Bachelors of Science in Management (ACBSP Self-Study Year ... · Bachelors of Science in Management (ACBSP Self-Study Year 2015-16) Prepared by Bai 09/2016 . Performance Indicator

Bachelors of Science in Management (ACBSP Self-Study Year 2015-16)

Prepared by Bai 09/2016

Performance Indicator Program Description BAMG 356 Human Resources Management SLO #1 Understand and analyze the components of the HRM function in a domestic as well as global context. SLO #2 Demonstrate an understanding of fundamental HRM strategies and utilize them to analyze case studies. SLO #5 Synthesize sound HRM techniques for application in the workplace. BSM Program Learning Objectives PLO #1 Explain fundamental management theories and concepts. PLO #4 Address complex management issues using effective oral and written communication. PLO#5 Identify, analyze and solve management problems using skills acquired in the program.

The Bachelor of Science in Management (BSM) offers students a well-rounded educational experience that focuses on the development of management and leadership skills. The core of the Management program provides students with a conceptual foundation on managing and leading people and organizations; it also emphasizes demonstrable communication skills that help students evolve as managers and leaders in the future. Stduents have the opportunity to relate classroom experience to their current jobs and apply their new knowledge. The program culminates in the development and presentation of a capstone paper. Program Learning Objectives (PLO’s) and Student Learning Outcomes(SLO’s) are assessed as follows:

• Direct – Assessing student performance by administering [Exams] [Essays] and [Presentations].

• Formative- Assessment is conducted during the students’ enrollment in an eight week course with [insert exam, essays, etc.] being administered towards the last class session.

• Internal- SLO’s are derived from the BSM Program Outcomes and delineated in the course syllabus.

Analysis of Results Performance Measure Measureable Goal What is your goal

What is your measurement Instrument or process? (indicate Length of cycle)

Current Results What are your current results?

Analysis of results What did you learn from the results

Action Taken or Improvement made What did you improve or what is your next step

Insert Graphs or Tables of Resulting Trends

Average assessment results will equal or exceed 70% of

Final paper, internally administered in an 8-week course.

Fall 2 2015 -8 sections -66 students

The overall results of two terms show that around 76% of

Conversations with the instructors who taught the course are needed in

learning objectives. completing assessment -62 students meeting or exceeding benchmark -94% Spring 2 2016 -4 sections -30 students completing assessment -17 meeting or exceeding benchmark -57%

students have met or exceeded the benchmark. The first term Fall 2 has extremely high score, which might be due to the first time of applying the assessment rubric. Evaluators might not have a good understanding of how to apply the assessment rubric. The low score at San Diego of Spring 2 is most likely due to the small sample size where 1 out of 3 students met or exceeded the benchmark. Another reason for the variation across different locations might be the lack of calibration.

order to find the reason behind the extremely low score and the reason of the variations across different locations. In addition, calibration practice is needed in order to develop the same standard for assessment. Continue to collect data to enlarge the sample size in order to have a better trend analysis.

FALL 2 TERM

SPRING 2 TERM

OVERALL RESULTS

Average assessment results will equal or exceed 70% of learning objectives.

Final presentation, internally administered in an 8-week course.

Fall 2 2015 -8 sections -63 students completing assessment -63 students meeting or exceeding benchmark -100% Spring 2 2016 -3 sections -15 students completing assessment -12 meeting or exceeding benchmark -80%

The overall results of two terms show that around 90% of students have met or exceeded the benchmark.

No further action needed at this time. Continue to collect data to have a better trend analysis.

FALL 2 TERM

SPRING 2 TERM

OVERALL RESULTS


Prepared by Bergevin 09/2016

Performance Indicator Program Description BAMG 365 Accounting and Finance for Managers SLO # 1, Understand the role of finance and accounting in business and organizations. BSMB Program Learning Objective #1 Explain fundamental business theories and concepts.

The Bachelor of Science in Management (BSM) offers students a well-rounded educational experience that focuses on the development of management and leadership skills. The program is of particular interest to those who need to complete their baccalaureate education to move up the organizational hierarchy and want to supplement their skills with specific functions (such as finance, budgeting, operations, information systems etc.) with specialized knowledge of leadership and organizational behavior. The core of the Management program provides students with a conceptual foundation on managing and leading people and organizations; it also emphasizes demonstrable communication skills that help students evolve as managers and leaders in the future. Students have the opportunity to relate the classroom experience to their current jobs and apply their new knowledge. Program Learning Objectives and Student Learning Outcomes are assessed as follows:

• Direct – Assessing student performance by administering Final Exam. • Formative- Assessment is conducted during the students’ enrollment in an eight week

course with a Final Exam being administered in the last class session. • Internal- SLO is derived from the BSM Program Outcomes and delineated in the

course syllabus.








Final Exam, internally administered in an 8 week course.

Results: Fall 2 Nov-Dec. 2015 term: 100% Results: Spring 1 Mar-Apr 2016 62%

Since data was collected from only one course at the Redlands Campus in the fall (with 9 total students), it is difficult to draw any concrete conclusions from the results. In this instance, all students attained the benchmark score (three of the nine students scored 100%, five scored 95% and the remaining student scored 89%). These results would appear to indicate a grading anomaly. The Spring results were more indicative of expected scores. Scores ranged from 48% at the Torrance Campus to 83% at the

Action: Discuss the possible reasons for such high scores with the adjunct faculty member who taught the Fall section in Redlands. Provide additional training as determined necessary. Action: Discuss the reasons for the wide variation in scores with the adjunct faculty who taught the courses.

FALL 2 TERM

SPRING 1 TERM

OVERALL RESULTS

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Total Redlands

% studentsmeeting orexceedingbenchmark

Benchmark : 70%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Tota

l

Redl

ands

Rive

rsid

e

Ranc

ho

SoCo

Met

ro

Tem

ecul

a

Burb

ank

Torr

ance

San

Dieg

o

% students meetingor exceedingbenchmark

Benchmark: 70%

Redlands and South Coast Metro Campuses. Upon examination of the raw data, it appears that students have trouble applying general accounting and finance knowledge to specific business issues (e.g., using time value of money concepts to price bonds).

Increase learning material (e.g., in-class problems and homework assignments that use general concepts for business applications (e.g., bond pricing exercises).

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Fall Term 2 SpringTerm 1

Total


Benchmark :70%

Bachelors of Science in Business (ACBSP Self-Study Year 2015-16)

Prepared by Bai/Gollakota

Performance Indicator Program Description BAMG 430 Advanced Topics in Organizational Behavior and Management SLO # 1 - Demonstrate a deep understanding of the major organizational behavior and human resources management topics. SLO # 3 - Choose a research topic based on real organizational issues; SLO # 4 - Summarize existing theories and choose appropriate theoretical framework to analyze the issue in a target organization. SLO # 5 – Apply the theoretical foundation to the real world situation and make recommendations for practice and for research BSB Program SLOs #1, #4, and # 5 PLO #1. Explain Fundamental management theories and concepts. PLO #4. Address complex issues using effective oral and written communication. PLO #5. Identify, analyze and solve management problems using skills acquired in the program.

The Bachelor of Science in Business (BSB) is designed to enhance the knowledge and effectiveness of business professionals by linking their experiences with concepts from various business disciplines. Students learn how to apply business concepts in solving problems, synthesizing information as reflective practitioners, and integrating knowledge learned in real-world and classroom settings. The themes of ethics, communication, critical thinking, and organizing global knowledge from a cultural and geographic perspective are woven into the program and demonstrated in course projects. The program culminates in the development and presentation of a capstone paper. Program Learning Objectives and Student Learning Outcomes are assessed as follows:

• Direct – Assessing student performance by administering Final Paper. • Formative- Assessment is conducted during the students’ enrollment in an eight week

course with the Final Paper being due in the last class session. • Internal- SLO is derived from the BSB Program Outcomes and delineated in the

course syllabus.








Final Paper, internally administered in an 8-week course.

Fall 2 2015 -5 sections -38 students completing assessment -37 students meeting or exceeding benchmark -97% Fall 3 2016 -1 section -7 students completing assessment -5 students meeting or exceeding benchmark -71% Spring 2 2016 -6 sections -55 students completing assessment -47 students meeting or exceeding benchmark -85%

The overall results of three terms show that around 84% of students have met or exceeded the benchmark. These results are reasonable considering this course was offered at different locations and taught by different instructors across three terms. The relatively low score for Fall 3 term is most likely due to the small sample size. Further analysis revealed that Torrance scored as low as 29% for term Spring 2 because only 2 out of 7 students met or exceeded the benchmark.

Conversations with the instructors who taught the course are needed in order to find the reason behind the extremely low score and the reason of the variations across different locations. Continue to collect data to have a better trend analysis.

FALL 2 TERM

FALL 3 TERM

SPRING 2 TERM

OVERALL ASSESSMENT


Final Presentations, internally administered in an 8-week course.

Fall 2 2015 -5 sections -38 students completing assessment -37 students meeting or exceeding benchmark -97% Fall 3 2016 -1 section -7 students completing assessment -0 students meeting or exceeding benchmark -0% Spring 2 2016 -6 sections -55 students completing

The overall results of three terms show that around 54% of students met or exceeded the benchmark. This score is below the benchmark due to the low score in Fall 3 and at two locations in Spring 2. 0 out of 7 students either met or exceeded the benchmark in Fall 3. 2 out of 7 students at Torrance and 0 out of 7 students at San Diego either met or exceeded the benchmark in Spring 2. The variation across different locations might be the

Similar action plan as mentioned above is also needed for this assessment instrument. In addition, it is necessary to provide faculty training on calibration, i.e. how to develop the same standard when using the same assessment tools.

FALL 2 TERM

FALL 3 TERM

OVERALL ASSESSMENT

assessment -36 students meeting or exceeding benchmark -65%

result of lack of calibration. It might also be the reason that students in these cohorts are lack of presentation skills.

Prepared by Castro 09/2016


Performance Indicator Program Description

Program & Course BAMG 485 Program Learning Objectives Assessed: 1. Explain fundamental management theories and

concepts 2. Identify global factors impacting business decisions 3. Identify and evaluate ethical implications of their

decision 4. Address complex business issues using effective oral

and written communication 5. Identify, analyze and solve business problems using

skills acquired in the program Term: Fall Three Term (2016) Assignment: Final Capstone Paper

The Bachelor of Science in Management (BSM) offers students a well-rounded educational experience that focuses on the development of management and leadership skills. The core of the Management program provides students with a conceptual foundation on managing and leading people and organizations; it also emphasizes demonstrable communication skills that help students evolve as managers and leaders in the future. Students have the opportunity to relate classroom experience to their current jobs and apply their new knowledge. The program culminates in the development and presentation of a capstone paper. Program Learning Objectives and Student Learning Outcomes are assessed as follows:

� Direct – Assessing student performance by administering a capstone paper. � Summative- Assessment is conducted at the conclusion of the program during the

students’ capstone course. � Internal- SLO’s are derived from the BSB Program Outcomes and delineated in the course

syllabus.

