Assessed: 2007, 2010, 2011, 2013.  PHIL 101 (Introduction to Philosophy: Ethics)  GE elective choice  BA 300 (Ethical Decision Making in Business)

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Outcomes Assessment- Full Implementation Meeting Fall 2009.
Advertisements

Why are we spending time writing assessment reports? 1.Because documenting your process can potentially lead to more trustworthy results and meaningful.
Assessment Report Mathematics Department School of Science and Mathematics Thursday, October 17, 2013 Dr. Sanford Miller, Interim Chair Dr. Jason Morris,
Bill Zannini Business Programs Coordinator October 27, 2008.
Utilization-focused Assessment in Foundations Curriculum: Examining RCLS 2601: Leisure in Society Clifton E. Watts, PhD Dept. of Recreation & Leisure Studies.
Assessed: 2010, 2011, SLO 4.1: Identify and describe the impact of the global economy on business decisions. SLO 4.2: Explain and apply a global.
2013 Spring Assessment Colloquium Beth Tipton CBPA Associate Dean “CLOSING THE LOOP” AND IMPROVING STUDENT LEARNING VIA ONGOING ASSESSMENT.
Learning Community II Survey Spring 2007 Analysis by Intisar Hibschweiler (Core Director) and Mimi Steadman (Director of Institutional Assessment)
Department of Mathematical Sciences The University of Texas at El Paso 1 Program Assessment Presentation May 15, 2009 Joe Guthrie Helmut Knaust.
Assurance of Learning The School of Business and Economics SUNY Plattsburgh.
Apples to Oranges to Elephants: Comparing the Incomparable.
Weber State University Master of Education in Curriculum and Instruction Candidate Assessment Plan.
Blended/hybrid Learning Discussion Knowledge Team March 2008 Online only Both online and f2f F2f only.
Presented by: Dr. Sue Courtney Janice Stoudemire, CPA, ATA, ABA Associate Degree Board of Commissioners Copyright Protected: Material can not be use or.
Replacing “Traditional Lectures” with Face-to-Face Directed Problem Solving Sessions and On-Line Content Delivery David G. Meyer Electrical & Computer.
Writing Program Assessment Report Fall 2002 through Spring 2004 Laurence Musgrove Writing Program Director Department of English and Foreign Languages.
M I L L I K I N U N I V E R S I T Y Critical Writing, Reading & Research I & II MPSL First-Year Writing Requirement Report for Academic Year
Measuring Learning Outcomes Evaluation
Blended Courses: How to have the best of both worlds in higher education By Susan C. Slowey.
Pilot Training for Volunteers General Education Assessment Committee.
Assessed: 5 Cycles 2006, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2013.
SLO A SSESSMENT S TUDY W ORKSHOP D EVON A TCHISON, SLO C OORDINATOR August 20, :30-10:30 a.m. Room 523.
Assessment Report School of The Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences________________ Department: Political Science and International Studies.
The Good The Bad & The Ugly Real-Life Examples of the SLO Assessment Report Form With Tips on How to Complete It August 21, 2012.
Closing the Loop From Analysis to Use of Results SLO Winter 2011 Workshop.
Assessment Report School of The Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences Department: Theatre and Music Studies Chair: P. Gibson Ralph Assessment.
Hybrid Courses: Some Random Thoughts on Expectations and Outcomes Martha Goshaw Seminole State College of Florida November 12, 2009.
Assessment Report Criminal Justice Department School of Education and Human Services Korni Swaroop Kumar, Chair Melchor C. de Guzman, Assessment Coordinator.
What do our students know?. What do we want our UG students to know? Student Learning Outcome Cycle #1 Assessed in: Cycle #2 Assessed in: Cycle #3 Assessed.
Note: Because of slide animation, this ppt is intended to be viewed as a slide show.  While viewing the ppt, it may be helpful to obtain a sample Core.
