ANNUAL ASSESSMENT REPORT AND IMPROVEMENT PLAN ACADEMIC YEAR: 2009-10 NOTE: This report includes only summary findings. Data, such as faculty evaluation files, students’ evaluations, course grades and statistics are available for review upon request. ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENTS – SUMMARY TABLES ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENTS EFFICACY CORRELATION TO CMGT PROGRAM GOALS AND OBJECTIVES M G-3 GOAL G-1. Preparing high-caliber professionals with strong technical, managerial, and practical skills. GOAL G-2. Producing regional and national industry leaders who are ethically and socially responsible, qualitycentered, and dedicated to safety. GOAL G-3. Enabling students to pursue successful, fulfilling careers in an industry that is vital to our Nation’s economic health and quality of life. OBJECTIVE O-1: Sustain an active and engaged industry advisory board L OBJECTIVE O-2: The program will maintain a motivated and qualified faculty H OBJECTIVE O-3: The program will endeavor to maintain appropriate equipment and resources for instructional purposes H OBJECTIVE O-5: Develop and implement a Masters of Construction Management Program H M M H OBJECTIVE O-6: Develop and implement a Graduate and Undergraduate concentration in Real Estate Development H ACCOMPLISHED H ACCOMPLISHED H ACCOMPLISHED H ACCOMPLISHED OBJECTIVE O-7: Develop and implement graduate concentrations in Sustainable Construction and Project Management H OBJECTIVE O-8: Develop and implement more appropriate for credit certificate programs M OBJECTIVE O-9: Graduates will demonstrate knowledge of relevant subject matter described in the ACCE guidelines H M M OBJECTIVE O-10: Graduates will have significant exposure to the construction industry H M H OBJECTIVE O-11: Graduates will demonstrate leadership qualities through experiential learning H M H OBJECTIVE O-12: Graduates will have experienced the integration of ethical issues throughout the CM Curriculum M H M OBJECTIVE O-13: OTHER OBJECTIVES H E-4: OTHER EXTERNAL PROGRAM METRICS G-2 E-3: EMPLOYERS SURVEY I-5: FACULTY RELATED ASSESSMENTS G-1 Blank: No Correlation I-1: CMAC ACTIVITIES L: Low Correlation I-3: COURSE ASSESSMENT REPORT H M: Medium Correlation I-2: SENIOR STUDENTS EXIT SURVEY I-4: STUDENT COURSE EVALUATION SURVEY H: High Correlation E-2: ALUMNI SURVEY KEY: EXTERNAL ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENTS E-1: CO-OP SURVEY INTERNAL ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENTS I-6: OTHER INTERNAL PROGRAM METRICS GOALS INTERNAL INSTRUMENT: I-1: CMAC ACTIVITIES INDICATOR/ DATA COLLECTED # OBJECTIVE ASSESSED I-1-1 O-1 INDICATOR/ DATA COLLECTED INDICATOR/ DATA COLLECTED # OBJECTIVE ASSESSED I-1-2 O-1 # I-1-3 OBJECTIVE ASSESSED O-1 INDICATOR/ DATA COLLECTED # I-1-4 OBJECTIVE ASSESSED O-1 DESCRIPTION Holding formal meetings with our CMAC executive board/ members. Discuss and/or solicit for input on all relevant issues for the program. Utilizing our IAB for recruitment/enrollment activities/efforts. Utilizing our IAB for raising CMGT Scholarship Funding. Maintaining industry-sponsored networking events in order to increase the visibility of CMGT program. EXPECTED RESULT(S) Meet at least twice yearly. Selected members of our IAB will visit at least 5 high schools. Raise at least $20,000 per year for CMGT Scholarship Fund. Organize at least one major networking event a year. ACTUAL RESULT(S) Held three (3) meetings. Discussion points/ Action taken are captured in the Meeting Minutes. One example of successful solicitation for input was discussion about the possible change of the content of the Safety course. Several of our IAB members, all of whom holds senior management positions (CEOs, Chairman, …) have had a meeting with Drexel enrollment management staff in order to CMGT program has received a $25,000 Gilbane become familiar with the recruitment process. List of Scholarship Endowment. targeted regional high-schools have been compiled. First visits are expected/scheduled for the Fall term 2010. Our IAB has sponsored an extremely successful networking event that took place in January 2010 in the Union League. All program constituents were present (alumni, current students, industry representatives, faculty, IAB members, college administration...). Also, in March 2010, the CMAC sponsored our second Lifetime Award ceremony, that was exceptionally highly received and is becoming a major industry event. STRENGTHS OBSERVED CMGT program has one of the most dedicated Industry Advisory Boards in the country. We believe that our industry advisory board members' credentials, commitment and enthusiasm for our program are exemplary. CMGT program has one of the most dedicated Industry Advisory Boards in the country. We believe that our industry advisory board members' credentials, commitment and enthusiasm for our program are exemplary. Actively participated in the production of our video. IAB is more than willing to help the program in raising scholarship funding. CMGT program has one of the most dedicated Industry Advisory Boards in the country. We believe that our industry advisory board members' credentials, commitment and enthusiasm for our program are exemplary. WEAKNESSES OBSERVED None. None. The total of CMGT program Scholarship Endowment funds is very low compared to some other well established CM programs. More aggressive strategy needs to be developed, and our IAB has offered help for that effort. None. OBJECTIVE SATISFIED? YES WIP (Work in Progress) YES. YES. No further (corrective) action required. One of the agenda items for our September CMAC meeting will be to finalize our plan and to start with visiting high schools. During 2010-11 academic year, a special meeting will be called. The meeting will be attended by our CMAC executive board, college administration, and any other relevant university party, with the goal to start working on our longterm plan for fund