Degree/Certificate: Bachelor of Business Administration Degree Program

Submitted by: Patricia Nemetz Mills

Date: November 18, 2014

Part I – ProgramSLO Assessment Report for 2013-14

Part I – for the 2013-14academic year: Assessment for business programs underwent substantial development during the 2013-14 academic year in order to comply with AACSB accreditation standards. An assessment plan for years 2013-18 has been filed with the CBPA Office of the Dean and with the university’s AOL Director. It is available on request from the CBPA Assessment Coordinator. All future assessments during the time span 2013-18 will be conducted at the business-program-level, not at the major-level. This report includes results for assessment of multiple student learning objectives. AACSB standards require student learning objectives to be assessed twice (including the “closing the loop” cycle) in a five-year period. “Closing of the Loop” may occur during the same academic year as the initial assessment, but in a different quarter. Dates for each activity are indicated.

  1. Student Learning Outcomes: The following student learning objectives were assessed during Winter Quarter 2014:

Critical Thinking – Students will use appropriate information and/or concepts and skills from the common body of business knowledge to bear upon the critical analysis of business issues and problems.

  1. Using case studies, designed exercises, and/or real-life examples, our students know how to use an analytical framework to apply the common body of knowledge to solve problems, resolve issues, or evaluate situations.
  2. Our students will be able to reference appropriate information for use as supporting evidence and differentiate between fact, opinion, and extraneous data when producing reports, analyzing cases and issues, and solving problems.

Ethical Awareness --Students will develop an understanding of ethical issues that affect business operations, along with an awareness of various stakeholders affected by business activities.

  1. Our students will know and understand relevant concepts and frameworks for making ethical decisions.
  2. Using a case study, designed exercise, or investigatory report, our students will be able to apply an ethical framework to analyze an ethical dilemma or ethical violation.
  3. Using a case study, designed exercise, or investigatory report, our students will be able to determine a variety of interests, differences, or conflicts arising among stakeholders affected by business activities.

Written Communications – Students will communicate effectively in writing.

  1. Our students will write logical and clear reports and documents.
  2. Our students will demonstrate knowledge and awareness of mechanical errors in their writing and learn to correct them.
  3. Our students will know how to use application software to properly format documents and review their writing
  1. Overall evaluation of progress on outcome: Indicate whether or not the SLO has been met, and if met, to what level.

Critical Thinking

_____SLO is met after changes resulting from ongoing assessments, referencing assessment results from the previous year to highlight revisions;

__X__SLO is met, but with changes (collaboration) forthcoming;

_____SLO met without change required

Ethical Awareness

_____SLO is met after changes resulting from ongoing assessments, referencing assessment results from the previous year to highlight revisions;

__X__SLO is met, but with changes (collaboration) forthcoming;

_____SLO met without change required

Written Communication

___X__SLO is met after changes resulting from ongoing assessments, referencing assessment results from the previous year to highlight revisions;

_____SLO is met, but with changes (collaboration) forthcoming;

_____SLO met without change required

  1. Strategies and methods: Description of assessment method and choices, why they were used and how they were implemented.

Critical Thinking – a legal case was analyzed by students in several sections of ACCT 261. The collaboratively developed “Critical Thinking” rubric was used to evaluate the results.

Ethical Awareness – an ethical dilemma case was analyzed in MGMT 423 and various scenarios were analyzed in MGMT 326. The collaboratively developed “Ethical Awareness” rubric was used to evaluate the results.

Written Communications – Papers from several classes (MGMT 423 and MGMT 490) were collected and evaluated by a business faculty using the collaboratively developed “Written Communications” rubric.

All rubrics referenced above are attached.

