quality improvement plan - tuskegee university

Construction Science and Management Program Taylor

School of Architecture and Construction Science

Tuskegee University

Quality Improvement Plan

© Department of Construction Science and Management, Tuskegee University, September 27, 2016

rhunt3

Typewritten Text

Appendix E - CSM Quality Improvement Plan

Background and Overview The Construction Science and Management Program at Tuskegee University was founded in 1933 as a four- year degree program within the Department of Mechanical Industries. The name of the program has been changing over the times to meet the ever-changing demands of construction project clients and to reflect the common dynamics that are characteristic of construction projects and the overall construction industry. The program was originally called Building Contracting (1933-1940), Building Construction (1941-1970), Building Science and Building Construction (1971-1972), Industrial Technology and Building Science (1973), Industrial Technology and Building Technology (1974-1982), Construction (1983-1986), and Construction Science and Management (1987-present). Additionally, the curriculum of the program has changed considering its inception days when it used to focus on specific trades such as masonry, plumbing, brickmaking, to the present time where its recently revised curriculum (Fall 2015) focuses on producing all-round construction professionals while continuing to reinforce the founding policy of Tuskegee University―“Learning to do by doing.” The revised CSM curriculum provides professional training in construction project management. The coursework can be completed in four years and offers a wide variety of course offerings including construction methods, sustainability principles, surveying, project controls management, building information modeling, business, humanities, physical sciences, and general studies. Specifically, the four-year program in construction science and management produces “Project Ready” construction professionals who are managers of people, finance, time and physical resources, and who are knowledgeable of the standards of quality required of all trades employed during the construction process. The program has graduated over 600 students (1933-2016) and currently graduates about 10 students per semester on average. The program continues to improve in its core goals of providing best education and professional training to students as well as exceeding the overall goals of Tuskegee University. This is through a close review of its quality improvement plan. The quality improvement plan provides the assessment plan upon which the Department of Construction Science and Management (CSM) in the Taylor School of Architecture and Construction Science at Tuskegee University (TU) will operate to improve its academic excellence and professionalism. It will be reviewed periodically to ensure that the goals, vision and mission are being accomplished and improved. The plan aligns with the overall mission of the university as well as the new mission of the Taylor School of Architecture and Construction Science (TSACS). TSACS mission focuses on the four RE’s: re-newing best practices to recruit and retain stellar students, re-vitalizing multicultural and global understanding, re- branding the scholarly footprint of the school, and re-connecting professional collaborations with alumni and corporations to acquire support. The four strategies are to ensure that the school is well placed to compete and succeed in the ever-changing world. This quality improvement plan is organized into mission and vision, assessment tools and plan for the degree program, and assessment implementation plan for the degree program that also highlights the details of the strategic plan of the .program, performance criteria and measures of achievement of the degree program objectives, and the assessment implementation cycles.

Mission

Mission and Vision

The Construction Science and Management Department's mission is to produce “Project Ready” construction professionals who are managers of people, finance, time and physical resources, and who are knowledgeable of the standards of quality and safety requirements of all trades employed during the construction process.

Vision

The Construction Science and Management (CSM) Program is committed to perpetuating the founding policy of the University “Learning To Do By Doing” by creating a diverse learning environment for its students, faculty and staff through “Real World” industry experiences. The program will promote academic excellence and professionalism, provide industry relevant curriculum, advance faculty productivity and development, and recruit stellar CSM students, and increase research and recurring funding opportunities for the benefit of the program, school, university, and construction industry collectively.

