2013-2014 department: mechanical and … end report...mechanical design data packet for program...

Mechanical Design Data Packet for Program Review, 2013-2014

Department Annual Report & Program Review

2013-2014

Department:

Mechanical and Architectural Design

Program(s):

928 Program – Certificate in Mechanical Design

904 Program – AAAS Degree in Mechanical Design

925 Program – AAAS Degree in Architectural Technology

905 Program – AAAS Degree in Architectural Design

612 Program – AA Degree in Construction Management

925 Program – AAAS Degree in Facility Management

Document Prepared By:

Tom Boersma


Department Information

Annual Updates

Review & Documentation:

Current year goals

1. Enhance the master notebooks library with a digital library of course materials. 2. Develop a scanning curriculum for DR240. 3. Evaluate the Revit Certification exam scores and determine how the exam

preparation can be enhanced. 4. Create a new brochure for both Architectural and Mechanical Design programs. 5. Complete the Ferris Construction Management transfer program. 6. Prepare DR229 for on-line delivery. 7. Prepare DR190 for hybrid delivery. 8. Begin the Program Review process for Mechanical Design. 9. Work with students on portfolios to meet the new requirements for LTU.

Goals for next year 1. Develop a new three year plan for our partnership with LTU. 2. Integrate our new Mechanical Design faculty member. 3. Re-organize our office, workroom and labs after the construction is completed. 4. Develop a comprehensive plan for student recruitment. 5. Continue our 100 year celebration plans. 6. Work with FSU to formalize our Mechanical Design articulations. 7. Complete our reverse engineering curriculum. Internal collaborations and partnerships Work with the machine shop and the plastics lab on reverse engineering projects.

External collaborations and partnerships 1. Confirm that our articulations with FSU are current given the program changes they

have made. 2. Continue to monitor the Architectural Program being developed at Kendall to see how

our students might be able to transfer there. 3. Plan out our next three year partnership with LTU.


4. We have developed several new articulation agreements with area high schools and we will continue to add these as we make more connections with high schools with programs that offer CAD design.

5. Participate in additional Design Charrettes with Habitat for Humanity in Kent County. This year four of our students participated on January 30 and were able to work with a larger group of students from GRPS in this effort.

Departmental needs for support from other departments within the college We will need assistance from the promotional and public relations departments for the general marketing of our programs.

Program accreditation Updates The Architectural Design Program of GRCC as part of the Master of Architecture program of Lawrence Tech. University was reviewed for accreditation by the National Architecture Accreditation Board during March of 2014.

Description of departmental advising plan and outcomes Our plan from last year continues to work well but we will need to bring in our new faculty member as part of the advising team.

Departmental professional development activities This year we focused on learning Photo Shop. Both the architectural and mechanical design fields use this software to combine rendered models with a specific background. We had six hours of training from Cheryl Kautz and have been able to incorporate this software into some student project work. Student Awards Micah Wiersma won the Best of Show in the Motor City mixed-media arts competition. It was an arts competition sponsored by Lawrence Technological University. The muse for the competition was founded upon Detroit’s classic nickname, The Motor City, and challenged aspiring artists, designers, and architects to deconstruct, challenge, expand, contract and otherwise reposition this well-worn phrase.

This is the second year in a row an Architectural Design student has won a $40,000 Scholarship to LTU. The award is $10,000 annually renewable for four years.

Other department updates This was an especially challenging year for our department. We began the year with a tenured faculty search that occupied our fall and was not resolved until mid-March. We moved our offices during ATC construction and lost some contact with our students and


tutor labs. Amy left and we have been working as best as we can with Kelsee. Fortunately the classes themselves ran pretty well.

Evaluation Questions:

1. Were the department goals for this year successfully met? Please explain. Yes. We made good progress on all of them but #1. We lost that momentum due to the faculty search process and will need to get back into that next fall.

2. Is the Advising Plan working well? What have the outcomes been for student advising? The advising plan has worked pretty well this year but we did feel more detached from our students during the construction process. Also we will need to train a new faculty member on advising next year.

Action Needed

Based on the documentation and evaluation in this section, please indicate if action or improvement is needed in the following areas within the department by making your response bold:

Annual Goals Yes No External Collaborations & Partnerships Yes No Internal Collaborations & Partnerships Yes No Accreditation Yes No Departmental Advising Yes No

Faculty & Staff

Faculty & Staff Annual Updates


Faculty Credentials & Certifications

Nothing has changed this past year although next year we will be working on getting the

new faculty member certified in the CAD software we teach.

Professional Development Activities Tom attended SolidWorks World in January and received training on SolidWorks costing and modifying curriculum for the new CSWP exam. This will help us to fulfill the goals of the Perkins 1P1 and 2P1. Will was not able to attend Pro-E Training because of scheduling issues. Charlotte and Dave participated in the USGBC National Greenbuild Conference in Philadelphia November 2013.


EOL/Release Time Work Dave Dye is continuing to work on the LTU transfer project. This helps us focus on 3P1. Faculty & Staff Accomplishments/Awards Tom Boersma participated in a round table discussion on Mechanical Design Programs at the October Trends conference. Tom Boersma and Wil Gooch participated in the Master Course training this fall at GRCC and each successfully finished with an approved course. Charlotte Pease is serving on the advisory board for the new architectural program at Kendall. This will help us stay connected with that new development and may offer additional options for our graduates. Dave Dye led a group of our students on a Habitat for Humanity design collaboration project. Faculty Development for Upcoming Year Tom Boersma would like to focus on non-traditional enrollment in the Mechanical Design

Program (5P1) by participating in the STEM conference to be held this fall.

Our new mechanical design faculty member should be getting some Pro-E software training.

Tom Boersma would like to keep the focus on our 1P1 and 2P1 goal of having our students

successfully attain an industry recognized credential. Additional training and support of this

effort is a major outcome of attending the SolidWorks World Conference.


1. Can course assignments be made and scheduled based on the availability of

credentialed faculty?

Yes. Dave and Charlotte are certified in Revit and Tom is CSWP certified. Nathan Sneller

has the “expert” level of SolidWorks certification to help teach the SolidWorks classes.

2. Is the number of departmental faculty that are certified to teach online and through

Academic Service Learning sufficient to achieve the curricular and delivery needs of the

department?

Yes, assuming our new Mechanical Design faculty member becomes on-line certified

this fall.

3. Do the number and ratio of Full-time/Adjunct faculty support the goals of the

department?

Yes

4. Is the professional development faculty and staff are receiving sufficient for them to

maintain currency in their field and area(s) of expertise?


Yes

5. Are additional faculty members or faculty development resources needed to support

the goals of the department over the next four years?

As long as we continue to have the Perkins and departmental budget support we

currently have we should be in good shape. Within four years we may have additional

retirements affecting this scenario.

