UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY GATTON COLLEGE OF BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS

Transcription

1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY GATTON COLLEGE OF BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES Master of Business Administration (MBA) Submitted to the University of Kentucky, Office of Assessment September 22, 2015

2 1. Introduction Assessment Plan for Master of Business Administration College of Business and Economics Unit Mission Statement: The mission the Department of Business Economics is the same as the College: The Gatton College of Business and Economics is focused on enriching people's lives by creating and disseminating intellectual capital through excellence in teaching, research and engagement. The Gatton College's intellectual domains within the University are the intellectual disciplines of business and economics. Across these disciplines the College: Expands knowledge through research, scholarship and creative activity Facilitates learning, informed by scholarship and research Serves a global community by disseminating, sharing and applying knowledge Promotes human and economic development that improves lives within Kentucky's borders and beyond. Basic Assessment Approach: Assess all outcomes within a three year cycle, using direct and indirect methods. Please see attached Curriculum Map and Artifact Map. Please note that while the College of Business and Economics offers One Year, Evening, Greek and Executive programs for the MBA, they are assessed with the same standards and procedures described below. The Executive MBA (EMBA) uses different classes to assess learning outcomes. They can be found in the Curriculum next their corresponding MBA course. Definition of Key Terms: Assessment: A strategy for evaluating and improving student learning through a continuous, systematic process. Curriculum Map: A visual depiction of how learning outcomes and/or professional standards are translated into individual courses taught within a program. Learning Outcomes: Statements of learning expectations. Indirect Evidence: Data from which you can make inferences about learning but do not demonstrate actual learning, such as perception or comparison data. Includes, but is not limited to: surveys, focus groups, exit interviews, grades, and institutional performance indicators.

3 Direct Evidence: Students show achievement of learning goals through performance of knowledge and skills. Includes, but is not limited to: capstone experiences,, portfolios, and substantial course assignments that require performance of learning. 2. Assessment Oversight, Resources Data is collected by the instructors through either embedded questions on exams and/or quizzes or from other written assignments. These items are scored based on the Learning Outcomes (see below) the courses were assigned to assess. To have sufficient data, at least 40% of all students in each course must be assessed. The data is then sorted by Gatton Office of Assessment into majors with double business majors being listed in each of their programs. Within each major, students are then categorized based their scores on embedded questions or written assignments. Those with a 90% or above are considered Exemplary, 70-89% scores are Proficient, and 69% and below are Deficient. This data is then summarized into percentages and are included in the class assessment reports. After the data are compiled into the reports, the reports are sent from the assessment office directly back to each instructor that submitted data. Each instructor reviews their class specific data included in the report and records their conclusions. Lastly, they describe how they plan to improve students mastery of the learning goal moving forward. The reports are then sent back to the Gatton Office of Assessment. Data is aggregated for the year across courses by learning goal. These annual summaries are reviewed by the Undergraduate Studies Committee where the College s continuing strengths and weaknesses are discussed. Plans to address weaknesses are generated, agreed upon and executed by this Committee. 3. Program-Level Learning Outcome Learning Outcome 1: Critical Thinking Learning Objective: Demonstrate the ability to think creatively and/or strategically about business problems Learning Outcome 2: Identification of Ethical Issues Learning Objective: Demonstrate an appreciation of ethical and societal responsibilities Learning Outcome 3: Multidisciplinary Competence Learning Objective: Demonstrate a multidisciplinary and/or global perspective Learning Outcome 4: Structured Reasoning Skills Learning Objective: Demonstrate analytical and/or logical reasoning skills Learning Outcome 5: Communications Skills

4 Learning Objective: Demonstrate strong written and/or oral communication skills Learning Outcome 6: Business Skills Learning Objective: Demonstrate entrepreneurial and business assessment skills

