Assessment in the Major
Bachelor of Science Degree in Construction
Academic Year 2012/13
Peter Schlosser, Ph.D
Program Director
Construction Program
Date Submitted: October 21, 2013
Department of Construction
College of Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics
Introduction
This assessment in the major report summarizes the primary methods used to assess
student learning and progress through the Construction Program. The outcomes for the
Construction Program are consistent with the professional subject matter of the American
Council for Construction Education (ACCE), the accrediting body of the Program. The
outcomes are also relative to the professional studies of the students and consistent with
the skills necessary to be competitive in the construction industry. The current program
outcomes are as follows:
1. Develop and practice analytical and problem solving skills
2. Develop and apply professional communication skills
3. Develop technical proficiency in current best practices related to the areas of
architecture, engineering and construction
1) Description of Methods Used
a) An indirect assessment method implemented by the Construction Program in spring
2013 was the Senior Exit Survey. The assessment committee of the Construction
Program developed a tool to be distributed to all graduating seniors two weeks prior
to graduation date. The survey was administered as part of the senior level course,
Management of Construction. The survey was presented and explained to the
students by the Program Director. Feedback was gathered anonymously through a
written survey. The questions were mapped to the three program learning outcomes
listed above. Each program outcome was further broken down into competencies
related to that outcome that directly correlate to instruction in multiple classes.
Students were asked to rate each area of competency on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5
being the highest level of competency. The Program assessment committee
determined the benchmark level for concern would be 3.5. Anything below that
mark would be analyzed further, and items above that mark would be discussed
only if an assessment team member brought up concern. Data was compiled and
analyzed in May 2013.
b) Since 1996, the Construction Program has utilized the level 1 Constructor
Qualification Examination developed by the American Institute of Constructors (AIC)
– Constructor Certification Commission as a tool for direct assessment of student
outcomes. In 1998 the Construction Program created the mandatory requirement
for all graduating seniors to take the examination. This examination receives the
support of the American Council for Construction Education (ACCE), which is the
accrediting body for the UW-Stout Construction Program, as well as other highly
regarded construction education programs throughout the United States. The
2 examination reflects the curriculum content required by the ACCE. UW-Stout has
been an ACCE accredited program since 1993 and most recently re-accredited in
February 2011.
Currently, 54 universities and colleges require students to take the AIC-Constructor
Certification Commission examination, level 1. During fall 2012 and spring 2013, 1,611
students nationwide sat for the exam in the US. This number reflects all students who took
the exam, not just the schools that require the exam for graduating seniors.
The AIC-Constructor level 1 examination provides an evaluation of the student’s knowledge
related to the content areas of construction, as identified by the AIC-Constructor
Certification Commission. Questions for the examination are developed by construction
industry professionals and submitted to the Constructor Certification Commission for
review and inclusion in the exam. The data is utilized for assessment to identify areas of
strength and weakness of graduating students from the UW-Stout Construction Program.
The exam consists of the following content areas:
1. Communication Skills
2. Engineering Concepts
3. Management Concepts
4. Materials, Methods and Plan Reading
5. Bidding and Estimating
6. Budgeting, Costs, and Cost Control
7. Planning, Scheduling, and Control
8. Construction Safety
9. Construction Geomatics
10. Project Administration
The AIC level-1 exam is comprised of 300 total maximum points. The breakdown consists
of approximately 260 multiple-choice questions in the ten major content areas listed
above. In addition, there are several writing (communication skills) portions of the exam.
Students are allotted 8 total hours to complete the exam, broken up into two 4-hour
sections on the same day. Validity and reliability have been established for the
examination. Successful passing of the exam requires 210 points minimum.
The exam is administered at UW-Stout and other test sites twice a year (November and
March). The exams are forwarded to the AIC Constructor Certification Commission for
grading and processing. Examination results are disseminated to the testing institutions as
well as the individual test takers via email or US mail.