Action Needed


Faculty credentialing Yes No Faculty online certification Yes No Academic Service Learning Yes No Ratio Fulltime/Adjunct faculty Yes No Faculty professional development Yes No Resources Yes No

Program Review

Mechanical Design A.A.A.S. /Certificate

Mission/Purpose, Target Audience & Admissions/Pre-Requisite Skills

Mission/Purpose

The primary goal of the GRCC Mechanical Design Program is to prepare our students for entry

into the workforce or to successfully continue on towards a bachelor’s degree in a related field.

Many of our students are recent high school graduates while others are pursuing the field of

mechanical design after exploring other career, military or educational activities.

Depending on their work experience and the type of job they are seeking the students may

choose to finish our complete associate degree program, our 1 year certificate option or just

finish a series of classes to provide them with specific job skills.

The secondary goal of our program is to provide West Michigan companies with a

comprehensive selection of technical course offerings that will help their existing employees


stay current with modern Computer Aided Design (CAD) technology and related design courses.

This also includes the foundational CAD and engineering graphics courses that many

apprentices are required to complete.

Target Audience & Program Admission

Our target audience can be divided into three categories:

1. Recent high school graduates.

2. Current employees of West Michigan tooling and manufacturing companies.

3. Previous employees or college students from other disciplines who are re-directing their career path

towards mechanical design. Included in this group are the “reverse transfer” students who have a

number of credits or even a college degree in another field and now are seeking employment in

mechanical design.

Admission Requirements:

Our admission requirements reflect the general GRCC requirements as spelled out in the college catalog

(www.grcc.edu/admissions)

Applicants wishing to take a class for personal interest can simply complete the on-line application or

request a paper copy from the admissions office.

Program Data

I. Program Enrollment and Student Progress

1. All Students

Enrollment by Program, Fall 2009 to Fall 2013

Plan Description

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

904 Mechanical Design 103 88 88 71 90

928 Mechanical Design, Cert 29 22 17 10 13

Total Workforce Development 6,950 7,530 7,202 7,094 6,876

2. Demographics of Students in Program, Fall 2009 to Fall 2013 904 Mechanical Design 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

% Female 8% 6% 5% 6% 3%

http://www.grcc.edu/admissions


% Male 92% 94% 95% 94% 97%

% Fulltime 46% 47% 39% 44% 27%

% Parttime 54% 53% 61% 56% 73%

Average Age 28 29 30 26 26

% American Indian 1% 0% 1% 1% 0%

% Asian 1% 0% 1% 1% 8%

% Black 7% 2% 7% 8% 4%

% Hispanic 4% 5% 5% 10% 3%

% White 86% 92% 80% 70% 80%

% Unknown 1% 1% 7% 8% 4%


% Female 14% 0% 0% 10% 15%

% Male 86% 100% 100% 90% 85%

% Fulltime 52% 45% 35% 20% 31%

% Parttime 48% 55% 65% 80% 69%

Average Age 29 25 25 32 30


% Asian 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

% Black 14% 18% 6% 10% 8%

% Hispanic 10% 9% 6% 0% 0%

% White 76% 68% 76% 80% 77%

% Unknown 0% 5% 12% 10% 8%


A. Enrollment (Cont.) 3. New Students (First Time in Any College)

New Student Enrollment by Program, Fall 2009 to Fall 2013

Plan Description 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Diff 2009 - 2013

% Diff 2009 - 2013

904 Mechanical Design 24 12 12 13 16 -8 -33%

928 Mechanical Design, Cert 8 4 3 2 -6 -75%

Total Workforce Development 1097 1273 1198 1170 1100 3 0%

Total Student Enrollment After a few years of modest decline our program is showing an increase in enrollment in

both the certificate and the degree codes. One challenge is to increase our female

enrollment in the 904 program. Minority enrollment is also something that we hope to

see increase. Because many of our students have already taken college courses at other

institutions our new student count is lower (FTIAC).

B. Student Progress*

Plan Code Description

N Students Graduated

Graduated/ Transfered Transfered

Still Here

Left Ed

Grad/Transfer/ Still Here

904 Mechanical Design 101 4% 1% 17% 45% 34% 66%

928 Mechanical Design, Cert

15 0% 0% 13% 60% 27% 73%

Total Workforce Development 9,315 7% 1% 10% 45% 38% 62%

* One-year progress measure; i.e., the fall 2013 status of students who began the program in the 2012-2013 academic year.

C. Number of Graduates, by Year

Academic Year

Plan Description

2008-2009

2009-2010

2010-2011

2011-2012

2012-2013

904 Mech Drafting Tech 15 18 16 24 5

928 Mech Drafting, Cert 1 3 4 0 0

Total Workforce Development 741 785 852 769 799


II. Course Data A. Historical Course Enrollment and Success (Earned Grades* by Course, by Year) 1. Summary

Course

2010 - 2011 2011-2012 2012-2013

Enroll-ment A to C-

With-drew

Enroll-ment A to C-

With-drew

Enroll-ment A to C-

With-drew

DR 140 25 56% 4% 46 67% 2% 48 73% 15%

DR 140Mod 5 60% 40%

DR 150 103 73% 4% 107 78% 6% 111 77% 5%

DR 150Mod 30 77% 7% 2 100% 0%

DR 180 26 81% 8% 36 81% 11% 39 92% 3%

DR 190 48 79% 4% 31 81% 13% 36 86% 3%

DR 212 34 65% 18% 26 77% 19% 30 87% 3%

DR 224 27 89% 4% 26 77% 12% 29 86% 14%

DR 225 7 86% 14%

DR 228

DR 229 25 56% 4% 16 88% 6% 20 90% 10%

DR 240 8 100% 0%

DR 241 5 60% 40% 10 100% 0% 11 100% 0%

DR 258 103 73% 4% 41 71% 12% 40 68% 13%

DR 258Mod 30 77% 7% 2 100% 0%

DR 260 26 81% 8% 24 83% 4%

DR 265 48 79% 4%

DR 279 34 65% 18% 18 94% 0% 12 100% 0%

DR 298 27 89% 4% 1 100% 0%

DR 299 25 56% 4% 1 100% 0%

Total DR 76% 5% 79% 8% 82% 7%

Total GRCC 72% 13% 72% 12% 74% 11%

*Does not include I (Incomplete), D or E


1. Is the program consistently attracting new students? Yes, after a few years of decreasing enrollment we are seeing an enrollment increase. 2. Is the enrollment trend meeting established targets, ensuring program viability? If targets for enrollment have not been established, what should they be? What could be done to increase enrollment (if this is found to be necessary)? Based on this year’s enrollment numbers and the continued high demand for our students in the workplace we see continued viability of the program. 3. Do students appear to be progressing through the program well? Are there concerns in this area?