Analysis of Results

Performance Measure Measureable Goal What is your goal






Goal/Benchmark: Average assessment results in four categories will equal or exceed 70% benchmark.

Instrument/Process: Assessment Rubric is utilized. BAMG students will integrate knowledge, skills, and abilities in

Results: In Fall 3 term (2106), 5 sections consisting of 43 students

Analysis: Analysis by campus revealed assessment outcomes significantly below

Action: Results will be shared with faculty at the Fall Development Conference. Areas

FALL 3 TERM

Goal: Students will score 3 out of 4 overall.

leadership, critical inquiry, communication, and secondary research acquired during the program and apply them to an organization. Paper will utilize artifacts from at least 5 core courses and synthesize principles and theories. Prior courses include the following: -Ethical and Legal Issues -Managing and Leading Organizations -Understanding Information Contexts -Human Resources Management -Accounting and Finance for Managers -Principles of Marketing -International Business -Advanced Topics in OB and Management -Strategic Management

were assessed. The average score was 86%; above the 70% benchmark. 14% of students fell below the 70% benchmark. All courses were taught by part-time faculty.

the benchmark at the San Diego educational site (2 out of 4 students were assessed below the benchmark). Scores significantly exceeded the benchmark at Redlands main campus, Rancho and Riverside Educational sites. South Coast Metro results were 71%. In reviewing the micro-level assessment results, data, reveals students did not meet expectations in the categories of -Knowledge of Issue/Problem -Comprehension & Analysis -Application of Knowledge -I.D. of Recommendations.

of improvement include clearer articulation of management problem in terms of level of analysis; comprehension and analysis of findings; application of prior course concepts; and identification of recommendations linked to data and secondary research. Faculty will require a draft capstone paper in week 4-5 so these deficiencies can be identified early and rectified. In addition, we will conduct refresher training for faculty teaching at the 1 referenced educational site where scores were low. These internal results will also be

OVERALL

01020304050 # students

completingassessment

# studentsmeeting orexceedingbenchmark

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%


Benchmark:70%

Completed by Marcus Castro 9/23/2016

Students 1) study a real world management problem/ opportunity or 2) develop a business plan for a proposed business/start-up.

compared against the external Peregrine Test to better understand the variance of student learning across educational sites and instructors.

FALL 3

Fall 3 Term

Overall

05

101520253035404550

# students completingassessment

# students meeting orexceeding benchmark

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

% students meeting orexceeding benchmark

Benchmark: 70%


Prepared by Brandes/Groshek 09/2016

Performance Indicator Program Description BUSB 230 SLO#1. Identify and analyze the concepts of scarcity, opportunity, opportunity cost, and elasticity SLO#2. Build and apply the basic tools of economic analysis to a firm’s profit maximization decision making. SLO#3 understand the fundamental macroeconomic issues including national income accounting, unemployment, and inflation. SLO#4 Explain the distinction between monetary and fiscal policies and identify how policy changes impact our lives. SLO#5 Develop an informed perspective on historical change in economic institutions and social relations. SLO#6 Demonstrate a level of economic literacy that makes accessible the financial press and encourages the interpretation and critical evaluation/analysis of economic issues




• Internal- SLO’s are derived from the BSB Program Outcomes and delineated in the course syllabus.

BSB Program Learning Objectives PLO # 1 PLO # 4 PLO # 5 Analysis of Results Performance Measure Measureable Goal What is your goal







Assessment of Final Papers

Results: Papers

Analysis: Since the benchmark was misapplied, results were not useful to assess students’ understanding of the economic concepts. Most sections accomplished 100%. Consequently, the assessment tool has been changed.

Action: The former assessment tool focused on only one SLO (#6). Faculty decided this was insufficient for assessing students’ knowledge about the course contents and changed the tool to be able to assess all SLOs.

FALL 2 TERM

SPRING 2 TERM

Currently, there is no new data available yet from the new assessment tool.

Results:

Exams- Essays – Presentations -

Analysis: Action:

Revised 9/08/16


Prepared by Brandes/Falatoon 09/2016

Performance Indicator Program Description BUSB 232 SLO#1. Prepare and utilize charts, graphs, and statistical measures to help understand and interpret data collected from diverse business environments. SLO#3. Apply statistical techniques helpful in decision making to specific and practical business situations. SLO#5 Use statistical results for decision making in business situation BSB Program Learning Objectives PLO # 5











Revised

9/08/16


Assessment of Exams

Results: Exams

Analysis: The results are insufficient as not all the assessment questions were used because of administrative issues.

Action: The administrative process will be improved for the next section (June 2016) and more assessment questions will be added.

FALL 3 TERM

Results:

Exams- Essays – Presentations -

Analysis: Action:


Prepared by Bergevin/MacQueen 09/2016

Performance Indicator Program Description BUSB 260 Financial and Managerial Accounting SLO # 1 Apply accounting theory and principles to economic events and use accounting information to measure business transactions in an accounting system to assist in making economic decisions. BSB Program Learning Objective #1 Explain Fundamental business theories and concepts.


• Direct – Assessing student performance by conducting final exam. • Formative- Assessment is conducted during the students’ enrollment in an eight week

course with the final exam being administered in the last class session. • Internal- SLO is derived from the BSB Program Outcomes and delineated in the

course syllabus.








Final Exam, internally administered

Fall 3 Term Jan-Feb’15 Results: 74%

Analysis: Overall students in the Fall 3 term met the benchmark score of 70%, however there was some discrepancy in

Action: Additional training of instructors regarding specific topics to be covered in class to ensure proper exposure to

Overall Results SLO#1

results among the six reporting classes (e.g. two of the six classes did not meet benchmark). This might indicate these instructors did not fully cover the material included in the assessment instrument. Although there was no clear trend among the classes regarding which of the eight assessment questions were answered incorrectly, in certain classes the average scores on certain assessment questions were low, possibly indicating once again the instructors did not adequately cover this material.

relevant material.

Fall 3 Term

Spring 2 Term



Spring 2 Term May-Jun’16 Results: 63%

Analysis: Data from this period indicated students did not meet the benchmark performance, however since the sample included only one class with eight students, conclusive analysis is difficult. Contributing to this difficulty is the fact that the instructor for this course taught two courses in the Fall Term 3 with students in those sections achieving greater than benchmark results. Once again; however, of the eight assessment

Action: Additional training of instructors regarding specific topics to be covered in class to ensure proper exposure to relevant material.

questions administered, students performed poorly on two, possibly indicating the instructor did not cover this material adequately.


Prepared by Fraiberg 09/2016

Performance Indicator Program Description BUSB 301 Critical Analysis: Oral and Written Communication SLO#1. Produce insightful, clear, and effective prose that critically evaluates business concepts and contexts. SLO#2. Deliver persuasive and compelling oral presentations that analyze a business problem and recommend feasible solutions. BSB Program Learning Objective # 4,and 5

4. Address complex business issues using effective oral and written communication.

5. Identify, analyze and solve business problems using skills acquired in the program.

The Bachelor of Science in Business (BSB) is designed to enhance the knowledge and effectiveness of business professionals by linking their experiences with concepts from various business disciplines. Students learn how to apply business concepts in solving problems, synthesizing information as reflective practitioners, and integrating knowledge learned in real-world and classroom settings. The themes of ethics, communication, critical thinking, and organizing global knowledge from a cultural and geographic perspective are woven into the program and demonstrated in course projects. The program culminates in the development and presentation of a capstone paper. Program Learing Objectives and Student Learning Outcomes are assessed as follows:

• Direct – Assessing student performance by administering Essays and Presentations. • Formative- Assessment is conducted during the students’ enrollment in an eight week

course with Essays being administered through the course and the presentations being administered towards the last three class sessions.

• Internal- SLOs are derived from the BSB Program Outcomes and delineated in the course syllabus.








Essay 2: Students enrolled in the BSB are required to complete BUSB 301, an upper-division critical analysis course focusing on analytical writing and analytical presentations. Students complete and revise two major essays in the course. The final version of Essay #2 is assessed according to the rubric developed by syllabus designer, a rubric that aligns with analysis courses and learning objectives across liberal arts-based disciplines (direct, formative, internal).

Results: In Fall 3 term, a total of 8 sections of the course were assessed, at least one at each campus. One section taught by FT, the others by PT. Only one data set was available for analysis, but the results of this set indicated:

Jan-Feb’16 Fall 3

Essays –

One data set is not enough to observe trends over time. Data from courses ending in August will be forthcoming for a second data set. The outlier low assessment results from the one instructor seems to indicate a misunderstanding of the process. It is suspected that the more familiar scale for humanities faculty (0-6, as used nationally in assessing writing) might have been used. If the scores from this instructor are removed from the set, the numbers achieve the 70% benchmark. There is some

Action: Collect more data as sections are taught and students complete the assessed assignments. Second set should arrive by October 2016, and a third set in Spring 2016. BUSB 301 is appears only twice per year, given the lock-step delivery of instruction. Instructors not completing the assessment or misunderstanding the measurements indicates that (a) the rubric needs to be revised for clarity; and (b) calibration of assessment needs to happen with instructors. For (a) the syllabus designer will revise the

Fall 3 TERM

Fall 3 TERM

0

50

100

150# studentscompletingassessment


0%20%40%60%80%

100%

%studentsmeetingorexceedingbenchmark

49%; Raw data shows that 2 sections showed extreme outlier low scores (2s & 3s) in Burbank and Torrance (same instructor) and one other section had incomplete form.

confusion about whether students who don’t complete Essay 2 are included in the assessment results. Currently, they are, with the 0s lowering the overall score significantly since class sizes are small. Incomplete assessment submissions also seem to be a problem.

assessment rubric for clarity by Dec. 2016, in time for January courses. For (b) the syllabus designer will develop a calibration session /workshop for BUSB 301 instructors for the Spring Faculty Development Conference.


Presentation #2: Students enrolled in the BSB are required to complete BUSB 301, an upper-division critical analysis course focusing on analytical writing and analytical presentations. Students develop and

In Fall 3 term, a total of 8 sections of the course were assessed, at least one at

One data set is not enough to observe trends over time. Data from courses ending in August will be forthcoming for a second data set. The outlier low

Collect more data as sections are taught and students complete the assessed assignments. Second set should arrive by October 2016, and a third set in Spring 2016.

Fall 3 TERM

deliver two presentations in the course. The second presentation, an analytical proposal, assessed according to the rubric developed by syllabus designer, a rubric that aligns with analysis courses and learning objectives across liberal arts-based disciplines (direct, formative, internal).

each campus. One section taught by FT, the others by PT. Only one data set was available for analysis, but the results of this set indicated Presentation -67% of benchmark Raw data shows that 2 sections showed extreme outlier low scores

assessment results from the one instructor seems to indicate a misunderstanding of the process. It is suspected that the more familiar scale for humanities faculty (0-6, as used nationally in assessing writing) might have been used. If the scores from this instructor are removed from the set, the numbers achieve the 70% benchmark.

