figure 4.2 - standard #4 measurement and analysis of ... · evaluate all course learning outcomes...
TRANSCRIPT
Performance Indicator
1. Student Learning
Results
Identified in Criterion 4.2 Identified in Criterion 4.1 Identified in Criterion 4.4 Identified in Criterion 4.2
What is your measurement
instrument or process?
Current Results Analysis of Results Action Taken or Improvement
made
Insert Graphs or Tables of Resulting Trends (3-
5 data points preferred)
Measurable goal Do not use grades. What are your current
results?
What did you learn
from the results?
What did you improve or what is
your next step?
What is your goal? (Indicate type of instrument)
direct, formative, internal,
comparative
1. ASA PROGRAM:
Students will perform at
80% or higher on mastery
assessments for ASA
program learning
outcomes #1, 2, 6.
Internal, summative - ACC-202
PLO#1 - Assignment
Students in Term #1, 3 exceeded
the goal; term #2 was well below
the goal.
The performance on PLO#
1 for all three terms was
below the goal of 80%.
Ensure faculty are adhering to the grading
rubric for this assessment. Reassess next
year. Monitor performance in ACC-202 once
changes in the course have been made to
determine impact on student learning.
See Goal #1 Internal, summative
ACC-230 - PLO#2
PLO#2 -ACC-230 -overall 97.7%.
Exceeded 80% goal.
Performance exceeded
the goal.
Continue to monitor and ensure consistent
faculty grading and use of rubric in the
course sections. With the new LMS system,
will investigate the ability to not be able to
award more points on assessment than max
possible. Review the goal.
See Goal #1 Internal, summative
BUS-225 - PLO#6
PLO#6 - BUS-225 - overall 100%.
Exceeded 80% goal.
In Term #1, students
earned more points than
was feasible on the
assessment--therefore
skewing the data.
Further review and ongoing monitoring will
need to occur. Also faculty training to utilize
the rubric needs to be addressed. With the
new LMS system, will investigate the ability
to not be able to award more points on
assessment than max possible.
Restructure Peregrine pre-
and post-test to establish
baseline performance.
External, Summative Results could only be analyzed --
separately since a report showing
the gain between pre- and post-test
could not be generated due to the
set up.
In reviewing the results,
we found that the pre-
test was given in BUS-
150 and the post test
was given in
Contact Peregrine to determine if report can
be generated with current set up or
restructure set up so that adequate reports
can be run.
Identified in Criterion 4.2
Figure 4.2 - Standard #4 Measurement and Analysis of Student Learning and PerformanceUse this table to supply data for Criterion 4.2.
Definition
AS- AccountingA student learning outcome is one that measures a specific competency attainment. Examples of a direct assessment (evidence) of student learning attainment that might be used include: capstone
performance, third-party examination, faculty-designed examination, professional performance, licensure examination). Add these to the description of the measurement instrument in column two:
Direct - Assessing student performance by examining samples of student work Analysis of Results
050
Jan16-Apr16 May16-August16 Sept16-Dec16
ACC-202, PLO#1 - Mastery Assessment 3 terms
Goal Actual Avg. Points
0200
Jan16-Apr16 May16-August16 Sept16-Dec16
ACC-230 PLO#2 - Mastery 3 terms
Goal Actual Avg. Points
0
500
Jan16-Apr16 May16-August16 Sept16-Dec16
BUS-225 PLO#6 - Mastery Assessment 3 terms
Goal Actual Avg. Points
Table 6.1 Standard 6 - Business Program Performance Results 2017 Accounting Program Review
Organizational
Effectiveness Results
What is your measurement
instrument or process?
Current Results Analysis of Results Action Taken or
Improvement made
Insert Graphs or Tables of Resulting Trends (3-5 data points
preferred)
(Indicate length of cycle) What are your current
results?
What did you learn
from the results?
What did you improve or
what is your next step?
Performance Measure
Measurable goal
What is your goal?
Increase the student
retention in ASA
program by 3% by 2019.
Tableau institutional retention
data - Annual program review.
Current overall retention rate is
39.4%. Comparison made to
National Student Clearinghouse
Research Center data (First-Year
Persistence and Retention Rates
by Starting Enrollment - All Inst.
Sectors.
The retention of students
in the ASA program is
extremely low when
compared to all entering
students at the
university level--
particularly when
compared to four-year
privates.
Action plan for 2017-18 is to
improve instructor participation
in discussions, provide
collaborative forums in courses,
curriculum rearrangement and
faculty training and information
on how to advise students who
are struggling in accounting
program. Participate in DeVoe
retention project.
Improve faculty
interaction in online
accounting courses.
End of course (student
satisfaction) survey reported
annually. Review of survey item
#
2014-15 Data not available
2015-16 CAPS Mean 4.28; ALL ASA
4.25
2016-17 CAPS Mean: 4.57; ALL ASA
4.3
Results indicate that ALL
ASA responses to
"instructor was active in
discussions" has been
lower for the past two
years when compared to
ALL CAPS. Data is not
available for 2014-15 due
to the way the dat was
reported at that time.
Action plan for 2017-18 is to
improve instructor participation
in discussions, provide
collaborative forums in courses
and to provide faculty with
training and information on how
to advise students who are
struggling in accounting
program.
Standard #6 - Organizational Performance Results, Table 6.10
Complete the following table. Provide three or four examples, reporting what you consider to be the most important data. It is not necessary to provide results for every process.
Organizational effectiveness results examine attainment of organizational goals. Each business unit must have a systematic reporting mechanism for each business program that charts enrollment patterns,
student retention, student academic success, and other characteristics reflecting students' performance. Key indicators may include: graduation rates, enrollment, hiring equity, increased use of web-based
technologies, use of facilities by community organizations, contributions to the community, or partnerships, retention rates by program, and what you report to governing boards and administrative units.
Analysis of Results
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
2012-13 2013-14 2014-15
Accounting Program Retention Rates Overall
National DeVoe Accounting
4
4.2
4.4
4.6
2015-16 2016-17
Mean Score for EOC Survey Item - Instructor was active in Discussions - ALL CAPS to ALL ASA
Results EOC Survey - Faculty Engagement in Discussion Item CAPS N/A
Results EOC Survey - Faculty Engagement in Discussion Item ALL ASA Accounting N/A
Table 6.1 Standard 6 - Business Program Performance Results
Organizational
Effectiveness
Results
Performance Measure What is your measurement
instrument or process?
Current Results Analysis of
Results
Action Taken or
Improvement made
Insert Graphs or Tables of Resulting Trends
(3-5 data points preferred)
Measurable goal (Indicate length of cycle) What are your current
results?
What did you learn
from the results?
What did you improve or
what is your next step?
What is your goal?
Increase overall retention
in DeVoe School of
Business programs by 3%
by 2019.
Retention rates as reported in
IWU Fact Book annually.
Retention rate was 50.6% in
2016.
There is room for
improvement.
Evaluate expanding
existing ASB Student
Success Pilot program
results based upon final
Pilot results: due by
January 2018.
Increase effectiveness of
project teams in the
curriculum possibly
eliminate them.
Report on decision at next Annual
or Comprehensive Review.
Effectiveness of project
teams is one of three lowest
student satisfaction items
from the End of Program
survey. A combined 68.8%
percent of student
responses rated the
effectiveness of project
teams in the Excellent and
Good. Categories.
There is a continuing
need to evaluate
effectiveness of
project teams.
Evaluate the use of project
teams in courses as they
become due for revision or
eliminate project teams.
Increase accessibility of
chaplain.
Report at next Annual or
Comprehensive Review.
Accessibility of chaplain is
one of three lowest student
satisfaction items from the
End of Program survey.. A
combined 66.7% percent of
student responses rated the
accessibility of chaplain in
the Excellent and Good.
Categories.
Increased
accessibility of
chaplain may assist
in dealing with life
issues as they affect
Student Success
and progress toward
degree.
Share results with the
Student Services
department and individuals
responsible to determine
possibilities for joint
cooperation toward
increased Student
Success.
Increase helpfulness of
chaplain.
Report at next Annual or
Comprehensive Review.
Helpfulness of chaplain is
one of three lowest student
satisfaction items from the
End of Program survey.. A
combined 61.8% percent of
student responses rated the
accessibility of chaplain in
the Excellent and Good.
Categories.
Increased
helpfulness of
chaplain may assist
in dealing with life
issues as they affect
Student Success
and progress toward
degree.
Share results with the
Student Services
department and individuals
responsible to determine
possibilities for joint
cooperation toward
increased Student
Success.
Standard #6 - Organizational Performance Results, Table 6.10
Complete the following table. Provide three or four examples, reporting what you consider to be the most important data. It is not necessary to provide results for every process.
Organizational effectiveness results examine attainment of organizational goals. Each business unit must have a systematic reporting mechanism for each business program that
charts enrollment patterns, student retention, student academic success, and other characteristics reflecting students' performance.
Key indicators may include: graduation rates, enrollment, hiring equity, increased use of web-based technologies, use of facilities by community organizations, contributions to the
community, or partnerships, retention rates by program, and what you report to governing boards and administrative units.
Analysis of Results
Performance Indicator
1. Student Learning
Results
Identified in Criterion 4.2 Identified in Criterion 4.1 Identified in Criterion 4.4 Identified in Criterion 4.2
What is your measurement
instrument or process?
Current Results Analysis of Results Action Taken or Improvement
made
Insert Graphs or Tables of Resulting Trends (3-5
data points preferred)
Measurable goal Do not use grades. What are your current
results?
What did you learn
from the results?
What did you improve or
what is your next step?
What is your goal? (Indicate type of instrument)
direct, formative, internal,
comparative
1. Knowledge of foundation
areas for ASB program will
score 24 and above on this
assignment.
Summative, Internal - Faculty-
designed assignment and rubric.
A goal of 24 was set as a
benchmark with an average
score of 27.69 in 2015.
Evaluate all course
learning outcomes for
consistency and
clarity.
Verify alignment of program
learning outcomes, course
learning outcomes, assignment
details, and rubric.
2. Knowledge of foundation
areas for ASB program will
score 44 and above on this
assignment.
Summative, Internal - Faculty-
designed assignment and rubric.
A goal of 44 was set as a
benchmark with an average
score of 45.73 in 2015.
Evaluate all course
learning outcomes for
consistency and
clarity.
Verify alignment of program
learning outcomes, course
learning outcomes, assignment
details, and rubric.
Identified in Criterion 4.2
Figure 4.2 - Standard #4 Measurement and Analysis of Student Learning and PerformanceUse this table to supply data for Criterion 4.2.
Definition
A student learning outcome is one that measures a specific competency attainment. Examples of a direct assessment (evidence) of student learning attainment that might be used include: capstone
performance, third-party examination, faculty-designed examination, professional performance, licensure examination). Add these to the description of the measurement instrument in column two:
Direct - Assessing student performance by examining samples of student workAnalysis of Results
3. Knowledge of foundation
areas for ASB program will
score 48 and above on this
assignment.
Summative, Internal - Faculty-
designed assignment and rubric.
A goal of 48 was set as a
benchmark with an average
score of 53.65 in 2015.
Evaluate all course
learning outcomes for
consistency and
clarity.
Verify alignment of program
learning outcomes, course
learning outcomes, assignment
details, and rubric.
4. Knowledge of foundation
areas for ASB program will
score 24 and above on this
assignment.
Summative, Internal - Faculty-
designed assignment and rubric.
A goal of 23 was set as a
benchmark with an average
score of 26.75 in 2015.
Evaluate all course
learning outcomes for
consistency and
clarity.
Verify alignment of program
learning outcomes, course
learning outcomes, assignment
details, and rubric.
5. Knowledge of foundation
areas for ASB program will
score 36 and above on this
assignment.
Summative, Internal - Faculty-
designed assignment and rubric.
A goal of 36 was set as a
benchmark with an average
score of 42.95 in 2015.
Evaluate all course
learning outcomes for
consistency and
clarity.
Verify alignment of program
learning outcomes, course
learning outcomes, assignment
details. and rubric.
6. Knowledge of foundation
areas for ASB program will
score 16 and above on this
assignment.
Summative, Internal - Faculty-
designed assignment and rubric.
