2013-2014 Annual Program Assessment Report
Please submit report to your department chair or program coordinator, the Associate Dean of
your College and the assessment office by Tuesday, September 30, 2014. You may submit a
separate report for each program which conducted assessment activities.
College:
Department:
David Nazarian College of Business and Economics (Nazarian College)
Finance, Financial Planning, and Insurance; Management; Marketing;
Systems and Operations Management
Program:
All undergraduate business programs
Assessment liaison: Glen Whitman (through 2013-14 AY), Barbara Gross (thereafter)
1. Overview of Annual Assessment Project(s). Provide a brief overview of this year’s
assessment plan and process.
This academic year, in keeping with our staggered assessment cycle, we performed assessment (that
is, data collection) for SLO Group 2 (Global Context of Business, Cross-Functional Nature of Business,
Key Business Concepts, and Effective Teamwork), while performing program review on SLO Group 1
(Written and Oral Communication, Problem-Solving and Critical Thinking, Ethics and Social
Responsibility).
Departments with courses in the upper-division core (FIN 303, MKT 304, SOM 306, MGT 360, BUS
302, and BUS 497) were responsible for constructing embedded instruments to assess SLO Group 2.
With the assistance of their department chairs, course instructors collected the data and then
forwarded them to the Assurance of Learning Director (ALD).
Meanwhile, the SLOs in Group 1 went through the program review process. The ALD forwarded the
previous year’s data to the Dean, Associate Dean, and the College faculty at large. The ALD made
preliminary recommendations to the College Administrative Council and Department Chairs. The
Department Chairs crafted unit-level (“triage”) responses, and sent further recommendations to the
Curriculum Management and Policy Committee (CMAP). Based on the recommendations of the ALD
and Department Chairs, as well as other factors, the CMAP crafted program-level responses. The
main result of this process was to create new common rubrics for SLOs in Group 1 (Written and Oral
Communication, Problem-Solving and Critical Thinking, Ethics and Social Responsibility) and for SLOs
in Group 2 assessed through subjective assignments (Cross-Functional Nature of Business, Effective
Teamwork).
2. Assessment Buy-In. Describe how your chair and faculty were involved in assessment
related activities. Did department meetings include discussion of student learning
assessment in a manner that included the department faculty as a whole?
For assessment, instructors and Department Chairs cooperated to create assessment instruments,
sometimes with the help of a departmental committee. For program review, Department Chairs
1
handled unit-level responses, again with the consultation of departmental faculty. The CMAP, which
has representatives from across the Nazarian College faculty, handled program-level responses
derived in consultation with departmental faculty. In addition, the ALD led a discussion during a
Faculty Meeting about assessment and program review.
3. Student Learning Outcome Assessment Project. Answer items a-f for each SLO assessed
this year. If you assessed an additional SLO, copy and paste items a-f below, BEFORE you
answer them here, to provide additional reporting space.
3a. Which Student Learning Outcome was measured this year?
Global Context of Business
3b. Does this learning outcome align with one or more of the university’s Big 5
Competencies? (Delete any which do not apply)
3c. What direct and/or indirect instrument(s) were used to measure this SLO?
FIN 303 (spring): Multiple-choice examination questions were used to assess students’
knowledge of portfolio diversification, investment decisions, and financing decisions in a global
context.
SOM 306 (spring): Multiple-choice examination questions were used to assess students’
knowledge of the global implications of systems and operations management problems. The
same questions were used for all students who took exams in all sections of the course.
3d. Describe the assessment design methodology: For example, was this SLO assessed
longitudinally (same students at different points) or was a cross-sectional comparison used
(Comparing freshmen with seniors)? If so, describe the assessment points used.
FIN 303: The work of 322 students in 2 lecture-hall class sections was assessed. The method
described above creates a cross-sectional sample, which provides a snapshot of the student
population at one point in time.
SOM 306: The work of 570 students in all 6 class sections was assessed. The method described
above creates a cross-sectional sample, which provides a snapshot of the student population at
one point in time.
3e. Assessment Results & Analysis of this SLO: Provide a summary of how the results were
analyzed and highlight findings from the collected evidence.
FIN 303: 15% of students’ work was classified as very good, 76% good enough, and 9% not good
enough.
