Academic Program Assessment Report A - Morningside College · Department: Business Administration and Economics Prepared by Dr. Pamela Mickelson The Department of Business Administration

2013-2014 Academic Program Assessment

Form C: Assessment Results Department: Business Administration and Economics

Prepared by Dr. Pamela Mickelson The Department of Business Administration and Economics has collected data from two direct assessment tools beginning in 2011. The Comprehensive Business Exam (CBE) is a standardized exam designed to measure proficiency in eight business domains. The second tool is a Sophomore Exam designed in the department to measure proficiency in the first five core business courses. College Learning Objectives (LOs) Student Learning Outcomes (SLO) #1: Morningside SLO #1: Demonstrate analytic, synthetic creative, evaluative and quantitative thinking. Assessment Method: Sophomore Comprehensive Exam

a) What did you measure? Student performance on a standardized, multiple choice test that covers five courses that all Business Administration Majors are required to complete. These are: BUSN 231: Principles of Management; ACCT 203: Introduction to Financial Accounting; ACCT 204: Managerial and Cost Accounting; ECON 200: Principles of Economics I; and ONE of the following: MATH 115: Mathematical Understanding and Reasoning; MATH 150: Elementary Probability and Statistics; Math 205: Calculus and Analytic Geometry I. Students complete ten questions for each course, for a total of fifty questions.

b) Who did you get measurements from (e.g., seniors, students in a class, etc.)? The department obtained measurements from sophomores enrolled in Accounting 204 (ACCT 204) Managerial and Cost Accounting, typically in the spring of the sophomore year. That is when students should have completed the five “core” courses.

c) Observed results (See Table 1): Averages in what the department considered to be the ‘Qualitative” areas (BUSN) 231

showed improvement; the average score in the BUSN 231 portion was 7.16/10 for 2014 which confirms the more intentional efforts on the part of the faculty teaching BUSN 231. Scores in the more quantitative areas continue to be low. There was a surprising drop in the performance of students this year. As you can see from the table, average overall scores and average course scores experienced significant drops from the previous year (2013). The overall average dropped from a 31.24 in 2013 to a 27.55 in 2014. At the 5% level, this is a ‘significant’ drop, meaning that it is unlikely to be random Each one of the core courses experienced similar drops with the exceptions of Math 115 and ECON 200. There was only one student who took the Math 115 version, and she was one of the two who scored a 70% or better, with a nine out of ten on that section. ECON 200

continued to trend upward, rising from an average of 5.71 to a 5.81 in 2014. The maximum score I 2014 was a 37/50 and the minimum was a 20/50. It is likely that formal hypothesis tests for the core courses would reveal that these drops were also ‘significant’ although I have not had time to perform these yet. There was no meaningful difference in the performance of the Math 150 students vs. the Math 205 students. I could not compare the performance of Math 115 students since the sample size was one, which is too small to allow for meaningful comparisons. None of the Math 150 students achieved a 35/50. The two who score over a 35/50 were one Math 205 (calculus) student and the one student noted earlier who took the Math 115 version. Data for all four years is summarized in the table below. Table 1: Sophomore Test Score out of 10 for Core business courses

Year Avg. BUSN 231

ACCT 203

ACCT 204

ECON 200

MATH 115

MATH 150

MATH 205

# over 35

Total students

Percent over 35

2011 24.4 4.44 7.21 3.85 3.96 6.67 4.64 4.89 0 48 0

2012 32.10 6.28 7.3 7.18 5.53 6.67 5.19 6.21 22 60 36.7%

2013 31.24 6.27 6.33 6.73 5.71 6.33 6.04 8.00 21 65 32.3%

2014 27.55 7.16 4.71 5.55 5.81 N.A. 4.15 4.27 2 38 5.26%

d) Is this what you expected? Explain. We were expecting the Math scores to remain the same – however they dropped. We also

expected the Accounting scores to go up although they dropped.

e) Why do you believe students performed this way? Accounting faculty spent considerable time standardizing the course content and implementing an online homework module. Efforts of the Management faculty and Economics faculty proved to result in slightly higher scores.

f) What possible changes might improve student learning? Try to be specific. There are some changes that might improve student learning. It is always possible to revise content and teaching approaches in the four business department courses. We will be dropping the MATH 115 requirement because of these assessment requirements and adding MATH 125 to the mix. Additional math requirements would also be helpful to the student quantitative knowledge, although reinforcing math functions in all courses would help. Faculty will work on that in 2013 – 2014.