A goal of 16 was set as a
benchmark with an average
score of 18.55 in 2015.
Evaluate all course
learning outcomes for
consistency and
clarity.
Verify alignment of program
learning outcomes, course
learning outcomes, assignment
details, and rubric.
7. Knowledge of foundation
areas for ASB program will
score 24 and above on this
assignment.
Summative, Internal - Faculty-
designed assignment and rubric.
A goal of 24 was set as a
benchmark with an average
score of 29.09 in 2015.
Evaluate all course
learning outcomes for
consistency and
clarity.
Verify alignment of program
learning outcomes, course
learning outcomes, assignment
details, and rubric.
8. Knowledge of foundation
areas for ASB program will
score 160 and above on this
assignment.
Summative, Internal - Faculty-
designed assignment and rubric.
A goal of 160 was set as a
benchmark with an average
score of 180.82 in 2015.
Evaluate all course
learning outcomes for
consistency and
clarity.
Verify alignment of program
learning outcomes, course
learning outcomes, assignment
details, and rubric.
9. Knowledge of foundation
areas for ASB program will
score 56 and above on this
assignment.
Summative, Internal - Faculty-
designed assignment and rubric.
A goal of 56 was set as a
benchmark with an average
score of 65.63 in 2015.
Evaluate all course
learning outcomes for
consistency and
clarity.
Verify alignment of program
learning outcomes, course
learning outcomes, assignment
details, and rubric.
10. Knowledge of foundation
areas for ASB program will
score 16 and above on this
assignment.
Summative, Internal - Faculty-
designed assignment and rubric.
A goal of 16 was set as a
benchmark with an average
score of 18.99 in 2015.
Evaluate all course
learning outcomes for
consistency and
clarity.
Verify alignment of program
learning outcomes, course
learning outcomes, assignment
details and rubric.
Criterion 4.2. To identify trends, the business programs should report, at a
minimum, three successive sets of periodic assessment results.
To demonstrate compliance with this criterion:
In tables and graphs using Figure 4.2, provide three to five consecutive sets of
assessment results for almost all of your programs as defined in the note below. Do not use course grades or grade point averages.
Describe how these assessment results are made systematically available to the
faculty, administration, students, or other stakeholders, as appropriate.
Performance Indicator
1. Student Learning
Results
Identified in Criterion 4.2 Identified in Criterion 4.1 Identified in Criterion 4.4 Identified in Criterion 4.2
What is your measurement
instrument or process?
Current Results Analysis of Results Action Taken or
Improvement made
Insert Graphs or Tables of Resulting Trends (3-
5 data points preferred)
Measurable goal Do not use grades. What are your current
results?
What did you learn
from the results?
What did you improve or
what is your next step?
What is your goal? (Indicate type of instrument)
direct, formative, internal,
comparative
Knowledge of foundation
areas for ASCIT program will
score 75 and above
Summative Assessment in CIT112-
5.4
A goal of 75 was set as a
benchmark with an average
score of 83 in 2016
Goals are currently
being met. Trend is
positive.
Evaluation through annual
program reviews to ensure
goal continues to be met.
Knowledge of foundation
areas for ASCIT program will
score 85 and above
Summative Assessment in CIT280
- 5.6
A goal of 85 was set as a
benchmark with an average
score of 97.5 in 2016
Goals are currently
being met.
Evaluation through annual
program reviews to ensure
goal continues to be met.
Identified in Criterion 4.2
Figure 4.2 - Standard #4 Measurement and Analysis of Student Learning and PerformanceUse this table to supply data for Criterion 4.2.
DefinitionA student learning outcome is one that measures a specific competency attainment. Examples of a direct assessment (evidence) of student learning attainment that might be used include:
capstone performance, third-party examination, faculty-designed examination, professional performance, licensure examination). Add these to the description of the measurement instrument in
column two: Analysis of Results
75 75 7574
75
83
68
70
72
74
76
78
80
82
84
12/15-3/16 4/16 - 7/16 8/16-11/16
PLO1 - CIT112 - Activity 5.4
Goal Actual
85 85 85
98.7 98.1 97.5
75
80
85
90
95
100
12/15-3/16 4/16 - 7/16 8/16-11/16
PLO2 - CIT280 - Activity 5.6
Goal Actual
Knowledge of foundation
areas for ASCIT program will
score 85 and above
Summative Assessment in CIT280
- 5.6
A goal of 85 was set as a
benchmark with an average
score of 97.5 in 2016
Goals are currently
being met.
Evaluation through annual
program reviews to ensure
goal continues to be met.
Knowledge of foundation
areas for ASCIT program will
score 75 and above
Summative Assessment in CIT270
- 5.5
A goal of 75 was set as a
benchmark with an average
score of 68 in 2016
Goal is not being
met. Trend is
negative.
Evaluate instructions and
preparation needed to
complete Activity 5.5 to meet
goal.
Knowledge of foundation
areas for ASCIT program will
score 85 and above
Summative Assessment in CIT262
- 5.4
A goal of 85 was set as a
benchmark with an average
score of 88.5 in 2016
Goals are currently
being met. Trend is
currently negative.
Evaluation through annual
program reviews to ensure
goal continues to be met and
trend does not continue.
Knowledge of foundation
areas for ASCIT program will
score 85 and above
Summative Assessment in CIT280
- 5.6
A goal of 85 was set as a
benchmark with an average
score of 97.5 in 2016
Goals are currently
being met.
Evaluation through annual
program reviews to ensure
goal continues to be met.
85 85 85
98.7 98.1 97.5
75
80
85
90
95
100
12/15-3/16 4/16 - 7/16 8/16-11/16
PLO3 - CIT280 - Activity 5.6
Goal Actual
85 85 85
98.7 98.1 97.5
75
80
85
90
95
100
12/15-3/16 4/16 - 7/16 8/16-11/16
PLO6 - CIT280 - Activity 5.6
Goal Actual
Table 6.1 Standard 6 - Business Program Performance Results
Organizational
Effectiveness Results
Performance Measure What is your measurement
instrument or process?
Current Results Analysis of Results Action Taken or Improvement
made
Insert Graphs or Tables of Resulting Trends (3-5
data points preferred)
Measurable goal (Indicate length of cycle) What are your current
results?
What did you learn from the
results?
What did you improve or what is
your next step?
What is your goal?
Increase retention for
ASCIT to 80% by 2020
Retention rates as reported to the
VPAA every January
79.2% in 2017 Negative trend is shown in the
EOC. Industry demands for skilled
IT professionals are increasing with
a dire need for course updates.
Increase retention through
development of a new ASCIT
program to better meet the needs of
the students as well as the
marketplace.
Increase the retention in
CIT262 to 80%
EOC feedback from students 67% in 2017 Result is unacceptable and
reflected in retention numbers.
Workload is reflected in the EOC's
as a potential issue.
Review workload in the entire
course and implement changes
needed to remove unnecessary
activites while maintaining
academic outcomes.
Increase interaction with
faculty to 80% by 2020
Increase interaction with faculty
rates as reported from End of
program surveys
79.2% in 2017 Faculty interaction is related to
student satisfaction and retention.
The trend is positive but needs
continuous review to maintain trend.
Work with faculty care to investigate
and implement activities to
increase interaction.
Increase fairness of grading
to 80% by 2020
Fairness of grading reported from
End of program surveys
79.2 in 2017 Fairness of grading was reflected in
the EOC student feedback.
Inconsistency stood out as a
common factor
Work with faculty care to
investigate and implement
activities to increase consistency of
grading.
Increase recommend
program to others without
reservation to 80% in 2020
Recommend without reservations
reported from End of program
surveys
62.5% in 2016 The trend is positive. Word of
mouth recommendations is an
effective way to increase retention.
Increasing this number is seen as a
significant factor in increasing
enrollment.
Evaluate ASCIT for specific factors
that may relate directly to student
satisfaction as stated in the program
reviews. Update program learning
outcomes to better reflect the
marketplace needs.Work with AES
to evaluate better word of mouth
interaction.
Standard #6 - Organizational Performance Results, Table 6.10
Complete the following table. Provide three or four examples, reporting what you consider to be the most important data. It is not necessary to provide results for every process.
Organizational effectiveness results examine attainment of organizational goals. Each business unit must have a systematic reporting mechanism for each business program that charts enrollment patterns, student retention,
student academic success, and other characteristics reflecting students' performance. Key indicators may include: graduation rates, enrollment, hiring equity, increased use of
web-based technologies, use of facilities by community organizations, contributions to the community, or partnerships, retention rates by program, and what you report to governing boards and administrative units.
Analysis of Results
35
512
67
41
5 6
80
0
20
40
60
80
100
Completed Failed Withdrew Retention
CIT262
Actual Goal
80 80 80
82.7
81.8
79.2
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
2015 2016 2017
ASCIT Retention
Goal Actual
80 80
64.3
79.2
0
20
40
60
80
100
2016 2017
Interaction with faculty
Goal Actual
80 80
81.5
79.2
78
79
80
81
82
2016 2017
Fairness of Grading
Goal Actual
80 80
57.1 62.5
0
20
40
60
80
100
2016 2017
Recommend without reservations
Goal Actual
Performance
Indicator1. Student Learning
Results
Identified in Criterion 4.2 Identified in Criterion 4.1 Identified in Criterion 4.4 Identified in Criterion 4.2
What is your measurement
instrument or process?
Current Results Analysis of
Results
Action Taken or
Improvement made
Insert Graphs or Tables of Resulting Trends
(3-5 data points preferred)
Measurable goal Do not use grades. What are your current
results?
What did you learn
from the results?
What did you improve or
what is your next step?
What is your goal? (Indicate type of instrument)
direct, formative, internal,
comparative
Knowledge of foundation
areas for HCA program will
score 85 and above
Summative Assessment in
HCA450 5.4
A goal of 85 was set as a
benchmark with an average
score of 97.81 in 2016
Evaluation of course
learning outcomes
for consistency
between Proposal
and Capstone
Project. The course
should be taught by
same instructor who
will be teaching
HCA490 Instructor.
HCA450 will have a journal
assignment to assist in
building towards the next
class, Capstone Project.
Knowledge of foundation
areas for HCA program will
score 75 and above
Summative Assessment in
HCA310 6.4
A goal of 75 was set as a
benchmark with an average
score of 78.63 in 2016
Evaluation of first
course with group
assignments as
students are new to
the program and
adjust rubrics to
make them
consistent.
Remove Group assignments
Knowledge of foundation
areas for HCA program will
score 85 and above
Summative Assessment in
HCA310-3.3
A goal of 85 was set as a
benchmark with an average
score of 90.4 in 2016
Evaluation of all
course learning
outcomes for
consistency with
bachelors level
course work.
Redesign grade rubric to
match undergraduate learning
outcomes. Use the 3 item
rubrics - content, timleness,
interaction for discussion
assignments.
Knowledge of foundation
areas for HCA program will
score 87 and above
Summative Assessment in
HCA320 5.4
A goal of 87 was set as a
benchmark with an average
score of 91.58 in 2013
Evaluation of data
indicates that group
work needs to be
removed from this
assignment
Remove MediaShare from
this assignment and group
work using this as an
individual student learning
activity.
Knowledge of foundation
areas for HCA program will
score 85 and above
Summative Assessment in
HCA320 3.4
A goal of 85 was set as a
benchmark with an average
score of 92.29 in 2016
Evaluation of all
course learning
outcomes reflects
group presentations
were more difficult to
grade so they
generally get higher
grades.
Remove group work from
course
Knowledge of foundation
areas for HCA program will
score 85 and above
Summative Assessment in
HCA330 2.2
A goal of 85 was set as a
benchmark with an average
score of 89.7 in 2016
Evaluation of all
course learning
outcomes reflect
assignment with
group work is
mentioned as
difficult to manage in
the online
environment
Remove group work from
course
Identified in Criterion 4.2
Figure 4.2 - Standard #4 Measurement and Analysis of Student Learning and PerformanceUse this table to supply data for Criterion 4.2.
