University of Nebraska Kearney

Management Assessment Report 2006

Submitted Fall, 2006

Direct Measure 1                2  

The learning outcomes 1, 6, and 7 are assessed in the Major Field Test in Business from the Educational Testing Service taken by all students in the capstone course BMGT495, Administrative Strategy and Policy.

Management students continue to score in the 70 and 80 percentiles in Management.  However, in other areas, they do not do as well.  There is inconsistency each semester in areas such as Legal and Social Environment, Finance, and Economics.  In Accounting, though, Management students seem to be increasing in their ability, but the percentile is still very low.  There is very little retention of Accounting knowledge between their sophomore year when the two courses are usually taken and their senior year.

Direct Measure 2              2

Also in the BMGT495 capstone course, the following outcomes are assessed.

Spring BMGT495 Assessment

Administrative Strategy and Policy 

2     Revised assessment rubrics for written and oral communication available through the Management Department=s website were used to assess a random sample of student groups.  The ad hoc Assessment Committee for Business (ACB) reviewed four student group papers and four presentations. The revised rubrics included a Critical Thinking item for both oral and written communication skills.  All other items were the same as those used for the Summer 2005 assessment.  Comparison of the results of these items to the past report can be made.  However, any parametric statistical analysis would not meet proper test assumptions.

Oral Presentations: 

3     The ratings of the ACB for each item for oral presentation skills were, for the overall average, above Satisfactory.  However some of the group averages were below Satisfactory in these areas: Speaking Conventions and Integration of Functional Areas.  Appearance had the highest overall ratings in terms of means or medians.  Most group means were Satisfactory to Good in their Content, Organization, Analysis, Technology, Disciplinary Characteristics, and Critical Thinking skills.

Written Communication: 

3      None of the papers rated an overall average of Good for any item.  For all items except Organization, at least one of the papers was considered by one or more raters to Need Improvement.  Appearance has the highest overall average and the highest percentage of Good/Exemplary rating.

Ratings:  3 = Exemplary, 2 = Good, 1 = Satisfactory, 0 = Needs Improvement, NA - Not Applicable

Oral Presentations: 

Written Communication:
3 

4Conclusions: Written and oral overall averages are all lower for each item than those reported for summer of 2005 except for Appearance.  However, the declines may not be statistically significant.  Analysis and Writing/Speaking Conventions were the lowest for the past sample and, along with Integration (Written and Oral) and Critical Thinking (Written), are low for these groups, too.  For this data, although individual raters might give an Exemplary rating (3) for individual rubric items, no paper or presentation was considered to be at the three level.  A future goal for our students would be to move from Satisfactory-Good to Good-Exemplary and eliminate the Needs Improvement ratings.

Direct Measure 3      2

In the Spring 2006 Management capstone course, BMGT485, Seminar in Human Resource Management, outcome 5 is assessed.  Prior assessment of students in this course occurred in 2004.  The rubric has been revised two times since then.  In one revision, rating was made less cumbersome and, in the second, a Critical Thinking item (outcome 6) was added.  Therefore, comparison of numbers to those from the past report should not be made.

The following results used these ratings: 3 - Exemplary, 2 - Good, 1 - Satisfactory, 0 - Needs Improvement, NA - Not Applicable

3
Three faculty members rated five papers randomly selected from two classes. The first column of numbers is the average rating of each rubric item.  The second column is the range of averages for the papers.  Only one paper received an average of Agood@ for any item and overall, the highest average rating (1.60) is in the same area - Disciplinary Characteristics.  Students, on the average, meet or exceed Satisfactory in Content, Organization, Disciplinary Characteristics, Integration, and Appearance.  However, the means for Analysis, Writing Conventions and Critical Thinking are not at the Satisfactory level.  As the range of means for each item indicates, some of the papers were at the Needs Improvement level or less than Satisfactory for Organization, Analysis, Writing Conventions, Critical Thinking, and Appearance.  The assessment panel, from their ratings, agree that these papers covered a range of abilities, but none of the papers could be classified as overall Good or Exemplary. 

3 

Indirect Measure       2

Senior Skill Competencies Self-Assessment

This measure is currently being revised by the College of Business and Technology.

Major Field Test - Direct Measure 1        4

Spring/Summer 05 and Fall 05 ETS testing were done by paper.  In the spring, students were able to take the test online and get their scores immediately.  Management students do well in their area, but do poorly in Accounting, International Issues and other areas.  Until students are convinced that other business areas are important to their success as managers, they will not try to retain that knowledge.  In order to have students be more serious with their test taking, some suggestions have been made.  One would be to have the score become a part of their course grade and another would be to have a “passing score” in order to graduate.

Learning Outcome 1.  Students will be able to demonstrate a working knowledge of basic management theory. 

This outcome is assessed with this tool and students are in the upper15-20 percentile.
Learning Outcomes 6 and 7.  Students will show competency in critical thinking.  Students will show problem-solving skills.

There is a section on Quantitative Business Analysis which measures problem calculation solving but a specific critical thinking item was added to the Direct Measure 2 to assess that.

Direct Measure 2        4

A new item was added to the oral and written communication rubrics.  It describes critical thinking skills.

Learning Outcome 2.  Students will have the ability to integrate concepts of other business disciplines with management.

Although the last report suggested that students were able to integrate concepts both orally and also in their writing, this sample from spring 2006 scored low in this area on the average.  However, the decrease might not be significant. 

Learning Outcome 3.  Students will be able to work effectively in teams.

Although students work as a team in the oral presentation and the written paper, the rubric does not include an item to address this.  The students are required to divide the presentations into parts and each delivers his/her section.  Written work is not designated by student, but the “flow” of papers is an indication of teamwork.

Learning Outcomes 4 and 5.  Students will show competency in oral communications.  Students will show competency in written communications.  

Results of this year were compared to last year and in every area but appearance, the overall averages were lower.  This is a concern, but may just be a result of the random sample.

Learning Outcome 6.  Students will show competency in critical thinking.

According to the raters, students are only scoring less than Good (between Satisfactory and Good) in their critical thinking skills in speaking and writing.

Learning Outcome 8.  Students will demonstrate ability to use technology.

Students continue to have an overall average rating of Good in technology use.

Direct Measure 3        2

The new rubrics for written communication take less time and are easier to tabulate.

1  Learning Outcome 5.  Students will show competency in written communications.

4,5 The overall averages for the written rubric items were low.  They cannot be compared to past results since the rubric has been revised, but the message is that there needs to be improvement in almost every area.

Indirect Measure       2

3  The College of Business and Technology is revising this assessment and has no reports yet.

Business Students Assessment        7

Each department continues to write up separate reports that include “business” student assessments.  Until one person or entity becomes responsible for business assessment and its overall report, we will be “double reporting” and being very inefficient.

Changed and Future Assessment Plans         5,6,7

1. A specific rotating assessment plan within the department that involves all Management faculty and details the description of assessment duties was drawn up.
2. Further review and possible change of the Management assessment mission, learning outcomes and plan should be studied.
3. Update oral and written rubrics related to new mission/outcomes/plan.