minnesota state university moorhead 2006-2007 assessment ...€¦ · ets major field test in...

Minnesota State University Moorhead 2006-2007 Assessment Report Cover Sheet

(An electronic version of this form can be accessed at http://www.mnstate.edu/assess) Note: All programs will complete this form. Academic Programs: Bachelor of Science in Accounting, Bachelor of Science in Business Administration Department: School of Business College: College of Business and Industry Date: 10-25-06 1. Name(s) of Department Assessment Coordinator and/or Assessment Committee Members Marsha Weber, Chair; Ben Clapp; Lee Dexter; Jim Hansen; Peter Geib; Ruth Lumb; George Sanderson; Marlane Sanderson 2. List of All Student Learning Outcomes. (List all outcomes, placing an asterisk (*) by the outcomes you are assessing this year.) Students who graduate from MSUM with a major from the School of Business should be able to: *1. Exhibit basic knowledge of business principles and processes. *2. Write in a clear and professional manner. *3. Prepare and deliver an effective business presentation. *4. Effectively use technologies appropriate to their discipline. *5. Identify and analyze ethical issues in a professional context. 3. Signatures Department Chair or Program Director Dean or Director Required Attachments:

1. Assessment Reporting Forms 2. Records of department meetings when Assessment Report was discussed and approved.

Minnesota State University Moorhead 2006-2007 Assessment Reporting Form

(An electronic version of this form can be accessed at http://www.mnstate.edu/assess)

Instructions: Complete, print, and save a copy of this page for each student learning outcome being assessed during the following two year period.

Academic Program: School of Business 1. Learning outcome assessed (please include the number of the outcome to correspond with the list on the cover sheet). 1. Exhibit basic knowledge of business principles and processes.

2. Assessment measure used for this learning outcome. ETS Major Field Test in Business 3. Expected Student Performance (from assessment plan) Mean Total Score for MSUM students should be in the 75th percentile. 4. Actual Results (attach additional information, if necessary) The ETS exam was administered Spring 2005 and the Mean Total Score for MSUM students fell in the 70-80 percentile. See attached spreadsheet for detailed results. 5. Proposed action in response to results. (Please note if improvements can be made with existing department resources. If improvements cannot be made with existing department resources, consider applying for an Instructional Improvement Grant.) In the past we have made curriculum improvements based on ETS data. We will administer the exam during Spring 2007 and will determine if any changes are necessary.




Academic Program: School of Business 1. Learning outcome assessed (please include the number of the outcome to correspond with the list on the cover sheet). Write in a clear and professional manner

2. Assessment measure used for this learning outcome. Writing assignment assessed using prepared rubric 3. Expected Student Performance (from assessment plan) 80% of students receive a rating of "competent." 4. Actual Results (attach additional information, if necessary) Spring 2007--77% of student demonstrated competency. Fall 2007--83% of students demonstrated competency. (tentative results) See attached rubric and results. 5. Proposed action in response to results. (Please note if improvements can be made with existing department resources. If improvements cannot be made with existing department resources, consider applying for an Instructional Improvement Grant.) Now that we have completed the assessment twice, we will meet to discuss implications, possible curriculum improvements.




Academic Program: School of Business 1. Learning outcome assessed (please include the number of the outcome to correspond with the list on the cover sheet). 3. Prepare and deliver an effective business presentation.

2. Assessment measure used for this learning outcome. Oral presentation assessed using a prepared rubric 3. Expected Student Performance (from assessment plan) 80% of students are rated "competent." 4. Actual Results (attach additional information, if necessary) 74% of students demonstrated competency in oral presentation preparation and delivery. See attached rubric and results for Spring 2006. This assessment will take place again at the end of Fall 2006. Results from both semester will be used to make recommendations concerning improving results. 5. Proposed action in response to results. (Please note if improvements can be made with existing department resources. If improvements cannot be made with existing department resources, consider applying for an Instructional Improvement Grant.) No proposed action yet, but will most likely be to increase the number of presentations in the curriculum to give students the opportunity to improve their skills.