2
SOM 306: 29% of students’ work was classified as very good, 60% good enough, and 11% not
good enough.
ANALYSIS: The Nazarian College sets a standard of at least 70% of students with good enough or
very good performance for this learning goal. The results above indicate the standard is being
met (91% of students successful in FIN 303, 89% in SOM).
3f. Use of Assessment Results of this SLO: Describe how assessment results were used to
improve student learning. Were assessment results from previous years or from this year
used to make program changes in this reporting year? (Possible changes include: changes to
course content/topics covered, changes to course sequence, additions/deletions of courses
in program, changes in pedagogy, changes to student advisement, changes to student
support services, revisions to program SLOs, new or revised assessment instruments, other
academic programmatic changes, and changes to the assessment plan.)
In prior years, the method of tallying assessment results in FIN 303 was inconsistent with the
method used in other courses that do assessment. The method used in FIN 303 involved
classifying the overall group results as “very good,” “good enough,” or “not good enough,”
rather than classifying individual students and reporting the percentage of students who fell in
each of the three categories. Now that the method used in FIN 303 is consistent with other
courses, it will be easier to compare and contrast results. However, this means that the current
assessment results for FIN 303 are not strictly comparable with FIN 303 assessment results from
previous years.
3. Student Learning Outcome Assessment Project. Answer items a-f for each SLO assessed
this year. If you assessed an additional SLO, copy and paste items a-f below, BEFORE you
answer them here, to provide additional reporting space.
3a. Which Student Learning Outcome was measured this year?
Cross-Functional Nature of Business
3b. Does this learning outcome align with one or more of the university’s Big 5
Competencies? (Delete any which do not apply)
3c. What direct and/or indirect instrument(s) were used to measure this SLO?
BUS 497 (spring): A sample of 60 case analysis papers was randomly selected from across 18
sections and scored for cross-functional content by an independent scorer.
3d. Describe the assessment design methodology: For example, was this SLO assessed
longitudinally (same students at different points) or was a cross-sectional comparison used
(Comparing freshmen with seniors)? If so, describe the assessment points used.
3
BUS 497: The work of 60 students from 18 out of 22 sections was assessed. The method
described above creates a cross-sectional sample, which provides a snapshot of the student
population at one point in time. The students in question are all seniors, usually in their final
semester before graduation.
3e. Assessment Results & Analysis of this SLO: Provide a summary of how the results were
analyzed and highlight findings from the collected evidence.
BUS 497: 60% of students’ work was deemed very good, 35% good enough, and 5% not good
enough.
ANALYSIS: The Nazarian College sets a standard of at least 70% of students with good enough or
very good performance for this learning goal. The results above indicate the standard is being
met (95% of students successful). The results for two components (Cross-Functional Perspective
and Information Integration) were very similar to the overall results. However, the results for
the third component, Holistic Solutions, had a higher percentage not good enough (10%) and
lower percentage very good (43%), indicating that students’ skills are weakest (though still
satisfactory) in this area.
3f. Use of Assessment Results of this SLO: Describe how assessment results were used to
improve student learning. Were assessment results from previous years or from this year
used to make program changes in this reporting year? (Possible changes include: changes to
course content/topics covered, changes to course sequence, additions/deletions of courses
in program, changes in pedagogy, changes to student advisement, changes to student
support services, revisions to program SLOs, new or revised assessment instruments, other
academic programmatic changes, and changes to the assessment plan.)
This year marks the first time this SLO has been assessed in BUS 497, the first time we have used
the newly created rubric, and the first time we have used an independent scorer. These
adjustments were motivated by the concern that this SLO previously had been assessed in BUS
302 using team products instead of individual products.
3. Student Learning Outcome Assessment Project. Answer items a-f for each SLO assessed
this year. If you assessed an additional SLO, copy and paste items a-f below, BEFORE you
answer them here, to provide additional reporting space.
3a. Which Student Learning Outcome was measured this year?
Key Business Concepts
3b. Does this learning outcome align with one or more of the university’s Big 5
Competencies? (Delete any which do not apply)
4


Critical Thinking
Quantitative Literacy
3c. What direct and/or indirect instrument(s) were used to measure this SLO?
