2010 Assessment Report of the B.S.B. and MBA degree programs offered by the Doermer School of Business

Transcription

1 DSB 2010 AssessRpt.docx 2010 Assessment Report of the B.S.B. and MBA degree programs offered by the Doermer School of Business As part of the accreditation reaffirmation process of AACSB-International, the Doermer School of Business (DSB) submits annual reports as well as a major Fifth Year Accreditation Maintenance Report to AACSB- International. This Fifth Year Accreditation Maintenance Report (a.k.a. self-study report) is followed by a three-day site visitation by AACSB-trained representatives, who perform an audit and issue a recommendation. The most recent self-study report was submitted in August 2007 for the site visit of November The positive reaffirmation of our accreditation was formalized in the spring of The next self-study report will be submitted August 2012 in advance of the November 2012 site visit. A pillar of the AACSB Standards is the Assurance of Student Learning (a.k.a. assessment ). AACSB-International, prescribes a unification of local/internal learning goals and measures with external validation and benchmarking (relevant Standards #15 through #20 as taken from : pp ). AACSB-International is exclusively concerned with baccalaureate and graduate degree programs. Thus, the DSB emphasis on assessment at the associate degree has been minimal. With the most recent re-affirmation cycle, we learned that AACSB is not concerned with assessment at the sub-levels within the BSB or MBA programs; consequently, there is no longer a focus on the assessment of the concentrations of Accounting, Economics, Finance, Management, and Marketing for AACSB purposes. Given that each of our degree programs is a joint offering of the three departments that comprise DSB, the relevant sub-units within DSB for AACSB assessment are the school-wide curricular policy committees for each program. These school-wide committees are the Undergraduate Policy Committee (UPC) and the Graduate Policy Committee (GPC); all degree-level assessment activities are directed by these two faculty standing committees. The concentration-level assessment is still handled by the relevant department. Evidence and Assessment of Student Learning In order to assess student learning in its academic programs, the Doermer School employs multiple measures (both direct and indirect) focused on the stated learning objectives of each degree program. Such measures include: Direct measures are defined to include such internal measures of student performance as exam scores, evaluation of student projects and papers, performance in downstream courses, capstone course activities, student portfolios, and external validation of student performance such as field tests, comparative CPA Examination pass rates, student consulting projects assembled for regional organizations, and forms of student competitions with business students from other institutions.

2 Indirect measures are defined to include evaluations from intern/co-op sponsors and all surveys (e.g. internal such as interim and exit surveys and our longitudinal survey of graduating BSB students conducted 1, 3, and 10 years out from their graduation date, or external such as those of the Educational Benchmarking Institute). DSB Approach to the Assurance of Student Learning The Doermer School of Business is committed to achieving the learning goals for the Bachelor of Science in Business (BSB) and the Master of Business Administration (MBA). The School has a three-step program for assessing student learning. Step 1: Establish the competency of our students in areas related to desired learning goals. Step 2: Analyze the results of the internal assessment instruments, and external measures such as field testing, student competitions, benchmarking, and other methods. Step 3: Use the results to celebrate student achievement, refine desired learning outcomes, and improve the business curricula. To accomplish assurance of student learning, each of the two program policy committees (UPC and GPC) within the School, have reevaluated and restructured as needed, its previous assessment processes. This entailed the determination of multiple learning objectives, with measures and processes, for the MBA program and the BSB common core. A curriculum mapping was done and an assessment instrument designed for each of these units. The unit assessment plans were adopted at the school level, approved by the Campus Assessment Council and are appended to the AACSB accreditation maintenance report. The School s efforts in this regard have been intended to serve two purposes, namely, assessing student learning and benchmarking student performance. Consonance of the Undergraduate Curriculum with the Goals of the IPFW Baccalaureate Framework The BSB curriculum requires students to take 46 credit hours of core courses, an additional 15 to 24 credit hours in the concentration area (15 for Economics, 21 for management or marketing, 24 for accounting or finance), and 53 credit hours of general education. While each of the five concentrations primarily focus on the first goal of the baccalaureate framework (depth of knowledge in the chosen discipline), the business and economics core, as a whole, aims at achieving all six of the baccalaureate framework goals. The balance of this document summarizes the 2010 assessment activity within DSB.

