Ver 2013-09-17 Annual Program Review Form Fall 2013 Department: Architecture Contact Person: Jerry Lum, Acting Chair Date: 21 November 2013 Draft Please check this box to certify that faculty and staff in your unit discussed the unit’s major planning objectives: X 1. Description of Programs and Services and their Locations Provide credit courses in Architecture (ARCH), Interior Design (INTD) and Construction Management (CM) for students who plan to complete an Associates Degree (A.S.) or Certificate program, transfer to a 4 or 5-year degree- granting program, and or are seeking training for the workplace. Main site: Ocean Campus Satellite locations: Mission Center, Downtown Center, and Chinatown/North Beach Center 2. Please provide an analysis of the data trends for your department. If you have additional data that you would like to provide, please also include that here. The Architecture Department programs and courses align with the CCSF Mission Statement in the following ways: Transfer to baccalaureate institutions: • In general o we have 253 students out of approximately 500 registered students total in the Fall of 2013 seeking a four-year degree according to the CCSF Decision Support System. o In 2008 at the start of the Great Recession, there were 345 students seeking a Bachelor’s Degree, with a negligible change (342 students) in 2007. o As the Great Recession continued, we continued to have a steady growth of this population of students reaching a height of 382 in 2011 and 2009. o Prior to the recession of 2001 (March to November) we had 111 students seeking the same degree with numbers increasing each year. o Clearly, the current and past economic recessions do not negatively impact the numbers of students seeking this level of education. The thirty-three-percentage drop in this category of students appears to coincide with CCSF’s accreditation issues originating in the summer of 2012 and escalating with the summer of 2013 announcement that accreditation will be terminated in July 2013. • ARCH: Departmental surveys show that the vast majority of students in the ARCH program, which represent approximately 50% of our entire Architecture Department student population (ref: Fall 2012 Student Survey), are attending CCSF to transfer to a 4 or 5 year Architecture program. For this reason, preparing students for transfer is the primary focus of our ARCH program. This is underscored by the findings reported in 2010 by the Occupational Outlook Handbook published by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics in which the entry-level education required is a Bachelor’s degree. Because the cost of the first two years of an architectural education here at CCSF is very low compared to the same in public and private university or college programs, the expense to our students is diminished significantly without any compromise in the quality, which is at least at the level found among our transfer institutions as cited by such universities as UCB, SCI-Arc, and BAC who have visited our Department this Fall semester and have reviewed our student work. o The following are national statistics from the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics Website (http://www.bls.gov/ooh/Architecture-and-Engineering/Architects.htm). They underscore the value of transferring to a baccalaureate institution. Statistics are as follows: 2010 Median Pay: $72,550 per year: $38.88 per hour Entry-Level Education: Bachelor’s degree On-the-job Training: Internship/residency Number of Jobs, 2010: 113.700 Job Outlook, 2010-20: 24% (faster than average)
Transcript
Ver 2013-09-17
Annual Program Review Form Fall 2013
Department: Architecture Contact Person: Jerry Lum, Acting Chair Date: 21 November 2013 Draft Please check this box to certify that faculty and staff in your unit discussed the unit’s major planning objectives: X 1. Description of Programs and Services and their Locations Provide credit courses in Architecture (ARCH), Interior Design (INTD) and Construction Management (CM) for students who plan to complete an Associates Degree (A.S.) or Certificate program, transfer to a 4 or 5-year degree-granting program, and or are seeking training for the workplace. Main site: Ocean Campus Satellite locations: Mission Center, Downtown Center, and Chinatown/North Beach Center 2. Please provide an analysis of the data trends for your department. If you have additional data that you would like to provide, please also include that here. The Architecture Department programs and courses align with the CCSF Mission Statement in the following ways:
Transfer to baccalaureate institutions:
• In general o we have 253 students out of approximately 500 registered students total in the Fall of 2013 seeking
a four-year degree according to the CCSF Decision Support System. o In 2008 at the start of the Great Recession, there were 345 students seeking a Bachelor’s Degree,
with a negligible change (342 students) in 2007. o As the Great Recession continued, we continued to have a steady growth of this population of
students reaching a height of 382 in 2011 and 2009. o Prior to the recession of 2001 (March to November) we had 111 students seeking the same degree
with numbers increasing each year. o Clearly, the current and past economic recessions do not negatively impact the numbers of
students seeking this level of education. The thirty-three-percentage drop in this category of students appears to coincide with CCSF’s accreditation issues originating in the summer of 2012 and escalating with the summer of 2013 announcement that accreditation will be terminated in July 2013.
• ARCH: Departmental surveys show that the vast majority of students in the ARCH program, which represent approximately 50% of our entire Architecture Department student population (ref: Fall 2012 Student Survey), are attending CCSF to transfer to a 4 or 5 year Architecture program. For this reason, preparing students for transfer is the primary focus of our ARCH program. This is underscored by the findings reported in 2010 by the Occupational Outlook Handbook published by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics in which the entry-level education required is a Bachelor’s degree. Because the cost of the first two years of an architectural education here at CCSF is very low compared to the same in public and private university or college programs, the expense to our students is diminished significantly without any compromise in the quality, which is at least at the level found among our transfer institutions as cited by such universities as UCB, SCI-Arc, and BAC who have visited our Department this Fall semester and have reviewed our student work. o The following are national statistics from the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor
Statistics Website (http://www.bls.gov/ooh/Architecture-and-Engineering/Architects.htm). They underscore the value of transferring to a baccalaureate institution. Statistics are as follows:
2010 Median Pay: $72,550 per year: $38.88 per hour Entry-Level Education: Bachelor’s degree On-the-job Training: Internship/residency Number of Jobs, 2010: 113.700 Job Outlook, 2010-20: 24% (faster than average)
2
Employment Change, 2010-20 (the projected numeric change in employment for this occupation from 2010 to 2020: 27,900
Current demographic trends will result in a greater need for architects. Those who distinguish themselves with their creativity should have the best job
opportunities.
o In a recent publication, “America’s Best Architecture & Design Schools” by DesignIntelligence, 2014, which underscores the need for well trained architects in an ever-changing architectural practice, it was noted:
The employment rate for these graduates (of architecture schools) is higher now than in 2009 when the employment was 13.9 percent for recent college graduates in architecture, and 9.2 percent for those over age 30, according to the Georgetown Center on Education and the Workforce. Currently unemployment is about 5 percent, according to the Department of Labor, although Greenway estimates that the number is sometimes closer to 0, depending on the region.
Enrollment in architecture schools is at a plateau: The National Architectural Accrediting Board reports that 15,187 students were enrolled in 2012 in 57 B.Arch. programs and 11,277 students were in the 95 M.Arch. programs. The numbers of students overall decreased by 2.3 percent from the previous academic year…schools need to be concerned about supplying enough well-trained architects to meet the demand.
• CM: Making up approximately 19% of our entire Architecture Department student population, there currently is a small minority of these students who have attempted to transfer to a 4-year institution. From the same U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics cited above, the level education required to enter this field is an Associates Degree. However, on the same website, they state: Job opportunities will be best for candidates with work experience and a bachelor’s degree in a construction-related field. o Information related to a career in Construction Management is provided by the Construction
Management Association of America (CMAA) as follows (ref: http://cmaanet.org/careers): (Construction management) today increasingly requires specific academic preparation as
well as construction knowledge. Graduates of (four-year degree programs) in construction management or construction
science…may be hired as assistants to project managers, field engineers, schedulers, or cost estimators.
Master’s degree recipients, especially those with work experience in construction, typically become construction managers in very large construction or construction management companies.
Graduates of CM programs can expect nearly a 100 percent placement rate with high starting wages, on average around $42,000.
• INTD: While we are developing ways to accurately measure our number of INTD students and what percentage of these are intending the transfer to an Interior Design program at a 4-year institution, the program focuses on preparing at least 50% of them for transfer. Interior design students make up approximately 14% of our entire Architecture Department student population. According to the U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, the entry level of education needed to enter this professional field is a Bachelor’s degree. Students majoring in this discipline need a greater awareness of the requirements that lead to employment in Interior Design. o United States Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics for Interior Designers
(http://www.bls.gov/ooh/arts-and-design/interior-designers.htm) are as follows: 2010 Median Pay: $46,280 per year; $22.25 per hour Entry-Level Education: Bachelor’s degree Work Experience in a Related Occupation: None On-the-job Training: None Number of Jobs, 2010: 56,500 Job Outlook, 2010-20: 19% (About as fast as average) Employment Change, 2010-20: 10,900 Designers will be needed to respond to consumer expectations that the interiors of homes
and offices meet certain conditions, such as being environmentally friendly or more easily accessible.
o American Society of Interior Designers (ASID) “2012 Industry Trends Report” (http://www.asid.org/content/american-society-interior-designers-issues-2012-industry-trends-report):
3
…the industry as a whole is starting to see a modest recovery…with positive scores supported by renovation and remodeling projects.
…interior designers are finding employment as sole practitioners, self-employed consultants and in design-related businesses.
Technology continues to play a major role in the way designers work and communicate with clients and colleagues. Designers who adapt will find opportunities to build their practice and create interactive environments that respond to an increasingly high-tech, high-touch society.
As the design industry evolves, interior designers will play an expanding role in addressing critical environmental and societal challenges in such areas as aging, wellness and healthcare, education and urbanization.
Achievement of Associate Degrees in Arts and Sciences:
• A.S. Degrees are offered in all three programs. • According to the Decision Support System (DSS), we have had steady growth in the numbers of
students seeking an A.S. Degree with a high of 74 since DSS started documenting in 1998. Of these 74 students, 74.4% succeeded in their goal.
• CM: o Since the Spring of 2010 when we started tracking A.S. degrees granted to CM students, we have
only 2 total granted in the Spring 2010 and Spring 2011. The issue is that we do not have a reliable and accurate system to track A.S. degrees so reporting is anecdotal. Whereas for certificates, faculty members pick these up from Admissions & Records, sign them, and mail them to our students. This ability to track certificates is being threatened by CCSF administrative change proposals this Fall semester. A department’s ability to track all aspects of student successes should be enhanced and supported on an institutional basis.
o United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics for Construction Managers (CM), (http://www.bls.gov/ooh/Management/Construction-managers.htm) are as follows:
2010 Median Pay: $86,860 per year; $40.32 per hour Entry-Level Education: Associate’s degree Work Experience in a Related Occupation: More than 5 years On-the-job Training: None Number of Jobs, 2010: 523,100 Job Outlook, 2010-20: 17% (About as fast as average) Employment Change, 2010-20: 86,600 Job opportunities will be best for candidates with work experience and a bachelor’s degree
in a construction-related field. o From our Construction Management website we stated the following:
Upon graduation from the Construction Management Program, students are qualified to enter the profession through a wide variety of employers such as Construction Managers, General Contractors, Sub-Contractors, as well as Architectural and Engineering offices. Opportunities upon entry into the Profession are varied and include: estimating and cost control, scheduling and planning, document control, quality assurance and inspection.
• Project Cost Estimators in the United States earn $60K annually on average – this breaks down to an hourly pay rate of $28.85. The Best paid Project Cost Estimators work for Dominion Technologies Group. From our surveys, the happiest Project Cost Estimators work for Rochester City School District. (http://www.careerbliss.com/jobs/project-cost-estimator/salaries/)
• Project Cost Controllers in the United States earn $72K annually on average – this breaks down to an hourly rate of $34.62. the best paid Project Cost Controllers work for Tunnell Consulting and Vestas. From our surveys, the happiest Project Cost Controllers work for Vestas. (http://www.careerbliss.com/jobs/project-cost-controller/salaries/)
• Project Schedulers in the United States earn $73K annually on average – this breaks down to an hourly pay rate of $34.99. The best paid Project Schedulers work for Shell and Parsons Corp. From our surveys, the happiest Project Schedulers work for Alstom Power and Universal Ensco. (http://www.careerbliss.com/jobs/project-scheduler/salaries/)
• Project Planners in the United States earn $71K annually on average – this breaks down to an hourly pay rate of $33.93. The best paid Project Planners work for JV
4
Industrial and Archer Daniels Midland. From our surveys, the happiest Project Planners for for Bosch and St. Jude Medical (http://www.careerbliss.com/jobs/project-planner/salaries/)
• Document Control Clerks in the United States earn $32K annually on average – this breaks down to an hourly pay rate of $15.21. The best paid Document Control Clerks work for XOMA and LifeScan. From our surveys, the happiest Document Control Clerks work for United Paradyne and SPXS Service Solutions. (http://www.careerbliss.com/jobs/document-control-clerk/salaries/)
• Quality Assurance Technicians in the United States earn $37K annually on average – this breaks down to an hourly pay rate of $18.01. the best paid Quality Assurance Technicians work for Ciba Vision and Sherwin-Williams. From our surveys, the happiest Quality Assurance Technicians work for Aerotek and General Dynamics. (http://www.careerbliss.com/jobs/quality-assurance-technician/salaries/)
Graduates who successfully complete the Associates Degree in Construction Management, a two-year course of study, are qualified for employment in the building and construction industry in a wide variety of positions ranging from those of field assistant and expediter to those of materials clerks and assistant estimator.
