2. FUNDAMENTACIÓN TEÓRICA
2.1. ANTECEDENTES REFERENTES
2.1.2 DECLARACIÓN DE LOS DERECHOS DEL NIÑO
Spring 2013 Assessment Write-Up
BSBA Learning Goal 3: Students who graduate will be effective communicators in a diverse and global environment.
Learning Objective:
LO3a: Students who graduate will apply effective oral communication skills.
Curriculum Alignment: Students take MGMT 4650 as a capstone course. This is a core required course and is typically attended by graduating seniors in the BSBA program. The course takes a top management perspective and integrates the functional disciplines into decision-making. Emphasis is placed on
evaluating complex business situations, integrating theory with practices, and presenting comprehensive strategic business plans. This course requires an oral presentation as part of successful completion.
Methods and Procedures: Students prepared a group presentation in the form of a ‘Stockholder
Debriefing’ of their company from the Capsim simulation integrated into their course. Presentations were worth 10 to 15% of the overall grade. Presentations varied across sections of the course. Some students presented as a whole group while other students selected one representative to present on behalf of the group. As a result, group scores were given to Traits #1 and 5, and therefore are missing from individual evaluations (see raw data tables). Individuals who were the sole presenter for their group were counted as part of the ‘Group’ data and excluded from the ‘Individual’ data to avoid a double count. In other words, only presentations with more than one presenter were counted as individual data. All presentations were assessed by Assessment staff. Twenty-nine groups and thirty-eight individuals were assessed across sections of the course.
Assessment Measurement Tool Used: Faculty teaching the course mapped to the learning goal met in groups and were presented with the CBE version of the rubric and given an option to either modify the existing rubric or replace it entirely. The BSBA faculty group teaching MGMT 4650, mapped to
Communication, decided to replace the existing rubric entirely with the proposed AAC&U VALUE Oral Communication rubric for the Spring 2013 assessment. The faculty will customize the AAC&U rubric to better fit CBE’s program in the future. See section “Meeting Minutes” for faculty meeting summaries.
Status of Assessment: Completed. “Closing the loop” currently underway.
Performance Targets:
• 80% of students will meet or exceed expectations.
Data Summary & Analysis:
As depicted in the graphics, our students’ overall oral communication skills fell considerably short of our performance targets. Only 17% of groups met expectations and only 63% of individuals met expectations.
This does not compare favorably with our target that 80% of our students would meet or exceed our expectations. Both scores fall below the targeted 80% of students meeting or exceeding expectations. Thus, the gap between our students’ oral communication skills and our performance targets is significant and must be attended to.
With regard to the individual components of oral communication that are described on our rubric, our goal was that less than 10% of our students would score “below expectations” on any of these traits. Again, our students’ performance fell short of our targets on each trait, particularly “delivery,” which refers to the students’ delivery techniques including posture, gesture, eye contact, and vocal expressiveness,
“organization,” which refers to organizational patterns such as specific introduction and conclusion,
sequenced material within the body, and transitions, and “central message,” which looks at how compelling and consistent is the core message.
Closing the Loop:
• Late in Spring 2013 to Summer 2013, initial results of the communications assessment were presented. The results were disappointing to faculty and administrators.
• It was clear that students are lacking in oral communication skills by the time they arrive at the capstone level. This fueled discussions that led to critiques of the BSBA curriculum. Discussions were held as to whether an introductory communication course needs to be added part of the required courses.
o It was recalled during a meeting of the Assurance of Learning Task Force that CBE had, in
the past, courses on communication but were then eliminated from the curriculum. Discussion continued regarding whether these classes needed to be reintegrated as part of the BSBA curriculum.
• Discussions led to a proposal for an Oral Communication Workshop to be offered to BSBA students. A proposal detailing the workshop’s conception and a brief overview of its implementation plan has been drafted by the HIRE Center and can be found in the ‘Proposal for the Oral Communication
Proposal for Oral Communication Workshop to Address Learning Goal: Communication Purpose of the Workshop:
The workshop's purpose to help BSBA students improve their oral communication skills and better prepare them to make effective and professional presentations.
