1. Undergraduate Appendix A Attachments 1 – 73 - Index
Assessment Value Chain
Attachment 2
Causal Model
Attachment 3
Table VII
Attachments
Goal 1, Measure 1, SLO’s
Attachments
Goal 1, Measure 2, SLO’s
Attachments
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
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
Attachment 73
Bivariate Correlations

2. Assessment Value Chain
UG Attachment 1
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 thru 12
Alumni Survey Impact Analysis
.801*
* Pearson Bivariate
Correlation
Causal Factors
Outcome (SSL)
Impact (SLO)
Moderators

3. and the Moderating effects of Engagement and Technology Integration
UG Attachment 2
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).

4. Functional Areas of Business The Business Environment
UG Attachment 3
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 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

5. UG Attachments 4 & 5
SACS Report

6. UG Attachments 6 & 7
SACS Report

7. UG Attachments 8 & 9
SACS Report

8. UG Attachments 10 & 11
SACS Report

9. UG Attachments 12 & 13
SACS Report

10. UG Attachments 14 & 15
SACS Report

11. 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

12. UG Attachments 17 & 18
SACS Report

13. UG Attachments 19 & 20
SACS Report

14. UG Attachments 21 & 22
SACS Report

15. UG Attachments 23 & 24
SACS Report

16. UG Attachments 25 & 26
SACS Report

17. UG Attachments 27 & 28
SACS Report

18. UG Attachments 29, 30, 31 & 32
SACS Report

19. UG Attachment 33
SACS Report

20. Causal Factors of Student Satisfaction with Learning
UG Attachments 34 & 35
SACS Report
Causal Factors of Student Satisfaction with Learning

21. Causal Factor and Moderator 1 of Student Satisfaction with Learning
UG Attachments 36 & 37
SACS Report
Causal Factor and Moderator 1 of Student Satisfaction with Learning

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

23. UG Attachment 39
SACS Report
Note: Measure 2 broken down by academic level

24. UG Attachments 40 & 41
SACS Report
2000 Level Courses Causal Factors of Student Satisfaction with Learning
4.41

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

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

27. UG Attachment 46
SACS Report

28. UG Attachments 47 & 48
SACS Report
3000 Level Courses Causal Factors of Student Satisfaction with Learning

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

30. are reflected in record high current status for the outcome.
UG Attachments 51 & 52
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.

31. UG Attachment 53
SACS Report

32. UG Attachment 54
SACS Report

33. 4000 Level Courses Causal Factors of Student Satisfaction with Learning
UG Attachments 55 & 56
SACS Report

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

35. UG Attachments 59 & 60
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.

36. UG Attachment 61
SACS Report

37. UG Attachment 62
SACS Report

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

39. All Undergraduate Levels Causal Factors and Moderators of Student Satisfaction with Learning
UG Attachment 64
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.

40. for the past 7semesters and currently is at 4.05.
UG Attachment 65
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.

41. UG Attachment 66 (Previously Shown in 28) 2017-2018 SACS Report
We identified core course engagement as the best opportunity for improvement during AY 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 show that this difference has been reduced to 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.

42. UG Attachments 67 & 68
SACS Report

43. 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 through
Topic Description
ACBSP
SACS
AY *
AY * AY
AY * AY
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 : Capstone Saturday.

44. UG Attachment 70
SACS Report

45. UG Attachment 71
SACS Report

46. AY 2016-17 Study (Bivariate correlations) CORE
Attachment 72
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

47. AY 2012-13 Study (Bivariate correlations) CORE
Attachment 73
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