raising. No further (corrective) action required. RESPONSES - ACTION TAKEN FREQUENCY: ANNUAL ACADEMIC YEAR: 2009-10 INTERNAL INSTRUMENT: I-2: SENIOR STUDENTS EXIT SURVEY INDICATOR/ DATA COLLECTED # I-2-1 OBJECTIVE ASSESSED O-2/ O-3/ O-13 INDICATOR/ DATA COLLECTED # OBJECTIVE ASSESSED I-2-2 O-10 INDICATOR/ DATA COLLECTED # OBJECTIVE ASSESSED I-2-3 O-13 INDICATOR/ DATA COLLECTED # OBJECTIVE ASSESSED I-2-4 O-13 DESCRIPTION Responses on question "Overall satisfaction with Drexel undergraduate education". Responses on question "Overall satisfaction with Co-Op experience". Responses on question "If you had to do it over again, would you choose Drexel?" Responses on question "How comfortable would you be recommending Drexel University to a high-school student?" EXPECTED RESULT(S) Mean Satisfaction Rating of 4 on the scale 1-5 (1=Very Dissatisfied; 5=Very Satisfied) Mean Satisfaction Rating of 4 on the scale 1-5 (1=Very Dissatisfied; 5=Very Satisfied) Mean Satisfaction Rating of 4 on the scale 1-5 (1=Very Dissatisfied; 5=Very Satisfied) Mean Satisfaction Rating of 4 on the scale 1-5 (1=Very Dissatisfied; 5=Very Satisfied) ACTUAL RESULT(S) STRENGTHS OBSERVED WEAKNESSES OBSERVED OBJECTIVE SATISFIED? RESPONSES - ACTION TAKEN FREQUENCY: ANNUAL 4.5 4.6 3.8 4.8 - - - - Low Response Rate Low Response Rate Low Response Rate Low Response Rate YES YES NO YES Students will be encouraged and reminded to participate in this exit survey. One possibility is to administer our own Exit Survey. This will be discussed during our annual assessment meeting. Students will be encouraged and reminded to participate in this exit survey. One possibility is to administer our own Exit Survey. This will be discussed during our annual assessment meeting. At least one formal meeting with students (cross section covering 5 years) will be conducted annually, starting with academic year 2010-11. Students will be encouraged and reminded to participate in this exit survey. One possibility is to administer our own Exit Survey. This will be discussed during our annual assessment meeting. ACADEMIC YEAR: 2009-10 INTERNAL INSTRUMENT: I-3: COURSE ASSESSMENT REPORT INDICATOR/ DATA COLLECTED # OBJECTIVE ASSESSED I-3-1 O-9 INDICATOR/ DATA COLLECTED # I-3-2 OBJECTIVE ASSESSED O-13 INDICATOR/ DATA COLLECTED # OBJECTIVE ASSESSED I-3-3 O-13 DESCRIPTION % of UG students who earned final grade of "C" or higher % of GR students who earned final grade of "B" or higher Average size of class per term EXPECTED RESULT(S) 70% - average for the term - all courses; 50% or higher for individual course 70% - average for the term - all courses; 50% or higher for individual course Average size per class for the term (all classes included) should be kept under 20 ACTUAL RESULT(S) Summary for 2009-10: average term percentages: 86% 100%; individually all courses have had scores of over 50% Summary for 2009-10: average term percentages: 76% 100%; individually all courses, with exception of one course, have had scores of over 50% The average class size for all terms was between 11 and 20.4. STRENGTHS OBSERVED For majority of courses the percentage scores are 90% or higher. For majority of courses the percentage scores are 90% or higher. One of the distinguishing characteristics of Drexel CM program is relatively small classes with emphasis on increased personal attention WEAKNESSES OBSERVED CMGT 371: Structural Analysis had a score of 59% (Fall term). The instructor indicated that he was still trying to find a right balance between the design and construction aspect for this course. We believe that that balance have been achieved in classes that followed. CMGT 525: Applied Construction PM had a score of 30% (Summer term). Several students expressed dissatisfaction with the manner in which this course was handled by the instructor. NONE YES YES YES Fine-tuning of Structural Analysis courses. We believe that we have now the right balance of design" and "construction" aspect of this course. Program Director and Program Manager had several follow ups with the instructor. The conclusion is that we may not use this instructor any more. NONE OBJECTIVE SATISFIED? RESPONSES - ACTION TAKEN FREQUENCY: EVERY TERM INDICATOR/ DATA COLLECTED # I-3-4 OBJECTIVE ASSESSED O- ACADEMIC YEAR: 2009-10 INTERNAL INSTRUMENT: I-4: STUDENT COURSE EVALUATION SURVEY INDICATOR/ DATA COLLECTED # I-4-1 OBJECTIVE ASSESSED O-13 INDICATOR/ DATA COLLECTED # I-4-2 OBJECTIVE ASSESSED O-13 INDICATOR/ DATA COLLECTED OBJECTIVE ASSESSED # I-4-3 O-3 INDICATOR/ DATA COLLECTED OBJECTIVE ASSESSED # I-4-4 O-2 DESCRIPTION Reponses to question Q1: "The course objectives, requirements, and grading policy were clearly stated?" Responses to question Q2: "The stated objectives were fulfilled?" Responses to question Q3: "Overall course rating?" Responses to question Q4: "Overall course instructor rating?" EXPECTED RESULT(S) Average score for all courses per term: 3 or higher (out of 4); individual course score of 2.5 or higher. Average score for all courses per term: 3 or higher (out of 4); individual course score of 2.5 or higher. Average score for all courses per term: 3 or higher (out of 4); individual course score of 2.5 or higher. Average score for all courses per term: 3 or higher (out of 4); individual course score of 2.5 or higher. ACTUAL RESULT(S) Average scores for UG courses were 3.42 - 3.83; average scores for GR courses were 3 - 3.8. Average scores for UG courses were 3.43 - 3.83; average scores for GR courses were 2.88 - 3.73 Average scores for UG courses were 3 - 3.5; average scores for GR courses were 2.67 - 3.63 Average scores for UG courses were 3 - 3.67; average scores for GR courses were 2.56 - 3.6 STRENGTHS OBSERVED Consistently high scores. WEAKNESSES OBSERVED OBJECTIVE SATISFIED? RESPONSES - ACTION TAKEN Consistently high scores. In general, courses have been favorably assessed. In general, courses have been favorably assessed. Response rates for some