Annual  Report  for  Assessment  of  Outcomes  2012-­‐13        

   

   

   

Note:  Information  provided  in  this  report  may  be  inserted  into  or  summarized  in  Section  2C  Program  Review  Outline.  

 1. Describe  changes  that  have  been  implemented  towards  improving  students’  attainment  of  outcomes  that  

resulted  from  recent  outcome  assessments.      These  may  include  but  are  not  limited  to  changes  to  content,  materials,  instruction,  pedagogy  etc.    Please  be  sure  to  describe  the  connection  between  the  assessment  results  and  the  changes  made.    

a. Identified  and  implemented  outcome  changes  to  CNC  Turning  Assessment:  i. Drawings  were  lacking  in  GD&T  dimensioning  as  stated  in  certificate  outcomes.    GD&T  

dimensioning  was  added  into  the  drawings.    Completed.  

ii. Students  had  weak  skills  in  threading  on  the  CNC  Turning  Assessment.    A  review  discovered  that  the  applied  project  in  the  MCH279  CNC  Operation-­‐Lathe  course  had  a  re-­‐designed  project  omitting  the  threading  skills.    This  spring  term  2013,  threading  was  re-­‐

added  into  the  coursework  to  reinforce  those  missing  skills.  Completed.    

b. Identified  and  implemented  outcome  changes  to  CNC  Milling  Assessment:  

i. Drawings  were  lacking  in  GD&T  dimensioning  as  stated  in  certificate  outcomes.    GD&T  dimensioning  was  added  into  the  drawings.    Completed.  

ii. Original  drafts  of  process  paperwork  were  unfinished  or  lacking  detail  as  identified  

during  student  use.    Paperwork  has  been  updated  and  finalized.  Complete.  

Please    address  the  questions  below  and  send  to  learningassessment@pcc.edu    by  June  21,  2013    with  Annual  Report  in  the  subject  line  

 

Subject  Area  Committee  Name:      Machine  Manufacturing  Technology  Contact  person:  Patrick  Kraft  For  LDC/DE:    Core  outcome(s)  assessed:    ______________    For  CTE:      Degree  or  certificate*  assessed:  One  Year  CNC  Milling  and  One  Year  CNC  Turning        *please  attach  a  table  showing  the  alignment  of  the  degree  or  certificate  outcomes  with  the  College  Core  Outcomes:  

 *See  Appendix  A.    

 

For  each  outcome  assessed  this  year:        

2. Describe  the  assessment  design  (tool  and  processes)  used.  Include  relevant  information  about:      

• The  nature  of  the  assessment  (e.g.,  written  work,  project,  portfolio,  exam,  survey,  performance  etc.)  and  if  it  is  direct  (assesses  evidence  mastery  of  outcomes)  or  indirect  (student’s  perception  of  mastery).    Please  give  rationale  for  indirect  assessments  (direct  assessments  are  preferable).  

• The  student  sample  assessed  (including  sample  size  relative  to  the  targeted  student  population  for  the  assessment  activity)  process  and  rationale  for  selection  of  the  student  sample.  Why  was  this  group  of  students  and/or  courses  chosen?    

• Any  rubrics,  checklists,  surveys  or  other  tools  that  were  used  to  evaluate  the  student  work.  (Please  include  with  your  report  –  OK  to  include  in  appendix).    Where  appropriate,  identify  benchmarks.    

• How  you  analyzed  results,  including  steps  taken  to  ensure  that  results  are  reliable  (consistent  from  one  evaluator  to  another.  

For  both  assessments,  each  is  a  locally  developed  applied  project  test.    Each  is  a  direct  assessment  (assesses  

evidence  of  mastery  of  outcomes)  based  on  outcomes  listed  in  each  certificate  (See  Appendix  A).    The  CNC  Turning  assessment  is  a  small  “Screw  Jack”  assembly  comprised  of  subparts,  each  with  a  specific  type  of  machine  to  be  used  to  manufacture  the  various  subparts  on.      The  CNC  Milling  assessment  is  a  small  “Punch  

Die”  assembly  comprised  of  subparts,  each  with  a  specific  type  of  machine  to  be  used  to  manufacture  the  various  subparts  on.    

The  MMT  program  offers  four  certificates:  MANUFACTURING  TECHNICIAN:  CAREER  PATHWAY  CERTIFICATE  -­‐  25.5  credits.    CNC  MILLING  ONE-­‐YEAR  CERTIFICATE  -­‐  49  credits  (25.5  from  Manuf.  Tech.  Cert.).    CNC  TURNING  ONE-­‐YEAR  CERTIFICATE  -­‐  48.5  credits  (25.5  from  Manuf.  Tech.  Cert.).  MACHINE  MANUF.  TECH.  AAS  DEGREE  -­‐  106  MMT  credits  (apx.  75  credits  from  other  three  certificates).      We  offer  a  day  or  evening  shift  attendance  in  a  self-­‐paced,  modular  format.    We  also  cap  our  enrollment  at  100  total,  50  on  days,  and  50  on  evenings.    Since  most  of  our  students  are  being  encouraged  to  complete  the  certificates  sequentially,  most  AAS  completers  will  go  through  both  the  CNC  Milling  and  CNC  Turning  certificates.    Assessing  them  with  the  two  different  tests  captures  data  from  both  of  the  one-­‐year  certificate  completers  and  the  AAS  completers.    

Assessing  at  the  end  of  the  AAS  degree  will  not  capture  as  broad  a  spectrum  of  information.    Completion  data  from  the  2011-­‐2012  year  is  as  follows:  

     

   Our  recently  submitted  TSA  Student  Data  Results  for  2012-­‐2013  listed  four  assessed  students  in  CNC  Milling  

and  Three  assessed  students  in  CNC  Turning.    This  is  somewhat  representative  of  our  graduate  numbers  from  last  year.    All  of  these  students  were  seeking  one-­‐year  certificates  or  higher.  

