Program Assessment Progress Report Instructions · versus passive voice, variety of structures). 3/22=14% 5/36=14% Grammar and Mechanics Results F2012 Results F2014 Frequent errors

1

Accounting Undergraduate Degree Program

Assessment Progress Report Cover Sheet

Degree: B.B.A./B.S. in Accounting For: Calendar Year: 2016

Date Submitted to college committee:_______________

Date posted to college assessment website _________________

Prepared by: Mark Funk

Overall rating___________________

Respond to all six parts following the “Degree Program Assessment Progress Report

Instructions.” (NOTE: Parts 1 through 4 can be copied from the relevant sections of

your assessment plan.) Attach additional pages as needed.

(1) Student learning goal(s) addressed this year:

Graduates from UALR accounting programs should possess: 1. Professional and technical knowledge 2. Effective communication skills

(2) Learning outcomes/objectives for those goals addressed this year: 1.1: All COB majors will demonstrate competence in topics covered in principles of accounting. 1.2: Accounting majors will demonstrate competence in each of the functional areas of accounting (auditing, accounting information systems, financial, tax, governmental, managerial, and advanced financial accounting). 2.1: Accounting majors will demonstrate effective written communication skills (assessed in the fall of even numbered years). 2.2: Accounting majors will demonstrate effective oral communication skills (assessed in the fall of odd numbered years).

(3) Courses & activities where programs assessed: The Accounting program objective assessments partly rely on the results of the Major Field Test (MFT) in Business using the question items related to accounting program objectives. This allows yearly assessment outcome comparisons using a national exam with comparative percentile results from other academic institutions. Assessment

2

results from our own College of Business Core Assessments will also be used as these outcomes relate to most of our accounting program objectives. Specifically, data is obtained yearly from the Major Field Test (MFT) in Business to assess our accounting program objectives in the MFT coverage areas of accounting (principles of accounting I and II). Data is also obtained yearly using the results of the College of Business Core Assessments because the core objectives mirror most of our accounting program objectives.

Further assessment is completed using the results of an exam administered in the Accounting Department capstone course (ACCT 4311). This exam covers all of the functional areas of accounting (auditing, accounting information systems, financial, tax, governmental, managerial and advanced financial accounting). This exam covers areas not tested in the Major Field Test or the College of Business Core Assessments. (4) Methods used: In ACCT 4311, students are asked to respond to questions covering five major areas of accounting: Intermediate Accounting, Cost Accounting/Accounting information Systems, Advanced Accounting/Audit, and Tax/Law. Updated information on the Major Field Test is also discussed as far as getting new results and/or adding questions if deemed necessary for the next exam. Assessment results and interpretations from ACCT 4311 are shared with students during the assessment process as an additional check on interpretations. In addition, assessment results are shared with all accounting faculty members with discussions on interpretations and on what changes (if any) should be made in the Accounting program. (5) What are the assessment findings? How did you analyze them?

Learning Objective 1.1 All COB majors will demonstrate competence in topics covered in principles of

accounting

Course: MGMT 4380 Course Title: Business Strategy and Policy Semester: Spring 2014

The ETS Major Fields Test (MFT) is administered to all students taking MGMT4380 on the UALR campus. The MFT covers nine Assessment Indicators (AI) and provides the Mean Percent Correct and the National Percentile (our ranking when compared to the

3

entire group of students taking the exam during the applicable period (which is a moving 3 year period) for each area. The scores are presented in the following table. Mean percentage correct is denoted by M%; National Mean is denoted by NM%.

Assessment Indicator

Spring 2012

Spring 2013

Spring 2014

Spring 2015

M% NM% M% NM%

M% NM% M% NM%

Accounting 44 43.9 45 43.8 43 41.7 44 41.5

n=71 n=81 n=80 N=69

Student performance overall in accounting has been very stable over the last four years. This measurement applies to all College of Business students and not just accounting majors. Performance on specific questions and content areas are listed below.

Major Field Test-Business April 2015

UALR Test Takes = 69

Section Item % Correct

UALR % Correct National

Domain Content

1 6 58.0 61.7 Accounting Financial Accounting


1 18 14.5 19.7 Accounting International Accounting


1 31 21.7 23.3 Accounting Managerial Accounting














Learning Objective 1.2

4

Accounting majors will demonstrate competence in each of the functional areas of

accounting (auditing, accounting information systems, financial, tax, governmental,

managerial, and advanced financial accounting)

Course: ACCT 4311 Course Title: Accounting Issues Semester: Spring 2016

Intermediate Cost/AIS Gov./Ethics Advanced/Audit Tax/Law Total

Mean 17.1 16.3 16.1 18.4 13.3 81.2

Median 19 17 16 18 13 83

Mode 20 17 18 20 13 88

Range 10 7 6 4 11 38

Min. 10 12 13 16 7 58

Max. 20 19 19 20 18 96

Count 12 12 12 12 12 12

Twelve(12) accounting students took the exam in Spring 2016. The average score for the

students overall was 80.9 percent. The lowest score on a section was 42 percent

(Tax/Law) and the highest section score was 100 percent (Intermediate, Cost/AIS,

Gov/Ethics and Advanced/Audit). Of the 12 students taking the exam, one student

scored below 60 percent, two students scored in the 60 percent range, one student scored

in the 70 percent range, six students scored in the 80 percent range, and two scored in the

90 percent range.

Course: ACCT 4311 Course Title: Accounting Issues Semester: Fall 2016

Intermediate Cost/AIS Gov./Ethics Advanced/Audit Tax/Law Total

Mean 18.1 16.2 15.8 18.2 15.3 83.6

Median 19 17 17 19 16 88

Mode 19 15 17 19 16 86

Range 6 12 13 6 10 47

Min. 14 8 6 14 9 51

Max. 20 20 19 20 19 98

Count 19 19 19 19 19 19

Nine-Teen (19) accounting students took the exam in Fall 2016. The average score for

the students overall was 83.6 percent. The lowest score on a section was 32 percent

(Government/NonProfit) and the highest section score was 100 percent (Intermediate,

Gov./Ethics, Cost/AIS and Advanced/Audit). Of the 18 students taking the exam, two

students scored in the 50 percent range, three students scored in the 60 percent range, two

students scored in the 70 percent range, six students scored in the 80 percent range, and

six students scored in the 90 percent range.

5

Learning Objective 2.1 Accounting majors will demonstrate effective written communication skills

Date: Fall 2014 Course: BINS 3380 Students: 23/46

Correspondence written by students in 6 sections of BINS 3380 (36 students, 18 from face-to-face and online sections, selected at random from the sections) in fall 2014 were used for assessment. Then each document was assessed by 2 faculty members to obtain average rating. Evaluation (face-to-face and online combined):

Criteria Unacceptable (0-1 pt.)

Acceptable (2-3 pts.)

Excellent (4-5 pts.)

Organization Results F2012 Results F2014

Incorrect approach used; with ineffective introduction, body, and/or closing; lack of transitions between sections. 17/39=44% 4/36=11%

Correct approach used, with logical flow and acceptable transitions between sections. 17/39=44% 20/36=56%

Clear and logical sequence; effective introduction, body, and closing, considering direct, indirect, or persuasive approach. Effective transitions between sections. 5/39=13% 12/36=33%

Content Results F2012 Results F2014

Inadequately addressed the topic with major deficiencies in depth of information and quality of analysis. 19/39=49% 4/36=11%

Adequately addressed the topic with some deficiencies in depth of information and quality of analysis. 16/39=41% 22/36=61%

Addressed all relevant aspects of the topic with a clear, concise, and accurate presentation of information with appropriate analysis. 4/39=10% 10/36=28%

