
6.
Reason:
13 If your SLO assessment results make clear that particular resources are needed to more effectively serve students please be sure to note that in the “reason” section of this form.
24
Unit Name: __________Honors_______________________________
13. Student Support Services (see definition below**) Needed by the Unit over and above what is currently provided. These
needs will be communicated to Student Services14
List Student Support Services Needs for Academic Year_________2009-2010__________
Please list/summarize the needs of your unit on your campus below. Please be as specific and as brief as possible. Not all needs
will have a cost, but may require a reallocation of current staff time.
1. Assigned time—at least a .2—for the Honors designated counselor.
Reason: This is part of the UCLA recommendations and is becoming more necessary as the program grows and students have
increased access to a variety of transfer agreements and are applying to a wide variety of schools and majors with varying transfer
requirements.
2.
Reason:
3.
Reason:
4.
Reason:
5.
Reason:
6.
Reason:
**Student Support Services include for example: Tutoring, counseling, international students, EOPS, job placement, admissions and records, student assessment
(placement), health services, student activities, college safety and police, food services, student financial aid, and matriculation.
14 If your SLO assessment results make clear that particular resources are needed to more effectively serve students please be sure to note that in the “reason” section of this form.
25
Unit Name: _______Honors__________________________________
14. Library Needs Not Covered by Current Library Holdings15 Needed by the Unit over and above what is currently provided.
These needs will be communicated to the Library
List Library Needs for Academic Year____2009-2010_______________
Please list/summarize the needs of your unit on your campus below. Please be as specific and as brief as possible. Place items on
list in order (rank) or importance.
1.
Honors Faculty are requesting budget support for the library in order to continue the following library database subscriptions:
America’s Newspaper, EBSCO Premier, NoodleTools, Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center, Oxford English Dictionary,
ProQuest Newspapers, American History Online, CQ Researcher
Reason: Necessary to support research in Honors seminars.
2.
Reason:
3.
Reason:
4.
Reason:
5.
Reason:
6.
Reason:
15 If your SLO assessment results make clear that particular resources are needed to more effectively serve students please be sure to note that in the “reason” section of this form.
26
Unit Name: ____________Honors_____________________________
Learning Support Services Not Covered by Current budget*.--None
List Learning Support Services Needs
Please list funding requests related to the Writing and Reading Center, the Math
Learning Center, Tutorial Services, and the Instructional Media Center. These
do not include laboratory components that are required of a course. Place items
on list in order (rank) or importance.
Total Cost of Requests
Cost per
item
Number
Requested
Total Cost
Ongoing
(O) or
one-time
(OT) cost
1.
Reason:
2.
Reason:
3.
Reason:
4.
Reason:
5.
Reason:
*It is recommended that you speak with your campus IMC and/or Lab Coordinators to see if your request can be met within the current
budget and to get an estimated cost if new funding is needed.
27
28
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Fill Ratio Data as of Census for Riverside City College Honors Classes
Fall 2005-Spring 2009
Fall 2005
MIS
Term
20057
20057
Course
Section
Eng 1A
Hum 4
68022
70782
Fill Ratio
at Census
21/20
19/20
% at
Census
105%
95%
Total Number of Courses Offered: 2
Total Number of Enrolled Spaces: 40
Average Fill Ration for Honors Sections: 100%
Spring 2006
MIS
Course
Term
20063
Eng 1A
20063
Eng 1B
20063
Hum 10
20063
Hum 5
20063
Pol Sci 1
20063
Pol Sci 2
20063
Span 1
Section
43174
41336
43788
41558
43789
43790
43791
Fill Ratio
at Census
21/20
12/20
14/20
17/20
9/20
12/20
10/20
% at
Census
105%
60%
70%
85%
45%
60%
50%
Total Number of Courses Offered: 7
Total Number of Enrolled Spaces: 95
Average Fill Ration for Honors Sections: 67%
Comments: For the first year of the program, only one of eight classes was at fewer than
10 students at census. Four of eight classes were under 75% fill ratio at census. We
recognized that we offered too many classes for the second semester and that we needed
to balance offerings (for example, we haven’t again offered two sections of Poli Sci in the
same semester). Five of 10 classes were at a 75% or above fill ratio. The average honors
fill ratio at census for 2005-2006 was 83.5%.