Student success rates at 82% and withdrawal rates at 7% show that our students are continuously beating the averages at GRCC. 4. Is the yearly ratio of the number of students enrolled to the number of graduates appropriate given program goals? Why or why not? In 2011/2012 we had a record number of graduates from our program. In 2012/2013 this number fell way below average. We are investigating the cause and will be anxiously looking for this year’s graduation rates.

Perkins Data

III. Perkins Data

CORE INDICATOR

2009-2010 2011-2012 2012-2013

State Goal GRCC

Program State Goal

GRCC Program

State Goal GRCC

Program

1P1: % of CTE concentrators who passed technical skill assessments that are aligned with industry-recognized standards, if available and appropriate, during the reporting year (that can be identified)

85.25% 92% 91.08% N/A 92.00% N/A

2P1: % of CTE concentrators who received an industry-recognized credential, a certificate, or a degree during the reporting year.

28.25% 20.83% 26.93% 19.05% 29.00% 11.11%

3P1: % of CTE concentrators who remained enrolled in their original postsecondary institution or transferred to another 2- or 4-year postsecondary institution during the reporting year and who were enrolled in postsecondary education in the fall of the previous reporting year.

60.25% 61.48% 70.00% 71.31% 71.00% 81.01%

4P1: % of CTE concentrators who were placed or retained in employment military service or apprenticeship programs in the 2nd quarter following the program year in which they left postsecondary education (i.e., unduplicated placement status for CTE concentrators who graduated by June 30, 2011 would be assessed between October 1, 2011 and December 31, 2011).

43.25% 41.67% 70.00% 100.00% 71.00% 100.00%

5P1: % of CTE participants from underrepresented gender groups who participated in a program that leads to employment in nontraditional fields during the reporting year.

16.75% 7.08% 23.62% 13.63% 23.70% 4.88%

5P2: % of CTE concentrators from underrepresented gender groups who completed a program that leads to employment in nontraditional fields during the reporting year.

13.25% 8.33% 20.65% 0.00% 20.70% 0.00%


Note: Shaded cells indicate that state goal was not reached by this program.

PERKINS: Student Participation in Nontraditional Fields Our female and minority representation has been traditionally low and we are

investigating ways to improve this.

PERKINS: Credential, Certificate, or Degree Attainment The Certified SolidWorks Associate pass rates have been:

09/10 – 65%, 10/11 – 67%, 11/12 – 64%, 12/13 – 75%

That program has been very successful however our long term average will not likely

exceed the state goal because the exam is rather difficult and the national pass rate is

less than 80%. As mentioned above our graduation rate was higher two years ago but

low this past year.

PERKINS: Student Completion in Nontraditional Fields We will be making this issue a priority for the coming year – hopefully with support from

our Perkins funds.

PERKINS: Student Placement

IV. Employment A. Graduate Employment Rates (From the survey mailed to alumni. The question asks for the graduates’ status in October following the academic year in which they graduated. ) Plan 904 (Mechanical Design)

2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 Response rate 6/15 = 40% 4/16 = 25% 5/16 = 31% 2/25 = 8%

Employed in a job related to the program taken at GRCC

2/6 = 33% 1/4 = 25% 2/5 = 40% 1/2 = 50%

Continuing education and EMPLOYED in a job related to the program taken at GRCC

2/6 = 33% 1/4 = 25% 2/5 = 40% 1/2 = 50%


Plan 928 (Mechanical Design Cert)

2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 Response rate 0/1 = 0% 0/3 = 0% 1/4 = 25% n/a


n/a n/a 0/4 = 0% n/a


n/a n/a 0/4 = 0% n/a

*Number of survey respondents/Number of surveys mailed


1. To what extent are the targets for core program indicators (Student Participation in Nontraditional fields, Student Retention & Transfer, Credential, Certificate, Degree Attainment, Student Completion in non-traditional fields, Student Placement, Technical Skills Attainment) being met? We should be able to meet the Perkins requirements for credential and degree completion. We will try to find out why some data is missing and determine whether that will improve these areas. Recruitment efforts should be focused more on females and minority populations. The student placement numbers seem low but that might be due to low response rate. Our experience these last few years has been that we have job requests come in to our department that do not get filled. 2. Are the various sub-populations meeting the targets at the same rate? Our sub-population groups are almost too low to accurately assess that.

Course Data


Course Enrollment by Semester

Enrollment seems consistent between semesters. Some variation is due to changing

schedules and the occasional canceled course.

Course Success Rates

Course success rates remain very high.


1. What does the course enrollment by semester data tell you?


Our enrollment is steady and doing well in most classes. 2. Are students passing courses at the appropriate rates? If not, which courses are of concern and what should be done about this? Yes, most courses show a consistently high success rate. A few of the higher level courses show a slightly lower success rate. 3. Are the Course Success Rates the same for the various sub-group populations? If not, where are the areas of concern and what should be done about this? Our sub-population groups are almost too low to accurately assess that.

Program Outcomes

1. Completers will be successfully employed in the mechanical design field. In this case

completers are defined as those completing a degree, certificate, or series of courses.

2. Completers will be successful at pursuing a bachelor’s degree.

3. Existing employees of companies will improve their job performance and meet the technical

demands of their employers.


1. Are these Program Outcomes appropriate given the target audience and intent for the program? If not, please list what the new Program Outcomes should be. Yes, our program has consistently received high marks from local employers who are trying to hire qualified employees or who want to get additional training for their existing employers. 2. What does the data trend for the Program Outcomes tell you? What are the implications for these data? Employment prospects continue to look promising for our students.

Action Needed Based on the documentation and evaluation in this section, please indicate if action or improvement is needed in the following areas within the department by making your response bold:

New Student Enrollment Yes No Total Student Enrollment Yes No Student Progress Yes No Student Participation in Nontraditional Fields Yes No Credential, Certificate, or Degree Attainment Yes No


Student Completion in Nontraditional Fields Yes No Student Placement Yes No Student Retention and Transfer Yes No Technical Skills Attainment Yes No Course enrollment by semester Yes No Course Success Rates Yes No

Program Outcomes Yes No

Program Curriculum

History

The mechanical drafting program at GRCC is over 50 years old! It began with a great emphasis

on the skills of mechanical drafting – tools, techniques, lettering, blue-print machines. In the

early 1980’s the topic of Computer Aided Design was first taught. As the development of the

personal computer progressed our involvement with CAD became more affordable. The 1990’s

saw a great development in 3D CAD. Instead of a simple 2D drafting software package we

began to create wireframe, surface and solid models. Prior to CAD the industry required rooms

full of draftsmen/women to create all the mechanical drawings necessary to support the tooling

and manufacturing field. Modern CAD systems have definitely decreased the number of design

technicians needed to generate all of the required drawings, but at the same time the

engineering requirements are continually being increased. Therefore it is difficult to quantify

the net effect on the job market over the past few decades.

