Rev Sum2012

Drafting/Architecture ANNUAL PROGRAM REVIEW and PLAN 2012

Faculty and Staff (List all) Full Time Fernandes, Richard

Adjunct Au, Susanna Rodriguez, Eric Tabata, Flint Yu, Jane

2012 Annual Program Review and Plan: Drafting/ Architecture

Support Staff Marti DeYoung

Page 1

Rev Sum2012

Drafting/ Architecture I. Executive Summary Program Description: Drafting and Design Technology, a career technical and transfer program was completely revised in the Spring of 2011, offers foundational curriculum in support of multiple student outcomes: •

Certificates of Achievement recognized by the California Community College system: o Computer Aided Design (CAD)—Architecture and Drafting Technology o Architectural Design o Computer Generated Imagery (CGI) • Associate degree in Drafting and Design Technology • Lower division requirements for transfer majors in architecture, electronics, engineering, and architecture.-Theory, and hands-on experiences, prepare students for entry-level employment or advancement in occupations that require graphic communications, including sketches, mechanical drawings, computeraided design, and illustrations. In addition to discipline-specific content, students are engaged in project learning aligned with 21st Century themes: Learning and Innovation Skills (creativity, critical thinking/problem solving, effective application, and communication plus collaboration); and Information, Media and Technology Skills (information, media, technology, and communications literacy). Students completing courses in the Drafting and Design Technology Program acquire understanding, knowledge, skills and abilities in the areas listed at the end of the Executive Summary. Courses in Drafting and Design Technology are offered during the day and evening.

Strengths/Effective Practices: Drafting and Design Technology is a recognized transfer program to the California State University, University of California and private university systems via portfolio review. Although Certificates of Achievement provide multiple exit points that are important to the workforce and working students, Drafting and Design Technology is a comprehensive interdisciplinary program offering lower-division, Associate Degree and transfer options. Recent consolidation of courses into the primary disciplines of drafting, architecture, and computer generated imagery improve visibility of individual and integrated disciplines, facilitate efficient scheduling, and should increase the number of students completing their education goals. Faculty use a project based instructional strategy to engage students in their learning. The methodology addresses inherit education and workforce expectations, i.e., use established practices (and create new approaches) in response to specifications (problem). Students work in teams (collaborate) and present a viable solution that is subsequently improved through critique and feedback. Students gain experience with the subject matter, become proficient in the development/presentation process, and develop a workplace aptitude while building a successful portfolio. Drafting and Design Technology learning labs serve drafting, architecture and computer generated imagery students; the interdisciplinary approach encourages collaboration and an understanding of contributing fields of study and technologies, i.e., blue print format vs. three-D imagery. The inclusion of multiple disciplines within program encourages across discipline exposure and engagement that ultimately 2012 Annual Program Review and Plan: Drafting/ Architecture

Page 2

Rev Sum2012

improves student outcomes and increased opportunities for employment. This ‘studio’ environment includes students from multiple disciplines (specializations) and the arena optimizes ‘teachable moments’ because solutions are holistically related to drafting and design professions. Labs are fully scheduled and often accessed by students at all levels needing access to specific hardware/software to complete projects. The Advisory Council consists of more than 60 members, including educational representatives from local high schools, California State Polytechnic University Pomona, and the California State Universities of Fullerton and Los Angeles; business representatives from architectural, industrial design, environmental design, and engineering firms as well as representatives from Walt Disney Imagineering.

Weaknesses/Lessons Learned: The tools recognized by industry include sophisticated and evolving software programs that are expensive and it is difficult to keep the hardware up to date to operate the advanced software. A solution to keeping the labs updated in a cost-effective way is a high priority as it is now effecting instruction, partnership with industry and student completion/employment. With the recent program improvement effort and focus on disciplines and certificate/degree completion, the program is growing. An additional full time faculty member with complimentary expertise is needed to support foundational courses in CAD and CGI. Adjuncts are also needed. Facility space should be updated to better prepare students for the collaborative and project based learning implemented in industry; the overall square footage is adequate but a re-engineering of the space could be improved using student design and approximately $30,000 in funding. Transfer is the primary outcome for students entering Drafting and Design Technology with certificates and associate degree representing cumulative or secondary outcomes. Data is not available to measure the transfer outcome therefore the program review cannot report success in this area. Data that measures student progress/retention, completion and transition to work or university is needed to confirm success as well as effectiveness of articulation agreements. Newly revised certificates of achievement updated course sequences that influence student education plans; Counseling and Transfer Center should be informed to ensure students are provided the proper guidance to complete their program of study. Certificates, associate degree and transfer completion are essential to program success and the participation of the Counseling and the Transfer Center (having an extensive understanding of the Drafting and Design Technology Program) will ultimately improve student success and completion.