Any changes would be made with the goal of having average student scores rise above a 7/10 for each course covered by the exam. At the same time, we would like to the average sophomore assessment exam score to jump to 35/50, or 70%. The department set the standard for demonstrated proficiency in these five courses at 70%. That is the stated policy in the course catalog. This definition of proficiency differs from the CBE, the nationally normed senior assessment exam. The CBE defines proficiency in its eight Common Professional Components as scores falling into the 83-99% range. A score of 70% on a common professional component falls in the range of ‘Basic’ understanding, defined as 66-82%. For more on the CBE, see below.

g) If you have instituted changes prior, please describe the impact, if any, you believe the change had on

student learning: The department has begun to advise more students to take at least two MATH courses. Even without this instrument, it was clear to the department that quantitative analysis had been a weak area. Whatever improvements there might be will likely not be reflected on this instrument, since students could easily take the second or third MATH course AFTER completing the Sophomore Assessment Exam.

Student Learning Outcomes #2: Communicate effectively. Assessment Method: Beginning in 2014-2015 reviewers will be utilized for the BUSN 484 final project. Files will be loaded into TaskStream and a sample will be reviewed based on a common rubric. The first assessment will take place in January by department faculty not teach the course. Sample writings from summer and spring courses will be used to develop the common rubric.

a) What possible changes might improve student learning? Try to be specific. Implement a systematic method of evaluation. Among the possibilities is to have an outside panel of business leaders from the community review student writing in BUSN 484 and use this panel to offer feedback during class time.

b) If you have instituted changes prior, please describe the impact, if any, you believe the change had on student learning: Multiple faculty have taught BUSN 484 – and worked together to offer the same course. Three faculty have collaborated to create a single capstone writing assignment.

Student Learning Outcomes #3: Morningside SLO #3: Behave ethically and responsibly. Assessment Method: CBE Results – Section 4 Social environment. There are six questions that address two outcomes. Objective 1) Identify ethical issues and choose the most ethical action. Objective 2) Demonstrate ethical and social responsibility in given business scenarios.

a) What did you measure? Student responses to three questions for each objective, for a grand total of six questions covering ethics and related areas.

b) Who did you get measurements from (e.g., seniors, students in a class, etc.)? Seniors in BUSN 484: Business Policy – the capstone.

c) Observed results: The CBE benchmark for proficiency in any of its sections is 83-99% correct. For the Spring 2014 exam, 30%

of Morningside students taking the CBE scored 83% or above, and placed into the either the ‘Proficient’ category or the ‘Mastery’ category. This is a significant change from 39% in the fall of 2011, and 38% in the spring of 2012.

d) Is this what you expected? Explain. No. We would have liked to see the social environment score remain where it was.

Our score dropped far below scores achieved by our “peer” institutions (Carnegie Classification) and all institutions. The pattern for ‘peer’ institutions was 37.5 proficient or mastery for spring 2011, 36.1% for fall 2011, 37.4% in spring 2012 and 33.93 in Spring 2014. For all institutions taking the exam, the pattern was 36.8% in spring 2011, 35.4% in fall 2011, 35.0% in spring 2012, and 34.38% in spring 2014.

e) Why do you believe students performed this way? Students seem to be struggling more and more to determine what is

ethical and what is not, in a business context. There is some idea inside the department that this year’s graduates may be outliers.

f) What possible changes might improve student learning? Try to be specific. One change may be to provide students with a

clear method to use to make the most ethical decision. This could be used as a guide and could influence students to make more ethical decisions. Another possibility would be discussing more regularly and in a more straightforward manner the pressures that face businessmen and women in their everyday lives, and the kinds of rationalizations used to justify unethical actions. Another possibility would be to use case studies in ethical decision making to help students wrestle with these issues in a supported setting.

g) If you have instituted changes prior, please describe the impact, if any, you believe the change had on student learning: None.