3 Doermer School of Business (DSB) Assessment Report for 2010 Criterion Y / N Comments/recommendations All departments / programs have assessment plans Assessment measures are linked to program goals Y Y The B.S.B. Core, each of the five concentrations within the B.S.B. degree program, the Associate of Science in Business (A.S.B.), and the MBA program each have a formal assessment plan. All were operational during 2010 except for that of the A.S.B. Since AACSB-International does not review associate degree programs, the A.S.B. program has been neglected in our assessment process, as all efforts were channeled to the AACSB standards. The A.S.B. is offered jointly by the three departments in SBMS and consequently must be reviewed by faculty at the school level rather than at the department level. This responsibility is charged to the DSB Undergraduate Policy Committee, but their attention is focused on the BSB in preparation for the next accreditation review (AACSB report due summer 2012). As of Jan. 2011, the BSB program has delineated a set of five (repackaged from the original six) learning objectives for the business core curriculum (published in the Bulletin). Each of the five concentrations then compliments the school-level learning objectives with additional learning objectives unique to their concentrations. Assessment Plan Standards in Paragraph III.B.1. of SD have been followed. All departments / programs submitted reports Y N As of Feb 2011, the MBA program has an articulated set of five (repackaged from the original seven) strategic learning goals for graduates of the program; the formal assessment plan for this program is deliberately tied to these stated goals. DSB implementation of plan development, data collection and interpretation has sought to ensure compliance with SD as well as other pragmatic considerations. As acknowledged above, the A.S.B. program has a formal assessment plan but it has yet to be operationalized, consequently, there was no formal report for that program in Enrollment management has been the focus of A.S.B. reviews to date. All five concentrations within the B.S. Business program, as well as the MBA program, submitted reports.

4 Departments / programs use assessment for program improvement Y Each program=s continuing intent is to use meaningful assessment measures to drive program / concentration improvement. For the B.S. Business program, during Fall 2010, the Collegiate Assessment of Academic Proficiency was carried out in W430 at the request of the university s then Director of Assessment. (see attachment from Department of Management & Marketing). The MBA curriculum has been collecting and evaluating data on student learning from the ETS field tests, competitions, client project evaluations, and capstone portfolios. One area of concern that has surfaced and is being discussed by the DSB Graduate Policy Committee is the content of A524 (economic foundations). A second issue under review is the waiver policy for incoming MBA students with undergraduate background in a specific functional area. Departments / programs base recommendations on data Y SBMS programs continue to have a strong empirical orientation / factual basis (including both qualitative as well as quantitative data) for curricular review and redesign. BSB and MBA curricular revisions are grounded in previously collected data (often from multiple corroborating sources when possible). Prior year recommendations were implemented Y While no curricular revision recommendations were implemented during 2010, there were two additions to the fall course schedule (Econometrics and Monetary Policy) that resulted from analysis of assessment input (see attachment for Department of Economics). A Bank Management certificate was approved this year and will be offered beginning in Additionally, a certificate for Pension Plan Management is nearly through the campus approval process. Both certificate initiatives are a direct result of working with local companies, such as Lincoln, MedPro and Tower Bank, in assessing their talent needs now and in the future. (see attachment for Department of Accounting and Finance) School support for assessment requested / needed Y Given that the two degree programs (BSB and MBA) are school level programs that cross departmental lines, any assessment of their respective student-learning outcomes must be financially supported at the school level.

5 School-level review effective University-level support for assessment requested/needed Recommended changes to department/program plans Recommendations to Assessment Council N Likely in the future Y Y With DSB standing committees (Undergraduate Policy Comm, at the BSB level and Graduate Policy Comm. at the MBA level), the infrastructure is in place to perform effective reviews. However, the existing assessment plans, which articulate reasonable student learning goals and objectives, have not yet been united with operational rubrics for evaluating the data collected. Consequently, the two standing committees are struggling with consistency in the analysis phase. During 2010, we found we needed to step back and build better evaluation rubrics before continuing further. This was the focus of much of the DSB assessment efforts during the fall 2010 semester (and continues to be the focus). New prototype rubrics have been developed (at least to a beta test stage) and will be employed on assessment data collected in the spring 2011 semester. Another significant modification of the process is that an External Stakeholder Assessment Board is being assembled (parallel to the external Business Advisory Council used in the DSB strategic planning process). The External Stakeholder Assessment Board will consist of several members drawn from each of the DSB Alumni Advisory Council and the curriculum committee of the DSB Business Advisory Council. This board will complement, not replace, the faculty analysis of assessment data at both the BSB and MBA levels. The board will report their independent audit-opinion and make their independent curricular recommendations to the appropriate faculty standing committee as will the faculty who are involved in assessment data analysis. Moreover, we are seeking external stakeholder corroboration and validation of our internal analysis. The Educational Benchmarking Institute (EBI) instruments are quite expensive (exceeding $3000). The EBI of >00-=01, spring 2003, and summer 2005 were funded through a soft money account which is now closed. ETS field testing severely stretches the existing budgets in this era of budget cutting. While, it would be valuable to perform both the EBI exit survey and the ETS field test for graduating students annually, such an ambitious plan would necessitate a supplemental source of funding. (the Doermer gift is specified and does not include benchmarking) Given the suggestions of the AACSB-International visitation team (November 2007), to move to more data sharing, and minimization of redundancy, with respect to assurance of learning, the various units within DSB are examining ways to streamline and better integrate their relatively independent plans. We need to continue to foster and nurture the message that assessment is a process toward an end, but not an end in itself.