DefinitionA student learning outcome is one that measures a specific competency attainment. Examples of a direct assessment (evidence) of student learning attainment that might be used
include: capstone performance, third-party examination, faculty-designed examination, professional performance, licensure examination). Add these to the description of the
measurement instrument in column two: Analysis of Results
75
80
85
90
95
100
Jan16-Apr16 May16-August16 Sept16-Dec16
PLO2-HCA310-6.4
GOAL Actual Average
75
80
85
90
95
100
1 2 3
PLO4-HCA320-5.4
Series1 Series2
75
80
85
90
95
100
Jan16-Apr16 May16-August16 Sept16-Dec16
PLO6-HCA320-3.4
GOAL Actual Average
75
80
85
90
95
100
Jan16-Apr16 May16-August16 Sept16-Dec16
PLO7-HCA330-2.2
GOAL Actual Average
75
80
85
90
95
100
1 2 3
PLO3-HCA310-3.3
Series1 Series2
75
80
85
90
95
100
1 2 3
PLO1-HCA450-5.4
Series1 Series2
Performance
Indicator1. Student Learning
Results
Identified in Criterion 4.2 Identified in Criterion 4.1 Identified in Criterion 4.4 Identified in Criterion 4.2
What is your measurement
instrument or process?
Current Results Analysis of
Results
Action Taken or
Improvement made
Insert Graphs or Tables of Resulting Trends
(3-5 data points preferred)
Measurable goal Do not use grades. What are your current
results?
What did you learn
from the results?
What did you improve or
what is your next step?
What is your goal? (Indicate type of instrument)
direct, formative, internal,
comparative
Knowledge of foundation
areas for HCA program will
score 85 and above
Summative Assessment in
HCA450 5.4
A goal of 85 was set as a
benchmark with an average
score of 97.81 in 2016
Evaluation of course
learning outcomes
for consistency
between Proposal
and Capstone
Project. The course
should be taught by
same instructor who
will be teaching
HCA490 Instructor.
HCA450 will have a journal
assignment to assist in
building towards the next
class, Capstone Project.
Knowledge of foundation
areas for HCA program will
score 75 and above
Summative Assessment in
HCA310 6.4
A goal of 75 was set as a
benchmark with an average
score of 78.63 in 2016
Evaluation of first
course with group
assignments as
students are new to
the program and
adjust rubrics to
make them
consistent.
Remove Group assignments
Knowledge of foundation
areas for HCA program will
score 85 and above
Summative Assessment in
HCA310-3.3
A goal of 85 was set as a
benchmark with an average
score of 90.4 in 2016
Evaluation of all
course learning
outcomes for
consistency with
bachelors level
course work.
Redesign grade rubric to
match undergraduate learning
outcomes. Use the 3 item
rubrics - content, timleness,
interaction for discussion
assignments.
Knowledge of foundation
areas for HCA program will
score 87 and above
Summative Assessment in
HCA320 5.4
A goal of 87 was set as a
benchmark with an average
score of 91.58 in 2013
Evaluation of data
indicates that group
work needs to be
removed from this
assignment
Remove MediaShare from
this assignment and group
work using this as an
individual student learning
activity.
Knowledge of foundation
areas for HCA program will
score 85 and above
Summative Assessment in
HCA320 3.4
A goal of 85 was set as a
benchmark with an average
score of 92.29 in 2016
Evaluation of all
course learning
outcomes reflects
group presentations
were more difficult to
grade so they
generally get higher
grades.
Remove group work from
course
Knowledge of foundation
areas for HCA program will
score 85 and above
Summative Assessment in
HCA330 2.2
A goal of 85 was set as a
benchmark with an average
score of 89.7 in 2016
Evaluation of all
course learning
outcomes reflect
assignment with
group work is
mentioned as
difficult to manage in
the online
environment
Remove group work from
course
Identified in Criterion 4.2
Figure 4.2 - Standard #4 Measurement and Analysis of Student Learning and PerformanceUse this table to supply data for Criterion 4.2.
DefinitionA student learning outcome is one that measures a specific competency attainment. Examples of a direct assessment (evidence) of student learning attainment that might be used
include: capstone performance, third-party examination, faculty-designed examination, professional performance, licensure examination). Add these to the description of the
measurement instrument in column two: Analysis of Results
75
80
85
90
95
100
Jan16-Apr16 May16-August16 Sept16-Dec16
PLO2-HCA310-6.4
GOAL Actual Average
75
80
85
90
95
100
1 2 3
PLO4-HCA320-5.4
Series1 Series2
75
80
85
90
95
100
Jan16-Apr16 May16-August16 Sept16-Dec16
PLO6-HCA320-3.4
GOAL Actual Average
75
80
85
90
95
100
Jan16-Apr16 May16-August16 Sept16-Dec16
PLO7-HCA330-2.2
GOAL Actual Average
75
80
85
90
95
100
1 2 3
PLO3-HCA310-3.3
Series1 Series2
75
80
85
90
95
100
1 2 3
PLO1-HCA450-5.4
Series1 Series2
Table 6.1 Standard 6 - Business Program Performance Results
Organizational
Effectiveness Results
Performance Measure What is your measurement
instrument or process?
Current Results Analysis of Results Action Taken or Improvement
made
Insert Graphs or Tables of Resulting Trends (3-5
data points preferred)
Measurable goal (Indicate length of cycle) What are your current
results?
What did you learn from the
results?
What did you improve or what is
your next step?
What is your goal?
Increase retention for HCA
from 69% to 85% by 2020
Retention rates as reported to the
VPAA every January
69% in 2016 In a positive trend for the last year Revise HCA 310 is a start course
and has the lowest scores for
retention. Add remediation to ACC-
201 is their first accounting course
with many students with little to no
background in accounting.
Increase of helpfulness of
Chaplain from 60% to 80%
by 2020
Helpfulness of Chaplain rates as
reported from End of Program
Surveys
60% in 2016 Chaplain helpfulness was a
surprise. 50% of students are not
affiliated with a church and
therefore may not have interest in
the chaplain services.
Work with student services to
search for opportunities to show
students what the chaplain service
offers.
Increase of accessibility of
chaplain from 66.7 to 80%
by 2020
Accessibility of Chaplain rates as
reported from End of program
surveys
66.7% in 2016 Students are not fully aware of
chaplain services and what they
offer.
Work with student services to
investigate and implement
activities to see what the chaplain
services are needed and how they
apply to students
Increase interaction of
faculty with students from
55.2% to 80% by 2020
Interaction opportunities with
faculty as reported from End of
program surveys
55.2 in 2016 Only 55.2% of students are having
interaction opportunities with
faculty. Many students do their
assignments after hours so faculty
is not available. It’s an issue with
online classes.
Implement texts to faculty to help
remediate this problem. 24-48
hour response time from faculty is
too long in students’ opinions. 6-12
hours may be better. Or faculty
can respond quickly and say they
will answer fully later Training and
implementation of faculty training is
needed.
Ellimination of project
teams to increase the
students learning outcomes
from 55.2% to 80% in 2020
Effectiveness of project teams as
reported from End of Program
Surveys
55.2% in 2016 Project teams are one of the
biggest complaints from students
on a continual basis. We probably
lose students because of it. Why
do we continue to offer it? Much of
the work is individual work so it’s
difficult to do as a team.
Eliminate the Project Team
assignments and make them
individual assignments.
Standard #6 - Organizational Performance Results, Table 6.10
Complete the following table. Provide three or four examples, reporting what you consider to be the most important data. It is not necessary to provide results for every process.
Organizational effectiveness results examine attainment of organizational goals. Each business unit must have a systematic reporting mechanism for each business program that charts enrollment patterns, student
retention, student academic success, and other characteristics reflecting students' performance. Key indicators may include: graduation rates, enrollment, hiring equity,
increased use of web-based technologies, use of facilities by community organizations, contributions to the community, or partnerships, retention rates by program, and what you report to governing boards and
administrative units.Analysis of Results
2014 20152016
0
50
100
1 2 3
Retention of Bachelors of Science in Health
Administration Students
2015
2016
0
20
40
60
80
1 2
Increase Helpfulness of Chaplain Services
20152016
0
50
100
1 2
Increase Accessibility of Chaplain Services
2015
2016
0
20
40
60
80
1 2
Increase Interaction with Faculty
2015
2016
0
20
40
60
80
1 2
Effectiveness of Project Teams
Performance
Indicator1. Student Learning
Results
Identified in Criterion 4.2 Identified in Criterion 4.1 Identified in Criterion 4.4 Identified in Criterion 4.2
What is your measurement
instrument or process?
Current Results Analysis of
Results
Action Taken or
Improvement made
Insert Graphs or Tables of Resulting Trends
(3-5 data points preferred)
Measurable goal Do not use grades. What are your current
results?
What did you learn
from the results?
What did you improve or
what is your next step?
What is your goal? (Indicate type of instrument)
direct, formative, internal,
comparative
3 of the assessments did not have data in the first time period
as the courses are new. These courses will be reviewed again
to include a third data point by 10/1/17.
Knowledge of foundation
areas for BMK program will
score 80 and above
Summative Assessment in
MGT430 - Controlling,
Assessment 2
A goal of 80 was set as a
benchmark with an average
score of 100 in 2017
The rubric is not
robust enough to
give appropriate
depth and feedback
on the assignment.
Enhance rubric to facilitate
greater depth of grading
Knowledge of foundation
areas for BMK program will
score 80 and above
Summative Assessment in
ADM430-Global Aspects of
Leadership, Assessment 1
A goal of 80 was set as a
benchmark with an average
score of 95.06 in 2017
Goals are currently
being met.
Evaluate data again to include
a larger sample by 10/1/17
Knowledge of foundation
areas for BMK program will
score 80 and above
Summative Assessment in
MKG351 -Ethical Displays of
Data, Assessment 1
A goal of 80 was set as a
benchmark with an average
score of 81.67 in 2017
Goal is being met
but the trend is
negative. No EOC
data on this
assessment was
negative.
Evaluate data again to
include a larger sample by
10/1/17 and implement steps
from this follow up information
to ensure the assessment
results remain above the goal.
Knowledge of foundation
areas for BMK program will
score 80 and above
Summative Assessment in
MKG350 - E-Commerce,
Assessment 1
A goal of 80 was set as a
benchmark with an average
score of 86.9% in 2017
Goals are currently
being met.
Evaluate data again to
include a larger sample by
10/1/17
Knowledge of foundation
areas for BMK program will
score 80 and above
Summative Assessment in
MKG351 - Ethical Displays of
Data, Assessment 1
A goal of 80 was set as a
benchmark with an average
score of 80.0% in 2017
The trend is
negative. EOC
surveys showed the
instructions for the
assignment need
clarification.
Evaluate data to include a
larger sample by 10/1/17.
Improve the instructions for
this assessment by 10/1/17.
Knowledge of foundation
areas for BMK program will
score 80 and above
Summative Assessment in
MGT445 - Christian View of
Contracts, Assessment 1
A goal of 80 was set as a
benchmark with an average
score of 83.69% in 2017
The trend is positive. Evaluate data again by
10/1/17 to ensure positive
trend remains.
Identified in Criterion 4.2
Figure 4.2 - Standard #4 Measurement and Analysis of Student Learning and PerformanceUse this table to supply data for Criterion 4.2.
DefinitionA student learning outcome is one that measures a specific competency attainment. Examples of a direct assessment (evidence) of student learning attainment that might be used
include: capstone performance, third-party examination, faculty-designed examination, professional performance, licensure examination). Add these to the description of the
measurement instrument in column two: Analysis of Results
0
50
100
150
3/1/16-5/31/16 6/1/16-9/30/16 10/1/16-1/30/17
PLO1 - MGT430 - Controlling Assessment 2
Goal actual
0
50
100
3/1/16-5/31/16 6/1/16-9/30/16 10/1/16-1/30/17
PLO4 - MKG350 - E-Commerce Assessment 1
Goal actual
Performance
Indicator1. Student Learning
Results
Identified in Criterion 4.2 Identified in Criterion 4.1 Identified in Criterion 4.4 Identified in Criterion 4.2
What is your measurement
instrument or process?
Current Results Analysis of
Results
Action Taken or
Improvement made
Insert Graphs or Tables of Resulting Trends
(3-5 data points preferred)
Measurable goal Do not use grades. What are your current
results?
What did you learn
from the results?
