| |||||
 | |||||
College of Business 2006
Assessment Report
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Previous
Years' Data |
|||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2004 Data | 2002 Data | 2001 Data | 2000 Data | 1999
Data |
|||||||
| N | Mean | Std Dev | Mean | Diff. | Mean | Diff. | Mean | Diff. | Mean | Diff. | |
| Data is sorted from highest difference to lowest difference | |||||||||||
| Factor 1: Required Courses: Quality of Faculty and Instruction | 155 | 4.65 | 1.12 | 4.45 | 0.20 | 4.48 | 0.17 | 4.34 | 0.31 | 4.26 | 0.39 |
| Factor 2: Required Courses: Faculty Responsiveness, Grades, and Student Effort | 156 | 5.32 | 1.08 | 5.10 | 0.22 | 5.09 | 0.23 | 5.01 | 0.31 | 4.93 | 0.39 |
| Factor 3:Major Courses: Quality of Faculty and Instruction | 155 | 5.02 | 1.12 | 4.98 | 0.04 | 5.00 | 0.02 | 4.95 | 0.07 | 4.68 | 0.34 |
| Factor 4: Major Courses: Faculty Responsiveness, Grades, and Student Effort | 156 | 5.65 | 1.02 | 5.58 | 0.07 | 5.61 | 0.04 | 5.34 | 0.31 | 5.29 | 0.36 |
| Factor 5: Breadth of the Curriculum | 156 | 5.31 | 1.11 | 4.79 | 0.52 | 5.06 | 0.25 | 4.73 | 0.58 | 4.56 | 0.75 |
| Factor 6: Size of Enrollments for Required and Major Courses | 156 | 5.61 | 1.07 | 5.25 | 0.36 | 5.25 | 0.36 | 5.34 | 0.27 | 5.26 | 0.35 |
| Factor 7: Student Organizations and Extracurricular Activities | 143 | 4.54 | 1.37 | 4.24 | 0.30 | 4.59 | -0.05 | 4.25 | 0.29 | 4.11 | 0.43 |
| Factor 8: Facilities and Computing Resources | 156 | 5.41 | 1.24 | 4.82 | 0.59 | 5.05 | 0.36 | 4.77 | 0.64 | 4.75 | 0.66 |
| Factor 9: Characteristics of Fellow Classmates | 156 | 5.15 | 1.24 | 5.15 | 0.00 | 5.14 | 0.01 | 4.90 | 0.25 | 4.68 | 0.47 |
| Factor 10: Placement and Career Services | 153 | 3.81 | 1.41 | 4.03 | -0.22 | 4.21 | -0.40 | 3.97 | -0.16 | 3.75 | 0.06 |
| Factor 11: Advisor | 156 | 5.07 | 1.84 | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | ||||
| Factor 12: Learning Outcomes: Effective Communication and Team Work | 156 | 5.61 | 1.05 | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | ||||
| Factor 13: Learning Outcomes: Use and Manage Technology | 156 | 5.62 | 1.38 | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | ||||
| Factor 14: Learning Outcomes: Effective Management and Leadership Skills | 154 | 5.70 | 1.11 | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | ||||
| Factor 15: Learning Outcomes: Critical Thinking and Problem Solving | 156 | 5.74 | 1.07 | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | ||||
| Factor 16: Overall Satisfaction with Program | 156 | 4.81 | 1.33 | 4.66 | 0.15 | 4.77 | 0.04 | 4.50 | 0.31 | 4.31 | 0.50 |
Observations:
- UALR factor 1 score : Quality of Faculty and Instruction in Required Courses has increased since 1999.
- UALR factor scores are higher than Carnegie Class Schools and all institutions in 12 of 16 factors.Lower in these factors:
- #7: Student Organizations and Extracurricular Activities.
- #9: Characteristics of Fellow Classmates.
- #10: Placement and Career Services.
- #16: Overall Satisfaction with the Program
These factors indicate areas of concern.
Program Assessment
The 2005-2006 Program Assessment Review Committee consists of the following reviewers: Guy Cox, Steve Edison, Mike Watts and Cynthia Taylor (PAAG Representative) and Tom Tudor. The reports were read and scored using the following tools: (1) The UALR Criteria for Evaluating Assessment Progress Reports and (2) The Degree Program Assessment Progress Report Review Checklist.
