Michigan Technological University School of Technology

Construction Management Assessment Report 2010-11 Academic Year

Table of Contents

Construction Management Continuous Improvement Plan . 3 Program Quality and Outcome Assessment for Mission and Goals Statement. 4 Program Educational Objectives 10 Program Outcomes 10 Table 1 Relationship Between Program Outcomes and Program Educational Objectives PEO/PO Relationships .. 11 Assessment Tools 12 Table 2 Summary of Assessment Tools Table 3 Program Outcomes and Course Assessment Program Educational Objectives Assessment Process 14 Table 4 Assessed Program Educational Objectives Program Outcomes Assessment Process ... 19 Table 5 Assessed Program Outcomes Appendix A: Program Education Objectives Assessment Results 29 Table A.1 Job Placement Results Tables A.2, A.3, A.4 Alumni Survey Results Tables A.5, A.6 Employer Survey Results Table A.7 IAB Discussion and Recommendations Appendix B: Program Outcomes Assessment Results .. 35 Table B.1 Student Rating of Instruction Table B.2, B.3 Graduate Exit Interviews Appendix C: List of Continuous Improvement Activities 41 Appendix D: MTU Rating of Instruction Instrument 42 Appendix E: MTU Preliminary Course/Instructor Evaluation Instrument 44

Construction Management Program Continuous Improvement Plan The purpose of the CMG Continuous Improvement Plan is to have a well-documented process for assessing and evaluating the extent to which program and curriculum improvement is being achieved. Improvement is measured using Goals and Objectives that have been established according to the Mission Statement for the Construction Management Program. The Mission Statement, Goals, and Objectives are similar for all programs within the School of Technology as these were established according to the Michigan Tech University Strategic Plan. The Continuous Improvement Plan requires evaluation of performance for specific goals and objectives that are outlined in the Mission and Goals statement (see next page). Included in the plan is an Outcomes Assessment Program to measure the performance of students and graduates with regard to specific Program Educational Objectives (PEOs) and Program Outcomes (POs). The PEOs describe the attributes that we aspire for our graduates to attain within the first several years following graduation from Michigan Tech. The assessment tools used to measure achievement of these attributes include survey results conducted by the University Career Center, alumni surveys, employer surveys, and input from our Industrial Advisory Board. The POs describe the student outcomes that we expect our CMG students to achieve by the time they graduate from Michigan Tech. These outcomes are evaluated using course assessment, student evaluations, senior exit surveys, and senior project evaluations. The process and the most recent results (2010-11) are described in detail in this report.

Michigan Technological University Mission Statement:

School of Technology, Construction Management

The mission of the MTU Construction Management program is to provide a quality and current education that will prepare students for professional careers in the construction industry. Students will be employable upon graduation and be prepared to grow professionally and be productive citizens in a global society. Goals: (Update for 2010-11 Academic year)

1. Attract and support world-class and diverse faculty, staff, and students. 1.1. Provide an outstanding work environment and support for faculty and staff. Metric: Benchmark salary and compensation package. Attract a bright, motivated, and diverse student body. Metrics: - Target average GPA of 2.75 and ACT of 22 for incoming students. - Percent ethnicity and gender of students. Provide exceptional facilities and an aesthetically pleasing environment. Metric: Optimize use of resources, labs, and equipment. Enhance learning, discovery, and engagement by continually upgrading the faculty and staff. Metric: Add one additional FTE faculty member by Fall 2013.

1.2.

1.3.

1.4.

2. Deliver a distinctive and rigorous learning experience to prepare graduates for careers in the construction field and professional growth. 2.1 Provide dynamic experiential learning that integrates instruction, teamwork, and projects in undergraduate courses. Metric: Outcomes Assessment Program. Promote and encourage student engagement, learning, and civic responsibility. Metric: Extracurricular opportunities and organizations such as NAHB, ASC, ETEC, and others. Achieve ACCE accreditation by July 2013. Metric: ACCE accreditation.

2.2.

2.3.

3. Maintain and expand the program to enhance the CMG faculty performance in learning, discovery, and engagement. 3.1. Encourage and support faculty engagement in industry and/or other professional development activities annually. Metric: Industrial activities, research involvement, publications and other. Promote technological education, economic development, and innovations regionally and nationally. Metric: Industry relations, committee participation, speaking engagements, and other outreach efforts.

3.2.

Michigan Technological University

School of Technology, Construction Management

Goal 1: Attract and support world-class and diverse faculty, staff, and students. Objective 1.1: Provide an outstanding work environment and support for faculty and staff. Measurement: Benchmark salary and compensation package for construction management positions at other universities (Michigan State University, Ferris State University, Eastern Michigan University, etc.). Outcome from Analysis: This has not been done yet. Action Taken or To Be Taken: Conduct survey of other universities. Disposition: Carry forward to 2011-12.

Objective 1.2: Attract a bright, motivated, and diverse student body. Measurement: Determine average GPA (target 2.75) and ACT (target 22) scores of incoming freshmen students. Also, determine gender and ethnicity information (targets not established). Outcome from Analysis: Data for incoming CMG freshmen for Fall 2010 and Spring 2011 (total of 6): Average GPA = 3.32 Average ACT (composite) = 24.5 Female students = 16% Percentage of Non-White = 16 %

Action Taken or To Be Taken: 1. The goal was met satisfactorily with regard to the numerical data above, but the concern is the total number of new students. The CMG program needs to improve total enrollment while maintaining the above standards.

Disposition: Carry forward to 2011-12.

Michigan Technological University

School of Technology, Construction Management

Goal 1: Attract and support world-class and diverse faculty, staff, and students. Objective 1.3: Provide exceptional facilities and an aesthetically pleasing environment. Measurement: Optimize use of resources, labs, and equipment. Outcome from Analysis: 1. Computer labs in the School of Technology have all been upgraded to state of the art with equipment and software. The rooms all have new furniture and carpeting. 2. Most classrooms have computers and 3. The materials testing labs are shared with the Civil Engineering department and all have current testing equipment and adequate facilities. This is a recurring objective and the goal was achieved as much as possible for this year. Action Taken or To Be Taken: 1. Continue to upgrade classrooms and computer labs as needed. 2. Continue to replace and upgrade lab testing equipment as needed. 3. Long term goal is to have a Construction Management Laboratory to consolidate the lab needs for materials testing, construction methods, and building utility systems.

Disposition: Carry forward to 2011-12.

Objective 1.4: Enhance learning, discovery, and engagement by continually upgrading the faculty and staff. Measurement: Add one additional FTE faculty member by Fall 2012. Outcome from Analysis: This has not been done. Action Taken or To Be Taken: Hire an additional faculty member. Disposition: Carry forward to 2011-12.

Michigan Technological University

School of Technology, Construction Management

Goal 2: Deliver a distinctive and rigorous learning experience to prepare graduates for careers in the construction field and professional growth. Objective 2.1: Provide dynamic experiential learning that integrates instruction, teamwork, and projects in undergraduate courses. Measurement: Develop and implement an Outcomes Assessment Program with specific Program Educational Objectives and student Program Outcomes. The assessment program shall include evaluation of specific course objectives, graduate exit surveys, alumni surveys, and input from an Industrial Advisory Board. Outcome from Analysis: The Outcomes Assessment Program has been set up and specific Program Educational Objectives (PEOs) and Program Outcomes (POs) have been established. An initial Assessment Report was completed. The assessment included course evaluation by the instructor using specific measurements of student performance, student evaluations, graduate surveys, alumni surveys (first time), employer surveys (first time), and input from the Industrial Advisory Board (IAB). In some cases, the assessment was incomplete, but it is expected that this will be completed for every course in 2011-12. This is a recurring objective and the goal was partially achieved for this year. Action Taken or To Be Taken: Continue to implement the Outcomes Assessment Program and complete the assessment for every course used to measure the PEOs and the POs. Disposition: Carry forward to 2011-12.

Objective 2.2: Promote and encourage student engagement, learning, and civic responsibility. Measurement: Encourage extracurricular activities and student participation in organizations such as National Home Builders (NAHB), Associated Schools of Construction (ASC) bid competition, engineering enterprise (ETEC), and others. Outcome from Analysis: 14 Students involved in NAHB. 6 Students participated in the regional ASC bid competition. 10 students participated in the ETEC enterprise. 45 students enrolled in the CMG program during the 2010-11 academic year. This is a recurring objective and we consider this to be a moderately successful year. Action Taken or To Be Taken: Continue to promote these extracurricular activities for CMG students. Disposition: Carry forward to 2011-12.

Michigan Technological University

School of Technology, Construction Management

Goal 2: Deliver a distinctive and rigorous learning experience to prepare graduates for careers in the construction field and professional growth. Objective 2.3: Achieve ACCE accreditation by July 2013. Measurement: Achieve ACCE accreditation. Outcome from Analysis: This has not been accomplished yet, but progress has been made. In January 2011, the program was approved for Candidate Status with a Full Self Study. Action Taken or To Be Taken: Complete and submit the Full Self Study report to the ACCE (target completion date is May 2012). Disposition: Carry forward to 2011-12.

Michigan Technological University

School of Technology, Construction Management

Goal 3: Maintain and expand the program to enhance the CMG faculty performance in learning, discovery, and engagement. Objective 3.1: Encourage and support faculty engagement in industry and/or other professional development activities annually. Measurement: Assess faculty engagement, research, and professional development activities. Outcome from Analysis: This is a recurring objective and the goal is considered to be achieved for this academic year. Action Taken or To Be Taken: Continue to encourage and support faculty development activities. Disposition: Carry forward to 2011-12.

Objective 3.2: Promote technological education, economic development, and innovations regionally and nationally. Measurement: Faculty relations with industry, professional organizations, speaking engagements, and other outreach efforts. Outcome from Analysis: This is a recurring objective and is considered to be moderately successful for this academic year. Action Taken or To Be Taken: Continue outreach efforts to promote technological education. Disposition: Carry forward to 2011-12.

Construction Management, MTU Program Educational Objectives Construction is a very diversified industry and among the leaders in this vast enterprise is the professional constructor or construction manager. A construction manager has the skills and knowledge, acquired through education and experience, to participate in the planning, design, and construction of a project from inception to completion for the purpose of controlling time, cost, and quality. The Program Educational Objectives (PEOs) listed below describe the attributes that we aspire for our graduates to possess during the first several years following graduation: PEO 1 PEO 2 PEO 3 Graduates will be well prepared for their first position in the construction management field. Graduates will have an understanding of construction science topics as needed for their position. Graduates will have an understanding of project management tasks including estimating, planning and scheduling, construction law, project safety, and other administrative procedures. Graduates will have the communication skills to work effectively as part of a team. Graduates will show a commitment to continuous improvement and life long learning by participating in professional societies, pursuing professional certifications, attending seminars or graduate studies.

PEO 4 PEO 5

Program Outcomes In order to achieve the above educational objectives, we expect our students to obtain the following Program Outcomes (POs) by the time that they graduate with their baccalaureate degree: PO 1 PO 2 PO 3 PO 4 PO 5 PO 6 PO 7 PO 8 PO 9 PO 10 PO 11 PO 12 An understanding of basic structural design theory for structural steel, timber, and reinforced concrete. An awareness of the basic civil, structural, mechanical, and electrical systems that are incorporated in a building project. An awareness of building codes and standards. Ability to use computer applications and construction graphics. An understanding of construction methods and materials including standards, testing, and acceptance procedures. An understanding of quantity take-off and cost estimating procedures. An understanding of project planning and scheduling. An understanding of construction accounting and finance and bidding procedures. An understanding of project management, construction contracts, ethical and legal considerations. An awareness of project safety requirements. An ability to communicate effectively, both orally and written. An ability to function effectively as part of a project team.

(May 2011 JPD)

10

Relationship between CMG Program Education Objectives (PEOs) and Program Outcomes (POs): Table 1: Relationship Between Program Outcomes and Program Educational Objectives Program Educational Objectives 1 1 An understanding of basic structural design theory for structural steel, timber, and reinforced concrete. An awareness of the basic civil, structural, mechanical, and electrical systems that are incorporated in a building project. An awareness of building codes and standards. An ability to use computer applications and construction graphics. An understanding of construction methods and materials including standards, testing, and acceptance procedures. An understanding of quantity take-off and cost estimating procedures. An understanding of project planning and scheduling. An understanding of construction accounting and finance and bidding procedures. An understanding of project management, construction contracts, ethical and legal considerations. 2 X 3 4 5

Program Outcomes POs

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

X X X X X X X X X X

X X

X X X X

10 An awareness of project safety requirements. 11 An ability to communicate effectively, both orally and written. 12 An ability to function effectively as part of a project team.

11

Assessment Tools The following table shows a summary of the various tools used to collect data in order to assess our Program Outcomes and program Educational Objectives. The table also identifies the items that are assessed by each tool and the frequency of assessment. A brief description of each tool is provided below. Table 2: Summary of Assessment Tools Assessment Tool Course Assessment Student Rating of Instruction Senior Exit Survey Senior Project Evaluation Job Placement PEO Alumni Survey Employer Survey Input from Industrial Advisory Board Program Outcome Assessment Tools: Course Assessment All faculty members are required to conduct individual course assessments during each semester. Data gathered during this process is used to make adjustments and improve the student learning experience. The course improvements are summarized each year in a Summary of Program Improvements document. The achievement standard is that 70% of the students perform at a level of 70% or better for each of the course competencies, which are linked to the program outcomes. Examples of assessment methods used are: homework assignments, labs, lab reports, quizzes, exams, performance projects, and the fourth week Preliminary Evaluation Form that is completed by the students. Student Rating of Instruction A standard university instrument administered by the Center for Teaching, Learning, and Faculty Development is used to obtain student feedback regarding instructor performance in the classroom. A sample form is attached as Appendix D. Responsible for Data Collection/Analysis Faculty Center for Teaching, Learning, and Faculty Development SOT Staff Faculty University Career Center SOT Staff SOT Staff Faculty Frequency Semester Semester (All Courses) Semester Annually Semester Triennially Triennially Annually

PO

12

Senior Project Evaluation This comprises the student performance (student teams) on the senior capstone project (Project Simulation) as measured by various examiners. The examiners attended the project presentations at the end of the semester and assessed the team performance using a level ranking. The examiners may include CMG faculty members and/or construction industry professionals. Senior Exit Survey Each semester, the graduating students complete a Senior Exit Survey, which is a written questionnaire concerning the Program Outcomes and other pertinent information about their educational experience. The student feedback data is used to identify trends in either the positive or negative direction. The table below shows the relationship between the Program Outcomes and the construction management course(s) that are used to assess achievement of these outcomes. Table 3: Program Outcomes and Course Assessment Program Outcome PO 1 PO 2 PO 3 PO 4 PO 5 PO 6 PO 7 PO 8 PO 9 PO 10 PO 11 PO 12 CMG Course CMG 2120, CMG 3250 CMG 2110, CMG 2140 CMG 3250, CMG 4900 CMG 3200, CMG 3265, CMG 4120, CMG 4900 CMG 1140, CMG 2140 CMG 2265, CMG 3265 CMG 4120 CMG 4300 CMG 4200, CMG 4210 CMG 4400 All CMG courses All CMG courses

13

Program Educational Objectives Assessment Tools: The target outcomes impact the CMG program curriculum in areas related to basic and advanced Construction Management skills. Table 2 shows all the assessment tools that were used for the PEOs. Job Placement Data Data from the Career Office on our graduates job placement reflects the success of our graduates in securing a job in a related field. Alumni Survey This is a written questionnaire which our alumni are asked to complete. Data will be collected every three years. The data will be analyzed and used in continuous improvement. A sample copy of the survey is in Appendix E. Employer Survey The Employer Survey is a written questionnaire which is sent to employers of our CMG graduates. Data will be collected every three years. Results of data analysis will be used to enhance and strengthen our program. A sample copy of the survey is in Appendix E. Input from Industrial Advisory Board (IAB) The CMG Industrial Advisory Board assists the CMG program in keeping our program current and relevant. Input from the IAB is collected every year and is considered in making continuous improvements to the program. Program Educational Objectives Assessment Process Table 4 shows the assessment tools used and the recent achievement standard (Academic Year 2010-11) for each of the Program Educational Objectives (PEOs).

14

Table 4: Assessed Program Educational Objectives

PROGRAM EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVE 1. PEO1: Graduates will be well prepared for their first position in the construction management field.

ASSESSMENT CRITERIA 1a. 70% of CMG graduates are currently employed in a degree related job as reported by the university job placement data. 1b. 70% of the CMG Alumni responding to the Alumni Survey will indicate they rate the overall quality of their CMG educational experience as good or better. (Survey Question #1) 1c. 70% of CMG Alumni responding to the Alumni Survey will indicate they are: 1) currently employed in a position directly related to their education, 2) have accepted a job offer for a position directly related to their education, 3) have at one time worked in a position directly related to their education since graduation, or 4) are currently pursuing an additional college degree. 1d. 70% of Employers responding to the Employer Survey will indicate they rate the overall quality of their CMG employees educational preparation from MTU as good or better. (Survey Question #1)

RESULTS 1a. 100% reporting had a job. 82% of total had a job. 1b. 70% of the CMG Alumni responding rated the quality as good or better (Avg rating = 4.1/5.0) 1c. 90% of the CMG Alumni responding indicate they are currently employed, and 10% indicate they are pursuing a graduate degree.

USE OF RESULTS 1a. The goal was met.

1b. The goal was met. Continue to monitor and strive for improvement.

1c. The goal was met. Continue to monitor on future surveys.

1d. 100% of Employers responding rated the quality as good or better (Avg rating = 4.5/5.0) Only 4 responses received (3% response rate). Also, 1 Employer indicated that they also hire Civil Engr. Graduates, so they based their responses on both CMG and CE

1d. The goal was met. However, we must: a) significantly improve the response rate and b) gather feedback on only CMG graduates. This is true for all of the Employer feedback received, nevertheless, we will consider the results.

1e. The CMG Industrial Advisory Board will meet at least annually to review and provide feedback to improve the quality of the program and preparation of our graduates.

1e. The CMG IAB met this academic year on April 15, 2011.

1e. See the IAB meeting minutes and Appendix A, Table A.7.

15

2. PEO2: Graduates will have an understanding of construction science topics as needed for their position.

2a. On the Alumni and Employer Surveys, one or more abilities are listed which reflect this objective. Alumni are asked to rate their ability and understanding as gained from their MTU education. The scale is: 5 Very Satisfied 4 Satisfied 3 Neutral 2 Dissatisfied 1 Very Dissatisfied For each ability relevant to this Objective, the weighted average of responses will be at least 3.50.

2a. Survey Question #2: An understanding of basic structural design theory for steel, timber, concrete and masonry as needed in your work. Weighted Average = 4.30 (Alumni) Weighted Average = 4.50 (Employer) Survey Question #4: Ability to utilize computer applications and computer graphics as needed in your work. Weighted Average = 3.90 (Alumni) Weighted Average = 4.80 (Employer) Survey Question #5: Ability to understand materials standards and testing and acceptance procedures in your work. Weighted Average = 4.00 (Alumni) Weighted Average = 4.50 (Employer) Alumni Survey 10 responses (54) 19% response rate. Employer Survey 4 Responses (138) 3% response rate.

2a. The goal was met. Continue to monitor and strive for improvement. Also, we must improve the Employer response rate and emphasize only CMG graduates.

16

3. PEO3: Graduates will have an understanding of project management tasks including estimating, planning and scheduling, construction law, project safety, and other administrative procedures.

3a. On the Alumni and Employer Surveys, one or more abilities are listed which reflect this objective. Alumni are asked to rate their ability and understanding as gained from their MTU education. The scale is: 5 Very Satisfied 4 Satisfied 3 Neutral 2 Dissatisfied 1 Very Dissatisfied For each ability relevant to this Objective, the weighted average of responses will be at least 3.50.

3a. Survey Question #6 Ability to perform quantity take-off and cost estimating tasks in your work. Weighted Average = 4.50 (Alumni) Weighted Average = 4.80 (Employer) Survey Question #7 Ability to perform project planning and scheduling tasks in your work. Weighted Average = 3.80 (Alumni) Weighted Average = 4.80 (Employer) Survey Question #8 An understanding of construction contracts, accounting, and bid procedures in your work. Weighted Average = 3.40 (Alumni) Weighted Average = 4.00 (Employer) Survey Question #9 An understanding of project management, contracts, and legal obligations in your work. Weighted Average = 3.50 (Alumni) Weighted Average = 4.00 (Employer) Survey Question #10 An awareness of project safety reqts in your work. Weighted Average = 4.00 (Alumni) Weighted Average = 4.50 (Employer)

3a. The goal was met, except for a slightly lower rating for Survey Question #8 (with regard to construction contracts, accounting, and bid procedures). Need to emphasize more in some courses (CMG 3265, 4200, and 4300). One recent action taken was to make CMG 4200 a Required course, rather than an Elective.

17

4. PEO4: Graduates will have the communication skills to work effectively as part of a team.

4a. On the Alumni and Employer Surveys, one or more abilities are listed which reflect this objective. Alumni are asked to rate their ability and understanding as gained from their MTU education. The scale is: 5 Very Satisfied 4 Satisfied 3 Neutral 2 Dissatisfied 1 Very Dissatisfied For each ability relevant to this Objective, the weighted average of responses will be at least 3.50.

4a. Survey Question #11 Ability to assume positions of leadership within your respective organization. Weighted Average = 4.20 (Alumni) Weighted Average = 4.03 (Employer) Survey Question #12 Ability to work effectively as a member of a multidiscipline project team. Weighted Average = 4.10 (Alumni) Weighted Average = 4.80 (Employer) Survey Question #13 Ability to effectively articulate ideas in both written and oral communications. Weighted Average = 3.80 (Alumni) Weighted Average = 4.80 (Employer)

4a. The goal was met. Continue to monitor and strive for improvement.

5. PEO5: Graduates will show a commitment to continuous improvement and lifelong learning by participating in professional societies, pursuing professional certifications, attending seminars or graduate studies.

5a. On the Alumni and Employer Surveys, one or more abilities are listed which reflect this objective. Alumni are asked to rate their ability and understanding as gained from their MTU education. The scale is: 5 Very Satisfied 4 Satisfied 3 Neutral 2 Dissatisfied 1 Very Dissatisfied For each ability relevant to this Objective, the weighted average of responses will be at least 3.50.

5a. Survey Question #14 Ability to understand and exhibit professional, ethical, and social responsibility in your pursuit of a career in the construction industry. Weighted Average = 4.50 (Alumni) Weighted Average = 4.80 (Employer)

5a. The goal was met. Continue to monitor and strive for improvement.

18

5a. Survey Question #15 Awareness of the value of continuous improvement, with a focus on quality and a commitment to lifelong learning. Weighted Average = 3.80 (Alumni) Weighted Average = 4.50 (Employer)

Program Outcomes (PO) Assessment Process Table 5 shows the assessment tools that were used and the achievement standard for each of the program outcomes.

Table 5: Assessed Program Outcomes

PROGRAM OBJECTIVE PO1: An understanding of basic structural design theory for structural steel, timber, and reinforced concrete.

ASSESSMENT CRITERIA 1a. Course Assessment (CMG2120, CMG3250) CMG 2120: Have 70% of the students score above 70% on the 3 Exams and the Final Exam. Student rating on 3 Optional Questions (per the Course Objectives) above a 3.50 average.

RESULTS 1a. CMG 2120: Exam #1 78% >70 Exam #2 45% >70 Exam #3 78% >70 Final Exam 67% >70 Average student rating on the 3 optional questions = 4.34.

USE OF RESULTS 1a. The goal was not met. CMG2120: Student ratings and 2 of 3 exams were acceptable, and the Final was close. Exam #2 indicates that more time needs to be spent on Moment of Inertia calculations and truss frame analysis. (Implemented in Spring 2012.)

19

CMG 3250: (Fall 2009 as J. Daavettila on sabbatical leave in Fall 2010.) 2009 as J. Daavettila on sabbatical leave in Fall 2010.) Have 70% of the students score above 70% on the 3 Exams. Have 70% of the students score above 70% on the graded homework assignments. Have 70% of the students score above 70% on the Design Project.

CMG 3250: Exam #1 26% >70 Exam #2 47% >70 Exam #3 90% > 70 HW 74% >70 Project 63% >70

1b. Student Rating of Instruction. Rating above a 3.50 average for Q #1 20.

1b. CMG 2120: Avg. Rating = 4.36. CMG 3250: Avg. Rating = 4.60.

CMG 3250: Need to spend more time on review of basic statics and materials at the beginning of class. Need to incorporate more review and use of the AISC Code during class sessions. Also, need to add optional questions, specific to the course objectives, to the student evaluation. (Implemented in Fall 2011). 1b. The goal was met.

1c. Senior Exit Survey. On the Senior Exit Survey, one or more abilities are listed which reflect this objective. Graduates are asked to rate their ability and understanding as gained from their MTU education. The scale is: 4 Outstanding 3 Good, No weaknesses 2 Fair, Minor weaknesses 1 Poor, Major weaknesses 0 Completely unprepared For each ability relevant to this Objective, the weighted average of responses will be at least 2.80.

1c. Survey Question #7 Understand the principles underlying the design of building structures. Weighted Average = 3.10

1c. The goal was met.

20

PO2: An awareness of the basic civil, structural, mechanical, and electrical systems that are incorporated in a building project.

2a. Course Assessment (CMG 2110, CMG 2140) This was not set up. 2b. Student Rating of Instruction. Rating above a 3.50 average for Q #1 20. 2c. Senior Exit Survey. For each ability relevant to this Objective, the weighted average of responses will be at least 2.80.

2a. This was not done. 2b. This was not done.

2a. Incomplete. Plan to do in 2011-12. 2b. Incomplete. Plan to do in 2011-12. 2c. The goal was not met. Plan to emphasize building systems more in the CMG 2110 class, along with the CMG 3265 class so that students are better prepared for Senior Design. (Plan to implement in 2011-12 year.) 3a. The goal was not clearly met. CMG 3250: Include an optional question on the student evaluation to use for course assessment of this objective. (Implemented in Fall 2011.) CMG 4900: Students did use and were required to reference building codes as part of their senior project. 3b. The goal was met.

2c. Survey Question #8 Compare and choose proper building systems, materials and methods. Weighted Average = 2.60.

PO #3: An awareness of building codes and standards.

3a. Course Assessment (CMG 3250, CMG 4900)

3a. CMG 3250: There was no tangible way to assess this objective. CMG 4900: There was no tangible way to assess this objective. Students used the 2009 IBC during the Design-Build portion of this class.

3b. Senior Exit Survey. For each ability relevant to this Objective, the weighted average of responses will be at least 2.80.

3b. Survey Question #7 Understand the principles underlying the design of building structures. Wt. Average = 3.10

21

PO #4: An ability to use computer applications and construction graphics.

4a. Course Assessment (CMG 3200, CMG 3265, CMG 4120, CMG 4900) CMG 3200: Assign, collect and evaluate various Carlson/AutoCAD (i.e., CAD-based) projects. Expect class average to be at least 70% (when graded in detail) on each one. CMG 3265 (Fall 2009): Evaluate students ability to use Excel as a requirement for the Project work. Consider the students initiative in using free on-line software for cost estimating.

4a.

4a. This goal was met and remains a recurring goal. CMG 3200: Strive to get all students to submit all assigned projects. Add question about computer apps. on Course Evaluations. CMG 3265 Emphasized use of Excel in setting up Project Estimates. Plan to implement Quantity Take-off and Cost Estimating software in Fall 2011. CMG 4120: This goal was met. CMG 4900: This goal was met.

CMG 3200: Eight CAD-based projects assigned and evaluated. Seven out of eight had class average > 70%

CMG 3265: 100% of the students can use Excel. 40% of the Project teams used take-off and estimating software for the second project.

CMG 4120: Evaluate students ability to use Scheduling software programs. CMG 4900: Evaluate students ability to use Excel as a requirement for the Project work. Also, assess the students initiative in using free on-line take-off software for cost estimating on the Senior Project. 4b. Student Rating of Instruction. Rating above a 3.50 average for Q #1 20. (CMG 3200)

CMG 4120: 100% of the students can use Primavera. CMG 4900: 100% of the students can use Excel. 67% of the project teams used on-line take-off software.

4b. CMG 3200: Average rating = CMG 4900: Average rating = 4.08

4b. The goal was met.

22

4c. Senior Exit Survey. For each ability relevant to this Objective, the weighted average of responses will be at least 2.80.

4c. Survey Question #6 Print reading and drafting. Weighted Average = 3.20

4c. The goal was not met. Fundamentals are OK, but need to improve use of professional software. Note Survey Question #12 that the weighted average for Utilize common productivity software, Question #13 in the previous year e.g., Word, Excel. Weighted Average = (2009-10) was 3.00. 3.20. Survey Question #13 Utilize professional engineering and construction software. Weighted Average = 2.20.

PO5: An understanding of construction methods and materials including standards, testing, and acceptance procedures.

5a. Course Assessment (CMG 1140, CMG 2140) CMG 1140: Have 70% of the students score above 70% on the 2 Exams and have the Overall Class Average be above 70%. Student rating on 3 Optional Questions (per the Course Objectives) above a 3.50 average. CMG 2140: Course assessment not set up.

5a. CMG 1140: Exam #1 = 72% Exam #2 = 79% Overall Avg. = 80% Average student rating on the 3 optional questions = 4.36.

5a. The goal was met. CMG 1140: The students understand the fundamentals of materials, testing, and acceptance.

CMG 2140: This was not done.

CMG 2140: Incomplete. Plan to do in 2011-12. 5b. The goal was met. CMG 1140: Average rating is acceptable. CMG 2140: Incomplete. Plan to do in 2011-12.

5b. Student Rating of Instruction. Rating above a 3.50 average for Q #1 20. (CMG 1140, CMG 2140)

5b. CMG 1140: Average rating = 4.24

CMG 2140: This was not done.

23

5c. Senior Exit Survey For each ability relevant to this Objective, the weighted average of responses will be at least 2.80.

5c. Survey Question #8 Compare and choose proper building systems, materials and methods. Weighted Average = 2.60. 6a. CMG 2265: 50% of the students scored above 70% on the examination. 90% of the students scored above 80% on their homework assignments. 100% of the Project Teams scored above 80% on the project. The average rating on optional questions I II was 4.50. CMG 3265: 92% of the students scored above 70% on the examination. 80% of the students scored above 80% on their homework assignments. 80% of the Project Teams scored above 80% on the Projects (4 of 5 teams), with one team at 76%.

5c. The goal was not met.

PO6: An understanding of quantity take-off and cost estimating procedures.

6a. Course Assessment (CMG 2265, CMG 3265) CMG 2265: Have 70% of the students score above 70% on the Exam. Have 70% of the students score above 80% on the Homework assignments. Have 100% of the Project Teams score above 80% on the Project. Have the Overall Class Average be above 70%. Student rating on Optional Questions I and II (per the Course Objectives) be above a 3.50 average. CMG 3265: (Use Fall 2009 as J. Daavettila on sabbatical leave in Fall 2010.) Have 70% of the students score above 70% on the Exam. Have 70% of the students score above 80 % on the Homework assignments. Have 100% of the Project Teams score above 80% on the Projects (2 each).

6a. The goal was very nearly met. CMG 2265: The goal was met for the homework, project, and the student evaluation questions. Need to prepare students better for the examination; in particular, with regard to earthwork volumes and understanding UG trench plan and profile drawings. (Plan to implement in Spring 2012.) CMG 3265: (Fall 2009) In general, the goal was met. One of the project teams needed additional prodding to properly complete the projects. (Plan to implement in Fall 2011: Emphasize the project work more from the beginning of the semester.

24

6b. Student Rating of Instruction. Rating above a 3.50 average for Q # 1 20. 6c. Senior Exit Survey. For each ability relevant to this Objective, the weighted average of responses will be at least 2.80.

6b. CMG 2265: Avg. Rating = 4.47. CMG 3265 (F09): Avg. Rating = 4.55. 6c. Survey Question #10 Perform major project management functions: estimating, scheduling, accounting, and financing. Weighted Average = 2.90. 7a. Exam #1- 95% > 70 Exam #2-100% > 70 Final 95% > 70 Project 86% > 70 7b. Average Rating = 3.90 7c. Survey Question #10 Perform major project management functions: estimating, scheduling, accounting, and financing. Wt. Average = 2.90.

Also, plan to add optional questions to the Student Evaluations to specifically address the course objectives) 6b. The goal was met.

6c. The goal was met.

PO7: An understanding of project planning and scheduling.

7a. Course Assessment (CMG 4120) Have 70% of the students score above 70% on the 2 Exams, the Final Exam, and the Final Project. 7b. Student Rating of Instruction. Rating above a 3.50 average for Q # 1 20. 7c. Senior Exit Survey For each ability relevant to this Objective, the weighted average of responses will be at least 2.80.

7a. The goal was met.

7b. The goal was met.

7c. The goal was met.

25

PO8: An understanding of construction accounting and finance and bidding procedures.

8a. Course Assessment (CMG 4300) Have 70% of the students score above 70% on the 2 Exams, the Final Exam, and the Final Project.

8a. Exam #1-100% > 70 Exam #2-100% > 70 Final - 100% > 70 Project - 41% > 70

8a. The goal was nearly met, need to improve performance on the Final Project.

8b. Student Rating of Instruction. Rating above a 3.50 average for Q # 1 20. 8c. Senior Exit Survey For each ability relevant to this Objective, the weighted average of responses will be at least 2.80.

8b. Average Rating = 4.01 8c. Survey Question #10 Perform major project management functions: estimating, scheduling, accounting, and financing. Weighted Average = 2.90. 9a. CMG 4200: MidTerm - 100%>70 Final - 78% > 70 CMG4210: Exam #1 - 90% > 70 Exam #2 - 95% > 70 Final - 100% > 70

8b. The goal was met.

8c. The goal was met.

PO9: An understanding of project management, construction contracts, ethical and legal considerations.

9a. Course Assessment CMG 4200: Have 70% of the students score above 70% on the 2 Exams. CMG 4210: Have 70% of the students score above 70% on the 2 Exams and the Final Exam.

9a. The goal was met.

9b. Student Rating of Instruction. Rating above a 3.50 average for Q # 1 20.

9b. CMG 4200: Average Rating = 4.15 CMG 4210: Average Rating = 4.24

9b. The goal was met.

26

9c. Senior Exit Survey For each ability relevant to this Objective, the weighted average of responses will be at least 2.80.

PO10: An awareness of project safety requirements.

10a. Course Assessment (CMG 4400) Class average on each Test and the Final Exam to be at least 70%.

9c. Survey Question #4 Respond to a professional ethical dilemma in accordance with current professional standards. Weighted Average = 3.10. Survey Question #11 Understand construction contracts and the administrative procedures. Wt. Average = 2.90. 10a. CMG4400: Tests & Final Exam class average > 70%. Test #1: 77% Test #2: 73% Test #3: 86% Test #4: 83% Final Exam: 85%

9c. The goal was met.

10a. The goal was met.

Rating average of at least 4.0 (out Rating average on Q of 5) on course evaluation Q #21: #21 was 4.50 My knowledge / understanding of the subparts in OSHA 1926 has increased substantially due to this course.

10b. Student Rating of Instruction. Rating above a 3.50 average for Q # 1 20.

10b. Average rating for each question above 3.50 (with the lowest being 4.19).

10b. The goal was met.

27

PO11: An ability to communicate effectively, both orally and written.

11a. Senior Exit Survey For each ability relevant to this Objective, the weighted average of responses will be at least 2.80.

11a. Survey Question #2 Write clearly and concisely about technical and managerial matters. Weighted Average = 2.90. Survey Question #3 Communicate effectively in business settings and on the jobsite. Weighted Average = 3.00.

11a. This goal was met. Evaluation of reports and presentations in several classes support the exit survey results that our graduates have the ability to communicate.

PO12: An ability to function effectively as part of a project team.

12a. Senior Exit Survey For each ability relevant to this Objective, the weighted average of responses will be at least 2.80.

12a. Survey Question #5 Function effectively on teams. Weighted Average = 3.50.

12a. This goal was met. Team projects in several classes support the exit survey results that our graduates can function effectively as part of a project team.

28

Appendix A: Program Educational Objectives (PEO) Assessment Results: Table A.1: Job Placement Data Result University Career Center Data Number of Graduates Number of offers reported Salaries Placement Fall 2010 Graduates 4 6 $48,000 (1 each) 75% (3 of 4) Spring 2011 Graduates 12 10 $52,000 to $64,000 (3 each) 83% (10 of 12)

Alumni Survey Results The Construction Management Alumni Survey was mailed to 54 alumni and 10 valid surveys were returned, for a response rate of 18.5%. The results to the initial general questions are summarized in Table A.2 below and the other survey results are summarized in Table A.3 below: Table A.2: Alumni Survey Results General Questions Survey Question General Question: What is your position within your organization? Alumni Responses Project Manager (3 each) Field/Const. Coordinator, Lab Manager (4 each) Scheduler (1 each) CAD Operator (1 each) Graduate Student (1 each)

General Question: Is this a leadership position within your Yes (70 %) organization? Survey Question #1: Based on your work experience since Excellent Good obtaining your undergraduate degree in (50%) (20%) CMG from Michigan Tech, what is your impression of the overall quality of your educational experience in the CMG program?

No (30%)

Satisfactor y (20%)

Fair (10%)

Marginal (0%)

29

Table A.3: Alumni Survey Results Survey Questions Listed below are several statements about the skills and knowledge you may have had to use for your employer. On a Scale of 5 = Very Satisfied to 1 = Very Dissatisfied, please rate your satisfaction level on how well the CMG program at Michigan Tech prepared you to apply these skills at your work place. Choose one box per row. Very Satisfi Neutr Dissatisfi Very Avera Satisfi ed al ed Dissatisfi ge ed ed Rating An understanding of basic structural design theory for steel, #2 4 5 1 0 0 4.3 timber, concrete, and masonry as needed in your work. An understanding of building #3 codes and standards as needed in 0 3 5 1 1 3.0 your work. Ability to utilize computer #4 applications and computer graphics 2 6 1 1 0 3.9 as needed in your work. Ability to understand materials standards and testing and #5 3 5 1 1 0 4.0 acceptance procedures in your work. Ability to perform quantity take#6 off and cost estimating tasks in 6 3 1 0 0 4.5 your work. Ability to perform project planning #7 4 3 1 1 1 3.8 and scheduling tasks in your work. An understanding of construction #8 contracts, accounting, and bid 0 7 1 1 1 3.4 procedures in your work. An understanding of project #9 management, contracts, and legal 1 4 4 1 0 3.5 obligations in your work. An awareness of project safety #10 3 4 3 0 0 4.0 requirements in your work. Ability to assume positions of #11 leadership within your 5 3 1 1 0 4.2 organization. Ability to work effectively as a #12 member of a multi-discipline 2 7 1 0 0 4.1 project team. Ability to effectively articulate #13 ideas in both written and oral 2 6 0 2 0 3.8 communications. Ability to understand and exhibit professional, ethical, and social #14 5 5 0 0 0 4.5 responsibility in your pursuit of a career in the construction industry. Awareness of the value of continuous improvement, with a #15 1 7 1 1 0 3.8 focus on quality and a commitment to life-long learning. Overall Average Rating 3.9

30

Table A. 4: Alumni Survey Results Additional Questions Please indicate a Yes or No response to the following statements: Yes I participate in one (or more) professional societies. I have taken the AIC exam for certification as an Associate Constructor (AC). I have successfully passed the AIC Certification exam. I have pursued other professional certification(s). I have attended professional seminars as a commitment to life-long learning. Alumni Survey Results Summary of Additional Comments 1. The AC certification was mentioned, but more guidance/encouragement should be provided. 2. Overall, I think I was better prepared than my peers from other universities, which allowed me to advance faster. 3. Improve on communication, which is a deficiency amongst most of my peers also. 4. Improve on Contracts discussion more than just the one Business Law class. 5. A component to add to the CMG program would be to get the students certified in different professional programs. Safety certifications like OSHA are a huge advantage for graduates and should be required, not just optional. 6. I work for a General Contractor and we subcontract about 90% of our work. It is very important to clarify the scope of the work and this should be covered better in the classes. 7. The thing I hated most when I was at school was the lack of feedback you do semester-long projects and at the end you never get any feedback about whether you did a good or a bad job. 8. Many teachers have great experience, but some have none and are weak team members. Share your stories and mistakes. 9. My final issue is building codes. I know nothing about ADA regulations and building codes. 10. The program focuses heavily on residential and commercial (I graduated in 2008). Industrial construction involves a lot of topics that were never covered, primarily piping systems. 11. My job now is just like Senior Design, but with more projects, real dollars, and a client that expects it to be done yesterday. I would say that the program needs more real life simulation projects, not just for one semester. 12. The best learning experience that I had at MTU was the Co-op and internship experience. I would emphasize to all students that its super important to have this type of experience before looking for your full time job. I always wondered why local construction management companies dont come to the Career Fair? Could the program contact these companies and ask them to come? Do companies like Bacco, Gundlach, AE COM, Trimedia, UP Engineering, and others even know that MTU has a good CMG program? 13. College doesnt really prepare you for the real world. I would say I got about 40% of my knowledge of the construction field from Tech and 60% from working. 1 0 0 4 8 No 9 10 10 6 2 No Response 0 0 0 0 0

31

Employer Survey Results The Construction Management Employer Survey was mailed to 138 employers of CMG graduates, 8 were bounced back (and not included in the total count), and 4 responses were returned. This is a very low response rate of 3.1 %. The high number of employers includes several surveys sent to a different person at the same company (such as 9 surveys sent to Bechtel, Inc.). We are uncertain about the reasons for such a low response, but plan to investigate and try for significant improvement on the return rate next time. In any case, the results to the Employer Survey are summarized in Tables A.5 and A.6 below: Table A.5: Employer Survey Results General Questions Survey Question General Question: What is the name of your company? General Question: What is your position/title in your company? General Question: Total Number of CMG graduates that you currently supervise or have supervised. General Question: Based upon your professional experience and opportunities to observe CMG graduates from Michigan Technological University and other institutions, what is your impression about the overall quality of the CMG-Michigan Tech graduates? Employer Response Bonestroo, CN, Skanska, Black & Veatch Human Resources Associate, Operations Manager, Client Service Manager, Title not given

Responses ranged from 0 to 4.

Excellent (2 each)

Good (2 each)

Satisfactory (0)

Fair (0)

Marginal (0)

32

Table A.6: Employer Survey Results Survey Questions Listed below are several statements about the skills and knowledge expected of our CMG graduates. On a Scale of 5 = Very Satisfied to 1 = Very Dissatisfied, please rate your satisfaction level with regard to the performance of our CMG graduates that you have supervised. Please choose one box per row. Very Satisfi Neutr Dissatisfi Very Avera Satisfi ed al ed Dissatisfi ge ed ed Rating An understanding of basic structural design theory for steel, #2 2 2 0 0 0 4.5 timber, concrete, and masonry as needed in your work. An understanding of building #3 codes and standards as needed in 1 3 0 0 0 4.3 your work. Ability to utilize computer #4 applications and computer graphics 3 1 0 0 0 4.8 as needed in your work. Ability to understand materials standards and testing and #5 2 2 0 0 0 4.5 acceptance procedures in your work. Ability to perform quantity take#6 off and cost estimating tasks in 3 1 0 0 0 4.8 your work. Ability to perform project planning #7 3 1 0 0 0 4.8 and scheduling tasks in your work. An understanding of construction #8 contracts, accounting, and bid 1 2 1 0 0 4.0 procedures in your work. An understanding of project #9 management, contracts, and legal 1 2 1 0 0 4.0 obligations in your work. An awareness of project safety #10 2 2 0 0 0 4.5 requirements in your work. Ability to assume positions of #11 leadership within your 2 1 1 0 0 4.3 organization. Ability to work effectively as a #12 member of a multi-discipline 3 1 0 0 0 4.8 project team. Ability to effectively articulate #13 ideas in both written and oral 3 1 0 0 0 4.8 communications. Ability to understand and exhibit professional, ethical, and social #14 3 1 0 0 0 4.8 responsibility in your pursuit of a career in the construction industry. Awareness of the value of continuous improvement, with a #15 3 0 1 0 0 4.5 focus on quality and a commitment to life-long learning. Overall Average Rating 4.5

33

Table A.7: List of Recent IAB Discussions and Recommendations (2009-10 and 2010-11) Classification CMG Curriculum Issues Discussion Items and Recommendation Incorporate Revit and BIM in CMG1000, and use in other classes. Include certifications in CMG1140, especially the ACI Concrete Testing certification. Software applications are important in Estimating (CMG3265) and Scheduling (CMG4120), but fundamentals are important. Owner CMG faculty CMG faculty Status This has been done. This will be done in Spring 2011. Continue to use Excel. Incorporate new Estimating software in Fall 2011. Continue to offer the 10-hr. MIOSHA Cert. in CMG4400. This is ongoing. Open.

CMG faculty

Safety considerations are important, incorporate MIOSHA Certification in CMG4400. Incorporate jobsite visits and guest speakers as part of the course work. IAB recommend that the School of Technology hire an Outreach Coordinator, specifically responsible for recruiting for the School. IAB recommend that we meet with admissions and the athletic recruiters to make sure they are aware of the CMG program. Suggestion to target fund raising for the Ed Haltenhoff Scholarship for CMG student(s).

CMG faculty

CMG faculty School of Technology administration CMG faculty

CMG Program Issues

Open

Student Activities

Encourage internships, co-ops, and/or summer jobs in the construction field. Encourage students to become involved in the Michigan Tech student chapter of the Associated General Contractors (AGC).

CMG faculty, School administration, and IAB members CMG faculty CMG faculty

Open

Board Business

Expand the IAB membership to 12 members.

CMG faculty

Decision to meet twice annually (Fall and Spring). If possible, incorporate the AGCSCAN event at the Fall Meeting and Senior Project presentations at the Spring Meeting.

CMG faculty and IAB members

This is ongoing. This is ongoing. Plan to discuss joint involvement with Civil Engr. Increased to 10 members by April 2011. Plan to add at least one CMG alumnus to the Board. This was implemented in Fall 2011.

