Academic Program: Assessment Report 2009-2010
Unit/Department: Johnson College of Business and Economics
Component
Program Mission
Statement
Division:
JCBE
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 provide a high quality baccalaureate
education in business administration and economics to the citizens of the
metropolitan Upstate of South Carolina.
From your Program Assessment Plan (Describe broad
Goal 1
Objectives
SLO’s
(student learning
outcomes)
Assessment
Methods
Assessment
Criteria
P&OD 2.11.10
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.
From your Program Assessment Plan (Describes the
1.1 Major Field Test in Business (MFTB)
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 Students will use correctly the language of business.
1.2 Major Field Test in Business (MFTB)
MFTB is administered each fall and spring in the SBAD 478 Business Policy
course.
SBAE 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: Assessment Report 2009-2010
Unit/Department: 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.)
Division:
JCBE
See Appendix A
Fall 2009 is a continuation of the previous reporting formats. In the Spring 2010, we captured results by
major concentration of student.
Results in the Spring 2010 were very different and quite disappointing. A task force was assigned to
consider a wide range of actions. The issues of the Committee were presented at the Faculty Planning
Retreat in August 2010.
Action Plan
What actions or modifications have been or will be
made based on this assessment?
1.
The most disappointing scores seem to be management and marketing majors. Does the
curriculum in these concentrations need more rigorous courses?
2.
Is there a need for a “gate keeping” course early in the junior year?
3.
Should the requirements for acceptance into the College of Business be upgraded?
4.
What changes to courses by concentration are needed to align curriculum with learning goals?
Each concentration formed work groups to review curriculum opportunities relating to these issues and
will bring these ideas forth to the Curriculum committee to assimilate for further action.
Several changes were already initiated before the results were known:
Implementation
of Previous
Years’ Action
Plan
P&OD 2.11.10
Which of the modifications indicated in the previous
years’ reports were implement this year and what
was the impact?
1.
Different instructors have been assigned to SBAD478 at the request of the AACSB
Accreditation Review
2.
The course will be more intentional in reviewing and debriefing specific areas that will be
tested
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. Since the MFT exam is one to two years after
students take the core courses, the results do not detect the effects of these changes.
The impact of the entry standards have not shown positive results yet.
2
Academic Program: Assessment Report 2009-2010
Unit/Department: Johnson College of Business and Economics
Component
Division:
JCBE
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.)
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
Students will be able to communicate effectively in standard business English.
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.)
2.1 Students will prepare written work of professional quality.
2.2 Students will prepare and deliver a professional oral presentation.
2.1 a) Decision Analysis in SBAD 292
This assignment was a take-home portion of Test 3 in SECO 292 during spring
2008.and Fall 2008 (It was worth 10-20 points (out of 100) depending on the
section. Students were given data concerning the effect of newspaper and
radio expenditures on sales and asked to use multiple regression to determine
which form of advertising had the largest effect on sales and to evaluate the
regression results. Students provided the response in the form of a memo. A
grading rubric was provided. Students were warned that they would lose
points for typing errors, spelling errors, or grammatical errors (--up to 5 points).
All students who completed the assignment were included in the results
2. 1 b) Essays from SBAD 371 classes (Management and Organizational
Behavior).
A sampling of esays were graded from the 371 course. The assignments
varied by class and by /instructor and the with essays varied between from 5 to
10 pages in length. The assessor was an independent staff person at
University Writing Center using rubric developed by the Johnson College of
Business and Economics faculty (Copy on file with Assessment Plan)
P&OD 2.11.10
3
Academic Program: Assessment Report 2009-2010
Unit/Department: Johnson College of Business and Economics
Division:
JCBE
2.2 Oral Presentation in SBAD 478
Measurement instrument used: Oral presentation in SBAD 478: Business
Policy – Dr. Tanyel
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.)
Each student is required to make an oral presentation to the class of a
research project they conduct during the semester. Each student and the
professor, Dr. Faruk Tanyel, rate each student in 11 areas.
Each presentation was subjectively rated as poor, satisfactory, good or
excellent. Numerical values were assigned with 5 being Excellent. Subjective
ratings that were halfway between these were recorded as a 0.5. That is, a
mark halfway between good and excellent received a 4.5 score.
Assessment
Criteria
Assessment
Results
Level of achievement you are targeting (Indicate
2.1 Acceptable,
benchmarks, scores on assessment instruments, etc… that
would indicate acceptable achievement under your plan)
2.2 Acceptable (80%)
Actual results and data collected (Make sure to break
2.1a see Appendix C
2.1b see Appendix B
2.2 see Appendix D
down data by subgroups (e.g. other campuses or emphases).
As appropriate, also include item or category analysis.)
2.1a refine the rubric for evaluating writing skills to provide more consistency of scoring
across instructors
Action Plan
What actions or modifications have been or will be
made based on this assessment?
2.1b the frequency of assessing writing skills in this course will be reduced to once every
couple of years
2.2 . discussions will be held during the course on what makes a good oral presentation
P&OD 2.11.10
4
Academic Program: Assessment Report 2009-2010
Unit/Department: Johnson College of Business and Economics
Implementation
of Previous
Years’ Action
Plan
Division:
JCBE
2.1a Instructors emphasized the importance of proper grammar prior to the exercise having a
favorable impact on the students’ performance.
Which of the modifications indicated in the previous
years’ reports were implement this year and what
was the impact?
2.1b Instructors explained plagiarism prior to the assignment and emphasized throughout the
semester the use of the Writing Center for those students whose weekly write-ups were
inadequate. Results have stabilized at an acceptable level.
2.2 none required.
P&OD 2.11.10
5
Academic Program: Assessment Report 2009-2010
Unit/Department: Johnson College of Business and Economics
Component
Objectives
SLO’s
(student learning
outcomes)
JCBE
Description
From your Program Assessment Plan (Describe broad
Goal 3
Division:
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.)
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.
Students will demonstrate the ability to recognize and analyze business
problems, using a variety of quantitative tools.
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.
