Management & International BusinessManagement and International Business Report

M&IB Department Assurance of Learning Architecture

Introduction to M&IB Department Assurance of Learning Process

The Management and International Business (M&IB) Department has undertaken a comprehensive Assurance of Learning (AoL) challenge to improve student learning that involves the participation of all Departmental faculty.  Over the past several years this commitment of considerable faculty effort to improve the processes and procedures compromising the AoL architecture is now providing tangible benefits. Our faculty have spearheaded several CBA initiatives involving innovative assessment and review processes and are now evaluating and monitoring them to ensure continuous improvement. 

We have now institutionalized many of these processes and functions to annually determine the extent to which our students are actually learning what we expect them to learn. This objective forms the cornerstone of our Assurance of Learning program. The following report describes some of the processes and procedures used during the evolution of the implementation of our Departmental Assurance of Learning architecture. 

Identification Of Curricular, Core And Major Learning Objectives

The Management and International Business Department began its Assurance of Learning Initiative with a Spring, 2004 meeting of the CBA Core/Curricular Learning Objectives Committee established to identify the learning objectives of the CBA core courses, and in particular, the two M&IB courses in the core (MAN3025 Organization & Management and MAN4720 Strategic Management). At approximately the same time, three Department Major Learning Objectives Committees began deliberations to identify the learning objectives for each of the three majors contained within M&IB.  Because there are three majors within M&IB, it was necessary to carry out the AOL initiatives for each major including the General Management major, the International Business major and the Human Resource Management major. These learning objectives were presented to the faculty at its Fall, 2004, faculty meeting. A consensus was reached and these learning objectives were adopted as the official learning objectives that would form the platform of the Departmental Assurance of Learning program. Appendices A (General Management), B (IB), and C (HR) list the learning objectives for each of the three majors.

Management is a broad field of study, encompassing areas such as organizational behavior, strategic management, small business management, business and society, and entrepreneurship to name several. The Management Major objectives were developed to organize the broad categories of inclusion within this diverse field by use of the commonly understood general functions of management including planning, organizing, controlling, leading and fulfilling social responsibility obligations.  These five general functions became the basis of the five learning objective categories within the Management Major, but were then defined much more specifically with numerous learning objectives contained within each category.  By categorizing learning objectives in this way, we believed that we would be better able to ensure adequate coverage in our courses, particularly because students can take a variety of electives within the management major and we want to ensure that, regardless of which specific electives a student uses to fulfill program requirements, s/he will have the necessary exposure to the all Management learning objectives to acquire the knowledge, skills, and abilities expected of any student receiving a degree with a major in Management.

Development Of Tools To Assess Student Achievement Of Learning Objectives

Using a template and website provided by M&IB Professors Sanchez and Farrow for the College to submit test items, the M&IB Faculty held a departmental AoL workshop during the college’s “Goals Conference” in February, 2005.

During the workshop, faculty created and critiqued a set of exit exam questions that could be used to assess graduating seniors on their mastery of the learning objectives for Management, IB and HR majors. Following the workshop, faculty were asked to submit test questions for the courses they taught and to identify the specific major learning objective and the level of difficulty of each question submitted. Level of difficulty was submitted as the percent of students expected to get the right answer on the question. After questions were submitted, faculty were then asked to review all the submitted questions for each major on a questionnaire filled out by hand.

On this questionnaire, faculty teaching primarily within one of the three majors were asked to “re-translate” all submitted test questions by categorizing each test item into one of the learning objectives for a particular major. This step was intended to insure that there would be high agreement that a particular question was linked to a particular learning objective.  Drs. Farrow and Sanchez conducted analyses of these faculty responses and eliminated items that did not have high agreement as to the learning objective that the item was intended to measure. The final result was three exit exams (one for each of the three departmental majors), each with approximately 50 test questions. Drs. Sanchez and Farrow averaged item difficulties (percent of students expected to get a question right) given by those submitting the questions to create a total percentage correct on the test that would reflect a cutoff score on the test as a minimum that would meet faculty expectations.

These questions then formed the basis of the prototype exit exam questions administered to students taking the Management 4720 strategy and policy course in December, 2005. Other academic departments within the College administered similar exercises to develop and test their learning objectives using the final exam time slot for their corresponding Departmental capstone course. This Exit Exam was also given at the end of Spring 2005 and Fall 2006. The course number has since changed to Management 4720.

