Provost & Academic Vice President

2005 - 2006 Student Assessment Undergraduate Summaries
College of Business and Technology

Department of Accountancy
Department of Agriculture
Department of Computer Science
Department of Economics-Bachelor of Arts
Department of Economics-Bachelor of Business
Department of Engineering Technology-Construction Management
Department of Engineering Technology-Graphic Communication
Department of Engineering Technology-Manufacturing Engineering Technology
Department of Information Management and Decision Sciences
Department of Management
Department of Management-Human Resources
Department of Marketing and Finance-Bachelors of Business-Finance
Department of Marketing and Finance-Bachelors of Business-Supply Chain Management

Major Assessment Results, 2005-2006
College of Business and Technology

The purpose of this report is to describe the assessment plans as well as the current results of major assessment of the College of Business and Technology for 2005-2006.

Department: Accountancy

Learning Outcomes:

  1. Technical knowledge & skills;
  2. Technology skills;
  3. Critical thinking, research, and analytical skills;
  4. Recognition of ethical problems/issues and analysis of the impact of decisions on stakeholders;
  5. Written and oral communication skills;
  6. Team building, collaborative behavior skills, and recognizing the diversity of viewpoints; and
  7. Awareness of the international dimensions of accounting and business.

Direct and Indirect Measures: assignments, course exams, alumni surveys, senior exit survey, alumni performance on the CPA exam, and team projects.

Learning Goal # 5, “Written Communication Skills” was selected to be directly assessed in the undergraduate program during the spring 2006 semester. Based on the learning objectives of this learning goal, a rubric was designed to assess the students’ writing skills (see Appendix III). To provide external evaluation, a written assignment in ACC 451, Accounting Systems and Control, (both QC and Macomb sections) were distributed to the Department’s Advisory Council members to review using the writing rubric. This rubric was used in upper-level accounting courses in various ways. Three instructors provided the rubric to the students so they would be aware of the factors being assessed. One instructor used the rubric in a student peer review exercise.

All undergraduate and graduate learning goals/objectives were measured indirectly using December 2005 and May 2006 exit surveys. Graduating seniors and Master of Accountancy candidates completed a written exit survey and met with the department chair to discuss program results, career objectives, and to provide input for program assessment. In addition the annual alumni survey mailed in fall 2005 was used to measure the alumni perceptions of the Department’s effectiveness in achieving its learning goals/objectives.

Results: benchmark scores are met or exceeded on both the alumni and exit surveys. No results provided for direct measures.

Accounting majors continue to demonstrate success both in and outside the classroom. Success of accounting majors in national and regional competitions and in competing for scholarships demonstrates that our students have the knowledge and skills necessary to successfully compete with students from other institutions and for success in the accounting profession.

  • CBT Best Graduate Student Paper Award – First Place
  • One national IMA Memorial Education Fund Scholarship Winner
  • SCIMA received Award of Excellence (AOE) Banner (given to top 3 student IMA organizations in the nation) and national AOE Merit Award for its Strategic Plan
  • WIU’s IMA Case team was selected as one of the top four teams in the nation to participate in the IMA’s 2006 National Student Case Competition in Las Vegas
  • Beta Alpha Psi (Macomb) – Superior Chapter Award and Scholarship
  • In spring 2006 an undergraduate Accountancy student was selected as the Outstanding Scholar for the College of Business and Technology. Earlier, that student had received the College Lincoln Laureate Award.

Realized outcomes indicate meeting or surpassing benchmark values for Learning Goals #1-6. Only Learning Goal #7, “Awareness of international accounting and business dimensions,” failed to meet the benchmark.

Feedback Loop: Students and financial accounting faculty review alternative textbooks for more effective communication by the author. This will improve Learning Goals #1 and #3 (Technical Knowledge & Skills and Critical Thinking & Analytical Skills.)Both ACC 201 and 202 is consistent between all sections taught. Emphasis on international topics was expanded in intermediate accounting courses. To enhance Learning Goal # 2 (technology skills) add CS 302 for 3 of these hours. Use feedback from departmental Advisory Council, alumni, recruiters, and other professionals to determine what other two courses would most effectively accomplish our Learning Goals and departmental mission. Encourage students to attend speakers/events concerning global business and accounting. Add an international business course to the business core effective fall 2006.

