University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Department of ..., Exams of Computer Architecture and Organization

Download University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Department of ... and more Exams Computer Architecture and Organization in PDF only on Docsity! ,, ^'-^fNOlS LI3RAPY C P & L A .7' fi^X % < I < < Pi h I o h h u h Pi < U Q < < O o h »'> 5 So o o o o 372.775{p(p Un3u- ^VA AMERICAN SOCIETY OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS SCHOOL EVALUATION REPORT For the Academic Year 1980-1981 Institutional Title University of Illinois at Urbana- Champaign State University Administrative Staff Chief Administrative Official of the Campus John E. Cribbet, Chancellor 107 Coble Hall Urbana, Illinois 333-6290 Chief Academic Official of the Campus Edwin L. Goldwasser, Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs 107 Coble Hall Urbana, Illinois 333-6677 Chief Administrative Official of the College Jack H. McKenzie, Dean College of Fine and Applied Arts 110 Architecture Building Urbana, Illinois 333-1660 Theodore L. Brown, Dean Graduate College 338 Administration Building Urbana, Illinois 333-0034 Chief Administrative Official of the Department and the Program Robert B. Riley, Head Department of Landscape Architecture 214 Mumford Hall Urbana, Illinois 333-0175 Report submitted by Report prepared: Visitation scheduled; Robert B. Riley, Head E. Sue Weidemann, Graduate Coordinator Lewis D. Hopkins, Director, Land Resources Specialization December 1980 15 through 18 February 1981 A; SUMMARY  SECTION A: SUMMARY Al Brief Historical Development of the Institution and School 1868 A course in Landscape Gardening was first offered at the University of Illinois, and in 1871 a course in Garden Architecture was added. 1896 Joseph Cullen Blair came to the University from Cornell and initiated professional courses in Landscape and later City Planning. 1907 The curriculum for the degree of Landscape Gardening was initiated. 1912 The Division of Landscape Architecture was created under Ralph Rodney Root, and the library was established. 1920 A long tenure faculty developed in the 20 's that included McAdams , Peterson, Schaffer, Bartholomew, White and Robinson. 1929 Illinois was one of the first eight schools selected as qualified to meet the standards of the ASLA. 1931 The Division was reorganized as a Department in the newly formed College of Fine and Applied Arts. 1945 Graduate program in Landscape Architecture was established. 1951 The first landscape architecture advanced degree was awarded, an MFA in L.A. No more advanced degrees in landscape architecture were awarded for another ten years. 1954 The Department was renamed the Department of City Planning and Landscape Architecture, and the Bureau of Community Planning (established in 1934) was incorporated into the new Departmental structure. 1955 The Department was organized into two divisions: Landscape Architecture and City Planning. 1961 The second MFA in L.A. was awarded; at least one advanced Landscape Architecture degree was to be awarded each year thereafter. 1965 The Divisions of Landscape Architecture and City Planning were given separate departmental status. 1965 Degree designation was changed to MLA. 1970 The chairmanship form of departmental administration was changed to a headship. 1971 Development of a revised and expanded masters program began. 1973 New Program funding was received for development of an Area of Specialization in Land Resource Planning, in cooperation with the Department of Geography and Urban and Regional Planning. 1973 A major expansion of the Department's physical facilities resulted in the allocation of a separate building for housing graduate faculty, full load graduate students, and graduate teaching and research assistants. 1974 A period of extensive contract research activity began, a program that was to generate over $1,000,000 of outside funding over a five year period. 1975 Area of Specialization in Land Resource Planning was formally approved by the Graduate College 1978 Area of Specialization in Design/Behavior Studies was formally approved by the Graduate College. Al A3 Teaching, Research, and Administrative Staff 1980-81 Name Departmental Faculty Riley, Robert B. Alpert, Natalie B. Keith, Walter M. Hopkins, Lewis D. Walker, Victor J . Weidemann, Elisabeth S. Burger, Charles H. Cairns, Malcolm D. Kesler, Gary B. Kluesing, Cherie L. Krzysik, Anthony J. Nassauer, Joan I. Reizenstein, Janet Rank Head and Professor Assistant Head 5 Instructor Professor Associate Professor Landscape Architecture/Urban fi Regional Planning/Institute Environmental Studies Visiting Associate Professor Associate Professor Landscape Architecture /Housing Research S Development Assistant Professor Assistant Professor Assistant Professor Assistant Professor Visiting Assistant Professor Assistant Professor Visiting Instructor Associated Faculty Nelson, William R. Slotnick, Daniel L. Jain, Ravinder K. MoLnar, Donald J. Academic Professional Staff Armstrong, Marc Professor Horticulture and Landscape Architecture Professor Computer Science and Landscape Architecture Adjunct Associate Professor Adjunct Associate Professor Research Programmer A3 A4 The Curriculum Degree Title Master of Landscape Architecture - total hours 32-40 total units 12 Listing of specific courses required: Landscape Architecture Total hours Landscape Architecture Other Electives Total units 32 to 40 hours 6 units 3 units 3 units 12 units Typical Program of Study: LAND RESOURCES SPECIALIZATION Fall