Academic Program: Johnson College of Business and Economics
Component
Program Mission
Statement
Assessment Report 2011/2012
Description
From your Program Assessment Plan (Statement
should articulate the unit/ program mission in support of the
institutional mission and include a clearly defined purpose
appropriate to collegiate education.)
The mission of the USC Upstate George Dean Johnson, Jr. College of Business and Economics
(JCBE) is to educate undergraduate students and enhance the economic development of the
Upstate through education and strategic partnerships.
From your Program Assessment Plan (Describe broad
Goal 1
Objectives
SLO’s
(student learning
outcomes)
learning outcomes and concepts (what you want students to
learn) expressed in general terms (clear communication,
problem-solving skills, etc). Goals should focus on disciplinespecific outcomes relevant to the program.)
Students will demonstrate an understanding of the Business Core curriculum.
From your Program Assessment Plan (Describes the
specific skills, values and attitudes students should be able to
exhibit that reflect the broader goals. Objectives (student learning
outcomes) transform the general program goals into specific
student performance/behaviors that demonstrate student learning
and skill development along these goals.
1.1 Students will demonstrate knowledge of current business practices and theory.
1.2 Students will correctly use the language of business.
1.1 Major Field Test in Business (MFTB)
From your Program Assessment Plan (Describes the
Assessment
Methods
Assessment
Criteria
JCBE 10.1.2012
measure(s) by which the department will know the students are
meeting the departmental learning objectives. Includes both
direct and indirect assessment. Each SLO should have at least
one assessment method.)
Level of achievement you are targeting (Indicate
benchmarks, scores on assessment instruments, etc… that
would indicate acceptable achievement under your plan)
1.2 Major Field Test in Business (MFTB)
The MFTB is an undergraduate outcomes assessments designed to measure the basic knowledge
and understanding achieved by students in a major field of study. The MFTB is designed and scored
by Educational Testing Services, and our scores are then compared to other undergraduate business
programs. The MFTB is administered in our capstone course, SBAD 478 Business Policy: The MFTB is
administered each fall and spring.
JCBE expects the mean score to be at or above the 75th percentile for the overall score and at
least the 50th percentile for each area of the exam.
1
Academic Program: Johnson College of Business and Economics
Assessment
Results
Actual results and data collected (Make sure to break
down data by subgroups (e.g. other campuses or emphases).
As appropriate, also include item or category analysis.)
Assessment Report 2011/2012
1.
All of the concentrations in the College of Business and Economics achieved or exceeded the
MFTB goals for this student learning outcome. Every concentration achieved the JCBE
minimum goal of 50% comprehension for entire both the Fall of 2011 and the Spring of 2012.
This shows that the improvements made in the Spring of 2011 have been maintained (see
Appendix A for more detail).
Recommendations for 2012/2013:
Action Plan
What actions or modifications have been or will be
made based on this assessment?
1.
2.
3.
JCBE 10.1.2012
Determine MFT scores of peer schools so that we can evaluate our performance relative
to peer institutions.
Determine where ethics/social responsibility is taught in curriculum to see if this can
account for some of the improvement in the Legal and Social Issues score, and to
determine if it can be further improved.
Encourage students to take additional courses in legal and social issues.
2
Academic Program: Johnson College of Business and Economics
Assessment Report 2011/2012
New standards for admission to the professional program: In the fall of 2007, JCBE proposed new
standards for the admission to the professional program. New Admission Requirements became
effective fall 2008. Admission of applicants is based on individual consideration. Each applicant must
fulfill the following requirements:

Successful completion of 54 credit hours

Cumulative GPA of at least 2.0

Completion with a C or better: SEGL 101, SEGL 102, SSPH 201, and SMTH 122.

Successful completion of SBAD 225 and SECO 221 or 222.
A sample of our students who performed the lowest (15th percentile or below) on the Major Field
Test in Business revealed that these standards would have delayed (or prevented) about 63% of these
students from pursuing a business major. These students would benefit from repairing their deficiencies
prior to advancing to upper level business studies. The new admissions standards have not yet impacted
the MFTB scores.
As of the Spring of 2012, it appears that almost all graduating students are from the 2008
catalog which required the admissions standards.
Implementation
of Previous
Years’ Action
Plan
Which of the modifications indicated in the previous
years’ reports were implement this year and what
was the impact?
On line MFTB Review: In Spring 2010 we developed an on-line review. Each department contributed
review materials and review questions for their area. Prior to the MFTB there was an eight hour live
review. This review was recorded and has been available to students in the semesters which have
followed.
Review learning objectives, curriculum and students: In the summer of 10, a committee was formed to
evaluate learning objectives of core curriculum in light of MFTB topics. The committee researched the
MFTB results and offered four issues that have contributed to the results.
In response to these results we made a number of curriculum changes.
1. Updated many course descriptions
2. Moved the international requirement to part of the business core so that students will have to
complete the course prior to taking the MFTB.
3. The management department added a choice of Accounting for Decision Making and Control
(formerly Cost Accounting) or Managerial Economics as an additional required course. They
also added an additional required course.
4. Economics added Accounting for Decision Making and Control as a required course, and
deleted Commercial and Central Banking.
5. Accounting added an additional accounting course.
6. Marketing added an additional marketing course.
The new standards for admission into the professional JCBE program went into effect in the
2008 catalog. The results of the new standards are evident in this year’s increases in the overall MFT
exam scores. Last year the Curriculum Committee conducted a review of the learning objectives in the
syllabi of core courses to determine if the core topics are consistently being covered. The result of the
new standards are evident in the increases in MFTB scores overall.
JCBE 10.1.2012
3
Academic Program: Johnson College of Business and Economics
Assessment Report 2011/2012
In 2010 Each concentration faculty formed work groups to review curriculum opportunities related to their
unique issues and made curriculum changes.
Several measurable changes took place:
Implementation
of Previous
Years’ Action
Plan
JCBE 10.1.2012
Which of the modifications indicated in the previous
years’ reports were implement this year and what
was the impact?
1.
An increase in scope and rigor pertaining to international issues were incorporated into SBAD
452, International Marketing. Increased information gathering, reporting and testing of
students on these issues were incorporated.
2.
The International requirement was moved to a core requirement so that students would have
to take their international course prior to taking the MFTB.