Writing Style

Used ineffective writing style, with many uses of

Used clear writing style with a few uses of negative,

Used clear writing style adapted to the audience (you viewpoint); positive,

6

Results F2012 Results F2014

negative and offensive word choice, confusing and inappropriate expressions; violated you viewpoint; weak sentence and paragraph structure. 4/22=18% 8/36=22%

offensive language, clichés, jargon; violated you viewpoint. Acceptable paragraph and sentence structure. 15/22=68% 23/36=64%

non-offensive language; avoided clichés, jargon. Strong sentence and paragraph structure (active versus passive voice, variety of structures). 3/22=14% 5/36=14%

Grammar and Mechanics Results F2012 Results F2014

Frequent errors in use of Standard English, including punctuation and spelling, grammar, and sentence structure. 18/39=46% 8/36=22%

Generally acceptable application of rules of Standard English, with limited errors in punctuation, grammar, and sentence structure. No errors in spelling. 18/39=46% 24/36=67%

No errors applying rules of Standard English, with no spelling errors. 3/39=8% 4/36=11%

Format Results F2012 Results F2014

Unprofessional design and appearance. n/a

Professionally designed, with reasonable appearance. n/a 26/36=72%

Professionally designed, balance appearance. n/a 10/36=28%

7

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80 2014 Writing Analysis

Unacceptable

Acceptable

Excellent

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5 Changes by Criteria2012-2014

2012

2014

8

Largest increase in performance on Organization and Content criteria. Goal of >= 75% achieving acceptable/excellent met. Analysis of face-to-face versus online performance reveals no major differences in performance: F2F/Online

#1 #2 #3 #4 #5 %Unacceptable 11/11 17/6 28/17 28/17 -- % Acceptable 61/50 50/72 50/78 56/78 72/72 % Excellent 28/39 33/22 22/16 17/6 28/28

9

Learning Objective 2.2 Accounting majors will demonstrate effective oral communication skills

NOTE: Oral communication skills to be assessed again in fall 2015. See Appendix for fall 2013 assessment results. (6) Discuss assessment results and what actions were taken because of the results:

The Accounting Department will meet early in September 2016 to discuss assessment results and recommend a revised assessment plan.

10

APPENDIX Learning Objective 2.2

Accounting majors will demonstrate effective oral communication skills Date: Fall 2015 Course: BINS 3380 Students: 110 face-to-face and 60 online students (assessed 30 in each group) Fall 2015 recorded speeches (four sections of BINS 3380, including two online sections) were evaluated by a team of professors. The evaluators met as a group to discuss the oral communication assessment process. A sample of 30 face-to-face and 30 online speakers were evaluated. Each evaluator was asked to assess approximately 6 presentations. To increase consistency among reviewers, the group discussed the assessment rubric and project expectations. The raters analyzed the results, drew conclusions about student performance, and made recommendations regarding curriculum delivery and rubric revisions.

Criteria Unacceptable

(0-1 pt.)

Acceptable

(2-3 pts.)

Exemplary

(4-5 pts.)

Organization

Results F2013

F2015

Unfocused and loosely

connected sequence of

presentation. No clear

objective and poor

transitions between

parts. Details

unorganized.

0/20=0%

3/60=5%

Limited incidences of

lack of logical flow.

Purpose not always clear,

with only a few minor

incidences of incomplete

or confusing information.

Some transitions lacking

11/20=55%

25/60=42%

Topic well developed, with

logical and effective

sequence. Defined

introduction (gained

attention and interest) and

conclusion with

appropriate transitions

between parts & adapted to

audience.

9/20=45%

32/60=53%

Content

Results F2013

F2015

Problem/objective

poorly developed,

with no identification

of sources. No

application of relevant

theory/academic

framework. Unclear

understanding of topic

and audience.

0/20=0%

4/60=7%

Problem/objective

evident in presentation

with some identification

of sources. Limited

application of

theory/academic

framework, with lack of

adequate detail and/or

relevance. Content

rushed for time limit.

11/20=55%

28/60=47%

Problem/objective clearly

stated and developed

throughout the

presentation. Appropriate

identification of sources

and relevant application of

theory/ academic

framework, indicating

clear understanding of

topic. Content appropriate

for time limit.

9/20=45%

28/60=46%

11

12

Delivery

Results F2013

F2015

Presentation appears

unrehearsed, with

limited

enthusiasm/confidence

upon script.

