Business School Program Assessment

Fall of 2024

A total of 21 faculty members submitted reports covering 47 sections across 34 courses. Of these, 11 sections were excluded as they did not report numeric class averages. Class average scores in percentages, ranging from 0 to 100, were derived from the remaining reports. Additionally, when feasible, class average scores were reasonably estimated for each Student Learning Outcome. Course Section XX indicate multiple sections. Some faculty members reported average scores aggregated across the various sections they taught.

A total of 253 Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs) were assessed across 47 sections in 34 courses. Among these, class averages were directly reported for 82 SLOs, estimated for 87, and excluded for 84.

Assess Courses by SLO

[[1]]


[[2]]


[[3]]


[[4]]


[[5]]


[[6]]


[[7]]


[[8]]


[[9]]


[[10]]


[[11]]


[[12]]


[[13]]


[[14]]


[[15]]


[[16]]


[[17]]


[[18]]


[[19]]


[[20]]


[[21]]


[[22]]


[[23]]


[[24]]


[[25]]


[[26]]


[[27]]


[[28]]


[[29]]


[[30]]

Actions Items by SLO by Course

How class averages were estimated

Cleaning faculty-reported results was crucial for accurate analysis. While efforts were made to retain as many data points as possible, some were excluded. The data cleaning process involved the following steps:

Reports Exclusion Criteria:

  • Reports were removed under the following conditions:
    • Numeric values were not provided (e.g., descriptions such as “Increased scores”).
    • Scores were absent (e.g., statements like “96% passed the exam,” or “90% completed the assignment”).
    • Data was submitted in an incompatible format, such as MS Word files instead of the Excel spreadsheet template.

Handling Class Average Scores:

  • Class averages were processed using the following methods:

    • Extracted directly from the “results” column if class averages were explicitly reported.
    • Estimated when partial averages were provided (e.g., “80% of students passed with scores above 80%”):
      • If multiple scores were reported for different assignments, simple averages were calculated.
      • For single evaluation metrics reported for the class rather than individual Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs), the metric was applied uniformly to each SLO.
      • For percentages above a threshold:
        • The lowest definitive score was assigned as the minimum (e.g., “100% of students passed with scores over 65%,” set at 65%).
        • A median score was assigned to non-reported students (e.g., “87% of students achieved scores above 80%,” resulted in assigning 40% to the remaining 13%).

Suggestions for Next Round

  • Standard File Name: Adopt a consistent file naming convention: CourseAssessment_LastName_FirstName_CourseNumber_SectionNumber_Year_Semester (e.g., CourseAssessment_Lee_Daniel_DAT3000_01_2024_Fall)
  • Standard File Format: Ensure all faculty submit the designated Excel file, not Word files.
  • Student Learning Outcomes (SLO): Ensure all faculty include student learning outcomes, which should be identical across sections within the same course, and class average per SLO in their submissions. A few faculty didn’t have SLO’s, didn’t use standard SLOs across sections within the same course, or didn’t report class average score per SLO.
  • Evaluation Metrics: Standardize the reporting metric across all submissions. The “Class Average” should be presented as a percentage, within a range of 0 to 100. Separate the “Results” column into two columns: Class Average (%) and Notes.