Robert W. Arts, Ph.D. Professor of Education & Physics University of Pikeville Pikeville, KY The Mini-Zam: Formative Assessment for the Physics Classroom.
Closing the Loop From Analysis to Use of Results SLO Winter 2011 Workshop.
REQUIRED ELEMENTS. Standards are the centerpiece of a strong academic program. They are your roadmap and provide the what as teachers build curriculum,
ASSESSMENT OF CORE SKILLS/ GENERAL EDUCATION OUTCOMES Angelina Hill, PhD Associate Director, Office of Academic Assessment.
Pilot Training for Volunteers General Education Assessment Committee.
ScWk 242 Course Overview and Review of ScWk 240 Concepts ScWk 242 Session 1 Slides.
Richard Beinecke, Professor and Chair Suffolk University Institute for Public Service.
Department of Secondary Education Program Assessment Report What We Assessed: Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs) and CA State Teaching Performance.
Connecting Course Goals, Assignments, and Assessment Faculty Development for Student Success at Prince George’s Community College William Peirce
What do our students know? A complete cycle of assessment: the common learning outcomes we hold for our UG students: Round IV,
Changes in Professional licensure Teacher evaluation system Training at Coastal Carolina University.
Assessment of Course-Level Learning Outcomes in Psychology.
How to Write Lesson Plan Using the Project-Based Instructional Model.
Assessment at CPS A new way of working. Background - No more levels New National Curriculum to be taught in all schools from September 2014 (apart from.
Quantitative Literacy Assessment At Kennedy King College Fall 2013 DRAFT - FOR DISCUSSION ONLY 1 Prepared by Robert Rollings, spring 2014.
Year 10 New AQA Science A What you will be doing.
Foreign language SLOs Rafael Arias and June Miyasaki March 11, 2008.
From Analysis to Use of Results SLO Winter 2011 Workshop
The Good The Bad & The Ugly Real-Life Examples of the SLO Assessment Report Form With Tips on How to Complete It August 21, 2012.
Welcome! Session Recording
Student Satisfaction Results
Assessment History Since 2013 the department has performed ongoing assessment of RWS 100 & 200 comprised of Internal, department-driven, self-assessment.
Assessing Academic Programs at IPFW
P ! A L S Interpreting Student Data to
Dr. Michael O’Connor Curriculum Coordinator
Applied Psychology Program School of Business and Liberal Arts Fall 2015 Assessment Report
Physical Therapist Assistant Program School of Science, Health, & Criminal Justice Fall 2015 Assessment Report Program Director: Deborah Molnar Date of.
What do our students know?
Industrial Technology Management Program Canino School of Engineering Technology Fall 2016 Assessment Report Curriculum Coordinator: Eric Y. Cheng Date.
Criminal Justice: Law Enforcement Leadership School of Health, Science and Criminal Justice Fall 2015 Assessment Report Curriculum Coordinator: Lisa Colbert.
Curriculum Coordinator: Marela Fiacco Date : February 29, 2015
Program/Department School of Science, Health, Criminal Justice Fall 2016 Assessment Report
Curriculum Coordinator: D. Para Date of Presentation: Jan. 20, 2017
Applied Psychology Program School of Business and Liberal Arts Fall 2016 Assessment Report
Industrial Technology Management Program Canino School of Engineering Technology Fall 2015 Assessment Report Curriculum Coordinator: Eric Y. Cheng Date.
Business Administration Programs School of Business and Liberal Arts Fall 2016 Assessment Report
Chair: Nadine Jennings Date of Presentation: January 19, 2017
Split-Block Class Schedule at Yorktown High School
Curriculum Coordinator: Janet Parcell Mitchell January 2016
Presentation transcript:

Assessed: 2007, 2010, 2011, 2013

 PHIL 101 (Introduction to Philosophy: Ethics)  GE elective choice  BA 300 (Ethical Decision Making in Business)  Required course for all BSBA students  Preparation for the Major Requirements Our students also learn and practice these skills in additional courses as listed however assessment occurs in BA 300.  Core Courses in the BSBA Major  Advanced Courses in the BSBA Major

2007  NOTE: The current SLO #1 & SLO #2 were combined into a single SLO at the time (referred to below as SLO #1). Current SLO #3 is referred to below as SLO #2.  SLO #1 & SLO #2 were assessed via embedded questions in the final exam of the required core course, BA 300 (Ethical Decision Making in Business).  3 questions were written by the class coordinator of BA 300 that addressed SLO #1  4 questions were written by the class coordinator of BA 300 that addressed SLO #2  SLO #3 (now SLO #4) was not assessed in 2007 because at the time it was the intention to assess it via a case analysis in MGT 405 that would be chosen for its ethics content.  BA 300 was added as a required new course in Insufficient numbers of students would have taken BA 300 and moved on to MGT 405 by 2007 for a meaningful assessment of SLO #3 to occur in 405. It was later decided that this SLO would also most appropriately be assessed in BA 300 and this occurred in 2010.

 Cycle #1 (2007): ▪Fall Semester 2007, Spring Semester 2008, Summer Session 2008 in BA 300 (Ethical Decision Making in Business) ▪Sample Size: 423  Cycle #2 (2010): ▪Spring Semester 2010 in BA 300 (Ethical Decision Making in Business) ▪Sample Size: 594  Cycle #3 (2011): ▪Fall Semester 2011 in BA 300 (Ethical Decision Making in Business) ▪Sample Size: 633  Cycle #4 (2013): ▪Spring Semester 2013 in BA 300 (Ethical Decision Making in Business) ▪Sample Size: 544

 BENCHMARKS:  70% of our students should be able to correctly respond to questions assessing each of the student learning outcomes.

2007

QuestionCorrectIncorrectTotal % Correct % % % Average of 3 questions 72.12% “70% should be able to correctly respond”; On average, 72% could Question #1 did not meet the benchmark

QuestionCorrectIncorrectTotal % Correct % % % % Average of 4 questions 76.12% “70% should be able to correctly respond”; On average, 76% could Question #4 did not meet the benchmark

“70% OF OUR STUDENTS SHOULD BE ABLE TO RESPOND CORRECTLY TO QUESTIONS DESIGNED TO MEASURE THEIR KNOWLEDGE OF ETHICAL REASONING SLO #1 & SLO #2.” BENCHMARK ACHIEVED

 BA 300 was introduced in 2006 as a fully face-to-face course but was then developed as a hybrid course in order to accommodate demand.  In there were fully face-to- face and hybrid sections both being taught.  Assessment analysis was undertaken to compare the two delivery modes.

QuestionFully F-to- F Correct % Hybrid Correct % Hybrid Advantage 142.3%50.0% %92.4% %81.9% %79.2% %71.5% %93.1% %72.2%+8.8

 On five of the seven questions, students in hybrid sections answered correctly more frequently than those in fully face-to-face sections. For four of these five questions there was a statistically significant difference between performance in the two delivery modes. For the two questions where the face-to-face students “beat” the hybrid students, one difference was statistically significant.  The intent of the analysis was not to determine whether a hybrid delivery mode was better or worse than a fully face-to-face delivery mode. With the plan in place to go to all hybrid delivery in Fall 2008 for reasons unrelated to student learning however, this assessment was carried out to ensure that hybrid delivery did not produce significantly less learning. Results suggest that this is not the case.

 Assessment results suggest no need for change.  The BA 300 course coordinator carefully considered the two questions on which the benchmark of 70% was not achieved and determined that the questions required some adjustment. Further, this analysis produced the decision to split the first SLO into two separate outcomes. BA 300 instructors were also advised to focus more strongly on the specific issues addressed in the two questions.  BA 300 went to a hybrid delivery mode for all sections as planned.

2010

QuestionCorrectIncorrectTotal % Correct % % % Average of 3 questions 89.90% “70% should be able to correctly respond”; On average, 90% could. All individual questions met the benchmark.

QuestionCorrectIncorrectTotal % Correct % % % Average of 3 questions 80.98% “70% should be able to correctly respond”; On average, 81% could. Question #2 missed the benchmark by a small percentage.

