STUDENT LEARNING ASSESSMENT PROGRAM
SUMMARY FORM AY 2013-2014
Degree and
Program Name:
Submitted By:
Bachelor of Science in Business – Business Core
Patrick Lach
Assurance of Learning Coordinator, School of
Business
Please use size 10 font or larger.
Please complete a separate worksheet for each academic program
(major, minor) at each level (undergraduate, graduate) in your
department. Worksheets are due to CASA this year by June
13, 2014. Worksheets should be sent electronically to
kjsanders@eiu.edu and should also be submitted to your college
dean. For information about assessment or help with your
assessment plans, visit the Assessment webpage at
http://www.eiu.edu/~assess/ or contact Karla Sanders in CASA at
581-6056.
PART ONE
What are the learning
objectives?
1.
How, where, and when are
they assessed?
What are the expectations?
What are the results?
Committee/ person
responsible? How are
results shared?
Demonstrate basic knowledge of functional areas of business.
1.1. Demonstrate knowledge of
basic financial and managerial
accounting terminology, theory,
and principles.
ETS Major Field Test in
Business administered each
semester in BUS 4360
Students’ mean score will be
at or above the national
mean
 EIU Mean: 41.0%
 National Mean: 43.8%
1.2. Demonstrate knowledge of
basic finance terminology,
theory, and principles.
ETS Major Field Test in
Business administered each
semester in BUS 4360
Students’ mean score will be
at or above the national
mean
 EIU Mean: 42.9%
 National Mean: 42.6%
1.3. Demonstrate knowledge of
basic management terminology,
theory, and principles.
ETS Major Field Test in
Business administered each
semester in BUS 4360
Students’ mean score will be
at or above the national
mean
 EIU Mean: 54.6%
 National Mean: 57.0%
Associate Chair coordinates
administration of ETS Major
Field Test and organizes and
presents results to Assurance
of Learning Coordinator who
reports results to the
Curriculum Committee
Associate Chair coordinates
administration of ETS Major
Field Test and organizes and
presents results to Assurance
of Learning Coordinator who
reports results to the
Curriculum Committee
Associate Chair coordinates
administration of ETS Major
Field Test and organizes and
presents results to Assurance
of Learning Coordinator who
reports results to the
Curriculum Committee
1.4. Demonstrate knowledge of
basic marketing terminology,
theory, and principles.
ETS Major Field Test in
Business administered each
semester in BUS 4360
Students’ mean score will be
at or above the national
mean
Recognize and analyze ethical and legal issues in the business decision-making process.
At least 70% of the students
2.1. Articulate relevant ethical
will score four ('acceptable)
principles and values from
or higher on a six point scale
the perspectives of various
based on graduate
 Written case assignment
business stakeholders and
used in BUS 2750
(undergraduate) ethics
apply those theories in
rubric. Graduate ethics rubric
 Written case assignment
making and assessing
is used for BUS 4360 cases
were used in BUS 4360
business decisions;
and the undergraduate
ethics rubric is used for BUS
2750 cases.
 EIU Mean: 55.9%
 National Mean: 55.0%
Associate Chair coordinates
administration of ETS Major
Field Test and organizes and
presents results to Assurance
of Learning Coordinator who
reports results to the
Curriculum Committee
2.
2.2. Compare and contrast the
characteristics of business
structures/legal entities;
2.3. Apply fundamental principles
of tort, contract, agency,
intellectual property, and
employment law in analyzing
business decisions;
Embedded objective test
questions administered each
semester in BUS 2750
Embedded objective test
questions administered each
semester in BUS 2750
70% average scores on
questions across all sections
70% average scores on
questions across all sections
61.2% of students scored
four or higher on the BUS
4360 case.
88.0% of students scored
'acceptable' or higher on
the BUS 2750 case.