What did you improve or
what is your next step?
What is your goal? (Indicate type of instrument)
direct, formative, internal,
comparative
3 of the assessments did not have data in the first time period
as the courses are new. These courses will be reviewed again
to include a third data point by 10/1/17.
Knowledge of foundation
areas for BMK program will
score 80 and above
Summative Assessment in
MGT430 - Controlling,
Assessment 2
A goal of 80 was set as a
benchmark with an average
score of 100 in 2017
The rubric is not
robust enough to
give appropriate
depth and feedback
on the assignment.
Enhance rubric to facilitate
greater depth of grading
Knowledge of foundation
areas for BMK program will
score 80 and above
Summative Assessment in
ADM430-Global Aspects of
Leadership, Assessment 1
A goal of 80 was set as a
benchmark with an average
score of 95.06 in 2017
Goals are currently
being met.
Evaluate data again to include
a larger sample by 10/1/17
Knowledge of foundation
areas for BMK program will
score 80 and above
Summative Assessment in
MKG351 -Ethical Displays of
Data, Assessment 1
A goal of 80 was set as a
benchmark with an average
score of 81.67 in 2017
Goal is being met
but the trend is
negative. No EOC
data on this
assessment was
negative.
Evaluate data again to
include a larger sample by
10/1/17 and implement steps
from this follow up information
to ensure the assessment
results remain above the goal.
Knowledge of foundation
areas for BMK program will
score 80 and above
Summative Assessment in
MKG350 - E-Commerce,
Assessment 1
A goal of 80 was set as a
benchmark with an average
score of 86.9% in 2017
Goals are currently
being met.
Evaluate data again to
include a larger sample by
10/1/17
Knowledge of foundation
areas for BMK program will
score 80 and above
Summative Assessment in
MKG351 - Ethical Displays of
Data, Assessment 1
A goal of 80 was set as a
benchmark with an average
score of 80.0% in 2017
The trend is
negative. EOC
surveys showed the
instructions for the
assignment need
clarification.
Evaluate data to include a
larger sample by 10/1/17.
Improve the instructions for
this assessment by 10/1/17.
Knowledge of foundation
areas for BMK program will
score 80 and above
Summative Assessment in
MGT445 - Christian View of
Contracts, Assessment 1
A goal of 80 was set as a
benchmark with an average
score of 83.69% in 2017
The trend is positive. Evaluate data again by
10/1/17 to ensure positive
trend remains.
Identified in Criterion 4.2
Figure 4.2 - Standard #4 Measurement and Analysis of Student Learning and PerformanceUse this table to supply data for Criterion 4.2.
DefinitionA student learning outcome is one that measures a specific competency attainment. Examples of a direct assessment (evidence) of student learning attainment that might be used
include: capstone performance, third-party examination, faculty-designed examination, professional performance, licensure examination). Add these to the description of the
measurement instrument in column two: Analysis of Results
0
50
100
150
3/1/16-5/31/16 6/1/16-9/30/16 10/1/16-1/30/17
PLO1 - MGT430 - Controlling Assessment 2
Goal actual
0
50
100
3/1/16-5/31/16 6/1/16-9/30/16 10/1/16-1/30/17
PLO4 - MKG350 - E-Commerce Assessment 1
Goal actual
Table 6.1 Standard 6 - Business Program Performance Results
Organizational
Effectiveness
Results
Performance Measure What is your measurement
instrument or process?
Current Results Analysis of
Results
Action Taken or
Improvement made
Insert Graphs or Tables of Resulting Trends
(3-5 data points preferred)
Measurable goal (Indicate length of cycle) What are your current
results?
What did you learn
from the results?
What did you improve or
what is your next step?
What is your goal?
Maintain retention above
80%
Retention rates as reported to the
VPAA in April 2017
100% in reported data. Data reported
shows the previous
BMK and the new
structure of the BMK.
We recognize the
small sample size.
Continue to monitor
retention in the program on
a quarterly basis as more
data points are available
for analysis.
Reach goals - A = 50%, B
= 30%, C = 10%, D = 3,
F/W = 7%
Grade distribution as reported by
Assessment Team in June 2017
A = 52%, B = 23%, C =
11%, D = 1%, F/W = 12%
Distribution is
moving toward
goals. Reducing the
F/W % is necessary.
Analyze in more detail the
individual student reasons
for failures and
withdrawals in order to
implement a plan of action.
Standard #6 - Organizational Performance Results, Table 6.10
Complete the following table. Provide three or four examples, reporting what you consider to be the most important data. It is not necessary to provide results for every process.
Organizational effectiveness results examine attainment of organizational goals. Each business unit must have a systematic reporting mechanism for each business program that
charts enrollment patterns, student retention, student academic success, and other characteristics reflecting students' performance.
Key indicators may include: graduation rates, enrollment, hiring equity, increased use of web-based technologies, use of facilities by community organizations, contributions to the
community, or partnerships, retention rates by program, and what you report to governing boards and administrative units.Analysis of Results
BS-Accounting
Table 6.1 Standard 6 - Business Program Performance Results 2017 BS- Accounting Program Review
Organizational
Effectiveness Results
What is your measurement
instrument or process?
Current Results Analysis of Results Action Taken or
Improvement made
Insert Graphs or Tables of Resulting Trends (3-5 data points
preferred)
(Indicate length of cycle) What are your current
results?
What did you learn
from the results?
What did you improve or
what is your next step?
Performance Measure
Measurable goal
What is your goal?
Increase the student
retention in all BSA
accounting courses by
3% over baseline of
39.4% by 2019.
Tableau institutional data -
reported and reviewed annually.
Current overall retention rate is
39.4%
This data analysis was
used to establish a
preliminary benchmark
for future analysis.
Action plan for 2017-18 is to
improve instructor participation
in discussions, provide
collaborative forums in courses
and to provide faculty with
training and information on how
to advise students who are
struggling in accounting program.
Participate in DeVoe retention
project.
Improve faculty
interaction in online BSA
accounting courses to
exceed the Statistical
Comparison of ALL CAPS
average.
End of course (student satisfaction)
survey reported annually.
In the Statistical Comparison of ALL
CAPS Bachelors Programs results to
"the instructor was active in
discussions" results were:
BSA - 4.50 compared to 4.42 for
ALL BSA/BSAO courses.
Data showed an
underperformance in this
area. Comparable data
was not available in 2014-
15. Existing data could
not be used.
Action plan for 2017-18 is to
improve instructor participation
in discussions, provide
collaborative forums in courses
and to provide faculty with
training on online engagement.
Standard #6 - Organizational Performance Results, Table 6.10
Complete the following table. Provide three or four examples, reporting what you consider to be the most important data. It is not necessary to provide results for every process.
Organizational effectiveness results examine attainment of organizational goals. Each business unit must have a systematic reporting mechanism for each business program that charts enrollment patterns,
student retention, student academic success, and other characteristics reflecting students' performance. Key indicators may include: graduation rates, enrollment, hiring equity, increased use of web-based
technologies, use of facilities by community organizations, contributions to the community, or partnerships, retention rates by program, and what you report to governing boards and administrative units.
Analysis of Results
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
2012-13 2013-14 2014-15
Accounting Program Retention Rates Overall
National DeVoe Accounting
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
2015-16 2016-17
Mean response rates for EOC Survey Item - "Instructor was active in discussions"
CAPS ALL BSA
Performance Indicator
1. Student Learning
Results
Identified in Criterion 4.2 Identified in Criterion 4.1 Identified in Criterion 4.4 Identified in Criterion 4.2
What is your measurement
instrument or process?
Current Results Analysis of Results Action Taken or Improvement
made
Insert Graphs or Tables of Resulting Trends (3-5
data points preferred)
Measurable goal Do not use grades. What are your current
results?
What did you learn
from the results?
What did you improve or what is
your next step?
What is your goal? (Indicate type of instrument)
direct, formative, internal,
comparative
#1. BSA PROGRAM:
Students will perform at
80% or higher on mastery
assessments for PLO#2, 3,
4 and 5 for BSA.
Internal, summative - ACC-371,
PLO#2 & 3 - Tax returns -
Mastery Assessment
PLO#2 &3 -ACC-371 -overall
performance 77%
Overall performance fell
below the 80%
benchmark.
Further review and ongoing monitoring will
need to occur. Also faculty training to
utilize the rubric needs to be addressed.
With the new LMS system, will investigate
the ability to not be able to award more
points on assessment than max possible.
SEE GOAL #1. ACC-451 PLO#4 - Conect
Assignment- Mastery
Assessment
PLO#4-overall performance all
terms - 90.1%
All three terms exceeded
the 80% goal.
Ensure alignment and point values for
mastery assessments. This will be
addressed with the alignment of the OAT
template for the ASA, BSA and MSA
programs.
SEE GOAL #1. Internal, Summative ACC-491-
Homework activity-Mastery
Assessment
PLO#5-overall performance 90%. All three terms exceeded
the 80% performance
goal.
Continue to monitor and ensure consistent
faculty grading and use of rubric in the
course sections. With the new LMS system,
will investigate the ability to not be able to
award more points on assessment than max
possible. Review the goal.
#2. Restructure Peregrine
pre- and post-test in the
ASA and BSA to establish
baseline performance.
External, Summative TBD TBD Contact Peregrine to make adjustment in
pre-test course. Review data at next
program review.
Data is available but due to the set up in the Peregrine system
cannot be generated. This graph will be updated after contacting
Peregrine.
Identified in Criterion 4.2
Figure 4.2 - Standard #4 Measurement and Analysis of Student Learning and PerformanceUse this table to supply data for Criterion 4.2.
Definition
BS-AccountingA student learning outcome is one that measures a specific competency attainment. Examples of a direct assessment (evidence) of student learning attainment that might be used include: capstone
performance, third-party examination, faculty-designed examination, professional performance, licensure examination). Add these to the description of the measurement instrument in column two:
Direct - Assessing student performance by examining samples of student workAnalysis of Results
BUS-225 PLO#6 - Mastery Assessment …Goal Actual Avg. Points
10
20
30
Jan16-Apr16 May16-August16 Sept16-Dec16
ACC-371 - PLO# 2 & 3Mastery Assessment - 3 terms
Goal Actual Avg. Points
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
Jan16-Apr16 May16-August16 Sept16-Dec16
0 0
ACC-451 (both assignments) PLO#4 - 3 terms
Goal Actual Avg. Points
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Jan16-Apr16 May16-August16 Sept16-Dec16
ACC-491 Mastery Assessment - PLO#5
Goal Actual Avg. Points
Performance
Indicator1. Student Learning
Results
Identified in Criterion 4.2 Identified in Criterion 4.1 Identified in Criterion 4.4 Identified in Criterion 4.2
What is your measurement
instrument or process?
Current Results Analysis of
Results
Action Taken or
Improvement made
Insert Graphs or Tables of Resulting Trends (3-5 data points
preferred)
Measurable goal Do not use grades. What are your current
results?
What did you learn
from the results?
What did you improve or
what is your next step?
What is your goal? (Indicate type of instrument)
direct, formative, internal,
comparative
1. Knowledge of foundation
areas for BSBA program will
score 120 and above.
Summative, Internal - Faculty-
designed assignment and rubric.
A goal of 120 was set as a
benchmark with a most
recent average score of
138.92 in 2016.
Evaluate all course
learning outcomes
for consistency and
clarity.
Verify alignment of program
learning outcomes, course
learning outcomes,
assignment details, and
rubric.
2. Knowledge of foundation
areas for BSBA program will
score 40 and above on this
assignment.
Summative, Internal - Faculty-
designed assignment and rubric.
A goal of 40 was set as a
benchmark with a most
recent average score of
47.90 in 2016.
Evaluate all course
learning outcomes
for consistency and
clarity.
Verify alignment of program
learning outcomes, course
learning outcomes,
assignment details, and
rubric.
3. Knowledge of foundation
areas for BSBA program will
score 40 and above on this
assignment.
Summative, Internal - Faculty-
designed assignment and rubric.
A goal of 40 was set as a
benchmark with a most
recent average score of
47.90 in 2016.
Evaluate all course
learning outcomes
for consistency and
clarity.
Verify alignment of program
learning outcomes, course
learning outcomes,
assignment details, and
rubric.
