AN ANALYTIC STUDY OF BOTTLENECK COURSES Office of Institutional Research California State University, Sacramento Jing Wang, Ph.D. Director of Institutional Research Nancy Hardy, Academic Planning Database Coordinator Jonathan Shiveley, Research Analyst

Overcrowded classrooms beyond facility capacity Long Waitlists WHY STUDY BOTTLENECK COURSES? In recent years, course availability has become a major issue due to its impact on student graduation and success at Sacramento State. Bottleneck courses have been one of the major roadblocks that slow students down on their way to earning a degree within a reasonable amount of time. Larger Class Sizes

To solve this problem, it is necessary to understand student needs for courses (demand) and course offering by departments (supply) each semester. Since it is nearly impossible to precisely match course supply to actual course demand, this study will focus primarily on bottleneck courses, which are the result of severe mismatch between supply and demand. Research Goals: -Analyze the causes of bottleneck courses Samples: Selected 5 Biology courses that were identified by faculty as bottleneck courses. RESEARCH GOALS AND SAMPLES

METHODOLOGY Trend Analysis (7 semesters: Fall 2010-Fall 2013) Sample Analysis (2 semesters: Spring 2012 & Fall 2012) Census Data

WHAT CAUSES BOTTLENECK COURSES?? Course Sections Offered Enrollment Change Overflow of Classrooms RepeatersWaitlist

OVERVIEW OF SAMPLE COURSES CourseLectureLab General Education Requirement Prerequisite Course BIO 1 √√√√ BIO 10 √ √( open to non-bio majors) √ BIO 20 √ √(open to non-bio majors) √ BIO 25 √√√√ BIO 184 √√√

TREND ANALYSIS OF COURSE SECTIONS OFFERED AND ENROLLMENT CHANGE – LECTURE COURSES (1)

TREND ANALYSIS OF COURSE SECTIONS OFFERED AND ENROLLMENT CHANGE – LECTURE COURSES (2) Analysis: BIO 20 and BIO 1 BIO 20  Course sections were reduced from 3 in Fall 2010 to 1 in Fall Class size was 114 students on average. BIO 1  In contrast, the class sizes have been adequate and stable when course sections were offered consistently to meet student demand.

TREND ANALYSIS OF COURSE SECTIONS OFFERED AND ENROLLMENT CHANGE – NON- LECTURE COURSES (1)

TREND ANALYSIS OF COURSE SECTIONS OFFERED AND ENROLLMENT CHANGE – NON- LECTURE COURSES (2) Analysis: BIO 25, BIO 1, & BIO 184 BIO 25  Offered 11 sections in Fall semesters and only 4 sections during Spring semesters. However, the overall enrollment only dropped about 4% on average from Fall to Spring semesters. BIO 1 & BIO 184  Demonstrates that when class sections are offered consistently in order to meet demand the class sizes were adequate and stable.

TREND ANALYSIS OF OVERFLOWED CLASSROOMS (1) Definition and Formula  Overflowed classes: students in overflowed classrooms are often enrolled in numbers above the stated capacity/accommodations of the facility.  Overflow was calculated using the following formula: Enrollment – Classroom Capacity >2  Overflowed classes are an issue because they can lead to situations where students do not always have adequate seating arrangements, view, or access to lab materials, thus impairing the quality of teaching and learning.

TREND ANALYSIS OF OVERFLOWED CLASSROOMS (2) Overflowed Class Sections (Biology) NotOverflow% Overflow Total SectionsNotOverflow% Overflow Total Sections Fall 2010Spring 2011 BIO 1 (LEC)300%303100%3 BIO 1 (ACT)1000%103667%9 BIO 1 (LAB)1000%102778%9 BIO 010 (LEC)3125%431 4 BIO 020 (LEC)2133%33125%4 BIO 025 (DIS)200%201100%1 BIO 025 (LAB)800%804100%4 Fall 2011Spring 2012 BIO 1 (LEC)2133%31267%3 BIO 1 (ACT)8111%981 9 BIO 1 (LAB)8111%97222%9 BIO 010 (LEC)4120%51150%2 BIO 020 (LEC)300%320 2 BIO 025 (DIS)1150%201100%1 sBIO 025 (LAB)7113%803100%3 Fall 2012Spring 2013 BIO 1 (LEC)4120%51267%3 BIO 1 (ACT)1000%108220%10 BIO 1 (LAB)9110%109110%10 BIO 010 (LEC)3125%41150%2 BIO 020 (LEC)100%120 2 BIO 025 (DIS)2250%401100%1 BIO 025 (LAB)5338%803100%3 Fall 2013Total BIO 1 (LEC)3350% %26 BIO 1 (ACT)3667% %66 BIO 1 (LAB)3667% %66 BIO 010 (LEC)3240%518831%26 BIO 020 (LEC)02100%213424%17 BIO 025 (DIS)03100%35964%14 BIO 025 (LAB)6440% %44

TREND ANALYSIS OF OVERFLOWED CLASSROOMS (3) Student Headcount of Overflow (Biology) Fall 2010Spring 20112Fall 2011Spring 2012Fall 2012Spring 20113Fall 2013Total Average # per Class BIO 010 Lecture BIO BIO BIO Lecture BIO BIO BIO BIO 025 Discussion BIO BIO BIO BIO BIO Laboratory BIO BIO BIO BIO BIO BIO BIO Grand Total Note: The numbers in red highlight actually were hybrid courses to accommodate the large enrollment. Student Headcount of Overflow (Biology) Fall 2010Spring 20112Fall 2011Spring 2012Fall 2012Spring 20113Fall 2013Total Average # per Class BIO 001 Activity BIO BIO BIO BIO BIO BIO BIO BIO BIO BIO Laboratory BIO BIO BIO BIO BIO BIO BIO BIO BIO Lecture BIO BIO BIO BIO