Why it is Necessary?
One of BSBA's learning goals is Communication. Under that learning goal we have three learning objectives. These three learning objectives are Oral Communication, Written Communication, and
Teamwork. In Spring 2013, we assessed the Oral Communication learning objective. The assessment was conducted in the undergraduate capstone course MGMT 4650: Business, Government, and Society. The assignments used were group presentations. Some groups involved all members in the presentation, while other groups nominated one presenter. The rubric used for this assessment was the AAC&U VALUE rubric for Oral Communication. CBE's existing rubric for communication was deemed insufficient and
ineffective. As a result, to begin the rubric modification process (see section 2.4 Systematize Rubric Review, Modification & Implementation) faculty teaching the mapped course MGMT 4650 were given the option of reviewing the existing CBE rubric and modifying it accordingly, or to adopt the AAC&U VALUE rubric for Oral Communication as a starting point, with plans to modify and customize the rubric for the college in the future. Faculty decided to adopt the VALUE rubric as a starting point. The assessors for the selected
sections for assessment were two HIRE Center staff members. The two staff members went through the process of norming the rubric and proceeded to assess the identified sections of course MGMT 4650. For the BSBA program, 13 groups and 38 individual students were assessed. The following were concluded:
Group Score
By Learning Objective Learning Objective: Oral Communication Exceeds Expectations (4) 0%
Meets Expectations (3) 17% Needs Improvement (2) 83% Below Expectations (1) 0%
As a result, faculty group meetings were held and led by the course coordinators to discuss possible actions that can be taken to improve in the area of oral communication. A number of suggestions were made by the participating faculty. Of these suggestions, one was presented to the AoL Task Force and the Dean's office for review. This suggestion was developing an Oral Communication workshop.
Individual Score
By Learning Objective Learning Objective: Oral Communication Exceeds Expectations (4) 3%
Meets Expectations (3) 63%
Needs Improvement (2) 34%
CBE also has a very diverse student body, with a large international population. CBE faculty has raised the issue that a possible reason why some students have scored lower than others on oral communication is due to their cultural backgrounds. Some international students come from academic cultures where oral presentations are not part of the academic curriculum. This creates a need for an oral communication workshop that caters to international students. For example, research from the National University of Singapore found that "components of effective public speaking such as maintaining good eye contact, lightening up a talk with humor, or ‘dressing for the occasion’ can be difficult to implement for students from some cultures" (Krantz, 2008).
Coordinating and Executing a Workshop:
The design of the workshop is still in progress and currently being led by Professor of Marketing and industry expert, Dr. Tom Bagwell. Below consist of some potential ideas for the structure of the workshop, which are likely to be part lecture and part active participation through group and individual
exercises. The instructors of the workshop will consist of CBE staff and guest lectures from the business community who will focus on communication within the field of business.
The workshop will be a non-credit offering to BSBA students only. There will be 40 spots available. Spots are reserved on a first come first serve basis. The maximum number of available spots allow for a
manageable size to conduct exercises and allow for active participation in the workshop.
The workshops will likely be held on two-consecutive days and will be open to only students taking the capstone course MGMT 4650.
Examples of possible workshop topics include: • Preparations prior to giving a presentation • Giving your presentation
• Appropriate Material and Dress • Organization
• Delivery
• Handling Questions • Managing Nervousness • Audience Rapport
• Expectations in the Business Community Developing a Workshop Webpage:
A dedicated webpage will be created under the HIRE Center website to house workshop information, updates, handouts, and supplemental material. The workshop webpage will also allow students to learn about the structure and expectations of the workshop and about the instructors leading the sessions.
How to Assess the Effectiveness of the Workshop:
Workshop exercises will be assessed by the HIRE Center using AAC&U Rubric Oral Communication. The workshop assessments will also be compared to program assessment scores over time to track any improvement in the learning goal as more and more students take part in the workshop over time.