4. Knowledge of foundation
areas for BSBA program will
score 20 and above on this
assignment.
Summative, Internal - Faculty-
designed assignment and rubric.
A goal of 20 was set as a
benchmark with a most
recent average score of
29.07 in 2016.
Evaluate all course
learning outcomes
for consistency and
clarity.
Verify alignment of program
learning outcomes, course
learning outcomes,
assignment details, and
rubric.
5. Knowledge of foundation
areas for BSBA program will
score 32 and above on this
assignment
Summative, Internal - Faculty-
designed assignment and rubric.
A goal of 32 was set as a
benchmark with a most
recent average score of
37.32 in 2016.
Evaluate all course
learning outcomes
for consistency and
clarity.
Verify alignment of program
learning outcomes, course
learning outcomes,
assignment details, and
rubric.
6. Knowledge of foundation
areas for BSBA program will
score 48 and above on this
assignment.
Summative, Internal - Faculty-
designed assignment and rubric.
A goal of 48 was set as a
benchmark with a most
recent average score of
59.07 in 2016.
Evaluate all course
learning outcomes
for consistency and
clarity.
Verify alignment of program
learning outcomes, course
learning outcomes,
assignment details. and
rubric.
Identified in Criterion 4.2
Figure 4.2 - Standard #4 Measurement and Analysis of Student Learning and PerformanceUse this table to supply data for Criterion 4.2.
Definition
A student learning outcome is one that measures a specific competency attainment. Examples of a direct assessment (evidence) of student learning attainment that might be used include: capstone
performance, third-party examination, faculty-designed examination, professional performance, licensure examination). Add these to the description of the measurement instrument in column two:
Direct - Assessing student performance by examining samples of student workAnalysis of Results
Performance
Indicator1. Student Learning
Results
Identified in Criterion 4.2 Identified in Criterion 4.1 Identified in Criterion 4.4 Identified in Criterion 4.2
What is your measurement
instrument or process?
Current Results Analysis of
Results
Action Taken or
Improvement made
Insert Graphs or Tables of Resulting Trends (3-5 data points
preferred)
Measurable goal Do not use grades. What are your current
results?
What did you learn
from the results?
What did you improve or
what is your next step?
What is your goal? (Indicate type of instrument)
direct, formative, internal,
comparative
1. Knowledge of foundation
areas for BSBA program will
score 120 and above.
Summative, Internal - Faculty-
designed assignment and rubric.
A goal of 120 was set as a
benchmark with a most
recent average score of
138.92 in 2016.
Evaluate all course
learning outcomes
for consistency and
clarity.
Verify alignment of program
learning outcomes, course
learning outcomes,
assignment details, and
rubric.
2. Knowledge of foundation
areas for BSBA program will
score 40 and above on this
assignment.
Summative, Internal - Faculty-
designed assignment and rubric.
A goal of 40 was set as a
benchmark with a most
recent average score of
47.90 in 2016.
Evaluate all course
learning outcomes
for consistency and
clarity.
Verify alignment of program
learning outcomes, course
learning outcomes,
assignment details, and
rubric.
3. Knowledge of foundation
areas for BSBA program will
score 40 and above on this
assignment.
Summative, Internal - Faculty-
designed assignment and rubric.
A goal of 40 was set as a
benchmark with a most
recent average score of
47.90 in 2016.
Evaluate all course
learning outcomes
for consistency and
clarity.
Verify alignment of program
learning outcomes, course
learning outcomes,
assignment details, and
rubric.
4. Knowledge of foundation
areas for BSBA program will
score 20 and above on this
assignment.
Summative, Internal - Faculty-
designed assignment and rubric.
A goal of 20 was set as a
benchmark with a most
recent average score of
29.07 in 2016.
Evaluate all course
learning outcomes
for consistency and
clarity.
Verify alignment of program
learning outcomes, course
learning outcomes,
assignment details, and
rubric.
5. Knowledge of foundation
areas for BSBA program will
score 32 and above on this
assignment
Summative, Internal - Faculty-
designed assignment and rubric.
A goal of 32 was set as a
benchmark with a most
recent average score of
37.32 in 2016.
Evaluate all course
learning outcomes
for consistency and
clarity.
Verify alignment of program
learning outcomes, course
learning outcomes,
assignment details, and
rubric.
6. Knowledge of foundation
areas for BSBA program will
score 48 and above on this
assignment.
Summative, Internal - Faculty-
designed assignment and rubric.
A goal of 48 was set as a
benchmark with a most
recent average score of
59.07 in 2016.
Evaluate all course
learning outcomes
for consistency and
clarity.
Verify alignment of program
learning outcomes, course
learning outcomes,
assignment details. and
rubric.
Identified in Criterion 4.2
Figure 4.2 - Standard #4 Measurement and Analysis of Student Learning and PerformanceUse this table to supply data for Criterion 4.2.
Definition
A student learning outcome is one that measures a specific competency attainment. Examples of a direct assessment (evidence) of student learning attainment that might be used include: capstone
performance, third-party examination, faculty-designed examination, professional performance, licensure examination). Add these to the description of the measurement instrument in column two:
Direct - Assessing student performance by examining samples of student workAnalysis of Results
Table 6.1 Standard 6 - Business Program Performance Results
Organizational
Effectiveness
Results
Performance Measure What is your measurement
instrument or process?
Current Results Analysis of
Results
Action Taken or
Improvement made
Insert Graphs or Tables of Resulting Trends
(3-5 data points preferred)
Measurable goal (Indicate length of cycle) What are your current
results?
What did you learn
from the results?
What did you improve or
what is your next step?
What is your goal?
Increase overall retention
in DeVoe School of
Business programs by 3%
by 2019.
Retention rates as reported in
IWU Fact Book annually.
Retention rate was 73.7 %
in 2016.
There is room for
improvement.
Evaluate expanding the
separate ASB Student
Success Pilot program
results that are due in
January 2018 to BSBA.
Increase qulaity of overall
content in total and/or the
pecrent ratings of
excellent.
Report at next Annual or
Comprehensive Review.
Quality of overall content
was one of the highest
student satisfaction items
from the End of Program
survey. A combined 89%
percent of student
responses rated the qulaity
of overall content in the
Excellent and Good.
Categories.
Increased quality of
overall content may
assist student
learning with positive
effect on Student
Success and
progress toward the
degree.
Evaluate and adjust overall
quality of course content in
courses as they become
due for revision.
Increase quality of
instruction.
Report at next Annual or
Comprehensive Review.
Helpfulness of chaplain was
one of the highest student
satisfaction items from the
End of Program survey. A
combined 87.3% percent of
student responses rated the
accessibility of chaplain in
the Excellent and Good.
Categories.
Increased quality of
instruction may
assist student
learning with positive
effect on Student
Success and
progress toward the
degree.
Share results with the
DeVoe Department
Faculty Chairs to
determine possibilities for
joint cooperation toward
increased Student
Success.
Standard #6 - Organizational Performance Results, Table 6.10
Complete the following table. Provide three or four examples, reporting what you consider to be the most important data. It is not necessary to provide results for every process.
Organizational effectiveness results examine attainment of organizational goals. Each business unit must have a systematic reporting mechanism for each business program that
charts enrollment patterns, student retention, student academic success, and other characteristics reflecting students' performance.
Key indicators may include: graduation rates, enrollment, hiring equity, increased use of web-based technologies, use of facilities by community organizations, contributions to the
community, or partnerships, retention rates by program, and what you report to governing boards and administrative units.
Analysis of Results
Performance Indicator1. Student Learning Results
Identified in Criterion 4.2 Identified in Criterion 4.1 Identified in Criterion 4.4 Identified in Criterion 4.2
What is your measurement
instrument or process?
Current Results Analysis of Results Action Taken or Improvement
made
Insert Graphs or Tables of Resulting Trends (3-5
data points preferred)
Measurable goal Do not use grades. What are your current
results?
What did you learn
from the results?
What did you improve or
what is your next step?
What is your goal? (Indicate type of instrument)
direct, formative, internal,
comparative
Knowledge of foundation
areas for BSBIS program will
score 80 and above
Summative Assessment in COM
325 - 5.5
A goal of 80 was set as a
benchmark with an average
score of 96.39 in 2016
Goals are currently
being met.
Evaluation through annual
program reviews to ensure goal
continues to be met.
Knowledge of foundation
areas for BSBIS program will
score 80 and above
Summative Assessment in BIS460 -
8.3
A goal of 80 was set as a
benchmark with an average
score of 92.5 in 2016
Goals are currently
being met.
Evaluation through annual
program reviews to ensure goal
continues to be met.
Identified in Criterion 4.2
Figure 4.2 - Standard #4 Measurement and Analysis of Student Learning and PerformanceUse this table to supply data for Criterion 4.2.
DefinitionA student learning outcome is one that measures a specific competency attainment. Examples of a direct assessment (evidence) of student learning attainment that might be used include: capstone
performance, third-party examination, faculty-designed examination, professional performance, licensure examination). Add these to the description of the measurement instrument in column two:
Direct - Assessing student performance by examining samples of student workAnalysis of Results
Knowledge of foundation
areas for BSBIS program will
score 80 and above
Summative Assessment in
MGT421 - 5.5
A goal of 80 was set as a
benchmark with an average
score of 94.8 in 2016
Goals are currently
being met.
Evaluation through annual
program reviews to ensure goal
continues to be met.
Table 6.1 Standard 6 - Business Program Performance Results
Organizational
Effectiveness Results
Performance Measure What is your measurement
instrument or process?
Current Results Analysis of Results Action Taken or Improvement
made
Insert Graphs or Tables of Resulting Trends (3-
5 data points preferred)
Measurable goal (Indicate length of cycle) What are your current
results?
What did you learn from the
results?
What did you improve or what is
your next step?
What is your goal?
Increase retention for HCA
from 73.6% to 85% by 2020
Retention rates as reported to the
VPAA every January
73.6% in 2016 In a positive trend for the last year
based more on the great need for
employees in the BIS disciplines
than the program review.
Increase retention through
development of a new BSBIS
program to better meet the needs
of the students as well as the
marketplace.
Increase the quality of team
projects from 48.3. to 70%
by 2020
Quality of team projects rates as
reported from End of Program
Surveys
48.3 in 2016 Result is unacceptable and
reflected in retention numbers.
Review each team project
individually to reduce the quantity
of team projects and rewrite the
team projects needed for quality
academic outcomes.
Increase in helpfulness of
chaplain from 39.6 to 60%
by 2020
Helpfulness of Chaplain rates as
reported from End of program
surveys
39.6% in 2016 Students are not fully aware of
chaplain services and what they
offer.
Work with student services to
investigate and implement
activities to see what the chaplain
services are needed and how they
apply to students
Increase satisfaction with
program length from 44.8%
to 80% by 2020
Program length as reported from
End of program surveys
44.8 in 2016 Competitive pressures are
apparent from market surveys
showing shorter lengths of BSBIS
programs are needed
Evaluate BSBIS for alternatives to
shorten the length of the BSBIS
and maintain program learning
outcomes.
Standard #6 - Organizational Performance Results, Table 6.10
Complete the following table. Provide three or four examples, reporting what you consider to be the most important data. It is not necessary to provide results for every process.
Organizational effectiveness results examine attainment of organizational goals. Each business unit must have a systematic reporting mechanism for each business program that charts enrollment patterns, student
retention, student academic success, and other characteristics reflecting students' performance. Key indicators may include: graduation rates, enrollment, hiring equity,
increased use of web-based technologies, use of facilities by community organizations, contributions to the community, or partnerships, retention rates by program, and what you report to governing boards and
administrative units.
Analysis of Results
Increase student
satisfaction with overall
course content from 37.9%
to 80% in 2020
Overall course content satisfaction
as reported from End of Program
Surveys
37.9% in 2016 Consistent dissatisfaction with
course content relates to the need
for continuous updating of
curriculum in this discipline.
Evaluate BSBIS for updating of the
course content to maintain program
learning outcomes. Update
program learning outcomes to
better reflect the marektplace
needs.
Performance
Indicator1. Student Learning
Results
Identified in Criterion
4.2 Identified in Criterion 4.1 Identified in Criterion 4.4 Identified in Criterion 4.2
What is your measurement
instrument or process?