• Project Field Assistants in the United States earn $52K annually on average – this breaks down to an hourly pay rate of $25.00. The best paid Project field Assistants work for Bovis Lend Lease. From our surveys, the happiest Project field Assistants work for Bershauer Phillips. (http://www.careerbliss.com/jobs/project-field-assistant/salaries/)
• Materials Clerks in the United States earn $28K annually on average – this breaks down to an hourly pay of $13.62. The best paid Materials Clerks work for Honeywell and AGCO Finance. From our surveys, the happiest Materials Clerks work for Varian Medical Systems. (http://www.careerbliss.com/jobs/materials-clerk/salaries/)
• Construction Expediters in the United States earn $35K annually on average – this breaks down to an hourly pay rate of $16.83. The best paid Construction Expediters work for Joseph Douglas Homes and Home Depot. From our surveys, the happiest Construction Expediters work for Joseph Douglas Homes (http://www.careerbliss.com/jobs/construction-expediter/salaries/)
• Assistant Estimators in the United States earn $44K annually on average – this breaks down to an hourly pay rate of $21.18. The best paid Assistant Estimators work for Kaiser Permanente and Desbuild. From our surveys, the happiest Assistant Estimators work for Turner Construction, Athena Engineering, and Bovis Lend/Lease (http://www.careerbliss.com/jobs/assistant-estimator/salaries/)
• INTD: students in this major who earn an A.S. Interior Design Degree are eligible to take the IDEX California exam. After passing the IDEX California exam and with 6 years of diversified experience, the student may apply to become a Certified Interior Designer (CID). See California Council for Interior Design, www.ccidc.org/
Acquisition of certificates and career skills needed for success in the workplace:
• Coursework directly related to career and Technical Education is offered every semester. The typical CM student is the most likely to complete a certificate program and enter into the employment market. o Since we started tracking Certificates granted to CM students in the Spring 2010, there have been
10 Advanced Skills Certificates granted; and 28 Core Skills Certificates granted with steady growth in numbers each spring semester of each year tracked.
o This Fall Semester 2013, we are working together with the Mission Hiring Hall to provide educational opportunities that lead to career options for their trainees. At the Mission Center, we have CM 110, Construction Graphics and CM 248, Construction Project Administration, specifically offered for MHH trainees with an enrollment of approximately fifty percent of the total enrollment of19 and 44 students, respectively. This is a pilot program that we together with MHH will continue to pursue and grow.
• ARCH and INTD student are more diverse, representing both incumbent and unemployed workers, and traditional students seeking transfer to a university. The software and hardware in our labs at the Ocean Campus were 95% funded through several Perkins Grant Awards.
5
o During the Spring 2013 semester, the Department sponsored an event for all of our INTD students, facilitated by interior design professional that were not faculty members. The reason for this was to solicit unbiased and authentic student feedback for Program evaluation and identification of their needs. The majority of INTD students are taking courses to prepare for entry-level jobs in the interior design industry.
o The Department will conduct research in the upcoming semesters to determine where specifically the needs and the employment opportunities are; develop certificate programs that will support these employment objectives; implement the plan; and then track and assess the efficacy of what is implemented.
• For the Spring 2014 semester, we have three sections of Building Information Modeling (BIM) courses (2 sections of BIM 120 and 1 section of BIM 121) funded by the Perkins Grant Awards for 2013-14 academic year. o A 2011 study (http://www.nist.gov/el/upload/120418-CIB-BIM-AdoptionMiddlebrooks-v2a.pdf) under
the auspices of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) reported the following: 40% contractors and project developers anticipate increased profitability due to BIM (World
Market Intellegence) In 2011, more than 60% of U.S. Architectural, Engineering, and Construction (AEC) firms had
adopted BIM with the rest of these industries quickly adopting BIM as their business standard (U.S. McGraw Hill SmartMarket Reports).
In 2009, 76% of architectural firms were using BIM; engineering firms 59%; contracting firms 53%; and building owners 57%.
Links between BIM benefits and Return On Investment (ROI) as were reported by Young, Jones, Bernstein, Gudgel (2009) are as follows: • Better multi-party communication and understanding from 3D visualization • Improved process outcomes, such as fewer Requests For Information (RFIs) and field
coordination problems • Improved productivity of personnel • Increased prefabrication • Positive impact on marketing • Reduced cycle time for project activities and delivery • Lower project cost • Improved jobsite safety • Positive impact on sustainability • Positive impact on recruiting and retaining staff • Faster plan approval and permits
o In a paper entitled “Analysis of Industry Trends for Improving Undergraduate Curriculum in
Construction Management Education” by Namhun Lee et al as part of the Associated Schools of Construction Annual International Conference Proceedings 2011, the importance of integrating Building Information Modeling (BIM) into the CM curriculum in order to prepare students for the current professional demands stemming from the “dramatic changes in social, economic, and environmental issues.”
o Because of the nature of Perkins Grant funding, these essential courses need to be institutionally
funded for sustainability reasons. Alignment of Programs and Services with Board’s Planning Priorities for 2013-2014
Put students first by using data related to student needs to set priorities for distribution of resources:
• An analysis of internal Department data along with DSS data are used to efficiently manage enrollment in the following ways: o Fill rates during pre-registration and enrollment changes between first day of class and census day.
Low enrollment sections are cancelled if they are not a required course for either A.S. degree or transfer and they are offered each semester. Low enrollment sections are analyzed to determine related issues and these are addressed to diminish future repeated occurrences
o FTES/FTEF ratios of all Fall 2013 courses: 131.70 o FTES/FTEF projected ratios for Spring 2014 are based upon census day enrollment numbers of
the previous year (DSS) in recognition of the differences between fall and spring demands
6
Spring 2014 FTEs & FTEF targets: 106.00 and 7.850, respectively Spring 2014 Schedule FTEs & FTEF: 129.71 (23.71 over target) and 7.592 (0.258 under
target) Course Efficiency: 17.09 (17 is the department average college-wide)
o Course and section offerings are scheduled to promote an efficient use of student time as they progress through each Program sequence–time conflicts are avoided
o In-house student surveys are used to identify demand for programs of study to assist in determining resource allocation in the future
o Technology needs are determined by monitoring the essential applications and technology requirements of transfer institutions and related professions
o While DSS data is not current, the rollout of Argos this fall semester and our eventual acclimatization to it use will allow us to have more timely data, which in turn will permit us to respond appropriately in a timely manner.
• One of the primary objectives of the Department is to provide an educational experience that is at least on par with the first two years of the best universities and colleges with architecture and interior design programs. For this reason, it is important to note that the optimal number of students in design studio courses to promote student successes and that is standard in most accredited university design programs is15 to 24. This is especially important for undergraduates in their first two years who need to have maximum interactions with their studio instructor. Retention rates increase with design studio courses with smaller size number of students. Here are some studio class size statistics from respected undergraduate design programs o Ref: California College of the Arts: Facts & Figures: 13-15 o Ref: University of Virginia FAQ about Undergraduate Admissions: 12-14 o Ref: Rhode Island School of Design (RISD) FAQs/Facts: 17 o Ref: University of California – Berkeley, College of Environmental Design, Rachel Klein, Advisor,
Architecture Major: 11-15 average o California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo (CalPoly – SLO): 24 maximum
• As a department that is associated with Career & Technical Education (CTE, our lecture/laboratory
classes emphasize learning by doing. For this reason, class sizes 15-24 create an ideal learning environment for our CTE students, especially those in our AutoCAD, Revit for Architecture, and CM 110, Construction Graphics courses.
Strengthen excellence in teaching, learning, and support services through a focus on student learning outcomes, student achievement, and student goal completion:
• The assessment process for both courses and programs are fully implemented and is used to both evaluate their efficacy and will be used to refine content and delivery to promote student successes.
• For the Spring 2013 semester, our reporting status is as follows on the following table 1: Table 1: Spring 2013 Semester SLO Reporting Status Item Number Course Number Course Title Coordinator
Name Assessment Stage
Comments
01 ARCH 100 Intro. To Arch. and Design
TBA NA Initially offered Fall 2013; formerly ARCH 48
02 ARCH 101 Arch. Design I Jerry Lum 5 03 ARCH 102 Arch. Design II Andrew Chandler 5 04 ARCH 103 Arch. Design III Jerry Lum 3 Spring only 05 ARCH 120 Fund. Of Bldg.
Construction Olallo Fernandez 3
06 ARCH 127 Fund. Of Bldg. Structures
Jerry Lum 1 Spring only
07 ARCH 134 Hist. & Theory of Modern Arch.
TBA NA Fall only Formerly ARCH 34
08 ARCH 160 Prof. Practice Olallo Fernandez 3 Spring only 09 ARCH 240 Fund. of TBA NA Not offered, No
12 ARCH 29A Freehand Dwg Jerry Lum 5 13 ARCH 29B Freehand Dwg Jerry Lum 1 14 ARCH 31A History of Arch. TBA NA Fall only 15 ARCH 31B History of Arch. Jerry Lum 3 16 ARCH 32 Bay Region
Arch. History Nestor Regino 3 Spring only
17 ARCH 52A Arch. CADD Nestor Regino 3 18 BIM 120 Revit Arch. I Nestor Regino 3 19 BIM 121 Revit Arch. II TBA NA Initially offered
Fall 2013 20 CM 100 Fund. Of Const.
Mgmt. Olallo Fernandez 3
21 CM 110 Const. Graphics Olallo Fernandez 4 22 CM 240 Const. Cost.
Estimating TBA NA Fall only – last
reported Sp’13 23 CM 244 Const.
Scheduling Olallo Fernandez 3 Spring only
24 CM 248 Const. Proj. Administration
TBA NA Fall only – last reported Sp’13
25 INTD 100 Intro. To Resid. Interior Design
TBA NA Offered Fall 2014 as new course
26 INTD 102 Int. Design Studio I
Amily Huang 3 Spring only
27 INTD 124 Int. Bldg. Mat’ls & Systems
TBA NA New course offered F’13
28 INTD 138 Global Hist. of Interior Design
Jerry Lum 1 Spring only
• Of the nineteen (19) courses offered during the Spring 2013 semester the assessment stage
breakdown is as follows: Stage 5: 4 Stage 4: 1 Stage 3: 11 Stage 2: 0 Stage 1: 3
• All full-time faculty members are coordinating course SLO assessments with full participation of all part-time faculty.
• During the Spring 2013 semester, our Department held a meeting for all interior design students facilitated by non-faculty who are interior design professionals to determine what their educational needs are. Based upon their responses, we are developing a greater autonomy from the Architecture Program and working towards a full set of courses to create a vital Interior Design Program.
• Student Success as measured through success percentages (DSS) per course from Fall 2010 to Spring 2013 is as follows on the following table 2:
Table 2: Student Success Percentage Rates: A Comparison of Architecture Dept. Courses & School of Science & Mathematics courses Fall 2010 Spring 2011 Fall 2011 Spring 2012 Fall 2012 Spring 2013 All Architecture Dept. Courses
72.91 71.82 66.79 69.58 66.90 72.47
8
All Courses within School of Science & Mathematics
64.76 65.10 64.26 65.67 64.23 64.67
Percentage Change against S&M Success %
+12.6% +10.3% +3.9 +6.0 +4.2 +12.1%
• Through the last 6 semesters ending Spring 2013, our student success rates have exceeded that
achieved in the School of Science & Mathematics. Significant increases (>10%) in student successes were in the Spring 2013, Spring 2011, and Fall 2010. Courses within the School of Science & Mathematics share the same academic rigor.
• Student successes can also be measured in terms of persistence (DSS) in year and term basis:
Table 3: Persistence Rates: A Performance Comparison between Architecture Department and School of Science & Math Fall 2010 Spring 2011 Fall 2012 Spring 2012 Fall 2012 Spring 2013 Year Term Year Term Year Term Year Term Year Term Year Term ARCH 62% 71% 51% 58% 50% 72% 51% 58% 50% 72% 8% 23% S&M 77% 81% 66% 72% 73% 80% 63% 68% 73% 80% 11% 30% % Change
• In terms of persistence, the Architecture Department is significantly behind (>10%) when compared
persistence rates achieved in the entire School of Science & Mathematics. We need to determine the reasons for these changes in persistence and then implement changes that will improve this success indicator. It appears that many students come into the Architecture Department expecting academic successes to be easier than it really is and are not prepared nor have the strong will needed to work through their challenges. This is one reason why we are trying to bolster their soft skills, e.g. intrinsic motivation to strive for excellence, time management, using a process in which learning and work evolve, resilience, etc.
• The Department continues to imbue our students with a deep and authentic sense of the value of their architectural, interior design, and construction management education. If students understand this, their motivation and perseverance to persist and succeed will be enhanced. While many students over the years have returned to tell us that their academic and professional successes were founded here at CCSF, these are testimonies that have for the most part been undocumented and thus inaccessible to students who are initially pursuing their education in our Department. We need to find ways to tell and disseminate these inspiring stories.
• In both Architecture and the School of Science & Mathematics, there was a precipitous drop in
persistence in the Spring 2013, the semester following the College’s accreditation issues.
Implement all the actions included in the Accreditation reports of October 15, 2012 and March 15, 2013 to ensure City College retains its accreditation:
• The Department Mission reflects the Board’s priorities that we assume are in effect and not superseded by those of the Board (Special Trustee) Planning Priorities dated 17 September 2013, which focus on maintaining “CCSF as a fully accredited public two-year college.”
• Architecture Mission Statement: Our mission is to provide a foundation of education in architecture, interior design, and construction management with an emphasis on:
o Enabling our students to transfer to a baccalaureate program to continue their education and o Providing our students with training and skills to support entry into the job market.
We believe in the promise of every student and challenge each individual to live a creative and productive life that is based on his or her social and cultural values. We educate in order to make
9
contribution to the design and construction of the built environment that are knowledgeable, professional, and humane.
• The courses of this Department support the CTE objectives and the transfer student components of the CCSF Mission Statement.
Meet the base FTES goal in as cost effective way as possible.
