Final Assessment Report AY 2019-2020...Final Assessment Report AY 2019-2020 Department of...

Final Assessment Report

AY 2019-2020

Department of Construction Management

College of Engineering, Computer Science, and Construction Management

California State University, Chico

October 2020

Compiled and Reported by:

Alan Bond, Associate Professor

Department Assessment Coordinator

Edited and Approved by the Faculty of the

Department of Construction Management

This Final Assessment Report (FAR) provides a summary of various assessment results and the currently

developed action plans resulting from the data analysis and implementation of the Construction

Management Departments Quality Improvement Plan (QIP), as required by its accrediting body, the

America Council for Construction Education (ACCE).

The FAR is compiled on an academic year cycle and is based upon the current QIP as of the date of the

report. The applicable QIP can be found on the Construction Management Department (CMGT)

website:

http://www.csuchico.edu/cm/acce-accreditation/quality-improvement-plan.shtml. During this academic

year, the QIP and strategy plan were revised in their entirety and are effective as of Fall 2020.

Any minor deviations from the applicable plan are called out in the report, when and if, they occur.

History of Modifications to the Quality Improvement Plan:

Edition Date Assessment Purpose

1 S2015 AY 2016-2017 Memorializing the Educational Units Strategic Plan, Assessment

Plan, and Assessment Implementation Plan.

2 S2017 AY 2017-2018 Documenting revisions to the Degree Program Outcomes

(DPO’s were reduced from 27 to 6 items to provide a better focus for the Educational Unit).

3 F2018 AY 2018-2019 The stated performance criteria for all SLO direct assessment

were increased to 85% of the students shall earn a 73%, or

better.

4 S2020 AY 2019-2020 The QIP has been reformatted to match the ACCE Document

103, Section 9 numbering system. The strategic plan and

mission statement have also been updated.

Definitions

For consistency with the ACCE standards, the following definition clarifications are provided for the

reader of this document:

Educational Unit: ACCE recognized there are units at institutions of higher learning composed of faculty

and staff capable of teaching or conducting research. These units typically offer Degree Programs with

which they are affiliated. When the words Educational Unit are used in this document it is synonymous

with “Department of Construction Management”, “Department”, “Construction Management”, and “CMGT”.

Degree Program: A Degree Program is an educational system with identified academic coursework,

containing the body of knowledge necessary to obtain a college or university degree in that field of

study. When the words Degree Program are used in this document, it is synonymous with “Bachelors of

Science in Construction Management”.

Faculty: The individuals that comprise the Educational Unit and are responsible for the creation and

dissemination of curriculum for the Degree Program.

2

http://www.csuchico.edu/cm/acce-accreditation/quality-improvement-plan.shtml

Industry Advisory Council (IAC): A body of individuals made up of interested construction industry

management professionals and Chico State Construction Management Alumni. Their purpose to remain

engaged with the Educational Unit and provide review and guidance of the Degree Program.

Industry Advisory Council Curriculum Committee (IAC CC): A subset of the IAC body that is specifically

tasked with assisting the Educational Unit in reviewing the current curriculum and providing suggestions

for modifications and additions to maintain currency with the evolving construction industry.

Curriculum and Accreditation Committee (IAC): A subset of faculty within the educational unit

responsible for guiding the degree program in all matters of curriculum and accreditation.

3

Final Assessment Report Academic Year 2019-2020

Bachelor of Science in Construction Management

Table of Contents Introduction.................................................................................................................................................. 6

Part 1 - Assessment Result Summary ........................................................................................................10

Student Learning Outcomes (SLO’s) – Assessment Results ..................................................................10

Direct Student Learning Outcome Results ........................................................................................10

Indirect Student Learning Outcome Results......................................................................................12

Degree Program Outcomes (DPO’s) – Assessment Results ..................................................................16

Indirect Degree Program Outcome Results .......................................................................................16

Climate Survey - Assessment Results ....................................................................................................17

Senior Exit Survey Data Trends ..........................................................................................................17

Alumni Survey Data Trends................................................................................................................18

Employer (IAC) Survey Data Trends...................................................................................................18

Part 2 - Assessment Improvement Plan ....................................................................................................20

Student Learning Outcomes (SLO’s) – Improvement Plan....................................................................21

Direct Student Learning Outcome - Action Plan ...............................................................................21

Indirect Student Learning Outcome Action Plan...............................................................................24

Degree Program Outcomes (DPO’s) – Improvement Plan....................................................................25

Indirect Degree Program Outcomes Action Plan ..............................................................................25

Climate Survey Trends - Improvement Plan..........................................................................................26

Senior Exit Survey Data Trends Action Plan ......................................................................................26

Alumni Survey Data Trends Action Plan ............................................................................................27

Employer (IAC) Survey Data Trends Action Plan ...............................................................................28

Supplemental Improvement Plan..............................................................................................................28

4

Appendix Documents

Appendix A: Student Learning Outcomes…(1 page)…………………………………………………………….…… 29

Appendix B: Revised I-R-DA Map…(1 page)………………………………………………………………………….….. 30

Appendix C: SLO Direct Assessment Scorecard Results…(5 pages)..…………………………………………. 31

Appendix D: SLO Indirect Assessment Scorecard Results…(2 pages).………………………………………. 36

Appendix E: Degree Program Outcomes…(1 page)………………………………………………………………….. 38

Appendix F: DPO Indirect Assessment Scorecard Results…(4 pages)….……………………………………. 39

Appendix G: Senior Exit Survey Results…(8 pages)..……………………………………………………………….… 43

Appendix H: Alumni Survey Results…(5 pages)…………………………………………………………………………. 51

Appendix I: Employers Survey Results…(5 pages)……………………………………………………………………… 56

Appendix J: AY 2018-2019 QIP Meeting & Action Plan...(10 pages)………………………………………….. 60

5

Introduction

This year's Final Assessment Report (FAR) includes the results from our latest academic year cycle and is

also the basis for our reaccreditation submission, Document 102B Self-Study, for the American Council

of Construction Education (ACCE). The self-study (which includes a copy of this report) is due November

1st, 2020, and the Student Learning Outcome mapping, results, and action plans are due December 1st,

2020. The educational unit is scheduled for a visiting team (VT) from ACCE March 7-9, 2021.

Significant improvements have been made to the Educational Unit and Degree Program this academic

year.

Educational Unit

The Quality Improvement Plan (QIP) has been revised to: o Match the ACCE numbering system. o Revised strategic plan. o Revised Assessment Implementation Plan.

Degree Program

The Degree Program finalized significant curriculum changes which are now in effect starting Fall 2020:

o CMGT 100 – Introduction to Construction Management will increase from a 2.0 to 3.0 unit course

o CMGT 105 – Computer Applications in Construction Management has been added to the curriculum.

o CMGT 330 – Principles of Soils and Concrete has an updated course name to Principles of Soils, Concrete, and Survey to reflect the increase of survey curriculum in this course.

o CMGT 340 – Statics and CMGT 345 – Strength of Materials have been combined to create CMGT 350 – Statics and Strength of Materials.

o CMGT 385 – Principles of Sustainable Construction has been added to the curriculum. The Major Academic Plan (MAP) for the program has been revised to reflect these curriculum

changes as well as existing course prerequisites to assist students 4-6 year graduation rates per

Graduation Initiative 2025 (GI2025).

Faculty have also completed their second year of mandatory student advising with the assistance of the College of Engineering, Computer Science, and Construction Management

Success Center. This increased effort will also assist in obtaining the GI2025 goals.

The Faculty continues to diligently complete the self-study in preparation for reaccreditation as noted

above.

6

This report is formatted with two distinct parts.

PART 1

Assessment Results Summaries - This part reports on all assessment data obtained during AY 2019-2020

by using Scorecards to indicate the SLO and DPO assessment results. The Scorecards also indicate the

assessment tool(s) and stated performance criteria. This part does not provide any analysis of the data,

nor any action plans.

PART 2

Assessment Improvement Plan - This part provides specific action plans to curriculum, assessment

methods, assessment tools, or other changes deemed necessary to meet stated performance criteria.

This part of the report should be considered the compliance document, along with any supplement

documents and action plans produced as a result of the annual faculty QIP meeting, per the Educational

Units Quality Control Plan (“QIP”).

The overall number of Faculty members has stabilized, however, the lecturer/adjunct pool remains in

flux. One of the noteworthy changes is that 1 of the 3 remaining Full Professors has entered the FERP

program, leaving the Education Unit with only 2 tenured Full Professors for 480 students. This is a

situation of concern for the well-being and continuity of the degree program. To maintain parity with

other Degree Programs in the College, the Education Unit should maintain the equivalent of 10 full-time

faculty.

Rank Status Load AY 2017-18 AY 2018-19 AY 2019-20 AY 2020-21

Full Professors T FT 3 3 3 2

Associate Professors TT FT 1 1 1 1

Assistant Professors TT FT 2 2 2 2

Lectures -- FT 3 2 2 2

Adjunct Faculty -- PT 3 3 3 3

FERP (retired) -- HT 3 3 3 4

15 14 14 14

Legend T Tenured

TT Tenure-Track

FT Full-time

PT Part-time

HT Half-Time

Over the past three years, the number of Degree Program declared majors have been holding steady at

approximately 490 students. Similarly, the average number of annual graduates has been just over 100

students. The Educational Unit’s Faculty hiring target remains at adding one full-time Faculty member for every additional 50 declared Degree Program majors.

7

The Educational Unit uses an embedded assessment process, within the Degree Program, linked to

specific assessment tools (quiz, exam, activity, lab, group work) in selected courses to determine student

achievement of the various SLO’s, Appendix A. The road map for this process is the Introduce-

Reinforce-Direct Assessment Map (I-R-DA), Appendix B. The map indicates which of the Degree

Program courses are responsible for introducing, reinforcing, and directly assessing the specific SLO

content.

As the SLO content is introduced and reinforced, those courses are responsible to perform a direct

assessment, collect the results, analyze the results, and improve when necessary. However, it is the

course assigned by the I-R-DA Map performing the direct assessment (DA) that is used to measure the

students’ depth of knowledge on an individual SLO topical category.

8

Edition Date Assessment Purpose

1 F2014 Spring 2015 ACCE re-accreditation visit (under new standards) F2015

2 S2016 AY 2016-2017 The revisions were made for two purposes:

1. Simplification of the previous I-R-DA Map, and

2. Reduction in the number of classes using an

embedded assessment of the same SLO.

3 S2017 AY 2017-2018 The revisions were vetted through the Educational Units

Curriculum Committee for two purposes:

1. Ensure a logical I-R-DA path of the content

appropriate and sequentially used throughout the

Department, and

2. Move direct assessments into 300 and 400 level

classes when feasible.

4 F2019 AY 2019-2020 The revision was minor and affected only two courses,

CMGT 460 and 462. Due to the cross over nature of

Legal Aspects and Construction Contracts, the

taxonomy of the shared SLO’s was revised.

History of Modifications to the Introduce-Reinforce-Direct Map

This report is based on Edition 4 of the I-R-DA map and all applicable Direct

and Indirect Assessment data.

9

Part 1 - Assessment Result Summary

Student Learning Outcomes (SLO’s) – Assessment Results

Direct Student Learning Outcome Results For each embedded direct assessment of an SLO, the minimum Educational Unit-wide

performance criterion has been increased to 85/73, defined as 85% of the students taking the

assessment will achieve a score of 73% or better.

A complete summary of all direct assessment data from AY2019-2020 is presented in the SLO

Direct Assessment Scorecard, Appendix C. This scorecard lists the SLO, the Department’s course where the embedded direct assessment occurs, the corresponding Course Learning Outcome

(“CLO”) description, the assessment tool, the performance criteria, and finally the assessment

result.

The Educational Unit conducted SLO direct assessments on all 20 SLO’s during the Fall semester. Any SLO direct assessments that did not meet the stated performance criteria were re-assessed

during the Spring semester after the appropriate action plan(s) have been implemented.

There are a total of 28 direct assessments for the 20 SLO’s. 12 of 28 direct assessment fell short of the stated performance criteria (57% success

rate).

SLO’s Direct Assessments Needing Improvement:

SLO #4: Create construction project cost estimates.

This SLO uses two courses (CMGT 450 and CMGT 458) and therefore two direct

assessments to measure student success. One of the two direct assessment tools used

for this SLO failed to meet the stated performance criteria. The course and results:

CMGT 450 – Lab 1 Result: 49%/73% CMGT 450 – Lab 2 Result: 78%/73% CMGT 450 – Lab 4 Result: 65%/73% CMGT 450 – Lab 5 Result: 76%/73% CMGT 450 – Lab 7 Result: 80%/73% CMGT 450 – Lab 8 Result: 71%/73%

SLO #6: Analyze professional decisions based on ethical principles.




CMGT 462 – Exam 1: 62%/73%

10

SLO #8: Analyze methods, materials, and equipment used to construct projects.




CMGT 332 – Quiz 2 Result: 63%/73%

SLO #11: Apply basic survey techniques for construction layout and control.

This course uses multiple Direct Assessment tools to measure student success. Multiple

direct assessment tools for this SLO failed to meet the stated performance criteria. The

course and results:

CMGT 330 – Lab 10 Result: 70%/70% CMGT 330 – Lab 12 Result: 83%/70% CMGT 330 – Lab 13 Result: 59%/70% CMGT 330 – Quiz 7 Result: 43%/70% CMGT 330 – Quiz 8 Result: 52%/70% CMGT 330 – Final Exam Result: 43%/70%

SLO #13: Understand construction risk management


assessments to measure student success. Both of the two direct assessment tools used

for this SLO failed to meet the stated performance criteria. The courses and results:

CMGT 460 – Exam Result: 74%/73% CMGT 462 – Exams 1 & 2 Result: 60%/73%

SLO #14: Understand construction accounting and cost control

This SLO uses one course (CMGT 455) and one direct assessment to measure student

success. The direct assessment tools used for this SLO failed to meet the stated

performance criteria. The course and results:

CMGT 455 – Activity 2 Result: 77%/73%

SLO #17: Understand the legal implications of the contract, common, and regulatory

law to manage a construction project.


assessments to measure student success. Both of the two direct assessment tools used

for this SLO failed to meet the stated performance criteria. The courses and results:

CMGT 460 – Exam Result: 68%/73% CMGT 462 – Exams 1, 2, & 3 Results: 35%/73%

SLO #18: Understand the basic principles of sustainable construction.

This SLO uses one course (CMGT 455) and one direct assessment to measure student

success. The direct assessment tools used for this SLO failed to meet the stated

performance criteria. The course and results:

CMGT 235 – Quiz 12 Result: 74%/73%

11

Academic Year SLO Fail PC SLO Pass PC SLO Pass%

AY 2019-2020 10 10 50%

AY 2018-2019 08 12 60%

AY 2017-2018 05 15 75%

SLO #20: Understand the basic principles of mechanical, electrical, and plumbing

systems.

This course uses three Direct Assessment tools to measure student success. Two of the

three direct assessment tools for this SLO failed to meet the stated performance

criteria. The course and results:

CMGT 235 – Plumbing Skills Review: 73%/73% CMGT 235 – Mechanical Skills Review: 76%/73%

Executive Summary of SLO Direct Assessment Data – The trend in compliance with the performance criteria (PC) for direct assessment continues to decrease year after year.

Indirect Student Learning Outcome Results The Department uses three surveys as the means for indirect assessment of the SLO’s. They are:

Survey Frequency

Senior Exit Survey Administered annually Alumni Survey Administered every 2 years Employers (IAC) Administered every 2 years

For each indirect assessment of an SLO, a minimum Department-wide performance criterion has

been raised per the faculty QIP Meeting held in November 2019 to 4.0/5.0 (previously 3.5) using

a Likert Scale.

A summary of the Senior Exit Survey, Alumni Survey, and Employers survey indirect assessment

data from AY 2019-2020, is presented in the SLO Indirect Assessment Scorecard, Appendix D.

Each indirect assessment askes the survey participants to rate the SLO’s according to the following instructions:

Senior Exit Survey – …”Rate how strongly you agree or disagree that you have achieved the following SLO outcomes.” Alumni Survey – “In order to help us understand the level of student preparedness you

felt entering the workforce…” Employers Survey – “In order for our Degree Program to determine the level of our

students’ preparedness, please rate the students you supervised based upon the

following skill sets (SLO’s)”.

The Department performed a total of 20 indirect assessments relating to the 20 SLO’s. Senior Exit Survey Results: 20/20 SLO’s met the stated performance criteria. Alumni Survey Results: 1/20 SLO’s met the stated performance criteria. Employer Survey Results: 2/20 SLO’s met the stated performance criteria.