BUS 302L (fall and spring): As in every semester for this course, all enrolled students were
required to take a multiple-choice examination in each of the six lower-division core (LDC)
business subjects: financial and managerial accounting; business law; micro and
macroeconomics; and statistics. Students are required to score a minimum of 50% on each
exam to pass BUS 302L, with three opportunities to take each exam.
FIN 303 (spring): Multiple-choice examination questions were used to assess students’
knowledge of key finance concepts.
MKT 304 (fall): Multiple-choice examination questions were used to assess students’ knowledge
of key marketing concepts. The same questions were used in all sections that contributed to the
sample.
SOM 306 (spring): Multiple-choice examination questions were used to assess students’
knowledge of basic systems and operations management concepts. The same questions were
used in all sections of the course.
3d. Describe the assessment design methodology: For example, was this SLO assessed
longitudinally (same students at different points) or was a cross-sectional comparison used
(Comparing freshmen with seniors)? If so, describe the assessment points used.
BUS 302L: The highest score on each LDC examination for all 797 (724) enrolled students was
collected in fall (spring). Some enrolled students did not take some of the exams. “Inclusive”
failure rates count such students as having failed any exam they did not take; “exclusive” failure
rates exclude these students from the sample for any exam they did not take. This crosssectional data captures the whole population (not just a sample) of students who enrolled in
BUS 302 this academic year.
FIN 303: The work of 322 students in 2 lecture-hall class sections was assessed. The method
described above creates a cross-sectional sample, which provides a snapshot of the student
population at one point in time.
MKT 304: The work of 475 students in all 6 class sections was assessed. The method described
above creates a cross-sectional sample, which provides a snapshot of the student population at
one point in time.
5
SOM 306: The work of 570 students in all 6 class sections was assessed. The method described
above creates a cross-sectional sample, which provides a snapshot of the student population at
one point in time.
3e. Assessment Results & Analysis of this SLO: Provide a summary of how the results were
analyzed and highlight findings from the collected evidence.
BUS 302L: The inclusive failure rate on the six examinations ranged from 8.5% (6.5%) in business
law to 15.7% (16.0%) in statistics in fall (spring). The inclusive failure rate counts students who
did not take a given exam, despite being enrolled in BUS 302L, as having failed that exam. For
the exclusive failure rate, which excludes students who did not take a given exam from the
sample, the failure rates were lower: from 3.6% (2.7%) in business law to 9.8% (12.1%) in
statistics in fall (spring).
FIN 303: 30% of students’ work was classified as very good, 57% good enough, and 13% not
good enough.
MKT 304: 21% of students’ work was classified as very good, 62% good enough, and 17% not
good enough.
SOM 306: 20% of students’ work was classified as very good, 64% good enough, and 16% not
good enough.
ANALYSIS: The Nazarian College sets a standard of at least 70% of students with good enough or
very good performance for this learning goal. The results above indicate the standard is being
met (87%, 83%, and 84% of students successful in FIN, MKT, and SOM respectively).
In MKT 304, drilled-down results show that the percentage of students getting any given
question correct ranged from a high of 89% to a low of 41%, and 6 out of 15 knowledge
categories had a percentage correct lower than 70%; these areas present possible targets for
improvement. FIN and SOM did not report drilled-down results.
In BUS 302L, a minimum of 85% of students must successfully pass each LDC exam to meet the
College standard. It appears this goal is probably being met, with the possible exception of
statistics. Exclusive failure rates always showed the goal being met in both semesters for all
subjects (with pass rates of ranging from 87.9% to 97.3%). Inclusive failure rates, which are
necessarily higher than exclusive rates, showed the goal being met or nearly so for every subject
(with pass rates from 84.0% to 93.5%). However, statistics does seem to be a problem area,
with the exclusive pass rate hovering near the benchmark.
In Spring ’13, the College had observed a spike in failure rates (both inclusive and exclusive). We
awaited this year’s data to determine whether that spike was an anomaly or a continuing
problem. This year’s data do not clearly answer the question. For three subjects – statistics,
6
management accounting, and microeconomics – failure rates remain high compared to previous
years. In the other three subjects – business law, macroeconomics, and financial accounting –
failure rates seem to have returned to their previous levels. Broadly speaking, performance
seems to be worsening in the subjects where students have historically had the greatest
difficulty.
