Academic Program: Johnson College of Business and Economics Assessment Report 2011/2012

JCBE 10.1.2012 1

Component Description

Program Mission Statement

From your Program Assessment Plan (Statement should articulate the unit/ program mission in support of the institutional mission and include a clearly defined purpose appropriate to collegiate education.)

The mission of the USC Upstate George Dean Johnson, Jr. College of Business and Economics (JCBE) is to educate undergraduate students and enhance the economic development of the Upstate through education and strategic partnerships.

Goal 1

From your Program Assessment Plan (Describe broad learning outcomes and concepts (what you want students to learn) expressed in general terms (clear communication, problem-solving skills, etc). Goals should focus on discipline-specific outcomes relevant to the program.)

Students will demonstrate an understanding of the Business Core curriculum.

Objectives SLO’s (student learning outcomes)

From your Program Assessment Plan (Describes the specific skills, values and attitudes students should be able to exhibit that reflect the broader goals. Objectives (student learning outcomes) transform the general program goals into specific student performance/behaviors that demonstrate student learning and skill development along these goals.

1.1 Students will demonstrate knowledge of current business practices and theory.

1.2 Students will correctly use the language of business.

Assessment Methods

From your Program Assessment Plan (Describes the measure(s) by which the department will know the students are meeting the departmental learning objectives. Includes both direct and indirect assessment. Each SLO should have at least one assessment method.)

1.1 Major Field Test in Business (MFTB)

1.2 Major Field Test in Business (MFTB)

The MFTB is an undergraduate outcomes assessments designed to measure the basic knowledge and understanding achieved by students in a major field of study. The MFTB is designed and scored by Educational Testing Services, and our scores are then compared to other undergraduate business programs. The MFTB is administered in our capstone course, SBAD 478 Business Policy: The MFTB is administered each fall and spring.

Assessment Criteria

Level of achievement you are targeting (Indicate benchmarks, scores on assessment instruments, etc… that would indicate acceptable achievement under your plan)

JCBE expects the mean score to be at or above the 75th percentile for the overall score and at least the 50th percentile for each area of the exam.

Academic Program: Johnson College of Business and Economics Assessment Report 2011/2012

JCBE 10.1.2012 2

Assessment Results

Actual results and data collected (Make sure to break down data by subgroups (e.g. other campuses or emphases). As appropriate, also include item or category analysis.)

1. All of the concentrations in the College of Business and Economics achieved or exceeded the MFTB goals for this student learning outcome. Every concentration achieved the JCBE minimum goal of 50% comprehension for entire both the Fall of 2011 and the Spring of 2012. This shows that the improvements made in the Spring of 2011 have been maintained (see Appendix A for more detail).

Action Plan What actions or modifications have been or will be made based on this assessment?

Recommendations for 2012/2013:

1. Determine MFT scores of peer schools so that we can evaluate our performance relative to peer institutions.

2. Determine where ethics/social responsibility is taught in curriculum to see if this can account for some of the improvement in the Legal and Social Issues score, and to determine if it can be further improved.

3. Encourage students to take additional courses in legal and social issues.

Academic Program: Johnson College of Business and Economics Assessment Report 2011/2012

JCBE 10.1.2012 3

Implementation of Previous Years’ Action Plan

Which of the modifications indicated in the previous years’ reports were implement this year and what was the impact?

New standards for admission to the professional program: In the fall of 2007, JCBE proposed new standards for the admission to the professional program. New Admission Requirements became effective fall 2008. Admission of applicants is based on individual consideration. Each applicant must fulfill the following requirements:

• Successful completion of 54 credit hours • Cumulative GPA of at least 2.0 • Completion with a C or better: SEGL 101, SEGL 102, SSPH 201, and SMTH 122. • Successful completion of SBAD 225 and SECO 221 or 222.

A sample of our students who performed the lowest (15th percentile or below) on the Major Field

Test in Business revealed that these standards would have delayed (or prevented) about 63% of these students from pursuing a business major. These students would benefit from repairing their deficiencies prior to advancing to upper level business studies. The new admissions standards have not yet impacted the MFTB scores.

As of the Spring of 2012, it appears that almost all graduating students are from the 2008 catalog which required the admissions standards.

On line MFTB Review: In Spring 2010 we developed an on-line review. Each department contributed review materials and review questions for their area. Prior to the MFTB there was an eight hour live review. This review was recorded and has been available to students in the semesters which have followed. Review learning objectives, curriculum and students: In the summer of 10, a committee was formed to evaluate learning objectives of core curriculum in light of MFTB topics. The committee researched the MFTB results and offered four issues that have contributed to the results. In response to these results we made a number of curriculum changes.

1. Updated many course descriptions 2. Moved the international requirement to part of the business core so that students will have to

complete the course prior to taking the MFTB. 3. The management department added a choice of Accounting for Decision Making and Control

(formerly Cost Accounting) or Managerial Economics as an additional required course. They also added an additional required course.

4. Economics added Accounting for Decision Making and Control as a required course, and deleted Commercial and Central Banking.

5. Accounting added an additional accounting course. 6. Marketing added an additional marketing course.

The new standards for admission into the professional JCBE program went into effect in the 2008 catalog. The results of the new standards are evident in this year’s increases in the overall MFT exam scores. Last year the Curriculum Committee conducted a review of the learning objectives in the syllabi of core courses to determine if the core topics are consistently being covered. The result of the new standards are evident in the increases in MFTB scores overall.

Academic Program: Johnson College of Business and Economics Assessment Report 2011/2012

JCBE 10.1.2012 4

Implementation of Previous Years’ Action Plan

Which of the modifications indicated in the previous years’ reports were implement this year and what was the impact?

In 2010 Each concentration faculty formed work groups to review curriculum opportunities related to their unique issues and made curriculum changes.

Several measurable changes took place:

1. An increase in scope and rigor pertaining to international issues were incorporated into SBAD 452, International Marketing. Increased information gathering, reporting and testing of students on these issues were incorporated.

2. The International requirement was moved to a core requirement so that students would have to take their international course prior to taking the MFTB.