12

SLO’s Indirect Assessments Needing Improvement: These are the results from AY 2019-2020; new data will be collected AY 2021-2022

SLO #1: Create written communications appropriate to the construction discipline

Alumni Survey Result: 3.71/5.0 Employer Survey Result: 3.62/5.0

SLO #2: Create oral presentations appropriate to the construction discipline


SLO #3: Create a construction project safety plan


SLO #4: Create a construction project estimate


SLO #5: Create a construction project schedule


SLO #6: Analyze professional decisions based on ethical principles


SLO #7: Analyze construction documents for planning and management of the

construction process


SLO #8: Analyze methods, materials, and equipment used to construction projects


SLO #9: Apply construction management skills as an effective member of a multi-

disciplinary team

Alumni Survey Result: 3.91/5.0

SLO #10: Apply electronic-based technology to manage the construction process.

Alumni Survey Result: 3.91/5.0

13

SLO #11: Apply basic surveying techniques for construction layout and control.

Alumni Survey Results: 2.92/5.0 Employer Survey Result: 2.82/5.0

SLO #12: Understand different methods of project delivery and the roles and

responsibilities of all constituencies involved in the design and construction process.


SLO #13: Understand construction risk management




SLO #15: Understand construction quality assurance and control


SLO #16: Understand construction project control processes


SLO #17: Understand the legal implications of contract, common, and regulatory law to

manage a construction project


SLO #18: Understand the basic principles of sustainable construction


SLO #19: Understand the basic principles of structural behavior

Employer Survey Result: 3.36/5.0


systems.


Executive Summary of SLO Indirect Assessment Data – 100% of the graduating students surveyed agreed that they had met the SLO Outcomes as they relate to the Educational Units

14

definitions of the skills required upon graduation, including the bump in the target performance

criteria to 4.0 from 3.5/5.0

However, the results of the Alumni and Employers survey, using the new target performance

criteria, the exact opposite. Results of the Alumni Survey indicated that felt prepared for SLO

#19 only. While the results of the Employer Survey indicated that their Chico State Construction

Management graduates were prepared for SLO #9 and #10 only.

15

DPO #6: The Education Unit shall work towards compliance with the University’s stated

Graduation Initiative 2025.

Degree Program Outcomes (DPO’s) – Assessment Results The purpose of the DPO’s is to evaluate the Educational Unit’s performance in achieving its strategic mission and goals for the Degree Program, Appendix E. The Educational Unit has established a total

of 6 DPO’s, with a total of 12 indirect assessment measures. Each DPO has minimum performance

criteria as outlined in the DPO Scorecard. For AY 2019-2020 the target performance criteria for

DPO’s 2 through 4 were increased from 75% to 80% and DPO’s 5A, 5B, and 5C were increased from 20% to 30% per the faculty QIP meeting held in November 2019.

Indirect Degree Program Outcome Results A complete summary of all indirect assessment data from AY2019-2020 is presented in DPO

Scorecard, Appendix F. This scorecard lists the DPO, the DPO description, the assessment tool,

the performance criteria, and the assessment result.

The Department performed indirect assessments for all 12 components of the 6 DPO’s. 9 of 12 assessments met the stated performance criteria.

DPO’s Needing Improvement

DPO #3: A majority of graduating seniors will indicate that their expectations regarding

curricular rigor were met or exceeded

Senior Exit Survey: 76.9%/80%

DPO #4: A majority of alumni will indicate their approval rating on degree program content and

student preparedness level – post-graduation Alumni Survey “Preparness” 74.5%/80%

GI 2025 Dashboard – FTF 4-Year graduation rate 10.8%/16.0%

Executive Summary of DPO Indirect Assessment Data – 9 of 12 indirect assessment measures for the DPO’s met the stated performance criteria. Of particular note, the GI2025 dashboard

tools have been improved to allow the Educational Unit to access the Degree Program specific

graduation rate data.

16

Surveys Frequency

Senior Exit Survey Administered annually

Alumni Survey Administered every 2 years

Employers (IAC) Survey Administered every 2 years

Rating 2016 2017 2018 2020

Score: ≥ 2 1 Faculty none none none

Score: 2 ≤ 3 2 Faculty 1 Faculty 2 Faculty 1 Faculty

Score: 3 ≤ 4 1 Faculty 4 Faculty 6 Faculty 5 Faculty

Score: 4 - 5 6 Faculty 8 Faculty 10 Faculty 10 Fauclty

Score

Rating

≥ 2

2016

none

2017

none

2018

none

2020

none

Score: 2 ≤ 3 2 classes none none none

Score: 3 ≤ 4 6 classes 8 classes 6 classes 12 classes

Score: 4 - 5 12 classes 14 classes 16 classes 10 classes

Climate Survey - Assessment Results The Department uses three surveys (Indirect Assessments) as the means of collecting key

measurements about the Educational Unit and the Degree Program to track data trends and take

any necessary actions, as trends may be identified:

Senior Exit Survey Data Trends The Senior Exit Survey, Appendix G, provides some key measures for the Educational Unit to

document and determine where areas of improvement are warranted. Specific Senior Exit

Survey data points are: Students' ratings of Faculty effectiveness, Students value of Department

coursework (curriculum content by course), and Students perceived strengths and weaknesses

of Educational Unit and Degree Program.

This survey received 56 responses out of 100 graduates. The response rate continues to do

decline year after year.

AY 2019-2020 56% AY 2018-2019 76% AY 2017-2018 89%

Students Ratings of Faculty Effectiveness

(using a scale of 1-5: 1 = Not at all Effective and 5 = Very effective):

The minimum performance criteria is set at 3.5/5.0 (previously 3.0)

Students Value of Department Coursework

(using a scale of 1-5: 1 = Not Valuable at All and 5 = Highly Valuable):

The minimum performance criteria is set at 3.5/5.0 (previously 3.0)

Noted Trends - Students Perceived Strengths of the Education Unit and Degree Program

Company Recruiting Faculty Industry Knowledge Student Engagement / Success

17

Rating 2016 2018 2020

Score ≥ 2 No data 1 class none

Score: 2 ≤ 3 No data 1 class none

Score: 3 ≤ 4 No data 10 classes 5 classes

Score: 4 - 5 No data 10 classes 17 classes

Connections with Industry / Industry Support Good / Great Program

Noted Trends - Students Perceived Weaknesses of the Educational Unit and Degree

Program

Alternative and Additional Curriculum – Precon, Environmental, MEP, writing, excel skills, contracts

Instructors need to be re-evaluated/improve

Alumni Survey Data Trends The Alumni Survey, Appendix H, provides key measures for the Educational Unit to document

and determine where areas of improvement are warranted. Specific Alumni Survey data points

are: Alumni perceived value towards Department coursework (curriculum content by course),

and Alumni perceived strengths and weaknesses of Educational Unit and Degree Program.

This survey received 65 responses out of 337 alumni contacted (19% success rate).

Alumni Value of Department Coursework


Noted Trends - Alumni Perceived Strengths of the Education Unit and Degree Program

Unfortunately, this data field was corrupted within the survey software and none of the data was retrievable.

Noted Trends - Alumni Perceived Weaknesses of the Educational Unit and Degree Program

There should be more of a focus on entry-level PE tasks. The curriculum needs to focus more on cutting edge technology that is being

adopted by industry.

Employer (IAC) Survey Data Trends The Employers Survey, Appendix I, provides key measures for the Educational Unit to document

and determine where areas of improvement are warranted: Specific Employer (IAC) Survey data

points: Use of software in the industry per task, Employers value of Degree Program

coursework (curriculum content by course), Employers ranking of student preparedness on key

industry tasks, and Employers perceived strengths and weaknesses of the Educational Unit and

Degree Program.

This survey received 55 responses out of 76 employers contacted (72% success rate).