Academic Program: School of Business 1. Learning outcome assessed (please include the number of the outcome to correspond with the list on the cover sheet). 4. Effectively use technologies appropriate to their discipline

2. Assessment measure used for this learning outcome. Technology assignment scored by course instructor using prepared rubric 3. Expected Student Performance (from assessment plan) Yet to be determined 4. Actual Results (attach additional information, if necessary) None yet: Finance assessment will be completed Fall 2006; Accounting, Business Administration, Management and Marketing assessments will be completed Spring 2007 5. Proposed action in response to results. (Please note if improvements can be made with existing department resources. If improvements cannot be made with existing department resources, consider applying for an Instructional Improvement Grant.) None--no results yet




Academic Program: School of Business 1. Learning outcome assessed (please include the number of the outcome to correspond with the list on the cover sheet). 5. Identify and analyze ethical issues in a professional context.

2. Assessment measure used for this learning outcome. Case study write-up assessed by course instructor using a prepared rubric 3. Expected Student Performance (from assessment plan) Yet to be determined 4. Actual Results (attach additional information, if necessary) None: Administered for the first time Fall 2006 5. Proposed action in response to results. (Please note if improvements can be made with existing department resources. If improvements cannot be made with existing department resources, consider applying for an Instructional Improvement Grant.) None yet.

ETS Exam Results Spring 2001

388 schools n=86Insitutional MSUM Mean n=14 n=18 n=7 n=33 n=14

Assessment Indicator Mean (Percentile) Accounting Finance Marketing Bus. Admin. Mgmt./Intl. Bus.Accounting 48.1 54.3 (80th) 71.1(99th) 54.7 (80th) 47.3 (36th) 48.9 (48th) 53.2 (74th)Economics 40.1 44.3 (75th) 43.9 (73rd) 47.2 (89th) 39.3 (37th) 41.5 (55th) 50 (96th)Management 52.2 57.2 (78th) 52.4 (37th) 55.6 (62nd) 54.9 (62nd) 59 (88th) 60.9 (93rd)Quantitative Analysis 48.8 53.1 (74th) 54.3 (82nd) 53.9 (80th) 49.3 (43rd) 53.8 (80th) 51.4 (60th)Finance 37.8 50.6 (96th) 56.6 (99th) 65.4 (99th) 37 (41st) 48.6 (92nd) 37.2 (41st)Marketing 46.9 50.0 (63rd) 47.1 (42nd) 46.6 (40th) 56 (97th) 50.7 (63rd) 52.6 (79th)Legal and Social Environment 41.1 44.4 (70th) 50.1 (95th) 48.5 (91st) 45.4 (77th) 38.7 (25th) 46.6 (86th)International Issues 44.3 51.4 (82nd) 50.1(79th) 56.8 (97th) 49.3 (73rd) 45.8 (50th) 59.9 (99th)

Mean Total Score 152.7 159.4 (85th) 162.7 (92nd) 162.6 (92nd) 154.1(50th) 157.5 (70th) 159.5 (83rd)

*Numbers in parentheses are percentiles based on the ETS Comparative Data Guide


108 schools n=110Insitutional MSUM Mean n=13 n=29 n=15 n=36 n=14

Assessment Indicator Mean (Percentile) Accounting Finance Marketing Bus. Admin. Mgmt./Intl. Bus.Accounting 44 45.8 (53-57%) 66.5 (99%) 48.3 (67-76%) 38.9 (18-20%) 41.7 (29-36%) 41.2 (29-36%)Economics 41.6 44.1 (64-69%) 45.0 (69%) 50.3 (86-91%) 37.7 (22-30%) 41.3 (44-52%) 46.8 (73-75%)Management 55.7 59.4 (59-66%) 54.3 (31-37%) 59.8 (59-66%) 57.5 (48-54%) 61.7 (72-80%) 61.9 (72-80%)Quantitative Analysis 56.2 62.3 (69-76%) 66.2 (89-94%) 67.1 (94-95%) 58.7 (48-55%) 59.9 (55-58%) 61.9 (65-69%)Finance 36.3 46.7 (88%) 50.5 (94-95%) 62.1 (99%) 39.1 (65-70%) 37.7 (51-59%) 43.4 (83%)Marketing 45 48.4 (63-67%) 46.8 (40-52%) 48.1 (63-67%) 52.0 (83%) 47.0 (56%) 51.5 (78-83%)Legal and Social Environment 49.3 49.5 (39-47%) 55.1 (74-79%) 55.1 (74-79%) 45.6 (20-27%) 47.0 (30%) 47.0 (30%)International Issues 42.3 49.1 (81-85%) 45.4 (62-70%) 62.1 (99%) 40.7 (43-46%) 43.9 (54-59%) 48.6 (79-81%)

Mean Total Score 151 154.9 (64%) 159.7 (86-89%) 160.3 (89-92%) 149.7 (32-36%) 152.1 (48-56%) 154.5 (63-65%)

*Numbers in parentheses are percentiles based on the ETS Comparative Data Guide. Percentile ranges are given for 2003 data.