The following table presents the consensus evaluations of the assessment activities of the academic programs within the College of Business as reported in their 2005 Assessment Progress Reports. Use of Assessment for Program Building, Faculty and Stakeholder Involvement, and Approach were evaluated using the following evaluative scale: 4 = Excellent; 3 = Reasonable; 2 = Limited; 1 = Inadequate. From the ratings of the evaluative criteria an overall rating was computed. Comparable ratings were used in 2002 through 2004.
| Program | 2005 Rating | 2004 Rating | 2003 Rating | 2002 Rating |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| *Accounting | 1.33 | 2.40 | 2.50 | |
| Advertising & Publ Rel | 1.3 | 1.00 | 3.06 | 3.75 |
| Economics | 3.8 | 2.50 | 3.20 | 3.25 |
| Finance | 3.6 | 2.50 | 3.00 | 2.50 |
| Management | 3.6 | 2.83 | 3.15 | 3.00 |
| Management Info Systems | 3.8 | 4.00 | 3.00 | 3.50 |
| Marketing | 2.2 | 1.50 | 2.80 | 3.00 |
| MS in MIS | 3.5 | 2.67 | 2.50 | |
| *International Business | 2.0 | 3.00 | ||
| *MBA | 2.8 | 1.50 | ||
| Average 2005 | 2.95 | |||
| Average 2004 | 2.25 | |||
| Average 2003 | 2.89 | |||
| Average 2002 | 2.89 | |||
| * No Report |
*No Report Submitted
In 2000 the college assessment review committee established 2.5 as the “satisfactory progress” point for assessment evaluations. In 2004, 63 percent reached or exceeded the established 2.5 satisfactory progress point. In 2005, 66 percent reached or exceeded the established 2.5 satisfactory progress point.
In 2005 the overall ratings improved for most programs. The improved ratings reflect ongoing assessment activities for most programs and improvements in the evaluation process. In 2005 a progress report checklist developed by the Provost’s Assessment Advisory Group (PAAG) was used in the evaluative process. Furthermore, the reviewers resolved any significant differences in the ratings of the evaluative criteria.
Program Assessment Accomplishments/Strengths:
- The International Business Program’s assessment plan was approved by the PAAG in November 2005.
- Assessment plans for the Graduate Certificate Program in Accountancy and the Graduate Certificate Program in Taxation were approved by the PAAG April 2006.
- The current assessment evaluation system within the college is providing continuity in process feedback and improvement.
- Rotation of faculty on the review committee is promoting continuous faculty training, acceptance and involvement in the assessment process. At least two new faculty members will serve on the COB assessment committee next year.
- Increased faculty training of review committee members and other faculty involved in assessment is providing the foundation for continued improvements in the assessment process.
- An assessment plan is in operation for all programs, except the Graduate Program. The Graduate Program is revising its assessment plan. Program goals and learning objectives were selected in 2005 and will serve as the basis for future assessment activities.
Program Assessment Deficiencies/Emphasis for Change:
- Continued involvement of multiple stakeholders (faculty, students, and employers) must be encouraged.
- Emphasis must be placed on using assessment data for program building
- Emphasis must be placed on employing multiple assessment methods by each program.
- Due to turnover in the department chair position, the Accounting Program did not submit a progress report.
- The Advertising program did not collect data for assessment activities
2005 - 2006 Curricular Changes
Advertising and Public Relations (BBA)
- A curriculum proposal has been submitted to add a new course, Advertising Research, targeted to replace Advertising Campaigns I in the core program. Until Advertising Campaigns is changed to Advertising Research, the instructor will divide the course into two modules. The first module will deal with the theoretical underpinnings of advertising campaigns. The second module will allow students to run a “mini-campaign” utilizing the available resources from ABSDC in preparation for ADVT 4320.
Economics (BBA)
- In Intermediate Macroeconomic Theory, much more attention will be devoted to the understanding the effects of monetary and fiscal policy
- More attention will be devoted to developing and discussing the issues students have surrounding their FOMC project
Management (BBA)
- Faculty reviewed their course content in the areas of team-building and employee motivation and made corrections as needed in an attempt to increase knowledge in these areas
- In MGMT 3300 professional short videos dealing with team-building and employee motivation have been reemphasized to help reinforce the concepts.
Action Plan for 2006-2007
- The Accounting Program will submit a revised assessment plan to the college assessment committee for review.
- The Graduate program will submit a revised assessment plan to the college assessment committee for review.
- An assessment plan for the Graduate Certificate program will be submitted to PAAG for review.
- Feedback from the 2005 review process will be distributed to each department chair and/or program coordinator.
- Programs will be encouraged to highlight their use of assessment data for program building, i.e. highlight changes in the program based on assessment data
- Programs will be instructed to increase faculty and other stakeholder involvement in the assessment process.
- Programs will be encouraged to use multiple assessment methods.
 |