TREND ANALYSIS OF OVERFLOWED CLASSROOMS (3)  BIO25 Both the discussion and lab sections (dark and light purple) have been held in insufficient class facilities and have been overcrowded since Spring This course has averaged 64% overflow for discussion classes and 41% for lab classes. Also notable, is the fact that 100% discussion and lab classes have overflowed each Spring semester and Fall of On average, 10 additional students had to be squeezed into overflowed discussion sections, and 5 students were added to the overflowed lab sections each semester.  BIO 1 (dark blue) Experienced severe overflowed classrooms in the lecture, lab, and activity sections. Among the students within the lecture sections, 50% also were enrolled in activity sections, and 50% were enrolled in lab sections. BIO 1 has experienced an average of 46%, 24%, and 27% overflow for lecture classes, activity classes, and lab classes since Spring BIO 1 also had a high percentage of overflowed classrooms for both activity and lab during three Spring semesters and Fall of 2013 (10% to 78%).  BIO 10 (red) This lecture course has maintained consistent class size (average 87), but the classroom facility accommodations have been inadequate since Fall Even though overflowed course sections for BIO 10 have not been as high as BIO 25 or BIO 1, the count of additional students was the largest compared to the other BIO courses. On average, 25 to 39 students were enrolled over classroom capacity and had to be accommodated via webcasting of the course.

TREND ANALYSIS FOR REPEATERS (1) Why Repeat Courses? According to previous studies, students who repeated courses have either failed this same course previously or desired to retake the course in order to improve their grades in the course and boost their GPA. Consequently, repeaters usually take seats away from new students who want to take a course for the first time and increase the demand for this courses even the overall enrollment has remained unchanged.

TREND ANALYSIS FOR REPEATERS (2) Analysis: BIO 25 & BIO 184 BIO 25 This course had the highest percent of repeaters each semester (11%), on average 22 students repeated this course. BIO 184 This course had the second highest percentage of repeaters (average 8% each semester). Repeaters for this course increased from 5% in Fall 2010 to 11% in Spring 2013.

SAMPLE ANALYSIS FOR WAITLIST: Table 5. Waitlists (Biology) Course# on WaitlistGeneral Education Spring 2012 BIO 1 Biodiver,Evolution+Ecol (LEC)104Yes BIO 10 Basic Biological Concepts (LEC)5Yes BIO 20 Biology-Human Perspective (LEC)10Yes BIO 25 Human Anatomy+Physio I (DIS)13 BIO 184 General Genetics (LEC)30 Fall 2012 BIO 1 Biodiver,Evolution+Ecol (ACT)40Yes BIO 1 Biodiver,Evolution+Ecol (LAB)40Yes BIO 1 Biodiver,Evolution+Ecol (LEC)40Yes BIO 10 Basic Biological Concepts (LEC)60Yes BIO 20 Biology: Human Perspective (LEC)25Yes BIO 25 Human Anatomy+Physio I (DIS)25 BIO 25 Human Anatomy+Physio I (LAB)25 BIO 184 General Genetics (LAB)42 BIO 184 General Genetics (LEC)42 Waitlist Data for Spring & Fall 2012 Semesters  The study revealed that all five BIO courses have placed from 5 to 104 students on waitlists in Spring 2012, and from 25 to 60 students on waitlists in Fall  Among the five courses, BIO 1 had the longest waitlist of 104 students in Spring  In Fall 2012, BIO 10 had the longest waitlist totaling 60 students.

OVERVIEW OF SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS (1) General Findings:  Based off the data provided in this study, bottleneck courses usually consist of at least one of the five criteria: inconsistent course offering, large class size, overflowed classrooms, high percentage of repeaters, or long waitlist. Mismatch Between Course Offering (Supply) and Student Needs (Demand)  By utilizing trend analysis, this study found that the inconsistent relationship between the low or unsteady supply of course sections, and high and increasing student demand for courses lead to problematic consequences and can be determined as the major cause of bottleneck courses. Enrollment Change & Student Demand:  When reviewing the course demand from students, the enrollment university-wide has increased about 2% each year since This created a significant impact on the preexisting high demand for General Education courses and Prerequisite courses. Enrollment Change Course Sections Offered

OVERVIEW OF SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS (2) Repeating Students and Demand:  In addition, some BIO courses had a high failure rate or students who wished to repeat the course in order to increase their GPA. These repeating students added to the overall course demand. Faculty Course Offerings (Supply):  Course supply from faculty has not been consistent, it varies often from fall to spring. The class sections offered were reduced even when the demand remained at the same level or increased. Class Size and Waitlists:  As a result, those courses had large class sizes and long waitlists reaching over 100 students. Overflowed classrooms are another major issue with bottleneck courses, classroom facilities should be able to effectively accommodate all students who take the classes regardless of class size. Waitlist Overflow of Classrooms Repeaters

POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS Course offering:  To mitigate impacts of bottleneck courses, it is very important to offer course sections consistently each semester. The need for a steady supply of courses is especially evident when overall course enrollment (demand) increases or remains consistent. Classroom Planning:  Secondly, it is very important to provide adequate classroom/facilities for any classes that have been identified as overflowed in previous semesters. Reducing Repeaters:  Finally, it is necessary to limit the space consumed by repeating students by utilizing peer mentor and supplemental instructions that focus on reducing failure rates.

Q&A Contact Information: Jing Wang Director of Research Office of Institutional Research California State University, Sacramento Nancy Hardy Academic Planning Database Coordinator Office of Institutional Research California State University, Sacramento Sacramento State OIR Website: