Wichita State University
W. Frank Barton
School of Business
Accreditation Maintenance Report
For Maintenance of Accreditation by AACSB-International
The Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business
Sections Relating to Assessment of Learning
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section I
Executive Summary and Statistical Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Section II
Fifth Year Maintenance Report
Section III
1
1. Situational Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7
2. Progress Update on Concerns from Previous Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13
3. Strategic Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
15
4. Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
22
5. Assurance of Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
34
6. Other Material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
45
Appendices
A. Intellectual Contributions Table 2-1
B. Participants Tables 9-1, 10-1, and 10-2
C. Barton School Organization
D. Barton School Curricula Change Information
E. Barton School Assessment Tools and Processes Information
F. Barton School Tenure and Promotion Guidelines
G. Barton School Faculty Evaluation Form
H. Barton School AQ and PQ Qualifications
I.
Barton School Participating Faculty Qualifications
J. Barton School Teaching Load Policy
K. Barton School Faculty Vitae (in separate file)
ii
PART 5: ASSURANCE OF LEARNING
Overview of Assessment Practices, Results, and Curriculum Changes
The Barton School has designed and implemented a robust system of assessment processes that have lead
to multiple improvements in the School's curricula. The pages below provide information on major
curricular improvements and on the learning goals, assessment tools, procedures, and results for all
degrees within the Barton School except the Masters in Accountancy; those results are reported in the
School of Accountancy's Maintenance of Accreditation report. Additional details, historical records of
assessment results, and rubrics are in Appendix D (Curricula Development information) and Appendix E
(Assurance of Learning information).
Curricula Development
Since the last Maintenance of Accreditation visit in 2008, the Barton School has made major changes to
the curriculum of our Executive MBA, MBA, and BBA degree programs. A dual/accelerated Bachelor’s
to Master’s option has been added to the Master of Arts in Economics degree. Information on curricular
changes in the Master of Accountancy degree and in the undergraduate Accounting major is contained in
the School of Accountancy's Maintenance of Accreditation report.
Executive Master of Business Administration
The Barton School's EMBA program is a cohort-based lock-step program that meets three Saturdays a
month for most of two years, with cohorts currently starting every even-numbered Fall. During the 200809 and 2009-10 academic years, the Barton School's Graduate Program Committee, in consultation with
the Barton School faculty and other stakeholders, substantially revised and improved the EMBA degree
program, with the new degree program implemented for the cohort starting August 2010.
The previous EMBA program consisted of 12 3-credit courses in typical business disciplines (see
Appendix D for details). Benchmarking the Barton School's EMBA with other EMBA programs and
extensive consultations with program alumni and business leaders revealed several content areas that
were added to the program. To make room for these topics, the 12 existing classes were reduced from 3
credits to 2.5 credits, and six 1-credit classes in various topics were added. The topics of the six 1-hour
classes can be changed at will, depending on events and student desires. A one-week overseas trip,
usually to China, was also added to the EMBA program.
Based on feedback from the 2010 cohort, some modest changes were implemented for the 2012 cohort:
two 1-credit classes were combined and expanded into a 2.5-credit class, one class was increased from 2.5
to three credits, and a lunch-time speaker series replaced one of the 1-credit classes.
Master of Business Administration
The Barton School's MBA program is a part-time evening program that admits new students every fall
and spring, with students typically taking three years to complete the degree. During the 2010-11 and
2011-12 academic years, the Barton School's Graduate Program Committee, in consultation with the
Barton School faculty and other stakeholders, developed an improved MBA program that will go into
effect for students starting their MBA in Fall 2013 and later.
The current MBA program consists of nine required classes and three elective classes, two of which could
be senior-level classes (see Appendix D for details). Students lacking an undergraduate business
background also are required to take any necessary preparatory classes. With careful choice of electives,
students could obtain a concentration in one of several areas.
The new MBA program will consist of 11 required classes and one elective, with all courses at the
graduate level. Classes in international business and business law and ethics were added to the list of
required courses. Students will be able to obtain a concentration in one of several areas by using their
elective and exchanging one or two specified required classes with classes in their concentration.
Dual/Accelerated Bachelor’s to Master’s Degree in Economics
Outstanding undergraduate economics majors who want to pursue a Master’s degree in economics now
have the option of accelerating their progress by counting up to three graduate-level classes for both their
undergraduate and graduate degrees. Qualifications for the program include a minimum GPA of 3.5 and
grades of A in intermediate macro- and microeconomics and in calculus and statistics classes.
BBA General Education Requirements
The General Education program at Wichita State University allows students to choose from a wide
variety of classes in fine arts, humanities, social sciences, and mathematics/natural sciences. For the last
several years, the Undergraduate Programs Committee has been working on replacing some of these
broad requirements with specific class requirements that address the learning goals of the BBA program.
Working with the Department of Philosophy, the Barton School has instituted a requirement of PHIL 125,
Introductory Logic, for all BBA students, to help address the BBA critical thinking learning goal.
Philosophy has created PHIL 306, Business Ethics, that will be required of all BBA students starting Fall
2013. This new class helps address the BBA ethics learning goal.
BBA General Business/Business Administration Major
The business administration major has been the interdisciplinary generalist major for undergraduates in
the Barton School. The curriculum has been fairly non-specific (see Appendix D for details). The name
also caused some confusion between the business administration major and the management major. The
Undergraduate Programs Committee (as overseer of interdisciplinary undergraduate programs) developed
a more tightly defined major that provides students with required exposure to more business disciplines
and a core of required classes. The name is changed to General Business to better describe the major. The
new General Business major has been approved and will go into effect Fall 2013.
BBA Management Major
Although AACSB does not look at assessment in specific majors, the Higher Learning Commission
(HLC), Wichita State University's accrediting body, does require information on specific majors. In the
course of preparing for HLC's last visit, the Management faculty discovered that the design of the major
made meaningful assessment very difficult. Students in the management major chose from a portfolio of
courses, with no specific courses required beyond the business core courses; there was no true common
body of knowledge that all management majors were expected to learn.
In response, the management major was completely revamped. The management department chose five
learning goals, and created four largely new required classes, plus a reduced number of electives, to
address these goals.
BBA in Marketing: Personal Selling Minor
D-1
Working with the Elliott School of Communication at Wichita State University, the Department of
Marketing developed and implemented a marketing minor in personal selling. The minor involves courses
in both the Barton School and the Elliott School.
BBA Business Administration Classes
In the Barton School, classes with a Business Administration (BADM) prefix are interdisciplinary classes
overseen by the Undergraduate Programs Committee. Beginning Fall 2009, the Barton School has
required students to take one or two 1-credit "Student Success" classes to orient them to the Barton
School and to Wichita State University. New freshmen take BADM 101 and BADM 102, Becoming a
Business Student I and II, during their first two semesters; new transfer students take BADM 301,
Transferring to the Barton School of Business. These classes are taught by the Barton School's academic
advisors.
At the same time, the required Business Software class previously housed in the School of Accountancy
for historical reasons was changed to BADM 160. The teaching approach changed from large lecture
classes to an online format using the SimNet for Office 2010 materials from McGraw-Hill, with control of
the class passing to a member of the Management Information Sciences department. After a year,
assessments and faculty feedback showed a weakness in students' ability to use Excel. To address this
shortcoming, the grading system for BADM 160 was revised from giving a grade based on overall
performance to a system where students have to pass exams on each section of the material to pass the
class.
Assessment Tools and Procedures
The Barton School has implemented a robust assessment system that has been operational for the past five
years, or longer in some cases. The Barton School's Assessment Committee and faculty developed
learning goals for all degrees, with assessment results monitored by the Assessment Committee for
school-wide goals, and by the faculty involved for course and major assessment. Although not included in
this report, the Barton School performs annual assessments on all majors to meet both university program
review requirements and Higher Learning Commission requirements.
BBA Assessment: Learning Goals, Assessment Methods, and Findings
The Barton School has adopted five learning goals for the undergraduate BBA degree:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Acquire knowledge of current business practices, theory, and technology
Demonstrate skill in effective oral and written communication
Attain clear analytical and reflective thinking abilities
Understand ethical decision-making
Develop active collaborative skills and the ability to work as part of a team
A full description of the content of each learning goal is in Appendix E.
BBA Learning Goal 1: Core Knowledge
For assessment purposes, the Barton School divides core knowledge into two components: basic skills,
typically taught in the freshman and sophomore years, and management-specific knowledge, typically
taught in the junior and senior years to BBA students regardless of major. A primary reason for this
division is the large number of Barton School undergraduates who take many or all of their freshman and
D-2
sophomore classes at community colleges and transfer to the Barton School for their junior- and senioryear business courses.
Basic skills, and the classes in which they are taught at WSU, include:






Oral and written communication (College English, ENGL 101 and 102, and Public Speaking,
COMM 111)
Mathematics (College Algebra, MATH 111, and Business Calculus, MATH 144)
Statistics (Business Statistics, ECON 231, and Statistical Software Applications, ECON 232)
Economic theory (Principles of Macroeconomics, ECON 201, and Principles of Microeconomics,
ECON 202)
Computer technology (Business Software, BADM 160)
Accounting (Financial Accounting, ACCT 210, and Managerial Accounting, ACCT 220).
The Barton School uses assessment instruments in all the business core classes taken by all Barton School
students to assess management-specific knowledge. The classes in which it is taught and assessed are:








Business Law, BLAW 431
Production Management, DS (Decision Sciences) 350
Entrepreneurship, ENTR 310
Corporate Finance, FIN 340
International Business, IB 333
Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management, MGMT 360
Management Information Systems, MIS 395
Marketing, MKT 300
Learning goals have been established for each of the basic skills and management-specific knowledge
classes above that are taught in the Barton School; details are in Appendix E.
Basic Skills Assessment: Because of the large number of transfer students at WSU, the Barton School
cannot rely on existing WSU course assessments in basic skills courses as applying to all, or even most,
of the undergraduate students in the Barton School. To address the need for assessing all our students’
basic skills knowledge, the Advanced Standing Exams (called Rising Junior Exam in previous report), a
series of computer-based multiple-choice exams covering relevant sections of each of the basic skills
classes, has been created and implemented. All but the written communication exam are based on
important questions from class final exams; the written communication test measures only writing
mechanics using a version of the common Grammar-Spelling-Punctuation test.
Students are required to complete the exams before the start of their junior year if they have been
primarily WSU students during their freshman and sophomore years; transfer students coming to WSU as
juniors take the exams during their first semester in the Barton School. Students who have not taken some
of the basic skills courses by the scheduled time of their Advanced Standing Exams return to take those
parts of the Advanced Standing Exams once they have completed the relevant classes.
The Advanced Standing Exams were pilot-tested in Summer 2008 and implemented on a regular basis
starting Fall 2008. Advanced Standing Exams are given every Fall and Spring semester (Fall 2010 and
Spring 2011 were omitted for administrative reasons), with completion of the appropriate exams a
requirement for enrolling in the next semester. To encourage students to perform well, students who do
poorly on an exam, or who spend only a few minutes on an exam, are required to retake those exams.
Results of the Advanced Standing Exams are periodically shared with the Barton School faculty teaching
D-3
the accounting, economics, and business software classes; with the English, Mathematics, and
Communications Departments at WSU; and with the area community colleges that are major feeders of
the Barton School.
Below are the most recent (Spring 2012) results. Minimum score for Acceptable is 50%, Exemplary is
75%; these scores were set taking into account the time lags between taking the class and taking the
Advanced Standing Exam.
Course
Writing Mechanics
Public Speaking
Mathematics
Business Software
Fin. Accounting
Man. Accounting
Macroeconomics
Microeconomics
Statistics
Excel-based Stat.
N
200
197
178
198
175
97
193
180
179
166
Median
Percent
Percent
Percent
score
Unacceptable Acceptable Exemplary
73%
3%
57%
40%
60%
17%
63%
20%
55%
25%
55%
20%
73%
5%
58%
37%
60%
23%
69%
8%
70%
7%
61%
32%
72%
6%
52%
41%
50%
45%
52%
3%
50%
47%
47%
6%
50%
42%
48%
11%
Information on trends over time and a regression analysis of predictors of Advanced Standing Exam
scores are in Appendix E.
Examples of curricular changes from assessment results on Advanced Standing Exams:



Excel-based Statistics: analysis of assessment results showed that students knew how to obtain
and interpret statistical results, but were much weaker at determining which statistical technique
to apply to different problems. The instructors instituted a series of Blackboard-based homework
quizzes that stressed determining which technique to apply to different problems. Following the
change, median test score improved by 10%.
Some topics in Business Statistics that aren't routinely used in a business setting have been
removed from the class to make room for more work on business-related areas.
Statistical analysis (details in Appendix E) of the results from the Advanced Standing Exams
show that students who took a class from a community college average significantly lower scores
on almost all of the exams than do students who took their classes in the Barton School. Those
results have been shared with business faculty from local community colleges, and offers to assist
their faculty in improving their classes have been made. To date, there have been no results from
these efforts. Without improving the performance of community college students, it is difficult to
improve average student performance on the Advanced Standing Exams.
Management-Specific Knowledge: Faculty involved in teaching each of the core classes developed
assessment procedures, tools, and processes, under the supervision of the Assessment Committee.
Management-specific knowledge is assessed through embedded assessments in each class. Brief
descriptions for each class of assessment tools and processes, and sample curriculum changes resulting
from assessments are given below. Learning goals, assessment results, and additional information are
described in Appendix E.
D-4
BLAW 431: Legal Environment of Business
Assessment tools: Three questions on unit exams for each learning goal, given in every section every
semester. Assessment questions are modified about once a year to prevent students becoming too familiar
with the questions.
Assessment processes: All instructors send test results from each semester to the one full-time BLAW
faculty member, who assembles the results. A report is prepared annually for dissemination to all adjuncts
teaching BLAW 431.
Sample curriculum change: Analysis of differential results on some learning goals from different
instructors revealed some inconsistencies in how topics were being covered by various adjuncts.
Providing more systematic coverage of key topics by all instructors has increased assessment scores.
DS 350: Introduction to Production Management
Assessment tools: Three multiple-choice questions on each of three learning goals. In the past, the
assessments were given in different ways in different sections. The faculty have moved to giving the
assessment on the last day of class or the day of the final exam. An online section was added in 2011;
discussions are underway about the best way to handle the assessment in the online sections.
Assessment processes: At the end of the year, the lead instructor for DS 350 collects the assessment data
from other instructors and combines it into a single spreadsheet. Discussions of results and possible
improvements follow, either in person or by email. Sample curriculum change: Results have been
satisfactory to date; no changes deemed necessary or made.
ENTR 310: The Entrepreneurial Experience
Assessment tools: Fifty-question assessment given at the end of the semester in all ENTR 310 classes.
Assessment processes: At the end of each semester, results are tallied and shared with individual faculty
members. Individual faculty members can see how their results compared with other instructors' results.
Sample curriculum change: Individual faculty members address areas where their students scored lower
than average, typically by placing additional classroom emphasis on those areas and implementing more
experiential learning exercises. Scores have improved over time.
FIN 340: Financial Management I
Assessment tools: Nine multiple-choice questions given as part of exams in all sections of FIN 340.
Assessment processes: Full-time faculty periodically review assessment results and jointly decide on
needed curriculum changes. Results and changes are communicated to any adjunct faculty teaching FIN
340.
Sample curriculum change: Partly to address weaknesses in student understanding of the Weighted
Average Cost of Capital and Modified Internal Rate of Return questions under the Capital Budgeting
Decision Tools learning goal, faculty switched to a textbook with an online system of homework
problems.
IB 333: International Business
Assessment tools: Twenty multiple-choice questions covering six learning goals, given with final exam in
all sections of IB 333 every semester.
Assessment processes: Once results are tabulated, instructors in IB 333 discuss the results among
themselves, looking for areas of weakness that could be improved.
Sample curriculum change: Instituted frequent tests and quizzes to give students detailed and rapid
feedback about their performance.
MGMT 360: Principles of Management
Assessment tools: Twenty multiple-choice questions, four on each of five learning goals, given in all
sections of MGMT 360 near the end of the semester.
D-5
Assessment processes: Instructors send assessment results every semester to the Management Department
representative on the Barton School Assessment Committee to be summarized. Instructors meet
periodically to review the results and develop any needed curriculum changes.
Sample curriculum change: Review of the first several years' results found that although students were
doing well on most learning goals, there was a weakness in student performance on the human resource
management learning goal. A new textbook with more content on human resource management was
adopted by all instructors. Subsequent review of assessment results showed a substantial improvement in
student performance on the human resource management goal.
MIS 395: Management Information Systems
Assessment tools: Twenty-one true/false questions, seven on each of three learning goals, given to
students in all sections of MIS 395 at the end of the semester.
Assessment processes: Results are reviewed by MIS 395 faculty at least once a year.
Sample curriculum change: Initial use of the assessment instrument found some problems with the
number of questions for some of the learning goals; the number of questions was increased. A new class
project involving students designing a detailed IT/IS solution for a fictional company required students to
use the class material in an applied manner; assessment scores improved after implementation of the
project.
MKT 300: Marketing
Assessment tools: A 50-question multiple-choice assessment instrument covering three learning goals is
given at the end of the class in all sections of MKT 300 every semester.
Assessment processes: The assessment instrument is given in all sections of MKT 300 every semester.
The data from the assessment instruments are gathered and organized by a marketing faculty member.
Faculty members who teach MKT 300 meet to review the results and trends over time, and develop
classroom strategies to address any weaknesses found.
Sample curriculum change: Put more emphasis in class on distribution and supply-chain management, an
area of weakness found in the assessment results.
BBA Learning Goal 2: Oral and Written Communication
Even before the start of formal assessments, Barton School faculty and employers of our undergraduates
identified communication skills as an area where many of our undergraduate students needed
improvement. The Assessment Committee and the Barton School faculty have committed to an extensive
assessment process for both oral and written communication: in every class where there is a significant
writing assignment or an oral presentation, that assignment will be assessed using a standardized rubric at
the same time the assignment is graded (team writing assignments are excluded). The oral and written
communication rubrics developed by the Barton School are in Appendix E.
A major benefit of having multiple assessments of individual students will be to allow identification of
students whose communication skills need improvement before they graduate, giving us time to provide
remedial assistance. The Barton School has acquired the STEPS (Student Tracking, Evaluation, and
Portfolio System) database program created by the California State University at Chico business school to
manage communication assessment results. STEPS gives faculty members an easy, web-based way to
enter assessment data while they are grading. Pilot-testing of STEPS at WSU and the original Barton
School rubrics began in Fall 2006. Based on faculty feedback from the pilot testing, the rubrics were
revised for Spring 2007, and the oral communication rubric again revised for Spring 2008. Full
implementation of the communication assessment process began in Spring 2007, and continues every
semester. For both the communication and the teamwork assessments, a fourth category, Needs
Improvement, was added beyond the standard Unacceptable / Acceptable / Exemplary categories. Even
when an assignment was clearly Unacceptable, many raters were unwilling to condemn it as
D-6
Unacceptable, but were willing to give it a slightly higher rating. For evaluation purposes, the Needs
Improvement category is combined with Unacceptable. Results from academic year 2012 (Summer 2011,
Fall 2011, Spring 2012) are below; additional information appears in Appendix E.
ORAL
COMMUNICATION
TRAITS
Organization
Preparation
Verbal Skills
Nonverbal Skills
Use of Media
Audience Interaction
N
75
247
246
242
24
118
Unacceptable
and Needs
Improvement
9%
7%
11%
12%
7%
17%
Acceptable
Exemplary
65%
56%
63%
69%
68%
51%
25%
37%
26%
19%
25%
32%
Use of media and audience interaction have smaller N because not all presentations used media or
involved audience interaction; organization is not evaluated for group projects.
WRITTEN
COMMUNICATION
TRAITS
Logic and Organization
Use of Language
Spelling and Grammar
Appropriate Writing Style
N
371
370
371
371
Unacceptable
and Needs
Improvement
13%
12%
8%
15%
Acceptable
Exemplary
66%
66%
65%
66%
21%
22%
27%
19%
Based on the assessment results to date, on employer feedback, and on benchmarking the Barton School’s
curriculum against peer and competitive business schools, the Barton School faculty approved creating a
new, required class in Business Communication, taught primarily by the Elliott School of
Communication. Budget cuts from the current economic conditions have prevented implementation to
date. Additional information and the rubrics used to assess oral and written communication is in
Appendix E.
BBA Learning Goal 3: Analytical Thinking
Assessing Barton School students on their attainment of clear analytical and reflective thinking abilities is
done within the capstone course, Strategic Management (MGMT 681). Students in MGMT 681 take the
Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal, a nationally normed instrument developed by The
Psychological Corporation. Recommended by the Human Resources Management faculty, the WatsonGlaser consists of five sections with 16 questions each, covering inference, recognition of assumptions,
deduction, interpretation, and evaluation of arguments. The Barton School has long used the WatsonGlaser as part of its evaluation of candidates for the Clay Barton Scholarship, its largest scholarship.
Starting Spring 2007 the Barton School has given the Watson-Glaser in all sections of Strategic
Management; test administration is overseen by the Associate Dean. To provide motivation for doing as
well as possible, students receive variable amounts of points toward their class grade depending on how
well they do relative to the norming sample of college seniors.
One of the national norming samples for the Watson-Glaser was a large group of college seniors from a
variety of institutions. Criteria are that Exemplary performance is at or above the 75th percentile of the
norming sample (65 out of 80 questions correct), Acceptable is between the 25th and 74th percentiles (52
D-7
to 64 correct), and Unacceptable is below the 25th percentile (51 or fewer correct out of 80). Current
target rates are 20% or less Unacceptable and 30% or more Exemplary.
The results from the twelve sections of MGMT 681 in academic year 2012 are given below; additional
information is in Appendix E.
Watson-Glaser
Test Results
Spring 2012
N
Unacceptable
Acceptable
Exemplary
309
(91 missing)
27%
(target <20%)
45%
28%
(target>30%)
To improve students' critical thinking skills, starting Fall 2011 Barton School students have been required
to take PHIL 125, Introduction to Logic, as part of the General Education coursework. This requirement
affects students who entered as freshmen or new transfer students in Fall 2011; effects of this change
aren't expected to appear until academic year 2014. Also, in Fall 2011 the Barton School appointed a
Critical Thinking Task Force to help develop suggestions for ways faculty could explicitly integrate
critical thinking exercises into their classes. A suggestion of the Task Force that has been implemented
starting Fall 2012 is to give a different version of the Watson-Glaser during the student success classes
taken by new freshmen and new transfer students, to allow tracking of improvements in students' critical
thinking skills. Additional information is in Appendix E.
BBA Learning Goal 4: Ethical Decision-Making
Assessing students’ understanding of ethical decision-making is also done within the Strategic
Management (MGMT 681) capstone course. Based on the recommendation of a faculty member who
taught both Strategic Management and an experimental class on business ethics, the Assessment
Committee in 2005 decided to assess Barton School students on this goal by using the Turning Gears,
Inc., simulation offered by the Darden School at the University of Virginia. The simulation puts students
into the role of a middle manager pressured by a supervisor to make decisions that increased short-run
profits and satisfied their “boss” at the expense of ethical considerations.
A pilot test of the simulation took place during Spring 2006 in the MGMT 681 section taught by the
faculty member who recommended the simulation. Based on the recommendation of the involved faculty
member, and following discussions with the Assessment Committee and the other faculty who teach
MGMT 681, the Turning Gears, Inc., simulation was integrated into all sections of the class during Spring
2007, with students being given variable amounts of points based on their performance. The Turning
Gears simulation was used in Spring 2007, but the faculty involved discovered some problems with the
grading of the simulation. Use of Turning Gears was restarted in Summer 2008, and used in Fall 2008 and
Spring 2009. Results from Spring 2009 are below; the scores for each category are those defined by the
simulation's creators.
ETHICAL DECISIONMAKING
Spring 2009
N
Unacceptable
Acceptable
Exemplary
135
3%
83%
14%
These results were considered satisfactory, with no curricular improvements needed. Given these results,
use of the Turning Gears simulation was put on hold after Spring 2009.
As part of the Barton School's effort to make General Education classes more useful for business students,
the Philosophy Department created PHIL 306, Business Ethics, which will be required of all business
D-8
students starting Fall 2013. Two Barton School faculty members with backgrounds in teaching business
ethics, along with the philosophy instructor who will be teaching the new course, have developed a test
for use in assessing ethical decision-making. That test is being pilot-tested in MGMT 681 this fall, and
following editing and additional testing, will be used regularly starting in Fall 2013. In addition to giving
the test in the capstone class, we will also give a version of it in the BADM classes required during
students' first semester in the Barton School. This testing will provide a measure of the effectiveness of
the business ethics class, and teaching of ethics in general, in the Barton School. More information on the
new assessment is in Appendix E.
BBA Learning Goal 5: Teamwork
In Fall 2007, the Barton School adopted the use of a common peer evaluation form for students involved
in team projects to use in evaluating their teammates; the form had been developed and used extensively
by several Barton School faculty members. Students are asked to evaluate their teammates on seven traits:







Organizational ability
Cooperativeness
Originality or creativity of ideas contributed
Functional contribution - analysis and recommendations
Dependability
Quantity of work contributed
Quality of work contributed
Students evaluate their teammates on a four-point scale: Unacceptable, Needs Improvement, Acceptable,
and Outstanding. A rubric was been developed to help students make their evaluations; the rubric is in
Appendix E.
The evaluation form was successfully pilot-tested during Fall 2007, with full implementation beginning
Spring 2008. It is expected that all Barton School faculty using team assignments use the assessment
evaluation as part of their students’ peer evaluations of teammates. Data are collected through
Blackboard. The results for Spring 2012 are below; more information and the rubric used to assess
teamwork are in Appendix E.
TEAMWORK TRAITS
Organizational Ability
Cooperativeness
Originality and
Creativity
Analytical Contribution
Dependability
Work Quantity
Work Quality
N
classes
N
student
15
15
15
644
649
645
Unacceptable
and Needs
Improvement
5%
4%
7%
15
15
15
15
647
633
627
635
5%
5%
3%
3%
Acceptable
Exemplary
26%
17%
26%
69%
80%
68%
22%
19%
28%
23%
72%
76%
68%
74%
These results have been determined to be acceptable; no changes needed regarding teamwork.
MBA Assessment: Learning Goals, Assessment Methods, and Findings
D-9
The MBA faculty, the Graduate Programs Office, and the Graduate Program Committee have specified
five learning goals for the MBA program:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Demonstrate skills in effective communication and teamwork
Demonstrate skills in use and management of technology
Demonstrate skills in effective management and leadership
Demonstrate skills in critical thinking and problem solving
Be exposed to and given assistance in understanding ethical business practices and the concept of
social responsibility
These learning goals have been assessed annually since the 2004-2005 academic year using assessments
embedded in several MBA classes. Information on assessment processes, tools, results, and curricular
improvements is in Appendix E.
EMBA Assessment: Learning Goals, Assessment Methods, and Findings
The EMBA faculty, the Graduate Programs Office, and the Graduate Program Committee have specified
five learning goals for the EMBA program:
1.
2
3
4
5.
Students will demonstrate skills in effective communication and teamwork
Students will demonstrate skills in use and management of technology
Students will demonstrate skills in effective executive leadership
Students will demonstrate skills in critical thinking and organizational-level problem solving
Students will be exposed to and given assistance in understanding ethical business practices and
the concept of social responsibility
These learning goals have been assessed biannually since the 2004-2005 academic year using assessments
embedded in several EMBA classes. Executive MBA cohorts begin their program in the Fall of evennumbered years only, and complete their program 22 months later. Information on assessment processes,
tools, results, and curricular improvements is in Appendix E.
Master of Accountancy Assessment
Information on assessment processes, tools, and results is in the School of Accountancy's Maintenance of
Accreditation Report
MA in Economics Assessment: Learning Goals, Assessment Methods, and Findings
The Economics Department faculty has developed five learning goals for the Master of Arts in
Economics degree program:
1. Demonstrate knowledge of the statistical toolkit used in economic research and the ability to use
appropriate software
2. Demonstrate the ability to conduct research in their chosen area of study
3. Demonstrate mastery of basic microeconomics models
4. Demonstrate mastery of basic macroeconomics models
5. Demonstrate the ability to write effectively when expressing economic theories and their
application
D-10
These learning goals have been assessed annually since the 2004-2005 academic year using assessments
embedded in several graduate economics classes. Information on assessment processes, tools, results, and
curricular improvements is in Appendix E.
D-11
W. Frank Barton School of Business
Wichita State University
Appendix D
Barton School Curricular Change Information
D-12
Section 1: EMBA Program Details
EMBA program prior to Fall 2010: Twelve 3-credit classes that met for eleven four-hour time
blocks on Saturday mornings or afternoons. The classes were:












Quantitative Decision Methods
Human Behavior and the Management of Organizations
Marketing for Executive Management
Economic Analysis for Executive Management
Operations Management for Executives
Global Business and Competitiveness for Executives
Financial Statement Analysis for Executive Management
Corporate Finance for Executive Management
Managerial Accounting for Executives
Information Technology for Executives
Organizational Investment Strategies for Executives
Competitive Strategy for Executive Management
EMBA program for Fall 2010 cohort: Twelve 2.5-credit classes (same classes as above) that
met for nine four-hour time blocks, plus six 1-credit, three four-hour time block classes that
could be varied depending on perceived need and student interest. A summer one-week study
trip to China was also added. For the Fall 2010 cohort, the 1-credit classes were:






Executive Leadership
Corporate Entrepreneurship
Law for Business Leaders
Ethics for Business Leaders
Negotiations
Macroeconomics
EMBA program for Fall 2012 cohort: Based on feedback from the Fall 2010 cohort, the
EMBA program was slightly modified for the cohort that started Fall 2012. The two one-credit
classes in Law and Ethics were combined into a 2.5-credit class with the added time devoted to
business law, the Global Business class was moved to three credits in recognition of the
additional teaching time involved in the China trip, and the one-credit Macroeconomics class
was replaced by a series of non-credit lunchtime presentations on macroeconomic topics.
Section 2: MBA Program Details
Current MBA program
For students with an undergraduate business background, twelve 3-credit classes that meet
evenings, with nine required core classes and three electives. The required classes are:









Quantitative Analysis
Managerial Accounting
Managerial Economics
Managerial Finance
Marketing Management
Organizational Behavior
Operations Management
Management Information Systems
Advanced Strategic Management
D-13
Students without an undergraduate business background are required to take preparatory classes
in calculus, statistics, fundamentals of finance and financial analysis, management and
marketing, and economics as needed.
Three elective classes can be chosen from a variety of classes both within and outside the Barton
School; per Wichita State University policy, two of the three electives could be classes for
seniors rather than graduate classes. By careful choice of electives, MBA students could obtain a
concentration in finance, technology and operations management, entrepreneurship and
innovation, marketing, or health care administration.
MBA program for Fall 2013 students
For students with an undergraduate business background, twelve 3-credit classes that meet
evenings, with eleven required core classes and one elective. Students without an undergraduate
business background have the same preparatory class requirements as before. In addition to the
list above, the new required classes are:


Global Business and Competitiveness
Business Law and Ethics
The elective class can be taken either inside or outside the Barton School, but now must be a
graduate-level class.
Students wanting a concentration in finance, entrepreneurship, or business analytics and
information management can use their elective in one of these areas, plus take one or two
concentration classes instead of specified required classes. Other concentration areas may be
added in the future.
Finance Concentration: The revised finance concentration has two new required classes, in
addition to the core Managerial Finance class:


Advanced Corporate Finance and Financial Institutions
Advanced Investment Analysis and Portfolio Management
Students in the finance concentration will not take the Global Business and Competitiveness
class.
Entrepreneurship Concentration: The revised entrepreneurship concentration requires
students to take three of four graduate entrepreneurship classes:




Corporate Entrepreneurship
Technology Entrepreneurship
Product Development and Innovation
New Venture Development
Students in the entrepreneurship concentration will not take the Operations Management and
Managerial Information Systems classes.
Business Analytics and Information Management Concentration: The new concentration has
two new required classes, in addition to the core Management Information Systems class:


Database Management Systems
Business Intelligence and Analytics
Students in the business analytics and information management concentration will not take the
Global Business and Competitiveness class.
D-14
Section 3: General Business / Business Administration Major Details
NEW REQUIREMENTS: General Business Major
21 total hours
Required Courses .................................................................................................................. hrs.
MKT 405
Consumer Behavior........................................................................... 3
MGMT 460
Designing Effective Organizations
or MGMT 462 Leading & Motivating ....................................................................... 3
HRM 466
Fundamentals of Human Resource Management
or ECON 660
Labor Economics .............................................................................. 3
IB Elective, choose from....................................................................................................... 3
IB 561
International Economics and Business
IB 600
International Management
IB 601
International Marketing
IB 602
Legal Environment of International Business
IB 625
International Finance Management
Directed Electives ................................................................................................................. 9
Upper-division business electives from the following business disciplines (must be spread over at least
two disciplines): Decision Sciences, Economics, Entrepreneurship, Finance, Management Information
Systems or Real Estate.
Cooperative Education (481) may not be counted toward the general business major.
Note: Other courses may be used as directed electives with a business adviser’s consent.
CURRENT REQUIREMENTS: Business Administration Major
24 hours
Required Courses: ............................................................................................................................. hrs.
A minimum of 15 hours must be selected from courses listed below and distributed over four of the five
areas ................................................................................................................................................ 15
Accounting: ACCT 310, Financial Accounting and Reporting: Assets (3); ACCT 320, Accounting for
Decision Making and Control (3); ACCT 410, Financial Accounting and Reporting: Equities (3);
ACCT 430, Introduction to Federal Income Tax (3); ACCT 560, Accounting Information Systems
(3).
Economics: ECON 304, Managerial Economics (3); ECON 340, Money and Banking (3); ECON 660,
Labor Economics (3); ECON 672, International Economics and Business (3); ECON 674,
International Finance (3).
Finance: FIN 440, Financial Management II (3); FIN 620, Investments (3); FIN 625, International
Financial Management (3); FIN 631, Fixed Income Securities & Markets (3).
Management: MGMT 462, Leading and Motivating (3); MGMT 464, Communicating Effectively in
Organizations (3); MGMT 460, Designing Effective Organizations (3); HRM 466, Fundamentals of
Human Resource Management (3); IB 600, International Management (3).
Marketing: MKT/ENTR 403, Marketing Research (3); MKT 405, Consumer Behavior (3); MKT 607,
Promotion Management (3).
Note: Students may substitute up to 6 credit hours within the five areas listed above with academic
adviser’s consent.
Co-op Credit: Students may count up to 6 hours of co-op credit toward the business administration
major.
Electives: Selected from any of the above or other upper-division courses in the Barton School of
Business. These may be concentrated or spread over a number of different disciplines ................ 9
D-15
W. Frank Barton School of Business
Wichita State University
Appendix E
Barton School Assessment Tools and Processes
Appendix E
Assessment Tools and Procedures
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
Description of BBA Learning Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Oral Communication Rubric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Written Communication Rubric. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Teamwork Rubric. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Basic Skills Classes:
Learning Goals, Assessment Results and Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
Management-Specific Classes:
Learning Goals, Assessment Results and Responses . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Oral and Written Communication. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Analytical Thinking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Ethical Decision-Making . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Teamwork. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
MBA Assessment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
EMBA Assessment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Master of Arts in Economics Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
E-1
BSB Assessment Committee
Description of Learning Goals: BBA Degree
1. Acquire Knowledge of Current Business Practices, Theory, and Technology
Prior to achieving advanced standing in the Barton School of Business, students will have
successfully completed courses requiring them to demonstrate basic skills in oral and written
communication, mathematical and statistical concepts, economic theory, computer
technology, accounting systems, and preparation of financial statements. This prerequisite
course work serves as a foundation for upper-division business courses by focusing on the
following: acquisition of a common body of knowledge and vocabulary of business, and the
development of professional competencies in communication, quantitative problem solving,
and critical thinking.
Barton School students are expected to build on these competencies and basic knowledge as
they progress through the junior-level business core courses. They must become
knowledgeable in the following areas: entrepreneurship, international business, theory and
practices of organizational management, operations, human resources, corporate finance,
business law, information systems and technology, and marketing. As they further progress
and specialize, students must demonstrate their ability to integrate these competencies and
knowledge in solving business problems.
2. Demonstrate skills in effective oral and written communication
Communication can be defined as a sharing of meaning or understanding. In the context of
the business organization, the ability to effectively communicate in oral form is a
requirement for effective teamwork, leadership and conduct of business organizations.
Oral communication involves the ability to make effective presentations of varying
degrees of formality. These may range from describing a task to a subordinate, to
delivering a briefing report to members of one’s work group, to a formal PowerPoint
presentation made to a key client or to the members of a Board of Directors.
Being effective in each of these forms of oral communication implies the ability of the
communicator to organize their thoughts, develop a cogent approach to delivering the
relevant information, and then articulate the information in such a way as to allow the
sharing of information implied in the definition of communication.
Effective oral communication can be described as the ability of the Barton School
graduate to successfully communicate in each of the types of settings described above.
The ability to effectively communicate in written form may be thought of as a foundation to
the ability to effectively communicate in oral form, since most formal oral presentations will
be initially prepared in written format.
E-2
Written communication in a business format involves the ability to develop memos,
letters, emails, briefing papers, reports, and other types of written business
communication in a manner which allows an efficient, unambiguous sharing of
information.
As with oral communication, being effective in each of these forms of written
communication implies the ability of the communicator to be able to organize their
thoughts, develop a cogent approach to delivering the relevant information, and then
present that information utilizing language, grammar and an organizational form that will
allow the effective and efficient sharing of information which is implied in the definition
of communication.
Effective written communication can be described as the ability of the Barton School
graduate to effectively communicate in each of the types of written formats described
above.
3. Attain clear analytical and reflective thinking abilities
A Barton School education enhances a student’s abilities to evaluate, interpret and resolve
complex business problems. Throughout the curriculum, students are challenged to creatively
analyze business decisions and develop creative solutions to those problems.
4. Understand ethical decision-making
Business ethics is about creating an organizational environment which is conducive to
accepting and fulfilling ethical obligations. Markets and society presuppose certain rules and
expectations of moral behavior in business activities. The study of business ethics provides
the tools for analyzing the rightness or wrongness of various courses of action. Using these
tools to approach business decisions allows the student to see issues they might otherwise
overlook and allows the student to recognize organizational impediments to ethical behavior.
Graduates of the Barton School of Business will recognize ethical considerations in business
activities and understand how to facilitate ethical behavior in an organization.
5. Develop active collaborative skills and the ability to work as part of a team
Barton School students will (a) learn to work successfully as part of a team and (b) develop
critical teamwork skills and qualities that are important for team collaboration. This is
accomplished through the development of the following teamwork principles: working
toward a common goal, sharing leadership tasks, sharing responsibilities, exchanging
information, and maintaining professional relationships.
E-3
Barton School of Business
Oral Communication Rubric
TRAIT
Organization
(do NOT use
for
presentation
of group
project)
Preparation
Verbal skills
Nonverbal
skills
Use of media
(if
appropriate)
Audience
interaction (if
appropriate)
Unacceptable
No opening statement.
Loses focus often.
Conclusion missing.
Needs Improvement
Opening statement leaves
listener wondering where the
presentation is headed. Loses
focus once or twice.
Conclusion is poorly done.
Acceptable
Has relevant opening statement
giving outline of speech.
Conclusion summarizes
presentation's main points, and
draws conclusions based upon
these points.
Student invested sufficient time
in preparation for presentation
Exemplary
Has a clear opening statement
that catches audience’s
interest. Stays focused
throughout. Conclusion is
very well documented and
persuasive.
Student is very well prepared
for presentation
Student invested little or
no time in preparation for
presentation
Often hard to understand
what is being said. Voice
is too soft, or too loud.
Pace is often too quick or
too slow.
Demonstrates one or
more distracting
mannerisms; may include
bad posture and lack of
eye contact.
Inappropriate use of
media detracts from
presentation. Slides
poorly formatted; number
inappropriate.
No or minimal
interaction; not prepared
for questions.
Student invested insufficient
time in preparation for
presentation
Some difficulty in
understanding what is being
said.
Can be easily understood -appropriate pace and volume.
Excellent delivery. Modulates
voice, projects enthusiasm,
interest, confidence.
Mannerisms detract somewhat
from presentation. Little eye
contact.
No distracting mannerisms. Good
eye contact.
Uses body language
effectively to maintain
audience’s interest. Maintains
eye contact continuously.
Use of media does not detract
from presentation, but adds
very little. Slide content and
number could be improved.
Media adds value to presentation.
Slide content and number are
appropriate.
Media used effortlessly to
enhance presentation.
Poorly handled interaction;
somewhat prepared for
questions.
Effective interaction; well
prepared for predictable
questions.
Effortless interaction;
thoroughly prepared for
unexpected questions.
Note: developed from rubric created by University of Scranton available through AACSB website.
E-4
Barton School of Business
Writing Rubric
TRAIT
Logic &
Organization
Unacceptable
Does not develop ideas
cogently, uneven and
ineffective overall
organization, unfocused
introduction or
conclusion
Use of
Language
Uses words that are
unclear, sentence
structures inadequate for
clarity, errors are
seriously distracting
Writing contains frequent
spelling and grammar
errors which interfere
with comprehension
Spelling and
Grammar
Appropriate
Writing Style
for Specific
Assignment
The writing style is not
appropriate for the
specific assignment (too
casual, too formal, etc.)
Needs Improvement
Develops and organizes
ides in paragraphs that are
not necessarily connected.
Some overall organization,
but some ideas seem
illogical and/or unrelated,
unfocused introduction or
conclusion
Word forms and sentence
structures are adequate to
convey basic meaning.
Errors cause noticeable
distraction.
Frequent errors in spelling
and grammar distract the
reader.
The writer’s decisions
about focus, organization,
style, and content
sometimes interfere with
the purpose of the specific
assignment.
Acceptable
Develops unified and coherent
ideas within paragraphs with
generally adequate transitions;
clear overall organization
relating most ideas together,
good introduction and
conclusion.
Exemplary
Develops ideas cogently,
organizes them logically with
paragraphs and connects them
with effective transitions. Clear
and specific introduction and
conclusion.
Word forms are correct,
sentence structure is effective.
Presence of a few errors is not
distracting.
Employs words with fluency,
develops concise standard
English sentences, balancing a
variety of sentence structures
effectively.
Writing is essentially error-free
in terms of spelling and
grammar
While there may be minor
errors, the writing follows
normal conventions of spelling
and grammar throughout and
has been carefully proofread.
The writer has made good
decisions about writing style so
as to achieve the purpose of the
specific assignment.
Note: developed from rubric created by University of Scranton available through AACSB website.
E-5
The writer’s decisions about
writing style are fully
appropriate for the specific
assignment.
Barton School of Business
Teamwork Rubric
TRAIT
Organizational
Ability
Cooperativeness
Originality or
Creativity of Ideas
Contributed
Functional
Contribution Analysis &
Recommendations
Dependability
Quantity of Work
Contributed
Quality of Work
Contributed
Unacceptable
Unprepared, unaware
and uninformed
regarding team tasks;
wastes time
Antagonistic toward
team goals, activities
and members
Needs Improvement
Inconsistent preparation
and easily distracted; time
management problematic
Acceptable
Generally prepared and able to
stay on task; time management
skills adequate
Not clearly committed to
team goals; does not always
work well with team
members
Usually willing and able to
work with others to accomplish
team goals and tasks
Overcautious;
produces uninspired,
pedestrian ideas and
solutions; almost
never challenges
problem assumptions
Understanding and
application of
analytical tools or
methods is deficient
Can rarely be relied
upon
Tries to be creative but
rarely challenges problem
assumptions; occasionally
able to generate novel,
workable ideas or solutions
Focuses on being creative;
sometimes challenges
assumptions and generates
novel, workable ideas and
solutions (but not consistently)
Exemplary
Well prepared and focused on
task accomplishment;
maximizes effective use of
team time
Clearly committed to team
goals; shows strong
interpersonal skills in working
with others to accomplish team
goals and tasks
Consistently challenges
assumptions; manipulates
problems and consistently
generates novel, workable ideas
and solutions
Understanding and
application of analytical
tools or methods is
sometimes questionable
Inconsistency in reliability
and dependability regarding
team tasks and goals
Somewhat deficient in the
quantity of work
contributed
Somewhat deficient in the
quality of work contributed
Generally capable regarding
understanding and application
of analytical tools or methods
Skilled and knowledgeable use
of appropriate analytical tools
or methods
Can almost always be depended
upon to contribute to team
effort
Contribution to group effort
meets expected workload
Always reliable and predictable
regarding team tasks and goals
Contribution to group effort
meets expected team quality
standards
Contribution is consistently of
superior quality
Quantity of work
contributed is well
short of expectations
Contribution is of
inferior quality
E-6
Contribution to group effort
exceeds expected workload
Learning Goals and Assessment Information for Core
Knowledge Classes: Basic Skills
LEARNING GOALS: GENERAL EDUCATION COURSES
Communication
Public Speaking has standard, agreed-upon Course Outcomes and
Competencies across Kansas public universities. The Advanced
Standing Exam (ASE) coverage in Public Speaking has questions
on how to appropriately prepare a presentation; at this time, we
don’t have the capability of evaluating actual presentations.
E-7
English
The ASE coverage in English only includes the mechanics of
writing. It is a version of the common Grammar / Spelling /
Punctuation (GSP) tests,
Math (Algebra and Calculus)
College Algebra has standard, agreed-upon Course Outcomes and
Competencies across Kansas public universities. The ASE covers
only topics included in the agreements. ASE questions on business
calculus cover all the topics in the standard WSU syllabus for
MATH 144.
LEARNING GOALS: BUSINESS COURSES
For the basic skills classes taught by the Barton School, we have
developed Learning Goals that have been used in developing the
Advanced Standing Exams. The questions on the ASEs will be
similar to those given on final exams in these classes.
Learning Goals: Financial Accounting (ACCT 210)
1. Students will be able to identify and conceptualize the financial
statement effect(s) of typical accounting events and transactions.
2. Students will be knowledgeable of the underlying goals and objectives of the four
financial statements (balance sheet, income statement, statement of cash flows, and
statement of retained earnings).
3. Students will be able to utilize basic financial statement analysis techniques.
E-8
Learning Goals: Managerial Accounting (ACCT 220)
1. Students will understand the differences between the traditional
method of allocating manufacturing overhead and the activitybased costing method of allocating manufacturing overhead.
2. Students will understand how to use managerial accounting information for making
business decisions.
3. Students will understand how managerial accounting information is used in the
planning and control aspects of a business.
Learning Goals: Business Software (BADM 160)
1. Students will improve their communicative skill through knowledge and
understanding of word processing software such as Microsoft Word.
2. Students will develop the ability to prepare spreadsheets and workbooks using
formulas and macros using Microsoft Excel.
3. Students will develop the ability to build databases and then perform queries to
extract meaningful information from those databases and also work with various
forms and reports using Microsoft Access.
4. Students will acquire the skill to prepare presentations using tools and data from the
other three software programs and use these in Microsoft PowerPoint.
Learning Goals: Macroeconomics (ECON 201)
Students will demonstrate an understanding of the following topics:
1. Scarcity
2. Supply and demand analysis
3. GDP: definition, calculation, shifters
4. Money, banking, and the Federal Reserve System
5. Business cycles
6. International trade
E-9
Learning Goals: Microeconomics (ECON 202)
Students will demonstrate an understanding of the following topics:
1. Supply and demand analysis
2. Elasticity
3. Short-run and long-run costs
4. Behavior of firms in competitive and monopoly markets
5. Labor and resource markets, including capital markets
Learning Goals: Business Statistics (ECON 231)
Students will demonstrate an understanding of the following topics:
1. Descriptive statistics
2. Graphical displays: histograms, bar charts, pie charts, scatter plots
3. Measure of linear relationships: covariance and correlation coefficients
4. Discrete probability distributions
5. Continuous probability distributions: normal and t distributions
6. Sampling distributions, confidence intervals and hypothesis testing: mean and
proportion
7. Linear regression and hypothesis testing
Learning Goals: Excel-based Statistics (ECON 232)
Students will demonstrate an understanding of how to accomplish the following topics
using the Data Analysis tools in Excel:
1. Summarizing and describing a numerical data set and preparing an appropriate
histogram for the data set
2. Using linear and multiple regression to develop and test for statistical significance in
equations relating one or more dependent variables to a dependent variable
3. Using t-tests to determine whether there is a statistically significant difference
between the means of two data samples
4. Preparing random samples
5. Preparing appropriate tables and charts to summarize categorical data
The Advanced Standing Exams were developed by faculty in the area being tested. The
difficulty of the exams varies somewhat, partly due to the difficulty of the subject matter
and partly due to the choices of the test makers. A score of 50% correct was the standard
defined as Acceptable on all the exams, with a score of 75% defined as Exemplary.
Copies of the exams are available upon request.
E-10
ADVANCED STANDING EXAMS: HISTORICAL DATA
Below are the results of the Advanced Standing Exams from Summer 2008 through
Spring 2012, organized by area and semester:
Writing Mechanics
N
Summer 2008 (pilot)
Fall 2008
Spring 2009
Fall 2009
Spring 2010
Fall 2011
Spring 2012
26
157
141
187
169
189
200
Public Speaking
Summer 2008 (pilot)
Fall 2008
Spring 2009
Fall 2009
Spring 2010
Fall 2011
Spring 2012
Mathematics
Summer 2008 (pilot)
Fall 2008
Spring 2009
Fall 2009
Spring 2010
Fall 2011
Spring 2012
Business Software
Summer 2008 (pilot)
Fall 2008
Spring 2009
Fall 2009
Spring 2010
Fall 2011
Spring 2012
N
9
159
145
198
184
188
197
N
26
39
118
146
164
152
178
N
1
149
142
193
175
162
198
Median
Percent
Percent
Percent
score Unacceptable Acceptable Exemplary
80%
0%
27%
73%
73%
4%
48%
48%
73%
4%
51%
45%
77%
6%
43%
50%
73%
2%
51%
47%
73%
7%
49%
44%
73%
3%
57%
40%
Median
Percent
Percent
Percent
score Unacceptable Acceptable Exemplary
70%
0%
56%
44%
60%
15%
65%
19%
60%
26%
52%
23%
55%
22%
61%
17%
63%
17%
55%
28%
60%
19%
68%
13%
60%
17%
63%
20%
Median
Percent
Percent
Percent
score Unacceptable Acceptable Exemplary
65%
4%
62%
35%
55%
22%
54%
24%
58%
31%
54%
15%
55%
34%
52%
14%
60%
25%
57%
18%
60%
28%
53%
19%
55%
25%
55%
20%
Median
Percent
Percent
Percent
score Unacceptable Acceptable Exemplary
97%
0%
0%
100%
77%
2%
42%
56%
73%
4%
51%
45%
73%
4%
53%
44%
70%
2%
59%
39%
73%
6%
60%
35%
73%
5%
58%
37%
E-11
Fin. Accounting
Summer 2008 (pilot)
Fall 2008
Spring 2009
Fall 2009
Spring 2010
Fall 2011
Spring 2012
N
6
136
144
158
191
163
175
Median
Percent
Percent
Percent
score Unacceptable Acceptable Exemplary
62%
17%
67%
17%
57%
27%
66%
7%
63%
15%
59%
26%
60%
27%
50%
23%
63%
17%
59%
24%
60%
28%
53%
20%
60%
23%
69%
8%
Median
Percent
Percent
Percent
score Unacceptable Acceptable Exemplary
Summer 2008 (pilot) 2
36%
100%
0%
0%
Fall 2008
75
28%
96%
4%
0%
Spring 2009
95
38%
77%
22%
1%
Fall 2009
168
38%
82%
18%
1%
Spring 2010
155
70%
11%
53%
36%
Fall 2011
149
65%
11%
61%
28%
Spring 2012
97
70%
7%
61%
32%
Man. Accounting
N
Note: The Managerial Accounting exam was significantly revised for Spring 2010.
Macroeconomic
Summer 2008 (pilot)
Fall 2008
Spring 2009
Fall 2009
Spring 2010
Fall 2011
Spring 2012
Microeconomic
Summer 2008 (pilot)
Fall 2008
Spring 2009
Fall 2009
Spring 2010
Fall 2011
Spring 2012
N
27
142
142
179
183
173
193
N
23
103
129
160
160
164
180
Median
Percent
Percent
Percent
score Unacceptable Acceptable Exemplary
72%
0%
56%
44%
68%
9%
65%
25%
68%
8%
56%
36%
65%
9%
63%
28%
65%
13%
63%
24%
65%
10%
70%
20%
72%
6%
52%
41%
Median
Percent
Percent
Percent
score Unacceptable Acceptable Exemplary
57%
30%
61%
9%
47%
54%
42%
4%
47%
54%
43%
2%
43%
67%
31%
2%
47%
55%
43%
3%
47%
57%
41%
1%
50%
45%
52%
3%
E-12
Statistics
Summer 2008 (pilot)
Fall 2008
Spring 2009
Fall 2009
Spring 2010
Fall 2011
Spring 2012
Excel-based Stat.
Summer 2008 (pilot)
Fall 2008
Spring 2009
Fall 2009
Spring 2010
Fall 2011
Spring 2012
N
23
106
110
150
151
163
179
N
17
6
85
123
151
119
166
Median
Percent
Percent
Percent
score Unacceptable Acceptable Exemplary
55%
26%
61%
13%
50%
47%
48%
5%
45%
54%
44%
3%
50%
47%
52%
1%
55%
34%
60%
6%
50%
45%
47%
7%
50%
47%
47%
6%
Median
Percent
Percent
Percent
score Unacceptable Acceptable Exemplary
55%
12%
76%
12%
48%
505
41%
9%
45%
51%
38%
12%
45%
42%
41%
16%
55%
34%
60%
6%
50%
39%
55%
6%
50%
42%
48%
11%
Note: A substantial change was made in the teaching methods in the on-campus Excelbased statistics class starting in Fall 2009. Results start to appear in Spring 2010.
ADVANCED STANDING EXAMS: ANALYSIS AND COMPARISONS
In Summer 2010 the data collected from Summer 2008 through Spring 2010 was
aggregated and analyzed to evaluate whether students who took their Advanced Standing
classes at Wichita State performed any differently than did students who took their
classes elsewhere. Most of the students who took their classes elsewhere took them at one
of the three community colleges that are the main feeders of transfer students to the
Barton School. The purpose of this analysis was to determine where the Barton School
should concentrate its efforts to improve student performance: working to improve our
own classes, or working with the local community colleges to improve their classes.
In summary, those who took their classes at community colleges scored significantly
lower on their exams than did students who took their classes at Wichita State, even when
allowance is made for differences in student ability as measured by ACT/SAT scores.
The pages following show three different analyses:


A comparison of scores at WSU with score at the three local community colleges,
prepared for a meeting with representatives from those colleges
A more general comparison of scores at all types on institutions where students took
Advanced Standing classes
E-13

A regression analysis using multiple variables to predict scores on each of the Advanced
Standing Exams
Several conclusions can be drawn from the regression analysis:




The most significant determinant of performance is student ability, as measured by
ACT/SAT scores. Unfortunately, WSU does not have scores for a significant number of
students, primarily transfer students.
Whether the class was taken at WSU or elsewhere makes a significant difference;
typically in the area of one or two more questions correct out of 20 – 30 questions.
Class grade and GPA are significant.
The time lag between taking the class and taking the Advanced Standing Exam had a
surprisingly small effect, even though there is significant variation among students in
the time lag.
While the Barton School will continue efforts to improve the results for our own classes,
the results demonstrate that efforts to cooperate with local community colleges are likely
to have a significant impact. To date, the Barton School has not had much success in
starting a cooperative effort.
Plans for Future Analysis
The next stage in using the results of the Advanced Standing Exams will be to model the
usefulness of the exam results in predicting student success in the Barton School. If the
current (or revised) Advanced Standing Exams are accurate predictors of success, they
could be used as admission tests to the Barton School in the future.
E-14
ASE Results: Averages for WSU, Community Colleges (Butler, Cowley, Hutchinson only)
Spring 2012
Test
Max. score
WSU
Score Score % # of students
Local Comm. Colleges
Score Score % # of students
Difference: Statistically
WSU - CC significant?
English
Communication
Math
30
20
20
22.4
12.9
11.9
75%
65%
60%
123
142
155
20.9
11
10.5
70%
55%
53%
128
122
50
1.5
1.9
1.4
Yes
Yes
Yes
Fin. Accounting
Manag. Acct
Bus. Software
Macroecon
Microecon
Statistics
Excel-based Stat.
30
20
30
26
30
20
20
18.2
13.3
21.2
17.9
15.5
10.2
10.8
61%
67%
71%
69%
52%
51%
54%
83
120
180
162
127
164
166
15.7
12.1
20.9
15.7
13.6
9.1
6.8
52%
61%
70%
60%
45%
46%
34%
50
25
72
75
68
39
23*
2.5
1.2
0.3
2.2
1.9
1.1
4.0
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Notes:
Sample includes all students scheduled for ASEs during Spring 2012; some took some exams in earlier semesters
Statistically Significant based on t-test at .01 level of significance.
* Includes only Butler and Cowley students; no Hutchinson students
E-15
Advanced Standing Score Analysis – Summer 2008 to Spring 2010
ENGL COMM MATH
Number of questions
AVERAGE
SCORES
All students
number
WSU students
number
Kansas CC students
number
P-value WSU >
CC
Other Regents Univ.
number
Other KS Univ.
number
30
20
20
ACCT
210
30
ACCT ACCT BADM
220
220
160
29
20
30
Sp10
73%
21.9
684
61%
12.2
712
58%
11.5
581
62%
18.5
651
39%
11.3
488
75%
22.6
329
65%
13.0
385
59%
11.8
379
63%
18.9
476
40%
11.5
383
70%
21.1
283
55%
11.0
272
52%
10.3
139
57%
17.2
121
6.90
E-07*
1.61 E18*
2.38 E06*
73%
21.8
20
58%
11.5
24
72%
21.6
11
64%
12.7
10
ECON
201
26
ECON ECON ECON ECON
202
231
232
232
30
20
20
20
Sp10
74%
22.1
685
68%
17.0
667
47%
14.2
574
49%
9.9
529
52%
10.3
441
77%
23.1
428
69%
17.2
437
50%
15.1
334
52%
10.4
391
53%
10.5
242
36%
10.3
90
68%
20.4
211
65%
16.2
169
42%
12.5
186
44%
8.7
115
37%
7.4
77
.00020*
.0020*
.0545
.00045*
1.1
E-14*
1.9
E-08*
6.5
E-16*
56%
11.2
21
67%
20.0
18
46%
13.3
4
74%
22.1
18
72%
18.1
26
49%
14.7
24
49%
9.9
10
0
67%
13.3
23**
58%
17.3
15
54%
15.7
3
72%
21.7
7
70%
17.6
11
50%
15.0
7
44%
11.0
8
45%
9.0
1
E-16
59%
11.8
24
60%
11.9
119
Other (incl. out-ofstate, AP, IB, credit
by exam, etc.)
number
74%
22.3
57%
11.3
57%
11.4
51%
15.4
33%
9.6
67%
20.0
69%
17.3
44%
13.2
39%
7.8
25%
5.0
41
21
19
21
8
21
24
23
15
2
* Significant difference between WSU and Kansas Community Colleges at .01 level
** Includes 19 top students who took Calculus in high school through Newman
ENGL COMM MATH
Butler CC
number
Cowley CC
number
Hutchinson CC
number
70%
21.1
129
70%
20.9
71
67%
20.2
29
55%
10.9
121
59%
11.7
65
57%
11.3
35
50%
9.9
73
49%
9.7
35
57%
11.4
17
ACCT
210
54%
16.3
65
59%
17.8
33
59%
17.7
10
ACCT ACCT BADM
220
220
160
34%
68%
10.0
20.3
48
90
37%
68%
10.8
20.5
22
63
41%
68%
11.8
20.5
8
14
ECON
201
66%
16.6
87
63%
15.8
44
60%
15.1
15
ECON ECON ECON ECON
202
231
232
232
42%
42%
36%
12.5
8.4
7.3
99
56
50
41%
42%
37%
12.3
8.3
7.4
49
34
25
40%
46%
12.1
9.2
14
11
0
Notes:
ACCT 220: Exam substantially revised for Spring 2010
ECON 232: Starting with Fall 2009, WSU class had substantial added assignments aimed at improving students' ability to properly
choose which statistical process to use in specified circumstances, a weakness identified from Advanced Standing
Exam results. Difference significant at .00003 level.
E-17
Regression Results
Dependent variable is the score on the Advanced Standing Exams. Two sets of regression results are below: one with and one without
ACT score as an independent variable. Many students do not have an ACT score on file with WSU; including the ACT score
substantially reduces the sample size. P-values are listed below the regression coefficients.
Independent variables:
Grade - grade in class (ENGL 102 for English, MATH 144 for Math): A = 4.0, B = 3.0, etc.
GPA - overall GPA (including transfer courses) at time of starting Advanced Standing Exams
WSU - one if class taken at WSU, zero if taken elsewhere
Lag - number of semesters between completing class and taking Advanced Standing Exam
ACT - student's highest ACT composite score; students with only SAT scores were converted to ACT equivalent
SP10 - one if ECON 232 Advanced Standing Exam taken after class improvements
* variable is significant at .05 level, ** variable is significant at .01 level
Test
R2
n
Intercept
Grade
GPA
WSU
Lag
ACT
Writing
Mechanics
(Grammar,
Spelling,
Punctuation)
679
.109
14.1**
.442*
1.73**
1.45**
.051
466
.270
2.59E-37
8.70**
9.07E-13
.0429
.261
.251
2.38E-07
1.09*
.00283
6.94E-07
.682*
.0236
.506
.0474
.559
.385**
6.36E-18
Communication
(COMM 111)
Public
Speaking
712
.225
495
.355
50.1**
3.26E-10
2.26*
.0122
1.01**
9.43E-09
.561**
.00414
1.01**
7.19E-06
.765**
.00161
2.13**
6.48E-23
1.81**
1.25E-15
-0.117*
.031
-0.156**
.00637
.248**
4.99E-15
E-18
581
R2
.0768
415
.296
Bus. Software
(BADM 160 or
ACCT 260)
677
.234
466
.327
ACCT 210
(Financial)
651
.257
460
.340
ACCT 220
(Managerial)
Omits SP10
487
.125
347
.285
ECON 201
(Macro)
667
.188
468
.305
Test
Math
(Algebra, Bus.
Calculus)
n
Intercept
5.94**
1.26E-09
.618
.561
Grade
.368*
.0274
-0.0774
.640
GPA
1.09**
.000618
.905**
.00469
WSU
1.08**
.000183
.527
.0726
Lag
.0595
.392
-0.202**
.00469
.376**
1.16E-25
14.3**
1.39E-49
11.1**
4.48E-23
.696**
.000143
.690**
.000579
1.42**
3.52E-07
.792*
.0115
2.49**
1.20E-17
2.02**
7.22E-10
-0.128
.0573
-0.169*
.0214
.263**
3.44E-12
7.28**
7.17E-09
1.56
.323
1.92**
3.53E-15
1.36**
9.35E-07
1.64**
.000151
1.46**
.00360
2.26**
1.95E-07
1.40**
.00800
-0.353**
.000486
-0.413**
.000391
.383**
4.29E-11
4.61**
.000528
-0.281
.854
.974**
2.21E-05
1.01**
28.33E-05
1.08*
.0103
.238
.618
1.46*
.00168
1.32*
.0232
-0.336**
.00722
-0.423**
.00550
.345**
2.33E-09
10.4**
8.39E-28
6.77**
1.22E-09
1.34**
6.01E-11
.955**
6.13E-07
.652*
.0421
.460
.184
1.43**
1.16E-06
.508
.133
-0.0212
.767
-0.155
.0544
.287**
2.10E-12
E-19
ACT
SP10
Test
ECON 202
(Micro)
ECON 231
(Bus. Stat.)
ECON 232
(Excel-based
Stat)
574
R2
.214
389
.389
529
.141
381
.259
441
.323
322
.390
n
Intercept
6.73**
5.35 E-10
.700
.568
Grade
1.08**
1.54E-07
.868**
5.31E-05
GPA
1.04**
.00364
.372
.364
WSU
2.41**
3.35E-11
1.56**
5.28E-05
Test
-0.113
.199
-0.108
.293
ACT
.416**
2.61E-18
4.56**
1.08E-6
.260
.806
.780**
1.02E-05
.581**
.00385
.702*
.018
.115
.729
1.60**
4.65E-06
1.01**
.00559
-.132
.139
.0255
.806
.303**
2.28-14
2.48*
.0269
-.783
.545
.618**
.00121
.688**
.000965
1.33**
4.84E-5
.595
.121
2.80**
6.87E-11
2.12**
5.01E-05
-.587**
1.57E-06
-0.720**
4.48E-07
.277**
4.92E-10
SP10
.962**
.00131
.898**
.00634
Note: Math ACT score rather than composite ACT score used for Math regression - somewhat better fit. For ECON 231 and 232, fit
was better with composite ACT rather than Math ACT.
E-20
Learning Goals and Assessment Information for Core
Knowledge Classes: Management-Specific Knowledge
Assessments of management-specific knowledge are conducted in each of the eight
business core classes through embedded assessments. Details are below for each class.
Legal Environment of Business (BLAW 431): Assessment Methods and Results
Information provided by Larry Spurgeon, lead instructor for BLAW 431 and Barton
School Senior lecturer. Most sections of BLAW 431 are taught by adjuncts who are
practicing attorneys.
The purpose of the Business Law course is to provide students with general knowledge of
legal principles for practical application in their business careers. Upon completion of the
Business Law course, the student is expected to have a basic understanding of:
1.
2.
3.
4.
The American legal system, including federal and state court structure and jurisdiction.
The principles of contracts and property law
The fundamentals of torts and product liability
Laws of particular importance to contemporary business such as employment law,
debtor/creditor issues, antitrust, and intellectual property
5. Laws relating to business entities, including formation and operation, and legal and
fiduciary duties of business owners and managers.
Assessment Process
The assessment process involves embedding three test questions for each learning goal.
Due to the impracticality of collectively writing the assessment questions I compose the
questions and submit them to the adjuncts. Sometimes the questions are tweaked through
collective input. I update the questions about once a year, in large part because of the
risk of students becoming too familiar with the questions.
The instructors send me the student results for each semester. The rubric we use is that if
a student answers all three test questions for a learning goal correctly the student receives
an “Exemplary” score. Answering two out of three questions correctly is deemed an
“Acceptable” score. If two or more questions are answered incorrectly the student
receives an “Unacceptable” score. A copy of the assessment instrument is available upon
request.
Assessment Review Process
At least once an academic year I prepare an assessment report summarizing the collective
results and providing overall analysis. The target that we set in 2006 remains the same:
at least 30% of the students receiving an Exemplary score for each learning goal, and no
more than 15% of the students receiving an Unacceptable score for each learning goal.
We have been generally successful in achieving our targets. The analysis identifies areas
with declining performance as well as areas which need attention. I then submit my
E-21
report to the adjunct instructors for their review. Again, because of the impracticality of
all of the instructors getting together to discuss the results, we communicate by email.
Changes in Curriculum
Because the results have generally been favorable we have not made significant changes
to the curriculum. This is a standard course in the business school curriculum across the
country, and the topics are well established. For example, most legal environment
textbooks have the same topics, often in the same order.
However, the assessment has enabled us to identify some inconsistencies in the scope of
topics covered in an individual class, or the emphasis placed upon certain topics. This
has enabled us to identify some topic areas of business law which are not being
emphasized enough in some sections, and to provide all of the instructors with an apples
to apples comparison of how his students perform as compared to the others. This
comparison is a useful tool to inform the instructor about the level of performance.
For example, a few years ago the assessment analysis revealed that the two instructors
teaching at that time had a different philosophy about the scope of topics to be covered.
The communication between them revealed that one instructor believed that since not all
of the topics in the textbook could be covered during the semester, the best approach was
to select a relatively small number of topics and go to into considerable depth for each.
The other instructor’s philosophy was to cover as many topics as reasonably possible.
Through this discussion, the instructors compared the textbooks and topics, and agreed to
a core group of topics which are essential for the course. This discrepancy would not
have come to light without assessment.
The other valuable aspect of assessment has been that as two additional adjunct
instructors have been added to the schedule we have been able to expressly stress the key
topics identified in the learning goals, thereby ensuring consistency in the most important
areas of coverage. For each instructor, seeing where targets are missed and where results
are changing is very helpful, and that in turn has led to improvement in the results in most
sections over the past few years.
Assessment Data
Assessment in BLAW 431 began in Spring 2007, covering two of three sections and 229
of 254 students. Starting with Fall 2007, most sections of BLAW 431 have been assessed;
a few adjunct-taught sections have been missed. The results of the assessments are given
below:
E-22
Goal #1
(%)
Goal #2
(%)
Goal #3
(%)
Goal #4
(%)
Goal #5
(%)
Fall 2006
Exemplary
Acceptable
Unacceptable
27.4
37.2
35.4
27.4
47.4
25.2
36.1
34.7
29.2
76.6
18.7
4.7
34.4
43.7
21.9
Spring 2007
Exemplary
Acceptable
Unacceptable
30.0
49.0
21.0
35.0
47.0
18.0
64.0
28.0
8.0
67.0
29.0
4.0
43.0
42.0
15.0
Summer 2007
Exemplary
Acceptable
Unacceptable
19.5
48.8
31.7
29.3
39.0
31.7
41.5
43.9
14.6
78.1
17.1
4.8
34.2
63.4
24.4
Fall 2007
Exemplary
Acceptable
Unacceptable
54.9
34.3
10.8
39.0
40.8
20.2
79.8
12.5
77.3
68.1
26.2
55.7
42.5
40.8
16.7
Spring 2008
Exemplary
Acceptable
Unacceptable
48.4
35.1
16.4
37.1
37.5
25.4
60.2
24.1
15.7
36.5
30.4
11.1
36.5
45.1
18.4
Summer 2008
Exemplary
Acceptable
Unacceptable
68.3
25.0
6.7
30.0
40.0
30.0
55.0
36.7
8.3
35.0
31.7
33.3
66.6
26.7
6.7
Fall 2008
Exemplary
Acceptable
Unacceptable
49.0
33.7
17.3
17.8
33.7
48.5
42.8
39.4
17.8
37.0
46.1
16.9
59.6
28.9
11.5
Spring 2009
Exemplary
Acceptable
Unacceptable
32.0
43.7
24.3
36.9
32.4
30.7
36.9
30.6
32.4
45.9
37.4
16.7
56.8
26.1
17.1
E-23
Summer 2009
Exemplary
Acceptable
Unacceptable
73.9
26.1
0
60.9
17.4
21.7
52.2
43.5
4.3
43.5
34.8
21.7
56.5
26.1
17.4
Fall 2009
Exemplary
Acceptable
Unacceptable
55.7
34.7
9.6
43.3
44.2
12.5
42.3
42.3
15.4
49.0
37.5
13.5
43.7
37.5
18.8
Spring 2010
Exemplary
Acceptable
Unacceptable
56.4
37.7
5.9
40.7
53.8
5.5
60.2
33.4
6.4
49.6
44.9
5.5
47.0
36.9
16.1
Summer 2010
Exemplary
Acceptable
Unacceptable
73.8
21.4
4.8
73.8
26.2
0
50.0
38.1
11.9
59.5
35.7
4.8
47.6
42.9
9.5
Fall 2010
Exemplary
Acceptable
Unacceptable
61.2
34.3
4.5
62.2
33.8
4.0
54.2
32.3
13.5
68.1
22.9
9.0
54.7
34.8
10.5
Spring 2011
Exemplary
Acceptable
Unacceptable
58.7
33.3
8.0
41.8
41.3
16.9
41.8
34.9
23.3
48.1
32.3
19.6
47.1
40.2
12.7
Summer 2011
Exemplary
Acceptable
Unacceptable
18.5
51.7
29.6
11.1
29.6
59.3
40.8
33.3
25.9
48.1
33.3
18.6
40.8
48.1
11.1
Fall 2011
Exemplary
Acceptable
Unacceptable
60.9
33.1
6.0
57.4
29.0
13.6
50.3
39.0
10.7
45.0
40.2
14.8
48.5
37.9
13.6
Spring 2012
Exemplary
Acceptable
Unacceptable
44.2
46.9
8.9
37.4
44.1
18.5
33.5
46.9
19.6
50.3
31.8
17.9
37.4
34.1
28.5
E-24
Introduction to Production Management (DS 350): Assessment Methods and
Results
Information provided by Dr. Sue Abdinnour, lead instructor for DS 350. In addition to
Dr. Abdinnour, DS 350 is also taught by: Dr, Mehmet Barut, Associate Professor; Dr.
Farhad Tadayon, long-term adjunct; other adjuncts as needed.
The Decision Sciences faculty have specified three learning goals for DS 350:
1. Understand the terminology, concepts, and decision-making tools used in
operations.
2. Understand how operations interfaces with other major functions in business.
3. Appreciate the strategic importance of operations in a global environment.
Assessment Process
The assessment process in operations management is conducted in every course and
every semester. The instrument used (available upon request) was agreed upon by the
course instructors to match the three objectives. The first three questions reflect objective
1; the next three questions reflect objective 2; and the last three questions reflect
objective 3. For each learning objective, the following definitions were adopted:
Exemplary: all three questions are answered correctly
Acceptable: two questions are answered correctly
Unacceptable: no question or one question is answered correctly
This instrument has been used since spring 2007. No changes have been made to the
instrument since then.
Assessment Review Process
At the end of every year, the lead instructor collects the assessment data from the other
instructors and adjuncts and combines it into one spreadsheet. Discussions via email or in
person takes place to discuss possible improvements.
Changes in Curriculum
There were no changes to the course or curriculum as a result of the review process.
However, two things were noted. First, the results on objective 3 were usually higher than
objectives 1 and 2. This is probably because objective 3 is related to the material towards
the end of the semester and the students seem to retain that better. Second, there is
usually one course in the summer semester, and including that in the data may distort the
trend in the averages. The thought was to exclude the summer course.
There were changes to the process. Different instructors were doing the assessment in
various ways. It was suggested that all instructors should do the assessment as a required
exercise or quiz and not a voluntary activity, preferably on the last day/final day to boost
the number of students filling the assessment. Also, adjuncts were sent a template and
asked to do the assessment as well. Sometimes, this is hard to enforce when adjuncts are
hired for one semester.
E-25
Finally, in 2011 one section of operations management was taught fully online. This will
probably continue into the future. Given the nature of online (and the ability to access
resources freely), a different assessment may have to be devised for online courses. This
is currently under consideration.
Assessment Data
Assessment of DS 350 was implemented for Spring 2007 in two of four sections, and has
continued since then.
DS 350 RESULTS
OB1
OB2
OB3
Spring 07
Exemplary
Acceptable
Unacceptable
3 correct
2 correct
0-1 correct
10%
37%
53%
6%
52%
43%
33%
47%
21%
Exemplary
Acceptable
Unacceptable
3 correct
2 correct
0-1 correct
OB1
21%
40%
39%
OB2
27%
38%
36%
OB3
31%
46%
23%
Exemplary
Acceptable
Unacceptable
3 correct
2 correct
0-1 correct
OB1
21%
65%
14%
OB2
22%
49%
29%
OB3
48%
36%
16%
Exemplary
Acceptable
Unacceptable
3 correct
2 correct
0-1 correct
OB1
31%
46%
23%
OB2
18%
39%
43%
OB3
45%
36%
19%
Exemplary
Acceptable
Unacceptable
3 correct
2 correct
0-1 correct
OB1
19%
53%
28%
OB2
28%
52%
20%
OB3
53%
34%
13%
Exemplary
Acceptable
Unacceptable
3 correct
2 correct
0-1 correct
OB1
20%
25%
55%
OB2
27%
54%
20%
OB3
55%
38%
7%
3 correct
OB1
25%
OB2
14%
OB3
32%
Fall 07
Spring 08
Fall 08
Spring 09
Summer 09
Fall 09
Exemplary
E-26
Acceptable
Unacceptable
2 correct
0-1 correct
3 correct
2 correct
0-1 correct
31%
44%
OB1
24%
42%
34%
43%
43%
OB2
16%
40%
43%
47%
21%
OB3
49%
34%
17%
Exemplary
Acceptable
Unacceptable
Exemplary
Acceptable
Unacceptable
3 correct
2 correct
0-1 correct
OB1
19%
52%
29%
OB2
40%
38%
21%
OB3
63%
27%
10%
Exemplary
Acceptable
Unacceptable
3 correct
2 correct
0-1 correct
OB1
24%
42%
33%
OB2
20%
42%
38%
OB3
49%
40%
12%
Exemplary
Acceptable
Unacceptable
3 correct
2 correct
0-1 correct
OB1
9%
35%
55%
OB2
19%
40%
41%
OB3
29%
52%
18%
Exemplary
Acceptable
Unacceptable
3 correct
2 correct
0-1 correct
OB1
37%
47%
16%
OB2
34%
53%
13%
OB3
63%
35%
2%
Exemplary
Acceptable
Unacceptable
3 correct
2 correct
0-1 correct
OB1
34%
27%
38%
OB2
23%
49%
27%
OB3
51%
34%
16%
Exemplary
Acceptable
Unacceptable
3 correct
2 correct
0-1 correct
OB1
13%
44%
31%
OB2
16%
36%
37%
OB3
53%
29%
15%
Spring 10
Summer 10
Fall 10
Spring 11
Summer 11
Fall 11
Spring 12
The Entrepreneurial Experience (ENTR 310): Assessment Methods and Results
Information provided by Dr. Chris Broberg, lead instructor for ENTR 310, and Dr.
Gaylen Chandler, assessment coordinator for Entrepreneurship. In addition to Dr.
Broberg, ENTR 310 is taught by Ron Christy, Barton School Lecturer, and several
adjuncts, most of whom have been teaching for multiple years.
E-27
The Entrepreneurship faculty have identified six learning goals for ENTR 310 (number of
questions on assessment instrument in parentheses):
1. Students should understand basic entrepreneurial processes including
entrepreneurial motivation, creativity, innovation and competencies. (8 items)
2. Students should understand adding value for customers, target markets and
pricing strategies. (8 items)
3. Students should understand how to plan and implement entrepreneurial
undertakings, including feasibility analysis, business planning and due diligence.
(9 items)
4. Students should understand strategic thinking, the business environment including
the risk/reward scenario presented by entrepreneurial opportunities, and
understand their responsibilities to employees, investors, and other stakeholders
such as franchisors and franchisees. (8 items)
5. Students should understand basic financial statements, cash flow management,
and sources of venture financing. (8 items)
6. Students should understand the forces that influence entrepreneurship, the global
nature of business, including international markets, and technologies required to
compete in such markets. (9 items)
Assessment Process
The Entrepreneurship 310 course assessment is a 50 question assessment comprised of
multiple-choice and true/false questions. Assessment questions correspond to six learning
objectives that were developed by a committee of entrepreneurship faculty, and were
significantly revised in 2010 when a new textbook was adopted. The assessments are
given in selected sections every semester; in practice, some adjunct-taught sections have
been missed.
Assessment Review Process
At the end of each semester results from the assessment are tallied for each course section
and results are shared with each faculty member who teach entrepreneurship 310. The
entrepreneurship 310 faculty are then expected to develop an individual action plan on
areas and items that score low in their course sections. Items and areas that score low
generally are addressed by including greater emphasis on that area in subsequent
semesters and by implementing more experiential learning exercises related to a
particular low scoring area or item. Since we began tracking our student’s scores on our
entrepreneurship 310 assessment in the Fall of 2008, scores have improved over time.
Changes in Curriculum
Beyond the adoption of a next textbook for Fall 2010, most curriculum changes have
been implemented by individual faculty who discovered through the assessment process
that their students were weaker than others' on specific learning goals. The trend in
assessment results from 2008 through Spring2010 was upward; a new baseline for the
new textbook and assessment instrument starts in Fall 2010.
E-28
Assessment Data
Semester
Goal #1 Goal #2 Goal #3 Goal #4 Goal #5 Goal #5
Spring 2012
89%
89%
68%
80%
63%
79%
Fall 2011
92%
82%
83%
88%
70%
82%
Spring 2011
81%
90%
75%
82%
56%
82%
Fall 2010
91%
92%
94%
94%
67%
87%
Financial Management I (FIN 340): Assessment Methods and Results
Information provided by Peggy Ward, lead instructor for FIN 340 and Barton School
Lecturer, and Dr. Rodney Boehme, assessment coordinator for the FREDS department.
FIN 340 is also taught by Dr. Rick LeCompte, Associate Professor, and occasional
adjuncts.
The Finance faculty have specified three learning goals for FIN 340:
1. Understand time value of money calculations
2. Understand risk and return calculations
3. Understand capital budgeting decision rules
Assessment Process
These goals are assessed through common multiple-choice questions on the final exam
for each section of FIN 340. There are three common questions for each learning goal.
Established standards are: Exemplary - all three correct; Acceptable - two of three
correct; Unacceptable - zero or one correct.
Assessment Review Process
Results of assessments are forwarded to the FREDS assessment coordinator every
semester for organization. Full-time faculty periodically review assessment results and jointly
decide on needed curriculum changes. Results and changes are communicated to any adjunct
faculty teaching FIN 340.
Changes in Curriculum
Upon review of the assessments results each semester, we implemented quizzes in
addition to the three exams and one project in Managerial Finance I (Fin 340). We found
adding five required quizzes did not increase exam scores partially due to the fact that the
students' feedback on their results was delayed in part due to grading time constraints as
well as the pace of the course.
We also adjusted, on a individual instructor basis, the amount of time used to cover topics
based upon prior semester results of the students' grades and performance by assessment
measure. Yet we found that any given semester, students continued to struggle with the
same two objectives: Weighted Average Cost of Capital and Modified Internal Rate of
Return.
E-29
Upon review of the Finance curriculum for Finance Majors and Minors and assessment
of students' performance in upper level classes, we deemed that the current text book has
become 'dated' with regard to its approach to the teaching methods for Fin 340.
We also decided that it would be beneficial to use a text book that also incorporates a
homework system that would allow better support for adjuncts in Fin 340. Thus, we are
adopting a text book that uses an online system where one person can build the content of
a course's homework and share it with others who will be teaching the class. It also
allows for many more options when assigning the content of homework problems, the
numbers of homework problems that can be assigned to allow the students more practice
on each topic, the possibility of computer graded homework and quizzes, and even
tutorials for each homework problem assigned.
This text book will also be available electronically for students who don't want to
purchase a hard copy of the text book. The publisher will be able to set up an ISBN
number for our students that will allow them to only purchase the chapters we will be
using, thus saving the students money which should reduce the number of students
showing up with outdated versions of the text book or other versions of the same authors'
text books.
Assessment Data
Spring 2007
Fall 2007
Spring 2008
Summer 2008
Fall 2008
Spring 2009
Fall 2009
Spring 2010
Fall 2010
Spring 2011
Fall 2011
Spring 2012
Objective 1 (Time Value of Money)
Exemplary
Acceptable
Unacceptable
36.2%
48.9%
14.8%
42.8%
38.7%
18.5%
45.5%
37.9%
16.7%
28.6%
51.2%
20.2%
60.1%
26.0%
13.9%
59.4%
30.1%
10.5%