3.4 Our students will perform common marketing computations.
P&OD 2.11.10
6
Academic Program: Assessment Report 2009-2010
Unit/Department: Johnson College of Business and Economics
Division:
JCBE
3.1 Our students will analyze data to solve problems commonly encountered in business such as
determining statistically significant relationships between two variables
Measurement instrument used: Regression exercise in SECO 292
3.1 Course-embedded measurement instrument in SECO 292 (take-home test question) and spring
2008 and fall 2008 (we did not report spring 2008 results last year and we did not yet have spring
2009 results at the time of the JCBE faculty meeting to have ready and approved for this report)
This assignment was a take-home portion of Test 3 in SECO 292 during spring 2008.and Fall
2008 (It was worth 10-20 points (out of 100) depending on the section. Students were given data
concerning the effect of newspaper and radio expenditures on sales and asked to use multiple
regression to determine which form of advertising had the largest effect on sales and to evaluate the
regression results. Students provided the response in the form of a memo. A grading rubric was
provided. Students were warned that they would lose points for typing errors, spelling errors, or
grammatical errors (--up to 5 points). All students who completed the assignment were included in the
results
From your Program
Assessment Plan (Describes
Assessment
Methods
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.)
3.2 Course-embedded measurement instrument in SECO 363 (capital budgeting project)
Two questions from the Final Exam.
Question 5 covers valuing a common stock with irregular dividends. Question 6 covers project
analysis: Net Present Value, Internal Rate of Return, the relationship between the two, and ranking
projects.
These two questions represented 40 points on a 155 point final exam. The final exam was worth 25%
of the course grade.
3.3 Course-embedded measurement instrument in SBAD 372 (inventory problem)
The student is asked to complete 6 tasks.
1. The student must construct and label a graph showing the relationship among ordering cost,
carrying cost and total inventory cost versus order quantity for a given situation.
2. The student must then perform numerical calculations to obtain the following values for the
given situation: the economic order quantity, the expected average inventory, the expected
annual ordering cost, the annually carrying cost and the reorder point.
This report documents the most recent semester of this quantitative assessment, fall 2008.
The instrument was not administered during spring 2008. It was administered via a take-home exercise
in each of two day sessions and one night session of SBAD 372 during the fall of 2008 semester.
P&OD 2.11.10
7
Academic Program: Assessment Report 2009-2010
Unit/Department: Johnson College of Business and Economics
From your Program Assessment Plan (Describes the
Assessment
Methods
Assessment
Criteria
Assessment
Results
P&OD 2.11.10
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)
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.)
Division:
JCBE
3.4 Course-embedded measurement instrument in SBAD 350 (final exam
questions)
No assessment activity This report summarizes the results of assessment
activities conducted in SBAD 350, Principles of Marketing during spring
semester, 2009, for the JCBE learning goal related to Learning Goal 3,
Students will demonstrate the ability to recognize and analyze business
problems, using a variety of quantitative tools. One of the objectives of this
goal is that students will demonstrate the ability to do marketing
computations.
The students’ ability to do marketing computations was assessed using
two methods during the 2008-2009 academic year. In the spring
semester, assessment included five multiple-choice questions which
required that students understand costs and be able to accurately
calculate break even problems. In addition, during the fall semester,
exams included an essay-type questions that required students to
complete a break-even calculations.
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).
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
see Appendix C
see Appendix E
see Appendix F
no assessment activity
8
Academic Program: Assessment Report 2009-2010
Unit/Department: Johnson College of Business and Economics
Division:
JCBE
3.1 Continue to use this exercise for assessment but refine the rubric to reduce
variance by instructor
Action Plan
Implementation
of Previous
Years’ Action
Plan
What actions or modifications have been or will be
made based on this assessment?
Which of the modifications indicated in the previous
years’ reports were implement this year and what
was the impact?
3.2 no new actions recommended
3.3 use Homework Manager to assist assessment
3.1 Different instructors worked to calibrate their evaluation process but variances were still
evident.
3.3 Different instructors worked together to provide more consistency in evaluation but too
much variance still exists.
3.4 ongoing assessment
P&OD 2.11.10
9
Academic Program: Assessment Report 2009-2010
Unit/Department: Johnson College of Business and Economics
Component
JCBE
Description
From your Program Assessment Plan (Describe broad
Goal 4
Division:
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
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.)
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.
Due to the additive nature of the ethics objectives they were tested
simultaneously in a number of different courses. The testing methods in each
of the different courses are listed below.
Knowledge of ethics was assessed in Principles of Marketing (SBAD 350) by
Dr. Elnora Stuart in the Spring of 2009. This was the second in the ongoing
series of assessment of ethics in marketing at USC Upstate.
Dr. Stuart objectively assessed knowledge of simple ethics concepts, as well
as subjectively assessed higher order learning objectives of the application of
ethics concepts and decision making. This was consistent with the
assessment measurement methods previously performed in Spring, 2008
(SBAD 350, Principles of Marketing).
Knowledge and understanding on ethics was further assessed tested again in
371 (management) and 343 (business law) using multiple choice questions of
the final exam.
Assessment
Criteria
P&OD 2.11.10
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).
10
Academic Program: Assessment Report 2009-2010
Unit/Department: Johnson College of Business and Economics
Assessment
Results
Actual results and data collected (Make sure to break
Division:
JCBE
For Marketing (sbad 350) see Appendix G and H
For Management (sbad 371) see Appendix I
For Law (sbad 343) Will assess again in 2010-2011
down data by subgroups (e.g. other campuses or emphases).
As appropriate, also include item or category analysis.)
Marketing Ethics: use external reviewers to assess written assignment.
Action Plan
What actions or modifications have been or will be
made based on this assessment?
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?
P&OD 2.11.10
Management Ethics: No further actions identified
Marketing: faculty met to provide more consistency of measurement and focus on ethical
issues. This was not done and is being considered for 2010-2011.
Management: Instructors spent more time on examples of ethical dilemma with favorable
results on Objective 2.
11
Academic Program: Assessment Report 2009-2010
Unit/Department: Johnson College of Business and Economics
Component
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.)
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
P&OD 2.11.10
JCBE
Description
From your Program Assessment Plan (Describe broad
Goal 5
Division:
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.)
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).
5.3 Students will demonstrate the ability to use common presentation software
(e.g., PowerPoint).
