Undergraduate Appendix A Attachments 1 – 73 - Index Assessment Value Chain Attachment 2 Causal Model Attachment 3 Table VII Attachments 4 - 15 Goal 1, Measure 1, SLO’s 1 - 12 Attachments 16 - 28 Goal 1, Measure 2, SLO’s 1 - 12 Attachments 29 - 33 Goal 1, Measure 3, SLO’s 1 - 4 Attachment 34 Goal 2 Attachment 35 Goal 3 Attachment 36 Goal 4 Attachment 37 Moderator 1 Attachment 38 Moderator 2 Attachment 39 WSB Milestones Attachments 40 – 46 2000 Level Causal Model Variables Attachments 47 – 54 3000 Level Causal Model Variables Attachments 55 – 61 4000 Level Causal Model Variables Attachment 62 Causal Model Variables Attachment 63 Docking Stations Action Plan Attachment 64 All Undergraduate Levels Attachment 65 SSL All Levels Attachment 66 SSL Goal 1, SLO 12, Meas. 2 Attachment 67 - 68 Core vs. Conc. AY14-15, AY15-16 Attachment 69 SSL Goal 1, SLO 1-12, Meas.1 Attachment 70 Survey Instrument Attachment 71 Athens vs. Demorest Attachment 72 Bivariate Correlations 2016-2017 Attachment 73 Bivariate Correlations 2012-2013

Assessment Value Chain UG Attachment 1 2017-2018 SACS Report Inputs (Activities) Outputs Outcomes (measured) Impacts Curriculum design Faculty credentials ACBSP Figure 6.5 CPC Plan Courses taught (contact hours) DQ-PQ results Goal integration into Table 7 plan Assessed goals Student satisfaction Student engagement Goal # 1 Student Learning Outcomes 1 thru 12 Alumni Survey Impact Analysis .801* * Pearson Bivariate Correlation Causal Factors Outcome (SSL) Impact (SLO) Moderators

and the Moderating effects of Engagement and Technology Integration UG Attachment 2 2017-2018 SACS Report Walker School of Business Causal Model for Undergraduate and MBA Programs Also shown are the Moderating Effects of Engagement and Technology Integration and the Moderating effects of Engagement and Technology Integration Goal 1 Goal 1 .801* The Undergraduate program of the Walker School of Business has goals addressing both outcomes and impacts. Goal # 1 addresses 11 specific SLOs of the program and is measured in two ways (an externally developed test and an internally developed survey instrument). SLO 12 is the overall average of the 11 SLOs. Goals 2, 3, 4, & 5 are non SLO variables measured because they are causal factors that produce the outcomes and impacts measured in goal 1. Both literature reviews and our pilot study data also confirms that SSL is so highly correlated with student learning outcomes that it can be viewed as an indirect measure, or proxy, for student learning; therefore we use SSL as a second measure for student learning outcomes. The past 5 years of student reported SSL data correlates .801 with our external measure (Peregrine Test) of student learning outcomes. This correlation is slighter higher than expected because changes to sophomore level courses do not show up in test scores for 2 years (changes to junior level programs show up one year later). In addition to the causal factors, we have identified two moderator variables that are important to the overall model. One, engagement, is a subject for mandatory reporting in the current Baldrige checklist and the other integration of relevant technology is a subject for mandatory reporting by ACBSP (Figure 6.5 item i).

Functional Areas of Business The Business Environment UG Attachment 3 2017-2018 SACS Report ACBSP CPC Program Planned Contact Hours Direct and Integrated topic hours are broken out New Curriculum CPC Integ index CPC Total Hours   Functional Areas of Business The Business Environment Technical Skills Intergative Areas Program Goals New Course Numbers Direct Hrs Int Hrs a MKT b FIN c ACC d MGT e LAW f ECON g ETHICS h GLOBAL i INFO SYS j QT & STATS k & l STRATEGY CAPSTONE m Critical thinkin n COMM Course D I ACCT2010 1.1 45.5 40. 5.5 .5 1.4 . .4 .3 .2 .8 1.7 ACCT2020 1.3 51.1 11.1 .7 2.5 3.5 .1 .9 2.2 BusA2000 4. 1. BusA3010 45.8 5.8 2. BusA2140 55.1 15.1 3.1 1.5 BusA3200 50. 10. 3. BusA3700 53.5 13.5 7.5 4.5 BusA3400 1.2 48.2 8.2 3.2 BusA3500 58.9 18.9 9. .6 BusA4000 66. 26. 13. BusA4400 47.2 7.2 1.6 2.1 BusA2030 56. 16. 8. BusA4030 55. 15. 5. BusA1210 52.5 12.5 BusaA 3210 59.5 19.5 14.5 ACCT/ BusA3306 PreCalc(Math1113) TOTALS 829.8 640. 189.8 17.5 80. 6.1 31.4 2.9 6.2 16.4 38.4 9.4 33.7 11.8 Integration % 30% 25% 7% 28% 29% 49% 11% 0% 100% 23% The ACBSP standard syllabi containing the base data for each course shown above as noted in review date is scheduled for a complete redevelopment by the faculty during August 2017. A completely new roll up is only performed every three years. This update is more important than usual because we have added Data Science to the Undergraduate Business Program and this will change many of the courses. Course credit hours and program length both meet or exceed institution requirements for credit hours per course and credit hours per degree. Piedmont College Faculty and Academic Policies and Procedures, Section 4.1.A

