I‘Lx'E’L‘L

‘1
\

{‘3 at 3
Ԥ Sigiwl .
J

7?: .‘
may“ «

a
g?

A fififfii

   

‘
”r“ mvw ..

Ann, - 2....» ~

'1

A?

 

 

 

      
     
 

-

.-

“tr 5. a H. , -»....-..I-w

ij.‘

Mfiifi .1. f

 

«I; .

{

gram

 

.B;

_.

2'3:

U0

I v.“ fl
I if: -lC)
’P
,
/

Tr}?

099’C3a9

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

THE IMPACT OF SKILLS STANDARDS ON THE
COMMUNITY COLLEGE MANUFACTURING CURRICULUM

presented by
Thomas Paul Boersma

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

Doctoral degree in - Educational Administration

,Qm’4/ QM
/

 

Major Professor' 5 Signature
025C517; 1/ T], Z00 L!

Date

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

LIBRARY

Michigan State

University

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINE return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

K.)
N
(‘3

G
‘l
P“ i-A
NP
Ci

(3
«E \J

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 c:/CIRC/DateDue.p65-p.15

 

 

THE IMPACT OF SKILLS STANDARDS ON THE
COMMUNITY COLLEGE MANUFACTURING CURRICULUM

By

Thomas Paul Boersma

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
In partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Educational Administration

2004

ABSTRACT

THE IMPACT OF SKILLS STANDARDS ON THE
COMMUNITY COLLEGE MANUFACTURING CURRICULUM

By

Thomas Paul Boersma

This is a study of the manufacturing curriculum in Michigan community
colleges. During the last ten years we have seen the development of national
skill standards intended to influence how students are prepared for skilled trades
and manufacturing technician positions. Also during this same time period the
manufacturing industry has been battered by another extreme business cycle
that threatens the existence of some manufacturing sectors. Because the
community colleges have become the primary training and education resource
for the manufacturing industry, much interest is placed on the ability of the
community colleges to sharpen their focus on meeting the training and education
requirements of the modern manufacturing company.

Although these skills standards are working their way into the community
college curriculum, wholesale adoption of these standards is not occurring. To
better understand the driving forces behind curriculum reform, this study
investigates the current state of the manufacturing programs in Michigan

community colleges and attempts to clarify the process of curriculum reform.

DEDICATION

Education has become a way of life in my family during these past seven
years. While our four children are in the middle of their formative schooling years
I continue to work towards my doctorate. Thanks to my wife Brenda for patiently
keeping us all on track and providing a nurturing atmosphere for the family.
Thanks to everyone in the family for learning to share our limited resources of

time, tuition dollars, computers, and office space.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am most grateful to Dr. James Fairweather, my dissertation chair, for his very
timely responses and honest opinions during the process of writing and revising
this paper. I was very fortunate to take classes with him as well as each other
member of my dissertation committee: Dr. Marilyn Amey, Dr. Ann Austin, Dr. Joe
Codde, and Dr. John Dirkx. Each of these committee members has been
instrumental in critiquing my work both in my preliminary papers as well as this

dissertation.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ...................................................... vii
LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................... viii
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION ........................................................ 1
Problem statement ............................................... 2
Purpose of the study .............................................. 7
Limitations of the study ........................................... 12
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................... 13
Multiple and conflicting roles of community colleges ....14
Curriculum in community colleges ............................ 21
Manufacturing programs at the
community college level ................................ 39
The changing nature of manufacturing companies...... .43
National skills standards ...................................... 46
National Institute of Metalworking Skills ................... 50
The role of professional societies and accreditation
institutions in curriculum reform ................... 62
A proposed model of curriculum reform ................... 67
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY .......................................................... 81
Conceptual framework .......................................... 81
Research questions and hypotheses ........................ 93
Sampling and design ............................................ 94
Data collection ..................................................... 98
lnstru mentation ................................................... 1 01
Data analysis ...................................................... 111
Case study selection ............................................ 113
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS .................................................................. 1 18
Census ............................................................. 118
Survey ............................................................... 121
Case studies ...................................................... 128
Cross-site analysis ............................................. 133
Summary of research questions ............................. 139
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION .................................. 141

APPENDICES

A - Census ...................................................... 152
B — Survey ...................................................... 159
C - Survey Results ............................................. 162
D — Site Visit Protocol .......................................... 165
E — Cross site analysis for Case Studies ................... 167
F - NIMS ...................................................... 173
REFERENCES ...................................................... 187

vi

List of Tables

Table 1

Delta Engineering Technology Curriculum ......................... 32
Table 2

NCE/AME Curriculum .................................................... 36
Table 3

Overview of NIMS Levels ............................................... 53
Table 4

NIMS Occupational Duties and KSAO Characteristics ......... 55
Table 5

Comparison of ABET and NIMS Criteria ........................... 68
Table 6

Comparison of NIMS/ABET and Stark and Lattuca Models... 74
Table 7

Directory of Michigan Community Colleges ...................... 118
Table 8

Community Colleges Responding to Survey ..................... 122
Table 9

Census of Michigan Community Colleges ........................ 152
Table 10

Cross-site Analysis for Case Studies .............................. 167
Table 11

Framework for Level 1 Machining Skills ........................... 177
Table 12

Framework for Level 2 Machining Skills .......................... 180
Table 13

Framework for Level 3 Machining Skills ........................... 183
Table 14

Knowledge, Skills, Abilities, and Other Characteristics 186

vii

List of Figures

Figure 1

Colleges Included in Each Step of the Study ............. 11
Figure 2

Curriculum Reform Model ..................................... 79
Figure 3

Three Factors Affecting Curriculum ......................... 90
Figure 4

Geographic Locations of Community Colleges ......... 106
Figure 5

Recent Curriculum Revision .................................. 124
Figure 6

Planned Curriculum Revision ................................ 125

viii

Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the impact of national skills
standards on the community college curriculum. More specifically, this study
attempted to define the role of metalworking skills standards in reforming the
curriculum in Michigan community college manufacturing programs. The results
of this study provide a clearer understanding of how the community college
curriculum is influenced by external industry standards and expectations.

Manufacturing remains one of the primary economic resources in the
state of Michigan. Much effort goes into keeping the manufacturing workforce
trained and educated to meet increasing global competition. The 28 Michigan
community colleges continue to provide a large portion of the educational
support for this workforce, especially in the areas of metalworking and
machining. As the workplace continues to evolve, the community college
programs need to reflect the training and educational needs of world class
manufacturing companies. Although many factors influence the Ieaming
environment in the community college — facilities, instmctional quality, student
support services - the curriculum stands out as the educational centerpiece of a

given program of study.

Problem statement

The highly publicized Nation at Risk report in 1983 (NCEE, 1983)
generated widespread concern over the K-12 school system. Although technical
skill level requirements of employers were increasing, the skill levels of high
school graduates were decreasing. This report initiated the first wave of
educational reform programs designed to combat the trends of decreasing
student competency (Beard, 1993). Initially, institutions of higher education
remained largely unaffected by the demand for educational reforms. Ten years
later another report, An American Imperative: Higher Expectation for Higher
Education (Wingspread Group, 1993), pointed out concerns about the condition
of undergraduate college programs (O'Banion, 1997). This report indicated that
college curricula did not establish clear expectations for student performance
(Stark and Lattuca, 1996). Although some college degrees are designed to
prepare students for state or national certification exams in areas such as
engineering or health care, many general college degrees do not guarantee
minimum standards of general academic or analytical skills.

Three reasons exist for focusing this study on the manufacturing
curriculum in Michigan community colleges. First, community colleges represent
an increasingly significant portion of undergraduate education. National statistics
point out that over 44% of all undergraduate students are enrolled in community
colleges (Phillippe, 1998). Other estimates indicate this figure could soon be
approaching 50%. Jacobs (2001) found that 78.5% of vocational college

students are enrolled in community colleges. Although some four-year colleges

and for-profit schools offer vocational training, the community colleges continue
to be the institution of choice for workforce training and education.

Second, the manufacturing sector remains a major employer in Michigan,
employing 18.7% of the workforce in 1999 (MEDC, 1999). Many of these jobs
offer the high wages and liberal fringe benefits that drive the Michigan economy.
This sector has declined somewhat in the past few years because of economic
downsizing and outsourcing. However, the remaining manufacturing companies
continue to evolve with new technology and a more efficient approach to
production and quality. The shrinking manufacturing workforce in Michigan is
partially a result of large productivity gains and greater employee efficiency.
These manufacturing jobs utilize a highly skilled workforce that often requires
some level of college coursework. Traditionally the community colleges have
provided much of the apprentice training for manufacturing companies. More
recently community colleges have provided training and course work for the
computers and software commonly used on the manufacturing shop floor
(Jacobs, 2001 ). Associate degrees from community colleges provide
manufacturing employees with opportunity for occupational advancement
through promotion or educational advancement in baccalaureate programs
(Grubb, 1999). The long tradition of support and cooperation between
community colleges and manufacturing companies will continue to strengthen as
the need for a highly trained and educated workforce intensifies (McCabe, 1997).

The third reason that this study focuses on the metalworking skills

curriculum is that this area has a visible skills standard on which to focus. A skills

standard for metalworking has been completed and made available for use in
higher education. The National Institute of Metalworking Skills (NIMS, 1998) is
an organization committed to the development and implementation of skills
standards for the metal working portion of the manufacturing sector. These skills
standards were developed during the mid 1990's and draw from a large cross
section of trade associations and industry representatives. The NIMS standards
were written with specific performance measures, defining levels of individual
attainment in various categories.

The NIMS skills standards are not a replacement for existing metalworking
curricula. They exist as a useful tool for developing a wide variety of student
learning experiences. Recent curriculum development efforts in Michigan have
emphasized computer based Ieaming activities that can be accessed by the
student in a self-paced Ieaming environment (http:l/www.mistcurriculum.org).
Instructional practices based on the NIMS standards could range from traditional
lecture courses to lntemet based courses. Open-entry / open-exit laboratory
experiences can also be designed based on the NIMS standards. Regardless of
the delivery method, students are expected to demonstrate a mastery of the
skills standards as a result of completing the courses of instruction specified by
the metalworking curriculum. As community colleges continue to balance their
programs between college transfer students, workforce training needs, and
economic development opportunities, the curriculum becomes a primary focus of

community college effectiveness (McDuffie and Stevenson, 1995).

The curriculum in Michigan community college manufacturing programs
must be updated to reflect the changing nature of the workforce. Bailey and
Merritt (1995) explain the recent trends toward the “professionalization of the
production worker". In traditional manufacturing companies, employees were
expected to perform very focused tasks and activities. Those activities
considered new or out of the ordinary were referred to a supervisor or specialist.
Additional training or education was only occasionally needed when the
employee moved to a new department or job classification. In a “high
performance workplace” (p. 4) employees are expected to solve problems,
continuously improve processes, and implement new technology in the
manufacturing process. Instead of relying on a supervisor or specialist,
employees must collaborate to improve the manufacturing process and meet
customer specifications. Additional training and education occur both at the
workplace and in educational institutions. A broader set of technical skills is
required and fewer job classifications exist. As the organizational structure is
flattened employees must be more self-directed and assume responsibility for
customer demands of quality and on-time delivery (Salzman, 1998).

These new requirements of the high performance workplace challenge the
existing curriculum in community college manufacturing programs. The technical
skills taught must be modernized and include the latest technology
enhancements that manufacturing companies are already utilizing. Perhaps
more challenging is the need to create a greater emphasis on the soft skills —

oral and written communication, team building, problem solving, ethics, and time

management skills (Wells, 1996). Instead of being taught a single set of job skills
that could be obsolete in the near future, students must be equipped with skills
that enable life-long Ieaming and adaptation to new manufacturing
environments. Some experts are calling for a new synthesis of academic and
vocational education to prepare the world-class manufacturing employee (Bailey
and Badway, 2002). Perin (2000) explains the need to make academic courses
more occupational and occupational courses more academic.

In the past, when new skills or competencies were required a new course
was simply added to the curriculum. This approach eventually creates a crowded
and compartmentalized curriculum. The faculty teach computer skills in a
computer lab, writing skills in an English course, and ethics in a philosophy
course. The student is left to synthesize all of these competencies in a workplace
setting. Adding a new course is something an administrator can easily
accomplish. Imposing new competencies and student expectations in an existing
course is difficult without the complete cooperation of the instructor.

The changing nature of work applies to many types of technical
occupations. Kelley and Weston (1996) document the need for engineering
education to teach a core set of soft skills to help ensure graduates will be able
to work in a rapidly changing environment. Including these skills creates a
challenge to a curriculum already crowded with many traditional technical
competencies. As many companies attempt to become more productive with a
reduced workforce, employees are expected to be more self- directed and

responsive to new technology in the workplace. Although these organizations

require greater technical skills, as well as improved soft skills, they are cutting
back on internal training programs and employee development (Salzman, 1998).
This trend places even greater responsibility on educational institutions for

employee training.

Purpose of the stggy

As manufacturing companies continue to face increased competition from
developing countries, they work towards increasing quality and productivity. This
continuous improvement effort requires workers with higher levels of education
and more focused skills (Faulkner, 2002; Bailey and Merritt, 1995). Employers
are increasingly looking for a better return on their investment in higher
education through a cohesive curriculum that addresses current workplace
competencies (Jacobs, 2001). Salzman (1998) explains, "The economy of the
1990’s is generally characterized as one of intense global competition, rapid
technological advance, and significant transformation in work practices and firm
structure. New job and organizational structures are thought to require greater
levels of workforce skill” (p. 3).

A strong case has been built in favor of using skills standards in curriculum
development. Pedagogically, skills standards provide a curricular foundation.
Stark and Lattuca (1996) list eight important elements of an academic plan. One
of the first elements is content. Skills standards specify the content upon which
the curriculum is built. This specification ensures that a course is relevant to

modern industry standards and includes topics identified by a broad spectrum of

potential employers. An additional element of an academic plan identified by
Stark and Lattuca is evaluation. Curricula based on skills standards should have
objective evaluation criteria, ensuring that competencies are mastered.

Local industry is encouraging the use of skills standards. Although many
individual companies still require specialized training, they recognize that a broad
set of skills standards form a common foundation for many industrial employees
(NSSB, 2000). The workplace traditionally has relied upon training activities such
as apprenticeships and certificate programs more focused than a typical
associate degree program. Skills standards help to clarify student performance
levels further.

School administrators see skills standards as a method of curriculum
improvement. Although curriculum reform is generally recognized as a necessary
activity in the community college (Thompson, 1994), administrators may not
understand the unique challenges of each program. The individual instructor, on
the other hand, might feel powerless to enact curriculum reform when he/she
only teaches a few of the courses that comprise an entire program. Stark and
Lattuca (1996) stress the importance of an administrator leading the charge of
curriculum reform. A set of skills standards provides a framework upon which to
build a revised curriculum.

Educational programs based on skills standards may attract additional
funding. The same companies seeking educational reform are also influential in
persuading local and state governments to provide the occupational programs

with additional financial support (Baily and Averianova, 1999). The State of

Michigan has generously supported curriculum development for the new M-Tech
centers that operate in the community colleges. One stipulation is that the
curriculum should reflect the latest industry skills standards.

Since 1995, over seven million dollars have been invested in developing and
promoting the NIMS Metalworking Skills Standards (http:l/www.nims-
skills.org/news/6.htm). Are community colleges aware of these standards? Have
the colleges taken these standards seriously? Are these standards evident in the
metalworking curriculum design? How has curriculum reform occurred in the
community college manufacturing programs? What other factors affect
curriculum reform?

The purpose of this study is to determine how, if at all, the NIMS
Metalworking Skills Standards have influenced the reform of manufacturing
curriculum in Michigan community colleges, and why NIMS has or has not had
this effect. Additionally, this study will help explain why curriculum reform occurs
or fails to occur in this environment. This study will provide valuable information
to community college instructors and administrators who must deal with the
process of manufacturing curriculum reform. It will give them a snapshot of what
is occurring in Michigan and the current state of manufacturing curriculum
reform. This study will give manufacturing professionals an inside look at
community colleges and how activities such as curriculum reform actually occur.
Additionally this study will help organizations such as NIMS and other skills
standards proponents to understand how these standards are affecting

community college curriculum. Finally, the results of this study should help policy

makers and government officials determine the level of success of the curriculum
efforts they continue to fund.

Given the amount of resources allocated towards skills standards and
curriculum reform in Michigan during the past 10 years, substantial changes
should be occurring in the 28 Michigan community college manufacturing
programs. This study will help understand the influence of these skills standards
and determine whether or not they encourage curriculum reform. The outcome of
this study will help identify the critical components to be considered for future
reform initiatives.

This study begins with a census of the colleges to identify the institutions
currently supporting a comprehensive manufacturing program. The geographical
area and constituency of each college largely determine the scope of a
manufacturing program. However, some community colleges serving a mostly
rural population still support a strong manufacturing program even though the
local job market remains small. At the same time, a few colleges located in
industrial communities do not support an active manufacturing program.
Reasons for this status include competition from nearby community colleges,
severe budget constraints, or a lack of leadership to maintain such a program.

The second portion of the study involves a survey of all the colleges with a
manufacturing program to determine the level of support for the NIMS skills

standards and the associated curriculum reform activities. This survey provides

10

objective data indicating the general direction of the community college
manufacturing programs.

The two site visits included at the end of the study provide a more detailed
explanation of how curriculum reform occurs or fails to occur in a community
college. Additional interviews and discussions with all of the parties involved in
curriculum reform help us understand the complex nature of higher education
and the obstacles to change. Figure 1 shows how this study begins with all

Michigan community colleges and ends with two individual case studies.

  
     

  

step 3
case studies

 

 

,/ 2 selected colleges \

 

step 2
survey of
existing manufacturing

programs

 

/ 19 colleges with manufacturing programs \

 

 

step 1
census to determine the
universe of manufacturing programs

 

/ all 28 Michigan community colleges \

 

 

Figure 1: Colleges Included in Each Step of the Study

11

LimitaLtioan of the study

In addition to incorporating skills standards into occupational curriculum,
another trend is towards certification of these skills (Bailey and Merritt, 1995).
Also known as “credentialing”, this movement reflects the need for industry to
have something more “certifiable” than a traditional associate or baccalaureate
degree. Although the NIMS standards provide the basis for three certified
metalworking skill levels, the scope of this study focuses only on curriculum
designed for traditional associate degree programs.

Additionally, formal curriculum design is the main focus of this study. The
curriculum issues will primarily encompass the “official curriculum” in these
manufacturing programs. The term “official curriculum” is differentiated from the
“null curriculum”, the “hidden curriculum”, or the “operational curriculum” as
related to these programs (Posner, 1992). Whether or not instructors actually
adhere to the official curriculum in the community college classroom is a topic for

another study.

12

Chapter 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
This literature review elaborates the following topics to build a conceptual

framework and provide a common understanding of the terminology used in this
research study:

0 Multiple and conflicting roles of community colleges

0 Curriculum in community colleges

. Manufacturing related programs at the community college level

0 The changing nature of manufacturing companies

0 National skills standards

0 National Institute of Metalworking Skills

0 The role of professional societies and accreditation institutions in

curriculum reform

o A proposed model of curriculum reform
Empirical findings from many of the classic community college references,
combined with more recent studies and statistics, reveal that the topic of skills
standards in community college curricula is part of the long-standing debate over
the primary mission of the community college. This literature review helps
establish the importance of a comprehensive metalworking program curriculum
that effectively prepares students to meet the challenge of today’s manufacturing

environment.

13

Multiple and conflicting roles of community colleges

One of the long-standing dilemmas of the American community college
stems from the dual role of preparing students for continued college and
university studies while at the same time addressing the needs of workforce
development. For this reason, many of the contemporary curriculum discussions
in the community college are continuations of a decades long debate.

Junior colleges first emerged in the United States in the early 19003. They
were meant to serve as an extension of the college and university system. At the
second annual meeting of the American Association of Junior Colleges, this
definition was proposed: “an institution offering two years of instruction of strictly
collegiate grade” (Cohen and Brawer, 1989, p. 4). A similar definition is given by
Bailey and Morest (2004, p. 1) as “providing the first two years of a four-year
college education”. Some existing community colleges remain steeped in the
academic traditions of the junior colleges (Brint and Karabel, 1989). Other
community colleges, especially those that began in the “605 and “708, do not
carry the legacy of a strong academic focus.

The initial role of community colleges in preparing students for successful
transfer to other institutions is well documented. Knoell and Medsker (1965)
studied the success of 7000 community college transfer students in ten states.
Most of these students performed academically as well as or better than their
counterparts who started out in the university system. This success, combined

with the fact that about three quarters of all community college students during

14

the 1960’s intended to transfer, is consistent with the academic traditions of
community colleges.

Since that time, 2-year colleges have undergone a significant shift in their
purpose and mission (Bailey and Averianova, 1999). During the 1950’s and
1960’s the term community college began to replace the original title of junior
college. Long-term trends pointed towards declining emphasis on transfer
students and more interest in occupational studies. As the role of the community
college changed to include preparing students - many of them already adults -
for careers in technology fields, the size of the colleges and the scope of their
programs increased significantly. Although there was initial resistance to these
“terminal” vocational programs, in 1970 more than half of community college
students were enrolled in career programs (Parker, 1974). By 1993 a record 75%
of community college freshmen cited vocational reasons for attending college
(Grubb, 1999). This trend reflects the growing need for workers with “some level
of college education” below a baccalaureate degree. Grubb estimates that this
educational status in the workforce has more than doubled in the past 30 years
and will continue to grow.

Dual Curricular Tracks

McGrath and Spear (1991) described the identity crisis of modern
community colleges. On one hand, a tradition of academic rigor is upheld for the
students who eventually transfer to other institutions. On the other hand,
community colleges have been expected to serve a wide variety of constituents,

ranging from remedial education to technical training for local industry. This dual

15

role has resulted in a separation of academic and occupational study programs
in some community colleges (Cohen and Brawer, 1989). As an example,
occupational students take alternative math classes that fulfill program
requirements but do not transfer as a credit bearing college math class.
Ultimately these dual tracks tend to restrict both the opportunities of the college
departments and the students they serve.

Other community colleges have resisted the creation of dual tracks for
academic and occupational students. Combining all students in the general
education classes causes a different set of problems. Occupational students and
those seeking terminal certification may find themselves failing the general
education courses that contain a high level of academic rigor (McGrath and
Spear, 1991 ). Similarly, students bound for traditional baccalaureate degrees will
not be academically prepared for advanced courses if they must attend classes
having open enrollment, or where only a small percentage of students are
allowed to fail. '

Strong arguments exist, however, to integrate academic and vocational
education. Bailey and Averianova (1999) argue that combining academic and
vocational education at the program or course level strengthens the overall
mission of the community college. Combined programs allow for larger
departments and the opportunity to synthesize academic and occupational
outcomes. Lombardi (1992) proposes a similar solution — to blend academic and
vocational education into a concept of “career education”. Perin (2000) further

describes the problem of academically unprepared students in occupational

16

training programs. She cites the lack of integration between occupational and
academic education. One persistent problem is the watered-down academic
class for occupational students, making them ineligible for transfer. This
deficiency limits the eventual career choices and opportunity for educational
advancement. Another source of tension is the divide between faculty
considered primarily academic and those considered primarily occupational:
neither group is interested in teaching “the other" material (Perin, 2000, p. 4).
Vocational education also continues to suffer from lower status than transfer-
oriented course work.

A recent comprehensive survey was conducted to determine the
community college faculty view of institutional mission (Brewer, 2000). This study
included a survey of over 1700 individuals in 92 institutions. The faculty
appeared to be evenly split on the current primary mission between workplace
preparation (28.1%) and transfer education (27.1%). Additional responses
included basic skills training (16.2%) and community service (6.2%). Brewer
found that when a similar question was asked about the ideal college mission,
33% cited workplace preparation. This study also showed that although
predictable differences appeared between academic and occupational faculty
responses, both faculty groups agreed that community development activities
should not be a high priority for community colleges. In some institutions the
expansion of community service activities has created a tension between the

“traditional” or “credit” side of the college and the “non-credit” or “customized

17

training” departments. Often separate facilities and employment contracts
accentuate these differences.

Funding sources add further complexity to institutional mission.
Proponents of a strong academic program point out that traditional transfer
courses are more economical to offer — using simple classrooms and large class
sizes. They claim that the occupational programs exhaust the college budget
with expensive laboratory requirements and high classroom expenses. Those
who favor occupational education stress the additional funding available. In
Michigan, for instance, vocational students receive a higher level of funding
(Lombardi, 1992). Federal funding is also targeted towards vocational education
(McCabe, 1997). Perkins Act funds have become a major contributor of
laboratory upgrades and new technology in occupational programs (Jacobs,
2001). Additional support from local industry is often intended for vocational
programs (Bailey and Morest, 2004). This support comes in the form of surplus
equipment and materials donations, scholarships for students in specific training
programs, and hiring of program graduates.

The special needs of the adult learner have also added complexity to the
mission of the community college. Displaced workers from plant closings and
out-sourced jobs come to the community colleges - often financed through a
variety of public and privately funded re-training programs. Some community
colleges have created special programs for these individuals - recognizing that
they come with special needs for accelerated programs with specific objectives

for future employment.

18

Critics of the modern comprehensive community college argue that
additional expansion into peripheral activities will distract from the original
mission of the community college. Bailey and Morest (2004) completed a study
of eight community colleges in five different states. They describe the complex
funding and political environments in which these colleges function. The
administrators often see growth as an avenue to secure more funding and a
stronger support base. However, the core mission of the institution can suffer as
the community college tries to be “all things to all people”. Although Bailey and
Morest explain the obvious pitfalls of the comprehensive community college, they
recognize that these institutions will continue to expand into opportunities that
support enrollment enhancement and/or revenue generation.

Vertical and Horizontal Expansion

This study examines two special types of community college growth.
Vertical expansion is used to gain control of the student population entering and
exiting the community college. From the receiving end, programs such as Tech-
Prep, School-to-Work, and dual enrollment with high schools have generated
additional grants and tuition dollars. This expansion also becomes an effective
student recruitment tool. On the other end, vertical integration stresses dual
enrollment and articulation with 4-year degree programs in other colleges. This
integration is also a strong recruitment tool and enhances the transfer student
population. Growth in the horizontal direction includes the many community

service and training functions with which community colleges are experimenting.

19

Again, Bailey and Morest point to increased enrollment, revenue enhancement,
and political gains as the primary reasons for horizontal expansion.

Jacobs (2001) points out the inaccurate public perception of occupational
training programs. Many of these programs began back in the 1960s and 19703.
These traditional vocational programs were created to fill the large need for
entry-level workers in manufacturing and technical occupations. Technical
curricula were often considered watered down versions of the academic
programs that led to traditional degrees and transfer opportunity. The programs
were terminal in nature — meaning that they were separated from the academic
programs, and the courses were not meant to transfer into other academic
programs. By the late 19903, these programs mostly had become outdated
because of the reduced job market for entry level workers and because the
programs did not reflect the changing needs of the high performance
manufacturing companies. Another complaint about the traditional occupational
programs is that they were inflexible to meet the needs of older adults coming
back to update their skills. Jacobs argues for a renewed emphasis on
occupational training geared towards emerging new job opportunities and more
fully integrated with academic degree programs. Technical curricula must be re-
invented as an integrated part of community college academic programs.

These debates over the multiple and sometimes conflicting roles of the
community college will likely carry over into the future debates of how community
colleges, in their second century of existence, can best serve the needs of their

various constituents.

20

Curriculum in community colleges

Community colleges are flourishing in the United States. Approximately
5.4 million students are currently enrolled in credit classes and another 5 million
in non-credit training programs (AACC, 1998). Coley (2000) claims, “as the
community college system turns 100, demographic and economic trends would
appear likely to increase its vigor” (p. 30). These trends point towards an
increasingly important role of the community colleges in the post-secondary
landscape of American education. However, the curricula and program
perspectives paint a different picture. McGrath and Spear (1991) describe some
of the major challenges facing the community college: declining academic
standards, diverse and vocal student bodies, less connection with universities,
and curricula in disarray.

The meaning of the term “curriculum” can vary greatly among community
college constituents. Curriculum could encompass the structure of a single class,
an academic program, or the educational activity of an entire school. Stark and
Lattuca (1996) define curriculum as an “academic plan... including purposes,
activities, and ways of measuring success” (p. 9). This plan should include the
following elements: purpose, content, sequence, learners, instructional
processes, instructional resources, evaluation, and adjustment.

To help understand its various meanings, John McNeil (1996, p. 115)
posits a multi-faceted description of the term “curriculum”:

Ideal cun'iculum. This definition of curriculum refers to the ideology of

what should be taught in a given program of study. Several different

21

versions of the ideal curriculum may compete for attention in the actual
implementation of the plan.

Formal curriculum. Curriculum at this level will have passed from the ideal
state to an academic plan that has been officially adopted and approved
by sanctioning bodies. This form of curriculum should be the version
published and promoted as a working model.

Perceived curriculum. This concept is what the instructors believe they
should be teaching, which may or may not coincide with the formal
curriculum.

Operational curriculum. This term describes what happens in the
classroom. Again, it may closely resemble the perceived curriculum, or it
may vary to a large extent.

Experiential curriculum. Each student may experience the operational
curriculum from a different perspective. Student background and previous
knowledge may cause individual students in the same program to view the

operational curriculum from a different perspective.

These definitions help explain why curriculum change can be such a complicated

procedure. The administration may modify the formal curriculum, but classroom

and laboratory experiences might not change. Similarly, an instructor may modify

the classroom experience without bothering to change the formal curriculum.

From a slightly different perspective, George Posner (1992, p. 12)

presents an additional set of curriculum definitions:

Official curriculum: The curriculum described in formal documents.

22

Operational curriculum: The curriculum embodied in actual teaching

practices and tests.

Hidden curriculum: The institutional norms and values not openly

acknowledged by teachers or school officials.

Null cuniculum: The subject matters not taught.

Extra curriculum: The planned experiences outside the formal curriculum.
These definitions recognize the culture of an institution and the values by which it
operates - even if those values are not implicitly stated in the curriculum. In this
study, the definitions of the official curriculum and the formal curriculum best
describe the curriculum I examine.