BUSB 301 is appears only twice per year, given the lock-step delivery of instruction. Instructors not completing the assessment or misunderstanding the measurements indicates that (a) the rubric needs to be revised for clarity; and (b) calibration of assessment needs to happen with instructors. For (a) the syllabus designer will revise the assessment rubric for clarity by Dec. 2016, in time for January courses. For (b) the syllabus designer will develop a calibration session /workshop for BUSB 301 instructors for the Spring Faculty

Fall 3 TERM

0

50

100



0%20%40%60%80%

100%


Revised 9/05/16

(2s & 3s) in Burbank and Torrance (same instructor)

Development Conference.


Prepared by Fraiberg 09/2016

Performance Indicator Program Description BUSB 301 Critical Analysis: Oral and Written Communication SLO#1. Produce insightful, clear, and effective prose that critically evaluates business concepts and contexts. SLO#2. Deliver persuasive and compelling oral presentations that analyze a business problem and recommend feasible solutions. BSB Program Learning Objective # 4,and 5

4. Address complex management issues using effective oral and written communication.

5. Identify, analyze and solve management problems using skills acquired in the program.


• Direct – Assessing student performance by administering Essays and Presentations. • Formative- Assessment is conducted during the students’ enrollment in an eight week

course with Essays being administered through the course and the presentations being administered towards the last three class sessions.

• Internal- SLOs are derived from the BSB Program Outcomes and delineated in the course syllabus.








Essay 2: Students enrolled in the BSB are required to complete BUSB 301, an upper-division critical analysis course focusing on analytical writing and analytical presentations. Students complete and revise two major essays in the course. The final version of Essay #2 is assessed according to the rubric developed by syllabus designer, a rubric that aligns with analysis courses and learning objectives across liberal arts-based disciplines (direct, formative, internal).

Results: In Fall 3 term, a total of 8 sections of the course were assessed, at least one at each campus. One section taught by FT, the others by PT. Only one data set was available for analysis, but the results of this set indicated:

Jan-Feb’16 Fall 3

Essays –

One data set is not enough to observe trends over time. Data from courses ending in August will be forthcoming for a second data set. The outlier low assessment results from the one instructor seems to indicate a misunderstanding of the process. It is suspected that the more familiar scale for humanities faculty (0-6, as used nationally in assessing writing) might have been used. If the scores from this instructor are removed from the set, the numbers achieve the 70% benchmark. There is some

Action: Collect more data as sections are taught and students complete the assessed assignments. Second set should arrive by October 2016, and a third set in Spring 2016. BUSB 301 is appears only twice per year, given the lock-step delivery of instruction. Instructors not completing the assessment or misunderstanding the measurements indicates that (a) the rubric needs to be revised for clarity; and (b) calibration of assessment needs to happen with instructors. For (a) the syllabus designer will revise the

Fall 3 TERM

Fall 3 TERM

0

50

100



0%20%40%60%80%

100%


49%; Raw data shows that 2 sections showed extreme outlier low scores (2s & 3s) in Burbank and Torrance (same instructor) and one other section had incomplete form.

confusion about whether students who don’t complete Essay 2 are included in the assessment results. Currently, they are, with the 0s lowering the overall score significantly since class sizes are small. Incomplete assessment submissions also seem to be a problem.

assessment rubric for clarity by Dec. 2016, in time for January courses. For (b) the syllabus designer will develop a calibration session /workshop for BUSB 301 instructors for the Spring Faculty Development Conference.


Presentation #2: Students enrolled in the BSB are required to complete BUSB 301, an upper-division critical analysis course focusing on analytical writing and analytical presentations. Students develop and

In Fall 3 term, a total of 8 sections of the course were assessed, at least one at

One data set is not enough to observe trends over time. Data from courses ending in August will be forthcoming for a second data set. The outlier low

Collect more data as sections are taught and students complete the assessed assignments. Second set should arrive by October 2016, and a third set in Spring 2016.

Fall 3 TERM

deliver two presentations in the course. The second presentation, an analytical proposal, assessed according to the rubric developed by syllabus designer, a rubric that aligns with analysis courses and learning objectives across liberal arts-based disciplines (direct, formative, internal).

each campus. One section taught by FT, the others by PT. Only one data set was available for analysis, but the results of this set indicated Presentation -67% of benchmark Raw data shows that 2 sections showed extreme outlier low scores

assessment results from the one instructor seems to indicate a misunderstanding of the process. It is suspected that the more familiar scale for humanities faculty (0-6, as used nationally in assessing writing) might have been used. If the scores from this instructor are removed from the set, the numbers achieve the 70% benchmark.

BUSB 301 is appears only twice per year, given the lock-step delivery of instruction. Instructors not completing the assessment or misunderstanding the measurements indicates that (a) the rubric needs to be revised for clarity; and (b) calibration of assessment needs to happen with instructors. For (a) the syllabus designer will revise the assessment rubric for clarity by Dec. 2016, in time for January courses. For (b) the syllabus designer will develop a calibration session /workshop for BUSB 301 instructors for the Spring Faculty

Fall 3 TERM

0

50

100



0%20%40%60%80%

100%


Revised 9/05/16

(2s & 3s) in Burbank and Torrance (same instructor)

Development Conference.


Prepared by Cass 09/2016

Performance Indicator Program Description BUSB 333 SLO#1. Students will describe the scope and use of Geographical Information Systems in Organizations BSB Program Learning Objectives PLO # 2 Identify global and spatial factors impacting business decisions.











BUSB 333 students will demonstrate the concepts of how to strategically employ GIS in a business setting. Average assessment results will equal or exceed 70% of learning objectives for the GIS assignment.

BUSB 333 students will demonstrate understanding of organizational and informational concepts in which to contextualize the potential strategic utility of GIS in a business. Students will write a two page paper that examines the use of GIS in a particular business area, identify a problem and describe how GIS provides an effective solution. Students also propose issues that might arise in an organization that uses GIS. Papers are assessed using the GIS Assessment Rubric prepared by faculty and administrators.

Results: The weighted average percentage of students who met the 70% passing threshold was 70% for the two time periods under study. Spring term 1: 83% of the students met or exceeded the SLO at the passing level. Fall term 3: 67% of the students met or exceeded the SLO at the passing level. Of the 7 sections assessed, 5 met the benchmark.

Analysis: Of the 7 sections, 5 met or exceeded the 7-8 rubric score. Reason for the 0% score in Rancho and 56% suggest some lack of clarity or misunderstanding of either how to apply the rubric or the student learning outcomes. Further communication with faculty about difficulties or problems that they are having with the rubric is encouraged. Faculty will be coached about what to emphasize and be sure that

Action: Faculty can be further trained in the goals and practices of assessment. Presenting the GIS assignment to faculty through the lens of assessment will help make the assessment process more uniform. Perhaps preparing a handout to clearly map the learning outcomes with portions of the assignment may be useful. Provide faculty with assessment support given by assessment specialists will deepen understanding about the process

FALL 3 TERM

SPRING 1 TERM

OVERALL RESULTS

Of the sections not achieving the benchmark Redlands in Spring Term achieved the 56% level and Rancho’s score was a 0. Reasons for these discrepancies will be further investigated

students understand and master the concepts.

FALL 3

SPRING 1

OVERALL RESULTS

0%20%40%60%80%

100%


Benchmark: 70%

Revised 9/08/16


Prepared by Zhao 09/2016


BUSB 340 Principles of Marketing SLO # 2 Sharpen analytical skills writing skills, and presentation. BSB Program Learning Objective # 4 Address complex social, managerial and leadership issues using effective oral and written communication.


• Direct – Assessing student performance by assessment of presentation. • Formative- Assessment is conducted during the students’ enrollment in an eight week course

with the final exam being administered in the last class session. • Internal- SLO is derived from the BSB Program Outcomes and delineated in the course

syllabus.

Analysis of Results Performance

Measure Measureable Goal What is your goal







Oral presentation, internally administered

Results: Fall 2 Nov-Dec 2015 85.71% (one session with seven

This small group seemed to have demonstrated strong presentation skills for this

Action: N/A FALL 2 TERM

students) project.



Results: Fall 3 Jan-Feb 2016 97% (five

sessions with

58 students)

With the bigger sample, students seemed to still do well in this aspect.

Action: No action needs to be taken at this point.

FALL 3 TERM

Average assessment results will equal or exceed 70% of learning objectives


Results: Spring 1 Mar-Apr 2016 100%

- Action: If the trend continues, maybe we could try another measurement and see if students still perform as well as they did here.

SPRING 1 TERM

OVERALL RESULTS

Revised 5/23/16


Prepared by Groshek/Moenius 09/2016

Performance Indicator Program Description BUSB 342 SLO#1. use appropriate terminology and examine institutions, principles of trade, investment, and exchange rate markets as they apply to international business management SLO#2. examine the distinctions between domestic and international business environments and the effect of globalization on each SLO#3 analyze international business strategy incorporating the steps to and consequences of participation in international markets SLO#4 place the functional areas of business and management in an international context SLO#5 develop awareness and appreciation of the broad array of international factors influencing business decision making BSB Program Learning Objectives





PLO # 1 PLO # 4 PLO # 5 Analysis of Results Performance Measure Measureable Goal What is your goal







Measurement is Assessment of Final papers

Results: Previous: Papers Now: Exams and Homework

Analysis: Since the benchmark was misapplied, results were not useful to assess students’ understanding of the international c concepts. Consequently, the assessment tool has been changed.

Action: The former assessment tool focused on only one SLO (#). Faculty decided this was insufficient for assessing students’ knowledge about the course contents and changed the tool to be able to assess all SLOs. Currently, there is no new data available yet from the new assessment tool. New data will be

SPRING 1 TERM

SPRING 2 TERM

Revised 9/08/16

analyzed using a standard tool and categories

OVERALL RESULTS


Prepared by Falatoon/Thosar


BUSB 361 Financial Management SLO # 1 Apply basic principles of financial analysis to a firm's financial data to determine the financial performance of the firm and make financial projections for the firm. BSB Program Learning Objective #5 Identify, analyze and solve business problems using skills acquired in the program.


• Direct – Assessing student performance by administering Final Paper. • Formative- Assessment is conducted during the students’ enrollment in an eight week

course with the Final Paper. • Internal- SLO is derived from the BSB Program Outcomes and delineated in the

course syllabus.

Analysis of Results Performance Measure

Measureable Goal What is your goal








Results: Fall 2 Nov-Dec 2015 73.17% Results:

The overall results appear to be satisfactory with the average just above (Fall 2) or well above (Fall 3) the 70%

Action: The intention is to follow up and debrief the Burbank and Rancho instructors to get a better

OVERALL RESULTS SLO#1

Fall 3 Jan-Feb 2016 82% Results: Spring 2 72%

benchmark. Two regional campuses (Burbank and Rancho) fell short during Fall 2. Four out of seven campus locations reported results that exceeded the benchmark (often significantly) with three falling a little short. In

understanding of specific areas in which students were deficient. Action: Based on the outcome of the debrief, we could consider modifying the syllabus to focus more on certain topics. However, it may be prudent to observe another data point before taking action. At this point, we believe the assessment instrument is working well and no course correction is warranted.