• The Department continues to implement a strategy to maximize enrollment as follows: o The use of non U-fund grants for faulty pay & benefits o Educating faculty on student retention strategies o Our policy of first day no-shows o Increasing classroom caps for most courses o Stepped up advising of available courses and posting notices of open sections o Encouraging early pre-registration. o Promoting new semester courses and sections as soon as our Dean approves our Schedule o Providing schedule pathways that identify courses and sections that students in their first,
second, third, and fourth semester tracks may take.
• The Spring 2013 FTEs and FTEF at Census are as follows: o Number of Sections offered: 31 o FTEF (faculty load) total: 7.808 o Total Number of Students Served by Sections Offered: 866 o Total FTEs: 131.70 o Total Course Efficiency (FTEs/FTEF): 16.87
• The proposed Fall 2014 Schedule approved by the Dean of the School of Science & Mathematics is
based upon Census enrollment figures from Fall 2013 as directed by our Dean. The FTEs and FTEF projections are as follows:
o FTEF Budget established by our Dean: 7.85 o FTEs Budget established by our Dean: 106.00 o Total FTEF: 8.585 (including 3 sections of BIM courses funded by Perkins Grants for 2013-14
Academic Year) o Net Spring 2014 FTEF projection (subtracting Perkins funded sections totaling 0.993): 7.592
(0.258 budget savings) o Spring 2014 FTEs projection: 129.71 o Course Efficiency projection: 17.09 (college-wide department average is 17.00)
Alignment of Programs and Services with Strategic Plan 2011-2016:
Ref. A.II: Excellence in teaching, learning, and support services: Implement strategies to close achievement gaps for identified groups, increase retention and persistence, and support all students in achieving their goals including transfer and achievement of certificates and degrees:
• The Department continues to use Decision Support System (DSS) data to track student outcomes, achievements and completion rates. See Student Success % above.
• With the Fall 2013 rollout of Argos, we hope to have accurate and real-time tracking. The ability to monitor our transfer students formally as an institutionalized tool will be highly beneficial in determining the efficacy of our Programs against our shared College and Department missions.
• We continue to develop and administer our student advising for all Programs including academic
plans while students pursue their education in our Department and transfer advising.
• We continue to improve retention and increase FTES through program improvement and not simply through increased classroom capacities.
• We continue to provide to our students a homework computer lab of 8 workstations staffed by
tutors funded through the Learning Center throughout the workweek. Our main computer lab that
10
houses 26 workstations is available all day on Fridays for student use. Printing for all labs is provided at a cost far below that of outside services through our CCSF CityPrint (GoPrint) service.
• In the Fall 2013 semester, the Department opened discussions with the Construction Trades City
Build program regarding the offering of construction management classes for their students at the Evans Center. Plans for the Spring 2014 semester will include a determination of what class offerings will be the most appropriate for this program and the development of an implementation plan.
Ref. A.IV. & A.VII: Respond to the educational and training needs of students and communities through implementation of workforce, STEM, and community development initiatives; and Assess student and academic support systems, under the direction of its departments, and develop and implement strategies to most effectively serve students.
• In alliance with the Mission Hiring Hall (MHH), the CM Program is providing educational services at the Mission Center, currently in the form of a section of CM 110, Construction Graphics, and on of CM 248, Construction Project Administration (Fall 2013), to students who have completed MHH’s Construction Administration & Professional Services Academy (CAPSA). The goal here is to offer CAPSA students the requisite educational opportunities to earn our Construction Management Certificate of Achievement: Core Skills, while concurrently participating in a paid internship. A Certificate of Achievement has a two-fold value: 1.) it will take CAPSA students less time to earn the certificate versus working towards an A.S. degree; and 2.) they will earn a certificate that distinguishes them as possessing specific skill sets, which will make them more desirable applicants when seeking employment. MHH’s role in this alliance is to provide outreach, recruitment, referral and case management services to CAPSA students.
• The alliance between the CM Program and MHH will solidify as measures are developed and implemented to improve the enrollment of MHH’s students in future semesters.
• In the past two years, the CM Mixer that brought students together with professionals was held in
the fall semester. Because of the unusual workload of the Department this Fall 2013, this event will be held in the Spring 2014.
3. Please describe any internal or external developments affecting your department since the last program review.
• Spring 2013 SLO and PLO Assessment Reports were 100% completed and submitted online with full faculty participation.
• In alliance with the Mission Hiring Hall (MHH), the CM Program is providing educational services at the
Mission Center, currently in the form of a section of CM 110, Construction Graphics, and on of CM 248, Construction Project Administration (Fall 2013), to students who have completed MHH’s Construction Administration & Professional Services Academy (CAPSA). The goal here is to offer CAPSA students the requisite educational opportunities to earn our Construction Management Certificate of Achievement: Core Skills, while concurrently participating in a paid internship. A Certificate of Achievement has a two-fold value: 1.) it will take CAPSA students less time to earn the certificate versus working towards an A.S. degree; and 2.) they will earn a certificate that distinguishes them as possessing specific skill sets, which will make them more desirable applicants when seeking employment. MHH’s role in this alliance is to provide outreach, recruitment, referral and case management services to CAPSA students.
• Course revisions and new course outlines were approved and incorporated into the Catalog in Spring 2013
as follows: o Architecture Program (ARCH)
ARCH 20, Orthographic Proj. & Perspective, 4 units in lieu of 3, 2 hrs Lec / 8 hrs Lab to accommodate unscheduled lab hours; FTE remains the same at 0.360
ARCH 29A, Freehand Drawing, 2 units in lieu of 1, 1 hr Lec / 2 hrs Lab to accommodate unscheduled lab hours; FTE remains the same at 0.123
ARCH 29B, Freehand Drawing, 2 units in lieu of 1. 1 hr Lec / 2 hrs Lab to accommodate unscheduled lab hours; FTE remains the same at 0.123
11
ARCH 50, Construction Drawings, 4 units in lieu of 3, 2 hrs. Lec / 8 hrs Lab to accommodate unscheduled lab hours; FTE remains the same at 0.360
ARCH 100, Introduction to Architecture and Design (2 units), replacing ARCH 48, Introduction to Architecture, Construction and Design Related Professions (1 unit)
ARCH 134, History and Theory of Modern Architecture (3 units), replacing ARCH 34, History of Modern Architecture (3 units)
o Building Information Modeling (BIM) BIM 120, Revit Architecture I (3 units), a revision BIM 120, Revit Architecture that introduces
students to the application BIM 121, Revit Architecture II (4 units), a new course that applies the application to the
development and production of construction drawings, replaces ARCH 50.
o Construction Management Program (CM): no changes
o Interior Design Program (INTD) INTD 102, Interior Design Studio (4 units), replaced ARCH 30A, Professional
practice/Interior Design (3 units) and ARCH 30B, Professional practice/Interior Design (3 units), a direct response to needs voiced by our interior design students
INTD 124, Interior Building Materials and Systems (3 units), a new course incorporated into the 2012-13 Catalog, but first offered Fall 2013 in direct response to needs voiced by our interior design students.
• Four new part-time faculty members from the Part Time Pool were hired for the Fall 2013 to round out the ARCH and CM Programs and replace instructors who have either withdrawn from instructional assignments or have been reassigned. They are follows:
o Gustav Choto: CM 240, Construction Cost Estimating, Fall 2013; replacing Evan Currid o Julie Head: ARCH 120, Fundamentals of Building Construction, Fall 2013; replacing Olallo
Fernandez reassigned to ARCH 20 and CM 110 o Carlos Melendez, CM 100, Fundamentals of Construction, Fall 2013; expanding number of
sections of this course to two o Deepika Padam, ARCH 100, Introduction to Architecture and Design, Fall 2013, replacing Carol
Burhman and expanding number of sections of this course to two
• We were awarded a Perkins Grant for 2013-2014 Academic Year to fund three sections of Building Information Modeling (BIM) courses that focus on the technical training of professionals who need to use this type of application; and for Revit for Architecture licenses for both of our computer labs on the Ocean Campus and Chinatown/North Beach Center. Since a section of BIM 121 was cancelled at the Chinatown/North Beach Center because of low enrollment, we applied funding to two sections of BIM 120 and one section of BIM 121 for the Fall 2014 semester.
• Architecture Program (ARCH): Design is not the only path to success in architecture: While taking any of our architectural design studio courses, a few students recognize that their affinities and capacities are not resonating well with the design challenges. Nevertheless, we inform students that having a working understanding of design intentions and methods with the ability to communicate with a design language is important to succeed in other areas in the architectural profession, e.g. project management, technical expertise, promotion and marketing of services, etc. In other words, there are other niches to fill that are equally meaningful and design is only one area of many, albeit the most visible and romanticized traditionally academically and professionally.
• Interior Design Program (INTD): o In the Spring 2013 semester, the Department sponsored an event for interior design students
facilitated by Julia Jung of Marco Fine Furniture and Michael Merrill of Michael Merrill Design Studio, both in San Francisco. The purpose of this meeting was to ascertain the demand for the Interior Design Program and increase its vitality and value to our interior design students by soliciting student feedback without faculty present. Historically the Interior Design Program has been subsumed by the Architecture Program and has not had a separate identity. Issues were also identified for the purpose of developing Interior Design Program priorities. INTD course development and revisions are a direct response to interior design student needs.
o Interior Materials Library (housed in Batmale 246): samples were added to our existing inventory: textile samples donated by Maharam Textiles; and carpet samples donated by Mohawk for use by instructors and students
12
o Field trips to interior design related showrooms and local firms offered to students to introduce them to the professional environment and community. Students visited the following firms and showrooms:
• Gensler-San Francisco Office • Michael Merrill Design Studio, San Francisco • Sungevity, Oakland • Herman Miller Showroom, San Francisco • Knoll Showroom, San Francisco • Maharam Textiles, San Francisco • One Workplace Showroom, Oakland
• University of California at Berkeley (UCB) unilaterally replaced one on our transfer courses, ARCH 32, Bay Region Architectural History with GEOG 4, Cultural Geography. This negatively impacted students who wished to fulfill this requirement and apply for transfer to UCB in the fall of 2014 because GEOG 4 is only offered in the fall semester. However because of our discussions to UCB, they will credit students who successfully completed ARCH 32 prior to the Fall 2013 semester. The Department will develop a course that focuses on architectural issues from a global perspective and submit to UCB for review and incorporation into our next articulation agreement.
• Interactions with Transfer Institutions o University of California – Berkeley/College of Environmental Design
The Department hosted a UCB/College of Environmental Design (CED) contingency consisting of Tom Buresh, Chair of Architecture Department; Rachel Klein, Architecture Major Undergraduate Advisor; and Keith Plymale, Continuing Lecturer in Architecture, on 24 October 2013 with the purpose of sharing perspectives and building stronger bridges between our two institutions. Like so many institutions and programs, UCB//CED are experiencing low enrollment issues that threaten their viability. While CCSF Architecture students make up the majority of transfer students to Berkeley, we all share the goal of increasing the transfer population.
UCB/CED acknowledged that fact that they highly value our students whose performance exceeds that of all transfer students, especially in their ability to respond well to abstract and conceptual design challenges.
After reviewing CCSF Architecture student work, UCB/CED discovered that our pedagogy resonates and aligns well with theirs.
Currently, UCB/CED receives around 360 transfer applicants of which only 70 are accepted.
Our transfer students enter their architecture program in design studio ARCH 100A, which is part of the third year studies and are among the top performers while other transfer students perform below their expectations.
Since UCB/CED uses Rhinoceros as their standard computer assisted design and drafting digital tool, our students can be better prepared if we also include courses using this tool. Currently, we utilize SketchUp, which is free to students and intuitively easier to learn. We plan to implement this tool in the near future, pending funding opportunities and faculty development.
UCB/CED’s undergraduate advisors welcome CCSF students to work with them as early as possible to enhance their admittance opportunities. Rachel Klein is our key contact who will advocate for CCSF transfer students.
There are 16 UCB/CED ambassadors under the direction of Omar Ramirez, who can introduce CCSF students to the Berkeley experience.
o Southern California Institute of Architecture (SCI-Arc) During this 2013 Fall Semester, Kirstie Rothauge, Director of Recruitment and Outreach,
again informed our students of the opportunities to continue their architectural education at SCI-Arc.
As a result of this, we will enter into a discussion with John Enright, their undergraduate Chair, to work towards an articulation agreement that lays out a clear path for transfer.
Kirstie Rothauge will also provide statistics and other data related to our CCSF transfer students: those that have applied over the years, those who have been admitted, and those who accepted; and the success rates of those CCSF alumni who sought their B.Arch degree from SCI-Arc.
The most significant issue undermining successful transfers from CCSF to SCI-Arc is the cost of a SCI-Arc education, currently $18,650 per semester. The B.Arch degree is achieved after successfully completing a 5-year program.
13
o Boston Architectural College (BAC) During this 2013 Fall Semester, Erin Paullin, BAC Enrollment Counselor, and Meredith
Spinnato, Associate Director of Admissions, again informed our students of the opportunities to continue their architectural education at BAC
What was a surprise is that CCSF student work was comparable if not exceeded the quality of that presented by BAC. This was noted and affirmed by BAC representatives who viewed our student work displayed throughout the Department.
o Alignment with the College Mission: These interchanges and sharing of student work at the university and college levels validated the high quality of architectural education provided to our students in the Architecture Department, fulfilling the College Mission related to “high quality of instruction”, “successful learning”, “inclusive” and “diverse” communities.
4. Summarize overall departmental/program improvements implemented, in progress, or under consideration as a result of the assessment of learning, service, and/or administrative unit outcomes. (Be sure to reference the data/reports that underlie these new directions.)
• Implemented: see directly above.
