| |||||
 | |||||
College of Business 2005 Assessment Report | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Previous Year’s Data | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2004’s Data | 2002’s Data | 2001’s Data | 2000’s Data | 1999’s Data | |||||||
| N | Mean | Std Dev | Mean | Diff. | Mean | Diff. | Mean | Diff. | Mean | Diff. | |
| Data is sorted from highest difference to lowest difference | |||||||||||
| Factor 1: Required Courses: Quality of Faculty and Instruction | 155 | 4.65 | 1.12 | 4.45 | 0.20 | 4.48 | 0.17 | 4.34 | 0.31 | 4.26 | 0.39 |
| Factor 2: Required Courses: Faculty Responsiveness, Grades, and Student Effort | 156 | 5.32 | 1.08 | 5.10 | 0.22 | 5.09 | 0.23 | 5.01 | 0.31 | 4.93 | 0.39 |
| Factor 3:Major Courses: Quality of Faculty and Instruction | 155 | 5.02 | 1.12 | 4.98 | 0.04 | 5.00 | 0.02 | 4.95 | 0.07 | 4.68 | 0.34 |
| Factor 4: Major Courses: Faculty Responsiveness, Grades, and Student Effort | 156 | 5.65 | 1.02 | 5.58 | 0.07 | 5.61 | 0.04 | 5.34 | 0.31 | 5.29 | 0.36 |
| Factor 5: Breadth of the Curriculum | 156 | 5.31 | 1.11 | 4.79 | 0.52 | 5.06 | 0.25 | 4.73 | 0.58 | 4.56 | 0.75 |
| Factor 6: Size of Enrollments for Required and Major Courses | 156 | 5.61 | 1.07 | 5.25 | 0.36 | 5.25 | 0.36 | 5.34 | 0.27 | 5.26 | 0.35 |
| Factor 7: Student Organizations and Extracurricular Activities | 143 | 4.54 | 1.37 | 4.24 | 0.30 | 4.59 | -0.05 | 4.25 | 0.29 | 4.11 | 0.43 |
| Factor 8: Facilities and Computing Resources | 156 | 5.41 | 1.24 | 4.82 | 0.59 | 5.05 | 0.36 | 4.77 | 0.64 | 4.75 | 0.66 |
| Factor 9: Characteristics of Fellow Classmates | 156 | 5.15 | 1.24 | 5.15 | 0.00 | 5.14 | 0.01 | 4.90 | 0.25 | 4.68 | 0.47 |
| Factor 10: Placement and Career Services | 153 | 3.81 | 1.41 | 4.03 | -0.22 | 4.21 | -0.40 | 3.97 | -0.16 | 3.75 | 0.06 |
| Factor 11: Advisor | 156 | 5.07 | 1.84 | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | ||||
| Factor 12: Learning Outcomes: Effective Communication and Team Work | 156 | 5.61 | 1.05 | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | ||||
| Factor 13: Learning Outcomes: Use and Manage Technology | 156 | 5.62 | 1.38 | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | ||||
| Factor 14: Learning Outcomes: Effective Management and Leadership Skills | 154 | 5.70 | 1.11 | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | ||||
| Factor 15: Learning Outcomes: Critical Thinking and Problem Solving | 156 | 5.74 | 1.07 | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | ||||
| Factor 16: Overall Satisfaction with Program | 156 | 4.81 | 1.33 | 4.66 | 0.15 | 4.77 | 0.04 | 4.50 | 0.31 | 4.31 | 0.50 |
Observations:
- UALR factor 1 score – Quality of Faculty and Instruction in Required Courses has increased since 1999.
- UALR factor scores are higher than Carnegie Class Schools and all institutions in 12 of 16 factors.Lower in these factors:
- #7—Student Organizations and Extracurricular Activities.
- #9—Characteristics of Fellow Classmates.
- #10—Placement and Career Services.
- #16—Overall Satisfaction with the Program
These factors indicate areas of concern.
Program Assessment
The 2004 Program Assessment Review Committee consists of the following reviewers:Guy Cox, Steve Edison, Mike Watts and Cynthia Taylor (PAAG Representative). The review process requires each reviewer to evaluate the program progress reports submitted to the committee.Each reviewer serves as the lead discussant for two reports to ensure adequate attention is given to each progress report.This approach facilitates in-depth discussions of each progress report and the production of substantive feedback to the report writers and program chairs/coordinators.