Current Results Analysis of Results Action Taken or Improvement
made
Insert Graphs or Tables of Resulting Trends (3-5 data points preferred)
Measurable goal Do not use grades. What are your current
results?
What did you learn from
the results?
What did you improve or what is
your next step?
What is your goal? (Indicate type of
instrument) direct,
formative, internal,
comparative
Students in the BSM
program will
consistently perform at
the same level or
higher on the
Peregreine inbound
exam when compared
to all ACBSP schools
in Region 4.
Summative, External -
Peregrine pre-and post test
(MGT-302 & MGT-496).
Data results for the three
periods for the inbound exam:
INBOUND
Period #1 - DeVoe 41.87%;
Region 4 -45.78%
Period #2 - DeVoe 42.33%;
Region 4 - 41.37%.
Period #3 - DeVoe 40.53%;
Region 4 - 41.37%.
DeVoe has not performed
consistently at or
aboveunderperformed
compared to the ACBSP Reg. 4
schools.
A through review of the inbound test
questions needs to be done since it has
been a couple of years since these have
been reviewed.
DeVoe BSM outbound
Peregrine exam total
results compared to
selected aggregate
pools will be no more
than 3% difference
when compared to
each pool.
Summative, External -
Peregrine outbound test
(MGT-302 & MGT-496).
Data results for three different
periods (combined) DeVoe -
43.98%
ACBSP Reg. 4 - 48.52%
Online delivery - 54.78%
Faith based - 50.66%
Private universities - 52.28%
DeVoe consistently
underperforms on the
outbound exam when
compared to the diffeerent
aggregate pools.
A through review of the outbound test
questions needs to be done since it has
been a couple of years since these have
been reviewed. Also, a more indepth
analysis of specific areas where BSM
students are underperforming needs
reviewed and an action plan established
to address specific areas (e.g.
management, marketing, ) in the
curriculum.
Identified in Criterion 4.2
Figure 4.2 - Standard #4 Measurement and Analysis of Student Learning and PerformanceUse this table to supply data for Criterion 4.2.
Definition
A student learning outcome is one that measures a specific competency attainment. Examples of a direct assessment (evidence) of student learning attainment that might be used include: capstone performance, third-party
examination, faculty-designed examination, professional performance, licensure examination). Add these to the description of the measurement instrument in column two:
Direct - Assessing student performance by examining samples of student workAnalysis of Results
Table 6.1 Standard 6 - Business Program Performance Results
Organizational
Effectiveness Results
Performance Measure What is your
measurement
instrument or
process?
Current
Results
Analysis of
Results
Action Taken or
Improvement made
Insert Graphs or Tables of Resulting Trends (3-5 data points
preferred)
Measurable goal (Indicate length of
cycle)
What are your
current
results?
What did you
learn from the
results?
What did you improve
or what is your next
step?
What is your goal? Increase enrollment in BSM
program by 3%.
Monthly statistics report
(annual enrollment data)
Annual final
enrollment for BSM
and BSMO-
2017 - 597
2016- 782
2015 - 914
The total
enrollment (BSM
and BSMO)
combined has
dropped 35% since
2015.
Investigate and collaborate
with Marketing and Enrollment
Services how potential
business management
students are being advised.
Investigate the increase in
General Studies enrollment.
Devise specific enrollment
strategies with
Marketing/Enrollment to boost
enrollment.
Standard #6 - Organizational Performance Results, Table 6.10
Complete the following table. Provide three or four examples, reporting what you consider to be the most important data. It is not necessary to provide results for every process.
Organizational effectiveness results examine attainment of organizational goals. Each business unit must have a systematic reporting mechanism for each business program that
charts enrollment patterns, student retention, student academic success, and other characteristics reflecting students' performance.
Key indicators may include: graduation rates, enrollment, hiring equity, increased use of web-based technologies, use of facilities by community organizations, contributions to the
community, or partnerships, retention rates by program, and what you report to governing boards and administrative units.
Analysis of Results
0
100
200
300
400
500
Total 2017 Total 2016 Total 2015
Final Enrollment by Academic Year for BSM and BSMO
BSM BSMO
Performance
Indicator1. Student Learning
Results
Identified in Criterion 4.2 Identified in Criterion 4.1 Identified in Criterion 4.4 Identified in Criterion 4.2
What is your measurement
instrument or process?
Current Results Analysis of
Results
Action Taken or
Improvement made
Insert Graphs or Tables of Resulting Trends (3-5 data points
preferred)
Measurable goal Do not use grades. What are your current
results?
What did you learn
from the results?
What did you improve or
what is your next step?
What is your goal? (Indicate type of instrument)
direct, formative, internal,
comparative
1. Knowledge of foundation
areas for MBA program will
score 85 and above.
Summative, Internal - Faculty-
designed assignment and rubric.
A goal of 85 was set as a
benchmark with a most
recent average score of
97.24 in 2016.
Evaluate all course
learning outcomes
for consistency and
clarity.
Verify alignment of program
learning outcomes, course
learning outcomes,
assignment details, and
rubric.
2. Knowledge of foundation
areas for MBA program will
score 85 and above.
Summative, Internal - Faculty-
designed assignment and rubric.
A goal of 85 was set as a
benchmark with a most
recent average score of
97.99 in 2016.
Evaluate all course
learning outcomes
for consistency and
clarity.
Verify alignment of program
learning outcomes, course
learning outcomes,
assignment details, and
rubric.
3. Knowledge of foundation
areas for MBA program will
score 85 and above.
Summative, Internal - Faculty-
designed assignment and rubric.
A goal of 85 was set as a
benchmark with a most
recent average score of
95.20 in 2016.
Evaluate all course
learning outcomes
for consistency and
clarity.
Verify alignment of program
learning outcomes, course
learning outcomes,
assignment details, and
rubric.
4. Knowledge of foundation
areas for MBA program will
score 60 and above.
Summative, Internal - Faculty-
designed assignment and rubric.
A goal of 60 was set as a
benchmark with a most
recent average score of
64.06 in 2016.
Evaluate all course
learning outcomes
for consistency and
clarity.
Verify alignment of program
learning outcomes, course
learning outcomes,
assignment details, and
rubric.
5. Knowledge of foundation
areas for MBA program will
score 85 and above.
Summative, Internal - Faculty-
designed assignment and rubric.
A goal of 85 was set as a
benchmark with a most
recent average score of
97.55 in 2016.
Evaluate all course
learning outcomes
for consistency and
clarity.
Verify alignment of program
learning outcomes, course
learning outcomes,
assignment details, and
rubric.
6. Knowledge of foundation
areas for MBA program will
score 85 and above.
Summative, Internal - Faculty-
designed assignment and rubric.
A goal of 85 was set as a
benchmark with a most
recent average score of
95.17 in 2016.
Evaluate all course
learning outcomes
for consistency and
clarity.
Verify alignment of program
learning outcomes, course
learning outcomes,
assignment details. and
rubric.
Identified in Criterion 4.2
Figure 4.2 - Standard #4 Measurement and Analysis of Student Learning and PerformanceUse this table to supply data for Criterion 4.2.
Definition
A student learning outcome is one that measures a specific competency attainment. Examples of a direct assessment (evidence) of student learning attainment that might be used include: capstone
performance, third-party examination, faculty-designed examination, professional performance, licensure examination). Add these to the description of the measurement instrument in column two:
Direct - Assessing student performance by examining samples of student workAnalysis of Results
Performance
Indicator1. Student Learning
Results
Identified in Criterion 4.2 Identified in Criterion 4.1 Identified in Criterion 4.4 Identified in Criterion 4.2
What is your measurement
instrument or process?
Current Results Analysis of
Results
Action Taken or
Improvement made
Insert Graphs or Tables of Resulting Trends (3-5 data points
preferred)
Measurable goal Do not use grades. What are your current
results?
What did you learn
from the results?
What did you improve or
what is your next step?
What is your goal? (Indicate type of instrument)
direct, formative, internal,
comparative
1. Knowledge of foundation
areas for MBA program will
score 85 and above.
Summative, Internal - Faculty-
designed assignment and rubric.
A goal of 85 was set as a
benchmark with a most
recent average score of
97.24 in 2016.
Evaluate all course
learning outcomes
for consistency and
clarity.
Verify alignment of program
learning outcomes, course
learning outcomes,
assignment details, and
rubric.
2. Knowledge of foundation
areas for MBA program will
score 85 and above.
Summative, Internal - Faculty-
designed assignment and rubric.
A goal of 85 was set as a
benchmark with a most
recent average score of
97.99 in 2016.
Evaluate all course
learning outcomes
for consistency and
clarity.
Verify alignment of program
learning outcomes, course
learning outcomes,
assignment details, and
rubric.
3. Knowledge of foundation
areas for MBA program will
score 85 and above.
Summative, Internal - Faculty-
designed assignment and rubric.
A goal of 85 was set as a
benchmark with a most
recent average score of
95.20 in 2016.
Evaluate all course
learning outcomes
for consistency and
clarity.
Verify alignment of program
learning outcomes, course
learning outcomes,
assignment details, and
rubric.
4. Knowledge of foundation
areas for MBA program will
score 60 and above.
Summative, Internal - Faculty-
designed assignment and rubric.
A goal of 60 was set as a
benchmark with a most
recent average score of
64.06 in 2016.
Evaluate all course
learning outcomes
for consistency and
clarity.
Verify alignment of program
learning outcomes, course
learning outcomes,
assignment details, and
rubric.
5. Knowledge of foundation
areas for MBA program will
score 85 and above.
Summative, Internal - Faculty-
designed assignment and rubric.
A goal of 85 was set as a
benchmark with a most
recent average score of
97.55 in 2016.
Evaluate all course
learning outcomes
for consistency and
clarity.
Verify alignment of program
learning outcomes, course
learning outcomes,
assignment details, and
rubric.
6. Knowledge of foundation
areas for MBA program will
score 85 and above.
Summative, Internal - Faculty-
designed assignment and rubric.
A goal of 85 was set as a
benchmark with a most
recent average score of
95.17 in 2016.
Evaluate all course
learning outcomes
for consistency and
clarity.
Verify alignment of program
learning outcomes, course
learning outcomes,
assignment details. and
rubric.
Identified in Criterion 4.2
Figure 4.2 - Standard #4 Measurement and Analysis of Student Learning and PerformanceUse this table to supply data for Criterion 4.2.
Definition
A student learning outcome is one that measures a specific competency attainment. Examples of a direct assessment (evidence) of student learning attainment that might be used include: capstone
performance, third-party examination, faculty-designed examination, professional performance, licensure examination). Add these to the description of the measurement instrument in column two:
Direct - Assessing student performance by examining samples of student workAnalysis of Results
Table 6.1 Standard 6 - Business Program Performance Results
Organizational
Effectiveness Results
Performance Measure What is your measurement
instrument or process?
Current Results Analysis of Results Action Taken or
Improvement made
Insert Graphs or Tables of Resulting Trends
(3-5 data points preferred)
Measurable goal (Indicate length of cycle) What are your current
results?
What did you learn
from the results?
What did you improve or
what is your next step?
What is your goal?
Increase overall retention in
DeVoe School of Business
programs by 3% by 2019.
Retention rate was 70.6 % in
2016.
There is room for
improvement.
Consider expanding the
separate ASB Student
Success Pilot program
results that are due in
January 2018 to MBA.
Increase effectiveness of
project teams in the
curriculum or possibly
eliminate them.
Report on decision at next Annual
or Comprehensive Review.
Effectiveness of project
teams is one of three lowest
student satisfaction items
from the End of Program
survey. A combined 56.1%
percent of student responses
rated the effectiveness of
project teams in the Excellent
and Good. Categories.
There is a continuing
need to evaluate
effectiveness of
project teams.
Evaluate the use of project
teams in courses as they
become due for revision or
eliminate project teams.
Increase quality of overall
content in total and/or the
percent ratings of excellent.
Report at next Annual or
Comprehensive Review.
Quality of overall content was
one of the highest student
satisfaction items from the
End of Program survey. A
combined 87.7% percent of
student responses rated the
quality of overall content in
the Excellent and Good.