courses were low. Response rates for some courses were low. There were several UG and GR courses that had scores close to or slightly below 2.5. Many of these courses had very low response rates (for example only 2 responses). Program Director had a follow up discussion with each of the instructors in order to see if there was any systematic problem causing these low scores. See attached summary course assessment reports for more detail. There were several UG and GR courses that had scores close to or slightly below 2.5. Many of these courses had very low response rates (for example only 2 responses). Program Director had a follow up discussion with each of the instructors in order to see if there was any systematic problem causing these low scores. See attached summary course assessment reports for more detail. YES YES YES YES Students will be reminded and encouraged (by email and instructors) to participate in course surveys. FREQUENCY: EVERY TERM Students will be reminded and encouraged (by email and instructors) to participate in course surveys. Students will be reminded and encouraged (by email and instructors) to participate in course surveys. Students will be reminded and encouraged (by email and instructors) to participate in course surveys. ACADEMIC YEAR: 2009-10 INTERNAL INSTRUMENT: I-5: FACULTY RELATED ASSESSMENTS INDICATOR/ DATA COLLECTED # OBJECTIVE ASSESSED I-5-1 O-2 INDICATOR/ DATA COLLECTED # OBJECTIVE ASSESSED I-5-2 O-2 INDICATOR/ DATA COLLECTED # OBJECTIVE ASSESSED I-5-3 O-2 INDICATOR/ DATA COLLECTED # OBJECTIVE ASSESSED I-5-4 O-2 DESCRIPTION Faculty Evaluation F-T Faculty Qualifications Adjuncts Qualifications Faculty Professional Development EXPECTED RESULT(S) All FT faculty shall obtain minimum score of 3.0 (Good) for Overall Performance in the Annual Faculty Evaluation. Associate Dean and Program Director shall perform faculty annual evaluation and compile the report to verify the compliance with this requirement. All F-T faculty shall have a relevant PhD degree or master/terminal degree with at least 5 years of industry experience. Adjuncts shall poses minimum master degree or bachelor degree with extensive industry experience (10+ years). Support faculty professional development with $4,000 yearly ACTUAL RESULT(S) All F-T faculty have received 3.0 score for Overall Performance. All F-T faculty have a relevant PhD degree or master/terminal degree with at least 5 years of industry experience. All Adjuncts poses minimum master degree or bachelor degree with extensive industry experience (10+ years). All F-T faculty were provided with up to $4,000 development fund. STRENGTHS OBSERVED Very dedicated faculty with significant professional experience. Very dedicated faculty with significant professional experience. Very dedicated adjuncts with significant professional experience. Allocating funds for professional development has been one of the distinguishing characteristics of Drexel CM program. WEAKNESSES OBSERVED OBJECTIVE SATISFIED? RESPONSES - ACTION TAKEN FREQUENCY: ANNUAL NONE NONE NONE NONE YES YES YES YES NONE NONE NONE NONE ACADEMIC YEAR: 2009-10 INTERNAL INSTRUMENT: I-5: FACULTY RELATED ASSESSMENTS INDICATOR/ DATA COLLECTED # OBJECTIVE ASSESSED I-5-5 O-2 INDICATOR/ DATA COLLECTED # OBJECTIVE ASSESSED I-5-6 O-2 DESCRIPTION Faculty Scholarly Performance Faculty Affiliations EXPECTED RESULT(S) 1/3 of FT faculty shall publish at least one peer-reviewed paper yearly. All FT faculty shall maintain active membership in at least one national/international professional association. ACTUAL RESULT(S) 2 faculty members published 2 peer-reviewed papers (Muir and Adams), and several other faculty members published articles in professional trade magazines. All F-T faculty verified in compliance with this requirement. STRENGTHS OBSERVED WEAKNESSES OBSERVED OBJECTIVE SATISFIED? RESPONSES - ACTION TAKEN FREQUENCY: ANNUAL - - NONE NONE YES YES NONE NONE INDICATOR/ DATA COLLECTED # I-5- OBJECTIVE ASSESSED O- INDICATOR/ DATA COLLECTED # I-5- OBJECTIVE ASSESSED O- ACADEMIC YEAR: 2009-10 INTERNAL INSTRUMENT: I-6: OTHER INTERNAL METRICS INDICATOR/ DATA COLLECTED # OBJECTIVE ASSESSED I-6-1 O-13 INDICATOR/ DATA COLLECTED # OBJECTIVE ASSESSED I-6-2 O-12 INDICATOR/ DATA COLLECTED # I-6-3 OBJECTIVE ASSESSED O-11 INDICATOR/ DATA COLLECTED # OBJECTIVE ASSESSED I-6-4 O-11 DESCRIPTION Graduates Job Placement Site Visits Maintaining an active student CMAA Chapter ASC Student Competition EXPECTED RESULT(S) Graduates will maintain at least 80% job placement rate At least one site visit outside of Philadelphia area Chapter will host at least one meeting per term and sponsor various student activities At least one team will participate in Region 1 ASC student annual competition. ACTUAL RESULT(S) Exit survey indicates that 4 out 6 students that participated in the survey had obtained full-time jobs. Our informal survey, however, indicates that practically all of our graduates have jobs secured by the time of graduation. In October 2009, over 30 students visited the NAHB laboratory facilities in Washington DC area. CMAA Student Chapter has had ?? meetings. Our Heavy-Highway team participated in last year ASC competition. STRENGTHS OBSERVED Historically, our graduates has been extremely sought after by the industry. Consequently, the job placement for our graduates has been around 100%. WEAKNESSES OBSERVED OBJECTIVE SATISFIED? RESPONSES - ACTION TAKEN FREQUENCY: ANNUAL - We made decision to participate only 6 weeks before the competition. The response from our students was CMAA Student Chapter has been very active and majority of impressive. Not only they step up on such a short notice but our full time students participate and support its activities. they put an extraordinary effort to get ready for competition. Their performance was more than satisfactory given that they had only 4 weeks to prepare. NONE - NONE Short preparation. YES YES YES YES NONE NONE New faculty