6 Attachments: I: Economics II: Accounting and Finance III: Management and Marketing IV: MBA Program V: Rubrics for BSB Objectives VI: Rubrics for MBA Objectives

7 Attachment I: Economics ASSESSMENT REPORT: ACADEMIC YEAR Department of Economics DOERMER SCHOOL OF BUSINESS INDIANA UNIVERSITY-PURDUE UNIVERSITY FORT WAYNE Prepared by Nodir Adilov, Assistant Professor December 20, 2010 Summary In accordance with its Assessment Plan, the Department of Economics assesses performance of economics majors on core microeconomics, macroeconomics, and statistics concepts and on critical thinking skills. This report provides assessment results and an overview of steps taken by the Department to assess the performance of its majors during the academic year. Data collection Since Fall 2006, the Department collects copies of exams, papers, and other academic work of economics majors enrolled in required upper-level economics classes. During the and academic years, assessment data were collected from Intermediate Microeconomic Theory (E321) and Intermediate Macroeconomic Theory (E322) courses. In the academic year, the Department collected assessment data in Economics Capstone (E406) course as well because the Department concluded that it was more appropriate to measure core economics skills in the Capstone course. Beginning Fall 2009, the Department collected assessment data only from the Capstone course because all economics majors are required to take this course in their senior year. Therefore, this report is based on assessment data from the

8 Capstone course. The sample size is 10 students. Assessment results The Department applies the rubric in the Department s Assessment Plan to assess students work. The rubric is attached to this report and is shown in Tables 1-4. Specifically, in order to evaluate performance of students, each faculty assigns scores to each student relative to their performance on various learning objectives. Then, average student scores are calculated. The scoring rubric runs from 0 to 3. A score of 2 indicates competence at an acceptable level and 3 exceeds the expectations of the Department. The assessment scores show that students performance in all learning objectives comfortably exceeded the Department s expectations. The summaries of evaluation scores for these courses are presented in Tables 5-8. It is important to highlight that all students met or exceeded the expectations of the Department. While students mean performance levels during the academic year on marginal analysis, market analysis, and macro models objectives were slightly below the mean levels for the academic year, the differences in performance levels were within one standard deviation and were not statistically significant. Mean score on monetary and fiscal policy objective improved from 2.75 (year ) to 2.85 (year ), but the difference was not statistically significant. Regarding statistical skills and critical thinking skills objectives, students performed at a level that exceeded the Department s expectations and the mean scores were 2.80 or above. The assessment measured test of means learning objective for the first time and the mean score for that objective was Student research papers in E406 showed that while all students had a practical knowledge of applying regression analysis in common economic settings, the analysis in papers of a couple of students contained some inaccuracies and some students had difficulty applying the regression analysis in more complicated situations. All students showed competence gathering data, presenting data, and connecting the analysis to policy. Curriculum changes Assessment results indicate that the current economics curriculum provides appropriate mix and coverage of macro/micro topics and critical thinking skills applications. Thus, no course content changes were suggested for the core economics courses. The assessment results also indicate that students can improve their regression analysis skills. To this effect the Department

9 decided to offer Econometrics course in the Fall of Fed Challenge assessment information In November 2009, the IPFW Department of Economics entered a team in the Chicago regional of the national Fed Challenge competition, which is sponsored by the Federal Reserve. This competition asks a team of students to act as monetary policy advisors. The IPFW team placed second in its section of four teams. Overall, the team performed well and showed strong knowledge of monetary policy. The team did very well answering most of the questions, but it struggled with some advanced topics. These advanced monetary policy topics are covered in the Monetary Policy course, which none of the IPFW team members had previously taken. Thus, it was recommended that the Department offers the Monetary Policy course in the Fall of 2010 so that students participating in the Fed Challenge competition can simultaneously enroll in the course. The Department will continue to participate in this prestigious event. Future Assessments The assessment for the academic year is expected to be completed in the Summer of 2011.

10 Attachment II: Accounting & Finance: Accounting: Doermer School of Business Department of Accounting and Finance 2010 Assessment Report In 2004 the Department of Accounting and Finance implemented significant changes in the curriculum requirements for the accounting concentration. Based on input from our constituents we have made additional changes to curriculum that will go into effect Fall Additionally, enrollment levels have increased significantly from prior years (those seeking undergraduate degrees went from 100 to 125). In the attached tables we can see that IPFW holds its own on the CPA exam results (always reported with a full year lag). We consistently do well in the Auditing and Regulation area. Business Concepts also does well, though not always above national averages. Our weakest area is Financial Accounting. This weakness was a specific area we addressed with our curriculum changes. We will be able to assess the impact of those curriculum changes in three to four years. Finance: Of special note for this concentration is the effort to create Certificate programs that meet the niche needs of the regional business community. Specifically, a Bank Management certificate was approved this year and will be offered beginning in Additionally, a certificate for Pension Plan Management is nearly through the campus approval process. Both certificate initiatives are a direct result of working with local companies, such as Lincoln, MedPro and Tower Bank, in assessing their talent needs now and in the future.

