Curriculum Management Report

Summer 2014–Spring 2015

Table of Contents

I. Overview 3

II. Curriculum Development and Review 3

III. Assurance of Learning Process 25

IV. Assurance of Learning in the BBA (AACSB)MBA (AACSB) 39

V. Assurance of Learning in the MAcc (AACSB/HLC) 50

VI. Assurance of Learning in the MBA (AACSB/HLC) 61

VII. Assurance of Learning in the BBA (HLC #8) 62

VIII. Assurance of Learning in the BS/BA in Economics (HLC) 63

IX. Assurance of Learning in the UCA Core (HLC) 69

Appendix. VIII. Curriculum for proposed BS in Information Systems 63

I. Overview

The academic year 2014-2015 included many substantial changes in Curriculum Management (CM). A number of significant curricular changes occurred, including the COB approval of a new program of study (Bachelor of Science in Information Systems), new concentrations, new courses and a formalized process for reviewing curricula, along with the first formal college-level curricular review. The addition of Curriculum Management dictated a revision to the previous AOL Handbook (of August 2014). The handbook was renamed Curriculum Management and approved in April 2015. In addition, this annual report is now labeled Curriculum Management Report (instead of Assessment Report). Both the handbook and report now include both curriculum development/review and AOL.

The Assessment of Learning (AOL) program is also undergoing significant changes. The major proposed changes for AOL include using improvement teams to make recommendations to improve student learning for all learning objectives, a complete revision of the scheduling process for assessing learning objectives, and the inclusion of assessment item (rubric items and test questions) averages and not just student aggregate scores in analyzing assessment data. These changes were pilot tested this past year (Spring 2015), in which an improvement team analyzed the oral communication learning objective and made recommendations for improvement. Section IIIa below covers in more detail the new process. The changes to the AOL process are to be incorporated into a new revision of the Curriculum Management Handbook. This handbook is expected to be approved in Fall 2015.

This annual report covers both components of CM, curriculum development and review and then AOL.

II. Curriculum Development and Review

Curriculum development and review has long existed as a function of each department as well as the Curriculum and Assessment Committees (CACs) and college. This process has not really changed; what has changed, however is including the management of curricula formally into the latest version of our handbook (April 2015). CM was not formally addressed in previous editions of the AOL Handbook (August 2014 and before). While it has always been under the purview of Curriculum and Assessment Committees, its inclusion into the latest handbook signifies its importance within the College of Business (COB). The process of developing curricula includes designing or changing courses, changing program requirements, defining new programs, and is carried out as directed by UCA guidance. In addition to curriculum development, however, the new handbook includes formal guidance on curriculum reviews. Prior to this, reviewing curricula was carried out solely by departments. The revised process is summarized below and is detailed in the latest handbook.

Curricula review occurs frequently in departments and within majors. The addition of a formal process does not change this nor does it suddenly mandate that departments/majors review their curriculum. Rather this process is more about providing a forum so that other departments and CAC members may learn or be updated on the curriculum of a major not their own. It provides the opportunity for sharing ideas and best practices. Programs of study, in particular the BBA and MBA, consist of courses from every department, and seeing how these fit together to produce a graduate, in any major, is important. The review process will also include programmatic areas, including the Business Foundation and Business Core.

In Spring 2015, the first major, the BBA-MIS was presented to interested faculty to some interesting discussion. The presentation covered current curriculum, curricula at other institutions, current pedagogies (online, hybrid, face-to-face), the new proposed major, BS in Information Systems, relationships between MIS and external stakeholders, and the future of MIS. A copy of this presentation is available on the UCA COB Pool Drive (P:\COB\Committees\CAC\CurriculumReviews).

In addition to the first college-wide curriculum review, there were a number of curricula development changes in the past academic year (2014-2015). Below are highlights:

1. New Program: Bachelor of Science in Information Systems. This was approved at the COB CAC in February 2015. It was approved by the Undergraduate Council and Council of Deans in March/April 2015. It is now at the Arkansas Department of Higher Education for final approval. This is expected in the summer of 2015; the projected start date for the program is Spring 2016. The program is an interdisciplinary in nature, with a required minor in Computer Science as well as a large selection of both business courses and MIS courses. The CS required courses include the first three in the major, CS I, CS II, and Data Structures (CSCI 1470/1480/2320), plus an additional seven hours in CS. The business courses include several courses in the Business Foundation, four courses in the Business Core, and 30 additional hours of courses in either CS or MIS. The Appendix provides the curriculum for the new major.

This new major was conceived and developed almost completely as a result of indirect assessment processes. Formal meetings with a total of fifteen different employers (who hire MIS and CS graduates) were held in a yearlong period. Students majoring in CS, MIS and other business majors were also contacted and surveyed about majors. The consensus was clear—the majority of employers in Arkansas need a more technical MIS major or a more business-savvy CS major. As one IT manager (from ArcBest in Ft. Smith) put it, “Our ideal candidate is a combination MIS and CS major”. Students also overwhelmingly supported such a major. The intent is for this new major, a true STEM major, to be accredited by both AACSB and ABET.

2. New Concentration in MBA. A new concentration in Information Management was approved for the MBA program, to go along with two previously approved concentrations in Finance and Health Care Administration. Students wishing to earn the Information Management Concentration must complete three of the following elective courses: MBA 5351 Quantitative Analytical Methods, MBA 5355 Project Management, MBA 5361 Information Security, and/or MBA 5380 Business Intelligence.