advisor (Dr.Sievert) has been assigned. We will start preparation for this year competition much earlier. Prof. Muir will be faculty advisor for Heavy-Highway team. ACADEMIC YEAR: 2009-10 EXTERNAL INSTRUMENT: E-1: CO-OP SURVEY INDICATOR/ DATA COLLECTED INDICATOR/ DATA COLLECTED INDICATOR/ DATA COLLECTED INDICATOR/ DATA COLLECTED # OBJECTIVE ASSESSED # OBJECTIVE ASSESSED # OBJECTIVE ASSESSED # OBJECTIVE ASSESSED E-1-1 O-12 E-1-2 O-9 E-1-3 O-9 E-1-4 O-13 DESCRIPTION Response to question: "Understand professional & ethical responsibilities". Response to question: "Effective oral communication". Response to question: "Effective written communication". Response to question: "Recognition of the need for, and ability to engage in life-learning". EXPECTED RESULT(S) Mean score of at least 3.5 (out of 5) Mean score of at least 3.5 (out of 5) Mean score of at least 3.5 (out of 5) Mean score of at least 3.5 (out of 5) 4.21 3.97 3.86 4.04 STRENGTHS OBSERVED - - - - WEAKNESSES OBSERVED - - - - YES YES YES YES NONE NONE NONE NONE ACTUAL RESULT(S) OBJECTIVE SATISFIED? RESPONSES - ACTION TAKEN FREQUENCY: ANNUAL ACADEMIC YEAR: 2009-10 EXTERNAL INSTRUMENT: E-1: CO-OP SURVEY INDICATOR/ DATA COLLECTED INDICATOR/ DATA COLLECTED INDICATOR/ DATA COLLECTED INDICATOR/ DATA COLLECTED # OBJECTIVE ASSESSED # OBJECTIVE ASSESSED # OBJECTIVE ASSESSED # OBJECTIVE ASSESSED E-1-5 O-13 E-1-6 O-13 E-1-7 O-13 E-1-6 O-13 DESCRIPTION Response to question: "Exhibit an understanding of how solutions to problems can impact society globally". Response to question: "Please rate this student's overall performance". Response to question: "How would you feel about this student returning for a future co-op"? Response to question: "Is this student's academic preparation oriented to the needs of your organization"? EXPECTED RESULT(S) Mean score of at least 3.5 (out of 5) Mean score of at least 3.5 (out of 5) Over 80% of responses are positive (Yes). Over 80% of responses are positive (Yes). 4.04 4.31 89.70% 96.6% STRENGTHS OBSERVED - - - - WEAKNESSES OBSERVED - - - - YES YES YES YES NONE NONE NONE NONE ACTUAL RESULT(S) OBJECTIVE SATISFIED? RESPONSES - ACTION TAKEN FREQUENCY: ANNUAL ACADEMIC YEAR: 2009-10 EXTERNAL INSTRUMENT: E-2: ALUMNI SURVEY INDICATOR/ DATA COLLECTED INDICATOR/ DATA COLLECTED INDICATOR/ DATA COLLECTED # OBJECTIVE ASSESSED # OBJECTIVE ASSESSED # OBJECTIVE ASSESSED # OBJECTIVE ASSESSED E-2-1 O-13 E-2-2 O-13 E-2-3 O-13 E-2-4 O- DESCRIPTION Response to question: "How do you rate the overall quality of the Construction Management education that you received while at Drexel"? Response to question: Are you member of any professional association"? Response to question: "have you received, or are you in the process of pursuing any special licenses or certifications"? EXPECTED RESULT(S) Mean score of at least 3 (out of 5) At least 70% of alumni who graduated 3 years ago are members of various professional associations. At least 70% of alumni who graduated 3 years ago are members of various professional associations. WIP WIP WIP STRENGTHS OBSERVED - - - WEAKNESSES OBSERVED - - - OBJECTIVE SATISFIED? - - - RESPONSES - ACTION TAKEN - - - ACTUAL RESULT(S) FREQUENCY: ANNUAL INDICATOR/ DATA COLLECTED ACADEMIC YEAR: 2009-10 EXTERNAL INSTRUMENT: E-3: EMPLOYERS SURVEY INDICATOR/ DATA COLLECTED INDICATOR/ DATA COLLECTED INDICATOR/ DATA COLLECTED INDICATOR/ DATA COLLECTED # OBJECTIVE ASSESSED # OBJECTIVE ASSESSED # OBJECTIVE ASSESSED # OBJECTIVE ASSESSED E-3-1 O-9 E-3-2 O-9 E-3-3 O-9 E-3-4 O-9 DESCRIPTION Response to question: "How do you rate the employee's written communication skills"? Response to question: "How do you rate the employee's oral Response to question: "How do you rate the employee's communication skills"? computer efficiency"? Response to question: "How do you rate the employee's general knowledge of construction management principles"? EXPECTED RESULT(S) Mean score of at least 3 (out of 5) Mean score of at least 3 (out of 5) Mean score of at least 3 (out of 5) Mean score of at least 3 (out of 5) WIP WIP WIP WIP STRENGTHS OBSERVED - - - - WEAKNESSES OBSERVED - - - - OBJECTIVE SATISFIED? - - - - RESPONSES - ACTION TAKEN - - - - ACTUAL RESULT(S) FREQUENCY: ANNUAL ACADEMIC YEAR: 2009-10 EXTERNAL INSTRUMENT: E-3: EMPLOYERS SURVEY INDICATOR/ DATA COLLECTED INDICATOR/ DATA COLLECTED INDICATOR/ DATA COLLECTED # OBJECTIVE ASSESSED # OBJECTIVE ASSESSED # OBJECTIVE ASSESSED # OBJECTIVE ASSESSED E-3-5 O-9 E-3-6 O-13 E-3-7 O-13 E-3-4 O- DESCRIPTION Response to question: "How do you rate the employee's technical knowledge of construction related principles"? Response to question: "How do you rate your level of satisfaction with the employee's overall job performance"? Response to question: "Based on your experience with this employee, would you be willing to consider other Drexel Construction Management graduates for employment if and when future positions become available"? EXPECTED RESULT(S) Mean score of at least 3 (out of 5) Mean score of at least 3 (out of 5) Mean score of at least 3 (out of 5) WIP WIP WIP STRENGTHS OBSERVED - - - WEAKNESSES OBSERVED - - - OBJECTIVE SATISFIED? - - - RESPONSES - ACTION TAKEN - - - ACTUAL RESULT(S) FREQUENCY: ANNUAL INDICATOR/ DATA COLLECTED ACADEMIC YEAR: 2009-10 EXTERNAL INSTRUMENT: E-4: OTHER EXTERNAL PROGRAM METRICS INDICATOR/ DATA COLLECTED # OBJECTIVE ASSESSED # OBJECTIVE ASSESSED # OBJECTIVE ASSESSED E-4-1 O-13 E-4-2 O- E-4-3 O- E-4-4 O- EXPECTED RESULT(S) At least one F-T faculty will be invited to deliver a key note or to chair a session in a national/international conference ACTUAL RESULT(S) Dr.Torbica served as a session chair in the 2nd international conference on construction in developing countries, Cairo, Egypt. STRENGTHS OBSERVED - WEAKNESSES OBSERVED - FREQUENCY: ANNUAL INDICATOR/ DATA COLLECTED OBJECTIVE ASSESSED Program Visibility RESPONSES - ACTION TAKEN INDICATOR/ DATA COLLECTED # DESCRIPTION OBJECTIVE SATISFIED? INDICATOR/ DATA COLLECTED