11 Indiana University-Purdue University Fort Wayne Doermer School of Business Department of Accounting and Finance CPA Exam Results for Candidates Without Advanced Degrees (except Indiana results which are reported by NASBA for all degree levels) (Highlight Indicates Section of Exam When IPFW Exceeded National Average) No. of Cand. Percent of Candidates Passing FAR AUD REG BEC All* 2004: IPFW Indiana (all degree levels) National 36, : IPFW Indiana (all degree levels) National 50, : IPFW Indiana (all degree levels) National 57, : IPFW Indiana (all degree levels) 1, National 46, : IPFW Indiana (all degree levels) 1, National 52, : IPFW Indiana (all degree levels) 1, National (all degree levels) 93, *All = persons who passed all events taken (i.e., not necessarily all four sections of the exam)

12 2009 CPA Exam Results for Selected Comparison Institutions No. of Cand. Percent of Candidates Passing FAR AUD REG BEC All* Without advanced degree: Ball State Butler ISU IU Bloomington IPFW IUPU Indianapolis Indiana Univ. South Bend Indiana Univ. South East Manchester Purdue University of Evansville Univ. of Indianapolis Univ. of Notre Dame Univ. of Southern Indiana With advanced degree: Ball State Butler IU Bloomington IUPU Indianapolis IUSB South Bend Purdue Univ. of Notre Dame *All = persons who passed all events taken (i.e., not necessarily all four sections of the exam) IPFW Ranking see note FAR AUD REG BEC All* Public and private Public only Note: Rankings were done by us with information provided by NASBA based on school awarding highest degree (i.e. using data that combine undergraduate and graduate results by school.)

13 Attachment III: Management and Marketing ASSESSMENT REPORT: ACADEMIC YEAR DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT & MARKETING DOERMER SCHOOL OF BUSINESS INDIANA UNIVERSITY-PURDUE UNIVERSITY FORT WAYNE Prepared by Karen Moustafa Leonard, Associate Professor Spring 2011 SUMMARY Several assessment activities were undertaken by the Department of Management and Marketing during In Fall 2009, the Department faculty discussed the value of proceeding with the current assessment plan. It was decided that the current assessment plan gave incomplete information, in terms of the rating system. The Management and Marketing Department faculty met to discuss what alternatives to use and delegated the task to the Assessment Committee. In Fall 2009, it was agreed that Dr. Leonard would use a portfolio method as a trial in Spring 2010, to determine whether it was advantageous. Portfolios have been used for assessment of learning in many different disciplines, but are rarely used in the business school. She obtained a grant for this purpose, and the results are reported in the next section. In Spring 2010, the Collegiate Assessment of Academic Proficiency (CAAP) assessment was carried out in W430 at the request of the university s Assessment Director. Results are reported in a section below. The plan follows the discussion of these results. Results of the Portfolio Experiment: The experiment using portfolios was conducted during three classes taught by Dr. Leonard during Spring 2010: Z444 (elective class), W430 (required class), and M542 (required graduate class). Each class was assigned the responsibility for completing various coursework cases and questions, an analysis of their skill level in the activity, and a reflection on when and where the use of the skill would be appropriate. For example, in the chapter on communication

14 in W430, there were three questions. One was in the area of reflective listening, a concept and skill in organizational behavior. In answering the what and why of the concept, they demonstrated lower level learning skills. In answering the how and who of the concept, they showed middle level learning skills. In reflecting on the when and where of the concept, they demonstrated higher level learning. There were mixed results. On the one hand, students were able to exhibit their skills and reflect on their learning, integrating course concepts and suggestions within thoughts for use in future (or current) management requirements. On the other hand, there was an excessive amount of time in writing and grading by both the students and instructor. Some of the portfolios at the end of the classes exceeded 100 pages. The result was a decision to continue with the reflective part of the portfolio, but moderate the lower levels of learning into other formats. For example, the lower levels of learning can be demonstrated through chapter quizzes put online at Blackboard. A second outcome from the poorly demonstrated writing skills in the initial part of the portfolio was the realization that students are likely compartmentalizing their English classwork, thinking that they would not need the information from the class for their Business School courses. We have asked that the Chair arrange a meeting with those teaching business communication courses to discuss ways of overcoming the students false perceptions. Collegiate Assessment of Academic Proficiency Assessment: Two types of CAAP assessment were done at the request of the Assessment Director in Spring 2010 in the W430 course. The W430 course was chosen because, while not a capstone course, Critical Thinking and Writing skills are a key component in this class and it is a required class for those in the School of Business. From the information about the test, the Writing Essay Test assesses ability to take and support a position about a given issue. From the same information, the Critical Thinking Test assesses the ability to clarify, analyze, evaluate, and extend arguments. Test scores, IPFW percentile scores, and national percentile scores for the W430 class are given in Appendix 1 to this report. Overall, students compared well with both IPFW and national percentages, particularly when you consider that the instructions for taking the exam