Preliminary Exit Exam Performance Results

Initial Exit Exam results indicated that, while some learning objectives were being met in terms of student achievement on the exam, others were not. Some lessons were learned from the process and the test results from fall 2005, and Spring, 2006, exit exams. Among these were:

  • Student motivation to perform well on these exit exams is of critical importance for our assessment of what they have learned and retained. The motivation must be equivalent across all sections of MAN4720
  • We also learned that students should not be permitted to take the program majors’ parts of these exams without having first taken the courses in which the learning occurs for the course majors—it would be best to restrict the MAN 4720 course to graduating seniors only.
  • Students need to be aware of the program learning objectives upon entering the program, not after they have completed it
  • Specific exam questions should be carefully evaluated using item analysis techniques and evaluation of level of difficulty should be based on faculty consensus rather than individual opinion.

Specific results of the Fall 2005 and Spring 2006 are shown in a Powerpoint® presentation that was shown to the faculty during a Fall 2006 meeting. These results show reliability analyses and percent of students scoring above and below the expected percent correct on each of our three exit exams.

Curriculum Changes Suggested by Exit Exam Results

The CBA decided to evaluate several areas of student achievement in Curricular Level Objectives. Specifically, w the College developed different methods of assessing acquired skills in use of technology, communication and analytic skills. Various methods were used to test the skills in seniors in the MAN4720 capstone course including a standardized test for analytic skills, use of established technology including the web and other technology tools and evaluation of students’ business writing skills as assessed by an independent set of experts and ethical critical thinking by analysis of their responses to ethical dilemma cases. While students performed at an acceptable level on the ethics portion, results indicated some startling deficiencies in business writing and use of technology/analysis. Dr. Bates’ then conducted a review of use of technology in M&IB courses ( web and Excel) and use of oral and written communication assignments in the M&IB Dept courses. Her results are shown in Appendix G of this report. Proposed changes to the curricula to address deficiencies in student performance identified in the Core Course Exit Exam instrument and the Curricular Levels Objectives test were recognized. Changes relevant to overall business education were suggested, and general recommendations for the entire business undergraduate program, including M&IB, were as follows :

  • A statement describing at least one learning objective from the major associated with the individual course should be added to each course. (M&IB carried out this process slightly differently as described in the COURSE CONSISTENCY OF LEARNING OBJECTIVES  section of this report).
  • Exercises to improve oral and written communication skills should be introduced and reinforced at several points throughout the program.
  • Teaching of Excel®, PowerPoint, MS Word, and methods of research using web tools should be introduced early in the program and exercises in various courses of each major should be used to test and enhance those competencies continuously. In our investigation, we discovered that, while Excel® projects are common in our courses, these projects are typically team projects permitting teams of students to rely on the team member most proficient in Excel® to cdo the technical work. Individual Excel® project skills will now be required in two courses, MAN4301 and MAN4602, to ensure that all students in our three majors will be required to do individual Excel® projects.
  • Suggestions were made for teaching proficiency in cost and profitability analyses relevant to all disciplines in business in an existing core course using a technology-based format.
  • Specific improvements need to be made to course content and some synchronization needs to be assured among syllabi with the common goal of addressing the deficiencies at the  curricular level of the core courses and the courses of the majors as identified by the results of the assessment instruments. This process should be achieved by ensuring that the syllabus of each instructor contains a section on his/her own personal teaching methodology or strategy to ensure assurance of learning as well as a brief description of the common learning experiences used in all sections of the course. Attempts must be made to ensure that these common learning experiences in the courses of each major are congruent with the stated learning objectives.   

Further Analysis of Learning Deficiencies for Specific Learning Objectives in Each of Three Majors 

The M&IB Department asked the three M&IB Major Learning Objectives Committee Chairs to (a) review results of the Exit Exam for the major they were responsible for, (b) identify with other faculty teaching in the area, one or two learning objectives to focus on in the coming year, and (c) identify a set of recommendations for seeking better student achievement scores on those objectives.  Reports by the three Major Learning Objectives Committee members are shown,, respectively, in Appendix (Clifford Perry – General Management Major), Appendix E ( Constance Bates- International Business Major) and Appendix F ( Marc Weinstein – Human Resources Management Major) of this report.

The review resulted in discussions focused on several specific learning objectives for 2007 – 2008. These included:

General Management

LO3:
Formulate ways to carry out the controlling function in organizations, including:

  • Discuss ways of monitoring organization systems;
  • Describe methods for evaluating performance and implementing feedback mechanisms;
  • Explain how to maintain human resources and human capital through selection, evaluation, compensation, skill training and career development processes;
  • Describe effective use of technology in managing systems;
  • Inventory various methods of compliance with legal regulations in the workplace.

