Degree/Certificate: Bachelor of Business Administration Degree Program Submitted by: Patricia Nemetz Mills
Date: November 18, 2014
Part I – Program SLO Assessment Report for 2013‐14
Part I – for the 2013‐14 academic year: Assessment for business programs underwent substantial
development during the 2013‐14 academic year in order to comply with AACSB accreditation
standards. An assessment plan for years 2013‐18 has been filed with the CBPA Office of the Dean and
with the university’s AOL Director. It is available on request from the CBPA Assessment Coordinator.
All future assessments during the time span 2013‐18 will be conducted at the business‐program‐level,
not at the major‐level. This report includes results for assessment of multiple student learning
objectives. AACSB standards require student learning objectives to be assessed twice (including the
“closing the loop” cycle) in a five‐year period. “Closing of the Loop” may occur during the same
academic year as the initial assessment, but in a different quarter. Dates for each activity are
indicated.
1. Student Learning Outcomes: The following student learning objectives were assessed
during Winter Quarter 2014:
Critical Thinking – Students will use appropriate information and/or concepts and skills from the common body of business knowledge to bear upon the critical analysis of business issues and problems. 1. Using case studies, designed exercises, and/or real‐life examples, our students know how to use an analytical framework to apply the common body of knowledge to solve problems, resolve issues, or evaluate situations. 2. Our students will be able to reference appropriate information for use as supporting evidence and differentiate between fact, opinion, and extraneous data when producing reports, analyzing cases and issues, and solving problems.
Ethical Awareness ‐‐Students will develop an understanding of ethical issues that affect business operations, along with an awareness of various stakeholders affected by business activities. 1. Our students will know and understand relevant concepts and frameworks for making ethical decisions. 2. Using a case study, designed exercise, or investigatory report, our students will be able to apply an ethical framework to analyze an ethical dilemma or ethical violation. 3. Using a case study, designed exercise, or investigatory report, our students will be able to determine a variety of interests, differences, or conflicts arising among stakeholders affected by business activities.
Written Communications – Students will communicate effectively in writing. 1. Our students will write logical and clear reports and documents.
2. Our students will demonstrate knowledge and awareness of mechanical errors in their writing and learn to correct them.
3. Our students will know how to use application software to properly format documents and review their writing
2. Overall evaluation of progress on outcome: Indicate whether or not the SLO has been met,
and if met, to what level.
Critical Thinking
_____SLO is met after changes resulting from ongoing assessments, referencing assessment results from the previous year to highlight revisions; __X__SLO is met, but with changes (collaboration) forthcoming;
_____SLO met without change required
Ethical Awareness
_____SLO is met after changes resulting from ongoing assessments, referencing assessment results from the previous year to highlight revisions; __X__SLO is met, but with changes (collaboration) forthcoming;
_____SLO met without change required
Written Communication
___X__SLO is met after changes resulting from ongoing assessments, referencing assessment results from the previous year to highlight revisions;
_____SLO is met, but with changes (collaboration) forthcoming; _____SLO met without change required
3. Strategies and methods: Description of assessment method and choices, why they were
used and how they were implemented.
Critical Thinking – a legal case was analyzed by students in several sections of ACCT 261. The collaboratively
developed “Critical Thinking” rubric was used to evaluate the results.
Ethical Awareness – an ethical dilemma case was analyzed in MGMT 423 and various scenarios were analyzed in
MGMT 326. The collaboratively developed “Ethical Awareness” rubric was used to evaluate the results.
Written Communications – Papers from several classes (MGMT 423 and MGMT 490) were collected and
evaluated by a business faculty using the collaboratively developed “Written Communications” rubric.
All rubrics referenced above are attached.
4. Observations gathered from data: Include findings and analyses based on the strategies and
methods identified in item #3.
a. Findings: Aggregate Summary Sheets are attached for all Assessments. The
percentage of students meeting and/or exceeding the criteria on each rubric are
reported on the respective summary sheets. Problem areas are identified in
curriculum committees by reviewing and discussing possible reasons where
meeting the expectation has not yet been set, as this is a pilot year for evaluating the
new assessment plan)
b. Analysis of findings: Critical Thinking: i. Many students used a method compatible with critical thinking. The method employed for teaching was deemed as useful in aiding the critical thinking skills developed in students. In general, the results of the assessment were found to be adequate due to the high percentages of students meeting or exceeding expectations for each criterion. ii. Other instructors should be encouraged to use a similar method (IRAC, described below) as an instructional aid for critical thinking.