• In Progress o Course revisions and new course outlines submitted for Technical Review and Curriculum
Committee approval for Fall 2013 and course offering Spring 2014
o Architecture Program ARCH 22A, Delineation and Rendering, revision ARCH 31B, History of Architecture, revision ARCH 32, Bay Region Architectural History, revision ARCH 214, Architectural Computer Aided Drawing 1, new course to replace ARCH 52A,
Architectural CADD
o Building Information Modeling: No changes, but track how students respond to BIM 120, Revit for Architecture I, and BIM 121, Revit for Architecture II as a sequence of courses that was first introduced this fall 2013 semester.
We initially offered two sections of BIM 121, one at the Ocean Campus and the other at the Chinatown/North Beach Center (CNB). The latter was cancelled because of low enrollment. We suspect that this issue was the product of not only offering this sequence for the first time, but also due to the location, where transportation and parking are more problematic.
For the Spring 2014 semester, we are utilizing Perkins funding for three sections of BIM courses, two sections of BIM 120 (the prerequisite for BIM 121) and one section of BIM 121. Perkins funding also provided the requisite licenses to run Revit for Architecture on our workstations at the CNB computer classroom, currently under utilized because of low enrollment issues.
o Construction Management Program: The alliance between the CM Program and MHH will solidify as measures are developed
and implemented to improve the enrollment of MHH’s students in future semesters. In the past two years, the CM Mixer that brought students together with professionals was
held in the fall semester. Because of the unusual workload of the Department this Fall 2013, this event will be held in the Spring 2014.
o Interior Design Program INTD 100, Introduction to Residential Interior Design, new course to replace ARCH 18B,
Residential Interior Design
o New Part Time Faculty Hires from Part Time Pool Guillermo Luzardo, scheduled for assignment to CM 244, Construction Scheduling Sp’14
o Building Information Modeling Curriculum Design, A Collaborative Proposal between Architecture
and Engineering Departments: a proposal for Perkins funding ($18,600) of a new professional training curriculum for Building Information Modeling for incumbent works in the Architecture, Engineering, and Construction (AEC) industry. The proposal includes the development of
14
outcomes, content and outlines for BIM certificates with industry partner, Titan AEC and the CCSF Continuing Education Department. Submitted in Spring 2013. Unfortunately, this did not come to fruition as Titan AEC lost interest. Nevertheless, industry reliance on BIM necessitates that we revisit this as opportunities arise.
• Under Consideration
o A search for “CCSF Architecture Department” yielded very little in terms of getting the word out about the value of our Department and its programs to the world outside of City College. While we have focused on providing a world-class education for our students’ first two years of an architectural, interior design, and construction management education, we need to do more to educate the wider community of the educational values found here in our Department. Hearsay, personal testimony, and informal validation from the local academic and professional communities has worth, but is not enough in this increasingly competitive educational environment. Currently, we are not on anyone’s radar nor do we have an Internet presence that informs prospective students of our worth. Here is a sampling of what was found on the Internet:
On StateUniversity.com, which provides a degree matching service to prospective students, does not even list architecture and construction management in their “Area of Interest” and “Concentration”. “Interior Design” is listed under “Arts and Humanities”, but nothing that will steer a student to our Department.
On bigfuture.collegeboard.org, there is little information beyond generalities about our programs that could distinguish our offerings from others.
On the architecture-colleges.com/California website, we did not make the list of the top 25 schools that included other community colleges such as Orange Coast College (no.12), Norco College (no.13), El Camino Community College District (no.14), Modesto Junior College (no.15), College of the Sequoias (no.16), East Los Angeles College (no.17), Mt. San Antonio College (no.18), Golden West College (no.19), Southwestern College (no.20), Long Beach City College (no.21), Sierra College (no.22), Chaffey College (no.23, cuesta College (no.24), and Cosumnes River College (no.25). On this same website, CCSF Architecture Programs’ 2013 ranking is #46 for architecture schools in California; #95 in The West; and #416 in the USA.
On the American School Search website (http://www.american-school-search.com/colleges/architecture/california), we are rated 2-1/2 stars out of 5 followed by this description: “2 architecture majors. Associate’s degrees are offered. Inexpensive tuition. Approximately 34,600 students are enrolled. Relatively safe campus.”
On the Match College.com website, the only “Specialized Programs & Accreditations listed are for Dental Assistant Program, Radiology Technician Program, and Radiation Therapist Program. Architecture is listed with all “Programs Offered” with no differentiation provided.
On the California Architects Board – Community Colleges with Architecture Programs, a click on CCSF’s Architecture Department takes the prospective student to our Department website.
Certainly, this sampling of our website presence or lack of brings up the questions of who and why posts these rankings.
o Promoting and publicizing: The student successes in our Department are compelling, especially when the personal stories are told; and reflect the integrity of our faculty, programs, and course offerings. We need to research our media options to tell our story, whether through newspaper articles, radio features, established architecture and design websites, or through documentary videos. This story told on a personal level through following representative individual students as they take a semester’s journey can put the best face on the magic of life changing experiences that are given birth here in our Department. See Samuel Mockbee’s Rural Studio website (associated with Auburn University, School of Architecture, Planning and Landscape Architecture) as an example: http://samuelmockbee.net/more-info-resources/
o Course revisions and Catalog deletions to be developed and submitted for Technical Review and Curriculum approval for Spring 2014 and course and Catalog offerings for Fall 2014
o Architecture Program: Curriculum Changes ARCH 31A, History of Architecture, revision ARCH 48, Introduction to Architecture, Construction and Design Related Professions (1
unit), delete (replaced by ARCH 100, see above)
15
ARCH 50, Construction Drawings (3 units), delete (replaced by BIM 121, see above) ARCH 52A, delete (to be replaced by ARCH 214, see item above) ARCH 99, Materials and Fabrication Shop (1 unit), delete if no shop facilities and shop
manager are funded and implemented Create a new course that addresses sustainability Create a new course in Rhinoceros, the modeling application of choice at UCB/CED (our
main transfer institution). Preceding this, faculty must be trained. Rhinoceros will be integrated into all design studio courses, ARCH 101, 102, 103; and INTD 100 and 102. Rhinoceros is particularly adept in working with digital fabrication. Other community colleges with an architecture program already offer courses in this application (Laney College and Diablo Valley College)
Research the viability of incorporating digital fabrication into our Architecture and Interior Design curricula. Diablo Valley College already has a laser cutter for student use in their architecture department.
Establish closer ties to California College of the Arts (CCA), to where a significant number of our students transfer. We need to develop a clearer transfer path through an Articulation Agreement and establish portfolio review criteria and protocols so that our students are accurately placed within their 5-year B.Arch program.
o Building Information Modeling Revit for Architecture training for 2-3 faculty members with instruction on how to integrate
other relevant AutoDesk applications such as Ecotect Sustainable Building Design Software, which integrates with Revit for Architecture.
We need to develop ways in which to build student demand for the CNB computer lab. Our vision is to market our BIM courses to working professionals, which we will offer during the evenings and/or Saturday’s. We also need to determine what are the issues that must be resolved in order to bring working professionals into our BIM courses.
o Construction Management Program: no changes
o Interior Design Program Delete the following from the Catalog
• ARCH 18B, Residential Interior Design (3 units), delete (to be replaced by INTD 100, see above)
• ARCH 30B, Professional Practice/Interior Design (3 units), delete (replaced by INTD 102, see above)
Develop a list of courses for the Interior Design Major (Total Units: 37 units, formerly 33) to replace the existing one in the Catalog that does not fully serve INTD students:
• First Semester (subtotal 8 units, formerly 5 units) o ARCH 100, Introduction to Architecture and Design, 2 units, Lec, Existing
• Second Semester (subtotal 7 units, formerly 7 units) o INTD 100, Intro to Residential Interior Design, 4 units, L/L, New for Spring
2014 o INTD 138, Global History of Interior Design, 3 units, Lec, Existing Course
• Third Semester (subtotal 13 units, formerly 12 units) o INTD 101, Interior Design for Commercial Work I, 4 units, L/L, Future
course o INTD 124, Interior Building Materials & Systems, 3 units, Lec, Existing
course o ARCH 22A, Delineation & Rendering, 3 units, L/L, Existing course o ARCH 214, Architectural Computer Aided Drawing, 3 units, L/L, New
Course for Spring 2014 replacing ARCH 52A • Fourth Semester (subtotal 9 units, formerly 9 units)
o INTD 102, Interior Design for Commercial Work II, 4 units, L/L, Existing course
o INTD 160, Interior Design – Professional Practice, 3 units Lec, Future Course
o ARCH 29B, Freehand Drawing, 2 units, L/L, Existing Course
16
Develop a two-year Interior Design Certificate to satisfy the educational requirement associated with the Certified Interior Designer (CID) requirements
Work with transfer institutions with Interior Design programs (e.g. San Jose State, San Francisco State University, California College of the Arts, Academy of Art University, etc.) to establish articulation agreements.
o Architecture Program: Other Considerations Faculty search for an architectural history professor to replace Carl Book, who is soon to
retire and currently teaches ARCH 32, Bay Region Architectural History and ARCH 134, History and Theory of Modern Architecture.
Revise Course Outlines for ARCH 100, 101, 102, and 103 to focus on developing requisite soft skills to boost our retention rates. See persistence related data above.
o Construction Management Program: Other Considerations: Olallo Fernandez, our CM coordinator, will spend his sabbatical leave during Spring 2014 researching program needs, bridges to both the CM industry and CSU-Eastbay.
o Interior Design Program: Other Considerations The Interior Design event during Spring 2013 indicated that students desire more program
courses that prepare them to enter the profession; and a pathway to the profession via workforce development.
The A.S. Degree in Interior Design needs to be revised to support students who wish to enter the profession upon the completion of the program. Certificates of Achievement and short-term courses may be considered as other ways of supporting these students who want to minimize the time it takes to achieve specific skill sets. More research in this area is needed.
o Department Considerations: The Department is experiencing a greater number of veterans returning to pursue their
education and who are taking many of our courses. Although there is some formal support for them, their financial aid is delayed and is not received at the start of the semester. Consequently, they are at a disadvantage because they cannot afford textbooks, supplies, and equipment necessary to promote their academic successes. Other related issues, e.g. housing accommodations and restrictions imposed on them, also undermine their learning and ability to work on assignments. The Department would like to work with existing College resources to support these students better.
This Fall 2013, we funded a new computer lab at the Chinatown Center and scheduled a section of BIM 121 in this facility, but had to cancel it because of low enrollment. The Department needs to find viable ways to utilize this resource. Parking and public transportation issues make this Center location less desirable than the Ocean Campus. We also need to do more outreach and promotion to attract working professionals to this course. Saturday scheduling for BIM 120 and/or BIM 121, Revit for Architecture I & II are a possibility. Another option is to resume our Revit workshops for professionals.
5. Summarize your department’s progress to date on the major planning objectives identified in the last program review (excluding progress already cited in #4). Note: 2012 Program Review objectives are italicized:
1. Transfer Data Collection/Organization Transfer Data Collection and Organization became a little more manageable with the cooperation and assistance of Rachel Klein, UCB/CED Architecture Major Advisor, who provided the UCB/CED transfer data for 2011-2012, which confirmed our collected data based on anecdotal student and faculty reporting, at least for our primary and most significant transfer institution based on a long tradition of transfers from CCSF to UCB. Kirstie Rothauge, Director of Recruitment and Outreach at SCI-Arc provided additional transfer data. Collecting transfer data and tracking the success of our students for all other transfer institutions remains problematic and unreliable. This really needs to be addressed at an institutional level and not on a departmental basis. Accurate transfer data is essential to the entire College in this age of assessment. We are hoping that when the dust settles after all accreditation issues are resolved that CCSF
17
will then develop and implement an accurate and efficient tracking system. This is paramount when all educational institutions are expected to demonstrate their value and efficacy to their constituencies.