Potential Obstacles:
Possible challenges include too many students taking the workshop to allow for effective exercise review. However, we hope ad adequate instructor to student ratio will prevent this from becoming a problem.
Timeline:
The workshop will be in the development phase in Summer and early Fall 2013. A pilot workshop will be offered at the end of Fall 2013 in week seven or eight of the 10-week quarter.
One-Page Assessment Summary
Spring 2013 MGMT 4650
#3: Students who graduate will be effective communicators in a diverse and global environment.
#3A: Students who graduate will apply effective oral communication skills. Communication
Detailed Data Tables (Group)
Group (N = 29) Trait 1 Trait 2 Trait 3 Trait 4 Trait 5 TOTAL
0 1 1 0 0 0 4 0% 3% 3% 0% 0% 0% 4 1 3 1 2 5 3 14% 3% 10% 3% 7% 17% 14 25 18 23 12 24 2 48% 86% 62% 79% 41% 83% 11 2 7 5 15 0 1 38% 7% 24% 17% 52% 0% Total N 29 29 29 29 29 29 Total % 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
By Learning Objective Percentage Equivalent
Exceeds Expectations >/= 75% (16 to 20 of total) Meets Expectations >/= 50% (11 to 15 of total) Needs Improvement >/= 25% (5 to 10 of total) Below Expectations < 25% (0 to 4 of total)
Group Score
By Learning Objective Learning Objective: Oral Communication
Exceeds Expectations 0%
Meets Expectations 17%
Needs Improvement 83%
Below Expectations 0%
Group Score
By Individual Trait Trait 1 Trait 2 Trait 3 Trait 4 Trait 5 Exceeds Expectations (4) 0% 3% 3% 0% 0%
Meets Expectations (3) 14% 3% 10% 3% 7%
Needs Improvement (2) 48% 86% 62% 79% 41%
Below Expectations (1) 38% 7% 24% 17% 52%
Group Score
Note: Trait #1 & 5 evaluated presentation as a whole and therefore did not apply to individual evaluations. Individuals who were the sole presenter for their group were counted as part of the 'Group' data and excluded from the 'Individual' data to avoid a double count.
In other words, only presentations with more than one presenter contributed to the individual data.
Detailed Data Tables (Individual)
Individual (N = 38) Trait 1 Trait 2 Trait 3 Trait 4 Trait 5 TOTAL*
4 x 0 0 0 x 1 n/a 0% 0% 0% n/a 3% 3 x 2 3 5 x 24 n/a 5% 8% 13% n/a 63% 2 x 32 19 31 x 13 n/a 84% 50% 82% n/a 34% 1 x 4 16 2 x 0 n/a 11% 42% 5% n/a 0%
Total N n/a 38 38 38 n/a 38
Total % n/a 100% 100% 100% n/a 100%
By Learning Objective Percentage Equivalent Exceeds Expectations >/= 75% (9 to 12 of total)
Meets Expectations >/= 50% (6 to 8.9 of total)
Needs Improvement >/= 25% (3 to 5.9 of total)
Below Expectations < 25% (0 to 2.9 of total)
Individual Score
By Learning Objective Learning Objective: Oral Communication
Exceeds Expectations 3%
Meets Expectations 63%
Needs Improvement 34%
Below Expectations 0%
Individual Score
By Individual Trait Trait 1 Trait 2 Trait 3 Trait 4 Trait 5
Exceeds Expectations (4) n/a 0% 0% 0% n/a
Meets Expectations (3) n/a 5% 8% 13% n/a
Needs Improvement (2) n/a 84% 50% 82% n/a
Below Expectations (1) n/a 11% 42% 5% n/a
Raw Data Tables (Group)
Trait 1 = Organization Trait 2 = Language Trait 3 = Delivery
Trait 4 = Supporting Material Trait 5 = Central Message
Instructor Group / # of Presenters Section Group Group Trait 1 Trait 2 Trait 3 Trait 4 Trait 5 TOTAL Group