LO4:        
Identify ways to fulfill the leadership function of management, including:

  • Explain how to foster commitment and motivation;
  • Explain considerations necessary for  timely  and effective decision making; 
  • Contrast different leadership styles;
  • Prescribe actions for providing direction, support, participation, and maintaining standards of Excellence;
  • Explain the importance of leader vision;
  • Identify methods and important factors  in managing crises;
  • Identify the situational components necessary for change, adaptation and innovation;
  • Describe methods of implementation and follow-through.

International Business

LO5: Students will apply their knowledge of cultural values in critiquing the implementation of different management techniques in a different culture.

LO7:  Students will demonstrate knowledge of the basics of international finance that are deemed necessary to conduct financial transactions in today’s global economy, including development and current status of international monetary system, foreign exchange exposure, global parity conditions, forecasting FOREX, global capital budgeting, global cost of capital, and exports/imports.

Human Resources Management

  • LO5: Develop and apply labor-management practices that foster a productive work environment and that are legally sustainable
  • Given the high pass rate for LO 1 – 4, the HR faculty will focus on the uniform and consistent application of general managerial skills across all HR courses and all sections. General managerial skills include: (a) technological and/or computer, (b) writing, (c) oral presentation, (d) team, and (e) critical thinking.

Progress in Spring, 2007 

At this stage, the M&IB Department had several challenges to address before the Assurance Process could be effectively institutionalized. These tasks were as follows:

  • Publish all existing Course Learning Objectives to individual faculty for the courses they teach and on the M&IB Dept webpage for faculty and student access. Insure that these objectives are on the syllabi of all sections of those courses. Responsibility: Department Chair, Course Coordinators and Peer Review Committee beginning in Spring and Summer of 2007.
  • Insure that recommendations and implementation plans identified at Fall 2006 meeting have, in fact, been implemented. Responsibility: Chairs of Learning Objectives Committees for each major and Course Coordinators in Summer & Fall 2007.
  • Provide information to faculty on how to carefully review our AoL commitment with our students. Primarily, issues of Accreditation and importance of Program, Curricular and Major Learning Objectives should be explained to all students when discussing Course Learning Objectives at the beginning of the course. Beginning in Summer & Fall 2007 terms. Responsibility: Dept Chair and each faculty member
  • Review Exit Exam results by more in depth analysis and question-by-question evaluation. Responsibility: A Department Exit Exam Review Committee made up of faculty and doctoral students from each major area with expertise in item analysis, testing, and reliability analysis will evaluate or Exit Exams for modification and determination of more quantitative analysis of correlation with course performance, attainment of learning objectives, etc. beginning in Summer 2007. The issue of creating a pool of questions for a shortened exam that must be passed to graduate will be considered.
  • Complete the process of determining the learning objectives for all of our courses that were not completed this year by finishing this up in Fall 2007. Responsibility: Course Coordinators as Identified in Appendix J.
  • Once all courses have learning objectives linked to core/curricular level objectives and major objectives, conduct an analysis to determine if coverage is adequate for all objectives and for all tracks in all majors: Responsibility: Department Chair at end of Fall 2007 term
  • Begin to conduct comparative analyses of traditional, hybrid and online classes to ensure that there are no differences in format with regard to student achievement of Curricular and Major and Course learning objectives: Responsibility: Department Chair assisted by assigned doctoral students in Summer 2007.
  • Continually update and revise Course Learning Objectives to be current, relevant and consistent across sections. Responsibility: All faculty

Additional Corrective Actions  

The deficiencies in specific learning objectives and the Learning Objectives Committee Member’s recommendations for improvement were addressed at the Fall 2006 M&IB Department meeting. Several tasks were carried out at this meeting. First, the faculty were divided into three groups based on the area (Mgmt, IB, HR) in which they primarily instruct. They were asked to meet in separate rooms and discuss ways to implement the recommendations set forth by the Learning Objectives Committee Chair for their area of instruction. Notes of plans were made in those group meetings and these notes of implementation plans are shown as Supplements in Appendices D, E, & F. These plans for improvement are currently being implemented. A good example of faculty implementing course improvement plans from the Fall 2006 meeting can be seen in Appendix I describing the MAN 4720 group’s finalized implementation plans.