5.1 Course-embedded exercise in SBAD 290
This was a take-home assignment which required students to build a decision
model in Excel and interpret its results. Specifically, students were required to
use the “Solver” function to allocate resources while ensuring compliance with
the overall goal. They were given four different scenarios, each representing
an environmental change that required alteration of the original model. The
importance of spreadsheet appearance and clarity was emphasized. Titles,
descriptions for calculated or constant fields, borders, formatting, cell-content
alignment, appropriate background colors, cell comments, and documentation
were all required where appropriate. A grading rubric was provided.
12
Academic Program: Assessment Report 2009-2010
Unit/Department: Johnson College of Business and Economics
Division:
JCBE
SECO 292 Measurement instrument used: The student was asked to
complete 3 tasks.
1. The student must construct a bar graph or pie chart using Excel’s
Chart Wizard.
2. The student must use Excel’s descriptive statistics to create a table of
summary statistics.
3. The student must use MegaStat (a text provided add-in for Excel) to
create a frequency distribution and histogram.
This assignment is part of the first exam in SECO 291. It is worth 3 points (out
of 100). It is a take-home exercise and the student has one week to complete
the exercise. They submit the output to be graded.
From your Program Assessment Plan (Describes the
Assessment
Methods
P&OD 2.11.10
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.)
5.2 Statistical Software
SECO 291: Measurement instrument used: The student completed 5 tasks
using Excel. This assignment was part of the first exam and was worth 5
points (out of 100). It was a take-home exercise and students submitted the
printed output to be graded.
SECO 292 Measurement instrument used: Regression exercise
The Multiple Regression Excel Project was required in SECO 292. It was
worth 10 % of the course grade. Students were directed to use data in the text
and answer 11 questions. The questions concerned: 1) correlation 2) scatter
plots and interpretation 3) regression output and interpretation 4)
understanding the directional impact of the independent variables 5) predicting
the dependent variable 6) F-test 7) test individual regression coefficients and
deletion of variable 8) re-estimate the regression model 9) examine residuals
10) plot the residuals 11) model usefulness. A grading rubric was provided.
Students were allowed to work together, but each student submitted an
individual report. The final report had to be typed and include Excel charts and
output. The total point value of the assignment was 50 point of which 5 points
were awarded for proper formatting and 5 points were awarded for proper
grammar.
13
Academic Program: Assessment Report 2009-2010
Unit/Department: Johnson College of Business and Economics
Division:
JCBE
This assignment was a take-home portion of Test 3 in SECO 292. It was
worth 10-20 points (out of 100) depending on the section. Students were
given data concerning the effect of newspaper and radio expenditures on sales
and asked to use multiple regression to determine which form of advertising
had the largest effect on sales and to evaluate the regression results.
Students provided the response in the form of a memo. A grading rubric was
provided. Students were warned that they would lose points for typing errors,
spelling errors, or grammatical errors (--up to 5 points). All students who
completed the assignment were included in the results
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.)
5.3 Presentation Software
Measurement instrument used: Oral presentation in SBAD 478: Business
Policy.
Each student is required to make an oral presentation to the class of a
research project they conduct during the semester. Each student and the
professor rate each student
Each presentation was subjectively rated as poor, satisfactory, good or
excellent. Numerical values were assigned according to the following criteria.
Subjective ratings that were halfway between these were recorded as a 0.5.
That is, a mark halfway between good and excellent received a 4.5 score.
For assessment purposes, only the instructor’s ratings were included. This will
enable us to compare results over time. The average rating for each student
was calculated and converted to a 100 point maximum.
Assessment
Criteria
P&OD 2.11.10
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).
14
Academic Program: Assessment Report 2009-2010
Unit/Department: 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.)
Division:
5.1
5.1
5.2
5.2
5.3
JCBE
SBAD 290 (see Appendix J)
SBAD 292 (see Appendix C)
SECO 291 (see Appendix L)
SECO 292 (see Appendix C)
SBAD 478 (see Appendix D)
5.1 SBAD 290: no changes were recommended
5.1 SECO 292: no changes were recommended
Action Plan
What actions or modifications have been or will be
made based on this assessment?
5.2 SECO 291: continue to emphasize the use of MegaStar and Excel in statistical
applications
5.2 SECO 292: no changes recommended
5.3 SBAD 478: The instructors will spend more time in class discussing what makes a
good power point presentation and require students ti use power point in their
presentations.
P&OD 2.11.10
15
Academic Program: Assessment Report 2009-2010
Unit/Department: Johnson College of Business and Economics
Division:
JCBE
5.1 SBAD 290: We have negotiated a three-week trial period (September 6 – October 1) using McgrawHill’s Simnet online system to provide student lessons and assignments in the Office Suite, specifically
Microsoft’s Excel and Access applications. They system also grades the assignments something which
would greatly our ability to offer assessed voluminous and varied experiential learning opportunities with
applications. If all goes well we will require that students procure a Simnet license in the spring.
5.1 SECO 292: the updates were performed and a new text was adopted. The measurement instrument
continues to be used to track progress and MegaStat and/or Excel are still used in SECO 291 and SECO
292. “In the spring 2010, the software available in the classrooms matched the software available in the
JCBE computer lab and the text instructions.
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.
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?
5.2 SECO 292: For section 001 evaluated by one instructor, on the writing portion of the exercise, students lost (on average) 1.6 points of the 5 possible points for spelling or grammatical errors. However, 65 % of the students scored at the acceptable or above level. Some students lost a point for not using a memo form. For section 002 and 101 evaluated by another instructor, the “grammar” results were better than expected. On average, students lost only 0.38 points of the 5 possible points for spelling or grammatical errors. 96% of the students scored at the acceptable or above level. In Spring 2009, the instructor did not emphasize the report, and the grammar results were poor. With emphasis in Fall 2009, results improved. For section 001, the computer output score was poor. During the spring semester, the instructor highlighted this problem and the percentage improved and has remained strong. The Assessment Committee recommends the continued use of this exercise for assessment purposes perhaps with a more descriptive rubric to remove some of the variance due to instructor emphasis. It doesn’t appear that we “calibrated” the rubric across instructors. Therefore it is
something we need to do this year. According to our new assessment schedule SECO 292 associated
learning goals will be accessed in the Spring 11 semester. We need to be sure to address this
measurement reproducibility in the spring. Jim O’Connor and Kathleen Brady will be the two instructors.