Comparing Curriculum with For-Profit Colleges

One helpful framework for understanding the community college
curriculum development process is to compare it to the curriculum development
process used by for-profit technical colleges. Bailey and Badway (2002)
performed a comparison study between community colleges and for-profit
colleges. They noted several important differences in the approach to curriculum
development. In the community college, the instructors teaching the courses
have more latitude in curriculum and pedagogy decisions. The community
college instructors are empowered to claim ownership of the curriculum and to
tailor the classes towards the perceived local needs for that class. The for-profit
college curriculum is much more standardized. All instructors are expected to
adhere to the extensive course documentation. The for-profit institution utilizes a

team of experienced faculty and instructional designers to develop this course

23

documentation. The strength of the centrally managed curriculum of the for-profit
colleges lies in the ease of use for new and adjunct faculty, the ability to
articulate the curriculum with perceived employer needs, and the expectation
that all students will receive a similar educational experience regardless of the
instructor.

There are more obstacles to curriculum reform in the community college
than in the more streamlined hierarchy of the for-profit colleges. Community
colleges must often deal with the complexity of academic and vocational
outcomes. Bailey and Badway (2002) note that some community college
instructors circumvent the lengthy curriculum revision process by teaching
different material under the guise of the old course titles and descriptions. This
approach is an effective short-term solution but does little to correct the gap
between the formal curriculum and the operational curriculum (McNeil, 1996).

Based on the model of curriculum development in the for-profit colleges,
embracing a skills standard and teaching to that standard would occur quicker
and more uniformly in the for-profit college than in a community college. The for-
profit college operates more like a business where decisions are made from the
top down and everyone participates in carrying out those decisions. In a
community college curricular reform may fail because of instructors who resist
change or administrators who fail to follow through on the project.

Comparing Curriculum with 4-Year Colleges
Bailey and Badway (2002) also note that in both public and for-profit 4-

year colleges, curriculum tends to be more focused and treated as a “sequence

24

of courses”. First, these colleges have more control than community colleges
over the caliber of student admitted to the program. To a certain degree they can
“pick their winners”. Community colleges have much more liberal enrollment
policies. Second, a 4-year college has a greater percentage of younger students
who follow the prescribed program plan. This plan often involves taking a series
of core classes in proper sequence (Thompson, 1994). Community colleges
have older students selecting classes to enhance their employability, often
raising havoc with the prerequisites recommended in the course catalog. In
some cases an adult student will first focus on an area of specialization and then
go back to work on degree requirements. Grubb (1999) refers to these students
as “experimenters”. He explains that community colleges are great low cost
places for students to try out various post-secondary Ieaming opportunities.
However, this process can result in deceivingly low community college “success”
rates because of so many program non-completers. Compared to the more
controlled environment of 4-year and for-profit colleges, it is no wonder that
community college curricula can appear rather disorganized.

Stiehl and Lewchuk (2002) warn against traditional methods of curriculum
development in community colleges: “We have developed curricula within the
isolation of the academy, around tables where only the faculty are present. More
often than not, our curriculum design process focuses on what new topic should
be covered, in which course it should be covered, and which faculty member
wants to cover it. It’s as if we see ourselves living and working in a laboratory

that is separate from our students’ lives. It’s a process that will no longer survive

25

the scrutiny of our public and accreditors” (p. 2). Thompson (1994) also reminds
us of how private industry views higher education as “sheltered enclaves out of
touch with reality”. One advisory board member interviewed in this study
explained that although he really wanted to help the local community college with
curriculum reform, he could no longer bear the long meetings where every
viewpoint is considered and a consensus is never reached or acted upon.
Resources for Curriculum Reform

Although the duties of curriculum maintenance and revision may be
primarily assigned to the community college instructor, the resources to perform
this task may be limited. Lombardi (1992) discovered that up to 90% of a
community college instnictor’s time is taken up with teaching and classroom
management related issues, leaving little time for curriculum development
activities. Community college instmctors, usually hired based on a combination
of academic credentials and vocational experience, often lack the training and
experience in formal curriculum revision (Grubb and Associates, 1999). Finally,
the trend towards utilizing more adjunct faculty can detract from an overall
concern for curriculum development (Lombardi, 1992). Adjunct instructors are
often more concerned with high student course ratings and job security than with
curriculum revision.

Grubb and Associates (1999) found that the more comprehensive
community colleges tended to become very fragmented, attempting to cover a

wide range of services with limited resources. Small department sizes typical in

26

many community colleges mean that multiple responsibilities often fall on the
shoulders of a single individual. One instructor explains it this way:

We face here what I call the community college paradox It’s that the

community college touts itself as being the teaching institution in higher

education. It’s the one that’s not burdened, if you will, by the research
assignment for the teacher. . .What you would expect, I think, is
communities of teachers who are developing their skills as teachers, and
that there’d be a lot of institutional attention to that very goal. . .But instead
what you find in the community colleges is. .. teachers who are just

phenomenally isolated (p. 50).

Another community college instmctor poignantly states his perception of how the
administration views his occupational department: “I’m an independent
contractor — no one gives a sh_ what I do as long as enrollments are up” (p.
49).

Grubb and Associates (1999) studied the rchrring theme of formal
curriculum versus operational curriculum. Often a course syllabus is written or a
textbook is chosen to match external skills standards or employer expectations.
The underlying assumption in developing these curricula is that the many critical
instructional components - motivated students, competent instructor, and
adequate facilities — are all present. Grubb noted that about one quarter of all
community college classrooms observed in the study could fall into the
“distressed" category. A distressed class has a low level of connection between

the proposed syllabus and the student Ieaming taking place. In some cases the

27

distressed classes are caused by ineffective instructional techniques. Often a
distressed class is the result of open admission policies in the community
college, allowing unprepared students into the classroom. One method used by
instructors to cope with a distressed class is to take the attitude of “blissful
indifference”. In this context, the instructor plows ahead with the planned course
activities, largely indifferent to whether the students are Ieaming the material. At
least in this case the course materials are “covered”. Another reaction to a
distressed class is “accommodation”. The instructor reduces the gap between
the curriculum and the classroom by lowering expectations. One instructor
interviewed openly admitted to selecting a textbook to impress four-year
instructors, but then needing to cut back on the material covered. Another
instructor commented on the general tendency of loosened standards in his
department:

I think, generally, we’re too loose in our standards. Because we want to

it comes from a good heart we want to be forgiving, you know, we want

to help students as much as we can, we’ve got this sort of bleeding heart

for all the students. But I think maybe we’ve gone too far with that, and

now its time for a little tough love (p. 223).

With regard to laboratory facilities, Grubb and Associates found in their
study that occupational students learn best — and occupational instructors teach
best - in the hands-on method of instruction. Students struggle when large doses

of classroom theory and textbook readings are substituted for hands-on Ieaming.

28

Terry O’Banion (1997) proposes several challenges to community
colleges seeking to improve curriculum and provide more emphasis on Ieaming.
Two fundamental questions that can be asked of new program components are
“Does this action improve and expand Ieaming?" and “How do we know this
action improves and expands Ieaming?” (p. 9). In other words, shift the focus of
curricula to the learning outcomes and objectives. For example, purchasing a
new piece of laboratory equipment without addressing these two questions
means that money continues to be spent and programs modified without any real
measurement of program improvement.

Secondly, he recommends “educational experiences be designed for the
convenience of the learner rather than for the convenience of institutions and
their staffs” (p. 15). He later follows up with the statement “It is generally
acknowledged that the creators or guardians of a program or institution will find
the task of making changes formidable” (p. 28). In other words, successful
educators will naturally protect an environment to which they are accustomed
and in which they are successful. True curriculum reform is more likely when
administrative leaders, industry professionals, and instructional designers team
up with faculty to help create a more effective Ieaming environment. Finally,
O’Banion suggests that all Ieaming outcomes be based on competency
requirements that reflect national standards.

Jacobs (2001, p. 182) states, “Increasingly employers are demanding new
curricula that include skill standards not typically included in traditional

curricula.” These employers do not trust that the existing faculty-developed

29

curriculum will meet their needs. Jacobs also argues that curriculum
development for occupational programs is different than for traditional academic
disciplines. In academics, the outcomes are not related specifically to
occupational achievement. Occupational programs must be compared to
relevant external standards — making sure that program outcomes are updated
with changes in processes and technology.
Three Curricular Frameworks

Stiehl and Lewchuck (2002) describe three basic frameworks of
curriculum development. Content framework includes the traditional methods of
describing the content to teach, how to teach it, and how to test on it. A second
framework — competency framework - reduces Ieaming to hundreds of tiny tasks
that can be checked off and recorded as they are mastered. Little synthesis of
the skills is required in the competency framework. The outcomes framework is
more closely matched to what the student will encounter in the workplace. This
framework incorporates both behavioral and constructivist theory to help
students synthesize skills in authentic projects and tasks. The outcomes
framework begins externally by defining what students are expected to do in the
workplace. This step will guide the general content of the curriculum, which is
then defined in terms of specific skills. Finally, projects to demonstrate these
skills are developed along with the appropriate assessment criteria. Stiehl and
Lewchuck argue that this third framework — the outcomes framework - is the

ideal for modern occupational curriculum development.

30

The curriculum revision process in traditional 4-year engineering programs
faces similar challenges. Kelly and Weston (1996) document the challenge to
identify a core curriculum that demonstrates the synthesis of basic engineering
skills to the workplace. This task competes with the already crowded curriculum
of many fragmented technologies and specializations. Curriculum discussions
beginning with what to cut out of the existing courses to make room for a more
hands-on practical experience will lead to acrimonious debate and protection of
turf. Again, a gap exists between the traditional academic requirements of a
degree program and the skills a graduate needs to work in a modern engineering
environment.

Elmaraghy and Elmaraghy (1996) expand that argument to include
engineering programs in Canada. They recognize a significant academic gap
between manufacturing engineering technology programs and manufacturing
engineering programs. They acknowledge that the manufacturing engineering
technology programs include more of the practical and shop floor skills required
in the workplace. Elmaraghy and Elmaraghy recommend that the manufacturing
engineering programs be closer aligned with the needs of the modern
manufacturing industry. Specifically, they call for “relevant, hands-on, innovative
curricula that respond to changing needs in the workplace” (p. 4). In Europe,
engineering education has traditionally included closer ties with manufacturing
companies and a greater synthesis of academic knowledge with shop floor

competencies (Kelly and Weston, 1996).

31

Felder and Brent (2003) explain that the new ABET accreditation criteria
used since 2001 also reflect the trend towards a constructivist - or hands-on —
approach to engineering education. The Accreditation Board for Engineering and
Technology (ABET) was formerly accused of using a “bean counting” system of
assuring that a rigid set of academic topics were covered in a program. Under
the new system ABET is much more flexible about program content. Greater
emphasis is placed on educational outcomes that reflect current industry
standards. Equally important are effective assessment procedures that ensure
the competencies are mastered. These new assessment criteria allow for a
greater variety in program focus, recognizing the diverse local needs of regional
manufacturing companies.

Delta College - A Traditional Curriculum

Finally, in this discussion on community college curriculum I compare the
traditional engineering technology curricula with new curricula that have been
developed and are in the process of being implemented. Delta College in
Michigan offers a two-year engineering technology program that carries ABET
accreditation (http:lwww.delta.edu/degreesprograms/MechanicalEngineer.asp).

The course sequence is shown in Table 1.

Course Description Credits

 

Fall Semester

CAD 114 AutoCAD Introduction
DRF 104 Basic Mechanical Design
MTH 119 lntennediate Algebra
MFG 111 Manufacturing Process

 

 

 

 

IUD-500k)

 

32

 

 

Winter Semester

 

 

 

 

 

 

CHM 107 Chemistry for Engineering Technology 4
DRF 107 lnterrnediate Mechanical Design 3
LW 220 Lifelong Wellness 1
MTH 113 Applied Trigonometry .4.
12
Spring Semester
ENG _ Any approved college Composition I course 3
LW _ Any approved Lifelong Wellness requirement 1
MS 113 Machining Processes Z
6
Fall Semester
MT220 Introduction to Fluid Power 3
MT 221 Materials and Metallurgy 3
MTH 208 Elementary Statistics 3
PHY 111 General Physics I .4.
13
Winter Semester
EET 235 Electrical Circuits 3
ENG 113 Technical Communications 3
MT 251 Statics and Dynamics 3
MT 255 Kinematics of Mechanisms .3
12
Spring Semester
DRF 257 Advanced Mechanical Design 4
MT 256 Strength of Materials 3
7
Fall Semester
CED 280 Cooperative Education: Mechanical Technology 1
DRF 257 Advanced Mechanical Design 4
GEO 116 Professional Global Awareness 1
MBA 205 Rapid Prototyping and Tooling .6

 

 

 

33

 

 

MDA 211 Interactive Part Modeling 2.4
PHL 207 Engineering Ethics

 

POL __ Any approved American Government requirement 3
1 3
Total credits required 75

 

 

 

 

 

Table 1: Delta Engineering Technology Curriculum

This very traditional engineering technology program has been designed
to meet the graduation requirements of Delta College, the ABET accreditation
criteria, and the transfer requirements of baccalaureate institutions. Several of
the courses listed are one or more options among general requirements where
students can choose based on special interests or prior knowledge. One notation
listed with this program reminds the student that the program transfers to a
baccalaureate technology degree program but not to an engineering program.
This program has expanded well beyond the typical two year/ 60 credit program
found in most community colleges. Also note that while these course offerings
are typical of an engineering technology program, additional offerings have been
added to the end of this program. These courses - Professional Global
Awareness, Rapid Prototyping and Tooling, Interactive Part Modeling,
Engineering Ethics - appear to address the changing needs of manufacturing
companies and are offered in a shorter format than the typical 3 or 4 semester-

credit courses.

34

NCEIAME — A “Novel” Curriculum

In 1995 the National Science Foundation funded a large curriculum
project of the National Center of Excellence for Advanced Manufacturing
Education (NCEIAME, 2000). This project - “A Novel Curriculum for the
Associate Degree in Manufacturing Technology” -— was housed at the Sinclair
Community College and also worked closely with the University of Dayton in
Dayton, Ohio. The purpose of this project was “to develop a novel, activity
based, competency based, contextual, industry verified, modular curriculum in
manufacturing technology that can lead to systematic change in the way
technician education is delivered in the United States“ (p. 2).

This curriculum project began with identifying leading national skills
standards initiatives. The SCANS competencies, developed by the US.
Department of Labor Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills,
were important because they are already recognized nationally as universal
competencies for all workers. Other standards included the Advanced High
Performance Manufacturing Standards, National Institute of Metalworking Skills,
and the National Skills Standards Board. Another primary source of
recommendations was from the Society of Manufacturing Engineers Curricula
2002. This document contained many recommendations for manufacturing
curricula, including the associate degree in manufacturing engineering
technology. One guiding principle in this project was that a constructivist theory
of Ieaming be encouraged through a series of “authentic learning tasks”. Another

departure from traditional curricula is that Ieaming modules are not based on the

35

traditional semester hours of credit. Instead the Ieaming units are typically
smaller and more focused. The concern is primarily competency based rather
than time based instructional units. In other words, completion of a module
occurs when the competencies are demonstrated rather than when the “seat
time” has been fulfilled. Approximate estimation of completion time is obviously
needed to plan the Ieaming activities and equate the program to traditional
semester hours.

This project began with a compilation of over 800 competencies identified
as required for an associate degree in manufacturing engineering technology.
From these 800 competencies a list of 175 major headings were identified to
help group the competencies. Finally, nine clusters were developed to further

organize the major headings. Table 2 shows the organization of the modules.

 

Introduction to World Class Manufacturing

 

Manufacturing Processes and Materials
Basic Material Removal
Metal Forming and Joining
Metallic Materials
Non-Metallic Materials
Plastics Manufacturing Processes and Materials
Principles of Manufacturing Processes
Tooling for Manufacturing

 

Design for Manufacturing
Conceptual Design
Drawing and Sketching
Geometric Dimensioning and Tolerancing

 

 

 

36

 

Product Development and Testing

 

Quality Management
Process Control
Quality Foundations

 

Production and Inventory Control
Consistent Work Methods and Build to Demand
Introduction to Just-In-Time (JIT)
Kanban and Pull Systems
Manufacturing Work Cell Design
Process Flow and Lead Time Reduction
Principles of Production and Inventory Control

 

Manufacturing Systems and Automation
Computer Numerical Control
Electrical and Electronic Controls
Robots and Programmable Logic Controllers

 

Enterprise Integration
Customer Satisfaction
Performance Measures

 

Mathematics
Basic Statistical Variation
College Algebra Applications
Describing Position, Velocity, and Acceleration
Precision, Accuracy, and Tolerance
Statistical Distribution
Units and Conversions
Vector Analysis

 

Science
Basic DC Circuits
Forces and their Effects

 

 

Humanities, Communications and Teamwork

 

37

 

 

Preparation of Letters and Memoranda
Professional Development

Teamwork

Tools for the Future

 

 

 

Table 2: NCEIAME Curriculum

This innovative curriculum stands apart from traditional manufacturing
curriculum in several ways. The curriculum is very much industry driven and the
direct linkage between skills standards and module content is visible in the
curriculum documentation. Because the modules are competency based, the
program is defined more by what a successful participant can do than by what
topics were “covered” in a course. Also, the modules employ a high level of
integration to assist the learner in applying concepts previously learned. Each
module follows an elaborate educational design that begins with a “big picture”,
introduces specific competencies, and concludes with generalizations and
practical examples.

The intent of this curriculum project was to create a national model of
manufacturing curriculum reform that could be disseminated to other colleges
and universities. Although this curricula design is intended for ABET
accreditation, questions remain about how such a radical curriculum design will
fit under existing guidelines and expectations. Additionally, articulation issues
must be worked out with four-year colleges and universities.

Institutions of higher education are not known for their speed and

efficiency in modifying existing courses and degree programs to meet modem

38

industry expectations (Bailey and Badway, 2002). Adopting a national curricular
model such as this one may be less painful than reforming existing programs.
When seeking NIMS or ABET accreditation it might be easier to start a new
program built entirely upon the recommendations and specifications of that
organization. However, Bailey and Morest (2004) warn against continued
proliferation of new programs. Adding new programs contributes to the complex
organizational structures in community colleges. The small department sizes that
result from such a broad offering of programs will likely discourage a unified and

structured curriculum.

Manufacturing programs at the community college level

Community colleges will continue to play a dominant role in educating the
manufacturing workforce needed in the 21“ century. Nationally, 78.5% of post-
secondary vocational education is found in the community colleges (Jacobs,
2001). As mentioned earlier, targeted funding often follows these occupational
students. Manufacturing companies need more skilled workers to continue their
growth in high technology tooling, production, and assembly. Additionally, the
anticipated retirements of skilled workers in the next five years requires
preparation of a new workforce. Although the number of jobs requiring a four-
year degree or greater has stabilized in the past few decades, many more jobs
now require between 6 months and 2 years of post-secondary education

(McCabe, 1997).

39

Community colleges are faced with many challenges in their role as the
premier educational institution for world class manufacturing companies. Many
businesses have been forced to undergo radical changes in the past few
decades to meet the pricing and quality demands of the international market.
During this time community colleges have remained largely unchanged (Beard,
1993; Stiehl and Lewchuck, 2002). Colleges and universities are often viewed by
manufacturing companies as institutions that suffer from poor management,
duplication of programs, and lack of relevance to the workplace (Thompson,
1994). In many cases local industry groups are taking the lead in promoting
change in educational institutions. According to Robert Knight (1998), private
industry councils are using their economic and political clout to direct funding
towards programs and curricula that support the workforce development needs
of their companies. These efforts are forcing community colleges to improve their
workforce development activities or concede a portion of their funding and
student population to agencies successful in these pursuits.

In the mid 1990’s a consortium of West Michigan manufacturing
companies spent substantial amounts of time and resources trying to articulate
their workforce training needs to the local educators (Right Place Program
Manufacturer’s Council, 1996). They focused on Total Quality Management, a
cornerstone of international competition. The manufacturer’s council challenged
educational institutions to apply these same principles of continuous quality
improvement and documentation of quality. These procedures, as applied to

higher education, include having standardized educational goals that drive

40

teaching and testing standards. Some proponents of this approach challenge the
colleges to guarantee competent graduates, offering free remedial education if
students fail to meet the standards.

Although national skills standards provide the basic framework for
curriculum development, local community colleges need to filter these standards
to reflect the local employer needs. Jacobs (2001) notes that the selection of
specific software or process knowledge should reflect the needs of local industry
— even if this means teaching several alternative technologies at the same time.
He further explains that because vocational curriculum is externally dictated, the
issue of “maintaining relevance” becomes central to the success of post-
secondary occupational education. As a result, vocational curriculum must be
updated and modified more often than traditional academic curriculum. When
this reform fails to occur, the result is a shortage of skilled workers and declining
enrollments in occupational education.

Community colleges are also faced with maintaining a system of degrees
and credentials meaningful both to local industry and to other colleges and
universities. Because many community college students are part-time or enrolled
in non-credit programs, the community colleges are faced with the challenge of
establishing a broad framework of matriculation, certificate completion, and job
related competencies that allow the students to move toward long term goals of
degree completion and career enhancement (McDuffie and Stevenson, 1995).

Finally, Jacobs (2001) encourages community college faculty and

administration to focus on updating their industry skills and knowledge, and to

41

revise the curriculum as needed. He acknowledges that the increasing
comprehensiveness of the community college results in many fragmented
occupational programs with limited resources to excel in any of the programs. As
economic resources become scarce, some occupational programs may have to
be eliminated or combined with others to remain viable. An emphasis on
workforce competitiveness helps provide a convincing argument for continued
support of community college vocational training (Bailey and Averianova, 1999).

Community colleges remain among the most cost effective and accessible
employee training services for manufacturing companies. McCabe (1997)
elaborates several of the reasons why community colleges will continue to
dominate in workforce development needs. Michigan’s 28 community colleges
are located within commuting distance for a large majority of the population.
Accessibility is very important to students geographically bound because of
employment or family situations. In niral areas much more is being done with
satellite campuses and distance Ieaming to include everyone that needs training.

Community colleges have the right values and attitudes to encompass the
Ieaming needs of all individuals — not just those with successful academic
credentials. Learning opportunities include a wide spectrum of certificates,
degrees, apprenticeships, and workforce skills. Non-credit training and
community service activities comprise a large portion of community college
activities. Included in these programs are a wide variety of services such as
testing and basic skills instruction, placing the learner in an appropriate

environment.

42

Community colleges are also effective in workforce training because they are
flexible and responsive to new developments and technologies. Closer
involvement with local companies helps them stay abreast of new training
opportunities. As businesses look for ways to cut training expenses they realize
the low cost of community colleges compared to universities or private training
providers (McCabe. 1997).

Finally, community colleges reaching out to all individuals needing continuing
education provide a concrete foundation upon which participants can advance
their careers or opportunities for college degrees. For example, a course taken
for personal interest might eventually apply towards an apprenticeship or
certificate. That group of certificate courses could be counted towards an
associate degree, which would then provide an opportunity to pursue a
baccalaureate degree. Community colleges are responsible for developing
curricula centered on real workplace competencies that can be measured and
that will satisfy the increasing skill levels required of the workforce in the 21st

century.

The changing nature of manufacturing companies

 

Manufacturing has always been a major wealth-creating element of the
US. economy. For many decades during the mid-19003, our nation’s dominance
in manufacturing was almost taken for granted. Although it was largely
responsible for the growth of middle class America, manufacturing was also

characterized as dark, dirty, dangerous work that many young people wanted to

43

avoid (Wells, 1996). During the 19703, the US. experienced its first real threat to
manufacturing dominance. Japan, long known for cheap transistor radios and
consumer trinkets, suddenly started to dominate the machine tool business and
began making in-roads in the automobile industry. American companies
responded with a renewed emphasis on quality and efficiency, emerging in the
early 19903 as more competitive and better attuned to the world marketplace.
The economy of the 19903 experienced unprecedented growth. However
manufacturing suffered from several unusual pressures (IRN, 2002). One
problem was finding enough skilled employees to run production during the
years of record employment. Another problem was that manufacturing was
suffering from extremely low status in the eyes of investors and the American
public. Manufacturing companies were providing consistent returns of about five
percent while the “dot.com” companies were increasing their annual net worth at
2 to 4 times that value. Some manufacturing companies succumbed to short
term strategies for raising investor values while at the same time harming their
long-term competitiveness (Right Place Program Manufacturer's Council, 2002).
The significant loss of high paying manufacturing jobs during this last
recession caused a renewed interest in manufacturing. According to Wells
(1996), the “wealth-transferring service sector of the economy is a product of
healthy growth in the wealth-creating manufacturing sector“ (p. 1). In Michigan
manufacturing still accounts for 25% of the state payroll and 93% of exports
(Right Place Program Manufacturer's Council, 2002). More than just another

business cycle, many manufacturing jobs have been lost to foreign competition

44

and will not likely return. One of the major inequities manufacturers face is the
cost of labor. Any manufacturing operation that remains labor intensive is at risk
of being outsourced. The legacy costs of large American companies are
prohibitive — pensions, health care, and unfair tax structures put them at a
disadvantage in the worid marketplace (Right Place Program Manufacturer’s
Council, 2002).

The problem is more complex than simply lowering costs. Some emerging
countries have aggressively targeted prime industries such as tool and die. For
example, Portugal has concentrated on mold making. Almost 90% of the molds
they build are exported -— 18% to the United States (IRN, 2002). These foreign
competitors are heavily supported and subsidized by their own governments.
American companies are asking for additional government support in research,
training, and education to help them compete in this uneven playing field

Manufacturing companies that compete internationally continue to face
several major challenges. Automation and sophistication of manufacturing
processes will continue to drive up productivity and drive down labor costs.
Product innovation must continue at a rate that causes planned obsolescence
before a design can be copied and imitated in a developing country.
Manufacturers must form strategic alliances with emerging third world countries
to capitalize on opportunities in the world marketplace (IRN, 2002).

Although some manufacturing companies anticipate a promising future as
the economy strengthens, real growth in manufacturing jobs is not guaranteed.

Manufacturing companies will continue to shed from their workforce employees

45

marginally equipped to work in this new environment. Many companies have
learned to get by with fewer employees, adopting lean manufacturing techniques
and working with a flatter organizational structure. New employees must have
both current skills for existing technology and the ability to adapt to new
technologies introduced on the shop floor. In addition to technology skills, a new
emphasis is being placed on soft skills such as communication, teamwork, and
problem solving. These pressures for a higher skilled labor force challenge
community colleges to update curriculum and train to the new production

technologies as they become available (Jacobs, 2001).

National skills standards

In 1994 Congress passed the National Skills Standards Act, establishing
the National Skills Standards Board (NSSB) for the purpose of developing a
comprehensive system of workplace standards for American industries. National
skills standards create a set of workforce specifications that describe the skills
and knowledge desired by employers for workers in a specific occupation.
Fifteen strategic industry sectors were identified, one of these being
Manufacturing, Installation, and Repair. In further defining the purpose of these
skills standards, the N888 states, “Educators can use skills standards to create
curriculum that better prepares students for work” (NSSB, 2000, p. 2).

Susan Faulkner (2002, p. 1) describes the emergence of national skills

standards and their intended impact upon education and industry:

46

For more than a decade, representatives from industry and labor
organizations, educators, training providers, and civil rights organizations
in the United States have been developing a voluntary system of
nationally recognized industry validated skill standards, assessments, and
certifications. The underlying premise is that clear articulation of skills and
knowledge required by front-line workers in high-performance
environments can serve as a benchmark that workers and businesses can
use to maintain a competitive advantage.
Supporters believe that skill standards can promote flexibility and portability of a
worker's skills across occupations, industries, and geographic areas. This
preparation will improve the fit between what is learned in school and what is
needed on the job (NSSB, 2000).

Jim Jacobs (2001, p. 183) describes the potential for these skills
standards: “The National Skills Standards Board release of the manufacturing
skill standards also underscores the desire of employers to encourage the
development of curricula responsive to their own needs, not waiting for
educational institutions to develop programs.” He further explains that these skill
standards “call into question not only traditional occupational programs and
courses, but who bears responsibility for producing the curriculum and the role of
the faculty in the assessment process” (p. 183).

Bailey and Merritt (1995, p. 1) observe, “The skills standards movement
has emerged from a conviction that technology and market changes have

caused significant modifications in the types of skills and behaviors needed by

47

workers on the job. This conviction has motivated a broad education reform
movement that involves changes in curriculum and pedagogy and seeks to tie
education more closely to the emerging needs of the workplace.” Susan
Faulkner (2002, p. 2) explains the connection between industry based skills
standards and community college curriculum as follows:
Skill standards are made up of a work-oriented component and a worker-
oriented component. The work-oriented component focuses on the
requirements of the work, describing what needs to be done on the job
and how well it must be performed. The worker—oriented component
describes the knowledge and skills an individual needs to possess in
order to do the work competently. Recognizing that education and training
are driven at local levels in ways that meet local needs, the NSSB has
neither the authority nor the intention of developing curricula and
instructional materials at the national level. The organizational framework
for the development of a skill standards system and the common
language and format developed for the academic and employability
knowledge and skills used by the NSSB could be a cornerstone for
curriculum development.
Bailey and Merritt (1995) explain that a short-term goal of skills standards
is to improve the communication between students (i.e. prospective employees)
and the employers. This connection helps de-mystify employer needs. Skills

standards seek to reform the relationship between work and education, ensuring

48

I

a long-term partnership dedicated to keeping education in tune with current
needs in the workplace.

In a follow-up paper Merritt (1996) describes two distinct models for skill
standards implementation. The first model — the skill components model —
focuses on the integration of skill standards as a narrowly defined set of
workplace skills required to perform a job in a traditional hierarchical
organization. Academic skills are not strongly integrated into this model. A more
comprehensive model — the professional model - seeks to combine the technical
and academic skills needed to perform complex tasks found in the emerging
workplace. This model addresses the uncertainty and changing environments
upon which the high-performance workplace is based.

Many studies show that manufacturing employees today require greater
professional skill levels (Faulkner, 2002; Jacobs, 2001; Right Place Program
Manufacturer’s Council, 2002). Ironically, Salzman (1998) reports that some
large employers are cutting back on their workforce training and development
programs. The concept of lifelong employment, where individuals are placed into
apprenticeship programs and company sponsored job skills training classes, has
been replaced with a trend toward using contract workers and out-sourcing.
Instead of a narrow set of skills that formerly guaranteed lifetime employment
with a single company, workers must be trained in skills that can be more easily
transported between employers and across jobs within the same business or

industry.

49

Salzman also warns about oversimplifying the supply (educational
institutions) and the demand (employers). Although community colleges appear
poised to take on the workforce skills training needs of businesses, they must not
neglect their role of providing a well-rounded education toward lifelong
employment. Focusing only on the short term needs of employers will short
change students preparing for long-term careers and for additional college
coursework.