Average scores across all
sections: 66.3%
Average scores across all
sections:
 Torts: 83.0%
 Contracts: 67.5%
 Employment: 75.8%
 IP: 86.3%
 Agency: 52.9%
Assignment developed or
selected by BUS 2750 and
BUS 4360 faculty; results
reported to Assurance of
Learning Coordinator who
reports results to the
Curriculum Committee
Faculty teaching BUS 2750
develop questions and
administer each semester;
Dr. Denise Smith organizes
and presents results to
Assurance of Learning
Coordinator who reports
results to the Curriculum
Committee
Faculty teaching BUS 2750
develop questions and
administer each semester;
Dr. Denise Smith organizes
and presents results to
Assurance of Learning
Coordinator who reports
results to the Curriculum
Committee
3. Understand the role of technology in organizations and use technology effectively.
3.1. Demonstrate competency in
business productivity
software (e.g., Microsoft
Office);
3.2. Analyze, design, and
develop a small relational
database using a current
development
methodology.
Excel and Access hands-on
tests administered in BUS
1950 each semester
Database design and
development project in all
sections of BUS 3500 each
semester
80% average scores on
both exams across all
sections
80% of students will
score ‘proficient’ or higher
based on Database
Rubric
Average scores across
all sections
 Excel: 77.5%
 Access: 75.8%
Results of all database
projects
 90.3% of students
scored proficient or
better
Faculty teaching BUS 1950
administer tests; Paul Brown
organizes and presents results
to Assurance of Learning
Coordinator who reports results
to Business Curriculum
Committee
Faculty teaching BUS 3500
develop project and assess
using Database Rubric. MIS
Assistant Chair organizes and
presents results to Assurance of
Learning Coordinator who
reports results to Business
Curriculum Committee
4.
Communicate effectively.
4.1 Write effective business
communications
appropriate for the
audience;
4.2. Prepare and give a formal
oral presentation
appropriate for the
audience;
Writing samples collected
from case assignments in
BUS 3950
Embedded oral presentation
in selected sections of BUS
4360 in FA13 and SP14
70% of students will score
‘proficient’ or higher based
on School of Business
Writing Rubric
Based on a sample of 58
students, 79.3% scored
proficient or better
70% of students will score
‘proficient’ or higher based
on School of Business Oral
Presentation Rubric
Based on a sample of 44
students, 59.1% scored
proficient or better
 BUS 3950 instructor
assesses case
assignments and submits
to Assurance of Learning
Coordinator who
organizes and reports
results to Business
Curriculum Committee
 Assurance of Learning
Coordinator arranges
taping of presentations
 Members of the
Curriculum Committee
are asked to evaluate
sample of assignments.
Assurance of Learning
Coordinator organizes
and reports results to
Business Curriculum
Committee
5.
Apply critical thinking skills to reach sound business decisions.
5.1. Clearly identify and articulate
issues in structured or
unstructured business
situations;
5.2. Effectively apply analytic
tools for business decisionmaking;
5.3. Effectively use decisionmaking processes to reach
appropriate business
decisions
Cases administered each
semester in BUS 3950
Embedded objective test
questions administered
each semester in BUS 3710
in addition to cases
administered in BUS 3950.
Cases administered each
semester in BUS 3950
At least 70% of the students
will score ‘acceptable’ or
higher based on the critical
thinking rubric
70% average scores on
embedded exam questions
across all sections
At least 70% of the students
will score ‘acceptable’ or
higher based on the critical
thinking rubric
At least 70% of the students
will score ‘acceptable’ or
higher based on the critical
thinking rubric
Average score across all
sections assessed: 88.5%
Average score for BUS
3710 embedded
questions: 76.28%
Average score across all
sections assessed (BUS
3950): 77.6%
Average score across all
sections assessed: 87.9%
Assignment developed or
selected by BUS 3950 faculty;
results reported to
Assurance of Learning
Coordinator who reports to
Business Curriculum
Committee.
Faculty teaching BUS 3710
and BUS 3950 develop
questions and administer
each semester; results
reported to Assurance of
Learning Coordinator who
reports to Business
Curriculum Committee.