469 Schools n=93Insitutional MSUM Mean n=19 n=12 n=9 n=31 n=18

Assessment Indicator Mean (Percentile) Accounting Finance Marketing Bus. Admin. Mgmt./Intl. Bus.Accounting 44.6 49.5 (70-75%) 65.5 (95-100%) 55.3 (90-95%) 41.3 (20-25%) 43.9 (30-40%) 43.9 (30-40%)Economics 42.8 47.4 (70-75%) 48.4 (75-80%) 56.3 (95-100%) 45.6 (60-65%) 43.5 (45-55%) 47.5 (70-75%)Management 57.1 62.4 (70-75%) 65.3 (85-90%) 61.3 (65-70%) 62.6 (70-75%) 61.4 (65-70%) 62.5 (70-75%)Quantitative Analysis 56.6 62.9 (70-85%) 66.1 (85-90%) 65.7 (85-90%) 64.8 (80-85%) 62.3 (70-75%) 60.5 (60-65%)Finance 36.4 44.1 (85-90%) 59.5 (95-100%) 63.5 (95-100%) 37.4 (50-60%) 36.7 (45-50%) 32.8 (20-25%)Marketing 46.8 50.2 (65-70%) 46.2 (40-50%) 48.3 (50-55%) 55.6 (80-90%) 52.0 (75%) 50.8 (65-70%)Legal and Social Environment 49.8 52.5 (55-65%) 58.0 (85%) 58.9 (85-90%) 62.0 (95%) 44.4 (10-15%) 52.4 (55-65%)International Issues 44.3 52.8 (85-90%) 54.2 (90-95%) 64.2 (95-100%) 50.0 (80%) 49.7 (75-80%) 52.2 (85-90%)

Mean Total Score 151.6 157.2 (70-80%) 164.1 (95-100%) 163.2 (90-95%) 156.4 (65-70%) 153.5 (50-55%) 153.9 (50-55%)

n=9Fergus Falls

53.4 (85-90%)44.4 (55-60%)58.6 (45-55%)

62.0 (70%)46.0 (85%)

50.7 (65-70%55.6 (70-75%)44.4 (35-40%)

156.4 (65-70%)

MINNESOTA STATE UNIVERSITY MOORHEAD SCHOOL OF BUSINESS

WRITTEN COMMUNICATION SKILLS RUBRIC

NAME _______________________ COURSE _______________________________ RATER _______________________ SEMESTER/YEAR _______________________ Intended Outcome: the student will write in a clear and professional manner. Performance Area

Excellent 5

4

Competent 3

2

Poor 1

Score

Structure/Organization (focus, fluency, cohesiveness)

Organized from beginning to end, introductory and conclusion paragraphs, clear focus, fluent, cohesive

Organized but may have lapses, transitions evident, usually has clear focus

Organizational structure inconsistent, poor transitions, focus unclear

Mechanics (word selection, sentence structure, spelling, punctuation, capitalization)

Excellent word selection and use, sentence structure, spelling, punctuation, and capitalization

Adequate word selection and use, sentence structure, spelling, punctuation, and capitalization

Serious and persistent errors in word selection and use, sentence structure, spelling, punctuation, and capitalization

Subtotal Structure/Mechanics

Content* Assigned topic is covered in depth, appropriate issues are fully identified, assignment completed fully

Coverage of topic is adequate, most issues are identified, generally meets assignment requirements

Inadequate coverage of topic, minimal identification of issues, does not meet assignment requirements

Total Overall Score =

Total /3**

*An instructor grade of 91-95 = 5 points; 87-90 = 4 points; 83-86 = 3 points; 79-82 = 2 points; 75-78 = 1 point ** Student must achieve an overall score of at least 2.5 to demonstrate competency.