Student Learning Outcomes #4: Use knowledge of cultures to enhance their understanding of themselves and others. Assessment Method: None: Neither the Sophomore Comprehensive Exam nor the CBE are designed to address this outcome. Further, departmental course offerings that address this outcome are very limited. Student Learning Outcomes #5: Morningside SLO: Apply knowledge and skills from multiple, diverse disciplines and practical experiences to understand complex issues and to solve problems Assessment Method: IACBE Curriculum Analysis, and the CBE. The CBE will be discussed as a separate item.

a) What did you measure? The International Assembly of Collegiate Business Education measures the level of recommended core courses for a degree in business. The IACBE is an accrediting body for many smaller liberal arts based business degrees. The BA&E department investigated being accredited in the last five years, and evaluated the department curriculum with the IACBE core requirements.

b) Who did you get measurements from (e.g., seniors, students in a class, etc.)? This data was gained from departmental faculty. To determine any strengths or weaknesses in the department offerings and to aid in the assessment of student

learning, the Department examined the business core curriculum in 2011 during a self-study. One of the tools used by IACBE to measure the level of coverage for these areas in the curriculum is a matrix arrayed with the core courses on the vertical axis and the Core Professional Competency (CPC) arrayed along the horizontal access (See Table 2).

c) Observed results: The Matrix for the current curriculum of the Business department is included in Table 2. Contact hours in

each CPC are mapped into the matrix. A minimum of 20 contact hours in each CPC is considered a minimum number of contact hours. Areas that are marginally short are: Organizational Behavior, Human Resource Management, Operations Management, and International Business.

d) Is this what you expected? Explain. The shortness of curriculum offerings in both quantitative and management could help

explain the poor performance by students in CBE scores. e) Why do you believe students performed this way? Of the 2014 grads, over half were from the BA program. None of these

students have additional business courses which could help the scores on the assessment exam. The BS sequence does not require BUSN 338: Production and Operations Management, or BUSN 340, International Business, which are key courses in many other programs. The Human Resource Management course has been dropped from course offerings.

f) What possible changes might improve student learning? Try to be specific. Requiring more instruction in each of those areas

will improve student learning significantly. Embedded assessment for each Core Competency should also help, and reevaluating the contact time for each proficiency.

g) If you have instituted changes prior, please describe the impact, if any, you believe the change had on

student learning: None. Table 2: IACBE Matrix of Curriculum Categories and BA&E degree requirements in 2011, they need to be reevaluated under current faculty practices – notably are the core

A

cct

Mrk

t

Fin

c

Mgm

t

Org

Beh

HR

Op

sMgt

Law

Eco

n

Eth

ics

Info

Sys

Qn

t/St

ats

Intnatl

Bu

sPo

l/C

ps

t

Tota

ls

MATH REQ

Math Requirement

48

48

ACCT 203

Intro to Fin Acct

30

4

2

4

2

3

3

48

ACCT 204

Mng/Cost Acct I

30

5

1

4

1

5

2

48

ECON 200

Principles of Econ I

1

1

39

1

1

6

48

BUSN 231

Principles of Mgmt

33

2

2

1

2

6

1

2

48

BUSN 314

Business Law

5

4

33

4

2

48

BUSN 321

Principles of Finance

6

33

2

1

3

2

1

48

BUSN 341

Principles of Mrktng

30

2

3

1

2

2

2

2

4

48

BUSN 430

Cont Ldrshp & Ethics

14

12

6

16

48

BUSN 484

Business Policy

2

8

4

2

2

2

2

26

48

Totals

66

32

44

53

20

20

20

39

40

40

8

54

16

31

Student Learning Outcome #5: Morningside SLO: Apply knowledge and skills from multiple, diverse disciplines and practical experiences to understand complex issues and to solve problems. Assessment Method: The CBE.

a) What did you measure? Student Performance on the CBE in three Core Professional Components: Management, International Business / Global Dimensions, and Marketing.

b) Who did you get measurements from (e.g., seniors, students in a class, etc.)? Seniors taking BUSN

484: Business Policy.

c) Observed results: In Spring 2014, Morningside outperformed ‘All’ institutions only in the area of management when students are compared that are ranked at the levels of proficient or mastery (83% or higher).

d) Is this what you expected? Explain. No, we have discovered falling competency in International business and continued low achievement in Marketing

e) Why do you believe students performed this way? See detailed discussion under the Department SLOs.

f) What possible changes might improve student learning? Try to be specific. See detailed discussion under the Department SLOs.