Department: Computer Science

Learning Outcomes:

  1. Students should have an understanding of fundamental data structures and be able to write programs in at least two computer languages;
  2. Students should be able to apply basic problem-solving techniques. Students should be able to use these techniques in the development of algorithms and appreciate the process of developing algorithms.;
  3. Students should understand the distinction between procedural and object-oriented programming; and
  4. Students should understand and be able to apply the fundamental principles and practices of software engineering. These include software requirements analysis, software design and implementation, software verification and validation, and software project management.

Direct and Indirect Measurement: All of the learning outcomes were assessed through the indirect measure of student surveys. Student surveys were administered in the following computer science classes: CS 214 (Principles of Computer Science II), CS 351 (Data Structures II), and CS 492 (Software Engineering II). These surveys were designed to provide feedback on how students perceive their preparedness for the class and to monitor their satisfaction with the program.

Results: CS 214 Student Survey: Overall students are satisfied with the level of preparedness they received from CS 211 (Principles of Computer Science I) and CS 212 (Java). CS 212 recently changed from a sixteen week format to a second eight week format. The views on the format change were mixed. The students also suggested some additional ways to improve CS 212. CS 351 Student Survey: Overall students are satisfied with the level of preparedness they received from CS 350. CS 492 Student Survey: (exit survey) – Overall students are extremely satisfied with CS 491 and with their preparedness leading up to CS 491. Note that CS 492 is the final class for computer science students and relies on the knowledge learned on many other computer science classes. Students work in teams during the duration of CS 491 and CS 492.

Feedback Loop:Changes planned in reaction to the 2005-2006 assessment of learning data: The collection of all assessment data was not complete until the end of the Spring 2006 semester. Hence, the faculty did not have an opportunity to review the data. When the 2006-2007 academic commences, the faculty will review the data and, if necessary, they will devise a plan to address any weaknesses.

Changes implemented from the 2003-2005 assessment of student learning data: The format of CS 212 was changed from a 16 week format to an 8 week format. Continued to encourage students to participate in scholarly and discipline related activities and organizations. Continued to encourage faculty to utilize a variety of teaching delivery techniques and various technologies to accomplish the intended learning outcomes in each course. Continued to investigate ways to keep our curriculum up-to-date. Continued to evaluate our current assessment tools and activities so that the best possible feedback is given for our undergraduate program. Continued to find ways to make current computer and technology facilities available to our students.

Department: Economics- Bachelor of Arts

Learning Outcomes:

For Microeconomics: know

  1. the rules for profit maximization with respect to output;
  2. that there is less than optimal output in a market served by a monopolist;
  3. the impact of a change in cost on supply;
  4. how changes in the price of substitute goods impact on a market;
  5. the nature of costs in a Anatural monopoly;
  6. the rules for profit maximization with respect to inputs;
  7. the impact of a change in demand on a market;
  8. how changes in the price of a complementary good impact on a market;
  9. the relationship between price and marginal revenue when the firm faces a downward sloping demand curve;
  10. the impact of a change in supply on a market and on the markets of substitute goods.

For Macroeconomics: know

  1. what a real economic value is and be able to calculate it;
  2. know impact of a shift in aggregate demand or supply;
  3. the impact on the economy of a change in net exports;
  4. be able to identify the impact on growth of a macroeconomic policy;
  5. the impact of monetary policy on the economy;
  6. the likely impact of fiscal policy on the economy;
  7. the rationale for reserve requirements on deposits;
  8. the likely impact of a government deficit or surplus on the economy;
  9. how combinations of monetary and fiscal policy can be used to maintain full-employment and price stability;
  10. the impact of a change in the exchange rate.

Direct and Indirect Measures: Responses to 20 selected questions from the “Tests of Understanding of College Economics” which was developed by the National Council on Economic Education. There are 10 questions covering microeconomics topics and 10 questions covering macroeconomic topics.