Fall 2006
MIS
Term
20067
20067
20067
20067
Course
Section
Art 6
Eng 1AH
Eng 1BH
Hum 4H
71653
74703
72590
74601
Fill Ratio
at Census
14/20
18/20
23/20
19/20
28
% at
Census
70%
90%
115%
95%
29
20067
Pol Sci 1H 74396
8/20
40%
Total Number of Courses Offered: 5
Total Number of Enrolled Spaces: 82
Average Fill Ration for Honors Sections: 82%
Spring 2007
MIS
Course
Term
20073
Art 6H
20073
Eng 1AH
20073
Eng 1BH
20073
Hum 5H
20073
Span 1H
Section
48303
45780
48307
47959
46502
Fill Ratio
at Census
9/20
15/20
20/20
16/20
9/20
% at
Census
45%
75%
100%
80%
45%
Total Number of Courses Offered: 5
Total Number of Enrolled Spaces: 69
Average Fill Ration for Honors Sections: 69%
Comments: Three of 10 courses were under 10 students at census. Seven of 10 sections
were at 70% and above fill ratio at census. For the AY 2006-2007, the average honors
fill ratio was 75.5% at census.
Fall 2007
MIS
Term
20077
20077
20077
20077
Course
Section
Econ 7H
Eng 1AH
Eng 1BH
Hum 4H
18839
17683
17707
19013
Fill Ratio
at Census
13/20
18/20
13/20
16/20
% at
Census
65%
90%
65%
80%
Total Number of Courses Offered: 4
Total Number of Enrolled Spaces: 60
Average Fill Ratio for Honors Sections: 75%
Spring 2008
MIS
Course
Term
20083
Eng 1AH
20083
Eng 1BH
20083
Hum 5H
20083
Pol Sci
1H
20083
Hist 7H
Section
Fill Ratio
at Census
20/20
21/20
19/20
13/20
% at
Census
100%
105%
95%
65%
9/20
45%
29
The cap for this class was
listed wrong in the
report—should have been
20, not 30.
30
20083
Math 12H
13/20
65%
Total Number of Courses Offered: 6
Total Number of Enrolled Spaces: 95
Average Fill Ration for Honors Sections: 79%
Comments: In 2007-2008 only one of 10 courses at under 10 at census. Five of 10 were
at 80% and above at census while 4 were at 65% at census. For the year, the average
honors fill ratio at census was 77%.
Fall 2008
MIS
Term
20087
20087
20087
20087
20087
20087
Course
Section
Eng 1AH
Eng 1BH
Art 6H
Phil 10H
Hum 4H
Hist 6H
Fill Ratio
at Census
18/20
18/20
20/20
18/20
18/20
19/20
% at
Census
90%
90%
100%
90%
90%
95%
Total Number of Courses Offered: 6
Total Number of Enrolled Spaces: 111
Average Fill Ration for Honors Sections: 92.5%
Spring 2009
MIS
Term
20093
20093
20093
20093
20093
20093
20093
Course
Section
44893
44916
45182
45747
46057
Fill Ratio
at Census
17/20
19/20
21/20
16/20
17/20
% at
Census
85%
95%
105%
80%
85%
Eng 1AH
Eng 1BH
Hum 5H
PoliSci 1H
SpeechCom
1H
Hist 7H
Math 12H
45165
46119
10/20
8/20
50%
40%
Total Number of Courses Offered: 7
Total Number of Enrolled Spaces: 108
Average Fill Ration for Honors Sections: 77.14%
Comments: For 2008-2009, only 2 seminars were under 10 at census. 11 of 13 courses
were at 80% or above at census. Average fill ratio for AY 08-09 was 84.82% up 7.82 %
from 07-08 even with three more courses being offered.
While individual courses and semesters demonstrate variation in fill ratios, the program
30
31
at City campus as a whole during its first four years has averaged a fill ratio at census of
75% and higher. The overall average at census for the first four years is 80.02% .