YES NONE ACADEMIC YEAR: 2009-10 COURSE ASSESSMENT REPORTS # of "C" or HIGHER % of "C" or HIGHER # of RESPONDENTS RESPONSE RATE (%) Q 1. The course objectives, requirements, and grading policy were clearly stated. Q2. The stated objectives were fulfilled. Q3. Overall course rating Q4. Overall course instructor rating # Enrolled FALL 2009: COURSE ASSESSMENT REPORT - CMGT UG COURSES 1 CMGT 101 001 Intro to Construction Mgmt Chen, Yu-Tzu 19 18 95% 5 26.3 3.60 3.60 3.00 2.80 2 CMGT 101 701 Intro to Construction Mgmt Massuto, Daniel 12 11 92% 2 16.7 3.50 3.50 3.50 4.00 3 CMGT 161 001 Bldg Mtls & Constr Mthds I Carney, Douglas 25 21 84% 9 36.0 3.56 3.44 4.00 4.00 COURSE COURSE TITLE INSTRUCTOR 4 CMGT 161 701 Bldg Mtls & Constr Mthds I Carr, Richard 21 19 100% 2 9.1 3.50 3.50 3.50 3.50 5 CMGT 261 701 Construction Safety Sassaman, James 23 22 96% 6 26.1 3.50 3.67 3.50 3.33 6 CMGT 262 601 Building Codes Rossi, James 13 13 100% 4 28.6 3.50 3.50 3.50 3.50 7 CMGT 262 701 Building Codes Rossi, James 12 11 92% 5 41.7 2.80 3.00 2.00 2.40 8 CMGT 263 001 Understdg Construction Drwgs Adams, Francis 14 13 93% 1 7.1 3.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 9 CMGT 263 105 Understdg Construction Drwgs Murray, Robert 8 5 100% 2 23.2 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 10 CMGT 263 601 Understdg Construction Drwgs Bertram, David 5 5 100% 0 11 CMGT 265 701 Info Technologies in Constrctn Kehoe, Michael 20 19 95% 5 25.0 3.20 3.20 2.60 2.60 12 CMGT 266 601 Building Systems I Lewis, James 13 13 100% 4 30.8 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 13 CMGT 266 701 Building Systems I Chen, Yu-Tzu 11 9 82% 2 18.2 3.00 3.50 2.00 2.00 14 CMGT 361 001 Contracts And Specifications I Jackson, Stanley 21 20 95% 5 23.8 3.40 3.20 3.20 3.00 15 CMGT 361 601 Contracts And Specifications I Jackson, Stanley 11 11 100% 4 36.4 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 16 CMGT 361 701 Contracts And Specifications I Jackson, Stanley 28 27 96% 5 17.9 3.60 3.60 3.40 3.80 17 CMGT 363 001 Estimating I Adams, Francis 20 20 100% 6 30.0 3.17 3.17 2.50 2.33 18 CMGT 365 701 Soil Mechanics in Construction Dailey, Christopher 8 6 75% 2 25.0 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 19 CMGT 371 001 Struct Aspects in Construct I Doukakis, Constantin 17 10 59% 3 18% 3.67 3.67 3.00 3.00 20 CMGT 371 601 Struct Aspects in Construct I Bertram, David 4 4 100% 2 50% 3.50 4.00 2.50 2.50 21 CMGT 461 001 Construction Management I Carney, Douglas 17 17 100% 6 35.3 3.50 3.17 3.33 3.67 22 CMGT 461 601 Construction Management I Frisbie, Eric 4 4 100% 4 100.0 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 23 CMGT 461 701 Construction Management I Frisbie, Eric 6 6 100% 1 14.3 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 24 CMGT 467 001 Techniques of Project Control Muir, Robert 14 14 100% 5 35.7 4.00 3.80 4.00 3.80 25 CMGT 467 701 Techniques of Project Control Muir, Robert 16 13 81% 6 37.5 3.67 3.67 3.33 3.33 14.5 331 91% 96 27% 3.42 3.44 3.14 3.13 AVERAGE FOR THE TERM: # of "B"s or Higher (GR) % of "B"s or Higher (GR) # of RESPONDENTS RESPONSE RATE (%) Q 1. The course objectives, requirements, and grading policy were clearly stated. Q2. The stated objectives were fulfilled. Q3. Overall course rating Q4. Overall course instructor rating # Enrolled FALL 2009: COURSE ASSESSMENT REPORT - CMGT GRADUATE COURSES 1 CMGT 532 951 Internatn'l Constr Practices Torbica, Zeljko 16 15 94% 11 68.8 3.82 3.73 3.82 3.64 2 CMGT 538 951 Strategic Management in Const Muir, Robert 21 21 100% 18 85.7 3.78 3.72 3.44 3.56 18.5 36 97% 29 78% 3.80 3.73 3.63 3.60 COURSE COURSE TITLE INSTRUCTOR AVERAGE FOR THE TERM: # COURSE COURSE TITLE 1 REAL 310 001 Introduction to Real Estate Torbica, Zeljko 2 REAL 320 701 Real Estate Law Princ & Pract Logan, Paul AVERAGE FOR THE TERM: 11.0 83% 0 19 86% 6 Q4. Overall course instructor rating 5 Q3. Overall course rating 6 Q2. The stated objectives were fulfilled. 88% Q 1. The course objectives, requirements, and grading policy were clearly stated. 14 RESPONSE RATE (%) 16 # of RESPONDENTS % of "C"s or HIGHER (UG) or % of "B"s or Higher (GR) INSTRUCTOR # of "C"s or HIGHER (UG) or # of "B"s or Higher (GR) Enrolled FALL 2009: COURSE ASSESSMENT REPORT - REAL ESTATE COURSES 6 37.5 3.83 3.83 3.50 3.67 27% 3.83 3.83 3.50 3.67 RESPONSE RATE (%) Q 1. The course objectives, requirements, and grading policy were clearly stated. Q2. The stated objectives were fulfilled. Q3. Overall course rating Q4. Overall course instructor rating Bldg Mtls & Constr Mthds II # of RESPONDENTS 1 CMGT 162 001 COURSE TITLE % of "C"s or HIGHER (UG) COURSE # of "C"s or HIGHER (UG) # Enrolled WINTER 2010: COURSE ASSESSMENT REPORT - CMGT UG COURSES 23 21 91% 11 47.8 4.00 3.91 3.91 4.00 INSTRUCTOR Carney, Douglas 2 CMGT 162 701 Bldg Mtls & Constr Mthds II Sanabria, Jose 15 14 100% 4 26.7 2.75 2.50 2.25 2.00 3 CMGT 261 601 Construction Safety Sassaman, James 13 13 100% 5 38.5 3.60 4.00 4.00 4.00 4 CMGT 261 701 Construction Safety Sassaman, James 26 26 100% 7 28.0 3.43 3.43 3.43 3.43 5 CMGT 264 001 Const Mgmt of Field Operations Torbica, Zeljko 13 13 100% 6 46.2 3.83 3.83 3.67 3.50 6 CMGT 264 701 Const Mgmt of Field Operations Dailey, Christopher 15 15 100% 6 40.0 2.83 2.83 2.50 2.33 7 CMGT 267 001 Building Systems II Chen, Yu-Tzu 23 23 100% 8 34.8 3.75 3.88 3.25 3.50 8 CMGT 267 601 Building Systems II Chen, Yu-Tzu 12 12 100% 4 33.3 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 9 CMGT 362 001 Contracts & Specs II Jackson, Stanley 27 25 93% 6 22.2 3.83 4.00 3.67 3.83 10 CMGT 362 601 Contracts & Specs II Frisbie, Eric 10 10 100% 5 50.0 3.60 3.80 3.60 3.60 11 CMGT 363 701 Estimating I Adams, Francis 14 13 93% 2 14.3 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 12 CMGT 363 702 Estimating I Jackson, Stanley 15 11 73% 1 6.7 3.00 3.00 3.00 4.00 13 CMGT 364 001 Estimating II Adams, Francis 17 17 100% 8 47.1 3.63 3.50 3.25 3.38 14 CMGT 372 001 Struct Aspects in Constr