5 4. Curriculum Maps Core Undergraduate Curriculum Learning Goal FIN 600, EMBA 616 MGT 610, EMBA 650 MGT 611, EMBA 606 MGT 612, EMBA 619 MGT 699, EMBA 620 DIS 651, EMBA 609 Learning Objective Critical Thinking X Demonstrate the ability to think creatively and/or strategically about business problems Identification of Ethical Issues X Demonstrate an appreciation of ethical and societal responsibilities *Note: X indicates where the assessment of the goal will occur. (Updated April 2015 Waiting on Approval) Multidisciplinary Competence X Demonstrate a multidisciplinary and/or global perspective GOALS & OBJECTIVES Structured Reasoning Skills X Demonstrate analytical and/or logical reasoning skills Communication Skills X Demonstrate strong written and/or oral communication skills Business Skills X Demonstrate entrepreneurial and business assessment skills 5. Assessment Methods and Measures Direct Methods: Exams o Using a series of embedded questions that align with the learning outcomes the course is oriented toward. o This is the primary method for courses assessing LO1, LO2, LO3, and LO4. Written Paper with attached Rubrics o This is the primary method for courses assessing LO5 and LO6. Group Projects with attached Rubrics o This is the primary method for courses assessing LO5 and LO6. Indirect Methods: Surveys

6 6. Data Collection and Review Cycle Learning Outcome (LO) # Year 1 LO 1 Bachelor of Science in Accounting SLO Reporting Cycle Stated Student Learning Outcome Academic Year Reporting Year Demonstrate the ability to think creatively and/or strategically about business problems Oct-16 LO 2 Demonstrate an appreciation of ethical and societal responsibilities Year 2 LO 3 Demonstrate a multidisciplinary and/or global perspective Oct-17 LO 4 Demonstrate analytical and/or logical reasoning skills Year 3 LO 5 Demonstrate strong written and/or oral communication skills Oct-18 LO 6 Demonstrate entrepreneurial and business assessment skills 7. Assessment Cycle and Data Analysis Assessment of student learning takes place throughout the program and occurs in select courses. Program faculty will be asked to maintain records of course-level assessment. Program-level assessment data will only be gathered at summative points in the curriculum. The program will follow a three year cycle with two outcomes assessed during each year. Data will be gathered annually for all outcomes. All students must be evaluated for course purposes. Therefore, all student data will be gathered for the purposes of the program assessment. No samples of data will contain less than 40% of students taking each course. Results will be analyzed and reviewed with the Graduate Studies Committee each year. Assessment reports will be completed by the end of each term, (Spring and/or Fall) and submitted to the college s assessment director. Final reports will be sent to the university s assessment office upon request.

7 8. Teaching Effectiveness All instructors will use the University Teacher Course Evaluation (TCE) process to be evaluated by their students each semester. Additionally, each course will be peer reviewed at least once a year. Each instructor will be asked to provide a self-reflection which will include areas of improvement. The Department Chair will review the TCE results, any available peer review forms, and the selfreflection with the instructors and provide feedback to the instructor. This will occur on an annual basis. 9. What are the plans to evaluate students post-graduate success? Our department will look at data provided by the Alumni Survey and will work with the Office of Institutional Research to look at other possible methods. 10. Appendices-Required Rubrics for the above Learning Outcomes can be found in Appendix A.

8 Appendix A BUSINESS SKILLS ASSESSMENT RUBRIC Student Name/Count: Term: Course Number & Section: Assessment Method: CRITERIA 1 (3) Exemplary (2) Proficient (1) Deficient SCORE Business Issue Identification Business Assessment Business Alternatives Business Conclusions & Recommendations Clearly identified/ explicit Assesses the validity of the key assumptions Thoroughly considered business alternatives Valid business conclusions and good recommendations given Issue present, but a little ambiguous Assesses some of the key assumptions Some attention to at least one business alternative Some business conclusions and recommendations are provided Issue ambiguous or not present Fails to assess the key assumptions that underlie the issue Obvious alternatives ignored or superficially considered Fails to make coherent business conclusions and recommendations Scoring Key: Exemplary (11-12) Proficient (9-10) Deficient (<9) 1 Criteria for scoring may be altered upon the instructor s will as long as the final score is based on a three level performance scale: Exemplary (90-100%); Proficient (70-89%); Deficient (<70%).