Assessment Tools and Plan for the Degree Program

The Construction Science and Management Program has developed a comprehensive assessment plan to monitor performance and progress toward academic and non-academic goals as embodied in student learning outcomes, and the strategic plan goals and objectives. This plan was created with the intent of providing continuous evaluation and feedback in order to implement changes to the program relative to the vision, mission, and goals of the program. The assessment plan links the course learning objectives, the student learning outcomes and the program learning outcomes in a matrix that describes the instruments used, the frequency of administration, and the procedures for data collection (Table 9.1.1.3). Additionally, assessment tools used to measure the CSM program student learning outcomes can be found in the SLO Evaluation Summary (Appendix 3.1.4.10). the specific assessments tools used are included in Campus Lab – Compliance Assist – Planning Module via Electronic Guest Access. The tools are used for data collection and review based on the assessment cycle shown in Table 9.1.1.3 Assessment Implementation Plan. The SLO Evaluation spreadsheet tool is updated at the completion of each semester. The Campus Lab – Compliance Assist – Planning Module database is used continuously throughout the semester to gather data and for review at the end of the semester and at the spring semester faculty meeting and the fall semester CSM Industry- Advisory Board (CSM-IAB) meeting.

The assessment plan includes three main direct measures of assessment: D1 - ACCE SLO average in 1st

– 4th Year CSMT courses, D2 - capstone course, and D3 - AIC Associate Constructor (AC) Exam. All

courses are assessed; however, terminal assessments have been identified in courses that directly relate to the goals of the ACCE Outcome Based Standards. Indirect assessment measures include student course evaluations, senior exit surveys, alumni surveys, and co-op/internship evaluations. At the program level, assessment is measured by the capstone course that includes the AIC AC Exam, senior level student s exit surveys, alumni surveys, and employer surveys. At the course level, review of course folders, advisory council critique of courses, and student course evaluations are the primary means of assessment. The matrix given in Table 9.1.1.3 outlines the assessment process.

Student learning outcomes are evaluated by at least two assessment methods, using both direct and indirect assessment for each. Direct measure of SLOs is performed in the individual courses as outlined in the curriculum map (Appendix 3.1.4.8B) and in the AIC AC examination. Indirect measure of SLOs is performed in the senior exit survey, alumni survey and co-op/internship evaluations. The department head and faculty collect all the data for the degree program objectives. The curriculum committee, the department head, and the full faculty then review the data. Data for SLOs are collected every semester by faculty and the department head and entered into the database. They are then evaluated in accordance with the assessment implementation plan matrix (Table 9.1.1.3), undergraduate program measures, targets, and sequence of their collection (Table 9 . 1 . 3 . 5 ), and SLO Evaluation summary (Appendix 3.1.4.10).

Assessment Implementation Plan for the Degree Program The Assessment Implementation Plan for the CSM program is detailed in Table 9.1.1.3 and it links with the strategic plan of the program. A summary of the CSM program strategic plan goals and tactics for meeting the goals are shown below. CSM Strategic Plan Goals

Goal 1: Promote Academic Excellence and Professionalism Goal 2: Provide Industry Relevant Curriculum Goal 3: Promote Faculty Productivity and Development Goal 4: Recruitment of Stellar CSM Students Goal 5: Increase Research and Recurring Funding Opportunities CSM Strategic Plan Tactics 1.1 Expect 3.2 GPA for all CSMT Students 1.2 Expect 100% participation in Co-op/Internship Program 1.3 Expect 100% Job Placements prior to graduation 1.4 Provide Industry Certifications 1.5 Participation in Student Competitions 2.1 Establish Construction Industry Advisory Board 2.2 ACCE Accreditation 2017 2.3 Use of Technology 2.4 Facilities Planning and Development 2.5 National Center for Construction Education and Research (NCCER) Accreditation 3.1 Encourage Faculty Development 3.2 Tenure Track Faculty 3.3 Course Evaluation 4.1 Active Student Recruitment 5.1 Research & Outreach 5.2 State Funding 5.3 Private Funding The systematic and sustained effort for fulfilling the mission of the degree program is outlined in the educational unit’s strategic plan. Evaluation of the programs objectives and learning outcomes are compared to the stated performance goals for each criterion to determine whether stated objectives and learning outcomes were achieved and if there is a validated need for improvement in any area.

In addition, the strategic plan process is focused on a sustained effort primarily by active involvement of faculty and staff in the planning, review, and execution of the strategic plan through the continuous review of goals and measures in the ongoing assessment cycle. The strategic plan may be reviewed and updated annually by the CSM faculty and CSM-IAB.