Fill Ratios by Course at Riverside
Course
Number of
times offered
English 1AH
8
English 1BH
7
Humanities 4H 4
Humanities 5H 4
Hum 10H
1
Poli Sci 1H
4
Poli Sci 2H
Spanish 1H
Art 6H
Econ 7H
History 6H
History 7H
Math 12H
Philosophy 1H
Speech Com
1H
1
2
3
1
1
2
2
1
1
Average Fill
Ratio
92.5%
90%
90%
91.25%
70%
57.5%, but
much stronger
over the last
two offerings
on the new
rotation—
72.5%
60%
47.5%
71.66%
65%
95%
47.5%
52.5%
90%
85%
Appendix B: Honors Demographic Charts
Breakdown of Honors Students in Comparison to District Student Profile
1. Breakdown by Age
31
32
Honors vs. District: Age (Fall05 - Spring08: Six Semesters)
45.0
40.0
35.0
30.0
25.0
Honors age %
District age %
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
Less than 18
18 or 19
20 to 24
25 to 29
30 to 34
2. Breakdown by Gender
32
35 to 39
40 to 49
50 or more
33
Honors vs. District: Sex (Fall05 - Spring 08: Six Semesters)
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
Honors %
District %
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
Female
Male
3. Breakdown by Ethnicity
33
Unknown
34
Honors vs. District: Ethnicity (Fall05 - Spring 08: Six Semesters)
50.0
45.0
40.0
35.0
30.0
Honors %
District %
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
Asian/Pac Isle
African American
Hispanic
34
Caucasian
Other
35
Appendix C: Honors Retention/ Completion and Successful Completion Charts
Honors Courses, Spring 2008
100.0%
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
Retention
50.0%
Success
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
ENG-1A
ENG-1B
GEG-1
HIS-7
HUM-5
MAT-12
POL-1
Honors Courses, Fall 2007
100.0%
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
Retention
50.0%
Success
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
ECO-7
ENG-1A
ENG-1B
HIS-6
35
HUM-4
PHI-10
36
Honors Courses, Spring 2007
100.0%
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
Retention
50.0%
Success
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
ART-6H
ENG-1AH
ENG-1BH
HIS-7H
HUM-5H
POL-1H
SPA-1H
Honors Courses, Fall 2006
100.0%
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
Retention
50.0%
Success
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
ART-6
ENG-1AH
ENG-1B
HIS-6
HUM-4H
36
PHI-10H
POL-1H
37
Honors Courses, Spring 2006
100.0%
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
Retention
50.0%
Success
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
ENG-1A
ENG-1B
HUM-10
HUM-5
POL-1
POL-2
SPA-1
Honors Courses, Fall 2005
100.0%
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
Retention
50.0%
Success
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
ENG-1A
Term
Spring
2008
HUM-4
PHI-10
Course %Completed %Successful
ENG1A
88.6%
82.7%
ENG1B
88.9%
86.1%
GEG-1
55.6%
55.6%
HIS-7
89.3%
71.4%
HUM5
100.0%
92.9%
MAT12
57.1%
50.0%
POL-1
100.0%
77.8%
Fall 2007 ECO-7
100.0%
69.2%
37
POL-1
38
ENG1A
ENG1B
HIS-6
HUM4
PHI-10
Spring
2007
ART6H
ENG1AH
ENG1BH
HIS7H
HUM5H
POL1H
SPA1H
Fall 2006 ART-6
ENG1AH
ENG1B
HIS-6
HUM4H
PHI10H
POL1H
Spring
2006
ENG1A
ENG1B
HUM10
HUM5
POL-1
POL-2
SPA-1
95.0%
87.5%
96.8%
100.0%
87.1%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
87.5%
69.2%
88.9%
77.8%
85.2%
63.0%
87.5%
78.1%
100.0%
100.0%
81.3%
75.0%
83.3%
83.3%
87.5%
87.5%
100.0%
76.9%
90.6%
81.3%
89.5%
100.0%
84.2%
88.2%
76.2%
66.7%
85.7%
71.4%
100.0%
87.5%
85.7%
61.9%
83.3%
66.7%
100.0%
90.0%
87.5%
95.0%
60.0%
70.0%
87.5%
90.0%
60.0%
70.0%
38
39
ENGFall 2005 1A
HUM4
PHI-10
POL-1
72.7%
63.6%
84.2%
100.0%
83.3%
68.4%
100.0%
83.3%
Retention/Completion Comparison Honors and Non-Honors Sections
Term
Spring
2008
Course Honors
ENG1A
88.6%
ENG1B
88.9%
GEG-1 55.6%
HIS-7
89.3%
HUM5
100.0%
MAT12
57.1%
POL-1 100.0%
Fall 2007 ECO-7
ENG1A
ENG1B
HIS-6
HUM4
PHI-10
Spring
2007
ART6H
ENG1AH
ENG1BH
HIS7H
HUM5H
POL1H
SPA-
NonHonors
Significant
Difference?