II Doukakis, Constantine 13 13 100% 3 23.1 4.00 3.67 3.67 4.00 15 CMGT 372 601 Struct Aspects in Constr II Bertram, David 3 3 100% 1 33.3 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 16 CMGT 380 001 Spec Top Construction Mgt Chen, Yu-Tzu 25 25 100% 7 28.0 3.29 3.43 2.86 2.29 17 CMGT 451 001 Heavy Constr Principles & Prac Muir, Robert 33 30 91% 8 24.2 3.88 3.75 3.75 3.63 18 CMGT 461 001 Construction Management I Muir, Robert 21 19 90% 5 23.8 3.60 3.20 3.40 3.60 19 CMGT 461 701 Construction Management I Muir, Robert 25 22 88% 2 8.0 4.00 3.50 4.00 4.00 20 CMGT 468 001 Real Estate Carney, Douglas 26 22 85% 2 7.7 3.50 3.33 3.17 3.33 18.5 347 94% 101 27% 3.61 3.57 3.46 3.51 AVERAGE FOR THE TERM: 369 # of "B"s or Higher (GR) % of "B"s or Higher (GR) # of RESPONDENTS RESPONSE RATE (%) Q 1. The course objectives, requirements, and grading policy were clearly stated. Q2. The stated objectives were fulfilled. Q3. Overall course rating Q4. Overall course instructor rating # Enrolled WINTER 2010: COURSE ASSESSMENT REPORT - CMGT GRADUATE COURSES 1 CMGT 501 951 Leadership in Construction Cook, Charles 25 20 91% 7 28.0 3.43 3.86 4.00 4.00 2 CMGT 501 952 Leadership in Construction Cook, Charles 11 10 91% 12 100.0 4.00 4.00 3.92 3.92 3 CMGT 505 951 Const Acctg & Fin Mgmt Jackson, Stanley 19 8 67% 4 20.0 2.50 3.25 2.75 1.75 4 CMGT 545 951 Sustainable Prin & Prac Breen, James 11 10 91% 7 63.6 3.71 3.71 3.71 3.43 16.5 48 81% 30 45% 3.41 3.71 3.60 3.28 COURSE COURSE TITLE INSTRUCTOR AVERAGE FOR THE TERM: Q 1. The course objectives, requirements, and grading policy were clearly stated. Q2. The stated objectives were fulfilled. Q3. Overall course rating Q4. Overall course instructor rating Introduction to Real Estate RESPONSE RATE (%) 1 REAL 310 701 # of RESPONDENTS COURSE TITLE % of "C"s or HIGHER (UG) or % of "B"s or Higher (GR) COURSE # of "C"s or HIGHER (UG) or # of "B"s or Higher (GR) # Enrolled WINTER 2010: COURSE ASSESSMENT REPORT - REAL ESTATE COURSES 15 15 100% 2 13.3 3.50 3.50 3.50 3.50 INSTRUCTOR Torbica, Zeljko 2 REAL 330 701 Facilities & Property Mngt Lewis, James 12 12 100% 2 16.7 3.50 3.50 3.50 3.50 3 REAL 568 951 Real Estate Development Carney, Douglas 16 14 100% 11 68.8 3.27 3.09 3.09 2.91 14.3 41 95% 15 35% 3.42 3.36 3.36 3.30 AVERAGE FOR THE TERM: # of "C"s or HIGHER (UG) % of "C"s or HIGHER (UG) # of RESPONDENTS RESPONSE RATE (%) Q 1. The course objectives, requirements, and grading policy were clearly stated. Q2. The stated objectives were fulfilled. Q3. Overall course rating Q4. Overall course instructor rating # Enrolled SPRING 2010: COURSE ASSESSMENT REPORT - CMGT UG COURSES 1 CMGT 163 001 Bldg Mtls & Constr Mthds III Carney, Douglas 14 13 100% 6 42.9 3.83 3.83 3.83 3.83 2 CMGT 163 701 Bldg Mtls & Constr Mthds III Sanabria, Jose 25 21 88% 7 28.0 3.29 3.43 2.71 2.71 3 CMGT 262 701 Building Codes Murray, Robert 19 18 95% 7 36.8 3.71 3.57 3.43 3.43 4 CMGT 263 001 Understdg Construction Drwgs Adams, Francis 12 12 100% 0 5 CMGT 263 701 Understdg Construction Drwgs Carney, Douglas 14 9 90% 0 6 CMGT 264 601 Const Mgmt of Field Operations Dailey, Christopher 12 12 100% 4 33.3 3.50 3.50 3.50 3.25 7 CMGT 265 001 Info Technologies in Constrctn Carney, Douglas 8 7 88% 3 37.5 3.67 3.33 3.33 3.33 8 CMGT 363 663 Estimating I Blaker, Murray 6 3 100% 0 36.8 3.43 3.29 3.29 3.14 COURSE 9 CMGT 364 701 COURSE TITLE INSTRUCTOR Estimating II Adams, Francis 19 18 95% 7 10 CMGT 365 701 Soil Mechanics in Construction Dailey, Christopher 15 13 87% 0 11 CMGT 380 701 Spec Top Construction Mgt Tsafos, James 25 25 100% 6 24.0 3.67 3.67 3.67 3.67 12 CMGT 380 702 Spec Top Construction Mgt Chen, Yu-Tzu 8 8 100% 4 50.0 3.25 3.25 2.75 3.00 13 CMGT 463 601 Value Engineering I Jackson, Stanley 15 15 100% 5 33.3 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 14 CMGT 463 701 Value Engineering I Jackson, Stanley 30 28 93% 5 16.7 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.00 15 CMGT 465 001 Marketing Construct Services Lewis, James 10 9 100% 2 20.0 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 16 CMGT 465 701 Marketing Construct Services Lewis, James 23 23 100% 1 4.3 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 17 CMGT 467 601 Techniques of Project Control Muir, Robert 4 2 50% 2 50.0 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 18 CMGT 499 602 CM Ind Study Proj Bertram, David 4 4 100% 1 25.0 3.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 14.6 240 91% 60 23% 3.61 3.58 3.41 3.38 AVERAGE FOR THE TERM: # of "B"s or Higher (GR) % of "B"s or Higher (GR) # of RESPONDENTS RESPONSE RATE (%) Q 1. The course objectives, requirements, and grading policy were clearly stated. Q2. The stated objectives were fulfilled. Q3. Overall course rating Q4. Overall course instructor rating # Enrolled SPRING 2010: COURSE ASSESSMENT REPORT - CMGT GRADUATE COURSES 1 CMGT 510 951 Const Control Techniques Chen, Yu-Tzu 16 15 100% 8 50.0 3.50 3.50 3.50 3.50 2 CMGT 510 952 Const Control Techniques Chen, Yu-Tzu 15 14 93% 13 86.7 3.31 3.31 3.23 2.92 3 CMGT 512 951 Cost Est & Bid Strat Torbica, Zeljko 14 9 69% 10 71.4 3.50 3.40 3.10 3.30 4 CMGT 512 952 Cost Est & Bid Strat Torbica, Zeljko 14 11 79% 5 33.3 3.80 3.60 3.40 3.40 5 CMGT 558 951 Community Sustainability Bertram, David 7 3 50% 4 50.0 3.50 3.50 3.50 3.50 13.2 52 79% 40 61% 3.52 3.46 3.35 3.32 COURSE COURSE TITLE INSTRUCTOR AVERAGE FOR THE TERM: # COURSE COURSE TITLE 1 REAL 310 001 Introduction to Real Estate Torbica, Zeljko AVERAGE FOR THE TERM: RESPONSE RATE (%) Q 1. The course objectives, requirements, and grading policy were clearly stated. Q2. The stated objectives were fulfilled. Q3. Overall course rating Q4. Overall course instructor rating 13.0 # of RESPONDENTS 13 % of "C"s or HIGHER (UG) or % of "B"s or Higher (GR) INSTRUCTOR # of "C"s or HIGHER (UG) or # of "B"s or Higher (GR) Enrolled SPRING 2010: COURSE ASSESSMENT REPORT - REAL ESTATE COURSES 13 100% 3 23.1 3.67 3.67 3.00 3.00 13 100% 3 23.1 3.7 