Table 9.1.1.3 Assessment Implementation Plan

In

stru

men

t #

Instrument

D

irec

t In

dir

ect

P

rogr

am L

evel

C

ours

e L

evel

S

LO

Lev

el

Where/When Implemented

F

req

uen

cy

Feedback

Implementation of Changes

Goals

(Strategic Plan)

1 Capstone Course D P Presentation and submission completed by all students in senior capstone course

Spring Results are reviewed and discussed by faculty and industry panel spring IAB meet ing

Weaknesses are ident ified by grading matrix and panel survey and a strategy is discussed at the fall faculty meeting

Goal 1,2

2 Course Folders D C,S Facult y are to evaluate each course taught and upload syllabus, adoptions, SLO assessments, findings, and improvements into electronic course fo lders at the end of each semester

Fall, Spring

Fo lders are reviewed by Department Head and department curriculum committee with feedback provided to facult y

Department Head andcurriculum co mmittee formally request course changes and monitor for corrections

Goal 1,2,3

3 AIC AC Exam D C,S Completed in capstone course by all students

Spring Summary andobject ive specific feedback supplied to all facult y

Facult y evaluate coursecontent and adjust courses under directionof department head andcurriculum committee

Goal 1,2

4 IAB Course Review D C,S All courses folders areevaluated by advisory board curriculum subco mmittee.

5-Year

Rotation, 4 SLOs per year

Advisory board provides feedback

Department Head reviews suggestions individually wit h impacted faculty and corrective strategy is formulated

Goal 2,3

5 Strategic Plan Progress Review

D P Fall departmental planning meet ing

FallFacult y Planning Session

Department as a whole reviews progress toward goals

Department Head mo nitors and adjusts plan as needed in consultation with facult y and CSM-IAB

Goal 1-5

6 Course Evaluat ions I C Completed by all students in every course

Fall, Spring

Compiled by university. Feedback provided to individual facult y and Department Head

Facult y discus changes to address concerns with Department Head and mo nitor for improvements

Goal 1,2

7 Senior Exit Survey I P, C, S Completed by all graduat ing seniors

Fall, Spring

Department Head compiles results which are discussed with facult y

Department Head discusses feedback wit h facult y to determine if a problem exists and corrective strategy is formulated and monitored.

Goal 1

8 Alumni Surveys I P,S Completed by all alumni after the 1st and 5th year of graduating

Annually Department Headcompiles results which are discussed at fall planning sessio n


Goal 1,2

9 Co-op/Internship Survey

I P Completed by emplo yers hiring students for Co-ops and Internships

Fall, Spring, Summer

Department Headcompiles results which are discussed at fall planning sessio n


Goal 1,2

Performance Criteria and Measures of Achievement of the Degree Program Objectives

The performance measures for the degree program objectives are listed below along with the associated measures. The targets and performance actuals assess the degree of meeting the goals (as of 2017) so that corrective actions can be developed in an event of not meeting the goals or targets.

Table 9.1.3.5 Undergraduate program measures, targets, actuals, and sequence of data collection

Measure

Target Actuals

Person responsible for data collection

Sequence

Average ACT/SAT score and Entering GPA (21/1000) / 3.0 (20/957) / 3.07 Registrar Semester

Cumulative GPA 3.0 2.75 Department Head

Semester

Graduation Rate 100% 83% Department Head

6 Years

Retention Rate 100% 94% Department Head

4 Years

Direct Student Learning Outcome Assessment Average 80% 82% Faculty Semester

AC exam results Average area score => 70%

54% Department Head

Semester

Competition teams event participation 2 events per year 4 Department Head

Annual

Number of courses with hands on experiments 4 4 Department Head

Annual

Number of courses that effectively integrate

technology

4 4 Department Head

Annual

Number of construction jobsite visits per year 4 3 Department Head

Annual

Graduating seniors exit survey 3.5/5 3.495 Industry Liaison

Annual

One and five year alumni survey 3.5/5 4.6 Industry Liaison

Annual

Co-op/Internship survey 3.5/5 4 Industry Liaison

Annual

Assessment of the quality of instruction in each course by students

Above College Average

TBD SACSCOC Coord. Semester

Permanent Placement rate within 3 months after graduation

100% 87% Industry Liaison

Semester

Average Salary (Internship) / (Permanent Placement)