Recommendations/Next Steps: 1. Complete full time faculty request for consideration during fall 2012 (minimum qualifications for Computer Aided Design (CAD), Computer Generated Imagery (DRAF 160, 161, 190, 290) 2. Prepare posting for college website to attract adjunct faculty for specialized courses, i.e., Design Visualization (DRAF 102 and ARCH 102). 3. Develop a software/hardware technology plan to advance the acquisition of necessary tools and technologies (add wifi)as recognized/needed by industry. Find funding. 4. Formalize request for data from Institutional Research and/or access sources for data analysis. 5. Update room PC309 to accommodate project based learning and instructional approaches to multidiscipline learning.

2012 Annual Program Review and Plan: Drafting/ Architecture

Page 3

Rev Sum2012

Holistic • •

• • •

Entry level courses help student to select the educational program, by offering DRAF 101 in both fall & spring and DRAF 103 in the spring, more students can start (both courses are required for certificate and degree). Expand access to hardware/software – open lab on alternating hours so students can access and have time in the lab to collaborate and complete projects in the school setting (currently students needing more project time try to stay during scheduled labs and this practice is distracting to faculty and students). When software is not available elsewhere on campus this creates a significant hardship for students. Continue to initiate contact with the local business community and the Advisory Committee to provide input that will enhance the Drafting and Design Technology Program. Continue to evaluate and revise specific class content in order to better prepare students for employment or transfer. Work with Counseling and the Transfer Center to obtain an extensive understanding of the Drafting and Design Technology Program.

Project based • • • • •

Expand access to hardware/software – open lab on alternating hours so students can access and have time in the lab to collaborate and complete projects in the school setting. Continue to integrate state-of-the-art technology within the curriculum. Provide access to the Citrus College web site for online student portfolio presentation Develop six year replacement plan to ensure software and hardware is maintained at or above industry standards. Create a multipurpose space in largest room (PC309) to accommodate larger number of students designing, collaborating, and presenting projects to all students (and guests) throughout the semester. Room should reflect a workplace setting as much as possible. Optimizing the use of the space has been an ongoing goal and with program growth it has become essential. Note: facilities are insufficient at the present time; three rooms presently seat 25 students. The average Class size is 22.4 students; however, the average day class size is 35 to 40 students. Room plans have been created to meet student class size. These plans should be considered for implementation

Interdisciplinary • •

• • •

Expand access to hardware/software – open lab on alternating hours so students can access and have time in the lab to collaborate and complete projects in the school setting. Create a multipurpose space in largest room (PC309) to accommodate larger number of students designing, collaborating, and presenting projects to all students (and guests) throughout the semester. Room should reflect a workplace setting as much as possible. Optimizing the use of the space has been an ongoing goal and with projected growth it has become essential. Continue to review offerings during the day and evening as student demand increases. Continue to articulate with local high schools. Perform additional promotion of the Drafting and Design Technology Program.

2012 Annual Program Review and Plan: Drafting/ Architecture

Page 4

Rev Sum2012

Drafting/ Architecture II. Curriculum

ARCH100 Introduction to Architecture ARCH102 Visual Communications ARCH110 Intro to Functional Design ARCH200 Portfolio Preparation ARCH201 Architectural Design I

F10

Fall 2011 2 Fall 2011 1 Fall 2011

F10

F10

1

Fall 2011 1

ARCH251 History of Architecture: Baroque

F10

DRAF101 CAD and Mechanical Drawing

S11

2

DRAF102 Technical Illustration

F10

1

DRAF103 Advanced Engineering Drawing

F10

DRAF109 Intermediate (CAD)

2

DRAF111 Advanced CADD

1

DRAF150 Introduction to Architecture

2

DRAF151 Introduction Functional Design

2

DRAF152 Basic Residential Structures

1

DRAF154 Commercial industrial Bldg

1

DRAF158 Perspective

1

2012 Annual Program Review and Plan: Drafting/ Architecture

Fall 1

F10

ARCH250 History of Architecture I

Fall 2011 Fall 2011

F10

F10

SLOs Assessed (Semester / year)

2

F10

ARCH202 Architectural Design II

Summer

Spring

(Courses must be reviewed every six years to remain active)

Date of last Curriculum Committee Review

Winter

Course Number and Title

2011 Course offerings By Term and # of Sections

2

Fall 2011

Page 5

Rev Sum2012

DRAF160 Intro Architect/CAD

F10

2

DRAF161 Residential CAD

F10

1

DRAF198 Special Problems

F10

DRAF290 Introduction to Maya Practices

F10

DRAF291 Learning Maya Transitions

F10

1

III. Degrees and Certificates

Title Architectural Drafting: CAD Drafting Technology--CAD

Type

Date Approved by Chancellor’s Office

C

Number Awarded 2008

1984 AS

1960

8

Number Awarded 2009

Number Awarded 2010

Number Awarded 2011

1

1 2

10

7 11

TYPE: AA = Associate in Arts AS = Associate in Science Degree C = Certificate S = Skill Award AA-T = Associate in Arts for Transfer AS-T = Associate in Arts for Transfer

2012 Annual Program Review and Plan: Drafting/ Architecture

Page 6

Rev Sum2012

2012 Annual Program Review and Plan: Drafting/ Architecture

Page 7

Rev Sum2012

2012 Annual Program Review and Plan: Drafting/ Architecture

Page 8

Rev Sum2012

2012 Annual Program Review and Plan: Drafting/ Architecture

Page 9

Rev Sum2012

2012 Annual Program Review and Plan: Drafting/ Architecture

Page 10

Rev Sum2012

VI. Student Accomplishments Provide examples of individual student success or instructional strategies that were effective.

