Annual Assessment Report to the College 2009-2010
College: COBAE
*Department(s) which contributed assessment data for this report: Finance, Management, Marketing, and Systems and Operations
Management and Department(s) where relevant options are held: Business Law, Finance, Marketing, and Systems and Operations
Management.
Program: B.S. in Business Administration
Note: Please submit report to your department chair or program coordinator and to the Associate Dean of your College by September 30, 2010.
You may submit a separate report for each program which conducted assessment activities.
Liaison: Leah Marcal
1. Overview of Annual Assessment Project(s)
1a. Assessment Process Overview: Provide a brief overview of the intended plan to assess the program this year. Is assessment under the
oversight of one person or a committee?
Every year COBAE assesses its program learning goals with embedded and stand-alone measures in upper-division core courses. In general,
program assessment activities are coordinated by the College Assessment Director. Faculty members teaching core courses design and collect
course embedded measures. All assessment results are distributed to and reviewed by three committees: (1) Administrative Council; (2)
Curriculum Review and Policy Committee, and (3) Strategic Planning. This year, all nine program learning goals were directly assessed with
course embedded measures in all five upper-division core courses.
1b. Implementation and Modifications: Did the actual assessment process deviate from what was intended? If so, please describe any
modification to your assessment process and why it occurred.
There were no unplanned modifications.
2. Student Learning Outcome Assessment Project: Answer questions according to the individual SLO assessed this year. If you assessed an
additional SLO, report in the next chart below.
March 30, 2009, prepared by Bonnie Paller
2a. Which Student Learning Outcome was measured this year?
Strong written and oral communication skills
2b. What assessment instrument(s) were used to measure this SLO?
BUS 302 (fall only): Students’ writing skills were assessed with a business ethics case and students’ oral presentations skills were assessed with a
formal presentation of a business case.
MKT 304 (fall only): Students’ writing skills were assessed with a full strategic marketing plan.
SOM 306: Case analysis or essay exam questions were used to assess students’ ability to clearly communicate and interpret results from
operations management problems.
2c. Describe the participants sampled to assess this SLO: discuss sample/participant and population size for this SLO. For example, what type of
students, which courses, how decisions were made to include certain participants.
BUS 302: The work of 412 students in 14 class sections was assessed in fall.
MKT 304: Random sampling was used so that every fifth report was assessed. A total of 44 reports were assessed.
SOM 306: The work of 836 (734) students was assessed in fall (spring).
2d. Describe the assessment design methodology: For example, was this SLO assessed longitudinally (same students at different points) or was
a cross-sectional comparison used (comparing freshmen with seniors)? If so, describe the assessment points used.
Cross-sectional samples which provide a snapshot of the student population, at one point in time.
2e. Assessment Results & Analysis of this SLO: Provide a summary of how the data were analyzed and highlight important findings from the
data collected.
BUS 302: Some 41% of the students’ writing was deemed very good, 41% was deemed good enough, and 19% was deemed not good enough.
Additionally, 83% of the students’ oral presentations were deemed very good, 16% were deemed good enough, and only 1% were deemed not
good enough.
March 30, 2009, prepared by Bonnie Paller
MKT 304: Some 14% of the students’ writing was deemed outstanding or good, 73% was deemed acceptable, and 14% was deemed
unacceptable.
SOM 306: Some 88% (81%) of students in fall (spring) demonstrated good or very good writing skills; while 12% (19%) demonstrated writing
skills that were considered not good enough.
2f. Use of Assessment Results of this SLO: Think about all the different ways the results were or will be used. For example, to recommend
changes to course content/topics covered, course sequence, addition/deletion of courses in program, student support services, revisions to
program SLO’s, assessment instruments, academic programmatic changes, assessment plan changes, etc. Please provide a clear and detailed
description of how the assessment results were or will be used.
None this year.
Some programs assess multiple SLOs each year. If your program assessed an additional SLO, report the process for that individual SLO below. If
you need additional SLO charts, please cut & paste the empty chart as many times as needed. If you did NOT assess another SLO, skip this
section.
2a. Which Student Learning Outcome was measured this year?
Strong problem solving skills
2b. What assessment instrument(s) were used to measure this SLO?