$15/hr. / $55K/Yr. $14/hr. / $60K/yr. Industry Liaison

Annual

Percentage of students completing an internship 95% 45% Industry Liaison

Annual

Percentage of students completing a co-op 15% 9% Industry Liaison

Annual

Number of companies attending the career fairs and/or meet & greets

20 18 Industry Liaison

Annual

Assessment Implementation Cycle

The CSM program conducts a continuous and comprehensive assessment of its academic and non- academic performance on an annual basis. Student learning outcomes are assessed through assignments or exam questions in each course, and the results are reported and tracked on the SLO Evaluation Summary (Appendix 3.1.4.10).

The SLO Evaluation Summary will summarize the direct assessment of the 20 SLOs. The faculty has established a target of 70% of all students scoring 80% or greater (70% or passing on AIC AC Exam) on the tools used to assess SLO. Failure to meet a m a r k e d i m p r o v e m e n t f r o m evaluations of the degree program objectives and learning compared to the stated performance criteria over two evaluation cycles (2 academic years) triggers an action by the faculty to review the teaching methodology and make changes aimed at improving student learning.

The results and outcomes of assessments are documented using the assessment tools. Evaluation of the degree program objectives and learning outcomes are being compared to the stated performance criteria to determine whether stated objectives and learning outcomes were achieved and if there is a validated need for improvement in any area. Table 9.1.4.2 shows due dates for data collection, comparison with targets, suggested changes, and implementation of the suggested changes.

Table 9.1.4.2 Due dates for data collection and evaluation of new and implemented changes

Data

collection completed

Review by the

curriculum committee

Proposed

action items developed

Review by CSM faculty;

implementation plan created for

approved actions

Implement changes (minor)

Implement

changes (major)

Fall-December 12 Spr. – April 29

May 30

May 30 August 15 Current

academic year

Next

academic year

The current version of the assessment cycle was initiated in Fall 2015 for t h e academic year 2015- 2016. The CSM program will continue an annual review of its assessment plan by the CSM-IAB and department head until the first cycle completes in the year 2020, at which time the process will be evaluated and updated in order to meet the required targets and improvement goals.

CSM Program SLO to Curriculum Map

Course Number Course Title

SLO 1 SLO 2 SLO 3 SLO 4 SLO 5 SLO 6 SLO 7 SLO 8 SLO 9 SLO 10 SLO 11 SLO 12 SLO 13 SLO 14 SLO 15 SLO 16 SLO 17 SLO 18 SLO 19 SLO 20

Write Oral Safety Estimate Sched Ethics Docs Meth. Team IT Survey Deliver Risk Account QA/QC Control Contract Sustain Structure MEP

CSMT 101 Intro to Construction I D1 D1 D1 D1 D1 D1 D1 D1 D1 D1 D1

CSMT 102 Intro. to Construction II D1

CSMT 331 Materials & Structures in Residential

Construction D1 *D1

CSMT 332 Materials & Structures in

Commercial/Industrial ConstructionD1 D1

*D1

CSMT 341 Environmental Control Systems I D1 D1 *D1

CSMT 342 Environmental Control Systems II D1 D1 *D1

CSMT 345 Construction Layout and Surveying D1 D1 D1 D1 *D1

CSMT 348 Construction Methods D1 D1 D1 D1 D1

CSMT 350 Green Building Design and Construction*D1 *D1

D1*D1

CSMT 352 Construction Safety D1 D1 *D1

CSMT 360 Construction Finance & Accounting *D1

CSMT 401 Advanced Construction I D1

CSMT 402 Advanced Construction II *D1 *D1

CSMT 431 Construction Management I *D1 D1 *D1 *D1 *D1 *D1 *D1 *D1

CSMT 432 Construction Management II *D1 *D1 D1 D1 *D1 *D1 *D1

CSMT 441 Cost & Estimating I D1

CSMT 442 Cost & Estimating II D1 *D1 *D1 *D1 D1 *D1

CSMT 480 Construction Capstone *D2 *D2 *D2 *D2 *D2 D2 *D2 *D2 *D2 *D2 D2 D2 D2 D2 D2 D2