Ethical Awareness: i. Many students followed a process for ethical analysis when making a decision. In general, the results of the assessment were found to be adequate due to the high percentages of students meeting or exceeding expectations for most criteria. Lower percentages for the “Mission and Values” and “Universalism/Relativism” criteria were probably related to the fact that the case did not address those issues as directly as the other issues, therefore, it would be pre‐mature to suggest that students lacked an adequate understanding of these issues. However, the percentage of students who applied a decision‐making or ethical framework (53%) is a bit low. ii. Instructors should be encouraged to share methods and techniques that enhance the use of an ethical framework or decision process when analyzing ethical dilemmas. Written Communications i. Few strengths were identified. ii. This assessment found the most critical problems of all the assessments completed W2014.
iii. What program changes will be made based on the assessment results?
a) Describe plans to improve student learning based on assessment findings (e.g.,
course content, course sequencing, curriculum revision, learning environment or
student advising). Critical Thinking: Without a structure identified, some students may be at a loss for how to think about problems in a critical way. The IRAC method (Identification of Problem, Rule Application, Analysis, Conclusion) will be applied by different instructors across several sections of ACCT 261 (Business Law) in the future. The IRAC method of analyzing legal cases will be presented to students with an explanation of what is expected in each category. Practice assignments will be given for use with the IRAC method throughout the quarter. The IRAC method is the teaching improvement and is designed to pose an analytic framework for thinking about complex conceptual cases. An additional assignment will be given along with the Critical Thinking rubric toward the end of the quarter to determine an individual student's ability to apply IRAC method to a complex legal case. Ethical Awareness: Though many students followed a process, use of a decision framework was a shortcoming for some students. The following improvement was developed and will be applied Fall 2014: Decision‐framing worksheets will be presented to students along with short dilemma cases and/or exercises. Either working in groups or individually, students will be asked to use the practice worksheets to guide their thinking when analyzing each case. The practice worksheets are the teaching improvement and are designed to frame the decision for students using a systematic methodology. Worksheets samples are included for viewing on Canvas along with this Improvement log. Subsequent to using the worksheets
for practice, students will be asked to formally analyze a case individually and in written form. (Worksheets are attached) Written Communications To make improvements, a Writing Error Elimination Policy (WEEP) and “standard” format for writing formal papers was developed (document included as attachment). A Writing Assessment Board was set up for evaluating written assignments so the instructor doesn’t have to take the “heat” for initiating the assessment for later re‐assessment.
b) Provide a broad timeline of how and when identified changes will be addressed in
the upcoming year.
All listed improvement activities will be applied Fall 2014. Re‐assessment of the same
SLOs will take place in Fall 2014 as well.
iv. Description of revisions to the assessment process the results suggest are needed and an
evaluation of the assessment plan/process itself.
The plan and process appears to be adequately addressing the needs of the business
program at this time. The process will continue to improve as more faculty understand the
procedures and gain experience in making collaborative improvements.
Attachments Included:
Critical Thinking Rubric
Ethical Awareness Rubric
Written Communications Rubric
Critical Thinking Summary Sheet
Ethical Awareness Summary Sheet
Written Communications Summary Sheet
Ethical Awareness Worksheets (for Improvements)
Writing Error Elimination Policy (for Improvements)
Critical Thinking Rubric
Critical Thinking Learning Objective – Students can use appropriate information and/or concepts and skills from the common body of business knowledge to bear upon the critical analysis of business issues and problems.