After the year 2000 we began to trim much of the mechanical drafting theory out of the

program in order to include more courses on using modern solid modeling software. Not only

could we design mechanisms and machinery in 3D but we also began to develop animations

and the simulation of forces and stress upon these designs. Now we are into the process of

computer aided engineering – meaning that complete product assemblies are created,

animated and simulated before any physical prototypes are needed. The program name has

been changed to Mechanical Design.

Speaking of prototypes we have also incorporated the process of 3D printing into our program.

This means that we can create a solid model in the morning and then send the data to the 3D

printer to produce a finished plastic prototype in a single day. The challenge of our curriculum is

to continue to teach the mechanical design fundamentals that employers still require but to

also push the technology envelope to prepare our students for jobs that will be emerging in the

next decade.

External Standards


Over the years there have been several certifications available for various CAD software packages. We currently teach AutoCAD, Inventor, SolidWorks, Pro Engineer and Catia. SolidWorks is the primary software that we use in the Mechanical Design Program. SolidWorks has a very robust certification process that offers three levels of certification: Associate, Professional and Expert. To successfully complete these exams you must understand the fundamentals of engineering graphics along with specific solid modeling. Our local employers support the use of these certification exams because it helps us to focus our curriculum on the subject matter that is important to both passing the exam and working successfully in the Mechanical Design field.

External Assessment Exams

The first level exam is called the Certified SolidWorks Associate level. We administer this exam near the end of DR190 - Intermediate SolidWorks. This is the second SolidWorks class in our program and by this time our students should have both the content knowledge and the “seat time” with the software to pass the exam. The exam is administered on the computer and the results are recorded and tracked by both the student and the professor. Upon successful completion the student can print off a certificate and have his or her name placed in the on-line data base so any employer can also see the posting. Specific tracking information is available to the instructor to see whether any content areas or question types are proving to be troublesome for the student.

The second level exam – Certified SolidWorks Professional – is administered at the end of DR240 Advanced SolidWorks. We are fortunate that SolidWorks fully supports this industry standard exam process. It is gaining wide popularity with employers and other educational institutions.

Because of our relationship with the SolidWorks Educational division our students can take these exams free of charge and the composite results are delivered directly to the instructor and are useful for our curriculum improvement.

Curriculum Crosswalk

For years the ADDA (American Design and Drafting Association) dictated a very specific curriculum for high school and college drafting programs. Unfortunately this standard was heavily based in the manual drafting fields. As 2D and 3D CAD became a major part of the design curriculum the standards could not keep up with the technology.

Now our curriculum is more aligned with the SolidWorks exams. They continue to be updated and improved to utilize the very latest technology.

Equivalent Courses- Transfer Institutions

Our entire Mechanical Design program transfers to the Product Design and the Manufacturing Engineering Technology program at Ferris. Our EG110 – Engineering


Graphics course has always transferred to other engineering programs around the state but most of our other DRxxx courses are not designed for direct transfer.

Program and Course Certifications

As mentioned above we offer two levels of SolidWorks parametric modeling certification. The Certified SolidWorks Associate Level and the Certified SolidWorks Professional level.

External Standards & Certifications

The SolidWorks certification process gives us a complete set of competencies upon which to

base our curriculum. We have been slowly evolving our courses from focusing on the tools of

mechanical drafting to the software tools that allow us to animate, simulate and document the

components and assemblies we design.

Our curriculum is designed so that a high school graduate can begin at the entry level. Because

some high schools have CAD programs we have an articulation agreement in place where

successful completers can receive credit for one or more courses in our curriculum. We also

have been utilizing the “prior learning” program that we have available when direct articulation

is not possible.


1. To what extent is the program curriculum aligned with the K-12 standards? Are the current courses well aligned with the K-12 expectations? Are textbooks and student materials in the initial coursework at the appropriate level given their high school preparation? If there is not alignment, identify the gaps. If there is duplication, secondary to postsecondary, identify the opportunity for articulated credits. Traditionally we draw most of our students from about a dozen area high schools that offer introductory design and drafting courses. Because we also use some of those high school instructors as adjunct instructors in our program there has been good compatibility between our programs. Additionally we have articulation agreements set up with many of their programs. This ensures that we stay in touch on a regular basis and compare notes on our courses. AR119, AR129, EG110 and DR150 are the courses that we most often articulate. The one challenge here is that high school programs tend to be broader and less intense than our college curriculum. For example a high school student may get to experiment with both architectural and mechanical design drawings in an AutoCAD course. At GRCC they would have to select between architectural and mechanical design as they begin the program.


2. To what extent is the program curriculum aligned with external professional standards (Industry, State, or National)? Are the current courses within the program or discipline appropriately and sufficiently addressing external standards? What changes should be made to ensure alignment? Are new courses needed? Do additional competencies from the standards need to be added or eliminated in courses? Please explain. Our courses are currently designed around three objectives: 1. Transferring to FSU engineering programs. 2. Preparing students to complete an industry credential – the CSWA exam. 3. Meeting the needs of local employers of mechanical design students. We have the need for one additional course: machine design. This is a course that we taught years ago but had been discontinued. Special machine design and build continues to be very strong in West Michigan. Our capstone course (DR279) has had some very successful offerings but that course has also suffered from lack of attention and we would like to revitalize it.

Program Learning Outcomes

1. Specify the relationship between primary views in a multi-view drawing.

2. Construct a primary auxiliary view.

3. Interpret title block, revision, and note information.

4. Master the SolidWorks software interface: menus, toolbars, startup options, prompts, help

functions.

5. Control dimensions, tolerances, and drawing annotations.

6. Apply components and mates to assemblies.

7. Calculate Simulation Express results of models.

8. Successfully complete the CSWA exam.

Evaluation Question:

1. Do the Program Learning Outcomes reflect the demonstrable skills, knowledge, and attitudes expected of students by the end of the program? Are they aligned with the standards identified in previous work? Are they clearly stated and measurable? If not, what changes are suggested? Document the revised Program Learning Outcomes here. Yes they are satisfactory and represent the major topics taught in this program.


Program Structure & Sequence


1. What changes to the program structure are being proposed to ensure that the target student population and current student population (traditional, transfer, and/or adult learners) are successful? Please explain. No changes at this point although the program will likely be modified in the near future.

2. Have general education courses been purposefully integrated into the program? How do the general education courses impact the expected learning outcomes for students? Yes, the general education courses are designed to meet our graduation requirements and fulfill the requirements of FSU.

3. Do the Program Learning Outcomes for the degree reflect the increased learning that the general education courses provide? Will the selected general education courses help students return to college to continue in this field if they choose to do so? The general education courses support the learner in fulfilling the program learning outcomes.

4. Which courses need to have pre-requisite courses added to the CARP document? None, we are currently all set on pre-requisites.