Faculty teaching BUS 3950
develop questions and
administer each semester;
results reported to
Assurance of Learning
Coordinator who reports to
Business Curriculum
Committee.
PART TWO
Describe your program’s assessment accomplishments since your last report was submitted. Discuss ways in which you have responded to the
CASA Director’s comments on last year’s report or simply describe what assessment work was initiated, continued, or completed.







The Assurance of Learning Coordinator summarized the results of the data collected during the previous academic year and presented
the results to the faculty council and then to all faculty members at the Fall faculty meeting.
The Assurance of Learning Coordinator attended an AACSB Seminar on critical thinking in the spring. The information presented at this
seminar inspired the topic of the spring Brown Bag session: Using Peer Review to Improve Student Performance
The School of Business continued to demonstrate buy-in several ways. First, there were two Brown Bag sessions held last year which
were well-attended by the faculty. The topic of the first Brown Bag session was how to improve our students' oral presentation skills,
since this was the area where our students struggled most during AY13. The second session discussed using peer review to improve
student learning.
Faculty members also demonstrated buy-in by sharing data from their courses to the Assurance of Learning Coordinator, as well as the
School of Business. In addition, the faculty demonstrated buy-in by volunteering to assist by assessing the video samples which were
collected over the semester.
The undergraduate ethics rubric was reevaluated due to the absence of a category regarding multiple ethical perspectives. After
speaking with ethics instructors, it was determined that using multiple ethical perspectives is a skill that students beginning the business
program may not have. Therefore, it was decided the undergraduate rubric would be more appropriate for students beginning the
business program, and the graduate ethics rubric, which has a category for multiple perspectives, would be more appropriate for upperlevel undergraduate students.
A critical thinking rubric was developed by the Curriculum Committee and was piloted in the fall.
Last year, the Curriculum Committee identified courses where data for the new critical thinking learning goal will be collected, as well as
acceptable performance levels for each assignment. After the successful pilot of the critical thinking rubric in the fall, the Curriculum
Committee began to collect data in the spring.
PART THREE
Summarize changes and improvements in curriculum, instruction, and learning that have resulted from the implementation of your assessment
program. How have you used the data? What have you learned? In light of what you have learned through your assessment efforts this year and
in past years, what are your plans for the future?

The following summarize the changes and improvements in curriculum, instruction, and learning for each learning goal:
o Learning Goal 1:
 During AY13, the Curriculum Committee decided to raise the minimum acceptable performance level from the national
average, to ¼ of a standard deviation above the national average. On the Fall 2013 exam, our students met the higher
standard. However, on the Spring 2014 exam, our students were below the national average in two categories. This
underperformance made the Curriculum Committee realize the difficulty in ‘closing the loop’ when the members are
unable to see the contents of the ETS exam. As a result, the members of the Curriculum Committee decided to
coordinate with the instructors of each course in the business core to create our own “in-house” capstone exam. The
instructors of the core courses will develop 5 questions per course, and the questions will be compiled to create our
custom capstone exam. Using this custom exam will allow the faculty to pinpoint the exact areas where business
students struggle. The Assurance of Learning Coordinator will begin to work with the instructors during the summer, and
the questions will be developed by October 1, so they can be piloted in the fall.
o
Learning Goal 2:
 After reviewing the undergraduate ethics rubric during the academic year and discussing it with the BUS 2750 and BUS
4360, it appeared that faculty believed it was acceptable to not have a category for ‘identification of multiple ethical
perspectives’ on the undergraduate rubric since lower-level students may not have studied ethical theories. Therefore,
the undergraduate rubric will not have the category for ‘identification of multiple ethical perspectives’ Instead, the
graduate rubric will be used for upper-level undergraduate students, since this rubric contains a category for multiple
ethical perspectives.
 During AY13, the Curriculum Committee decided to raise our minimum acceptable performance level for learning goal
2.1. During AY14, it appears that the students fell short of the new, higher goal. In particular, students struggled with
multiple ethical perspectives. During the May Curriculum Committee retreat, Dr. James Sysko noted that he has had
success by providing students with a list of ethical theories and assigning students to write a brief summary of each. This
strategy will be shared with instructors of BUS 4360 in the fall.