FIN 303: Multiple-choice exam questions were used to assess students’ knowledge of investment decisions, finance decisions, and the use of
financial data. All questions require students to have strong problem solving skills.
MKT 304 (fall only): Students’ problem solving skills were assessed with a full strategic marketing plan.
SOM 306: Students’ problem solving skills were assessed with case analyses, computer projects, and exam questions.
2c. Describe the participants sampled to assess this SLO: discuss sample/participant and population size for this SLO. For example, what type of
students, which courses, how decisions were made to include certain participants.
FIN 303: The work of 598 (460) students was assessed in fall (spring).
March 30, 2009, prepared by Bonnie Paller
MKT 304: Random sampling was used so that every fifth report was assessed. A total of 44 reports were assessed.
SOM 306: The work of 836 (734) students was assessed in fall (spring).
2d. Describe the assessment design methodology: Was this SLO assessed longitudinally (same students at different points) or was a crosssectional comparison used (comparing freshmen with seniors)? If so, describe the assessment points used.
Cross-sectional samples which provide a snapshot of the student population, at one point in time.
2e. Assessment Results & Analysis of this SLO: Provide a summary of how the data were analyzed and highlight important findings from the
data collected.
FIN 303: 73% to 84% of students correctly solved three different types of finance problems. However, only 70% correctly answered questions
covering financial markets and institutions in fall; and only 70% correctly answered questions covering capital structure in spring.
MKT 304: Some 7% of the students’ problem solving was deemed outstanding or good, 77% was deemed acceptable, and 16% was deemed
unacceptable.
SOM 306: 84% (75%) of students in fall (spring) showed good enough or very good problem solving skills when analyzing operations problems.
2f. Use of Assessment Results of this SLO: Think about all the different ways the results were (or could be) used. For example, to recommend
changes to course content/topics covered, course sequence, addition/deletion of courses in program, student support services, revisions to
program SLO’s, assessment instruments, academic programmatic changes, assessment plan changes, etc. Please provide a clear and detailed
description of each.
None this year.
2a. Which Student Learning Outcome was measured this year?
Strong critical thinking skills
2b. What assessment instrument(s) were used to measure this SLO?
BUS 302 (fall only): Students’ critical thinking skills were assessed with business case analysis.
March 30, 2009, prepared by Bonnie Paller
MKT 304 (fall only): Students’ critical thinking skills were assessed with a full strategic marketing plan.
2c. Describe the participants sampled to assess this SLO: discuss sample/participant and population size for this SLO. For example, what type of
students, which courses, how decisions were made to include certain participants.
BUS 302: The work of 412 students in 14 class sections was assessed in fall.
MKT 304: Random sampling was used so that every fifth report was assessed. A total of 44 reports were assessed.
2d. Describe the assessment design methodology: Was this SLO assessed longitudinally (same students at different points) or was a crosssectional comparison used (comparing freshmen with seniors)? If so, describe the assessment points used.
Cross-sectional samples which provide a snapshot of the student population, at one point in time.
2e. Assessment Results & Analysis of this SLO: Provide a summary of how the data were analyzed and highlight important findings from the
data collected.
BUS 302: 91% of students showed good enough or very good critical thinking skills in their written case analysis.
MKT 304: Some 9% of the students’ critical thinking was deemed outstanding or good, 71% was deemed acceptable, and 21% was deemed
unacceptable.
2f. Use of Assessment Results of this SLO: Think about all the different ways the results were (or could be) used. For example, to recommend
changes to course content/topics covered, course sequence, addition/deletion of courses in program, student support services, revisions to
program SLO’s, assessment instruments, academic programmatic changes, assessment plan changes, etc. Please provide a clear and detailed
description of each.
None this year.
2a. Which Student Learning Outcome was measured this year?
Understanding of ethics and social responsibility
March 30, 2009, prepared by Bonnie Paller
2b. What assessment instrument(s) were used to measure this SLO?
BUS 302 (fall only): Analysis of an ethics case covered students’ understanding of ethics.
FIN 303: Multiple-choice exam questions covered students’ knowledge of financial ethics and regulatory requirements.
MGT 360 (spring only): Multiple-choice exam questions covered students’ knowledge of ethics.
2c. Describe the participants sampled to assess this SLO: discuss sample/participant and population size for this SLO. For example, what type of
students, which courses, how decisions were made to include certain participants.