AC Exam Average Area Score => 70% D3 D3 D3 D3 D3 D3 *D3 *D3 *D3 *D3 *D3 *D3 *D3 *D3 *D3

Employer Survey Min 3.5 on 1 to 5 Scale IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA

Exit Survey Min 3.5 on 1 to 5 Scale *IA *IA *IA *IA *IA *IA *IA *IA *IA *IA *IA *IA *IA *IA *IA *IA *IA *IA *IA *IA

Alumni Survey Min 3.5 on 1 to 5 Scale IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA

Upon graduation from an accredited ACCE 4-year program a graduate shall be able to:

1 Create written communications appropriate to the construction discipline 11 Apply basic surveying techniques for construction layout and control

2 Create oral presentations appropriate to the construction discipline 12 Understand different methods of project delivery and the roles and responsibilities of all

3 Create a construction project safety plan constituencies involved in the design and construction process.

4 Create construction project cost estimates 13 Understand construction risk management

5 Create construction project schedules 14 Understand construction accounting and cost control

6 Analyze professional decisions based on ethical principles 15 Understand construction quality assurance and control

7 Analyze construction documents for planning and management of construction processes 16 Understand construction project control processes

8 Analyze methods, materials, and equipment used to construct projects 17 Understand the legal implications of contract, common, and regulatory law to manage a

9 Apply construction management skills as a member of a multi-disciplinary team construction project

10 Apply electronic-based technology to manage the construction process 18 Understand the basic principles of sustainable construction

19 Understand the basic principles of structural behavior

20 Understand the basic principles of mechanical, electrical, and piping systems

* Indicates Terminal Assessments

Create Analyze Apply Understand

DA1=Direct Assessment - 1st Yr through 4th Yr CSM Courses, DA-2= Direct Assessment 2 - Construction Capstone Course CSMT 480, DA-3=Direct Assessment 3 - AIC AC Exam, IA=Indirect Assessment - Surveys


Direct Assessment 1Assessment Type

Assessment Method Various Various Various Various Various Various Various Various Various Various Various Various Various Various Various Various Various Various Various Various

KB CSMT 101 Course N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 83.7% N/A N/A N/A 92.2% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 93.6% N/A N/A 90% BWL CSMT 102 Course N/A N/A N/A 82.5% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 82% B

FIRST YEAR AVERAGE N/A N/A N/A 82.5% N/A N/A N/A 83.7% N/A N/A N/A 92.2% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 93.6% N/A N/A 86.2% BWL CSMT 331 Course N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 55.1% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 74.3% N/A 65% BWL CSMT 332 Course N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 92.4% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 90.7% N/A 92% BRF CSMT 341Course N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 75.4% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 80.5% N/A 89.2% 82% BRF CSMT 342 Course N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 81.1% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 78.1% N/A 81.1% 80% BJW CSMT 345 Course 95.8% 61.3% N/A N/A N/A N/A 73.3% N/A 87.0% N/A 80.5% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 80% BWL CSMT 352Course 92% 81% 91% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 88% A

SECOND YEAR AVERAGE 93.8% 71.1% 90.8% N/A N/A N/A 73.3% 76.0% 87.0% N/A 80.5% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 79.3% 82.5% 85.2% 80.9%WL CSMT 348 Course 84.4% 82.1% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 81.5% N/A N/A N/A 77.5% N/A N/A 68.2% N/A 74.4% N/A N/A N/A 78% AJW CSMT 350 Course 74.0% 82.2% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 85.7% N/A N/A 81% CKB CSMT 360 Course N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 80% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 80% B