During the past 10 years, the skills standards for manufacturing have
progressed from a conceptual stage to a full set of documents ready for
implementation. The manufacturing industry has now established a common
knowledge base fundamental to all employee training and development
requirements (Parry, 1996). Instead of trying to satisfy the needs of a few vocal
businesses, educators can now access compiled and verified sets of

competencies with which they can align their curriculum.

Mnal Instmlte of Metalworking Skills
Coincident with the work of the National Skills Standards Board, the non-

profit National Institute of Metalworking Skills (NIMS, 1998) set out to develop
and implement skills standards for the metalworking portion of the manufacturing
sector. A consortium of metalworking trade associations, national labor
organizations, council of state governors, metalworking companies, and
educators helped to create NIMS. The effort to write skills standards and develop
credentialing and program accreditation was funded by the associations listed

below:

50

. American Machine Tool Distributors Association

. Association for Manufacturing Technology

. Council of Great Lakes Governors

. National Tooling and Machining Association

. Precision Machined Products Association

. Precision Metal Forming Association

. Society of Manufacturing Engineers

. Society for Plastics Engineers

. Society of the Plastics Industry, Mold Makers Division

. Tooling and Manufacturing Association

These skills standards were developed over the past decade using focus
groups of industrial trainers, human resource managers, and skilled trades
persons. Skills standards are written with very specific performance measures.
These standards spell out various levels that individuals can attain at certain
points in their education and work experience (NIMS, 1998). Many standards
were created for various occupations in metalworking, providing the opportunity
to link curriculum directly to competencies that can be tested and measured.

NIMS primary activities include:
. developing, writing, validating, and maintaining skills standards;
. credentialing individuals to specific skills standards;

. accrediting training programs that train to the skills standards and meet
NIMS quality requirements;

51

. assisting states, schools, and companies to form partnerships for skills
standards implementation, program certification, and credentialing of
participants.

NIMS standards list the common duties and describe the knowledge, skills,
and abilities needed to perform the duties well. The resulting skills standards
define what industry wants workers to know and be able to do, and defines a
skills and training framework for the metalworking industry nationwide. In many
states metalworking training programs are rewriting their curricula to bring
students up to the necessary levels to meet the skills standards, especially at
Level I, which represents entry level job standards. NIMS standards are being
introduced as benchmarks for high schools, community colleges, and vocational-
technical schools in the following states: Arkansas, Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana,
Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, and Wisconsin.

Appendix F of this study explains the NIMS standards in detail. Table 3
illustrates how the NIMS skills are clustered according to level and occupational

specialty.

52

 

 

Business Owner, Joumeyperson,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Capstone Management, Engineering Technology,
Opportunities Sales and Application Engineering
Credentialing Process - Level 3
Advanced Metal Forming Advanced Machining
Level3
Additional
competencies
Credentialing Process - Level 2
Stamping Operations General Machining
Level 2 Roll Forming Screw Machining
Focus topics Spinning Die Making
Slide Forming Mold Making
Brake Press Machine Building
CNC Punch Press Maintenance and
Laser Cutting Repair

 

Credentialing Process - Level 1

 

Level 1
Basic skills

 

Metal Forming Skills

 

 

Machining Skills

 

The two general categories of skills consist of machining and metal forming.

Table 3: Overview of NIMS Levels

Each category includes three skill level standards. Although the Level 1

standards are very broad and apply to many of the job specialties, Level 2 and 3

require increased specialization. Each level addresses similar skills with a

graduated level of required precision, or with newer and more complex

technologies. The credentialing process completes each level. Since the

standards are entirely perfonnance-based, individuals can advance at their own

53

 

pace and be recognized for the skills they possess. The standards also provide
employers with an objective assessment tool for worker performance and
training needs.

Lexi!

Level I skills represent competencies reasonably expected of an individual

with one year of experience in a good shop or apprenticeship program. These

skills include basic competency with common machine tools and accessories,

basic shop math and inspection techniques, and basic ability to proceed with

further, more advanced training.

M

At Level II, more complex machining skills are introduced, along with

Computer Numerical Control principles, angular measurements, and

additional auxiliary equipment.

teem

Level III, in general, addresses journeyman competencies. It includes

proficiency with a wide range of machine tools, auxiliary equipment, task

planning, and the ability to work with minimal supervision (NIMS, 1998).

Each of these three skill level groups is broken down into seven areas of
occupational duties. Complementing the occupational duties are the academic
skills and knowledge fundamentals upon which the occupational duties are
based. Table 4 outlines the Level 1 NIMS machining standard. Each
occupational duty is fully documented by NIMS and includes performance

standards and assessment activities.

54

 

Occupational Duties

Knowledge, Skills, Abilities, and
Other Characteristics

 

1. Job Planning and Management
1.1 Job Process Planning

1. Written and Oral
Communications
1.1 Reading

1.2 Writing

1.3 Speaking

1.4 Listening

 

2. Job Execution

2.1 Manual Operations Bench work
2.2 Manual Operations Layout
2.3 Turning Operations-Between
Centers Turning

2.4 Turning Operations-Chucking
2.5 Milling: Square Up a Block
2.6 Vertical Milling

2.7a Grinding Wheel Safety

2.7b Surface Grinding

2.8 Drill Press Operations

2.9 CNC Programming

2. Mathematics

2.1 Arithmetic

2.2 Applied Geometry
2.3 Applied Algebra

2.4 Applied Trigonometry
2.5 Applied Statistics

 

3. Quality Control and Inspection
3.1 Part Inspection
3.2 Process Control

3. Decision Making and Problem
Solving

3.1 Applying Decision Rules

3.2 Basic Problem Solving

 

4. Process Adjustment and Control
4.1 Process Adjustment, Single Part
Production

4.2 Participation in Process
Improvement

4. Group Skills and Personal
Qualities

4.1 Group Participation and
Teamwork

4.2 Personal Qualities

 

5. General Maintenance

5.1 General Housekeeping and
Maintenance

5.2 Preventive Maintenance
5.3 Tooling Maintenance

5. Engineering Drawings and
Sketches

5.1 Standard Orthographic prints
5.2 GDT Orthographic prints

5.3 GDT Datum, Symbology and
Tolerances

 

 

6. Industrial Safety and
Environmental Protection
6.1 Machine Operations and Material

6. Measurement
6.1 Basic Measuring Instruments
6.2 Precision Measuring Instruments

 

 

55

 

 

Handling
6.2 Hazardous Materials Handling and
Disposal

6.3 Surface Plate Instruments
6.4 Metric Conversion

 

7. Career Management and
Employment Relations

7.1 Career Planning

7.2 Job Applications and Interviewing
7.3 Teamwork and Interpersonal
Relations

7.4 Organizational Structures and
Work Relations

7.5 Employment Relations

 

 

7. Metalworking Theory

7.1 Cutting Theory

7.2 Tooling

7.3 Material Properties

7.4 Machine Tools

7.5 Cutting Fluids and Coolants

 

Table 4: NIMS Occupational Duties and KSAO Characteristics

Relating the NIMS Standards to a Typical Manufacturing Job

To better understand how these skills standards are integrated into

community college curricula, consider the following job description and how one

of the occupational duties from the table above applies to that job.

“The manufacturing technician works as a key member of the team of people
responsible for the manufacture of products and systems within the overall
structure of a manufacturing enterprise. The primary tasks of the team involve

production planning and control, production operations management, quality

management, manufacturing systems planning and management, and

maintenance management. The technician, in general, assists and supports
the professional members of the team. Particularly in some small to medium
size enterprises, an experienced technician may be given responsibility for

some aspects of manufacturing operations. While working primarily with the

manufacturing operations team, there is continuing need for the technician to

56

 

interface with other professionals in the enterprise who have primary
responsibility for product and system design, purchasing of materials,
marketing and sales, and distribution.” (NCEIAME, 2000, p. 12)

This job description requires a well-rounded individual with good soft skills
as specified in item 4 under Knowledge, Skills, Abilities, and Other
Characteristics (KSAO): Group Skills and Personal Qualities. However, specific
technical skills are also required of this production technician. If this technician
worked in a production-machining environment, vertical milling (occupational
duty 2.6) would be a required skill. The NIMS documentation elaborates each
duty with a detailed description of the performance standards, evaluation criteria,
and required equipment and materials. Once the participant completes the
Ieaming activities — estimated to be 8 hours for this duty - a written milling exam
is given. Finally, the participant is given a NIMS milling print and appropriate
materials to machine the part. Exact specifications must be followed to pass the
hands-on portion of the assessment successfully. '

This specific occupational duty (2.6) focuses on milling. However, many
other occupational duties and KSAO characteristics must be utilized. They would
include under occupational duties:

0 1.1 Job Process Planning
. 2.2 Manual Operations Layout
0 6.1 Machine Operations and Material Handling (safety)
The KSAO characteristics required for this occupational duty would include:

o 2.1 Arithmetic

57

o 5.1 Standard orthographic prints

o 6.1 — 6.3 Measuring instruments

- 7.1-7.5 Metalworking theory
The NIMS standards are very specific in outcomes and assessment. However,
NIMS has never been promoted as a complete curriculum. The program
participant would learn about milling from a classroom lecture, videotape,
textbook, demonstration, or hands-on practice. A variety of these Ieaming tools
can be used based on the facilities and instructional resources available.

A community college could use the NIMS skills standards to develop an
innovative manufacturing program that ensured all of the occupational duties and
KSAO characteristics are mastered. However, these skills standards must
compete for attention in a community college curriculum already full of
graduation requirements, academic fundamentals, and new technology. In the
Delta College curriculum for example, several classes including Basic
Mechanical Design, Intermediate Algebra, and Machining Processes could be
examined to find out whether or not the NIMS topics were covered. Other
courses such as Technical Communication or Professional Global Awareness
could contain the soft skills specified in the NIMS standards. One problem with
the traditional curriculum is that topics such as milling are “covered” in a
Machining Processes class, but students might be hard pressed to perform a
milling exercise to industry standards. Another difficulty is that when courses are
taught in a variety of departments - mathematics, drafting, English - adherence

to the NIMS guidelines may not be a priority.

58

The NIMS standards would more likely be reinforced in curricula currently
being developed in the NCEIAME project. Because this associate degree
program is built upon existing skills standards and constructivist Ieaming theory,
the participants would more likely be able to pass a competency assessment.
An Industry Perspective of NIMS

Metalworking companies also use skills standards to benchmark their
training programs, credential their workers to demonstrate a quality workforce to
customers, define pay-for-skill programs, and qualify for certification in
comprehensive quality assurance programs. These companies recognize that
the use of the skills standards, along with NIMS credentialing opportunities,
provides a strong foundation for a workplace and school partnership to foster
training for metalworking.

The NIMS web site lhttp://www.nims-skills.;rg) offers the following
comments from those involved in establishing and maintaining these standards:
“Skill standards are invaluable to us because they are industry driven,
competency based, and nationally validated. They enable us to clearly articulate
our knowledge and performance expectations to employees, prospective
employees, and educators."

Mike Bates, HR Director, Remmele Engineering, New Brighton, MN.
(Mike serves on the NIMS board of directors and is President-Elect.)
"The importance of the skill standards to our industry’s future is cleariy
demonstrated when you consider that six othenivise competing trade

associations came together in developing these metalworking standards. "

59

Marvin Wortel, Chairman, Triton Industries, Inc., Chicago, IL.

(Marv has served as the first president of NIMS.)

"Once NIMS programs are instituted nationwide, it will be a pretty simple matter
to know what potential employees actually know and can do, and to have an
opportunity to offer existing employees to upgrade and certify their skills. “
Frank York, President, Newman Machine Company, Greensboro, NC.

(Frank has been instrumental in starting a partnership of schools, public training
programs, and a technical center to implement the skill standards and

credentialing activities to help employers in Greensboro.)

Equally important, the NIMS standards detail the progression of skills and
abilities needed from entry-level positions to higher positions in engineering
technology, management, or technical sales. NIMS standards dispel the “dead
end" career path of manufacturing related jobs. The NIMS standards provide
both depth and breadth to curricular topics. In terms of breadth, the standards
specify all of the technical and non-technical competencies required of an
employee in a modern manufacturing environment. The depth of a topic refers to
an assessment that closely resembles a job performance standard. This depth
requirement challenges the courses when participants are briefly introduced to
topics instead of demonstrating a thorough understanding of them. Community
colleges can use the NIMS standards to evaluate their existing curriculum, or
they can proceed with actual certification of their facilities, instructors, and

students.

60

One problem with incorporating workplace skills in college curricula is that
the adaptation is often done haphazardly in various course offerings. The NIMS
metalworking skills cover many academic and vocational competencies, and
must be integrated into a whole program or set of courses. For example, in a
community college the individual competencies may be assigned to the various
classes that comprise a degree, apprenticeship, or certificate. These classes
could include English, mathematics, metallurgy, mechanical drawing, or machine
shop. Unless all of the instructors understand the competencies and are willing
to evaluate the students in these areas, the assessment of measurable
objectives cannot be achieved. Each instructor could check off the applicable
competencies without changing how the material is presented or tested.

Another difficulty arises in trying to grade or evaluate the mastery of many
of the “soft skills” important for technical workers today. Employers emphatically
support the need for employees to acquire oral and written communication skills,
work in teams, apply problem-solving techniques, and recognize appropriate
moral conduct (Bailey and Merritt, 1995; Parry, 1996). These skills do not easily
fit the traditional curriculum and are difficult to assess. General support for skills
standards achievement is strong, but consensus breaks down when specific
tests and controls are placed on the measurement of these skills in our students

(Perelman, 1992).

61

The role of professiorfil societies and accreditation institutions in cgrricglym
@210.

Many programs in higher education are influenced by the standards and
guidelines of external accreditation agencies. These agencies seek to influence
institutional effectiveness and program integrity. Accreditation is the process by
which a program or institution is recognized as being in conformity with some
agreed-upon standard (Anderson and Associates, 1975). First and foremost, a
college is accredited as an entire institution. Although institutional accreditation is
not mandatory, most colleges seek accreditation to improve institutional status
and to qualify for certain funding sources. The United States Department of
Education monitors the six regional non-governmental accrediting agencies. The
North Central Association of Schools and Colleges is the accrediting agency for
Michigan and many other Midwest states. Once the institution is accredited,
individual programs may seek additional accreditation (ABET, 2003).

As stated earlier, one of the functions of NIMS is to accredit
manufacturing program facilities. NIMS establishes clear expectations for safety,
organization, and equipment utilization in manufacturing laboratories. NIMS will
accredit a training program at the secondary or post-secondary level. Training
programs run by private companies or trade associations are also eligible for
accreditation. Instructors are credentialed independently from the program. A
series of competency assessments involving written tests and shop performance
exercises are given to instructors, allowing them to document the three levels of

achievement. Certified instructors are necessary for program accreditation. The

62

NIMS organization also certifies program participants as they pass through the
credentialing process of the three skill levels. Michigan currently has eight NIMS
accredited programs, including two in community colleges.

The US Department of Education recognizes dozens of program
accreditation agencies. The Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology
(ABET) is recognized nationally as a powerful accreditation agency for college
computer and engineering programs. Although NIMS accreditation consists
largely of checklists to make sure that all proper program procedures and
components are in place, ABET takes a broader look at a program and
considers the quality of the individual components. During site visits the
accreditation team attempts to evaluate items such as intellectual atmosphere,
faculty and student morale, and the stability of the program. The two primary
purposes of ABET are to: “Organize and carry out a comprehensive process of
accreditation of pertinent programs leading to degrees, and assist academic
institutions in planning their educational program", and “Promote the intellectual
development of those interested in engineering, technology, computing, and
applied science professions, and provide technical assistance to agencies
having professional regulatory authority applicable to accreditation” (ABET,
2003, p.1).

ABET specifies that the programs, not the institution or department,
become accredited. Further, when alternative routes exist to completion of the
program, such as off campus classes or distance Ieaming alternatives, all routes

must be accredited. One interesting detail of ABET accreditation is the specific

63

name of the program. Words such as “engineering” and “technology“ must
carefully appearas specified to meet strict guidelines. ABET programs ending
with the term “technology” are “in the broad area of technical education between
engineering and vocational education I industrial technology” (ABET, 2003, p.3).
ABET separates the requirements for a “Manufacturing Engineering” program
from a “Manufacturing Engineering Technology” program. This agency looks at
faculty, math and science requirements, facility use, and specialization topics to
determine the appropriate designation of accreditation. Community colleges can
be accredited at the engineering technology associate degree level. Delta
College is currently the only Michigan community college with the ABET
accreditation. The Delta College catalog description of the Mechanical
Engineering Technology program explains to potential students that the
accredited program “expands your marketability nationally as an engineering
technician” (www.delta.edu/degreesprograms/MechanicalEngineer.asp). This
type of accreditation can be a major selling point, especially if the school itself
does not have a national reputation. Although it would be possible to achieve
NIMS and ABET accreditation for the same program, NIMS is better suited to a
program that trains apprentices and manufacturing technicians. ABET
accreditation is geared towards programs that emphasize transfer to a
baccalaureate degree.

ABET supplies a set of general criteria applied to all programs. These
criteria include: program educational objectives, program outcomes, assessment

and evaluation, program characteristics, faculty, facilities, institutional and

64

external support, and general program criteria (ABET, 2003). In addition to
general criteria, the Technology Accreditation Commission (TAC) of ABET also
supplies specific program criteria for each of about 20 technology programs.
These include program titles such as Industrial Engineering Technology or
Manufacturing Engineering Technology.

The general direction of ABET in the past decade has been to relax the
rigid requirements covering detailed lists of competencies, recognizing the
diversity that may exist between programs. Individual programs must still
demonstrate the achievement of goals and objectives. Felder and Brent (2003)
argue that properly implemented, “the intense nationwide curricular revamping
could lead to dramatic changes in engineering education” (p.7). They go on to
warn that faculty members could simply write the ABET program objectives to fit
existing courses, reducing the likelihood of a program with common objectives
meant to unify the curriculum. In the past, ABET accreditation could be carried
out primarily by one person responsible for coordinating all of the paper work, a
self-study report, and presentations. Felder and Brent explain that under the new
guidelines “all faculty members involved in teaching required courses must now
understand and be involved in the accreditation process on a continuing basis”.

Several of the professional societies also sponsor certification programs
that emphasize educational outcomes in higher education. These organizations
include the American Society for Quality (ASQ), the Society of Automotive
Engineers (SAE), and the Institute of Industrial Engineers (IIE). The Society of

Manufacturing Engineers (SME) is involved in manufacturing education and

65

offers several levels of certification. These levels include Certified Manufacturing
Technologist, Certified Manufacturing Engineer, Certified Engineering Manager,
and Certified Enterprise Integrator (SME, 2004). This certification is geared
towards the individual, not the school. The guidelines for certification are often
used in higher education to prepare students for this certification exam.

Teresa Hall (2002) argues that the SME certification exams are an
excellent assessment tool for curriculum evaluation. These exams reflect the
skills standards of the manufacturing industry, and the exam is independently
proctored and graded. The exam outcome is highly reflective of program
effectiveness. She goes on to explain that the detailed exam reports provide
descriptive statistics of the results, including a breakdown by knowledge sector.
When a large percentage of graduates take this exam, the composite results
provide an excellent perspective of curriculum effectiveness.

Although the SME certification does not certify facilities or programs, it
helps build faculty credentials. It also fits into the broader scope of ABET
program certification. ABET expects that the curriculum reflects the current
industry skills standards, and makes use of multiple assessment tools to ensure
effectiveness. Certification exams used by professional societies help meet this
requirement. Anderson and Associates (1975) give two assumptions for the
assessment of instructional programs that lead towards certification. First, the
best predictor of job performance is performance on similar tasks. Second,

evaluation and instructional programs should be comparable in their objectives

66

and techniques. Course content, testing methods, and actual workplace
expectations should be properly linked.

In summary, external support exists for curriculum reform in technology
related post-secondary education. Accreditation agencies, professional societies,
and skills standards organizations have established guidelines and expectations
for program improvement. Faculty and administration can now choose between
meeting the minimum requirements of these guidelines or engaging in a

complete transformation in curricular design and assessment.

imposed mogel of cficflpm rm

This study will focus on curriculum reform in the Michigan community
college manufacturing programs. To develop a model of curriculum reform, I first
compared two existing models of program accreditation and merged them into a
single model. Next, I compare this merged program model to the Stark and
Lattuca (1996) curriculum model. Finally, I describe a model of curriculum reform
that will help frame the curricular discussions in this study.
Comparison of the NIMS and ABET Guidelines

The ABET accreditation guide (ABET/T AC, 2003, p. 5) provides a useful
overview of important program criteria. These criteria are used by ABET to
systematically evaluate the various components of a technology program. The
NIMS accreditation guidelines (NIMS, 1998) list similar criteria except that the
components are spelled out in a more precise form. Table 5 shows a comparison

of the accreditation criteria.

67

 

ABET

NIMS

 

Program Educational Objectives:
broad statements describing career
and professional goals

NIMS skills standards reflected in the
program objectives

 

Program Outcomes: specific units of
knowledge and skills expected from
the students

Trainees must be aware of NIMS
performance requirements and select
appropriate content areas

 

Assessment and Evaluation: includes
portfolios, standardized exams,
projects, and surveys of student
performance in the workplace

Evidence of active credentialing program.
Use of NIMS assessment tools — written
tests and performance tests

 

Program Characteristics: this includes
the curriculum and the division of the
major content areas

NIMS skills standards incorporated into the
curriculum

 

Faculty. educational and career
background, scholarly activities,
professional development

Instructors must be NIMS certified in the
topics they teach

 

Facilities: suitable classrooms and
labs, technology infrastructure, student
support services

Facility must meet OSHA requirements.
Labs must be equipped to support the topic
areas that are taught

 

Institutional and Extemal Support:
administrative support, adequate
funding, active program advisement
committee

Program must have support of
administration.

Advisory committee is actively involved in
accreditation process.

 

 

Program Criteria: inclusion of technical
specialties implied in the program title

 

Appropriate levels of certification to match
the student and facility capacity

 

Table 5: Comparison of ABET and NIMS Criteria

Note that the categories are similar across the two agencies. NIMS,

however, more narrowly defines the criteria for each category. These program

models could represent the two extremes of community college manufacturing

programs. The ABET model represents an academic focus with an emphasis on

transferring into a 4-year program. The NIMS program criteria contain a more

vocational focus with an emphasis on job skills and career preparation. A typical

68

 

community college manufacturing program would generally fall somewhere
between these two types of guidelines.

The ABET documentation carefully explains the terminology used in the
list of program criteria, acknowledging that different institutions use different
terminology. Educational objectives are defined as “broad statements that
describe the career and professional accomplishments that the program is
preparing graduates to achieve” (ABETfI’AC, 2003, p. 5). Educational outcomes
are “statements that describe what units of knowledge or skill students are
expected to acquire from the program” (p. 5). ABET further requires that these
objectives and outcomes are determined through a “documented process” that
includes the “needs of constituents” (p. 5). In other words, the program must
reflect the current trends in industry and the requirements of relevant transfer
institutions for the program participants. One of the key components of the NIMS
curriculum is that the process of defining objectives and outcomes has been
completed.

There is no reason for a college to have to “start from scratch” when
implementing the NIMS standards. Grubb and Associates (1999) explain that
many external standards exist that help define an academic program. Among the
less effective standards are those that affect the “academic transfer" of a course.
Transfer requirements can vary between institutions and do not often relate to
vocational skills. According to Grubb and Associates external standards in
occupational programs relating to successful employment are among the most

effective standards. Felder and Brent (2003) note that earlier versions of ABET

69

accreditation criteria were “rigidly prescriptive” and were too detailed. The new
ABET standards are now described by some as too “flexible” and “fuzzy”, as
much more latitude is given in the coverage of specific material. The new criteria
place more emphasis on the process used to develop the objectives and
outcomes. The NIMS program outcomes are very specific. However an
institution can select the specific NIMS topic areas to be included in the program.
The NIMS standards are modular. For example, Level 1 of the machining
standards includes eight topics - not all of which need to be included in any
given program.

Assessment and evaluation are included in both sets of criteria. Again, the
NIMS assessment procedures are very well elaborated. Standard written exams
are prepared for each topic and lab performance based projects have been fully
developed and tested for each set of competencies. Specific criteria exist for
successful completion and remedial activities are specified. The ABET criteria
include these two types of assessments along with portfolios and data relating to
successful student placement after graduation. ABET also places value on using
industry standard exams such as the SME certification exams. Tillman (2002)
claims that this type of exam can be used to rate program effectiveness when a
large number of program completers take the exam. Felder and Brent (2003)
posit “assessment drives Ieaming (p. 14)”, explaining that if students know they
will be held accountable to a certain standard they will apply themselves

accordingly.

7O

ABET considers faculty 3 key component of a program, certifying the
credentials of the faculty as well as the intellectual atmosphere, stability, and
morale of the faculty (ABET, 2003, p. 6). ABET looks for a consistent balance
between faculty professional practice, scholarly activities, and teaching
effectiveness. The number of faculty must be sufficient to support all necessary
program activities. Most importantly, a full-time faculty leader should be assigned
to each program to ensure continued guidance to the program. ABET also
requires notification when “significant changes” in the faculty occur during an
accreditation period. In the NIMS accrediting procedures, the primary faculty
focus is the instructors” certification in the specific content areas. However, the
great amount of organization and preparation needed for NIMS accreditation
would also require many of the same faculty characteristics as ABET. Grubb and
Associates (1999) explain the importance of the faculty in assuring that the
program outcomes and objectives are actually carried out in the classroom.

ABET places the topic of curriculum under Program Characteristics.
Specific directions are given for academic program requirements such as
number of credits required and main grouping of courses. ABET recommends
that technical program content comprise between 1/3 and 2/3 of the total credits.
Because the design of the NIMS standards also allows for integration into a high
school career center or private training organization, no specific academic
standards are mentioned. NIMS does provide much documentation for the skills

standards, providing enough material for detailed course outlines and student

71

activities for each topic. Both NIMS and ABET leave room for innovative
curricular activity that engages students and produces documented results.
Grubb and Associates (1999) explain that when a program is developed
without careful consideration of the student, expectations for student
performance may be unrealistic. In the community college programs special
attention must be placed on tracking students into an appropriate level class.
NIMS requires that students are well informed of the various components of the
skills standards and the progressive nature of the 3 levels. Modules at the entry
levels are provided to ensure that the participants can achieve early success.
Active credentialing of students is one of the primary concerns of NIMS. ABET
accreditation also involves a qualitative sampling of student work. Assignments,
tests, laboratory projects, and other appropriate student work samples
demonstrate mastery of technical subjects. Compliance with oral and written
communication skills is also evaluated by examining student work. Additionally,
ABET is interested in standardized test scores and student transfer or
employment records after leaving the program. Finally, ABET looks for student
support services designed to help students succeed in the program.
Institutional and external support are treated as one topic by the ABET
criteria and separate topics under NIMS. Each agency considers administrative
support vital to the program. ABET defines institutional support in faculty
selection and supervision, student services, facility assignment, and public
relations. Perin (2000) describes institutional support as bringing together key

players from across the college to collaborate on program improvement.

72

Administrative support also comes from providing adequate program facilities,
program funding, and assistance in curriculum development. External support is
defined by ABET as a program advisory committee that “periodically reviews the
program curricula and provides advisement on current and future needs of the
technical fields in which graduates are employed" (ABET/T AC, 2003, p. 8).
Program advisory boards are considered a key component of occupational
program vitality (Jacobs, 2001; Thompson, 1994; Salzman, 1998). NIMS
accreditation criteria regarding both administrative support and advisory
committee involvement are very similar to ABET.

Facilities are considered another important element of a successful
program. This topic is mentioned as part of institutional support and also as a
separate item. ABET emphasizes academic support systems such as
classrooms, computer and technology infrastructure, and student information
resources. Laboratories and equipment should also reflect current industry
standards. One of NIMS primary concerns is that the laboratories meet the
current Occupational Safety and Health Association (OSHA) standards.
Laboratories for NIMS programs must have updated and well-maintained
equipment to allow participants to successfully pass the shop performance tests.
Comparing the NIMS I ABET Program Guidelines to a Curricular Model

This composite program model from NIMS and ABET provides a useful
framework for studying the community college manufacturing programs. It also
becomes necessary to elaborate the curriculum component of this model. Stark

and Lattuca (1996) propose this curricular model: purpose, content, sequence,

73

learners, instructional processes, instructional resources, evaluation, and
adjustment. Table 6 shows how the composite program model and the

curriculum model relate.

ABET I NIMS Program Model Stark and Lattuca curriculum model
Program Educational Objectives ——> Purpose

Program Outcomes - curriculum ——> Content

 

Program Criteria p Sequence
Faculty Learners
Institutional and External Support Instructional Processes

Facilities > Instructional Resources
Advisory Board / Evaluation

Assessment and Evaluation ___> Adjustment

 

Table 6: Comparison of NIMS/ABET and Stark and Lattuca Models

Stark and Lattuca explain that the first component of the academic plan -
the purpose — is likely to generate lively discussion. They document a wide
variety of responses from college faculty on the purpose of the college
curriculum. Specific areas include knowledge, skills, and attitudes to be learned.
Many studies show that community college faculty continue to be divided over
the topic of curricular purpose (Stiehl and Lewchuk, 2002; Brewer, 2000; Perin,
2000). In the case of NIMS and ABET, the groundwork has been laid for

74

specifying the outcomes to the programs. The ABET outcomes are general in
nature while the NIMS outcomes are quite specific.

Curricular content can also create tension between academic and
vocational subject matter, and between external standards that lean toward
either transfer criteria or occupational goals. Once the academic plan has been
agreed upon, the content should be linked to that purpose. Again, external
standards or accrediting agencies can help supply much of the course content.

Stark and Lattuca present alternative methods of determining the
sequence of curricular content. The content could be presented chronologically,
thematically, or grouped into integrated activities. Perin (2000) promotes the
advantages of integrated courses in community colleges where occupational and
academic course content are taught in a combined fashion. She makes a strong
pedagogical case for this type of teaching but admits that good examples of
integrated instruction were hard to find in community colleges. Many structural
issues seem to discourage this type of cooperation between academic and
occupational instructors. Kelley and Weston (1996) promote the capstone course
as a method of synthesizing a series of related courses. NIMS
compartmentalizes content into three distinct levels, each requiring a synthesis
of both general knowledge such as mathematics and blueprint reading along with
specific skills such as machining or quality control activities.