QuestionCorrectIncorrectTotal % Correct % % % Average of 3 questions 90.07% “70% should be able to correctly respond”; On average, 90% could. All individual questions met the benchmark.

QuestionCorrectIncorrectTotal % Correct % % % Average of 3 questions 74.64% “70% should be able to correctly respond”; On average, 75% could. Question #3 missed the benchmark by a significant percentage.

“70% OF OUR STUDENTS SHOULD BE ABLE TO RESPOND CORRECTLY TO QUESTIONS DESIGNED TO MEASURE THEIR KNOWLEDGE OF ETHICAL REASONING (SLOS 1 – 4).” BENCHMARK ACHIEVED

 Assessment results suggest no need for change.  The BA 300 course coordinator carefully considered the two questions on which the benchmark of 70% was not achieved.  It was determined that the problematic question (SLO 4, Q#3) required an application that was potentially tricky. The question will be adjusted in future assessments.  BA 300 instructors were also advised to focus more strongly on the specific issues addressed in the two questions that did not meet the 70% benchmark.

2011

QuestionCorrectIncorrectTotal % Correct % % % Average of 3 questions 72.2% “70% should be able to correctly respond”; On average, 72.2% could. Questions #2 & #3 both missed the benchmark.

QuestionCorrectIncorrectTotal % Correct % % % Average of 3 questions 84.0% “70% should be able to correctly respond”; On average, 88% could. Performance on all questions exceeded the benchmark.

QuestionCorrectIncorrectTotal % Correct % % % Average of 3 questions 79.2% “70% should be able to correctly respond”; On average, 79.2% could. Question #1 missed the benchmark.

QuestionCorrectIncorrectTotal % Correct % % % Average of 3 questions 76.8% “70% should be able to correctly respond”; On average, 76.8% could. Question #2 missed the benchmark.

“70% OF OUR STUDENTS SHOULD BE ABLE TO RESPOND CORRECTLY TO QUESTIONS DESIGNED TO MEASURE THEIR KNOWLEDGE OF ETHICAL REASONING (SLOS 1 – 4).” BENCHMARK ACHIEVED

 Although assessment results suggest no significant need for change, the comparison between 2010 & 2011 suggests significant declines on SLO #1 & SLO #3.  The BA 300 course coordinator will meet with the BA 300 teaching faculty to examine how material related to these two student learning outcomes is covered and changes, if deemed appropriate, will be made.

2013

QuestionCorrectIncorrectTotal % Correct % % % Average of 3 questions 80.2% “70% should be able to correctly respond”; On average, 80.2% could. All individual questions also exceeded the benchmark.

QuestionCorrectIncorrectTotal % Correct % % % Average of 3 questions 85.7% “70% should be able to correctly respond”; On average, 85.7% could. Performance on all questions exceeded the benchmark.

QuestionCorrectIncorrectTotal % Correct % % % Average of 3 questions 72.0% “70% should be able to correctly respond”; On average, 72.0% could. Questions #1 & #3 missed the benchmark.

QuestionCorrectIncorrectTotal % Correct % % % Average of 3 questions 86.8% “70% should be able to correctly respond”; On average, 86.8% could. All individual questions met or exceeded the benchmark.

“70% OF OUR STUDENTS SHOULD BE ABLE TO RESPOND CORRECTLY TO QUESTIONS DESIGNED TO MEASURE THEIR KNOWLEDGE OF ETHICAL REASONING (SLOS 1 – 4).” BENCHMARK ACHIEVED

 Although assessment results suggest no significant need for change, the comparison between 2010, 2011, & 2013 suggest some changes worth watching:  SLO #1 dropped significantly between 2010 & 2011 but began to bounce back in  SLO #2 performance has remained largely consistent.  SLO #3 has declined with each assessment and in 2013 was close to missing the established benchmark.  SLO #4 performance grew very strongly in  The BA 300 course coordinator will meet with the BA 300 teaching faculty to examine how material related to SLO #3 is covered. A plan for changed or enhanced coverage will be developed.