Semester First Year LA 180 (2h) LA 133 (5h) LA 350 (3/4u) LA 441 (3/4u) Spring Semester LA 142 (3h) LA 134 (5h) LA 181 (3h) UP 477 (3/4u) Second Year A comprehensive examination in the History of Landscape Architecture, based upon self-guided study, must be successfully completed by early in the second year of enrollment. LA 235 (5h) LA 243 C4h) LA 251 (4h) UP 378 (3/4u) LA 417 (lu) LA 437 (lu) Natural Sciences (lu) Specialized Skills (lu) Third Year LA 246 (Ih) Natural Sciences (lu) Electives (2u) * Master's Project or Thesis (2u) DESIGN BEHAVIOR SPECIALIZATION First Year LA 180 (2h) LA 133 (5h) LA 350 (3/4u) LA 370 (3/4u) LA 142 (3h) LA 134 (5h) LA 181 (3h) LA 417 (lu) A comprehensive examination in the History of Landscape Architecture, based upon self-guided study, must be successfully completed by early in the second year of enrollment. A4 Second Year LA 235 (5h) LA 243 (4h) LA 251 (4h) LA 463 (3/4u) LA 244 (4h) LA 252 (4h) LA 338 (lu) LA 464 (lu) Third Year LA 246 (Ih) LA 465 (lu) EDPSY 390 (lu) Electives (lu) Master's Project or Thesis (2u) Elective (3/4u) A4 LA 246 PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE Professional responsibilities of the landscape architect; methods of practice; and preparation and execution of contracts and speci- fications. (1) S (alternate years), Fifteen hours of seminar/ lecture per semester. LA 251 PLANT MATERIALS AND DESIGN I Ecological principles; study of plant communities; identifications of native flora and perennials; uses of plants in the landscape. Introduction to planting design. Field trips required. (4), F, Two hours of lectures and six hours of studio each week. LA 252 PLANT MATERIALS AND DESIGN II Biogeography; identification of native species, evergreens, and exotics; uses of plants in the landscape; and planting design pro- jects. Field trips required. (4) S, Two hours of lectures and six hours of studio each week. LA 350 LAND USE ECOLOGY Fundamental ecological theory with emphasis on human intervention and land use problems; ecological systems analysis for environmen- tal impact assessments; environmental measurement; problems of data collection and use. (3/4-1 U) F, Two hours of lectures and 3 hours of studio per week. LA 370 DESIGN-BEHAVIOR INTERACTION Critical discussion of notions and theories pertaining to the re- ciprocal effects of landscape architectural design and human be- havior. (3/4 U) F, Three hours of lecture-discussion per week. LA 417 LAND AND SOCIETY: HISTORY, THEORIES AND PROBLEMS Historical and cross-cultural investigation of the use, shaping and perception of the land-based environment; case studies, criti- cal problems, issues, and theories of social -environmental inter- action. (1 U) S, Three hours of lecture-discussion per week. LA 437 REGIONAL LANDSCAPE DESIGN Detailed investigation for landscape resources and characteristics of large geographical areas; determination of land use proposals including the use of gaming and computers as planning and evalua- tion tools. (1 U) S, Eight hours of studio per week. LA 441 SUBURBAN LAND USE PATTERNS Theoretical basis for land use plan design, including site qualities, off-site environmental impacts, relative location of activities and sequences of development. (3/4 U) F, Three hours of lecture-dis- cussion per week. ARCH/ METHODS OF SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH LA 463 Introduction to methods and techniques of systematically generating social and behavioral information relevant to the programming, de- sign, and evalution of physical environments. (1 U) F, Four hours of lab-discussion per week. A5 10 LA 253* PLANTING DESIGN ^ Planting design philosophies; detailed and comprehensive design projects; management practices; technical documents; plant iden- tification. Field trips required. (4) S, Two 1-hour lectures per week plus six hours studio. LA 282* VISUAL COMMUNICATIONS II Continuation of LA 181, with emphasis on advanced rendering tech- niques, and further exploration of the media and method of visual communication. (3) F, hours of lectures and hours of studio each week. .LA 338 DESIGN WORKSHOPS II Project design at various scales utilizing problems of a wide range of complexity and subject matter; involving rural, community, and urban problems, housing, recreation, and open space; emphasis on problem analysis and generation of innovative design alterna- tives. Student selects from several sections depending on speci- fic interests. (5) S, Two hours of lecture per week plus 10 hours of studio. y LA 442 SPATIAL DESIGN METHODS Representations and solution procedures for problems involving the arrangement of land use activities in space; optimizing, approxi- mate and graphic methods, their application, effectiveness and efficiency; experiment with computerized procedures. (lu) S, Three hours of lecture-discussion per week. LA 450 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES Introduction to environmental impact assessment, structuring of data for evaluation and the organization of impact statements and design evaluation documents. Particular emphasis placed on the effects of land development and management. (lu) S, Three hours of lecture-discussion per week. ARCH/ LA 481 § 482 URBAN DESIGN Design development of new or renewed urban areas and systems in collabroation with architecture and urban planning students. (l-2u) F, S, Twenty hours of lab per week. LA 490 SPECIAL PROBLEMS Study of an individual topic or preparation of a selected project in consultation with a faculty advisor. (l/2-2u), F, S. A5 11 A6 Student