FALL 2 TERM

FALL 3 TERM

SPRING 2

aggregate, as an institution, we are exceeding the benchmark.

OVERALL RESULTS

FALL 2

FALL 3

Revised 5/23/16

SPRING 2

0%20%40%60%80%

100%


Benchmark:70%


Prepared by Azari/Sarkar 09/2016

Performance Indicator Program Description BUSB 370 Business Information Systems SLO # 3 Apply, analyze, and evaluate analytical models and techniques used in both manufacturing and service organizations. BSB Program Learning Objective #1 Explain fundamental business theories and concepts.


• Direct – Assessing student performance by administering Final Exam. • Formative- Assessment is conducted during the students’ enrollment in an eight week course with a

Final Exam being administered in the last class session. • Internal- SLO is derived from the BSB Program Outcomes and delineated in the course

syllabus. Analysis of Results Performance Measure Measureable Goal What is your goal







Final Exam, internally administered in an 8 week course.

Results: Fall 2 Nov-Dec. 2015 term: 85%

The overall results (for both Fall and Spring) show that close to 65% of students are very close to the benchmark—this is not a bad result. But there is a strong

1. To ensure consistency if administration of the assessment exam for this course, it will be administered as a Moodle Quiz in subsequent iterations starting the next Fall term. Moodle allows randomization of test

FALL 2 TERM

Results: Spring 1 Mar – Apr. 2016 term: 58%

variation between Fall and Spring results. In the Spring 1 term, average performance (58%) feel short of the benchmark by more than 10%. Performance at 3 of the 7 campus locations exceeded the benchmark (70%). Performance in 3 other locations was however significantly lower than average as well as the benchmark, indicating significant geographical variation in the Spring term. Even though the data are not sufficient to make a generalization, we strongly believe that there is a lack of consistency in coverage of major topics of the course, how the test is administered to students, and ultimately taken by students, in

questions, multiple choice options for each questions, as well as setting a fixed 2-hour time limit for the test. When implemented, we expect students across all regional campus locations to have the exact same test-taking experience. 2. Two FT faculty in charge of the course will address performance inconsistency with a larger group of core faculty for this group at the School of Business Faculty Conference in Fall 2016. Specifically, deficiency in student performance in 4 key areas – overall knowledge, application, analysis, and evaluation will be discussed. Faculty teaching the course will be informally surveyed to understand extent of coverage of major topics of this course – to understand if lack of (or perhaps) inadequacy of coverage of emphasis of key topic in certain regional campuses is causing deficiency in student learning. Faculty will be advised and required to administer the assessment

SPRING 1 TERM

OVERALL RESULTS

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Total Redlands

% studentsmeeting orexceedingbenchmarkBenchmark : 70%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%


Benchmark:70%

different locations.

test using Moodle to ensure standardization across regions.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Fall Term 2 Spring Term 1 Total

% students meeting or exceeding benchmark

Benchmark : 70%


Prepared by Pick 09/2016

Performance Indicator Program Description BUSB 433 GIS for Business SLO # 1 Description of target organization SLO #2 Framing spatial questions SLO #3 Awareness of fundamental GIS concepts and data SLO #4 Employing appropriate GIS mapping, and spatial analysis methods SLO # 5 Proposing solutions to the spatial questions SLO#6 Analysis of costs, benefits and impacts of proposed GIS application BSB Program Learning Objective #2 Identify global and spatial factors impacting business decisions.


• Direct – Assessing student performance by administering Team Project. • Formative- Assessment is conducted during the students’ enrollment in an eight week

course with the Team Project being due in the last class session. • Internal- SLO is derived from the BSB Program Outcomes and delineated in the

course syllabus.








Team Project, internally administered

Results: Nov/Dec

FALL 3 83%

Results SPRING 2

79%

Results: Mar/Apr

FALL 2 67%

Action: Since several of the courses offered in Fall Term 2 and Spring Term 2 taught had assessment results that were weak on Rubric Element 6. (Analysis of costs, benefits, and impacts of proposed GIS application, we plan to include a segment in the all-day GIS Faculty Training Workshop in Spring of 2017 and in Fall of 2017 that emphasizes how instructors can bring into the BUSB 433 course a full coverage of costs, benefits, and impacts of GIS projects.

FALL 2 TERM

SPRING 1 TERM

SPRING 2 TERM

Overall results 79%

Results SPRING 1

100%

63 students completed the assignment of rubric on the final project.

FALL 2 TERM

Overall results 68% 59 students completed the assignment of rubric on the final project.

SPRING 1 TERM

Overall results 100% 8 students completed the assignment of rubric on the final project.

OVERALL RESULTS

The Combined results for 130 students completing the BUSB 433 assessment in Spring Term 1, Fall Term 2, and Spring Term 2 was 75% We consider this a good indicator that the Items in the BUSB 433 Assessment Rubric are demonstrating good learning outcomes for the final project in the BUSB 433 course.


Prepared by Spee 09/2016


BUSB 481 Strategic Management - SLO 5 and 7– Understand how the process of strategy formulation and implementation influence the long term effectiveness of an organization. Apply strategic management to real world organizational stations. BSB Program Learning Objective #1 Explain fundamental business theories and concepts.


• Direct – Assessing student performance by administering Case Analysis. • Formative- Assessment is conducted during the students’ enrollment in an eight

week course with the Case Analysis. • Internal- SLO is derived from the BSB Program Outcomes and delineated in the

course syllabus.

Analysis of Results Performance

Measure Measureable Goal What is your goal






Average assessment results will equal or exceed 60% of learning objectives. Note: While the original goal was 70%, the rubric set 60% as the minimum

Case Analysis, internally administered in 8 week course.

Results: Fall 2 Nov-Dec 2015 84 %

The rubric score averaged rankings of 4 criteria: 1. Knowledge of the issue 2. Synthesis 3. Application of

Action:

OVERALL RESULTS

for “Meets Expectations,” which could be scored from 6 to 8 points out of 10. Lowering the goal raised the Fall results from 82% meeting or exceeding the goal to 84%. It raised the Spring results from 20% to 60% meeting or exceeding the goal. The overall result increased from 75 % to 82% meeting or exceeding the goal.

Results: Spring 1 Mar-Apr 2016 60%

Theories and Concepts 4. Evaluation A correlation analysis showed that the 4 were not independently ranked. Correlations ranged from a low of 0.79 to a high of 0.86 for the Fall 2015 data. An exploratory factor analysis of the Fall sample showed that all four items loaded to a single factor. An ANOVA test for differences in average scores based on location yielded a F statistic of 1.44 with 7 degrees of freedom. The differences in results between locations were not significant. An ANOVA test

Action: Although the Burbank result looks low, the cohort had only two students. Overall results are encouraging. I suggest that we triangulate them with quiz scores to see if we can improve. We should also work with faculty to make the rubric items more independent. We also need a training session to narrow the differences between instructors.

FALL 2 TERM

SPRING 1 TERM

SPRING 2 TERM

for differences in scores by instructor yielded an F statistic of 2.61 with a probability less than 0.005, suggesting that the differences between instructors are significant.

7.83

7.66

7.99

7.77

7.81

- 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00

Average of 1. Knowledge of the issue

Average of 2. Synthesis

Average of 3. Application of Theories and Concepts

Average of 4. Evaluation

Average of Average

Results by Criterion

Grand…

Revised 5/24/16



Program & Course BUSB 485 Program Learning Objectives Assessed: 1. Explain fundamental business theories and concepts 2. Identify global and spatial factors impacting business

decisions 3. Identify and evaluate ethical implications of their decision 4. Address complex business issues using effective oral and

written communication 5. Identify, analyze and solve business problems using skills

acquired in the program Term: Fall Three and Spring 2 Terms (2016) Assignment: Final Capstone Paper


� Direct – Assessing student performance by administering an integrative capstone paper. � Summative- Assessment is conducted at the conclusion of the program during the

students’ capstone course. � Internal- SLO’s are derived from the BSB Program Outcomes and delineated in the

course syllabus.

Analysis of Results

Performance Measure Measureable Goal What is your goal






Goal/Benchmark: Average assessment results in four categories will equal or exceed 70% benchmark. Goal: Students will score 3 out of 4 overall.

Instrument/Process: Assessment Rubric is utilized. BUSB students will integrate knowledge and skills acquired during the program presented as a capstone paper. Paper will utilize

Results: In Fall 3 term (2106), 8 sections consisting of 69 students were

Analysis: Analysis by campus revealed assessment outcomes significantly below the benchmark at South Coast Metro, Burbank

Action: Results will be shared with faculty at the Fall Development Conference. Areas of improvement include clearer identification of

FALL 3 TERM

artifacts from at least 5 core courses and synthesize principles and theories. Prior courses include the following: -Ethical and Legal Issues -Managing and Leading Organizations -Business information systems -Principles of marketing -International Business -Financial Management -Managing quality and operations -GIS for business -Strategic Management. Students 1) study a real world problem/ opportunity or 2) develop a business plan for a proposed business/start-up.

assessed. The average score was 68%; slightly below the 70% benchmark. 28% of students fell below the 70% benchmark.

and Temecula educational sites (23%). Scores significantly exceeded the benchmark at San Diego and Redlands main campus. In reviewing the micro-level assessment results, data, reveals students did not meet expectations in the categories of Knowledge of issue; comprehension and analysis; application of knowledge; and identification of recommendations. In addition, it is noted that several students from San Diego were the subject of academic honesty charges.

business problem or opportunity; comprehension and analysis of findings; and identification of recommendations linked to data and secondary research. Faculty will require a draft capstone paper in week 4-5 so these deficiencies can be identified early and rectified. In addition, we will conduct refresher training for faculty teaching at the 3 referenced educational sites where scores were low. These internal results will also be compared against the external Peregrine Test so faculty can better understand the variance of student learning across educational sites and instructors.

SPRING 2 TERM

OVERALL RESULTS

Completed by Marcus Castro 9/23/2016

Fall 3 Term

FALL 3 TERM

SPRING 2 TERM

OVERALL RESULTS

Spring 2 Term

Overall Across Term Data Points


Prepared by Carrascoso 09/2016


BUSB 300 Ethical and Legal Environment of Business SLO # 1 Successfully identifies ethical issue and applies ethical theory to business decision making. BSB Program Learning Objective #3 Evaluate ethical implications of students’ decisions.


• Direct – Assessing student performance by administering Term Paper. • Formative- Assessment is conducted during the students’ enrollment in an eight week

course with the Term Paper being due in the last class session. • Internal- SLO is derived from the BSB Program Outcomes and delineated in the

course syllabus.