a. Fall 2013 Transfers i. UCB/CED: 11 students admitted & transferred; 1 student admitted but delayed transfer
ii. UCLA (1 student admitted but did not accept; 3 students not admitted) 1. Gregory “Grisha” Carmago: not admitted 2. Wai Kit “Raymond” Ching: not admitted 3. Steven Pratama: admitted, but did not accept 4. Aline Therese Tanielian: not admitted
iii. UCD (1 student admitted, but did not accept) 1. Wai Kit “Raymond” Ching: admitted but did not accept
iv. CCA (1 student admitted, but did not accept) 1. Gregory “Grisha” Carmago: admitted, awarded scholarship, but did not accept
v. California State Polytechnic University-San Luis Obispo 1. Jenny Yu: not admitted
vi. University of Southern California 1. Aline Therese Tanielian: admitted, but did not accept 2. Ansh Vakil: admitted & accepted
vii. Woodbury University 1. Ansh Vakil: admitted but did not accept
viii. Southern California Institute of Architecture ( B.Arch: 6 applicants, 0 accepted, 0 enrolled; M.Arch I: 2 applicants, 2 accepted, 0 enrolled)
ix. Parsons 1. Ansh Vakil: admitted but did not accept
x. Pratt (1 student admitted but did not accept) 1. Gregory “Grisha” Carmago: admitted with scholarship, but did not accept
xi. University of Pennsylvania – School of Design 1. Erik Stratmeyer: admitted but did not accept (M.Arch I)
xii. University of Michigan (1 student admitted & transferred) 1. Wai Kit “Raymond” Ching: admitted & accepted
xiii. Boston Architectural College 1. Ansh Vakil: admitted but did not accept
b. Fall 2012 Transfers
i. UCB/CED (11 students admitted & accepted) 1. Yue Chen 2. Allan Dombrowski 3. Kirklin Lee 4. Dan Lu 5. Yuliya Kukosh 6. Lindsay Peterson 7. Martin Smidak 8. Arian Tajik 9. Arturo Uribe 10. Ratidzo Venton 11. Raenear Espinosa Yap
18
ii. Southern California Institute of Architecture ( B.Arch: 4 applicants, 4 accepted, 2 enrolled; M.Arch I: 2 applicants, 1 accepted, 1 enrolled)
1. Jacky Hoang 2. Dan Lu 3. Samantha Labrie, M.Arch I
c. Fall 2011 Transfers
i. UCB/CED (8 students admitted & accepted) 1. Sarah Brooke Clarke 2. Lauren Espinoza 3. Sandro Flores 4. Yixiang Lee 5. Justin Pitts 6. Zeynep Reuben 7. Elitsa Shepherd 8. Kaplan Stanford
ii. Southern California Institute of Architecture ( B.Arch:1 applicant, 1 accepted, 0 enrolled; M.Arch I: 4 applicants, 4 accepted, 1 enrolled)
1. Jennifer Wu, M.Arch I 2. CCSF transfers enrolled at SCI-Arc in previous years:
a. B.Arch i. Theodore Digirolamo 2009 ii. Nick Aho 2008 iii. Cristen Dawson 2008 iv. Jonathan Isbell 2007 v. Alexander Belson 2007 vi. Carlos Rodriguez 2007 vii. Cheryl Cheu 2002 viii. Casey Hughes 2000 ix. Fernando Arias 2000
b. M.Arch I i. Ross Ferrari 2007 ii. Jessica Rivera 2004 iii. Alexander Pettas 2003 iv. Kate Feiertag 2002 v. Andrew Pribuss 2001
2. Retention Strategies for First Year courses for all three programs
a. For architecture and interior design majors, the first semester design studio course is a provocative and challenging learning environment indeed! For many, it is drastically foreign as compared to traditional ones experienced by students because of the rigor and expectations essential to promoting critical creative and innovative design thinking and making. For this reason, ARCH 101, Architectural Design I for both majors is a semester of acclimation. Here are key strategies employed to promote retention that are all process centered and with the acknowledgement that changes occur over time and effort:
i. Establish the value of architectural and interior design through not only exposing students to the exemplary work of professionals, but also that of past students and student work from transfer institutions. Immerse students in a super saturated environment filled with stellar and inspiring work. Get students out of their own “hoods” to see the vast world of possibilities around them to promote their dreams and realizations of what is possible.
ii. Establish the value of daily and sustained practice necessary to develop the myriad of new connections within the multitude of areas in the brain, citing research findings in neuroscience, cognitive science, and other related disciplines. If students understand how their brains and minds work, they can understand why we guide their learning in the ways that we do.
iii. Establish the value of what the student already knows and has experienced through the recognition of patterns, metaphors, and analogies. What seems vastly different has a resemblance to what is familiar in the student’s world. We also understand that relating concepts to everyday phenomena and personal experience is sometimes ineffective.
19
Beginning students have limitations on what is observable and experienced (Ray Land, “Thresholds Are Troublesome”, Tomorrow’s Professor eNewsletter #1287)
iv. Listen and observe carefully what each student says and produces. The instructor first identifies strengths and emerging strengths. Both the instructor and fellow students provide the budding designer with ways in which their work can be promoted over an evolution of iterative stages. Unique and creative work does not spontaneously emerge during the initial outpouring of effort, but develops as the student gains continuous insights through daily critiques.
v. The most important act for students is to do and it is OK for mistakes to be made. Perfection is an ideal to chase but is rarely accomplished. Start and produce something tangible, even if it is only based on fragments of thought. In time and with sustained and focused efforts, these fragments will coalesce into something unified, relevant, credible, and even compelling. Quantity of work leads to quality of work and successful learning outcomes.
vi. Have students document their work through Learning Portfolios, which chronicles everything that the student has produced throughout the semester. Require written reflections that that address their learning process and assess the efficacy of their activities. The Learning Portfolio provides the student with a tangible measurement of their accomplishments.
vii. Guide students towards their development of an intrinsic drive to continuously excel in curiosity, imagination, research, exploration, and the production of beautiful work. Validate student activity towards this end by acknowledging the constructive transformations that have taken place and the commensurate joy that accompanies fruitful and sustained hard work. Provide students with plenty of examples of how individuals who have embraced this approach to life have produced remarkable work and live a life of purpose, autonomy, and mastery (Daniel Pink).
viii. Encourage students to develop a healthy sense of stewardship, first for their fellow classmates, and then for a widening population and environment. Provide diverse opportunities for students to engage one another and develop collaboration skills while respecting differences, which are often opportunities. If students have a solid support system consisting of instructors and fellow students, their persistence to succeed will be elevated.
ix. Guide students towards the ability to examine generalities and when relevant, work towards specificities. It is these specificities that provides both a tangible framework that directs academic activity and establishes a means to assess learning successes.
x. Guide students towards a multi-disciplinary approach in which knowledge and experiences from seemingly unrelated disciplines informs design thinking to create what Csikszentmihályi calls “flow”. Identify areas to which each student already gravitates and demonstrate its relevance to the problem at hand. Introduce means, methods, and principles related to such areas as creative writing, sports, performance arts, the sciences, etc. and demonstrate their successful applications to architecture and interior design. Point out the relationships between the various aspects of the design professional does not solely focus on the primacy of design, but includes technical expertise, management, marketing, representation and communication skills. Students who do not demonstrate the promise of a designer can also find value and worth in other related areas.
xi. Clearly articulate learning expectations and assessment criteria for all student work. Provide checklists to students that they can use to measure and assess their progress. Identify milestone tasks and explain their relationship to each other that results in a series of learning successes. Help students analyze a problem for comprehension and then track student work through daily critiques to measure how they are satisfying the problem requirements and expectations. Eventually, have students demonstrate that they can do this for themselves through progressive “weaning”.
xii. Provide students with not only opportunities to succeed, but also to fail. In this way, students have tangible evidence of the impact of their thoughts and actions. In time, students will respond and change to promote their learning successes.
xiii. Foster an environment of inquiry and critical thinking in which everything may be questioned and examined for relevance, accuracy, and opportunity.
xiv. Provide a multitude of opportunities for the student to develop abstract and conceptual thinking.
xv. Acknowledge that students often supplant questions asked by the instructor with different questions that are easier to answer by pointing out the unconscious response and
20
refocusing on the salient aspects of the question to extract relevant and credible aspects of the answer until a complete appropriate response emerges.
xvi. Create a heightened sense of wonder and awe through instructor lead demonstrations, modeling, and inspiring examples. Have students provide the same for others with the knowledge that learning successes are promoted best when the student maintains a high level of inspiration and ownership of their work.
b. CM majors are very different from our ARCH and INTD students as identified in a Memorandum received in July 2013 regarding “Educational Achievement in the Construction Management Program” by Steven Spurling and requested by our Department.
i. The majority of students are White, Asian, and Latino ii. 75% of our CM students are between the ages of 25 and 40 iii. Most did not grow up in San Francisco iv. More than 80% are not basic skills students; and less than 20% are v. 33% have a Bachelor’s Degree (presumably in another discipline other than CM) vi. 35% have graduated from high school vii. More than 50% are seeking a 4-year CM undergraduate degree viii. 33% are economically disadvantaged and are Board of Governors Fee Waiver (BOG)
recipients. ix. Persistence issues are greatest during and after the first course x. Outside of this research, but from our experience and surveys, most of our CM students
are either incumbent workers in the construction field or unemployed; all are seeking better employment opportunities through education.
xi. For CM students, we implemented the following retention strategies for First Year CM Courses:
1. In forming students of the opportunities, challenges, culture and values of the Construction Management industry. This is done through formal class lectures, guest speakers, site visits and CM program events such as our CM Mixer in which industry representatives, faculty, and students meet one another in a round table venue.
2. Advising students about the CM Programs offered at CCSF. First-year classes include regular discussions and lectures regarding program offerings and requirements. Handouts listing program requirements are distributed to all students on a regular basis.
3. CM Program class offerings are published in a handout, which is distributed to current students in class, as well as to student on the e-mail list.
4. E-mail addresses of students are collected and maintained. On a periodic basis, information regarding class offerings, program events and program changes are sent to students on the mailing list.
5. Individual student advising is conducted through face-to-face meetings as well as telephone and e-mail communications.
6. Future plans include the establishment of an internship program
3. Career Technical Education (CTE): Identify Data that informs CTE offerings and demand
a. The CTE Core Indicators are as follows: i. Technical Skill Attainment ii. Completion of a CTE credential, certificate or degree iii. Persistence in higher education including transfer for further instruction iv. Employment or placement in military service or apprenticeship programs v. Non traditional Participation in a CTE training area in which fewer than 25% of the
employees in that field are of the student’s gender vi. Nontraditional Completion of a CTE training arfea in which fewer than 25% of the
employees in that area are of the student’s gender.
b. Department Demographics (from DSS and based on those students taking architecture courses only over a period of 4 semesters, Fall 2011 to Spring 2013)
i. Ethnicities 1. African American / Non Hispanic
a. Fall 2011: 5.69%
21
b. Spring 2013: 7.42% 2. American Indian / Alaskan Native
a. Fall 2011: 1.42% b. Spring 2013: 1.48%
3. Asian a. Fall 2011: 42.18% b. Spring 2013: 37.12%
4. Hispanic / Latino a. Fall 2011: 35.54% b. Spring 2013: 31.18%
5. Filipino a. Fall 2011: 10.90% b. Spring 2013: 5.94%
6. Southeast Asian a. Fall 2011: No data b. Spring 2013: 1.98%
7. White Non Hispanic a. Fall 2011: 2.84% b. Spring 2013: 2.97%
8. Unknown / No Response a. Fall 2011: 0.95% b. Spring 2013: 11.88%
ii. Age Groups: over half of our students served are between 20 – 29 years of age; less than
a quarter are between 30 – 39 years of age; a little less than 10% are age 50 or older.
iii. Gender 1. Male
a. Fall 2011: 54.03% b. Spring 2013: 57.92%
2. Female a. Fall 2011: 45.02% b. Spring 2013: 41.58%
iv. Degree Goals (percentage totals are greater than 100% and may be accounted for by
students pursuing both an A.S. and B.A degrees) 1. Associates Degree
a. Fall 2011: 19% b. Spring 2013: 23%
2. BA or higher a. Fall 2011: 92.89% b. Spring 2013: 95.05%
c. ARCH: Most architecture majors include the design studio courses, ARCH 101, 102, and 103 as
an integral part of their education in preparation for transfer to a 4- or 5-year transfer institution’s architecture program. For this reason, we are first looking at the numbers and percentages ∆) of cohorts who made their way through this series through Census Enrollment (Census) to the End of Term Enrollment (End). This series of courses replaced our former ARCH 21, 24, and 25 design studio courses in the fall semester of 2011; and since their have been substantial changes, we are only looking at two years, four semesters of data gleaned from DSS. The data is as follows:
Table 4: Architecture Design Studio Sequence: Enrollment Changes from Census to End of the Semester Semester ARCH 101 ARCH 102 ARCH 103 Spring Only Census End ∆ Census End ∆ Census End ∆ F 2011 46 29 63% 28 22 79% Sp 2012 43 32 74% 22 20 91% 27 25 93% F 2012 42 31 74% 23 23 100% Sp 2013 58 49 84% 18 17 94% 32 30 94%
• The exact number of students enrolled in any semester is problematic to ascertain. However, if we look at the total number of students in any semester and divide this by the average number
22
of courses taken, we can arrive at an approximate number. This total can be compared to the total number of students who enroll in design studio courses. The breakdown is as follows:
o Fall 2011: average number of courses taken is 1.55; total number of students enrolled is 425; total students is 425/1.55 = 274; percentage of students taking ARCH 101 at Census is 17%; Percentage of students persisting to next term: 74%
o Spring 2012: average number of courses taken is 1.65; total number of students enrolled is 373; total students is 373/1.65 = 226; percentage of students taking ARCH 101 at Census is 19%; Percentage of students persisting to next term: 64%
o Fall 2012: average number of courses taken is 1.55; total number of students enrolled is 331; total students is 331/1.55 = 213; percentage of students taking ARCH 101 at Census is 20%; Percentage of students persisting to next term: 77%
o Spring 2013: average number of courses taken is 1.71; total number of students enrolled is 373; total students is 373/1.71 = 218; percentage of students taking ARCH 101 at Census is 27%; Percentage of students persisting to next term: 26%
o Analysis: The percentage of total students taking architecture courses (includes ARCH,
CM, and INTD majors) enrolled in ARCH 101 is increasing over the semesters studied, from 17%, 19%, 20%, to 27%. In these four semesters, there was an increase of 158%. Clearly there is a growing demand for ARCH 101.
There is an average of 21% of total students taking architecture courses enrolling in ARCH 101, or a little more than one-fifth of our total student population. If we can increase this number of students enrolling in ARCH 101 and support this cohort of students through their successful completion of ARCH 103, we are more likely to increase the number of architecture transfer students.
The number of students enrolled in ARCH 101 until the End of Semester continues to increase (63%, 74%, 74%, and 84%). This is accompanied by an increase in numbers of students enrolled to the end of the semester (29, 32, 31, and 49). Although not all students pass the course, the majority does. This increases the demand for ARCH 102, the next design studio course. In addition, retention rates for this course are improving. Apparently, retention strategies employed seem to be working.
There is a puzzling drop in the number of students enrolled in ARCH 102 at Census (28,22,23 and 18), although the percentage of students who remain enrolled until the end of the semester is better than that of ARCH 101. This is expected since the intent of ARCH 101 is to prepare students for the increased academic rigor of ARCH 102.