VII. Student Learning Outcomes Assessment Academic Senate Approved 4/11/12

All SLOs for every course will need to be assessed at least once within the 5-year comprehensive program review cycle. Upon reflection with program colleagues (or self-reflection for programs with only one instructor), please provide a brief narrative to the following (at least one row for one SLO needs to be completed for each course at this time):

I. SLOs

Identify the SLOs that have been developed for the course.

II. Means of Assessment and Criteria for Success Identify the means of assessment and criteria for success for each SLO

III. Summary of Data Collected Summarize the data collected for the SLO

IV. Use of Results and Future Plans

Discuss how assessment has been used to implement change or strengthen what is working well

DRAF 290 - Introduction to Maya Practices. Analyze and apply animation and 3 D Computer Generated Imagery (CGI) processes of develo pment Demonstrate animation and 3D Co mputer Generated Imagery (CGI) drawing techniques Demonstrate proper use of animati on and 3D Computer Generated Imagery (CGI) editing a nd draw commands

Compose animation and 3D Comp uter Generated Imagery (CGI) drawings to industry standar ds

Final Project shows ability to use MAYA Draw and Edit commands. The Exit Project is derived from Beginning MAYA Certificate Exam. Final Project shows ability to use MAYA Draw and Edit commands. The Exit Project is derived from Beginning MAYA Certificate Exam.

Average grade is 75%. Grades vary from 20% to 100%.

75% is a C+ which is slightly above average. The Beginning MAYA Certificate Exam. Average is 30%.

Average grade is 75%. Grades vary from 20% to 100%.

75% is a C+ which is slightly above average. The Beginning MAYA Certificate Exam. Average is 30%.

Demonstrate an understanding of 2012 Annual Program Review and Plan: Drafting/ Architecture

Page 11

Rev Sum2012

animation and 3D Computer Generated Imagery (CGI) techniqu es as a visual language.

I. SLOs

Identify the SLOs that have been developed for the course.

II. Means of Assessment and Criteria for Success Identify the means of assessment and criteria for success for each SLO

III. Summary of Data Collected

IV. Use of Results and Future Plans

Summarize the data collected for the SLO

Discuss how assessment has been used to implement change or strengthen what is working well

Average exit Exam score is 83% to 85%. 75% is passing.

75% is the average for the Architectural Board. Students are above average.

ARCH 100 - Introduction to Architecture Compare the distinctive characteri stics of architecture, landscape architecture, city planni ng, industrial design and interior de sign professions. Analyze the architectural education and design profession's history, progress, future, diverse o ccupational roles and responsibilities.

Architectural Board History Exam questions on Period and Style.

Compare the past, present, and fut ure of architectural design. Examine the societal conditions th at created major architectural design movements. Compare the roles of architecture, design and the impact on the built environment.

I. SLOs

Identify the SLOs that have been developed for the course.

II. Means of Assessment and Criteria for Success

III. Summary of Data Collected

IV. Use of Results and Future Plans

Identify the means of assessment and criteria for success

Summarize the data collected for the SLO

Discuss how assessment has been used to implement change or strengthen what is working well

2012 Annual Program Review and Plan: Drafting/ Architecture

Page 12

Rev Sum2012

for each SLO

ARCH 102 - Visual Communication Analyze basic practices of axonom etric and oblique pictorial drawing. Analyze the principles of Visual Co mmunication to differentiate the most efficient solut ion to the problem.

Apply concepts of Visual Communi cation to pictorial Sketching.

Final Project that shows ability to Communicate using Sketching 2D and 3D.

Differentiate proper Visual Commu nication composition and layout.

Final Project that shows ability to Communicate using 2D and 3D composition and layout. Final Project that shows ability to Construct axonometric, oblique and perspective projections. Final Project that shows ability to shade and render

Construct axonometric, oblique an d perspective projections.

Create proper techniques of shadi ng and rendering.

I. SLOs

Identify the SLOs that have been developed for the course.

II. Means of Assessment and Criteria for Success Identify the means of assessment and criteria for success for each SLO

Average project grade is 85%. Grades vary from 60% to 100%. Average project grade is 85%. Grades vary from 60% to 100%. Average project grade is 85%. Grades vary from 60% to 100%.

85% is a B+ which is above average.

Average project grade is 85%. Grades vary from 60% to 100%.

85% is a B+ which is above average.

85% is a B+ which is above average.

85% is a B+ which is above average.

III. Summary of Data Collected

IV. Use of Results and Future Plans

Summarize the data collected for the SLO

Discuss how assessment has been used to implement change or strengthen what is working well

ARCH 110 - Introduction to Architectural Communication and Functional Design 2012 Annual Program Review and Plan: Drafting/ Architecture

Page 13

Rev Sum2012

Examine skills necessary to asses a variety of existing drawing types. Develop a greater understanding o f why designers draw, what makes a drawing successful, and t he importance of drawing as a visualization and design tool. Evaluate the history of architectura l drawing and the relationship to the present. Distinguish line weights, values an d textures to create drawings.