3 Exam results are provided as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Percent correct in content areas for all examinees nationwide
Percent correct in content areas for all examinees at UW-Stout
Percent correct in content areas for each individual UW-Stout student
Pass/fail results for all examinees nationwide
Pass/fail results for all UW-Stout students
Pass/fail results for each individual UW-Stout student
2) Results
a) The graduating senior survey was conducted in May, 2013 in the Management of
Construction course. A total of 37 students were available that day to take the
survey and 34 responses were recorded. All of the respondents graduated in spring
or summer 2013. The averages that were compiled did not indicate any severe
deficiency in any particular area. Severe deficiency was considered an average
value of 3.5 or less. Because of this, the committee looked at areas of weakness
that approached the 3.5 level. There is one competency that scored an average of
3.7 or less:
•
Develop and practice analytical and problem solving skills by: o Demonstrating the ability to size / select (or design) elements: § to identify and evaluate multiple design variables This is an improvement over the previous three competencies under 3.7.
The student also had a section of the survey to respond with general comments. The
comments received were relevant and used to reinforce areas considered as weak.
Reference table No. 1 for results of this survey
b) A total of 20 and 38 UW-Stout senior Construction Program students sat for the
examination for fall 2012 and spring 2013 respectively. The pass rate for UW-Stout
students was 53.4% (31/58) for this period. This compares to a pass rate for
examinees nationwide of 53.8% (870/1617) during the same time period. It should
be noted that most sitting for the exam are self-selecting, whereas all UW-Stout
Construction Majors sit for the test.
UW-Stout scored above the national average for both exam dates in the following four
content areas:
• Communication Skills
• Materials, Methods and Plan Reading
• Planning, Scheduling and Control
• Construction Safety
4 UW-Stout had the individual National High Total Score in the Fall 2012 Exam.
UW-Stout scored below the national average for both exam dates in three content areas:
•
•
•
Management Concepts
Bidding and Estimating
Project Administration
Comparing the average of the “Average Total Scores” for both exam dates (Table 2 and
Table 3), between UW-Stout (208.49) and the national average (209.28), UW-Stout scored
approximately 0.79% lower.
3) Interpretation
Caution should be exercised in interpreting the results of only one semester of graduating
senior surveys. It is apparent however that the students consistently indicate three general
areas of weakness as defined in the results section above.
Caution should also be exercised in interpreting the results of the examination for only one
semester. The combined scores of both exam dates are used to identify the areas of
possible weakness. Refer to Tables 2 and 3 for the actual scores and differences for fall
2012 and spring 2013 respectively, and Table 4 for the weighted average difference of
average scores in each content area between UW-Stout and the national average.
Using the combined scores for fall 2012 and spring 2013 for each content area, a
comparison was made looking at the difference between UW-Stout and the national
averages. This would indicate areas of possible weakness in UW-Stout students. For this
assessment cycle, an areas of possible weakness were; Management Concepts
Bidding and Estimating, and Project Administration.
4) Dissemination
The goal of the UW-Stout Construction Program is to score at or above the national average
in all content areas. A significant drop in score may indicate a need to re-assess course
content, assignments, delivery and assessment. Construction faculty and staff discuss the
results of the AIC examinations twice a year in conjunction with the Industry Advisory Board
meetings. This takes place in the curriculum committee and is reported back to the
general board and Program faculty/staff. This group has begun analyzing the senior exit
surveys and determining how to best utilize the feedback provided. Because the first
survey was distributed in spring 2012, the process needs to continue to have sufficient
data to analyze to identify trends and weaknesses.
5 In addition, Construction Program faculty are required to develop a list of annual
accomplishments in the spring of each academic year, as well as a list of goals for the
upcoming academic year. Faculty and adjunct teaching staff are encouraged to work with
stakeholders and the assessed AIC examination information in order to develop curriculum
goals relative to their respective courses.
5) Program Improvements
Communication skills continue to be a weak point in assessment cycles. The faculty
continues to develop learning strategies to incorporate more professional submissions of
projects and class work. Faculty have instituted a requirements for students to submit all
homework and projects under proper memo cover. The students generate numerous
proposals with instructors providing feedback for improvement. Instructors continue to
embrace activities in class where the students have to present a topic or project. Faculty
and student peers critique the students on their presentations.
Technical areas of competency have been addressed in recent cycles as well. The
construction workforce has witnessed significant changes in technology and
advancements on the technical side of construction. Faculty continues to bring new
technology to the classroom to better address areas such as scheduling, budgeting, cost
analysis and project administration. These changes in teaching techniques are helping to
engage the students in more meaningful projects.
6) Plans for Improvement
Based on current assessment information and analyzing the results from multiple
assessment cycles, the following changes are in progress or in the planning stage.
•
•
A major program revision was put in place this fall (2013) including new general
education guidelines. With this revision, two new classes were added to address
more information relative to project administration and specifications at an earlier
class level.
A new general education sequence has been adopted this fall.
The results indicate that UW-Stout student pass rates are at or above the national average
in six of the ten competency areas and that UW-Stout students are excelling in many
concept areas related to UW-Stout Construction Program objectives and the AIC
Constructor Level 1 criteria. While Program stakeholders will continue to work on offering a
quality program which meets the needs of industry, the Construction Program and
students can be considered a success overall. Efforts are in place to address potential
weaknesses at the source.
6 Results
Table 1: UW-­‐Stout Construction Program
Exit Survey for Graduates
Conducted May, 2013
The results below are from the survey conducted May, 2013 at the University of WI-­‐Stout in the AEC-­‐472 Management of Construction class. There were 34 responses out of the 37 students in the class. Projected Outcome
Average
1. Develop and practice analytical and problem solving skills by:
a. Identifying, evaluating and critically assessing key matters arising during the course of a construction contract.
b. Demonstrating the ability to size / select (or design) elements:
i. to implement site planning strategies
ii. to identify and evaluate multiple design variables
c. Demonstrating the ability to forecast and manage methods, processes and procedures.
d. Evaluating the ethical considerations relative to the construction process.
e. Demonstrating the ability to forecast and manage cost within the construction industry.
f. Incorporating the use of construction industry software and technology:
i. by demonstrating construction drawing skills, showing comprehensive knowledge in visual formats (2D, 3D) and its association to other parameters (4D, 5D)
ii. via budgeting, estimating and scheduling
iii. by relating the practice to codes, regulations, ordinances and laws applicable to the region/location
2. Develop and apply professional communication skills through
a. Construction drawings-­‐ sketches, hand-­‐drawings, computer-­‐aided drawings, etc.
i. from an architectural standpoint
ii. from a civil / site engineering standpoint
b. Construction documents-­‐ specifications, contracts, addendums, etc
c. Interpreting the various forms of a contract commonly used in the construction industry.
d. Written assignments-­‐ papers, proposals, memos, letters, etc
e. Hands-­‐on laboratory exercises-­‐ light frames sheds, concrete & masonry exercises, etc
f. Collaborative team work exercises – group projects, activities with industry reps, etc
g. Collaborative team work exercises -­‐ group projects, activities with industry rep, etc
3.71
3.77
3.63
3.97
4.23
3.97
3.73
4.17
3.77
4.03
4.03
3.86
3.77
4.14
3.97
4.37
4.40
3. Develop technical proficiency in current best practices related to the areas of architecture, engineering, and construction by:
a. Identifying industry quality standards for materials
3.80
b. Demonstrating safe use of industry instruments and equipment
4.23
c. Evaluating the ethical considerations relative to the construction process
i. by identifying and proposing alternatives to conventional practices
3.91
ii. by emphasizing opportunity to become more efficient and effective
4.11
d. Identifying safe practices that increase productivity
4.20
e. Applying methods that validate practice and constant quality improvement
3.86
f. Critically examining the risks associated with the industry from a legal standpoint
3.86
Other Program Objectives
Overall, my UW-­‐Stout Construction curriculum adequately provided me the education I need to be successful in the construction industry
4.25
Rate your satisfaction with the following (1=very low, 5= very high, NA =Not Applicable
a) UW-­‐Stout Construction Program Advisement
b) Co-­‐op / full time job announcements and career fairs
c) Scholarship availability/awareness d) UW-­‐Stout Construction Student Organizations
i. Student Construction Association (SCA)
ii. Sigma Lambda Chi (SLC)
4.37
4.51
4.14
3.80
3.91
Have you been involved in a professional organization? Count Yes:
Count No:
Do you currently have a full-­‐time position with construction industry? Count Yes:
Count No:
7
12.00
22.00
27.00
7.00
Results
Table 1: UW-­‐Stout Construction Program
Exit Survey for Graduates
Conducted May, 2013
Names of Companies students are employed by:
Michels Corporation (2)
TCI Architects, Engineer, Contractor
Weis Builders
MA Mortenson Company
TIC McHuse Excavating Ryan Companies
Plomberie Lochance
Kiewit Energy
Q3 Contracting, Inc.
Lunda Construction
The Industrial Company JF Ahern Company (2)
Staab Construction
Mathy Construction -­‐ Monarch Paving Division
Reesman's
Miron Construction (2)
Power Construction, Schamburg, IL
Quest Building Corp.
Tjader and Highstrom
Ames Construction
Inside Edge
TJ Hale
Market and Johnson
Any other comments that you wish to provide:
Very good overall program, I feel it's one of the best colleges for learning the knowledge that is needed in the construction industry. Overall I am satisfied and pleased with my experience at Stout.
The cost control and scheduling course needs serious overhaul. The Coops/competition teams are the only things that bolstered may abilitya in that regard. The program as a whole id perfect. It prepares a student to be very successsful in the industry. I'm excited to become a part pf the Stout Construction Family.
This is a gret program, but the quality of the professors is getting to be poor. Mike, Len, and Dean. Thise are the only professors who bring any quality to the students learning.
I feel that more focus on communication and job documentation and tracking. Also need more classes incorparting software used in the industry, especially Excel. Two Co-­‐ops should be required. Allows more time to build relationships w/company. 90% of what I've learned in the passt four years is from real world experience.
I think Stout students have an advantage upon graduation due to the amount of exposure to employers. Also, the "hands on" real-­‐world type work in class. Is great. We get to do projects/asignments based on actual buildings of forms used by industry which is a plus.
Reason why we are required to complete music and art classes. I think it would be much more beneficial to require more hands on construction coarses (sic) than certain classes that are basically a waste of our money to complete our degree in construction.
The only thing I feel I have lack of knowledge in is Mechanical, Plumbing, electrical. These courses are residential based, which does not pertain to most of us. I wish I could have learned more in those areas, esspeially electrical.
I would like to see a course in utilities.
8
Results
Table 1: UW-­‐Stout Construction Program
Exit Survey for Graduates
Conducted May, 2013
The only course at Stout that I felt were not very relevant were the two structures class. (sic) I understand that a basic understanding of engoneering principas are important to learn. However, we are not engineers and the 2nd structures class that I am currenlty taking does not seem applicable to anything I will encounter in the work force.
I believe this program has potential one of the best! I know there are things I thought were thought (sic) poorly that I know are extremely important to the industry. Such as Recs and Specs, I didn't learn anything. That class should be one of the classes that you leave and you say wow I am glad I went to class I will need that someday. I also wish I learned to read MEP Prints. I look at them now and I don't unerdtand anything. I would love to give some input on new ideas if you want. (email supplied)
For starters I would say change the name to construction management. I would try and get rid of some of the physics cousres because we are going to be managers not engineers, maybe teach physics calsses from a managers point of view not an engineers. Overall i thought it was a ggod program but you should try and inform new students that it is more aimed at commercial and not residential construction.Also get more of a mix of residential and commercial contractors at the career fair.
Someway somehow studenst need to become more involved in organizations, Advisory Board, and the program. I did and found it very benificial.
I think the course rec and specs could be condenced (sic) and put more focus on contracts. *Also I believe a class on insurance, safety rating and binding like I had with my safety minor should be a class in itself with how benificial the content can be for any construction company.
Course materials in heavy construction needs to be analyzed along with the instructor…class has little relevance. Contract reqs and speqs was a major disappointment. This should be an essential course and it really missed the mark. Estimating and management courses were great, along w/site eng., and structures 1. Structures 2 problem is leaving, so that should be better from here on out. Several instructors need to look at teaching styles and make major improvements. 9
TABLE 2
CONSTRUCTOR QUALIFICATION EXAMINATION LEVEL 1
CONSTRUCTION FUNDAMENTALS
NOVEMBER 2012
Average Scores
UW-­‐Stout
(n=20)
National Average
(n=604)
Difference
22.25
9.10
24.20
21.45
27.60
24.60
33.80
16.20
4.55
24.30
20.95
9.19
25.39
20.99
29.39
24.39
33.40
15.56
4.84
25.53
1.30
(0.09)
(1.19)
0.46
(1.79)
0.21
0.40
0.64
(0.29)
(1.23)
Average Total Score
208.05
209.63
(1.58)
Highest Total Score
273
273
0.00
Lowest Total Score
166
85
81.00
Passed
55.0%
(n=11)
55.1%
(n=333)
-­‐0.132%
Failed
45.0%
(n=9)
44.9%
(n=271)
0.132%
Content Areas
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Communication Skills
Engineering Concepts
Management Concepts
Materials, Methods, and Plan Reading
Bidding and Estimating
Budgeting, Cost and Cost Control
Planning, Scheduling and Control
Construction Safety
Construction Geomatics
Project Administration
10
TABLE 3
CONSTRUCTOR QUALIFICATION EXAMINATION LEVEL 1
CONSTRUCTION FUNDAMENTALS
SPRING 2013
Average Scores
UW-­‐Stout
(n=38)
National Average
(n=1013)
Difference
21.66
9.42
24.61
21.55
28.61
23.68
34.55
15.42
5.34
24.08
21.52
9.16
25.39
20.53
29.21
24.02
33.45
15.35
4.64
25.65
0.14
0.26
(0.78)
1.02
(0.60)
(0.34)
1.10
0.07
0.70
(1.57)
Average Total Score
208.92
208.92
0.00
Highest Total Score
253
272
(19.00)
Lowest Total Score
150
75
75.00
Passed
52.6%
(n=20)
53.0%
(n=537)
-­‐0.379%
Failed
47.4%
(n=18)
47.0%
(n=476)
0.379%
Content Areas
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Communication Skills
Engineering Concepts
Management Concepts
Materials, Methods, and Plan Reading
Bidding and Estimating
Budgeting, Cost and Cost Control
Planning, Scheduling and Control
Construction Safety
Construction Geomatics
Project Administration
11
TABLE 4
CONSTRUCTOR QUALIFICATION EXAMINATION LEVEL 1
CONSTRUCTION FUNDAMENTALS
COMBINED DIFFERENCE OF AVERAGE SCORES BETWEEN NATIONAL AVERAGE AND UW-­‐STOUT
FALL 2012 AND SPRING 2013
Difference between UW-­‐Stout and National Average
Content Areas
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Communication Skills
Engineering Concepts
Management Concepts
Materials, Methods, and Plan Reading
Bidding and Estimating
Budgeting, Cost and Cost Control
Planning, Scheduling and Control
Construction Safety
Construction Geomatics
Project Administration
Fall 2012
Spring 2013
Weighted Average
1.30
(0.09)
(1.19)
0.46
(1.79)
0.21
0.40
0.64
(0.29)
(1.23)
0.14
0.26
(0.78)
1.02
(0.60)
(0.34)
1.10
0.07
0.70
(1.57)
0.72
0.09
(0.99)
0.74
(1.20)
(0.06)
0.75
0.36
0.21
(1.40)
The weighted average difference for both exam dates was negative for content areas of: Management Concepts; Bidding and Estimating; Budgeting, Cost and Cost Control; and Project Administration
12