Skip to Content

2.1.1 - In-depth explanation of each of the Direct Measures used to evaluate.

1. Reviews from the Senior Capstone Course (CSM 4360) Implementation Plan:

CSM 4360 is the Senior Capstone Course in which a real construction project is submitted by a sponsoring construction company. In the Capstone Course, students work in groups to prepare a proposal for submission, based on the owner's RFP.

Assessment Plan:
The student performance is graded in the course using the "CSM 4360 Grading Criterion" evaluation sheet
{Appendix D23). The judges from the sponsoring company use a 12-item scoring sheet to judge the team's overall performance on items ranging from "Overall Presence" to "Understanding Owner Concerns". The second part of the 11Grading Criterion" rating sheet asks the judges to rate the performance of each member of the group on a 1-5 scale. In addition to rating each student on a numerical scale, the judges are also provided space to make comments on each student members' performance on the team. Also, the instructor of the course will grade the written RFP's based on the template given to the students in the class.

Assessment Implementation Plan:
After the presentations are given, the judges numerical data are tabulated along with their written comments and improvements to the course are identified for implementation the following semester. The instructor also summarized the results of the graded RFP's, noting areas of needed improvement.

2. Review of Individual Course Notebooks

Implementation Plan:
Each year, the primary faculty member responsible for any particular course submits a course notebook for those course or courses for which he/she has responsibility. This is done by every faculty member, every Spring semester and for each of the 19 construction courses our students are required to complete for their major. The CSM evaluation of each course is based on:

Assessment Plan:
a. How well the course covered the identified course outcomes based on the Construction Program Outcomes using Subjective and Objective Measurements.
b. How well the course covered the assigned ACCE, SLOs, based on Subjective and Objective Measurements.

Assessment Implementation Plan:
The information gained from the review is used to improve the course the following year or semester. A major review of all notebooks is done every three years by the Program Director to ensure progress is being made towards meeting and improving the performance of students' in achieving
the Program Outcomes and assigned SLOs.

3. Review of Each Instructor's "Course Assessment and Improvement Plan" Using Both Subjective and Objective Methods of Measurement:

Implementation Plan:
Course program outcomes, including SLOs, are evaluated by both subjective and objective methodologies. The subjective method asks students to evaluate how well they believe they have ·mastered the "Course Outcomes: for the class, using a five point Likert Scale ranging from "Strongly Disagree" to "Strongly Agree" (Appendix D8). The objective method calculates student's performances on each of the relevant Class' "Course Outcomes" based on the use of an appropriate objective measurement, such as test questions, assignments, presentations and projects.

Assessment Plan:
The results from both the subjective and the objective measurements are averaged each semester and recorded in each course's "Instructor's Course Assessment and Improvement Plan" (Appendix D9), found in each course notebook behind the "Course Assessment" tab. Along with each semester-specific averages for the subjective and objective measurements, a running, historic average is also computed for every course. The semesterspecific averages for both measurements are compared to the historic average every semester, in order to examine any observable trends in learning success.

Assessment Implementation Plan:
Based on the calculated numerical values and the instructor's interpretation of their significance and meaning, the instructor composes his/her Assessment and Improvement Plan expressing how he/her proposes to improve the course the next semester. Defined as causes for concern are those instances when either the subjective or objective measurements fall below 70% for a specific Course Outcome or when the difference between the subjective and objective measurements for a given Course Outcome is greater than 20%. In either of these cases, the instructor needs to address how the situation is to be corrected using the comment section of the "Instructor's Course Assessment and Improvement Plan" (Appendix D9). Also, this information is shared with the Construction Program Coordinator in an effort to formulate the most effective strategies for addressing the problem going forward.

4. Review of Program Outcomes by way of Course Outcomes: Implementation Plan

Texas State University r quires annual review of all academic programs, from a student learning perspective, for the purposes of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS) accreditation process. This annual review is administered through the office of Academic Development and Assessment (ADA) and the evaluative results are posted to the ADA website at the end of May of each academic year.
Because this annual program assessment is required by the university, the Department of Engineering Technology made a decision to unify the ACCE and SACS assessment processes together for our Construction Science and Management program. We believe that the unification of these processes will lead to efficiencies in annual program assessment and that the incorporation of the ACCE assessment into the annual ADA methodology will assure consistency with established, campus-wide assessment standards.

Assessment Plan
Academic Development and Assessment requires that all academic programs develop several broad, program level learning outcomes, which must be assessed each year. Under the ADA process, each of these program outcomes must be assessed using two methods of assessment, and these methods must be based upon observable student performance standards. In September of each year, these program outcomes and the associated methods of assessment are posted to the ADA web site by the department Chair. At the conclusion of the academic year (May), faculty must assess whether or not student learning has satisfied adopted standards, and in those cases where performance is below established minimums, an action plan must be developed. The Program Director then reviews the student performance data submitted by the faculty, and based upon this input, conclusions are drawn, which are forwarded to the Chair to be included in the Departments' ADA website.