 

Appendix  B  is  the  standardized  point  reduction  chart  used  to  score  each  subpart  of  the  completed  assessment  project  assemblies.  There  is  a  project  outline  for  each  assessment  listing  the  part,  what  type  of  

machine  the  subpart  is  to  be  manufactured  on,  as  well  as  inspection  criteria,  and  point  values  for  each  subpart  averaged  into  a  final  grade.    

We  analyze  our  results  using  a  combination  of  point  reductions  using  the  standardized  point  reduction  chart  (Appendix  B),  and  an  averaging  of  the  total  points  earned  on  each  subpart  graded.    We  have  reviewed  and  refined  this  process  in  multiple  staff  meetings  and  by  review  and  feedback  by  our  program  Industrial  

Advisory  Committee.    3. Provide  information  about  the  results  (i.e.,  what  did  you  learn  about  how  well  students  are  meeting  the  

outcomes)?    

• If  scored  (e.g.,  if  a  rubric  or  other  scaled  tool  is  used),  please  report  the  data,  and  relate  to  any  appropriate  benchmarks.    

• Results  should  be  broken  down  in  a  way  that  is  meaningful  and  useful  for  making  improvements  to  teaching/learning.      Please  show  those  specific  results.  

 Of  the  seven  noted  students  completing  the  two  assessments  this  year,  most  did  reasonably  well.  Four  received  an  “A”,  two  received  a  “B”,  and  one  a  “C”.    We  feel  this  is  a  positive  reflection  on  both  the  

content  of  the  predatory  coursework  for  the  TSA  and  the  mastery  by  the  students.    As  outlined  in  1A  and  1B  above,  we  discovered  weaknesses  in  our  GD&T  and  print  details  that  have  since  

been  corrected.    We  do  not  feel  this  impacted  the  grades  of  the  students,  but  the  change  will  help  clarify  the  assessment  goals.    

4. Identify  any  changes  that  should,  as  a  result  of  this  assessment,  be  implemented  to  help  improve  students’  attainment  of  outcomes.    (These  may  include,  but  are  not  limited  to,  changes  in  curriculum,  content,  materials,  instruction,  pedagogy  etc).    

 This  was  outlined  in  question  1  and  3  above.    

 5. Reflect  on  the  effectiveness  of  this  assessment  tool  and  assessment  process.  Please  describe  any  changes  

to  assessment  methodology  that  would  lead  to  more  meaningful  results  if  this  assessment  were  to  be  

repeated  (or  adapted  to  another  outcome).    Is  there  a  different  kind  of  assessment  tool  or  process  that  the  SAC  would  like  to  use  for  this  outcome  in  the  future?      If  the  assessment  tool  and  processes  does  not  need  

to  be  revised,  please  indicate  this.        The  SAC  and  our  Industrial  Advisory  Committee  feel  these  two  assessments  do  a  good  job  at  confirming  the  

skillsets  outlined  in  our  one  year  or  longer  certificates.    We  intend  to  refine  these  and  the  related  coursework  in  an  effort  to  continually  improve.    We  will  continue  to  engage  our  IAC  for  guidance.    

   

 

Appendix  A:  Alignment  of  one  year  CNC  Milling  and  One  Year  CNC  Turning  outcomes  to  PCC  core  outcomes.  

 

Appendix  B:    Standardized  point  reduction  chart  used  to  score  each  subpart  of  the  completed  assessment  project  assemblies.    This  sample  is  CNC  Lathe  specific.    We  have  same  for  the  CNC  Mill  assessment.  

 

Point  Reduction  Chart  For  MMT  Project  Work                

    -­‐15  points   -­‐10  points   -­‐5  points   No  Deduction  

Size/                                        Dimension  Out  of  

Tolerance  

More  Than  Three  

Tolerance  Ranges  Out  

More  Than  Two  Tolerance  Ranges  Out  But  Less  Than  

Three  

More  Than  One  Tolerance  Range  Out  But  Less  Than  

Two  

Meets  Specs.  

More  Than  Three  Pitch  Dia.  Tol.  

Ranges  Small  

More  Than  Two  Pitch  Dia.  Tol.  

Ranges  Small  But  Less  Than  Three  

More  Than  One  Pitch  Dia.  Tol.  

Range  Small  But  Less  Than  Two  

Meets  Specs.  

        Bad  Finish      External  Threads  

   Incorrect  Included  Angle  Of  Thread  

       

More  Than  Three    Pitch  Dia.  Tol.  

Ranges  Out  

More  Than  Two    Pitch  Dia.  Tol.  Ranges  Out  But  Less  Than  Three  

More  Than  One    Pitch  Dia.  Tol.  Range  Out  But  Less  Than  Two  

Meets  Specs.  Internal  Threads  (Using  Over  and  Under  Thread  

Gauge  Standards)  

        Bad  Finish      

Overall  Appearance  

(Blemishes,  Burrs,  Required  Surface  

Finishes)  

If  Part  Cannot  Be  Fixed  

If  Part  Can  Be  Fixed  And  Still  To  

Spec.  

Minor  Cosmetic  ,  Minor  Burrs  

Meets  Specs.  

GD&T  Specifications  

More  Than  Three  

Tolerance  Ranges  Out  

More  Than  Two  Tolerance  Ranges  Out  But  Less  Than  

Three  

More  Than  One  Tolerance  Range  Out  But  Less  Than  

Two  

Meets  Specs.  

Parts  receiving  a  69%  or  Less  have  the  option  to  re-­‐do  the  part  with  an  averaging  of  the  first  and  second  attempt  being  your  final  grade.