Stark and Lattuca warn that all curricular activities must realistically be
geared towards student ability. This step is especially important at the

community college level where open admission policies can play havoc with

75

faculty expectations for student performance. Studies on academic preparation
and remediation in the community college reveal general agreement on the
nature of the problem but little consensus on how to address it. Some community
colleges have kept dual academic and vocational tracks (Bailey and Averianova,
1999). ABET looks for a comprehensive student support service to assist
students in achieving their goals. A study conducted by Brewer (2000)
concluded, “a significant minority of faculty feel more emphasis should be given
to basic skills, perhaps reflecting a frustration with the inadequate skill levels of
students who enroll in community colleges” (p. 5). Grubb and Associates (1999)
remind us of the “blissful indifference” of the community college instructor
teaching advanced level material to under-prepared students.

Much discussion is taking place in community colleges about instructional
processes. Although the “lecture” has been identified as one of the least effective
teaching approaches, the economy and simplicity of the lecture leads Stark and
Lattuca to acknowledge that this is still popular in college classrooms. They also
mention other methods of instruction such as self-paced, collaborative, and
technology based delivery formats. Most important is that instructors try to
employ a variety of instructional delivery with solid pedagogical reasons for doing
so. The NIMS documentation is strangely silent on the topic of content delivery
method. ABET encourages the use of a variety of instructional delivery formats
but does not specify them. Grubb and Associates note that community colleges
have a reputation for solid hands-on instruction with both the instructors and

students favoring that type of educational experience.

76

As the demand for modern manufacturing technology in the curriculum
increases many new instructional materials have become available. Stark and
Lattuca comment that a college course has traditionally been built around the
content and sequence of the textbook selected for that class. When a class is
based on a set of external standards it may be beneficial to choose from videos,
computer mediated materials, lntemet resources, and pre-packaged curriculum
components. Laboratory facilities also fall under this topic of instructional
resources for hands-on Ieaming opportunities. Jacobs (2001) suggests even
using manufacturer specific training modules, increasing the likelihood of
practical Ieaming activities that closely relate to the workplace. Except for well-
funded curriculum efforts such as the NOE/AIM project, it appears that
instructors no longer have the time or the resources to develop technology
related courses from scratch. The Michigan EDJT curriculum project
(http:l/www.mistcurriculum.org) is another good example of how government can
fund a curriculum project, freely disseminating the materials to all the community
colleges in the state. The lntemet has largely been responsible for eliminating
the duplication and distribution costs of course materials, expanding the low cost
/no cost options of instructional materials.

The evaluation and adjustment components of the Stark and Lattuca
program plan are similar to the process manufacturers use in evaluating their
own programs and processes. The first common theme in manufacturing
process control is that “if you can’t measure it, you can’t improve it”. Stark and

Lattuca emphasize that specific measurable goals of the instructor and the

77

student must be at the forefront of evaluation. Once the evaluation plan is
completed, adjustment of the curriculum closes the loop back to the planning
stages of the curriculum. This process creates a circular pattern of continuous
program improvement, similar to what manufacturers need to accomplish to
remain competitive. The concepts of measurable program outcomes and
performance measures fit closely with the National Skills Standards Board
(2000) goal stating, “Educators can use skill standards to create curriculum that
better prepares students for work” (p. 2).
A Curriculum Model to Guide this Study

These blended models of ABET and NIMS program criteria, enhanced
with the Stark and Lattuca (1996) curricular elements, provide a model useful for
evaluating curriculum in the community college manufacturing programs. In
Figure 2 I attempt to define a model of curriculum reform to guide the survey and

case study issues addressed in the scope of this study.

78

Administration

Related Issues

  

Core Issues

ls existing curriculum coherent?
ls existing curriculum followed?
When was it last revised?

Are performance based assessments used?
Are performance objectives externally validated?
Is the curriculum NIMS based?

When will curriculum be next updated?

  
   

 
   
    
 

  
 
     
 
 

Faculty Advisory Board

 

 

Figure 2: Curriculum Reform Model

The core issues of curriculum reform identified in this model are the focus
of the survey. These issues address the research questions of this study. The
related issues in this model are taken from the general program criteria spelled
out by ABET and NIMS. These three related components include faculty,
administration, and advisory committee.

This study began by identifying the viable manufacturing programs in

Michigan community colleges. Second, the instructors associated with these

79

programs were surveyed. The questionnaire was sent to the individual instructors
directly responsible for the curriculum development in their own programs and
addressed the core issues identified by the curricular model in Figure 2. Finally,
the site visits conducted after the survey addressed the related topics identified
in this model.

Chapter 3 of this study further discusses the relevance of the core issues
addressed in this model and builds a conceptual framework upon the working

model developed in this chapter.

80

Chapter 3
METHODOLOGY
Conceptual framework

This study on manufacturing curriculum in Michigan community colleges
investigates the influence of NIMS Metalworking Skills Standards on the
curriculum. Other factors affecting curriculum reform in this environment are also
investigated. The NIMS standards clearly identify career paths, skill levels, and
occupational duties. Special emphasis is placed on performance standards and
skills assessment. The NIMS documentation does not propose a specific
curricular model. Both NIMS and ABET allow curricular diversity and program
flexibility, recognizing that programs can reflect local employment requirements
or specialized topics. A variety of instructional designs can utilize the NIMS
standards for program content and assessment.

This conceptual framework identifies the critical components of the
manufacturing curriculum considered in this study. The primary focus of this
study will be the formal curriculum in the community college manufacturing
programs — referring to the manufacturing curriculum officially agreed upon,
formally approved, and published in the college catalog.

The NIMS metalworking skills standards cover two basic occupational
categories: machining and metal forming. A core group of general educational
requirements and basic workplace competencies form the foundational base for

both of these areas. Building upon the core skills, NIMS details all of the topics to

81

be covered in each of the occupational categories. Although virtually all of the
Michigan community colleges teach some of these basic skills - shop math,
blueprint reading, communication skills - this study will focus on colleges offering
an associate degree in machining or metal-forming.

One important item to be studied is the breadth of the manufacturing
curriculum. Contrary to those who believe the NIMS standards are primarily shop
competencies, the NIMS standards suggest a comprehensive curriculum.
General topics include written and oral communication skills, math, problem-
solving skills, group and teamwork dynamics, and other general education topics.
Diamond (1998) explains that the scope of the curriculum can range from a
course or program to the entire institution. Simply examining a few
manufacturing related courses would not reveal the entire curriculum and its
alignment with the complete spectrum of NIMS topics. Like NIMS, the National
Skills Standards Board (2000) guidelines propose the teaching of critical core
competencies that support a variety of industrial occupations. Built upon this
common foundation are the specific skills that focus on individual job
classifications.

Comprehensive in scope, the NIMS standards remain focused on specific
outcomes. For example, simply Ieaming about oral and written communication
does not satisfy the NIMS outcome of applying those skills in communicating an
actual job process plan. Similaliy, taking a general college math class does not
ensure the learner’s ability to apply trigonometry to a technical blueprint.

Completing an introductory computer course does not guarantee that the learner

82

can use a computer in an industrial setting. Perin's (2000) study of integrated
curriculum in community college programs found that well integrated academic
and occupational courses were more the exception than the rule. Controlling the
specific delivery of these competencies represents a difficult task for
manufacturing curriculum reformers as many core skills are taught in other
programs or departments. Linkages to these competencies must be evident in
the manufacturing curriculum. An additional burden is placed on the
manufacturing departments to verify that the Ieamers can apply general
education skills to specific occupational activities.

The outcomes and assessment components of the curriculum are critical to
the NIMS model. Stiehl and Lewchuck (2002) propose the outcomes framework
as a method of articulating the authentic tasks and projects a leamer should be
able to accomplish. This constructivist framework suggests that simple written
tests may not provide proof that educational outcomes are achieved. Jacobs
(2001) questions the practice of using assessments designed only by faculty
members. The NIMS standards include assessments developed and validated
by industry representatives. Evidence of genuine assessment activities will help
to verify program compliance to NIMS standards.

Core Issues

A study of this nature cannot examine in detail the manufacturing
curriculum of all 28 Michigan community colleges. The core issues identified in
Figure 2 at the end of Chapter 2 are used to help frame the curricular discussion

in this study. The questions utilized in the survey help summarize the current

83

state of curriculum reform, and whether or not the programs in this study have
been directly influenced by NIMS. The five core issues in the survey are
elaborated below:

Coherent curriculum. In some schools, the curriculum is highly
developed and easily accessible to faculty, students, and administration. It is
generally agreed upon and followed by all faculty members. In other schools the
formal curriculum may be an obscure document that gets dusted off every five
years or so when a question comes up. For the NIMS standards to drive the
manufacturing curriculum a high level of support for structured curriculum must
exist. Diamond (1998) states, “For some faculty members any approach that
requires defining and measuring Ieaming outcomes or structuring a curriculum is
perceived as infringing on their rights” (p. 58). Some instructors may resist any
formal curriculum reform that regulates and guides the way they teach their
classes. Programs with a highly structured curriculum, including outcomes
based performance measures, may be more likely to embrace skills standards
based programs. The simple transaction involved in requesting a copy of the
official manufacturing curriculum could indicate the level of curriculum
development within a given department.

Frequency of curriculum revision. One factor influencing curriculum
reform in a manufacturing program is the introduction of new technology into the
manufacturing process (Wells, 1996). Consider the following example of
technological change in machining over the past several decades. In the 1970’s,

computer numerical control (CNC) machining was established as a new

84

manufacturing discipline. New degrees were offered and exciting careers were
built on this modern technology. In the 1980’s, CNC machining became a
specialty area within tooling and machining programs. During the 1990's, CNC
technology had become the new paradigm for the machining trades. Major
curriculum reform at least every ten years became necessary to keep programs
current with these changes in industry. NIMS has committed to revising the skills
standards on a regular basis to reflect the adoption of new technology into the
manufacturing process. This frequency indicator helps define how much time
and attention is given to curricular reform issues. If the curriculum has not been
updated in the past five years, NIMS skills are probably not reflected in the
current program.

Performance based student objectives. In addition to the general scope
of the manufacturing curriculum, specific courses must be analyzed to determine
whether or not the corresponding NIMS skills standards are addressed. One of
the many criticisms of employers is that students Ieam “about” the course
content without being able to perform tasks expected of them in the workplace
(Stiehl and Lewchuk, 2002). An example would be using a true / false test to
determine whether or not the student can operate an engine lathe. In an
introductory machining class the skills listed as occupational duties for NIMS
Level 1 machining should be clearly identified in the course outline. Assessments
should also closely resemble the NIMS written tests and laboratory performance

demonstrations.

85

Externally validated performance measures. Virtually all accrediting
agencies and curriculum reform guidelines recommend that externally validated
skill sets be used in the reform of curricula (ABET, 2003; SME, 2004; Grubb and
Associates, 1999). This criterion requires student assessments, projects, and
portfolio work based on documented industry standards and expectations.
Jacobs (2001, p. 188) explains this concept: “In brief, vocational education as a
discipline is continually challenged to sort and resort its subject matter based on
an external standard: mastering these skills will lead to a job. It is not timeless
knowledge, but linked to specific process and technological change.”

Use of the NIMS skills standards. One of the questions asked in this
study is whether or not the NIMS standards have had a noticeable effect on
Michigan community college manufacturing curricula. Proper integration of the
NIMS standards would assure that the curriculum meets all of the guidelines of
externally validated performance measures. However, by adhering to many of
the good standards of curriculum development existing prior to NIMS it would be
possible for a program to meet the general NIMS standards solely because it
was properly designed and implemented with cooperation from local industry.

Inclusion of national skills standards does not rule out addressing skills
unique to local manufacturing companies. In some cases, evidence of curricular
diversity indicates the ability of a community college to respond to the local
needs of manufacturers. Faulkner (2002) explains that national skills standards
provide universal core competencies and specific job related skills, whereas

community college curricula must still meet the needs of local constituents.

86

Grubb (1999) notes that in the sub-baccalaureate labor market both employers
and job seekers primarily search within the local community.
Related Issues

Advisory boards, faculties, and administration also can affect curriculum
reform. The advisory board is mandated by both ABET and NIMS as a primary
program component. One of the goals of the NIMS metalworking standards is to
strengthen the relationship between educators and the manufacturing
community. The program advisory board is the primary interface between the
educational community and the workplace (Bailey and Merritt, 1995). The
National Skills Standards Board recommends voluntary partnerships between
“employers, employees, unions, educators, and community organizations
(NSSB, 2000, p. 4). In answering the question of why or why not NIMS standards
have influenced the curriculum, I consider the level of external support for the
standards. If advisory boards and local industry councils place a priority on NIMS
standards, I expect to see movement towards curriculum revision. In regions
where little external support for NIMS exists, the local community colleges might
not be convinced that the NIMS standards must be reflected in the
manufacturing curriculum. Along with approving the curriculum, advisory boards
can be beneficial to the program by providing long-term support and resources
for the program.

In addition to external support for a manufacturing program, internal

institutional support is also needed to ensure adequate resources for the

program to meet NIMS or ABET standards. Jacobs (2001, p. 191) calls for

87

“maintaining administrative and faculty curriculum currency”, and the required
time and resources to do so. One indication of internal support for a
comprehensive manufacturing program is an administration and a board of
trustees that value and encourage a strong manufacturing curriculum. Stark and
Lattuca (1996) stress that administrators have both the power and responsibility
to create an environment where curriculum development is encouraged and
promoted. ABET looks for sufficient financial and facility resources to support a
healthy program. NIMS offers program guidelines for manufacturing facilities.
NIMS also offers the service of facility certification. Equally important will be the
level at which administrators become involved in the curriculum revision process.
Diamond (1998) explains that instructors tend to focus on specific courses and
often lose sight of the scope of the curriculum. Department heads and cleans will
bring a broader perspective to curricular issues. Administrators are more likely to
attend regional meetings where program information is shared between schools
and with industry representatives. Because the issue of NIMS curriculum revision
will likely need to be addressed by an entire faculty group or department,
coordination of activities by an administrator will be necessary. Administrative
support is needed to get the curriculum revision process undenrvay, as is
perseverance to push the revisions through the formal channels (Bailey and
Badway, 2002).

Community college faculty members remain at the center of curricular
revision activities (Bailey and Badway, 2002). Regardless of external forces

driving curriculum reform, Ratcliff (1997) comments on the tendency of faculty to

88

tweak the curriculum continuously: “Actually, changing the curriculum is easy.
The faculty does it every term in thousands of courses” (p. 5). He goes on to
explain that by adding experimental courses, seminars, and modifying existing
course content, the actual curriculum is always in flux. Periodically, the formal
curriculum is revised to reflect what is actually happening in the classroom. This
becomes the descriptive model of curriculum reform, versus the prescriptive
model. The case studies also address the amount of faculty time and resources
allocated to curriculum issues. If community college instructors spend 90% of
their time on teaching and classroom related issues (Lombardi, 1992) curriculum
revision would remain a slow and painful process. Even when instructors are
allowed release time or compensation for curricular activities, other forms of
support may be necessary. This support could take on the form of faculty
training, networking with other colleges on curricular issues, or assistance from
instructional designers who can move quickly from concept to finished product.
These three components - administration, faculty, and advisory board -
directly influence the curriculum and influence each other. Similar to the checks
and balances found in American government, these three entities must remain in
proper balance to encourage an atmosphere conducive to curricular reform.

Figure 3 shows the relationships between these components.

89

 

Advisory Board

 

 

 

Figure 3: Three Factors Affecting Curriculum

In community colleges the administration affects the faculty members in
several different ways. First, the administration must create job descriptions, hire
faculty, and supervise faculty work. Second, the administration is responsible for
coordinating projects such as curriculum reform where multiple faculty members
or departments must work together (Stark and Latucca, 1996). Finally, and most
importantly, the administration has the power to influence faculty workload and
control resources allocated to faculty for curricular reform projects. Grubb and
Associates (1999) found that while good pedagogical practice can exist in almost

any type of environment, it is more likely to occur where the administration

90

values and encourages good teaching practice. The administration can also
have a direct influence on the effectiveness of the advisory board. The higher
status of administrators can help in recruiting key advisory board members and
maintaining healthy working relationships with local companies. Equally
important is for the administration to orchestrate advisory board meetings and
generate meaningful methods of showing appreciation for the work of the
advisory board. One difficult task of the administration is to mediate the
immediate needs of businesses with the long-term academic goals of the faculty.

The advisory board can influence college administrators by providing an
accurate assessment of industry trends and how the school needs to respond.
Bailey and Averianova (1999) mention that political support is another important
component of industry involvement in education. The advisory board can also
provide faculty with instructional resources including plant tours and realistic
examples of student projects. Jacobs (2001) suggests that employers could help
educators implement vendor-specific training programs that would add
meaningful curricular content.

The faculty, although primarily focused on student learning, must look for
ways of keeping busy administrators informed of new program challenges and
changing needs in industry. Stark and Latucca (1996) state “faculty and
administrators share responsibility for curriculum administration” (p. 310). They
explain that faculty may wish to carry out curricular tasks without interference,
which could lead to “uncoordinated programs that may serve isolated interests

and fail to achieve either the college’s goals or students’ goals”. Waiting for

91

administrators to take notice of falling enrollment or distressed programs may
leave faculty members with few options for improving the program. The faculty
must also take the initiative to communicate with advisory board members and
update them on curricular activities.
Other Factors

This conceptual model began with identifying the core issues of a NIMS
based manufacturing program. Recognizing that curriculum reform occurs as a
result of several combined forces, the second portion of the conceptual
framework identifies other related issues. Finally, this study also addresses the
question of why NIMS has or has not influenced the curriculum. To better
understand the presence of the NIMS curricular components in a manufacturing
program, several other factors influencing the curriculum revision and reform
process are considered. The NIMS standards are not in themselves a call for
widespread curriculum reform. A comprehensive manufacturing program could
already contain many of the critical NIMS components. When a manufacturing
program is faced with curriculum revision, the NIMS standards may provide a
framework for curricular content and the corresponding assessment techniques.

Program funding remains a priority in occupational programs requiring
expensive laboratory facilities. Educational administrators must constantly survey
the horizon to anticipate changes in program funding guidelines. Grant money
targeting certain types of program development becomes a source of additional
revenue. The state of Michigan already has provided 1.6 million dollars in grant

money for community colleges to develop outcome-based manufacturing

92

curriculum using external industry standards
(http:l/medc.michigan.org/news/edjt). If the state decides to tie additional
program funding to NIMS based occupational programs, curriculum reform will
shift into high gear in many colleges currently considering future changes.

Institutional stress and declining program enrollments can also become a
driving force for curriculum reform. Bailey and Merritt (1995) see skills standards
as a promotion of industry partnerships and community support. Jacobs (2001)
notes that when a decline in enrollment occurs in programs where the job market
remains strong, the programs may have become outdated or unable to keep up
with industry requirements. NIMS skill standards may be seen as a way to
rebuild a manufacturing program and generate more student interest.

The case studies will probe faculty perception of the NIMS standards.
Manufacturing instructors must be familiar with the NIMS standards and also
convinced that the standards are valid and useful before integrating them into
the curriculum. These standards have been widely publicized and promoted by
various educational and manufacturing groups, but some instructors still may not
know the NIMS skills standards or be ready to adopt the standards in the

community college programs.

Research Questions and hypotheses

This study of curriculum reform in Michigan community college
manufacturing programs asks the question: How, if at all, have the NIMS

Metalworking Skills Standards influenced manufacturing curriculum reform? As a

93

follow up, a second question further probes the issue: Why NIMS has or has not
had an effect on curriculum reform?

The literature review documents support for skills standards and the
prominent role skills standards can play in curriculum reform. The NIMS
standards are a good example of a skills standards initiative heavily funded by
both private industry and by the federal government. These standards were
highly promoted during the late 19903 as they were completed and rolled out for
educational use. The hypothesis of this study is that by the year 2003 these
standards should be reflected in many of the Michigan community college
manufacturing programs. In answering these questions about NIMS this study
develops a curricular reform model to help explain why curriculum reform occurs

or fails to occur in the community colleges.

Sampling and design

This research project begins with a census of the 28 Michigan community
colleges. Special consideration was given to the size and scope of the
manufacturing programs. Specifically, I attempted to identify in each school a
metal working curriculum that could be assessed in terms of the NIMS skills
standards. This census provided a snapshot of the current manufacturing
programs in Michigan community colleges. l eliminated from further study
community colleges that did not support a manufacturing degree program.

The information for this census was drawn from the Michigan Community
College Association database, college catalogs, and college web sites. Phone

and e-mail contacts were made to ensure that the information was correctly

94

interpreted and stated in commonly used terms for this study. A representative
from each institution was asked to verify the information in its final form before it
was published. This census identified manufacturing programs offering an
associate degree in machining or manufacturing technology. If a viable
manufacturing curriculum could be identified, the program was included in part
two of the study.

In this study, the population consists of Michigan community colleges that
offer at least one associate degree program in machining or manufacturing
technology. An initial search of programs showed that all 28 colleges listed
recent course offerings in machining related topics. This study focused on the
schools offering current associate degree programs in this area. Because
community colleges continue to evolve and become increasingly comprehensive,
assessing “current” status is complex. For example a new emphasis on non-
credit training activities and seminars in Computer Numerical Control (CNC)
could co-exist with a degree program but receive little attention in the formal
documents. Similarly a discontinued program might remain on the books for
several years.

The Michigan Community College Dean’s Curriculum Guide provided
additional data on programs. Follow-up was sometimes needed in this census to
determine the exact status of a program. The Dean’s guide also helped identify
whether or not the program was a full 2-year associates degree program. Some
programs offered in manufacturing had similar titles to the degree programs but

were of shorter duration - designed around certificate or apprenticeship

95

completion. This study focused on formal associate degree programs, not
programs of shorter duration. Short-term programs often did not require the
general studies classes that covered NIMS topics such as mathematics and
communication skills.

To be included as offering a current associate degree program I also set
as a criterion the presence of at least one full-time instructor. ABET/T AC (2003,
p. 8) clearly states “Each program must have effective leadership through a full-
time faculty member with defined leadership responsibilities for the program”.
The absence of a full-time instructor might indicate that the program is either
dormant, very small, or in a period of transition. Any of these conditions could
make the program difficult to assess. One community college had not replaced
the retiring full time faculty member responsible for a machining program.
Instead the job was “divided up among several adjunct instructors”. Upon closer
inspection it became obvious that the adjunct instructors did little more than
teach the courses that met the minimum enrollment requirements.

Using these criteria, I identified 19 out of 28 community colleges in
Michigan with a viable current associate degree program in manufacturing. I
conducted a self-report survey of the 19 community colleges with a
manufacturing program. Fourteen of those colleges responded. Anderson and
Associates (1975) describes a self-report questionnaire as a relatively efficient
method of gathering data from a geographically diverse group of individuals. He
cautions that the validity of the self-report data may be difficult to determine. In

this study the questionnaire explored the current state of the manufacturing

96

curriculum and inquired about plans to reform the curriculum. Several questions
about the NIMS standards were included. These questions focused on the
primary topic of this study. Also addressed are the extemal factors to curriculum
reform - administration and advisory boards. The numeric data consisted of both
ordinal and interval scales. The results of this survey allowed me to draw some
initial conclusions about curriculum reform in Michigan community college
manufacturing programs. First, I estimated the frequency of curriculum revision.
Second, I examined inclusion of the NIMS skills standards in curriculum. Finally,
I examined the impact of the administration and advisory boards. The results of
the questionnaire are displayed and explained in detail in the Results portion of
this study. The dependent variable in this study is the extent to which the survey
participants feel that NIMS has affected the curriculum.

For the third part of the study I selected two community colleges based on
the influence of NIMS on their curriculum. A site visit to each college allowed me
to tour their facilities, examine the curriculum, and interview faculty and staff.
These case studies gave a more complete understanding of their perception of
curriculum reform and reasons for or against NIMS implementation. This third
portion of the study assisted in determining the role that the NIMS standards play
in the manufacturing curriculum.

Greene and David (1981, p. 5) argue “the conceptual framework should
identify the main facts and events of interest in the subject of study and the main
features of the context in which these facts and events are occurring”. This study

identifies the faculty, administration, and advisory board as the three primary

97

groups affecting curriculum reform. I targeted these individuals for interviews.
Interviews with faculty, administrators, and advisory board members helped
explain the process of curriculum maintenance and reform. Inspection of the
laboratories and review of the existing curriculum allowed me to gain a broader
perspective of the current challenges in the manufacturing programs.

The conceptual framework of this study helped to direct the interview
questions towards understanding why the schools have chosen their respective
paths of manufacturing curriculum development. This combination of census
data, questionnaires, and on-site observations generated a more complete
picture of the philosophy behind the manufacturing curriculum and the
justification for its effectiveness in preparing students to meet the needs of

Michigan manufacturers.

Data collection

For the census portion of the study, I developed a database containing the
manufacturing program activity of each community college. The census form
contained the proper data fields to align with the information readily available in
the community college databases. I tried to obtain as much of this data as
possible from existing public information. This step minimized the demands on
each institution and allowed me to verify the information from multiple sources.
Each institution was asked to verify the data before I finalized the results. The
information I attempted to gather in this census included:

- college name

- number of students
- geographical location in Michigan

98

- administrator and instructor contact information

- name(s) of manufacturing degree program(s)

- _ number of full-time and adjunct instructors in those programs

Because the colleges are encouraged to categorize their programs

according to the standard classifications defined in the Michigan Community
College Dean’s Curriculum Guide, the general manufacturing program titles were
easy to identify. The next step involved verifying that the program was an active,
full associate degree program. The Dean’s guide helped verify this information.
Finally, as discussed earlier, I attempted to identify the full-time instructor
responsible for this program. This instructor contact was used to verify the
accuracy of the program information I compiled. The survey was sent to this
individual.

In the second part of the study I surveyed the population of 19 Michigan
community colleges identified as having manufacturing programs. I designed a
questionnaire to identify the curriculum reform activities in each school and the
degree to which the NIMS standards are currently used in the manufacturing
curriculum, or will be in the future. This survey was directed towards the lead
instructor in the manufacturing department. One constraint of the questionnaire
is that the information primarily revealed the perception of curriculum reform
activity or NIMS implementation in the program. Anderson and Associates (1975)
mention several drawbacks common to self-report measures: careless
responses, trying to create a favorable impression, or misinterpretation of the

question. In other words, this survey did not provide concrete evidence of a

99

successful and complete implementation of the NIMS standards into the
curriculum.

The questionnaire, described in the next section, is based on the core
issues identified in the curriculum reform model for this study. The question
addressing whether or not the instructors follow the existing curriculum helps
establish that an agreed upon version of the curriculum currently exists.
Questions including the dates of recent or planned curriculum reforms help
determine the frequency of curriculum revision. The questions about
performance based objectives help establish whether or not the curriculum is
based on external performance objectives — a primary component of the NIMS
standards. The central questions relating to knowledge of the NIMS standards,
and whether NIMS standards are integrated into the manufacturing curriculum,
address the primary research question in this study. Finally, the questions about
advisory committee and administrative involvement address the curriculum
reform issues identified in the conceptual framework. 7

This information was helpful in placing the 14 responding colleges on a
scale that ranged from no implementation of the NIMS standards to complete
NIMS integration. In the middle were colleges that expressed some intention of
integrating the NIMS standards into the curriculum but have not yet completed
the process. Potential colleges for site visits were identified from both ends of
this scale. The survey also supplied a general estimate of the level of NIMS
awareness and integration in the Michigan community college manufacturing

curriculum.

100

The third portion of the research involved five steps:

1. Selecting two colleges for further study. These colleges were chosen from
the survey results placing the colleges on a continuum of full NIMS
implementation to no significant steps towards NIMS. Several candidates
from each end of the scale were identified and I chose one from each
category. The process of asking the lead instructor and an administrator
for formal approval for a site visit helped me gauge the level of
acceptance I could expect to receive at the college.

2. Informing the lead instructor of my general plan for the site visit and the
information I hoped to gather.

3. Visiting the selected colleges to see the manufacturing labs and
equipment.

4. Interviewing several persons at each institution to explore curriculum
reform and the relationship of NIMS standards to the present
manufacturing curriculum. The curriculum reform model identifies faculty,
administrators, and advisory board members as the primary groups of
individuals affecting the curriculum reform process.

5. Analyzing the official version of the existing curriculum to determine

whether it reflected the NIMS standards.

Instrumentation
I developed a questionnaire in the second portion of this study for the 19

Michigan community colleges with manufacturing programs. This survey was

101

cross-sectional in design — meaning that the information would be only collected
at one point in time (Creswell, 1994). The questionnaire was designed to
address the core curriculum issues described in the conceptual framework in a
manner to minimize the respondents’ burden. Anderson and Associates (1975)
list several advantages of a self-report questionnaire: relatively inexpensive to
administer, easily distributed to respondents, and can be treated anonymously.
One drawback is the validity of the responses. Because of carelessness in
answering questions or the need to make a good impression the answers may
not be entirely accurate.

The first step was to develop a cover letter designed to inform the
participants of the purpose of the study and to give them enough background
information to help them understand the importance of the study (Dillman, 1978).
The cover letter begins by explaining the purpose of the survey as “an attempt to
investigate the current state of curriculum reform and skills standards in the
manufacturing programs of the 28 Michigan community colleges". Following the
purpose statement is a brief overview of the terms referenced in the
questionnaire, helping the respondents understand the meaning of the
questions. An explanation of the program names and codes from the Dean’s
Curriculum Guide helps the respondents identify the appropriate curriculum
within his or her institution. The Stark and Lattuca (1996, p. 9) definition of a
curriculum as an “academic plan...including purposes, activities, and ways of
measuring success” is also included in the cover letter to clarify the meaning of

this important term. Finally, the cover letter identifies the intended respondents of

102

the survey as “full time community college instructors whose primary teaching
loads are assigned in the machining / manufacturing programs”.

Creswell (1994) stresses the importance of pilot testing a survey to make
sure the questions are easily understood and to avoid multiple interpretations.
This questionnaire was pilot tested on a former manufacturing instructor and a
former dean of a manufacturing department. These two individuals provided
valuable feedback, resulting in several format and wording changes to the survey
instrument. The first version of this survey included questions with an ordinal
scale attached. During the pilot test it became apparent that yes or no answers,
with room for comments, better fit the nature of the questions. A category of
“unsure” was also added. The comments allowed the respondents to qualify the
answer and give additional information (Anderson and Associates, 1975).