Analysis of Results Performance Measure

Measureable Goal What is your goal







Term Paper, internally administered

Results: Nov-Dec. 2015 term: 78% Results: March-Apr 2016 75%

While overall performance shows about 3/4 of students achieving 70% for this SLO, the drop from 78% is of note. Troubling is that only half of the students in Torrance and San Diego met the 70% benchmark.

1. Determined which instructors taught this course at Torrance and San Diego.

2. Needed is discernment of what exactly the Term Paper scores mean. Were TP grades low due to not understanding ethical decision making, or due to mechanics such as poor writing or not following proper APA protocols?

OVERALL RESULTS SLO #1

FALL 2 TERM

SPRING 1 TERM

Revised 5/19/16

Bachelor in Business Administration (ACBSP Self-Study Year 2015-16)

Page 1 of 8 Prepared by MacQueen/Bergevin September 2016

Peregrine Exam Results - Accounting Performance Indicator Program Description BSB Program Learning Objectives: By the end of the program students will be able to:

1. Explain fundamental business theories and concepts.

2. Identify global and spatial factors impacting business decisions.

3. Evaluate ethical implications of their decisions.

4. Address complex social, managerial and leadership issues using effective oral and written communication.

5. Identify, analyze, and solve business problems using critical evaluation skills.

The Bachelor of Business Administration A Bachelor of Science in Business degree from the University of Redlands School of Business is designed to go beyond traditional administration or management degrees, allowing students to focus on a specific industry while providing crucial business knowledge and building advanced critical thinking skills. It enhances the knowledge and effectiveness of business professionals by linking their experiences with theories taught in the modern classroom. Students learn how to apply business concepts in solving problems, synthesizing information and integrating knowledge learned in real-world and classroom settings. The themes of ethics, communication, critical thinking and organizing global knowledge from a cultural and geographic perspective are woven into the program and demonstrated in course projects Program Learning Objectives and Student Learning Outcomes are assessed as follows:

• Summative- Students complete Peregrine Outbound exam during their Capstone course. Peregrine assesses 11 business topics and related subjects. Peregrine is designed to assess BSB Program Learning Objectives

• External- Students complete Peregrine exam and results are compared against ACBSP-US scores

Page 2 of 8

Analysis of Results Performance Measure Measureable Goal What is your goal?

What is your measurement Instrument or process? (indicate length of cycle)





BSB Peregrine exam score in each topic area will be within 5% of ACBSP-US score in the same topic.

Students complete Peregrine External exam in week 5 of their BSB Capstone course. Topic and subtopic results will be assessed against Program Learning Objectives. The ACBSP-US results will be used as benchmarks.

The current results are that Redlands students exceeded the Peregrine U.S. averages for the two data ranges in which a significant number of students completed the accounting portion of the Peregrine Outbound Exam. The sample size of 13 respondents for the third session precludes analysis of those results.

The results indicate that Redlands students have demonstrated an adequate grasp of accounting fundamentals. This conclusion extends to all areas of accounting tested when compared to their national counterparts.

We plan to continue assessing students’ accounting performance to assure learning of the subject matter. The data indicate that Redlands’ students underperformed with respect to accounting for dividends, stocks, and bonds in addition to financial statement analysis. Consequently, the fulltime accounting faculty has begun devoting greater resources to these topics, including creating additional in-class demonstrations and homework assignments. We also plan to call our adjunct faculty’s need to strengthen teaching of these areas.

FALL 3 See p. 4

SPRING 1 See p. 5

SPRING 3 See p. 6

Page 3 of 8

Revised: 9/08/16

OVERALL RESULTS See p. 7

Page 4 of 8

FALL 3 (01/04/2016 – 03/11/2016)

Page 5 of 8

SPRING 1 (04/27/2016 – 06/30/2016)

Page 6 of 8

SPRING 3 (07/01/2016 – 08/26/2016)

Page 7 of 8

OVERALL RESULTS

Page 8 of 8

QUESTIONS TO FACULTY MEMBER

1. Based on your subject matter expertise and teaching experience, what conclusions do you draw from Peregrine results in this area/course?

2. BSB students completing the Peregrine Outbound exam are tested in the following areas in Accounting. Are these areas appropriate for our students?

a. If yes, do you anticipate any changes to the BSB curriculum, specifically (i) Course Learning Outcomes, (ii) Textbook, (iii) Assignments, (iv) Pedagogy? Please be as specific as possible and propose a timeline for any course specific changes.

b. If no, do you recommend any changes to the following topic areas? For example, drop or deemphasize a particular topic area?

Topic: Accounting

Subjects:

• Accounting Data Analysis (Questions related to liquidity, use of analysis ratios, and the operating cycle) • Balance Sheet Analysis (Questions related to common-size balance sheet, credit balances, and debit balances) • Compliance in Accounting (Questions related to Sarbanes-Oxley Act, annual reports, quarterly reports) • Dividends, Stocks, and Bonds (Questions related to stockholders’ equity, common stock, and dividend payments) • Financial Statement Analysis (Questions related to valuation, revenues, and income statements) • Interest, Income, and Debt (Questions related to leverage, asset turnover, and liabilities) • Journal Entries (Questions related to posting transactions, accounts receivable, and accounts payable) • Management of Accounting (Questions related to analysis of risk and return, profitability, liquidity, and use offinancial statements )

Bachelor in Business Management (ACBSP Self-Study Year 2015-16)

Page 1 of 7 Prepared by MacQueen/Bergevin September 2016

Peregrine Exam Results - Accounting Performance Indicator Program Description BSM Program Learning Objectives: By the end of the program students will be able to

1. Explain fundamental management theories and concepts.

2. Identify global factors impacting management decisions.


4. Address complex social, managerial, and leadership issues using effective oral and written communication.

5. Identify, analyze, and solve management problems using critical evaluation skills.

The Bachelor of Business Management A Bachelor of Science in Management degree from the University of Redlands School of Business offers students and employers a well-rounded educational experience that focuses on the development of management and leadership skills. The program is of particular interest to those who (a) need to complete their undergraduate education to move up in the organizational hierarchy and/or (b) possess sufficient skills about specific business functions (such as information systems, finance, budgeting, operations etc.) but now feel the need to supplement those skills with specialized knowledge on leadership and organizational behavior. Program Learning Objectives and Student Learning Outcomes are assessed as follows:

• Summative- Students complete Peregrine Outbound exam during their Capstone course. Peregrine assesses 11 business topics and related subjects. Peregrine is designed to assess BSM Program Learning Objectives


Page 2 of 7







BSM Peregrine exam score in each topic area will be within 5% of ACBSP-US score in the same topic.

Students complete Peregrine External exam in week 5 of their BSM Capstone course. Topic and subtopic results will be assessed against Program Learning Objectives. The ACBSP-US results will be used as benchmarks.

The current results are that Redlands students approximated the Peregrine U.S. averages for the two data ranges provided.

Overall, the results indicate that Redlands students have demonstrated an adequate grasp of accounting fundamentals. Redlands’s students lag their national counterparts in the areas of (1) compliance accounting, (2) dividends, stock, and bonds, interest, income, and debt, and (4) journal entries.

We plan to continue assessing students’ accounting performance to assure learning of the subject matter. The fulltime accounting faculty endeavors to improve Redlands’ student performance above the national average. To do so, we have begun to create greater resources to the four areas identified in the preceding analysis of results section. To that end, the fulltime accounting faculty has started to create learning materials devoted to these topics, including additional in-class demonstrations and homework assignments. We also plan to call our adjunct faculty’s need to strengthen teaching of these areas.

FALL 3 See p. 4

SPRING 3 See p. 5

Page 3 of 7

Revised: 9/08/16


Page 4 of 7

FALL 3 (01/04/2016 – 03/11/2016)

Page 5 of 7

SPRING 3 (07/01/2016 – 08/26/2016)

Page 6 of 7

OVERALL RESULTS

Page 7 of 7



2. BSB students completing the Peregrine Outbound exam are tested in the following areas in Accounting. Are these areas appropriate for our students?



Topic: Accounting Subjects:

• Accounting Data Analysis (Questions related to liquidity, use of analysis ratios, and the operating cycle) • Balance Sheet Analysis (Questions related to common-size balance sheet, credit balances, and debit balances) • Compliance in Accounting (Questions related to Sarbanes-Oxley Act, annual reports, quarterly reports) • Dividends, Stocks, and Bonds (Questions related to stockholders’ equity, common stock, and dividend payments) • Financial Statement Analysis (Questions related to valuation, revenues, and income statements) • Interest, Income, and Debt (Questions related to leverage, asset turnover, and liabilities) • Journal Entries (Questions related to posting transactions, accounts receivable, and accounts payable) • Management of Accounting (Questions related to analysis of risk and return, profitability, liquidity, and use offinancial statements )


Page 1 of 7 Prepared by Thosar/Falatoon September 2016

Peregrine Exam Results – Business Finance Performance Indicator Program Description BSB Program Learning Objectives: By the end of the program students will be able to:









Page 2 of 7

Revised: 9/08/16









Overall results are at just above the ACBSP(US) averages.

Analysis: It is encouraging that the three data points indicate longitudinal improvement both in aggregate and generally for individual topic areas.

Action: We will continue to monitor and examine the external assessment results. At this stage, we do not see a need for curricular intervention.

FALL 3 See p. 3

SPRING 1 See p. 4

SPRING 3 See p. 5


Page 3 of 7

FALL 3 (01/04/2016 – 03/11/2016)

Page 4 of 7

SPRING 1 (04/27/2016 – 06/30/2016)

Page 5 of 7

SPRING 3 (07/01/2016 – 08/26/2016)

Page 6 of 7

OVERALL RESULTS

Page 7 of 7



2. BSB students completing the Peregrine Outbound exam are tested in the following areas in Business Finance. Are these areas appropriate for our students?



Topic: Business Finance Subjects:

• Asset Valuation and Inventory (Questions related to retained earnings, inventory turnover, and ROA) • Balance Sheets and Financial Statements (Questions related to income statements, operating margins, and reporting) • Business Analysis Ratios and Calculations (Questions related to Current Ratio, Free Cash Flow, and use of ratios in financial decision-

making/analysis) • Interest and Dividends (Questions related to dividend payments, interest income, and capital gains) • Profit, Loss, Cash Flow, and Margins (Questions related to profit margins, positive/negative cash flows, and reporting losses) • Stocks and Bonds (Questions related to bond yields, municipal bonds, and stock pricing) • Tax Rates, Taxes, and Tax Codes (Questions related to alternative minimum tax, marginal tax rates, and corporate tax rates)


Page 1 of 8 Prepared by Spee September 2016

Peregrine Exam Results – Business Integration and Strategic Management Performance Indicator Program Description BSB Program Learning Objectives: By the end of the program students will be able to:









Page 2 of 8

Revised: 9/08/16









The overall results are at the benchmark all 3 terms. Fall 3 and Spring 1, however, we have some topics well below the benchmark. Spring 2 exceeds the benchmark.