3f. Use of Assessment Results of this SLO: Describe how assessment results were used to
improve student learning. Were assessment results from previous years or from this year
used to make program changes in this reporting year? (Possible changes include: changes to
course content/topics covered, changes to course sequence, additions/deletions of courses
in program, changes in pedagogy, changes to student advisement, changes to student
support services, revisions to program SLOs, new or revised assessment instruments, other
academic programmatic changes, and changes to the assessment plan.)
In MKT 304, this SLO had previously been assessed using a team product, a full strategic
marketing plan. This instrument was deemed inadequate because it did not score individual
performance. Therefore, the MKT department adopted a new instrument, the multiple-choice
questions described above in 3c. This is the first year MKT 304 has used this instrument.
3. Student Learning Outcome Assessment Project. Answer items a-f for each SLO assessed
this year. If you assessed an additional SLO, copy and paste items a-f below, BEFORE you
answer them here, to provide additional reporting space.
3a. Which Student Learning Outcome was measured this year?
Effective Teamwork
3b. Does this learning outcome align with one or more of the university’s Big 5
Competencies? (Delete any which do not apply)
3c. What direct and/or indirect instrument(s) were used to measure this SLO?
BUS 302: All sections of the course created teams that worked together for the entire semester
to complete multiple case-analysis projects. After their final project, the team members
completed peer evaluation forms. The evaluations were anonymous, and students were
informed that the results of the evaluations would not affect their fellow team members’
grades. One team was randomly selected from each section to have its evaluations included in
the sample. Each student’s teamwork was calculated as an average of the scores their peers
gave them.
BUS 497: Some sections of the course had student teams take part in the Business Strategy
Game (BSG), an online business simulation that involves multiple rounds of play in competition
with other teams. At the end of the simulation, the team members completed double-blind
7
online peer evaluation forms. Each student’s teamwork was calculated as an average of the
scores their peers gave them.
3d. Describe the assessment design methodology: For example, was this SLO assessed
longitudinally (same students at different points) or was a cross-sectional comparison used
(Comparing freshmen with seniors)? If so, describe the assessment points used.
BUS 302: The teamwork of 78 students from across all 14 class sections was evaluated. The
method described above creates a cross-sectional sample, which provides a snapshot of the
student population at one point in time.
BUS 497: The teamwork of 132 students in 6 out of 22 class sections was evaluated. The method
described above creates a cross-sectional sample, which provides a snapshot of the student
population at one point in time.
3e. Assessment Results & Analysis of this SLO: Provide a summary of how the results were
analyzed and highlight findings from the collected evidence.
BUS 302: 78% of students’ work was classified as very good by their peers, 17% as good enough,
and 5% not good enough.
BUS 497: 85% of students’ work was classified as very good by their peers, 14% good enough,
and 2% not good enough (adding to 101% due to rounding).
ANALYSIS: The Nazarian College sets a standard of at least 70% of students with good enough or
very good performance for this learning goal. The results above indicate the standard is being
met (95% of students successful in BUS 302, 98% in BUS 497).
In BUS 497, three components of teamwork were analyzed: Co-Manager Meetings,
Effectiveness in Helping to Run the Company, and Effectiveness as a Member of the Company’s
Management Team. The percentages of students rated “not good enough” were similar across
all three components (from 1.5% to 3%). There were differences in the percentages of students
rated as “very good” versus “good enough,” with the largest percentage rated “very good” in
Co-Manager Meetings (81%, versus 67% and 63% in the other two components).
In BUS 302, five components of teamwork were analyzed: Contribution to Meetings,
Facilitation, Task Completion, Constructive Team Climate, and Response to Conflict. For all five
components, the percentages of students with “very good” evaluation scores were high, but the
percentages were somewhat lower for three components (Facilitation with 68%, Task
Completion with 71%, and Response to Conflict with 68%) than for the others (Contribution to
Meetings and Constructive Team Climate, both with 77%). The percentages of students with
8
“not good enough” evaluation scores were similar across all five components (in the 4-5%
range).
3f. Use of Assessment Results of this SLO: Describe how assessment results were used to
improve student learning. Were assessment results from previous years or from this year
used to make program changes in this reporting year? (Possible changes include: changes to
course content/topics covered, changes to course sequence, additions/deletions of courses
in program, changes in pedagogy, changes to student advisement, changes to student
support services, revisions to program SLOs, new or revised assessment instruments, other
academic programmatic changes, and changes to the assessment plan.)