80.7% No
82.8% No
84.0% Yes
83.7% No
84.2% No
77.2% No
80.3% No
100.0%
85.7% No
95.0%
85.0% No
96.8%
100.0%
85.0% No
85.8% No
100.0%
100.0%
77.5% Yes
86.4% No
88.9%
82.5% No
85.2%
79.2% No
87.5%
82.6% No
100.0%
79.0% No
81.3%
84.4% No
83.3%
87.5%
77.8% No
77.4% No
39
40
1H
Fall 2006 ART-6
ENG1AH
ENG1B
HIS-6
HUM4H
PHI10H
POL1H
Spring
2006
ENG1A
ENG1B
HUM10
HUM5
POL-1
POL-2
SPA-1
ENGFall 2005 1A
HUM4
PHI-10
POL-1
100.0%
89.4% No
90.6%
83.5% No
89.5%
100.0%
85.9% No
85.5% No
76.2%
67.7% No
85.7%
82.7% No
100.0%
84.5% No
85.7%
80.1% No
83.3%
83.1% No
87.5%
63.5% No
100.0%
95.0%
60.0%
70.0%
83.5%
83.7%
97.2%
77.7%
No
No
Yes
No
72.7%
80.0% No
84.2%
100.0%
83.3%
69.1% No
86.2% No
84.0% No
Successful Completion Comparison
Term
Spring
2008
Course Honors
ENG1A
82.7%
ENG1B
86.1%
NonHonors
Significant
Difference?
67.5% No
71.4% No
40
41
GEG-1
HIS-7
HUM5
MAT12
POL-1
55.6%
71.4%
67.2% No
64.3% No
92.9%
65.8% No
50.0%
77.8%
66.7% No
57.8% No
Fall 2007 ECO-7
ENG1A
ENG1B
HIS-6
HUM4
PHI-10
69.2%
58.2% No
87.5%
67.4% Yes
87.1%
100.0%
72.4% No
62.0% Yes
87.5%
69.2%
48.8% Yes
59.0% No
77.8%
66.5% No
63.0%
64.7% No
78.1%
71.1% No
Spring
2007
ART6H
ENG1AH
ENG1BH
HIS7H
HUM5H
POL1H
SPA1H
Fall 2006 ART-6
ENG1AH
ENG1B
HIS-6
HUM4H
PHI10H
POL1H
Spring
ENG-
100.0%
53.6% Yes
75.0%
60.9% No
83.3%
57.2% No
87.5%
63.1% No
76.9%
69.8% No
81.3%
67.3% No
84.2%
88.2%
74.6% No
63.3% Yes
66.7%
48.5% No
71.4%
57.1% No
87.5%
60.9% No
61.9%
66.0% No
41
42
2006
1A
ENG1B
HUM10
HUM5
POL-1
POL-2
SPA-1
ENGFall 2005 1A
HUM4
PHI10
POL-1
66.7%
72.5% No
87.5%
34.6% Yes
90.0%
90.0%
60.0%
70.0%
67.4%
67.6%
75.0%
58.4%
63.6%
65.0% No
68.4%
57.3% No
100.0%
83.3%
No
Yes
No
No
59.7% Yes
61.7% No
42
43
43