Institutional factors play an important but often overlooked role in how students move through their degree programs. There has been wide attention given to instructional challenges such as course difficulty, sequencing, and prerequisite design. However, factors like course fill rates, offering frequency, instructor availability, and enrollment capacity also have a strong impact on student progress and degree efficiency. These institutional constraints often operate invisibly, shaping the degrees of freedom that students have when organizing their schedules or recovering from a setback. When combined with instructional challenges, they can create structural bottlenecks that limit students’ ability to progress, thus extending time to degree and exacerbating equity gaps in access to required courses. While instructional and institutional factors have typically been examined separately, their interaction often produces structural bottlenecks that remain invisible without integrated analysis. Understanding how these factors interact, and making those interactions visible, is key to improving how programs are designed, scheduled, and managed across the institution. This paper presents a data-driven curriculum analytics platform that visualizes both instructional and institutional elements within a single, interactive framework. The system models a degree plan as a directed graph, where courses are represented as nodes and prerequisite relationships as edges. It then integrates institutional data such as course fill rates, offering patterns, and enrollment pressure with instructional data, including DFW rates, sequencing dependencies, and course complexity. Together, these layers reveal where and why students encounter barriers as they move through a program, allowing users to test potential interventions and assess their ripple effects across the curriculum. The platform provides situational awareness for faculty, advisors, and administrators, helping them identify, interpret, and address the dynamic interactions that constrain student movement. While engineering programs exemplify the challenges of limited scheduling flexibility, the framework applies broadly to any field where instructional and institutional structures combine to influence student outcomes. By layering the instructional and institutional data, the system supports data-informed decision-making that can lead to more efficient, equitable, and sustainable degree pathways.
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5221-5682
The University of Arizona
[biography]
http://orcid.org/https://0009-0004-9163-3707
The University of Arizona
[biography]
Are you a researcher? Would you like to cite this paper? Visit the ASEE document repository at peer.asee.org for more tools and easy citations.