3.
Marketing students were given readings, study guides, and sample questions (not from the
exam itself) to assist their preparation for the MFT exit exam.
4.
Management students were also provided study materials to help their preparation.
5.
The Management faculty added a choice of two rigorous business courses to substitute for an
elective course.
6.
Economics and Finance faculty added an additional accounting course to their curriculum.
4
Academic Program: Johnson College of Business and Economics
Component
Assessment Report 2011/2012
Description
From your Program Assessment Plan (Describe broad
Goal 2
Objectives
SLO’s
(student learning
outcomes)
learning outcomes and concepts (what you want students to
learn) expressed in general terms (clear communication,
problem-solving skills, etc). Goals should focus on disciplinespecific outcomes relevant to the program.)
Students will be able to communicate effectively in standard business English.
From your Program Assessment Plan (Describes the
specific skills, values and attitudes students should be able to
exhibit that reflect the broader goals. Objectives (student learning
outcomes) transform the general program goals into specific
student performance/behaviors that demonstrate student learning
and skill development along these goals.
2.1 Students will prepare written work of professional quality.
2.2 Students will prepare and deliver a professional oral presentation.
2.1a
SBAD 478 Business Policy, Written Essay Assignment.
Not assessed per JCBE 5-year Assessment Plan.
2.1b SECO 292 Decision Analysis Assignment.
From your Program Assessment Plan (Describes the
Assessment
Methods
measure(s) by which the department will know the students are
meeting the departmental learning objectives. Includes both
direct and indirect assessment. Each SLO should have at least
one assessment method.)
Not assessed per JCBE 5-year Assessment Plan.
2.1c SBAD 371 Mgmt. & Org. Behavior, Course-embedded Written Essay Assignments.
Not assessed per JCBE 5-year Assessment Plan..
2.2
SBAD 478 Business Policy, Oral Presentation.
Oral presentations in SBAD 478 Fall 2011.
2.1a. Not assessed per JCBE 5-year Assessment Plan.
Assessment
Criteria
Level of achievement you are targeting (Indicate
benchmarks, scores on assessment instruments, etc… that
would indicate acceptable achievement under your plan)
2.1b. Not assessed per JCBE 5-year Assessment Plan.
2.1c. Not assessed per JCBE 5-year Assessment Plan.
2.2 For each assessment instrument we define levels for exemplary, acceptable, and
unacceptable performance. We expect at least 70 % of the students to score at the acceptable
level or above (=less than 30 % unacceptable).
JCBE 10.1.2012
5
Academic Program: Johnson College of Business and Economics
Assessment Report 2011/2012
2.1a Not assessed per JCBE 5-year Assessment Plan.
2.1b Not assessed per JCBE 5-year Assessment Plan.
Assessment
Results
Actual results and data collected (Make sure to break
down data by subgroups (e.g. other campuses or emphases).
As appropriate, also include item or category analysis.)
2.1c Not assessed per JCBE 5-year Assessment Plan.
2.2
Assessment Scores from Presentations in SBAD478 (Business Strategy – Sr Seminar)
On average, the students scored 84.5% on their presentations, with 89% scoring at the acceptable or
exemplary level. Therefore the students exceeded the 70% established cutoff (see Appendix B for more
details).
21.a Not assessed per JCBE 5-year Assessment Plan.
2.1b Not assessed per JCBE 5-year Assessment Plan.
Action Plan
What actions or modifications have been or will be
made based on this assessment?
2.1c Not assessed per JCBE 5-year Assessment Plan.
2.2
Implementation
of Previous
Years’ Action
Plan
JCBE 10.1.2012
We will continue to require presentations and work on their skills since it appears to helping us meet
our goals.
2.1a Not assessed per JCBE 5-year Assessment Plan.
Which of the modifications indicated in the previous
years’ reports were implement this year and what
was the impact?
2.1b Not assessed per JCBE 5-year Assessment Plan.
2.1c Not assessed this per JCBE 5-year Assessment Plan.
2.2
Additional training on presentations has been effectively included in the 478 class, leading to
continued satisfactory performance.
6
Academic Program: Johnson College of Business and Economics
Component
Description
From your Program Assessment Plan (Describe broad learning outcomes and
Goal 3
Assessment Report 2011/2012
concepts (what you want students to learn) expressed in general terms (clear
communication, problem-solving skills, etc). Goals should focus on discipline-specific
outcomes relevant to the program.)
Students will demonstrate the ability to recognize and analyze business problems,
using a variety of quantitative tools.
3.0 Students will demonstrate the ability to recognize and analyze business
problems, using a variety of quantitative tools.
Objectives
SLO’s
(student learning
outcomes)
From your Program Assessment Plan (Describes the specific skills, values and
attitudes students should be able to exhibit that reflect the broader goals. Objectives
(student learning outcomes) transform the general program goals into specific student
performance/behaviors that demonstrate student learning and skill development along
these goals.
3.1 Our students will analyze data to solve problems commonly encountered in
business such as determining statistically significant relationships between
two variables.
3.2 Our students will analyze data to solve problems commonly encountered in
business such as capital budgeting.
3.3 Our students will formulate and analyze problems related to inventory models.
3.0 SBAD 478 Presentation
Assessment
Methods
From your Program Assessment Plan (Describes the measure(s) by which the
department will know the students are meeting the departmental learning objectives.
Includes both direct and indirect assessment. Each SLO should have at least one
assessment method.)
This assignment was a presentation of a business analysis problem in our
capstone course, SBAD 478.
3.1 Not assessed per JCBE 5-year Assessment Plan.
3.2 Not assessed per JCBE 5-year Assessment Plan.
3.3 Not assessed per JCBE 5-year Assessment Plan.
Assessment
Criteria
JCBE 10.1.2012
Level of achievement you are targeting (Indicate benchmarks, scores on
assessment instruments, etc… that would indicate acceptable achievement under
your plan)
For each assessment instrument we define levels for exemplary, acceptable, and
unacceptable performance. We expect at least 70 % of the students to score at the
acceptable level or above (=less than 30 % unacceptable).
7
Academic Program: Johnson College of Business and Economics
Assessment
Results
Actual results and data collected (Make sure to break down data by subgroups
(e.g. other campuses or emphases). As appropriate, also include item or category
analysis.)