UG Attachments 4 & 5 2017-2018 SACS Report

UG Attachments 6 & 7 2017-2018 SACS Report

UG Attachments 8 & 9 2017-2018 SACS Report

UG Attachments 10 & 11 2017-2018 SACS Report

UG Attachments 12 & 13 2017-2018 SACS Report

UG Attachments 14 & 15 2017-2018 SACS Report

Attachment 16 2017-2018 SACS Report Typical presentation: A Bar Chart We add a trend line, the mean for the Period ,shown at the trend line mid-point, And we show the most recent period result (4.72 for Spring 2018). Alternate Presentation: Trend Line, Period Mean, and Most Recent Result

UG Attachments 17 & 18 2017-2018 SACS Report

UG Attachments 19 & 20 2017-2018 SACS Report

UG Attachments 21 & 22 2017-2018 SACS Report

UG Attachments 23 & 24 2017-2018 SACS Report

UG Attachments 25 & 26 2017-2018 SACS Report

UG Attachments 27 & 28 2017-2018 SACS Report

UG Attachments 29, 30, 31 & 32 2017-2018 SACS Report

UG Attachment 33 2017-2018 SACS Report

Causal Factors of Student Satisfaction with Learning UG Attachments 34 & 35 2017-2018 SACS Report Causal Factors of Student Satisfaction with Learning

Causal Factor and Moderator 1 of Student Satisfaction with Learning UG Attachments 36 & 37 2017-2018 SACS Report Causal Factor and Moderator 1 of Student Satisfaction with Learning

Causal Model - Moderator 2 of Student Satisfaction with Learning UG Attachment 38 2017-2018 SACS Report Causal Model - Moderator 2 of Student Satisfaction with Learning Old Format Though Fall 2014

UG Attachment 39 2017-2018 SACS Report Note: Measure 2 broken down by academic level

UG Attachments 40 & 41 2017-2018 SACS Report 2000 Level Courses Causal Factors of Student Satisfaction with Learning 4.41

UG Attachments 42 & 43 2017-2018 SACS Report 2000 Level Courses Causal Factor and Moderator 1 of Student Satisfaction with Learning

UG Attachments 44 & 45 2017-2018 SACS Report 2000 Level Courses Moderator 2 and SLO’s of Student Satisfaction with Learning

UG Attachment 46 2017-2018 SACS Report

UG Attachments 47 & 48 2017-2018 SACS Report 3000 Level Courses Causal Factors of Student Satisfaction with Learning

UG Attachments 49 & 50 2017-2018 SACS Report 3000 Level Courses Causal Factor and Moderator 1 of Student Satisfaction with Learning

are reflected in record high current status for the outcome. UG Attachments 51 & 52 2017-2018 SACS Report 3000 Level Courses Moderator 2 and SLO’s of Student Satisfaction with Learning Moderator 1 and Moderator 2 improvements along with causal factor improvements are reflected in record high current status for the outcome. It will be 1 year before we see the impact on Goal 1, all SLO’s, Meas. 1.

UG Attachment 53 2017-2018 SACS Report

UG Attachment 54 2017-2018 SACS Report

4000 Level Courses Causal Factors of Student Satisfaction with Learning UG Attachments 55 & 56 2017-2018 SACS Report

UG Attachments 57 & 58 2017-2018 SACS Report 4000 Level Courses Causal Factor and Moderator 1 of Student Satisfaction with Learning

UG Attachments 59 & 60 2017-2018 SACS Report 4000 Level Courses Moderator 2 and SLO’s of Student Satisfaction with Learning Moderator 1 (attachment 57) and Moderator 2 (left) improvements along with causal factor improvements are reflected in record high current status for the outcome. We now can see the impact of improving both moderators has on Goal 1; note this years improvement was predicted last year. Now that all causal factors and moderators have positive slopes, the improvement in Goal 1, Student Learning Outcome, Meas. 2 improved significantly.