Enrollment Summary Part I Major Students/Degrees Awarded Five Year Summary/Historical Summary Academic Year In- M -State F Out M -State F Fore M ign F Tot M al F Total Ma j or Students Degrees (calenda Awarded Lr year) 1980-81 6 7 3 10 2 i 11 20 31 1981 12** 1979-80 3 8 10 8 2 ; 15 19 34 1980 9** 1978-79 4 7 11 9 4 19 18 37 1979 7 1977-78 3 5 10 7 3 1 16 13 29 1978 7 1976-77 6 4 11 6 }_ 18 10 28 1977 12 5 year 22 31 45 4 12 79 80 159 47" Domestic M F 1975-76 21 13 1 22 13 35 1976 13 1974-75 23 8 1 24 8 32 1975 12 1973-74 20 4 1 21 4 25 1974 9 1972-73 17 3 17 3 20 1973 4 1971-72 10 1 1 1 11 2 13 1972 3 1970-71 16 1 17 17 1971 8 1969-70 13 1 14 14 1970 8 1968-69 12 1 13 12 1969 4 1966-68 14 1 15 15 1966 7 1966-67 18 1 19 19 1967 4 1950-66 17 Total Degrees 136" * This includes all students registered in courses and enrolled in the Depart- ment as of tenth day of Fall Semester. Number of students carrying a "normal load" is usually somewhat lower, e.g., 29 in Fall 1980. ** Estimated A6 13 A7 OVERALL ANALYSIS A major strength of the MLA program is its clear definition of goals, carried out through a carefully designed structure of programs and course- work that has evolved under constant adjustment and evaluation, and that offers both advanced specialization and basic core professional skills within three years. We see both the faculty and the students as major strengths, too. The faculty is generally young and enthusiastic and thoroughly committed to teaching. They are products of top quality education and bring a diver- sity of background and orientation to the program. The faculty teaching the advanced specialized courses have strong research interests and accomplishments. The students, even more diverse in their backgrounds, are mature, intelligent, demanding and enthusiastic. Many of them have significant experience outside universities, and possess reading, writing and speaking skills unusual for an L/A program. As graduates they have found good, and appropriate, jobs and produced solid work. The program is adequately funded for its current size and structure, and permanent funding has been supplemented with very large amounts of con- tract work. Financial support of graduate students has been excellent, as described in Section G3. Faculty salaries at the entry level are com- petitive or slightly better and attract good people. The administration of the program has proven flexible and reasonably responsive. Individual faculty are given great freedom. Faculty-student relationships are open, informal and mutually rewarding. The clerical staff is hard-working, efficient, and interested in the program, the faculty, and the students. Computer support is excellent, with ample in-house equipment and people. Office space is relatively generous and highly accessible, encouraging and maintaining good communication between students and faculty. The City Planning and Landscape Architecture Library houses one of the pre- mier collections of the world. The general university library is reputed to be the third largest university collection in the country. Our lecture and visitors program is strong. Weekly colloquia offer a range of exposure from presentation of faculty research work through practitioners of diverse age and office orientation to star names in landscape architecture and allied fields. A special visitors committee including academic, public and private practitioners comes to campus once a year for an intensive two to three day session. For the last four years we have also been able to bring experienced practitioners from other parts of the country to the depart- ment for studio assignments of from three weeks to the full academic year. The campus generally ranks in the top ten in the United States, and provides enormous cultural and academic resources. There are many other units and programs that effectively complement landscape architecture. The department has developed highly effective formal ties with Geography, Planning, and Mousing Research and Development in developing its Areas of Specialization and has excellent relations with others such as Architecture and Leisure Studies. These ties extend beyond the classroom; joint faculty research and appointments are common as are work and appointments in other units for our students. The College and Campus administration has been supportive of the program, and the department in turn is highly visible and respected, sur- prisingly so for its field and for its size of less than 1/2 of 1% of campus enrollment. A7 15 Plans for Improvement Ve have heen frank in identifying oicp weaknesses : they are the gaps between what we are doing and what we would tike to be doing. Not all of them are correctable. Some are inherently linked to strengths; the time pressure^ for example, is linked to the ability to finish in three years. Correcting others requires either additional hard money that we've so far been unable to get, or dropping other things we're doing. Still others are way down on our priority list or require special commitment by a faculty member. These are the steps for improvement that have the highest priority to us. o Explore curricular and funding structures that would enable us to reduce the fragility of our two Areas of Specialization, and possibly add an additional option. o Major recruitment, or at least mailing, campaigns for Fall 81 and Fall 82 admissions in order to increase BLA enrollment, as discussed in Section E3: Enrollment Information. o Put more program policies in written form, without destroying important aspects of