The above 20 questions were administered to students entering the Master of Arts in Economics program from 1998 to the present. The results from 1998-2000 were combined to obtain the “Start of Degree” benchmarks. The 10 macroeconomics questions are administered in Econ 231, Principles of Macroeconomics, every year. The 10 microeconomics questions are administered in Econ 232, Principles of Microeconomics, every year. These results are used to establish the “Beginning of Degree” benchmarks. To establish the “Middle of Degree” benchmarks, the 10 macroeconomics questions are administered in Econ 331, Intermediate Macroeconomic Theory, every year. The 10 microeconomics questions are administered in Econ 330, Intermediate Microeconomic Theory and Econ 332, Managerial Economics, every year. The “End of Degree” results are obtained from examinations given to graduating students. Indirect measures include: Economics Department Graduation Survey. This survey is mailed to all graduating students in all three programs in the Spring semester; Alumni Confidential Survey: Every seven years, we mail a detailed survey to our alumni in all three degree programs; Individual Alumni Input: We have “advisory tracks” which allow students to pursue a variety of different career paths. Periodically, we update each track and one of the steps is to contact our alumni who are working in this career area to gather advice on what courses we should advise students to take.

Results: Data on indirect measures provided in report but not summarized.

Feedback: There have been no changes made in the assessment plan for the Bachelor of Business in Economics for three reasons. First, we do not yet have a new “Test of Understanding of College Economics” to use in making the revisions. Second, AACSB, the international body which accredits business programs, has issued new standards. With regard to assessment, they have mandated “imbedded” assessment. Until it becomes clear what AACSB will accept as “imbedded” assessment, we decided not to revise the current assessment plans. Third, the CBT Curriculum and Assessment Committee will be working on an “assessment instrument” this coming year and it is not clear what it will be or how it is to be administered.

One feature of our current assessment plans that we intend to keep are our Career Development/Skills meetings for all of our graduate and undergraduate students. One of the major points of these meetings is to make sure all of our students understand the skills that they should be developing and how specific courses and extra-curricular activities can contribute to the development of these skills. Participation in these meetings, by the more committed undergraduate students, has been good. However, the students that would benefit most from the information are the ones who do not attend. As a consequence, we have been discussing ways to increase student participation rates in career development meetings and end of career assessment. The original idea was a series of junior and senior seminars. This was discussed again this year but no conclusion was reached. The Chair is to present the faculty with a detailed outline of content/activities for both seminars in Fall 2006.

Planned changes in courses in response to assessment results:

Microeconomic learning outcomes: Econ 330, Intermediate Microeconomic Theory: Homework assignments will be revised. Examinations are being updated. Econ 332, Managerial Economics: Additional homework assignments will be added to the course. Some existing homework assignments will be revised. Instructor’s course workbook is being revised and materials added. A different selection of assignments from the textbook’s accompanying study guide will be assigned.

Macroeconomics learning outcomes: Econ 331, Intermediate Macroeconomic Theory: This course will have a new instructor in Fall 2006.

Department: Economics- Bachelor of Business

Learning Outcomes:

For Microeconomics: know

  1. the rules for profit maximization with respect to output;
  2. that there is less than optimal output in a market served by a monopolist;
  3. how to apply the concept of opportunity cost;
  4. how changes in the price of substitute goods impact on a market;
  5. the nature of costs in a natural monopoly;
  6. the rules for profit maximization with respect to inputs;
  7. the impact of a change in demand on a market;
  8. how changes in the price of a complementary good impact on a market;
  9. the relationship between price and marginal revenue when the firm faces a downward sloping demand curve.

For Macroeconomics: know

  1. what a real economic value is and be able to calculate it;
  2. know impact of a shift in aggregate demand or supply;
  3. the impact on the economy of a change in net exports;
  4. be able to identify the impact on growth of a macroeconomic policy;
  5. the impact of monetary policy on the economy;
  6. the rationale for reserve requirements on deposits;
  7. the likely impact of a government deficit or surplus on the economy;
  8. how combinations of monetary and fiscal policy can be used to maintain full-employment and price stability;
  9. the impact of a change in the exchange rate.