Develop freehand sketching using proper principles and techniques.

Final Project that shows ability to use proper line weights, values and textures.

Final Project that shows ability to use proper sketching techniques.

Average project grade is 85%. Grades vary from 60% to 100%. Average project grade is 85%. Grades vary from 60% to 100%.

85% is a B+ which is above average.

85% is a B+ which is above average.

Create Orthographic drawings usin g proper design principles and techniques. Construct models using proper prin ciples and techniques.

I. SLOs

Identify the SLOs that have been developed for the course.

II. Means of Assessment and Criteria for Success Identify the means of assessment and criteria for success for each SLO

III. Summary of Data Collected

IV. Use of Results and Future Plans

Summarize the data collected for the SLO

Discuss how assessment has been used to implement change or strengthen what is working well

ARCH 111 - Basic Architectural Design Examine skills necessary to asses s a variety of existing construction types. Develop a greater understanding o 2012 Annual Program Review and Plan: Drafting/ Architecture

Page 14

Rev Sum2012

f why designers design, what makes a design successful, and th e importance of drawing and mode l making as a visualization and desi gn tool Distinguish design principles

Final Project Board presentations shows ability to use proper design principles such as symmetry, rhythm, flow and asymmetry.

Average project grade is 85%. Grades vary from 60% to 100%.

85% is a B+ which is above average.

Create detail drawings, projects, pr esentations and models using advanced computer software .

Final Project Board presentations shows ability to create detail drawings, projects, presentations and models using advanced software.

Average project grade is 85%. Grades vary from 60% to 100%.

85% is a B+ which is above average.

Evaluate the history of architectura l design and the relationship to the present.

I. SLOs

Identify the SLOs that have been developed for the course.

II. Means of Assessment and Criteria for Success

III. Summary of Data Collected

IV. Use of Results and Future Plans

Identify the means of assessment and criteria for success for each SLO

Summarize the data collected for the SLO

Discuss how assessment has been used to implement change or strengthen what is working well

Final Project presentation shows the ability to create a distinctive industry, design and architectural school portfolio

Average project grade is 85%. Grades vary from 60% to 100%.

85% is a B+ which is above average.

ARCH 200 - Portfolio Preparation Create student portfolios to meet t he distinctive requirements of industry, design and architectura l schools.

Examine, evaluate and design proj ects for portfolio review. Experiment with and contrast differ 2012 Annual Program Review and Plan: Drafting/ Architecture

Page 15

Rev Sum2012

ent portfolio presentation methods. Create portfolios, projects and pres entation methods using advanced computer software. Experiment with and contrast differ ent portfolio presentation methods. Demonstrate and review portfolios for interviews in industry, design and architectural schools.

I. SLOs

Identify the SLOs that have been developed for the course.

Final Project presentation shows the ability to create a distinctive industry, design and architectural school portfolio for interviews.

II. Means of Assessment and Criteria for Success

Average project grade is 85%. Grades vary from 60% to 100%.

85% is a B+ which is above average.

III. Summary of Data Collected

IV. Use of Results and Future Plans

Identify the means of assessment and criteria for success for each SLO

Summarize the data collected for the SLO

Discuss how assessment has been used to implement change or strengthen what is working well

Final Project Board presentations shows ability to integrate complex interrelated systems of a building into advanced architectural design projects.

Average project grade is 85%. Grades vary from 60% to 100%.

85% is a B+ which is above average.

ARCH 201 - Architectural Design I Apply advanced principles and pro cesses of design to complex architectural design proje cts. Develop logical and functional relat ionships that reflect concepts in advanced architectural design projects. Integrate the complex interrelated systems of a building into advanced architectural design proj ects.

2012 Annual Program Review and Plan: Drafting/ Architecture

Page 16

Rev Sum2012

Evaluate the history of the designs and the relationship to the present.

I. SLOs

Identify the SLOs that have been developed for the course.

II. Means of Assessment and Criteria for Success

III. Summary of Data Collected

IV. Use of Results and Future Plans

Identify the means of assessment and criteria for success for each SLO

Summarize the data collected for the SLO

Discuss how assessment has been used to implement change or strengthen what is working well

Final Project Board presentations shows ability to integrate complex interrelated systems of a building into advanced architectural design projects.

Average project grade is 85%. Grades vary from 60% to 100%.

85% is a B+ which is above average.

ARCH 202 - Architectural Design II Apply advanced principles and pro cesses of design to complex architectural design proje cts. Develop logical and functional relat ionships that reflect concepts in advanced architectural design projects. Integrate the complex interrelated systems of a building into advanced architectural design proj ects.

Evaluate the history of the designs and the relationship to the present.

I. SLOs

Identify the SLOs that have been developed for the course.