34

Appendix B: Program Outcomes (PO) Assessment Results: Course Assessment Tool For continuous improvement, faculty are required to conduct Course Assessment at the end of each semester. For many years, faculty conducted course assessment on an informal basis to assist them in evaluation and continuous improvement of their courses. Now, effective Fall 2010, we have established a more formal method to evaluate performance and assess student outcomes. Course assessments are summarized in the previous Table 4 for each Program Outcome. In some cases, the information is incomplete due to the recent implementation of this assessment program. It is expected that the course assessments will be complete for the 2011-12 academic year. Student Rating of Instruction Faculty are required to conduct student evaluations during the 4th or 5th week of each semester (Preliminary Course/Instructor Evaluation) and at the end of each semester. The comments received in the Preliminary Evaluation are considered and incorporated as needed to improve instruction. The Student Rating of Instruction is more detailed feedback and utilized to improve the course delivery for future semesters. The results for the student evaluations are included in the previous Table 4.

35

Table B.1: Graduate Exit Interview Results Survey Questions (2009-10 and 2010-11 Years) Please rate the quality of education and training you received from the Construction Management program in the following aspects: Outstanding = 4; Good, no weaknesses = 3; Fair, minor weaknesses = 2; Poor, major weaknesses = 1; Completely unprepared = 0. 2009 - 10 2010 11 Fall Sprin Avg. Sprin Avg. Fall Survey Question: 200 g for g for 2010 9 2010 Yr. 2011 Yr. Apply basic mathematical and physical #1 knowledge to engineering and construction 3.8 3.2 3.0 2.9 3.38 2.93 problems. Write clearly and concisely about technical and #2 3.2 2.7 2.7 3.0 2.85 2.93 managerial matters. Communicate effectively in business settings #3 3.2 3.2 3.3 2.9 3.20 3.00 and on the jobsite. Respond to a professional ethical delimma in #4 3.0 3.3 3.0 3.1 3.21 3.08 accordance with current professional standards. #5 Function effectively on teams. 3.6 3.5 3.0 3.6 3.53 3.45 #6 Print reading and drafting. 3.4 3.1 3.0 3.2 3.19 3.15 Understand the principles underlying the #7 3.8 3.6 3.0 3.1 3.66 3.08 design of building structures. Compare and choose proper building systems, #8 3.4 3.3 2.0 2.8 3.33 2.60 materials and methods. #9 Perform survey and site layout tasks. 3.2 3.2 2.3 2.6 3.20 2.53 Perform major project management functions: #10 estimating, scheduling, accounting, and 3.6 3.5 2.7 2.9 3.53 2.85 financing. Understand construction contracts and the #11 2.8 3.0 3.0 2.8 2.94 2.85 administration procedures. Utilize common productivity software, e.g. #12 3.8 3.8 2.7 3.4 3.80 3.23 Word, Excel. Utilize professional engineering and #13 3.4 2.8 2.0 2.2 2.98 2.15 construction software. Identify technical and managerial problems in #14 3.2 3.2 3.0 2.6 3.20 2.70 construction projects. #15 Solve problems creatively. 3.2 3.5 2.3 3.0 3.41 2.83 Independently pursue additional knowledge or #16 3.4 3.3 3.0 3.0 3.33 3.00 skills. #17 Overall, I think the program is: 3.4 3.3 2.7 2.9 3.33 2.85 Average Rating for Q # 1 to 17 3.38 3.26 3.30 2.75 2.94 2.89 5 12 17 3 9 12 Number of Respondents 6 13 19 4 12 16 Number of Graduates

36

Table B.2: Graduate Exit Interview Results General Questions (2010-11 Academic Year)

Please respond to the following General Questions: #1 #2 #3 When did you begin your job searching? How many job applications have you submitted so far? How many offers have you received so far? Have you already accepted a job offer? Please provide your starting salary (optional). What knowledge/skills/abilities learned in this program have helped you the most in obtaining a job?

Fall 2010 (3 respondents / 4 graduates) Summer to mid-Fall 2010 0 to 12 (estimated avg. = 5) 2 @ 2 offers 1 @ 0 offers Yes (1 each) No (2 each) 1 @ $48,000 Senior Design class. Ability to problem solve.

Spring 2011 (9 respondents / 12 graduates) Junior year to Jan. 2011 Varies from 2 to over 300. (estimated avg. = 70) 1 @ 3 offers 4 @ 1 offer 4 @ 0 offers Yes (4 each) No (5 each) 3 responses $52,000 to $64,000 Estimating experience(s). Presentation/communication skills (4 each). Software skills. Internship experience. Statics, materials, structures. Better experience with scheduling software (3 each). Incorporate on-screen quantity take-off software. Job experience and more exposure to industry. Yes (7 each) No (2 each)

#4 #5 #6

#7

What knowledge/skills/abilities do you think can help you find a more satisfying job but have not been adequately developed in this program? As a college student, did you ever take a co-op or intern position related to you major or work in a position related to your major (full or part-time)? If you answered Yes to Question #8, for which firm(s) have you worked and for how many months?

More roadway construction. More challenging topics of study.

#8

Yes (3 each)

#9

#10 Other than the Senior Project course, did you participate in any Enterprise or similar programs while in college? #11 If you answered to Question #10, please list which Enterprise or other program(s). #12 While you were a student at MTU, were you a member of any student or professional organization? Note the organization and your level of participation in each. #13 Do you plan to go to graduate school? #14 Do you expect to take continuing education courses, seminars, etc. throughout your career?

Granite Construction; MDOT; Blytheville Plate Works; CCC Group, Inc. Yes (1 each) No (2 each)

Skanska; Reith-Riley; SME; MDOT (2); Archer-Daniels; Bay Electric Yes (5 each) No (4 each)

ASC Competition

ETEC (4 each) NAHB (1 each) ETEC (4 each) NAHB (4 each) REAC (1 each) Tae Kwon Do (1 each) Yes (1 each) No (8 each) Yes (9 each)

No (1 each) No Response (2 each)

No (3 each) Yes (3 each)

37

#15 What recommendations would you make to the faculty for ways to improve students experiences in this program?

Incorporate more roadway construction. Improve the use of professional software, especially the 3D modeling program.

Provide more hands-on learning opportunities and more access to industry. Incorporate more use of professional software (AutoCAD, Carlson, scheduling, Quantity takeoff, BIM). (4 each) Have professionals from industry teach the software. Make Senior Design mandatory (cannot substitute ETEC).

38

Academic Year: 2010-11 Assessment of CMG Graduate Exit Interviews Consider responses to Survey Questions #1 through #17: Goal: Achieve a score of at least 3.00 on all questions from all graduates. An average rating below 2.80 (70%) is an indication of concern. Evaluation of results: 1. There were a total of 16 graduates for the 2010-11 academic year, and 12 responded to the exit survey. 2. An average score of 3.00 or higher was received on 7 of the 17 questions, or 41%, of the responses. Another 6 questions received a rating of 2.83 to 2.99, which means that 76% of the responses were at or above 2.80. This indicates that the graduating students consider that the quality of education received in most of the Construction Management subject areas is pretty good with no real weaknesses. 3. Last year, the results were better, with 14 of the 17 questions , or 82%, at 3.00 or above. The remaining 3 questions were at 2.85 or higher, so 100% were above 2.80. 4. In 2009-10, the average overall program rating was 3.33. This year, the average overall program rating was 2.85. 5. An average score below 2.80 was received for the following 4 survey questions: #8 - Compare and choose proper building systems, materials, and methods. (2.60) #9 - Perform survey and site layout tasks. (2.53) #13 - Utilize professional engineering and construction software. (2.15) #14 - Identify technical and managerial problems in construction projects. (2.70) Consider responses to Survey Questions #18 through #32: Evaluation of Results: 1. Prior to graduation, 6 students had one job offer and 1 student had 3 job offers and 5 students had accepted a job. 2. Most of the respondents (10 of the 12) worked in a co-op or intern position while attending school. 3. Half of the respondents (6 of the 12) participated in Enterprise or similar programs such as ETEC, NAHB, and/or the ASC Bid Competition Team. 4. One student plans to attend graduate school. All respondents expect to take continuing education courses and attend seminars throughout their career. 5. Responses to Question #23 - What knowledge/skills/abilities learned in this program have helped you the most in obtaining the job? included: - Senior design class. - Estimating experience and presentation skills. - Ability to communicate effectively with people in the construction industry. - Statics, Strength of Materials, and Structures courses. - Communication skills.