The ten questions address five important issues identified in the
conceptual framework of this study. One measure of curricular reform activity is
how often it occurs. The two questions involving dates of curriculum reform
allowed for an interval scale answer. The topic of performance based student
assessments was raised in one question and followed up with another question
asking about external validation of these assessments. Because external
assessments were so highly emphasized by both NIMS and ABET, this topic was
crucial in assessing the level of NIMS implementation.

Central to this questionnaire were the two questions directly about NIMS.
The respondents were asked if they used NIMS now or planned to in the future.

Respondents planning to implement NIMS in the future indicated that they

103

support the NIMS standards but have not yet been able to integrate them into
the curriculum. Finally, the two questions involving the administrative and
advisory committee in the curriculum reform process helps to complete the
assessment of the curricular reform model developed in this study.

The questionnaire was designed to address four valid reasons against
using NIMS. The first valid reason for not using NIMS is that the instructors or
institutions are not aware of the NIMS standards or do not have enough
information about NIMS to make a decision. Second, an instructor might
disagree with the standards. As an example, there may exist a pedagogical
reason for not adopting the NIMS standards. Third, support from administration
or local advisory boards may be lacking regarding NIMS. Finally, the possibility
exists that other externally validated skill sets are currently used to drive the
curriculum reform process. These could all be considered as potential reasons
for institutions to not adopt NIMS.

Also included with the survey was the consent form authorized by the
University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS). The
final version of this survey was submitted to UCRIHS for approval before it was
sent out to respondents. The consent form accompanied the survey and also
helped explain the nature of this study. The time required of the respondent is
estimated at between 20 and 40 minutes. Confidentiality issues are also
explained. In this study, I am the only one who can identify the respondents of

the individual surveys.

104

This questionnaire was e-mailed to the lead instructor in each institution,
as identified in the census. To maintain consistency in the survey results only
one instructor was surveyed in each institution. Additionally, I did not want the
questionnaire to be completed by administrators or part-time faculty as they
could skew the results of the survey. Before the questionnaire was sent, I e-
mailed each recipient to make sure he I she was available and willing to fill out
the survey. This step also allowed me to confirm that I had the right e-mail
address. E-mail was the easiest form of communication with the instructors as all
of the institutions had a reliable system of e-mail and the instructors seemed very
comfortable with it. Two instructors chose to print the survey and mail their
responses. They both cited a perceived lack of confidentiality in the e-mail
systems they used at work. One other instructor asked me to e-mail the
questionnaire to his personal address.

The following steps were taken to ensure a high response rate (Dillman,
1978). Three weeks after e-mailing the questionnaire I received 9 responses. I
then e-mailed a reminder to the remaining 10 instructors and received 3
additional responses (2 requested that l re-send the survey). Finally, after
another 3 weeks, I tried to contact the remaining 7 instructors by telephone and
subsequently received 2 additional responses. Overall I received 14 responses

out of 19 surveys, a 73% return rate.

105

 

/ .
“4% ‘3‘
on

r O. ®O/®r
%® Z3

Figure 4: Geographic Locations of Community Colleges

To make sure that the 14 respondents represented the population of 19
community colleges with viable manufacturing degree programs, I looked for bias
in geographic distribution. Figure 4 shows the general locations of the 28
Michigan community colleges. The nine locations marked with an “R” represent
the institutions that were removed from further study because they did not have a

viable manufacturing program. Based on Figure 4, these 9 colleges were evenly

106

distributed throughout the state with equal number representing urban and rural
locations. The 5 non-responding colleges are identified with a blank circle at their
location. These colleges were fairly well distributed with a somewhat higher
number coming from the southeast portion of the state.

The third step in this study — the site visits — helped clarify the data from
the surveys and probed deeper into the curriculum reform process. The overall
study is a mixed methods design where the survey results contain primarily
quantitative data and the site visits result in qualitative data. Creswell (1994)
explains that alternative sources of information can result in a “triangulation” of
data, using one source to help clarify another source. The survey results,
combined with the data from the case studies, should help to answer the
questions proposed in this study. He goes on to say that a mixed methods
design adds “scope and breadth” to a study. This study best fits the model of a
“two phase design”, where the first phase is quantitative and the second phase is
qualitative.

In their classic description of research designs, Campbell and Stanley
(1966) propose three types of pre-experimental designs. The one that best fits
this study is called the “Static-Group Comparison”. This design involves the study
of one group that has felt the effect of a given factor and one group that has not
felt the effect. For this study, one of the sites I visited has experienced curriculum
reform based on the NIMS standards. The other site has not used NIMS to drive
its curriculum. These sites are located several hundred miles from each other

and represent two different views regarding NIMS implementation. The initial

107

sites selected were very cooperative and I did not have to try to gain access to
alternate sites.

The site visits portion of this research also fits into the framework of a
multiple case study (Greene and David, 1981 ). This part of the research may
provide the most useful information to policy makers interested in both the
factual results of this study — how many community colleges use the NIMS
standards - and the reasons for a given course of action. In preparation for the
site visits I developed an interview protocol. Protocols help focus the interview
process, avoiding the gathering of “superfluous information”. They also maintain
consistency, allowing data to be compared across interviews and site locations
(Miles and Huberman, 1984).

The protocol begins with a careful introduction of myself and the purpose
of the study (Cohen and Manion (1994). l negotiated a schedule so that those
being interviewed could plan their time accordingly. I also explained the issue of
confidentiality before the interviews. The lead instructor in the program acted as
the “point person” to help schedule interviews and provide me with curriculum
materials. No recording devices were used in these interviews. I relied on
interview notes and wrote up the interviews on the same day they were
conducted. Each interview followed a printed interview guide that was also given
to each participant before the interview. Finally, thank you notes were sent out to
show appreciation for the time given by each participant.

Miles and Huberman (1984) additionally suggested the use of a “contact

summary sheet”. This step is an efficient way of compressing interview notes into

108

a concise form that summarizes the data and aids in comparison with other
interviews. This form contains a heading with space for participant name, a
checkbox for participant position, and the date. Several categories on this page
allow the responses to be grouped under the headings of administrative support,
local industry support, and faculty time spent on curricular issues. Another part of
the page is devoted to NIMS issues. These include reasons for or against using
NIMS, future plans for NIMS, and perceptions of the NIMS standards. By
completing one of these forms soon after each interview I could reorganize my
notes into a useful overview of the interview.

Anderson and Associates (1975) explain the advantages of a structured
interview over an unstructured interview. Although a stnlctured interview is more
uniform and easier to compare across respondents, the unstructured interview
allows for additional topics and ideas to be discussed. During the site visits I was
careful to ask the same questions of each person I was interviewing. For
instance, during lunch we would likely be engaging in “shop talk” that covered a
wide variety of topics. I would then ask that we “switch gears” and go through the
structured list of questions. This process helped the respondent know that we
were entering the structured portion of the interview. One advantage of my first-
hand experience with manufacturing curricula is that I could understand the
terminology and jargon used in the interviews. The disadvantage was a
temptation to make assumptions about certain aspects of the site visits based on

prior knowledge or my experience in the field (Krieger, 1991).

109

Finally, I address the issues of institutional access and acceptance.
Cohen and Manion (1994) point out “investigators cannot expect access to a
nursery, school, college, or factory as a matter of right”. From my own
experience as a community college instructor, I know that we tend to protect our
turf, avoid unnecessary interruptions, and become suspicious of any activities
associated with “research”. Erickson (1985) reminds us “negotiation of entry is a
complex process” (p.126). He explains the need to repeatedly state the purpose
of the research to individuals being studied, helping assure them that they are
not being personally evaluated. My first point of contact was with the lead
instructor at the institutions I wanted to use for case studies. I tried to be honest
as to why I was doing the study and what I would do with the results. The request
was written as follows:

Dear ,
In order for me to conclude my study on machining curriculum in Michigan
community colleges I would like to complete a few site visits. This would involve
spending some time on campus performing the following activities:
- tour of machining labs
- interview of lead instructor
- review of existing machining curriculum
- brief conversations with several of the following persons
0 adjunct instructor
0 school administrator
o advisory board member
0 local employer
If you would be willing to consider this request I would also formally request
permission from your dean or other appropriate administrator. This could be
planned during a day when you plan to be on campus but may have a little time
between classes to meet with me. I would like to do this sometime after spring
break in March.

Thank you for your consideration of this request.

110

All contacted individuals agreed to the site visits and interviews.

The timing of the survey and site visits was critical. The beginning and end
of the semester is a very busy time for instructors. Community colleges are often
deserted during the summer. I chose a mid-semester time period to conduct the
survey and site visit portions of the study. The survey was done during October
and November of the fall 2003 semester. The site visits were done during March

of the 2004 winter semester.

Data analysis

The census in the first part of this study was used to identify the existence
of viable manufacturing programs in Michigan community colleges. The second
part of the study uses a survey to explore viable manufacturing curriculum in
these programs. The data from the survey are used to begin answering the
questions asked in this study. The first question regarding whether or not the
NIMS standards are driving curriculum reform is an objective question than can
be answered using quantitative data. The answers that I received from the 14
community colleges provide a definitive answer. This study continues with the
next question - why are these standards used or not used? The questionnaire is
designed to address several possible reasons - ignorance of the standards,
disagreement with the standards, or no support from administration or local
industry. The yes / no answers are converted to percentages to better quantify

the results.

111

In addition to answering the questions regarding the NIMS standards, this
survey also answers other issues raised in curriculum reform. The question
addressing whether the curriculum is understood and followed by all instructors
helps establish the existence of a coherent curriculum. A negative response to
this question identifies a lack of clarity in the existing curriculum or a general
disregard for its content. Several questions were also analyzed in pairs. For
example, the two questions regarding dates of past and future curricular reform
activities provide a numeric estimate of revision cycles. Graphs of these results
along with the average and standard deviation of the revision frequencies are
used to demonstrate the existence of curricular reform activities. The final
questions help portray the roles of administrative support and advisory
committee support in curriculum reform.

I use the yes/no nature of these questions to generate a “first impression”
of the current status of curriculum reform in Michigan community college
manufacturing programs. The “unsure” categories are intended to discourage
guessing for questions where the respondents did not understand the question
or know the correct answer. The comments are listed as supplemental
information and are discussed in the results portion of the study. The comments
were also used to help develop the interview questions in the qualitative portion
of the study.

The qualitative case studies focus on detailed aspects of curriculum
reform. Following a structured case study plan enabled both individual case and

cross-site analyses. This qualitative study followed the Miles and Huberman

112

( 1984) process of collecting the data, reducing the data, displaying the data, and
drawing conclusions. In this study I use both “narrative text” and “cross-site
analysis” to report the data. Also of interest is the comparison of multiple
viewpoints within the organizations. For this study I compared the responses of
administrators, instructors, and advisory committee members.

This study presented some unique challenges in that it focused on a
relatively small academic community. To protect the confidentiality of the
respondents l have minimized the use of direct quotations or detailed
descriptions of personal and institutional characteristics in the results portion of

this study.

_C_a_3e§_tpdv Selectjpp

Green and David (1981) discuss the importance of selecting the case
study sites. They explain “the goal of sample selection is to obtain a set of cases
which, taken together, contain variation on key explanatory factors representative
of their variation in the target population” (p. 6). Although two sites may be
considered minimal for many types of data analysis and generalizations (Miles
and Huberman, 1984), these sites provided a reasonable amount of data to help
address the primary issues in this study. Two similarities existed between the
sites. They were both identified as having an active manufacturing program (part
1 of the study), and they both returned the questionnaire from this study (part 2).

The variable factor between the sites was the use of the NIMS standards in their

manufacturing curriculum.

113

The results portion of this study shows that many programs did not use
the NIMS standards to focus their manufacturing curriculum. This result meant
that many schools could be chosen from that sector. Only two programs
currently use NIMS — leaving a rather small choice for potential site visits. In both
of these categories I was careful to choose sites that had experienced some
stability in the past several years. Of the 14 sites that responded to the survey
several were facing a crisis of one type or another. These problems included
instructor turnover, low enrollments, and possible merging with other programs. I
felt that these sites would be more difficult to study and compare with a stable
program. Another factor is the transition to open entry / open exit programs
based on a self-paced Ieaming environment. Although that environment does not
present a problem in curricular development, the transitions were recent and in
the process of further adjustment. I also checked with NIMS to see if I had
missed any community colleges that were NIMS certified but had not returned
the survey. No other community colleges in Michigan were NIMS certified.
Several other factors such as institutional size, location, or service area seemed
to affect the presence of a viable manufacturing program, but did not appear to
influence the levels of curriculum reform in the manufacturing programs.

The site visits followed up on the survey to help clarify the data collected
and to further probe the issue of how curriculum reform occurs. The first
qualification for a site was that it had to have a viable manufacturing associate
degree program. The second characteristic was that the site was one of the 14

colleges responding to the survey. The survey helped place the various

114

programs on a continuum ranging from fairly traditional programs that have not
reformed the curriculum to the more progressive institutions with actively
implemented NIMS standards. In selecting the sites I deliberately chose one
institution from each end of that scale. This process allowed for a comparison
between the two sites and for an explanation of why each chose a particular path
of curriculum reform. Regarding the issue of site access and acceptance, Cohen
and Manion (1994) warn that researchers do not have the “right” to study any
program or group of individuals they desire. Rather the negotiation into a case
study site must be carefully addressed. From the potential sites identified in the
survey, I chose sites that represented each end of the NIMS implementation
scale and sites to which I felt that I had a reasonable chance of access.
“Traditions” Community College is located in a large urban area with a
high level of industrial activity. The Machining Technology program has been in
existence for several decades and is considered a rather strong program. The
curriculum is well established and has not been intentionally aligned with the
NIMS standards. Traditions Community College has an occupational
administrator who is recognized as a leader and promoter of industrial programs
in Michigan. This administrator takes a long view of the vitality of the
manufacturing program and has a firm grasp on the mission of the community
college. The instructors at Traditions realize that along with good funding and
support for their program come high expectations for curriculum development
and coordination between programs. One instructor nearing retirement is proud

of the solid machining fundamentals taught at Traditions, but realizes that a new

115

instructor will need to bring the program up to a new level of technology,
reflecting the changing nature of the manufacturing industry.

“Innovations” Community College is located in a rural area of Michigan
with a much weaker industrial base. The instructors have taken an aggressive
approach towards curriculum reform and adherence to the NIMS standards in
the Manufacturing Technology program. Innovations Community College faces
several unique challenges. The past few years have seen a large turnover in the
college leadership. Although the former administration showed strong support for
the manufacturing department, the new management seems a bit tentative about
the direction of the manufacturing program. Innovations Community College is
one of the smaller community colleges in Michigan, meaning that economic
resources are also limited.

A few of the large industrial employers have either moved out of the area
or are changing the way they do business to reflect the economic realities of the
current manufacturing environment. One belief is that manufacturing will
continue to move from the area. Another belief is that the remaining employers
need a good local training source for new employees for the companies to
remain and grow in that geographic area. The manufacturing department hopes
that the administration acts in line with the second belief. The manufacturing
department at Innovations Community College is especially vibrant and
aggressive. They were one of the first Michigan community colleges to actively

promote NIMS and integrate the NIMS standards into the curriculum. The facility

116

and instructors became NIMS certified and the students have taken the
certification tests.

Another curriculum issue that complicates matters at Innovations
Community College is the definition of the “community” that it serves. Like most
other community college districts in Michigan, the local manufacturing companies
have some unique training needs that must be addressed. A restricted local
economy has meant that Innovations Community College has an unusually high
number of students who will be continuing their education and career pursuits
beyond the local area. This need requires a curriculum that provides for a strong
academic and occupational program beyond local employment opportunities.
Special care has been taken in the curriculum to provide this exposure to the

students.

117

Chapter 4
RESULTS
9m
This census of manufacturing programs in Michigan community colleges

was completed in the summer and fall of 2003. Most of the information published
by the Michigan Association of Community Colleges described programs from
the 2001-2002 academic year. This census was first compiled from the listing of
the 28 community colleges on the Michigan Community College Association
website (www.mcca.orq). Additional information was also available from the
Michigan Community College Network (www.mccnet.educ.msu.edu), as well as
from the individual college web sites. Specific program information was obtained
from the Michigan Community College Dean’s Curriculum Guide. This guide
listed all of the program names and corresponding CIP codes for each individual
college. Table 7 contains a summary of the census. A more detailed version of

the census is found in Appendix A.

 

 

 

 

 

College Number of Number
2001/2002 Program Enrollment Mfg. Programs of Instructors
Alpena Community College 1 3 full time shared with
2776 students other departments
Bay de Noc Community College 1 1
2500 students
Delta College 2 5 full time
10,500 students 3 part time
* Glen Oaks Community College 1 no full time instructor
1152 students
* Ggebic Community College none

 

 

 

 

 

118

 

933 students

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Grand Rapids Community College 2 2 full time
13,741 students 3 part time
Henry Ford Community College 2 1 full time
12,000 students 3-5 adjunct
* Jackson Community College none

5092 students
Kalamazoo Valley Community 2 1 full time
College 7 part time
6391 students 1 full time adjunct
Kellogg Community College 2 1 full time
5539 students 2 part time
Kirtland Community College 3 1 full time
1567 students
Lake Michigan College 2 1 full time
3796 students several adjunct
Lansing Community College 4 2 full time
13,989 students 2 part time
Macomb Community College 2 1 full time
12,775 students 3 part time
Mid Michigan Community College 1 1 full time
2775 students 1 part time
Monroe Community College 1 2 full time
3757 students 3 part time
* Montcalm Community College 1 1 full time
1963 students 3 part time
Mott Community College 1 1 full time
7955 students 2 part time
Muskegon Community College 2 1 full time
4817 students 2 - 3 part time
* North Central Michigan College none
2437 students
Northwestern Michigan College 1 1 full time
4810 students 1 part time

 

119

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oakland Community College 4 1 full time
25,126 students 1 part time

* St. Clair Co. Community College 1 2 part time
6047 students

* Schoolcraft College 1 Several full time from other
12,830 students departments
Southwestern Michigan College 3 1 full time
3120 students 1 part time
Washtenaw Community College 2 2 full time
12,950 students

* Wayne County Community 1 ??

11,660 students

* West Shore Community College 1 2 part time
1233 students

 

 

 

 

 

Table 7: Directory of Michigan Community Colleges

Surprisingly, all 28 colleges indicated some recent course offerings in

machining related topics. The programs listed most frequently were:

Program Name Number of colleges % of colleges
Manufacturing Technology 15 54%
Industrial Machine I CNC Technology 13 46%
Machine Tool Technology 13 46%

Further investigation showed that several of these schools were not actively
offering machining related programs. In some cases the programs were being
reduced or eliminated. Manufacturing programs are facing cutbacks because of
recent budget constraints. Additionally some programs are fighting a perception
that manufacturing companies will not be hiring many employees in the near

future. As a result of this census, 9 of the 28 community colleges were identified

120

as not having a viable manufacturing program and were eliminated from further
study. These colleges are noted with an asterisk (*) in front of their name in
Table 7. As discussed in Chapter 3, a viable program in this study is a full 2-year
associate degree program currently accepting students. At least one full-time
instructor should be assigned to this program, and the scope of the program
should include machining or metal forming topics. The 19 schools with viable
programs are evenly distributed throughout Michigan on a geographical basis.
The size of Michigan community colleges varies from Gogebic with 933
students to Oakland with 25,126 students - a range of over 24,000. The average
of all 28 colleges is 6938 students with a standard deviation of 5687. Of the 9
colleges removed from further study, the average size was 4816 with a standard
deviation of 4579. This group of 9 colleges included the three smallest Michigan
community colleges -— Gogebic, West Shore, and Glen Oaks. Although the size
of the college and the size and vigor of the manufacturing programs appear
uncorrelated, the very smallest colleges are less likely to have a viable

manufacturing program.

Survey

The questionnaire was sent to 19 of the 28 Michigan community colleges.
The return rate was 74%, with 14 questionnaires of the original 19 returned. Most
responses reflected agreement between the various colleges. The small number
of unsure or unanswered questions indicates that the respondents understood

the questions and had a firm opinion on each issue. The comments helped

121

clarify some of the answers and provided interesting insights into some of the
curriculum issues. Table 8 lists the 14 colleges that returned the survey and the

number of relevant programs identified.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

College Name Size Number of
Mfg. programs
Alpena Community College 2776 students 1
Bay de Noc Community College 2500 students 1
Grand Rapids Community College 13,741 students 2
Henry Ford Community College 12,000 students 2
Kellogg Community College 5539 students 2
Kirtland Community College 1567 students 3
Lake Michigan College 3796 students 2
Lansing Community College 13,989 students 4
Mid Michigan Community College 2775 students 1
Monroe Community College 3757 students 1
Mott Community College 7955 students 1
Muskegon Community College 4817 students 2
Northwestern Michigan College 4810 students 1
Southwestern Michigan College 3120 students 3

 

 

 

 

 

Table 8: Community Colleges Responding to Survey

The average size of the 14 colleges that returned the survey was 5940

students with a standard deviation of 4271. These colleges were evenly

distributed across the state and represented a size range of Lansing with 13,989

122

students to Kirtland with 1567 students. Appendix C contains the detailed results
of the survey.

The survey provides objective data regarding the primary question in this
study: How, if at all, have the NIMS standards influenced manufacturing
curriculum reform? Question 6 directly addressed that question by asking
whether or not the NIMS standards were used. 86% of respondents indicated
that the NIMS standards are not used in the present curriculum. Only two
colleges have committed to using the NIMS standards. This question frames the
rest of the study: considering all the time and resources spent on the NIMS
standards, why are they not being used in the Michigan community colleges?

Questions 5 and 7 begin to answer the “why not” question. Every
response to Question 5 indicated that the respondents were aware of the NIMS
standards. Is it an issue of timing? Are the NIMS standards so new that the
community colleges have not yet had a chance to reform their curriculum to
NIMS? Question 7 elicited the most mixed response from this questionnaire.
When asked whether they in the future intended to use the NIMS standards in
the manufacturing curriculum 3 answered yes, 7 answered no, and 4 were
unsure. In retrospect, the question does not give clear guidelines to the two
schools that already used NIMS. As I reviewed the individual surveys and found
that the schools that answered yes included the two that already use NIMS, I
discovered that only one more school is planning to use NIMS. The four unsure

responses indicate that not all schools have made a firm decision on this issue.

123

Are the faculty in the manufacturing programs not using the NIMS
standards involved in curriculum reform at all? On the issue of curriculum reform
and revision, these 14 colleges apparently take quite seriously the need for
updated curriculum. A majority of the respondents indicated curriculum revisions
within the last few years. Many of the respondents also indicated curriculum
revision activities are scheduled to occur in the next few years. The average
curriculum revision process appears to reflect a five-year cycle. Question 1
indicates that the average major curriculum revision occurred 3 years ago. The

results are shown in Figure 5.

Recent Curriculum Revlslon

average = 3
standard deviation = 2.3

 

 

35
C
g4
5:13
(D
(D
82
3
O.
51
‘” Ill

 

 

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

year

Figure 5: Recent Curriculum Revision

124

Question 8 follows up on this same topic, asking about the anticipated dates of
future curriculum revision. Again these answers reflect a commitment to keep the
curriculum updated, with the average revision anticipated in less than 2 years.

Figure 6 shows the results of Question 8.

7 Planned Curriculum Revlslon
6 average = 1.8
standard deviation = 1.3
a 5
C
g 4
2. 3
m
m
8 2
3
8
a_ 1

 

 

 

l I

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 unsure

 

year

Figure 6: Planned Curriculum Revision

Questions 24 probe deeper into the existing curriculum. Question 2 asks
whether or not the curriculum is generally understood and followed by those
teaching in the department. There appears general agreement on the adherence

to the curriculum, as 93% answered yes to this question and the remaining

125

response was unsure. The respondents feel that their curriculum is generally
understood and followed.

Question 3 sets the tone for the next several questions by asking whether
or not lab performance-based student assessments are used. There was
complete agreement that lab performance-based student assessments are used.
The intent of this question was to establish a basis for Question 4, as it is very
unlikely for laboratory-based classes — such as machine shop - to rely solely on
written assessments for student achievement. The results from Question 4 were
surprising. Only one respondent indicated using external validation of the
performance-based student assessments. Much current literature on community
college curriculum reform (Jacobs, 2001; Merritt, 1996; Salzman, 1998)
recommends that assessments be externally validated. One of the principles
espoused by NIMS is that lab assessments be externally validated. This criterion
means that lab projects are specifically designed to meet industry standards of
student performance. Apparently most community college instructors do not
agree with this criterion and use assessments of their own design. One of the
two colleges using NIMS answered “no” to this question, which leads me to
believe that they teach the NIMS standards but do not test to them. Perhaps the
13 schools answering “no” to this question use internally generated assessments
that they feel are compatible with what industry requires.

The respondents seem upbeat on the issues of future curriculum
development activity. A majority (78%) felt that they had administrative support

for curriculum reform. One respondent answered “no” and two were “unsure” of

126

administrative support. About three-fourths — 71% - indicated support from
advisory committees and local employers.

The 29 comments that were added to the questionnaires provided
valuable additional information. Many of these comments were used to help
frame the topics for the site visits. Question 1 and 8 asked about dates of past
curriculum reform and anticipated dates of future curriculum reform. Several
respondents indicated that curriculum reform was initiated through college-wide
changes in general requirements or in response to new ways of course delivery -
such as open entry I open exit course structures. Other comments indicated that
curriculum reform has occurred because of structural changes in the college.
One example of structural changes involves horizontal expansion (Bailey and
Morest, 2004) with new programs added to the manufacturing departments.
Finally, several more comments reflected that curriculum reform should be an
ongoing process. Continual tweaking and adjustment of the curriculum is needed
to keep the programs current.

Regarding the issue of whether or not the manufacturing curriculum is
understood and followed, one respondent speculated that very small department
sizes help to explain uniform application of the curriculum. This finding is
probably true for many of the institutions that were surveyed. Adjunct faculty in
particular may not be well versed with the official curriculum.

Many of the remaining comments help answer the question of why NIMS
is not used in the manufacturing curriculum. Several comments stated that the

NIMS standards were not a good fit to the existing program goals and objectives.

127

NIMS may have looked promising initially, but the implementation details
became too great an obstacle. The advisory committees have not been
supportive of the NIMS standards. Similarly, although administrators valued
curriculum reform in general, little support for the NIMS standards appeared to
exist. Additionally, some instructors prefer to work on curriculum without
interference from administrators. Likewise certain administrators, through their
silence or non-involvement, give tacit approval of whatever curriculum
development is taking place. A few other respondents took a more pragmatic
approach, realizing that most administrators and advisory committee members
probably will not play an active role in curriculum reform — only an advisory role.
These two issues regarding administrative and advisory committee support of

curriculum reform are explored further in the case studies.

Case Studies

The data from the case studies are displayed in two different ways. First I
use “narrative text” to explain manufacturing curriculum reform at each college
(Miles and Huberman, 1984). Next I use a “cross site analysis” to gain additional
insight into these institutions (Greene and David, 1981). Appendix D contains a
site visit protocol and an interview summary sheet, as discussed earlier in this
study. Following are some of the interview responses and resulting observations
of curriculum reform and alignment with NIMS standards.

The NIMS standards have not greatly influenced the curriculum at

Traditions Community College for several reasons. First, the program was well

128

established before the introduction of NIMS, and the NIMS standards were not a
good fit with the existing program. The current program included many topics not
addressed by NIMS but considered important for graduation or transfer
requirements. In other words, NIMS required more depth and less breadth than
the existing program. Another of the difficulties with curriculum reform at
Traditions is the challenge to add program offerings - such as NIMS certification
- while also supporting all of the existing classes. Expanded offerings result in
smaller class sizes, which then necessitate merging or canceling of classes. This
“legacy" can adversely affect curriculum reform in colleges that currently serve a
core group of constituents. Reasons for change are weighed against the need to
continue programs already considered successful.

The variety of students being served by the program also created many
obstacles for implementation. The mix of students in a typical manufacturing
class could include apprentices, transfer students, and those seeking new career
opportunities. Although many of these students need to become familiar with
manufacturing processes, they do not necessarily need to demonstrate mastery
of specific operations. The NIMS standards seemed more appropriate for a
focused training program than for traditional associates degree coursed
offerings.

Finally, there were few incentives to implement the NIMS standards.
Statewide efforts to apply the standards have lost their momentum. Local
industry seems ambivalent about the standards. The respondents felt that the

students would not be well served by the additional training and assessment.

129

One advisory board member felt that “NIMS seems to be very bureaucratic and
expensive”.

Respondents believed that advisory committee and local industry support
exists, but there is room for improvement. One administrator felt that some of the
course offerings were unique and already reflected the special requests of local
companies. A faculty member admitted “working closely with advisory boards
becomes time consuming and emotionally draining”. An advisory board member
stated “industry people are busy, but are willing to serve as long as it is not just a
political event where the group socializes and rubber stamps the program.”
Keeping advisory boards actively involved in curriculum reform remains an on-
going challenge.

Future plans for manufacturing curriculum at Traditions Community
College call for greater use of technology and better integration with other
programs. Respondents are convinced that students must be able to synthesize
a variety of job skills rather than specialize in a small segment of the
manufacturing job market. Several respondents felt that the curriculum needed
to be better promoted within the local manufacturing companies and to the
community at large.

Another issue with curriculum reform at Traditions involves the time
allotted to faculty for serious course development work. The administration
realizes that instructors do not have the extra time during normal semesters
because of high teaching loads. Curriculum development occurs during semester

breaks. Some instructors voluntarily select “overload” courses with additional pay

130

— increasing their average workload. Instructors stated that they did appreciate
in-service days and time at seminars that encourage curriculum development.
However, guidelines for how much work instructors are expected to perform
outside of normal classroom activities are almost non-existent.

Innovations Community College saw the emerging NIMS standards as a
way to improve its program and gain status through NIMS accreditation.
Innovations was one of the first Michigan community colleges to become NIMS
accredited and to reform its curriculum to meet the NIMS guidelines. Although
the NIMS standards were helpful for laboratory upgrades and curriculum revision
activities, the instructors have become a bit disillusioned with the NIMS
organization. Frequent complaints include poor communication with NIMS,
unrealistic student assessment procedures, and excessive charges for NIMS
administrative activities. Innovations Community College is not likely to promote
the NIMS standards in subsequent curriculum development activities. One
instructor proposed that a professional society such as the Society of
Manufacturing Engineers (SME) would be better situated to maintain and
promote training and educational standards.