Assessment Report 2011/2012
3.0 The average score for Fall/Summer 2011 was 82.3% with 86% scoring at least average
in the Fall/Summer of 2011. The 86%at or above acceptable was above our
acceptable cutoff of 70% ( see Appendix B for more detail).
3.1 Not assessed per JCBE 5-year Assessment Plan.
3.2 Not assessed per JCBE 5-year Assessment Plan.
3.3 Not assessed per JCBE 5-year Assessment Plan.
3.0 Continue to use this exercise for assessment purposes. Instructors will review
individual student assessments to determine any systematic weaknesses. Instructors
will develop and implement remedial action the following semester.
Action Plan
What actions or modifications have been or will be made based on this
assessment?
3.1 Not assessed per JCBE 5-year Assessment Plan. Continue to use this exercise for
assessment purposes. Instructors will review individual student assessments to
determine any systematic weaknesses. Instructors will develop and implement
remedial action the following semester.
3.2 Not assessed per JCBE 5-year Assessment Plan. Continue to use this exercise for
assessment purposes. Instructors will review individual student assessments to
determine any systematic weaknesses. Instructors will develop and implement
remedial action the following semester.
3.3 Not assessed per JCBE 5-year Assessment Plan. Continue to use this exercise for
assessment purposes. Instructors will review individual student assessments to
determine any systematic weaknesses. Instructors will develop and implement
remedial action the following semester.
3.0 No recommendations were made from the previous year; the assessment method
remains satisfactory.
Implementation
of Previous
Years’ Action
Plan
Which of the modifications indicated in the previous years’ reports
were implement this year and what was the impact?
3.1 No recommendations were made from the previous year; the assessment method
remains satisfactory.
3.2 No recommendations were made from the previous year; the assessment method
remains satisfactory.
3.3 No recommendations were made from the previous year; the assessment method
remains satisfactory.
JCBE 10.1.2012
8
Academic Program: Johnson College of Business and Economics
Component
Description
From your Program Assessment Plan (Describe broad
Goal 4
Assessment Report 2011/2012
learning outcomes and concepts (what you want students to
learn) expressed in general terms (clear communication,
problem-solving skills, etc). Goals should focus on disciplinespecific outcomes relevant to the program.)
Students will recognize and analyze ethical issues in business and choose and defend
appropriate measures to deal with problems in business in an ethical manner.
4.1 Students will identify and describe ethical standards and tests.
Objectives
SLO’s
(student learning
outcomes)
From your Program Assessment Plan (Describes the
specific skills, values and attitudes students should be able to
exhibit that reflect the broader goals. Objectives (student learning
outcomes) transform the general program goals into specific
student performance/behaviors that demonstrate student learning
and skill development along these goals.
From your Program Assessment Plan (Describes the
Assessment
Methods
Assessment
Criteria
JCBE 10.1.2012
measure(s) by which the department will know the students are
meeting the departmental learning objectives. Includes both
direct and indirect assessment. Each SLO should have at least
one assessment method.)
Level of achievement you are targeting (Indicate
benchmarks, scores on assessment instruments, etc… that
would indicate acceptable achievement under your plan)
4.2 Students will recognize ethical dilemmas.
4.3 Students will discuss the consequences of ethical choices.
4.4 When presented with an ethical dilemma, students will select (and justify) an ethically-sound solution.
4.1– 4.3: SBAD 371 Org. Behavior & Mgmt., SBAD 347 Legal Environment in Business
Knowledge and understanding on ethics were tested with multiple choice questions on the final
exam.
4.1-4.4 SBAD 350 Principles of Marketing
Students analyze an ethical case. The case used regarded greenwashing, an ethical dilemma that
results from marketers advertising products as green when they have little or no environmental
improvements over competitive products.
For each assessment instrument we define levels for exemplary, acceptable, and unacceptable
performance. We expect at least 70 % of the students to score at the acceptable level or above
(=less than 30 % unacceptable).
9
Academic Program: Johnson College of Business and Economics
Assessment
Results
Actual results and data collected (Make sure to break
down data by subgroups (e.g. other campuses or emphases).
As appropriate, also include item or category analysis.)
Assessment Report 2011/2012
SBAD 371 Organization Behavior, Spring 2011 (see Appendix C)
4.1-4.3 The results were fairly consistent with prior years. For objective 4.1 the average score was 80%,
for objective 4.2 the average score was 71% and for objective 4.3 the average score was 75%.
Overall, 86% of students scored at or above the acceptable level, well above the 70% cutoff.
4.1 – 4.4 SBAD 350 Principles of Marketing (see Appendix D)
The student written assignments generally show a clear understanding of the ethical dilemmas faced in
business exceeding the 70% cutoff. Results for objective 4.1 showed 89% of students scoring above the
acceptable, objective 4.2 showed 85% of students scoring at or above acceptable, objectives 4.3 and 4.4
showed 100% of students scoring at or above acceptable.
4.1 – 4.3 SBAD 371 Organizational Behavior For the next assessment, we will add a comparison of how
business majors versus non-business majors perform on these ethics questions. Continue with increased
emphasis on ethical dilemmas. Find ways to emphasize the role of organizational culture in influencing
ethics of an organization to help improve Objective #1 performance.
Action Plan
What actions or modifications have been or will be
made based on this assessment?
4.1 - 4.4 SBAD 350 Principles of Marketing: We agree that more instruction on ethics be given to
students during the course such as that implemented this semester. The assignment related to this course
content should be required of all students during the next evaluation period so that we can have better
measures of the learning. As with the case assignment, we recommend that a sample of the papers be
evaluated by faculty other than those teaching the course.
4.1 – 4.3 SBAD 371 Org. Behavior Instructors spent more time on examples of ethical dilemma with
favorable results on Objective 2.
Implementation
of Previous
Years’ Action
Plan
JCBE 10.1.2012
Which of the modifications indicated in the previous
years’ reports were implement this year and what
was the impact?
4.1-4.4 SBAD 350 Principles of Marketing: This year we made an effort to improve our students’
understanding of business ethics and our measurement of these objectives through two new initiatives.
Following class discussion and the use of written material on the Internet that provides instruction on the
foundations of ethics, students were asked to complete a homework assignment that measured their
understanding of ethics. We felt that the revised methodology gave students an opportunity to provide
answers more indicative of their understanding.