Instructor 001 Group Score/1 Presenter 900 1 Group 1 Overall (1 Presenter) 2 2 2 2 1 9 Instructor 001 Group Score/1 Presenter 900 2 Group 2 Overall (1 Presenter) 1 2 1 2 1 7 Instructor 001 Group Score/1 Presenter 900 3 Group 3 Overall (1 Presenter) 1 2 2 2 1 8 Instructor 001 Group Score/1 Presenter 900 4 Group 4 Overall (1 Presenter) 1 2 3 2 2 10 Instructor 001 Group Score/1 Presenter 900 5 Group 5 Overall (1 Presenter) 2 2 2 2 1 9 Instructor 001 Group Score/1 Presenter 900 6 Group 6 Overall (1 Presenter) 2 2 2 2 2 10 Instructor 001 Group Score/1 Presenter 900 7 Group 7 Overall (1 Presenter) 2 2 2 2 2 10 Instructor 001 Group Score/1 Presenter 900 8 Group 8 Overall (1 Presenter) 2 2 2 2 2 10 Instructor 001 Group Score/1 Presenter 900 9 Group 9 Overall (1 Presenter) 2 2 1 2 2 9 Instructor 001 Group Score/1 Presenter 900 10 Group 10 Overall (1 Presenter) 2 3 3 2 3 13 Instructor 002 Group Score/1 Presenter 910 1 Group 11 Overall (1 Presenter) 1 2 2 1 1 7 Instructor 002 Group Score/1 Presenter 910 2 Group 12 Overall (1 Presenter) 1 2 2 1 1 7 Instructor 002 Group Score/1 Presenter 910 3 Group 13 Overall (1 Presenter) 1 2 2 2 1 8 Instructor 002 Group Score/1 Presenter 910 4 Group 14 Overall (1 Presenter) 3 4 4 2 2 15 Instructor 002 Group Score/1 Presenter 910 5 Group 15 Overall (1 Presenter) 1 2 2 1 1 7 Instructor 002 Group Score/1 Presenter 910 6 Group 16 Overall (1 Presenter) 2 2 3 2 1 10 Instructor 002 Group Score/1 Presenter 910 7 Group 17 Overall (1 Presenter) 1 1 1 1 1 5 Instructor 002 Group Score/1 Presenter 910 8 Group 18 Overall (1 Presenter) 3 2 2 2 2 11 Instructor 002 Group Score/1 Presenter 910 9 Group 19 Overall (1 Presenter) 2 2 2 2 2 10 Instructor 002 Group Score/1 Presenter 910 10 Group 20 Overall (1 Presenter) 1 2 2 2 1 8 Instructor 003 Group Score/Multiple Presenters 920 1 Group 21 Overall (2+ Presenters) 2 2 1 3 2 10 Instructor 003 Group Score/Multiple Presenters 920 2 Group 22 Overall (2+ Presenters) 2 2 2 2 2 10 Instructor 003 Group Score/Multiple Presenters 920 3 Group 23 Overall (2+ Presenters) 3 2 2 2 2 11 Instructor 003 Group Score/Multiple Presenters 920 4 Group 24 Overall (2+ Presenters) 3 2 2 2 3 12 Instructor 004 Group Score/Multiple Presenters 930 1 Group 25 Overall (2+ Presenters) 1 2 1 2 1 7 Instructor 004 Group Score/Multiple Presenters 930 2 Group 26 Overall (2+ Presenters) 2 2 2 2 2 10 Instructor 004 Group Score/Multiple Presenters 930 3 Group 27 Overall (2+ Presenters) 2 1 1 2 1 7 Instructor 004 Group Score/Multiple Presenters 930 4 Group 28 Overall (2+ Presenters) 1 2 2 2 1 8 Instructor 004 Group Score/Multiple Presenters 930 5 Group 29 Overall (2+ Presenters) 2 2 1 1 1 7
Learning Goal: Oral Communication Course: MGMT 4650
Quarter: Spring 2013
Total Number of Groups Assessed = 29 Total Number of Individual Students Assessed = 38
Raw Data Tables (Individual)
Trait 1 = Organization Trait 2 = Language Trait 3 = Delivery
Trait 4 = Supporting Material Trait 5 = Central Message
Instructor Group / # of Presenters Section Group Individual Trait 1 Trait 2 Trait 3 Trait 4 Trait 5 IndividTotal