College of Business and Public Administration Eastern Washington University
Description of Situation and Problem Identification Exceeds Expectations (4) Meets Expectations (3) Marginally Meets Expectations (2) Does Not Meet Expectations (1) Student can clearly describe the situation
and/or identify the problem
Student can select which of the given
information can be used as factual evidence to analyze the situation
Student can differentiate between fact and opinion or can determine which of the given information is extraneous, based too much on “feelings” or opinion, or is too distorted to use without further exploration
Information Exploration and Explanation Student can locate and/or reference concepts, theories, models, frameworks, formulae, rules, and/or standards for analyzing the situation
Student considers alternate concepts, theories, models, frameworks, formulae, rules, and/or standards which may also be applied to analyze the situation
Student can accurately explain, in his/her own words, relevant concepts, theories, models, frameworks, formulae, rules, and/or standards which may be applied to analyze the situation Analysis
Student can apply the selected concepts, theories, models, frameworks, formula, rules, standards to analyze the specific situation Student defines meaningful alternatives if necessary
Student evaluates alternatives and makes a recommendation or can clearly state a conclusion
Limitations
Student can clearly identify assumptions Student can clearly identify limitations of the applied concepts, theories, models,
frameworks, formulae, rules, and/or standards Student can clearly identify limitations of the conclusion/recommendation
Ethics Rubric
Ethical Awareness Learning Objective --
Students will develop an understanding of ethical
issues that affect organizations along with an awareness of various stakeholders affected by the
organization’s activities.
College of Business and Public Administration
Eastern Washington University
Exploration of Problem and Perspectives
Exceeds Expectations (4) Meets Expectations (3) Marginally Meets Expectations (2) Does Not Meet Expectations (1) Student identifies the problem(s) or issue(s)
Student identifies stakeholders and their interests or perspectives
Student distinguishes among organization’s stated or inferred mission, vision, and/or values
Student Identifies Conflicts or Differences: a) Individual v. Organization v. Society b) Legal v. Ethical
c) Short-Term v. Long-Term
d) Ethically Universal v. Culturally Relative Ethical Decision-Making
Student applies a decision-making process or ethical framework
Student defines meaningful alternatives Student determines action or takes a considered position
Student evaluates possible results or consequences
Overall Evaluation:
Instructions: After observing the exercise to be evaluated, place an X in the appropriate
space for relevant criteria. If a criterion does not apply, leave the row blank.
Written Communications Rubric
Written Communication Learning Objective -- Students are competent in written communications
College of Business and Public Administration Eastern Washington University
Content Category Expectations Comments Exceeds Meets Marginally Meets Does Not Meet (4) (3) (2) (1) Focus
Controls idea throughout the communication
Understands purpose of the communication
Completes all parts of the task
Content
Demonstrates knowledge of the topic
Provides supporting evidence
Avoids Plagiarism
Organization
Demonstrates an appropriate writing structure
Groups information logically
Creates appropriate transitions
Uses appropriate format
Composition
Implements clear writing
Uses concise composition
Develops ideas adequately
Language Use
Demonstrates awareness of audience
Displays professional tone
Avoids use of slang
Uses appropriate word choice
Mechanics
Reflects appropriate control of conventions
Uses correct English grammar
Free of spelling errors
Utilizes appropriate referencing
Use of Technology (If Applicable). If written document was prepared with application software, it
Is formatted correctly, or as specified
Is devoid of errors that could easily be found using software tools, like spell check or grammar check
Looks professional
Exceeds expectations -- student demonstrates considerably more knowledge, skills, and abilities than what students in collegiate business programs are expected to know or do.
Meets expectations -- student demonstrates sufficient knowledge, skills, and abilities or does what is expected of students in collegiate business programs
Does not meet expectations -- students does not demonstrate sufficient knowledge, skills, and abilities, or misses some element of what is expected of students in collegiate business programs.
The Honda Auction
Evaluate Mr. Conant’s decision according to each of the following principles. Do you think his
decision was considered ethical or unethical based on each of the following principles?
Principles of Ethical Conduct Ethical
Unethical
1 Categorical
Imperative
2 Conventionalist
Ethics
3 Disclosure
Rule
4
Doctrine of the Mean
5 Ends-Means
Ethics
6 Golden
Rule
7 Practical
Imperative
8 Intuition
Ethics
9 Might-Equals-Right
Ethics
10 Organization
Ethics
11 Principle of Equal Freedom
12 Proportionality
Ethics
13 Rights
Ethics
14 Theory of Justice
15 Utilitarian
Ethics
EWU’s Writing Error Elimination Policy
EWU’s business programs are instituting a new policy to improve writing by holding students
accountable for proofreading their papers, correcting their writing errors, and for learning how to
format a paper (see page 2) for formal writing assignments. A writing assessment board has
been created to monitor writing embedded in class requirements. This board will be reviewing
one of your papers, multiple times if necessary, before your instructor grades the assignment for
content required in the course. Instructors are required to follow these guidelines:
1.