THIRD YEAR AVERAGE N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 80%KB CSMT 401 Course N/A N/A N/A N/A 85% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 85% BKB CSMT 402 Course N/A N/A N/A N/A 90% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 90% BRH CSMT 431 Course 86% 87% N/A N/A N/A 88% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 71.7% 47% N/A 58% 39% 78.8% N/A N/A N/A 70% CRH CSMT 432 Course N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 81% N/A 75% 95% 82% 77% 77% 83% N/A N/A N/A 82% BJW CSMT 441 Course 61% N/A N/A 81% N/A N/A N/A N/A 88% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 77% BJW CSMT 442 Course 87% N/A N/A 88% N/A N/A 88% 69% 83% 93% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 85% B

FORTH YEAR AVERAGE 78% 87% N/A 85% 88% 88% 88% 69% 86% 87% N/A 74% 71% 82% 67% 58% 81% N/A N/A N/A 81%

Program Average 86% 79% 91% 84% 88% 88% 81% 76% 86% 87% 81% 83% 71% 82% 67% 58% 81% 86% 82% 85% 82%Goal Differential 0.06 -0.01 0.11 0.04 0.08 0.08 0.01 -0.04 0.06 0.07 0.01 0.03 -0.09 0.02 -0.13 -0.22 0.01 0.06 0.02 0.05 0.02

Department Head

2016-2017 Academic Year

INST

UC

TOR

Understand the legal

implications of contract,

common, and regulatory law to manage a construction

project

Apply basic surveying

techniques for

construction layout and

control

Understand different

methods of project delivery and the roles

and responsibilities

of all constituents

involved in the design and

construction process

Understand construction

risk management


accounting and cost control


quality assurance and

control

Understand Construction

project control processes

Create construction

project schedule

Analyze professional

decisions based on ethical principles

Analyze construction

documents for planning and

management of construction processes

Analyze methods,

materials, and equipment

used to construct projects

Apply construction management

skills as a member of

multidisciplinary team

Apply electronic

based technology to manage the construction

process

School of Architecture and Construction Science - CSM Department - Student Learning Outcomes - Course Assessment EvaluationDIRECT ASSESMENT 1 SUMMARY

Goal: Program to achieve a minimum outcome average score of 80%

Learning Outcome Student Scores

Rogers Hunt Create written communications appropriate to the

construction discipline

Create oral presentations

appropriate to the construction

discipline

Create a construction project safety

plan

Create construction

project estimates

Understand the basic

principles of sustainable construction

Understand

the basic

principles of

structural

behavior


principles of mechanical,

electrical, and piping systems Student

SLO Average

Course Grade

(A,B,C,D,F)


GOAL 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80%

AY 15‐16 73% 89% 90% 66% 81% 93% 78% 77% 83% 93% 83% 83% 83% 77% 77% 72% 67% 78% 77% 75%

AY 16‐17 86% 79% 91% 84% 88% 88% 81% 76% 86% 87% 81% 83% 71% 82% 67% 58% 81% 86% 82% 85%

AY 17‐18

AY 18‐19

AY 19‐20

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Prog

ram Average

DIRECT ASSESMENT 1


Direct Assessment 3 Assessment Type

Assessment Method Capstone

Project Capstone

Project Capstone

Project Capstone

Project Capstone

Project Capstone

Project Capstone

Project Capstone

Project Capstone

Project Capstone

Project Capstone

Project Capstone

Project Capstone

Project Capstone

Project Capstone

Project Capstone

Project Capstone

Project Capstone

Project Capstone

Project Capstone

Project

JW Construction Capstone 94.0% 85.5% 100.0% 92.0% 75.0% 100.0% 83.0% 90.0% 88.0% 86.0% N/A 87.0% 100.0% 94.5% 97.5% 89.4% 100.0% N/A N/A N/A 91% B

Program Average 94% 86% 100% 92% 75% 100% 83% 90% 88% 86% N/A 87% 100% 95% 98% 89% 100% N/A N/A N/A 91%Goal Differential 0.14 0.05 0.20 0.12 -0.05 0.20 0.03 0.10 0.08 0.06 N/A 0.07 0.20 0.15 0.18 0.09 0.20 N/A N/A N/A 0.11