BUS 302: The work of 412 students in 14 class sections was assessed in fall.
FIN 303: The work of 598 (460) students was assessed in fall (spring).
MGT 360: The work of approximately 600 students in five class sections was assessed in spring.
2d. Describe the assessment design methodology: Was this SLO assessed longitudinally (same students at different points) or was a crosssectional comparison used (comparing freshmen with seniors)? If so, describe the assessment points used.
Cross-sectional samples which provide a snapshot of the student population, at one point in time.
2e. Assessment Results & Analysis of this SLO: Provide a summary of how the data were analyzed and highlight important findings from the
data collected.
BUS 302: 91% of students demonstrate good enough or very good understanding of ethics in written case analysis.
FIN 303: Some 88% (91%) of students correctly answered questions covering financial ethics in fall (spring).
MGT 360: 65% of students correctly answered questions on ethics.
2f. Use of Assessment Results of this SLO: Think about all the different ways the results were (or could be) used. For example, to recommend
changes to course content/topics covered, course sequence, addition/deletion of courses in program, student support services, revisions to
March 30, 2009, prepared by Bonnie Paller
program SLO’s, assessment instruments, academic programmatic changes, assessment plan changes, etc. Please provide a clear and detailed
description of each.
None this year.
2a. Which Student Learning Outcome was measured this year?
Strong information technology skills
2b. What assessment instrument(s) were used to measure this SLO?
ETS-MFT (spring only): Questions covering information systems on the ETS Major Field Test in Business.
SOM 306: Students’ information technology skills were assessed with case analyses, computer projects, and exam questions.
2c. Describe the participants sampled to assess this SLO: discuss sample/participant and population size for this SLO. For example, what type of
students, which courses, how decisions were made to include certain participants.
ETS-MFT: 60 students in two sections of the capstone class (i.e., MGT 497).
SOM 306: The work of 836 (734) students was assessed in fall (spring).
2d. Describe the assessment design methodology: Was this SLO assessed longitudinally (same students at different points) or was a crosssectional comparison used (comparing freshmen with seniors)? If so, describe the assessment points used.
Cross-sectional samples which provide a snapshot of the student population, at one point in time.
2e. Assessment Results & Analysis of this SLO: Provide a summary of how the data were analyzed and highlight important findings from the
data collected.
ETS-MFT: Capstone students correctly answered 56% of the information systems questions.
SOM 306: 84% (75%) of students in fall (spring) were successful in using technology to solve operations problems.
2f. Use of Assessment Results of this SLO: Think about all the different ways the results were (or could be) used. For example, to recommend
changes to course content/topics covered, course sequence, addition/deletion of courses in program, student support services, revisions to
March 30, 2009, prepared by Bonnie Paller
program SLO’s, assessment instruments, academic programmatic changes, assessment plan changes, etc. Please provide a clear and detailed
description of each.
None this year.
2a. Which Student Learning Outcome was measured this year?
Work effectively in teams
2b. What assessment instrument(s) were used to measure this SLO?
MGT 360: Multiple-choice exam questions covered students’ knowledge of teams.
2c. Describe the participants sampled to assess this SLO: discuss sample/participant and population size for this SLO. For example, what type of
students, which courses, how decisions were made to include certain participants.
MGT 360: The work of approximately 600 students in five class sections was assessed in spring.
2d. Describe the assessment design methodology: Was this SLO assessed longitudinally (same students at different points) or was a crosssectional comparison used (comparing freshmen with seniors)? If so, describe the assessment points used.
Cross-sectional samples which provide a snapshot of the student population, at one point in time.
2e. Assessment Results & Analysis of this SLO: Provide a summary of how the data were analyzed and highlight important findings from the
data collected.
MGT 360: 60% of the students correctly answered questions on teams.
2f. Use of Assessment Results of this SLO: Think about all the different ways the results were (or could be) used. For example, to recommend
changes to course content/topics covered, course sequence, addition/deletion of courses in program, student support services, revisions to
program SLO’s, assessment instruments, academic programmatic changes, assessment plan changes, etc. Please provide a clear and detailed
description of each.
The BUS 302 coordinator is working to implement a new online program for BUS 302 students to evaluate their teammates on each class
project.