10
Academic Program: Johnson College of Business and Economics
Component
Assessment Report 2011/2012
Description
From your Program Assessment Plan (Describe broad
Goal 5
Objectives
SLO’s
(student learning
outcomes)
learning outcomes and concepts (what you want students to
learn) expressed in general terms (clear communication,
problem-solving skills, etc). Goals should focus on disciplinespecific outcomes relevant to the program.)
Students will demonstrate the ability to use information technology in modern organizational
operations.
From your Program Assessment Plan (Describes the
5.1 Students will demonstrate the ability to use common spreadsheet software (e.g., Excel).
specific skills, values and attitudes students should be able to
exhibit that reflect the broader goals. Objectives (student learning
outcomes) transform the general program goals into specific
student performance/behaviors that demonstrate student learning
and skill development along these goals.
5.2 Students will demonstrate the ability to use common Statistical software (e.g., Excel).
5.3 Students will demonstrate the ability to use common presentation software (e.g., PowerPoint).
5.1 SBAD 290 (see Appendix E)
From your Program Assessment Plan (Describes the
Assessment
Methods
JCBE 10.1.2012
measure(s) by which the department will know the students are
meeting the departmental learning objectives. Includes both
direct and indirect assessment. Each SLO should have at least
one assessment method.)
Historically, application work in the SBAD 290 course has focused primarily on developing skills in
Microsoft Excel and Access. Students were presented with business problems, required to design a model
(typically students follow a template), create the model, enter the data, interpret the model results, interpret
based upon changing conditions. The decision was made during the summer of 2011 to move application
assignments to McGraw Hill’s Simnet/Simgrader platform. The primary reason we changed to the Simnet
software is because it is difficult to assign and grade enough difficulty-graduated exercises in SBAD 290 to
develop the necessary application skills.
The primary value delivered by Simnet/Simgrader is multifold. 1. There are server-centric (The work is
done in the server-app environment) lessons which can be tailored to the skill sets each project
encompasses. 2. Each project has a preconceived rubric which the software uses to evaluate the
submitted application file. The rubric can be modified to suit but the fact that the instructor does not have to
create a rubric for each exercise is a significant labor and time saving feature. 3. The software also has a
feedback mechanism which uses the rubric to identify, for the student and faculty, what aspects of the
project were not completed correctly. 4. There are a variety of project clusters to select from. It is quite
simple to devise a graduated difficulty series of assignments which increment in the number of features
and functions encompassed, each building upon the skills accrued in the last.
11
Academic Program: Johnson College of Business and Economics
Assessment Report 2011/2012
5.2 SECO 291 Statistical Software (see Appendix F)
From your Program Assessment Plan (Describes the
Assessment
Methods
measure(s) by which the department will know the students are
meeting the departmental learning objectives. Includes both
direct and indirect assessment. Each SLO should have at least
one assessment method.)
Measurement instrument used: The student was asked to complete 4 tasks using Excel.
1. The student must construct a bar chart..
2. The student must construct a pie chart.
3. The student must construct a scatter diagram.
4. The student must use Excel’s descriptive statistics to create a table of summary statistics.
This assignment is a homework assignment. Students must print the output to submit the assignment for
grading. Students were expected to
o Include titles (5 points) for all graphs
o Label the axes, bars, and pie chart slices (5 points)
o Have correct data (frequencies, summary statistics, etc.) ( 10 points)
The total point value for the assignment was 100 points. A similar instrument has been used in previous
years. This particular instrument was created during the spring of 2011 for general education assessment
of the Information Technology Literacy (CAT 5), specifically, 5.2 Students demonstrate the ability to use
information technologies to communicate information to others.
5.3 Presentation Software in SBAD 478: Business Policy (see Appendix B)
Students presented end of year presentations using power point slides.
Assessment
Criteria
JCBE 10.1.2012
Level of achievement you are targeting (Indicate
benchmarks, scores on assessment instruments, etc… that
would indicate acceptable achievement under your plan)
For each assessment instrument we define levels for exemplary, acceptable, and unacceptable
performance. We expect at least 70 % of the students to score at the acceptable level or above
(=less than 30 % unacceptable).
12
Academic Program: Johnson College of Business and Economics
Assessment Report 2011/2012
5.1 SBAD 290 – The average project score overall for Spring 2012 semester was 75.1%. The standard
deviation was 21.3%. Such a wide deviation reflects to some extent the significant variance in Excel and
Access skills students have upon entering and exiting the class. The minimum average was 8%, the
maximum average was 100%, and the median project average was 79%. As chart 1 indicates below there
were 10 outlier students whose average grade eschewed the overall results. See Appendix E for details.
Assessment
Results
Actual results and data collected (Make sure to break
down data by subgroups (e.g. other campuses or emphases).
As appropriate, also include item or category analysis.)
5.2 SECO 291 – For the spring 2012, 36 of the 55 students (65%) completed this assignment. Students
have approximately 24 short graded homework assignments during the semester and are allowed to drop
the lowest six. This may explain why 35% chose not to complete this assignment. Of the students who
completed the assignment, the average score for the exercise was 89.3%. 97% of the students scored at
the acceptable or exemplary levels. The results fall in the acceptable range for each of the four tasks. The
students have little difficulty doing bar, pie, and scatter diagrams. The use of the Summary Statistics
component of Data Analysis in Excel was a bit more difficult with a score of 78%.
5.3 SBAD 478 – For the Fall of 2011 84% of student scored at or above the acceptable level in
Powerpoint slide preparation.
5.1 SBAD 290: Over the course of the year there have been some issues with the accuracy of the
grading software. Subtle deviations from instruction, changes in file structure, rearrangement of columns,
variations in font; these and other variances can sometimes cause grading errors. Instructor review of
rubric results is necessary to identify problem point-deductions. However, the ability to offer more
application work outweighs the accuracy issues. The issues are also becoming more manageable as
instructor knowledge improves.
Action Plan
What actions or modifications have been or will be
made based on this assessment?
While the primary reason for moving to the Simnet platform was to increase volume of work and repetition
the Simnet projects emphasize skill acquisition with little focus upon model interpretation and problem
analysis. In the future the instructors both agree that the Simnet projects should culminate in a semester
project which includes interpretation and analysis.