9 CRITICAL THINKING ASSESSMENT RUBRIC Student Name/Count: Term: Course Number & Section: Assessment Method: CRITERIA 2 (3) Exemplary (2) Proficient (1) Deficient SCORE Issue Identification Evaluation of Key Assumptions Alternate Points of View Clearly identified/ explicit Identifies and questions the validity of the key assumptions Thoroughly considered alternate points of view Problem/issue present, but a little ambiguous Identifies some of the key assumptions Some attention to at least one alternate view Problem/issue ambiguous or not present Does not surface the assumptions that underlie the issue Obvious alternate views ignored or superficially considered Integration Ideas integrated into a coherent argument Ideas integrated into a somewhat coherent piece Ideas lack coherence Creative/Strategic Thinking Conclusions Fresh ideas, reflecting indepth student engagement with the topic Conclusions are drawn and based on sound evidence. Some new insights, but primarily based on collection of other people s ideas Most conclusions are based on evidence. Little evidence of engagement with the topic Most conclusions are unwarranted; maintains preconceived views regardless of evidence. Limitations Thoroughly considered Given some attention Limitations ignored Scoring Key: Exemplary (19-21) Proficient (15-18) Deficient (<15) 2 Criteria for scoring may be altered upon the instructor s will as long as the final score is based on a three level performance scale: Exemplary (90-100%); Proficient (70-89%); Deficient (<70%).

10 IDENTIFICATION OF ETHICAL ISSUES ASSESSMENT RUBRIC Student Name/Count: Term: Course Number & Section: Assessment Method: CRITERIA 3 (3) Exemplary (2) Proficient (1) Deficient SCORE Issue Identification Stakeholders Involved Character and Integrity Evaluation of Ethical Arguments Alternatives & Consequences Choice of Ethical Action Clearly identified/ explicit Critical stakeholders are identified. The role of character of the players in the ethical analysis have been addressed and explored in detail. Provides appropriate evaluation for all relevant arguments Clarifies a number of ethical alternatives to the problem and presents their potential consequences Best ethical action is selected. Ethical analysis is logical and clearly presented. Issue present, but a little ambiguous Most stakeholders are identified, but some may be missing. An analysis of importance of this aspect has been done, but is incomplete. Provides some evaluation of reasons and arguments Clarifies at least two alternatives and predicts their associated consequences in detail Action and ethical analysis is logical and clear, but does not show great reflection or insight. Issue ambiguous or not present Affected parties are not identified. The importance of the integrity of the players has been underestimated or overlooked. Fails to provide weightings of various ethical arguments and reasons Fails to clarify ethical alternatives to the problem and present their potential consequences Ethical action is not identified and analysis is fundamentally flawed. Scoring Key: Exemplary (16-18) Proficient (13-15) Deficient (<13) 3 Criteria for scoring may be altered upon the instructor s will as long as the final score is based on a three level performance scale: Exemplary (90-100%); Proficient (70-89%); Deficient (<70%).

11 MULTIDISCIPLINARY COMPETENCE (global perspective) ASSESSMENT RUBRIC Student Name/Count: Term: Course Number & Section: Assessment Method: CRITERIA 4 (3) Exemplary (2) Proficient (1) Deficient SCORE Identification of Global Factors Analysis of Global Factors Conclusions & Recommendations Clear identification of all relevant global factors Clear, thorough and accurate analysis of impact of global factors Valid conclusions and good recommendations given Identification of most of the relevant factors Some analysis of impact of global factors Some conclusions and recommendations are provided Fails to provide identification of relevant global factors Fails to provide analysis of impact of relevant global factors Fails to make coherent conclusions and recommendations Scoring Key: Exemplary (8-9) Proficient (6-7) Deficient (<6) 4 Criteria for scoring may be altered upon the instructor s will as long as the final score is based on a three level performance scale: Exemplary (90-100%); Proficient (70-89%); Deficient (<70%).