our flexibility. This is particularly important for new faculty. o Continue to push for more library space. This may entail moving the library out of Mumford Hall, which is undesirable, but the price that may have to be paid for adequate facilities. o Continue to emphasize colloquia, field trips, and visiting design critics to balance the drawbacks of our rural and relatively isolated setting. o Establish departmental criteria and evaluation procedures for promotion and tenure that define alternative paths for faculty development in addition to traditional journal publication. We did this four years ago, but the result was incomplete and insufficiently explicit. We feel that problem lies at the campus not departmental level, but that initiative in resolving it must legitimately begin with the department. A7 B: PROGRAIvlS, ACADliMIC 17 B 2 Objectives of the School Sections A2 and A4 on the Objectives and Curriculum, and Section Bl , which discusses objectives in an historical context, well define the goals of our program, and the methods we have chosen to achieve them. We will only summarize here two distinctive features that we feel characterize the program and constitute its particular flavor and strength. First, it offers truly advanced work of undiluted graduate level quality and considerable intellectual demand. For the student entering without a BLA this work is required in addition to prerequisite courses, carrying no graduate credit, in core professional areas. Secondly, it emphasizes two areas of specialization that combine unique departmental core courses with a careful selection of required and elective courses in other units. Development and adjustment over several years have produced programs that enable the student to inte- grate skills and knowledge from allied disciplines into a sharp, useful, and highly employable whole, valuable to the practioner, and the profession, of landscape architecture. B2 i 19 B4 Educational Sequences THE DESIGN SEQUENCE The first design course, LA 133 Landscape Design is an introduction to the fundamentals of design, including two and three dimensional abstract studies. LA 134 Site Design provides a direct application of design concepts in the context of site planning, including orientation, circulation, land use definitions and relationships. There is a particular focus on a design process. LA 235 Recreation and Community Design relies on more complex problems in community or recreational design to develop site and master planning skills. Students in the Design Behavior specialization as well as other students who choose to pursue their design skills further, take LA 338 Design Workshops 11. A wide range of possible project design problems provides experience in more complex, specialized, or unusual design situations, such as abstract land form design or energy efficient site planning. Students then pursue workshops in their area of specialization, as described in Section B5. THE GRAPHIC SEQUENCE LA 180 General Drafting and Graphics introduces students with no graphics background to basic drafting skills, including lettering, views and projec- tions, and shades and shadows. LA 181 Visual Communication I introduces perspective sketching and basic techniques in rendering. Students continue to develop their graphic skills through design studio projects and some students choose to take the advanced graphics course, which focuses on advanced rendering and alternative media. THE TECHNICAL SEQUENCE LA 142 Landform Design and Construction introduces land form as a design element and a technical problem, including landform representation, nature and properties of soils, and basic grading and earthwork calculations. LA 243 Site Engineering focuses on more complex landform calculations, drainage, circulation, utilities, and construction drawings. Students in the design behavior specialization, and other students who choose to pursue such skills, take LA 244 Landscape Construction, which covers construction methods and materials. All students take LA 246, Professional Practice, THE NATURAL SCIENCE SEQUENCE Students first take LA 350 Land Use Ecology, which covers aspects of soils, terrestrial ecology, climatology, and hydrology pertinent to land use decisions. LA 251 Plant Materials and Design I introduces landscape plant materials and basic concepts of planting design. Students in the design behavior specialization, and others who choose to , also take LA 252 Plant Materials and Design II, a further development of the concepts in LA 251. Students in the land resources specialization take two additional natural sciences courses as described in Section B5. B4 20 B5 Integration of Courses Each student chooses one of the specializations, or in rare cases, proposes an individual specialization. The coursework in each specialization is organized to provide sufficient continuity and depth to give the student professionally useful knowledge and skills. DESIGN BEHAVIOR LA 370, Design Behavior Interaction, is an introduction to design-behavior studies: the field, its literature, and some of its central issues. An important goal is to show why behavioral knowledge beyond the traditional client's program is critical to successful design. Arch/LA 463, Methods of Social and Behavioral Research in Designed Environment, is an introduction to research techniques applicable to the field of design-behavior studies: a survey of various methodologies, including their assumptions, limitations, and appropriateness to various types of problems. In LA/Arch 464, Conducting Social and Behavioral Research in Design Environments, the student actually conducts research. He or she is expected to define a problem relevant to an understanding of the relationships between behavior and the built environ- ment, search the literature, frame a hypothesis, select the methodology most appropriate for testing it, execute the work, evaluate the reliability and usefulness of the results, and suggest logical extensions of that work. This course can also provide the student an opportunity to accomplish research that can later serve as a base for his or her Master's Project or Thesis. LA/Arch 465, Design/Behavior Studio, is a studio concentrating on the behavioral determinants of design. The student poses a design problem, searches, analyzes and synthesizes existing research findings relevant to the problem, and then uses them to produce an actual design, or in very complex problems possibly a comprehensive design program. It is analogous to more traditional specialized studios emphasizing plant materials, structural systems, or purely formalistic elements. The sequence is I) introduction, 2) methods of research, 3) conducting applied research, and 4) design based upon research. The sequence is followed by a Master's Project or Thesis, which can serve either as a synthesizing exercise or a specialized investigation. LAND RESOURCES LA 441, Suburban Land Use Patterns, introduces a range of issues and theoreti- cal constructs pertinent to the allocation of land to alternative uses. These issues are further developed in a course on planning law (UP 378 or 379) and a course in economic evaluation of plans and policies (UP 477) . Students also take two graduate level natural science courses (e.g., soils management, ecological climatology, geomorphology , limnology) depending on their backgrounds and specific interests. Each student must take at least one course in a specialized skill area such as remote sensing, environmental impact assessment (LA 450), financial analysis, or land use modeling. The knowledge and skills from these courses are brought to bear on a land use problem of particular environmental or esthetic significance, such as agri- cultural land preservation, in a workshop course (LA 437, Regional Land- scape Design). Students then pursue a Master's project or thesis, often building on work in one of the specialized skill areas. B5 22 B7 Methods used for the evaluation of programs, courses, instruction and student performance Instruction Since 1975, all instructors have been required to distribute the Illinois Course Evaluation Questionnaire to all students at the end of the semester. Results are sent both to the instructor and the Department Head. From this, the instructor is able to evaluate his performance and the depart- ment is able to test the quality of its instruction. Results for indivi- dual instructors are compiled and kept by the Department Head. This questionnaire consists of three types of questions. Three questions ask for blanket evaluation of the instructor, content, and course overall. A bewildering variety of statistical evaluations, comparisons, and rankings are produced from these questions by the Office of Instructional Resources. The second group consists of eight questions common to all departmental courses, chosen by a faculty/student committee in 1976/77 and are used for in-departmental evaluation. The remaining twelve questions are selected by the instructor and are considered as diagnostic, for his or her benefit, not evaluative. A sample is included in the Appendix. Formal peer evalu- ation of teaching has not been used, but is being considered. One of the summaries prepared by the Office of Instructional Resources is a ranking of instructor performance in every course taught each Fall and Spring semester. Instructor's ratings for each course are compared with the rankings of all the campus instructors teaching courses at that level (100, 200, 300 or 400). Those instructors in the top 10% appear on the "Incomplete List of Excellent Teachers" for that semester. Over the last ten semesters , nine different L/A department faculty members^ exclusive of teaching assistants , have appeared on this list a total of twenty times. Programs and Courses Are periodically evaluated by the department, usually in a pragmatic way, through discussion in department meetings when problems or just general concern for enlightenment and improvement arise. In 1974, the under- graduate curriculum was revised after years of discussion. Course content was reconsidered and redistributed; additions and deletions were made, and the process of formal academic acceptance was carried through. Another evaluation, resulting in proposals for more major changes was held during 1979/80. The proposed changes would affect graduate prerequisite work as well. Our Visitors' Committee and our frequent visiting or adjunct professors also contribute to program and course evaluations in both structured form and informal evaluation. Professor Molnar, for example, made major suggestions, including a sequence restructuring, after teaching two courses in 1979/80. B7 Continued Special Program Evaluation In the summer of 1980 an extensive questionnaire was sent all alumni, of our our Bachelor's and Master's programs, for whom we had any address. Over 600 questionnaries were mailed. The questionnaire sought from graduates informa- tion on work experience since graduation, evaluation of their Illinois profes- sional education and their views on registration and continuing education. Over 200 questionnaires were returned from this mailing and the follow-up described below. A sample of the questionnaire is included in the appendix. We were particularly interested in the response of those students who had graduated in 1975 or later; we thought these graduates could provide informa- tion helpful both to the accreditation teams reviewing the school this year and to the department itself--a measure of how successfully we have been pre- paring our recent graduates for work within the current professional context. A second mailing was sent to those students who had not returned the first questionnaire, and was supplemented with telephone calls. Final rate of re- turn was 52% for post 74 BLA recipients and 66% for post 1974 MLA recipients. Responses are being compiled and analyzed. A preliminary partial summary of MLA graduates from 1975 through 1979 has already been compiled. A summary of responses to eleven questions is included here. We think that evaluation of our program by these people, all of whom have had one to five years of per- spective and of applying their education in professional practice, offers a most pertinent measure of its success. Questions A through K ask for evaluations of the master's program from the perspective of practicing graduates. Responses for A through F are tabulated for graduates of each area of specialization and for all graduates. Questions G through K are identical to A, B, C, D, and F but responses are tabulated separately for people who entered our MLA with an undergraduate degree in landscape architecture and those without. Questions L through P ask for information on use of specialty skills since graduation; responses are tabulated for all graduates and separately for each area of specialization. B7 I 25 PRELIMINARY SUMMARY - QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSE L/R = Land-Resource Planning T = All respondents D/B = Design-Behavior Studies n = number of responses L/A = students entering with undergraduate degree in landscape architecutre other = students entering with undergraduate degree in another field I. Evaluative Items: by Total and by Area of Specialization A. How well do you feel your education from Illinois prepared you for employment? Very well 0. K. Very poorly L/R (n=18) (4.5) 25% (8.5) 47% (4) 22% (1) 5% D/B (n=15) (5) 20% (8) 55% (5) 20% (1) 7% T (n=33) (7.5) 23% (16.5)50% (7) 21% (2) 6% B. How did you compare to graduates of other schools in traditional, core skills? Above average Average Below average L/R (n=14) (7) 50% (7) 50% D/B (n=L3) (4) 31% (9) 69% T (n=27) (11) 41% (16)59% C. How did you compare to graduates of other schools in additional, specialized skills? Above average Average Below average L/R (n=14) (9) 64% (5) 36% D/B (n=15) (12) 80% (3) 20% T (n=29) (21) 72% (8) 28% D. How satisfied, in general, are you with your education from Illinois? Very satis. Neutral Very dissat . L/R (n=18) (8) 44% (10) 56% D/B (n=16) (8) 50% (4) 25% (3) 19% (1) 6% T (n=34) (16) 47% (14) 41% (3) 9% (1) 3% B7 27 K. How satisfied are you now with your program specialty? Very satis . Neutral Very dissat , L/A (n=ll) (6) 55% (3) 27% (1] 9% (1) 9% Other (n=24) (6) 25% (10) 42% (6) 25% (2) 8% [II. Items on Use of Speciality Skills: by Total and Area of Specialization L. Indicate the percentage you use the following in your current employment. Core skills Speciality skills Other skills L/R (n=18) 50% 27% 23% D/B (n=14) 69% 17% 14% T (n=32) 58% 22% 20% M. How much have you used your specialty skills since graduation? A lot Some None L/R (n=19) (6) 32% (5) 26% (7) 37% -- (1) 5% D/B (n=15) (1) 7% (3) 20% (9) 60% (1) 7% (1) 7% T (n=34) (7) 21% (8) 24% (16) 47% (1) 3% (2) 5% N. In seeking employment, how helpful have your specialty skills been? Very Of some No help helpful help at all L/R (n=19) (7.5) 39% (4.5) 24% (4) 21% (3) 16% D/B (n=14) (2) 14% (4) 29% (2) 14% (4) 29% (2) 14% T (n=33) (9.5) 29% (8.5) 26% (6) 18% (7) 21% (2) 6% 0. Compared to your expectations at graduation, have you used your specialty skills? Much more About as Much less than expected expected than expected L/R (n=18) (3) 17% (3) 17% (5) 27% (3) 17% (4) 22% D/B (n=15) -- (3) 20% (9) 60% (3) 20% -- (n=33) (3) 9% (6) 18% (14) 43% (6) 18% (4) 12% B7 29 DISCUSSION Even a cursory review of the tabulation of responses reveals four clear messages. 1) The respondents' evaluations of the program, from several aspects, and of their skills derived from it, are uniformly and highly positive. Results of evaluative questionnaires are customarily skewed to the favorable pole. Still... 134 positive responses (out of 191 total in Part I), and only 6 negatives (and all of these in the next-to-middle category) represent a highly gratifying appraisal of our program. 2) The graduates use their core (traditional professional) skills considerably more than their specialty skills or other skills. On the average, graduates would like to use their specialty skills more than they are now doing, but this does not seem to have disenchanted them with their specialty. The median or average of responses to question would indicate that graduates were well prepared for the higher demand for core rather than specialty skills, but there is a wide spread of responses. Correlation studies of responses to some of the questions in Part III might show whether satis- faction with specialty skills and their use is a function of the amount they are currently used, expectations at graduation, or both. 3) On the average, land resources graduates are currently able to use their specialty skills more, and are more content with the amount they use them, than are design-behavior graduates. This is not surprising. Land resource planning has been a commonly accepted part of landscape architecture for two decades; design behavior is only recently beginning to gain acceptance. Private and governmental practitioners have also played a major role in the development and application of land resource-planning techniques; design- behavior study is still largely the province of universities and a very few federal agencies. Interestingly, design behavior graduates are, if anything, slightly more satisfied with their specialty than are land- resources graduates. Maybe they are simply more optimistic about the future. 4) Responses analyzed in items G through K show that respondents who entered the program with an L/A degree are slightly more positive in evaluating the program, and their skills, than are those who entered the program from other fields. While we would have been pleased if the two groups had been equally positive in their responses, it is hardly surprising that they are not. It would be naive to expect no difference whatsoever between six to seven years of professional training and three. IVhat is surprising is that the biggest difference between the two groups shows up in appraisal of their specialty skills (Question I); this is the area where each group had equal exposure and presumably achieved equal competency. One could speculate that the L/A background students simply had more time and energy to devote to their advanced specialized coursework than the students who had to simultaneously cope with prerequisite core coursework. In summary we think that preliminary analysis of the questionnaire responses is a clear measure of the effectiveness of the MLA program, at both core and specialty levels, particularly when considered in conjunction with the employment placement records (section A7) and other achievements listed under "Graduates and Alumni" in section E4. B7 C: RESEARCH AND PUBLIC SERVICE PROGRAMS  31 A good way to understand the role of our research activity of the last several years and its relation to the overall program is to consider it as having three components: scholarly faculty work requiring little or no funding, small contracts for applied research work, and two extremely large complexes of contract work that have produced over 90% of our research funding. The first two components are, on the whole, closely related to the faculty member's long term professional interests (and in varying degree to that of graduate students) and maintain a steady, reasonably even level of activity. The second, which really is a funded application of the first, consistently returns small but important financial benefits (assistantships and faculty released time) to the department as a whole. The third component has proven much less related to faculty/student career interests and has contained large components of routine work as close to service as to research. On the posi- tive side, it has produced important contributions to the state's environ- mental management programs, high visibility for the department, and substantial discretionary funds. Evaluating and managing a balance between these components is obviously important. We would like to be less financially dependent upon the third, but feel that we've managed well on the whole. Another current concern is that the very success and high internal visibility of our research activity further promotes a single minded publish or perish view of academic develop- ment inappropriate or destructive for those faculty oriented towards design. This problem will be addressed as part of a general study on faculty evalua- tion this academic year. We feel our public service programs are modest but effective, and represent a good balance between educational goals and community contribution. Our last accreditation report spoke of "the satisfaction and learning experience of building projects as well as just designing them..." as a major goal of our public service program and emphasized the many com- munity play grounds actually built by our students. Since that time we have reevaluated the desirability of actually building community facilities as part of formal academic year coursework. Some of the objections were mundane, if not picky: The difficulty of evaluating and grading individual contributions, the compromises and pressures involved in completing construction within a semester, the tendency of tasks to be distributed on the basis of previously acquired skills (job done by people who could already do them instead of those who would learn from them), sex roles (women carrying nails, men pounding them) , etc. More important was the growing conviction among the faculty members most experienced in such work that field construction was an exciting, satisfying experience for the students but not necessarily an educa- tional one. We are now discussing ways in which actual construction might be a more controllable learning experience; one suggestion is to acquire depart- mental equipment and reusable material and develop the space behind 1203 Nevada as a construction laboratory. CI 33 C2 Programs FUNDED RESEARCH PROJECTS: 1976-1980 Projects marked * were administered through campus units other than this department but included significant involvement of our faculty and, in some cases, departmental students as well. 1980-1981 Determination of Land Cover in Selected Illinois River Basins Principal Investigator: Tom Frank $25,042 Sponsor: Illinois Environmental Protection Agency 9 mos. Determination of the percentages of different land cover categories within specified sub-basins disaggregated into flood prone and non-flood prone areas, Standard Review Basin Study Principal Investigator: Caroline Badger $ 9,544 Sponsor: Illinois Environmental Protection Agency 6 mos. Compilation and maintenance of appropriate data files for selected Illinois river basins, using the system developed under the Water Quality Management Information System contract of 1979-80. Development of a Survey Instrument and the Selection of a Simulation Format for Assessment of Visual Quality of the Outer Continental Shelf Principal Investigator: Joan I. Nassauer $ 5,809 Sponsor: Bureau of Land Management, Campus Research Board 8 mos. Title is self-explanatory. * Decatur Anti-Crime Program Principal Investigator: Sue Weidemann/James R. Anderson $20,000 Sponsor: Decatur, Illinois, Housing Authority 6 mos. Evaluation and planning for modernization and crime deterrence. * The Effect of Varied Counseling Intervention Strategies on FmHA Borrowers' Ability to Make Home Ownership Payments Principal Investigator: Sue Weidemann $ 7,566 Sponsor: Farmers Home Administration, USDA 1 yr. * Hillside Quarry Project Principal Investigator: Cherie Kluesing/Michael Romanos $12,262 Sponsor: Village of Hillside 8 mos. Development of designs for higher and better alternative uses for a limestone quarry site. C2 34 Funded Research Projects (cont) * Evansville Site Modernization Crime Deterrence Consultation (Pending) Principal Investigators: Sue Weidemann/James R. Anderson $ 6,869 Sponsor: Housing Authority of the City of Evansville 7 mos . 1979-1980 Water Quality Management Information System Principal Investigator: Donovan C. Wilkin $104,525 Sponsor: Illinois Environmental Protection Agency 3 yrs . Development of information system for management of water quality. Tree Inventory--Chanute Air Force Base Principal Investigator: Natalie B. Alpert $ 6,819 Sponsor: Chanute Air Force Base 7 mos. Inventory of location, caliper and species of all existing trees on base property. Development of a plan to reduce maintenance costs on all large grassed areas on the base. Visual Qualtiy Criteria for Illinois Principal Investigator: Joan I. Nassauer $ 4,958 Sponsor: USDA Soil Conservation Service 6 mos. Development of visual resource quality tables with representative photographs and narrative descriptions of eight major land resource areas in Illinois. * The Use of Optimization Techniques in Generating Alternative Designs for Water Resources Systems Principal Investigators: E. Downey Brill, Jr., Lewis D. Hopkins $26,000 Sponsor: Water Resources Center 2 yrs. Development, testing, and demonstration of mathematical programming techniques for generating alternative solutions to waste water treatment plant location and floodplain land use allocation problems. * Modernization for a Multi-family Housing Development: A Comprehensive Plan and Longitudinal Evaluation Principal Investigators: Sue Weidemann/James R. Anderson $14,621 Sponsors: Housing Authority of Lake County, Illinois and 2 yrs. University of Illinois Research Board C2 i 36 Funded Research Projects (cont) 1977-1978 Small Illinois Towns Principal Investigator: J. William Taylor $11,000 Sponsor: Graham Foundation 1 yr 8 mos, Study of the development of Chrisman, Illinois, and proposals for future development as a prototype for small Illinois towns Small Illinois Towns Principal Investigator: J. William Taylor $ 1,343 Sponsor: Campus Research Board 6 mos. Documentation of development of selected small Illinois towns through photography, archival search and interviews with long time residents. * Lake and Stream Classification System Principal Invesitgators : Ben Ewing/Donovan C. Wilkin $119,158 Sponsor: Illinois Institute for Environmental Quality 2 1/2 yrs. Devise lake and stream classification system. * Water Quality Modeling Principal Investigator: Donovan C. Wilkin $ 7,550 Sponsor: Illinois Environmental Protection Agency 3 mos. * User Needs: Evaluating Housing for Low and Moderate Income Families Principal Investigators: Guide Francescato/Sue Weidemann $95,436 Sponsors: Ford Foundation and HUD 4 yrs. 1976-1977 Landscape Architecture in Illinois: A Survey of its liistory Principal Investigator: John A. Nelson $ 7,086 Sponsor: Illinois Arts Council 7 mos. Development of a traveling exhibit portraying the history of landscape architecture in the state through historical documents and photographs. C2 I 4 4 38 Public Service Projects (cont) 1978-1979 JC's Camp New Hope for Physically Handicapped Children Design proposals. (Natalie Alpert and students) Vermilion County Forest Preserve District Small park plan options. (Seishiro Tomioka, Edward Schweitzer and students) Warren County, Indiana County Land Analysis (Joan Nassauer, Lewis Hopkins and students) 1976-1978 Urbana Assembly of God Church Nursery Playground, Urbana, Illinois Design and construction of playground for pre-school and elementary school age children (Paul Lettieri and students) Children's Research Center Design and construction of playgrounds (graduate students) Orchard Downs Community Center Will County Forest Preserve District Regional Plan and Land Acquisition Plan. (John Nelson and students) Court House Square redesign for Tolono, Illinois Design proposals. (Natalie Alpert and students) Parking Lot Redesign, Champaign-Urbana Design proposals. (Natalie Alpert and students) Urbana Park District Site plans. (Robert Zolomij and students) C2 D : FACULTY