If we look at the average percentage change from census until the end of the semester for ARCH 102 and 103, there is a slight improvement, but not a significant one (ARCH 102: 91%; and ARCH 103: 93.5%). This indicates that once students successfully complete ARCH 101, they are sufficiently prepared to succeed in subsequent studios.
If we add up the total number of students at Census for each of the design studio courses, we can ascertain the approximate rate of attrition as students move through the three-course sequence. Attrition is expected, but if we can slow down this rate, the probability of students successfully transferring to a 4- or 5-year architecture program can be elevated. Currently, the attrition rate between each set of two studios (ARCH 101 to ARCH 102; and ARCH 102 to 103) is identical at 35% (65% persistence rate). We can use this as one measure to assess the future efficacy of our retention strategies.
. d. CM: From Steve Spurling’s “Educational Achievement in the Construction Management Program”
which tracked CM students who took a first CM course in the Fall 2009 to Spring 2011; and tracks their progress through Spring 2013, also cited above:
i. Number and percent of students who met the requirements for a 15-18 unit Core Skills Certificate: 330 (out of a cohort of 472); 70 %
ii. Number and percent of students who met the requirements for a 30 unit Advanced Skills Certificate: 253 (out of a cohort of 350); 72%
iii. Number and percent of students who met the requirements for an A.S. Construction Management Degree: 60 (out of a cohort of 74); 81%
iv. Number of students who received an A.S.- Construction Management (Sp’10-Sp’13): 2
23
v. Number of students who received an Advanced Skills Certificate (Sp’10-Sp’13): 10 vi. Number of students who received a Basic Skills Certificate (Sp’10-Sp’13): 28 vii. Number and percent of students who transfer to another two-year institution or to a 4-year
institution 1. Transfer to another two-year institution: 40 (out of a cohort of 239 students); 17% 2. Transfer to a 4-year institution: 15 (out of a cohort of 40): 38% (none of which
received a degree or certificate in CM)
e. INTD: Gathering significant data for analysis is difficult at this point in time when this program is undergoing great change in order to develop one that is no longer subsumed by and in the shadows of the architecture program. We are working towards developing courses that are specifically designed for interior design majors. As a benchmark to assess the efficacy of this program as we work towards a full implementation of our vision, the following looks cumulatively at a period between Spring 2009 and 2013 (5 semesters total) when INTD courses were launched; and at numbers of students, their educational goals (needs) and their related success rates across INTD 102, Interior Design Studio I; 124, Interior Building Materials & Systems; and 138, Global History of Interior Design Table 5: Breakdown of Interior Design Students per Semester and Their Educational Goals Semester Number of
Students Educational Goals/Success Rate % 4-yr Degree 2-yr
Degree Other Career Related
Undecided/No Response
Spring 2009 21 7/57.14% 4/75% 5/50% 5/50% Spring 2010 31 20/64.71% 5/80% 2/100% 4/50% Spring 2011 25 15/53.85% 3/100% 6/80% 1/100% Spring 2012 24 16/75% 6/80% 0 2/100% Spring 2013 22 12/63.64% 5/80% 3/66.67% 2/50% Totals 103 70 23 10 14 • Analysis:
o Over the five semesters since the beginning of the INTD series of courses began, which mark the beginning of an INTD Program, which gains independence from the ARCH Program, there is a steady demand, but not yet growing in numbers.
o The greatest success rate is correlated with those students who are pursuing a 2-year degree (A.S.-Interior Design). This may be attributed to the growing evidence that that the longer it takes to reach an educational goal, the less likely students will achieve that goal. Persistence conflicts with the growing probability of life challenges that threaten a focus on educational goals as the span of time lengthens.
o The greatest demand for the INTD Program is from students who wish to pursue a 4-year degree. This may be attributed to the students’ awareness that employment in the interior design marketplace dictates the minimum educational level of a BA, Interior Design.
• This next set of data looks at each semester from Spring 2009 to Spring 2013 and gender with their correlated success rates
Table 6: Gender Comparison of Success Rate Percentages in the Interior Design Student Population Semester No. of Females Success Rate % No. of Males Success Rate % Spring 2009 12 50% 9 62.5% Spring 2010 19 66.67% 12 70% Spring 2011 22 65% 3 100% Spring 2012 12 75% 12 81.82% Spring 2013 18 70.59% 4 50% Totals 83 40
• Analysis:
o The average ratio of Females to Males is approximately 2:1
24
o While males tended to succeed at higher rates through 2012 as compared to females, females continually made strides in success rates from one semester to another.
• The following table looks at ethnicities cumulatively served over the five-semester period studied, correlated success rates, and their percentages within the total population.
Table 7: Ethnicity and Success Rate Percentages for the Interior Design Student Population Ethnicity Number of
Students Success Rate % Percentage of Total
African American/Non Hispanic
10 50% 8%
American Indian/Alaskan Native
1 100% <1%
Asian 24 65.22% 20% Filipino 3 0% 2% Hispanic/Latino 31 75% 25% Pacific Islander 1 0% <1% SouthEast Asian 2 0% <2% Unknown/No Response 5 100% 4% White Non Hispanic 46 69.77% 37% Total 123
• Analysis:
o Clearly, White Non-Hispanic, Hispanic/Latino, and Asian groups make up the majority of our INTD student population, 37%, 25% and 20% respectively.
o Underserved populations include American Indian/Alaskan Native; Pacific Islander; SouthEast Asian; and Filipino groups. An interesting and disturbing correlation with these underserved (and disenfranchised) ethnic groups is that their success rate is 0%.
o Discounting the one American Indian/Alaskan student who succeeded is not a significant number; the Hispanic/Latino population has achieved the greatest success rate.
4. Redesign of Graphics sequence to further enhance digital training
The following is the final draft of a graphic sequence proposal, dated 8 March 2013:
a. ARCH 110: Design Representation & Media 1 (4 units, 2 hours lecture/8 hours lab) i. Students majoring in architecture and interior design examine, analyze and interpret the
messages behind diverse forms of visual representations; and are introduced to theories of representations and the use of visual tools and techniques, including freehand drawing and digital media to explore and communicate ideas related to the built and natural environments.
ii. Breakdown of activities: 1. Freehand: 33% 2. Digital, includes SketchUp, Rhino, and Creative Suite: 67%
b. ARCH 111: Design Modeling (4 units, 2 hours lecture/8 hours lab) i. Students majoring in architecture and interior design are guided through both physical and
virtual modeling techniques leading to the production of handcrafted and digital scaled design models. Digital applications include SketchUp and Rhino.
ii. Breakdown of activities: 1. Digital modeling: 75% 2. Physical modeling: 25%
c. ARCH 112: Design Representation & Media 2 (4 units, 2 hours lecture/8 hours lab, prerequisite: ARCH 110 )
i. As a capstone graphic course, architecture and interior design students are guided through the process of producing digital analyses and presentations that convey complexly layered visual information related to designed environments.
ii. Breakdown of activities: digital, including associated printing; includes SketchUp and Rhino, with Grasshopper plug-in; and Creative Suite: 100%
25
d. Our existing courses comprise our graphic sequence: i. ARCH 20, Orthographic Projection & Perspective ii. ARCH 22A, Delineation & Rendering iii. ARCH 29A & 29B Freehand Drawing iv. ARCH 52A, Architectural CADD v. ARCH 214, Architectural Computer Aided Drawing (a new course approved by the
Curriculum Committee on 13 Nov. 2013, and will replace ARCH 52A)
e. Issues to be resolved before implementation: i. Our existing graphic related courses introduce relatively separate knowledge, skills, and
experiences within the realm of graphic representation. The student must synthesize all of these various technical aspects into a purposeful whole by themselves through the provocations presented by our design studio sequence of courses (ARCH 101, 102, AND 103; INTD 100 and 102). The analogous situation is if students only have technical training to use a plethora of tools, but do not have the visions, the knowledge, and the experiences of how to apply them, these students will remain technicians only and they will be dependent on others to direct them.
ii. Our existing courses only address a diminishing set of the needs of both academia (transfer institutions) and the profession as digital technology continues to innovate and expand the possibilities of applications in the design, visual communication, and engineering realms of design practice. Unless we stay abreast of these changes, our students will increasingly be unprepared for what awaits them at the university and eventually in the professional environments that they seek.
iii. Our existing faculty members who currently teach our graphic related courses are all from a generation that preceded these technological changes. While they may have awareness, they certainly do not have the skills and knowledge to teach our proposed courses. Yet their existing skill sets, knowledge, and experience honed over long periods of time are valuable, almost as valuable as the high level of constructive and inspiring rapport that they continue to have with our students. We need to provide the requisite training and support to our colleagues so that they may continue to develop and be enriched. Then they can pass these opportunities on to our students to promote their successes.
iv. Currently, we employ up to ten faculty members who teach these five graphic related courses. When our existing courses are woven and integrated into three courses, we need to retain our human resources and satisfy the student demand. Finding the right number of sections of each of our proposed courses will be a challenge.
v. We do not have course outlines for these proposed courses. Until they are developed and approved as new permanent courses by the Curriculum Committee, we cannot offer them.
vi. Our current workstations have all the software applications identified in our proposal except for Rhinoceros and Grasshopper. We need to secure these licenses, renew them, install the software, and maintain the applications. Institutional funding do accomplish this is a prerequisite to implementation.
vii. Currently we have 34 workstations in two locations: Batmale 244 and 247. Our two large studios are not equipped for digital instruction. All of our classrooms need to have these digital resources in order to implement our proposal.
5. Train all relevant faculty in upgraded digital skills
Acknowledging the trends and developments taking place in university and related professional environments, which have embraced digital technology, our faculty members seriously are falling behind in their digital skills. This issue will be exacerbated once we implement our full vision of our graphic sequence, in which all courses are highly focused on digital tools.
• With our current graphic related, design studio, and construction management courses, it is essential that all those faculty involved receive the requisite training and follow-up training for the following applications:
o SketchUp o AutoCAD o Revit for Architecture o InDesign o PhotoShop o On-Screen Take-off
26
o Primavera o Prolog
• To date, this training has not been provided, mainly due to both budget and time constraints • To keep abreast of digital applications now used in academia and in the professions; and in
order to implement our revised graphic sequence of courses, the following training is required: o Rhinoceros o Grasshopper
• The Department Chair and other key full-time faculty need training to effectively use ARGOS
6. Offer INTD specific courses when possible
Since 2009, INTD specific courses have been added to the INTD Program.
• Courses added during the Fall 2013 Semester: INTD 100, Introduction to Residential Interior Design – replaces ARCH 18B, Residential Interior Design; Date of Approval: Dec 2013
• Courses currently offered are as follows o iNTD 102, Interior Design Studio, replaces ARCH 30A & ARCH 30B, Interior Design; Date
of Approval: Mar 2011 o INTD 124, Interior Building Materials and Systems, an interior design focused version of
ARCH 120, Fundamentals of Building Construction; Date of Approval: Feb 2008 o INTD 138, Global History of Interior Design, an interior design focused version of ARCH
31A and 31B, History of Architecture; Date of Approval: Mar 2008
7. Re-evaluate ARCH 34 and ARCH 32 as related to UCB transfer and to overall history/theory sequence. A PT faculty member, who intends to retire at the end of December 2013, is currently teaching these courses.
• ARCH 34, History of Modern Architecture, has been revised to ARCH 134, History and Theory of
Modern Architecture, Date of Approval: Apr 2013. Changes reflect the addition of theory and its impact on the evolution of architecture; and a global emphasis of architectural development that broadens the traditional one on Western Architecture.
• ARCH 32, Bay Region Architectural History, has been revised to include current trends and patterns with a heightened academic rigor. During the Fall 2013, this course was dropped in the UCB/CED articulation agreement with CCSF for Architecture Majors and supplanted with GEOG 4, Cultural Geography, which has a global emphasis on trends and patterns. Because of this, the Department needs to develop a course to replace GEOG 4 in our articulation agreement. This new course must look at global trends and patterns as well as the forces behind changes in architecture and urban design and planning as they impact societies.
• Prof. Carl Book, who teaches both of these courses is currently teaching ARCH 134 during this fall semester 2013; and has agreed to delay his retirement to teach the newly revised ARCH 32 this coming Spring 2014, after which he will definitely retire.
• The Department needs to conduct a faculty search to replace Prof. Book in the Spring 2014 • If the budget permits, ARCH 32 should be offered since it provides insights and explores the rich
architectural heritage of the Bay Region. Students who have this knowledge will gain a better understanding of how architecture is impacted by a multitude of forces that are both local and global in nature. However, if budget constraints do not permit this offering in addition to offering a future course that addresses UCB/CED’s adoption of GEOG 4, ARCH 32 should be replaced with the new course, if adopted into a future articulation agreement between the two institutions.
6. Assuming a status quo budget for your unit, indicate your department’s major planning objectives for next year (2014-2015). Include objectives that utilize status quo resources as well as objectives that do not require new resources.