18

Estimating: OST – 25.0% HCSS - 13%, Timberline – 11% WindEst – 7% Excel – 9% Bluebeam - 5%, Other - 30%

Scheduling: P6 - 59% MS Project - 30% Other – 11% Management: Procore – 45% Vista – 16% Prolog – 10% PlanGrid – 7%

Other – 22% Modeling: Navis – 28% Revit – 25% BIM360 – 18% AutoCAD – 8%

Agtek - 8% Other – 13% Paperless Flow: Procore – 22% PlanGrid – 16% Vista – 13% Bluebeam – 13%

Prolog – 7% Other – 29% Punchlist: PlanGrid – 36% Procore – 31% Bluebeam – 11% Excel – 11%

HCSS – 3% Other - 8% Plan MGMT: PlanGrid – 36% Procore – 36% Bluebeam - 17% HCSS – 7%

Vista – 3% Other – 1%

Rating 2016 2018 2020

Score ≥ 2 No data none none

Score: 2 ≤ 3 No data 1 class none

Score: 3 ≤ 4 No data 11 classes 5 classes

Score: 4 - 5 No data 10 classes 13 classes

Rating 2018 2020

Effective Problem Solving 4.11 4.09

Effective Oral Communicators 4.14 4.21

Effective work on a Multi-Disciplinary Team 4.34 4.27

Employer use of Industry Software per task

Employer (IAC) Value of Department Coursework


Employers (IAC) Ranking of Student Preparedness on Key Industry Tasks

(using a scale of 1-5: 1 = Not Prepared at All and 5 = Very Prepared):

Noted Trends - Employers (IAC) Perceived Strengths of the Education Unit and Degree

Program

Well-rounded students with a solid base of construction skills. Students have good communication skills. Internships create good teamwork skills.

Noted Trends - Employers (IAC) Perceived Weaknesses of the Educational Unit and Degree

Program

Students have poor communication skills. The curriculum needs to focus more on cutting edge technology that is being


Focus on other industry sectors, not just vertical and horizontal. Students need hands-on experience.

19

Part 2 - Assessment Improvement Plan

The institution of the Curriculum and Accreditation Committee (“CAC”) has facilitated a

curriculum minded culture within the Educational Unit. The CAC meets weekly throughout the

academic year analyzing data assessment results, discussing strategies for continuous

improvement, and implementing changes to the curriculum, instructional methods, and

assessment tools used.

During AY 2019-2020, the CAC along with other full-time Faculty and our Industry Advisory

Council Curriculum Committee (“IAC CC”), began the following tasks:

IAC CC Tasks AY 2019-2020

Review and comment on the AY 2018-2019 Final Assessment Report. Review and comment on the Educational Units Quality Improvement Plan meeting.

Specific outcomes of these reviews focused on: SLO #20, Specifically to CMGT 235 – Electrical and Mechanical Systems. SLO #11, Specifically to CMGT 330 – Soil Mechanics, Concrete, and

Construction Surveying.

Alumni Database. Review and comment on the draft topical content outline for the new course CMGT

105 – Computer Applications in Construction Management. Review and comment on the draft topical content outline for the new course CMGT

350 – Statics and Strength of Materials. Review and comment on the draft topical content outline for the new course CMGT

385 – Principles of Sustainability. Review and comment on the curriculum for CMGT 100 – Introduction to Construction

Management.

Review and comment on the Educational Unit’s revised Quality Improvement Plan. Review and comment on the curriculum for CMGT 330 – Soil Mechanics, Concrete, and

Construction Surveying.

CAC Tasks AY 2019-2020

Reviewed, commented, and requested changes as necessary to all existing articulation agreements between Junior/Community Colleges and the Chico State Construction

Management Department.

A total of 13 Junior/Community Colleges and 30 articulation agreements were reviewed.

Requests for changes to meet our current course content were sent to all 13 Junior Colleges on 10-9-2019 with a response deadline of 4-1-2020.

11 Junior Colleges have revised their curriculum, or have had their existing agreements rescinded for a variety of reasons (program

disbanded, non-responsive, refusal to amend curriculum, voluntary

withdrawal of agreements).

3 Junior/Community Colleges were provided 1-year extensions.

20

17 courses of 30 courses continue to articulate with 9 pending the Junior Colleges receiving the 1-year extension.

Revision and publication to the Construction Management advising map to reflect the curriculum changes and course prerequisites.

Voluntary faculty training using Procore – A complete project management tool to determine if it could, or should, be incorporated into our curriculum over multiple

courses.

Revision to the Educational Unit’s strategic plan. Review and respond to IAC CC comments on the above-mentioned reviews. The

following responses were sent to the IAC CC for review during AY 2020-2021 to close

the loop:

CMGT 105 – Computer Applications in Construction Management CMGT 350 – Statics and Strength of Materials

Student Learning Outcomes (SLO’s) – Improvement Plan

Direct Student Learning Outcome - Action Plan For each embedded SLO direct assessment that did not meet the stated performance criteria,

Appendix C, an action plan of continuous improvement to achieve the stated performance

criteria has been created and is listed below. The plan of action will be based upon one of the

following scenarios:

A. Continuity: The specific plan(s) has been developed by the Faculty member continuing

to teach this course. This improvement plan(s) and re-assessment will occur in Fall

2020.

B. FERP / Continuity: These courses are split between FERP Faculty, adjunct, lecturer, or

full-time Faculty. The assessment results vary because the curriculum taught and

student engagement methods are similar but different enough. As applicable, each

Faculty member creates a specific improvement plan, implements, and assesses that

plan in the next semester. A Fall unmet assessment criteria will have its action plan

engaged the following Fall, and assessed in that semester to determine the progress

towards meeting the performance criteria. The same process is followed for Spring

semesters when the performance criteria are not achieved.

C. Restart: As of AY 2019-20, a new or different Faculty member is teaching this course

and is developing a new curriculum based upon topical content outlines that have been

approved by the Curriculum and Accreditation Committee. The CAC continues to

support the new Faculty member in the creation of new content, new assessment

tool(s) and performing the new direct assessment(s) in Fall 2020.

21

Individual SLO’s Direct Assessment Improvement Plan

SLO #4: Create construction project cost estimates.

CMGT 450: Scenario A – Continuity The following Action Plan applies to Lab #’s 1-8, where the target assessment

criteria were not achieved on these individual labs.

Improvement Plan: As each Lab was graded, it was noted on the grading form the three most common question items that students missed or were marked as

being incorrect. When introducing each Lab in the following semester, each of

these problematic items will be individually addressed and explained to the

students. This will increase the probability that a larger percentage of students

get these items correct, thus improving the overall grade on each Lab.

SLO #6: Analyze professional decisions based on ethical principles.

CMGT 462: Scenario C – Restart Improvement Plan: Yet again, another new lecturer will begin to teach this

course in AY 2020-2021. That faculty member will be allowed to create their

curriculum under guidance to ensure proper taxonomy is utilized and the CMGT

SLO Definition of SLO #6.

SLO #8: Analyze, methods, materials, and equipment used to construct projects.

CMGT 332: Scenario A – Continuity Improvement Plan: Action items from the fall were implemented, and a small

increase in improved results was achieved. However, not to the targeted goal.

The assessment was taken the second week into COVID-19 shelter in place, so

not aware of what affect that had on the performance. Will continue to re-

assess questions and also, attempt a modified type of individual assessment for

Fall ’20. Students failed to meet performance criteria. The instructor will modify the

assessment tool (quiz) in Spring 2020 to increase the opportunity for success by

increasing the assessment value and opportunities to achieve a better score.

SLO #11: Apply basic surveying techniques for construction layout and control.

CMGT 330: Scenario B – FERP / Continuity Improvement Plan: Fall Faculty – The instructor will be adding a week of survey

lectures and lab into the curriculum. This will provide the students with more

time to comprehend the material. Additionally, it appears that the students

deliberately skipped over the survey questions in the final exam, skewing the

results. To avoid this, many of the survey assessment questions will be moved to

a quiz(s) format to get a better representation of information learned.

Improvement Plan: Spring Faculty – Continue to encourage students to perform at target levels or above.

22

SLO #13: Understand construction risk management.

CMGT 460: Scenario C – Restart Improvement Plan: A new lecturer will begin to teach this course in AY 2020-

2021. That faculty member will be allowed to create their curriculum under

guidance to ensure proper taxonomy is utilized and the CMGT SLO Definition of

SLO #13.


CMGT 455: Scenario A – Continuity IMPROVEMENT PLAN: Activity 2 – Financial Report Indicies: ACTION PLAN:

Additional examples will be provided and the purpose/meaning will be provided

in class. It appears that they can calculate the Indicies and Ratios but they

struggle with the “meaning”.

SLO #17: Understand construction project control processes.

CMGT 462: Scenario C - Restart Improvement Plan: No action plan for Spring 2019 was submitted by this

Faculty member who retired at the end of the Spring semester. A new lecturer

will begin to teach this course in AY 2020-2021. That faculty member will be

allowed to create their curriculum under guidance to ensure property taxonomy

is utilized and the CMGT SLO Definition of SLO #17.

