Select the desired review year, college, and program from the drop down menus. Once a program has been selected, the results will be displayed.
College: Honolulu Community College
|The last comprehensive review for this program was on Fall 2012.|
The Architectural, Engineering, and CAD Technologies program is designed to prepare students for immediate employment as architectural or engineering drawing technicians. Some students, however, use the program to prepare for employment in building construction, interior design drawing, construction supervision and various other fields. Other students use the program as a step on the way to a bachelor’s degree in architecture or engineering.
The mission of the Architectural, Engineering and CAD Technologies program is to:
The program-level student learning outcomes are listed in the next section of this document.
Majors Included: AEC Program CIP: 15.1303
|Demand Indicators||Program Year||Demand Health Call|
|1||New & Replacement Positions (State)||42||19||11||Unhealthy|
|2||*New & Replacement Positions (County Prorated)||33||16||9|
|3||*Number of Majors||112.5||109.5||90.5|
|3a||Number of Majors Native Hawaiian||23||22||13|
|3d||Fall Part-Time who are Full-Time in System||3%||7%||3%|
|3g||Spring Part-Time who are Full-Time in System||0%||3%||1%|
|4||SSH Program Majors in Program Classes||1,293||1,135||1,034|
|5||SSH Non-Majors in Program Classes||562||614||538|
|6||SSH in All Program Classes||1,855||1,749||1,572|
|7||FTE Enrollment in Program Classes||62||58||52|
|8||Total Number of Classes Taught||30||32||27|
|Efficiency Indicators||Program Year||Efficiency Health Call|
|9||Average Class Size||21.7||19.3||20.6||Healthy|
|11||FTE BOR Appointed Faculty||2||2||2|
|12||*Majors to FTE BOR Appointed Faculty||56.2||54.7||45.2|
|13||Majors to Analytic FTE Faculty||36.2||33.2||32.2|
|13a||Analytic FTE Faculty||3.1||3.3||2.8|
|14||Overall Program Budget Allocation||$190,272||$185,535||$180,065|
|14a||General Funded Budget Allocation||$190,272||$156,900||$171,609|
|14b||Special/Federal Budget Allocation||$0||$0||$0|
|14c||Tuition and Fees||$0||$28,635||$8,456|
|15||Cost per SSH||$103||$106||$115|
|16||Number of Low-Enrolled (<10) Classes||2||2||1|
|*Data element used in health call calculation||Last Updated: January 27, 2014|
|Effectiveness Indicators||Program Year||Effectiveness Health Call|
|17||Successful Completion (Equivalent C or Higher)||74%||80%||80%||Cautionary|
|18||Withdrawals (Grade = W)||28||33||35|
|19||*Persistence Fall to Spring||71.9%||76.5%||66%|
|19a||Persistence Fall to Fall||47.1%|
|20||*Unduplicated Degrees/Certificates Awarded||17||19||23|
|20b||Certificates of Achievement Awarded||1||2||11|
|20c||Advanced Professional Certificates Awarded||0||0||0|
|20d||Other Certificates Awarded||0||0||0|
|21||External Licensing Exams Passed||Not Reported||Not Reported|
|22||Transfers to UH 4-yr||12||7||5|
|22a||Transfers with credential from program||5||3||2|
|22b||Transfers without credential from program||7||4||3|
Completely On-line Classes
|23||Number of Distance Education Classes Taught||2||3||3|
|24||Enrollments Distance Education Classes||54||68||66|
|26||Successful Completion (Equivalent C or Higher)||41%||43%||48%|
|27||Withdrawals (Grade = W)||8||12||15|
|28||Persistence (Fall to Spring Not Limited to Distance Education)||61%||75%||77%|
|Perkins IV Core Indicators
|29||1P1 Technical Skills Attainment||90.00||88.46||Not Met|
|31||3P1 Student Retention or Transfer||74.25||90.48||Met|
|32||4P1 Student Placement||60.00||64.29||Met|
|33||5P1 Nontraditional Participation||17.00||27.42||Met|
|34||5P2 Nontraditional Completion||15.25||17.65||Met|
|Performance Funding||Program Year|
|35||Number of Degrees and Certificates||24|
|36||Number of Degrees and Certificates Native Hawaiian||3|
|37||Number of Degrees and Certificates STEM||24|
|38||Number of Pell Recipients||32|
|39||Number of Transfers to UH 4-yr||5|
|*Data element used in health call calculation||Last Updated: January 27, 2014|
Although quantitative data is critical in the evaluation of any program, it is not in this case accurate or meaningful enough to paint a fair picture of the AEC program. Specifically:
New & Replacement Positions in the County