12 STRUCTURED REASONING SKILLS ASSESSMENT RUBRIC Student Name/Count: Term: Course Number & Section: Assessment Method: CRITERIA 5 (3) Exemplary (2) Proficient (1) Deficient SCORE Logical Reasoning Demonstrates defined and clear logical reasoning skills Demonstrates basic logical reasoning skills Demonstrates limited logical reasoning skills Analysis Ideas integrated into a coherent argument Ideas integrated into a somewhat coherent piece Ideas lack coherence Problem Solving Valuation Inferences Demonstrates defined and clear problem solving skills Defined interpretation and the corresponding assignment of a truth value to the problem/task/etc. Inferences are clear and warranted. Demonstrates basic problem solving skills Basic interpretation and the corresponding assignment of a truth value to the problem/task/etc. Some unwarranted inferences are drawn. Demonstrates limited problem solving skills Limited interpretation and the corresponding assignment of a truth value to the problem/task/etc. Most inferences are unwarranted. Limitations Thoroughly considered Given some attention Limitations ignored Scoring Key: Exemplary (16-18) Proficient (13-15) Deficient (<13) 5 Criteria for scoring may be altered upon the instructor s will as long as the final score is based on a three level performance scale: Exemplary (90-100%); Proficient (70-89%); Deficient (<70%).

13 ORAL COMMUNICATION SKILLS ASSESSMENT RUBRIC Student Name/Count: Term: Course Number & Section: Assessment Method: CRITERIA 6 (3) Exemplary (2) Proficient (1) Deficient SCORE Structure Ideas Supporting Arguments Delivery Eye Contact Ability to Answer Questions Clear and appropriate beginning, development and conclusion. Transitions are smooth. Ideas are clearly organized, developed and supported. The purpose is clear. Supporting material is objective, logical and relevant Presenter speaks clearly and loud, and makes no grammatical, structural or lexical errors. Presenter seldom returns to notes, maintaining eye contact with audience throughout the presentation. Presenter answers all questions confidently, and provides relevant information. Adequate beginning, development, conclusion and transitions. Ideas are organized, but lack support. The purpose is ambiguous Supporting material is logical and relevant, but not entirely objective Presenter s voice is relatively clear, but too low to be heard. Presenter makes few grammatical, lexical and/or structural errors. Presenter maintains eye contact with audience most of the time, but frequently returns to notes. Presenter answers most questions confidently, and provides adequate information. Weak beginning, development and conclusion. Transitions are not clear or smooth. Ideas are not clearly organized, developed or supported. The purpose is not clear. Supporting material is not objective, logical or relevant Presenter speaks quietly, and makes multiple grammatical, structural and/or lexical errors throughout presentation. Presenter reads most or all of report, making little to no eye contact with audience. Presenter is unable to answer questions. Scoring Key: Exemplary (16-18) Proficient (13-15) Deficient (<13) 6 Criteria for scoring may be altered upon the instructor s will as long as the final score is based on a three level performance scale: Exemplary (90-100%); Proficient (70-89%); Deficient (<70%).

14 WRITTEN COMMUNICATION SKILLS ASSESSMENT RUBRIC Student Name/Count: Term: Course Number & Section: Assessment Method: CRITERIA 7 (3) Exemplary (2) Proficient (1) Deficient SCORE Structure Key Ideas Overall Content Written work has clear beginning, development and conclusion. Paragraphing and transitions are smooth. Key ideas are clearly organized, developed and supported. The length of the written work provides in-depth coverage of the topic, and assertions are clearly supported by evidence. Written work has adequate beginning, development conclusion, paragraphing and transitions. Ideas are organized, but lack support. The length of the written work is sufficient to cover the topic, and assertions are supported by evidence. Grammar No grammatical errors Few grammatical errors Syntax Language Written work has no major errors in sentence structure, spelling, punctuation, and capitalization. Written work has no errors in word selection and use. Written work has few errors in sentence structure, spelling, punctuation, and capitalization. Written work has few errors in word selection and use. Written work has weak beginning, development and conclusion. Paragraphing and transitions are not smooth. Ideas are not clearly organized, developed or supported. Written work does not do an adequate job of covering the assigned topic, and assertions are weakly supported by evidence. Multiple grammatical errors Written work has multiple errors in sentence structure, spelling, punctuation, and capitalization. Written work has multiple errors in word selection and use Scoring Key: Exemplary (16-18) Proficient (13-15) Deficient (<13) 7 Criteria for scoring may be altered upon the instructor s will as long as the final score is based on a three level performance scale: Exemplary (90-100%); Proficient (70-89%); Deficient (<70%).