“Fatal errors” are listed below. A paper will be marked with errors indicated by the
abbreviations, up until a total of 4 errors appear in the paper. If that number of errors is
reached, the paper will be returned to the student for correction of ALL errors in the
paper. The paper will not be graded for course content until the errors are corrected. It
will be the student’s responsibility to find all remaining errors in the paper and correct
them. For example, if 4 errors are found in the first paragraph, the student has the work
of correcting those errors and all remaining errors in the rest of the paper.
2.
If a paper is returned to the student the first time, the paper automatically loses 10 points
on a 100 point scale (or 0.5 points on a 4.0 grading scale). The maximum grade the
student can attain is 90% (3.5 on a 4.0 grading scale).
3.
The returned paper is then reviewed for writing again. If the entire paper has more than 2
writing errors, the paper will be returned to the student, and the maximum grade the
student can earn on the paper for course content is 75% (2.0). If the paper has two errors,
the student will lose an additional 5 points, so the maximum grade the student can earn
for course content is 85% (3.0).
4.
If errors are still present after the third submission, the paper will be returned to the
student ungraded, and the student will receive a maximum of 65% (1.0) for the
assignment.
5.
Due dates will be determined by the instructor, and all papers submitted after the due date
will not be eligible for re-evaluation. They will be graded 0.0
The following list includes errors to be avoided as part of this program:
(1) MS = Misspelled word (2) R = Run-on/fragment/incorrect paragraphing (3) CO = Comma error (4) CP = Capitalization error (5) P = Punctuation error (6) A = Agreement error
(7) MA = Missing or inappropriate article (a, the) (8) PR = Preposition error
(9) WC = Word choice (10) SS = Sentence Structure (11) F = Formatting
(12) O = Other grammatical error
Proofreading Resources
Students are encouraged to seek help before the initial submission of the assignment, if given
permission by the instructor to do so. Students given such permission are encouraged to make
use of the following resources:
software may make a few incorrect changes. You must use your good judgment when
using spell-check and grammar-check.
2.
Read the proofreading advice at Purdue OWL:
https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/561/1/. Be sure to click on the “Next”
arrow on the bottom to see specific advice for certain types of problems.
3.
Use self-arranged peer reviews. See if someone in your class is willing to work with you
as a team for checking the writing of each team member.
4.
Use the CBPA adopted writing manual,
HOW 13.
5.
As a last resort, check with the Writers’ Center, http://access.ewu.edu/writers-center .
Please understand that the Writers’ Center does not edit papers, but they may be willing
to listen as you read your paper aloud and suggest places where errors exist.
6.
Download free “Ginger” software at www.gingersoftware.com and integrate into your
word processing software.
The class instructor is not allowed to assist with editing of individual papers!
Format
If a specific format/organization is given by your instructor, you are to use that format.
If a specific format for writing the paper is
not
given by the instructor, the following guidelines
are to be used, even if specific questions are included as part of the assignment. Unformatted
answers to the questions alone are not sufficient. The paper must be in a prose format, with
proper paragraphs and organization, as follows:
“Standard” Paper Format If None is Specified by Instructor
Name, Date Due, Title of Paper (Clearly indicated)
Introduction
– Should describe the purpose of the paper and a short summary or background of
the information provided as the writing “prompt.” (The prompt is the assignment provided by the
instructor, such as, a case, a set of questions, or a paper topic). It may also include a problem
identification or situation description if warranted by the assignment. Normally the introduction
is one short paragraph.
Body of Paper
-- This section of the paper should include “analysis” or provide supporting
evidence for critically thinking about the subject matter. If the instructor has provided a rubric
for grading the course content in the paper, it should be used as guidance or as an outline for
developing your thoughts. If no rubric is provided, the student should develop the body of the
paper by applying concepts learned in class to the specific assignment.