Comment [WU1]: I am not sure we are actually doing this much in these areas.

g) If you have instituted changes prior, please describe the impact, if any, you believe the change

had on student learning: See detailed discussion under the Department SLOs. Student Learning Outcomes #6: Exhibit a passion for life-long learning Assessment Method: Individual faculty taught May Term evaluations. Neither the Sophomore Comprehensive exam nor the CBE is designed to address this outcome. This report does not include assessment on SLO #6.

Discipline Specific Student Learning Outcomes (D-SLOs): Graduates of the Business Administration and Economics program should:

1. Demonstrate a thorough understanding of business operations, issues of ethical conduct, and successful business strategies in an ever-changing business environment

2. Be innovative and apply successful business strategies in an uncertain and diverse world 3. Conduct relevant quantitative analysis essential in business and accounting 4. Think critically, communicate effectively, and demonstrate technological competencies for today's business environment.

Overview: The department has used the Comprehensive Business Examination (CBE) as a direct assessment technique. We began administering the assessment instrument in the fall of 2007. Overall, our results indicate we have made improvements in our program, but we are not making significant progress. The last two years actually show we have lost proficiency in some areas.

Department SLO #1: Demonstrate a thorough understanding of business operations, issues of ethical conduct, and successful business strategies in an ever-changing business environment. Department SLO #2: Be innovative and apply successful business strategies in an uncertain and diverse world. Department SLO #3: Conduct relevant quantitative analysis essential in business and accounting

Assessment Method: CBE Qualitative program review of Top 25 Midwest Colleges + select privates with a 4 CR curriculum

a) What did you measure? a. The CBE exam measures student knowledge in eight Core Professional components (these CPCs are the same as outlined

above in the core matrix used by the IACBE): Accounting, Finance, Economic Environment, Social Environment, Legal Environment, Management, International Business/Global Dimensions, and Marketing.

b. The Qualitative program review followed the outline below: Ranking & Name of College (name of faculty who completed research) Location of college, undergraduate enrollment, student to faculty ratio, tuition, R&B, endowment Top 5 majors & %, Business degree requirements Co-curricular business related activities Other notable activities in department Other notable college activities

b) Who did you get measurements from (e.g., seniors, students in a class, etc.)?

a. CBE - Seniors enrolled in BUSN 484: Business Policy, the department capstone course. b. Top 25 – US News and World Report

c) Observed results for Spring of 2014 (See Table 3.0):

a. CBE Raw data is provided in the table below. The measurement here is the percentage of students taking the CBE that score an 83% correct or above in the CPCs, falling into either ‘Proficient’ (83%-99%) correct, or Mastery (100% correct). In spring 2014, the data shows that Morningside has a lower percentage of students that scored at ‘proficient’ or above than its peer and all other institutions in every CPC except Legal Environment. Morningside students performed slightly better than all other institutions in Management (Morningside 14.38% proficient or mastery, all others 13.99% proficient or mastery).

b. A shared Google Doc shows the result of the search - https://docs.google.com/a/morningside.edu/document/d/1RMYSdNmtjBgOkU3yrPtjvBeQgPkzhLe5mtGmfseBnSY/edit

d) Is this what you expected? Explain. a. No. In all but two areas, Morningside students show a significant gap of more than two percentage points, and there is

a large movement toward less proficiency in the 2013-2014 cohort of students. This is an unwelcome surprise. We should note that the same cohort of students had more trouble in BUSN 484 with both meeting the Written Proficiency and overall performance in the course. Over 10% did not pass the course.

b. The results were very interested – the department can see that all schools offer an Accounting major (we do not), all schools are on a 3 cr hour system (we are not), we compare very favorably in general core courses, however # of courses are very different in a 4 cr hour system.