An assessment of the extent to which recommendations have, in fact, been implemented and their impact on student achievement will be measured in the Fall 2007 term.  Throughout the Spring, Summer and Fall 2007 terms, faculty were to ensure that these plans would be implemented in the courses they were assigned.

The Role of Course Coordinators to Ensure Consistency of 2007 - 2008 Learning Objectives

In the Fall of 2006, the concept of having a course coordinator for the core courses was advanced in the CBA. Dr. Perry created a document (shown in Appendix H) that defined the role of these coordinators. However, the M&IB Department took this a step further and appointed a course coordinator for not just our two core courses, but for all of our courses.

The M&IB Department identified a specific Course Coordinator for every course offered by the Department.  This entails coordination of over fifty courses in our three majors.  In the Fall of 2006, Course Coordinators in about half of those courses were asked to meet with other faculty teaching the course and identify a set of Course Learning Objectives for the Course. Learning objectives for the other half of our courses will be carried out in Summer and Fall of 2007, however, it should be noted that the most common and multiple section courses were carried out in the first round—the remaining courses are for the most part infrequently offer, new courses that are yet to be officially numbered or are general objective courses such as independent study or internship courses.   

Course Coordinators also identified the linkage between each Course Learning Objective with the Curricular Learning Objectives for the College BBA Program and the Major Learning Objectives. These linkages can be seen in two large spreadsheets shown on our Department webpage at http://management.fiu.edu and are attached to this report. One spreadsheet shows the Course Objectives linked to both the Core/Curricular Objectives and linkages to the Major Objectives (General Management, IB and HR majors are shown on three separate worksheets of the master spreadsheet). The other spreadsheet displays the General Management Major Category Learning Objectives into more specific learning objectives within each category and links each specific Management Learning Objective to each Course Learning Objective. After Course Coordinators provided the course learning objectives to the Department Chair, they were reviewed and re-worded to attain consistency in format and style for all M&IB courses. Sample reports by two of these Course Coordinators (Deborah Vidaver-Cohen for MAN4701-Business & Society and Cliff Perry for MAN4720-Strategic Mgmt) are shown in Appendix I.  These reports provided early and exemplary guidance for the other course coordinators.

Beginning in Summer 2007, Course Coordinators published instructions to ensure these learning objectives appeared on all sections of each course. These course learning objectives were also posted on our Department webpage for both faculty and student access. Faculty could add additional objectives of their own, but to assure course consistency, certain objectives were a part of all sections of that course. Certain course objectives were common across all sections, regardless of the instructor, or whether it was offered as a traditional, hybrid or online course. Further, our M&IB Academic Development Committee (Peer Review of Teaching) was charged to verify that these objectives were on the syllabus of each course. Faculty were asked to review the learning objectives with their students at the beginning of the course and discuss the link of the course objectives with those of the Program (Core) and Major objectives. Appendix J shows the list of Course Coordinators for each course offered by the Department. The list shows the courses for which course learning objectives have been developed and the list of those that will be developed in Fall 2007.

Learning Experiences

As part of creating further consistency for our courses, faculty were asked to complete a questionnaire describing specific learning experiences such as lecture, videos, cases, projects, etc used in their courses. A large number of these reports were completed for most of our courses and submitted to the College’s AoL Committee. These results have yet to be compiled to yield any meaningful interpretation. A sample questionnaire is attached as a spreadsheet to this report. One specific example of how the learning experiences concept has been used for course improvement can be seen in Appendix I describing the MAN 4720 instructor implementation plans following the Fall 2006 Department meeting.

Institutionalization of the M&IB Assurance of Learning Architecture

In 2010, the Department formed a new team of faculty to focus on developing processes and procedures that would improve the scale and scope of the implementation of its Departmental AoL Program. An implementation plan was to be developed that would improve the quality of the AoL program in terms of broader faculty participation and increased assurance that the exit exam results were being used as feedback to redesign or improve learning experiences in individual courses with student underachieved learning objectives. In addition, AoL program quality assurance required the implementation of an annual review process to ensure that course learning objectives were directly linked to the Departmental major learning objectives and to College curriculum learning objectives. The currency of these congruencies was essential.