The CSM faculty use the first five (5) Program Outcomes for inclusion in the ADA assessment process which each include two unique SLOs. By integrating the ACCE student learning outcomes into the ADA's annual program assessment, we have streamlined these two processes and assured that ACCE program assessment is consistent with established university standards. The five {5) program outcomes (minimum required by SACS.) adopted for annual review and their two associated SLOs are:

Program Output 1) Students will apply an understanding of construction fundamentals
• SLO 4 - Create construction project cost estimates.
• SLO 5 - Create construction project schedules.
Program Output 2) Students will demonstrate an understanding of construction processes.
• SLO 7 -Analyze construction documents for planning and management of construction processes.
• SLO 8 -Analyze methods, materials, and equipment used to construct projects.
Program Output 3) Students will apply effective communication skills
• SLO 1- Create written communications appropriate to the construction discipline
• SLO 2 - Create oral presentations appropriate to the construction discipline.
Program Output 4) Students will understand project risk management and project control processes
• SLO 13 - Understand construction risk management.
• SLO 16 - Understand construction project control processes.
Program Output 5) Students will demonstrate strong leadership, management and teamwork skills
• SLO 9 -Apply construction management skills as an effective member of a multidisciplinary team.
• SLO 12 - Understand different methods of project delivery and the roles and responsibilities of all constituencies involved in the design and construction process.

Each of the above Program Outcomes must be assessed using two methods of assessment, and these methods of assessment must be based upon observable student performance standards. A 70% performance rate is set as the lowest acceptable percentage for each of the two "Methods" used to evaluate each of the five {5) Program Outcomes. If the average is 70% or higher, the instructor notes the improvements they plan to make to continually raise this percentage. If the performance on any of the Method used to measure the Program Outcome falls below 70%, the Program Director works with the faculty member to develop an action plan to raise this percentage to an acceptable level.

Assessment Implementation Plan
Upon receiving student performance data and action plans from various faculty, along with the CSM Directors' report; the Department Chair then prepares the annual report and improvement plan, which is published on ADA's website. This annual report and improvement plan is then made available to a variety of stakeholders, including program faculty, the CAB, the CSM Program Director, and the university administration. Information contained in the annual report is used by stakeholders for the purpose of program improvement. A particular advantage of ADA's process is that it provides for a standardized review, which must occur annually by university policy, thereby assuring a process of "continuous" improvement, even during those intervening years between accreditation site visits.

5. Construction Advisory Board's review of the Construction Program: Implementation Plan

The CAB is provided an opportunity to review the entire CSM Curriculum.

Assessment Plan
Every three (3) years, the CAB is given a course description of the 19 required construction courses and the six (6) required Business Minor course, and they are asked to rank their relevancy in relation to preparing students for the construction industry. The CAB's Curriculum Committee is also given an opportunity to review all ACCE course notebooks.

Assessment Implementation Plan
Based on their comments, appropriate changes are made either to the overall curriculum or to individual courses. This has been a very valuable source of input, which has resulted in the program incorporating more industry speakers and field trips into the curriculum, more practical construction problems based on real construction documents and real-world situations, and extending the actual length of the internship experience to 400 hours from the previous 180 hours. Also, the Internship was change from a three-hour senior level course (TECH 4390) to a one-hour sophomore course (TECH 2190). In addition, the CAB reviews the program's Mission Statement Strategic Plan, course-level and program-level Learning Outcomes every three years.

6. Construction Program Coordinator's assessment of the progress in meeting the program's Mission: Implementation Plan
Every six years, the construction program develops its long-term Strategic Plan, setting critical strategic and program goals and objectives for the next six-year interval. This cycle occurs during the same time frame that the department is required to create its six-year Strategic Plan for the University. The process involves the construction faculty, meeting for the purpose of identifying important strategic-level goals and objectives for the six years. This Strategic Plan is also shared with the CAB for their input (Appendix D3).

Assessment Plan
The Strategic Plan is reviewed every three and six years by both the construction faculty and the Program Director in order to determine which goals and objectives have been accomplished, those that remain to be accomplished or modified, and to establish a plan of action for achieving them in the remaining years of the planning cycle.

Assessment Implementation Plan
The Construction Program Director and Department Chair discuss resource allocation as it relates to accomplishing the goals and objectives set forth in the plan. The third year's summary of progress made on the Strategic Plan is shared with the CAB and their comments sought as these relate to the proposed action plan.