II. Means of Assessment and Criteria for Success Identify the means of assessment and criteria for success for each SLO

III. Summary of Data Collected

IV. Use of Results and Future Plans

Summarize the data collected for the SLO

Discuss how assessment has been used to implement change or strengthen what is working well

ARCH 250 - History of Architecture: Prehistory to Mannerism. 2012 Annual Program Review and Plan: Drafting/ Architecture

Page 17

Rev Sum2012

Identify historical architectural exa mples from Pre-history to 1600 according to contextual condi tions.

Architectural Board History Exam questions from Baroque to present day.

Average exit Exam score is 90%. 75% is passing.

75% is the average for the Architectural Board. Students are 90%, exceptional class.

Demonstrate an understanding of t he historical relationship of architecture, landscape architectur e, urban design and art to cultural ideas Utilize research from a range of ac ademic sources to formulate conclusions about the si gnificance of historical architecture Develop critiques of architecture u sing architectural history and theory

I. SLOs

Identify the SLOs that have been developed for the course.

II. Means of Assessment and Criteria for Success

III. Summary of Data Collected

Identify the means of assessment and criteria for success for each SLO

Summarize the data collected for the SLO

Discuss how assessment has been used to implement change or strengthen what is working well

Average exit Exam score is 95%. 75% is passing.

75% is the average for the Architectural Board. Students are 95%, exceptional class.

ARCH 251 - History of Architecture: Baroque to the Present Day Identify historical architectural examples from Baroque to the Architectural Board History present day according to contextual conditions Exam questions from Baroque to present day. Demonstrate an understanding of the historical relationship of architecture, landscape architecture, urban design and art to cultural ideas

IV. Use of Results and Future Plans

Develop critiques of architecture using architectural history and theory. Utilize research from a range of academic sources to formulate conclusions about the significance of historical architecture 2012 Annual Program Review and Plan: Drafting/ Architecture

Page 18

Rev Sum2012

I. SLOs

Identify the SLOs that have been developed for the course.

II. Means of Assessment and Criteria for Success Identify the means of assessment and criteria for success for each SLO

DRAF 101 - Beginning Computer Aided Design (CAD) Apply the use of orthographic proje Exit exam shows ability to construct ction, geometric construction, lettering, and dimensi orthographic projection, oning geometric construction, lettering and dimensioning Demonstrate basic understanding of Computer Aided Design (CAD) and linework, auxiliary view s, and orthographic projection Examine, analyze, and discuss ex amples of working drawings as well as isometric and oblique pi ctorial drawings

I. SLOs

Identify the SLOs that have been developed for the course.

DRAF 102 - Visual Communication Analyze basic practices of axonom etric and oblique pictorial drawing. Analyze the principles of Visual Co mmunication to differentiate the most efficient solut ion to the problem. Apply concepts of Visual Communi

III. Summary of Data Collected

II. Means of Assessment and Criteria for Success Identify the means of assessment and criteria for success for each SLO

Final Project that

2012 Annual Program Review and Plan: Drafting/ Architecture

IV. Use of Results and Future Plans

Summarize the data collected for the SLO

Discuss how assessment has been used to implement change or strengthen what is working well

Average project grade is 83%. Grades vary from 40% to 100%.

83% is a B which is above average.

III. Summary of Data Collected

IV. Use of Results and Future Plans

Summarize the data collected for the SLO

Discuss how assessment has been used to implement change or strengthen what is working well

Average project grade is 85%.

85% is a B+ which is Page 19

Rev Sum2012

cation to pictorial sketching Differentiate proper Visual Commu nication composition and layout.

Construct axonometric, oblique an d perspective projections.

Create proper techniques of shadi ng and rendering.

I. SLOs

Identify the SLOs that have been developed for the course.

shows ability to Communicate using Sketching 2D and 3D. Final Project that shows ability to Communicate using 2D and 3D composition and layout. Final Project that shows ability to Construct axonometric, oblique and perspective projections. Final Project that shows ability to shade and render

II. Means of Assessment and Criteria for Success Identify the means of assessment and criteria for success for each SLO

DRAF 160 - Intermediate Computer Aided Design (CAD) Demonstrate proper use of drawin Exit exam shows g, editing, and text commands. ability to use Draw, Edit and Text commands. Exit exam is derived from Level I AutoDesk Exam. Compose working CAD drawings t Exit exam shows ability to use o industry standards. Draw, Edit and Text commands. Exit exam is derived from Level I AutoDesk Exam. Demonstrate traditional drafting an 2012 Annual Program Review and Plan: Drafting/ Architecture

Grades vary from 60% to 100%.

above average.

Average project grade is 85%. Grades vary from 60% to 100%.

85% is a B+ which is above average.

Average project grade is 85%. Grades vary from 60% to 100%.

85% is a B+ which is above average.

Average project grade is 85%. Grades vary from 60% to 100%.

85% is a B+ which is above average.

III. Summary of Data Collected

IV. Use of Results and Future Plans

Summarize the data collected for the SLO

Discuss how assessment has been used to implement change or strengthen what is working well

Average grade is 85%. Grades vary from 60% to 100%.

85% is a B which is above average. Level I AutoDesk Exams average 45%.