  1. Observations gathered from data: Include findings and analyses based on the strategies and methods identified in item #3.
  1. Findings: Aggregate Summary Sheets are attached for all Assessments. The percentage of students meeting and/or exceeding the criteria on each rubric are reported on the respective summary sheets. Problem areas are identified in curriculum committees by reviewing and discussing possible reasons where percentages tend to be lower (a specific standard based on percentage of students meeting the expectation has not yet been set, as this is a pilot year for evaluating the new assessment plan)
  1. Analysis of findings:

Critical Thinking:

  1. Many students used a method compatible with critical thinking. The method employed for teaching was deemed as useful in aiding the critical thinking skills developed in students. In general, the results of the assessment were found to be adequate due to the high percentages of students meeting or exceeding expectations for each criterion.
  2. Other instructors should be encouraged to use a similar method (IRAC, described below) as an instructional aid for critical thinking.

Ethical Awareness:

  1. Many students followed a process for ethical analysis when making a decision. In general, the results of the assessment were found to be adequate due to the high percentages of students meeting or exceeding expectations for most criteria. Lower percentages for the “Mission and Values” and “Universalism/Relativism” criteria were probably related to the fact that the case did not address those issues as directly as the other issues, therefore, it would be pre-mature to suggest that students lacked an adequate understanding of these issues. However, the percentage of students who applied a decision-making or ethical framework (53%) is a bit low.
  2. Instructors should be encouraged to share methods and techniques that enhance the use of an ethical framework or decision process when analyzing ethical dilemmas.

Written Communications

  1. Few strengths were identified.
  2. This assessment found the most critical problems of all the assessments completed W2014.
  1. What program changes will be made based on the assessment results?

a)Describe plans to improve student learning based on assessment findings (e.g., course content, course sequencing, curriculum revision, learning environment or student advising).

Critical Thinking:

Without a structure identified, some students may be at a loss for how to think about problems in a critical way. The IRAC method (Identification of Problem, Rule Application, Analysis, Conclusion) will be applied by different instructors across several sectionsof ACCT 261 (Business Law) in the future.The IRACmethod of analyzing legal cases will be presented to students with an explanation of what is expected in each category. Practice assignments will be given for use with theIRACmethodthroughout the quarter. The IRACmethodis the teaching improvement and is designed to pose an analytic framework for thinking about complex conceptual cases. An additional assignment will be given along with the Critical Thinking rubric toward the end of the quarter to determine an individual student's ability to apply IRAC method to a complex legal case.

Ethical Awareness:

Though many students followed a process, use of a decision framework was a shortcoming for some students. The following improvement was developed and will be applied Fall 2014: Decision-framing worksheetswill bepresented to students alongwithshort dilemma cases and/or exercises. Either working in groups or individually, students will beasked to use the practice worksheets to guide their thinking when analyzing each case. The practice worksheets are the teaching improvement and are designed toframethe decision for studentsusing a systematicmethodology. Worksheets samples are included for viewing on Canvas along with this Improvement log.Subsequent to using the worksheets for practice, students willbeasked to formally analyze a case individually and in written form. (Worksheets are attached)

Written Communications

To make improvements, a Writing Error Elimination Policy (WEEP) and “standard” format for writing formal papers was developed (document included as attachment). A Writing Assessment Board was set up for evaluating written assignments so the instructor doesn’t have to take the “heat” for initiating the assessment for later re-assessment.

b)Provide a broad timeline of how and when identified changes will be addressed in the upcoming year.

All listed improvement activities will be applied Fall 2014. Re-assessment of the same SLOs will take place in Fall 2014 as well.

  1. Description of revisions to the assessment process the results suggest are needed and an evaluation of the assessment plan/process itself.

The plan and process appears to be adequately addressing the needs of the business program at this time. The process will continue to improve as more faculty understand the procedures and gain experience in making collaborative improvements.

Attachments Included:

Critical Thinking Rubric

Ethical Awareness Rubric

Written Communications Rubric

Critical Thinking Summary Sheet

Ethical Awareness Summary Sheet

Written Communications Summary Sheet

Ethical Awareness Worksheets (for Improvements)

Writing Error Elimination Policy (for Improvements)

Critical Thinking Rubric

Critical Thinking Learning Objective – Students can use appropriate information and/or concepts and skills from the common body of business knowledge to bear upon the critical analysis of business issues and problems.