The AEC program has regularly placed more students in AEC jobs than the figure given indicates there should be positions available for them to fill. Employers very certainly find skilled people elsewhere as well, which is essentially evidence of the figure given being inaccurate. The Demand health call is also focused exclusively on employment, while the description and mission of the program and the purpose of it being an A.S. degree program are in part to serve people interested in transfering to baccaulaureate programs in architecture and engineering. The mission is also to serve people who are self-employed or otherwise already employed in the AEC industry, enroll for reasons other than that of simply obtaining employment, are military spouses who cannot remain in the State past graduation, etc. AEC students are not as traditional as the evaluation model seems to expect them to be. They are not fresh out of high school and getting a year or two of training just to find a decent job. Being an open door institution, potential enrollees cannot be screened to ensure that they fit the evaluation model by being traditional job-seekers. What makes this item doubly critical is that it is a part-basis of both the Demand and Effectiveness health calls
Number of Majors
This has always been problematic. At any one time, there are no more than 50 students taking regular-program courses (26 first-year students and 24 second--year students). One course, though, does accommodate non-majors, and another is a pre-program course that reduces the number of declared majors to those who are genuinely interested in AEC, competent, and sufficiently dedicated to stick with the program for two years. A better classification of AEC students would be all those enrolled in two or so regular-program gateway courses (as they were defined some years ago). Prior to enrollment in regular-program courses, students could be classified "unclassified" as they are at many other colleges. A number based simply on what students declare upon enrolling at HCC, whether they ever enroll in AEC courses or not, is just too soft. This item is also doubly critical because it is a part-basis of two health calls.
Apart from these systemic problems in the evaluation, the program added a one-year Certificate of Achievement so that students who do not continue to the second year because of employment, military deployment, or other reasons can leave with a credential rather than empty-handed. There has been no gain or loss of instructional positions, and no major program revisions. An action plan item in the 2012 report was to refine program SLO rubrics and develop rubrics for courses that still needed them. This was fully accomplished along with additional rubrics for assessing student portfolios and student satisfaction. Another action plan item was meeting with the AEC Advisory Committee twice a year, rather than only once, and to encourage more direct involvement of the members with students. We now have probably the most energetic and involved committee we have ever had, the committee has already met once (September 12), and members have met with students as a group at a Meet the Advisory Committee event where each member gave a presentation of approximately 30 minutes. Still another action plan item was to better keep minutes of advisory committee meetings, which has been done. Coming up this year will be a number of fairly major program changes (see "Action Plan" below).
Although the program health data paints a poor and potentially damaging picture of the AEC program, we believe the program is very strong. Beginning regular-program courses were full or nearly so, all graduating students obtained the employment they sought, a number of students transfered to UH Manoa or other university, and nearly all students had met their training goals by the end of the program (as indicated on a student satisfaction survey). Students do very well in employment, they do exceptionally well at the UH School of Architecture, and they and employers rate the program highly. As indicated elsewhere in this report, student satisfaction on 14 aspects of the program was 95%, and both guests and AEC Advisory Committee members at the end-of-year portfolio review rated evidence of student achievement very high.
The following Action Plan items support the "meets the evolving... needs of individuals, business, [etc.]" statement of the College Mission, particularly the "by... offering high quality courses" part of it.