5. Are all four of the ILOs and associated competencies integrated into the program? Do students have the opportunity to build the knowledge, skills, and attitudes associated with the ILOs throughout the program? Yes, the general education and program specific courses fulfill these.

Curriculum Delivery


Courses Approved for Online Delivery

DR140, DR150, EG110, DR258, DR260, DR190, DR229

Honors Courses

none

Study Away Courses

none


1. Is experiential learning, including internships and academic service learning, systematically embedded into the courses? No Are the current experiential learning opportunities sufficient? Many students are already working in the field or are preparing for part time jobs.


2. Are the online offerings (courses & number of sections) sufficient to meet student and programmatic needs? No After some great initial success with on-line courses we have been systematically held up from developing any new on-line courses. 3. Are the honors and study away offering sufficient for the program? Yes

Action Needed Based on the documentation and evaluation in this section, please indicate if action or improvement is needed in the following areas within the department by making your response bold:

Program structure Yes No Curriculum alignment with external professional standards Yes No Curriculum Alignment K-12 Yes No Program Learning Outcomes Yes No Course offerings Yes No General Education Yes No Honors Program Yes No Study Away Program Yes No Internship Yes No Academic Service Learning Yes No Course sequencing Yes No Pre-requisites Yes No Online Offerings (courses & programs) Yes No

Assessment of Student Learning

Assessment of Student Learning

Program Learning Outcome(s) assessed this year

Specify the relationship between primary views in a multi-view drawing. Interpret title block, revision, and note information. Control dimensions, tolerances, and drawing annotations.

Measures of Student Learning The goal of this assessment project is to establish a competency baseline for Mechanical Design (904) program students. DR212 is typically a second semester course where the students are applying their engineering graphics skills to the design of a typical industrial tool. The designs used in this study are of a typical machining fixture used on a CNC mill to produce parts per blueprint specification.


Initial Data and Findings We discovered more variation than we anticipated on this project. Part of the struggle is the variety of students in the class. Some are 904 program majors and others are apprentices who have DR212 in their curriculum. The apprentices are more concerned with learning about tool design and not necessarily how to produce a professional looking design. They often do not have the CAD skills and engineering graphics background to produce a design that meets all of our engineering standards. Curricular or Pedagogical Changes Implemented We have developed a check sheet that gives more specific instruction on what is expected in the final design and how we will be checking it. This allows for those students who need some extra help to get a preliminary design review from the instructor and make the necessary changes before final submission. Data and Findings (post improvement/change) Last year was the first year we attempted this assessment. On a scale of 0 to 100 the eleven students had an average score of 53. The scores ranged from a high of 76 to a low of 34. After placing more emphasis on drawing contents and appearance our fourteen students had an average of 62 this year. The range was greater – 14 to 100 – but more students had what we would consider a “shop ready” design. We will continue to place emphasis on this area and assess them once more next year.

Preparing for the Future

Job and wage forecasts/Employment


Job and Wage forecasts

CIP

SOC Description 2013 Jobs

2018 Jobs

Change

% Chang

e

Openings

Annual

Openings

Median

Hourly Earnin

gs

Annual Real-time Job

Postings*

Regional

Completions (2011)

Education

Level

15.1306

17-3013

Mechanical Drafters

1,060

987 (73) (7%) 103 21 $22.23

102# 27

Associate'

s degree

Source: QCEW Employees - EMSI 2013.4 Class of Worker

*Source: Labor Insight by Burning Glass – 2013

# Reduced 20% due to possible duplication and/or error

http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/cipcode/cipdetail.aspx?y=55&cipid=87780


http://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/17-3013.00



Environmental Scanning/Trends

Plan 904 (Mechanical Design)

2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 Response rate 6/15 = 40% 4/16 = 25% 5/16 = 31% 2/25 = 8%


2/6 = 33% 1/4 = 25% 2/5 = 40% 1/2 = 50%


2/6 = 33% 1/4 = 25% 2/5 = 40% 1/2 = 50%


1. Are students obtaining employment upon graduation at satisfactory rates? The Pro-E survey shows that 40% - 50% of the students are gaining related employment. Our experience in the past few years is that we are unable to even get students to interview for some of the job requests that we have. We feel like the actual placement may be higher than what the Pro-E survey shows. 2. Do the job projections and wages data suggest that this program will be viable over the next four years? Yes. The job projections are that there will be plenty of positions in this field assuming a flat or modest increase in enrollment.

3. Is the number of graduates aligned with the market need (job forecasts/transfer institutions)? They current forecast (see above) is for the number of jobs to decrease 7% in the next five years. Given the current trend of software productivity this number is very believable. While productivity is up there are fewer people required to perform the same amount of work. One important item to also be considered is the number of persons that will be retiring in the next five years and will need to be replaced.

Peer Institutions

CIP 15.1306 Mechanical Design Numbers of Degrees/Certificates Awarded at Other MI Institutions

CIP 15.1306, Number of Completions 2011-2012, by Award Level

Award Level


Institution Name Associate’s

Degree

Certificate below Bacca-

laureate

Certificate Less than One Year

Certificate at least One but Less than Two

years

Baker College of Auburn Hills 5

Baker College of Cadillac 2

Baker College of Flint 2

Baker College of Jackson 8 1 1

Baker College of Muskegon 2

Baker College of Owosso 4

Grand Rapids Community College 25

Lansing Community College 9 4 2 2

Mid Michigan Community College 6 5 5

Monroe County Community College 4

Oakland Community College 13 11 11

St Clair County Community College 1 2 2


1. Are peer institutions offering this program at the same level (certificate, associate’s degree)? Is the program offered at a bachelor’s degree? If so, could a pre-major program be created? The Mechanical Design program is rather common at the certificate and associates degree level. GRCC has a large program when compared to the others in this survey. Most of the bachelor degree programs will have names such as Product Design or Mechanical Engineering Technology. Because our programs already transfer to a junior level in these programs a pre-major program would be of no particular advantage. 2. Are there any institutions with whom GRCC could explore articulation agreements? We already have agreements with Ferris and Baker. GVSU requires a completely different set of courses and is covered under our transfer guide.

Facilities & Equipment


PROE Student Survey Results

16. Instructional lecture and laboratory facilities

Answer Options

Excellent Good Average Below

Expectations Poor Don't Know Rating Average Response Count

Provide adequate lighting,

4 1 3 0 0 0 1.88 8


ventilation, heating, power,and other utilities. Include enough work stations for the number of students enrolled.

4 1 3 0 0 0 1.88 8

Are safe, functional, and well-maintained.

3 2 3 0 0 0 2.00 8

Are available on an equal basis for all students.

3 2 3 0 0 0 2.00 8

answered question 8

skipped question 0

17. Instructional equipment is:

Answer Options

Excellent Good Average Below

Expectations Poor Don't Know Rating Average Response Count

Current and representative of industry.