Analysis: Student performance varies widely in this area. Although it appeared to improve the third term we measured, it could drop again due to random factors.

Action: Add practice quizzes to the Moodle site for the course. Add a summative quiz in Week 8. Wait and see.

FALL 3 See p. 3

SPRING 1 See p. 4

SPRING 3 See p. 5


Page 3 of 8

FALL 3 (01/04/2016 – 03/11/2016)

Page 4 of 8

SPRING 1 (04/27/2016 – 06/30/2016)

Page 5 of 8

SPRING 3 (07/01/2016 – 08/26/2016)

Page 6 of 8

OVERALL RESULTS

Page 7 of 8


1. Based on your subject matter expertise and teaching experience, what conclusions do you draw from Peregrine results in this area/course? Across the 3 terms, our overall scores are pretty consistent. We saw some variations at the topic level, but these are hard to interpret until we have more data. They could be artifacts of the low number of questions within topics. In Fall 3 we at or above the ACBSP average except for one topic. In Spring 1, we were below the target in 3 topic areas. In Spring 2, we were at or above the target in every topic area.

2. BSB students completing the Peregrine Outbound exam are tested in the following areas in Business Integration and Strategic Management Assessment. Are these areas appropriate for our students?

a. If yes, do you anticipate any changes to the BSB curriculum, specifically (i) Course Learning Outcomes, (ii) Textbook, (iii) Assignments, (iv) Pedagogy? Please be as specific as possible and propose a timeline for any course specific changes These areas are appropriate for BSB since they take a strategy course. The only change we have made so far is to add weekly quizzes and a summative quiz at the end of the term to ensure that we are checking students’ knowledge of the field.


Topic: Business Integration and Strategic Management Subjects:

• Business and Corporate-level Strategies (Questions related to localization strategy, international strategy, economic of scale, emergent strategies, and business-level vs. corporate-level strategies)

• Continuous Improvement (Questions related to quality management, Six Sigma, Just-in-time delivery, and sources of information regarding quality)

• Corporate Structure and Governance (Questions related to managers, strategic leadership, goals, leverage, and company officers) • Managers and Management Structure (Questions related to competitive intelligence, managing people, learning, and functional managers) • Marketing Strategy and Market Positioning (Questions related to global expansion, small-scale entry, and the marketing strategic in market

positioning) • Mission and Vision (Questions related to the purpose and use of mission and vision relative to corporate strategy) • Shareholder Value and Return (Questions related to obligations to provide shareholder value and return on investment) • Strategic Analysis Tools (Questions related to the SWOT analysis, feedback, and ability to meet financial obligations)

Page 8 of 8

• Strategic Planning and Decision-Making (Questions related to steps in strategic planning and how to make company-level decisions)


Page 1 of 8 Prepared by Moenius November 2016

Peregrine Exam Results – Global Dimensions of Business Performance Indicator Program Description BSB Program Learning Objectives: By the end of the program students will be able to:









Page 2 of 8









By now, there are three terms of total 114 valid exams available for this analysis. Fall 3 (1/4/16-3/11/16)-58 completed exams Spring 1 (4/27/16-6/30/16)-13 completed exams Spring 3 (7/1/16-8/26/16)-43 completed exams The overall results from the three terms varied. Fall 3: The average score of the 58 BSB students in this first term was slightly below the ACBSP-US score by 0.18% Spring 1: The average score of the 13 BSB students in this second term was lower than the national by almost 6%, which was not within the -5% benchmark. Spring 3: The average score of the 43 BSB students in this third term was above the ACBSP-US score by 3.5%.

Fall 3: Three subtopics in this term had scores above the ACBSP-US scores while the other two were lower than the national average. The score for “International Corporate Strategies” was 6.43% below the national average and did not meet the -5% benchmark. Spring 1: There was a big drop in this group’s score. Only two subtopics had score slightly above the national and the other three were all lower and did not meet the -5% bench mark, namely “International Corporate Strategies,” ”International Government and Regulation,” and “Multinational Culture.” Spring 3: All subtopics in this term had scores above the ACBSP-US scores with only one, “International Patents and Protections”, being slightly lower than the national score, but it was still within the -5% benchmark.

Due to the relatively small sample size, it is difficulty to draw any solid conclusion at this time. In addition, after reviewing the subtopics list and the Peregrine Exam questions, faculty observed the discrepancies between those and the major topics covered in the International Business course (BUSB 342). For example, according to the Peregrine exam description, the subtopic International Patents and Protections would contain questions related to antidumping, tacit collusion, and fair competition. This is substantially different from the textbook content (barriers to trade) we cover in the BUSB 342. Therefore, no major curricular changes should be made to the course without further investigation. However, in Spring 2017, full-time faculty members in Global area plan to review the Peregrine exam and see if

FALL 3 See p. 4

SPRING 1 See p. 5

SPRING 3 See p. 6

OVERALL RESULTS

See p. 7

Page 3 of 8

changes could be made to the specifications of the Global section. Subsequently they will discuss the findings with the adjunct faculty at the Faculty Development Conference in 2017. If consensus is reached, the school could work with the Peregrine company to implement any changes to the exam accordingly.

Page 4 of 8

FALL 3 (01/04/2016 – 03/11/2016)

Page 5 of 8

SPRING 1 (04/27/2016 – 06/30/2016)

Page 6 of 8

SPRING 3 (07/01/2016 – 08/26/2016)

Page 7 of 8

OVERALL RESULTS

Page 8 of 8



2. BSB students completing the Peregrine Outbound exam are tested in the following areas in Global Dimensions of Business. Are these areas appropriate for our students?



Topic: Global Dimensions of Business Subjects:

• Foreign Direct Investment and Trade (Questions related to FDI policies, vertical FDI, and job creation) • International Corporate Strategies (Questions related to Multinational Enterprises (MNE), market entry, and globalization strategies) • International Governance and Regulation (Questions related to price regulation, incentives, and market balance) • International Patents and Protections (Questions related to antidumping, tacit collusion, and fair competition) • Multinational Culture (Questions related to nationalism, free-market based, and culture influences)


Page 1 of 10 Prepared by Cass September 2016

Peregrine Exam Results – Information Management Systems Performance Indicator Program Description BSB Program Learning Objectives: By the end of the program students will be able to:









Analysis of Results

Page 2 of 10

Performance Measure Measureable Goal What is your goal?








The results of the three Peregrine Outbound Exams show a positive trend looking at how Redlands BUSB 333 students improved their scores in relation to the ACBSP composite scores. The first term U of R students performed worse than ACBSP students in one subject area. Also, the U of R topic summary score lagged the ACBSP

Analysis: Mismatch between course goals and Peregrine exit exam. The purpose of this course is to give students opportunities to identify, assess, and analyze business information needs and to design and implement usable solutions that make business processes more effective, efficient, and productive. Whereas students are introduced to information systems concepts, the main goal of this course is to identify business information problems and create information systems based solutions.

Action: During the next year the Course Learning Outcomes, Textbook and Assignments will be reviewed. A number of the Peregrine Outbound exam topic areas are inappropriate given the practice-based problem-solving nature of this course. Topics of Artificial Intelligence, Expert Systems, and Simulation Analysis are not appropriate given the purpose of our course and should be dropped. The Networks and Telecommunications sections can be combined, while Hardware and Software questions need to be useful and meaningful to students. Systems

FALL 3 See p. 3

SPRING 1 See p. 4

SPRING 3 See p. 5

Page 3 of 10

score by about 1.7%. The second term U of R students performed worse than ACBSP students in three subject areas. The performance percentages increased in half of the cases for U of R students. The U of R topic summary score surpassed the ACBSP score by about 2%---roughly a 5 % improvement. The third term of U of R students performed worse than ACBSP students in

Analysis and Design topics need to be included in this exit exam.

Page 4 of 10

one subject area. The U of R topic summary score surpassed the ACBSP score by about 6%---roughly a 4% improvement over term two. Lower scores for U of R students seemed to be associated with questions in topics that are inappropriate to the content of the course. A better alignment of topics on the Outbound Exam with Course content should produce more actionable data.

Page 5 of 10

Revised: 9/08/16


Page 6 of 10

FALL 3 (01/04/2016 – 03/11/2016)

Page 7 of 10

SPRING 1 (04/27/2016 – 06/30/2016)

Page 8 of 10

SPRING 3 (07/01/2016 – 08/26/2016)

Page 9 of 10

OVERALL RESULTS

Page 10 of 10



2. BSB students completing the Peregrine Outbound exam are tested in the following areas in Information Management Systems. Are these areas appropriate for our students?



Topics: Information Management Systems Subjects:

• Artificial Intelligence (Questions related to defining AI) • Data and Information (Questions related to facts vs. assumptions, MIS systems, and the types of information systems) • Executive and Decision-Support Systems (Questions related to the use of DSS, Forecasting, and types of DSS) • Expert Systems (Questions related to use of expert systems, types of expert systems, developing an expert system) • Information Management Processes and Procedures (Questions related to MIS activities, MIS systems, and MIS subsystems) • Internal and External Networks (Questions related to e-commerce, internal vs. external networks, and uses of external networks) • Simulation Analysis (Questions related to optimization, satisficing modules, and simulation environments) • Software and Hardware (Questions related to types of hardware, firewalls, databases, and networks) • Telecommunications (Questions related to virtual networks and teleconferencing)


Page 1 of 10 Prepared by Carrascoso September 2016

Peregrine Exam Results – Legal Environment of Business Performance Indicator Program Description BSB Program Learning Objectives: By the end of the program students will be able to:









Page 2 of 10

Analysis of Results Performance Measure Measurable Goal What is your goal?








For the three time periods analyzed (Fall 3, Spring 1 and Spring 3), the average scores of BSB students were within the established parameters. Fall 3 BSB results were about 2% below the US results, while Spring 1 BSB results were about 0.7% below US results. Spring 3 BSB results were about 4.2% above US results.

As a liberal arts institution, we aim to infuse legal knowledge in our curriculum consistent with our thrust. Because of our strong emphasis on ethics, attempting to stress both ethics and the law in our Ethical and Legal Environment of Business class is challenging – there is no time to discuss everything sufficiently. This may explain why student performance is problematic in six of the nine areas covered by the exam. However, BSB students did meet the average topic score requirements for all time periods as compared to the BSMs which did not fare as well. There was no one topic where BSB students systematically underperformed across time; BSM students

BUSB 300 is primarily an ethics class that also introduces pertinent legal concepts and perspectives to decision-making. Not all the nine areas are appropriate or can realistically be discussed alongside ethics in an 8-week time frame. 1. Antitrust can be

removed or deemphasized since economics classes discuss this topic (competition).

2. Equal employment opportunity can be deemphasized since OB/HR classes discuss this at length.

3. Certain aspects of financial regulation can be discussed in other classes.

4. Civil and criminal processes, and Legal

FALL 3 See p. 6

SPRING 1 See p. 7

SPRING 3 See p. 8

Page 3 of 10

systematically underperformed in Antitrust and Equal Employment Opportunity.

agreements and documents, can be removed or deemphasized because of the highly technical nature of the topic.