5.3 SBAD 478: no actions were taken and student scores remained the same
P&OD 2.11.10
16
Academic Program: Assessment Report 2009-2010
Unit/Department: Johnson College of Business and Economics
Division:
JCBE
Appendix A: Objective 1, MFTB Results by Subject and by Year
Assessment report for goal/objective 1: Understanding of Business Core Curriculum
MFT in Business Results from fall 1998 through fall 2009: (changes made to MFT after F06)
F98
S99
F99
S00
F00
S01
F01
S02
F02
S03
F03
S04
F04
S05
F05
S06
F06
wted
mean
S07
F07
S08
F08
S09
F09
Wted
mean
P&OD 2.11.10
INFO
SYS
n
24
30
48
34
43
42
34
53
41
56
46
50
45
48
47
70
65
MFTB
88.8
89.4
66.5
82.4
88.2
79.4
63
77
64.4
73
84
84.5
80.5
89.5
70.5
71
65
ACCT
94.4
76.5
85.5
74.5
94.6
83
78.5
71
67
46
85.8
60
90
77
64
58.5
75
ECON
91.4
95.8
61.8
79
88.1
76.6
37
77.8
76.8
83.5
91.5
92.3
86.8
94.8
80.5
78.5
60
MANG
70.8
66.2
48.6
57.2
76.2
48.6
78.6
34.5
39.8
79
89
86.5
56
87
71
69.5
40
QUAN
82
87.8
48.4
93.7
96.5
86
74.8
81.2
83
77
95
91.2
82
95
85
83
85
FIN
82.2
48.2
67.4
40.6
62
75.5
34
79.5
42.2
67
46.5
80
72.5
84.3
31
45
35
MKT
89.2
99
72.6
98.6
96
91.6
75
88
63.8
71.5
69
90.8
85
95
76.5
72.5
70
LEGAL
81.5
89.5
62
73.5
89.2
63
43
66
36.5
48
52.5
61
46
73
30.5
53
50
INTNAT
89.8
91.3
88.3
88.6
89.5
88.9
79.6
97
66.8
83
94
95
71.5
95
72
90.7
65
776
76.55
73.68
79.11
64.12
83.69
58.06
81.28
58.21
84.76
Na
81
43
67
57
83
69
82.5
65
80
70
65
65
80
35
50
45
55
65
85
65
75
75
70
80
77.5
75
45
45
55
45
95
95
95
95
85
80
60
30
70
55
50
45
87.5
90
90
80
65
60
75
65
65
40
40
35
90
80
85
75
67.5
64
85
50
85
85
70
60
331
71.77
57.11
75.78
55.84
90.34
52.63
80.60
54.85
76.02
73.81
17
Academic Program: Assessment Report 2009-2010
Unit/Department: Johnson College of Business and Economics
all semesters
wted mean
74.92
68.04
77.98
Division:
61.30
85.95
56.21
81.05
57.07
81.78
JCBE
73.81
Each fall and spring semester, students take the Major Field Test in Business during the SBAD 478 class. The test counts as 25 % of the course
grade. The MFTB portion of the course grade is based on relative performance of the student and attendance at the weekend review sessions.
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.)
Spring 2010
Students are categorized by major concentration area
N Overall Accounting Economics Management Quantitative Analysis Finance Marketing Legal and Social Issues Information Systems International Issues P&OD 2.11.10
Accounting 15 Percent at or below 0.7 0.8 0.6 0.65 0.95 0.7 0.5 0.35 0.4 0.4 Economics 9 Percent at or below 0.9 0.3 0.95 0.65 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.65 0.4 0.95 Management 18 Percent at or below 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.15 0.55 0.15 0.35 0.05 0.5 0.15 General Business 23 Percent at or below 0.5 0.35 0.55 0.45 0.95 0.3 0.25 0.7 0.4 0.2 Marketing 22 Percent at or below 0.2 0.15 0.35 0.05 0.8 0.1 0.55 0.15 0.15 0.1 All Students 87 Percent at or below 40 30 55 30 90 30 50 30 30 35 18
Academic Program: Assessment Report 2009-2010
Unit/Department: Johnson College of Business and Economics
Division:
JCBE
Appendix B
Assessment report for goals/objectives: communication - Spring 2009
Learning GOAL
Students will be able to communicate effectively in standard business English.
Summary of Assessment Activities
Essays from SBAD 371 classes (Management and Organizational Behavior)
Assignments varied by class/instructor with essays from 5-10 pages in length
Assessor: One staff person at University Writing Center using attached rubric
Results
Avg score
Spring 2009
N = 21
10.1
Fall 2008
N=19
10
Rating
# students
Percent
Percent
Unacceptable
1 – 6 points
0
0%
5%
Acceptable
7 – 10 points
10
48%
37%
Exemplary
11- 12 points
9
43%
42%
Could not be assessed due to plagiarism
2
9%
16%
Trait
Avg
Logic & Organization
2.58
2.75
Language
2.42
2.25
Spelling & Grammar
2.47
2.38
Purpose
2.63
2.69
Conclusions/Suggestions
1.
Student scores remain reasonably high and more consistent across traits.
2.
Plagiarism still needs to be directly addressed with students as a minimum in the syllabus, and faculty should be
able to address how they are responding to this issue.
3.
Ongoing relationship with University Writing Center has been further developed both in use as Assessors and
support in all classes using writing assignments.
P&OD 2.11.10
19
Academic Program: Assessment Report 2009-2010
Unit/Department: Johnson College of Business and Economics
Division:
JCBE
Appendix C
Presented Spring 2010, Results for Spring 2009 and Fall 2009
Assessment report for goals/objectives:
LG 3 - Quantitative analysis and tools / regression
LG 5 - Information technology / use of Excel
LG 2 - Communication / written communication
Measurement instrument used: Regression exercise in SECO 292
This assignment was a take-home portion of Test 3 in SECO 292 during spring 2008. It was worth 10-20 points (out of 100) depending on the section. Students were given data concerning the
effect of newspaper and radio expenditures on sales and asked to use multiple regression to determine which form of advertising had the largest effect on sales and to evaluate the regression results.