Summary/Conclusion/Closure
– The final part of the paper should clearly indicate your
concluding thoughts about the subject matter. It may include a brief summary statement of your
analysis, a recommendation, a list of possible consequences, or your “educated” opinion of the
subject matter.
If a different format is required by your instructor, you are to follow that format instead of
using the above guidelines.
Writing Review Flowchart
If less than 4 errors
If 4 or more errors
If 2 errors or less
If more than 2 errors
If 2 errors or less
If more than 2 errors
1. Student submits paper
Paper is graded for
content by course
instructor. Maximum
possible grade is 100%
(4.0)
Paper is forwarded to
Writing Assessment
Board
2.Student revises paper and
resubmits according to
due date established by
instructor. Late papers
are not accepted.
Paper is forwarded to
Writing Assessment
Board
Paper is graded for
content by course
instructor. Maximum
possible grade is 90%
(3.5) for less than 2
errors or 85% (3.0) for 2
errors.
3.Student revises and
resubmits paper. Late
papers are not accepted
Paper is forwarded to
Writing Assessment
Board
Paper is graded for
content by course
instructor. Maximum
possible grade is 75%
(2.0)
NEW: PART II
FOLLOW‐UP FROM THE 2012‐13 PROGRAM ASSESSMENT REPORT
Business programs have substantially revised their assessment procedures to be in alignment with
AACSB accreditation requirements. Prior assessments were completed at the “course” level.
Current assessments are completed at the “program” level. This portion of the assessment report
“closes out” the assessments completed at the “course” level in 2012‐13.
1. Student Learning Outcome(s) assessed for 2012‐13
☐ Goal #1: Ethics (assessed in MGMT 326 & MGMT 423)
Students will develop an understanding of ethical issues that influence business operations along with an awareness of various stakeholders affected by business activities.
☐ Goal #2: Multiculturalism and Global Awareness (assessed in MGMT 423 & MKTG 310)
Students will develop an awareness and understanding of the cultural issues that impact business operations in a global society.
☐ Goal #3: Teamwork and Collaboration (assessed in MGMT 326 & MGMT 490)
Students will understand and use team building and collaborative behaviors to accomplish group tasks. ☐ Goal #4: Understanding Financial Statements (assessed in ACCT 251 & FINC 335)
Students will understand and utilize financial tools and analytic techniques (e.g., financial statements analysis, budgeting, and valuation) to make and justify important financial decisions.
☐ Goal #5: Data Analysis Skills (assessed in DSCI 346 & OPSM 330)
Students will identify and perform appropriate quantitative analyses when given a particular business problem.
2. Strategies implemented , Summary of Results, and Changes during 2013‐14 to improve
student learning, based on findings of the 2012‐13 assessment activities.
A summary of results and changes is included on the following pages.
UG Business Program Assessment “Closing of the Loop”
Summary of Observations, Improvements, and Actions Taken
2012-2013
Qtr/Year of: Pilot Qtr/Year of: Re-Test Learning Objective Assessed Met Std 1st Time? Observation/Improvement/Action Advised or Taken Champion(s) (List Committee and/or Instructor Applying Improvement) Effective? (2nd Data Set Shows Improvement)F2012 W2013 Ethics No Re-evaluate lectures to determine how
ethics/stakeholder concepts can be clearly communicated in MGMT 326. Additionally, small-group exercises that improve class interaction when this topic is covered may be used to enhance topic engagement. While cognitive coverage of ethics may be adequate for MGMT 326, MGMT 423 must emphasize ethical reasoning. Be sure to include ethics readings and exercises in MGMT 423. (Review syllabi and inform faculty of importance of including exercises in ethics reasoning).