5.2 SECO 291: Recommendations:
Continue to use the measurement instrument and track progress for general education assessment and
JCBE learning goal assessment. Continue to emphasize the value and use Excel with class discussion and
homework.
5.3 SBAD 478: No changes recommended. However, instructors will spend more time in class
discussing what makes a good power point presentation.
JCBE 10.1.2012
13
Academic Program: Johnson College of Business and Economics
Implementation
of Previous
Years’ Action
Plan
JCBE 10.1.2012
5.1
Which of the modifications indicated in the previous
years’ reports were implement this year and what
was the impact?
Assessment Report 2011/2012
SBAD 290: This year we started using the Simnet program to increase student exposure.
5.2 SECO 291: In all sections, regardless of instructor, Excel is demonstrated during class and
homework which uses Excel is required and graded. Use this type of exercise to track progress.
5.3
SBAD 478: Instructors are now using a set rubric and scores are more comparable among classes.
Students are also now required to submit their presentations on Powerpoint.
14
Academic Program: Johnson College of Business and Economics
Assessment Report 2011/2012
Appendix A
SBAD 478 Business Policy
Learning Goal #1: Students will demonstrate an understanding of the business core curriculum.
Objective 1.1: Students will demonstrate knowledge of current business practices and theory.
Objective 1.2: Students will correctly use the language of business.
MFT Business Scores History Fall 1998 to Spring 2011
Targets: Overall MFTB Field Test, 75%. Each concentration area 50%.
Assessment report for goal/objective 1: Understanding of Business Core Curriculum
Each fall and spring semester, students take the Major Field Test in Business (MFTB) during the SBAD 478 class. We have been giving the MFTB since the fall of
1998. The test counts as 25% of the course grade. The MFTB portion of the course grade is based on relative performance of the student.
This report adds observations for fall 2011 and spring 2012 to the last report to the faculty in the spring of 2011. The scores are presented by academic year since
1998. Fall 2011 to Spring 2012 results are presented on a semester by semester basis. Also presented are results by discipline for the Spring 2010 – Spring 2011 period. Full
data will be available in an accompanying spreadsheet on the P drive.
SBAE has set as a target performance on this assessment measure at a percentile performance of at least the 75th percentile for the overall score and at least the 50th
percentile for each area of the exam. The nine areas of the exam are accounting, economics, management, quantitative business analysis and information systems, finance,
marketing, legal and social environment, international, and information systems. (ETS added a section on information systems in spring 2007.)
Results: We have met all our targets for the past 3 semesters.
JCBE 10.1.2012
15
Academic Program: Johnson College of Business and Economics
Assessment Report 2011/2012
MFT Business Scores History Fall 1998 to Spring 2011 (scores and percentiles)
FY
n
MFT
ACCT
ECON
MANG
QUAN
FIN
MKT
LEGAL
INTNAT
98/99
54
89
84
94
68
85
63
95
86
91
99/00
82
73
81
69
52
67
56
83
67
88
00/01
85
84
89
82
63
91
69
94
76
89
01/02
87
72
74
62
52
79
62
83
57
90
02/03
97
69
55
81
62
80
57
68
43
76
03/04
96
84
72
92
88
93
64
80
57
95
04/05
93
85
83
91
72
89
79
90
60
84
05/06
117
71
61
79
70
84
39
74
44
83
06/07
146
75
78
74
59
91
52
84
64
79
85
07/08
110
74
43
71
55
95
53
95
65
83
71
08/09
140
67
51
72
51
89
49
71
45
69
76
09/10
156
51
45
66
37
86
37
54
32
44
46
10/11
162
73
71
77
51
92
63
81
63
72
66
11/12
146
79
78
87
61
89
62
79
80
72
83
F11
69
83
83
90
58
93
69
79
90
65
87
S12
77
76
73
85
64
86
55
79
71
78
80
JCBE 10.1.2012
I/ S
16
Academic Program: Johnson College of Business and Economics
Spring 10-Spring 11
Overall
N (3 semesters)
Assessment Report 2011/2012
Accounting
Economics
Management
Gen. Bus.
Marketing
249
42
27
73
54
53
Avg N=83
Overall Group Score
0.61
0.86
0.88
0.55
0.47
0.42
Accounting
0.57
0.90
0.57
0.51
0.30
0.28
Economics
0.69
0.83
0.95
0.54
0.56
0.33
Management
0.44
0.69
0.71
0.39
0.32
0.40
Quantitative Analysis
0.91
0.95
0.95
0.77
0.88
0.74
Finance
0.51
0.81
0.83
0.45
0.42
0.28
Marketing
0.70
0.78
0.83
0.63
0.55
0.71
Legal and Social Issues
0.51
0.61
0.72
0.30
0.57
0.43
Information Systems
0.59
0.69
0.68
0.75
0.35
0.37
Intenational Issues
0.53
0.72
0.86
0.52
0.29
0.29
Fall 11-Spring 12
N (2 semesters)
Overall
Accounting
146
34
Economics
Management
Gen. Bus
Marketing
20
42
23
26
Avg N= 73
Overall Group Score
0.79
0.92
0.93
0.48
0.74
0.71
Accounting
0.78
0.99
0.79
0.45
0.54
0.65
Economics
0.87
0.79
0.99
0.60
0.84
0.64
Management
0.61
0.62
0.79
0.44
0.67
0.66
Quantitative Analysis
0.89
0.95
0.81
0.84
0.83
0.59
Finance
0.62
0.74
0.97
0.19
0.49
0.56
Marketing
0.79
0.83
0.85
0.57
0.64
0.96
Legal and Social Issues
0.80
0.77
0.74
0.56
0.97
0.69
Information Systems
0.83
0.98
0.82
0.48
0.82
0.69
Intenational Issues
0.72
0.83
0.94
0.43
0.43
0.74
JCBE 10.1.2012
17
Academic Program: Johnson College of Business and Economics
Difference
Average n difference
Overall
Accounting
Economics
Assessment Report 2011/2012
Management
Gen. Bus
Marketing
-10
3
1
-3
-7
-5
Avg N= 73
Overall Group Score
0.18
0.06
0.05
-0.07
0.26
0.28
Accounting
0.21
0.09
0.22
-0.06
0.23
0.38
Economics
0.18
-0.04
0.04
0.06
0.28
0.31
Management
0.18
-0.08
0.07
0.04
0.35
0.26
Quantitative Analysis
-0.02
0.00
-0.14
0.07
-0.05
-0.15
Finance
0.10
-0.06
0.14
-0.26
0.08
0.27
Marketing
0.09
0.05
0.01
-0.06
0.09
0.25
Legal and Social Issues
0.29
0.16
0.02
0.26
0.41
0.27
Information Systems
0.24
0.29
0.14
-0.27
0.47
0.32
Intenational Issues
0.19
0.11
0.08
-0.09
0.15
0.45
JCBE 10.1.2012
18
Academic Program: Johnson College of Business and Economics
Assessment Report 2011/2012
Appendix B
SBAD 478 Business Policy
Appendix B
Learning Goal #2- SBAD 478 Fall 2011:
Students will be able to communicate effectively in standard business English.