Instructor 003 Group 1 /Multiple Presenters 920 1 Individual 001 x 2 2 2 x 6 Instructor 003 Group 1 /Multiple Presenters 920 1 Individual 002 x 2 1 3 x 6 Instructor 003 Group 1 /Multiple Presenters 920 1 Individual 003 x 2 1 3 x 6 Instructor 003 Group 1 /Multiple Presenters 920 1 Individual 004 x 2 1 3 x 6 Instructor 003 Group 1 /Multiple Presenters 920 1 Individual 005 x 2 1 2 x 5 Instructor 003 Group 2 /Multiple Presenters 920 2 Individual 006 x 3 3 3 x 9 Instructor 003 Group 2 /Multiple Presenters 920 2 Individual 007 x 2 2 2 x 6 Instructor 003 Group 2 /Multiple Presenters 920 2 Individual 008 x 2 2 2 x 6 Instructor 003 Group 2 /Multiple Presenters 920 2 Individual 009 x 2 1 2 x 5 Instructor 003 Group 2 /Multiple Presenters 920 2 Individual 010 x 2 1 2 x 5 Instructor 003 Group 3 /Multiple Presenters 920 3 Individual 011 x 2 2 2 x 6 Instructor 003 Group 3 /Multiple Presenters 920 3 Individual 012 x 2 3 2 x 7 Instructor 003 Group 3 /Multiple Presenters 920 3 Individual 013 x 2 2 3 x 7 Instructor 003 Group 3 /Multiple Presenters 920 3 Individual 014 x 2 2 2 x 6 Instructor 003 Group 3 /Multiple Presenters 920 3 Individual 015 x 2 2 2 x 6 Instructor 003 Group 4 /Multiple Presenters 920 4 Individual 016 x 2 2 2 x 6 Instructor 003 Group 4 /Multiple Presenters 920 4 Individual 017 x 2 2 2 x 6 Instructor 003 Group 4 /Multiple Presenters 920 4 Individual 018 x 2 2 2 x 6 Instructor 003 Group 4 /Multiple Presenters 920 4 Individual 019 x 2 2 2 x 6 Instructor 003 Group 4 /Multiple Presenters 920 4 Individual 020 x 2 2 2 x 6 Instructor 004 Group 1 /Multiple Presenters 930 1 Individual 021 x 2 1 2 x 5 Instructor 004 Group 1 /Multiple Presenters 930 1 Individual 022 x 1 1 2 x 4 Instructor 004 Group 1 /Multiple Presenters 930 1 Individual 023 x 2 1 2 x 5 Instructor 004 Group 1 /Multiple Presenters 930 1 Individual 024 x 2 1 2 x 5 Instructor 004 Group 1 /Multiple Presenters 930 1 Individual 025 x 2 2 2 x 6 Instructor 004 Group 2 /Multiple Presenters 930 2 Individual 026 x 2 2 2 x 6 Instructor 004 Group 2 /Multiple Presenters 930 2 Individual 027 x 2 1 2 x 5 Instructor 004 Group 2 /Multiple Presenters 930 2 Individual 028 x 2 2 2 x 6 Instructor 004 Group 2 /Multiple Presenters 930 2 Individual 029 x 3 3 2 x 8 Instructor 004 Group 3 /Multiple Presenters 930 3 Individual 030 x 1 1 2 x 4 Instructor 004 Group 3 /Multiple Presenters 930 3 Individual 031 x 1 1 2 x 4 Instructor 004 Group 4 /Multiple Presenters 930 4 Individual 032 x 2 2 2 x 6 Instructor 004 Group 4 /Multiple Presenters 930 4 Individual 033 x 2 2 2 x 6 Instructor 004 Group 4 /Multiple Presenters 930 4 Individual 034 x 2 1 2 x 5 Instructor 004 Group 4 /Multiple Presenters 930 4 Individual 035 x 2 2 2 x 6 Instructor 004 Group 4 /Multiple Presenters 930 4 Individual 036 x 2 2 2 x 6 Instructor 004 Group 5 /Multiple Presenters 930 5 Individual 037 x 2 1 1 x 4 Instructor 004 Group 5 /Multiple Presenters 930 5 Individual 038 x 1 1 1 x 3
Total Number of Groups Assessed = 29
Total Number of Individual Students Assessed = 38
Learning Goal: Oral Communication Course: MGMT 4650
BSBA Learning Goal 1: Students who graduate will be knowledgeable and integrative in their approach to business management.