3. Marketing students were given readings, study guides, and sample questions (not from the exam itself) to assist their preparation for the MFT exit exam.

4. Management students were also provided study materials to help their preparation.

5. The Management faculty added a choice of two rigorous business courses to substitute for an elective course.

6. Economics and Finance faculty added an additional accounting course to their curriculum.

Academic Program: Johnson College of Business and Economics Assessment Report 2011/2012

JCBE 10.1.2012 5

Component Description

Goal 2

From your Program Assessment Plan (Describe broad learning outcomes and concepts (what you want students to learn) expressed in general terms (clear communication, problem-solving skills, etc). Goals should focus on discipline-specific outcomes relevant to the program.)

Students will be able to communicate effectively in standard business English.

Objectives SLO’s (student learning outcomes)

From your Program Assessment Plan (Describes the specific skills, values and attitudes students should be able to exhibit that reflect the broader goals. Objectives (student learning outcomes) transform the general program goals into specific student performance/behaviors that demonstrate student learning and skill development along these goals.

2.1 Students will prepare written work of professional quality.

2.2 Students will prepare and deliver a professional oral presentation.

Assessment Methods

From your Program Assessment Plan (Describes the measure(s) by which the department will know the students are meeting the departmental learning objectives. Includes both direct and indirect assessment. Each SLO should have at least one assessment method.)

2.1a SBAD 478 Business Policy, Written Essay Assignment.

Not assessed per JCBE 5-year Assessment Plan.

2.1b SECO 292 Decision Analysis Assignment.

Not assessed per JCBE 5-year Assessment Plan.

2.1c SBAD 371 Mgmt. & Org. Behavior, Course-embedded Written Essay Assignments. Not assessed per JCBE 5-year Assessment Plan.. 2.2 SBAD 478 Business Policy, Oral Presentation.

Oral presentations in SBAD 478 Fall 2011.

Assessment Criteria

Level of achievement you are targeting (Indicate benchmarks, scores on assessment instruments, etc… that would indicate acceptable achievement under your plan)

2.1a. Not assessed per JCBE 5-year Assessment Plan.

2.1b. Not assessed per JCBE 5-year Assessment Plan. 2.1c. Not assessed per JCBE 5-year Assessment Plan. 2.2 For each assessment instrument we define levels for exemplary, acceptable, and unacceptable performance. We expect at least 70 % of the students to score at the acceptable level or above (=less than 30 % unacceptable).

Academic Program: Johnson College of Business and Economics Assessment Report 2011/2012

JCBE 10.1.2012 6

Assessment Results

Actual results and data collected (Make sure to break down data by subgroups (e.g. other campuses or emphases). As appropriate, also include item or category analysis.)

2.1a Not assessed per JCBE 5-year Assessment Plan.

2.1b Not assessed per JCBE 5-year Assessment Plan.

2.1c Not assessed per JCBE 5-year Assessment Plan. 2.2 Assessment Scores from Presentations in SBAD478 (Business Strategy – Sr Seminar) On average, the students scored 84.5% on their presentations, with 89% scoring at the acceptable or exemplary level. Therefore the students exceeded the 70% established cutoff (see Appendix B for more details).

Action Plan What actions or modifications have been or will be made based on this assessment?

21.a Not assessed per JCBE 5-year Assessment Plan.

2.1b Not assessed per JCBE 5-year Assessment Plan.

2.1c Not assessed per JCBE 5-year Assessment Plan.

2.2 We will continue to require presentations and work on their skills since it appears to helping us meet our goals.

Implementation of Previous Years’ Action Plan

Which of the modifications indicated in the previous years’ reports were implement this year and what was the impact?

2.1a Not assessed per JCBE 5-year Assessment Plan.

2.1b Not assessed per JCBE 5-year Assessment Plan.

2.1c Not assessed this per JCBE 5-year Assessment Plan.

2.2 Additional training on presentations has been effectively included in the 478 class, leading to continued satisfactory performance.

Academic Program: Johnson College of Business and Economics Assessment Report 2011/2012

JCBE 10.1.2012 7

Component Description

Goal 3 From your Program Assessment Plan (Describe broad learning outcomes and concepts (what you want students to learn) expressed in general terms (clear communication, problem-solving skills, etc). Goals should focus on discipline-specific outcomes relevant to the program.)

Students will demonstrate the ability to recognize and analyze business problems, using a variety of quantitative tools.

Objectives SLO’s (student learning outcomes)

From your Program Assessment Plan (Describes the specific skills, values and attitudes students should be able to exhibit that reflect the broader goals. Objectives (student learning outcomes) transform the general program goals into specific student performance/behaviors that demonstrate student learning and skill development along these goals.

3.0 Students will demonstrate the ability to recognize and analyze business problems, using a variety of quantitative tools.

3.1 Our students will analyze data to solve problems commonly encountered in business such as determining statistically significant relationships between two variables.

3.2 Our students will analyze data to solve problems commonly encountered in business such as capital budgeting.

3.3 Our students will formulate and analyze problems related to inventory models.

Assessment Methods

From your Program Assessment Plan (Describes the measure(s) by which the department will know the students are meeting the departmental learning objectives. Includes both direct and indirect assessment. Each SLO should have at least one assessment method.)

3.0 SBAD 478 Presentation This assignment was a presentation of a business analysis problem in our capstone course, SBAD 478.

3.1 Not assessed per JCBE 5-year Assessment Plan. 3.2 Not assessed per JCBE 5-year Assessment Plan.

3.3 Not assessed per JCBE 5-year Assessment Plan.

Assessment Criteria

Level of achievement you are targeting (Indicate benchmarks, scores on assessment instruments, etc… that would indicate acceptable achievement under your plan)

For each assessment instrument we define levels for exemplary, acceptable, and unacceptable performance. We expect at least 70 % of the students to score at the acceptable level or above (=less than 30 % unacceptable).

Academic Program: Johnson College of Business and Economics Assessment Report 2011/2012

JCBE 10.1.2012 8

Assessment Results

Actual results and data collected (Make sure to break down data by subgroups (e.g. other campuses or emphases). As appropriate, also include item or category analysis.)

3.0 The average score for Fall/Summer 2011 was 82.3% with 86% scoring at least average in the Fall/Summer of 2011. The 86%at or above acceptable was above our acceptable cutoff of 70% ( see Appendix B for more detail).

3.1 Not assessed per JCBE 5-year Assessment Plan. 3.2 Not assessed per JCBE 5-year Assessment Plan. 3.3 Not assessed per JCBE 5-year Assessment Plan.

Action Plan What actions or modifications have been or will be made based on this assessment?

3.0 Continue to use this exercise for assessment purposes. Instructors will review individual student assessments to determine any systematic weaknesses. Instructors will develop and implement remedial action the following semester.

3.1 Not assessed per JCBE 5-year Assessment Plan. Continue to use this exercise for assessment purposes. Instructors will review individual student assessments to determine any systematic weaknesses. Instructors will develop and implement remedial action the following semester.

3.2 Not assessed per JCBE 5-year Assessment Plan. Continue to use this exercise for assessment purposes. Instructors will review individual student assessments to determine any systematic weaknesses. Instructors will develop and implement remedial action the following semester.

3.3 Not assessed per JCBE 5-year Assessment Plan. Continue to use this exercise for assessment purposes. Instructors will review individual student assessments to determine any systematic weaknesses. Instructors will develop and implement remedial action the following semester.

Implementation of Previous Years’ Action Plan

Which of the modifications indicated in the previous years’ reports were implement this year and what was the impact?

3.0 No recommendations were made from the previous year; the assessment method remains satisfactory.

3.1 No recommendations were made from the previous year; the assessment method remains satisfactory.

3.2 No recommendations were made from the previous year; the assessment method remains satisfactory.

3.3 No recommendations were made from the previous year; the assessment method remains satisfactory.

Academic Program: Johnson College of Business and Economics Assessment Report 2011/2012

JCBE 10.1.2012 9

Component Description

Goal 4

From your Program Assessment Plan (Describe broad learning outcomes and concepts (what you want students to learn) expressed in general terms (clear communication, problem-solving skills, etc). Goals should focus on discipline-specific outcomes relevant to the program.)

Students will recognize and analyze ethical issues in business and choose and defend appropriate measures to deal with problems in business in an ethical manner.

Objectives SLO’s (student learning outcomes)

From your Program Assessment Plan (Describes the specific skills, values and attitudes students should be able to exhibit that reflect the broader goals. Objectives (student learning outcomes) transform the general program goals into specific student performance/behaviors that demonstrate student learning and skill development along these goals.

4.1 Students will identify and describe ethical standards and tests. 4.2 Students will recognize ethical dilemmas. 4.3 Students will discuss the consequences of ethical choices.

4.4 When presented with an ethical dilemma, students will select (and justify) an ethically-sound solution.

Assessment Methods

From your Program Assessment Plan (Describes the measure(s) by which the department will know the students are meeting the departmental learning objectives. Includes both direct and indirect assessment. Each SLO should have at least one assessment method.)

4.1– 4.3: SBAD 371 Org. Behavior & Mgmt., SBAD 347 Legal Environment in Business

Knowledge and understanding on ethics were tested with multiple choice questions on the final exam.

4.1-4.4 SBAD 350 Principles of Marketing

Students analyze an ethical case. The case used regarded greenwashing, an ethical dilemma that results from marketers advertising products as green when they have little or no environmental improvements over competitive products.

Assessment Criteria

Level of achievement you are targeting (Indicate benchmarks, scores on assessment instruments, etc… that would indicate acceptable achievement under your plan)

For each assessment instrument we define levels for exemplary, acceptable, and unacceptable performance. We expect at least 70 % of the students to score at the acceptable level or above (=less than 30 % unacceptable).

Academic Program: Johnson College of Business and Economics Assessment Report 2011/2012

JCBE 10.1.2012 10

Assessment Results

Actual results and data collected (Make sure to break down data by subgroups (e.g. other campuses or emphases). As appropriate, also include item or category analysis.)

SBAD 371 Organization Behavior, Spring 2011 (see Appendix C) 4.1-4.3 The results were fairly consistent with prior years. For objective 4.1 the average score was 80%,

for objective 4.2 the average score was 71% and for objective 4.3 the average score was 75%. Overall, 86% of students scored at or above the acceptable level, well above the 70% cutoff.

4.1 – 4.4 SBAD 350 Principles of Marketing (see Appendix D) The student written assignments generally show a clear understanding of the ethical dilemmas faced in business exceeding the 70% cutoff. Results for objective 4.1 showed 89% of students scoring above the acceptable, objective 4.2 showed 85% of students scoring at or above acceptable, objectives 4.3 and 4.4 showed 100% of students scoring at or above acceptable.

Action Plan What actions or modifications have been or will be made based on this assessment?

4.1 – 4.3 SBAD 371 Organizational Behavior For the next assessment, we will add a comparison of how business majors versus non-business majors perform on these ethics questions. Continue with increased emphasis on ethical dilemmas. Find ways to emphasize the role of organizational culture in influencing ethics of an organization to help improve Objective #1 performance. 4.1 - 4.4 SBAD 350 Principles of Marketing: We agree that more instruction on ethics be given to students during the course such as that implemented this semester. The assignment related to this course content should be required of all students during the next evaluation period so that we can have better measures of the learning. As with the case assignment, we recommend that a sample of the papers be evaluated by faculty other than those teaching the course.

Implementation of Previous Years’ Action Plan

Which of the modifications indicated in the previous years’ reports were implement this year and what was the impact?

4.1 – 4.3 SBAD 371 Org. Behavior Instructors spent more time on examples of ethical dilemma with favorable results on Objective 2.

4.1-4.4 SBAD 350 Principles of Marketing: This year we made an effort to improve our students’ understanding of business ethics and our measurement of these objectives through two new initiatives. Following class discussion and the use of written material on the Internet that provides instruction on the foundations of ethics, students were asked to complete a homework assignment that measured their understanding of ethics. We felt that the revised methodology gave students an opportunity to provide answers more indicative of their understanding.

