Assessed: 2007, 2010, 2011, 2013. PHIL 101 (Introduction to Philosophy: Ethics) GE elective choice...

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 MajorAdvanced 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 2006. 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)


▪ Fall Semester 2011 in BA 300 (Ethical Decision Making in Business)


▪ 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.

Question Correct Incorrect Total % Correct

1 192 230 45.50%

2 372 50 88.15%

3 349 73 82.70%

Average of 3 questions

72.12%

“70% should be able to correctly respond”; On average, 72% could

Question #1 did not meet the benchmark


1 303 119 71.80%

2 309 113 73.22%

3 391 31 92.65%

4 282 140 66.82%


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 2007-2008 there were fully face-to-face and hybrid sections both being taught.

Assessment analysis was undertaken to compare the two delivery modes.

Question Fully F-to-F Correct

%

Hybrid Correct %

Hybrid Advantage

1 42.3% 50.0% +7.72 84.5% 92.4% +7.93 80.6% 81.9% +1.34 69.0% 79.2% +10.25 79.3% 71.5% -7.86 93.4% 93.1% -0.37 63.4% 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.


1 559 35 94.11%

2 483 111 81.31%

3 560 34 94.28%


89.90%

“70% should be able to correctly respond”; On average, 90% could.

All individual questions met the benchmark.


1 551 43 92.76%

2 405 189 68.18%

3 487 107 81.99%


80.98%


Question #2 missed the benchmark by a small percentage.


1 507 87 85.35%

2 553 41 93.10%

3 545 49 91.75%


90.07%


All individual questions met the benchmark.


1 506 88 85.19%

2 543 51 91.41%

3 281 313 47.31%


74.64%


Question #3 missed the benchmark by a significant percentage.



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.


1 576 57 91.0%

2 375 258 59.2%

3 420 213 66.4%


72.2%

“70% should be able to correctly respond”; On average, 72.2% could.

Questions #2 & #3 both missed the benchmark.


1 565 68 89.3%

2 517 116 81.7%

3 513 120 81.0%


84.0%


Performance on all questions exceeded the benchmark.


1 419 214 66.2%

2 585 48 92.4%

3 501 132 79.1%


79.2%


Question #1 missed the benchmark.


1 568 65 89.7%

2 405 228 64.0%

3 486 147 76.8%


76.8%


Question #2 missed the benchmark.




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.


1 475 69 87.3%

2 406 138 74.6%

3 427 117 78.5%


80.2%


All individual questions also exceeded the benchmark.


1 464 76 85.9%

2 442 98 81.9%

3 482 58 89.3%


85.7%


Performance on all questions exceeded the benchmark.


1 350 190 64.8%

2 458 82 84.8%

3 358 182 66.3%


72.0%


Questions #1 & #3 missed the benchmark.


1 523 17 96.9%

2 500 40 92.6%

3 370 152 70.9%


86.8%


All individual questions met or exceeded the benchmark.




BENCHMARK ACHIEVED

60.00%

65.00%

70.00%

75.00%

80.00%

85.00%

90.00%

95.00%

100.00%

SLO #1 SLO #2 SLO #3 SLO #4

2010

2011

2013

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 2013. 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 2013.

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.

Assessed: 2007, 2010, 2011, 2013. PHIL 101 (Introduction to Philosophy: Ethics) GE elective choice...

Documents

Transcript of Assessed: 2007, 2010, 2011, 2013. PHIL 101 (Introduction to Philosophy: Ethics) GE elective choice...