60.3%
27.6%
12.2%
58.2%
23.4%
18.4%
35.6%
43.9%
20.6%
30.2%
39.7%
30.2%
55.7%
24.6%
19.7%
68.0%
22.7%
9.3%
Objective 2 (Cost of capital and equity valuation)
Exemplary
Acceptable
Unacceptable
Spring 2007
58.5%
28.4%
13.1%
Fall 2007
56.4%
28.5%
15.1%
Spring 2008
38.3%
33.7%
28.1%
Summer 2008
42.9%
39.3%
17.9%
Fall 2008
59.9%
25.0%
15.1%
Spring 2009
56.5%
29.3%
14.3%
Fall 2009
59.6%
23.8%
16.6%
Spring 2010
56.9%
32.7%
10.5%
E-30
Fall 2010
Spring 2011
Fall 2011
Spring 2012
Spring 2007
Fall 2007
Spring 2008
Summer 2008
Fall 2008
Spring 2009
Fall 2009
Spring 2010
Fall 2010
Spring 2011
Fall 2011
Spring 2012
53.0%
47.0%
54.7%
65.3%
29.3%
33.3%
28.6%
23.4%
17.7%
19.7%
16.7%
11.4%
Objective 3 (Capital Budgeting decision tools)
Exemplary
Acceptable
Unacceptable
49.3%
37.6%
13.1%
46.2%
36.7%
17.2%
49.0%
34.2%
16.8%
44.6%
54.2%
1.2%
64.7%
30.0%
5.3%
57.7%
34.2%
8.1%
70.7%
19.7%
9.5%
54.7%
39.3%
6.0%
41.9%
46.9%
11.2%
53.4%
37.1%
9.5%
53.3%
39.1%
7.6%
67.5%
23.9%
8.6%
International Business (IB 333): Assessment Methods and Results
Information provided by Dr. Masud Chand, Assistant Professor and lead instructor for IB
333, and Dr. John Perry, assessment coordinator for the Management department. IB 333
is also taught by: Dr. Dharma deSilva, Professor; Dr. Clyde Stoltenberg, Professor; Kate
Kung-McIntyre, Barton School Lecturer and Assistant Dean; Brian Rawson, Barton
School Lecturer.
The learning goals for IB 333 are:
1. Demonstrate knowledge of the dynamics of globalization and resulting issues for
international business
2. Understand basic elements of culture, political economy, and ethical issues as
they impact international business
3. Demonstrate knowledge of international trade theories and practices
4. Demonstrate knowledge of international monetary system and foreign exchange
process
5. Demonstrate knowledge of mode of entry into foreign markets
6. Knowledge of corporate governance, ethics and social responsibility in the
conduct of international business (added 2011)
Assessment Process
The IB 333 assessment consists of 20 multiple choice questions, divided across 6 learning
goals. The questions are created by a committee that consists of all IB 333 instructors,
and are reviewed every year by the committee. The assessment is given at the end of the
semester as a separate section of the final in all sections of IB 333. Results of the
assessment are sent to the Management Department assessment coordinator to be
E-31
organized, and are returned to the IB 333 faculty for consideration. Assessments began in
Spring 2009 and continued through Summer 2010.
Assessment Review Process
The results of the assessments are discussed every semester by the instructors among
themselves, and helps focus their efforts in the course to where the students show a need
for improvement. It also enables us to examine the questions in the light of poor
responses and/or revise the questions to meet the learning objectives.
Changes in Curriculum
Examples of changes made because of the assessment include frequent updating of issues
around the global challenges facing the U.S. economy, inclusion of contemporary ethical
dilemmas in international business, the global impact of currency fluctuations, and
frequent tests and quizzes to help students get detailed and rapid feedback about their
performance in class, and possibilities for improvement. It also helps in curriculum and
syllabus updates, enhanced lecture notes made available on Blackboard after class
meetings and updating course materials to clarify and support objectives and learning
outcomes.
Assessment Data
Spring 09 – 73 students
Objectives
1. Knowledge of the dynamics of
globalization and resulting issues for
international business
2. Understand basic elements of culture,
political economy and ethical issues as
they impact international business
3. Knowledge of international trade
theories and practices.
4. Knowledge of international monetary
system and foreign exchange process.
5. Knowledge of mode of entry into
foreign markets.
Fall 09 – 69 students
Objectives
1. Knowledge of the dynamics of
globalization and resulting issues for
international business
2. Understand basic elements of culture,
political economy and ethical issues as
they impact international business
3. Knowledge of international trade
Outstanding
Acceptable
Unacceptable
39.73%
50.68%
9.59%
32.88%
65.75%
1.37%
52.05%
42.47%
5.48%
27.40%
35.62%
36.99%
69.86%
16.44%
13.70%
Outstanding
Acceptable
Unacceptable
24.64%
53.62%
21.74%
30.43%
66.67%
2.90%
42.03%
40.58%
17.39%
E-32
theories and practices.
4. Knowledge of international monetary
system and foreign exchange process.
5. Knowledge of mode of entry into
foreign markets.
Spring 10 – 237 students
Objectives
1. Knowledge of the dynamics of
globalization and resulting issues for
international business
2. Understand basic elements of culture,
political economy and ethical issues as
they impact international business
3. Knowledge of international trade
theories and practices.
4. Knowledge of international monetary
system and foreign exchange process.
5. Knowledge of mode of entry into
foreign markets.
Summer 10 - 36 students
Objectives
1. Knowledge of the dynamics of
globalization and resulting issues for
international business
2. Understand basic elements of culture,
political economy and ethical issues as
they impact international business
3. Knowledge of international trade
theories and practices.
4. Knowledge of international monetary
system and foreign exchange process.
5. Knowledge of mode of entry into
foreign markets.
7.25%
52.17%
40.58%
68.12%
17.39%
14.49%
Outstanding
Acceptable
Unacceptable
44.30%
42.19%
13.50%
35.86%
61.60%
2.53%
36.29%
37.13%
26.58%
17.72%
49.37%
32.91%
52.74%
29.54%
17.72%
Outstanding
Acceptable
Unacceptable
61.11%
30.56%
8.33%
41.67%
58.33%
0.00%
27.78%
50.00%
22.22%
22.22%
33.33%
41.67%
66.67%
22.22%
11.11%
Management and Organizational Behavior (MGMT 360): Assessment Methods and
Results
Information provided by Bobbie Knoblauch, Barton School Lecturer and assessment
coordinator for MGMT 360. MGMT 360 is also taught by Brian Rawson, Barton School
Lecturer, and by several adjuncts.
The faculty who teach MGMT 360 have specified five learning goals for MGMT 360:
E-33
1. Demonstrate an understanding of the skills and functions required of a manager
such as leadership, motivational technique, and individual behavior.
2. Recognize the implication today’s business environment (globalization,
workplace diversity, and ethical issues) creates for managers.
3. Understand and explain group dynamics and team issues and be able to apply
those to effective management policies.
4. Understand the communication process to effectively communicate in a variety of
modes in the organization.
5. Understand basic human resource principles that affect management positions.
Assessment Process
The assessment instrument is a twenty-question multiple-choice test given in all sections
of MGMT 360 near the end of the semester. The Management department assessment
coordinator receives the results, organizes them, and distributes them to the faculty
teaching MGMT 360. These faculty meet periodically to review the results and determine
whether curriculum improvements are needed.
Assessment Review Process
The MGMT 360 faculty meet periodically to review the results and determine whether
curriculum improvements are needed. The MGMT 360 faculty have defined Exemplary
performance for each goal as all four questions correct, Acceptable performance as two
or three correct, and Unacceptable as zero or one correct. Target levels are set at: 20% or
more Exemplary and 10% or less Unacceptable.
Changes in Curriculum
Review of the first several years' results found that although students were doing well on
most learning goals, there was a weakness in student performance on the human resource
management learning goal. A new textbook with more content on human resource
management was adopted by all instructors. Subsequent review of assessment results
showed a substantial improvement in student performance on the human resource
management goal. Performance on all learning goals is now judged to be satisfactory.
Assessment Data
Assessment data for MGMT 360 from Fall 2008 (beginning of assessments) through Fall
2009 are below, along with Summer and Fall 2011; assessments for Spring and Summer
2012 have not yet been processed.
Fall 2011
Goal 1
Goal 2
Goal 3
Goal 4
Goal 5
Exemplary
36%
13%
11%
25%
23%
Acceptable Unacceptable
62%
79%
77%
65%
65%
2%
8%
12%
11%
12%
E-34
Summer
2011
Goal 1
Goal 2
Goal 3
Goal 4
Goal 5
Exemplary
50%
21%
29%
43%
71%
Acceptable Unacceptable
50%
0%
79%
0%
57%
14%
50%
7%
29%
0%
Spring 2010
Goal 1
Goal 2
Goal 3
Goal 4
Goal 5
Exemplary
35%
20%
5%
10%
17%
Acceptable Unacceptable
62%
3%
70%
10%
83%
12%
70%
19%
77%
5%
Fall 2009
Goal 1
Goal 2
Goal 3
Goal 4
Goal 5
Exemplary
52%
14%
17%
38%
22%
Acceptable Unacceptable
48%
0%
80%
7%
78%
5%
53%
9%
70%
8%
Summer
2009
Goal 1
Goal 2
Goal 3
Goal 4
Goal 5
Exemplary
51%
28%
62%
59%
15%
Acceptable Unacceptable
49%
0%
67%
5%
38%
0%
41%
0%
64%
21%
Spring 2009
Goal 1
Goal 2
Goal 3
Goal 4
Goal 5
Exemplary
43%
29%
38%
28%
34%
Acceptable Unacceptable
55%
2%
64%
7%
57%
5%
61%
11%
59%
7%
E-35
Fall 2008
Goal 1
Goal 2
Goal 3
Goal 4
Goal 5
Exemplary
31%
6%
9%
34%
11%
Acceptable Unacceptable
60%
9%
66%
29%
74%
17%
51%
14%
66%
23%
Management Information Systems (MIS 395): Assessment Methods and Results
Information provided by Achita (Mi) Muthitacharoen, Associate Professor and
assessment coordinator for MIS. Other faculty teaching MIS 395 (formerly 495) are Dr.
Khawaja Saeed, Associate Professor; David Xu, Assistant Professor; Steven Helm,
Barton School Lecturer; and Michael Mayta, long-time adjunct and CIO for the city of
Wichita.
The MIS faculty have specified three learning goals for MIS 395:
1. Demonstrate knowledge of basic and advanced MIS concepts and terminology.
2. Apply selected technologies to different business functions.
3. Discuss knowledgably the management of information technology and systems in
an organization.
Assessment Process
To assess students’ learning experience, each assessment goal is measured by a set of
true/false questions. If a student answers 80% of questions or more correctly, they will be
given an “exemplary” score. If they answer 70% of question or more but less than 80%,
they will be given an “acceptable” score. Anything less than 70% is considered
“unacceptable”. The assessment questions are generally given to the students at the end
of each semester.
Assessment Review Process
The MIS faculty review the results at least once a year. The results were later used to
revise the course and assessment tool. They were also used to choose a new textbook for
the course.
Assessment Data
The following table shows the percent of students that fell into the categories of
excellent, acceptable, and unacceptable for each goal. Each row in the table represents
the results for a school year. Combining sections into school years helps to smooth
fluctuations that result from one section having a more studious group of students than
another. School year was selected over calendar year because almost all MIS 395
changes occur at the beginning of the school year.
E-36
Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3
50.7% 46.9% 58.3%
33.0%
0.0%
0.0%
16.3% 53.1% 41.7%
2007-2008
Excellent
Acceptable
Unacceptable
2008-2009
Excellent
Acceptable
Unacceptable
54.0%
28.8%
17.2%
32.5%
66.6%
0.9%
60.4%
25.7%
13.9%
2009-2010
Excellent
Acceptable
Unacceptable
55.1%
31.0%
13.9%
34.8%
65.2%
0.0%
69.7%
19.1%
11.2%
2010-2011
Excellent
Acceptable
Unacceptable
59.0%
30.0%
11.0%
34.8%
65.2%
0.0%
67.6%
23.8%
8.6%
2011-2012
Excellent
Acceptable
Unacceptable
55.5%
30.9%
13.7%
40.2%
59.4%
0.4%
54.7%
26.6%
18.8%
Changes in Curriculum
Several changes were made to the course and assessment process of the course. For
instance, the assessment questions were revised so that each level of measurement
(exemplary, acceptable, and unacceptable) can be achieved. Initially, learning goals #2
and #3 have only 3 questions each, preventing the students from receiving exemplary
score unless they answer all the questions correctly. We therefore added more questions
to these learning goals. In addition, a new textbook was adopted in 2008 to incorporate
current and temporary topics for the course. In 2012, we started offering some sections of
MIS 395 as online course to improve accessibility of the course to our students.
Comparing school year 2007-2008 to school year 2008-2009
In the fall 2008 semester, a new project was assigned. It required students to study the
role of information systems in a current topic. The class number was changed from 495
to 395, as the course became a core business class that emphasizes the role of information
systems and information technology in the business environment. The following table
shows the difference between the percentages. Goal 1 improved a little. Goal 2 showed
movement to the middle, which included a big improvement for those scoring in the
unacceptable category. Goal 3 also showed improvement.
Excellent
Acceptable
Unacceptable
Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3
3.3% -14.4%
2.0%
-4.2% 66.6% 25.7%
0.0% -52.2% -27.7%
E-37
Comparing school year 2008-2009 to school year 2009-2010
In the fall 2009 semester, two changes were made. First a new edition of the textbook
was accepted. And second, a new project was assigned that required students to design a
detailed IT/IS solution for a fictional company. This project required students to use the
class material in an applied manner.
The changes resulted in an improvement for every goal.
Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3
Excellent
1.1%
2.3%
9.3%
Acceptable
2.1%
-1.4%
-6.6%
Unacceptable
-3.2%
-0.9%
-2.8%
Comparing school year 2009-2010 to school year 2010-2011
In the fall 2010 semester, the only change that could have had potential impact was
related to the project added the previous year. Students were allowed to design an IT/IS
solution for any type of company.
As expected, this small change resulted in very little change. While the Assessment
changes were small, they showed an improvement in Goal 1, negligible change in Goal 2,
and a small movement to the middle in Goal 3.
Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3
Excellent
3.9%
-0.1%
-2.1%
Acceptable
-1.0%
0.1%
4.7%
Unacceptable
-3.0%
0.0%
-2.6%
Comparing school year 2010-2011 to school year 2011-2012
In the fall 2011 semester, the one change expected to have any impact upon assessments
was the adoption of a new edition of the textbook. In the spring 2012 semester, two of
the three MIS 395 sections became online.
The online sections pulled down the assessment. Part of this may be due to the time
limit on the assessment. Goal 1 results declined a little. Goal 2 improved. Goal 3
declined by a larger amount. This was the first time that MIS 395 has been taught as an
online course, so some fluctuations to the assessment results are not unexpected.
Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3
Excellent
-3.6%
5.5% -12.9%
Acceptable
0.9%
-5.9%
2.8%
Unacceptable
2.7%
0.4% 10.2%
When 2007-2008 (the first year) is compared to 2011-2012, improvement gains are
shown in two goals, and the Goal 3 decrease is lessened.
Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3
Excellent
1.5%
7.7%
-5.7%
Acceptable
2.0%
-7.2%
0.9%
Unacceptable
-3.5%
-0.5%
4.8%
E-38
Marketing (MKT 300): Assessment Methods and Results
Information provided by Dr. Dean Headley, assessment coordinator for Marketing. MKT
300 is taught by: Dr. Robert Ross, Associate Professor; Dr. Roberta McKee, Barton
School Senior Lecturer, Dorothy Harpool, Barton School Lecturer, and Esther Headley,
Barton School Lecturer.
The Marketing faculty identified three learning goals for MKT 300:
1. Develop an understanding of basic marketing theories and processes dealing with
consumer decision processes including development, pricing, distribution, and
promotion of goods and services.
2. Develop an understanding of the role that marketing plays in the management of
global organizations and of the basic marketing processes that take place in
organizations both domestically and internationally.
3. Recognize the ethical ramifications of marketing decision making in a global
context and understand the responsibilities that marketing decision makers have
regarding the best interests of both domestic and global societies.
Assessment Process
The Marketing faculty have developed a fifty-question multiple-choice instrument for
evaluating these learning goals. For assessment of MKT 300, the assessment is given at
the end of the semester in each section of MKT 300. The Marketing department also uses
this assessment instrument to assess the Marketing major, giving the test in MKT 609, the
capstone marketing class.
The Marketing department adopted targets regarding acceptable and exemplary
performance on the instrument as:
 Exemplary performance = 80% correct
 Acceptable performance = 60% correct
In addition, the Department expects:
 30% of the business students to be in the Exemplary range (80+% score);
 60% to be in the Acceptable range (60+% score);
 No more than 10% to be in the Unacceptable range (less than 60% score).
Assessment Review Process
The Marketing department faculty monitors results for each trial/class to identify areas of
marketing knowledge where students consistently seem to score poorly. By monitoring
each item on the instrument, consistent poor scores on an item will emerge across
successive trials. Each item can be traced back to the marketing knowledge area it
addresses.
E-39
Changes in Curriculum
The areas and items with consistent low percentage of correct responses by students are
attached. The six areas of marketing knowledge that have more often missed by students
are being specifically emphasized by faculty. We will continue to monitor theses and all
other areas of marketing knowledge measured to best insure that the instrument is fair
and useful.
Assessment Data
Semester
N
Exemplary
Acceptable
Unacceptable
Spring 2012
192
53%
40%
7%
Fall 2011
160
41%
54%
6%
Spring 2011
128
52%
46%
2%
Fall 2010
260
41%
55%
4%
Spring 2010
188
43%
49%
7%
Fall 2090
265
44%
49%
6%
Spring 2009
172
59%
36%
5%
Fall 2008
308
44%
52%
4%
Spring 2008
266
33%
55%
12%
Fall 2007
277
27%
58%
15%
Assessment Information BBA Learning Goal #2:
ORAL AND WRITTEN COMMUNICATION
Even before the start of formal assessments, Barton School faculty and employers of our
undergraduates identified communication skills as an area where many of our
undergraduate students need improvement. The Assessment Committee and the Barton
School faculty have committed to an extensive assessment process for both oral and
written communication: every time a Barton School student turns in a significant writing
assignment, or makes an oral presentation, that assignment should be assessed using a
standardized rubric at the same time the assignment is graded (team assignments are
excluded from written communication assessment). The oral and written communication
rubrics developed by the Barton School are above. A major benefit of having multiple
assessments of individual students is to allow identification of students whose
E-40
communication skills need improvement before they graduate, giving us time to provide
remedial assistance.
The Barton School has acquired the STEPS (Student Tracking, Evaluation and Portfolio
System) database program created by the California State University - Chico business
school to manage communication assessment results. STEPS gives faculty an easy, webbased way to enter assessment data while they are grading. Pilot-testing of STEPS at
WSU and the original Barton School rubrics began in Fall 2006. Based on faculty
feedback from the pilot testing, the rubrics were revised for Spring 2007 and full
implementation began of the communication assessment process. It was found that most
oral presentations were on team projects rather than completely individual work; the oral
communication rubric was revised in Spring 2008 to allow for assessing only
presentation skills rather than including organizational and preparation skills when team
projects are being presented.
The results of the oral communication assessment are below, organized by trait and
academic year (summer/fall/spring). The number of students differs substantially among
some traits: Organization is assessed only for individual presentations, and not all
presentations used media or involved audience participation.
Oral Communication Results
TRAIT: Organization
(not for group
presentations)
AY 08 - 09
AY 11 - 12
N students
TRAIT: Preparation (not
for group presentations)
N students
AY 08 - 09
AY 11 - 12
TRAIT: Verbal Skills
AY 08 - 09
AY 11 - 12
TRAIT: Nonverbal
Skills
AY 08 - 09
AY 11 - 12
327
196
528
595
N students
535
594
N students
444
590
Unacceptable /
Needs
Improvement
18%
6%
Acceptable
Exemplary
70%
46%
12%
48%
Unacceptable /
Needs
Improvement
17%
7%
Acceptable
Exemplary
67%
50%
16%
43%
Unacceptable /
Needs
Improvement
9%
11%
Acceptable
Exemplary
78%
56%
13%
33%
Unacceptable /
Needs
Improvement
9%
11%
Acceptable
Exemplary
13%
33%
7%
28%
E-41
TRAIT: Use of media
(if used)
AY 08 - 09
AY 11 - 12
TRAIT: Audience
Interaction (if used)
AY 08 - 09
AY 11 - 12
N students
507
592
N students
394
405
Unacceptable /
Needs
Improvement
5%
7%
Acceptable
Exemplary
90%
58%
6%
35%
Unacceptable /
Needs
Improvement
15%
14%
Acceptable
Exemplary
73%
48%
11%
39%
The results of the writing assessment are below, organized by trait and academic year
(summer/fall/spring):
Written Communication Results
TRAIT: Logic and
Organization
AY 07 - 08
AY 08 - 09
AY 10 - 11
AY 11 - 12
TRAIT: Use of
Language
AY 07 - 08
AY 08 - 09
AY 10 - 11
AY 11 - 12
TRAIT: Spelling and
Grammar
AY 07 - 08
AY 08 - 09
AY 10 - 11
AY 11 - 12
N students
1063
426
47
893
N students
1063
426
47
887
N students
1065
426
47
886
Unacceptable
/ Needs
Improvement
18%
12%
21%
19%
Acceptable
Exemplary
49%
67%
62%
57%
33%
21%
17%
24%
Unacceptable
/ Needs
Improvement
18%
12%
15%
16%
Acceptable
Exemplary
66%
80%
64%
62%
16%
8%
21%
22%
Unacceptable
/ Needs
Improvement
17%
9%
6%
13%
Acceptable
Exemplary
67%
80%
77%
65%
16%
11%
17%
23%
E-42
TRAIT: Logic and
Organization
AY 07 - 08
AY 08 - 09
AY 10 - 11
AY 11 - 12
N students
1064
426
47
888
Unacceptable
/ Needs
Improvement
15%
14%
4%
17%
Acceptable
Exemplary
16%
11%
17%
23%
18%
16%
15%
22%
Based on the assessment results to date, on employer feedback, and on benchmarking the
Barton School’s curriculum against peer and competitive business schools, the faculty
approved creating a new, required class in Business Communication (BADM 201), to be
taught primarily by the Elliott School of Communication. To date, funding has not been
available to implement this class.
Assessment Information BBA Learning Goal #3:
ANALYTICAL THINKING
Assessing Barton School students on their attainment of clear analytical and reflective
thinking abilities is done within the capstone course, Strategic Management (MGMT
681). Students in MGMT 681 take the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal, a
nationally-normed instrument developed by The Psychological Corporation.
Recommended by the Human Resources Management faculty, the Watson-Glaser
consists of five sections with 16 questions each, covering inference, recognition of
assumptions, deduction, interpretation, and evaluation of arguments. The Barton School
has long used the Watson-Glaser as part of its evaluation of candidates for the Clay
Barton Scholarship, its largest scholarship.
After pilot-testing in Spring 2006 and discussion of the pilot test results with the
Assessment Committee and the faculty who teach the Strategic Management course
during Fall 2006, the Barton School began giving the Watson-Glaser in all sections of
Strategic Management starting Spring 2007; test administration was overseen by WSU’s
Counseling and Testing Center. To provide motivation for doing as well as possible,
students receive variable amounts of points toward their class grade depending on how
well they did relative to the norming sample of college seniors. The current plan is to
give the test in all sections of Strategic Management for the next several years.
One of the national norming samples for the Watson-Glaser was a large group of college
seniors from a variety of institutions. Initial criteria were that Exemplary performance is
at or above the 75th percentile of the norming sample (65 out of 80 questions correct),
Acceptable is between the 25th and 74th percentiles (52 to 64 correct), and Unacceptable
is below the 25th percentile (51 or fewer correct out of 80). The results from the Spring
E-43
2007 through Summer 2012 are given below, grouped by Academic Year
(Summer/Fall/Spring):
Exemplary %
Acceptable %
Unacceptable %
Median score
(out of 80)
AY12
27%
45%
28%
AY11
25%
43%
32%
AY10
25%
44%
31%
AY09
21%
44%
35%
AY08
18%
44%
38%
58
57
58
57
56
Although the trend shows modest improvement over time, these results are evaluated as
needing further improvement. The Barton School has made Philosophy 125. Introduction
to Logic, a requirement of all BBA students, starting in Fall 2011. A Critical Thinking
Task Force was also appointed in Fall 2011 to examine ways in which faculty can
implement critical thinking practice into their classes; the Task Force will report in
Spring 2013. One suggestion of the Task Force has already been implemented: students
in BADM 101 and 301, the introduction to the business school courses taken by students
in their first semester in the Barton School, is giving the Watson-Glaser to incoming
students, so that over the next several years it will be possible to track improvements in
student performance on the different parts of Watson-Glaser, providing useful
information on what aspects of critical thinking need additional improvement.
Assessment Information BBA Learning Goal #4:
ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING
As described in Section 5 in the body of the report, a new assessment of ethical decisionmaking was pilot-tested in two MGMT 681 sections in Fall 2012. Sixty-four students
took the assessment, with a small amount of credit toward the course grade being given
based on scores. During Spring 2013 the assessment instrument will be reviewed and
improved if needed, and standards for Exemplary and Acceptable performance will be
set. By the time students who have taken the new Business Ethics class begin to enroll in
MGMT 681, a baseline will have been established to allow tracking of improvements.
The results of the pilot test are below; a copy of the assessment instrument is available if
requested.
E-44
Score Number of students Percentage of students
1-4
4
6%
5-8
15
23%
9 - 12
28
44%
13 - 16
15
23%
17-18
2
3%
The median scores was 52% correct. The reliability score (Kronbach's alpha) was .66,
indicating some improvement in the instrument is needed.
Assessment Information BBA Learning Goal #5:
TEAMWORK
In Fall 2007, the Barton School adopted the use of a common peer evaluation form for
students involved in team projects to use in evaluating their teammates; the form was
developed and used extensively by a Barton School faculty member. Students are asked
to evaluate their teammates on seven dimensions or traits:







Organizational ability
Cooperativeness
Originality or creativity of ideas contributed
Functional contribution - analysis and recommendations
Dependability
Quantity of work contributed
Quality of work contributed
Students evaluate their teammates on a four-point scale: Unacceptable, Needs
Improvement, Acceptable, Outstanding. A rubric has been developed to help students
make their evaluations and is embedded in the assessment instrument (a “quiz” given
through Blackboard); the rubric is item 4 in this appendix above. The Barton School
faculty approved the rubric in Spring 2008. Below is a table giving teamwork assessment
results since Fall 2008.
E-45
Average Teamwork Score
Scale: 4 = Exemplary, 1 = Unacceptable
4.00
3.90
3.80
3.70
3.60
3.50
3.40
SP08 SU08 FL08 SP09 SU09 FL09 SP10 SU10 FL10 SP11 SU11 FL11 SP12 SU12
E-46
Semester
SU12
N
classes
1
SP12
13
FL11
10
SU11
2
SP11
15
FL10
4
SU10
1
SP10
5
Overall
average
Exemplary
Acceptable
Unacceptable
Exemplary
Acceptable
Unacceptable
Exemplary
Acceptable
Unacceptable
Exemplary
Acceptable
Unacceptable
Exemplary
Acceptable
Unacceptable
Exemplary
Acceptable
Unacceptable
Exemplary
Acceptable
Unacceptable
Exemplary
Acceptable
Unacceptable
Organizational
Ability
85.5%
10.1%
4.3%
69.4%
25.5%
5.1%
78.1%
19.3%
2.6%
74.1%
25.9%
0.0%
73.8%
20.9%
5.3%
72.7%
18.2%
9.1%
73.0%
24.9%
2.1%
68.7%
27.8%
3.4%
Cooperativeness
78.3%
21.7%
0.0%
79.5%
16.8%
3.7%
82.0%
14.8%
3.2%
77.8%
22.2%
0.0%
79.7%
16.0%
4.4%
69.6%
17.4%
13.0%
82.9%
15.1%
2.1%
72.6%
23.6%
3.8%
E-47
Originality
&
Analytical
Creativity Contribution Dependability
70.0%
76.5%
84.1%
22.9%
20.6%
10.1%
7.1%
2.9%
5.8%
67.8%
72.2%
76.0%
25.7%
22.4%
19.3%
6.5%
5.4%
4.7%
72.9%
74.5%
85.9%
22.6%
20.7%
10.0%
4.5%
4.8%
4.1%
69.8%
68.5%
50.0%
30.2%
29.6%
45.5%
0.0%
1.9%
4.5%
68.7%
71.6%
76.3%
26.6%
23.7%
18.9%
4.7%
4.7%
4.8%
59.1%
72.7%
90.9%
40.9%
22.7%
9.1%
0.0%
4.5%
0.0%
74.0%
70.3%
83.3%
23.9%
27.1%
13.8%
2.1%
2.6%
2.9%
69.6%
72.2%
82.0%
24.6%
23.4%
12.0%
5.8%
4.5%
6.0%
Work
Quantity
85.5%
11.6%
2.9%
68.4%
28.2%
3.3%
76.7%
20.1%
3.2%
47.7%
50.0%
2.3%
67.1%
28.6%
4.3%
79.2%
16.7%
4.2%
71.2%
24.4%
4.4%
77.9%
13.8%
8.3%
Work
Quality
87.0%
10.1%
2.9%
74.0%
22.7%
3.3%
76.4%
19.4%
4.2%
47.7%
50.0%
2.3%
67.2%
29.4%
3.5%
79.2%
16.7%
4.2%
83.2%
15.0%
1.8%
78.0%
18.2%
3.8%
FL09
7
SU09
2
SP09
5
FL08
5
SU08
1
SP08
2
Exemplary
Acceptable
Unacceptable
Exemplary
Acceptable
Unacceptable
Exemplary
Acceptable
Unacceptable
Exemplary
Acceptable
Unacceptable
Exemplary
Acceptable
Unacceptable
Exemplary
Acceptable
Unacceptable
72.1%
23.8%
4.1%
90.8%
8.5%
0.8%
69.8%
27.1%
3.2%
82.6%
13.6%
3.8%
71.4%
28.6%
0.0%
78.1%
20.4%
1.5%
80.2%
16.9%
3.0%
94.6%
4.9%
0.5%
74.7%
21.4%
3.9%
86.1%
10.0%
3.9%
85.7%
14.3%
0.0%
83.8%
13.2%
3.0%
68.1%
28.1%
3.8%
91.1%
8.2%
0.8%
68.0%
26.5%
5.6%
79.2%
16.5%
4.4%
66.7%
33.3%
0.0%
75.9%
23.1%
1.0%
71.1%
24.3%
4.6%
89.5%
10.3%
0.3%
70.7%
24.4%
4.9%
80.7%
16.2%
3.1%
61.9%
38.1%
0.0%
77.7%
20.3%
2.0%
These results are acceptable. No school-wide actions have been taken to improve teamwork skills.
E-48
81.6%
14.0%
4.5%
95.4%
3.9%
0.8%
82.1%
12.9%
5.0%
86.7%
11.0%
2.3%
90.5%
9.5%
0.0%
87.2%
8.2%
4.6%
77.9%
17.8%
4.3%
93.3%
5.7%
1.0%
77.0%
15.9%
7.1%
80.5%
15.9%
3.6%
66.7%
28.6%
4.8%
86.7%
8.7%
4.6%
78.6%
18.9%
2.5%
92.5%
6.7%
0.8%
77.3%
18.5%
4.1%
85.2%
10.4%
4.4%
61.9%
38.1%
0.0%
84.3%
10.6%
5.1%
Assessment Information: MBA
MBA Learning Goals, Assessment Methods, and Findings
Information provided by Angela Jones, Director of the MBA program.
The MBA faculty, the Graduate Programs Office, and the Graduate Program Committee have
specified five learning goals for the MBA program:
6. Demonstrate skills in effective communication and teamwork
7. Demonstrate skills in use and management of technology
8. Demonstrate skills in effective management and leadership skills
9. Demonstrate skills in critical thinking and problem solving
10. Be exposed to and given assistance in understanding ethical business practices and the
concept of social responsibility.
These learning goals began to be assessed annually during the 2004-2005 academic year. During
the last five years, changes in personnel led to most assessments being missed. A new recordkeeping and faculty reminder process is being put into place starting Spring 2013.
MBA Learning Goal 1: Effective Communication and Teamwork
This learning goal is evaluated by the instructor in the MBA capstone course MGMT 885,
Advanced Strategic Management, based on students’ overall performance.
The faculty teaching MGMT 885 identified seven traits of teamwork to be assessed:







Organizational Ability
Cooperativeness
Originality or Creativity
Analytical Contribution
Dependability
Work quantity contribution
Work quality contribution
Data below show the assessments of student teamwork performance for Fall 2008 through
Spring 2012, listed by trait.
E-34
Organizational
Ability
Spring 2012
Fall 2011
Spring 2011
Fall 2010
Spring 2010
Fall 2009
Spring 2009
Fall 2008
N
Exemplary Acceptable Unacceptable
54
54
54
61
86
70
61
45
Cooperativeness
Spring 2012
Fall 2011
Spring 2011
Fall 2010
Spring 2010
Fall 2009
Spring 2009
Fall 2008
Originality or
Creativity
Spring 2012
Fall 2011
Spring 2011
Fall 2010
Spring 2010
Fall 2009
Spring 2009
Fall 2008
N
Analytical
Contribution
Spring 2012
Fall 2011
Spring 2011
Fall 2010
Spring 2010
Fall 2009
Spring 2009
Fall 2008
N
54
54
54
61
86
70
61
45
54
54
54
61
86
70
61
45
52%
56%
63%
79%
76%
79%
49%
84%
N
39%
35%
33%
20%
22%
21%
44%
16%
9%
9%
4%
2%
2%
0%
7%
0%
Exemplary Acceptable Unacceptable
54
54
54
61
86
70
61
45
72%
93%
80%
92%
84%
79%
61%
100%
20%
7%
19%
7%
13%
21%
34%
0%
7%
0%
2%
2%
3%
0%
5%
0%
Exemplary Acceptable Unacceptable
39%
76%
44%
72%
62%
54%
26%
71%
56%
24%
48%
23%
31%
44%
57%
24%
6%
0%
7%
5%
7%
1%
16%
4%
Exemplary Acceptable Unacceptable
54%
76%
59%
69%
63%
79%
48%
82%
35%
24%
37%
28%
29%
20%
43%
16%
11%
0%
4%
3%
8%
1%
10%
2%
E-35
Dependability
Spring 2012
Fall 2011
Spring 2011
Fall 2010
Spring 2010
Fall 2009
Spring 2009
Fall 2008
N
Work quantity
contribution
Spring 2012
Fall 2011
Spring 2011
Fall 2010
Spring 2010
Fall 2009
Spring 2009
Fall 2008
N
Work quality
contribution
Spring 2012
Fall 2011
Spring 2011
Fall 2010
Spring 2010
Fall 2009
Spring 2009
Fall 2008
54
54
54
61
86
70
61
45
54
54
54
61
86
70
61
45
N
54
54
54
61
86
70
61
45
Exemplary Acceptable Unacceptable
65%
93%
70%
87%
87%
79%
57%
93%
26%
2%
22%
10%
10%
20%
36%
7%
9%
6%
7%
3%
2%
1%
7%
0%
Exemplary Acceptable Unacceptable
65%
85%
56%
69%
69%
59%
57%
84%
26%
15%
39%
28%
28%
41%
36%
16%
9%
0%
6%
3%
3%
0%
7%
0%
Exemplary Acceptable Unacceptable
56%
93%
67%
74%
67%
61%
64%
78%
35%
7%
31%
21%
29%
39%
33%
22%
9%
0%
2%
5%
3%
0%
3%
0%
No 2008 - 2012 information available on communication.
Learning Goal 2: Use and Management of Technology
Students are assessed on this learning goal based on their performance on exam items in MIS
874, Management Information Systems.
No 2008 - 2012 information available.
E-36
Learning Goal 3: Effective Management and Leadership Skills
This learning goal is assessed based on performance on selected assignments in MGMT 885,
Advanced Strategic Management.
No 2008 - 2012 information available.
Learning Goal 4: Critical Thinking and Problem Solving
Students are assessed on this learning goal based on an assignment in MGMT 803, Business
Decision-making and Analysis.
The faculty teaching MGMT 803 identified four traits of critical thinking to be assessed:




Opportunity identification
Opportunity analysis
Construct hypotheses and support arguments
Conclusions/Implications/Consequences
Data below show the assessments of student performance for years 2008 2009, 2011 and 2012,
listed by trait.
Opportunity
identification
2012
2011
2009
2008
Opportunity
analysis
2012
2011
2009
2008
Hypotheses /
arguments
2012
2011
2009
2008
N
Exemplary
Acceptable
Unacceptable
25
28
32
30
44%
46%
31%
27%
52%
43%
59%
63%
4%
11%
9%
10%
N
Exemplary
Acceptable
Unacceptable
25
28
32
30
36%
43%
34%
20%
64%
46%
47%
67%
0%
11%
19%
13%
N
Exemplary
Acceptable
Unacceptable
25
28
32
30
48%
50%
38%
20%
48%
43%
41%
70%
4%
7%
22%
10%
E-37
Conclusions /
implications /
consequences
2012
2011
2009
2008
N
Exemplary
Acceptable
Unacceptable
25
28
32
30
44%
39%
41%
30%
40%
36%
41%
57%
16%
25%
19%
13%
Learning Goal 5: Ethics and Social Responsibility
This learning goal is assessed based on performance on selected business ethics assignments in
MGMT 885.
No 2008 - 2012 information available.
MBA Assessment Review
The Barton School Graduate Programs Committee is charged with the evaluation and
modification of the graduate programs offered within the Barton School of Business.
Assessment data is evaluated by this body and curriculum change recommendations are made as
a result of assessment outcomes. Significant curriculum changes go to the faculty of the affected
departments, and then to the Barton School Graduate Faculty for approval. The Graduate
Programs Committee monitors the effects of curriculum changes through the assessment process.
As documented in Appendix D, the MBA program has just gone through a significant revision,
effective Fall 2013. For several years after that, students in MBA classes will be a mix of
students in the old and new programs. Once the new program has been in effect for two years,
assessments will be redesigned and restarted, and a process to insure assessment data will be
collected and analyzed will be put into place..
Assessment Information: EMBA
Executive MBA Learning Goals, Assessment Methods, and Findings
Information provided by Kim Wilkerson, current Director of the EMBA, based on information
from two previous EMBA Directors.
The MBA faculty, the Graduate Programs Office, and the Graduate Program Committee have
specified five learning goals for the MBA program:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Demonstrate skills in effective communication and teamwork
Demonstrate skills in use and management of technology
Demonstrate skills in effective executive leadership skills
Demonstrate skills in critical thinking and problem solving
Be exposed to and given assistance in understanding ethical business practices and the
concept of social responsibility.
E-38
Executive MBA cohorts begin their program in the Fall of even-numbered years only, and
complete their program 22 months later. These learning goals began to be assessed biannually in
the 2004-2005 academic year, in the years when the specific classes used for assessment have
been offered. During the last two cohorts, changes in personnel led to several assessments being
missed. A new record-keeping and faculty reminder process is being put into place starting
Spring 2013
The EMBA program has been revised for the 2010 cohort, and again for the 2012 cohort. These
revisions will affect at a minimum where different learning goals are assessed, and may lead to a
change in learning goals. The Graduate Programs Committee will be addressing these points
during Spring 2013.
EMBA Learning Goal 1: Effective Communication and Teamwork
This learning goal is evaluated by the instructor in the EMBA capstone course EMBA 811,
Competitive Strategy for Executive Management, based on students’ overall performance.
Results from 2010:
Communication skills are measured by the quality of oral and written communication exhibited
in 1) classroom presentations and 2) persuasive written documents. Twenty two (88%) students
exhibited exemplary oral communication skills and three (12%) exhibited acceptable oral
communication skills in the course. For the written component fourteen (56%) exhibited
exemplary skills, ten (40%) exhibited acceptable skills, and one (4%) demonstrated a need for
improvement in their written work.
Team work skills are assessed using a peer evaluation that measures seven (7) distinct
dimensions (organizational ability; cooperativeness; creativity; analytical ability; dependability;
work quantity; work quality) on a 1-4 scale (1 = unacceptable, 2 = improvement needed, 3 =
acceptable, 4 = exemplary). Of the 25 students in the class, thirteen(52%) were evaluated as
exemplary, three (12%) at the midpoint between acceptable and exemplary, eight (32%)
acceptable, and one (4%) needs improvement
EMBA Learning Goal 2: Use and Management of Technology
Students are assessed on this learning goal based on their performance on exam items in EMBA
809, Information Technology for Executives.
Results from 2007:
The following three goals were assessed (with standard achievement obtained):


Develop the ability to assess risks and advantages associated with contemporary information
systems (100% met the standard);
Understand the issues associated with configuring and managing information systems (74% met
the standard);
E-39

Understand the issues associated with developing and sourcing of information systems (84%
met the standard).
Action:
Increase the percentage of students who understand the issues associated with configuring and
managing information systems to 85%. A case study stressing configuring and managing
information systems was added to the class for 2009.
EMBA Learning Goal 3: Effective Executive Leadership Skills
Students are assessed on this learning goal based on their performance on exam items in EMBA
811.
Results from 2010:
The executive leadership skill assessment is derived from performance on individual written
assignments in the course and the team project. Fourteen students (56%) exhibited exemplary
skills, ten students (40%) exhibited acceptable skills, and one student (4%) demonstrated a need
for improvement in the executive leadership area.
EMBA Learning Goal 4: Critical Thinking and Problem Solving
Students are assessed on this learning goal based on their performance on exam items in EMBA
800, Quantitative Decision Methods for Executives, and in EMBA 808, Managerial Accounting
for Executive Management.
Results from 2008:
The EMBA students were assessed on an exam consisting of 30 major problems on situational
evaluation and decision making, including the use of regression analysis. 100% of the students
met the standard
Results from 2010:
The EMBA students were assessed on an exam consisting of 30 major problems on situational
evaluation and decision making, including the use of regression analysis. 96% of the students
met the standard; one student did not.
EMBA Learning Goal 5: Ethics and social responsibility
This learning goal had been evaluated by the instructor in the EMBA capstone course EMBA
811, based on students’ performance in a case study assignment. Beginning with the Fall 2010
EMBA cohort, a specific one-credit class in business ethics and social responsibility was added
to the program. For the Fall 2012 cohort, this class has been combined with the one-credit
business law class; the combination has been expanded to 2.5 credits, and will be taught for the
first time in 2013. Development of a new assessment process and instrument for this learning
goal are under development.
E-40
Results from 2010:
The EMBA students were assessed on individual performance (written work) and collective
classroom discussion contribution surrounding an ethical dilemma with no clear cut answer and
significant social responsibility and justice implications. 96% of the students performed at or
above the standard set for the exercise; one student did not.
EMBA Assessment Review
The Barton School Graduate Programs Committee is charged with the evaluation and
modification of the graduate programs offered within the Barton School of Business.
Assessment data is evaluated by this body and curriculum change recommendations are made as
a result of assessment outcomes. Significant curriculum changes go to the faculty of the affected
departments, and then to the Barton School Graduate Faculty for approval. The Graduate
Programs Committee monitors the effects of curriculum changes through the assessment process.
The Graduate Programs Committee spent most of academic years 2009 and 2010 revising the
EMBA program. Assessment results were among the factors considered in the revision.
Assessment Information: MA in Economics
MA in Economics Learning Goals, Assessment Methods, and Findings
Information provided by Dr. Philip Hersch, Professor and Director of the Master of Arts in
Economics program.
The Economics Department faculty have developed five learning goals for the Master of Arts in
Economics degree program:
6. Demonstrate knowledge of the statistical toolkit used in economic research and the ability
to use appropriate software
7. Demonstrate the ability to conduct research in their chosen area of study
8. Demonstrate mastery of basic microeconomics models
9. Demonstrate mastery of basic macroeconomics models
10. Demonstrate the ability to write effectively when expressing economic theories and their
application
These learning goals have been assessed annually since the 2004-2005 academic year through
the 2010-2011 academic year. The assessments are now on a three-year cycle required by the
Graduate School at Wichita State.
The assessments are not conducive to tabular presentation of annual results. Results from the
2008-2009 and 2010-2011 academic years are below; others are available upon request.
E-41
MA in Economics Learning Goal 1: Use of Statistical Toolkit
This learning goal is assessed in ECON 731, Applied Econometrics I, in ECON 803, Analysis of
Business Conditions and Forecasting, and in students’ independent projects or theses when
appropriate.
For the ECON 803 forecasting project, a separate grade was provided for “technical accuracy
and analysis,” which encompasses use of appropriate methodology and correct application and
interpretation of results. A grade of B or better on “technical accuracy and analysis” has been
defined as Acceptable, with a grade of A being Exemplary; rubrics have been developed for
scoring.
2008-2009:
Three problem sets were assigned in Econ 731 that required the use of Stata an econometrics
software package. Percent receiving B or better:
Problem Set 1: 81%
N=21
Problem Set 2: 62%
N=20
Problem Set 3: 67%
N=21
Average B or better: 70.1%
For the Econ. 803 forecasting project, a separate grade was provided for “accuracy of technical
analysis,” which encompasses use of appropriate methodology and correct application and
“interpretation of results. Based on a sample of 17 students, 13 (76.4%) received a B or better.
The econometrics package Eviews was used for the projects.
2010-2011:
Three homework sets involving Stata were given. On average 89 (N=18) obtained grades of B
or better. Students did not fare as well on the portion of an exam testing knowledge/usage of
Stata, with only 62% receiving B or better.
For the Econ. 803 forecasting project, a separate grade was provided for “accuracy of technical
analysis,” which encompasses use of appropriate methodology and correct application and
“interpretation of results. Based on a sample of 16 students, 15 (94%) received a B or better.
The econometrics package Eviews was used for the projects.
All graduating students in both years successfully employed appropriate econometric
methodology in their research projects.
MA in Economics Learning Goal 2: Conduct Research
Achieving this learning goal has been defined as successfully completing the required
independent project or thesis.
E-42
2008-2009:
Sixteen students enrolled in independent research during the academic year. Five completed the
project they had begun in the prior academic year. Nine began and completed the project during
the academic year. Two others continued with their projects during Summer 2009.
2010-2011:
Twenty-two students enrolled in independent research or thesis during the academic year. Of
these 16 had completed their project by the end of Summer 2011. At least, four others are
expected to finish during the fall semester.
MA in Economics Learning Goal 3: Microeconomic Model Mastery
This learning goal is assessed by achievement on exam questions given in ECON 804,
Managerial Economics (and ECON 802, Microeconomic Analysis, when offered) and ECON
702, Mathematical Methods in Economics. A grade of B or better on these questions has been
defined as Acceptable, with a grade of A being Exemplary; rubrics have been developed for
scoring.
2008-2009:
Topic(s) Covered
Basic Model of the Firm
Costs of Production
Competitive/Monopoly models
Game Theory
Production Functions
Consumer Theory
2010-2011:
Topic(s) Covered
Basic Model of the Firm
Costs of Production
Competitive/Monopoly models
Game Theory
Production Functions
Consumer Theory
Source
Econ 804: Exam 1
Econ 804: Exam 2
Econ 804: Exam 2
Econ 804: Exam 3
Econ 702: Exam 1
Econ 702: Exam 3
Source
Econ 804: Exam 1
Econ 804: Exam 2
Econ 804: Exam 2
Econ 804: Exam 3
Econ 702: Exams 2 & 3
Econ 702: Exam 3
Percent B or Better
92.3% N=13
53.8% N=13
69.2% N=13
69.2% N=13
89.4% N=19
84.2% N=19
Percent B or Better
82.6% N=23
56.5% N=23
78.2% N=23
73.9% N=23
94.4% N=18
83.3% N=18
MA in Economics Learning Goal 4: Macroeconomic Model Mastery
This learning goal is assessed by achievement on exam questions given in ECON 801,
Macroeconomic Analysis, and ECON 702. A grade of B or better on these questions has been
defined as Acceptable, with a grade of A being Exemplary; rubrics have been developed for
scoring.
E-43
2008-2009:
Topics Covered
Growth Models
Classical vs. Keynesian Model;
Rational Expectations; Neo
Classical Models
Neo Keynesian Models; Credit
Models
Keynesian Macro Model
IS-LM Model
2010-2011:
Topics Covered
Growth Models
Classical vs. Keynesian Model;
Rational Expectations; Neo
Classical Models
Neo Keynesian Models; Credit
Models
Keynesian Macro Model
IS-LM Model
Source
Econ 801:
Exam 1
Econ 801:
Exam 2
Econ 801:
Exam 3
Econ 702:
Exam 1
Econ 702:
Exam 2
Source
Econ 801:
Exam 1
Econ 801:
Exam 2
Econ 801:
Exam 3
Econ 702:
Exam 1
Econ 702:
Exam 2
Percent B or
Better
64.2%
N
=27
77.7%
N=
27
70.0%
=27
89.4%
=19
84.2%
N
N
N=19
Percent B or
Better
80.0%
N=20
50.0%
N=18
41.1%
N =17
78.9.%
N=19
68.2%
N=19
MA in Economics Learning Goal 5: Effective Writing
This learning goal is assessed in students’ independent projects or theses and in the forecasting
project in ECON 803; one component of the ECON 803 forecasting project grade is “Writing
and Organization.”
2008-2009:
One component of the Econ 803 forecasting project grade pertained to writing and organization
of the paper. Ten of 17 students (59%) were graded B or better on this component. This was
down from prior years, but may be partially due to a greater proportion of international students.
The Assessment Committee also performed a sample reading of completed research projects and
judged all the final drafts to be acceptable.
E-44
2010-2011:
One component of the Econ 803 forecasting project grade pertained to writing and organization
of the paper. Fourteen of the 162 students (75%) were graded B or better on this component.
This was up from 65% in the prior year and 59% the year before that. The Assessment
Committee also performed a sample reading of completed research projects and judged all the
final drafts to be acceptable.
MA in Economics Assessment Review
The department has created a Graduate Curriculum/Assessment Committee composed of the
graduate coordinator and two faculty members appointed by the department chairperson. This
committee meets annually to review the results of the assessment and to provide feedback into
the program. The same committee also reviews the program mission, objectives, outcomes, and
the assessment process periodically and in consultation with other faculty members.
Recommended changes will be made to individual faculty members or the Executive Committee
of the Department for implementation. The implemented changes will be monitored by the
Graduate Curriculum/Assessment Committee for effectiveness. If effective, the changes become
permanent. If not effective, additional changes will be considered by the Committee.
Results:
2008-2009:
Based on committee recommendation and the advent of the plus/minus grading system,
admission requirements were changed (effective Fall 2010) to require a minimum grade of C+
in all prerequisite classes for the program. Previously a C was required.
To improve final research projects a formal schedule, with deadlines, was adopted for various
stages of project completion (e.g., topic approval, outline and literature review, first draft). The
Graduate Coordinator monitors compliance with the deadlines.
2010-2011:
Currently, the programs’ econometrics sequence is taught by two different professors. To
improve continuity the Department will consider having both courses taught by the same
professor. Additionally, based on feedback from the Department’s annual survey of the
program’s students, both classes will require the same statistical software program. (Currently,
EViews is used in one class, Stata in another). Although exposure to more than one program is
desirable, the tradeoffs are less expertise in working with any given program and additional
student expense.
No other changes are being contemplated at this time. The MBA program is currently
undergoing revision, which may have some repercussions on the economics program (e.g.,
course scheduling, elective offerings). The MBA process will be monitored to assess possible
impacts on the master’s program.
E-45