Average grade is 85%. Grades vary from 60% to 100%.

85% is a B which is above average. Level I AutoDesk Exams average 45%.

Page 20

Rev Sum2012

d intermediate CAD techniques. Compose CAD drawings and pract ice basic and intermediate concepts in computer aided draftin g. Analyze and apply the CAD proces s of design development. Demonstrate an understanding of CAD as a visual language for architects and engineers.

I. SLOs

II. Means of Assessment and Criteria for Success

III. Summary of Data Collected

IV. Use of Results and Future Plans

Identify the SLOs that have been developed for the course.

Identify the means of assessment and criteria for success for each SLO

Summarize the data collected for the SLO

Discuss how assessment has been used to implement change or strengthen what is working well

Demonstrate proper use of advanced 2D and 3D editing and drawing commands.

Final Project shows ability to use Draw, Edit and Text commands. Exit Project is derived from Level II AutoDesk Exam. Final Project shows ability to use Draw, Edit and Text commands. Exit Project is derived from Level II AutoDesk Exam.

Average grade is 85%. Grades vary from 60% to 100%.

85% is a B which is above average. Level II AutoDesk Exams average 40%.

Average grade is 85%. Grades vary from 60% to 100%.

85% is a B which is above average. Level II AutoDesk Exams average 40%.

Compose advanced 2D and 3D working CAD drawings to industry standards.

2012 Annual Program Review and Plan: Drafting/ Architecture

Page 21

Rev Sum2012

Drafting/ Architecture VIII. Progress toward previous goals During 2011, we accomplished: Progress/ Persons Responsible

Previous Goals Goal 1 2011

Goal 2 2011

Goal 3 2011 Goal 4 2011

Goal 5 2011

Goal 6 2011 Goal 7 2011

Goal 8 2011

Goal 9 2011

Provide transfer credit to four and five-year colleges and universities Meet the student learning outcomes and core competencies institutionalized by Citrus College. Provide basic, intermediate, and advanced knowledge and skills for students Prepare students to enter the job market. Provide project and problem-based learning opportunities. Provide courses required for students to complete the certificates and/or Associate of Science degree. Provide classes for upgrading skills of employed students; and enrichment. Provide classes to support other curricular areas on campus. Retrofit PC 309 to hold 55 or more students; lab environment recommended to simulate environment in the industry, i.e., Design Studio for project inception, collaboration, production, presentation and selection. Develop a six-year plan to update technology to

Work with institutional research to confirm data elements to track DDT student transfer & retention in (articulated) university. Expand student access to lab setting. SLOs are completed for all coursework; multi-modality assessments identified for new coursework. Identify minimum qualifications needed for a full time, tenure track faculty member. Expand student access to lab setting. Continue to assign projects, host presentations, and critique (for student improvement). Update course outlines, maintain industry standards alignment, and ensure instructional consistency with adjunct faculty. Examine and identify multiple points of entry into the DDT program for employed practitioners. Dec. 2011 Identify any certificates and majors that require DDT courses (CAD and advanced technologies). Meet with facilities, collaborate on project specifications, develop action plan, identify funding and get plan approved.

Assess emerging industry standards, compare/contrast with

2012 Annual Program Review and Plan: Drafting/ Architecture

Status

Institutional Goal

Discussion with IR needed

1.2.3

Ongoing

5.2.4

In process

1.1.1

Initiated

1.1.1

Ongoing

2.2.6

Pending equipment update Ongoing

Pending equipment update

Pending equipment

2.2.6 Page 22

Rev Sum2012

ensure the labs have hardware and software congruent with industry needs. Confirm funding for the plan.

lab equipment and software inventory, establish logical rotation that results in updated equipment on six-year cycle. Spring 2012

update

In addition to previous goals, during 2012, we plan to: Description

Actions / Target Date

*Data Index*

Institutional Goal**

Goal 1 2012 Goal 2 2012 Goal 3 2012 Goal 4 2012 **See the Preface for information related to Institutional Goals for 2012. *Data Index: What data in the Key Performance Indicators drives this goal?

2012 Annual Program Review and Plan: Drafting/ Architecture

Page 23

Rev Sum2012

Drafting/Architecture IX. Budget Recommendations for 2013 Certificated Personnel (FNIC) Position Discuss impact on goals / SLOs Full time faculty

Adjunct

Classified Personnel Position Lab Aide

Impact

Priority

Technical qualifications to effectively teach CAD and CGI (specifically DRAF 160, 161, 190,290, 291); to increase offerings of core DDT courses essential to certificate and degree completion Design Visualization DRAF 102 & ARCH 102

M, N, Q, F, C

2

N

2

Discuss impact on goals / SLOs

Impact

Priority

M, N, Q, F

3

Open labs min.of 15 additional hours to increase student access to unique hard & software.

Staff Development (Division) Item Discuss impact on goals / SLOs Conference for new California Green Code

Facilities (Facilities) Describe repairs or modifications needed Modification to mimic industry’s “Studio” approach (and increase capacity) SEE EXHIBIT – A Additional chairs will be required. WIFI In PC 304, PC 306, PC 309 (SEE EXHIBIT – A) and P 314

Cost

Impact

Priority

Design professors need to keep current with the New California Green Code requirements.