Direct and Indirect Measurement: Responses to 20 selected questions from the “Tests of Understanding of College Economics” which was developed by the National Council on Economic Education. There are 10 questions covering microeconomics topics and 10 questions covering macroeconomic topics.

The above 20 questions were administered to students entering the Master of Arts in Economics program from 1998 to the present. The results from 1998-2000 were combined to obtain the “Start of Degree” benchmarks. The 10 macroeconomics questions are administered in Econ 231, Principles of Macroeconomics, every year. The 10 microeconomics questions are administered in Econ 232, Principles of Microeconomics, every year. These results are used to establish the “Beginning of Degree” benchmarks. To establish the “Middle of Degree” benchmarks, the 10 macroeconomics questions are administered in Econ 331, Intermediate Macroeconomic Theory, every year. The 10 microeconomics questions are administered in Econ 330, Intermediate Microeconomic Theory and Econ 332, Managerial Economics, every year. The “End of Degree” results are obtained from examinations given to graduating students.

Indirect measures include: Economics Department Graduation Survey: This survey is mailed to all graduating students in all three programs in the Spring semester. Alumni Confidential Survey: Every seven years, we mail a detailed survey to our alumni in all three degree programs. Individual Alumni Input: We have “advisory tracks” which allow students to pursue a variety of different career paths. Periodically, we update each track and one of the steps is to contact our alumni who are working in this career area to gather advice on what courses we should advise students to take.

Results: Data on indirect measures provided in report but not summarized.

Feedback Loop: There have been no changes made in the assessment plan for the Bachelor of Business in Economics for three reasons. First, we do not yet have a new “Test of Understanding of College Economics” to use in making the revisions. Second, AACSB, the international body which accredits business programs, has issued new standards. With regard to assessment, they have mandated “imbedded” assessment. Until it becomes clear what AACSB will accept as “imbedded” assessment, we decided not to revise the current assessment plans. Third, the CBT Curriculum and Assessment Committee will be working on an “assessment instrument” this coming year and it is not clear what it will be or how it is to be administered.

One feature of our current assessment plans that we intend to keep are our Career Development/Skills meetings for all of our graduate and undergraduate students. One of the major points of these meetings is to make sure all of our students understand the skills that they should be developing and how specific courses and extra-curricular activities can contribute to the development of these skills. Participation in these meetings, by the more committed undergraduate students, has been good. However, the students that would benefit most from the information are the ones who do not attend. As a consequence, we have been discussing ways to increase student participation rates in career development meetings and end of career assessment. The original idea was a series of junior and senior seminars. This was discussed again this year but no conclusion was reached. The Chair is to present the faculty with a detailed outline of content/activities for both seminars in Fall 2006.

Planned changes in courses in response to assessment results:

Microeconomic learning outcomes: Econ 330, Intermediate Microeconomic Theory: Homework assignments will be revised. Examinations are being updated. Econ 332, Managerial Economics: Additional homework assignments will be added to the course. Some existing homework assignments will be revised. Instructor’s course workbook is being revised and materials added. A different selection of assignments from the textbook’s accompanying study guide will be assigned.
Macroeconomics learning outcomes: Econ 331, Intermediate Macroeconomic Theory: This course will have a new instructor in Fall 2006.

Department: Engineering Technology- Construction Management

Learning Outcomes:

  1. Knowledge of the characteristics of construction materials and processes;
  2. Competency in the use of construction management software, tools, and equipment;
  3. Understanding of management principles as applied to construction projects;
  4. Competency in oral, written, and graphic communication;
  5. Awareness of the environmental, social, and psychological principles which are important in motivating and supervising people;
  6. Critical thinking and problem solving skills necessary to compete in industry as successful managers.

Direct and Indirect Measurement:

  1. Entry Level, with a review of ACT scores, placement scores, and high school ranking, and meetings with academic advisors;
  2. Mid-program, with a pre-internship workshop, a minimum 2.5 Departmental GPA, and successful completion of upper division level courses will be considered evidence that students have accomplished and retained educational goals of the lower level classes;
  3. Exit, with a self-assessment paper, competency verified by construction internship supervisor, and the University Student Opinion Survey; and
  4. Alumni, with alumni surveys.