The following table presents the consensus evaluations of the assessment activities of the academic programs within the College of Business as reported in their 2004-2005 Assessment Progress Reports.Use of Assessment for Program Building, Faculty and Stakeholder Involvement, and Approach were evaluated using the following evaluative scale:4 = Excellent; 3 = Reasonable; 2 = Limited; 1 = Inadequate.Comparable ratings were used in 2000 and 2001.
| Program | Use of Data forProgram Building | Faculty and Stakeholder Involvement | Assessment Approach | 2004 Rating | 2003 Rating | 2002 Rating | 2001 Rating |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Accounting | 2.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.33 | 2.40 | 2.50 | 2.50 |
| Advertising & Publ Rel | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 3.06 | 3.75 | 2.50 |
| Economics | 2.50 | 2.50 | 2.50 | 2.50 | 3.20 | 3.25 | 3.25 |
| Finance | 2.00 | 2.50 | 3.00 | 2.50 | 3.00 | 2.50 | 3.00 |
| Management | 3.00 | 2.50 | 3.00 | 2.83 | 3.15 | 3.00 | 2.75 |
| Management Info Systems | 4.00 | 4.00 | 4.00 | 4.00 | 3.00 | 3.50 | 3.15 |
| Marketing | 2.50 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.50 | 2.80 | 3.00 | 3.00 |
| MS in MIS | 3.00 | 2.00 | 3.00 | 2.67 | 2.50 | ||
| *International Business | 3.00 | 3.00 | |||||
| *MBA | 1.50 | 2.00 | |||||
| Average 2004 | 2.50 | 2.00 | 2.25 | 2.25 | |||
| Average 2003 | 2.94 | 2.62 | 2.92 | 2.89 | |||
| Average 2002 | 2.89 | ||||||
| Average 2001 | 2.59 | 2.88 | 2.84 | 2.77 |
*No Report Submitted
- Excellent
- BBA in Management Information Systems
- BBA in Management
- MS in Management Information Systems
- Reasonable
- BBA in Economics
- BBA in Finance
- BBA in Marketing
- Limited
- BS in Accounting
- BBA in Advertising and Public Relations
In 2000 the college assessment review committee established 2.5 as the “satisfactory progress” point for assessment evaluations.In 2001 78 percent of the programs reached or exceeded that criterion.By 2002 the percent was up to 88 percent.In 2003 78 percent of the programs reached or exceeded that criterion.In 2004, 75 percent reached or exceed the established 2.5 satisfactory progress point.The unsatisfactory rating for the Accounting and Advertising and Public Relations programs is explained in part by faculty turnover.These Programs continue their assessment activities and are expected to achieve a satisfactory rating in the future.
Program Assessment Accomplishments/Strengths:
- The current assessment evaluation system within the college is providing continuity in process feedback and improvement.
- Increased faculty training of review committee members and other faculty involved in assessment is providing the foundation for continued improvements in the assessment process.
- Rotation of faculty on the review committee is promoting continuous faculty training, acceptance and involvement in the assessment process.
- An assessment plan is in operation for all programs, except the International Business Program and the Graduate Program.These two programs have made progress over the 2004-2005 Academic year.The International Business Program submitted an Assessment Plan to the PAAG on April 26, 2005.The Graduate Committee is currently revising the program goals and objectives for the MBA and EMBA Programs.
Program Assessment Deficiencies/Emphasis for Change:
- Continued involvement of multiple stakeholders (faculty, students, and employers) must be encouraged.
- Emphasis must be placed on employing multiple assessment methods by each program.
- The Accounting and Graduate programs did not engage in outcomes-based assessment during the 2004 academic year.
2005 - 2006 Curricular Changes and Proposed Changes Resulting from Assessment
Accounting
- Plans to develop a capstone course for future assessment activities
Advertising and Public Relations
- New course proposed as result of new competition used for assessment activities
Economics
- Included data collection/analysis projects in courses
- Increased class time coverage of growth economies and open economies in the Macro Economics course
Marketing
- Pilot tested proposed new course in “Seminar in Current Topics” course
- New course added to curriculum in Fall 2004 to specifically address product and pricing strategy
Management Information Systems (BBA)
- Introduced a new research database
- Plans to develop a Project Management course and incorporate project management software
Management
- Plans to review course content in area of Employee Motivation Techniques
- Plans to change MGMT 3300 and MGMT 3340
Management Information Systems (MS)
- Students encouraged to take MGMT 7308 - Advanced Business Communications as early in the program as possible to identify strengths and weaknesses in verbal and written communication skills
Action Plan for 2005-2006
The Accounting and Graduate programs will be monitored to ensure that program goals and objectives are developed or revised.
The Accounting and Graduate programs will be monitored to ensure that an assessment plan is activated.
The International Business program will be monitored to ensure an assessment plan is submitted and approved by the Provost’s Assessment Advisory Group (PAAG).
Programs will be instructed to increase faculty and other stakeholder involvement in the assessment process.
Programs will be encouraged to use multiple assessment methods.
 |