SLO #18: Understand the basic principles of sustainable construction

CMGT 235: Scenario B – FERP / New Instructor Improvement Plan: Beginning in Fall 2020, this direct assessment has been

moved to the new course CMGT 385 – Principles of Sustainable Construction. Beginning in Spring 2021, a tenure-track faculty member will begin to teach

this course regularly, eliminating the FERP / lecture alternating teaching a

curriculum between semesters.


systems.

CMGT 235: FERP / New Instructor Improvement Plan: Beginning in Spring 2021, a tenure-track faculty member

will begin to teach this course regularly, eliminating the FERP / lecture

alternating teaching a curriculum between semesters.

Executive Summary – Various challenges exist in meeting the stated SLO performance criteria: The increase in stated performance criteria to 85%/73% continues to be a challenge to

meet. The educational unit will continue to assess all SLO’s every Fall and work on curriculum and assessment improvements until results are closer in line with the stated

performance criteria.

The Educational Unit continues to experience faculty churn. The department has multiple new Faculty members, some that are becoming instructors for the first time

23

(second careers). These new faculty are in the process of developing teaching

proficiencies, teaching styles, and their version of student engagement.

The impact of the FERP Faculty cycle was somewhat reduced from impacting the direct assessment cycle in AY 2019-2020 but will continue to be a challenge towards

continuous improvement in certain courses and the SLO content assigned therein.

Indirect Student Learning Outcome Action Plan In this assessment cycle, the Educational Unit used three surveys to gauge the success rate

associated with properly “preparing” students with the skills they need to achieve the various

Student Learning Outcomes.

The stated performance criteria have been raised to 4.0/5.0 (80%) and were successfully

achieved for all 20 SLO’s in the Senior Exit Survey, Appendix D. Due to the students lack of industry experience, students “don’t know what they don’t know” and the Education Unit is aware that these results could lead the Faculty to a false sense of student preparedness.

Only 1 of the SLO’s met the revised stated performance criteria (SLO #19 – Understand the basic principles of structural behavior) in the Alumni Survey, Appendix H.

Only 2 of the SLO’s met the revised stated performance criteria (SLO #9 – Apply construction management skills as an effective member of a multi-disciplinary team, and SLO #10 – Apply electronic-based technology to manage the construction process) in the Employer Survey,

Appendix I.

In many respects, the Educational Units student Employer’s opinions may be the most important

type of feedback for Faculty to consider in regards to student's “preparedness”. The Employer’s Survey results of these questions continue to be favorable.

Effective Problem Solvers 4.09/5.00 Effective Oral Communicators 4.21/5.00 Function Effectively on Multi-Disciplinary Teams 4.27/5.00

Individual SLO’s Indirect Assessment Improvement Plan: Due to the excessive number of Indirect SLO’s not meeting the stated performance

criteria in the Alumni and Employer Surveys results (37/40), any individual or global

action plan(s) are to be addressed in the November 2020 Education Unit Quality

Improvement Plan meeting.

Executive Summary – The Educational Unit must revalue the SLO Indirect performance criteria and confirm or revise its position and desired outcome of the measure. As the education unit

continues to improve curriculum and with the necessary time passing for students to graduate

and build early career success, the Indirect SLO Assessment results should improve to reflect

these efforts.

24

http:4.27/5.00http:4.21/5.00http:4.09/5.00

Degree Program Outcomes (DPO’s) – Improvement Plan The Educational Unit has defined DPO’s within the Strategic Plan as outlined in the Quality

Improvement Plan. For assessing each DPO, a minimum performance criterion was established and

is reflected in the DPO Scorecard, Appendix F.

Indirect Degree Program Outcomes Action Plan For each of the DPO’s that failed to meet the stated performance criteria, a specific action plan

has been created.

DPO’s Improvement Plan DPO #3 – A majority of graduating seniors will indicate that their expectations regarding curricular rigor were met or exceeded.

Improvement Plan: The faculty have jointly created a department-wide academic integrity policy.

DPO #4A – A majority of alumni will indicate their approval rating on degree program content and student preparedness level, post-graduation.

Improvement Plan: The faculty will continue to improve the curriculum per the plan created by the CAC for better preparing students to enter the construction

industry.

DPO #6 – The educational Unit shall work towards compliance with the University’s state “Graduation Initiative 2025”. Specifically 6A, First-Time Freshman 4-Year Graduation Rate:

Improvement Plan: This is the first semester the educational unit has not met this GI20205 goal. On the surface, this is likely attributable to the change in

demographics and dynamics of our students. Many of our students begin Chico

State without the proper math courses or background, often requiring 1 or 2

semesters of math before they can begin our math track. This alone places them

into a 5th year of schooling. Additionally, we are seeing an increase in first-

generation college students. Many of these students struggle in their first years to

gain traction into college life, create good study habits, and utilize the many

resources the University has to offer.

Executive Summary – An item remaining from the AY 2018-2019 FAR report, the Educational Unit continues to remain concerned about the longevity success of DPO #5 – Participation in educational enrichment experiences outside of the classroom. While this year's Senior Exit

Survey results met the stated performance criteria, the trend of reduced student involvement

outside the classroom continues. This is very evident in lower classmen participation in student

clubs and competitions The stated performance criteria was already a low bar, and subsequent

years of surveys should show the trend of decreasing participation numbers.

Faculty will discuss a department-wide plan to help improve our GI2025 First-time Freshman 4-

Year Graduation Rate at the November 2020 QIP meeting.

25

Climate Survey Trends - Improvement Plan For each of the Climate Survey Trends, an improvement plan has been provided, as needed:

Senior Exit Survey Data Trends Action Plan Appendix G

Students Ratings of Faculty Effectiveness

A increase in ineffective Faculty teaching has been noted. (* the stated performance criteria was increased from

Trends - Students Perceived Strengths of the Education Unit and Degree Program

Company Recruiting. Faculty Industry Knowledge. Student Engagement / Success. Connections with Industry / Industry Support. Good / Great Program. Improvement Plan: At this time, the Educational Unit does not believe any action is

required.

Trends - Students Perceived Weaknesses of the Educational Unit and Degree Program

Alternative and Additional Curriculum – Precon, Environmental, MEP, writing, excel skills, contracts (9)

Improvement Plan: Many of these items have already been addressed. Precon – added to CMGT 360 – Project Management. Environmental – added new course CMGT 385 – Principles of Sustainability. MEP – Different instruction with a heavy mechanical background to begin

teaching CMGT 235 – Mechanical and Electrical Systems in Spring 2021. Writing – a new department-wide writing rubric has been created for all 3

CMGT “W” courses and is being utilized this semester, Fall 2020. Excel Skills – added new course CMGT 105 – Computer Applications in

Construction Management has a focus on Microsoft Excel.

Contracts – A new full-time lecturer has been hired to rewrite and teach the course curriculum.

Instructors need to be re-evaluated/improve (5) Improvement Plan: This continues to be a work in progress as the faculty churn

continues. The Educational Unit has been very successful in recent tenure-track and

lecture hirings.

Of concern to the Educational Unit is the decreasing trend of Graduating students' response

rates to the Senior Exit Survey. The response to COVID-19 and the move to virtual

instruction had a significant impact on the response rate for AY 2019-2020. As AY 2020-

2021 is also virtual the Educational Unit must strategize during the Fall 2020 QIP meeting

how to reverse this trend.

Alumni Survey Data Trends Action Plan Appendix H

Trends - Alumni Perceived Strengths of the Education Unit and Degree Program

Unfortunately, this data field was corrupted in the survey software and none of the data was retrievable.

Trends - Alumni Perceived Weaknesses of the Educational Unit and Degree Program

There should be more of a focus on entry-level PE tasks.

27

The curriculum needs to focus more on cutting edge technology that is being adopted by industry.

Improvement Plan: These trends will be discussed during this semester's QIP meeting.

Employer (IAC) Survey Data Trends Action Plan Appendix I

Trends - Employers (IAC) Perceived Strengths of the Education Unit and Degree Program

Well-rounded students with a solid base of construction skills. Students have good communication skills. Internships create good teamwork skills. Improvement Plan: At this time, the Educational Unit does not believe any action is

required.