Categories.
Increased quality of
overall content may
assist student
learning with positive
effect on Student
Success and
progress toward the
degree.
Evaluate and adjust overall
quality of course content in
courses as they become
due for revision.
Standard #6 - Organizational Performance Results, Table 6.10
Complete the following table. Provide three or four examples, reporting what you consider to be the most important data. It is not necessary to provide results for every process.
Organizational effectiveness results examine attainment of organizational goals. Each business unit must have a systematic reporting mechanism for each business program that charts
enrollment patterns, student retention, student academic success, and other characteristics reflecting students' performance.
Key indicators may include: graduation rates, enrollment, hiring equity, increased use of web-based technologies, use of facilities by community organizations, contributions to the
community, or partnerships, retention rates by program, and what you report to governing boards and administrative units.
Analysis of Results
Performance Indicator1. Student Learning Results
Identified in Criterion 4.2 Identified in Criterion 4.1 Identified in Criterion 4.4 Identified in Criterion 4.2
What is your measurement
instrument or process?
Current Results Analysis of Results Action Taken or Improvement
made
Insert Graphs or Tables of Resulting Trends (3-5
data points preferred)
Measurable goal Do not use grades. What are your current
results?
What did you learn
from the results?
What did you improve or
what is your next step?
What is your goal? (Indicate type of instrument)
direct, formative, internal,
comparative
Knowledge of foundation
areas for MBA program will
score 90 and above
Summative Assessment in
HCAD490 6.2
A goal of 90 was set as a
benchmark with an average
score of 98.93 in 2016
Evaluation of course
learning outcomes for
consistency between
rubric and Capstone
Project and the
course should be
taught by HCAD515
Instructor
HCAD590 Courses will have a
journal assignmnent.
Knowledge of foundation
areas for MBA program will
score 85 and above
Summative Assessment in
HRMT535 - 4.4
A goal of 85 was set as a
benchmark with an average
score of 84.51 in 2016
Evaluation of all
course learning
outcomes indicate a
lot of work for 80
points in this
assignment
Change point value to match
learning outcomes for
assignment.
Knowledge of foundation
areas for HCAD program will
score 90 and above
Summative Assessment in
HCAD515 6.2
A goal of 90 was set as a
benchmark with an average
score of 97.81 in 2016
Evaluation of course
learning outcomes for
consistency between
Proposal and
Capstone Project and
taught by HCAD590
Instructor
HCAD515 will have a journal
assignment to assist in building
towards the next class,
Capstone Project.
Identified in Criterion 4.2
Figure 4.2 - Standard #4 Measurement and Analysis of Student Learning and PerformanceUse this table to supply data for Criterion 4.2.
DefinitionA student learning outcome is one that measures a specific competency attainment. Examples of a direct assessment (evidence) of student learning attainment that might be used include:
capstone performance, third-party examination, faculty-designed examination, professional performance, licensure examination). Add these to the description of the measurement instrument in
column two: Analysis of Results
75
80
85
90
95
100
Jan16-Apr16 May16-August16 Sept16-Dec16
0 0 0
PLO1-HCAD590-6.2
75
80
85
90
95
100
Jan16-Apr16 May16-August16 Sept16-Dec16
PLO2-HRMT535-4.4
GOAL Actual Average
75
80
85
90
95
100
Jan16-Apr16 May16-August16 Sept16-Dec16
PLO3-HCAD515-6.2
GOAL Actual Average
Table 6.1 Standard 6 - Business Program Performance Results
Organizational
Effectiveness
Results
Performance Measure What is your measurement
instrument or process?
Current Results Analysis of
Results
Action Taken or
Improvement made
Insert Graphs or Tables of Resulting Trends
(3-5 data points preferred)
Measurable goal (Indicate length of cycle) What are your current
results?
What did you learn
from the results?
What did you improve or
what is your next step?
What is your goal?
Increase retention for
HCAD from 69% to 85%
by 2020
Retention rates as reported to the
VPAA every January
69% in 2016 In a positive trend for
the last year
Look at students taking
healthcare courses earlier
in the program by following
EOC's earlier in the
program.
Increase of helpfulness of
Chaplain from 42.8% to
80% by 2020
Helpfulness of Chaplain rates as
reported from End of Program
Surveys
42.8% in 2016 Chaplain helpfulness
was a surprise.
50% of students are
not affiliated with a
church and therefore
may have little
interest in the
chaplain services.
Discuss with Student
Services to search for
opportunities to show
students what the chaplain
service offers.
Increase of accessibility of
chaplain from 55.2 to 80%
by 2020
Accessibility of Chaplain rates as
reported from End of program
surveys
55.2% in 2016 Students are not fully
aware of chaplain
services and what
they offer.
Work with student services
to investigate further the
chaplain servicesand
make them available to the
students.
Ellimination of project
teams to increase the
students learning
outcomes from 82.7% to
90% in 2020
Effectiveness of project teams as
reported from End of Program
Surveys
82.7% in 2016 Project teams are
one of the biggest
complaints from
students on a
continual basis.
Much of the work is
individual work so
it’s difficult to do as
a team.
Eliminate the Project
Team assignments and
make them individual
assignments.
Standard #6 - Organizational Performance Results, Table 6.10
Complete the following table. Provide three or four examples, reporting what you consider to be the most important data. It is not necessary to provide results for every process.
Organizational effectiveness results examine attainment of organizational goals. Each business unit must have a systematic reporting mechanism for each business program that
charts enrollment patterns, student retention, student academic success, and other characteristics reflecting students' performance.
Key indicators may include: graduation rates, enrollment, hiring equity, increased use of web-based technologies, use of facilities by community organizations, contributions to the
community, or partnerships, retention rates by program, and what you report to governing boards and administrative units.Analysis of Results
2015
2016
0
50
100
1 2
Retention of Masters in Healthcare Administration
Students
2015
2016
0
20
40
60
80
100
1 2
Increase Helpfulness of Chaplain Services
2015
2016
0
20
40
60
80
100
1 2
Increase Accessibility of Chaplain Services
2015
2016
0
50
100
1 2
Increase Effectiveness of Project Teams
Performance Indicator
1. Student Learning Results
Identified in Criterion 4.2 Identified in Criterion 4.1 Identified in Criterion 4.4 Identified in Criterion 4.2
What is your measurement
instrument or process?
Current Results Analysis of Results Action Taken or Improvement
made
Insert Graphs or Tables of Resulting Trends (3-
5 data points preferred)
Measurable goal Do not use grades. What are your current
results?
What did you learn
from the results?
What did you improve or what is
your next step?
What is your goal? (Indicate type of instrument)
direct, formative, internal,
comparative
#1. Students will perform at
80% or higher on mastery
assessments for PLO #4 for
the MSA program.
Internal, summative ACCT-591-
Assignment - Mastery
Assessment
PLO#4- overall performance 89% All three terms exceeded
the 80% goal.
Continue to monitor and ensure consistent
faculty grading and use of rubric in the
course sections. With the new LMS system,
will investigate the ability to not be able to
award more points on assessment than max
possible. Review the goal.
Identified in Criterion 4.2
Figure 4.2 - Standard #4 Measurement and Analysis of Student Learning and PerformanceUse this table to supply data for Criterion 4.2.
Definition
MS-AccountingA student learning outcome is one that measures a specific competency attainment. Examples of a direct assessment (evidence) of student learning attainment that might be used include: capstone
performance, third-party examination, faculty-designed examination, professional performance, licensure examination). Add these to the description of the measurement instrument in column two:
Direct - Assessing student performance by examining samples of student workAnalysis of Results
32
34
36
38
40
42
Jan16-Apr16 May16-August16 Sept16-Dec16
ACC-591 Mastery Assessment PLO#43 terms
Goal Actual Avg. Points
MS-Accounting
Table 6.1 Standard 6 - Business Program Performance Results 2017 Accounting Program Review
Organizational
Effectiveness Results
What is your measurement
instrument or process?
Current Results Analysis of Results Action Taken or
Improvement made
Insert Graphs or Tables of Resulting Trends (3-5 data points
preferred)
(Indicate length of cycle) What are your current
results?
What did you learn
from the results?
What did you improve or
what is your next step?
Performance Measure
Measurable goal
What is your goal?
Increase the student
retention in all MSA
accounting courses by
3% by 2019.
Retention rates as reported to the
VPAA every January
Current overall retention rate is
39.4%
This data analysis was
used to establish a
preliminary benchmark
for future analysis.
Action plan for 2017-18 is to
improve instructor participation
in discussions, provide
collaborative forums in courses
and to provide faculty with
training and information on how
to advise students who are
struggling in accounting program.
Participate in DeVoe retention
project.
Improve faculty
interaction in online
accounting courses for
all courses in the MSA
program. Goal is to
exceed the ALL CAPS
mean consistently in the
Statistical Comparison of
ALL CAPS MSA programs
to the ALL MSA courses.
End of course (student satisfaction)
survey reported annually.
In the Statistical Comparison of ALL
CAPS Masters Programs to ALL
MSA results to "the instructor was
active in discussions" results were:
2016-17 CAPS Mean 4.5; All MSA
mean 4.29
2015-16 CAPS Mean 4.48; ALL MSA
4.26
Data showed an
underperformance in this
area.
Action plan for 2017-18 is to
improve instructor participation
in discussions, provide
collaborative forums in courses
and to provide faculty with
training on online engagement.
Standard #6 - Organizational Performance Results, Table 6.10
Complete the following table. Provide three or four examples, reporting what you consider to be the most important data. It is not necessary to provide results for every process.
Organizational effectiveness results examine attainment of organizational goals. Each business unit must have a systematic reporting mechanism for each business program that charts enrollment patterns,
student retention, student academic success, and other characteristics reflecting students' performance. Key indicators may include: graduation rates, enrollment, hiring equity, increased use of web-based
technologies, use of facilities by community organizations, contributions to the community, or partnerships, retention rates by program, and what you report to governing boards and administrative units.
Analysis of Results
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
2012-13 2013-14 2014-15
Accounting Program Retention Rates Overall
National DeVoe Accounting
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
2015-16 2016-17
Mean response rates for EOC Survey Item - "Instructor was active in discussions"
CAPS ALL MSA
Performance
Indicator1. Student Learning
Results
Identified in Criterion 4.2 Identified in Criterion 4.1 Identified in Criterion 4.4 Identified in Criterion 4.2
What is your measurement
instrument or process?
Current Results Analysis of
Results
Action Taken or
Improvement made
Insert Graphs or Tables of Resulting Trends (3-5 data points
preferred)
Measurable goal Do not use grades. What are your current
results?
What did you learn
from the results?
What did you improve or
what is your next step?
What is your goal? (Indicate type of instrument)
direct, formative, internal,
comparative
1. Knowledge of foundation
areas for MSHRM program
will score 255 and above.
Summative, Internal - Faculty-
designed assignment and rubric.
A goal of 255 was set as a
benchmark with a most
recent average score of
282.83 in 2016.
Evaluate all course
learning outcomes
for consistency and
clarity.
Verify alignment of program
learning outcomes, course
learning outcomes,
assignment details, and
rubric.
2. Knowledge of foundation
areas for MSHRM program
will score 21 and above.
Summative, Internal - Faculty-
designed assignment and rubric.
A goal of 21 was set as a
benchmark with a most
recent average score of
24.25 in 2016.
Evaluate all course
learning outcomes
for consistency and
clarity.
Verify alignment of program
learning outcomes, course
learning outcomes,
assignment details, and
rubric.
Knowledge of foundation
areas for MSHRM program
will score 64 and above.
Summative, Internal - Faculty-
designed assignment and rubric.
A goal of 64 was set as a
benchmark with a most
recent average score of
67.11 in 2016.
Evaluate all course
learning outcomes
for consistency and
clarity.
Verify alignment of program
learning outcomes, course
learning outcomes,
assignment details, and
rubric.
4. Knowledge of foundation
areas for MSHRM program
will score 42 and above.
Summative, Internal - Faculty-
designed assignment and rubric.
A goal of 42 was set as a
benchmark with a most
recent average score of
46.10 in 2016.
Evaluate all course
learning outcomes
for consistency and
clarity.