A scheduled replacement of classroom computers (Action Plan Item 9) would require additional funding. Replacement costs and computer life spans will change, and alternatives to 24 and 26 stand-alone computer classrooms may develop, but planning and budgeting are required.
3D printing might require additional funding for equipment and supplies. At this time, however, there is no item in the College Strategic Plan or other specific plan for further integration of this technology into the curriculum.
No other items in the Action Plan will likely require special budgeting.
For the 2012-2013 program year, some or all of the following P-SLOs were reviewed by the program:
|Program Student Learning Outcomes|
|Draw objects of various orientations as may be prescribed, draw sections and elevations of objects, and identify the relationships of objects or object features to demonstrate visualization proficiency and knowledge.|
|Identify or describe the typical characteristics and uses of common construction materials, products, and systems, document them in drawings, and make appropriate selections based on design project requirements.|
|Under the supervision of an industry professional, design a residence or small commercial building and create the required design, construction, and site drawings and a materials estimate for it.|
|Use with reasonable efficiency the latest 2D and 3D CAD software programs to create industry standard architectural and engineering drawings, both constructional and presentational.|
|Model habits and attitudes for success in professional employment, prepare and present a professional resume and portfolio, and demonstrate developed interviewing skills in preparation for employment.|
|Demonstrate computation, communication, critical thinking, research, and problem-solving skills as well as a sensitivity and appreciation of diversity and community to perform effectively as a team member in a professional, competitive, and diverse work environment and as a responsible member of the community.|
AEC Advisory Committee members assessed the technical and general career readiness of graduating students at the 2013 Annual Portfolio Review. The portfolios, in particular, evidenced students’ visualization and graphic representation skills, their knowledge and application of construction materials, products, and systems, their planning and construction documentation abilities, and the level of their computer drawing and modeling skills. At the same time, students’ verbal communication skills and general career readiness were assessed to the extent that committee members’ time and effort afforded.
There were nine assessment items, and committee members scored each student at one of three levels (developing, competent or higher, or exemplary). All but one student scored at least "competent," so there is little variation in the "developing" and "competent or higher" percentages. The "exemplary" percentages vary more and may be more useful for comparative purposes. All advisory committee members were given achievement level descriptions ahead of time.
|Assessment Item||Developing||Competent or Higher||Exemplary||P-SLO's|
|Portfolio -- 2-year Extent of Work||2.63 %||97.37 %||60.53 %||1 - 5|
|Portfolio -- Range of Examples||2.63 %||97.37 %||52.63 %||1 - 5|
|Portfolio -- Graphics and Creativity||2.70 %||97.30 %||54.06 %||1, 3, 4, 5|
|Portfolio -- Mechanics||2.63 %||97.37 %||44.74 %||1, 3, 4, 5|
|Portfolio -- Craft||2.63 %||97.37 %||47.37%||5|
|Résumé||5.41 %||94.59 %||54.05 %||5|
|Oral Communication -- Substance||0 %||100 %||55.26 %||5, 6|
|Oral Communication -- Engagement||0 %||100 %||71.05 %||5, 6|
|Personal Presentation||2.63 %||97.37 %||78.95 %||5|
Industry validation has also been indicated by employers regularly contacting the program for employees -- also the fact that the program places more students in jobs than what the data given us indicates should be the number of new and replacement positions available. All of our graduates in employment have also maintained or bettered their employment, and many have risen to very responsible positions within their firms.
In respect to P-SLO's, the expectation in the above-described assessment is that 95% of students score at the "competent or higher" level upon completion of the program. The goal is always 100%, but 95% allows for one exception usually due to an extenuating circumstance that interferes with completing a portfolio of the quality intended but upon which assessment of final achievement is primarily based. Of those students who are scored "competent of higher," it is expected that at least 10% are scored "exemplary."
In respect to course SLO's, typically 70% of first-year students are expected to score 70% or higher, which is consistent with a "C" letter grade. 70% of second-year students are expected to score 80% or higher, which is roughly consistent with employers' expectations of a solid skill base upon which on-the-job training in similar software, office practice, experience, and often knowledge of an industry specialization make the students as valuable to the firms as needed.