Trends - Employers (IAC) Perceived Weaknesses of the Educational Unit and Degree

Program

Students have poor communication skills. The curriculum needs to focus more on cutting edge technology that is being


Focus on other industry sectors, not just vertical and horizontal. Students need hands-on experience. Improvement Plan:

Communication Skills – this weakness is in direct opposition to the same strength. This is a mixed message at best. Students were rated very highly by

employers as “Effective Oral Communicators 4.21/5.00). The addition of a

department-wide writing rubric for all CMGT “W” courses will help to address some of this weakness.

Focus on industry sections, not just vertical and horizontal - This “trend” will be discussed during this semester's QIP meeting, however, it was only 2 comments

out of 55 surveys.

Students need hands-on experience – The Educational Unit will continue to offer Service-Learning opportunities that provide a component of “hands-on” labor.

Supplemental Improvement Plan

The Educational Unit held a Quality Improvement Plan meeting in November of 2019 to jointly

review, comment, and create necessary action plans for all data collected about AY 2018-2019. The

meeting results, action plans, and current status updates are documented in Appendix J – AY 2018-2019 QIP Meeting and Action Plan, September 2020 Update.

End of Final Assessment Report.

28

http:4.21/5.00

SLO 1 Create written communications appropriate to the construction discipline.

SLO 2 Create oral presentations appropriate to the construction discipline.

SLO 3 Create a construction project safety plan.

SLO 4 Create construction project cost estimates.

SLO 5 Create construction project schedules.

SLO 6 Analyze professional decisions based on ethical principles.

SLO 7 Analyze construction documents for planning and management of construction

processes.

SLO 8 Analyze methods, materials, and equipment used to construct projects.

SLO 9 Apply construction management skills as an effective member of a multi-disciplinary

team.

SLO 10 Apply electronic-based technology to manage the construction process.

SLO 11 Apply basic surveying techniques for construction layout and control.

SLO 12 Understand different methods of project delivery and the roles and responsibilities of all

constituencies involved in the design and construction process.

SLO 13 Understand construction risk management.

SLO 14 Understand construction accounting and cost control.

SLO 15 Understand construction quality assurance and control.

SLO 16 Understand construction project control processes.

SLO 17 Understand the legal implications of contract, common, and regulatory law to manage a

construction project.

SLO 18 Understand the basic principles of sustainable construction.

SLO 19 Understand the basic principles of structural behavior.

SLO 20 Understand the basic principles of mechanical, electrical and plumbing systems.

Appendix A

Student Learning Outcomes

Per ACCE Document 103 Standards, Section 3 Curriculum, 3.1.5 Student Learning Outcomes

SLO 1 Create written communications appropriate to the construction discipline.

SLO 2 Create oral presentations appropriate to the construction discipline.

SLO 3 Create a construction project safety plan.

SLO 4 Create construction project cost estimates.

SLO 5 Create construction project schedules.

SLO 6 Analyze professional decisions based on ethical principles.

SLO 7 Analyze construction documents for planning and management of construction processes.

SLO 8 Analyze methods, materials, and equipment used to construct projects.

SLO 9 Apply construction management skills as an effective member of a multi-disciplinary team.

SLO 10 Apply electronic-based technology to manage the construction process.

SLO 11 Apply basic surveying techniques for construction layout and control.

8/14/2020 Student Learning Outcomes - Course Learning Outcomes

Introduce - Reinforce - Assessment Map AY 2019-2020

Course Course Title SLO 1

Write

SLO 2

Oral

SLO 3

Safety

SLO 4

Estim

SLO 5

Sched.

SLO 6

Ethics

SLO 7

Docs.

SLO 8

Methods

SLO 9

Team

SLO 10

IT

SLO 11

Survey

SLO 12

Deliver

SLO 13

Risk

SLO 14

Acct.

SLO 15

QA/QC

SLO 16

Control

SLO 17

Contract

SLO 18

Sustain.

SLO 19

Struct.

SLO 20

MEP

CMGT 100 Concepts of Construction I I 1 I I I I I 1 I I

CMGT 101 * Construction Management Career Prep

CMGT 110 Construction Graphics I I

CMGT 135 Construction Materials and Systems I I I

CMGT 210 Analysis of Construction Drawings and Specifications I I R R I R I

CMGT 235 Electrical and Mechanical Systems R/DA DA

CMGT 270 * Building Information Modeling

CMGT 275 * Architectural History

CMGT 330 Principles of Soil Mechanics and Foundations I DA R

CMGT 332 Construction Method Analysis DA R R R DA DA R I R R R

CMGT 335 Construction Equipment R DA R

CMGT 340 Principles of Statics I

CMGT 345 Mechanics of Materials DA

CMGT 352 * Electrical Construction Estimating

CMGT 360 Construction Project Management R R DA R R DA R R

CMGT 380 * Green Building Practices and LEED Certification

CMGT 440 Temporary Structures R

CMGT 450 Construction (Building) Estimating DA DA R R R

CMGT 455 Construction Cost Management R DA DA DA

CMGT 457 Project Control and Scheduling DA DA DA R R

CMGT 458 Heavy Construction Estimating DA R R R R R

CMGT 460 Legal Aspects of Construction DA R DA DA

CMGT 462 Construction Contracts R DA DA DA

Graduating Senior Survey IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA

Survey's performed every 2-3 years

Alumni Survey IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA

Employers Survey IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA

* = CMGT Elective Course I = Introduced R = Reinforced DA = Direct Assessment IA = Indirect Assessment

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

SLO 1 2 Understand different methods of project delivery and the roles and responsibilities of all

constituencies involved in the design and construction process.

SLO 1 3 Understand construction risk management.

SLO 1 4 Understand construction accounting and cost control.

SLO 1 5 Understand construction quality assurance and control.

SLO 1 6 Understand construction project control processes.

SLO 1 7 Understand the legal implications of contract, common, and regulatory law to manage a


SLO 1 8 Understand the basic principles of sustainable construction.

SLO 1 9 Understand the basic principles of structural behavior.

SLO 2 0 Understand the basic principles of mechanical, electrical and plumbing systems.

adbondText BoxAppendix B

8/29/2020 Student Learning Outcomes (SLO) - Course Learning Outcomes (CLO)

AY 2019-2020 Direct Assessment Results Scorecard

SLO ACCE SLO Description Course Number and Name

Course

CLO # Course CLO Description

Assessment Performance Criteria

Tool Stated * Fall '19 Spring '20

Goal

Met

Be able to prepare a written

#1

Create written communications

appropriate to the construction

discipline.

CMGT 460, Legal Aspects #1

report/analysis of a construction

project and/or dispute, addressing

contract preparation, contractor

performance, owner breach, and the

contractor’s damages.

Arbitration Brief

Paper 85%/73% 98%/73% 97%/73% Yes

#2

Create oral presentations


discipline.

CMGT 332, Construction Methods

Analysis #1

Have created several oral

presentations to demonstrate their

knowledge of construction methods

analysis.

Assignment #11 85%/73% 92%/73% 92%/73% Yes

#3 Create a construction project

safety plan.

CMGT 360, Construction Project

Management #8

Create a project specific safety plan,

including site utilization, job hazard

analysis, and tool box meetings.

Writing

Assignment #2 85%/73% 96%/73%

N/A, goal

met in Fall Yes

#4

#4

Create construction project cost

estimates.

Create construction project cost

estimates.

CMGT 450, Constrution (Building)

Estimating

CMGT 458, Heavy Construction

Estimating

#7

#11

Create a preliminary estimate

consisting of direct costs, indirect

costs and margin.

Be able to create an Earthwork Cost

Estimate.

Labs 1-7

Labs 1-6, 8, 10,

11

85%/73%

85%/73%

74%/73%

85%/73%

74%/73%

86%/73%

No

Yes

#5 Create construction project

schedules.

CMGT 457, Project Control and

Scheduling #1

1. Create a construction project

schedule which meets project

milestone dates using the critical path

method

Lab 2, 3, 5, 6, 7,

8 85%/73% 84%/73% 92%/73% Yes

#6 Analyze professional decisions

based on ethical principles.

CMGT 450, Constrution (Building)

Estimating #6

Analyze various ethical dilemmas and

potential options to reach an ethical

decision as it applies to construction

estimating.

Activity 8 85%/73% 98%/73% 97%/73% Yes

adbondText BoxAppendix C




Course




Goal

Met


based on ethical principles. CMGT 462, Construction Contracts #2

Analyze ethical situatins and defend a

decision or action based on that

evaluation

Exam 1 85%/73% 89%/75% 62%/73% No

#7

Analyze construction documents

for planning and management of

construction processes.


Scheduling #2

Separate, diagram, and sequence

unique scopes of work which are

detailed in a project’s construction documents

Lab 1 & 4 85%/73% 73%/73% 87%/73% Yes

#8

#8

Analyze methods, materials, and

equipment used to construct

projects.



projects.

CMGT 335, Construction

Equipment


Analysis

#2

#2

Be able to balance a load and haul

operation using the correct number of

haul units and calculate the

production rate.

Have analyzed construction

documents and project models to

plan and determine the means and

methods to manage a construction

project.

Exam #2,

Part 1

Quiz 2

85%/73%

85%/73%

91%/73%

63%/73%

N/A, goal

met in Fall

67%/73%

Yes

No

#9

Apply construction management

skills as an effective member of a

multi-disciplinary team.


Analysis #3

Have participated on a multi-

disciplinary team to apply

construction method analysis

principles and concepts to a


Quiz 12 85%/73% 92%/73% 92%/73% Yes

#10

Apply electronic-based technology

to manage the construction

process.


Scheduling #3

Use software to track construction

progress, forecast when future

activities need to occur, and create

documents commonly used in

construction management

Lab 8 85%/73% 100%/73% 83%/73% No





Course




Goal

Met

#11

#11

Apply basic sur veying techniques

for construction layout and

control.

Apply basic surveying techniques

for construction layout and

control.

CMGT 330, Principles of Soil

Mechanics and Foundations

CMGT 330, Principles of Soil

Mechanics and Foundations

#3

#3

Using conventional equipment,

perform simple operations to

illustrate the principles of horizontal

and vertical control.

Have applied basic surveying

techniques for construction layout

and control

Lab 1-4, Quiz 9 ,

Final Exam

Assignment #7

85%/73%

85%/73%

70%/73%

Spring

Faculty

Fall Faculty

86%/73%

No

Yes

#12

Understand different methods of

project delivery and the roles and

responsibilities of all

constituencies involved in the

design and construction process

CMGT 360, Construction Project

Management #6

Be familiar with contract pricing

methods to include Negotiated, Sole

Source, Lump Sum, Unit Price, Cost

Plus, Guarantee Maximum Price, and

have an understanding of contract

procurement management for all

delivery systems.

Exam #1,

Part 2 85%/73% 88%/73%

N/A, goal

met in Fall Yes

Understand construction risk

management.

Be able to recognize, in the

construction management field, risks

and understand the options available

to manage these risks.

#13 CMGT 460, Legal Aspects #3 Final Exam 85%/73% 74%/73% 68%/73% No

#13 Understand construction risk

management. CMGT 462, Construction Contracts #3 & #6

#3 - Understand taxtics used to

mitigate risk in construction

contracting

#6 - Understand the risks imposed on

the construction industry by regulator

agencies

Exam 1 & 2 85%/73% 66%/73% 60%/73% No





Course




Goal

Met

#14 Understand construction

accounting and cost control.

CMGT 455, Construction Cost

Management #4

Understand simple construction

accounting operations and the basic

elements of cost control.

Activity 2 85%/73% 25%/73% 77%/73% No

#15 Understand construction quality

assurance and control.


Management #6

Understand how Quality Assurance

and Quality Control are linked to the

overall health of a construction

project and how they are different.

Reinforce the relationship between

good quality and project

performance.

QA/QC/TQM

Written

Assignment

85%/73% 91%/73% N/A, goal

met in Fall Yes

#16 Understand construction project

control processes.


Management #2

Incorporate cost control elements

into functioning control systems,

illustrating their benefit to the

successful management of

construction projects.

Activity 4 85%/73% 94%/73% 91%/73% Yes

Understand the legal implications

of contract, common, and

regulatory law to manage a


Understand the legal implications of

contract, common, and regulatory law

to manage a construction project

#17 CMGT 460, Legal Aspects #4 Final Exam 85%/73% 74%/73% 68%/73% No

Understand the legal implications

of contract, common, and

regulatory law to manage a


Comprehend the legal implications of

contract language related to the

responsibilities of the varous parties

to a construction contract

#17 CMGT 462, Construction Contracts #4 Exams 1, 2, 3 85%/73% 53%/73% 35%/73% No

#18 Understand the basic principles of

sustainable construction.

CMGT 235, Electrical and

Mechanical Systems #1

Understand sustainable options for

plumbing systems Quiz 12 85%/73% 100%/73% 74%/73% No




Course

CLO #

Assessment Performance Criteria Goal

Met SLO ACCE SL O Description Course N umber and Name Course CL O Description Tool Stated * Fall '19 Spring '20

Understand the basic pr inciples of

structural behavior.

Demonstrate the ability to construct

shear force and bending moment

diagrams for transversely loaded

elements.

Final Exam,

Question 1

N/A, goal

met in Fall #19 CMGT 345, Mechanics of Materials #3 85%/73% 86%/73% Yes



Demonstrate the ability to analyze

and design steel and timber beams

for shear and moment and to check

beam deflections under given loading.

Final Exam,

Question 2

N/A, goal

met in Fall #19 CMGT 345, Mechanics of Materials #4 85%/73% 96%/73% Yes



Demonstrate the ability to analyze

steel and timber columns

Final Exam,

Question 5

N/A, goal

met in Fall #19 CMGT 345, Mechanics of Materials 85%/73% 88%/73% Yes


mechanical, electrical and

plumbing systems.

#20

Understand compenents using correct

terminology and nomenclature for

mechanical, electrical, and plumbing

systems.

#6

CMGT 235, Electrical and Final Exam (F) /

Skill Reviews (S) #2

Mechanical Systems 85%/73% 83%/73% 80%/73% No

* The first percentage represents the percentage of students scoring above the minimum score.

The second percentage represents the minimum score.

Therefore, the stated performance criteria is defined that X% of students shall score X%, or greater, on a given assessment.


8/29/2020 Student Learning Outcomes (SLO)

AY 2019-2020 Indirect Assessment Results Scorecard

SLO ACCE SLO Description

Stated *

Performance

Criteria

Senior Survey

Average Goal

Met Score

Alumni Survey

Average Goal

Met Score

Employer Survey

Average Goal

Met Score

Total

Average

Score

Overall

Goal

Met

#1

Create written communications


discipline.

4.0/5.0 4.42 Yes 3.74 No 3.62 No 3.93 No

#2

Create oral presentations


discipline.

4.0/5.0 4.52 Yes 3.78 No 3.74 No 4.01 Yes

#3 Create a construction project safety

plan. 4.0/5.0 4.52 Yes 2.98 No 3.18 No 3.56 No

#4 Create construction project cost

estimates. 4.0/5.0 4.45 Yes 3.59 No 2.97 No 3.67 No

#5 Create construction project

schedules. 4.0/5.0 4.45 Yes 3.85 No 3.18 No 3.83 No


based on ethical principles. 4.0/5.0 4.58 Yes 3.98 No 3.82 No 4.13 Yes

#7

Analyze construction documents for

planning and management of

construction processes.

4.0/5.0 4.67 Yes 3.81 No 3.68 No 4.05 Yes

#8



projects.

4.0/5.0 4.45 Yes 3.68 No 3.55 No 3.89 No

#9

Apply construction management

skills as an effective member of a

multi-disciplinary team.

4.0/5.0 4.64 Yes 3.91 No 4.03 Yes 4.19 Yes

#10 Apply electronic-based technology

to manage the construction process. 4.0/5.0 4.48 Yes 3.91 No 4.03 Yes 4.14 Yes

#11 Apply basic surveying techniques for

construction layout and control. 4.0/5.0 4.06 Yes 2.92 No 2.82 No 3.27 No

adbondText BoxAppendix D

8/29/2020 Student Learning Outcomes (SLO)

AY 2019-2020 Indirect Assessment Results Scorecard

Stated *

Performance

Criteria

Senior Survey

Average

Score

Goal

Met SLO ACCE SLO Description

Alumni Survey

Average

Score

Goal

Met

Employer Survey

Average

Score

Goal

Met

Total

Average

Score

Overall

Goal

Met

Understand different methods of

project delivery and the roles and

responsibilities of all constituencies

involved in the design and

construction process.