2 5 0 1 0 0 2.00 8

In sufficient quantity to avoid long delays in use.

2 5 1 0 0 0 1.88 8

Safe and in good condition.

2 5 1 0 0 0 1.88 8

answered question 8

skipped question 0

Advisory Board Survey Results N/A Program Planning


1. What did you learn from the PROE Student Survey results? Will you take any actions with the program as a result of what you have learned?


We rate between good and excellent in the facilities and instructional equipment. While we boast the most recent CAD design software available we tend to have cost effective computer hardware that is designed to run a full array of educational software. 2. What did you learn from the Advisory Board Survey results? Will you take any actions with the program as a result of what you have learned? We feel our program is on track and aligned with local industry. 3. Are the resources sufficient to meet identified needs and goals for the next four years? Please explain. With the recent ATC renovation, continual additions to our reverse engineering equipment, and departmental budget expenditures we should be able to maintain our program. 4. Are the facilities and equipment adequate to facilitate teaching and learning? Please explain. Yes. As long as we continue with computer cascading and are able to keep our networks functional we should be able to run a high quality program.

Action Needed


Job & Wage Forecasts Yes No

Collaboration Opportunities with Peers Yes No

Program Planning Yes No Securing resources for course development/administration Yes No Facilities/equipment upgrades Yes No Other: Yes No Other: Yes No Other: Yes No

Work Products

Develop the Course Review schedule for the next four years (beginning with next year) 2014/2015: EG110, EG201, DR229, DR180 2015/2016: DR258, DR265, DR259, DR240 2016/2017: DR212, DR224, DR225, DR241 2017/2018: DR140, DR150, DR190, DR260

Curriculum Crosswalk


Data Packet for Academic Program Review

904 – Mechanical Design AAS (CIP 15.1306) 928 – Mechanical Design Certificate (CIP

15.1306)


Table of Contents


A. Enrollment 1. All Students

2. Demographics of Students Enrolled in Program 3. New Students (First Time in Any College)

B. Student Progress C. Number of Graduates

II. Course Data

A. Course Enrollment and Success 1. Summary

III. Perkins Data IV. Employment

A. Graduate Employment Rates

B. Regional Employment Forecasts V. Completions at Transfer and Other Two-Year Schools

VI. Definitions



1. All Students

Enrollment by Program, Fall 2009 to Fall 2013

Plan Description

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

904 Mechanical Design 103 88 88 71 90


Total Workforce Development 6,950 7,530 7,202 7,094 6,876

2. Demographics of Students in Program, Fall 2009 to Fall 2013 904 Mechanical Design 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

% Female 8% 6% 5% 6% 3%

% Male 92% 94% 95% 94% 97%

% Fulltime 46% 47% 39% 44% 27%

% Parttime 54% 53% 61% 56% 73%

Average Age 28 29 30 26 26


% Asian 1% 0% 1% 1% 8%

% Black 7% 2% 7% 8% 4%

% Hispanic 4% 5% 5% 10% 3%

% White 86% 92% 80% 70% 80%

% Unknown 1% 1% 7% 8% 4%


% Female 14% 0% 0% 10% 15%

% Male 86% 100% 100% 90% 85%

% Fulltime 52% 45% 35% 20% 31%

% Parttime 48% 55% 65% 80% 69%

Average Age 29 25 25 32 30


% Asian 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

% Black 14% 18% 6% 10% 8%

% Hispanic 10% 9% 6% 0% 0%

% White 76% 68% 76% 80% 77%

% Unknown 0% 5% 12% 10% 8%


A. Enrollment (Cont.)

3. New Students (First Time in Any College)

New Student Enrollment by Program, Fall 2009 to Fall 2013

Plan Description 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Diff 2009 - 2013

% Diff 2009 - 2013

904 Mechanical Design 24 12 12 13 16 -8 -33%

928 Mechanical Design, Cert 8 4 3 2 -6 -75%

Total Workforce Development 1097 1273 1198 1170 1100 3 0%

B. Student Progress*

Plan Code Description

N Students Graduated

Graduated/ Transfered Transfered

Still Here

Left Ed

Grad/Transfer/ Still Here

904 Mechanical Design 101 4% 1% 17% 45% 34% 66%

928 Mechanical Design, Cert

15 0% 0% 13% 60% 27% 73%

Total Workforce Development 9,315 7% 1% 10% 45% 38% 62%

* One-year progress measure; i.e., the fall 2013 status of students who began the program in the 2012-2013 academic year.

C. Number of Graduates, by Year

Academic Year

Plan Description

2008-2009

2009-2010

2010-2011

2011-2012

2012-2013

904 Mech Drafting Tech 15 18 16 24 5

928 Mech Drafting, Cert 1 3 4 0 0

Total Workforce Development 741 785 852 769 799


II. Course Data A. Historical Course Enrollment and Success (Earned Grades* by Course, by Year) 1. Summary

Course

2009 - 2010 2010 - 2011 2011-2012 2012-2013

Enroll-ment A to C-

With-drew

Enroll-ment A to C-

With-drew

Enroll-ment A to C-

With-drew

Enroll-ment A to C-

With-drew

DR 140 28 64% 11% 25 56% 4% 46 67% 2% 48 73% 15%

DR 140Mod 15 93% 0% 5 60% 40%

DR 150 103 73% 12% 103 73% 4% 107 78% 6% 111 77% 5%

DR 150Mod 40 88% 0% 30 77% 7% 2 100% 0%

DR 180 43 91% 7% 26 81% 8% 36 81% 11% 39 92% 3%

DR 190 56 82% 7% 48 79% 4% 31 81% 13% 36 86% 3%

DR 212 44 75% 14% 34 65% 18% 26 77% 19% 30 87% 3%

DR 224 45 76% 16% 27 89% 4% 26 77% 12% 29 86% 14%

DR 225 7 86% 14%

DR 228 35 57% 34%

DR 229 26 81% 4% 25 56% 4% 16 88% 6% 20 90% 10%

DR 240 8 100% 0%

DR 241 10 80% 10% 5 60% 40% 10 100% 0% 11 100% 0%

DR 258 87 79% 8% 103 73% 4% 41 71% 12% 40 68% 13%

DR 258Mod 44 84% 0% 30 77% 7% 2 100% 0%

DR 260 30 80% 17% 26 81% 8% 24 83% 4%

DR 265 37 70% 11% 48 79% 4%

DR 279 18 89% 6% 34 65% 18% 18 94% 0% 12 100% 0%

DR 298 27 89% 4% 1 100% 0%

DR 299 25 56% 4% 1 100% 0%

Total DR 78% 10% 76% 5% 79% 8% 82% 7%

Total GRCC 73% 13% 72% 13% 72% 12% 74% 11%

*Does not include I (Incomplete), D or E


III. Perkins Data

CORE INDICATOR

2009-2010 2011-2012 2012-2013

State Goal GRCC

Program State Goal

GRCC Program

State Goal GRCC

Program

1P1: % of CTE concentrators who passed technical skill assessments that are aligned with industry-recognized standards, if available and appropriate, during the reporting year (that can be identified)

85.25% 92% 91.08% N/A 92.00% N/A

2P1: % of CTE concentrators who received an industry-recognized credential, a certificate, or a degree during the reporting year.