College of Business and Public Administration

Eastern Washington University

Description of Situation and Problem Identification / Exceeds Expectations (4) / Meets Expectations (3) / Marginally Meets Expectations (2) / Does Not Meet Expectations (1)
Student can clearly describe the situation and/or identify the problem
Student can select which of the given information can be used as factual evidence to analyze the situation
Student can differentiate between fact and opinion or can determine which of the given information is extraneous, based too much on “feelings” or opinion, or is too distorted to use without further exploration
Information Exploration and Explanation
Student can locate and/or reference concepts, theories, models, frameworks, formulae, rules, and/or standards for analyzing the situation
Student considers alternate concepts, theories, models, frameworks, formulae, rules, and/or standards which may also be applied to analyze the situation
Student can accurately explain, in his/her own words, relevant concepts, theories, models, frameworks, formulae, rules, and/or standards which may be applied to analyze the situation
Analysis
Student can apply the selected concepts, theories, models, frameworks, formula, rules, standards to analyze the specific situation
Student defines meaningful alternatives if necessary
Student evaluates alternatives and makes a recommendation or can clearly state a conclusion
Limitations
Student can clearly identify assumptions
Student can clearly identify limitations of the applied concepts, theories, models, frameworks, formulae, rules, and/or standards
Student can clearly identify limitations of the conclusion/recommendation
Overall Evaluation:

Ethics Rubric

Ethical Awareness Learning Objective --Students will develop an understanding of ethical issues that affect organizations along with an awareness of various stakeholders affected by the organization’s activities.

College of Business and Public Administration

Eastern Washington University

Exploration of Problem and Perspectives / Exceeds Expectations (4) / Meets Expectations (3) / Marginally Meets Expectations (2) / Does Not Meet Expectations (1)
Student identifies the problem(s) or issue(s)
Student identifies stakeholders and their interests or perspectives
Student distinguishes among organization’s stated or inferred mission, vision, and/or values
Student Identifies Conflicts or Differences:
a)Individual v. Organization v. Society
b) Legal v. Ethical
c) Short-Term v. Long-Term
d) Ethically Universal v. Culturally Relative
Ethical Decision-Making
Student applies a decision-making process or
ethical framework
Student defines meaningful alternatives
Student determines action or takes a considered position
Student evaluates possible results or consequences
Overall Evaluation:

Instructions: After observing the exercise to be evaluated, place an X in the appropriate space for relevant criteria. If a criterion does not apply, leave the row blank.

Written Communications Rubric

Written Communication Learning Objective -- Students are competent in written communications

College of Business and Public Administration

Eastern Washington University

Content Category / Expectations / Comments
Exceeds / Meets / Marginally
Meets / Does Not Meet
(4) / (3) / (2) / (1)
Focus
Controls idea throughout the communication
Understands purpose of the communication
Completes all parts of the task
Content
Demonstrates knowledge of the topic
Provides supporting evidence
Avoids Plagiarism
Organization
Demonstrates an appropriate writing structure
Groups information logically
Creates appropriate transitions
Uses appropriate format
Composition
Implements clear writing
Uses concise composition
Develops ideas adequately
Language Use
Demonstrates awareness of audience
Displays professional tone
Avoids use of slang
Uses appropriate word choice
Mechanics
Reflects appropriate control of conventions
Uses correct English grammar
Free of spelling errors
Utilizes appropriate referencing
Use of Technology (If Applicable). If written document was prepared with application software, it
Is formatted correctly, or as specified
Is devoid of errors that could easily be found using software tools, like spell check or grammar check
Looks professional
Exceeds expectations -- student demonstrates considerably more knowledge, skills, and abilities than what students in collegiate business programs are expected to know or do.
Meets expectations -- student demonstrates sufficient knowledge, skills, and abilities or does what is expected of students in collegiate business programs
Does not meet expectations -- students does not demonstrate sufficient knowledge, skills, and abilities, or misses some element of what is expected of students in collegiate business programs.
1

1

The Honda Auction

Evaluate Mr. Conant’s decision according to each of the following principles. Do you think his decision was considered ethical or unethical based on each of the following principles?