The other remaining topics should be incorporated in class discussions alongside ethics to maximize student learning. For example, how government regulation relates to a company’s ethical responsibilities should be discussed through lectures and case discussions. The class on corporate social responsibility can discuss pertinent information about liability and types of business organizations. There is no need to have a purely law textbook for this class. Having a blended ethics and law textbook is a possibility that faculty will consider.

Page 4 of 10

Topically, BSBs underperformed in the following areas: Antitrust (7.5% below US standards for Fall 3); Consumer Protection (6% below US standards for Spring 3); Equal employment opportunity (22% below US performance for Spring 1); Government regulation of business (6.6% below US performance


Page 5 of 10

Revised: 9/08/16

for Fall 3); Legal agreements and documents (5.2% below US standards for Spring 3); Types of Business Organizations (23.4% below US standard for Spring 1).

Page 6 of 10

FALL 3 (01/04/2016 – 03/11/2016)

Page 7 of 10

SPRING 1 (04/27/2016 – 06/30/2016)

Page 8 of 10

SPRING 3 (07/01/2016 – 08/26/2016)

Page 9 of 10

OVERALL RESULTS

Page 10 of 10



2. BSB students completing the Peregrine Outbound exam are tested in the following areas in Legal Environment of Business. Are these areas appropriate for our students?



Topic: Legal Environment of Business Subjects:

• Antitrust (Questions related to interstate commerce, defining antitrust, and monopolies) • Civil and Criminal Processes (Questions related to subpoena, an administrative agency, and judicial review) • Consumer Protection (Questions related to consumer protection laws and regulatory agencies) • Equal Employment Opportunity (Questions related to contract employees, severance pay, employment agreements) • Financial Regulation (Questions related to corporate income, capital, and the SEC) • Government Regulation of Businesses (Questions related to administrative agencies, legislative rules, federal agencies, and interested parties) • Legal Agreements and Documents (Questions related to incorporation, trademarks, shareholder agreements, and contracts) • Liability (Questions related to limited liability, personal liability, and limited liability companies) • Types of Business Organizations (Questions related to partnerships, sole proprietorship, LLC, and corporations)


Page 1 of 8 Prepared by Brandes/Falatoon September 2016

Peregrine Exam Results – Quantitative Research Techniques and Statistics Performance Indicator Program Description BSB Program Learning Objectives: By the end of the program students will be able to:









Analysis of Results

Page 2 of 8









In both of the time period Fall 3 and Spring 3, students scored above most of the tested subtopics (or at least within the 5% range if they did score below). In contrast, Spring 1 shows low results; in most of the subjects as well as in the overall result, students’ average lies outside the 5% threshold compared to the ACBSP US average.

Analysis: When looking at the two periods with the larger sample sizes (Fall 3 and Spring 3), there also does not seem to be a subject in which students consistently score below the ACBSP US average. In Fall 3, the only two subjects with lower scores were Inferential Statistics and Probability; in Spring 3 students only scored lower in subject questions on Type I and Type II error.

Action: This course does not focus strongly on the following areas: decisions trees (Inferential Statistics) and power curve (Probability). Hence, they could be taken out of the Peregrine exam. Other topics on multiple regression and time series could be included as they are now part of the class.

FALL 3 See p. 3

SPRING 1 See p. 4

SPRING 3 See p. 5

Page 3 of 8

Revised: 9/08/16

Students scored overall above the ACBSP US averages in 2 out of the three time periods (Fall 3 and Spring 3).

Aside from the decrease in scores during the second time period which could be attributed to the very small sample size in this period, the results are very encouraging. Overall, students’ scores have improved between the first and the third period.

The statistics course has undergone major revisions in October 2015 for the course starts in January 2016. This included changes in textbook (and a connected online platform for homework assignments and tests) as well as the inclusion of additional topics (time series, multiple regression analysis). It is thus encouraging to see that students generally scored higher than the ACBSP US average (aside from Spring 1). Major changes to the syllabus/learning outcomes/ materials seem thus not warranted at this point.


Page 4 of 8

FALL 3 (01/04/2016 – 03/11/2016)

Page 5 of 8

SPRING 1 (04/27/2016 – 06/30/2016)

Page 6 of 8

SPRING 3 (07/01/2016 – 08/26/2016)

Page 7 of 8

OVERALL RESULTS

Page 8 of 8



2. BSB students completing the Peregrine Outbound exam are tested in the following areas in Quantitative Techniques and Statistics. Are these areas appropriate for our students?



Topic: Quantitative Techniques and Statistics Subjects:

• Descriptive Statistics (Questions related to standard deviation, variance, and sample mean) • Hypothesis Testing (Questions related to testing approaches and accepting/rejecting a hypothesis) • Inferential Statistics (Questions related to decision trees, influence of sample size, and population means) • Population Sampling (Questions related to random sampling, sampling distributions, and sampling errors) • Probability (Questions related to calculating probability, power curve, probability distributions) • Significance Levels (Questions related to expected value of sample information, expected value of perfect information, and use of significance

levels) • Type I and Type II Errors (Questions related to defining and understanding Type I and Type II errors)



Peregrine Exam Results – Business Ethics Performance Indicator Program Description BSM Program Learning Objectives: By the end of the program students will be able to









Page 2 of 8









For the two time periods analyzed (Fall 3 and Spring 3), the average scores of BSM students were within the established parameters. Fall 3 MBA results were about 2% below the US results, while Spring 3 MBA results were about 0.35% above US results. Topically, BSMs underperformed in the following areas: Conflict

It is reassuring to know that overall, our students are performing according close to national standards. As an institution, we are externally validated by our attempts to infuse ethics in our curriculum consistent with our thrust. However, the findings suggest that there may be at least three consistent areas of BSM weakness that ethics faculty should address. Interestingly, these same three areas are problematic for BSB students also. Our students need to perform better in these areas because actual managerial decision making incorporates correct perception of ethical issues. Knowledge of ethical standards and proper handling of conflicts of interest also enhances

The topics covered in the Peregrine exam are already covered in our BUSB 300 syllabus; there is no need to reconfigure the syllabus to improve student performance. Rather, ethics faculty should emphasize the importance of the three weaker performing areas to students. There should be more case discussions that incorporate these issues, and students should be provided greater aid when writing their final papers especially if these topics are covered. A review of the course textbook is already underway to ensure adequate coverage of all important ethics topics.

FALL 3 See p. 5

SPRING 3 See p. 6

Page 3 of 8

of Interest (18% below overall US performance for Fall 3); Ethical issues (7% below US performance for Fall 3, 9% below US performance for Spring 3); Ethical standards (8.4% below US performance for Fall 3) Spring 3 performance for BSM students on Ethical Climate was almost 5% below standards.

financial performance and value creation for other stakeholders.

Page 4 of 8

Revised: 9/08/16


Page 5 of 8

FALL 3 (01/04/2016 – 03/11/2016)

Page 6 of 8

SPRING 3 (07/01/2016 – 08/26/2016)

Page 7 of 8

OVERALL RESULTS

Page 8 of 8



2. BSB students completing the Peregrine Outbound exam are tested in the following areas in Business Ethics. Are these areas appropriate for our students?



Topic: Business Ethics Subjects:

• Conflict of Interest (Questions related to the relationship between personal interests and organizational interests) • Corporate Ethics and Climate (Questions related to ethical training, leadership role in ethical climate, and ethical communications ) • Discrimination (Questions related to Civil Rights Act, retaliation, and Equal Employment Opportunity) • Ethical Climate (Questions related to types of power, ethics programs, and ethics officers) • Ethical Decision-Making (Questions related to values, norms, and whistleblowing) • Ethical Issues (Questions related to fraudulent activities, groupthink, and defining an ethical issue) • Ethical Standards (Questions related to ethical formalism, codes of conduct, and legal vs. ethical issues)


Page 1 of 7 Prepared by Thosar/Falatoon September 2016

Peregrine Exam Results – Business Finance Performance Indicator Program Description BSM Program Learning Objectives: By the end of the program students will be able to









Page 2 of 7









Overall results are close to or just below the ACBSP(US) averages.

Analysis: With just two data points, it may be premature to draw conclusions. Most topical areas registered improvement in the Spring (latter measurement point) compared to the Fall except the categories: (a) Profit, Loss, Cash Flow, and Margins (Questions related to profit margins, positive/negative cash flows, and reporting losses) and (b) Stocks and Bonds (Questions related to bond yields, municipal bonds, and stock pricing).

Action: We will monitor and examine the external assessment results in the next cycle. If the categories listed in the analysis section continue to display underperformance, the fulltime accounting and finance faculty will meet and decide if curricular adjustments are warranted.

FALL 3 See p. 3

SPRING 3 See p. 4

Page 3 of 7

Revised: 9/08/16


Page 4 of 7

FALL 3 (01/04/2016 – 03/11/2016)

Page 5 of 7

SPRING 3 (07/01/2016 – 08/26/2016)

Page 6 of 7

OVERALL RESULTS

Page 7 of 7



2. BSB students completing the Peregrine Outbound exam are tested in the following areas in Business Finance. Are these areas appropriate for our students?



Topic: Business Finance Subjects:

• Asset Valuation and Inventory (Questions related to retained earnings, inventory turnover, and ROA) • Balance Sheets and Financial Statements (Questions related to income statements, operating margins, and reporting) • Business Analysis Ratios and Calculations (Questions related to Current Ratio, Free Cash Flow, and use of ratios in financial decision-

making/analysis ) • Interest and Dividends (Questions related to dividend payments, interest income, and capital gains) • Profit, Loss, Cash Flow, and Margins (Questions related to profit margins, positive/negative cash flows, and reporting losses) • Stocks and Bonds (Questions related to bond yields, municipal bonds, and stock pricing) • Tax Rates, Taxes, and Tax Codes (Questions related to alternative minimum tax, marginal tax rates, and corporate tax rates)


Page 1 of 6 Prepared by Spee September 2016

Peregrine Exam Results – Business Integration and Strategic Management Performance Indicator Program Description BSM Program Learning Objectives: By the end of the program students will be able to









Page 2 of 6

Revised: 9/08/16









At the topic level, most of the averages are below the benchmark by more than 5% but the overall scores are within 6% of the benchmark

Analysis: BSM students did not perform as well as BSB students on the standardized exam.

Action: Same as for BSB. Add practice quizzes to the Moodle site for the course and a summative quiz in Week 8.

FALL 3 See p. 3

SPRING 3 See p. 4


Page 3 of 6

FALL 3 (01/04/2016 – 03/11/2016)

Page 4 of 6

SPRING 3 (07/01/2016 – 08/26/2016)

Page 5 of 6

OVERALL RESULTS

Page 6 of 6



2. BSM students completing the Peregrine Outbound exam are tested in the following areas in Integration and Strategic Management. Are these areas appropriate for our students?

a. If yes, do you anticipate any changes to the BSM curriculum, specifically (i) Course Learning Outcomes, (ii) Textbook, (iii) Assignments, (iv) Pedagogy? Please be as specific as possible and propose a timeline for any course specific changes.