Objective 2.2: Students will prepare and deliver a professional oral presentation.
Learning Goal # 3 – SBAD 478, Fall 2011
Students will demonstrate the ability to recognize and analyze business problems, using a variety of quantitative tools
Leaning Goal #5- Students will demonstrate the ability to use common presentation software (e.g., PowerPoint).
Targets: 75%.
Assessment Scores from Presentations in SBAD478 (Business Strategy – Sr Seminar)
Overall Summary
Spring
Fall/Summer
Analyses
76.4%
82.3%
Presentation
82.1%
84.5%
Spring 2011
Fall/Summer 2011
Analyses
# Students
%
# Students
%
E
21
22%
26
35%
A
47
49%
38
51%
U
27
28%
11
15%
95
100%
75
100%
Presentation
# Students
%
# Students
%
E
33
35%
30
40%
A
47
49%
37
49%
U
15
16%
8
11%
95
100%
75
100%
Excellent (E) are students who scored > 44 on the total four items in the assessment category
Acceptable (A) are students who score > 34 on the total four items in the assessment category
Detail scores by assessment item
JCBE 10.1.2012
19
Academic Program: Johnson College of Business and Economics
Assessment Report 2011/2012
Spring 2011
Average
Max
Avg as % of Max
1
8.2
10
82.2%
2
7.6
10
76.0%
3
11.6
15
77.3%
4
10.8
15
71.9%
5
11.8
15
78.6%
6
11.7
15
77.8%
7
7.9
10
79.4%
8
9.6
10
96.4%
Fall/Summer 2011
Average
Max
Avg as % of Max
8.9
10
88.8%
2
8.1
10
80.8%
3
12.4
15
82.5%
4
11.8
15
78.6%
5
12.8
15
85.2%
6
12.2
15
81.2%
7
8.2
10
81.6%
8
9.1
10
91.3%
1
(see scoring sheet below)
JCBE 10.1.2012
20
Academic Program: Johnson College of Business and Economics
Assessment Report 2011/2012
Student Name:
Company:
Score
How does the presentation relate to the class
disjoint
0
some alignment
2
4
6
good alignment
8
10
Financial Data and Interpretation
correct but not
relevant
incorrect
0
3
6
8
correct, relevant and
strategic
9
10
Assessment of Company Strategy
missing
not well
founded
0
3
not strategic
6
9
strategic & well founded
12
15
Recommended Future Strategy
not strategic
and not aligned
not well
founded
0
3
not strategic or
not aligned
6
9
strategic & well aligned
with analysis
12
15
Clarity of Presentation - Slides
uninterpretable
0
JCBE 10.1.2012
somewhat clear
3
6
9
clear - easy to follow
12
15
21
Academic Program: Johnson College of Business and Economics
Assessment Report 2011/2012
Clarity of Presentation - Verbal - Delivery
uninterpretable
rambled
0
3
somewhat clear
6
9
clear - easy to follow
12
15
Level of Enthusiasm
asleep
0
yawning
2
4
6
high - energetic
8
10
Good Use of Time
<12 or >15
12-15 mins
0
10
Total Pts (100 max)
JCBE 10.1.2012
22
Academic Program: Johnson College of Business and Economics
Assessment Report 2011/2012
Appendix C
SBAD 371-Organizational Management and Behavior
Learning Goal #4: Learning Goal: Students will recognize and analyze ethical issues in business and choose and defend appropriate measures to deal with problems in business in an ethical
manner.
Objectives
1.
2.
3.
4.
Identify and describe ethical standards
Recognize ethical dilemmas
Recognize consequences of ethical choices
Select ethically-sound solutions
Ethics Assessment Report
SBAD 371 - Organizational Management and Behavior – Spring 2012
Learning Goal: Students will recognize and analyze ethical issues in business and choose and defend appropriate measures to deal with problems in business in an ethical manner
N = 115
Objective #1: Identify & Describe Ethical Standards
Exam Question
Correct response
Percentage
Fall
2011
Spring
2011
Fall
2010
Spring
2010
Fall
2009
Q-1
Q-2
Q-3
Q-4
Q-5
Subtotal
80%
91%
88%
70%
89%
83%
80%
77%
76%
73%
76%
80%
75%
78%
71%
78%
58%
74%
70%
81%
73%
67%
71%
68%
Objective #2: Recognize Ethical Dilemmas
Q-7
Q-8
Subtotal
Objective #3: Recognize Consequences of Ethical Choices
Q-6
JCBE 10.1.2012
75%
23
Academic Program: Johnson College of Business and Economics
n
Correct response
Percentage
Assessment Report 2011/2012
Fall
2011
Spring
2011
Fall
2010
Spring
2010
Fall
2009
Overall
Exemplary
69
60%
55%
40%
30%
33%
36%
Acceptable
30
26%
30%
45%
50%
52%
48%
Unacceptable
16
14%
15%
15%
20%
15%
16%
CONCLUSION: Fairly consistent improvement in Objective 1 in spite of changes in instructors. Instruction continues to spend more focus on examples of ethical dilemmas in class to help Objective 2.
Attention on Objective 3 seems to also show some improvement from more attention. Trends on Overall Student performance reflect improvements on Objective 2.
RECOMMENDATION: For the next assessment, add a comparison of how business majors versus non-business majors perform on these ethics questions.
