1. Assessment of Student Presentations Jones College of Business MTSU July 8, 2015

2. “Agenda” The 5 steps in the assessment process Application of those steps to the SLO on presentations Data Questions about the data Assess additional presentations Questions about the process

3. 5 steps to the Assessment Process 1.Definition of Goals and Objectives (outcomes) 2.Alignment of curricula to those goals 3.Identification of instruments and measures 4.Collection, analyzing and dissemination of results/information 5.Use of information for continuous improvement

4. 1. Definition of Goals and Objectives BBA: Students will be effective communicators. Student Learning Objective: Students will deliver professional business presentations. MS MGMT: Students will be effective communicators of their knowledge and expertise Students will demonstrate effective oral communication skills for their chosen discipline of managerial work. Flex MBA: Students will communicate effectively. Students will present effectively.

5. 2. Alignment of curricula to goals In fact, students are expected to demonstrate presentation skills in several classes. But, in the BBA, only one core course is “officially” aligned to this objective. The result is that steps 3, 4 and 5 are confined to the faculty teaching that course, when that responsibility should be shared by other faculty. That is a weakness in the assessment processes of the College.

6. Assessment Data Direct Measure At least 80% of BBA students will deliver a five-to-ten minute professional oral presentation using appropriate technology at the "acceptable" level or above. Course embedded assessment 2013-14 AY 90.50% of the students received “acceptable” or above. 2011-12 AY 92% 2009-10 AY 96% Indirect Measure Faculty perception/satisfaction Survey Faculty identified this objective as one of the 5 most important for student success Faculty ranked this as the 2 nd weakest, out of 14.

7. Questions about the results Do the results help us identify a weakness? Why are the results inconsistent?

8. Looking for a weakness There were 375 rubrics from the last course embedded assessment. A sample of 100 were examined for further details. The sample included some rubrics from each section of the course. The average score for those 100 rubrics was 4.59 out of 5.00. 5.00 = Excellent. Scores for each of the 7 criteria were entered. Scores for individual criteria range from 4.3 to 4.8. The lowest was 4.3 for voice qualities = weakest of the criteria.

9. Workshop 3 Student presentations from Student presentations from BUAD 4980 4 Raters, 3 Faculty from 3 Departments and 1 Dale Carnegie Instructor Abbreviated form of the rubric Independent Rating Limitations: Different presentations Different form of the rubric

10. Assessment Data Average Score on these 3 criteria Eye ContactBody LanguageVoice Quality Direct Measure4.454.53 4.30 Workshop Measure2.281.672.832.33

11. Why are the results inconsistent? Possible explanations: The rubric does not reflect the expectations of the faculty. There rubric is being applied/interpreted inconsistently and/or in a way that does not reflect expectations of the broader faculty. There is a problem with course sequence. The faculty’s perception is based on the performance of students who have not yet taken the class in which the assessment is embedded. The students are not transferring knowledge/skill from one class to another. Others?

12. Questions about the process Should presentations and oral communications skills be integrated into additional core courses? Should assessment be entirely separate from grading? Should we use external reviewers to help us set expectations, and/or determine whether students are meeting those expectations? What is the difference between our expectations of graduate students and our expectations of undergraduate students? Different traits/criteria? Same traits, but different level of expectation?