Verify alignment of program
learning outcomes, course
learning outcomes,
assignment details, and
rubric.
5. Knowledge of foundation
areas for MSHRM program
will score 21 an above.
A goal of 21 was set as a
benchmark with a most recent
average score of 25.00 in 2016.
A goal of 21 was set as a
benchmark with a most
recent average score of
25.00 in 2016.
Evaluate all course
learning outcomes
for consistency and
clarity.
Verify alignment of program
learning outcomes, course
learning outcomes,
assignment details, and
rubric.
6, Knowledge of foundation
areas for MSHRM program
will score 21 an above.
Summative, Internal - Faculty-
designed assignment and rubric.
A goal of 21 was set as a
benchmark with a most
recent average score of
24.10 in 2016.
Evaluate all course
learning outcomes
for consistency and
clarity.
Verify alignment of program
learning outcomes, course
learning outcomes,
assignment details. and
rubric.
Identified in Criterion 4.2
Figure 4.2 - Standard #4 Measurement and Analysis of Student Learning and PerformanceUse this table to supply data for Criterion 4.2.
Definition
A student learning outcome is one that measures a specific competency attainment. Examples of a direct assessment (evidence) of student learning attainment that might be used include: capstone
performance, third-party examination, faculty-designed examination, professional performance, licensure examination). Add these to the description of the measurement instrument in column two:
Direct - Assessing student performance by examining samples of student workAnalysis of Results
240
245
250
255
260
265
270
275
280
285
290
Dec15-Mar16 Apr16-Jul16 Aug16-Nov16
HRMT 590 6.4 Dropbox(PLO 1)
GOAL Actual Average
Performance
Indicator1. Student Learning
Results
Identified in Criterion 4.2 Identified in Criterion 4.1 Identified in Criterion 4.4 Identified in Criterion 4.2
What is your measurement
instrument or process?
Current Results Analysis of
Results
Action Taken or
Improvement made
Insert Graphs or Tables of Resulting Trends (3-5 data points
preferred)
Measurable goal Do not use grades. What are your current
results?
What did you learn
from the results?
What did you improve or
what is your next step?
What is your goal? (Indicate type of instrument)
direct, formative, internal,
comparative
1. Knowledge of foundation
areas for MSHRM program
will score 255 and above.
Summative, Internal - Faculty-
designed assignment and rubric.
A goal of 255 was set as a
benchmark with a most
recent average score of
282.83 in 2016.
Evaluate all course
learning outcomes
for consistency and
clarity.
Verify alignment of program
learning outcomes, course
learning outcomes,
assignment details, and
rubric.
2. Knowledge of foundation
areas for MSHRM program
will score 21 and above.
Summative, Internal - Faculty-
designed assignment and rubric.
A goal of 21 was set as a
benchmark with a most
recent average score of
24.25 in 2016.
Evaluate all course
learning outcomes
for consistency and
clarity.
Verify alignment of program
learning outcomes, course
learning outcomes,
assignment details, and
rubric.
Knowledge of foundation
areas for MSHRM program
will score 64 and above.
Summative, Internal - Faculty-
designed assignment and rubric.
A goal of 64 was set as a
benchmark with a most
recent average score of
67.11 in 2016.
Evaluate all course
learning outcomes
for consistency and
clarity.
Verify alignment of program
learning outcomes, course
learning outcomes,
assignment details, and
rubric.
4. Knowledge of foundation
areas for MSHRM program
will score 42 and above.
Summative, Internal - Faculty-
designed assignment and rubric.
A goal of 42 was set as a
benchmark with a most
recent average score of
46.10 in 2016.
Evaluate all course
learning outcomes
for consistency and
clarity.
Verify alignment of program
learning outcomes, course
learning outcomes,
assignment details, and
rubric.
5. Knowledge of foundation
areas for MSHRM program
will score 21 an above.
A goal of 21 was set as a
benchmark with a most recent
average score of 25.00 in 2016.
A goal of 21 was set as a
benchmark with a most
recent average score of
25.00 in 2016.
Evaluate all course
learning outcomes
for consistency and
clarity.
Verify alignment of program
learning outcomes, course
learning outcomes,
assignment details, and
rubric.
6, Knowledge of foundation
areas for MSHRM program
will score 21 an above.
Summative, Internal - Faculty-
designed assignment and rubric.
A goal of 21 was set as a
benchmark with a most
recent average score of
24.10 in 2016.
Evaluate all course
learning outcomes
for consistency and
clarity.
Verify alignment of program
learning outcomes, course
learning outcomes,
assignment details. and
rubric.
Identified in Criterion 4.2
Figure 4.2 - Standard #4 Measurement and Analysis of Student Learning and PerformanceUse this table to supply data for Criterion 4.2.
Definition
A student learning outcome is one that measures a specific competency attainment. Examples of a direct assessment (evidence) of student learning attainment that might be used include: capstone
performance, third-party examination, faculty-designed examination, professional performance, licensure examination). Add these to the description of the measurement instrument in column two:
Direct - Assessing student performance by examining samples of student workAnalysis of Results
240
245
250
255
260
265
270
275
280
285
290
Dec15-Mar16 Apr16-Jul16 Aug16-Nov16
HRMT 590 6.4 Dropbox(PLO 1)
GOAL Actual Average
Table 6.1 Standard 6 - Business Program Performance Results
Organizational
Effectiveness
Results
Performance Measure What is your measurement
instrument or process?
Current Results Analysis of
Results
Action Taken or
Improvement made
Insert Graphs or Tables of Resulting Trends
(3-5 data points preferred)
Measurable goal (Indicate length of cycle) What are your current
results?
What did you learn
from the results?
What did you improve or
what is your next step?
What is your goal?
Increase overall retention
in DeVoe School of
Business programs by 3%
by 2019.
Retention rates as reported in
IWU Fact Book annually.
Retention rate was 60.1% in
2016.
There is room for
improvement.
Consider expanding the
separate ASB Student
Success Pilot program
results that are due in
January 2018 to MSHRM.
Increase effectiveness of
project teams in the
curriculum or possibly
eliminate them.
Report on decision at next Annual
or Comprehensive Review.
Effectiveness of project
teams is one of three lowest
student satisfaction items
from the End of Program
survey. A combined 57.2%
percent of student
responses rated the
effectiveness of project
teams in the Excellent and
Good. Categories.
There is a continuing
need to evaluate
effectiveness of
project teams.
Evaluate the use of project
teams in courses as they
become due for revision or
eliminate project teams.
Increase helpfulness of
chaplain.
Report at next Annual or
Comprehensive Review.
Helpfulness of chaplain is
one of three lowest student
satisfaction items from the
End of Program survey.. A
combined 52.3% percent of
student responses rated the
accessibility of chaplain in
the Excellent and Good.
Categories.
Increased
helpfulness of
chaplain may assist
in dealing with life
issues as they affect
Student Success
and progress toward
degree.
Share results with the
Student Services
department and individuals
responsible to determine
possibilities for joint
cooperation toward
increased Student
Success.
Complete the following table. Provide three or four examples, reporting what you consider to be the most important data. It is not necessary to provide results for every process.
Organizational effectiveness results examine attainment of organizational goals. Each business unit must have a systematic reporting mechanism for each business program
that charts enrollment patterns, student retention, student academic success, and other characteristics reflecting students' performance.
Key indicators may include: graduation rates, enrollment, hiring equity, increased use of web-based technologies, use of facilities by community organizations, contributions to
the community, or partnerships, retention rates by program, and what you report to governing boards and administrative units.
Analysis of Results
Performance
Indicator1. Student
Learning Results
Identified in Identified in Criterion Identified in Criterion 4.4 Identified in Criterion 4.2
What is your
measurement
Current Results Analysis of Results Action Taken or
Improvement made
Insert Graphs or Tables of Resulting Trends (3-5
data points preferred)
Measurable goal Do not use grades. What are your current
results?
What did you learn
from the results?
What did you improve or
what is your next step?
What is your goal? (Indicate type of
instrument) direct,
formative, internal,
Examine capstone
paper features to: 1)
determine if it is an
appropriate
assessment for all
program outcomes,
2) if so, strengthen
elements required to
ensure
comprehensive
assessment or 3) if
not, determine what
assessment tool(s)
might be used to
measure student
performance on all
Summative, Internal -
MGMT-590, Capstone
paper
Term #1 - Avg. points -
48.0
Term #2 - Avg. points -50
Term #3 - Avg. points - 48
Very high scores. Faculty
did not use (within
course) the grading
rubric.
The course is currently under
revision and outcomes are
being updated/enhanced.
This will continue to be
monitored to determine if this
assessment is the most
effective for all program
learning outcomes for the
program.
Examine final paper
features to: 1)
determine if it is
providing
appropriate
feedback on
outcomes #2, 5, 9. If
not, what determine
if assessment tool
(paper) is adequate
or if another tool
should be adopted
to better measure
student
performance.
Summative, Internal -
MGMT-532, Paper
Term #1 - Avg. points -
98.6
Term #2 - Avg. points -98
Term #3 - Avg. points - 99
Very high scores. Faculty
did not use (within
course) the grading
rubric.
Continue to monitor to
determine if results of paper
are providing faculty sufficient
feedback on student
performance on mastery
outcomes #2,5, 9.
Perform at or above
the same score as
the ACBSP Region
4 schools on the
inbound/outbound
Peregrine test.
Summative, Internal -
Peregrine
inbound/outbound test -
External Summary-
Compare to ACBSP
Reg. 4
DeVoe Results -
Period #1 - 45.33
Period #2 - 42.32
Period #3 - 42.45
ACBSP Reg. 4 Results-
Period #1 - 42.92
Period #2 - 42.92
Period #3 - 42.92
DeVoe has scored lower
than ACBSP Reg. 4
schools for three periods
reviewed.
This was the first formal
review of Peregrine
assessment data. Next steps
include a review of the
inbound/outbound questions
to ensure they are appropriate
for this level. Examine more
throughly which areas
students are scoring lower
(e.g. marketing) when
compared to the other schools
to identify possible areas in
the curriculum that should be
enhanced.
Identified in Criterion 4.2
Figure 4.2 - Standard #4 Measurement and Analysis of Student Learning and PerformanceUse this table to supply data for Criterion 4.2.
Definition
A student learning outcome is one that measures a specific competency attainment. Examples of a direct assessment (evidence) of student learning attainment that might be used
include: capstone performance, third-party examination, faculty-designed examination, professional performance, licensure examination). Add these to the description of the
measurement instrument in column two: Analysis of Results
Table 6.1 Standard 6 - Business Program Performance Results
Organizational
Effectiveness
Results
Performance
Measure
What is your
measurement
Current Results Analysis of
Results
Action Taken or Improvement
made
Insert Graphs or Tables of Resulting Trends (3-5
data points preferred)
Measurable goal (Indicate length
of cycle)
What are your
current results?
What did you
learn from the
results?
What did you improve or
what is your next step?
What is your goal?
Increase MSM
graduation rates.
Annual graduation
rates (Institutional
Research Office
and Student
Servies).
For the three years
examined, the
MSM graduates
went from 6 to 0.
For the MSMO
degree, it declined
from 73 to 49.
The enrollment for
both programs
continues to
decline.
Examine factors that might be
inhibiting MSM and MSMO
students from graduating or why
there are few graduates in the
program. Look at other
models/best practices to help
improve graduation rates.
NEW GOAL:
Review BSM to
MSM articulation
rates. (No goal for
this review--
baseline will need
BSM to MSM program
matriculation data.
None None - TBD Coordinate with Student Services to
capture matriculation data from the
BSM to MSM.
Standard #6 - Organizational Performance Results, Table 6.10
Complete the following table. Provide three or four examples, reporting what you consider to be the most important data. It is not necessary to provide results for every process.
Organizational effectiveness results examine attainment of organizational goals. Each business unit must have a systematic reporting mechanism for each business
program that charts enrollment patterns, student retention, student academic success, and other characteristics reflecting students' performance.
Key indicators may include: graduation rates, enrollment, hiring equity, increased use of web-based technologies, use of facilities by community organizations,
contributions to the community, or partnerships, retention rates by program, and what you report to governing boards and administrative units.Analysis of Results