The Construction Management Program is an innovative, learning-centered program that is recognized as a leader in construction management education and a vital link to the construction industry. To achieve and sustain our vision, we embrace the concept of ongoing assessment as a continuous source of information that is essential for improving student learning outcomes and teaching and learning methods, and serves to inform and enhance our wide-ranging program goals.
Quality Assessment Process and Administration
The Construction Management program at Drexel University has chosen the following definition of assessment (AAHE Bulletin, November, 1995, p.7):
“Assessment is an ongoing process aimed at understanding and improving student learning. It involves making our expectations explicit and public; setting appropriate criteria and high standards for learning quality; systematically gathering, analyzing, and interpreting evidence to determine how well performance matches expectations and standards; and using the resulting information to document, explain, and improve performance. When it is embedded effectively within larger institutional systems, assessment can help us focus our collective attention, examine our assumptions, and create a shared academic culture dedicated to assuring and improving the quality of higher education.”
To facilitate comprehensive, integrated and sustained assessment, we have added a full-time Assessment Manager, Dr. Andrew Scott Ziner. He serves multiple roles to ensure that continuous assessment is at the core of teaching and learning, including working with Program Directors, Managers and all other full-time and part-time faculty on AEFIS (the College’s assessment software management system). He also developed a new resource-intensive assessment website and blog called Data Points.
Download a PDF to access a detailed description of our Quality Assessment process and administration (PDF).
Assessment Report and Improvement Plan
Based on our explicit course–level student learning outcomes and program-level objectives, we have developed and implemented 10 Internal and External INSTRUMENTS, each of which is represented by multiple strategic measures (“INDICATORS”); in total, there are more than 40 Indicators. Each program Goal and Objective is assessed quarterly or annually by at least one Indicator. For each Indicator, we engage in the following quantitatively driven 7-step continuous assessment sequence to close the loop: (1) objective description, (2) expected result(s), (3) actual result(s), (4) strengths observed, (5) weaknesses observed, (6) objective satisfied?, and (7) responses-action taken, if necessary. All Indicators that require corrective action, as defined by their associated “expected result(s),” will be assessed for needed change to “close the loop.”
Download a Clarification Report (PDF) to see a graph which explains how this process works (7-step assessment sequence for Indicator I-3-1: “% of UG students who earned final grade of ‘C’ or higher”) which is one of the Indicators that represent Internal Instrument I-3 (“Course Assessment Report”), which in turn is used to assess Objective O-9 (“Graduates will demonstrate knowledge of relevant subject matter described in the ACCE guidelines”), which serve as metrics that align with all three of the Program Goals (G–1, 2, and 3).
Download a PDF to access a full Assessment Report and Improvement Plan Report (PDF).
CO-OP Employer Evaluation of Student Performance
Drexel University conducts surveys in which companies that participate in Co-Op programs evaluate our students on 30 different performance measures, like, dependability, productivity, understanding of professional and ethical responsibilities, and effective written communication, to mention but a few. Download one of these summary reports (PDF) and see how construction management students perform in comparison to Goodwin College and Drexel University students.
Senior Exit Surveys
To find recent data on the starting salaries of construction management graduates, types of employment, and how satisfied our graduates are with undergraduate education (among other factors), click the following links:
Senior Exit Survey Class of 2009 (PDF)
Senior Exit Survey Class of 2010 (PDF)
Senior Exit Survey Class of 2011 (PDF)