Accunting 2014-2015 Assessment Reprt 1. Please give a brief verview f the assessment data yu cllected this year. This can be in any frm yu feel is apprpriate, such as a table, a shrt narrative f results, statistical analysis, highlighting findings that were f particular interest, etc. Yu will, hwever, likely want t submit results fr each learning utcme yu assessed this year individually. Assessment in the Cfrin Schl f Business is managed by its Assurance f Learning Cmmittee (r AOL Cmmittee). In the 2014-15 schl year, the Cfrin Schl cllected data related t tw f its fur Prgram Level Learning Gals (r PLLGs): PLLG 1: Apprach business challenges frm an interdisciplinary perspective. PLLG 2: Evaluate business decisins in terms f hw they impact crprate scial respnsibility. The prcedures and data analysis fr bth learning utcmes during 2014-15 are summarized in the fllwing: PLLG 1 Evaluatin: PLLG 1 (Interdisciplinary perspectives) was assessed by using the fllwing curses that were ffered in Fall 2014 semester: BUS ADM 482-800 Strategic management (nline). Prf Caldie Thmas: Number f students- 28 BUS ADM 482- Strategic management (Face-t-Face): Number f students- 23 BUS ADM 424-001- Marketing Research: Number f students- 34 BUS ADM 424-002- Marketing Research: Number f students- 30 30 assignments were cllected frm the fur curses. Ten assignments were frm Strategic Management and twenty frm Marketing Research. All assignments were chsen randmly by the instructrs. The assessrs were as fllws: Strategic management: Prf. David Radsevich and Prf. Sampath Ranganathan Marketing Research: Prf. Caldie Thmas and Prf. Lucy Arendt Prcedure: Each assessr read all assignments frm the respective curse and graded each assignment using the rubric. The rubric assessed the fllwing traits: Trait 1: Usage f cncepts and principles frm at least tw disciplines in the wrk Trait 2: Des the student use disciplinary knwledge accurately and effectively Trait 3: D the cnclusins drawn frm the wrk indicate that understanding has been advanced by the integratin f disciplinary views? Each trait had 4 pints namely unacceptable (1 pt), needs imprvement (2 PT), acceptable (3 Pt) and exemplary (4 pt). Hence the maximum pssible scre n a rubric fr any given assignment is 12 pints and the minimum pssible scre was 3 pints. The scres f each assessr was averaged fr each assignment and the results are as fllws:
Ttal assignments: 30 Results: Mean scres f the traits are as fllws (average scre f tw assessrs. Minimum pssible average is 1, maximum is 4) Trait 1: MeanT1 Valid 1.00 1 3.3 3.3 3.3 2.00 4 13.3 13.3 16.7 2.50 7 23.3 23.3 40.0 3.00 8 26.7 26.7 66.7 3.50 7 23.3 23.3 90.0 4.00 3 10.0 10.0 100.0 Ttal 30 100.0 100.0 Trait 2: MeanT2 Valid 1.50 1 3.3 3.3 3.3 2.00 4 13.3 13.3 16.7 2.50 9 30.0 30.0 46.7 3.00 8 26.7 26.7 73.3 3.50 7 23.3 23.3 96.7 4.00 1 3.3 3.3 100.0 Ttal 30 100.0 100.0 Trait 3: MeanT3 Valid 1.50 2 6.7 6.7 6.7 2.00 4 13.3 13.3 20.0 2.50 8 26.7 26.7 46.7 3.00 8 26.7 26.7 73.3 3.50 7 23.3 23.3 96.7 4.00 1 3.3 3.3 100.0 Ttal 30 100.0 100.0