The results expected from this 2010 – 2011 Department initiative involving standard AoL operating procedures to guide the annual improvement of student learning was summarized in the following assignment from the Department Chair, Dr. Kroeck, to the newly formed Departmental AoL Committee:

Assurance of Learning Team Assignment

In the last several years this team identified a strategy for complying with SACS standards regarding Assurance of Learning. This Committee will take the forefront of M&IB efforts again this year with regard to SACS and upcoming AACSB accreditation. Our current exit exam system tests knowledge in each major in the CBA (three majors in M&IB) as well as core requirements and curricular level objectives. The exam has been distributed in MAN4720 over the last three years in both Fall and Spring terms so we now know where our students stand with regard to the majors and data on the scores for different learning objectives are available for analysis.  The CBA may be heading toward a standardized exam due to the questionable results of this test as students have little or no incentive to perform well, but it will be M&IB that will take the forefront if this is to happen.  Assurance of Learning is now a fundamental aspect of AACSB and SACS accreditation. A review of our current program objectives is now essential. This team will take responsibility for demonstrating AACSB compliance and clarity of program objectives as a model for the other departments in the CBA. The most important challenge continues to be how to develop a systematic process to institutionalize the AOL in M&IB and the CBA such that we go from measurement to analysis of results to implementation of conclusions into curricula and instructional strategies. While we have made great strides in measurement and analysis,   we   are   likely   still   deficient   in   how   we   utilize   the   information   and   make implementations that improve our programs

a) Review all Assurance of Learning points of the AACSB Standards (available on the CBASYS and the Departmental Webpage). Identify common and distinctive SACS and AACSB concepts.

b) Review program objectives of our three majors and define these carefully in measurable terms. Identify exactly how we will measure and report program outcomes and our success in realizing these.

c) Review exit exam results. The Department will conduct extensive analyses of these results The M&IB AOL Committee should carefully review these results and make recommendations for improvement.

d) Generate documentation and provide data analysis that can serve as a model for the other departments in the CBA to comply with AACSB requirements.

e) Create specific recommendations for the Department based on review of EBI and

Exit Exam results

E-mail Distribution List:

perryc@fiu.edu,  goodend@fiu.edu, batesc@fiu.edu,  silverbl@fiu.edu,  Wilsondt@fiu.edu, Mary.Leckband@fiu.edu,  cartayae@fiu.edu, safje001@fiu.edu, Mbeau001@fiu.edu,  shellya@fiu.edu, Whe001@fiu.edu 

Assurance of Learning Team

 

Cliff Perry (Chair)

perryc@fiu.edu

Doreen Gooden

goodend@fiu.edu

Constance Bates (Liaison with Curriculum Development Team)

batesc@fiu.edu

Ronnie Silverblatt

silverbl@fiu.edu

David Wilson (Liaison with Academic Development/Peer Review Team)

Wilsondt@fiu.edu

Marc Weinstein

weinstei@fiu.edu

Sayed Afjei

safje001@fiu.edu

Marie Beauchesne (Liaison to Leadership/Change Management Team)

Mbeau001@fiu.edu

Andrea Rodgers (Liaison with Student Expectations Team)

shellya@fiu.edu

New Plan to Implement the M&IB Department AoL Architecture

The AoL Committee discussed how it would accomplish the Committee objectives. For starters, it reviewed the objectives below in a document titled  “AoL Committee mission and objectives in the context of AACSB accreditation maintenance”. The committee specified outputs, decided how to divide the labor required to produce those outputs, and then determined how to coordinate/integrate the outputs into an annual report.

AoL Committee Mission in context of AACSB Accreditation Maintenance

AACSB  Context

AACSB promotes standards regarding College mission, student support, resources, strategy, faculty development, quality of instruction, learning objectives, student learning achievement, and:

  • AACSB  Assurance of Learning  Standards1

Required: annual documentation + 5 year visit using AACSB:

  • Basis for judgment (criteria)  and  guidance for documentation (evidence)

AoL Committee 2010 - 2011 Objective2

Provide documented evidence of  adherence to AACSB  Assurance of Learning  Standard, including:

  • M&IB Department Assurance of Learning process and results (ends)
  • M&IB Department faculty engagement (means and ends)
    • Faculty participation rate

AoL Committee Objectives

Review AACSB  Assurance of Learning Standards

(how to define and measure achievement of learning goals?)

 Review curriculum & major learning objectives and measures (requires full faculty participation)

(assurance of learning of what?)

Curriculum and Major Alignment Matrix3: Validate alignment of curriculum/major LO and course LO (requires full faculty participation)    (where are learning objectives of Major addressed?)