15 were not given, there was no visible gain for taking the test, except for pizza, supplied by the Department as a thank you token. We have determined that these parts of the CAAP Test might be useful in future; however, we propose to make it part of the students grades for the course and to make sure that the instructions are provided for the student before they take the examination. FUTURE ASSESSMENT PLAN: Plan and Rationale: After reviewing the previous assessment plan ( ) and following comments from the AACSB accreditation team, it was determined that the learning goals of the School for the graduate and undergraduate program are more important to the AACSB process than are departmental program goals. However, departmental program goals are still relevant and required for university accreditation goals, other than the AACSB. Therefore, the faculty decided to use the methods outlined by the Undergraduate Program Committee (UPC) for evaluation of the remaining departmental courses, beginning in Fall Methods: The Management and Marketing Department (M&M) is the largest in the School. It has two programs: Management and Marketing. Therefore, the faculty felt it was important to assess the entire population of students attending M&M courses, rather than only those students whose major or minor is in management or marketing. After looking at several tools and attending various seminars on the topic, the departmental faculty decided to adopt the methods used by the UPC in their evaluation of the BS and MBA. The School s UPC has decided to select School learning goals to be assessed in specific classes, using both direct and indirect measures. The Department has taken those measures and will use them to assess each course taught in the M&M Department. Specifically: 1. Demonstrate competency in fundamental business knowledge. Define, describe, and understand fundamental business terminology and concepts. Assessed in J401using ETS Major Field Test (J401) and other objective tests. 2. Solve business problems through critical thinking skills and quantitative analysis techniques.

16 Identify and summarize central problems in complex business situations; Correctly integrate theories in management and apply business models to address problems; and Generate plausible solutions to problems. Assessed in W430 and P301 using course-embedded exam questions, cases analyses, or projects. 3. Understand the global economic environments and consider global factors in business decisions. Understand global economic environment and Analyze the impact of global factors on business decisions. Assessed in M301and D300 using course-embedded exam questions and cases involving global economic and business environments. 4. Understand ethical, legal, and regulatory implications of business decisions. Identify and understand ethical, legal, and regulatory issues in business decisions and Analyze ethical dilemmas and propose alternatives. Assessed in W204 and W430 using course-embedded exam questions and cases. 5. Demonstrate effective communication skills. Write effectively and professionally in business settings and Speak and present effectively in business settings. Assessed in Z302, W430 using course embedded projects with oral and written requirements. Rubrics for measurement were developed by the UPC and will be used by the M&M faculty. After data collection, organized by the Chair of M&M, the M&M Assessment Committee will analyze the data from the assessment instrument, interpret it, identify challenges, and propose actions. The faculty will use the data to evaluate the curriculum and adjust the mix of electives and requirements. Other matters, such as grading standards, individual course requirements,

17 and pedagogies will also be discussed for the improvement of the Department. We will continue to search for programmatic examinations (such as the Economics Department s Test of Understanding of College Economics ), which have not yet been found. The Schools ETS data for relevant sections will also be examined. Discussion: In examining the results of the future assessment, we will necessarily be concerned with the possibility that individual instructors might not be rating students in similar ways, i.e. interrater reliability. For example, one instructor might consider satisfactory to be an A that the student met all of the requirements stated and consider excellent to be those who exceed the requirements of the course. Another instructor might have a different internal rating system, with those rated excellent being those earning an A. This is unlikely to be overcome, but discussions continue. Our major concern was the skill sets the goals and objectives that we attempt to instill in students as they go through the Management or Marketing Program. We are concerned about the that the ETS Field Test may not measure the skills but instead the student retention and retrieval of irrelevant information, which is not at the higher levels of learning that we aspire to achieve. There are many more steps to take in the assessment process, but starting the process has made many of us more aware of the need to tailor courses to the outcomes expected and the skills desired. The introspection that the effort has provided has been meaningful and has been the start of many discussions in the area of grade inflation, skill set achievement, and integration of theory and practice.