Academic Program: Johnson College of Business and Economics Assessment Report 2011/2012

JCBE 10.1.2012 11

Component Description

Goal 5

From your Program Assessment Plan (Describe broad learning outcomes and concepts (what you want students to learn) expressed in general terms (clear communication, problem-solving skills, etc). Goals should focus on discipline-specific outcomes relevant to the program.)

Students will demonstrate the ability to use information technology in modern organizational operations.

Objectives SLO’s (student learning outcomes)

From your Program Assessment Plan (Describes the specific skills, values and attitudes students should be able to exhibit that reflect the broader goals. Objectives (student learning outcomes) transform the general program goals into specific student performance/behaviors that demonstrate student learning and skill development along these goals.

5.1 Students will demonstrate the ability to use common spreadsheet software (e.g., Excel). 5.2 Students will demonstrate the ability to use common Statistical software (e.g., Excel).

5.3 Students will demonstrate the ability to use common presentation software (e.g., PowerPoint).

Assessment Methods

From your Program Assessment Plan (Describes the measure(s) by which the department will know the students are meeting the departmental learning objectives. Includes both direct and indirect assessment. Each SLO should have at least one assessment method.)

5.1 SBAD 290 (see Appendix E)

Historically, application work in the SBAD 290 course has focused primarily on developing skills in Microsoft Excel and Access. Students were presented with business problems, required to design a model (typically students follow a template), create the model, enter the data, interpret the model results, interpret based upon changing conditions. The decision was made during the summer of 2011 to move application assignments to McGraw Hill’s Simnet/Simgrader platform. The primary reason we changed to the Simnet software is because it is difficult to assign and grade enough difficulty-graduated exercises in SBAD 290 to develop the necessary application skills.

The primary value delivered by Simnet/Simgrader is multifold. 1. There are server-centric (The work is done in the server-app environment) lessons which can be tailored to the skill sets each project encompasses. 2. Each project has a preconceived rubric which the software uses to evaluate the submitted application file. The rubric can be modified to suit but the fact that the instructor does not have to create a rubric for each exercise is a significant labor and time saving feature. 3. The software also has a feedback mechanism which uses the rubric to identify, for the student and faculty, what aspects of the project were not completed correctly. 4. There are a variety of project clusters to select from. It is quite simple to devise a graduated difficulty series of assignments which increment in the number of features and functions encompassed, each building upon the skills accrued in the last.

Academic Program: Johnson College of Business and Economics Assessment Report 2011/2012

JCBE 10.1.2012 12

Assessment Methods

From your Program Assessment Plan (Describes the measure(s) by which the department will know the students are meeting the departmental learning objectives. Includes both direct and indirect assessment. Each SLO should have at least one assessment method.)

5.2 SECO 291 Statistical Software (see Appendix F) Measurement instrument used: The student was asked to complete 4 tasks using Excel.

1. The student must construct a bar chart.. 2. The student must construct a pie chart. 3. The student must construct a scatter diagram. 4. The student must use Excel’s descriptive statistics to create a table of summary statistics.

This assignment is a homework assignment. Students must print the output to submit the assignment for grading. Students were expected to

o Include titles (5 points) for all graphs o Label the axes, bars, and pie chart slices (5 points) o Have correct data (frequencies, summary statistics, etc.) ( 10 points)

The total point value for the assignment was 100 points. A similar instrument has been used in previous years. This particular instrument was created during the spring of 2011 for general education assessment of the Information Technology Literacy (CAT 5), specifically, 5.2 Students demonstrate the ability to use information technologies to communicate information to others. 5.3 Presentation Software in SBAD 478: Business Policy (see Appendix B) Students presented end of year presentations using power point slides.

Assessment Criteria

Level of achievement you are targeting (Indicate benchmarks, scores on assessment instruments, etc… that would indicate acceptable achievement under your plan)

For each assessment instrument we define levels for exemplary, acceptable, and unacceptable performance. We expect at least 70 % of the students to score at the acceptable level or above (=less than 30 % unacceptable).

Academic Program: Johnson College of Business and Economics Assessment Report 2011/2012

JCBE 10.1.2012 13

Assessment Results

Actual results and data collected (Make sure to break down data by subgroups (e.g. other campuses or emphases). As appropriate, also include item or category analysis.)

5.1 SBAD 290 – The average project score overall for Spring 2012 semester was 75.1%. The standard deviation was 21.3%. Such a wide deviation reflects to some extent the significant variance in Excel and Access skills students have upon entering and exiting the class. The minimum average was 8%, the maximum average was 100%, and the median project average was 79%. As chart 1 indicates below there were 10 outlier students whose average grade eschewed the overall results. See Appendix E for details.

5.2 SECO 291 – For the spring 2012, 36 of the 55 students (65%) completed this assignment. Students have approximately 24 short graded homework assignments during the semester and are allowed to drop the lowest six. This may explain why 35% chose not to complete this assignment. Of the students who completed the assignment, the average score for the exercise was 89.3%. 97% of the students scored at the acceptable or exemplary levels. The results fall in the acceptable range for each of the four tasks. The students have little difficulty doing bar, pie, and scatter diagrams. The use of the Summary Statistics component of Data Analysis in Excel was a bit more difficult with a score of 78%. 5.3 SBAD 478 – For the Fall of 2011 84% of student scored at or above the acceptable level in Powerpoint slide preparation.

Action Plan What actions or modifications have been or will be made based on this assessment?

5.1 SBAD 290: Over the course of the year there have been some issues with the accuracy of the grading software. Subtle deviations from instruction, changes in file structure, rearrangement of columns, variations in font; these and other variances can sometimes cause grading errors. Instructor review of rubric results is necessary to identify problem point-deductions. However, the ability to offer more application work outweighs the accuracy issues. The issues are also becoming more manageable as instructor knowledge improves.

While the primary reason for moving to the Simnet platform was to increase volume of work and repetition the Simnet projects emphasize skill acquisition with little focus upon model interpretation and problem analysis. In the future the instructors both agree that the Simnet projects should culminate in a semester project which includes interpretation and analysis.

5.2 SECO 291: Recommendations: Continue to use the measurement instrument and track progress for general education assessment and JCBE learning goal assessment. Continue to emphasize the value and use Excel with class discussion and homework.

5.3 SBAD 478: No changes recommended. However, instructors will spend more time in class discussing what makes a good power point presentation.

Academic Program: Johnson College of Business and Economics Assessment Report 2011/2012

JCBE 10.1.2012 14

Implementation of Previous Years’ Action Plan

Which of the modifications indicated in the previous years’ reports were implement this year and what was the impact?

5.1 SBAD 290: This year we started using the Simnet program to increase student exposure.

5.2 SECO 291: In all sections, regardless of instructor, Excel is demonstrated during class and homework which uses Excel is required and graded. Use this type of exercise to track progress.

5.3 SBAD 478: Instructors are now using a set rubric and scores are more comparable among classes.

Students are also now required to submit their presentations on Powerpoint.

Academic Program: Johnson College of Business and Economics Assessment Report 2011/2012

JCBE 10.1.2012 15

Appendix A SBAD 478 Business Policy Learning Goal #1: Students will demonstrate an understanding of the business core curriculum.

Objective 1.1: Students will demonstrate knowledge of current business practices and theory. Objective 1.2: Students will correctly use the language of business.

MFT Business Scores History Fall 1998 to Spring 2011 Targets: Overall MFTB Field Test, 75%. Each concentration area 50%.

Assessment report for goal/objective 1: Understanding of Business Core Curriculum Each fall and spring semester, students take the Major Field Test in Business (MFTB) during the SBAD 478 class. We have been giving the MFTB since the fall of 1998. The test counts as 25% of the course grade. The MFTB portion of the course grade is based on relative performance of the student.

This report adds observations for fall 2011 and spring 2012 to the last report to the faculty in the spring of 2011. The scores are presented by academic year since 1998. Fall 2011 to Spring 2012 results are presented on a semester by semester basis. Also presented are results by discipline for the Spring 2010 – Spring 2011 period. Full data will be available in an accompanying spreadsheet on the P drive. SBAE has set as a target performance on this assessment measure at a percentile performance of at least the 75th percentile for the overall score and at least the 50th percentile for each area of the exam. The nine areas of the exam are accounting, economics, management, quantitative business analysis and information systems, finance, marketing, legal and social environment, international, and information systems. (ETS added a section on information systems in spring 2007.) Results: We have met all our targets for the past 3 semesters.

Academic Program: Johnson College of Business and Economics Assessment Report 2011/2012

JCBE 10.1.2012 16

MFT Business Scores History Fall 1998 to Spring 2011 (scores and percentiles)

FY n MFT ACCT ECON MANG QUAN FIN MKT LEGAL INTNAT I/ S 98/99 54 89 84 94 68 85 63 95 86 91

99/00 82 73 81 69 52 67 56 83 67 88 00/01 85 84 89 82 63 91 69 94 76 89 01/02 87 72 74 62 52 79 62 83 57 90 02/03 97 69 55 81 62 80 57 68 43 76 03/04 96 84 72 92 88 93 64 80 57 95 04/05 93 85 83 91 72 89 79 90 60 84 05/06 117 71 61 79 70 84 39 74 44 83 06/07 146 75 78 74 59 91 52 84 64 79 85

07/08 110 74 43 71 55 95 53 95 65 83 71 08/09 140 67 51 72 51 89 49 71 45 69 76 09/10 156 51 45 66 37 86 37 54 32 44 46 10/11 162 73 71 77 51 92 63 81 63 72 66 11/12 146 79 78 87 61 89 62 79 80 72 83

F11 69 83 83 90 58 93 69 79 90 65 87 S12 77 76 73 85 64 86 55 79 71 78 80

Academic Program: Johnson College of Business and Economics Assessment Report 2011/2012

JCBE 10.1.2012 17

Spring 10-Spring 11 Overall Accounting Economics Management Gen. Bus. Marketing N (3 semesters) 249 42 27 73 54 53 Avg N=83

Overall Group Score 0.61 0.86 0.88 0.55 0.47 0.42 Accounting 0.57 0.90 0.57 0.51 0.30 0.28 Economics 0.69 0.83 0.95 0.54 0.56 0.33 Management 0.44 0.69 0.71 0.39 0.32 0.40 Quantitative Analysis 0.91 0.95 0.95 0.77 0.88 0.74 Finance 0.51 0.81 0.83 0.45 0.42 0.28 Marketing 0.70 0.78 0.83 0.63 0.55 0.71 Legal and Social Issues 0.51 0.61 0.72 0.30 0.57 0.43 Information Systems 0.59 0.69 0.68 0.75 0.35 0.37 Intenational Issues 0.53 0.72 0.86 0.52 0.29 0.29

Fall 11-Spring 12 Overall Accounting Economics Management Gen. Bus Marketing N (2 semesters) 146 34 20 42 23 26 Avg N= 73

Overall Group Score 0.79 0.92 0.93 0.48 0.74 0.71 Accounting 0.78 0.99 0.79 0.45 0.54 0.65 Economics 0.87 0.79 0.99 0.60 0.84 0.64 Management 0.61 0.62 0.79 0.44 0.67 0.66 Quantitative Analysis 0.89 0.95 0.81 0.84 0.83 0.59 Finance 0.62 0.74 0.97 0.19 0.49 0.56 Marketing 0.79 0.83 0.85 0.57 0.64 0.96 Legal and Social Issues 0.80 0.77 0.74 0.56 0.97 0.69 Information Systems 0.83 0.98 0.82 0.48 0.82 0.69 Intenational Issues 0.72 0.83 0.94 0.43 0.43 0.74

Academic Program: Johnson College of Business and Economics Assessment Report 2011/2012

JCBE 10.1.2012 18

Difference Overall Accounting Economics Management Gen. Bus Marketing Average n difference -10 3 1 -3 -7 -5 Avg N= 73