3. New Courses. Six new courses were approved in the COB. Three of these belong to the MBA program, and consist of courses cross-listed as MIS senior-level courses. These include MBA 5351 Quantitative Analytical Methods, MBA 5355 Project Management, and MBA 5380 Business Intelligence. Three other courses were also approved, all in MIS. These included MIS 3335 Programming in Scripting Languages, MIS 4339 Programming in Java II, and MIS 4364 Computer and Network Security.

4. Electronic Delivery. Five courses were approved for conversion to electronic delivery (online teaching). This includes FINA 2330 Personal Finance, MKTG 4354 Consumer Behavior, MKTG 4362 Services Marketing, and MGMT 4305/MBA 5345 Governance of the Sustainable Organization.

5. MBA Admission Requirements. Admission requirements were changed to waive the GMAT/GRE for some applicants.

6. Other Changes. There were several other more minor curricula changes, including modifying prerequisites and changing course titles.

Overall, the curriculum development and review process has been busy the past year, with new programs, concentrations, courses and the first formal curriculum review.

III. Assurance of Learning Process

This section (III) starts the AOL part of the Annual Report. The past academic year saw a number of substantial changes to the AOL process and plan, as well as many assessments. The year marked the end of the previous cycle of how and when assessment is done for each learning objective. It therefore closes out the previous schedule, while introducing a new methodology which includes a renewed emphasis on using AOL data to improve student learning.

This section briefly describes both the revised process for AOL (starting in Fall 2015) as well as the current process used, which is important since most of the assessments done the past year used the current process. The following sections, IV-IX, consist of the assessment results from this past year. It is divided into sections, based on accrediting body (AACSB or HLC). However, first we look at the changes in store for the COB starting in Fall 2015.

IIIa. AOL Changes for Fall 2015

The last five years, the COB has assessed learning objectives in each of its three programs (BBA, MAcc and MBA). The approved process called for selected objectives to be assessed each semester the appropriate course (or courses) were offered; the objective then had to pass the benchmark in three of four assessed semesters. If an objective passed 3 of 4 (or 4 of 4), then the objective was taken off cycle and a new objective was selected to replace it. Four objectives were assessed at one time (out of 11 for the BBA, 13 for the MAcc, and 7 for the MBA). While in most cases this system yielded positive results, based on our collective experience the past five years, it could clearly be improved. On the positive side, the data collected suggested that for the most part, students were learning as expected. This was especially true in the BBA. Most of the assessed objectives passed the benchmark. In the MAcc and MBA, the assessments yielded mixed results; some objectives passed but some did not meet the benchmark, and at times failed for multiple semesters. This led to several occasions in which improvements were made based on the data, in all three programs (past Annual Reports list these efforts, as does this report). Some of these improvements or interventions worked; some did not. But while the process and results were mainly positive, it became apparent that there were two major areas that needed improvement:

1. Not all objectives were assessed in the five year period. The rotation that required each objective to pass 3 of 4 semesters and only doing four at a time meant that some were not assessed in a reasonable time frame (five years for us). In all, three were not assessed in BBA, four in MAcc, and two in MBA. Waiting too long to assess an objective is not acceptable. For the MAcc (and even the MBA), the problem is compounded in that each course is only offered once per year. So in addition to difficulty getting each objective assessed, the sample size was also small.

2. Assessment did not focus enough attention on improving student learning, particularly for objectives that passed the benchmark. The committees (COB and departmental CACs) focused mostly on objectives which did not pass. While passing the benchmark is a positive, there were lost opportunities in which student learning could be improved in specific weak areas, even though overall the benchmark was met. In addition, data were not examined except by aggregate. This meant that improvements could have been made for particular skills or knowledge areas within a particular objective had the data been available.

In the spirit of continuous improvement, the COB initiated and has proposed a new process, one that hopefully better accomplishes the intent of AOL. This process changes the scheduling of assessing learning objectives and incorporates a specific improvement process. It is outlined briefly below:

Change the process of scheduling the assessment of learning objectives. In general, the process will consist of assessing an objective in year one (using the approved rubric/test items, etc.), formally examining the data and recommending improvements in year two, and then reassessing in year three. In year four, the new data will be analyzed; those improvements that worked will be institutionalized (closing the loop). The new data will then be used to make more improvement recommendations. Instead of only examining aggregated data (i.e., how many students scored above the benchmark), the improvement process will examine each rubric or test item to determine weak areas within each objective. Thus (over time) the benchmark must change to not only include the aggregate average, but also include a minimum average for each rubric or test item. The schedule for assessing learning objectives will be staggered, so that approximately half will be assessed in year one and the other half in the next year, with improvement years to follow. In this way each learning objective will be assessed, improved (hopefully), and reassessed in each five year period. The improvement process will be carried out by an improvement team, made up of experts within each learning objective field or area, and typically one from each department.

These changes will ensure that every learning objective will be assessed (and reassessed) each five year period, and it emphasizes improving student learning. Each objective will examined by a team of knowledgeable faculty members and after every assessment, weak areas will be identified and improvements recommended. These changes will be incorporated into a new revision of the Curriculum Management Handbook this fall.

IIIb. Current AOL Process

While this is the last year to examine assessed learning objectives under the current process, it is described below since the assessment results that follow are based on this process. The development of learning goals and objectives for the various accrediting bodies is described in detail in the COB Curriculum Management Handbook (latest revision is April 2015). In addition, the Handbook outlines the process for reviewing and revising the assessment program, the assessment calendar, and the responsibilities of faculty and administrators in the assessment process. The Handbook, the UCA College of Business website and pool drive contains rubrics and data submission forms for all assessment objectives.