Results: The strengths of the program remain to be the quality of instruction. Weaknesses remain in the department’s lack of financial ability to upgrade the equipment and to add new technology. Budget constraints over the past three years have had a significant negative impact upon the program.

The department faculty generally agrees that the goals of the programs listed in our assessment plan are being met at this time. For example, during the 2004-2005 academic year, over 40 students successfully completed internships. Even in these difficult economic times, our students, because that were well prepared – better prepared than students from other universities – were able to easily obtain qualified internships in their respective fields of study.

Feedback Loop: The Department, a new program, is engaging in assessment review.

Department: Engineering Technology- Graphic Communication

Learning Outcomes:

  1. Knowledge of the characteristics of construction materials and processes;
  2. Competency in the use of construction management software, tools, and equipment;
  3. Understanding of management principles as applied to construction projects;
  4. Competency in oral, written, and graphic communication;
  5. Awareness of the environmental, social, and psychological principles which are important in motivating and supervising people;
  6. Critical thinking and problem solving skills necessary to compete in industry as successful managers.

Direct and Indirect Measurement:

  1. Entry Level, with a review of ACT scores, placement scores, and high school ranking, and meetings with academic advisors;
  2. Mid-program, with a pre-internship workshop, a minimum 2.5 Departmental GPA, and successful completion of upper division level courses will be considered evidence that students have accomplished and retained educational goals of the lower level classes;
  3. Exit, with a self-assessment paper and the University Student Opinion Survey; and
  4. Alumni, with alumni surveys.

Results: The strengths of the program remain to be the quality of instruction and the application of software and equipment used in the classrooms and labs. Weaknesses remain in the department’s lack of financial ability to upgrade some of the equipment and to add new technology. Budget constraints over the past three years have had a significant negative impact upon the program.

The department faculty generally agree that the goals of the programs listed in our assessment plan are being met at this time. For example, during the 2004-2005 academic year, over 30 students successfully completed internships. Even in these difficult economic times, our students, because they were well prepared – better prepared than students from other universities – were able to easily obtain qualified internships in their respective fields of study.

Feedback Loop: Student writing preparation has been studied, and the department is preparing to add a technical writing course, offered by the English Department, to its required core of classes.

Department: Engineering Technology- Manufacturing Engineering Technology

Learning Outcomes:

  1. Knowledge of the characteristics of construction materials and processes;
  2. Competency in the use of construction management software, tools, and equipment;
  3. Understanding of management principles as applied to construction projects;
  4. Competency in oral, written, and graphic communication;
  5. Awareness of the environmental, social, and psychological principles which are important in motivating and supervising people;
  6. Critical thinking and problem solving skills necessary to compete in industry as successful managers. 

Direct and Indirect Measurement:

  1. Entry Level, with a review of ACT scores, placement scores, and high school ranking, and meetings with academic advisors;
  2. Mid-program, with a pre-internship workshop, a minimum 2.5 Departmental GPA, and successful completion of upper division level courses will be considered evidence that students have accomplished and retained educational goals of the lower level classes;
  3. Exit, with a self-assessment paper and the University Student Opinion Survey; and
  4. Alumni, with alumni surveys.

Results: The strengths of the program remain to be the quality of instruction and the application of that instruction through the use of lab equipment. Weaknesses remain in the department’s lack of financial ability to upgrade the equipment and to add new technology. Budget constraints over the past three years have had a significant negative impact upon the program.

The department faculty generally agrees that the goals of the programs listed in our assessment plan are being met at this time. For example, during the 2004-2005 academic year, over 40 students successfully completed internships. Even in these difficult economic times, our students, because that were well prepared – better prepared than students from other universities – were able to easily obtain qualified internships in their respective fields of study.

Feedback Loop: Student writing preparation has been studied, and the department is preparing to add a technical writing course, offered by the English Department, to its required core of classes. Student problem-solving and team-building skills were improved by adding exercises in courses to develop these skills.