Overall Group Score 0.18 0.06 0.05 -0.07 0.26 0.28 Accounting 0.21 0.09 0.22 -0.06 0.23 0.38 Economics 0.18 -0.04 0.04 0.06 0.28 0.31 Management 0.18 -0.08 0.07 0.04 0.35 0.26 Quantitative Analysis -0.02 0.00 -0.14 0.07 -0.05 -0.15 Finance 0.10 -0.06 0.14 -0.26 0.08 0.27 Marketing 0.09 0.05 0.01 -0.06 0.09 0.25 Legal and Social Issues 0.29 0.16 0.02 0.26 0.41 0.27 Information Systems 0.24 0.29 0.14 -0.27 0.47 0.32 Intenational Issues 0.19 0.11 0.08 -0.09 0.15 0.45

Academic Program: Johnson College of Business and Economics Assessment Report 2011/2012

JCBE 10.1.2012 19

Appendix B SBAD 478 Business Policy Appendix B Learning Goal #2- SBAD 478 Fall 2011:

Students will be able to communicate effectively in standard business English. Objective 2.2: Students will prepare and deliver a professional oral presentation. Learning Goal # 3 – SBAD 478, Fall 2011 Students will demonstrate the ability to recognize and analyze business problems, using a variety of quantitative tools Leaning Goal #5- Students will demonstrate the ability to use common presentation software (e.g., PowerPoint). Targets: 75%. Assessment Scores from Presentations in SBAD478 (Business Strategy – Sr Seminar) Overall Summary

Spring Fall/Summer Analyses 76.4% 82.3%

Presentation 82.1% 84.5%

Spring 2011 Fall/Summer 2011

Analyses # Students % # Students % E 21 22% 26 35% A 47 49% 38 51% U 27 28% 11 15%

95 100% 75 100%

Presentation # Students % # Students % E 33 35% 30 40%

A 47 49% 37 49% U 15 16% 8 11% 95 100% 75 100%

Excellent (E) are students who scored > 44 on the total four items in the assessment category Acceptable (A) are students who score > 34 on the total four items in the assessment category Detail scores by assessment item

Academic Program: Johnson College of Business and Economics Assessment Report 2011/2012

JCBE 10.1.2012 20

Spring 2011

Average Max Avg as % of Max 1 8.2 10 82.2% 2 7.6 10 76.0% 3 11.6 15 77.3% 4 10.8 15 71.9% 5 11.8 15 78.6% 6 11.7 15 77.8% 7 7.9 10 79.4% 8 9.6 10 96.4%

Fall/Summer 2011 Average Max Avg as % of Max

1 8.9 10 88.8% 2 8.1 10 80.8% 3 12.4 15 82.5% 4 11.8 15 78.6% 5 12.8 15 85.2% 6 12.2 15 81.2% 7 8.2 10 81.6% 8 9.1 10 91.3%

(see scoring sheet below)

Academic Program: Johnson College of Business and Economics Assessment Report 2011/2012

JCBE 10.1.2012 21

Student Name: Company:

Score How does the presentation relate to the class

disjoint some alignment good alignment

0 2 4 6 8 10

Financial Data and Interpretation

incorrect correct but not relevant correct, relevant and

strategic 0 3 6 8 9 10

Assessment of Company Strategy

missing not well founded not strategic strategic & well founded

0 3 6 9 12 15

Recommended Future Strategy

not strategic and not aligned

not well founded not strategic or

not aligned strategic & well aligned with analysis

0 3 6 9 12 15

Clarity of Presentation - Slides

uninter-pretable somewhat clear clear - easy to follow

0 3 6 9 12 15

Academic Program: Johnson College of Business and Economics Assessment Report 2011/2012

JCBE 10.1.2012 22

Clarity of Presentation - Verbal - Delivery

uninter-pretable rambled somewhat clear clear - easy to follow

0 3 6 9 12 15

Level of Enthusiasm

asleep yawning high - energetic

0 2 4 6 8 10

Good Use of Time

<12 or >15 12-15 mins

0 10

Total Pts (100 max)

Academic Program: Johnson College of Business and Economics Assessment Report 2011/2012

JCBE 10.1.2012 23

Appendix C SBAD 371-Organizational Management and Behavior

Learning Goal #4: Learning Goal: Students will recognize and analyze ethical issues in business and choose and defend appropriate measures to deal with problems in business in an ethical manner. Objectives 1. Identify and describe ethical standards 2. Recognize ethical dilemmas 3. Recognize consequences of ethical choices 4. Select ethically-sound solutions

Ethics Assessment Report SBAD 371 - Organizational Management and Behavior – Spring 2012 Learning Goal: Students will recognize and analyze ethical issues in business and choose and defend appropriate measures to deal with problems in business in an ethical manner N = 115 Objective #1: Identify & Describe Ethical Standards Exam Question Correct response Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Percentage 2011 2011 2010 2010 2009 Q-1 80% Q-2 91% Q-3 88% Q-4 70% Q-5 89% Subtotal 83% 80% 77% 76% 73% 76% Objective #2: Recognize Ethical Dilemmas Q-7 80% Q-8 75% Subtotal 78% 71% 78% 58% 74% 70% Objective #3: Recognize Consequences of Ethical Choices Q-6 75% 81% 73% 67% 71% 68%

Academic Program: Johnson College of Business and Economics Assessment Report 2011/2012

JCBE 10.1.2012 24

Correct response Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall n Percentage 2011 2011 2010 2010 2009 Overall Exemplary 69 60% 55% 40% 30% 33% 36% Acceptable 30 26% 30% 45% 50% 52% 48% Unacceptable 16 14% 15% 15% 20% 15% 16% CONCLUSION: Fairly consistent improvement in Objective 1 in spite of changes in instructors. Instruction continues to spend more focus on examples of ethical dilemmas in class to help Objective 2. Attention on Objective 3 seems to also show some improvement from more attention. Trends on Overall Student performance reflect improvements on Objective 2. RECOMMENDATION: For the next assessment, add a comparison of how business majors versus non-business majors perform on these ethics questions.