39

6. Responses to Question #24 What knowledge/skills/abilities do you think can help you find a more satisfying job but have not been adequately developed in this program? included: - More discussion of roadway construction. - More in-depth discussion of the topics of study to challenge the students more. - More experience with P6 Scheduling software and incorporate on-screen take-off. - Have experts teach software programs. - Collaborate more with engineering students. - More exposure to industry. 7. Responses to Question #32 What recommendations would you make to the faculty for ways to improve the students experience in this program? included: - Teach more roadway work. - Hire a staff member for the 3D modeling program. - Improve/update the software in the construction classes. - Increased usage of BIM modeling and other software in the construction classes. - Challenge the students more, especially in the senior classes. - Hire an actual Construction Project Manager. - Provide more hands-on learning and utilize real life problems and situations. - Make a construction-related internship a requirement to graduate. - Continue doing teamwork projects and presentations as much as possible. - More access to members from the construction industry. Comments on the Results: 1. In general, the responses to the first 17 questions indicate that the students are satisfied with the quality of education received in the Construction Management program. We need to be aware of the decrease in the percentage of responses above 3.00 and 2.80. 2. The responses to Questions #13, #24, and #32 indicate that students believe improvement is needed with regard to software applications in the construction classes. 3. Students would like to see more discussion of roadway construction topics. 4. Students would like more hands-on experience and as much contact as possible with construction industry professionals. 5. Continue to require teamwork projects and presentations as much as possible. Plans for Improvement: 1. Incorporate a roadway/utility project in the second Estimating course (CMG 3265). 2. Incorporate more software applications in the second Estimating course (CMG 3265). 3. Continue to encourage the students to work in a construction-related position sometime during their academic years (co-op, internship, summer job, etc.). 4. Continue to incorporate teamwork projects and presentations in as many courses as possible. September 2011

40

Appendix C: List of Continuous Improvement Actions for CMG Courses Table C.1: Recently completed and Planned Actions for Course Improvement Course CMG 1000 Course Improvement Actions (Status) Update/upgrade software and/or hardware for lab portion of course. Change the Construction Management textbook for the course (current text somewhat outdated and provides students with the answers to all the Chapter questions). Incorporate ACI Concrete Testing Certification in the class and lab (to be implemented Spring 2012). Change to a better textbook, more focused on Statics and Strength of Materials with more variety and more example problems (to be implemented in S 2012). Less focus on print reading (done in CMG1000) and more time spent on Quantity Take-off, including a Team Project (implemented in Spring 2010). Update/upgrade software and/or hardware for lab portion of course. Grade and return course lab projects, homework assignments, tests, sooner. Provide adequate time for tests. Need to spend more time on review of Statics and Strength of Materials (done in CMG 2120) (implemented in Fall 2011). Need to reference and use the Code books (AISC, ACI, AFPA) in class (implemented in Fall 2011). Less time spent on Quantity Take-off review (increased in CMG 2265) and more focus on Team Projects incorporate 2 projects as part of the class, including a roadway/utility project (implemented in Fall 2011). Facilitate a higher quality outcome for projects (to be implemented in 2011-12). Incorporate individual presentations on a piece of construction equipment as part of the course grade (implemented in Fall 2008). Improve delivery of scheduling concepts and calculations (to be implemented in Spring 2012). Make this a required CMG course, rather than a Technical Elective. This will ensure coverage of Construction Law in the curriculum. (implemented in Fall 2010). Since CMG 4200 is now a required course, focus this class on administrative processes and techniques (to be implemented in Fall 2011). Plan to ease students into the project process for a better quality outcome (to be implemented in Fall 2011). Cover additional Subparts of 29CFR 1926. Obtain safety supplies (for show-andtell/demonstrations) for the course. Revise the Senior Project class and hire a part-time Instructor (retired career professional) to teach this class (implemented in Spring ? ). Tie-in some graded assignments. Restrict the Business Electives to require at least one Business Management Elective. This will ensure coverage of principles of management in a Business course (implemented in Fall 2010). Replace the Free Elective with a Science Elective (geology). This will fulfill the ACCE requirement for the Math/Science credits (implemented in Fall 2010).

CMG 1140 CMG 2120 CMG 2265 CMG 3200

CMG 3250

CMG 3265

CMG 4000 CMG 4100 CMG 4120 CMG 4200

CMG 4210 CMG 4300 CMG 4400 CMG 4900 CMG 4999 Other

41

Appendix D: Michigan Technological University Student Rating of Instruction Instrument Instructor Name: ________________________________ Course Number: ________________________________ Section Number: ________________________________ Day(s) Class Meets: _____________________________ Time Class Meets: _______________________________
INSTRUCTIONS: As you respond to the following items, remember that an effective teaching/learning environment is interactive and requires the cooperative efforts of the students and the instructor. For a course to foster student learning, students must have mastered the appropriate prerequisite knowledge and skills, purchase and read textbooks, complete course assignments, and actively contribute to the learning environment of the class. To be fair to your instructor, please consider these important factors as you complete this form. USE A NO. 2 PENCIL ONLY

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral

___ ___ ___ ___ ___

Agree Strongly Agree O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28.

I wanted to take this course. O O The pace of this course was consistent with my ability to learn. O Class sessions were thought provoking. O The organization of the course helped me to learn. O The instructors grading policies were fair. The instructor make students aware of his/her scheduled office hrs. O The instructor encouraged students to seek additional help outside. O O The instructor communicated the course material clearly. O The instructor made students aware of the goals of the course. The instructor explained the importance of what we were learning. O O The instructor welcomed student questions in class. The instructor made connections between new material and material O previously covered in class. The instructional resources (books, h/outs, etc.) furthered my learning. O O The instructor was enthusiastic about teaching the course . O The instructor used class time effectively. The instructor provided timely feedback on my work (homework, O assignments, exams, etc.). I am more interested in the subject now than I was before this class. O O The classroom and equipment (if applicable) were adequate to support effective learning. Given the chance, I would take another course from this instructor. O Taking everything into account, I consider this instructor to be an O excellent teacher. Optional Question I O O Optional Question II O Optional Question III O Optional Question IV O Optional Question V O Optional Question VI O Optional Question VII O Optional Question VIII

PLEASE COMPLETE OTHER SIDE

COMMENTS TO YOUR INSTRUCTOR

Your written comments will be forwarded directly to your instructor after the final grades have been submitted for this course. Please use this opportunity to assist your instructor in improving this class by providing constructive, helpful comments. 42

1.

As I, the instructor, prepare to teach this class again, what aspect(s) of this course (teaching methods, assignments, areas of emphasis, etc.) should I preserve that effectively furthered your learning?

2. What aspect(s) of this course should I change to improve student learning? Specifically, what would you suggest?

3. Optional Question:

43

Appendix E: Preliminary Course/Instructor Evaluation Instrument (administer during the 4th or 5th week) Preliminary Course/Instructor Evaluation Course Number: Course Name: Instructor: Date:

Please respond to the two questions listed below. Your brief, specific responses will provide important feedback to help me continuously improve this course. 1. What about this course, or my teaching, is helping you to learn?

What could I change about this course, or my teaching, that would improve your learning?

44