Students provided the response in the form of a memo. A grading rubric was provided. Students were warned that they would lose points for typing errors, spelling errors, or grammatical errors (--up
to 5 points). All students who completed the assignment were included in the results
Results:
Maximum
Sp ’08 Section
001
Average
score
Percent
correct
Maximum
Sp ’08 Section
002 &101
P&OD 2.11.10
Overall
fit
t-test
Potential
problems
Summary
evaluation
“Content”
Grammar
Computer
output
3
2
2
1
1
9
-5
1
2.65
1.45
1.55
0.55
1
7.2
1.6
0.35
88
73
78
55
100
80
68
35
6
4
4
2
2
18
-5
2
Average
score
4.89
3.62
3.73
0.92
1.11
14.69
-.38
1.64
Percent
correct
82
91
93
46
55
82
92
82
3
2
2
1
1
9
-5
1
2.33
1.57
1.57
0.76
0.81
7.05
-1.5
0.81
Maximum
Spring ‘09
Correct
solution
Average
score
20
Academic Program: Assessment Report 2009-2010
Unit/Department: Johnson College of Business and Economics
Percent
correct
Maximum
Fall ‘09
Average
score
Percent
correct
Division:
78
79
79
76
81
78
70
81
3
2
2
1
1
9
-5
1
2.45
1.75
1.79
0.95
0.95
7.74
-0.42
0.95
82
88
90
95
95
86
92
95
JCBE
Overall results – Spring 2008
Section 001
“content”
8 to 9
6 to 7
0 to 5
E
A
U
#
%
“grammar”
12
2
6
20
70
0
-2 to -1
-5 to -3
30
E
A
U
#
%
6
7
7
20
65
“output”
35
1
0
A
U
#
%
7
13
20
35
65
Sections 002 and 101
Overall results – Spring 2008
Content Questions
#
15 to 18
11 to 14
0 to 10
Total
E
A
U
40
16
10
66
Grammar
%
85
15%
#
0
-2 to -1
-5 to -3
Total
E
A
U
54
9
3
66
%
96
5%
Computer Output
#
2
1
0
Total
E
A
U
46
16
4
66
%
94
6%
Overall results – Spring 2009
Content Questions
#
8 to 9
6 to 7
0 to 5
Total
E
A
U
16
1
4
21
Grammar
%
81
19
0
-2 to -1
-5 to -3
Total
E
A
U
#
%
11
4
6
21
71
29
1
0
Total
Computer Output
#
%
E/A
U
81
19
17
4
21
Overall results – Fall 2009
P&OD 2.11.10
21
Academic Program: Assessment Report 2009-2010
Unit/Department: Johnson College of Business and Economics
Content Questions
#
8 to 9
6 to 7
0 to 5
Total
E
A
U
10
8
1
19
Division:
Grammar
%
95
5
0
-2 to -1
-5 to -3
Total
E
A
U
#
%
16
2
1
19
95
5
1
0
Total
Computer Output
#
%
E/A
U
95
1
20
1
19
JCBE
The “content” remain acceptable. The average score was 78% to 88% correct and between 70% and 95% of the students scored at the acceptable or above level.
For section 001 evaluated by one instructor, on the writing portion of the exercise, students lost (on average) 1.6 points of the 5 possible points for spelling or grammatical errors. However, 65 % of
the students scored at the acceptable or above level. Some students lost a point for not using a memo form. For section 002 and 101 evaluated by another instructor, the “grammar” results were
better than expected. On average, students lost only 0.38 points of the 5 possible points for spelling or grammatical errors. 96% of the students scored at the acceptable or above level. In Spring
2009, the instructor did not emphasize the report, and the grammar results were poor. With emphasis in Fall 2009, results improved.
For section 001, the computer output score was poor. During the spring semester, the instructor highlighted this problem and the percentage improved and has remained strong.
Recommendation (loop closing): The Assessment Committee recommends the continued use of this exercise for assessment purposes perhaps with a more descriptive rubric to remove some of
the variance due to instructor emphasis.
P&OD 2.11.10
22
Academic Program: Assessment Report 2009-2010
Unit/Department: Johnson College of Business and Economics
Division:
JCBE
Appendix D
Assessment report for Goal # 2: Communicate effectively in standard business English and
Goal # 5: Demonstrate the ability to use information technology
Objective for LG # 2: prepare and deliver a professional oral presentation
Objective for LG # 5: presentation software
Measurement instrument used: Oral presentation in SBAD 478: Business Policy – Dr. Tanyel
Each student is required to make an oral presentation to the class of a research project they conduct during the semester. Each student and the
professor, Dr. Faruk Tanyel, rate each student in each of the following areas.
Area A1 A2 Presentation Areas Evaluated
Quality of organization in the presentation
Clarity of explanations
A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11 Logic of the analysis Thoroughness of the analysis Justification for the recommendations Practicality of the recommendations Quality of illustrations, exhibits, etc. Handling of questions from the audience Adequate answers Courtesy How well did the individual hold the interest of the audience Each presentation was subjectively rated as poor, satisfactory, good or excellent. Numerical values were assigned according to the following criteria. Subjective
ratings that were halfway between these were recorded as a 0.5. That is, a mark halfway between good and excellent received a 4.5 score.
Rating Rubric Rating Score Excellent 5 P&OD 2.11.10
23
Academic Program: Assessment Report 2009-2010
Unit/Department: Johnson College of Business and Economics
Good Satisfactory Poor Division:
JCBE
4 3 2 For assessment purposes, only Dr. Tanyel’s ratings were included. This will enable us to compare results over time. The average rating for each student was
calculated and converted to a 100 point maximum. Dr. Tanyel feels that any score below 80 is unacceptable (U), from 80 to 89 is acceptable (A), and 90 or about
is exemplary (E).