Distracting use of non-

words; speaking style

lacks variation in pitch

and speed and exhibits

poor enunciation.

Excessive

grammatical errors.

No audience

engagement and weak

and inaccurate

responses to audience

1/20=5%

7/60=12%

Proficient presentation,

with few grammatical

errors. Occasional use of

non-words (uh, ok, ums)

and limited variation in

pitch and speed.

Dependence upon notes.

Transitions between

sections clear. Limited

audience engagement,

with acceptable

responses to questions.

16/20=80%

38/60=63%

Grammatically correct

language used with

enthusiasm and

confidence. Effective

speaking style, including

clear enunciation, varied

pitch and speed, and use of

effective pauses.

Transitions between

sections very clear. Speaks

directly to audience for a

minute or more without

reliance on script.

Effectively engages

audience and responds to

questions accurately and

effectively.

3/20=15%

15/60=25%

Appearance and

Physical

Actions

Results F2013

F2015

Distracting physical

movements, such as

excessive gestures,

poor posture, and

minimal or no eye

contact.

Unprofessional attire.

1/20=5%

6/60=10%

Eye contact, gestures,

and physical movements

sometimes distracting.

Physical appearance

generally appropriate for

audience.

15/20=75%

39/60=65%

Eye contact, gestures, and

physical movements

effectively incorporated

into the delivery.

Appropriate professional

attire, with overall credible

demeanor.

4/20=20%

15/60=25%

Media Support

Results F2013

F2015

Media design poor and

not used effectively to

integrate parts of

presentation; visuals

unclear and

unreadable, with many

grammatical and

spelling errors.

Technical problems

without evidence of an

alternative plan.

3/20=15%

Media design acceptable

yet media does not

effectively supplement

oral content; visuals

difficult to read, having

cluttered slides, poor

coloration, and/or

minimal contrast. Free

of spelling errors and

having no more than two

grammatical errors.

Limited technical

problems, including

annoying sound

Media professional

designed and integrated

appropriately to

supplement and reinforce

presentation. Clear,

readable, and free of all

grammatical and spelling

errors. Technical problems

nonexistent

10/20=50%

13

2/60=3% 7/20=35%

30/60=50%

28/60=47%

The average rating for each criterion was as follows: 2013/2015 All students FtoF Online #1 Organization 3.40/3.44 3.40/3.05 3.40/3.44 #2 Content 3.55/3.24 3.50/2.78 3.70/3.24 #3 Delivery 2.95/2.83 2.97/2.75 2.90/2.83 #4 Appearance 2.93/2.83 2.90/2.93 3.00/2.83 #5 Media Support 3.18/3.21 2.83/3.44 4.20/3.21 The overall weighted average and each criterion rating met standard of a rating of Acceptable or Exemplary scores for 80% or more of students. Separate analysis of on-campus students and online students revealed minimal variation in scores.

As the following chart indicates, the areas of greatest weakness are the criteria Appearance and Delivery. 2013 assessment indicated lowest scores in Media Support; increased emphasis in this area and use of the “Making Effective Presentations” metric has result in increased course emphasis on Organization, Content, and Media Support.

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

2013 2015 2013 2015 2013 2015

All Students FtoF Students Online Students

2013/2015 Oral Presentation CriteriaStudent Categories

Organization Content Delivery Appearance Media Support

14

Goal of >= 75% achieving acceptable/exemplary met. Interpretation:

Online student scores increased in relation to previous years—changes in recording technology and skill development process have been implemented. Major observed weakness related to PowerPoint slide design (excessive text, nonparallel itemization, lack of action orientation). Many students incorporated no verbal citations.

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

Organization

Content

Delivery

Appearance

Media Support

2013 vs 2015 Oral Presentation Performance(All Students)

2015 2013

Areas of weakest performance

Program Assessment Progress Report Instructions · versus passive voice, variety of structures). 3/22=14% 5/36=14% Grammar and Mechanics Results F2012 Results F2014 Frequent errors

Documents