Learning Objectives:
LO1a: Students who graduate will recognize and recall foundation knowledge relevant to business management.
LO1b: Students who graduate will integrate and think critically across functional areas to solve business problems.
Pilot Background:
The idea of using Capsim originated after performing significant research regarding methods implemented by other universities to (1) improve student learning and (2) to use as an assessment tool to collect more accurate data. In particular, Kennesaw State University’s The Coles College of Business was highlighted in AACSB’s March 2012 Spotlight publication for its strong assessment program and use of simulations. Assisted by one of the Assessment leads from the college, Dr. Hope Baker, shared valuable insight with CBE staff into the success Kennesaw has experienced using Capsim simulations and testing. This resulted in a draft proposal to the CBE Dean for approval of a Capsim pilot in Spring 2013.
The proposal was approved and the Capsim simulation was implemented in every section of MGMT 4650, the undergraduate Capstone, a total of eight sections, and one MBA capstone course, MGMT 6800. Six faculty members and two HIRE Center staff members were involved in the implementation of the pilot. All fees were waived for all participating students, over 300 undergraduate students and approximately 20 graduate students. Costs of the simulation and exam were paid for by the college.
The simulation required a level of HIRE Center staff support to provide assistance to faculty and students. HIRE Center staff took the lead on monitoring and assessing the pilot for effectiveness in terms of use as an education tool and use as an assessment tool. This was assessed through meetings held with participating faculty, participating students, attending a Capsim annual seminar, and speaking with key Capsim
representatives at the Capsim headquarters in Chicago, Illinois.
Curriculum Alignment:
Students take MGMT 4650 as a capstone course. This is a core required course and is typically attended by graduating seniors in the BSBA program. The course takes a top management perspective and integrates the functional disciplines into decision-making. Emphasis is placed on evaluating complex business situations, integrating theory with practices, and presenting comprehensive strategic business plans.
Methods and Procedures:
All students taking MGMT 4650 in Spring 2013 participated in a pilot project, whereby, all students were engaged in a course-embedded simulation and exam using products developed by CAPSIM.
Assessment Measurement Tool Used:
At the end of the quarter, students completed an individual exam developed by CAPSIM and administered online. The exam simulated certain company decisions. Students answered the questions asked following analysis of the situation presented. Questions concerned the impact of particular decisions made on different sectors of a company, using technology for data analysis, and company projections based on data interpretations.
Particular questions were identified and grouped together to measure each of the learning objectives listed above (LO1a, LO1b, and LO2b). Data from the identified/grouped questions were collected and
aggregated. According to the scores, students were categorized into one of three categories: (1) below expectations (0-50), (2) meets expectations (50-80), (3) exceeds expectations (80-100).
Following consultations with assurance of learning experts at CAPSIM, percentage cutoffs set for each category was determined.
328 BSBA and 19 MBA students participated in the pilot.
Status of Assessment: Completed. “Closing the loop” currently underway. Capsim simulation to be implemented into all sections of Capstone course MGMT 4650 as an educational tool.
Performance Targets:
• Less than 5% of students falling in ‘below expectations’ range.
Data Summary & Analysis:
Proficiency results for BSBA students (N = 328)
Proficiency results for MBA students (N = 19)
Closing the Loop:
The Spring 2013 simulation was determined a success in the two areas it was pilot testing: (1) use as an