March 30, 2009, prepared by Bonnie Paller
2a. Which Student Learning Outcome was measured this year?
Global context of business
2b. What assessment instrument(s) were used to measure this SLO?
ETS-MFT (spring only): Questions covering international issues on the ETS Major Field Test in Business.
2c. Describe the participants sampled to assess this SLO: discuss sample/participant and population size for this SLO. For example, what type of
students, which courses, how decisions were made to include certain participants.
ETS-MFT: 60 students in two sections of the capstone class (i.e., MGT 497).
2d. Describe the assessment design methodology: Was this SLO assessed longitudinally (same students at different points) or was a crosssectional comparison used (comparing freshmen with seniors)? If so, describe the assessment points used.
Cross-sectional samples which provide a snapshot of the student population, at one point in time.
2e. Assessment Results & Analysis of this SLO: Provide a summary of how the data were analyzed and highlight important findings from the
data collected.
ETS-MFT: Capstone students correctly answered 52% of questions covering international issues.
2f. Use of Assessment Results of this SLO: Think about all the different ways the results were (or could be) used. For example, to recommend
changes to course content/topics covered, course sequence, addition/deletion of courses in program, student support services, revisions to
program SLO’s, assessment instruments, academic programmatic changes, assessment plan changes, etc. Please provide a clear and detailed
description of each.
None this year.
March 30, 2009, prepared by Bonnie Paller
2a. Which Student Learning Outcome was measured this year?
Cross functional and interdisciplinary nature of business problems
2b. What assessment instrument(s) were used to measure this SLO?
BUS 302 (fall only): Students’ understanding of the cross functional and interdisciplinary nature of business problems was assessed with business
case analysis.
2c. Describe the participants sampled to assess this SLO: discuss sample/participant and population size for this SLO. For example, what type of
students, which courses, how decisions were made to include certain participants.
BUS 302: The work of 412 students in 14 class sections was assessed in fall.
2d. Describe the assessment design methodology: Was this SLO assessed longitudinally (same students at different points) or was a crosssectional comparison used (comparing freshmen with seniors)? If so, describe the assessment points used.
Cross-sectional samples which provide a snapshot of the student population, at one point in time.
2e. Assessment Results & Analysis of this SLO: Provide a summary of how the data were analyzed and highlight important findings from the
data collected.
BUS 302: 91% of students showed strong ability to consider multiple disciplines in their written case analysis.
2f. Use of Assessment Results of this SLO: Think about all the different ways the results were (or could be) used. For example, to recommend
changes to course content/topics covered, course sequence, addition/deletion of courses in program, student support services, revisions to
program SLO’s, assessment instruments, academic programmatic changes, assessment plan changes, etc. Please provide a clear and detailed
description of each.
None this year.
March 30, 2009, prepared by Bonnie Paller
2a. Which Student Learning Outcome was measured this year?
Understand and apply basic business concepts
2b. What assessment instrument(s) were used to measure this SLO?
ETS-MFT (spring only): Questions covering finance, marketing, and management on the ETS Major Field Test in Business.
BUS 302L (spring only): Students take a multiple-choice exam in each of the six lower-division core business subjects: financial and managerial
accounting; business law; micro and macroeconomics; and statistics. Students must score a minimum of 50% on each exam to pass BUS 302L
and they have three opportunities to take each exam.
FIN 303: Multiple-choice exam questions were used to assess students’ knowledge of investment decisions, finance decisions, and the use of
financial data.
MKT 304 (fall only): Students’ knowledge and application of key marketing principles were assessed with a full strategic marketing plan.
SOM 306: Students’ knowledge of basic operations management concepts was assessed with exam questions.
2c. Describe the participants sampled to assess this SLO: discuss sample/participant and population size for this SLO. For example, what type of
students, which courses, how decisions were made to include certain participants.
ETS-MFT: 60 students in two sections of the capstone class (i.e., MGT 497).
BUS 302L: The highest score on each exam of all 675 enrolled students was assessed in spring.
FIN 303: The work of 598 (460) students was assessed in fall (spring).
MKT 304: Random sampling was used so that every fifth report was assessed. A total of 44 reports were assessed.
SOM 306: The work of 836 (734) students was assessed in fall (spring).