Results:
Individual Components – Spring 2009
Area A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11 Avg as % Presentation Areas Evaluated Average Max of Max Quality of organization in the presentation 4.26 5 85% Clarity of explanations 4.12 5 82% Logic of the analysis 4.22 5 84% Thoroughness of the analysis 3.95 5 79% Justification for the recommendations 4.02 5 80% Practicality of the recommendations 4.05 5 81% Quality of illustrations, exhibits, etc. 4.29 5 86% Handling of questions from the audience 4.35 5 87% Adequate answers 4.28 5 86% Courtesy 4.83 5 97% How well did the individual hold the interest of the audience 3.88 5 78% Average 4.21 5 84% P&OD 2.11.10
24
Academic Program: Assessment Report 2009-2010
Unit/Department: Johnson College of Business and Economics
Overall results for presentation
Spring 2009
Overall Presentation Results Category Scale # % E 90+ 14 17% A 80 to 89 52 64% U <80 15 19% Total 81 Division:
JCBE
Results for presentation software (note: 2 students did not use power point)
Spring 2009
Results for Technology Category Scale # % E 90+ 30 38% A 80 to 89 40 51% U <80 9 11% Total 79 The individual student results are included at the end of this report.
Discussion:
1. Eighty-one percent of students performed at the acceptable or exemplary level for their overall presentation. Nineteen percent gave an
unacceptable presentation. These compare with eighty percent and twenty percent in fall 2008, respectively (no difference).
2. The three lowest areas are A11: holding audience interest (3.88), A4: thoroughness of the analysis (3.95) and A5: justification of
recommendations and (4.02).
3. The three highest areas are A10: courtesy (4.83), A8: handling questions (4.35) and A7: quality of illustrations, exhibits, etc. (4.29).
4. Only eleven percent of students obtained an unacceptable score for their use of software during the presentation. This compares with seven
percent in fall 2008.
5. Note: students were not required to use power point for this presentation; two did not.
Recommendation
Continue with this assessment tool in subsequent sections of SBAD 478.
P&OD 2.11.10
25
Academic Program: Assessment Report 2009-2010
Unit/Department: Johnson College of Business and Economics
Division:
JCBE
Appendix E
SBAD 363 – Fall 2009 & Spring 2009
Assessment report for goals/objectives:
Quantitative analysis and tools / regression
Measurement instrument used:
Two questions from the Final Exam.
Question 2 covers valuing a common stock with irregular dividends. Question 3 covers project analysis: Net Present Value, Internal Rate of Return, the relationship between the two, and ranking
projects.
These two questions represented 40 points on a 130 point final exam. The final exam was worth 20% of the course grade.
Results:
Individual Components – Average Scores for each question – Fall 2009
2a
2b
2c
Total
3a
3b
3c
3d
Total
Total
5
5
5
15
10
5
5
5
25
40
7.6
8.7
7.8
87%
3.0
2.9
2.9
58%
3.1
2.8
3.0
57%
2.5
1.7
2.3
33%
Max
Avg.
Day
3.5 3.2 3.4 64% Night
All
% All
3.6 3.3 3.5 66% 2.7 2.4 2.7 48% 9.8 8.9 9.6 59% Night Section
n
%
Day Sections
n
%
Question 2
U
0–9
A
10 – 13
E
14 – 15
P&OD 2.11.10
27 18 15 60 45% 30% 25% 16.1
16.1
16.1
64%
7 6 5 18 39% 33% 28% 25.9
24.9
25.7
62% All
n
%
34 24 20 78 44% 31% 26% 26
Academic Program: Assessment Report 2009-2010
Unit/Department: Johnson College of Business and Economics
Question 3
U
0 – 15
A
15 – 21
E
22 – 25
24 20 16 60 40% 33% 27% Division:
6 8 4 18 33% 44% 22% 30 28 20 78 JCBE
38% 36% 26% Individual Components – Average Scores for each question – Spring 2009
2a
2b
2c
Total
3a
3b
3c
3d
Total
Total
5
5
5
15
10
5
5
5
25
40
3.5
3.3
2.2
3.1
31%
2.5
2.9
2.1
2.6
51%
1.5
2.4
2.1
1.9
37%
3.6
4.0
2.8
3.6
73%
Max
Avg.
001
002
450
All
% All
2.7 1.6 1.4 2.1 42% 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.4 48% 2.7 2.5 3.3 3.0 59% 7.7 6.5 7.0 7.4 50% 001
n
Question 2
U
A
E
Question 3
U
A
E
450
002
%
n
%
n
11.1
12.6
9.2
11.2
45%
18.8 19.1 16.2 18.6 46% All
%
n
%
0-9
16 57% 10 77% 10 63% 36 63%
8 29% 1 8% 5 31% 14 25%
14 – 15
4 14% 2 15% 1 6% 7 12%
28 13 16
57
10 – 13
0 – 15
17 61% 7 54% 12 75% 36 63%
9 32% 5 38% 2 13% 16 28%
22 – 25
2 7% 1 8% 2 13% 5 9% 28 13 16
57
15 – 21
The performance for Fall 2009 rebounded from the anomalously low levels of Spring 2009. The average score for both questions was 62% (25.7/40) in the Fall, compared with 46% (18.6/40) in the
Spring, and comparable to Fall 2008’s average score of 73% (29.4/40).
P&OD 2.11.10
27
Academic Program: Assessment Report 2009-2010
Unit/Department: Johnson College of Business and Economics
Division:
JCBE
On Question 2, 57% of the students achieved Acceptable or Exemplary scores, comparable to 2008’s level of 56% and substantially improved over Spring 2009 result of 37%. Question 3 exhibited a
similar rebound, with 62% of the students scoring Acceptable or Exemplary, compared with 37% in the Spring and a whopping 88% in Fall 2008.
In Fall 2009, 30 of the 78 students (38%) who took the exam students scored unacceptably on both questions. Seventeen of those thirty received a D or an F for the course and will have to repeat
the class. These seventeen students were 22% of the students who took the exam.
For all semesters, these results do not represent a random sample of the class. Several students are able to exempt the final because of superior performance throughout the semester. Therefore,
these results may be biased downward.
P&OD 2.11.10
28
Academic Program: Assessment Report 2009-2010
Unit/Department: Johnson College of Business and Economics
Division:
JCBE
Appendix F
Assessment Report for Goal/Objective: Quantitative Tools – Inventory Model
Measurement instrument used: The student is asked to complete 6 tasks.