$500.00 for three professors

M, N, Q, F

2

Discuss impact on goals / SLOs

Building / Room

Impact

Priority

Project-based learning, collaboration, and multi-disciplinary critical-thinking is accomplished in an open ‘studio’ space (mimic industry’s approach) SEE EXHIBIT - A

PC309

M, N, Q, F, C

1

Project-based learning, collaboration, and multi-disciplinary critical-thinking is accomplished mimicking industry’s approach.

PC 304, PC 306, PC 309 (SEE EXHIBIT – A) and P 314

M, N, Q, F, C

1

2012 Annual Program Review and Plan: Drafting/ Architecture

Page 24

Rev Sum2012

Computers / Software (Tecs) Item Discuss impact on goals / SLOs Additional CAD seat for teacher podium in PC 309 Autodesk subscription for software per year 3 PCs Work Stations per year replacement. 1 PC/Laptop Work Station for teacher podium in PC 309 26 monitors/PC304

Equipment Item

Cost

Impact

Priority

Update current CAD software from 2010 to 2013. ONE TIME COST. Exhibit - B

$1600

M, N, Q, F, C

1

Subscription update of current CAD and Maya software per year. Exhibit - C Updated computers required to accommodate current CAD software Updated computers required to accommodate current CAD software

$2500

M, N, Q, F, C M, N, Q, F, C M, N, Q, F, C

1

CGI/design computers required updated monitors (match software/SLOAs)

$6,000 $2000

$7,500

M, N, Q, F, C

1 1

1

Discuss impact on goals / SLOs

Cost

Impact

Priority

Discuss impact on goals / SLOs

Cost

Impact

Priority

N/A

Supplies (Division) Item N/A

General Budget Guidelines Budget Preparation Tips: •

Include items on the budget form that are needed for program success even if there is no financial need associated with the request (ie training that could be accomplished with on-campus resources, sharing of resources with another discipline or department etc.)

•

Whenever possible, obtain actual cost for the items / equipment you wish to purchase. This avoids situations where items are considered for purchase but it is determined that the actual cost greatly exceeds the original estimate.

•

Identify unit cost (cost per item) and the number of units desired in requests.

•

Indicate if there is a lower level of financial support that would be workable in your educational plan – if you request $30,000 for a classroom set of equipment (one item for each student), if $15,000 were available, would it be possible for two students to share an item? Is the request “All or nothing”?

Determining Budget Impact: Indicate one or more of the following areas that your request will affect: M = Mission: Does the request assist the program in meeting the District’s mission and established core competencies and / or diversity?

2012 Annual Program Review and Plan: Drafting/ Architecture

Page 25

Rev Sum2012

N = Need: Does the request assist the program in addressing needs based on labor market data, enrollment, articulation, advisory committee, regional agreements, etc.? Q = Quality: Does the request assist the program in continuing or establishing appropriate lecture/lab unit values? Will the request assist in the regular reviewed / updated of course outlines? Is faculty development adequate? Does program need support in addressing the State and District emphasis on critical thinking, problem solving and written expression? Does program need support to meet stated objectives in the form of SLOs? Do course pre-requisites and co-requisites need to be validated? F = Feasibility: Does the request assist the program maintain adequate facilities, equipment, and library resources? Is there a need for repair or modification of facilities? Is there a need for new equipment or supplies? Are course offerings frequent enough for students to make adequate progress in both day and evening programs? Does the program have adequate communication with & support from Counseling? C = Compliance: Does the request assist the program in meeting Federal, State & District requirements? (Do the course outlines meet state, district & federal regulations for content? Do vocational programs have regular advisory meetings?)

Budget Priorities: When establishing priority, consider the following: Priority 1: This item is mandated by law, rule, or district policy. Priority 2: This item is essential to program success. Priority 3: This item is necessary to maintain / improve program student learning outcomes.

2012 Annual Program Review and Plan: Drafting/ Architecture

Page 26

Rev Sum2012

Drafting/Architecture X. Career Technical Education TOP CODE: 0953.00 – Drafting/Design Technology

1. Advisory Committee meeting date(s):

April 26, 2012

2. Advisory Committee recommendations 1. 2.

3. 4. 5.

Industry requires advanced software/matching hardware or proficiencies compromised Industry ‘designs’ using a studio model that integrates multiple disciplines; the collaboration generates creative solutions to complex problems. Advisory recommended increased use of this project/problem oriented approach to learning and recommended a classroom be an open creative space parallel to the workplace (and improve team work). Increase use of portfolios to improve SLOAs and preparation for employment/workforce. WiFi for students using laptops and researching code/products/solutions for design. Curriculum recommendations (under consideration)

3. Are these Advisory Committee minutes on file with Academic Affairs? YES _____ NO ___X__ 4. Vocational Funds Source

Purpose

Amount

Perkins Title IC

Seven replacement PCs, updated memory of for 12 PCs, some monitors replaced.