3.7 3.0 3.0 # of "C" or HIGHER % of "C" or HIGHER # of RESPONDENTS RESPONSE RATE (%) Q 1. The course objectives, requirements, and grading policy were clearly stated. Q2. The stated objectives were fulfilled. Q3. Overall course rating Q4. Overall course instructor rating # Enrolled SUMMER 2010: COURSE ASSESSMENT REPORT - CMGT UG COURSES 1 CMGT 161 705 Bldg Mtls & Constr Mthds I Adams, Francis 20 19 95% 2 10% 3.00 2.50 2.50 2.50 2 CMGT 162 706 Bldg Mtls & Constr Mthds II Adams, Francis 16 13 81% 3 19% 4.00 4.00 3.67 4.00 3 CMGT 361 705 Contracts And Specifications I Paul Logan 26 25 96% 11 42% 3.55 3.70 3.64 3.82 4 CMGT 362 706 Contracts And Specifications I Paul Logan 21 21 100% 8 38% 3.63 3.50 3.63 3.63 20.8 78 94% 24 29% 3.55 3.43 3.36 3.49 COURSE COURSE TITLE INSTRUCTOR AVERAGE FOR THE TERM: 83 # of "B" or HIGHER % of "B" or HIGHER # of RESPONDENTS RESPONSE RATE (%) Q 1. The course objectives, requirements, and grading policy were clearly stated. Q2. The stated objectives were fulfilled. Q3. Overall course rating Q4. Overall course instructor rating # Enrolled SUMMER 2010: COURSE ASSESSMENT REPORT - CMGT GRADUATE COURSES 1 CMGT 501 951 Leadership in Construction Charlie Cook 15 14 93% 15 100% 3.80 3.80 3.67 3.80 2 CMGT 515 951 Risk Management in Construction James Breen 22 18 90% 19 86% 3.26 3.32 3.16 3.11 3 CMGT 525 951 Applied Const Project Mgmt Hammad, Mamoon 10 3 30% 6 60% 2.83 2.83 2.50 2.17 4 CMGT 546 951 Sustainable Technologies Tarabieh, Khaled 16 13 93% 13 81% 3.54 3.75 3.54 3.69 15.8 48 76% 53 84% 3.36 3.43 3.22 3.19 COURSE COURSE TITLE INSTRUCTOR AVERAGE FOR THE TERM: 63 # of "C"s or HIGHER (UG) or # of "B"s or Higher (GR) % of "C"s or HIGHER (UG) or % of "B"s or Higher (GR) # of RESPONDENTS RESPONSE RATE (%) Q 1. The course objectives, requirements, and grading policy were clearly stated. Q2. The stated objectives were fulfilled. Q3. Overall course rating Q4. Overall course instructor rating # Enrolled SUMMER 2010: COURSE ASSESSMENT REPORT - REAL ESTATE COURSES 1 REAL 310 001 Intro to RE Z Torbica 23 22 96% 3 13% 3.67 3.67 3.00 3.00 2 REAL 330 701 Facilities & Property Mngt Lewis, James 10 10 100% 4 40% 3.75 3.75 3.50 3.75 3 REAL 572 951 Adv Mkt Research & Anal Mummert, Kristine 13 11 85% 9 69% 3.00 2.88 2.67 2.56 11.5 43 93% 16 35% 3.47 3.43 3.06 3.10 COURSE COURSE TITLE INSTRUCTOR AVERAGE FOR THE TERM: 46 The following scale has been used: QUESTION: 4 3 2 1 Q1/ Q2 Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Q3/ Q4 Excellent Good Adequate Poor GRAPHS % OF SECTIONS TAUGHT BY ADJUNCTS FOR ACADEMIC YEAR 2009-10 100% 60% 56% 54% 50% 53% 47% 42% UNDERGRADUATE + GRADUATE 20% GRADUATE UNDERGRADUATE 36% 0% UNDERGRADUATE SECTIONS GRADUATE SECTIONS ALL SECTIONS (FOR ACADEMIC YEAR) KEY: FALL TERM WINTER TERM SPRING TERM SUMMER TERM NUMBER OF SECTIONS OFFERED FOR ACADEMIC YEAR 2009-10 29 27 27 24 22 19 TOTAL # of SECTIONS: 91 11 6 5 5 5 2 NUMBER OF UNDERGRADUATE SECTIONS OFFERED NUMBER OF GRADUATE SECTIONS OFFERED TOTAL NUMBER OF SECTIONS OFFERED KEY: FALL TERM WINTER TERM SPRING TERM SUMMER TERM AVERAGE CLASS SIZES FOR ACADEMIC YEAR 2009-10 20.4 18.5 18.5 16.5 16.5 15.8 16 14.5 14.6 13.5 13 13.2 13 11 N/A UNDERGRADUATE "CMGT" SECTIONS UNDERGRADUATE "REAL" SECTIONS GRADUATE "CMGT" SECTIONS N/A GRADUATE "REAL" SECTIONS KEY: FALL TERM WINTER TERM SPRING TERM SUMMER TERM STUDENTS' CLASS EVALUATION RESPONSE RATES (%) FOR ACADEMIC YEAR 2009-10 84 69 69 61 45 29 27 27 29 27 27 23 23 15 N/A UNDERGRADUATE "CMGT" SECTIONS UNDERGRADUATE "REAL" SECTIONS GRADUATE "CMGT" SECTIONS N/A GRADUATE "REAL" SECTIONS KEY: FALL TERM WINTER TERM SPRING TERM SUMMER TERM "MASTERY OF SUBJECT" FOR ACADEMIC YEAR 2009-10 For UG Classes: % of "C"s or Higher; For GR Classes: % of "B"s or Higher 100 94 91 100 98 100 94 97 91 86 81 79 85 76 N/A UNDERGRADUATE "CMGT" SECTIONS UNDERGRADUATE "REAL" SECTIONS GRADUATE "CMGT" SECTIONS N/A GRADUATE "REAL" SECTIONS KEY: FALL TERM WINTER TERM SPRING TERM SUMMER TERM STUDENTS' EVALUATIONS FOR ACADEMIC YEAR 2009-10 Q1: "The course objectives, requirements, and grading policy were clearly stated." 3.83 3.61 3.8 3.61 3.42 3.67 3.55 3.71 3.5 3.41 3.52 3.36 3.42 3.00 N/A UNDERGRADUATE "CMGT" SECTIONS UNDERGRADUATE "REAL" SECTIONS GRADUATE "CMGT" SECTIONS N/A GRADUATE "REAL" SECTIONS KEY: FALL TERM WINTER TERM SPRING TERM SUMMER TERM THE FOLLOWING SCALE HAS BEEN USED: 1 "Strongly Disagree" 2 "Disagree" 3 "Agree" 4 "Strongly Agree" STUDENTS' EVALUATIONS FOR ACADEMIC YEAR 2009-10 Q2: "The stated objectives were fulfilled." 3.83 3.57 3.73 3.58 3.44 3.67 3.43 3.71 3.71 3.5 3.46 3.43 3.36 2.88 N/A UNDERGRADUATE "CMGT" SECTIONS UNDERGRADUATE "REAL" SECTIONS GRADUATE "CMGT" SECTIONS N/A GRADUATE "REAL" SECTIONS KEY: FALL TERM WINTER TERM SPRING TERM SUMMER TERM THE FOLLOWING SCALE HAS BEEN USED: 1 "Strongly Disagree" 2 "Disagree" 3 "Agree" 4 "Strongly Agree" STUDENTS' EVALUATIONS FOR ACADEMIC YEAR 2009-10 Q3: "Overall course rating." 3.63 3.5 3.46 3.41 3.6 3.5 3.36 3.35 3.22 3.25 3.14 3 3.09 2.67 N/A UNDERGRADUATE "CMGT" SECTIONS UNDERGRADUATE "REAL" SECTIONS GRADUATE "CMGT" SECTIONS N/A GRADUATE "REAL" SECTIONS KEY: FALL TERM WINTER TERM SPRING TERM SUMMER TERM THE FOLLOWING SCALE HAS BEEN USED: 1 "Poor" 2 "Adequate" 3 "Good" 4 "Excellent" STUDENTS' EVALUATIONS FOR ACADEMIC YEAR 2009-10 Q4: "Overall course instructor rating." 