JCBE 10.1.2012
24
Academic Program: Johnson College of Business and Economics
Assessment Report 2011/2012
Exam questions for assessment
1.
Behaving ethically goes beyond
A.
reason
B.
staying within the law
C.
one’s job description
D.
pop culture
2.
One of the complexities businesses face with regards to ethics is the rules that guide ethical decisions are
A.
outdated
B.
complicated
C.
subjective
D.
expensive
3.
Many organizations behave unethically because they focus mainly on economic and legal consequences of their decisions and fail to consider
A.
their ethical duties
B.
historical precedents
C.
their customers reactions
D.
employee morale
4.
Which of the following has been found to significantly influence ethical behavior in and by organizations?
A.
level of profits
B.
organizational culture
C.
rate of sales growth
D.
economic environment
5.
Hosmer’s book on the Ethics of Management questions whether organizational “wrong doings” results from more from individuals’ moral failure or from
A.
Wall St corruption
B.
limited government oversight
C.
lack of training
D.
industry pressure, risks, and rewards
6.
While ethics is considered honorable, Hosmer believes managers should behave ethically mainly because ethical behavior by managers
A.
ultimately costs less
B.
attracts better employees
C.
improves organizational effectiveness
enhances management’s image
D.
7.
When Wal-Mart decides to build a store in a rural area, one major ethical dilemma involves the harm caused to local businesses versus the benefit of lower prices for consumers in
the community. The rule that governs this decision is
A.
Religious injunctions
B.
Utilitarian benefits
C.
Contributive theory
D.
Political autonomy
8.
In the above Wal-Mart example, if one assumes that the local businesses are “powerless” against Wal-Mart, then they would see the above ethical guideline flawed because WalMart’s placement of a store in the rural community violates the ethical guideline called
A.
Distributive justice
B.
Personal virtue
C.
Free enterprise
D.
Protectionism
Learning Goal # 3 – SBAD 292, Spring, 2010
JCBE 10.1.2012
25
Academic Program: Johnson College of Business and Economics
Assessment Report 2011/2012
Appendix D
SBAD 350-Introduction to Marketing
Learning Goal #4: Learning Goal: Students will recognize and analyze ethical issues in business and choose and defend appropriate measures to deal with problems in business in an ethical
manner.
Objectives
5.
6.
7.
8.
Identify and describe ethical standards
Recognize ethical dilemmas
Recognize consequences of ethical choices
Select ethically-sound solutions
Instruction and measurement of understanding of ethics content
This year we made an effort to improve our students’ understanding of business ethics and our measurement of these objectives through two new initiatives.
Following class discussion and the use of written material on the Internet that provides instruction on the foundations of ethics, students were asked to complete a homework assignment that
measured their understanding of ethics. The scores on the homework assignments were as follows
Score
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
Chose not to complete
assignment
Total
Section 701
6
2
4
2
4
Section 750
9
0
2
0
0
Total
15
2
6
2
4
Percentage
30
4
12
4
8
13
31
8
19
21
50
42
100%
Case Assignment
The case assignment was also revised and improved in two ways. Instead of being part of an exam, students were given the case prior to an exam. They had the choice of turning in the case
analysis prior to the exam or answering it during the exam period. Thus the students could spend more time thinking about the situation and developing answers. In addition, the questions used
were more extensive and specific than those previously used.
Ethics Case Assignment
The case used regarded greenwashing, an ethical dilemma that results from marketers advertising products as green when they have little or no environmental improvements over competitive
products.
The assignment questions and rubric are below.
JCBE 10.1.2012
26
Academic Program: Johnson College of Business and Economics
Assessment Report 2011/2012
Objective #1: Identify and describe ethical standards
In your own words, summarize the situation described. What is the ethical standard that this case concerns?
Acceptable
1
Unsatisfactory
0
Provides an inadequate
description of the situation and
the ethical standard in the case.
Provides minimal explanation of
the situation and the ethical
standard of the case.
Exemplary
2
Provided insightful explanations
of the situation and the ethical
standard(s) of the case.
Objective #2: Recognize ethical dilemmas
Assignment:
In a situation such as this, there are at least two alternative choices of action that can be made. There are good aspects about both choices and bad aspects about both choices.
Describe at least two alternative actions an advertising agency could take in this situation?
Unsatisfactory
0
Provides an inadequate or no
description of the concepts and
the situation in the case.
Acceptable
1
Appears to have minimal
understanding of the concepts
and aspects of the situation in
the.
Exemplary
2
Understands the concepts and the
situation in the case and describes
them with clarity.
Objective #3: Recognize consequences of ethical choices
Assignment:
What are the pros and cons of each of the actions, that is, what would be the ultimate good and the ultimate bad consequences of each action for the company and for the consumer?
Acceptable
1
Unsatisfactory
0
Does not discuss the pros and
cons of the alternative actions.
Provides minimal explanation of
positive and negative
consequences of each action
Exemplary
2
Provides an insightful explanation
of the important positive and
negative consequences of each
action
Objective #4: Select ethically-sound solutions
JCBE 10.1.2012
27
Academic Program: Johnson College of Business and Economics
Assessment Report 2011/2012
Assignment:
Which do you feel would be the most ethical action to take and why? Which action would you take and why?
.
Unsatisfactory
0
Does not provide an example of
an ethical action to take.
Acceptable
1
Provides limited explanation of
an ethical action and does not
provide an answer as to why this
is ethical.
Exemplary
2
Provides a good example of an ethical
action to take and provides an insightful
explanation of why this is the ethical
choice.
Results of the Case Assignment
Learning Goal: Students will recognize and analyze ethical issues in business and choose and defend appropriate measures to deal with problems in business in an ethical
manner.
