Show simple item record

dc.date.accessioned 2017-11-14T18:56:14Z
dc.date.available 2017-11-14T18:56:14Z
dc.date.issued 2017-11-14
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/10211.3/197822
dc.description Describes Undergraduate Business Programs assessment activities for academic year 2016-2017 en_US
dc.description.abstract The All Undergraduate Business programs' 2016-17 annual assessment report to the David Nazarian College of Business and Economics for the Office of Academic Assessment and Program Review. In accordance with its long-term assessment plan, the department directly measured and analyzed program SLOs 1, 2 & 3, and performed loop-closing activities with respect to results of prior years’ assessment of program SLOs 4-7 (SLO descriptions included in report). Detailed descriptions of the assessment process are included in the report (including the use of outside assessors alongside of teaching instructors), along with detailed tables containing every assessment result. Results include the conclusion that “for the oral communication component of SLO 1 [the SLO] is being met on the dimension “organization,” with 90.0% or 89.6% of students scoring very good and good enough as determined by the outside assessor and by the teaching instructors, respectively. The outside assessor and the teaching instructors, respectively, found 10.0% and 10.4% of students’ performance to be not good enough. However, assessment results suggest that performance falls short of the standard for the dimension of “delivery.” The outside assessor classified 82.3% of students as scoring very good and good enough and 17.8% as scoring not good enough. Similarly, the teaching instructors classified 81.4% of students as scoring very good and good enough and 18.6% as scoring not good enough.” Indirect assessment of SLO 1 show “a relatively high level of student satisfaction or confidence with learning relevant to this component of SLO 1.” For the written communication component of SLO 1, results indicate that the SLO is being met with “Overall scores for BUS 302 [rated as] 96% very good and good enough,” and “Overall scores for BUS 497A [rated as] 92% very good and good enough.” Student performance on the UDWPE was also analyzed in order “to proactively contact and provide direction to Nazarian College students who have attempted but not passed the UDWPE.” 14.7% of Nazarian College students are reported as not passing the exam in 2016-17. Indirect assessment of written communication was also conducted, with results “indicating relatively high levels of student satisfaction or confidence with learning relevant to this component of SLO 1.” With respect to SLO 2, assessments show improvement from the last time this SLO was assessed in 2014-15, with a 70% benchmark performance of “very good” and “good enough” being met in both FIN 303 and SOM 306, “as 81.7% and 86.8% of student” work in these two classes, respectively, was categorized as very good and good enough. SLO 1 and 2 were also assessed in BUS 497A, making use of the EAS, which partially failed to support the planned assessment. Results of this assessment “indicate that [benchmark] was met for SLO 2 as measured in BUS 497A. Overall scores for BUS 497A were 83.7% very good and good enough. BUS 497A students’ scores also met the standard for the 3 specific dimensions measured, “identify business problems and key assumptions” (81.6%),” “use of analytical skills (84.7%),” but did not meet the dimension of “clearly justified solution” (59.2%). Results of indirect assessment of SLO 2 “indicate a relatively high level of student satisfaction or confidence with learning relevant to problem-solving and critical thinking in general. However, less satisfaction or confidence is indicated with learning to use information technology to solve business problems. Open-ended responses on the exit survey also indicate concern among some students about learning information technology tools such as Excel.” Assessments of SLO 3 indicate some decrease in performance as compared to 2014-15; nevertheless results indicate that [benchmark] was met when SLO 2 was assessed in FIN 303 as 87.4% of student work was categorized as very good and good enough”; while in BUS 302 some improvement is noted in comparison to 2014-15 results, with overall results “indicating 90% of students performing at a level deemed very good or good enough overall (composite score).” SLO 3 was also assessed via the use of a 5-question subtest from the standardized 90 question CSU-BAT, a CSU system wide test, on which CSUN students ranked 2nd of the 9 participating universities in Spring 2016. Indirect assessment of SLO 3 indicate “a high level of student satisfaction or confidence with learning relevant to SLO 3.” Analysis of assessment results from 2015-16 found students meeting or nearly meeting all program benchmarks (detailed results included in the report), with some questions being raised, with respect to lower performance measurements, about the validity of the assessment, especially with respect to assessed assignments that are not well aligned with the assessment rubric criteria. The possibility of raising the 70% benchmark to a higher level is also discussed. Plans for 2017-18 include assessments of SLOs 4-7, while performing loop closing activities in response to the results of the 2016-17 measurements. en_US
dc.language.iso en_US en_US
dc.subject Assessment en_US
dc.subject Assessment of student learning en_US
dc.subject Assessment plan en_US
dc.title Undergraduate Business Programs Annual Assessment Report to the College 2016-2017 en_US
dc.type Report
dc.contributor.corporate California State University, Northridge. Undergraduate Programs in Business. en_US


Files in this item

Icon

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Search DSpace


My Account

RSS Feeds