18 Attachment IV: MBA Program March 21, 2011 MBA Assessment Report: The Graduate Policy Committee of the Richard T. Doermer School of Business is charged with the responsibility of reviewing and revising the MBA Curriculum Map Assessment Plan. The committee met several times during the period to review and discuss assessment for MBA Programs; however, no update to the assessment plan was made. Actions taken during the report period: Scheduled yearly ETS (Spring) tests for M590 in the MBA+ and Accelerated MBA Programs Solicited survey feedback from clients in all Curriculum Connection classes (M560, M575 and M590) to help improve the learning experience of our students and better serve the needs of sponsoring clients in the future Assessment Discussions in Graduate Policy Committee [Background] April 6, 2009 Review of assessment plan was completed Portfolio analysis has not been carried out to this point Client assessment methods have been evaluated and are being changed in light of difficulties ETS test was done in 2007 and will be done in It was not done in 2008 because of financial restrictions Action: Karen will review portfolio assessment strategies with David and others and return recommendations to the committee Action: Karen will write the assessment plan review for presentation to the faculty (after review by the committee) October 6, 2009 Discussion: the ETS test will be given in Spring 2010 in the capstone course Future action: the committee will need to examine the MBA Assessment Plan to determine whether action or revision is needed. December 7, 2009 Discussion: it is essential to continue the assessment process for the graduate program. For example, goals #2 and #3 need rephrasing because there is too much ambiguity. A rubric for assessment needs to be developed Action: committee will meet every two weeks, primarily to work on this process

19 Action: committee members will send Cigdem their teaching schedule and a fixed time will be arranged to meet every other week February 1, 2010 Discussion: the two masters programs (Accelerated MBA and MBA+) together, until changes occur in the program (being developed by Jim and Lyman for GPC consideration). We need to assess the current assessment methods and determine whether they still meet needs. Some objectives are not measurable (e.g., life long learning) so all need to be review with a view to measurement. Do we need a different plan than the one we have? Action: Debbie will current assessment plan details to all members. Plan: objectives will be reworded and rubrics will be developed. We will meet every other week to work, primarily on the assessment plan, after looking at these first two items March 1, 2010 MBA Curriculum Map Assessment Plan Action: tabled to the next meeting. March 19, 2011 ( from Cigdem Gurgur as preview for 3/22 meeting) Agenda: Priority given to a review of the current MBA program and a review of the Dual MBA proposal with ETCS March 22, 2010 No assessment discussion at the meeting April 2, 2010 ( from Cigdem Gurgur) Chair would like to use the meeting time to finalize or discussion on Reviewing and Revising the MBA Curriculum Map Assessment Plan April 19, 2010 Assessment Process for the Graduate Programs Tabled until the next meeting (Fall semester) September 20, 2010 Review and update Assessment plan for the MBA Program. Dr. Chang stated that reassessment for DSB is scheduled for academic year. Self Study is to be submitted by Spring Action: A) Self Study report should contain: I. Learning outcome II. Matrix III. Learning Goals B) MBA secretary is to submit to each member for review for next meeting: I. electronic copies of the current Assessment plan II. electronic copy of the Company Survey form III. Hard copy of the ETS test outcome

20 October 4, 2010 No assessment discussion at the meeting October 18, 2010 No assessment discussion at the meeting October 25, 2010 No assessment discussion at the meeting November 8, 2010 No assessment discussion at the meeting Submitted by Lyman R. Lewis Interim MBA Director

21 Attachment V: Rubrics for BSB Objectives BS DEGREE IN BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION Learning Goals, Objectives and Assessment Method: Learning goals Learning Objectives Assessment Methods Assessed in Upon graduation, DSB students will Students are able to 1 Demonstrate competency in fundamental business knowledge 1. Define, describe, and understand fundamental business terminology and ETS Major Field Test and other objective tests J401 and other courses 2 Solve business problems through critical thinking skill and quantitative analysis techniques concepts 1. Identify and summarizes central problems in complex business situations 2. Correctly integrate theories in management and apply business models to address problems 3. Generate plausible solutions to problems Course-embedded exam questions, case analyses or projects W430 P301 E270 F301 3 Understand the global economic environment and consider global factors in business decisions 4 Understand ethical, legal and regulatory implications of business decisions 1. Understand global economic environment 2. Analyze the impact of global factors on business decisions 1. Identify and understand ethical, legal, and regulatory issues in business decisions. 2. Analyze ethical dilemmas and propose alternatives. 5 Demonstrate effective communication skills 1. Write effectively and professionally in business settings. 2. Speak and present effectively in business settings. Course-embedded exam questions and cases involving global economic and business environment Course-embedded exam questions and cases Course-embedded projects with oral and written requirements 1. E201 & E M301 W204 L200 W430 Z302 To assess each of the learning goals in a systematic and credible fashion, a measurement rubric was developed for each of the five learning goals.

22 Rubric for Learning Goal 2: Problem Solving/Critical Thinking Course: Learning Objective 1 Identify and summarizes central problems in complex business situations Student: Performance Criteria Unacceptable (1) Acceptable (2) Superior (3) Score 2 Correctly integrate theories in management and apply business models to address problems 3 Generation of plausible solutions to problems Failed to identify relevant issues and central problems in the situation involved Used no or wrong theories or models to address the problem Solutions generated were not plausible, unrealistic, or difficult to implement. Evaluator s name: Date of Evaluation: Identified the main problem but not all relevant issues and other problems that may be related Some theories or models were applied but they are not completely related to the problem Solutions generated were at least plausible, realistic, and appears to be feasible. Identified all central problems and relevant issues involved in the situation Relevant theories and models are perfectly applied to address the problem Solutions generated were completely plausible, very realistic and feasible. Total score

23 Rubric for Learning Goal 3: Global Perspective Course: Student: Learning Performance Criteria Unacceptable (1) Acceptable (2) Exemplary (3) Score Objectiv e 1 Identification of global factors such as difference in cultures and business environment No or incomplete identification of some or all of the following relevant global factors: economic, cultural, legal, demographic Some identification of most of the relevant factors Clear and some detailed identification of relevant factors. 2 Analysis and evaluate the impacts of global factors on business decisions 2 Application of analysis to business and management decisions No analysis of impact of relevant global issues; erroneous analysis of impact No application of analysis to specific management situation; incorrect conclusions or recommendations made. Evaluator s name: Date of Evaluation: Some analysis of impact of global factors; some inaccuracies in analysis Some application of analysis to specific management situation, weak conclusions or recommendations made Clear, accurate and somewhat detailed analysis of impact of relevant global factors Clear application of analysis to specific management situation; valid conclusions and good recommendations given Total Score

24 Rubrics for Learning Goal 4: Ethical, Legal, and Regulatory Considerations Course: Student: Learning Objectiv e Performance Criteria Unacceptable (1) Acceptable (2) Exemplary (3) Score 1 Identifies ethical and social responsibility issues involved 2 Analyzes alternatives and generate feasible solutions Has a vague idea of what ethical & social responsibility issues are involved and is uncertain what issues must be decided Unable to appraise the relevant facts and assumptions and fails to identify feasible alternatives or solutions. Evaluator s name: Date of Evaluation: Identifies a majority of ethical or social responsibility issues involved, and ascertains what issues must be decided Clarifies at least two alternatives or solutions and predicts their associated consequences in detail. Describes the ethical and social responsibility issues in detail having gathered pertinent facts. Ascertains exactly what issues must be decided Clarifies a number of alternatives or solutions and evaluates each on the basis of whether or not there is interest and concern over the welfare of all stakeholders Total Score

25 Rubric for Learning Goal 5 Objective 1-- Oral Communication Course: Student: Traits Unacceptable (1) Acceptable (2) Superior (3) Score Body Language Appears nervous. Paces, fidgets, or sways. Poor use of hands (e.g., jiggles, taps or plays with something). Body language distracts from presentation. Appears slightly nervous. Occasional use of meaningful hand gestures. Body language needs some improvement but doesn t distract from the presentation. Appears confident, poised and comfortable. Is relaxed and in control. Body language (e.g., posture, facial expressions, gestures) enhances the Eye Contact Vocal Presentation and Tone Use of Visual Aids Organization Reads speech directly from notes or visual aids (e.g., Powerpoint). Little to no eye contact with the audience Speaks too fast or too slow. Halting, uneven pace. Volume inappropriate. Giggling or other inappropriate vocal behaviors interfere with the message. Extremely monotone, ineffective tone. Complete lack of enthusiasm. Visual aids missing, in- appropriate, or poorly designed and executed. Visual aids have errors, are difficult to read, and don t enhance the presentation. Information is presented in a disorganized manner. Abrupt transitions from one point to another with no clear transition or logic. Does not appear prepared or practiced. Evaluator s name: Date of Evaluation: Occasionally refers to notes or visual aids. Sometimes fails to make eye contacts with audience Articulation, volume, pace, and pronunciation are acceptable. Slightly monotone. Tone is somewhat casual for professional business presentation. The presentation is some what lacking in enthusiasm and assertiveness. Visual aids are adequate but could be improved. Easy to read and informative, but not outstanding. No significant errors. Information is organized and presented adequately. Minor problems with topic transitions or logical flow. presentation. Never or rarely glances at notes or visual aids. Consistently make eyes contact with audience. Articulation, volume, pace, and pronunciation are excellent. Deliver is fluid and natural. Vocal tone is excellent and professional. The presentation is enthusiastic and assertive. Visual aids are easy to read, attractive, informative, and error free. Visual aids greatly enhance the presentation. Excellent integration of visual aids. Information is presented in an organized, logical fashion. It has been well prepared and practiced. Total Score