Principles of Ethical Conduct / Ethical / Unethical
1 / Categorical Imperative
2 / Conventionalist Ethics
3 / Disclosure Rule
4 / Doctrine of the Mean
5 / Ends-Means Ethics
6 / Golden Rule
7 / Practical Imperative
8 / Intuition Ethics
9 / Might-Equals-Right Ethics
10 / Organization Ethics
11 / Principle of Equal Freedom
12 / Proportionality Ethics
13 / Rights Ethics
14 / Theory of Justice
15 / Utilitarian Ethics

EWU’s Writing Error Elimination Policy

EWU’s business programs are instituting a new policy to improve writing by holding students accountable for proofreading their papers, correcting their writing errors, and for learning how to format a paper (see page 2) for formal writing assignments. A writing assessment board has been created to monitor writing embedded in class requirements. This board will be reviewing one of your papers, multiple times if necessary, before your instructor grades the assignment for content required in the course. Instructors are required to follow these guidelines:

  1. “Fatal errors” are listed below. A paper will be marked with errors indicated by the abbreviations, up until a total of 4 errors appear in the paper. If that number of errors is reached, the paper will be returned to the student for correction of ALL errors in the paper. The paper will not be graded for course content until the errors are corrected. It will be the student’s responsibility to find all remaining errors in the paper and correct them. For example, if 4 errors are found in the first paragraph, the student has the work of correcting those errors and all remaining errors in the rest of the paper.
  2. If a paper is returned to the student the first time, the paper automatically loses 10 points on a 100 point scale (or 0.5 points on a 4.0 grading scale). The maximum grade the student can attain is 90% (3.5 on a 4.0 grading scale).
  3. The returned paper is then reviewed for writing again. If the entire paper has more than 2 writing errors, the paper will be returned to the student, and the maximum grade the student can earn on the paper for course content is 75% (2.0). If the paper has two errors, the student will lose an additional 5 points, so the maximum grade the student can earn for course content is 85% (3.0).
  4. If errors are still present after the third submission, the paper will be returned to the student ungraded, and the student will receive a maximum of 65% (1.0) for the assignment.
  5. Due dates will be determined by the instructor, and all papers submitted after the due date will not be eligible for re-evaluation. They will be graded 0.0

The following list includes errors to be avoided as part of this program:

(1)MS = Misspelled word
(2)R = Run-on/fragment/incorrect paragraphing
(3)CO = Comma error
(4)CP = Capitalization error
(5)P = Punctuation error
(6)A = Agreement error / (7)MA = Missing or inappropriate article (a, the)
(8)PR = Preposition error
(9)WC = Word choice
(10)SS = Sentence Structure
(11)F = Formatting
(12)O = Other grammatical error

Proofreading Resources

Students are encouraged to seek help before the initial submission of the assignment, if given permission by the instructor to do so. Students given such permission are encouraged to make use of the following resources:

  1. Be sure to turn on spell-check and grammar-check in your document software. Correct the errors found. While this is helpful, it is not sufficient for catching all errors, and the software may make a few incorrect changes. You must use your good judgment when using spell-check and grammar-check.
  2. Read the proofreading advice at Purdue OWL: Be sure to click on the “Next” arrow on the bottom to see specific advice for certain types of problems.
  3. Use self-arranged peer reviews. See if someone in your class is willing to work with you as a team for checking the writing of each team member.
  4. Use the CBPA adopted writing manual, HOW 13.
  5. As a last resort, check with the Writers’ Center, . Please understand that the Writers’ Center does not edit papers, but they may be willing to listen as you read your paper aloud and suggest places where errors exist.
  6. Download free “Ginger” software at and integrate into your word processing software.

The class instructor is not allowed to assist with editing of individual papers!