UG Attachment 61 2017-2018 SACS Report

UG Attachment 62 2017-2018 SACS Report

Spring 2014 Spring 2018 Basis For Action Plan to Convert UG Attachment 63 2017-2018 SACS Report Basis For Action Plan to Convert Faculty Computers to Laptops with Docking Stations Spring 2014 Spring 2018

All Undergraduate Levels Causal Factors and Moderators of Student Satisfaction with Learning UG Attachment 64 2017-2018 SACS Report Attachments 61 – 64 show the overall summary of the impact of improving the integration of technology into the curriculum of the undergraduate program. As can be noted in the analysis of each level there are slight differences in the outcomes. This analysis shows the effects on the overall curriculum without regard to the level of analysis. Further the impact of the changes in the 2000 level courses won’t impact test scores for 2 years (Goal 1, SLO 1 -12, Meas. 1). Accordingly, 3000 level outcome improvements won’t impact test scores for 1 year. Overall as is shown in attachment 61 and 62 we successfully improved the status of all causal factors and moderators to the point that all currently show a positive slope coefficient and as a result the slide to the left demonstrates a positive slope coefficient for SLO 12 demonstrating a successful a program of continuous improvement.

for the past 7semesters and currently is at 4.05. UG Attachment 65 2017-2018 SACS Report The best evidence of sustained quality improvement over the past 5 years is the chart above which shows that the lower control limit (95% CI) for the mean scores has exceeded 3.5 for the past 7semesters and currently is at 4.05.

UG Attachment 66 (Previously Shown in 28) 2017-2018 SACS Report We identified core course engagement as the best opportunity for improvement during AY 2016-2017. The results of our efforts to improve engagement in core courses can be seen in the two tables above, where the difference in engagement between core and concentration courses was .34 scale points lower in core courses; results for AY 2016-2017 show that this difference has been reduced to .16. To the impact of improving engagement can be seen in chart above showing a convergence of the trend lines for Student Satisfaction with Learning in core and concentration courses. The improvements in technology integration, though much smaller, also helped.

UG Attachments 67 & 68 2017-2018 SACS Report

UG Attachment 69 2017-2018 Report Walker School of Business Undergraduate Programs All Peregrine Test Results Goal 1, Measure 1, SLO’s 1-12 Academic Years 2013-2014 through 2017-2018 Topic Description ACBSP SACS AY2017-2018* AY2016-2017* AY2015-2016 AY2014-2015* AY2013-2014   CPC # SLO # CPC Score Prog-Rnk Business Integration- Strategy k. 11 73.4 1 58.2 2 63.2 60.0 6 54.0 9 Information Systems i. 72.7 62.1 60.5 68.0 66.0 Business Ethics g. 7 70.5 3 50.9 8 52.7 64.0 58.0 5 1st Quartile Marketing a. 70.2 4 50.0 12 46.8 55.0 45.0 QM & Stats j. 10 50.6 54.1 59.0 53.0 Legal Environment of Business e. 53.8 54.3 62.0 2nd Quartile Economics f. 69.5 55.3 55.9 57.0 Management d. 69.3 51.8 57.7 65.0 Global Dimensions of Business h. 68.6 50.3 3rd Quartile Leadership 65.9 52.9 54.5 Accounting c. 61.8 53.2 56.0 Business Finance b. 51.4 51.0 4th Quartile Average 68 54 55 59 56 * Key target each year is that no score is less than the 50th percentile Exceptions coded red Changed 2 conditions of the test: 1. Allowed students to take the test on their own, outside the classroom, because we scheduled the class as a MWF 50 minute class and it is not possible to take the test in 50 min. 2. Previously test scores were not part of the Capstone course grade, this year we made it part of the grade. Action Plan for 2018-2019: Capstone Saturday.

UG Attachment 70 2017-2018 SACS Report

UG Attachment 71 2017-2018 SACS Report

AY 2016-17 Study (Bivariate correlations) CORE Attachment 72 2017-2018 SACS Report CORE N M SD Course Average Ethics Critical Thinking Oral/ Written Engage-ment 89 4.73 .21 4.58 .29 .77 Critical Thinking 4.57 .79 .83 Oral/Written Com 4.35 .40 .64 .75 Engagement 4.45 .35 .82 .85 .80 Technology 4.38 .41 .51 .56 .55 .65 .63 Concentration N M SD Course Average Ethics Critical Thinking Oral/ Written Engage-ment 26 4.81 .12 4.64 .29 .48 Critical Thinking 4.74 .18 .69 Oral/Written Com 4.56 .25 .50 .49 .44 Engagement 4.61 .23 .57 ..45 .72 .53 Technology 4.46 .30 -.09 .52 .35

AY 2012-13 Study (Bivariate correlations) CORE Attachment 73 2017-2018 SACS Report CORE N M SD Course Average Ethics Critical Thinking Oral/ Written Engage-ment 68 4.45 .45 4.12 .61 .89 Critical Thinking .56 .87 .90 Oral/Written Com 3.92 .62 .76 Engagement 4.14 .60 .81 Technology .68 .82 .80 .75 Concentration N M SD Course Average Ethics Critical Thinking Oral/ Written Engage-ment 32 4.70 .18 4.36 .31 .73 Critical Thinking 4.34 .34 .49 .66 Oral/Written Com 4.08 .48 .42 .68 Engagement 4.45 .28 .43 .32 .22 .47 Technology 4.19 .36 .45 .50 .51