3. The student must construct and label a graph showing the relationship among ordering cost, carrying cost and total inventory cost versus order quantity for a given situation.
4. The student must then perform numerical calculations to obtain the following values for the given situation: the economic order quantity, the expected average inventory, the expected
annual ordering cost, the annually carrying cost and the reorder point.
This report documents the most recent semesters of this quantitative assessment. The instrument was not administered during spring 2008.
Results:
Question
Q1
Graph
Q2
EOQ
Q3
Avg
Inv
Q4
Order
Q5
Carry
Q6
ROP
Avg
5
1
1
1
1
1
10.0
Avg
3.01
0.92
0.74
0.96
0.78
0.77
7.18
%
60%
92%
74%
96%
78%
77%
Avg
3.82
0.94
0.91
0.61
0.94
0.91
%
76%
94%
91%
61%
94%
91%
Max points:
#E
#A
#U
Total
#
41
12
37
90
46%
13%
41%
17
9
7
52%
27%
21%
Semester
Fall 09
Spring 09
Fall 08
Fall 07
Spring 07
Avg
4.53
0.89
0.89
0.89
0.96
0.81
%
91%
89%
89%
89%
96%
81%
Avg
4.51
0.96
0.98
0.96
0.91
0.85
%
90%
96%
98%
96%
91%
85%
Avg
3.95
0.97
0.85
0.92
0.77
0.76
%
79%
97%
85%
92%
77%
76%
P&OD 2.11.10
8.12
9.0
9.2
8.3
67
20
4
74%
22%
4%
42
7
4
79%
13%
8%
38
8
16
61%
13%
26%
33
91
53
62
29
Academic Program: Assessment Report 2009-2010
Unit/Department: Johnson College of Business and Economics
Fall 06
Spring 06
Fall 05
Division:
Avg
3.86
0.93
0.88
0.83
0.74
0.81
%
77%
93%
88%
83%
74%
81%
Avg
3.05
0.55
0.3
0.45
0.45
0.5
%
61%
55%
30%
45%
45%
50%
Avg
2.93
0.83
0.86
0.83
0.76
0.79
%
59%
83%
86%
83%
76%
79%
P&OD 2.11.10
8.0
5.3
7.0
25
7
10
60%
17%
24%
7
1
12
35%
5%
60%
9
9
11
31%
31%
38%
JCBE
42
20
29
30
Academic Program: Assessment Report 2009-2010
Unit/Department: Johnson College of Business and Economics
Division:
JCBE
Summary of Quantitative Analysis by Semester
90%
80%
Percentage of Students
70%
60%
50%
Exemplary
Acceptable
40%
Unacceptable
30%
20%
10%
0%
Fall 05 Spring 06 Fall 06 Spring 07 Fall 07
Fall 08 Spring 09 Fall 09
Comments
1.
There is variation between professors in the application of the rubric in Fall 2009.
P&OD 2.11.10
31
Academic Program: Assessment Report 2009-2010
Unit/Department: Johnson College of Business and Economics
Division:
JCBE
Appendix G
ETHICS ASSESSMENT REPORT
SBAD 350 Principles of Marketing, Final Exam (Objective Multiple Choice Questions) FALL semester, 2009
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 = 72
OBJECTIVE #1: Identify & Describe Ethical Standards
2008 Results
Exam #1
Questions
Correct Response
(#) Frequency Results
Correct Response
(%) Percentage of Class Results
Q-41
64
89 %
96%
Q-42
51
71 %
76%
Q-43
68
95 %
91%
Q-44
59
82 %
80%
Q-45
45
63 %
57%
Q-47
58
81 %
76%
Q-49
71
99 %
98%
Q-50
58
80 %
76%
OBJECTIVE #2: Recognize Ethical Dilemmas
Exam #1
Questions
Correct Response
(#) Frequency Results
Correct Response
(%) Percentage of Class Results
Q-39
66
91 %
89%
Q-43
64
89%
91%
Q-49
68
95 %
98%
Q-50
58
80 %
76%
P&OD 2.11.10
32
Academic Program: Assessment Report 2009-2010
Unit/Department: Johnson College of Business and Economics
Division:
JCBE
OBJECTIVE #4: Select Ethically-Sound Solutions
Exam #1
Questions
Correct Response
(#) Frequency Results
Correct Response
(%) Percentage of Class Results
Q-49
68
95 %
98%
Q-50
58
81 %
76%
P&OD 2.11.10
33
Academic Program: Assessment Report 2009-2010
Unit/Department: Johnson College of Business and Economics
Division:
JCBE
Appendix H
ETHICS ASSESSMENT REPORT
SBAD 350 Principles of Marketing -- WRITTEN ASSIGNMENT, FALL semester, 2009
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= 72
OBJECTIVE #1: Identify & Describe Ethical Standards
Assignment
#1
UNSATISFACTORY
#
%
0
0
ACCEPTABLE
#
%
42
58
EXEMPLARY
#
%
30
42
OBJECTIVE #2: Recognize Ethical Delimmas
Assignment
#2
UNSATISFACTORY
#
%
18
25
ACCEPTABLE
#
%
EXEMPLARY
#
%
44
10
60
15
OBJECTIVE #3: Recognize Consequences of Ethical Choices
Assignment
#3
UNSATISFACTORY
#
%
12
27
ACCEPTABLE
#
%
23
33
EXEMPLARY
#
%
37
40
OBJECTIVE #4: Select Ethically-Sound Solutions
Assignment
#4
UNSATISFACTORY
#
%
27
TOTALS
FALL 2009
SPRING 2008
P&OD 2.11.10
37
UNSATISFACTORY
23%
20%
ACCEPTABLE
#
%
24
33
ACCEPTABLE
46%
45%
EXEMPLARY
#
%
21
30
EXEMPLARY
31%
35%
34
Academic Program: Assessment Report 2009-2010
Unit/Department: Johnson College of Business and Economics
Division:
JCBE
Appendix I
– Spring 2010
SBAD 371 - Organizational Management and Behavior
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 = 129
Objective #1: Identify & Describe Ethical Standards
Exam Question
Correct Response Correct response
Frequency
Q-1
Q-2
Q-3
Q-4
Q-5
Subtotal
97
108
108
55
104
Fall
2009
Spring
2009
Fall
2008
75%
84%
84%
43%
81%
73%
76%
77%
84%
75%
73%
74%
70%
69%
90%
71%
68%
78%
78%
Percentage
Objective #2: Recognize Ethical Dilemmas
Q-7
Q-8
Subtotal
97
94
Objective #3: Recognize Consequences of Ethical Choices
Q-6
91
Overall
Exemplary
43
33.3%
36.1%
43.5%
66%
Acceptable
66
51.2%
48.4%
43.5%
30%
Unacceptable
20
15.5%
15.6%
13%
4%
CONCLUSION: Fairly consistent results from last two semesters. Instructors’ time spent on examples of ethical dilemmas in class helped Objective 2. Attention on Objective 3 seems to also show
some results. Trends on Overall Student performance are more consistent.