• Department Wide Objectives o Build enrollment numbers for all three programs through active promotion and education to
overcome the precipitous drop experienced in Fall 2013 ARCH:
• Sustain and build the demand for ARCH 101; and assess against benchmarks identified in this Program Review
27
• Rebuild the demand for ARCH 102; and assess against benchmarks identified in this Program Review
• Sustain and build the demand for ARCH 103; and assess against benchmarks identified in this Program Review
• Reduce the 35% attrition rate between ARCH 101 to 102; and 102 to 103; and assess against benchmarks identified in this Program Review
CM: • Increase the number of Certificates achieved for Core and Advanced Skills; and
assess against benchmarks identified in this Program Review • Promote the value of achieving an undergraduate degree and the number of
transfers to a 4-year institution; and assess against benchmarks identified in this Program Review
• Continue to plan and then implement an internship program INTD:
• Build the student demand for the INTD Program; and assess against benchmarks identified in this Program Review
• Monitor the learning successes in INTD 100 and 102 • Develop certificate programs that focus on shorter term education to acquire
requisite interior design skills that promote employment opportunities • Build student awareness of the value of achieving a 4-year degree in Interior
Design o Continue to develop alliances with professional organizations, e.g. AIA, ASID, CMAA o Continue to develop alliances with transfer institutions, especially UCB/CED to increase the
number of transfers to both undergraduate and graduate programs o Continue to collect and organize data which tracks the efficacy of our Programs and supports our
resources o Maintain and renew our software licenses o Continue to integrate digital skills into our curriculum o Continue to develop a department culture that sustains the SLO and PLO process, leading to
continual refinements and enhancements in Student Successes. o Continue to build persistence rates for all student populations with an emphasis on promoting “soft
skills”. o Develop and implement ways to get the word out about the value of our Department to the outside
world o Coordinate and bring all College documents up to date, especially those reflected in the Catalog. o Continue to promote advising to promote the number of transfers to university or college programs
• Program Specific Objectives o ARCH:
Replace Architectural Historian: Implement the hiring process in the Spring 214 semester to replace Prof. Carl Book as our resident historian in the Fall 2014
New Course: Write a new course which targets GEOG 4 as a replacement in the UCB/CED and CCSF Articulation Agreement for Architecture
Develop ways to increase the demand for our computer lab in the Chinatown/North Beach Center
Continue to build student demand for our BIM courses from both traditional student and working professionals populations
o CM: Continue to develop the partnership between our CM Program and the Mission Hiring Hall;
the Construction Trades City Build Program; and CSU-Eastbay Develop ways to increase the demand for our computer lab in the Chinatown/North Beach
Center o INTD: Continue to build an effective Interior Design Program
7. If your department faced a reduction in your overall departmental budget for next year (2014-2015), indicate the changes that would be made to the delivery of courses and/or services to adjust to the new allocation. Given a reduction in overall departmental budget for the next academic year, our responses to the scenarios are as follows:
28
• Reduction in Full Time Equivalent Faculty (FTEF) budget o Reduce multiple section courses – Reductions will severely impact the vitality and viability of our
Programs ARCH 20, 4 sections currently offered Sp’14 ARCH 22A, 2 sections currently offered Sp’14 ARCH 29A, 3 sections currently offered Sp’14 ARCH 100, 2 sections currently offered Sp’14 ARCH 101, 2 sections currently offered Sp’14 ARCH 103, 2 sections currently offered Sp’14 BIM 120, 2 sections currently offered Sp’14 CM 100, 2 sections currently offered Sp’14
• Reduction in Supply Budget
o Contingency Funding from past Departmental Development activities will be utilized for all essential supplies
• Reduction in Perkins Funding for software license renewals o Will not impact licensing status as all licenses are funded through 2014 o BIM courses, if not funded will be eliminated. This would result in an elimination of faculty involved
with CTE training o Funding for BIM courses needs to be institutionalize sooner rather than later.
8. Use Excel template to respond to question 8 regarding resource allocation requests. Use Excel template at www.ccsf.edu/program_review Introduction: Our resource allocation requests are prioritized in two groups, those that are 1.) Absolutely necessary to maintain our operation and sustain it in the 2013-2014 academic year; and 2.) Essential to Meet Anticipated Student Needs within the Next Two Years. The following is a summary of the our Resource Allocation Requests in the Excel Format, which follows this section. Absolutely Necessary
1. Full time faculty with expertise in Interior Design (INTD): priority 1 as requested in Program Review Fall 2012; In Fall 2011, the Department submitted a request for consolidation. This request was initially approved, but subsequently because of budget cuts withdrawn.
a. Currently we have four full-time faculty members, all trained in architecture and/or construction management with expertise in these disciplines honed by many years of professional practice. None of these four have academic training or professional experience in interior design.
b. The interior design profession is distinguished from the architectural one in the following ways: i. Construction is non-load bearing; ii. Specification, purchasing, handling, and installation of fixtures, furnishings, and equipment
(FF&E); and office furniture systems; iii. Contractual relationships between client, showrooms, and contractors; iv. Works with specialized network of suppliers and contractors; v. Satisfies Building Code requirements specific to applications of materials and finishes; vi. Works with diverse interior design project types, e.g. Residential and multi-family housing,
space-planning, commercial, and institutional work vii. Satisfies commercial branding requirements viii. Knowledgeable in material and finish options ix. Knowledgeable in interior systems, including interior lighting, communications, and media x. Knowledgeable in art selection and installation
c. A complete Interior design program will have design, technology, history, and professional practice
courses. The following table reflects this future full implementation with associated FTE; and anticipates two sections of INTD 100, Introduction to Residential Interior Design based on past demand for ARCH 18A, no longer offered:
Table 8: FTEF Loads Related to Full Implementation of Proposed Interior Design Program
Course Description Units Student Contact Hours
FTE Existing (E), New (N), Future (F)
INTD 100 Intro to Resid. Interior Design
4 L/L 10 0.360 N
INTD 100 Intro to Resid. Interior Design
4 L/L 10 0.360 N
INTD 101 Interior Design for Commercial Work I
4 L/L 10 0.360 F
INTD 102 Interior Design for Commercial work II
4 L/L 10 0.360 E
INTD 124 Interior Building Materials & Systems
3 Lec 3 0.200 E
INTD 138 Global History of Interior Design
3 Lec 3 0.200 E
INTD 160 Interior Design Prof. Practice
3 Lec 3 0.200 F
2.040 Total
d. Currently among our Part-Time faculty, we only have 2 members (Amily Huang and Tony Wong) that are qualified to teach these 7 courses and sections. If these 7 courses are split between only these two instructors equally, their total instructional assignment per semester will be 2.040/2 = 1.020, far exceeding their Part-Time Allowable FTE of 0.67. Clearly, there is an immediate need for a full-time INTD faculty member. Without this member, the INTD Program cannot be fully developed and the needs of our INTD students cannot be fully satisfied.
e. In the Spring 2013 and Fall 2012, we used a student survey to ascertain the percentage of INTD students within our overall student populations. In these two semester’s worth of surveys, the percentage has grown from 14% to 23%. This represents a 64% increase in just one semester.
f. Although it is difficult to determine the exact number of students served by our Department, we can
approximate by deduction: i. In the Spring 2013 we have 74 students pursuing their Two-Year Degree or Vocational
Certificate; ii. We have 310 pursing their Four- or Five Year Degree; iii. The sum of these students is 384; iv. 23% of these or approximately 90 students are majoring in Interior Design.
g. To serve our growing number of students who expressed a need for their own INTD program
separate from that of architecture.
h. A full-time Interior Design faculty member will be responsible for not only promoting and refining our changing Interior Design Program, but also securing articulation agreements with transfer institutions.
i. Costs: One Full-time Faculty member + benefits, costs are determined by HR compensation
schedules. Cost can be mitigated through a consolidation process
j. Technology/Equipment needs: None
k. Supply needs: None
l. Facility needs: None
m. Units/Faculty FTEF needs: 15 units/1.0 FTEF
30
n. Links to Board (Special Trustee) Planning Priorities: BPP 4, 7
o. Links to Strategic Plan 2011-2016: SPAI through SPAV, SPVII through SPAXV; SPBI, SPBII, SPBIV, SPBVI through SPBIX; SPCII, SPCVII
p. Links to Institutional Accreditation Requirements: AS ii.A.1.a.
q. Link to Learning, Service, and/or Program Outcomes: Architecture Dept. Mission Statement:
Transfer to 4-year Interior Design programs; and requisite training to support entry to job market (CTE)
2. Institutionalize funding for current Perkins funded BIM courses, BIM 120, BIM 121, and ARCH 52A, soon to be ARCH 214, five sections total ($67,270). See above.
a. Links to Board (Special Trustee) Planning Priorities: BPP 9
b. Links to Strategic Plan 2011-2016: SP F.II; SP A.I, A.II, A.,IV, F.,IV
c. Links to Institutional Accreditation Requirements: AS II.A.1.bl, AS II.A.2b, AS II.A.2c, ASI II.A.3
d. Links to Learning, Service, and/or Program Outcomes: Architecture Dept. Mission Statement
related to providing our students with training and skills to support entry to job market (CTE), Course Outline SLOs: BIM 120.IV.A-I, BIM 121.IV.A-E
3. New Server to our existing server in Batmale 241 (serves both Architecture and Graphic Design
Departments) a. Gary Ching, our instructor for BIM 120 & 121 has informed the Department that the capacity of our
existing server will be reached before the end of the Fall 2013 semester. More capacity is needed.
b. Robert Lam, IT, informed the Department that we are working off a 7-year old server with only a capacity of 160 GB, which was originally only handling AutoCAD. We now have multiple applications (Revit for Architecture, AutoCAD, 3D Studio Max, Adobe Creative Suite, and SketchUp). Our server performs as both a licensing server and a file storage server. Clearly the present server cannot sustain the increasing demands put upon it with yearly upgrades to software, new software additions, and the storage of both student and faculty work. Robert Lam and Doug Re recommends a new server to replace our present one, which is two years beyond the ITS policy of replacing equipment every five years.
c. Current Server Status, 1030/13:
i. Used Space for Faculty and Student Files: 68.2GB ii. Free Space: 31.0GB iii. Space taken up by software applications: 60.8 GB
d. Batmale 241 is fully utilized from 9 am to 9 pm Monday’s through Thursday’s; and 9 am to 5 pm on
Friday’s.
e. Every semester, Batmale 241 serves ARCH 20, ARCH 52A, BIM 120, BIM 121, and MMSP 147. In the spring semester, ARCH 127 is added to this mix. This is a high use computer lab facility.
i. New Server with specifications in accordance with ITS standards ii. Increased speed and storage capacity iii. Estimated costs provided by Robert Lam and Doug Re on 11.8.13: $5,000
f. Links to Board (Special Trustee) Planning Priorities: BPP 8 & 9
g. Links to Strategic Plan 2011-2016: SP A.1, SP E.1.
h. Links to Technology Plan 2013-2015: TP A.
i. Links to Institutional Accreditation Requirements: AS II A.1.b, AS III.C.1.a
31
j. Links to Learning, Service, and/or Program Outcomes: Architecture Dept. Mission Statement related to providing our students with training and skills to support entry to job market (CTE), Course Outline SLOs: ARCH 20 IV.B., BIM 120 IV.B, BIM 121 IV.A, MMSP 147 IV.B; PSLO ARCH ILO.1.C.
4. 50 drafting stools to replace worn and broken ones in Batmale 245 & 246 studio classrooms that are now
presenting a safety hazard to students who spend a sustained time (3-6 hours) sitting and working. During the Fall 2013 semester, we have already had one student who fell off of her stool and another student and instructor who lost balance on existing stools that are broken.
a. Safeco AlphaBetter Stool, 35-1/2”H x 21”W x 19-1/4”D, Beige/Black, Office Depot Item # 802924 b. Steel frame construction for style and durability c. Seat height adjusts from 21” to 35-1/2” d. Tip-resistant stool comes with foot ring to help with balance and stability e. Weight capacity: 250 lbs f. Assembly required g. “GREENGUARD certified for reduced harsh chemical emissions and improved indoor air quality.” h. “Level 2 certified as sustainable based on multiple environmental and/or social attributes.” i. Free delivery j. $154.99 each k. Total Cost: 50 stools x $154.99 each = $7,719.50 + tax
l. Links to Board (Special Trustee) Planning Priorities: BPP 8
m. Links to Strategic Plan 2011-2016: SP C.VIII, SP C.X
n. Links to Institutional Accreditation Requirements: AS III.B.1b.
5. Two (2) PC Computer laptops: One for Department access to ARGOS for budgeting and enrollment management. Currently, we only have Mac’s, which cannot access ARGOS. The laptop will be portable and more versatile than a desktop model. To access ARGOS, it can be plugged in to the CCSF system. The second one for faculty use. Currently, faculty members continue to experience difficulty in accessing the Office 365 email on our single iMac Desktop. Estimated cost per ITS standards: $1,200 per unit (per “Cost Estimates for Commonly Requested IT Items”); total cost for two PC Laptops: $2,400
a. Links to Board (Special Trustee) Planning Priorities: BPP 6
b. Links to Strategic Plan 2011-2016: SP B.VI, SP E.VI
c. Links to Institutional Accreditation Requirements: AS III.C.1a & d.