$14,000

2012 Annual Program Review and Plan: Drafting/ Architecture

Page 27

Rev Sum2012

5. Labor Market Data 2008 – 2018 (California Employment Department Labor Market Information for Los Angeles, Orange, and Inland Empire Counties)

Occupation NOTE: all occupations listed need the skills captured by DDT certificates for employment

Soc Code

Surveying and Mapping Technicians

173031

Civil Engineering Tech

173022

Mechanical Drafters

173013

Commercial and Industrial Designers

271021

Graphic Design

271024

Animation, Interactive Technology, &Video Graphics Construction Managers

271014

Cost Estimators

131051

Construction & Bldg. Inspectors

474011

Architectural & Civil Drafters

173011

Engineering Managers

119041

Urban & Regional Planners

193051

Set & Exhibit Designers

271027

Employment Estimated LA, OC, IE

Employment Projected LA, OC, IE

Change LA, OC, IE

520 380 480 1850 830 730 1190 710 370 1,040 740 210 14,460 5,060 1510 12910 1630 180 11,750 9,650 4870 5420 3120 2590 3070 1280 1090 5050 1840 830 7350 4080 1310 1,440 560 530 1,080

570 450 510 1990 970 770 1190 710 340 1,040 810 190 15,130 5,320 1510 13980 1660 190 12,580 10,590 5030 6230 3680 3020 3430 1430 1210 4880 1950 780 7830 4380 1320 1,660 690 610 1,200

5.6% 18.4% 6.3% 7.6% 16.9% 5.5% 0% 0% -8% 0% 9.5% -9.5% 4.6% 5.1% 0% 8.3% 1.3% 5.6% 7.1% 9.7% 3.3% 14.9% 17.9$ 16.6% 11.7% 20.3% 11% -3.4% 8% -6 6.5% 7.4% .8% 15.3% 23.2% 16.1% 11.5%

119021

2012 Annual Program Review and Plan: Drafting/ Architecture

Page 28

Rev Sum2012

Mechanical Engineers

172141

Landscape Architects

171012

Interior Designers

271025

Civil Engineers

172051

Environmental Engineers

172081

Architects

171011

140 Not available 6,190 2,700 1030 Not available 480 160 2,600 1,270 550 8,300 4,860 2570 1100 660 200 3,500 1,930 570

160 Not available 6,190 2,900 1020 Not available 560 160 2,600 1,350 570 9,170 6,080 2810 1280 810 230 3,570 1,930 570

20% Not available 0% 7.4% -1% Not available 16.7% 0% 0% 6.3% 3.6% 10.5% 25.1% 9.3% 16.4% 22.7% 15% 2% 12.4% 0%

6. Discuss demand for workers in this TOP code based on CA Employment Development Department Labor Market Information for Los Angeles County and Advisory Committee input. Describe the rationale for use of data regarding additional geographic areas. Drafting and Design Technology (DDT) provides foundational knowledge, skills and abilities essential to many/most occupations representing an entire industry. The one or two-year educational goals accomplished at Citrus College (Certificates of Achievement, Associate Degree, and Transfer preparation) are important to immediate employment as well as employment along the education continuum (Bachelors, Masters and Doctorial Degrees). In addition to the occupations specific to the civil infrastructure and building industry, it is noted that multiple occupations require Computer Aided Design and Computer Generated Imagery technologies. The skills sets are developed through DDT coursework. The transfer level courses in DDT are a substantial contribution and asset to students completing an Associate Degree in a different major. The DDT program excels at creating synergy across multiple disciplines simultaneously and influencing all students to appreciate a well-designed solution vs. a rudimentary or utilitarian result. The many dimensions of arts and sciences are productively blended in the DDT program.

2012 Annual Program Review and Plan: Drafting/ Architecture

Page 29

Rev Sum2012

CORE INDICATORS Indicator 1. Technical Skill Attainment 2. Credential, Certificate, or Degree 3. Persistence or Transfer 4. Placement 5. Nontraditional Participation 6. Nontraditional Completion

2009-10

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

(Actual)

(Actual)

(Actual)

(Proposed)

100.00 85.71 89.19

90.00 85.00 87.50 81.82 17.50 19.05

91.49 100.00 100.00

91.30 92.00 91.30

75.00

18.92 18.75

Total Count is 10 or Greater

71.43

57.14

19.15 30.77

23.91 20.00

Total Count is Less Than 10

2008-09

2009-10

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

1. Technical Skill Attainment

92.46%

92.46%

87.93%

88.81%

88.82%

2. Credential, Certificate, or Degree 3. Persistence or Transfer 4. Placement 5. Nontraditional Participation . Nontraditional Completion

66.13%

66.13%

78.95%

82.05%

80.93%

82.18% 79.86% 12.58% 12.02%

82.18% 79.86% 12.58% 12.02%

83.62% 80.33% 19.05% 19.72%

85.96% 82.21% 20.37% 22.10%

85.86% 81.48% 22.08% 25.00%

CITRUS COLLEGE Negotiated Level

2012 Annual Program Review and Plan: Drafting/ Architecture

Page 30