Academic Program: Johnson College of Business and Economics Assessment Report 2011/2012

JCBE 10.1.2012 25

Exam questions for assessment

1. Behaving ethically goes beyond A. reason B. staying within the law C. one’s job description D. pop culture

2. One of the complexities businesses face with regards to ethics is the rules that guide ethical decisions are A. outdated B. complicated C. subjective D. expensive

3. Many organizations behave unethically because they focus mainly on economic and legal consequences of their decisions and fail to consider A. their ethical duties B. historical precedents C. their customers reactions D. employee morale

4. Which of the following has been found to significantly influence ethical behavior in and by organizations? A. level of profits B. organizational culture C. rate of sales growth D. economic environment

5. Hosmer’s book on the Ethics of Management questions whether organizational “wrong doings” results from more from individuals’ moral failure or from A. Wall St corruption B. limited government oversight C. lack of training D. industry pressure, risks, and rewards

6. While ethics is considered honorable, Hosmer believes managers should behave ethically mainly because ethical behavior by managers A. ultimately costs less B. attracts better employees C. improves organizational effectiveness D. enhances management’s image

7. When Wal-Mart decides to build a store in a rural area, one major ethical dilemma involves the harm caused to local businesses versus the benefit of lower prices for consumers in the community. The rule that governs this decision is A. Religious injunctions B. Utilitarian benefits C. Contributive theory D. Political autonomy

8. In the above Wal-Mart example, if one assumes that the local businesses are “powerless” against Wal-Mart, then they would see the above ethical guideline flawed because Wal-Mart’s placement of a store in the rural community violates the ethical guideline called A. Distributive justice B. Personal virtue C. Free enterprise D. Protectionism

Learning Goal # 3 – SBAD 292, Spring, 2010

Academic Program: Johnson College of Business and Economics Assessment Report 2011/2012

JCBE 10.1.2012 26

Appendix D SBAD 350-Introduction to Marketing

Learning Goal #4: Learning Goal: Students will recognize and analyze ethical issues in business and choose and defend appropriate measures to deal with problems in business in an ethical manner. Objectives 5. Identify and describe ethical standards 6. Recognize ethical dilemmas 7. Recognize consequences of ethical choices 8. Select ethically-sound solutions Instruction and measurement of understanding of ethics content This year we made an effort to improve our students’ understanding of business ethics and our measurement of these objectives through two new initiatives. Following class discussion and the use of written material on the Internet that provides instruction on the foundations of ethics, students were asked to complete a homework assignment that measured their understanding of ethics. The scores on the homework assignments were as follows

Score Section 701 Section 750 Total Percentage 3 6 9 15 30

2.5 2 0 2 4 2 4 2 6 12

1.5 2 0 2 4 1 4 0 4 8

Chose not to complete assignment

13

8

21

42 Total 31 19 50 100%

Case Assignment

The case assignment was also revised and improved in two ways. Instead of being part of an exam, students were given the case prior to an exam. They had the choice of turning in the case analysis prior to the exam or answering it during the exam period. Thus the students could spend more time thinking about the situation and developing answers. In addition, the questions used were more extensive and specific than those previously used.

Ethics Case Assignment

The case used regarded greenwashing, an ethical dilemma that results from marketers advertising products as green when they have little or no environmental improvements over competitive products. The assignment questions and rubric are below.

Academic Program: Johnson College of Business and Economics Assessment Report 2011/2012

JCBE 10.1.2012 27

Objective #1: Identify and describe ethical standards In your own words, summarize the situation described. What is the ethical standard that this case concerns?

Unsatisfactory Acceptable Exemplary 0 1 2

Provides an inadequate description of the situation and the ethical standard in the case.

Provides minimal explanation of the situation and the ethical standard of the case.

Provided insightful explanations of the situation and the ethical standard(s) of the case.

Objective #2: Recognize ethical dilemmas Assignment:

In a situation such as this, there are at least two alternative choices of action that can be made. There are good aspects about both choices and bad aspects about both choices. Describe at least two alternative actions an advertising agency could take in this situation?

Unsatisfactory Acceptable Exemplary 0 1 2

Provides an inadequate or no description of the concepts and the situation in the case.

Appears to have minimal understanding of the concepts and aspects of the situation in the.

Understands the concepts and the situation in the case and describes them with clarity.

Objective #3: Recognize consequences of ethical choices Assignment:

What are the pros and cons of each of the actions, that is, what would be the ultimate good and the ultimate bad consequences of each action for the company and for the consumer?

Unsatisfactory Acceptable Exemplary 0 1 2

Does not discuss the pros and cons of the alternative actions.

Provides minimal explanation of positive and negative consequences of each action

Provides an insightful explanation of the important positive and negative consequences of each action

Objective #4: Select ethically-sound solutions

Academic Program: Johnson College of Business and Economics Assessment Report 2011/2012

JCBE 10.1.2012 28

Assignment: Which do you feel would be the most ethical action to take and why? Which action would you take and why?

.

Unsatisfactory Acceptable Exemplary 0 1 2

Does not provide an example of an ethical action to take.

Provides limited explanation of an ethical action and does not provide an answer as to why this is ethical.

Provides a good example of an ethical action to take and provides an insightful explanation of why this is the ethical choice.