Department: Management

Learning Outcomes:

Students will master

  1. subject matter (planning, organizing, leading, and controlling) to therefore understand organizational systems and management of people in those systems and
  2. applied skills (communication skills, analytical reasoning/problem solving, ethics/social responsibility, research capabilities, teamwork, and technical competence) to effectively apply such knowledge.

Direct and Indirect Measurement: includes review of course syllabi, student coursework, student awards and recognition, student feedback, the CBT on-line exit survey, alumni surveys, and employer feedback.

Results: Listed grade distribution in courses where student work is assessed. Cited student awards and recognition, feedback from CBT Advisory Board, positive comments from students, and summaries of teaching evaluations.

The CBT survey of graduates: On all items pertaining to subject matter (“knowledge and understanding of . . .”) and applied skills (“improved skills in . . .”) Management students expressed some satisfaction. Average scores exceeded the scale midpoint on every item.

Results from the exit survey must be interpreted with great caution. Sample sizes are low. Results thus can be disproportionately affected by statistical outliers. Responses to open-ended questions reveal that some students reported which professors they liked and which professors they disliked than on learning outcomes.

Alumni surveys. Data are unavailable for 2005-2006.

Employer feedback. At present, the Department does not systematically gather feedback from employers. Internship evaluations from employers are overwhelmingly positive.

Feedback Loop: The departmental Assessment Committee will present the results at the first departmental meeting of the Fall semester 2006. Earlier changes due to assessment include: program assessment, curriculum development, staffing, scheduling, advising, and placement.

Department: Management- Human Resources

Learning Outcomes:

Students will master the

  1. subject matter (Staffing, Compensation, Collective Bargaining, Performance Appraisal, and Training & Development ) and
  2. applied skills (communication skills, analytical reasoning/problem solving, ethics/social responsibility, research capabilities, teamwork, and technical competence).  

Direct and Indirect Measurement: includes review of course syllabi, student coursework, student awards and recognition, student feedback, the CBT on-line exit survey, alumni surveys, and employer feedback.

Results: Listed grade distribution in courses where student work is assessed. The WIU student chapter of the Society for Human Resource Management achieved a Super Merit Award from SHRM (a professional organization of approximately 200,000 members. Although feedback is informal, comments from students are almost entirely positive.

The CBT survey of graduates: On all items pertaining to subject matter (“knowledge and understanding of . . .”) and applied skills (“improved skills in . . .”) Management students expressed some satisfaction. Average scores exceeded the scale midpoint on every item.

Results from the exit survey must be interpreted with great caution. Sample sizes are low. Results thus can be disproportionately affected by statistical outliers. Responses to open-ended questions reveal that some students reported which professors they liked and which professors they disliked than on learning outcomes.

Alumni surveys. Data are unavailable for 2005-2006.

Employer feedback. At present, the Department does not systematically gather feedback from employers.

Feedback Loop: The departmental Assessment Committee will present the results at the first departmental meeting of the Fall semester 2006. Earlier changes due to assessment include: program assessment, curriculum development, staffing, scheduling, advising, and placement.

Department: Marketing and Finance- Bachelor of Business- Finance

Learning Outcomes:

The student should understand and be able to implement

  1. the concept of the time value of money;
  2. concepts related to corporate finance;
  3. concepts related to real estate;
  4. concepts related to financial institutions;
  5. concepts related to risk management;
  6. concepts related to personal finance;
  7. related to investments.

Direct and Indirect Measurement: Annual use of focus groups with graduating senior majors to determine degree of preparation in core skills areas. Periodic use of standardized assessment instruments to assess content area knowledge. Periodic follow-up surveys, administered by the university, concerning satisfaction levels of graduates.

A focus group was held with twenty-three students currently enrolled in FIN 441 Bank Marketing on May 3, 2006. Students were led in a discussion of the following areas: oral communications, written communications, analytical reasoning, teamwork, computing skills, international issues, experiential learning, and teaching. For each area, students were asked to address the importance of the area and how well the CBT has prepared them in each area.