Objective #1: Identify and describe ethical standards
Acceptable
Unsatisfactory
#
2
%
10
#
6
Exemplary
%
29
#
13
%
43
#
11
%
5
#
20
%
10
#
19
%
62
Objective #2: Recognize ethical dilemmas
Acceptable
Unsatisfactory
#
1
%
5
#
9
Exemplary
%
52
Objective #3: Recognize consequences of ethical choices
Acceptable
Unsatisfactory
#
0
%
0
#
1
Exemplary
%
95
Objective #4: Select ethically-sound solutions
Acceptable
Unsatisfactory
#
0
JCBE 10.1.2012
%
0
#
2
Exemplary
%
90
28
Academic Program: Johnson College of Business and Economics
Assessment Report 2011/2012
Average Scores
Total Score
8 – Exemplary
7 – Acceptable
6 – Acceptable
5 – Unsatisfactory
4 – Unsatisfactory
3 - Unsatisfactory
2 - Unsatisfactory
Total
#
8
7
4
1
0
0
1
21
%
38
33
19
5
0
0
5
100
Summary Comments and Recommendations for Action
Written Assignment
The student written assignments generally show not only a clear understanding of the ethical dilemmas faced in business but also a maturity of thinking.
We felt that the revised methodology gave students an opportunity to provide answers more indicative of their understanding.
Recommendation: We recommend that the revised procedure be implemented in the future. In addition, we recommend that only a sample of the written assignments be evaluated and that the
evaluation be conducted by faculty other than those teaching the course.
Additional Recommendations
We agree that more instruction on ethics be given to students during the course such as that implemented this semester. The assignment related to this course content should be required of all
students during the next evaluation period so that we can have better measures of the learning. As with the case assignment, we recommend that a sample of the papers be evaluated by faculty
other than those teaching the course.
JCBE 10.1.2012
29
Academic Program: Johnson College of Business and Economics
Assessment Report 2011/2012
Appendix E
SBAD 290-Introduction to Information Systems
Learning Goal #5: Students will demonstrate the ability to use information technology in modern organizational operations.
5.1 Students will demonstrate the ability to use common spreadsheet software (e.g., Excel).
5.2 Students will demonstrate the ability to use common Statistical software (e.g., Excel).
Decision Analysis in SBAD 290
Historically, application work in the SBAD 290 course has focused primarily on developing skills in Microsoft Excel and Access. Students were presented with business problems, required to design a
model (typically students follow a template), create the model, enter the data, interpret the model results, interpret based upon changing conditions. The decision was made during the summer of
2011 to move application assignments to McGraw Hill’s Simnet/Simgrader platform. The primary reason; it is difficult to assign and grade enough difficulty-graduated exercises in SBAD 290 to
develop the necessary application skills.
The primary value delivered by Simnet/Simgrader is multifold. 1. There are server-centric (The work is done in the server-app environment) lessons which can be tailored to the skill sets each project
encompasses. 2. Each project has a preconceived rubric which the software uses to evaluate the submitted application file. The rubric can be modified to suit but the fact that the instructor does not
have to create a rubric for each exercise is a significant labor and time saving feature. 3. The software also has a feedback mechanism which uses the rubric to identify, for the student and faculty,
what aspects of the project were not completed correctly. 4. There are a variety of project clusters to select from. It is quite simple to devise a graduated difficulty series of assignments which
increment in the number of features and functions encompassed, each building upon the skills accrued in the last.
The average project score overall for Spring 2012 semester was 75.1%. The standard deviation was 21.3%. Such a wide deviation reflects to some extent the significant variance in Excel and Access
skills students have upon entering and exiting the class. The minimum average was 8%, the maximum average was 100%, and the median project average was 79%. As chart 1 indicates below there
were 10 outlier students whose average grade eschewed the overall results.
JCBE 10.1.2012
30
Academic Program: Johnson College of Business and Economics
Assessment Report 2011/2012
Over the course of the year there have been some issues with the accuracy of the grading software. Subtle deviations from instruction, changes in file structure, rearrangement of columns, variations
in font; these and other variances can sometimes cause grading errors. Instructor review of rubric results is necessary to identify problem point-deductions. However, the ability to offer more
application work outweighs the accuracy issues. The issues are also becoming more manageable as instructor knowledge improves.
While the primary reason for moving to the Simnet platform was to increase volume of work and repetition the Simnet projects emphasize skill acquisition with little focus upon model interpretation
and problem analysis. In the future the instructors both agree that the Simnet projects should culminate in a semester project which includes interpretation and analysis.
JCBE 10.1.2012
31
Academic Program: Johnson College of Business and Economics
Assessment Report 2011/2012
Appendix F
SBAD 291-Probability and Statistics
Learning Goal #5: Students will demonstrate the ability to use information technology in modern organizational operations.
5.2 Students will demonstrate the ability to use common Statistical software (e.g., Excel).
Assessment report for goal/objective: information technology / use of Excel
Measurement instrument used: The student was asked to complete 4 tasks using Excel.
5. The student must construct a bar chart..
6. The student must construct a pie chart.
7. The student must construct a scatter diagram.
8. The student must use Excel’s descriptive statistics to create a table of summary statistics.
This assignment is a homework assignment. For the spring 2012, 36 of the 55 students (65%) completed this assignment. Students have approximately 24 short graded homework assignments
during the semester and are allowed to drop the lowest six. This may explain why 35% chose not to complete this assignment. Students must print the output to submit the assignment for grading.
Students were expected to
o Include titles (5 points) for all graphs
o Label the axes, bars, and pie chart slices (5 points)
o Have correct data (frequencies, summary statistics, etc.) ( 10 points)
The total point value for the assignment was 100 points. A similar instrument has been used in previous years. This particular instrument was created during the spring of 2011 for general education
assessment of the Information Technology Literacy (CAT 5), specifically, 5.2 Students demonstrate the ability to use information technologies to communicate information to others.
Results:
Individual Components: Spring 2012 (two day sections)
Maximum
average score
% correct
Bar
Pie
Scatter
25 points
23.3
93 %
25 points
22.8
91 %
25 points
23.6
94 %
Summary
Statistics
25 points
19.6
78 %
Overall Results: Spring 2012
Scores of
Less than 70
70 to 94
95 to 100
unacceptable
acceptable
exemplary
1
16
19
36
3%
44%
53%
97%
The average score for the exercise was 89.3%. 97% of the students scored at the acceptable or exemplary levels. The results fall in the acceptable range for each of the four tasks. The
students have little difficulty doing bar, pie, and scatter diagrams. The use of the Summary Statistics component of Data Analysis in Excel was a bit more difficult with a score of 78%.
Recommendations:
Continue to use the measurement instrument and track progress for general education assessment and JCBE learning goal assessment.
Continue to emphasize the value and use Excel with class discussion and homework.
JCBE 10.1.2012
32