#12 4.0/5.0 4.58 Yes 3.79 No 3.32 No 3.90 No

Understand construction risk

management. #13 4.0/5.0 4.52 Yes 3.53 No 3.09 No 3.71 No

Understand construction accounting

and cost control. #14 4.0/5.0 4.39 Yes 3.47 No 3.00 No 3.62 No

Understand construction quality

assurance and control. #15 4.0/5.0 4.45 Yes 3.25 No 3.15 No 3.62 No

Understand construction project

control processes. #16 4.0/5.0 4.53 Yes 3.32 No 3.36 No 3.74 No

Understand the legal implications of

contract, common, and regulatory

law to manage a construction

project.

#17 4.0/5.0 4.47 Yes 3.98 No 3.09 No 3.85 No

Understand the basic principles of

sustainable construction. #18 4.0/5.0 4.25 Yes 3.74 No 3.47 No 3.82 No


structural behavior. #19 4.0/5.0 4.31 Yes 4.04 Yes 3.36 No 3.90 No


mechanical, electrical and plumbing

systems.

#20 4.0/5.0 4.31 Yes 3.55 No 3.23 No 3.70 No

* The first number represents the minimum stated performance criteria. The second number reprents the maximum allowable score.

adbondText BoxAppendix D

DPO 1 Maintain ACCE accreditation.

DPO 2 A majority of graduating seniors will receive employment offers from one or more

construction companies.

DPO 3 A majority of graduating seniors will indicate that their expectations regarding curricular

rigor were met or exceeded.

DPO 4 A majority of alumni will indicate their approval rating on degree program content and

student preparedness level, post-graduation (3-5 years).

DPO 5 A reasonable number of students will participate in educational enrichment experiences

outside of the classroom.

5A – Student Clubs of Professional Organizations.

5B – Student Competitions.

5C – Service Learning

DPO 6 The Educational Unit shall work towards compliance with the University’s stated “Graduation Initiative 2025”.

Appendix E

Degree Program Objectives

10/12/2020 Degree Program Objectives

Assessment Results Scorecard - AY 2019-2020

DPO # DPO Description

Assessment

Tool

Performance

Criteria

Performance

Result Comments

1 ACCE accreditation shall be maintained. Visiting Team Report Yes / No Yes

2

A majority of graduating seniors will receive

employment offers from one or more construction

companies.

ECC - Senior Survey >80% 87.0%

3

A majority of graduating seniors will indicate that their

expectations regarding curricular rigor were met or

exceeded

CMGT - Senior Survey >80% 76.9%

4

A majority of alumni will indicate their approval rating

on degree program content and student preparedness

level, post-graduation (3-5 years).

Preparedness Alumni Survey >80% 74.5%

Degree program content - curriculum relevance Alumni Survey >80% 82.4%

5

5A

5B

5C

A reasonable number of students will participate in

educational enrichment experiences outside of the

classroom.

Student Clubs of Professional Organizations

Student Competitions

Service Learning

CMGT - Senior Survey



>30%

>30%

>30%

83.1%

56.4%

55.2%

6

6A

6B

6C

6D

The Educational Unit shall work towards compliance

with the University’s stated “Graduation Initiative 2025”.

First-Time Freshman 4- Year Graduation Rate

First-Time Freshman 6-Year Graduation Rate

Undergraduate Transfer 2-Year Graduation Rate

Undergraduate Transfer 4-Year Graduation Rate

Graduation Initiative

2025 Dashboard

ECC - Senior Survey

ECC - Senior Survey

ECC - Senior Survey

ECC - Senior Survey

Different from Each

Cohort Class

16.0%

63.8%

9.2%

67.4%

CMGT Actuals - Note:

Prior Year ECC results

were reported

10.8%

80.6%

11.5%

83.8%

adbondText BoxAppendix F

California State University, Chico AY 2019-2020

Construction Management Department


First-Time Freshman 4-Year Graduation Rate Trajectory

Cohort Years

Grad

Year

ECC Grad

Goal

Overall

Required

Improve

Actual

CMGT

Rate

Over

(Under)

Goal

2011 4 2015 13.0% 8.3% -4.7%

2012 4 2016 13.8% 25.9% 12.1%

2013 4 2017 14.5% 29.0% 14.5%

2014 4 2018 15.3% 17.8% 2.5%

2015 4 2019 16.0% 10.8% -5.2%

2016 4 2020 16.8% 57.7% 2017 4 2021 17.3%

2018 4 2018 18.3%

2019 4 2023 19.0%

2020 4 2024 19.8%

2021 4 2025 20.5%

13.0% 13.8% 14.5% 15.3%

16.0% 16.8% 17.3%

18.3% 19.0% 19.8% 20.5%

8.3%

25.9%

29.0%

17.8%

10.8%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

ECC

Gra

du

atio

n Im

pro

vem

en

t G

oal

s

Cohort Years

FTF 4-Year CMGT Graduation Rate vs. ECC Goals

GI 2025 Goals CMGT Actuals





First-Time Freshman 6-Year Graduation Rate Trajectory

Cohort

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

Years

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

Grad

Year

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

ECC Grad

Goal

60.0%

60.9%

61.9%

62.8%

63.8%

64.7%

65.6%

66.6%

67.5%

68.4%

69.4%

Overall

Required

Improve

15.6%

Actual

CMGT

Rate

67.2%

56.7%

75.0%

74.1%

80.6%

Over

(Under)

Goal

7.2%

-4.2%

13.1%

11.3%

0.168

FTF 6-Year CMGT Graduation Rate vs. ECC Goals

90.0% 80.6%

50.0%

40.0%

30.0%

20.0%

10.0%

0.0%

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Cohort Years

2016 2017 2018 2019


60.0% 60.9% 61.9% 62.8% 63.8% 64.7%

65.6% 66.6% 67.5% 68.4% 69.4% 67.2%

56.7%

75.0% 74.1%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

ECC

Gra

du

atio

n Im

pro

vem

en

t G

oal

s





Undergraduate Transfer 2-Year Graduation Rate Trajectory

Cohort Years Baseline

ECC Grad

Goal

Overall

Required

Improve

Actual

CMGT

Rate

Over

(Under)

Goal

2013 2 2015 8.0% 0.0% -8.0%

2014 2 2016 8.3% 8.0% -0.3%

2015 2 2017 8.6% 13.5% 4.9%

2016 2 2018 8.9% 20.7% 11.8%

2017 2 2019 9.2% 11.5% 0.023

2018 2 2020 9.5% 38.7% 2019 2 2021 9.9%

2020 2 2022 10.2%

2021 2 2023 10.5%

2022 2 2024 10.8%

2023 2 2025 11.1%

UGT 2-Year CMGT Graduation Rate vs. ECC Goals

EC

C G

rad

uat

ion

Imp

rove

me

nt

Go

als

25.0%

20.7%

20.0%

15.0%

10.0%

5.0%

0.0%

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023

8.0% 8.3% 8.6% 8.9%

9.2% 9.5% 9.9% 10.2%

10.5% 10.8% 11.1%

0.0%

8.0%

13.5%

11.5%

Cohort Years






Undergraduate Transfer 4-Year Graduation Rate Trajectory

Cohort Years Baseline

ECC Grad

Goal

Overall

Required

Improve

Actual

CMGT

Rate

Over

(Under)

Goal

2011 4 2015 64.0% 66.7% 2.7%

2012 4 2016 64.8% 86.4% 21.6%

2013 4 2017 65.7% 70.8% 5.2%

2014 4 2018 66.5% 84.0% 17.5%

2015 4 2019 67.4% 83.8% 0.1645

2016 4 2020 68.2% 13.2% 2017 4 2021 69.1%

2018 4 2022 69.9%

2019 4 2023 70.8%

2020 4 2024 71.6%

2021 4 2025 72.4%

UGT 4-Year CMGT Graduation Rate vs. ECC Goals

100.0%

90.0% 86.4%

84.0% 83.8%

60.0%

50.0%

40.0%

30.0%

20.0%

10.0%

0.0%

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Cohort Years


64.0% 64.8% 65.7% 66.5% 67.4% 68.2%

69.1% 69.9% 70.8% 71.6% 72.4%

66.7% 70.8%

70.0%

80.0%

ECC

Gra

du

atio

n Im

pro

vem

en

t G

oal

s


Final Assessment Report AY 2019-2020...Final Assessment Report AY 2019-2020 Department of...

Documents

Transcript of Final Assessment Report AY 2019-2020...Final Assessment Report AY 2019-2020 Department of...