Provide more focus on text concepts and spend less time on discussions that “go beyond the book”. This should help students to master the basics. They may not be ready to engage in more analytical discussions. Provide an opportunity for students to test their knowledge so that they can see what they don’t know. Hopefully, this will encourage them to either ask questions or reread the material. Emphasize the importance of reading the material. MGMT faculty Yes In some cases, additional improvement in scores is needed. Continue to monitor this learning objective. Assessment methodology is changed in W2014. Ethics Reasoning Rubric has been developed
for use across classes
In addition, add more real world business practices such as sample Corporate Social Responsibility Reports to course content. These samples could help students to make connection between topics and actual business practices. Consequently, they would be more capable in applying topics. An additional pedagogical tool is to use a fishbowl technique to enhance student approaches to ethical reasoning
Next, go beyond cognitive understanding; teaching only cognitive concepts about ethics is insufficient to many business situations; we need to teach ethical reasoning. Using only textbook cases is too limited since typical textbooks do not question the ethics of the ubiquitous business concept of “maximizing shareholder return” –no matter the impact on other stakeholders. All of our classes that address this goal should include student practice in ethical reasoning and should employ a much wider application to many current business “principles” and practices.
Sp2013 Develop Ethics Rubric for assessment of
ethical reasoning. Revise the assessment approach so that reasoning is evaluated instead of simple cognitive knowledge.
Assessment Coordinator
Rubric to be put into use
W2014
W2013 Sp2013 Teamwork No Overall, three particular issues stood out as
priorities for improvement. First, students displayed extremely weak understanding of those qualities that distinguish effective team process. In other words, they don’t understand the issues that affect team effectiveness. This makes it difficult for them to intervene constructively. Second, students do not
UG Program Committee/Instructors
making extensive use of teams Yes, though not as much as needed (14%-23%). Additional Review Needed
understand how team goals can be made more meaningful for team member. And, finally, they do not appear to understand the observed approaches shared by successful teams. These three issues all relate to the broad idea that our students do not really understand the
distinction between group work and
teamwork, much less the difference between a group and a team. This is where improvement must begin. Instructors using teams should provide lectures with a focus on a) the distinction between a group ad a team, and b) the characteristics of effective team process. We need to really look at our use of groups in courses. We need to evaluate whether we are truly creating circumstances where teamwork is required, or whether group work is being used to simplify the instructor’s grading work. Group work is clearly confusing the students about the true concept of teamwork and undermining the performance of our college on this objective.
As opposed to the last assessment, students performed much better with respect to understanding how to make team goals more meaningful to individuals, and with respect to understanding those qualities that are typically exhibited by high performing teams. However, students still struggle with distinguishing teams from working groups. Additionally, the results indicate a poor understanding of the phases through which teams develop, and how teams influence individual behaviors.
In addition to lectures on task initiatives, professors should teach some tools and techniques of soliciting cooperation and expected-result-compliance from some malingering team members who have
exhibited some behaviors of being hitch-hikers and free-loaders, including use of social controls and consultations with professors.
W2013 Sp2013 Teamwork Yes Students need to be instructed on proper use of
peer evaluations so that response bias in favor of high ratings is minimized. Peer evaluations must be confidential and the assessment should include professors’ scorings as well. Students should possible be penalized if they rate all team members high
Faculty making use of teams
Yes
F2013 Teamwork Yes Team concepts need to be taught throughout
the class instead of in a single class. Class attendance requirements when teams are used is suggested
Faculty making use of teams
Marginally better
W2013 Sp2013 Financial
Statements
Yes Developed an interactive web page that will take the students through the steps of finding the yield to maturity of a bond that makes semiannual interest payments. The page also includes videos on how to calculate YTM using a Tl84 calculator, A TIBAIIPlus
calculator, and a spreadsheet. The web page is available at
http://Finance.ewu.edu/fincc335/lectures/Ross
Westerfield Jordan/yeild to maturity.html.
These tools should also be useful for traditional sections of 335.
Finance Faculty Re-test
Pending; No improvement
noted so far
W2013 Multiculturalism Yes In marketing classes, though some concepts
are well-understood, improvements can be made by placing more emphasis on word definitions and using more examples of
international business decisions based on culture. In addition, more emphasis may be placed on the subject in the global marketing section of the course.
W2013 Multiculturalism Yes For international students who experience
culture shock and multiculturalism in a real-world setting when coming to the United States, allocate more time for class discussion on:
- The relationship between national culture and subcultural settings.
- Common parameters used to define subcultures
- Subcultures and firm’s global operations Hence, what needs to be improved is our effort to relate the theory to the real life experiences of the students. That way they can understand it better.