P&OD 2.11.10
35
Academic Program: Assessment Report 2009-2010
Unit/Department: Johnson College of Business and Economics
Division:
JCBE
Appendix J
Decision Analysis in SBAD 290
This was a take-home assignment which required students to build a decision model in Excel and interpret its results. Students were required to create an Excel spreadsheet which they could use to
perform budgeting analysis. The IT budget constraint was $80,000 and students were required to design a decision model which enabled the user to change prices, charges, and the number of
employees while assessing the impact of such changes on equipment category costs, total cost, and conformance to the budget constraint. The importance of model conformity, spreadsheet
appearance, and clarity was emphasized. A grading rubric was provided.
Results – Fall 2009
Data Entry
25
23.7
95%
Maximum
Average Score
Percent Correct
Formula Accuracy
25
18.8
75%
Model Conformance
25
19.4
78%
Formatting
25
21.5
86%
Overall results – Fall, 2009
Data Entry
0-17.4
17.5-22.4
22.5-25
Model Conformance
0-17.4
17.5-22.4
22.5-25
#
5
4
62
71
%
7
Formula Accuracy
0-17.4
17.5-22.4
22.5-25
93
#
23
13
35
71
%
32
68
Formatting
0-17.4
17.5-22.4
22.5-25
#
21
13
37
71
#
12
19
40
71
%
30
70
%
17
83
For the Data Entry part the overall percentage was 95% correct with 93% of students scoring at the acceptable or above level.
Evaluation of formula accuracy issues yielded an average of 75% correct with 70% of students scoring at the acceptable or above level.
Model conformance to the business problem specific to variables, constraints, and organization yielded 78% correct with 68% of students scoring at the acceptable or above level.
Formatting issues yielded 86% correct with 83% of students scoring at the acceptable or above level.
Overall average score on the assignment was 79% with 78% of students scoring at the acceptable level or higher.
Measurement Instrument P&OD 2.11.10
36
Academic Program: Assessment Report 2009-2010
Unit/Department: Johnson College of Business and Economics
Division:
JCBE
This was a take‐home assignment which required students to build a new hardware cost calculator in Excel and interpret its results. Students were required to create an Excel spreadsheet which they could use to perform an IT budgeting analysis. The IT budget constraint was $80,000 and students were required to design a decision model which enabled the user to change prices, charges, and the number of employees while assessing the impact of such changes on equipment category costs, total cost, and conformance to the budget constraint. Grading Rubric Factor Points Over budget 4 Formula: hardware/software cost 6 Formula: cost for category 6 Formula: total cost 6 Charge: Vista 3 Charge: MS Office 3 Charge: IT support 3 Number of employees 3 Results – Fall 2009 (n=72) Factor Maximum Number Correct Percent Correct Over budget 4 62 86% Formula: HW/SW cost 6 60 83% Formula: category cost 6 59 82% Formula: total cost 6 65 90% Charge: Vista 3 58 81% Charge: MS Office 3 57 79% Charge: IT support 3 61 85% Number of employees 3 68 94% Overall Ratings Rating Number Percentage Exemplary (>=90%) 43 60% Acceptable (70‐89%) 19 26% Unsatisfactory (<70%) 10 14% P&OD 2.11.10
37
Academic Program: Assessment Report 2009-2010
Unit/Department: Johnson College of Business and Economics
Division:
JCBE
Appendix L
Assessment report for goal/objective: information technology / use of Excel
Measurement instrument used: The student was asked to complete 3 tasks.
1. The student must construct a pie chart using Excel’s Chart Wizard.
2. The student must use MegaStat (a text provided add-in for Excel) to create a frequency distribution.
3. The student must use Excel’s descriptive statistics to create a table of summary statistics.
This assignment is part of the first exam in SECO 291. It is worth 5 points (out of 100). It is a take-home exercise and the student has one week to complete the exercise. They submit the output to
be graded. This instrument has been used for assessment purposes during numerous semesters. For earlier results, please see the 2007 and 2009 reports.
Results:
Individual Components: Spring 2010 (two day sections)
Bar or pie
chart
Max = 1
.95
95 %
average
% correct
Frequency
distribution
Max = 2
1.35
68 %
Descriptive stat
Max = 2
1.42
71 %
Max = 5
3.72
74 %
Overall Results: Spring 2010
Scores of
0 or 1 or 2
3 or 4
5
unacceptable
acceptable
exemplary
15
17
33
23 %
26 %
51 %
23 %
77 %
In the spring 2010, the software available in the classrooms matched the software available in the JCBE computer lab and the text instructions. (This was a problem during the spring of
2009.)
The average score for the exercise was 74%. The results are exemplary for the creation of a pie chart (95 % correct). Results for frequency distribution using MegaStat and descriptive
statistics using Excel are about the same (68% and 71%). The use of MegaStat requires loading a program into Excel or going to the JCBE lab.
Overall Results: 5 semesters
Semester
Fall 2005
Spring 2006
Fall 2006
Fall 2008
Spring 2009
Spring 2010
% of E or A
68
75
64
73
77
77
%U
32
25
36
27
23
23
A summary of results for the multiple uses of this instrument are shown above. There appears to be some improvement over the years.
Recommendations:
Continue to use the measurement instrument and track progress once a year.
Continue to emphasize the value and use of MegaStat and Excel with class discussion
P&OD 2.11.10
38