Mean ttal (Minimum pssible = 4, Maximum pssible = 12) Valid 5.00 1 3.3 3.3 3.3 5.50 1 3.33 3.33 6.7 6.00 3 10.0 10.0 16.7 6.50 1 3.33 3.33 20.0 7.00 2 6.7 6.7 26.7 7.50 4 13.3 13.3 40.0 8.00 3 10.0 10.0 50.0 8.50 3 10.0 10.0 60.0 9.00 1 3.33 3.33 63.3 9.50 5 16.7 16.7 80.0 10.50 3 10.0 10.0 90.0 11.00 1 3.33 3.33 93.3 11.50 2 6.7 6.7 100.0 Ttal 30 100.0 100.0 Mean scres by curses Grup Statistics Curse N Mean Std. Deviatin Std. Errr Mean MeanT1 Marketing Research 20 2.9500.58264.13028 Strategic Management 10 2.8000.91894.29059 MeanT2 Marketing Research 20 2.8250.56835.12709 Strategic Management 10 2.8000.67495.21344 MeanT3 Marketing Research 20 2.8500.63037.14096 Strategic Management 10 2.6500.66875.21148 MeanTtal Marketing Research 20 8.4000 1.74416.39001 Strategic Management 10 8.2500 2.00347.63355 Tests fr mean difference indicates that there is n significant mean differences between the tw curses in all traits and ttal scres. Trait 1: Usage f cncepts and principles frm at least tw disciplines in the wrk Results indicate that 60% f students get a rating f satisfactry r exemplary (mean scre 3 and abve) in trait 1. But 40% f students get a rating f unacceptable r needs imprvement. This is way belw the 75% threshld set by the AOL cmmittee. S students are very weak in the trait f Usage f cncepts and principles frm at least tw disciplines in the wrk and this skill needs imprvement Trait 2: Des the student use disciplinary knwledge accurately and effectively Results indicate that 53.3% f students get a rating f satisfactry r exemplary (mean scre 3 and abve) in trait 2. But 46.7% f students get a rating f unacceptable r needs imprvement. This is way belw the 75% threshld set by the AOL cmmittee. S students are nt up t par in the trait f use disciplinary knwledge accurately and effectively and this skill needs further imprvement
Trait 3: D the cnclusins drawn frm the wrk indicate that understanding has been advanced by the integratin f disciplinary views? Results indicate that 53% f students get a rating f satisfactry r exemplary (mean scre 3 and abve) in trait 3. But 47% f students get a rating f unacceptable r needs imprvement. This is way belw the 75% threshld set by the AOL cmmittee. S students are nt up t par in the trait f understanding has been advanced by the integratin f disciplinary views and this skill needs further imprvement. Tests fr mean difference indicates that there is n significant mean differences between the tw curses in all traits and ttal scres. S we have n reasn t believe that this is due t the curse that was used fr assessment. This indicates that interdisciplinary skills f students need t be imprved. It appears that the students are better at recgnizing the different disciplines that may cme int play but utilizing their knwledge abut all thse disciplines t make cnclusins is their weak pint. They can't apply it all tgether. PLLG 4 Evaluatin: PLLG 4 (Evaluate business decisins in terms f hw they impact crprate scial respnsibility) was assessed by using Prf. Ranganathan s BUS ADM 322 (Intrductry Marketing) sectins 1 and 3 in Fall 2014 semester. Ttal number f students enrlled in these curses were 91. All students were asked t write an essay questin that critically examined Cca-Cla s respnse t the besity crisis in US. 30 randmly selected assignments were evaluated by using PLLG 4 rubric n April 10th 2015 Friday. The assessrs were Prf. Steve Muzatk and Prf. Patricia Albers. Each assessr read all 30 assignments and graded each assignment by using the rubric. The rubric had the fllwing traits: Trait1: Identify underlying scial/envirnmental issues Trait2: Understand Imprtance f CSR in decisin making Trait3: Applicatins f scial respnsibility cncepts in decisin making Each trait had 4 pints namely unacceptable (1 pt) needs imprvement (2 PT), acceptable (3 Pt) and exemplary (4 pt). Hence the maximum pssible scre n a rubric fr any given assignment is 12 pints and the minimum pssible scre was 3 pints. The scres f each assessr was averaged fr each assignment and the results are as fllws: Ttal assignments: 30 Frequencies fr mean scres f each trait: Trait 1: Trait1 Patricia Albers Unacceptable 4 13.3 13.3 13.3 Needs Imprvement 12 40.0 40.0 53.3 Acceptable 14 46.7 46.7 100.0 Ttal 30 100.0 100.0