 While our students are slightly below the minimum performance level for LG 2.2, they have performed better than in
AY13, and are now slightly below the minimum performance threshold.
 For LG 2.3, the students have exceeded the minimum performance level overall, however, only 52.9% correctly
answered embedded exam questions relating to agency law. Dr. James Sysko, who teaches BUS 2750, mentioned that
this topic comes late in the course and that he personally only spends one lecture covering this topic. He said that he will
begin to spend two lectures covering this topic in the fall.
o
Learning Goal 3:
 In AY13, the Curriculum Committee noted that our students have consistently exceeded our minimum acceptable
performance level for all measures with this learning goal. The Committee evaluated the rubric used to measure student
performance and noted that the rubric measures very basic tasks, such as knowing how to properly save a document in
Access or Excel. The Committee decided to lump all of the 'basic' tasks into one category in order to isolate areas where
students need improvement. The Assurance of Learning Coordinator met with Paul Brown, who helped to develop the
rubric. He agreed that it would be best to combine all of the basic tasks into one category and he agreed to change the
rubric beginning in the Fall semester.
 In addition to changing the rubric, in AY13 the Committee also decided to raise the minimum acceptable performance
level from 70% to 80%.
 During AY14, our students are below the minimum performance level. This is likely due to increasing the minimum
performance level, and due to the lumping of all basic tasks into one category. Furthermore, more difficult questions
were added by the BUS 1950 faculty during AY14. This will help the BUS 1950 faculty identify the tasks where students
are weak so that they can spend more time on those skills in class during AY15.
 During the end-of-year Curriculum Committee retreat, Dr. Gurkan Akalin, who teaches BUS 3950, noted that upper-level
students’ Excel skills are weak, in spite high performance level of the students in BUS 1950. The Assurance of Learning
Coordinator will work with BUS 3950 faculty, and BUS 1950 faculty to determine if the questions asked in BUS 1950 are
adequately preparing students for upper-level business courses. In addition, the Assurance of Learning Coordinator will
speak instructors of 2000-level courses to determine if the Excel and Access skills are being reinforced after BUS 1950.
o
Learning Goal 4:
 This learning goal continues to be the biggest area where business students need to improve. One of the Brown Bag
sessions held during the year focused on finding ways to improve students’ oral presentation skills, while the other
Brown Bag session discussed using peer review to improve student learning, particularly with writing and oral
communication.
 After the Brown Bag session on using peer review, two faculty members decided to experiment with peer review in their
non-core courses and reported success. The results of using peer review will be discussed at the Fall faculty meeting in
August, and faculty members will be encouraged to experiment with peer review for written and oral assignments.
Faculty members often complain that when students give an oral presentation, it is clear that many students do not
seem to rehearse the presentation before presenting in front of the class. Likewise, faculty members have complained
that many writing assignments submitted for a grade appear to be first drafts.
 As part of the “closing the loop” activities during AY13, Mr. Scott Stevens, who teaches BUS 1000 has started to more
heavily emphasize the Writing Center to his BUS 1000 students. However, since these students are early in their
business career, and since writing is not assessed until students are in their upper-level business courses, it may take
another year or two to see the impact of this change.


o
Also, during the AY13 retreat, faculty discussed the possibility of requiring students in BUS 1000 to purchase a 'cheat
sheet' which lists common grammatical mistakes. This action was not taken in AY14, but the possibility of making this
change in Fall 2014 is being considered.
Lastly, the Curriculum Committee discussed using data collected in the senior seminar courses.
Learning Goal 5:
 This learning goal is still in the development phase. In the fall, the critical thinking rubric was piloted, and data was
collected for the first time in the spring semester. However, the case chosen for the critical thinking rubric did not seem
to be the most effective way to measure critical thinking. The Assurance of Learning Coordinator will work with the BUS
3950 instructors to help identify a more appropriate case.