March 30, 2009, prepared by Bonnie Paller
2d. Describe the assessment design methodology: Was this SLO assessed longitudinally (same students at different points) or was a crosssectional comparison used (comparing freshmen with seniors)? If so, describe the assessment points used.
Cross-sectional samples which provide a snapshot of the student population, at one point in time.
2e. Assessment Results & Analysis of this SLO: Provide a summary of how the data were analyzed and highlight important findings from the
data collected.
ETS-MFT: Capstone students correctly answered 57% of finance questions; 50% of marketing questions; and 54% of management questions.
BUS 302L: Significant improvement is seen in student performance on all six 302L exams with failure rates in accounting and statistics falling
below 8%. Even lower failure rates are seen in business law and economics (less than 2% and 6% respectively).
FIN 303: 73% to 84% of students correctly answered questions covering investment decisions, finance decisions, and the use of financial data.
MKT 304: 93% of students’ marketing knowledge was acceptable, good, or outstanding.
SOM 306: 74% (71%) of students in fall (spring) demonstrated good enough or very good knowledge of operations management concepts.
2f. Use of Assessment Results of this SLO: Think about all the different ways the results were (or could be) used. For example, to recommend
changes to course content/topics covered, course sequence, addition/deletion of courses in program, student support services, revisions to
program SLO’s, assessment instruments, academic programmatic changes, assessment plan changes, etc. Please provide a clear and detailed
description of each.
None this year.
3. How do your assessment activities connect with your program’s strategic plan?
Assessment is an integral part of our College mission --to provide high quality education.
March 30, 2009, prepared by Bonnie Paller
4. Overall, if this year’s program assessment evidence indicates that new resources are needed in order to improve and support student
learning, please discuss here.
Teaching students to write well requires that they have numerous opportunities to write and receive meaningful feedback from instructors.
Given that most of our upper-division core courses are taught in large lecture halls with 130 to 160 students, faculty are reluctant to assign (and
assess) written work. Thus, it would be helpful to assign teaching assistants to faculty who teach such large sections.
5. Other information, assessment or reflective activities not captured above.
The Associate Dean’s Office conducted a survey in May 2010 to learn about the educational experiences and employment prospects of COBAE
graduates. Some 481 graduates completed the online survey for a response rate of approximately 30%. Roughly 70 percent of respondents
graduated with degrees in finance, management, or marketing. Roughly 18 percent of all respondents earned an additional major or minor.
Almost 60 percent worked 20 or more hours per week, and consequently, nearly half completed 12 or fewer units during a typical semester.
Roughly 70 percent have plans to attend graduate or professional school, but only 7 percent have actually applied.
Only 7 percent reported working directly with faculty. Some 16 percent received a scholarship while at CSUN. And 35 percent participated in
student organizations on campus.
Roughly 40 percent did not use on-campus services to search for internships and employment. However, just over half of all respondents
completed an internship. Of those who completed internships, half indicated that it had a positive impact on their employment opportunities. In
open-ended comments, several respondents stated that internships were very helpful and should be required of all students.
Two-thirds of the respondents are employed (in either part-time or full-time jobs) and one-third are not employed. One-third of employed
respondents have full-time jobs. A statistical comparison across majors reveals that accounting respondents have significantly higher rates of
full-time employment (i.e., 56 percent).
Under half (45 percent) of all respondents have jobs (either part-time or full-time) that are related to their degree; and there are no statistically
significant differences across majors. Respondents hold jobs in a wide variety of industries with finance, insurance, and real estate; wholesale
and retail trade; business and other services; and educational services comprising two-thirds of their employment.
March 30, 2009, prepared by Bonnie Paller
Almost 60 percent of respondents’ gross annual wages (in part-time or full-time jobs) fall between $20,000 and $60,000. A statistical comparison
of fully employed respondents’ annual wages across four majors suggests that accounting graduates earn significantly more than marketing and
management graduates.
Of the 13 percent of respondents who provided open-ended comments, 39 percent were very positive regarding their educational experience at
CSUN.
6. Has someone in your program completed, submitted or published a manuscript which uses or describes assessment activities in your
program? Please provide citation or discuss.
None this year.
March 30, 2009, prepared by Bonnie Paller