Trait1 Steve Muzatk Unacceptable 8 26.7 26.7 26.7 Needs Imprvement 9 30.0 30.0 56.7 Acceptable 7 23.3 23.3 80.0 Exemplary 6 20.0 20.0 100.0 Ttal 30 100.0 100.0 Frequencies fr Mean f Trait 1 MeanT1 Valid 1.00 3 10.0 10.0 10.0 1.50 4 13.3 13.3 23.3 2.00 8 26.7 26.7 50.0 2.50 5 16.7 16.7 66.7 3.00 4 13.3 13.3 80.0 3.50 6 20.0 20.0 100.0 Ttal 30 100.0 100.0 Mean: 2.35 Median: 2.25 Mde: 2.00 Standard Deviatin: 0.81 Trait2 Patricia Albers Unacceptable 5 16.7 16.7 16.7 Needs Imprvement 14 46.7 46.7 63.3 Acceptable 11 36.7 36.7 100.0 Ttal 30 100.0 100.0 Trait2 Steve Muzatk Unacceptable 5 16.7 16.7 16.7 Needs Imprvement 8 26.7 26.7 43.3 Acceptable 13 43.3 43.3 86.7 Exemplary 4 13.3 13.3 100.0 Ttal 30 100.0 100.0 Frequencies fr Mean f Trait 2 MeanT2 Valid 1.00 1 3.3 3.3 3.3 1.50 7 23.3 23.3 26.7 2.00 4 13.3 13.3 40.0
2.50 8 26.7 26.7 66.7 3.00 7 23.3 23.3 90.0 3.50 3 10.0 10.0 100.0 Ttal 30 100.0 100.0 Mean: 2.36 Median: 2.50 Mde: 2.50 Standard Deviatin: 0.7 Trait3 Patricia Albers Unacceptable 6 20.0 20.0 20.0 Needs Imprvement 10 33.3 33.3 53.3 Acceptable 14 46.7 46.7 100.0 Ttal 30 100.0 100.0 Trait3 Steve Muzatk Unacceptable 7 23.3 23.3 23.3 Needs Imprvement 12 40.0 40.0 63.3 Acceptable 9 30.0 30.0 93.3 Exemplary 2 6.7 6.7 100.0 Ttal 30 100.0 100.0 Frequencies fr Mean f Trait 3 MeanT1 Valid 1.00 2 6.7 6.7 6.7 1.50 6 20.0 20.0 26.7 2.00 7 23.3 23.3 50.0 2.50 8 26.7 26.7 76.7 3.00 5 16.7 16.7 93.3 3.50 2 6.7 6.7 100.0 Ttal 30 100.0 100.0 Mean: 2.23 Median: 2.25 Mde: 2.50 Standard Deviatin: 0.67 Statistics fr the ttal (Minimum = 3, Maximum = 12) Mean: 6.95 Median: 7.00
Mde: 7.00 Standard Deviatin: 1.89 Analysis: Trait1: Identify underlying scial/envirnmental issues Results indicate that 66.7% f students get a rating f unacceptable r needs imprvement in trait 1. 33.3% f students get a rating f satisfactry r exemplary. This is way belw the 75% threshld set by the AOL cmmittee. The mean scre is 2.35 and the mde is 2 (needs imprvement). S this indicates that students are nt up t par in the trait f Identify underlying scial/envirnmental issues and this skill needs further imprvement. Trait2: Understand Imprtance f CSR in decisin making Results indicate that 66.7% f students get a rating f unacceptable r needs imprvement in trait 1. 33.3% f students get a rating f satisfactry r exemplary. This is way belw the 75% threshld set by the AOL cmmittee. The mean scre is 2.36 and the mde is 2.50. These tw numbers are belw the satisfactry level. S this indicates that students are nt up t par in the trait f Understand the imprtance f CSR in decisin making and this skill needs further imprvement. Trait3: Applicatins f scial respnsibility cncepts in decisin making Results indicate that 76.7% f students get a rating f unacceptable r needs imprvement in trait 1. 23.3% f students get a rating f satisfactry r exemplary. This is way belw the 75% threshld set by the AOL cmmittee. The mean scre is 2.23 and the mde is 2.50. These tw numbers are belw the satisfactry level. S this indicates that students are nt up t par in the trait f Applicatins f scial respnsibility cncepts in decisin making and this skill needs further imprvement. 2. Hw will yu use what yu ve learned frm the data that was cllected? Sme examples are: particular imprvements t the curriculum, incrpratin f a different pedaggy, a change in assessment plan fr the fllwing year in rder t btain mre specific feedback, better infrmatin r a better respnse rate, a determined need fr faculty develpment in a particular area, better career alignment, a faculty retreat t discuss the data and hw best t use it, etc. The Cfrin Schl Assurance f Learning Cmmittee s Annual Reprt fr 2014-15 including plans fr the cming schl year: Cmmittee members: Sampath Ranganathan (Chair) Bill Lepley Assurance f Learning Cmmittee Annual reprt 2014-2015