In previous years, this SLO was assessed using methods that were deemed inadequate –
multiple-choice questions about teamwork and group behavior, and performance of teams on
projects. The former did not actually measure teamwork skills, only knowledge about teams; the
latter did not measure the performance of individual team members. This year marks the first
use of peer evaluations for assessment of teamwork.
4. Assessment of Previous Changes: Present documentation that demonstrates how the
previous changes in the program resulted in improved student learning.
In 2012 the College streamlined the assessment process. First, the number of SLOs was reduced
from nine to seven via a merger of SLOs that the faculty considered largely redundant, while
improving the language of the remaining SLOs. Further, the College adopted a new “staggered”
assessment schedule – each year one group of SLOs is assessed while the other group goes through
program review. These changes have allowed the College to focus greater attention on meaningful,
reliable, and usable assessment of SLOs and more focused program review.
In 2013-14, the College created common rubrics to achieve greater consistency in assessment of
SLOs. The rubrics are designed to drill down to capture performance and identify the specific nature
of gaps in student performance. The common rubrics were used to assess the Group 2 SLOs, CrossFunctional Nature of Business and Effective Teamwork, as described in Section 3 above. Assessment
outside the normal cycle was also conducted for three Group 1 SLOs – Written Communication,
Problem-Solving and Critical Thinking, and Ethics and Social Responsibility – for purposes of testing
the new rubrics. These tests were accomplished by sampling ethics case-analysis papers from BUS
302. The work of 50 students across 16 sections was assessed. All three SLOs were assessed using
this common instrument.
Also in 2013-14, the College employed independent scorers rather than relying on course instructors
for assessment with subjective instruments. Based on initial results and the independent scorers’
comments, the new common rubrics will be further modified and applied in the 2014-15 academic
year.
The Nazarian College has used assessment results collected in recent years to make other revisions
for the improvement of student learning. These include:
9





Stricter retake policy and remedial tutoring for BUS 302L. The stricter policy created a
stronger incentive to succeed in the course, and the remedial topic-based tutoring provides
support to enable success.
Renewal of test banks on a rolling basis for BUS 302L.
Inclusion of a substantially greater writing requirement in MGT 360 and implementation of
an individual writing assignment in MKT 304.
Implementation of tutoring for FIN 303.
Changes in the course structure and pedagogy of BUS 497 to address ethics and social
responsibility.
5. Changes to SLOs? Please attach an updated course alignment matrix if any changes were
made. (Refer to the Curriculum Alignment Matrix Template,
http://www.csun.edu/assessment/forms_guides.html.)
Responsibility for assessing Cross-Functional Nature of Business was removed from BUS 302 and
given to MGT 360 (along with BUS 497). However, it was decided to relieve MGT 360 of that
responsibility for the 2013-14 academic year, with assessment of the goal occurring in BUS 497. It
will be determined in the coming year whether the one-time change will become permanent. MGT
360 was relieved of responsibility for assessing Effective Teamwork because assessment of that goal
in BUS 302 and BUS 497 were deemed sufficient. Finally, responsibility for assessing Global Context
of Business on a continuing basis was given to FIN 303 and SOM 306. These changes are reflected in
the attached 5-Year Plan for 2014-19.
6. Assessment Plan: Evaluate the effectiveness of your 5-year assessment plan. How well did it
inform and guide your assessment work this academic year? What process is used to
develop/update the 5-year assessment plan? Please attach an updated 5-year assessment
plan for 2013-2018. (Refer to Five Year Planning Template, plan B or C,
http://www.csun.edu/assessment/forms_guides.html.)
Aside from the changes to assessment responsibilities noted above (question 5), the 5-year
assessment plan worked as planned. As discussed in the response to question 1, we also collected
some data on SLOs outside the usual cycle in order to test the new rubrics for those SLOs. See
attached 5-Year Plan for 2014-19.
7. Has someone in your program completed, submitted or published a manuscript which uses
or describes assessment activities in your program? Please provide citation or discuss.
No.
8. Other information, assessment or reflective activities or processes not captured above.
None.
10