Topic: Business Integration and Strategic Management Subjects:

• Business-Level Strategy (Questions related to cost control, differentiation, and customer analysis) • Competition (Questions related to multipoint competition, competitive advantages, and global competition) • Corporate Mission, Vision, and Values (Questions related to mission statements, organizational culture, andvision statements) • Corporate Strategies (Questions related to integration, differentiation, and industry analysis) • Corporate Structure and Governance (Questions related to analysis of activity, antitrust, and strategic leadership ) • Diversification (Questions related to acquisitions, internal/external incentives, and levels of diversification) • Stakeholders and Shareholders (Questions related to organizational stakeholders, market stakeholders, and returnon investment) • Strategic Planning and Decision-Making (Questions related to the strategic management process, total qualitymanagement, and strategic

mission)


Page 1 of 7 Prepared by Moenius November 2016

Peregrine Exam Results – Global Dimensions of Business Performance Indicator Program Description BSM Program Learning Objectives: By the end of the program students will be able to









Page 2 of 7









By now, there are two terms of total 47 valid exams available for this analysis. Fall 3 (1/4/16-3/11/16)-31 completed exams Spring 3 (7/1/16-8/26/16)-16 completed exams The overall results from the two terms varied. Fall 3: The average score of the 31 BSM students in this first term was below the ACBSP-US score by 5.44%, which was below the -5% threshold. Spring 3: The average score of the 13 BSM students in this second term was above the ACBSP-US score by 3.9% within the 5% threshold.

Fall 3: All subtopics in this term had scores below the ACBSP-US scores with only one, “International Government and Regulation”, being slightly above than the national score. Especially “International Corporate Strategies” and “International Patents and Protections” did not meet the -5% benchmark. Spring 3: There was a big increase in this group’s score. All subtopics had score higher than the national average except for one subtopic “International Patents and Protections”, which was by 11.3% and did not meet the -5% benchmark.

Due to the extremely small sample size, it is difficulty to draw any solid conclusion at this time. In addition, after reviewing the subtopics list and the Peregrine Exam questions, faculty observed the discrepancies between those and the major topics covered in the International Business course (BUSB 342 For example, according to the Peregrine exam description, the subtopic International Patents and Protections would contain questions related to antidumping, tacit collusion, and fair competition. This is substantially different from the textbook content (barriers to trade) we cover in the BUSB 342. Therefore, no major curricular changes should be made to the course without further investigation. However, in Spring 2017, full-time faculty members in Global area plan to review the Peregrine exam and see if changes could be made to the specifications of the Global section. Subsequently they will discuss the findings with the adjunct faculty at the Faculty Development Conference in 2017. If consensus is reached, the school could work with the Peregrine company to implement any changes to the exam accordingly.

FALL 3 See p. 3

SPRING 3 See p. 4

OVERALL RESULTS

See p. 5

Page 3 of 7

FALL 3 (01/04/2016 – 03/11/2016)

Page 4 of 7

Page 5 of 7

SPRING 3 (07/01/2016 – 08/26/2016)

Page 6 of 7

OVERALL RESULTS

Page 7 of 7



2. BSB students completing the Peregrine Outbound exam are tested in the following areas in Global Dimensions of Business. Are these areas appropriate for our students?



Topic: Global Dimensions of Business Subjects:

• Foreign Direct Investment and Trade (Questions related to FDI policies, vertical FDI, and job creation) • International Corporate Strategies (Questions related to Multinational Enterprises (MNE), market entry, andglobalization strategies) • International Governance and Regulation (Questions related to price regulation, incentives, and market balance) • International Patents and Protections (Questions related to antidumping, tacit collusion, and fair competition) • Multinational Culture (Questions related to nationalism, free-market based, and culture influences)


Page 1 of 8 Prepared by Cass September 2016

Peregrine Exam Results – Information Management Systems Performance Indicator Program Description BSM Program Learning Objectives: By the end of the program students will be able to









Analysis of Results

Page 2 of 8









The results of the two Peregrine Outbound Exams show a positive trend looking at how Redlands BAMG 334 students improved their scores in relation to the ACBSP composite scores. The first term U of R students performed worse than ACBSP students in five subject areas. Also, the U of R topic summary score lagged the ACBSP

Analysis: Mismatch between course goals and Peregrine exit exam. The purpose of this course is to give students opportunities to identify, assess, and analyze information needs and to design and implement organizationally usable solutions to achieve them. Students also identify management, leadership and communicational contexts where using technology can increase productivity and effectiveness. Whereas students are introduced to information systems concepts, the main thrust of this course is identifying information problems and creating information systems based solutions.

Action: During the next year the Course Learning Outcomes, Textbook and Assignments will be reviewed. A number of the Peregrine Outbound exam topic areas are inappropriate given the practice-based problem-solving nature of this course. Topics of Artificial Intelligence, Expert Systems, and Simulation Analysis are not appropriate given the purpose of our course and should be dropped. The Networks and Telecommunications sections can be combined, while Hardware and Software questions need to be useful and meaningful to students. Systems

FALL 3 See p. 3

SPRING 3 See p. 4

Page 3 of 8

score by about 8%. The second term U of R students performed worse than ACBSP students in two subject areas. The performance percentages increased in most cases for U of R students. The U of R topic summary score lagged the ACBSP score by about 3%---roughly a 5 % improvement. Lower scores for U of R students seemed to be associated with questions in topics that are

Analysis and Design topics need to be included in this exit exam.

Page 4 of 8

Revised: 9/08/16

inappropriate to the content of the course. A better alignment of topics on the Outbound Exam with Course content should produce more actionable data.


Page 5 of 8

FALL 3 (01/04/2016 – 03/11/2016)

Page 6 of 8

SPRING 3 (07/01/2016 – 08/26/2016)

Page 7 of 8

OVERALL RESULTS

Page 8 of 8



2. BSB students completing the Peregrine Outbound exam are tested in the following areas in Information Management Systems. Are these areas appropriate for our students?



Topic: Information Management Systems Subjects:

• Artificial Intelligence (Questions related to defining AI) • Data and Information (Questions related to facts vs. assumptions, MIS systems, and the types of informationsystems) • Executive and Decision-Support Systems (Questions related to the use of DSS, Forecasting, and types of DSS) • Expert Systems (Questions related to use of expert systems, types of expert systems, developing an expert system) • Information Management Processes and Procedures (Questions related to MIS activities, MIS systems, and MISsubsystems) • Internal and External Networks (Questions related to e-commerce, internal vs. external networks, and uses ofexternal networks) • Simulation Analysis (Questions related to optimization, satisficing modules, and simulation environments) • Software and Hardware (Questions related to types of hardware, firewalls, databases, and networks) • Telecommunications (Questions related to virtual networks and teleconferencing)



Peregrine Exam Results – Legal Environment of Business Performance Indicator Program Description BSM Program Learning Objectives: By the end of the program students will be able to






The Bachelor of Business Management A Bachelor of Science in Management degree from the University of Redlands School of Business offers students and employers a well-rounded educational experience that focuses on the development of management and leadership skills. The program is of interest to those who (a) need to complete their undergraduate education to move up in the organizational hierarchy and/or (b) possess sufficient skills about specific business functions (such as information systems, finance, budgeting, operations etc.) but now feel the need to supplement those skills with specialized knowledge on leadership and organizational behavior. Program Learning Objectives and Student Learning Outcomes are assessed as follows:



Page 2 of 8









For the two time periods analyzed (Fall 3 and Spring 3), the average scores of BSM students were not always within the established parameters. Fall 3 MBA results were about 0.5% above the US results; Spring 3 MBA results were about 8.5% below US results. Topically, BSMs underperformed in the following

As a liberal arts institution, we aim to infuse legal knowledge in our curriculum consistent with our thrust. Because of our strong emphasis on ethics, attempting to stress both ethics and the law in our Ethical and Legal Environment of Business class is challenging – there is no time to discuss everything sufficiently. This may explain why student performance is problematic in six of the nine areas covered by the exam. BSM student performance was worse than BSB student performance for the relevant time periods. BSB students met their overall performance targets for all time periods

BUSB 300 is primarily an ethics class that also introduces pertinent legal concepts and perspectives to decision-making. Not all the nine areas are appropriate or can realistically be discussed alongside ethics in an 8-week time frame. 1. Antitrust can be

removed or deemphasized since economics classes discuss this topic (competition).

2. Equal employment opportunity can be deemphasized since OB/HR classes discuss this at length.

3. Certain aspects of financial regulation can be discussed in other classes.

4. Civil and criminal processes, and Legal

FALL 3 See p. 5

SPRING 3 See p. 6

Page 3 of 8

areas: Antitrust (5% and 18% below US standards for Fall 3 and Spring 3, respectively); Civil and Criminal Procedures (9% below US standards for Spring 3); Consumer Protection (6% below US standards for Fall 3); Equal employment opportunity (0% or no reported data for Spring 3, 6% below US performance for Fall 3); Financial regulation (43% below US performance for Spring 3); Legal agreements

agreements and documents, can be removed or deemphasized because of the highly technical nature of the topic.

The other remaining topics should be incorporated in class discussions alongside ethics to maximize student learning. For example, how government regulation relates to a company’s ethical responsibilities should be discussed through lectures and case discussions. The class on corporate social responsibility can discuss pertinent information about liability and types of business organizations. There is no need to have a purely law textbook for this class. Having a blended ethics and law textbook is a possibility that faculty will consider.

Page 4 of 8

Revised: 9/08/16

and documents (9.7% below US standards for Spring 3).


Page 5 of 8

FALL 3 (01/04/2016 – 03/11/2016)

Page 6 of 8

SPRING 3 (07/01/2016 – 08/26/2016)

Page 7 of 8

OVERALL RESULTS

Page 8 of 8



2. BSB students completing the Peregrine Outbound exam are tested in the following areas in Legal Environment of Business. Are these areas appropriate for our students?



Topic: Legal Environment of Business Subjects:

• Antitrust (Questions related to interstate commerce, defining antitrust, and monopolies) • Civil and Criminal Processes (Questions related to subpoena, an administrative agency, and judicial review) • Consumer Protection (Questions related to consumer protection laws and regulatory agencies) • Equal Employment Opportunity (Questions related to contract employees, severance pay, employmentagreements) • Financial Regulation (Questions related to corporate income, capital, and the SEC) • Government Regulation of Businesses (Questions related to administrative agencies, legislative rules, federalagencies, and interested parties) • Legal Agreements and Documents (Questions related to incorporation, trademarks, shareholder agreements, andcontracts) • Liability (Questions related to limited liability, personal liability, and limited liability companies) • Types of Business Organizations (Questions related to partnerships, sole proprietorship, LLC, and corporations)