Department Head


INST

UC

TOR




project


techniques for


control




of all constituents



risk management





control



Create construction

project schedule






Analyze methods,






Apply electronic


process


Goal: Program to achieve a minimum outcome average score of 80%






discipline


plan

Create construction

project estimates



Understand

the basic

principles of

structural

behavior



electrical, and piping systems

Student SLO Average

Course Grade

(A,B,C,D,F)


GOAL 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 0% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 0% 0% 0%

AY 15‐16 96% 85% 100% 92% 75% 100% 83% 90% 88% 86% 0% 87% 100% 70% 88% 89% 90% 0% 0% 0%

AY 16‐17 94% 86% 100% 92% 75% 100% 83% 90% 88% 86% 0% 87% 100% 95% 98% 89% 100% 0% 0% 0%

AY 17‐18

AY 18‐19

AY 19‐20

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

Prog

ram Average

DIRECT ASSESMENT 2


Direct Assessment 3 Assessment Type

Assessment Method AC Exam AC Exam AC Exam AC Exam AC Exam AC Exam AC Exam AC Exam AC Exam AC Exam AC Exam AC Exam AC Exam AC Exam AC Exam AC Exam AC Exam AC Exam AC Exam AC Exam

JW AIC - Associate Constructor Exam N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 61.6% 53.7% 50.3% 58.1% 49.3% 52.9% 54.4% 53.4% 46.7% 56.9% 60.6% 56.4% 50.3% 53.0% 48.6% 54%

Program Average N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 62% 54% 50% 58% 49% 53% 54% 53% 47% 57% 61% 56% 50% 53% 49% 54%Goal Differential N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A -0.08 -0.16 -0.20 -0.12 -0.21 -0.17 -0.16 -0.17 -0.23 -0.13 -0.09 -0.14 -0.20 -0.17 -0.21 -0.16

Department Head


INST

UC

TOR




project


techniques for


control




of all constituents



risk management





control



Create construction

project schedule






Analyze methods,






Apply electronic


process


Goal: Program to achieve a minimum outcome average score of 70% - Exam Passing Score






discipline


plan

Create construction

project estimates



Understand

the basic

principles of

structural

behavior



electrical, and piping systems

Student SLO Average

Course Grade

(A,B,C,D,F)


GOAL 70% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 70% 70% 70% 70% 70% 70% 70% 70% 70% 70% 70% 70% 70% 70% 70%

AY 15‐16 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 54% 46% 42% 47% 39% 41% 49% 46% 41% 44% 49% 47% 41% 50% 38%

AY 16‐17 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 62% 54% 50% 58% 49% 53% 54% 53% 47% 57% 61% 56% 50% 53% 49%

AY 17‐18

AY 18‐19

AY 19‐20

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Prog

ram Average

DIRECT ASSESMENT 3

Alabama 37%

California8%

Connecticut1%

Florida5%

Georgia23%

Illinois4%

Indiana1%

Louisiana2% Maryland

1%

Missouri1%

New Jersey4% New York

1% Pennsylvania1%

South Carolina1% Virginia

4%Wisconsin

1%

Virgin Islands1%

England 1%

Saudi Arabia 2%

CSM Student Residency Demographic AY15‐17

Alabama

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Florida

Georgia

Illinois

Indiana

Louisiana

Maryland

Missouri

New Jersey

New York

Pennsylvania

South Carolina

Virginia

Wisconsin

Virgin Islands

England

Saudi Arabia

FEMALE 25%

MALE75%

CSM Student Gender Demographic AY15‐17

FEMALE

MALE

BLACK 94%

WHITE 3%

HISPANIC1%

ASIAN0%

OTHER2%

CSM Student Race Demographic AY15‐17

BLACK

WHITE

HISPANIC

ASIAN

OTHER

Residential 10%

Commercial 61%

Industrial 13%

OTHER16%

Employment of CSM Graduates AY15‐17

Residential

Commercial

Industrial

OTHER

quality improvement plan - tuskegee university

Documents