26 Rubric for Learning Goal 5 Objective 2-- Written Communication Skill Course: Student: Writing Traits Unacceptable (1) Acceptable (2) Superior (3) Score Organization of Ideas Writing is not concise and has a tendency Writing could be a bit more concise. Writing is concise. Information and Contents to ramble. No clear direction in the Focus and direction is acceptable, but presented easy to follow. Focus and Structure of Sentence and Paragraphs Grammar, Punctuation, and Spelling Professional Format and Use of Conventions Professionalism writing. Lack of focus and organization. Poorly developed sentences. Sentences are awkward and difficult to follow and understand. Sentences within a paragraph are unrelated. Paragraphs are unconnected. Writing contains numerous and/or significant errors which interfere with comprehension and distract from the message. Document has numerous and significant printing and/or formatting problems. Doesn t follow basic formatting conventions (e.g., citations and documentation). Tone and word choice are inappropriate for intended audience. Document viewed unprofessional written. Evaluator s name: Date of Evaluation: could use a little work. Sentences usually flow well but occasionally awkward. Most sentences within a paragraph relate to a single issue. A few paragraphs lack good lead or transitional sentences. Writing contains a few insignificant errors that don t interfere with comprehension or distract from the message. Document is reasonably neat and professional looking. Document has a few minor formatting or convention problems. Tone and word choice are appropriate for the intended audience. Document viewed as adequate. direction are extremely clear. Sentences are concise, flow well and clearly express ideas. Organization of paragraphs enhances readability. Logical flow. Good transition between paragraphs. Writing is nearly error free. Document is extremely neat and professional looking. Everything formatted correctly. Proper use of any necessary conventions (citations and documentation). Sophisticated and appropriated use of vocabulary. Documents viewed as extremely professional. Total score

27 Attachment VI: Rubrics for MBA Objectives MBA DEGREE IN BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION Learning Goals, Objectives and Assessment Method: Learning goals Learning Objectives Assessment Methods Assessed in Upon graduation, MBA students will demonstrate Students are able to 1 The ability to master knowledge, concepts, and 1. Master business knowledge and theories ETS Major Field Test M590 theories in each of the functional business disciplines. across functional areas 2 The ability to transcend functional boundaries, synthesize and integrate strategic information to 4. Perform environmental scanning necessary for strategic decisions Course-embedded case analyses or projects M560 generate innovative solutions under complex business situations. 5. Integrate and synthesize strategic information in competitive analysis to 3 The ability to analyze business information in a rapidly changing global environment. generate innovative solutions to problems 3. Identify and recognize differences in business environment across countries 4. Analyze and evaluate the impact of global factors on business decisions 4 Effective written and oral presentation skills 3. Write effectively and professionally in business settings. 4. Speak and present effectively in business settings. Course-embedded cases involving global business and environment Course-embedded projects with oral and written requirements F542 M540 M552 5 The ability to understand professional and social responsibility in the conduct of managerial affairs 3. Identify the relevant professional and social responsibility issues in a business decision 4. Generate solutions to ethical dilemma and choose socially responsible action Course-embedded cases M542 To assess each of the learning goals in a systematic and credible fashion, a measurement rubric was developed for each of the seven learning goals.

28 Rubric for Learning Goal 2: The ability to integrate strategic knowledge for innovative decision making Course: Student: Learning Objective 1 Perform environmental scanning necessary for strategic decisions Performance Criteria Unacceptable (1) Acceptable (2) Superior (3) Score 2 Indentify and retrieve needed and relevant business information effectively and efficiently 3 Integrate and synthesize strategic information in competitive analysis 4 Generate of plausible and innovative solutions to problems Failed to identify key SWOT factors the situation involved Evaluator s name: Date of Evaluation: Fail to identify and select appropriate methods or systems, construct effective search strategy, and retrieve the needed information online or in person Failure to integrate and synthesize information or apply wrong theories or models in the analysis Solutions generated were not plausible, unrealistic, or difficult to implement. Identified key SWOT factors but not all relevant issues and other problems that may be related Identify key relevant information and Select appropriate methods or systems, implementation of effective search strategy, and successfully retrieve needed information Include key relevant information and apply correct theories or models related to the decision Solutions generated were at least plausible, realistic, and somewhat innovative. Identified all key SWOT factors and relevant issues involved in the situation Identify all relevant information and select most appropriate methods or systems, implement exceptional effective search strategy, and successfully retrieve needed information with most efficiency Synthesize all relevant information and integrate all correct theories and models to address the problem Solutions generated were completely plausible, very realistic and creative.

29 Rubric for Leaning Goal 3: The ability to analyze business situation in a rapid changing global environment Course: Student: Learning Performance Criteria Unacceptable (1) Acceptable (2) Exemplary (3) Score Objective 1 Identification of global factors such as difference in cultures and business environment No or incomplete identification of some or all of the following relevant global factors: economic, cultural, legal, Some identification of most of the relevant factors Clear and some detailed identification of relevant factors. 2 Analysis and evaluate the impacts of global factors on business decisions demographic No analysis of impact of relevant global issues; erroneous analysis of impact Evaluator s name: Date of Evaluation: Some analysis of impact of global factors; some inaccuracies in analysis Clear, accurate and somewhat detailed analysis of impact of relevant global factors Total Score