Results: Satisfaction levels among Finance majors towards the CBT showed improvement from the levels reported in 2004-05. Strengths of the CBT cited by students include knowledge, helpfulness and accessibility of faculty; emphasis on teams; analytic reasoning development; and development of written communication skills.

Overall Grade: As in previous years, students were asked to give the CBT an overall grade, ranging from an A to an F, where A=4, A-/B+ = 3.5, B=3, B-/C+ = 2.5, C=2, C-/D+=1.5, D=1, F=0. The CBT grade has generally declined from 1999-2000 to the 2002-03 year, where it has leveled off over the past three years. (The 1999-2001 grades is less “stable,” since it is based on the responses of ten students or less.) The CBT grade has shown improvement during the 2004-06 period.

Of the major specific goals, overwhelmingly, students feel confident in their understanding of this objective and their ability to implement it in workplace decisions, but were more divided on being able to understand and implement concepts related to corporate finance. Finance focus group participants indicated that they felt adequately prepared in the area of real estate as it applies to finance. Students felt very well prepared for understanding and implementing concepts related to financial institutions. Students in the focus group had considerable praise for the depth of instruction in FIN 351. All 23 Finance majors indicated they were confident they could be successful on this goal. Students characterized their ability to understand and implement concepts related to investments as “adequate.”

Feedback Loop: Likely changes are as follows: Encouragement of faculty to include the quality of student writing and presentations as a portion of the grade, in addition to the content of writing and presentations. CS 101 is being dropped from the Business Core and CS 302 is being added, with instruction to focus on Microsoft Access and Excel, two packages sought by FIN majors. Changes enacted with the 2006-07 catalog will allow students to pursue an additional 400-level directed elective in the area of corporate finance. In additional, internships will now be counted towards as directed electives, which should encourage students to deepen knowledge in corporate finance through hands on learning applications.

Changes as a result of previous assessment data: Addition of an additional section of MKTG 335, replacement of CS 101 in the business core with CS 302, removal of OM 352 from the business core, and removal of SCM 211 from the department core courses, allowing internships to count towards major requirements.

Department: Marketing and Finance- Bachelor of Business-Supply Chain Management

Learning Outcomes:

  1. The student should be able to efficiently purchase, sell and schedule transportation services;
  2. The student should understand and be able to understand and implement purchasing/supply management functions;
  3. The student should understand and be able to manage inventory control processes.

Direct and Indirect Measurement: Annual use of focus groups with graduating senior majors to determine degree of preparation in core skills areas. Periodic use of standardized assessment instruments to assess content area knowledge. Periodic follow-up surveys, administered by the university, concerning satisfaction levels of graduates.

A focus group was held with eleven students currently enrolled in SCM 411 Global Supply Chain Management on April 18, 2006. Students were led in a discussion of the following areas: oral communications, written communications, analytical reasoning, teamwork, computing skills, international issues, experiential learning, and teaching. For each area, students were asked to address the importance of the area and how well the CBT has prepared them in each area.

Results: Strengths of the SCM major include preparation in the area of transportation services and the overall rigor of the program. Students expressed a desire for more depth in their preparation in the areas of purchasing/supply management and inventory control.

Overall Grade: SCM students were asked to give the CBT and the program each an overall grade, ranging from an A to an F, where A=4, A-/B+ = 3.5, B=3, B-/C+ = 2.5, C=2, C-/D+=1.5, D=1, F=0. GPA = 3/3.545

Students were overwhelmingly positive about their ability to efficiently purchase, sell and schedule transportation services. Students indicated they generally did not feel prepared in the area of purchasing and supply management. Students recognize the importance of being able to manage an inventory control process, and they perceive they have some preparation in this area. However, the current level of preparation lacks the depth that students feel is necessary to achieve the goal. Overall, Supply Chain Management (SCM) students are satisfied with their experience within the CBT and the SCM program.

Feedback Loop: Since SCM was initiated as a separate program beginning in the 2005-06 academic year, there was no 2004-05 assessment of student learning.