University of Minnesota Construction Management Program Quality Improvement Plan

Academic Year 2024−2025

The University of Minnesota’s reputation as a premier learning institution is well established, both nationally and internationally. The University’s Construction Management program has also acquired an excellent reputation through our commitment to practical, applied instruction. Our program is grounded in current industry practices and technologies. It offers a multidisciplinary approach to the real issues facing construction managers. The program’s Quality Improvement Plan outlines our process for continuous assessment and improvement of the program goals, objectives, curriculum, faculty, and resources.

Overall Program Review

Our staff meets more or less continually to review the overall program goals, objectives, and student learning outcomes. We strive to prepare our students to be future leaders in the industry. Our review includes:

  1. An assessment of the program to confirm adherence to ABET outcome-based standards under which we are being accredited.
  2. A review of current industry trends and needs (at every Advisory Board meeting)
  3. Feedback from the Advisory Board (at every Advisory Board meeting)
  4. Feedback from faculty (once per semester as a group, then at every course review meeting, and more informally in one-on-one email correspondence)
  5. Input and requests from current students (constantly received and discussed among staff)
  6. Input from employers (at every Advisory Board meeting, and informally at every Career Fair)
  7. Course review data from College of Continuing and Professional Studies Academic Technology and Design (ATD) unit (at every course review)
  8. Graduation survey results (University-wide, every year)
  9. Student Ratings of Teaching (SRTs) (every semester course offering)
  10. Student Focus Groups (ad hoc by invitation to all prospective graduates)
  11. Industry publications and research (as they occur — rarely, as we are not a research institution)
  12. Review of new textbook content and options (faculty review as required)
  13. Review of appropriate software developments and updates (as they occur)

Our assessment of the Construction Management program is continuous, and broad components are shown in figure 1 below. The tools that are used to evaluate elements of the program are listed in Program Assessment Tools.

CMGT Quality Assessment Cycle: a process of setting goals, developing and revising programs, assessment, and review of course performance.

 

Figure A1. Quality Assessment Cycle: Based on the Deming Cycle, program quality assessment starts with goal setting, leading to program and course revision (see Revision Points box), assessment (see Assessment Tools box), and program and course performance review.

We want our degree program to prepare our students to excel in industry as competent and valuable project team members. We want our curriculum to reflect current technology and industry practices. Our faculty should be accomplished practitioners, working (or having worked) in the industry and providing insight to our students into current practices and tools. And our teaching methods should be the most up to date and effective.

Recommended changes and additions are incorporated into the program Annual Plan, Academic Quality Plan, and individual courses, and these are presented to the Advisory Board for review and comment. This review process uses the ongoing input and feedback we get from students, faculty, our advisory board, and the College through the assessment methods outlined in the Academic Quality Plan. The overall program is designed to prepare students for work as construction managers. Program courses and course content evolve over time and are added, enhanced, or removed based on industry input. Specific degree requirement changes are presented to and reviewed by our College’s Curriculum Committee, prior to approval by the Provost's Office.

Program Assessment Tools

Overall Program Assessment

  • Comparison to ABET standards: Conducted semiannually; the department reviews alignment with ABET criteria, and any proposed changes are submitted to and approved by the Curriculum Committee.
  • Student Experience in the Research University (SERU) Survey: Implemented biennially by the University; results undergo departmental review and are incorporated into the Annual Report, with responses developed as needed (see Sub-Appendix A1).
  • Advisory Board Meetings: Held twice per year; recommendations may lead to courses being modified, added, or removed, with formal proposals submitted to the CCAPS Curriculum Committee and subject to final approval by the Provost’s Office.
  • Student Focus Groups (broad invitation): Solicited in odd-numbered years; minutes are recorded to capture suggestions, filed for documentation, and reviewed annually to guide improvements in overall program quality.

Course Assessment

  • Faculty Course Assessment: Conducted each term after a class is taught via an online survey; results undergo departmental review, with formal documentation confirming that faculty goals were achieved and courses updated as suggested (see Sub-Appendix A2).
  • ATD Course Review: Conducted coincident with the UAPS course review; ATD evaluates the Canvas course site, syllabus, assignments, and materials, then follows up with each instructor to document changes made (see Sub-Appendix A2).
  • UAPS Course Review: Conducted every three years and after a new course is taught for the first time; reviewers examine curriculum, teaching methods, evaluation scores, and outcomes data, revising objectives, activities, or assessments as needed, with documentation added to the CMGT Course Review Canvas site, action items recorded, redesign planned when appropriate, and the review schedule accelerated if evaluation trends are negative (see Sub-Appendix A2).
  • Student Ratings of Teaching (SRT): Collected after each course section is delivered; a plan is developed to address student concerns, and semester SRT reports for each course and instructor—along with five-year average score summaries—are archived with course review materials (see Sub-Appendix A4).

Students

  • Academic Quality Plan: Conducted annually; actions vary according to the specific outcomes assessed, with full details documented in the Academic Quality Plan (see Appendix B).
  • Student Placement and Career Services: Assessed annually; improvements or changes are implemented based on student feedback, with placement data tracked year to year to monitor increases in both student satisfaction and employment outcomes (see Sub-Appendix A3).
  • Student Ratings of Teaching (SRT): Collected after each course section is delivered; a plan is developed to address student concerns about faculty or course issues, and semester reports for each course and instructor—along with five-year average score summaries—are archived as part of the course review process (see Sub-Appendix A4).

Faculty

  • Student Ratings of Teaching (SRT): Collected after each course section is delivered; a plan is developed to address student concerns about faculty or course issues, and semester reports for each course and instructor—along with five-year average score summaries—are archived as part of the course review process (see Sub-Appendix A4).
  • Student Experience in the Research University (SERU) Survey: Conducted biennially or when implemented by the University; results undergo departmental review and are incorporated into the Annual Report, with responses developed as needed (see Sub-Appendix A4).
  • UAPS Course Review: Conducted every three years; reviewers evaluate course curriculum and teaching methods, with documentation added to the CMGT Course Review Canvas site, action items recorded, and course redesign planned when appropriate (see Sub-Appendix A4).
  • Performance Review: Conducted annually for full-time faculty; annual achievements are summarized and goals for the coming year established, with formal documentation confirming completed objectives and setting new performance targets (see Sub-Appendix A4).

Staff

  • Performance Review: Conducted annually; an employee development plan is documented and agreed upon by the college and the staff member, with the formal review process recording goals achieved and establishing new objectives for the coming year (see Sub-Appendix A4).

Advising

  • Student Experience in the Research University (SERU) Survey: Conducted biennially or when implemented by the University; results undergo departmental review and are incorporated into the Annual Report, with responses developed as needed (see Sub-Appendix A5).
  • CCAPS Learner Survey: Conducted biennially; findings are reviewed by the department and incorporated into the Annual Report, with responses developed as needed, although results are not disaggregated by major (see Sub-Appendix A5).