MKTG 310 Instructors, esp
Bellevue
N/A
W2013 Global Awareness Yes In Business & Society classes, differentiate
between traditional cultural etiquette in global trade and actual business practices (beliefs in action) as they concern corporate social responsibility. In class discussions, make a more definitive distinction between traditional cultural belief and the beliefs in action that are practiced in global corporations today. A number of critical books and articles should be required along with any texts used.
MGMT 423 Instructors
W2013 Sp2013 Global Awareness No Some pedagogical approaches for improving
understanding of global concepts include:
Using handouts to help students process the new information more effectively. It will focus more attention on important topics and
MGMT 423 Instructors Yes (# of students passing assessment instrument increased 9%
repeat them in a format different from the text.
Spending more time discussing the more complex material.
Emphasizing the importance of reading assigned material.
Assigning as homework the requirement to complete chapter outlines
Ultimately, higher order learning should be implemented through additional activities for making use of textbook knowledge as the basis of application, evaluation, and integration of cultural knowledge (such as, debates, reports, case analysis, interpretations of media).
where improvements
were applied)
W2013 Global Awareness Yes Knowledge of student performance in this area
may be supplemented with assessments in International Business Management
(MGMT/IBUS 470) and Multinational People Management (MGMT471)
UG Program Committee/IBUS
Instructors
N/A
W2013 Data Analysis No Adjuncts meet with “best practices” instructors
to enhance their teaching “know-how.”
Adjunct Professors N/A
W2013 Sp 2013 Data Analysis No Pedagogical improvements include use of
random quizzes, use of student-led teaching of core concepts (the best way to learn is to teach others), improvements in Powerpoint slides, and allowing students to complete homework twice
OPSM Professors Yes
W2013 Su2013 Data Analysis No Use of a simulation to engage students OPSM Professors No
W2013 F2013 Data Analysis No in
one class; Yes in other
Developed the HBAT process of instructing quantitative reasoning. Difficulties seem to be in the final three steps, which require the student to extract the quantitative information from the problem and develop the necessary
DSCI Instructors; Jeff Culver lead
students seem to have difficulty in arriving at a conclusion and interpretation based on the mathematics but expressed in such a way as the unsophisticated user of statistics would understand. Instructors using the HBAT method will adopt additional exercises into the lecture aspect of instruction, which will require students to extract variables and convert into equations. They will also include more exercises during lecture that emphasize expressing the findings of the analysis so that unsophisticated users of statistics may benefit from the analysis.
Instructional adjustments should also address the computational aspects of developing the actionable outcomes. While in class discussion seems to be helping with interpreting the outcomes of the analysis, the ability of students to manually compute and match computational outcomes provided by the software remains a challenge. Instructors will begin utilizing unit quizzes to reinforce retention of computational techniques and concepts. Quiz results will also be used to assess comprehension on a timelier basis and thereby undertake measures to address weaknesses in their computational abilities.
Definitions:
1. Student Learning Outcome: The student performance or learning objective as published either in the catalog or elsewhere in your
department literature.
2. Overall evaluation of progress on outcome: This checklist informs the reader whether or not the SLO has been met, and if met, to
what level.
3. Strategies and methods used to gather student performance data, including assessment instruments used, and a description of
how and when the assessments were conducted. Examples of strategies/methods: embedded test questions in a course or courses,
portfolios, in‐class activities, standardized test scores, case studies, analysis of written projects, etc. Additional information could
describe the use of rubrics, etc. as part of the assessment process.
4. Observations gathered from data: This section includes findings and analyses based on the above strategies and methods, and
provides data to substantiate the distinction made in #2. For that reason this section has been divided into parts (a) and (b) to
provide space for both the findings and the analysis of findings.
5. Program changes based on the assessment results: This section is where the program lists plans to improve student learning, based
on assessment findings, and provides a broad timeline of how and when identified changes will be addressed in the upcoming year.
Programs often find assessment is part of an ongoing process of continual improvement.
6. Description of revisions to the assessment process the results suggest are needed. Evaluation of the assessment plan and process
itself: what worked in the assessment planning and process, what did not, and why.
Some elements of this document have been drawn or adapted from the University of Massachusetts’ assessment handbook, “Program‐Based Review and Assessment: Tools and Techniques for Program Improvement” (2001). Retrieved from