28.25% 20.83% 26.93% 19.05% 29.00% 11.11%

3P1: % of CTE concentrators who remained enrolled in their original postsecondary institution or transferred to another 2- or 4-year postsecondary institution during the reporting year and who were enrolled in postsecondary education in the fall of the previous reporting year.

60.25% 61.48% 70.00% 71.31% 71.00% 81.01%

4P1: % of CTE concentrators who were placed or retained in employment military service or apprenticeship programs in the 2nd quarter following the program year in which they left postsecondary education (i.e., unduplicated placement status for CTE concentrators who graduated by June 30, 2011 would be assessed between October 1, 2011 and December 31, 2011).

43.25% 41.67% 70.00% 100.00% 71.00% 100.00%

5P1: % of CTE participants from underrepresented gender groups who participated in a program that leads to employment in nontraditional fields during the reporting year.

16.75% 7.08% 23.62% 13.63% 23.70% 4.88%

5P2: % of CTE concentrators from underrepresented gender groups who completed a program that leads to employment in nontraditional fields during the reporting year.

13.25% 8.33% 20.65% 0.00% 20.70% 0.00%

Note: Shaded cells indicate that state goal was not reached by this program.


IV. Employment A. Graduate Employment Rates (From the survey mailed to alumni. The question asks for the graduates’ status in October following the academic year in which they graduated. ) Plan 904 (Mechanical Design)

2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 Response rate 6/15 = 40% 4/16 = 25% 5/16 = 31% 2/25 = 8%


2/6 = 33% 1/4 = 25% 2/5 = 40% 1/2 = 50%


2/6 = 33% 1/4 = 25% 2/5 = 40% 1/2 = 50%

Plan 928 (Mechanical Design Cert)

2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 Response rate 0/1 = 0% 0/3 = 0% 1/4 = 25% n/a


n/a n/a 0/4 = 0% n/a


n/a n/a 0/4 = 0% n/a

*Number of survey respondents/Number of surveys mailed


B. Regional Employment Forecasts Includes the following counties: Allegan Barry Ionia Kent Lake Mason Mecosta Montcalm Muskegon

Newaygo Oceana Osceola Ottawa

CIP

SOC Description 2013 Jobs 2018 Jobs Change % Change Openings Annual

Openings

Median Hourly

Earnings

Annual Real-time

Job Postings*

Regional Completions (2011)

Education Level

15.1306 17-3013

Mechanical Drafters

1,060 987 (73) (7%) 103 21 $22.23 102# 27 Associa

te's degree

Source: QCEW Employees - EMSI 2013.4 Class of Worker

*Source: Labor Insight by Burning Glass - 2013

# Reduced 20% due to possible duplication and/or error

Definitions: CIP Classification of Instructional Program

SOC Standard Occupational Code

Description Jobs Name(s) for which the program prepares completers

2013 Jobs Number of jobs presently in the chosen geographic area

2018 Jobs Number of jobs forecast in five years in the chosen geographic area

Change Number of new jobs over the five year period

Change Percent Percent increase in Jobs due to growth

Openings Number of total jobs available due to growth and replacement over the next five years

Annual Openings Number of job openings per year due to growth and replacement

Median Hourly Earnings Median Hourly Earnings

Real Time Job Postings Number of jobs posted by employers over the last 12 months

Regional Completions Number of completions for that program in 2011

Education Level Recommended level of education. May not be what employers are asking for.




V. Completions, Comparisons

CIP 15.1306 Mechanical Design Numbers of Degrees/Certificates Awarded at Other MI Institutions

CIP 15.1306, Number of Completions 2011-2012, by Award Level

Award Level

Institution Name Associate’s

Degree

Certificate below Bacca-

laureate

Certificate Less than One Year

Certificate at least One but Less than Two

years

Baker College of Auburn Hills 5

Baker College of Cadillac 2

Baker College of Flint 2

Baker College of Jackson 8 1 1

Baker College of Muskegon 2

Baker College of Owosso 4

Grand Rapids Community College 25

Lansing Community College 9 4 2 2

Mid Michigan Community College 6 5 5

Monroe County Community College 4

Oakland Community College 13 11 11

St Clair County Community College 1 2 2

Source: Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (as reported by institutions)


VI. Definitions

A. Enrollment- All Students: Fall count of all students who have selected this academic program code by mid-October.

B. Enrollment- Demographics of Students in Program: Enrollment- All Students broken down by listed sub-categories.

C. Enrollment- New Students (FTIACs): Fall count of new degree-seeking students who are attending college for the first time and who have selected this academic program code by mid-October.

D. Student Progress: This is “reverse-looking,” i.e. of those enrolled during the year, how many graduated or transferred out during the year, or are still enrolled in the next fall term.

E. Number of Graduates, by Year: Number of students who graduated in the academic program plan code in that academic year.

F. Course Data- Historical Course Enrollment and Success: Count of students enrolled in the course for the academic year. Percentage of students who earned A through C- and percentage of students who withdrew from the course (W) for the academic year.


Program Review in Occupational Education - Mechanical Design/Certificate Technology Student Survey

1. Mark the statement that best describes your objective for attending GRCC:

Answer Options Response Percent Response Count

Prepare for a job 50.0% 4

Improve job skills for present occupation

12.5% 1

Prepare for transfer to another college

37.5% 3

Personal interest 0.0% 0

Other, Please Specify 0.0% 0

answered question 8 skipped question 0

2. Are you a


Full time student (12+ credit hours)

37.5% 3

Part time student (Less than 12 credit hours)

62.5% 5


3. Do you attend


Day classes 0.0% 0

Night classes 62.5% 5

Both day and night classes 37.5% 3


4. Are you employed in


Related field 75.0% 6

Unrelated field 12.5% 1

Not employed 12.5% 1



5. How long have you been in this program?


One semester 12.5% 1

Two semesters 12.5% 1

Three semesters 12.5% 1

Four semesters 37.5% 3

Other, Please Specify 25.0% 2


Number Response Date Other, Please Specify

Categories

1

Feb 3, 2014 5:35 PM 5

2

Feb 3, 2014 3:59 PM 4

6. What degree are you seeking?


Associate 87.5% 7

Certificate 12.5% 1

Neither 0.0% 0


7. Courses in your occupational program are:

Answer Options Excellent Good Acceptable Below Expectations Poor Don't Know Rating Average Response Count

Available and conveniently located.