Table 3.0 CBE results for Spring 2014

Morningside Peer All

Not Prof Basic Prof

Mastery

M'side Prof + Mastery

Not Prof Basic Prof

Mastery

Peer Prof + Mastery

Not Prof Basic Prof Mastery

All Prof + Mastery

Accounting 66.25

% 21.88

% 10.63

% 1.25% 11.88% 60.07

% 21.67

% 15.79

% 2.47% 18.26% 59.43

% 23.42

% 14.94

% 2.21% 17.15%

Finance 70.63

% 19.38

% 8.75% 1.25% 10.00% 65.26

% 21.20

% 11.54

% 2.00% 13.54% 66.63

% 21.37

% 10.25

% 1.75% 12.00%

Economic Environment

57.50%

33.13% 7.50% 1.88% 9.38%

52.19%

36.23% 9.07% 2.51% 11.58%

52.36%

36.14% 8.85% 2.64% 11.49%

Social Environment

46.25%

23.75%

20.00% 10.00% 30.00%

39.85%

26.22%

22.61% 11.32% 33.93%

40.31%

25.32%

23.33% 11.05% 34.38%

Legal Environment

46.88%

32.50%

17.50% 3.13% 20.63%

57.00%

23.71%

14.64% 4.64% 19.28%

56.36%

23.21%

15.36% 5.06% 20.42%

Management 44.38

% 41.25

% 14.38

% 0.00% 14.38% 42.95

% 42.32

% 13.62

% 1.11% 14.73% 43.75

% 42.26

% 13.00

% 0.99% 13.99%

International Business / Global Dimensions

40.00%

36.25%

20.63% 3.13% 23.76%

35.97%

39.97%

16.56% 7.49% 24.05%

34.04%

39.90%

17.52% 8.54% 26.06%

Marketing 40.63

% 35.63

% 23.75

% 0.00% 23.75% 31.38

% 36.87

% 28.40

% 3.36% 31.76% 33.61

% 36.42

% 27.55

% 2.42% 29.97%

Table 3.1: CBE Results for combined three consecutive testing periods in 2011 and 2012

Morningside Peer All

NotProf Basic Prof Mastery

MorningsideProficiency+

Mastery

NotProf Basic Prof Mastery

PeerProficiency+Mastery

NotProf Basic Prof Mastery

AllProficiency+Mastery

Accounting 0.57 0.28 0.14 0.00 0.14 0.56 0.24 0.18 0.03 0.20 0.58 0.24 0.16 0.02 0.18

Finance 0.70 0.17 0.11 0.02 0.13 0.66 0.23 0.09 0.02 0.11 0.66 0.23 0.09 0.02 0.11

EconEnv 0.52 0.40 0.06 0.02 0.08 0.57 0.34 0.07 0.02 0.10 0.57 0.34 0.07 0.02 0.09

SocialEnv 0.41 0.16 0.26 0.17 0.43 0.35 0.28 0.24 0.13 0.37 0.39 0.25 0.24 0.11 0.36

LegalEnv 0.37 0.38 0.25 0.00 0.25 0.53 0.24 0.16 0.07 0.24 0.51 0.25 0.18 0.06 0.24

Management 0.25 0.52 0.23 0.00 0.23 0.36 0.44 0.19 0.01 0.20 0.37 0.46 0.16 0.01 0.18

IntBus/Global 0.33 0.33 0.27 0.08 0.35 0.31 0.42 0.20 0.08 0.28 0.32 0.39 0.19 0.10 0.29

Marketing 0.20 0.47 0.33 0.00 0.33 0.21 0.37 0.39 0.04 0.43 0.23 0.39 0.36 0.03 0.39

Note: Data for this table is an average of student performance in the core CPCs listed in the far left column. The numbers are the percentages of students scoring at Not Proficient (Not Prof), Basic, Proficient (Prof), and Mastery, and Proficient plus Mastery (Proficiency + Mastery). Not Proficient is a score below 66% correct. Basic is a score between 66% and 82% correct. Proficient is a score between 82% and 99% correct. Mastery is a score of 100%. For example, looking across the Accounting row, Morningside had 14% of its students score at “Proficient” or “Mastery” . The data covers the spring 2011, fall 2011, and spring 2012 semesters

e) Why do you believe students performed this way? There is some feeling in the department that this class of students may represent an outlier in annual data. At the same time, many institutions are struggling with quantitative aspects; in particular Morningside has recognized as a college that it has a shortcoming in the overall quantitative reasoning of its students as a whole, and this affects the quantitative performance of business students.

f) What possible changes might improve student learning? Try to be specific. For accounting in particular it seems that more

intentional usage of learning outcomes is needed. As a department, we could insure embedded assessment throughout the

financial sequence – ACCT 203 – ACCT 204 – BUSN 321 – BUSN 484. We could consider making BUSN 338: Production and Operations Management a requirement for the major. It is currently required for the B.S. with Management Emphasis, but is an elective for the B.A.

g) If you have instituted changes prior, please describe the impact, if any, you believe the change had on student learning: Currently only the most self–motivated students are taking any additional quantitative courses. These are students that typically expect to get into a regional MBA program. The department has been trying to advise students to take at least one additional math course beyond the one we currently require, but this has not been successful. The department has also begun to strictly enforce academic qualifications for elective courses beyond B.A. core. We expect this to actually improve student learning both in the core and in the electives, since students are guided into more appropriate course selections.

Assessment Results Summary: Morningside Student Learning Outcomes

Student Learning Outcome

Measurement Used Results Results Evaluation

(what does this mean?)

Anticipated Changes & Who is Responsible

Prior Change Impact (if any)

1. Demonstrate analytic, synthetic, creative, evaluative, and quantitative thinking.

Sophomore Comprehensive Exam

Zero % with 70% correct or more in

2011, 36% with 70% or more correct in 2012, and 32% with 70% or

more in 2013.

Exam is better aligned with content in core courses for

2012 and 2013

Individual faculty for reflection on results. Dr. J. Zink as exam

coordinator for tracking performance

and sharing results and trends as they

build.

Advising to steer students in to more quantitative/math courses. Likely no

impact on this instrument, since

many of these courses could be taken after

this exam.

2. Communicate effectively.

Faculty Reviewers, Rubric Norming, and Task Stream Pilot in

2014-2015

NA NA Mary Zink will

administer the Pilot NA

3. Behave ethically and responsibly.

CBE Results: Section 4 Social Environment

CPC

Proficient/Mastery achievement fell from

50% of students achieving this

benchmark in spring 2011, to 39% in fall

2011, to 38% in spring 2012 to 16.95 in

spring 2014.

Reversion to mean and that Ethics course is taught late in our sequence. (BUSN

430: Contemporary Leadership and

Ethics.

Individual Faculty – could begin with

ethics component in all courses.

Department – could develop lower level

business ethics course. Department – require lower level ethics course from

philosophy department

None.

4. Exhibit a passion for life-long learning. MSLO #6

May Term Evaluations NA NA NA NA

Assessment Results Summary: Department Student Learning Outcomes

Student Learning Outcome

Measurement Used Results Results Evaluation:

(what does this mean?)

Anticipated Changes & Who is Responsible

Prior Change Impact (if any)

#1, #2, and #3 Qualitative program

review of Top 25 Midwest Colleges

Comparison of major requirements and

additional organizational frameworks

Business Department compares in general

requirements – however the 4 CR system and # of

courses is far less than other schools

Morningside’s current position of 23 could be

improved with a stronger retention and

graduation rate.

Answer the following question - Can the department SLO’s

change to help improve college’s

position in the ranking – retaining more

students and help them persist to

graduation after their freshmen year. –

Department Chair is responsible.

Department SLO #1: Demonstrate a thorough understanding of business operations, issues of ethical conduct, and successful business strategies in an ever-changing business environment

CBE

Mixed: We see some strong areas, like management, and some unexpected weak areas like

marketing.

Department needs to consider strategies to

improve student achievement in Marketing and

Accounting Marketing has been

taught by an adjunct for three years.

Department curricular revision. Individual instructor implement

embedded assessment.

Use the current data as a baseline – and

establish target goals for each proficiency.

As noted above, started advising students to take additional math

courses, but there is significant resistance,

and impact will be limited for near

future.

Department SLO #2: Be innovative and apply successful business strategies in an uncertain and diverse world.

CBE Strong in management

and Social Environment

Means that management and Int Business areas are fairly strong, but always room for improvement.

Implement embedded assessment into

business core courses. Department could

change curriculum to include BUSN 338: Production and Ops

Management. Though outperforming peer

institution in Finance, additional

improvement is seen as necessary.

Use the current data as a baseline – and

establish target goals for each proficiency.

NA

Department SLO #3: Conduct relevant quantitative analysis essential in business and accounting

CBE Accounting remains a week point, as does

Economic Environment

Room for improvement. Econ

Environment is trending up, but still falls below ‘peer’ and

‘all’ institutions.

Implement embedded assessment into accounting core

courses and review embedded assessment

with MATH faculty. Department –

additional instruction in accounting and Economics seen as

desirable, but virtually no room to add into

the BA core. Use the current data as a baseline – and

establish target goals for each proficiency.

NA