Each class in the curriculum at Innovations Community College is
organized into a comprehensive 3 ring binder, complete with Power Point
presentations for each lesson. This step ensures uniform application of the
curriculum among faculty and is an asset to adjunct instructors. A well—designed
curriculum does not discourage continual tweaking and improvement of the

program. One instructor commented that with the current level of curriculum

131

development, continuous improvement would better serve the program than
waiting for major curriculum updates every five years or so.

Faculty members seem to spend more time than normal on curriculum
issues at Innovations Community College. Much of this work is done
independent of administrative guidance or support. One instructor is a self-
described workaholic, spending large amounts of time during the summer
working on curriculum issues. Another instructor believes that a fundamental part
of curriculum development involves working closely with manufacturing
companies to stay current with industry practices. Perhaps this instructor’s recent
work in industry, strong ties to several companies, and involvement with
professional organizations make it easier to maintain contacts with the
manufacturing industry. Again, much of this activity is done outside of the normal
college teaching requirements.

One interesting topic noted as a comment on the questionnaire and also
brought up in the “unstructured” discussions is the statewide push towards open
entry / open exit (OE/OE) curricula. Several of the state funded curriculum
projects for the new M-Tech centers specified the inclusion of the NIMS
standards and were required to follow the OE/OE format. This curricular model
promotes flexibility because the leamer can begin class anytime, not waiting for
the official start of each semester. Emphasis is placed on active Ieaming, and
the time to complete the Ieaming activity will vary according to the leamer’s
ability and productivity. The manufacturing department at Innovations remains

strongly opposed to the concept of OE/OE courses. Other community colleges in

132

Michigan have been promoting these classes as a way to optimize instructor
efficiency and attract students, thereby requiring flexible Ieaming options. The
perception of this department is that the content of the OE/OE courses can
become watered down, and a large number of community college students do
not possess the personal time management skills necessary to succeed in these
classes. Additionally, safety issues are raised when students work on machinery

without proper instruction and supervision.

Cross-site analysis

According to Miles and Huberman (1984) qualitative data are first
analyzed as they are collected because the researcher must write down his or
her version of that data. The data are further analyzed as they are reduced and
summarized. One further method of data analysis is through the creation of data
displays. By arranging and comparing the data, additional patterns may become
evident. Appendix E contains the data tables of the cross-site analysis. The
individual qualitative responses from the interviews helped explain the course of
action taken by these two schools regarding curriculum reform. The cross-site
analysis helps compare the similarities and differences between the schools. In
the first part of the cross-site analysis I address the three factors affecting
curricular reform - faculty, administration, and the advisory committee. These
factors are part of the curricular reform model for this study and are addressed in

both the survey and the site visits.

133

Traditions appears to have a higher level of administrative support for
curricular reform. One of the administrators has a great deal of experience with
occupational programs and is anxious to see them transformed to fit current
industry expectations. Innovations College has experienced a recent change in
administration. The new administration is not providing the same level of support
and encouragement to the manufacturing department as the old administration.
The Innovations instructors would welcome any positive support from the
administration. They would like to see realistic goals and targets for the program.
However, they would rather work independently than face administrative criticism
and interference in their curricular activity. The administration at Innovations
feels the program must “stand on its own” but does not follow through with a
financial description of that statement. One factor that may explain a much
higher level of curriculum reform at Innovations is that the instructors feel
somewhat threatened and are taking a very proactive approach to maintaining
their program. Pressures are less visible at Traditions. In both colleges the
administration expects the faculty to find time on their own for curriculum
development work.

In both colleges the faculty remain central to the process of curriculum
reform. With regard to faculty time spent on curricular issues, this study
reinforces Grubb’s (1999) findings - community college instructors are very busy
with teaching and classroom related activities. Therefore most curriculum
development will occur during the summer and semester breaks —- if the

instructors are self-motivated. The administration is reluctant to pay for additional

134

“release time” for curricular activities, although at Innovations Community
College one administrator suggested the faculty could apply for grants to help
with curriculum reform. At Traditions an administrator mentioned that the faculty
should network to a greater degree with other schools on curricular issues. A
cooperative curriculum approach could reduce the pressures on individual
instructors and draw from a greater pool of manufacturing knowledge. An
Innovations instructor thought that faculty could best handle curricular issues
without interference from the administration. Again, this comment reflects the
belief that administrators can be more of a hindrance than help for curriculum
reform.

Most of the individuals interviewed — faculty, administrators, and advisory
board members - admitted that local industry and advisory council involvement in
community college curriculum are both necessary and problematic. One difficulty
expressed at both colleges was that companies are too busy for active
involvement in the curriculum. Another concern was that the advisory council
members were primarily looking out for their own best interests.

The advisory committee members had concerns of their own. They felt
that they were being used mostly for political purposes, and that higher
education is slow to respond with changes they recommend. An instructor at
Innovations explained that because of the rather small local manufacturing base
students also had to prepare for jobs or further education in other parts of the
state. This circumstance means that advice from the local advisory board was

tempered by regional and statewide information.

135

On a more positive note, a Traditions instructor and an administrator
mentioned several examples of special classes created to meet the unique
demands of local industry as a result of advisory board involvement. One
Innovations instructor felt that local support for the program is improving and the
advisory board is helping the college with a better recruiting and promotional
strategy. An administrator at Innovations believes that local companies can help
the manufacturing program incorporate some of the new business practices that
that local companies have recently implemented.

The next portion of the cross-site analysis deals with specific curricular
issues addressed in the curriculum reform model. These comments help explain
why NIMS has not had much effect on the curriculum. On the issue of recent
curriculum reform both Traditions and Innovations seem to justify their chosen
course of action. Traditions boasts of a solid program with strong fundamentals.
Respondents admitted that they do not quickly jump on new ideas and that they
have viewed NIMS with a bit of skepticism. Respondents at Traditions
acknowledge that a new full time instmctor is expected to take the program to a
higher level of technology and innovation. Although NIMS will continue to be a
useful benchmark for evaluating the curriculum, respondents say that the
introduction of new technology will become a higher priority. The instructors at
Traditions claim that they are trying to promote classes that appeal to more
students and challenge a wide range of student ability. They are also seeking
better integration between programs — such as manufacturing and industrial

design. The NIMS standards do not appear to fit these goals.

136

Interview data show that Innovations quickly embraced NIMS and
reformed the curriculum to meet the new standards. Respondents stated that
they expected a much higher participation rate with community colleges
throughout the state. Although many respondents later became dissatisfied with
the NIMS organization, they felt that the laboratory facilities and the curriculum
have improved as a result of NIMS implementation. Innovations would likely
support any new standards or certifications that have broader support in
Michigan.

Respondents at both colleges expressed similar reasons for attempting
curriculum reform, although actual curriculum change was more apparent at
Innovations. Reasons for curriculum reform include new technology, new trends
in industry, and college wide changes in degree requirements. Respondents at
both schools believed that NIMS is not widely supported by Michigan community
college educators or by Michigan manufacturing companies. The statewide push
towards adoption of NIMS seems to have failed. Respondents from Traditions
felt that NIMS was not a good fit with their program. They place more emphasis
on local needs and advisory board input than on national standards. At
Traditions manufacturing faculty members have already experienced difficulty
with offering an expanded selection of courses without increasing total
enrollment in the manufacturing program. This development causes more
classes to be cancelled or merged. However, respondents believed that the
NIMS standards were a helpful benchmark for curriculum reform. lnnovation’s

respondents mentioned that the NIMS standards helped improve the curriculum

137

and the facility. The NIMS recommendations for laboratory upgrades helped to
convince the administration that the improvements were needed. However,
respondents at Innovations were critical of the way the NIMS organization
interacted with their program once they completed the curriculum reform
process.

One of the criteria listed in the conceptual framework was the current
state of curriculum development in the colleges. Both Traditions and Innovations
produced rather extensive curriculum documentation. Much time had gone into
the development of the program and the individual courses. Even though
Traditions had not used the NIMS standards, many of the Ieaming objectives
were compatible with NIMS. Both schools also recognize student achievement to
be a major issue in curriculum reform. Respondents realized that most students
would not be able to demonstrate a mastery of the NIMS standards given the
limited amount of coursework currently offered in the manufacturing specialties.

Respondents at both schools recognized that public relations and student
recruitment play a larger role in the success of the manufacturing programs.
Respondents at Innovations hoped that a NIMS accredited program would
bolster a positive image in a program that has suffered from a great deal of
negative publicity in the past several years. Respondents at Traditions believed
that the low profile of NIMS among Michigan manufacturing companies is related
to the minimal publicity associated with becoming NIMS accredited.

Finally, comments on future curriculum reform activities point out several

differences between these two schools. Respondents at Traditions emphasize

138

integration between related programs. They will continue to value the breadth of
topics in the program versus the depth that NIMS encourages. Respondents at
Traditions also expect that adding a new instructor will lead to a higher level of
curriculum reform. The Innovations faculty members feel that their major
curriculum reform task is behind them. They will be focusing on incremental
changes and improvements. One Innovations instructor felt that the current
challenges facing community college budgets and the rapidly changing
manufacturing environment will shake out the weaker manufacturing programs in

Michigan community colleges and strengthen those that remain.

Slimmarv of research questions

The primary question in this study is: How, if at all, have the NIMS
Metalworking Standards influenced manufacturing curriculum reform in the
Michigan community colleges? Only 14% of the respondents are actively using
NIMS. Several more are considering using NIMS in the curriculum. Based on
these figures NIMS has not made significant progress in the Michigan community
colleges. However, all of the colleges are aware of the NIMS standards, meaning
that the standards did receive much publicity. If all of these schools have at least
studied the NIMS standards and considered their potential use in curriculum
reform the NIMS standards have influenced the curriculum to a small degree.

As a follow up to that first question a second question asked: Why NIMS
has or has not had an effect on curriculum reform? No respondents in the survey

or the site visits made the claim that NIMS was fundamentally wrong. All the

139

respondents were familiar with the NIMS standards to the point of explaining why
they did or did not choose to include the standards into the curriculum. The most
common reasons against NIMS were a poor fit to the existing program goals,
lack of industry support for NIMS, and the difficulty of adding additional
components to an already crowded curriculum. The only negative comments
about the NIMS standards involved some issues with the lab performance
exercises. A few comments also mentioned the bureaucratic nature of the NIMS
organization. Of the two institutions that did choose to fully implement the NIMS
standards, the respondents simply indicated that the apparent benefits of a

NIMS certified program outweighed the obstacles mentioned here.

140

CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

When this study was first proposed, many Michigan community colleges
were seriously pondering their future involvement with the NIMS standards.
Several assumptions were made when the NIMS standards were introduced: the
standards would be a good fit to existing community college programs, industry
in the state was very supportive of the standards, and additional state funding
would support NIMS related activities. Since then a noticeable shift has occurred
regarding support of the NIMS standards. What began as a quiet whisper
against the NIMS standards turned into a general agreement among Michigan
community colleges that NIMS should not be the new standard driving
manufacturing curriculum reform.

During the late 1990’s, when the NIMS standards were finalized,
manufacturing employment in Michigan was at an all-time high (MEDC, 1999).
Because companies were competing for skilled workers, wages were being
driven up. Employers felt that a large supply of well-trained workers would help
them keep up with a surging demand for their products. The NIMS standards
were seen by industry as a way to articulate their needs to local training and
educational institutions. An unprecedented amount of government funding and
private corporate resources were combined to launch the NIMS skills standards

initiative.

141

At the same time many community college programs felt the pressure
from local manufacturing companies to update their training programs and
produce students who quickly become productive employees in a high-
technology manufacturing environment (Salzman, 1998). Clear expectations of
student performance were not apparent in most existing manufacturing curricula.
The NIMS skills standards appeared to provide this missing link between what
was taught in school and what was required in industry. To sweeten the pot,
many new state grants and funding sources promised to direct funding towards
programs that adopted the NIMS standards and built a curriculum incorporating
the NIMS performance levels (Jacobs, 2001). Manufacturing programs appeared
to be headed in the same direction as certificate programs such as automobile
mechanics or nursing where all participants are held to a high national
competency standard.

The results of this study show a disturbing disconnect between the intent
of the NIMS skills standards and the direction of most curriculum reform and
revision activity in Michigan community colleges. The remainder of this chapter
attempts to answer the following questions: Have the NIMS standards failed to
live up to their expectation in creating a common national skill standard? Have
Michigan community colleges failed to reform their curriculum and meet the
expectation of local employers to teach to a national standard?

The United States of America is comprised of diverse manufacturing
regions. A common set of standards that applies to all types of manufacturing

companies in all regions might be more idealistic than practical (Jacobs, 2001).

142

Although Michigan was listed as one of about a dozen states involved in this
national skills standards initiative, other states played a greater role in this
process. Michigan may have been on the fringe of this movement. Initial
suggestions that state funding of occupational education might be linked to skills
standards caused high initial interest in the NIMS standards. This funding link
never materialized. One of the advocates of NIMS in the Michigan Department of
Education moved to another state during this implementation process. No other
individual continued the active promotion of NIMS.

During the late 1990’s manufacturing companies had both the resources
and the interest to pursue the skills standard initiatives. The recession beginning
in 2000 greatly reduced the resources available to promote NIMS. A steady
stream of displaced workers began to compete for whatever job openings
remained (Right Place Program Manufacturer’s Council, 2002). State budgets for
curriculum development grants and program enhancements were reduced,
putting the brakes on many NIMS related activities. Manufacturing programs in
Michigan community colleges felt the effect of this downturn. Marginally
successful programs during years of high employment and fully funded budgets
were quickly reduced or eliminated. Student populations during economic
downturns become more interested in traditional degrees that help them
compete in a tight job market (Jacobs, 2001; Grubb, 1999).

Surprisingly, many Michigan manufacturing companies were not aware of
the NIMS skills standards. If they did know about the standards they were not

encouraging the local community colleges to re-align the curriculum with these

143

skills standards. Many of the colleges in this study identified the lack of local
industry support as a primary reason against using NIMS. Further attempts at
integrating these skills standards were also discouraged by what some perceived
as flaws in the “externally validated” projects included with NIMS. Unrealistic
tolerances and poorly designed blueprints led instructors to believe that the
materials were not adequately developed and tested.

Additionally, NIMS was trying to become financially self-sustaining by
charging fees for many of the materials and certification activities. The initial fee
for accrediting a program is $1500.00. This amount does not include the costs
for potential facility improvements. Each instructor and student must pay a
$40.00 registration fee, then a $35.00 fee for every certification test. Because of
the many topic areas involved in the NIMS standards, the exam fees for students
could soon exceed the cost of taking a community college class. Although
Innovations Community College initially tried to offset the student costs of these
certification exams, they had no long-term plan for funding these additional
costs. Existing community college tuition and fee structures provide no easy
means to support these additional program costs.

Another interesting perspective from industry emerged from this study.
What exactly are most employers’ expectations for community college
manufacturing programs? According to one advisory board member,
“Companies like to hire students who have had at least a year at the community
college because they have some knowledge and also know whether they want to

pursue the career". In other words, employer expectations may be more realistic

144

than some advocates for widespread change believe. If community colleges can
give a student a good educational foundation along with some exposure to
careers in manufacturing, the companies can build upon that foundation.

Michigan manufacturing companies have also shifted their training focus
in the past decade. When the NIMS standards were being developed the
emphasis was on “more” and “better”. The manufacturing companies needed
more employees to keep up with product demand, and they wanted better
training in the traditional manufacturing skills. The NIMS standards focused on
these issues. Since that time industry focus has shifted towards lean
manufacturing principles with a higher emphasis on automation and technology.
This new emphasis requires some skills not addressed by NIMS.

Finally, convincing arguments can be made for the NIMS standard in
guiding a training program designed to place skilled employees on the shop
floor. At the community college level, however, classes are often filled with a
variety of students. One group intends to transfer to a four-year program. Others
are taking the course as a “service course” - such as a tool design major who
takes a machining course. Additionally, community colleges provide an
environment for students to explore potential career choices. Faced with this
variety of students in one classroom, instructors are not encouraged to create a
job-training type of Ieaming environment. Stiehl and Lewchuk (2002) suggest
that community colleges should look beyond the competency framework of skills

standards towards the outcomes framework of curricular development. The

145

outcomes framework emphasizes the ability to synthesize program content to
solve complex problems typical of what students will face in the workplace.

In addition to exploring the influence of the NIMS skills standards on
Michigan community college curriculum, this study examined the additional
driving forces behind curriculum development and maintenance - administration,
advisory board, and faculty. Comments from the survey and additional
conversations during the site visits helped to clarify the roles of these three
groups.

The college administration strongly influences the process of curriculum
reform. First, high expectations can be communicated to faculty and staff
regarding the need for well-designed curriculum with clearly stated goals and
objectives. Second, an institutional culture may be cultivated where curriculum
development is supported and encouraged (Perin, 2000). This support could
include faculty release time, seminar and professional development activities,
opportunities for shared curriculum ventures, and staff support for instructional
design. Finally, the reward structure in community colleges could better
encourage curriculum development activities. Because pay is often related to
instructional hours, community college instmctors might take on more teaching
responsibilities and cut back on related work such as curriculum development
(Grubb and Associates, 1999). Administrators must also consider how the
reliance on more part-time and temporary instructors will affect program and

course development.

146

 

This study also explored the complex relationship of advisory committee
and local industry involvement with community college manufacturing programs
and curriculum. Survey respondents from the colleges expressed appreciation
for the time and effort expended from these local industry groups. Equipment
and materials donations have helped defray the high costs of running the
programs. Local companies provide internship opportunities and hire program
graduates to help support the college. At the same time, respondents referred to
the process of working with advisory committees as “emotionally draining” and “a
necessary evil”.

Also mentioned was the direct influence of local industry owners on the
decisions of community college administrators. Much of the literature describes
the highly political nature of community college leadership (Bailey and Morest,
2004; Salzman, 1998; Jacobs, 2001). Interviews with administrators confirmed
that community college leaders are willing to listen to prominent business leaders
and industry groups that may have influence over public funding issues and be
able to direct training revenue related to the college. However, both community
college staff and advisory board members acknowledged some suspicion about
each other’s real motives in this relationship. One community college
representative mentioned that local companies have selfish ambitions for
obtaining trained employees rather than well-educated graduates. College
instructors wonder whether industry representatives understand curriculum
issues. Those who work in industry question whether the college staff

understand the needs of modern manufacturing companies and have the

147

commitment to make substantial program changes. Both sides admit that the

attempt to involve local industry in program and curriculum issues remains rather

political.

One final observation is that responsibilities of curriculum reform remain
largely in the hands of the community college instructor. Although the many
factors already discussed - administrative support, institutional resources,
national standards, and local industry involvement — all influence the vitality of a
program, the job of revising curriculum is primarily left to the instructors. Perin
(2000) identifies a faculty leader as a primary ingredient of curriculum reform.
Following are several observations regarding the manufacturing instructors
included in this study:

. Professionalism. Some instructors view themselves as true manufacturing
professionals. They have built careers in manufacturing, are actively involved
in professional societies, maintain close ties with manufacturing companies,
and are well respected in their specific fields. ‘

. Program Builders. Several instructors surveyed are passionate about building
and maintaining their manufacturing programs. They have ideas for public
relations, recruitment, retention, and student transfer opportunities. They
build up their labs and impress visitors with a clean and organized facility.

. Commitment. Curriculum development is normally done “after hours”. It takes
a back seat to the pressing issues of teaching load and classroom activities.
Some instructors are willing to devote blocks of time in the summer or during

breaks to ensure that this work is accomplished.

148

a Sense of Urgency. A few of the instructors indicated a sense of urgency in
the need to reform the manufacturing curriculum. They feel that Michigan has
reached a critical stage in its ability to compete on a national and international
level. They feel that our community colleges can play a major role in this
effort.

Unfortunately, not all community college instructors fit into the above
categories. Some are nearing retirement, others will only perform the minimum
requirements of their faculty contracts, and still others feel that they have job
security regardless of the direction of their program. One administrator described
the hiring process of a community college instructor as a “million dollar" decision.
Over a period of ten years the college will likely invest a million dollars into
salary, benefits, training, and professional development of an instructor. The
return on investment varies greatly among faculty. Another administrator
described the faculty work environment in higher education as “one large
volunteer organization”. Tenured faculty can rarely be forced to do anything.

An additional restraint on manufacturing curriculum reform is the small
program size typical in most Michigan community colleges. Some manufacturing
courses are taught by instructors from other departments, while other full time
manufacturing instructors also teach courses in other departments. Adjunct
instructors are teaching a higher percentage of the courses, which means that
the few full time faculty left in the manufacturing departments have many
responsibilities to maintain the program. Finding additional time to revise the

curriculum will likely remain a challenge.

149

The literature reviewed in this study also contrasted the lofty goals of
curriculum reform with the reality of the community college student population.
Brewer (2000) points out the need for renewed emphasis on basic skill training
and remedial skills. Grubb and Associates (1999) identify the ways community
college instructors cope with academically unprepared students —
“accommodation” or “blissful indifference”. Jacobs (2001) explains how the
“vocational” tracks that provided terminal job training programs in community
colleges are now coming under fire. New curriculum reform activities must
accommodate students at their various levels of academic achievement.

In summary, this study shows that the NIMS skills standards have had
minimal effect on the Michigan community college manufacturing curriculum.
Original expectations were that these standards would help to create a common
curriculum upon which industry and education could agree. With only 2 of 14
colleges adopting the NIMS standards and only a few more seriously considering
them, it appears NIMS will not be a common standard in the manufacturing
programs. Several respondents of the study felt from the beginning that the
NIMS standards were not a good fit with higher education. Others believed that
the NIMS organization fell short on delivering a workable set of standards that
could be incorporated into an existing curriculum. However, there was general
agreement that the NIMS standards will continue to be an important benchmark
for manufacturing programs.

Other effects on curriculum reform were also investigated. The faculty,

administration, and advisory committee were identified as three primary forces.

150

The tension between these groups provides a reasonable amount of balance to
the programs, but also creates obstacles for rapid change in the curriculum.
Several faculty in this study felt that they had successfully "weathered another
small storm" in the larger perspective of new community college initiatives and
reforms.

This study helps us to see that although there is room for curriculum
improvement in Michigan community college manufacturing programs,
curriculum reform is already taking place in most colleges. Many factors affect
curriculum reform. The efforts of the individual instructor seem to be the largest
factor in the success of the process. Curriculum reform will continue to take
place on a regular basis. The NIMS standards will likely remain a viable
component of a focused job skills training program offered in a career center,
community college certificate program, or a private job training center. It does not
appear that NIMS skill standards will become a driving force in the manufacturing

programs at Michigan community colleges.

151

 

88.. 8.....0

 

 

 

 

 

0.28.. 003. 0.0.0.505 0:... :00 m 0:0 0:... :2 m “00.02
580.80. .00. 0:...005. >0E0:.02 :05 0.00030 08.0..
80. 80... m: .0 0:85.: N 30.9.63 020 88.3 38.800888000800350 3%;
0:005. 00m N .F 0:30.000 .00.: 05:005. 83.9. «90-80-08 0000.08.03
00 .r .92 .0. 80.09.20 00.03005 :00: 0>0z 0E0.uo.0 3.20:2 0:: 2.0.00.0 0000003. 00.00.0000 02.9. :2 ..0.:00 30.02::
V act—500.5002 :00; woman 0:0 00.00 .0 :000 00.4. .3. 8.00 Pom:
0:0..0m 0:00.50 N 320050.: 9:30—03:05. 88.9 000006 .s. .0300 000:00 0:00

0:..E.00.00:00 00 00.0808

0000:.E._0 :00: 00: 0.0.00.0 000.: .95. ”00.02 0.0.005. 0000 300030 comm

 

 

 

00:0E0§< I 0.23.... Ems. «: .E .t a it . . 03.500.09.00 00.33.;
88.08.08 N .F 6:80 .8882 88-08-08 88-0808

.88 .50.). .0588. 88.8 8.80.. 58.88.. :2 .8888.

.8. 8.89..- 8.8. 5.8 N 828.8» 8:285:05. 88.? .8030 . 8.83.8. .n_.> .0”. 58.... £82 88
358.205. :30: 0.8 N 80.2.88 58522 88.2 0.80.? 0.0.50: 08:8 3.5558 82 00 >00

 

 

 

as". 5:

 

3:08-88
:88 :08:

 

mmmh www-mmm

 

00.500830... 0:0 .500. .90

.00.“:0300 :00500 00.9.0 0.0.0.505 0E: :3 m

$0.000. .0: EQE Sn 00.5.00 05:2 “00.0:

F 2.9.2:: I 00.50594. mowed?

 

 

ma. .0. 00 0:0 .0 0:000?
0000.3 2 02.000

 

mmmmémméwm
2.0.3 0.E0000< .0. .n..>

 

$888 0.8
gal;
88.03-08

83-884 =2 .882

..w 5020.. wow

000:00 bEsEEoO 0:002

 

 

02:22 :0: N; 320500.: 9:385:05. 88.3 :00..00 ::< 20.2 .5
00.00.00 0. .0... .E8005 .008 n:0 .:0E._0.:m E8005 «08:08
0.0.0.50... bo.:0>:_ 6050...... 8002.00 .0003000000 00230

 

< Xazmmnz

00 0:00 0.:3EE00 :0 £25. .0 900.5

 

152

 

 

0.000.000 8.0.0000 020

«000.00 mé .005 =2 F .0080

 

 

: 8.08: o. .088 8.08:0 : 82:2 20 :8 .8: 88.8 8:820:88: 0.80:.» 80.8
.00.:000... 000T. 000.00.: : 8.0.0005. momodv 0.005. 0000”. 030.0005 00...???

5.; 82...; 2 22.? 82 .882 N 88.: 8:80.202 .8... 88.8 8:. 8200.0... 8880-08
88.03-05 . .280 .8882 8.2.80 88.9 88.80.85 83-88 :2 €8.80
.00.0.0E@.0m..?v. N 0000... 0003003005. mowed: 00.00030w .00.00 000m. \ .n..> 000.905 mo :0

22.? :02 N 8:80: 0:0 :2.0Eo.=< 88.8 0.0: :28 ..0 08:00 0.5880 Eon. 0:2;

$88.0 800:

=00I.00..d.???

88-888

5:0 2.22 0E: :8 m 5.28:8. 0E: :2. N 8.0: 88-88.. :2 8.8: 0:90
38.850388. 88-8880. 02 .0 29:8. 8:

m 8.8% :0 N 822:8: 8.5.8.382 0:0 8:8: 88.8 :80 .528... 08:8

0Ew.00m E0 .- N 000000.505. .050300. 88.: ..0.005. 0000 3.0:EE00 00.00m 000.0

 

 

.000. 8.0... 0.0000

00.0.... 0.0000

0.00030
n.<0 0. 00.000 00 E? 00000.0 000:. .0 00.00
I .00 000020 00.00 2.00.50 0. 0.0.00.0 00.0:

N 30.00000: 0002005005. mowed:

 

:nNTNmméom.
00.82.00. .0 0000
00000.0. .< 00E00

0.00020 000
lmIm|z00050 0 .???
:MNv-Nmméom

0000... .5. .000?00._

.0”. 0000.000 037m

000:00 3.0:EE00 0.00000 .

 

 

0E: :0:
0.0.00”. .50

 

5.0.0.00. 00... :3 00 “00.0:

: 828:8: .8: 8:82 88.8

 

v: 7.: LL . J 53)...)
.vam. :onoN
.00E00.0>00
000:00 .0 5.00.5 0>0300xw

3.8022 .0 2:80 .0

 

0.00030 Nm:
00.500.00.080. .???
05:48-QO
mEm-Bv-mmN
aim-N801: 0:30.000

.0”. .0EE.:w mVNNo

000:00 3.005800 00.00 00.0 .

 

 

 

 

153

 

 

 

9.5- 0NN-F .F0
03 x FNFENN- $0
5...: 928..

 

400:0. womo 9 :. :0:0
0. £052.”. £0095 30:8 0: 50 05:2 .6 000:.

000.680 >:0E .022 5.3 00:00098 0000 0
90: .0: 0.0 >05. c.2252. 0:... :2 0:0 ”00.0:

N 328:2: 08 0:282 88.0..
N 8:22:05. 0.5.8:. 88.3.
N 30.05.00: 00009.”. mctaaoflncmz 800.3

300.050.6033.:
:000 0.0.0002
0.3030. 300

 

8:00:38
:000 0.0.0002
:20... >58.

8:00:00 N09
300.0:0_t_x.>>3.s
5.503-000

$8». .5. .:0EE0000m
0001 :20: am 5.02 mic:
002.8 0:35:50 0:95.

 

5 $1000.03
:00.uao__0x@.:0Eu:o_
560:3 Ea...

0.: + .8.
0:0 m:.:.:00E :. 00500:. .0E0E. .000 00.0 >05
0:... :8 N 0:... ..e F .862

N .2... 0:28.... .0528. 88.3
N 828:8» 8.83:2: 83.?

0:..E.00.moo=0x©.0x00
00.00 _..m
:00.mmo__0x©0.0x.00
500000-03
:000000m 0:008:80
0:0 00.00 .0 :000
.0000 0009.0

9:003: 800
:00. 020x >>s>>>
5:108- mmN
98.. .s. 0.00.0 0.000

.0: .690 _..1 mo».

05: .0 .0 82.8.
38503 ..2 0.8.0 2:00
.0>< :52 one

000:00 3.:0EEoo 32.0!

 

 

000 __.>>
:00.00>x©.0.:0&00:
5:00:00 0:026...

6:20: 0:... .5. F
on... :8 N
0:... :2 F .862

30.05.00... .00 k 05:005.
N 5005054. .00: 05:005. 800.00

 

030000.08
30.02.03 00._na< .0 :000

.08: m 2220

9:00am 5mm

000005.333

831000.03

087803 .5. 60580.3.
03¢ xom .O.n.

.0>< O .003 some

000:00

3.:3EE00 >0_.0> 00N0E0_0v.

 

 

 

:0::0.m 0>0.m
0.....E.00.:8x00..@0..=0l000
0.0.0002-» B

0....0 00m.

 

20.300350. 5.; 0:28:80 .0502

0:0 20> 000...E 0 .000 00:03.0: 00 __..s 0.5.
..:0E__o..:0 :_ 0:..000 0800 0:0 050 .0003 090.
o. 030 0020:0000 0:.00 0.0 wEEmoa 000....

N 88820 8.28:: 88.?
20.0.2002 momodw
N 30.05.03 actafimScmz Fomodv

 

 

:000 €90.00...
:9:n:00:0> 0:0n.
:00..:.00._©:0Ex00_l00>0._
«000.00%» B

500.50 0.80000... .0 :000
:0Ex00._ 00.60

 

2:00:00 «mom
lJl:00..E00..33..>|

0 F 00.005; 5

Fommv .5. 6000.000

0a mcoEEw FFFN

000.60 3.5.8800 500.000 .

 

 

154

 

 

_oo.r 0:.2005. \ O<O
.00:00 00m.

05.2.00 F 0:... .5. F ”8.02

F 20.0.8... 5.0.80 88.0..
N 30.05.08. .00... 0:...005. F0000».

:00.:0.E0.E@0.0:000
900000-000

8.020

.0:0..00=000 .0 :000 0.00.5
20:00 :80

0.:0030 0RN
lll:00...0.E0.E..sz.sll
NN00.000-000

0N00v .5. .:00...0I

.0>< 0.0.0 5:00 0NOF
000..00

52:35:00 c0020.: 0.5.

 

 

00008000.: E0800... 00

0:... :0: 0
0:... ..a F .882

F 02.0.0.). E0=0n. \ .0005. nomadv

:00.0£000E©.c0.9>00
:000 00.0500 E...
:000E000E E00060.
0.0503000

 

02.0030 mnnN F
:0'00600I0E!§3;I!
0 50.037000
00000 .5. .c0..0>>

 

030031000 N >00.0::00h 05.309305. 0000.0F 0E0.00.n. .0900 0099.". 00.> .0m. 0:5. 0203: .000 8va
0:00E._000 2.05. N 0:.EE0.00.n. .050E00 020 0000.? 500.00... 00000”. ..n. 000..00 3.:0EE00 0E0005.
0.:0030 000.0F

0590...... 5.0.. [100002.335
:00.00.©0.0>E0. 0:... :00 N 0.0.0.305 0:... :3 N 00.02 0.00 700.1 F0
000700750 $0730-80
0.05.00 NE“. N 05.300305. 00.05.0000 089% :00.00..@8_00.0.. 9000 .5. 0505..

000.00. 00:00

N 00.05.08 0.5.00.2 88.0..
N 9.520.090 020 88.9

0N0 70915 F0
.20 0.00.00 .:00o E..0.:.

owoov xom .O.n.
.0>< 60.000 .2 0N0

 

 

 

 

00:00 .:..0 N 30.05.00» .0...0=0:. 00000.. 9.00.0 00:.00 000..00 b.:=:.:.00 0:.0:0..

0.:0030 0050

N0o0x ooF0-~N0-00N 000.0 0_.00:0 20.800.00.533
50730.05

0.030.“. :02 850 .5. 00.2
00§0N000N 02.0 3:00:00”. mo0F

   

._00:0 .:0.E00.0. :00

00 FN.0N0-00N
0:.:.0.... 00.20.09. 0200.5
tom 0c>0>>

 

 

«0:300 .90>00 09030:. 0E0 ..3 F 00.02

N 30.858 800: 8.0.0 88.0..
N 30.05.08 .08 0:285. F000,?
F 00:0:0.:.05. 05000:. 09.0.?

 

3..

081.808
000.200 000:.030 0:0
00.030 050000000 .0 :000
:00...0... 00000.

 

009000 0050090 0:00.00
N00 7NON-oo0

0007NNo0v

.5. .890... 3.50

00:0>< .0502 .000 mmnN
000..00 :00.:0.5. 00.04

 

 

155

 

 

0:... :0: 0 - N
05.. =0. F “00.0:

 

=00.00:o 0:005 0:050.
5Nvo-555- FON

2:830 5.0..
03.55.0050 0.035.533?
508-55545

N300 .5. 5009.005.

 

 

 

 

 

 

0FNo-555-FON N 500.0585 0:.:.:005. 500.00 050.005 .0:0..00:000 .0 :005 000”. 05000000 5:00 FNN

.00..0::.0.v. 00. N 500.0500... .0.:.0:0:_ 0000.0F 055050“. .0 0000K 000..00 5.505500 :0005005.

N 500.0500..- .050005 0000.0.~ 05000.0 0005

0000-N05-0F0 F ...m.< 0:...05. 05 0:0 .005 5000.0». 5%

:0.0.0n. .0055. F 8.0.000 05.025 05:005. .0.05. 0000.0.‘ 300-N05-0F0

0500-NON-0F0 F ...m..< 050.05. E0..0n. .805. 500.00 0000-N05-0F0 0000.. .5. .5.”.

000.005©5._0..05.. F ...m.< .:0...s._.5. 00005.. 50205005 .0 :005 .00< ..0 .500 .000 53

553.05. 0.0000 F ...m..< 5000.... 05:005. 83.5... .0500 .00:0.5. 000..00 5.505500 005.

0005.00.55 : ::00

:050... :05 05000.0 003

0:... 000 0 :00.5_00.:05©::00.. 305.00%

05.. ..0. F H00.02 VON70N0-000 FFFN-0N0-000

000.200 0000.. .5. 50:50

F 500.000 .005 05:005. 0000.0». 0.50009... .0 :00n. .0000< .5 000..00 000N

850.5 5.00 N 5020500.. .0...0:0:. 0000.0F 50:00 :000 000..00 5.505500 5.00505. .
NN50-NON-005

 

 

 

05000.0 5050

150 0000.:OE.3>>>>

:00.00000.:05©0.0:00.0 05.. :00 0 .05.. =0. N ”00.02 087000-005 087000-005
50:00. 000 050.090. 55.. .5. 00505.

N 50205005 500.0..05. 0000.0F 0:300:80 .0 5.00.5 000m. 2.55000. 5000 000F

::05. 05.5. N 5020::005 05300.50: 0000.0F 5.002 .... 0.0...0n. 000..00 5.505500 00.005.

 

 

 

 

 

156

 

mmE-moY¢m~
mocmBm matofis.
289.0 .85

we...“ :8 N; 5.3 9.2m mataomhzcmE
c. :89 2.983 550 Eot 3.88 9::
=3“. .EoEtmaou £5 :. 350$ we... :3 oz M202

N mataomscmz 8.98.5 .2358 88.9

CNwD .02 «wwgm 003m

 

:umdmbsocom to; .8
331N345“

5826:. .0 Swan.
58265 3.50

983% 98.9
a?
$3$3§
08323 :2 .385
.3. Eamon: 88.
82.8 £22858 .

 

 

coszoS< 5596:.
33m. :00
mNmm-mwm-o Fm

 

3.58.686 £51

 

23.9.9508
5mm-mwa-o 5

moo_>5w 2896 5:26:52.
new 3:31am .0 anon.

8:256 nvow
3868.333
58-3.?on

98.503 .2 .55... ten.
90m xom .O.n. .w otm mwm
$2.00

 

 

 

ELFP raga! N >OO_OC£UmF mCtzuuwSCmE mowofir EQSOxmgOZ 5.50 do bE—FCEOU .00 .__m_0 Am a

3:255 onfiN

:umdoucmimoiis

sumdoucmimo©2mfia o :mNNm QVN

9.3509: ms...“ tun w 6&2 =3 _. 6902 NvaNMNéwN vmmww .5. 6...... cogmcEtmn.
DUOGOUCNENO©NEumw >DO_OC£QQ._. U¢=QQ< ho cmmo .UN— wv—m... par—0.0 mmONN
mE~< ®>mum N .9200 .motmEaz UC...)— mmmodv o.mI n___.cn. gs. waaEmU 092m D5520

mataoflacmE um_._xm-_._aE N >ao.o:£oo._. .00... 9:232 womodv aumdoucmimo Exomfifi ooZWNMNéwN
suodgcmimo 25.0.2. m .comh matsaoflzcws. um___xm-.=3>. mowodw omoTNmNéVN wwav =2 651 E:n:<
momYNMNéVN N >mo_o:£ow.r mataomtEw—z mooodw «cwEan. .Um mcoumhofimmm oomN

5:30 .3225.

N EEEQNE .OOH nooodr

5.5.85 .855 .5

39.00 ESEEoo 95.wa

 

 

:uo.oEc©ztm9m.E
99-3?me
5590.2 >9...

 

9:: :3 F ucm 0E: =3 F ”8.02

F .9980 38. 2282 88.3
N 32853 8:38.352 88.3

 

:co.oEc©o.>>o§

on F 7mg- 3N

85.696

.mcoaoaumc. .8 .250 .5695
$.26... :23.

 

2:255 o 5v

lsudeclszésl

womeévnéow

80 7mg- r mm

809 .s. 5.0 oeo>flh

4w EB“. 6mm. 5:

32.00 5920.5. EEmozEtoz

 

 

157

0000:00 3.5.5.00 :09:0._>. .6 03:00 ”a 0.00F

 

099.0558. 080. 30:

E9: .0 5.0.505 «0:200 S00 05
0:030 5.00. .0050 :0... 00 000: E050... “00.0:

N 622.08 .8» 9.282 88.3

wawaxwéN
20502055 00.00002. .0 .>
50:90 0.0.00

0: .E LL

. 1

0:00:00 mmN F
ll:00.0.0:0.003.§3>>l

F 50.30 -FmN

vmvmw .s. .0._.>000m

RN xom .0”. 00.00 5.02 0000
000:00

b.::EE00 0.9.0 .003 .

 

Eoo..00©00..:0_

000: 20.5.0005
:0:0.00 :0..000E:0m
=00.0003@ F£.EmE

2:080 80. FF
2000003333
0.89:0-va
003.. _s_ .833
2:552 SEN

 

 

 

38-0%-va 00.00025 I 5:00:20 00.> 000..00

00005 0.00.. N 30.0:200h .00 .F 05:00.2 800.00 5.60 .5. E05. .5 3.58250 3:000 0:>0>> .
35-03

0:0>00.. 0050.. .3080; 00.0. _ 9:00am omaNF

00.0.... 00.. 39%

5 50.03.02 0.0..0:003©.30..3 300-05-va

5.2.00 300 anménmémn 030-8va .5. ..00.< ::<

.00 .F 0:...005. 0050.05.08 F-O xom

m.0..0:003@0..:09 N m:.EE0.mo.n. .0..:oo .00..0E:z 83.0». .050800 0:0 000505 .0 :000 .5 02¢ :05... .00M 89.

0..:0n. Eek N 30.05.08. .00 ._. 05:005. Fomodv :00..>> .0x._m E0Eowom 000..00 3.:2EE00 30:02003

 

 

0:..E.00.0E0@.09003.
39150-08
0.09003 2.0..

:0: 0:005

 

0:... :00 F 0:... :2 F «00300:. 0:0 3:508: 0.0:.
000: >0E 0.00:5: :. :300 0.0 0E0.mo.a ”00.0:

N 800300.... :0.m.00.n. 88.9..
N 30.8208. .00.: 05:005. 8800
N :0.0.:F.00... 00:20.50: .050005 mmmmfiv

 

 

“#0950.ng memDDu
Fvom$0000N
0030.05.00» 055000.205.
000:0>0< .0 :000
0.0Nwzm E0 ..

 

E
000.:0_E30§.§>
mfimwnwmvnoow

OQN TNmNé Fm

mmhmébémv _S_ 6059500

.3. m:20 0.9.0 8000
000..00 59:25. E0.003...Sow

 

 

158

APPENDIX B

Manufacturing Curriculum Survey
Explanation and Instructions

This 3—page document includes: page 1 - explanation and instructions
page 2 — consent form
page 3 — survey

This survey is an attempt to investigate the current state of curriculum reform and skills
standards in the manufacturing programs of the 28 Michigan community colleges. The
following descriptions are given in an attempt to clarify the survey questions and the
terms used in this survey.

Manufacturing / Machining Curriculum
A recent search through the Michigan Community College Dean’s Curriculum Guide

revealed at least one machining / manufacturing program on the books at each of the 28
community colleges. All 28 community colleges have a machining lab facility and have,
in the recent past, offered classes in machine tool related topics. Sometimes referred to
as the “Machine Tool” program, these programs actually appear under a variety of
names and descriptions. The following program names and CIP codes appeared most
oflen:

CIP code Program Name Number of schools
15.0603 Manufacturing Technology 15
48.0503 Industrial Machine / CNC Technology 13
48.0501 Machine Tool Technology 13

A lesser number of schools used other program names and CIP codes to describe
programs in the manufacturing / machining fields. Obviously, most schools listed
multiple programs in this category. In response to this survey, please address the
curriculum that you feel best fits under the above program names.

Curriculum

The meaning of the term “curriculum” can vary greatly among community college
constituents. For the purpose of this study we will define curriculum as an “academic
plan including purposes, activities, and ways of measuring success” (Stark and
Lattuca, 1996). This will include the following elements: purpose, content, sequence,
learners, instructional processes, instructional resources, evaluation, and adjustment.

Respondents

This survey is directed towards community college instructors whose primary teaching
loads are assigned in the machining I manufacturing programs. This survey is being
sent to the schools that currently appear to have an active machining / manufacturing
program.

159

Consent Form

The Impact of Skllls Standards on Community College Manufacturing Curriculum

This study will begin with a brief survey of a lead instructor at the community colleges with
manufacturing programs. I expect this to include about 18 of the original 28 community colleges.
This survey will attempt to gain information about manufacturing curriculum reform and the affects
of the NIMS (National Institute of Metalworking Skills) standards on the curriculum. Following that
survey, two colleges will be chosen for case studies. The case studies will include a site visit to
see the manufacturing facilities. interviews with several persons at each site, and a review of the
manufacturing curriculum.

The total amount of time required for your participation in this study is estimated to be

between 20 to 40 minutes. Participation in this study is voluntary. Specific questions may be

skipped or you may terminate your participation without penalty.

This study is designed to ensure confidentiality of the information you supply. Confidentiality in this
case means that only the researcher will be able to identify the source of the data. The source will
not be revealed in the publication of the data. Your privacy will be protected to the maximum
extent allowable bylaw.

If you have any questions about this study, please contact:

Torn Boersma

Grand Rapids Community College

151 Fountain NE

Grand Rapids, MI 49503

Phone: (616) 234-3613 E-mail: tboersmanrccedu

Faculty Supervisor:

Dr. James FainNeather
416 Erickson Hall, Michigan Sate University
East Lansing, MI 48824-1046

Phone: (517) 353-3387 E-mail: fairwea4@msu.edu

If you have questions or concerns regarding your rights as a study participant, or are dissatisfied
at any time with any aspect of this study, you may contact - anonymously if you wish: Ashir
Kumar, M.D., Chair of the University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects
(UCRIHS) by phone: (517) 355-2180, fax: (517) 432-4503, e-mail: ucrihs@msu .edu, or regular
mail: 202 Olds Hall, East Lansing. MI 48824

 

 

l voluntarily agree to participate in this study. UCRIHS APPROVAL FOR
THIS project EXPIRES:
(signature) (date)
APR 3 0 2004
( ) Please check this box if you are a minor. IT RENEWALAPPUCATION
MONTH PRIOR TO
ABOVE DATE TO CONTINUE

 

 

 

 

(parent or guardian signature)

160

Manufacturing Curriculum Survey

Please review the information in the consent form included with this survey.
By completing the survey your signature on the consent form is implied.

1. When was your last major curriculum revision in your current program? Year
Comments:

2. Is your curriculum generally understood and followed by those teaching in your department?
Yes _ No _ Unsure __
Comments:

3. Do you use lab performance-based student assessments?
Yes _ No _ Unsure __
Comments:

4. If you use performance-based student assessments, are they externally validated?
Yes _ No _ Unsure __
Comments:

5. Are you aware of the NIMS metal working standards?
Yes __ No __ Unsure __
Comments:

6. Are the NIMS standards currently used to focus the direction of your program?
Yes __ No __ Unsure __
Comments:

7. If you do not currently use the NIMS standards in your curriculum, do you plan to in the future?

Yes _ No _ Unsure __
Comments:
8. When do you anticipate your next re-write l revision of your curriculum? Year __
Comments:

9. Does your administration actively encourage an updated and cohesive curriculum in your
department?
Yes No _ Unsure _

Comments:

10. Do you feel that your advisory committee / local employers have an active voice in your
curriculum decisions?
Yes No _ Unsure _

Comments:

161

APPENDIX C

Results of Manufacturing Curriculum Survey

1. When was your last major curn'culum revision in your current program? Year __
1996 n=1
1997 n=1
1998 n=1
2001 n=4
2002 n=2
2003 =5

Comments:

Developed several certificate programs and 3 new courses in 2003.

Changed general education requirements in 2001.

Our curriculum is continuously being updated.

NIMS certified in 2002.

In 1996 we implemented open lab, self-directed format (minimal lecture), then in
2003 retumed to structured lab times with self-directed study.

2. Is your curriculum generally understood and followed by those teaching in your
department?
Yes=13 No=0 Unsure=1
Comments:
Small department.
Adjunct instructors often have little guidance on what to teach.

3. Do you use lab perfonnanoe-based student assessments?
Yes=14 No=0 Unsure=0
Comments:
Lab projects

4. If you use performance-based student assessments, are they externally validated?

Yes=1 No=13 Unsure=0
Comments:

The NIMS projects are externally validated.

5. Are you aware of the NIMS metal working standards?

Yes=14 No=0 Unsure=0
Comments:

Instructor is NIMS certified.

6. Are the NIMS standards currently used to focus the direction of your program?

Yes=2 No=12 Unsure=0
Comments:

We use NIMS where it fits into our program, but there are significant
opportunities for improvements in the NIMS process. We determine the direction of our
program, the NIMS projects that meet our standards are used.

162

 

 

The NIMS standards are more suited to training those who will go directly into a
machining career versus transfer students who are taking these courses for background
knowledge.

7. If you do not currently use the NIMS standards in your curriculum, do you plan to in
the future?
Yes=3 No=7 Unsure=4

Comments:

We currently use the NIMS standards

Local industry has not placed any importance on NIMS.

Possibly

Initially decided yes, then after further study decided no.

8. When do you anticipate your next re-write / revision of your curriculum?
2004 n=7
2005 n=3
2007 n=1

2008 n=1
? =2

Comments:

As needed our program and instructors are committed to continuous quality
improvement as applied to our lab equipment, supplies, and course content with a three-
year forecast for most major program changes, though this may occur on an informal
basis. Within the next 12 months we will be making a revision to our curriculum.

Currently in process of developing several more certificate programs.

Instructor is retiring and program is going to open entry / exit format with part
time instructor.

Basic machining content does not change. Format and delivery methods change
with the latest “hot topic”.

Each year minor changes.

lfl am still around, may retire soon

9. Does your administration actively encourage an updated and cohesive curriculum in
your department?
Yes=1 1 No=1 Unsure=2

Comments:

Since we (faculty) determine the direction of our cuniculum administration has
never had to address this issue. Also we have a new vice president and she has not
expressed an interest in getting involved in our program.

Purchased new machinery, approved curriculum changes, etc.

10. Do you feel that your advisory committee / local employers have an active voice in
your curriculum decisions?
Yes=10 No=3 Unsure=1

Comments:

Our curriculum is a dynamic and flexible training system, improving daily, always
adjusting to industry trends and student needs. This happens through feedback from
employers, past students, and changing technology. However, very few local employers
have taken the opportunity to get actively involved in the direction of our program.

Program was recently changed without advisory committee input.

163

Advisory committees are not real vocal about cuniculum issues.
All major decisions must be approved by advisory committee.
Advisory committee decided against NIMS.

164

 

APPENDIX D
Site Visit Protocol

. At the beginning of the site visit I will introduce myself to the
lead instructor and attempt to establish a cordial relationship.
We will try to negotiate a schedule for the day so that I can
observe and interview others in a manner that will not distract
them from their regularly scheduled activities.

. I will present the lead instructor with a copy of the census and
survey results as a starting point for further conversation. I will
request written copies of the existing curriculum for further
review.

. No recording devices will be used, and assurance will be given
regarding confidentiality of data. I will rely on interview notes
and formally write up the interview results the same day of the
interviews.

. Each interview will follow a printed interview guide that will be
given to each participant at the beginning of each interview. The
interview guide will contain a brief statement summarizing the
purpose of the study. Each participant will also be given a copy
of the UCRIHS consent form.

. Follow-up notes will be sent out, when possible, to thank each
participant for his/her time.

165

Contact Summary Sheet
Name: Date:
_ Full time faculty
__ Part time faculty
_ Administrator
_ Advisory board member
_ Student El Consent form
Brief description of study:
This is a study about manufacturing curriculum in Michigan community colleges.
The questions are designed to obtain qualitative information regarding the
importance of developing and maintaining a curriculum that will prepare students
for further education and for working in today’s challenging manufacturing
environment.
Topics of discussion will incltge;

. brief overview of the study, census and survey information

o administrative support of program and curriculum development

0 faculty time and resources spent on curricular issues

0 local industry support for curriculum development activities

. perceptions of recent manufacturing curriculum revisions

- factors influencing curriculum revision

- reasons for or against using NIMS to drive curriculum revision

- future plans for manufacturing programs and curriculum

166

 

 

APPENDIX E

Cross-site Analysis for Case Studies

In this portion of the study I display the qualitative data in a cross-site

analysis. The data are coded into seven topics, with each topic box comparing

data between the two sites. The data are labeled with the source of information:

“adm” for administrators, “adv” for advisory board members, and “ins” for

instructors.

 

Administrative support of program and curriculum development

 

Traditions

Ins: Supports with both resources and encouragement, but
expects a good job.

Ins: Currently good cooperation and support for programs

Adm: Very supportive but expects faculty to do most
curriculum development on their own time (summer and
break).

 

lnnovafions

 

 

lns: Administration should be more specific about goals and
targets.

Ins: Old administration was very supportive, new

administration?

Ins: Administration does not know how to react to some
current bad publicity about manufacturing; tight financing puts
a squeeze on expensive programs.

Adm: The program needs to stand on its own.

Adv: Support is declining under new administration

 

167

 

 

 

 

 

Faculty time and resources spent on curricular issues

 

Traditions

Ins: Semesters are very busy with teaching activities, don’t want
to spend weekends working on curriculum, summer seems to be
the best time.

Ins: Appreciates days given during the semester for seminars, in-
service, etc. This is more focused time for curriculum work.

Adm: During the school year it is very busy, summer is a better
time, instructors should network on curriculum issues.

 

 

Innovafions

 

Ins: Tries to spend about 1 hr. per week on curriculum and spend
extra time in the summer.

Ins: Self described workaholic, spends a lot of time during the
summer working on curriculum issues.

Ins: Instructors are expected to do it on their own. Not much
compensation time or administrative help given.

Adm: If necessary grant money could help support these efforts.

 

 

Local industry support for curriculum development activities

 

 

Traditions

 

Ins: Some specific classes have been developed to meet local
needs, advisory committee is not always available for help and
some instructors do not feel that the advisory committee is very
effective.

Ins: Cooperation with local industry can be challenging, the

 

168

 

 

 

 

advisory committee must be better promoted and given more
opportunity for input.

Adm: The curriculum is influenced by local industry and special
processes are taught as a result but advisory committee role
could be stronger.

Adv: Industry people are busy but are willing to serve as long as
it is not just a political event where the group socializes and
rubber stamps the program.

 

 

lnnovafions

 

Ins: Local support is improving; better recruitment strategies by
companies would help the college focus the curriculum on those
needs.

Ins: Local support is pretty good but some employers focus
mostly on their own needs, not the long-term needs of the
student.

Ins: College also encourages students to look beyond local
opportunities.

Adv: Local industry does support the program.

Adm: Competitive companies are training driven, they should
help encourage community colleges to help develop effective
training programs.

 

 

Perceptions of recent manufacturing cuniculum revisions

 

 

Traditions

 

Ins: Have resulted in more class offerings with fewer students,
causing merged or cancelled class sections.

Ins: Curriculum reform has been a group effort with generally
good results.

 

169

 

 

 

Adm: We have a solid program with a strong base. We don't
jump quickly into new areas but need to embrace more new
technology

Adv: The advisory committee has given input on new machine
tools and processes.

 

 

lnnovafions

 

Ins: The curriculum has become much more organized and
easier to use — 3 ring binders for each class, power point
presentations for each topic.

Ins: NIMS was good because it helped upgrade the
manufacturing labs and re-focus the curriculum.

Ins: Learned to stay away from OE/OE format, curriculum is now
better aligned for transfer to 4-year colleges.

Adv: Moving in the right direction.

Adm: Hard to keep up with new processes and better ways of
doing things.

 

 

Factors influencing curriculum revision

 

 

Traditions

 

Ins: New technology, trends in industry, administrative ideas all
help drive curriculum reform.

Ins: The need to challenge a wide range of students must always
be considered.

Adm: New technology and local industry change will drive new
curriculum.

Adv: Advisory committee will continue to push curriculum
revisions.

 

170

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

lnnovafions

 

Ins: Need for continuous improvement in small increments. Keep
trying new things to raise the standard.

Ins: Must constantly upgrade because of changes in industry.
Some type of certifiable standard (other than NIMS) would be
nice

Adv: Meeting a wide variety of needs.

Adm: Must find out employers needs, experiment with training to
those needs, and then mainstream the good ideas.

 

 

Reasons for or against using NIMS to drive curriculum revision

 

Traditions

Ins: NIMS is not a good fit for community college curriculum but it
is a helpful standard for curriculum reform.

Adm: NIMS did not fit the mission of the community college, no
driving force to use the standards.

Adv: NIMS is good but very bureaucratic and expensive.

 

 

Innovafions

 

Ins: The NIMS material is not that good. The NIMS organization
performed a poor execution of the program in Michigan and no
local support exists.

Ins: The college will probably not continue to pay the costs
associated with NIMS. They will continue to use only selected
portions of the NIMS material.

Adv: NIMS is not widely supported in local companies

 

171

 

 

 

 

Future plans for manufacturing programs and curriculum

 

Traditions

Ins: More integration between programs

Ins: Need to do better marketing and public relations for the
program, more visibility.

Adm: It is time to take the program to a new level, more
integration with other programs in the college.

 

 

Innovations

 

Ins: Wants to keep working with companies to make sure
curriculum has the right focus, might consider alternative
accreditation l certification opportunities.

Ins: Will continue to try new things and focus on recruitment to
keep program strong.

Ins: Community college programs are more important than ever
to local employers. Continue to emphasize good basic skill
training. This economic cycle will likely shake out several weak
manufacturing programs in the state, hopefully the remaining
ones will get stronger.

Adm: Colleges need to keep looking ahead to see what will be
relevant. Good faculty rotation is important to keep new ideas

going.

 

Table 10: Cross-site Analysis for Case Studies

172

 

APPENDIX F

The National Institute of Metalworking Skills

A brief overview of NIMS and a detailed explanation of the skills standards

(This information was mostly obtained from the NIMS web site:
http:/lwww.nims-skills.org)

1. Background

In late fall of 1992, the US. Departments of Education and Labor launched an
initiative to fund industry organizations and consortia to develop national
occupational skill standards for their industries. Skill standards refer to the major
duties, knowledge, and skills that define the performance requirements and
expectations in the modern workplace. The national basis of these standards
refers to the process followed in their development, namely that they be
reviewed and reflect employer and employee opinions in the nationwide
distribution of the industry. The skill standards, once established, are intended to
guide workforce development programs in the public and private sectors in
building a world-class workforce in the United States.

The National Tooling and Machining Association (NTMA) was selected to work
with other leading organizations in the metalworking industry to establish national
skill standards for metalworking occupations. This effort is developing standards
with input from workers, employers, trainers, and educators nationwide. The
standards are being benchmarked to those in Germany, Japan, and other
leading metalworking countries.

The standards are proposed for broad application in all public and private
workforce development programs that prepare youth and adults for employment
in the metalworking industry. They also are intended for application in upgrading
programs, retraining programs, and apprenticeships for workers already
employed by metalworking companies.

Seven other trade associations and three organized labor institutions have joined
NTMA in this skill standards development effort. These associations work
cooperatively through the National Institute for Metalworking Skills, Inc. to guide
the establishment of national standards for the industry. Major responsibilities of
the Institute include:

173

- developing recognized occupations organized into career paths within the
industry;

- writing and verifying skill standards for each recognized career path;

- providing for the assessment and credentialing of workers;

- certifying of training programs that train to the industry‘s skill standards.

The Council of Great Lakes Governors also is participating. The Council and six
of its member states pledged to pilot the metalworking skill standards in publicly
administered training programs. Representatives from the Council and involved
states attend meetings of the Metalworking Industry Skill Standards Board and
serve on an overall project steering committee.

The National Institute for Metalworking Skills, lnc., recognizes that career paths
can develop from four major occupational groups in the metalworking industry.
These are machining, tooling, metal forming, and industrial maintenance
occupations. The Institute focuses on defining skills and recommends that each
occupational cluster reflect increasing levels of competency or skills. Three skill
levels are suggested for each major cluster.

2. Machining Skills—Level I-lI-lll

The general machining area includes three skill level standards that have been
developed. Each has addressed similar skills with a graduated level of required
precision or with newer and more complex technologies. Since the standards are
entirely performance-based, individuals can advance at their own pace and be
recognized for the skills they possess. The standards also provide employers
with an objective assessment tool for worker performance and training needs.
Levell

Level I skills represent competencies that can reasonably be expected of an
individual with one year of experience in a good shop or apprenticeship program;
namely basic competency with common machine tools and accessories, basic
shop math and inspection techniques, and basic ability to proceed with further,
more advanced training.

Level"

At Level II, more complex machining skills are introduced, along with CNC
principles, angular measurements, and additional auxiliary equipment.

Level III

Level III, in general, reaches into the journeyman competencies. It includes
proficiency with a wide range of machine tools, auxiliary equipment, compound
angles, task planning, and the ability to work with minimal supervision.

Curriculum Guidance

It should be emphasized that the standards are competency measures designed
to drive training and they are not meant to be model training programs in and of
themselves. In many cases elements of all three standards will appear in a
metalworking training program depending on capabilities available in a training

174

facility or in certain companies where the concentration of work is in machine
specific operations.

3. Education and Training

Most trainees can acquire the core Level I Machining Skills in six months to one
year of education and training, depending on prior manufacturing experience,
basic academic skills, mechanical aptitudes, and the availability of laboratory-
based training. This training could be given in a high school or community
college vocational/technical education program, apprenticeship program, formal
company training program, or structured on-the-job training. Existing workers
may be able to demonstrate their competence against the standards in shorter
time periods and access necessary education and training through community
colleges, private program training centers, retraining or upgrading.

4. Related Occupations in the United States

Related Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) and Dictionary of
Occupational Titles (DOT) occupations that can include Level I Machining Skills
are:

0 Lathe and turning machine operators (SOC 7512)

. Milling and planing machine operators (SOC 7313, 7513)

- Grinding, abrading, buffing, and polishing machine operators (SOC 7322, 7324,
7522)

- Miscellaneous metalworking machine operators (SOC 7329)

- Grinding machine operators (DOT 603.482-034)

- Lathe operator, production (DOT 604.685-026)

- Milling machine operator, production (DOT 605.685-030)

- Drill press operator (DOT 606,682-014)

- Vertical band-saw/cut-off-saw operators (DOT 607.682-010)

5. Program (Curriculum) Standards In the United States

Major national, state, and local curriculum standards used in the United States
that have been consulted in developing standards for Level I Machining Skills
include:

- Ohio's Competency Analysis Profile-Machine Trades

- California Curriculum Standards-Manufacturing Technology, Machine Tools

- Similar State Vocational Education Competencies in Great Lakes States

- Chicago Machine Trades Advisory Group - Basic and Intermediate Levels.

- National Tooling and Machining Association, Competency Profile Certificate
and Metalworking Training System, Level 1.

- Tooling and Manufacturing Association - Apprenticeship Programs, first year of
related theory courses.

- International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Automotive
and Metal Trades Apprenticeship Training Program, first year.

- ASTD Workplace Basics.

- SCANS Skills.

175

6. lntematlonal Benchmarks

Major lntematlonal occupational standards that have been used in benchmarking
the Level I Machining Skills include:

- German Apprenticeship System, Metalcutting Mechanic, First Year Training
Schedule.

- CEDEFOP (European Community), Setter/Operator of Production Machines,
Metal Sector

- Japan National Association of High School Principals, certificate exams for
mechanical drawing, industrial mathematics, and machinery-mechanical work.

- Japanese Ministry of Labor Trade Tests, Basic Training and Grade 1 Upgrading
Training, machining, machine maintenance, machine part inspection.

- Australian Standard Framework, Metalcutting Occupations, Levels 1 and 2.

- Canadian JOBSCAN Profiles, Metalworking Machine Setters and Operators,
Level1.

7. Level 1 Machining Skills

An individual with Level I Machining Skills is a skilled machine operator or
technician who has demonstrated competence in three major areas of
responsibility:

1. basic bench operations

2. basic metal cutting operations

3. basic inspection and quality assurance functions.

This individual can perform these responsibilities in both single and multiple part
production. No direct supervision or training responsibilities of other operators or
other production workers is assumed at level I.

Level I Machining Responsibilities typically include the ability to:
(Note: These are not the standards)

Bench Operations:

- Select and use hand tools.

- Perform basic, routine layout.

- Read and comprehend information on orthographic prints and job process

sheets for routine manufacturing operations.

- Deburr.

- Perform hand fitting and minor assembly.

- Perform bench cutting tasks such as sawing, reaming, and tapping.

- Perform basic, routine preventive maintenance.

- Perform basic housekeeping responsibilities.

Metal cutting operations:

- Identify basic metallic and non-metallic materials.

- Identify and use most accessories and tooling for machining operations.

- Choose an appropriate speed and feed for a given operation.

- Perform basic process planning, setup, and operation of common classes of
machine tools such as turning, milling, drilling, or surface grinding machines.

- Select and use coolants appropriately.

176

0 Make suggestions for improving basic machining operations within a structured
improvement process.

- Be competent in all safety procedures for all machining operations and material
handling and disposal within their responsibility.

Inspection and quality assurance responsibilities:

- Use basic precision measurement tools.

- Follow an inspection process plan.

- Perform basic quality assurance responsibilities for both single and multiple
part production including statistical process control.

Other competency areas:

- Follow standardized work procedures in a limited range of standardized work
contexts under direct supervision.

- Be competent in all basic aspects of seeking and maintaining employment in
the metalworking industry.

Duty Framework for Level I Machining Skills:

Duties represent the most important responsibilities that workers are expected to
perform. Each duty area may consist of a single or multiple duties. Each duty
requires demonstrated competence for its execution. The duty competencies are
defined as performance standards and include accuracy requirements that must
be achieved within specified times. Each duty or standard also details the
knowledge, academic skills, and other performance related characteristics that
must be demonstrated to satisfy the standard. These duty standards are to be
assessed by written and oral examinations, and performance examinations.
These skill standards form the basis for awarding credentials of achievement.
The duty framework for Level I Machining is described below in Table 11. The
left-hand column lists the 7 duty areas and 25 duty titles of the Level I skills. The
right-hand column identifies the knowledge, academic skills, and other
characteristics that undergird the duties and must be mastered to meet the
performance-based duty standards. Performance on each of the job execution
duties can be assessed independently. Workers and trainees can demonstrate
their ability to achieve or exceed the standards for job execution one duty at a
time and receive credentials accordingly. Employers may prefer to describe jobs
or positions by the mix of duty skills being sought. This framework is intended to
encourage workforce development programs to modularize their approaches to
curriculum development and program delivery.

 

 

 

Occupational Duties Knowledge, Skills, Abilities, and
Other Characteristics

1. Job Planning and Management 1. Written and Oral

1.1 Job Process Planning Communications
1.1 Reading
1.2 Writing

 

 

 

177

 

1.3 Speaking
1.4 Listening

 

2. Job Execution

2.1 Manual Operations Benchwork
2.2 Manual Operations Layout
2.3 Turning Operations-Between
Centers Turning

2.4 Turning Operations-Chucking
2.5 Milling: Square Up a Block
2.6 Vertical Milling

2.7a Grinding Wheel Safety

2.7b Surface Grinding

2.8 Drill Press Operations

2.9 CNC Programming

2. Mathematics

2.1 Arithmetic

2.2 Applied Geometry
2.3 Applied Algebra

2.4 Applied Trigonometry
2.5 Applied Statistics

 

3. Quality Control and Inspection
3.1 Part Inspection
3.2 Process Control

3. Decision Making and Problem
Solving

3.1 Applying Decision Rules

3.2 Basic Problem Solving

 

4. Process Adjustment and Control
4.1 Process Adjustment, Single Part
Production

4.2 Participation in Process
Improvement

4. Group Skills and Personal
Qualities

4.1 Group Participation and
Teamwork

4.2 Personal Qualities

 

5. General Maintenance

5.1 General Housekeeping and
Maintenance

5.2 Preventive Maintenance
5.3 Tooling Maintenance

5. Engineering Drawings and
Sketches

5.1 Standard Orthographic prints
5.2 GDT Orthographic prints

5.3 GDT Datum, Symbology and
Tolerances

 

6. Industrial Safety and
Environmental Protection

6.1 Machine Operations and Material
Handling

6.2 Hazardous Materials Handling and
Disposal

6. Measurement

6.1 Basic Measuring Instruments
6.2 Precision Measuring lnstmments
6.3 Surface Plate Instruments

6.4 Metric Conversion

 

 

7. Career Management and
Employment Relations

7.1 Career Planning

7.2 Job Applications and Interviewing
7.3 Teamwork and Interpersonal
Relations

 

7. Metalworking Theory

7.1 Cutting Theory

7.2 Tooling

7.3 Material Properties

7.4 Machine Tools

7.5 Cutting Fluids and Coolants

 

178

 

 

7.4 Organizational Structures and
Work Relations
7.5 Employment Relations

 

 

 

 

Table 11: Framework for Level 1 Machining Skills

8. Level II Machining Skills

Occupational Description

Level II machining skills are used by skilled tradespersons who have achieved
proficiency in the core competencies of Machining Skills—Level I and have
advanced to higher levels of technical competency or have developed new
competencies. The general areas of competency remain:

~bench skills

-metal cutting skills

oinspection and quality assurance skills

Level II machining skills apply to both single-part and multiple-part production. A
person who has achieved Level II machining skills competency has no direct
supervision responsibilities for other operators or production workers. However,
people who have achieved Level II competence will occasionally provide training
for beginning machining technicians.

Bench skills:

-Lay out hole locations on bolt circles, angular surfaces, profiles of a line, and
points of tangency.

Read and comprehend orthographic part prints using geometric dimensioning
and tolerancing symbology.

-Read and comprehend part prints that have multiple auxiliary views.

Metal cutting skills:

~Use indexing devices to locate part features.

-Produce angled or tapered surfaces.

~Produce work to close tolerances (+/-. 002 for milling and chucking, +/-. 001 for
boring and turning).

Set up and operate a boring mill.

Set up and operate a cylindrical grinder.

-Set up and operate CNC machine tools.

-lmprove setups on common classes of machine tools.

~Achieve competence in all safety procedures for the tasks within the scope of
Machining Skills—Level ll.

Select and use cutting fluids.

Inspection and quality assurance skills:

~Develop inspection procedures for in-process inspection.

~lnspect simple angles to required precision.

-Develop inspection process plans.

-Use optical comparator for inspection tasks.

-Use gage blocks for shop calibration of precision tools.

Other skills and competencies

~Write CNC programs.

-Qualify tools for CNC use.

179

-Participate effectively as a member of a team.

~Maintain employment in the metalworking industry.

-Articulate a personal career development plan within the metalworking
industry.

~Produce process plans that identify operations, sequence, tools, fixtures,
speeds, and feeds for parts requiring several of the basic machining operations
such as milling, drilling, turning, or grinding.

-Record work activities.

-Write required reports using narrative style with paragraph structure
composed of complete sentences.

Succeed in interactive verbal and written communication.

Framework for Machining Skills—II

Table 12 represents the two principal sets of expectations that comprise Level II
machining skills. The left-hand column is a list of duties that are expected to
constitute Level II jobs. The right-hand column is a list of the abilities, skills,
knowledge, or other characteristics needed to perform the duties

 

 

 

Occupational Duties Knowledge, Skills, Abilities, and
Other Characteristics
1. Job Planning and Management 1. Written and Oral
1.1 Job Process Planning Communications
1.1 Writing
1.2 Reading
1.3 Speaking
1.4 Listening
2. Job Execution 2. Mathematics
2.1 Layout Bolt Circles, Angles, Points 2.1 Geometry of Simple Angles &
of Tangency and Profiles of a Line. Profiles of a Line
2.2 Contour Bandsawing 2.2 Coordinate Axes, Cartesian and
2.3 Turning : Between Centers Taper Polar
Turning 2.3 Trigonometry for CNC Tool paths
2.4 Turning: Chucking O.D.and 2.4 Statistics for Capability Studies

l.D.Tapers using a Taper Attachment
2.5 Vertical Mill: Precision Location of
Holes

2.6 Milling: Keyseat

2.7 Milling: Deep Slots with a
Staggertooth Cutter

2.8 Milling: Rotary Tables

2.9 Milling: Dividing Head Operations
2.10 Basic Horizontal Boring Mill
Operations

2.11 Drilling: Radial Drill

 

 

 

 

180

 

2.12 Machine Power Tapping: Taper
Reaming & Pipe Tapping

2.13 Surface Grinding: Finish Flats to
+/-.0005

2.14 Surface Grinding: Finish Flats at
Simple Angles and Grind Contour
Radii.

2.15 Grinding Wheel Preparation and
Balancing

2.16 Cylindrical Grinding

2.17 EDM: Produce an Electrode and
Operate a Plunge EDM

2.18 EDM: 2 Axis Wire EDM

2.19 CNC: Simple R8274-D Programs
2.20 CNC: Operate a CNC Milling
Machine

2.21 CNC: Operate a CNC Lathe

 

3. Quality Control and Inspection
3.1 Inspection: Optical Comparator
3.2 Inspection: Manual Coordinate
Measuring Machine

3. Engineering Drawings and
Sketches

3.1 Isometric and Orthographic
Sketching

3.2 Interpreting: GDT

3.3 Interpreting: Auxiliary Views

 

4. Process Adjustment and Control
4.1 Participate in Capability Studies

4. Measurement

4.1 Basic Measuring Instruments
4.2 Precision Measuring Instruments
4.3 Surface Plate Instruments

 

5. General Maintenance

5.1 General Housekeeping and
Maintenance

5.2 Preventive Machine Maintenance
5.3 Tooling Maintenance

5. Metalworking Theory

5.1 EDM: Electrode Selection and
Design

5.2 CNC Machine Tools

5.3 CNC Tooling

5.4 Correct Coolants and/or Cutting
Fluids for Various Applications

 

6. Industrial Safety and
Environmental Protection

6.1 Machine Operations and Material
Handling

6.2 Hazardous Materials Handling and
Storage

6.Applied Materials

6.1 Metal Properties Applied to
Cutting Problems

6.2 Non-metal Properties Applied to
Cutting Problems

 

 

7. Career Management and
Employment Relations

 

7. Computers
7.1 Typing

 

181

 

 

7.1 Career Planning 7.2 Use of Basic Services of an
7.2 Job Applications and Interviewing Operating System

7.3 Teamwork and Interpersonal
Relations

7.4 Organizational Structures and
Work Relations

7.5 Employment Relations

 

 

 

 

Table 12: Framework for Level 2 Machining Skills

9. Level III Machining Skills

Occupational Description

Machining Skills—Level III are used by skilled tradespersons who have achieved
proficiency in the core competencies of Machining Skills I and II and have
advanced to higher levels of technical competency or have developed new
competencies. The general areas of competency remain:

-Bench skills

-Metal cutting skills

olnspection and quality assurance skills

Machining Skills—Level lIl applies to both single part and multiple part
production. A person who has achieved Machining Skills I” competency may
have modest supervision responsibilities for other operators or production
workers. Additionally, people who have achieved Skills "I competence will be
called upon to provide training for machining technicians.

Bench skills

~Lay out of hole locations on bolt circles, angular surfaces, profiles of a line and
points of tangency.

-Read and comprehend complex orthographic blueprints using geometric
dimensioning and tolerancing symbology.

Read and comprehend blueprints that have multiple auxiliary views.

~Hand lap small surfaces.

Metal cutting skills:

~Use indexing devices to locate part features.

~Produce compound angled and irregular surfaces.

~Produce work to close tolerances.

Set up and operate a boring mill.

-Set up and operate a cylindrical grinder.

Set up and operate CNC machine tools.

olmprove setups on common classes of machine tools.

°Gain competence in all safety procedures for all tasks within the scope of
Machining Skills—Level lII.

Select and use cutting fluids.

Inspection and quality assurance skills:

Develop and document inspection procedures for in-process inspection.
-Inspect compound angles to required precision.

~Develop inspection process plans.

182

-Use visual comparator for inspection tasks.

-Use gage blocks for shop calibration of precision tools.

Other skills and competencies:

~Write CNC programs requiring multiple tools, planes, canned cycles, and
offsets.

~Qualify tools for CNC use.

~Participate effectively as a member of a team.

-Maintain employment in the metalworking industry.

oArticuIate a personal career development plan within the metalworking industry.
-Produce process plans which identify operations, sequence, tools, fixtures,
speeds and feeds for parts requiring several of the basic machining operations
such as milling, drilling, turning, or grinding.

~Record work activities.

~Write required work reports.

-Succeed in interactive verbal and written communication.

-Train others as assigned.

~Perform supervisory duties.

Duty and Skills Standards Table

The left-hand column in Table 13 is a list of activities performed on the job. The
right-hand column is a list of the abilities, skills, knowledge, or other
characteristics that are needed to perform the duties.

 

Occupational Duties Knowledge, Skills, Abilities, and
Other Characteristics

 

1. Job Planning and Management 1. Written and Oral

 

1.1 Job Process Planning Communications

1.1 Reading

1.2 Writing

1.3 Speaking

1.4 Listening
2. Job Execution 2. Mathematics
2.1 Bench Operations: Hand Lapping 2.1 Geometry of Compound Angles,
2.2 Angle Contour Bandsawing Profiles of a Line and Profile of a
2.3 Turning Operations: Manual Surface

Contour Turning

2.4 Turning Operations: Steady Rest
Turning & Boring

2.5 Turning Operations: Follower Rest
Turning

2.6 Turning Operations: Difficult
Materials

2.7 Milling: Mill Compound Angles

2.8 Milling: Manual Contour Milling
2.9 Horizontal Boring Mill: Line Boring

 

 

 

 

183

 

2.10a Grinding: Select, Inspect, Set
up, 8. Balance Wheels

2.10b Grinding: Tapered Cylindrical
Grinding

2.11 Grinding: Grind ID. and OD.
Surfaces

2.12 Grinding: Grind Tapers on an
Universal Grinder

2.13 Grinding: Contour Grinding

2.14 EDM: Operate a 4 Axis Wire
EDM

2.15 CNC: Advanced Manual RS-274-
D Programming

2.16 CNC: Use Manufacturing
Modeling Software to Create RS-274-
D Programs

2.17 CNC: Milling Centers

2.18 CNC: Turning Centers

2.19 CNC: Turning Centers with
Secondary Milling

 

3. Quality Control and Inspection
3.1 Part Inspection
3.2 Process Control

3. Computer Aided Manufacturing
Technology

3.1 Computer Aided Manufacturing
Software

 

4. Process Adjustment and Control
4.1 Process Adjustment, Single Part
Production

4.2 Participation in Process
Improvement

4. Decision Making and Problem
Solving

4.1 Applying Decision Rules

4.2 Basic Problem Solving

 

5. General Maintenance

5.1 General Housekeeping and
Maintenance

5.2 Preventive Maintenance
5.3 Tooling Maintenance

5. Group Skills and Personal
Qualities

5.1 Group Participation and
Teamwork

5.2 Personal Qualities

 

6. Industrial Safety and
Environmental Protection

6.1 Machine Operations and Material
Handling

6.2 Hazardous Materials Handling and
Disposal

6. Engineering Drawings and
Sketches

6.1 Standard Orthographic Blueprints
6.2 GDT Orthographic Blueprints

 

 

7. Career Management and
Employment Relations

 

7. Measurement
7.1 Basic Measurigg Instruments

 

184

 

 

7.1 Career Planning 7.2 Precision Measuring Instruments
7.2 Job Applications and Interviewing 7.3 Surface Plate Instruments

7.3 Teamwork and Interpersonal
Relations

7.4 Organizational Structures and
Work Relations

7.5 Emloment Relations

 

 

 

 

Table 13: Framework for Level 3 Machining Skills

10. Detailed Duty Descriptions

Each of these duties has a detailed description of the performance standards,
evaluation criteria, and required equipment and materials. For example, Duty 1.1
of Level II would have the following description:

Duty Area: 1. Job Planning and Management

Duty Title: 1.1 Job Process Planning

Duty:

Write a detailed process plan that includes a quality plan for a part requiring
milling, drilling, turning, or grinding. Produce an operation sheet detailing the
process plan; identify all critical dimensions and required speeds and feeds.
Provide sketches as needed.

Performance Standard:

Given a print detailing a part requiring milling, drilling, turning, and grinding,
verbal instructions, and appropriate references, formulate a set of strategies to
manufacture the part, and write a detailed process plan including a quality plan
for that part. Provide sketches as needed.

Make a presentation explaining each of the process plan steps to be taken;
identify all major components and functions of the machine tools, and all major
hand tools, measuring tools, tools and fixtures, and work materials, provide the
rationale for the speeds and feeds selected.

Other Evaluation Criteria:

1. Legibility

2. Clarity of the writing

3. Appropriate speeds and feeds
Accuracy Level: N/A

Assessment Equipment and Material:
Workstation: Standard workbench
Material: Part print with an appropriate part, an inventory of available tools, and
necessary writing materials

Tooling: N/A

Measuring lnstnrments: N/A

Reference: Machinery‘s Handbook

185

KSAO:
Table 14 represents the kinds of knowledge, skills, abilities, or other

characteristics that will be assessed in the performance of the Job Process
Planning Duty.

 

1. Written and Oral
Communications

4. Measurement

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Drawing: Auxiliary Views

 

 

X 1.1 Reading X 4.1 Manual Coordinate Measuring
Machine
X 1.2 Writing 5. Metalworking Theory
X 1.3 Speaking X 5.1 EDM: Electrode Selection and
Design
X 1.4 Listening X 5.2 CNC Machine Tools
2. Mathematics X 5.3 CNC Tooling
X 2.1 Geometry of Simple Angles X 5.4 Coolants and Cutting Fluids for
8. Line Profiles Various Applications
X 2.2 Coordinate Axes, Cartesian 6. Applied Materials
8. Polar
X 2.3 Trigonometry for CNC 6.1 Apply the Properties of Various
Toolpaths Metals to CuttiLq Problems
X 2.4 Statistics for Capability 6.2 Apply the Properties of Non-
Studies metals to Cutting Problems
3. Engineering Drawings and 7. Computers
Sketches
X 3.1 Isometric and Orthographic 7.1 Typing
Sketching
X 3.2 Interpret GDT Drawings 7.2 Services of an Operating
System
X 3.3 Interpret Engineering

 

Table 14: Knowledge, Skills, Abilities, and Other Characteristics

186

 

 

 

REFERENCES

Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (2003). Accreditation Policy
and Procedure Manual. [On-line], Available: http:l/www.abet.orglpolicies.html

Accreditation Board for Engineering and TechnologY. Technology Accreditation
Commission (2003). Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Technology Programs.
[On-line], Available: http:l/wwwabet.grglinfo_prgs_tac.html

American Association of Community Colleges (1998). Facts About Community
Colleges. [On-line], Available: http:l/www.aacc.nche.edu/facts/factcc.htm

Anderson, S.B., & Associates (1975). Encyclopedia of Educational Evaluation.
Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA.

Bailey, Thomas R.,& Averianova, Irina E. (1999). Multiple Missions of Community
Colleges: Conflicting or Complimentary. CCRC Brief No. 1 May, 1999,
Community College Research Center: Columbia University, New York, NY.

Bailey, Thomas R., 8. Badway, Norena (2002). For-profit Higher Education and
Community Colleges. National Center for Postsecondary Improvement: Stanford,
CA.

Bailey, Thomas R., & Merritt, Donna (1995). Making Sense of Industry-based
Skill Standards. National Center for Research in Vocational Education: Berkley,
CA.

Bailey, Thomas R.,& Morest, Vanessa S. (2004). The Organizational Efficiency
of Multiple Missions for Community Colleges. Community College Research
Center: Columbia University, New York, NY.

Beard, C. H. (1993). A Call to Action in a Nation Still At Risk. The Joumal of
Staff,_Program, & Organization Development, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp.105-113.

Brewer, Domonlc J. (2000). How Community College Faculty View Institutional
Mission: An Analysis of National Survey Data. Community College Research
Center Brief No. 9, August 2000, Columbia University: New York, NY.

Brint, Steven,& Karabel, Jerome (1989). The Diverted Dream: Community
Colleges and the Promise of Educational Opportunity in America, 1900-1985.
Oxford University Press: New York, NY.

Campbell, D.T., 8. Stanley, J.C. (1996). Experimental and Quasi-experimental
Designs for Research. Rand McNally: Chicago, II.

187

 

 

Cohen, Arthur M.,& Brewer, Florence B. (1989). The American Community
College. Jossey — Bass: San F ranciso, CA.

Cohen, Louis, 8. Manion, Lawrence (1994). The Ethics of Educational and Social
Research. pp. 347-385 in Cohen, Louis, 8. Manion, Lawrence, Research
Methods in Education. Routledge: London.

Coley, Richard J. (2000). The American Community College Turns 100: A Look
at its Students, Programs, and Prospects. Educational Testing Service:
Princeton, NJ.

Creswell, John W. (1994). Research Design: Qualitative and Quantitative
Approaches. Sage Publications: Thousand Oakes, CA.

Diamond, Robert M. (1998). Designing and Assessing Courses and Curricula: A
Practical Guide. Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA.

Dillman, DA. (1978). Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method.
John Wiley: New York, NY.

Elmaraghy, Waguih & Elmaraghy, Hoda (1996). Manufacturing Education
Models in Canada and the World. International Conference on Education in
Manufacturing: Society of Manufacturing Engineers, Dearbom, Ml.

Erickson, Frederick. (1985). Qualitative Methods in Research on Teaching. In
Merlin C. Wittrock, (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching, 3'“. ed.
MacMillan: New York, NY.

Faulkner, Susan (2002). National Skill Standards Can Meet Local Needs.

League for Innovation Learning Abstracts. March 2002, Vol. 5, No. 3: Mission
Viejo, CA.

Felder, Richard M., 8 Brent, Rebecca. (2003). Designing and Teaching Courses
to Satisfy the ABET Engineering Criteria. Joumal of Engineering Education.
January, 2003.

Greene, David, & David, Jane L. (1981). A Research Design for Generalizing
from Multiple Case Studies. Bay Area Research Group: Palo Alto, CA.

Grubb, Norton W. (1999). The Economic Benefits of Sub-baccalaureate
Education: Results from National Studies. Community College Research Center.
Brief No. 2, June 1999, Columbia University: New York, NY.

Grubb, Norton W., 8. Associates (1999). Honored but Invisible: An Inside Look at
Teaching in Community Colleges. Routlege: New York, NY.

188

 

Hall, Teresa (2002). SME Certification: Student Outcome Assessment Data
Source, SME Educators Newsletter, Volume 4, p.5.

IRN, Inc. (2002). A Competitive Assessment of the Die and Mold Building Sector.
Prepared for The Right Place Program, Grand Rapids, MI.

Jacobs, Jim (2001). What Is the Future for Post-secondary Occupational
Education. Joumal of Vocational Educational Research, Vol. 26, No. 2. pp. 172-
205.

Kelley, P.F., & Weston, W. (1996). A Core Curriculum for the Education of
Manufacturing Engineers for the 21“ Century — The Conflict Between Breadth
and Depth. Society of Manufacturing Engineers. Technical paper ER96-205:
Dearbom, Ml.

Knight, Robert (1998). Private Industry Councils Partner to Meet the Challenge
of Change in Workforce Development. Community College Journal, Vol. 68, No.
6’ pp- 20'34.

Knoell, Dorothy M., 8. Medsker, Leland L. (1965). From Junior to Senior College.
American Council on Education: Washington DC.

Krieger, Susan (1991). Social Science and the Self: Personal Essays on an Art
Form. Rutgers University Press: New Brunswick, NJ.

Lombardi, John (1992). Perspectives on the Community Colleges. Arthur M.
Cohen (Ed.), American Council on Education: Washington DC.

McCabe, R. H. (1997). Community Colleges as the Nexus for American
Workforce Development. In The American Community College: Nexus for
Workforce Development. League for Innovation in the Community College:
Mission Viejo, CA.

McDuffie, L., & Stevenson, J. (1995). The American Community College:
Providing Pivotal Points of Progress for Students. College Student Joumal, Vol.
29. pp. 264-268.

McGrath, D., 8. Spear, MB. (1991). The Academic Crisis of the Community
College. State University of New York: Albany, NY.

McNeil, John D. (1996). Curriculum: A Comprehensive Introduction, Fifth edition,
HarperCollins College Publishers: New York, NY.

Merritt, Donna (1996). A Conceptual Framework for Industry Based Skill
Standards. National Center for Research in Vocational Education: Berkley, CA.

189

 

 

Michigan Economic Development Corporation (1999). The Michigan Economy:
1989-1999. Lansing, MI.

Miles, Matthew B., & Huberman, A. Michael (1984). Qualitative Data Analysis: A
Sourcebook of New Methods. Sage Publications: Beverly Hills, CA.

National Center of Excellence for Advanced Manufacturing Education (2000). A
Novel Curriculum for the Associate Degree in Manufacturing Engineering
Technology. Sinclair Community College, OH.

National Committee on Excellence in Education (1983). A Nation at Risk (A
Report to the Nation and the Secretary of Education). US. Government Printing
Office: Washington, DC.

National Institute for Metalworking Skills (1998). Procedures Manual for NIMS
Credentialing Program. Vienna, VA [On-line], Available: http:l/www.nims-

skills.org.

National Skills Standards Board (2000). Built To Work: A Common Framework
for Skill Standards. Washington, DC.

O'Banion, Terry (1997). A Learning College for the 21st Century. Oryx Press:
Phoenix, AZ.

Parker, G.G. (1974). Career Education and Transfer Program Enrollments in 2-
year Colleges, 1973-74. ACT Special Report No. 11. American College Testing
Program: Iowa City, IA.

Parry, Scott B. (1996). The Quest for Competencies. Training, July, 1996, pp.
48-56.

Perelman, L. J. (1992). School's om. Avon Books: New York, NY.

Perin, Dolores (2000). Curriculum and Pedagogy to Integrate Occupational and
Academic Instruction in the Community College: Implications for Faculty.
Community College Research Center, Brief No. 8, March 2000, Columbia
University: New York, NY.

Phillippe, K. (1998). Profile of the Community Colleges. American Association for
Community Colleges: Washington DC.

Posner, George J. (1992). Analyzing the Cuniculum. McGraw-Hill: New York,
NY.

190

Ratcliff, James L. (1997). What Is 3 Curriculum and What Should It Be? In Gaff,
Jerry G., Ratcliff, James L., and Associates. (1997) Handbook of the
Undergraduate Curriculum: A Comprehensive Guide to Purposes, Structures,
Practices and Change. Josey-Bass and Association of American Colleges and
Universities: San Francisco, CA.

Right Place Program Manufacturer’s Council (2002). A Growth and Innovation
Agenda for Manufacturing. Right Place Program: Grand Rapids, MI.

Right Place Program Manufacturer’s Council (1996). World Class Employees:
Mapping the Factors of Success. Right Place Program: Grand Rapids, MI.

Salzman, Harold (1998). The New Corporate Landscape and Workforce Skills.
National Center for Postsecondary Improvement: Stanford, CA.

Society of Manufacturing Engineers (2004). Certification Website, [On-line],
Available: httpzwww.sme.org/certification.

Stark, Joan S., 8. Lattuca, Lisa R. (1996). Shaping the College Curriculum:
Academic Plans in Action. Allyn 8. Bacon: Needham Heights, MA.

Stiehl, Ruth, & Lewchuck, Les (2002). Reconstructing the College Cuniculum.
League for lnnvoation Learning Abstract, June 2002, Vol. 5, Number 6: Mission
Viejo, CA.

Thompson, H.L. (1994). New Relationships Between Universities, Community
Colleges, and Technical Colleges. The Journal of Staff, Program, and
Organization Development, Vol. 11, p.161-166.

Tillman, Tracey (2002). The Development of the New Certified Engineering
Manager (CEM) Examination and Program. Proceedings of the Industry,
Engineering, and Management Systems 2002 Annual Conference.

Wells, David L. (1996). Manufacturing Education for the 21" Century. Volume III.
Society of Manufacturing Engineers: Dearbom, MI.

Wingspread Group on Higher Education (1993). An American Imperative: Higher
Expectations for Higher Education. The Johnson Foundation, Inc.: Racine, WI.

191

 

    
   

   

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

3