Results of the Case Assignment

Learning Goal: Students will recognize and analyze ethical issues in business and choose and defend appropriate measures to deal with problems in business in an ethical manner. Objective #1: Identify and describe ethical standards

Unsatisfactory Acceptable Exemplary # % # % # % 2 10 6 29 13 62

Objective #2: Recognize ethical dilemmas

Unsatisfactory Acceptable Exemplary # % # % # % 1 5 9 43 11 52

Objective #3: Recognize consequences of ethical choices

Unsatisfactory Acceptable Exemplary # % # % # % 0 0 1 5 20 95

Objective #4: Select ethically-sound solutions

Unsatisfactory Acceptable Exemplary # % # % # % 0 0 2 10 19 90

Academic Program: Johnson College of Business and Economics Assessment Report 2011/2012

JCBE 10.1.2012 29

Average Scores

Total Score # % 8 – Exemplary 8 38 7 – Acceptable 7 33 6 – Acceptable 4 19

5 – Unsatisfactory 1 5 4 – Unsatisfactory 0 0 3 - Unsatisfactory 0 0 2 - Unsatisfactory 1 5

Total 21 100

Summary Comments and Recommendations for Action Written Assignment The student written assignments generally show not only a clear understanding of the ethical dilemmas faced in business but also a maturity of thinking. We felt that the revised methodology gave students an opportunity to provide answers more indicative of their understanding. Recommendation: We recommend that the revised procedure be implemented in the future. In addition, we recommend that only a sample of the written assignments be evaluated and that the evaluation be conducted by faculty other than those teaching the course. Additional Recommendations

We agree that more instruction on ethics be given to students during the course such as that implemented this semester. The assignment related to this course content should be required of all students during the next evaluation period so that we can have better measures of the learning. As with the case assignment, we recommend that a sample of the papers be evaluated by faculty other than those teaching the course.

Academic Program: Johnson College of Business and Economics Assessment Report 2011/2012

JCBE 10.1.2012 30

Appendix E SBAD 290-Introduction to Information Systems Learning Goal #5: Students will demonstrate the ability to use information technology in modern organizational operations. 5.1 Students will demonstrate the ability to use common spreadsheet software (e.g., Excel). 5.2 Students will demonstrate the ability to use common Statistical software (e.g., Excel).

Decision Analysis in SBAD 290

Historically, application work in the SBAD 290 course has focused primarily on developing skills in Microsoft Excel and Access. Students were presented with business problems, required to design a model (typically students follow a template), create the model, enter the data, interpret the model results, interpret based upon changing conditions. The decision was made during the summer of 2011 to move application assignments to McGraw Hill’s Simnet/Simgrader platform. The primary reason; it is difficult to assign and grade enough difficulty-graduated exercises in SBAD 290 to develop the necessary application skills.

The primary value delivered by Simnet/Simgrader is multifold. 1. There are server-centric (The work is done in the server-app environment) lessons which can be tailored to the skill sets each project encompasses. 2. Each project has a preconceived rubric which the software uses to evaluate the submitted application file. The rubric can be modified to suit but the fact that the instructor does not have to create a rubric for each exercise is a significant labor and time saving feature. 3. The software also has a feedback mechanism which uses the rubric to identify, for the student and faculty, what aspects of the project were not completed correctly. 4. There are a variety of project clusters to select from. It is quite simple to devise a graduated difficulty series of assignments which increment in the number of features and functions encompassed, each building upon the skills accrued in the last.

The average project score overall for Spring 2012 semester was 75.1%. The standard deviation was 21.3%. Such a wide deviation reflects to some extent the significant variance in Excel and Access skills students have upon entering and exiting the class. The minimum average was 8%, the maximum average was 100%, and the median project average was 79%. As chart 1 indicates below there were 10 outlier students whose average grade eschewed the overall results.

Academic Program: Johnson College of Business and Economics Assessment Report 2011/2012

JCBE 10.1.2012 31

Over the course of the year there have been some issues with the accuracy of the grading software. Subtle deviations from instruction, changes in file structure, rearrangement of columns, variations in font; these and other variances can sometimes cause grading errors. Instructor review of rubric results is necessary to identify problem point-deductions. However, the ability to offer more application work outweighs the accuracy issues. The issues are also becoming more manageable as instructor knowledge improves.

While the primary reason for moving to the Simnet platform was to increase volume of work and repetition the Simnet projects emphasize skill acquisition with little focus upon model interpretation and problem analysis. In the future the instructors both agree that the Simnet projects should culminate in a semester project which includes interpretation and analysis.

Academic Program: Johnson College of Business and Economics Assessment Report 2011/2012

JCBE 10.1.2012 32

Appendix F SBAD 291-Probability and Statistics Learning Goal #5: Students will demonstrate the ability to use information technology in modern organizational operations. 5.2 Students will demonstrate the ability to use common Statistical software (e.g., Excel). Assessment report for goal/objective: information technology / use of Excel Measurement instrument used: The student was asked to complete 4 tasks using Excel.

5. The student must construct a bar chart.. 6. The student must construct a pie chart. 7. The student must construct a scatter diagram. 8. The student must use Excel’s descriptive statistics to create a table of summary statistics.

This assignment is a homework assignment. For the spring 2012, 36 of the 55 students (65%) completed this assignment. Students have approximately 24 short graded homework assignments during the semester and are allowed to drop the lowest six. This may explain why 35% chose not to complete this assignment. Students must print the output to submit the assignment for grading. Students were expected to

o Include titles (5 points) for all graphs o Label the axes, bars, and pie chart slices (5 points) o Have correct data (frequencies, summary statistics, etc.) ( 10 points)

The total point value for the assignment was 100 points. A similar instrument has been used in previous years. This particular instrument was created during the spring of 2011 for general education assessment of the Information Technology Literacy (CAT 5), specifically, 5.2 Students demonstrate the ability to use information technologies to communicate information to others. Results:

Individual Components: Spring 2012 (two day sections) Bar Pie Scatter Summary

Statistics Maximum 25 points 25 points 25 points 25 points average score 23.3 22.8 23.6 19.6 % correct 93 % 91 % 94 % 78 %

Overall Results: Spring 2012 Scores of

Less than 70 unacceptable 1 3% 70 to 94 acceptable 16 44% 97%

95 to 100 exemplary 19 53% 36 The average score for the exercise was 89.3%. 97% of the students scored at the acceptable or exemplary levels. The results fall in the acceptable range for each of the four tasks. The students have little difficulty doing bar, pie, and scatter diagrams. The use of the Summary Statistics component of Data Analysis in Excel was a bit more difficult with a score of 78%. Recommendations:

Continue to use the measurement instrument and track progress for general education assessment and JCBE learning goal assessment. Continue to emphasize the value and use Excel with class discussion and homework.