All AEC courses were assessed during the 2012-13 school year.
Individalized rubrics are used to assess all course SLO's. The type of rubric is determined by the course instructors and the nature of the courses. Some involve "developing," "competent," and "exemplary" categories to assess students' achievement level of each SLO based on a detailed description of each category. Others involve number matrices in which student projects or other activities/data are assigned component values and scored accordingly, again one rubric per course SLO.
The program uses an assessment levels chart to obtain P-SLO assessment figures in part from course SLO assessments. According to the chart, specific course SLO's are aligned with two or three P-SLO's. Assessment of each P-SLO is therefore addressed by anywhere between five and thirteen courses in the program, in every case including at least one introductory, reinforcement, and emphasis level course. More alignments could be used, but those identified in the chart are more than sufficient. Additional P-SLO assessment data is obtained from student and advisory committee assessments.
Course and Program Assessment Alignments
|Course||Visualization||Materials||Design & Constr||Software||Employment||Gen'l Educ|
|AEC 81, Basic CAD Drafting||2 SLO's||2 SLO's|
|AEC 110, Basic AutoCAD®||1 SLO||3 SLO's|
|AEC 114, Architectural Graphics||2 SLO's||3 SLO's|
|AEC 118, Construction Materials||3 SLO's||1 SLO|
|AEC 120, Intro Construction Drwg||2 SLO's||2 SLO's|
|AEC 123, Residential Design & ...||2 SLO's||1 SLO||2 SLO's|
|AEC 124, Bldg Info Modeling Soft.||1 SLO||1 SLO|
|AEC 127, Civil Engineering Drawing||3 SLO's||2 SLO's||3 SLO's|
|AEC 130, Residential Wrkg Drwgs||2 SLO's||1 SLO|
|AEC 131, Construction Codes||1 SLO||1 SLO|
|AEC 135, Intro to Built Environ.||2 SLO's||1 SLO|
|AEC 136, Structural Drawing||2 SLO's||2 SLO's|
|AEC 138, Construction Estimating||1 SLO||1 SLO||1 SLO||1 SLO|
|AEC 139, Field Shadow Experience||n/a||n/a|
|AEC 140, Commercial Wrkg. Drwg||2 SLO's||1 SLO|
|AEC 141, Building Services||1 SLO||1 SLO||1 SLO|
|AEC 146, Advanced Modeling & ...||1 SLO||2 SLO's|
|AEC 149, Prep for Employment...||2 SLO's||1 SLO|
How to integrate general education courses (which are important parts of the AEC program) into the plan is still a problem because every general education class is made up of students of different disciplines, and extracting data for AEC students alone is difficult.
In respect to the assessment strategy described directly above, these are the results obtained:
|No.||Abridged Program Students Learning Outcome||Outcomes Average|
|1||Visualization and graphic representation proficiency and knowledge||78.89 %|
|2||Knowledge of common construction materials, products, and systems||79.17 %|
|3||Ability to create design, construction, and site drawings||81.00 %|
|4||Efficient use of 2D and 3D CAD software||83.96 %|
|5||Preparation for employment (résumé, portfolio, interviewing skills, etc.)||96.00 %|
|6||Computation, communication, ethical behavior, problem-solving, etc.||83.86 %|
Improvement in P-SLO assessment figures will undoubtedly occur in concert with improvement in course SLO assessment figures. Changes in courses to improve learning are described in most every course assessment report (submitted elsewhere) where SLO's, expected achievement levels, data, and results are shown. The AEC 118 report, in particular, describes a number of changes designed to improve learning (inclusion of YouTube videos, greater emphases on core material, more follow-up after exams, etc. in this online course). The changes were made this Fall semester, and improved results are already apparent. Also, both program and course SLO's (for almost all AEC courses) are currently being refined, and at the time of this report, modification proposals are making their way through the approval process.
The next steps associated with assessment are included in the Action Plan. They are as follows: