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