David Radsevich Ghadir Ishqaidef James Lebl In Fall 2014 AOL Cmmittee decided t frm PLLG teams and the fllwing members were selected t head the PLLG teams. PLLG 1 and 4: Sampath Ranganathan PLLG 2: Jim Lebl PLLG 3: Ghadir Ishqaidef PLLG teams will decide respective curses, instruments t assess the given PLLG. PLLG teams are als expected t discuss the assessment data and prvide feedback. Cmmittee als decided that at least 75% students shuld get a scre f satisfactry and abve in rubrics. It was als decided t hld an assessment day t evaluate student assignments fr the purpse f assessment. Tw evaluatrs will be used per assignment. In Fall 2014 semester PLLG 1 was assessed using assignments frm Strategic Management (Prfessrs Michael Knight and Thmas Caldie) and Marketing Research (Prf. Sampath Ranganathan). PLLG 4 was assessed using assignments frm Intrductry Marketing (Prf. Sampath Ranganathan). 30 assignments were cllected frm the fur sectins t assess PLLG1 and 30 assignments frm Intrductry marketing curse were used t assess PLLG 4. All assignments were chsen randmly by the instructrs. PLLG 2 and PLLG teams discussed assessment results and expressed satisfactin with student perfrmance. In Spring 2015 semester assessment day was held n 4/10/2015. The assessrs were as fllws: Strategic management: Prf. David Radsevich and Prf. Sampath Ranganathan Marketing Research: Prf. Caldie Thmas and Prf. Lucy Arendt Intrductry Marketing: Steve Muzatk and Patricia Albers Each assessr read all assignments frm the respective curse and graded each assignment by using the rubric. Based n the assessment results, the AOL cmmittee fund that students perfrmance is belw satisfactry levels in PLLG 1 and PLLG 4. Assessment results were presented in faculty meeting n May 8, 2015. A jint meeting was held with curriculum cmmittee n May 8, 2015. It was tentatively decided t implement the fllwing interventins t clse the lp. T identify curses in which crprate scial respnsibility can be incrprated in the syllabi. Instructrs in these curses will discuss CSR and its imprtance in the relevant curse. Students will be tested n their knwledge f CSR cncepts and hw they apply them in decisin making T identify curses in which Interdisciplinary skills can be successfully incrprated and integrated in the cursewrk. Curriculum cmmittee and AOL cmmittee will wrk n this in Fall 2015.
Plans fr 2015-2015: An imprtant task fr AOL cmmittee fr the 2015-2015 year will be t take make curriculum changes s that student perfrmance in PLLG 1 and PLLG 4 can be imprved. AOL cmmittee will wrk with curriculum cmmittee n this in Fall 2015. PLLG 2 and PLLG 3 will be assessed in Fall 2014 and PLLG 1 and PLLG 4 will be assessed in Spring 2016. We plan t clse the lp by taking crrective actins in Fall 2015 semester and see the changes in Spring 2016 assessment. Indirect assessment was cnducted by an alumni survey. We plan t expand this and use mre indirect measures f assessment (student survey, utging student survey) in 2015-2016 year.