6. Primavera P6 Professional Project Management (Oracle) licensing for all of our 34 workstations in Batmale 241 and 247: $500 annual membership as an Oracle Academy member (ref. https://academy.oracle.com/oa-web-busapps-description.html)
a. Links to Board (Special Trustee) Planning Priorities: BPP 9
b. Links to Strategic Plan 2011-2016: SP A.I, SP A.III.
c. Links to Institutional Accreditation Requirements: AS II.A.1.a, b, & c.; AS II.A.3-5; AS II.C.3.d.
d. Links to Learning, Service, and/or Program Outcomes: Architecture Dept. Mission Statement
related to providing our students with training and skills to support entry to job market (CTE), Course Outline SLOs: CM244.IV.A-D
7. New partitions: Our two studio classrooms, Batmale 245 & 246 do not have any acoustic isolation
between the two adjacent areas. Teaching and learning in these spaces are undermined by sound generated from one area and drifting over to the other. We need to acoustically separate these two rooms. With each semester and with our expanding use of multi-media for student presentations and delivery of
32
instructional material, the sound transmission into adjacent open studio classrooms is increasing to the point of being disruptive for ongoing activities in neighboring learning environments.
a. New partition at south entry to Balmale 245, oriented north-south approximately 11’-0”W x 8’H aligning with existing suspended partition and abutting into existing partition where the white board is mounted and existing concrete column. Metal stud framed with 5/8” type X gypsum board on both sides, faced with Homasote Fiber Board with metal trim at top and bottom edge for a pin-up surface on both sides, acoustic insulation in interstitial spaces between studs. Paint white to match existing wall surfaces.
b. New partition at north exit to Batmale 245, oriented west-east, approximately 6’-0”W x 10’-0”W aligning with existing storefront corner frame and existing concrete column and abutting existing concrete ceiling structure. Acoustic insulation in interstitial spaces between studs. Metal stud framed with 5/8” type X gypsum board on both sides. Paint white to match existing wall surfaces.
c. Resilient baseboard, coved, 4” high, black at both sides of new partitions, approximately 35’-0” in total length; to match existing baseboard.
d. Two sets of 6’-0”W x 7’0”H x 1-3/4”D solid core double doors with wired glazed openings for view windows, 20 minute rating, pre-hung with UL 1 hour rated steel door frame ; black to match existing frames, 3 sets of hinges each, stained to match existing doors within the Department.
e. Two sets of fire exit hardware on interior side with handicap accessible levers and key locks on side of egress out of Batmale 245, Schlage or equal to match existing hardware, keyed to key #1063
f. Two sets of right side and two sets of left side fire door coordinators, UL rated, Schlage or equal, oil-rubbed finish.
g. Two sets of floor stops, Schlage or equal, oil-rubbed finish. h. Approximate cost installed: $15,000 (assumes one week to complete work with two union workers)
i. Links to Board (Special Trustee) Planning Priorities: BPP 8
j. Links to Strategic Plan 2011-2016: SP C.V; SPC.X.
k. Links to Institutional Accreditation Requirements: AS III.B.1.a. & b.
8. Departmental Technical Support: currently, a full-time faculty member attends to all the needs, support,
and maintenance of our two computer labs, but the responsibilities continue to grow as the complexities of our hardware and software increase and outpace faculty experience and skills needed to resolve growing issues. This faculty member has managed to learn technical support on the job without training or formal education. Robert Lam, from ITS, is called whenever issues encountered remain unresolved without outside-the-department assistance. Robert is already spread thin by his responsibilities. We need a dedicated part-time technical coordinator to not only attend to our computer lab needs within our Department’s facilities, but also to resolve related issues in classrooms elsewhere on the Ocean Campus where our instructors teach. An on-call arrangement for ITS technical support is a possibility, provided that assistance is provided in a timely way. This fall semester was fraught with computer related problems involving expired software licenses, no CCSF wireless service, GoPrint account and printing problems, printer problems, and overhead projector malfunctions (Batmale 203 and 222). All of these severely undermined teaching and learning not just momentarily, but for several prolonged weeks. a. Anticipated demand for ongoing technical support is approximately 3 hours per week for maintenance,
trouble-shooting, and managing GoPrint, our printing management software; assisting our lab tutors (especially on Friday’s when we make both computer labs available to students); and coordinating with Robert Lam, ITS.
b. Technician (classified) time: 3 hrs/wk x 17.5 wks/semester x 2 semesters = 105 hours/year (fall & spring semesters only)
c. Estimated cost per year: $50/hr x 105 hrs = $5,250
d. Links to Board (Special Trustee) Planning Priorities: BPP 4, 8, & 9
e. Links to Strategic Plan 2011-2016: SP AI, SP AII, SP AVII, SP AX
f. Links to Institutional Accreditation Requirements: AS II.A.1b., AS II.B.1, AS IIIB.2, AS IIIC.1a., c, d.
g. Links to Learning, Service, and/or Program Outcomes: SLOs related to all courses utilizing dital resources: ARCH 20, 101, 102, 103, 127, 214 (formerly 52A), BIM 120 and 121, CM 110, 244, INTD 100 and 102; and MMSP 147
33
7. CM Software: More of our courses, i.e. ARCH 127, Fundamentals of Building Structure; CM 240
Construction Cost Estimating; CM 244, Construction Scheduling; and CM 248, Construction Project Administration, require computer labs. Our existing computer lab in Batmale 241 cannot accommodate all computer lab based courses and additional computer labs cannot be retrofitted into our Department facility because of space limitations. Software applications associated with each CM course is as follows:
a. CM 240: On-Screen Takeoff, 30 licenses purchased for installation in Batmale 301, PC1 lab, ACRC; Activation ID: UUKEF-SX0RE-PU7KU-XF05Y-2Y7JW (ref: Jerry Wu email to Gustav Choto, dated 11/4/13); Demonstration version is free with activation ID.
b. CM 244: Primavera P6 Professional Project Management (via $500 Annual Oracle Academy Membership): See Priority Needs #6 above.
c. CM 248: Prolog Construction Project Management Software for Contractors (Meridian Systems, A Trimble Company) Free except for shipping costs (unable to ascertain exact cost)
d. Links to Board (Special Trustee) Planning Priorities: BPP 9
e. Links to Strategic Plan 2011-2016: SP A.I, SP A.III.
f. Links to Institutional Accreditation Requirements: AS II.A.1.a, b, & c.; AS II.A.3-5; AS II.C.3.d.
g. Links to Learning, Service, and/or Program Outcomes: Architecture Dept. Mission Statement related to providing our students with training and skills to support entry to job market (CTE), Course Outline SLOs: CM 240: IV.A-F;CM244.IV.A-D; CM 248: IV.A-F
Essential to Meet Anticipated Student Needs within the Next Two Years 1. Rhinoceros licensing for all of our workstations in Batmale 241 and 247; and funding for faculty training
a. Rhino 5 for Windows for schools, 30-user lab licenses: $975/year b. Rhino 5 Training, Level I, Nurbs Modeling Weekend, 24 hour, three day intensive training at Design
Rhino, Sandbox Studios SOMA, San Francisco: $695 each person; four instructors: $2780 total c. Rhino 5 Tutorial DVD, $74.99 each from Amazon.com for four (4) design studio faculty members;
total cost: $330, including tax; free shipping; for both Windows and Mac OS X platforms d. Total cost of licensing & faculty training: $4,085
a. Links to Strategic Plan 2011-2016:
b. Links to Technology Plan 2013-2015:
2. Funded recycling services each semester to support ARCH 101 environmental installations projects with
a Recology SF delivered recycling dumpster picked after it is filled. Price quote for one time service from Recology SF dated 30 Sep 2013: $655 for one week rental of 20 yd. covered box with delivery and pickup; and disposal rate of $147.13 per ton. This service is required every fall and spring semester. Contact Andy Green, Recology: [email protected] for quote and details.
a. Links to Strategic Plan 2011-2016:
b. Links to Technology Plan 2013-2015:
3. Additional electrical power outlets: A power strip is needed running down each of the tables in our
studio classrooms, Batmale 245 & 246 for students to plug in their laptops. a. Two rows of power conduits mounted on both the underside edges of existing tables, each with 3
duplex 3-prong outlets, junction boxes; and surge protection and circuit breakers. b. Batmale 246 has four tables, approximately 17'-0" long requiring approximately 136'-0" linear feet
of conduit, 24 junction boxes and duplex outlets. c. Batmale 245 has four tables, approximately 13'-0" long requiring approximately 104'-0" linear feet
of conduit, 24 junction boxes and duplex outlets. d. I am unable to ascertain how much more material and cost are associated with hooking these
outlets up to our existing electrical panel in Batmale 241; and whether or not we have adequate capacity for anticipated new loads. In both rooms, there is existing conduit to power our ceiling mounted overhead digital projectors. For cost estimate and budgeting purposes, this can be a
NEED A RANGE OF COSTS e. It is prudent to include outlets and cabling for hard connections to the Internet using fire wire
cables. On many occasions, the CCSF Wireless system has issues that prevent instructors from accessing the Internet.
f. Total Estimated Cost:
4. New lectern: Our computer lab in Batmale 241 needs a lecture station equipped with a workstation connected to the overhead projector so that instructors can face the students. Presently, this is not possible. Nestor, can you identify a mobile cart that can serve this purpose, get the specs, and cost?. Do we place on of our existing workstations on this or purchase another that will require an additional software license?
5. Departmental Academic Advisor: priority 4, requested in Program Review Fall 2012. One persistent issue that continues from year to year is that Counseling often provides our students with inaccurate information. This is understandable since we have three specialized programs and they are relatively small compared to others within our College. This is a time-consuming set of responsibilities that include the following activities:
a. Working with students to develop their academic plans b. Tracking student progress with their academic plans c. Coordinating with our Colleges resources: articulation officer, transfer center, and student
counseling d. Keeping abreast of changing transfer requirements for schools of architecture, interior design, and
construction management e. Guiding students as they develop and submit their applications to transfer institutions, especially
focusing on their Personal Statement and Portfolio f. Providing financial guidance to improve retention and learning successes g. Coaching students to increase their levels of persistence and time management h. Providing the leadership to start and sustain a sense of community i. Create and maintain an online Architecture Department website with downloadable documents and
worksheets to promote both academic and transfer successes for our students. There are two possibilities: 1.) Secure a dedicated counselor from the Counseling Department; or 2.) Provide release time for one of our full-time faculty members. In both cases, at least 0.36 FTE is needed. Allocation of time within a semester will drastically vary with the most time taken to meet with students at the beginning and end of each semester. The initial development and launch of an advising website will also require much effort and time. This need may be addressed in two phases: 1.) the development of a strategic plan for advising; and 2.) its implementation.
6. Materials and Resource Library: priority 5, requested in Program Review Fall 2012 a. We have two bookcase-shelving units on the north passageway between Batmale 245 & 246
currently storing outdated Sweet’s Catalogs that can be removed from the shelving and recycled. In their place, we can place storage containers for interior design material samples for student use and reference. However, this is a temporary solution, as these shelves cannot be secured.
b. Material sample storage boxes from Office Depot: i. Office Depot Brand Plastic Storage Boxes, Item # 420346
1. 6.5 Quarts, Clear, Snap-on lid, Pack of 4 2. 4-1/3”H x 8-1/16”W x 13-9/16”D 3. $10.99/pack 4. 5 packs x $10.99 = $55
ii. Office Depot Brand Plastic, Storage Boxes, Item # 4211318 1. 21 Quarts, Clear, Pack of 2 2. 7-1/16”H x 13-9/16”W x 16-1/8”D 3. $11.99/pack 4. 6 packs x $11.99 = $71.94
iii. Total: $127 + tax; free delivery w/$50+ orders c. Sandusky 72” Steel Storage Cabinet with 4 Adjustable Shelves, Dove Gray, Office Depot Item#
632398 i. 72”H x 36”W x 18”D ii. Welded steel construction stands up to constant use iii. 4 adjustable shelves hold up to 180 lbs each
35
iv. 3-point locking system locks the doors on top, side and bottom v. 2 @ $269.99 each: $540 + tax and delivery
7. 3D Printer see www.stratasys.com website
8. Display Pedestals for Student Work: Currently for daily presentation and critiques in design studios,
ARCH 101, 102, 103 and INTD 102, we are using our drafting stools or the floor to place student models under review. We only have a limited number of stools that are primarily for seating. Display pedestals will go in both design studio classrooms, Batmale 245 & 246 (10 pedestals in each) ; and in our corridor display area (7 pedestals).
a. “Affordable Portable Pro Pedestals” by Pedestal Source; 46.0 lbs, $287.87/pack b. Model APPRO-BL16-30PK: 3 Pack; White c. 15.25”W x 15.25”D x30” H d. Weight capacity: 75 lbs e. Materials: 1/8” MDF with a coat of 10 mil texture satin vinyl f. Quick assembly/Breaks down flat for easy storage/easily transported g. Cleans easily with damp cloth h. Shipping costs will be added to this product i. 9 packs x $287.87/pack = $2,590.83 + shipping + tax j. Currently, there are no CCSF approved vendors who carry this type of product k. http://www.pedestalsource.com/Economy/AffordablePortableProPedestal.htm
9. Cold desk design and graphics studios: priority 2, requested in Program Review Fall 2012
10. Building Information Modeling (BIM) & Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) Curriculum: priority 3,
requested in Program Review Fall 2012
11. Camera Tripod: For student and faculty use along with our existing photography setup. Student Learning Portfolios are required for midterm and final grade assessments in all design studio courses, ARCH 101, 102, and 103; and INTD 102. Students use our photo room in Batmale 241 to photograph their models for incorporation into their portfolios. Portfolios that document student work and progress are also used for scholarship applications, admissions applications to transfer institutions, and for employment.
a. Manfrotto 055XDB Tripod Legs (Black) with 804RC2 3-way Pan/Tilt Head i. With Wing-Nut Leg Locks ii. Quick Release iii. B&H Item# MA055XD804R: $259.87 + tax
b. Manfrotto – AW-3280B 35” Tripod Bag i. Fits 055 Series Tripods ii. Padded Cordura Nylon iii. Handle Straps iv. Shoulder Strap v. B&H Item# MA3280B: $50.00 + tax
c. Total Costs: $309.87 + tax + shipping
Priority Requests Included in 2012 Program Review but not included in 2013 Program Review: The following priority needs were deleted from this 2013 Program Review because resources and other opportunities are prohibitive:
• Building Information Modeling (BIM) & Integrated project Delivery (IPD) Curriculum, 2012 Program Review Priority 3
• Department Academic Advisor, 2012 Program Review Priority 4 • Wood and Metal Shop, 2012 Program Review Priority 5