SUMMARY OF RESULTS SPRING 2006

BUSINESS POLICY WRITING ASSESSMENT Performance Area

Excellent 5

4.00-4.99

Competent 3.00-3.99

2.50-2.99

2.00-2.49

Poor 1.00-1.99


1

12

16

8

9

1


8

17

8

9

5

Content* (based on instructor grade)

4

10

16

10

7

Overall Score 7

16

13

9

2

*An instructor grade of 91-95 = 5 points; 87-90 = 4 points; 83-86 = 3 points; 79-82 = 2 points; 75-78 = 1 point ** Student must achieve an overall score of at least 2.5 to demonstrate competency. Results: 11 of 47 students did not demonstrate competency on this assignment.

SUMMARY OF RESULTS (TENTATIVE) Fall 2006

BUSINESS POLICY WRITING ASSESSMENT Performance Area

Excellent 5

4.00-4.99

Competent 3.00-3.99

2.50-2.99

2.00-2.49

Poor 1.00-1.99


1

10

24

7

6

0


0

10

23

12

2

1

Content* (based on instructor grade)

8

10

13

0

11

6

Overall Score 0

7

25

8

7

1

*An instructor grade of 91-95 = 5 points; 87-90 = 4 points; 83-86 = 3 points; 79-82 = 2 points; 75-78 = 1 point ** Student must achieve an overall score of at least 2.5 to demonstrate competency. Results: 8 of 48 students did not demonstrate competency on this assignment.

MINNESOTA STATE UNIVERSITY MOORHEAD--SCHOOL OF BUSINESS ORAL COMMUNICATION SKILLS RUBRIC

DATE _______________________ NAME __________________________ Intended Outcome: the student prepare and deliver an effective business presentation. Performance Area

Excellent 5

4

Competent 3

2

Poor 1

Score

Preparation Structure/ Organization

Presentation is clear, logical, and organized. Issues clearly identified, topic thoroughly discussed, conclusion offered

Presentation is generally clear and well organized. A few minor points may be confusing. Some issues identified, adequate discussion, some conclusion offered

Listener can follow presentation only with effort. Some arguments are not clear. No clear identification of issues, lack of thorough discussion, no conclusion offered

Content Knowledge

Student fully understands the material being applied and knows how to use the material appropriately in the context of the assignment

Student partially understands the material being applied and may use some material appropriately, but does not have a full grasp of the material

Student does not understand the material being applied and does not use material appropriately in the context of the assignment

Visuals Visuals help the flow of the presentation, are easy to read, are informative, and are prepared in a professional manner.

Visuals contribute to the quality of the presentation, some material not supported by visuals.

Visuals are poorly prepared or used inappropriately.

Delivery Delivery Style

Speaker uses grammatically correct and appropriate language. Smooth, effective delivery. Good voice control, eye contact, and physical demeanor.

Speaker generally uses correct and appropriate language. Some hesitations in the delivery. Adequate voice control, eye contact, and physical demeanor.

Speaker appears unpracticed. Unnecessary pauses, filler words. Problems with voice control, eye contact, or posture. Incorrect or inappropriate language.

Individual Score*

Total/4

Overall Effectiveness

The presentation was easy to follow, informative and generated audience interest

The presentation was generally well-organized, moderately informative, and generated some audience interest

The presentation was poorly organized, little information was conveyed, and audience lost interest

*Student must achieve at least a 2.5 individual score to demonstrate competency.

SUMMARY OF RESULTS SPRING 2006

BUSINESS POLICY ORAL PRESENTATION ASSESSMENT Performance Area

Excellent 5

4.00-4.99

Competent 3.00-3.99

2.50-2.99

2.00-2.49

Poor 1.00-1.99

Preparation Structure/ Organization

11

24

12

0

0

Content Knowledge (determined by instructor)

8

1

14

15

9

Visuals

7

15

17

5

3

Delivery Delivery Style

6

22

11

6

2

Individual Score*

8

14

13

11

1

Overall Effectiveness

7

23

11

2

4

*Student must achieve at least a 2.5 individual score to demonstrate competency. Results: 12 of 47 students did not demonstrate competency on this oral presentation.

minnesota state university moorhead 2006-2007 assessment ...€¦ · ets major field test in...

Documents