4 3 0 1 0 0 1.75 8

Based on realistic prerequisites

3 5 0 0 0 0 1.63 8

Available at moderate cost 4 0 3 1 0 0 2.13 8

answered question 8

skipped question 0

8. Written objectives for courses



Are available to students 5 2 0 1 0 0 1.63 8

Describe what you will learn in the courses

2 3 2 1 0 0 2.25 8

Are used by the instructor to keep you aware of your progress

2 3 2 1 0 0 2.25 8

answered question 8

skipped question 0

9. Related courses (English, Math, Science)


Meet your occupational needs, interests, and objectives

3 3 1 0 0 1 1.71 8

Provide supervised practice for developing job skills

3 3 1 0 0 1 1.71 8

answered question 8

skipped question 0

10. Work experiences (cooperatives, internships) in your occupational area are


Readily available at conveniently located

0 0 1 2 0 5 3.67 8

Readily available for day and night students

0 0 1 2 0 5 3.67 8

Coordinated with classroom instruction

0 0 0 2 0 6 4.00 8

Coordinated with employer supervision

0 0 0 2 0 6 4.00 8

answered question 8

skipped question 0

11. Career planning information

Answer Options Excellent Good Average Below Expectations Poor Don't Know Rating Average Response Count

Meets your needs and interests.

2 0 3 0 0 3 2.20 8

Helps you plan your program. 2 1 1 1 0 3 2.20 8

Helps you make career decisions and choices.

2 0 2 1 0 3 2.40 8

Helps you understand your rights and responsibilities as

2 0 2 1 0 3 2.40 8


an employee.

Helps you evaluate job opportunities in relation to salary, benefits, and conditions of employment.

2 1 1 1 0 3 2.20 8

answered question 8

skipped question 0

12. Job success information on former students in your occupational program


Is provided to help you make career decisions.

1 0 1 0 2 4 3.50 8

Indicates how many job opportunities there are in your occupation.

1 0 1 0 2 4 3.50 8

Identifies where these job opportunities are located.

1 0 2 1 1 3 3.20 8

Tells about job advancement opportunities.

1 0 1 1 1 4 3.25 8

answered question 8

skipped question 0

13. Placement services are available to:


Help you find employment opportunities.

0 0 1 0 2 5 4.33 8

Prepare you to apply for a job. 0 0 2 0 1 5 3.67 8

answered question 8

skipped question 0

14. Occupational instructors:


Know the subject matter and occupational requirements

3 2 1 0 0 2 1.67 8

Are available to provide help when you need it.

3 2 1 0 0 2 1.67 8

Provide instruction so it is interesting and understandable

3 0 3 0 0 2 2.00 8

answered question 8

skipped question 0


15. Instructional support services (such as tutoring, lab assistance) are:

Answer Options Excellent Good Expectations Below Poor Don't Know Rating Average Response Count

Available to meet your needs and interests.

2 2 1 0 1 1 2.33 7

Provided by knowledgeable, Interested staff.

1 2 1 0 1 2 2.60 7

answered question 7

skipped question 1

16. Instructional lecture and laboratory facilities


Provide adequate lighting, ventilation, heating, power,and other utilities.

4 1 3 0 0 0 1.88 8

Include enough work stations for the number of students enrolled.

4 1 3 0 0 0 1.88 8

Are safe, functional, and well-maintained.

3 2 3 0 0 0 2.00 8

Are available on an equal basis for all students.

3 2 3 0 0 0 2.00 8

answered question 8

skipped question 0

17. Instructional equipment is:


Current and representative of industry.

2 5 0 1 0 0 2.00 8

In sufficient quantity to avoid long delays in use.

2 5 1 0 0 0 1.88 8

Safe and in good condition. 2 5 1 0 0 0 1.88 8

answered question 8

skipped question 0

18. Instructional materials (e.g.textbooks,reference books, supplies] are:


Available and conveniently located for use as needed.

3 3 2 0 0 0 1.88 8

Current and meaningful to the subject.

3 4 1 0 0 0 1.75 8


Not biased toward "traditional" sex roles.

3 4 0 0 0 1 1.57 8

Available at reasonable cost. 2 1 4 0 1 0 2.63 8

answered question 8

skipped question 0

19. How would you rate the impact of this program for developing the following skills?

Answer Options High Impact Some Impact Little Impact No Impact Don't Know Rating Average Response Count

Communication skills (reading, writing, speaking, and listening)

2 4 1 1 0 2.13 8

Computation skills (understanding and applying mathematical concepts and reasoning, analyzing, and using numerical data)

4 3 0 1 0 1.75 8

Critical thinking and problem solving skills (evaluation, analysis, synthesis, decision making, and creative thinking)

4 3 1 0 0 1.63 8

Information management skills (collecting, analyzing, and organizing information from a variety of sources)

3 4 1 0 0 1.75 8

Interpersonal skills (teamwork, relationship management, conflict resolution, and workplace skills)

4 3 0 1 0 1.75 8

Personal skills (ability to understand and manage self, management of change, learning to learn, personal responsibility, aesthetic responsiveness and wellness)

3 5 0 0 0 1.63 8

Diversity and community skills (ethics; citizenship; diversity/pluralism; local, community, global, and environmental awareness)

1 4 2 1 0 2.38 8


20. How would you rate the overall quality of this program?


Poor 0.0% 0

Below Average 12.5% 1

Average 12.5% 1


Above Average 50.0% 4

Excellent 25.0% 2


21. What are the major strengths of this program?

Answer Options Response Count

4


Number Response Date Response Text Categories

1

Feb 7, 2014 7:39 PM

The major strengths of this program are that the classes and teachers instruct the students to be prepared for real world problems and things they will encounter in their field of study rather than being taught strictly by the book.

2 Feb 3, 2014 10:42

PM Teachers

3 Feb 3, 2014 5:35

PM None that I have found

4 Feb 3, 2014 3:59

PM latest software , keeping up with the times

22. How would you suggest that we improve the program for other students?

Answer Options Response Count

4


Number Response Date Response Text Categories

1

Feb 7, 2014 7:39 PM I would incorporate a proto-typing class that teaches students how to produce prototype work and what to do with prototypes.

2 Feb 3, 2014 10:42

PM More class time availibilties

3 Feb 3, 2014 5:35

PM This program is just a collection of courses with no clear objectives. Most students I have talked with in this program have no clue what to do when they are finished.

4 Feb 3, 2014 3:59

PM screen professors better, i feel that many of the professors i have had just show up and have you do everything out of the book, as where i am spending a lot of money to learn something. They jus seem to show up

2013-2014 department: mechanical and … end report...mechanical design data packet for program...

Documents