3.67 3.6 3.5 3.51 3.38 3.49 3.38 3.35 3.28 3.13 3.19 3 2.91 2.56 N/A UNDERGRADUATE "CMGT" SECTIONS UNDERGRADUATE "REAL" SECTIONS GRADUATE "CMGT" SECTIONS N/A GRADUATE "REAL" SECTIONS KEY: FALL TERM WINTER TERM SPRING TERM SUMMER TERM THE FOLLOWING SCALE HAS BEEN USED: 1 "Poor" 2 "Adequate" 3 "Good" 4 "Excellent" CO-OP EMPLOYER EVALUATION RICHARD C. GOODWIN COLLEGE OF PROFESSIONAL STUDIES MAJOR: CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT CO-OP EMPLOYER EVALUATION OF STUDENT PERFORMANCE FOR ACADEMIC YEAR: 2008 Drexel University - Construction Management: Employer Evaluations of Co-op Students: 2008 AY n Attendance 29 Outstanding 58.6% Good 37.9% Acceptable Marginal Unacceptable 0.0% 3.5% 0.0% Mean 4.52 Standard Deviation 0.69 n Punctuality 48.3% Good Acceptable Marginal Unacceptable 41.4% 3.5% 6.9% 0.0% Mean 4.31 Standard Deviation 0.85 n Time Management 44.8% 37.9% Acceptable Marginal Unacceptable 13.8% 0.0% 3.5% Mean 4.21 Standard Deviation 0.94 62.1% Good Acceptable Marginal Unacceptable 27.6% 0.0% 6.9% 3.5% Mean 4.38 Standard Deviation 1.05 29 Outstanding 34.5% Good 55.2% Acceptable 3.5% Marginal 3.5% Unacceptable 3.5% Mean Standard Deviation Steinbright Career Development Center 29 Outstanding n Judgement 29 Outstanding Good n Dependability 29 Outstanding 4.14 0.92 06-Jan-10 Drexel University - Construction Management: Employer Evaluations of Co-op Students: 2008 AY n Relations with others 29 Outstanding 44.8% Good 44.8% Acceptable Marginal Unacceptable 6.9% 3.5% 0.0% Mean 4.31 Standard Deviation 0.76 n Attitude/Application to work/learning 62.1% Good Acceptable Marginal Unacceptable 31.0% 3.5% 0.0% 3.5% Mean 4.48 Standard Deviation 0.87 n Productivity 48.3% 37.9% Acceptable Marginal Unacceptable 10.3% 0.0% 3.5% Mean 4.28 Standard Deviation 0.92 33.3% Good Acceptable Marginal Unacceptable 55.6% 7.4% 0.0% 3.7% Mean 4.15 Standard Deviation 0.86 29 Outstanding 34.5% Good 51.7% Acceptable 13.8% Marginal 0.0% Unacceptable 0.0% Mean Standard Deviation Steinbright Career Development Center 27 Outstanding n Understand professional and ethical responsibility 29 Outstanding Good n Function on multi-disciplinary teams 29 Outstanding 4.21 0.68 06-Jan-10 Drexel University - Construction Management: Employer Evaluations of Co-op Students: 2008 AY n Effective oral communication Outstanding 20.7% Good 55.2% Acceptable Marginal Unacceptable 24.1% 0.0% 0.0% Mean 3.97 Standard Deviation 0.68 n Effective written communication 29 Outstanding 17.2% Good Acceptable Marginal Unacceptable 55.2% 24.1% 3.5% 0.0% Mean 3.86 Standard Deviation 0.74 n Recognition of the need for, and ability to engage in life-long learning 29 26 Outstanding Good 19.2% 69.2% Acceptable Marginal Unacceptable 7.7% 3.9% 0.0% Mean 4.04 Standard Deviation 0.66 n Knowledge of contemporary workplace issues Outstanding 22.2% Good Acceptable Marginal Unacceptable 59.3% 11.1% 3.7% 3.7% Mean 3.93 Standard Deviation 0.92 n Apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering 27 Outstanding 25.9% Good 55.6% Acceptable 14.8% Marginal 3.7% Unacceptable 0.0% Mean Standard Deviation Steinbright Career Development Center 27 4.04 0.76 06-Jan-10 Drexel University - Construction Management: Employer Evaluations of Co-op Students: 2008 AY n Apply knowledge gained in the classroom Outstanding 24.0% Good 60.0% Acceptable Marginal Unacceptable 12.0% 4.0% 0.0% Mean 4.04 Standard Deviation 0.73 n Design and conduct experiments 37.5% Good Acceptable Marginal Unacceptable 37.5% 18.8% 0.0% 6.3% Mean 4.00 Standard Deviation 1.10 28.6% 53.6% Acceptable Marginal Unacceptable 10.7% 7.1% 0.0% Mean 4.04 Standard Deviation 0.84 30.0% Good Acceptable Marginal Unacceptable 60.0% 5.0% 5.0% 0.0% Mean 4.15 Standard Deviation 0.75 26 Outstanding 38.5% Good 42.3% Acceptable 11.5% Marginal 7.7% Unacceptable 0.0% Mean Standard Deviation Steinbright Career Development Center 20 Outstanding n Develop viable solutions to problems 28 Outstanding Good n Design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs 16 Outstanding n Analyze and interpret data 25 4.12 0.91 06-Jan-10 Drexel University - Construction Management: Employer Evaluations of Co-op Students: 2008 AY n Use techniques, skills, and modern tools necessary for practice Outstanding 44.8% Good 37.9% Acceptable Marginal Unacceptable 13.8% 3.5% 0.0% Mean 4.24 Standard Deviation 0.83 n Exhibit an understanding of how solutions to problems can impact society globally 26.1% Good Acceptable Marginal Unacceptable 56.5% 13.0% 4.4% 0.0% Mean 4.04 Standard Deviation 0.77 25.9% 59.3% Acceptable Marginal Unacceptable 14.8% 0.0% 0.0% Mean 4.11 Standard Deviation 0.64 18.5% Good Acceptable Marginal Unacceptable 44.4% 29.6% 7.4% 0.0% Mean 3.74 Standard Deviation 0.86 27 Outstanding 14.8% Good 55.6% Acceptable 29.6% Marginal 0.0% Unacceptable 0.0% Mean Standard Deviation Steinbright Career Development Center 27 Outstanding n Identify the primary cause of the problem/issue 27 Outstanding Good n Identify all potential causes of the problem 23 Outstanding n Accurately define a problem or issue in the workplace 29 3.85 0.66 06-Jan-10 Drexel University - Construction Management: Employer Evaluations of Co-op Students: 2008 AY n Assess advantages and disadvantages of each solution/course of action Outstanding 22.2% Good 48.2% Acceptable Marginal Unacceptable 25.9% 3.7% 0.0% Mean 3.89 Standard Deviation 0.80 n Implement most effective solution to resolve identified problem/issue 18.5% Good Acceptable Marginal Unacceptable 55.6% 22.2% 3.7% 0.0% Mean 3.89 Standard Deviation 0.75 29.6% 51.9% Acceptable Marginal Unacceptable 14.8% 3.7% 0.0% Mean 4.07 Standard Deviation 0.78 33.3% Good Acceptable Marginal Unacceptable 45.8% 16.7% 0.0% 4.2% Mean 4.04 Standard Deviation 0.95 29 Outstanding 51.7% Good 34.5% Acceptable 10.3% Marginal 0.0% Unacceptable 3.5% Mean Standard Deviation Steinbright Career Development Center 24 Outstanding n Please rate this student's overall performance: 27 Outstanding Good n Implement continuous changes for improvement if necessary<br><br> 27 Outstanding n Assess and determine if the problem has been resolved by the new course of action 27 4.31 0.93 06-Jan-10 Goodwin Coll of Prof Studies - Employer Evaluations of Co-op Students: 200835-45 Cycle (May 2009 - September 2009) How would you feel about this student returning for a future co-op? Construction Management Yes No Total 26 3 29 Pct. Yes 89.7% Is this student's academic preparation oriented to the needs of your organization? Construction Management Steinbright Career Development Center Yes No Total 28 1 29 Pct. Yes 96.6% 1/6/2010