Review 2010 exit exam results (See attached URL: Management Major_BBA_2010_Student Learning Objectives_results-final

(has learning achievement been demonstrated?)

Surface related learning improvement opportunities

(is diagnosis followed by prescription?)

Review Global Mindset study and submit recommendations

(can global mindset concepts enrich current learning objectives?)

1. undergraduate and graduate  2. undergraduate only 3. http://management.fiu.edu/assurance_learning/objectivesallmajorsnew.xls)

The following approach was discussed to address the Committee objectives involving “review and validate (course and major) learning objectives and their alignment” outlined in the mission attachment referenced above. A detailed perspective of the data source for this task is the Excel Spreadsheet Matrix of Course learning objectives and Departmental Major learning objectives and College curriculum learning objectives:

http://management.fiu.edu/assurance_learning/objectivesallmajorsnewPOSTED2014.xls

The conceptual action plan suggested was based on the Department’s course coordinator assignment scheme already in place. The plan would unfold as follows:  the AoL committee members would contact the course coordinators, and ask that the course coordinators contact (or, more ideally, represent) the faculty teaching sections of the courses for which the course coordinator is responsible. (see attached URL: List of Faculty Course Coordinators for all Management, IB, and HR Courses). The course coordinator would be provided with a list of faculty assigned to teach sections of those Management, IB, and HR courses. This reasoning is based on the assumption that one of the key responsibilities of a course coordinator is to align the learning objectives of all sections of that course.

Using this reasoning, course coordinators need only be allocated to AoL committee members. To this end, a plan referencing two additional documents are needed:

(i)                 A suggested action plan based on three AoL subcommittees, each aligned to sets of courses and associated faculty coordinators.  (We might focus only on these manageable number of M&IB courses) (see attached URL: Aol Committee and Subcommittees)

A sample correspondence that a subcommittee member would forward (to those faculty        course coordinators to which s/he is assigned) as a request for participation and output involving Matrix of congruency of Major LO and Course LO. (see attached URL: Memo on Matrix of Congruency of Major LO and Course LO)

(ii)               A sample correspondence that a subcommittee member would forward (to those faculty course coordinators to which s/he is assigned) as a request for participation and output involving improvement of learning experiences based of exit exam feedback. (see attached URL: Memo on improved learning experiences)

AoL Committee 2011 -2012 Activity

The Committee Fall meeting focused on reviewing the tasks previously assigned to committee members, and to discuss the attached (2011-2012 AoL Committee Agenda) method for identifying underachieved Major learning objectives based on a review of the year 2010 Exit Exam results.

Minutes from the AoL Committee meetings in September and October, 2011 are summarized below:

M&IB Department AoL Committee
AACSB Assurance of Learning Standards
Meeting Notes
September 23, 2011

In September, 2011, the M&IB faculty attended a presentation by the department’s Assurance of Learning Committee. AACSB Assurance of Learning Standards were discussed in the context of recently updated AACSB Accreditation Standards in order to provide renewed perspective on our practice of adhering to sound academic standards regarding our commitment to ensure high quality learning in the College of Business. Our discussion centered on an approach to reinvigorate our commitment, and on opportunities for enlarged faculty participation. We also discussed the AACSB requirements for basis for judgment and guidance for documentation that support our assurance of learning activities.

In addition, the Committee’s 2011 objectives were reviewed during the presentation. These included the continued engagement of the Department’s assurance of learning process, and a review of the exit exam results. The importance of increasing faculty participation was also discussed. Finally, we reviewed the importance of addressing what learning is the target of assurance, and reconfirming our commitment to ensure that learning achievement is being demonstrated.

M&IB Department AoL Committee
AACSB Assurance of Learning Standards
Meeting Notes
October 12, 2011

The first Assurance of Learning committee conducted its first meeting to discuss strategies required to carry out its mission. A pre-meeting memo (attached) was used as a discussion guideline to allocate tasks to committee members. Attendees included D. Wilson, C. Bates, A. Rodgers, R. Silverblatt, C. Perry, and M. Leckband. Missing members included D. Gooden, W. He, and S. Afjei.

The committee discussed a method of allocating committee members to course coordinators in order to facilitate the participation of faculty in the Department’s assurance of learning review initiative. The concept is based on the fact that course coordinators are responsible for coordinating the learning objective consensus for all sections of the course for which they are responsible. Hence, they are well positioned to actively participate in contacting faculty teaching sections of that course to ensure that the course learning objectives and the intersection of those objectives with major and curriculum learning objectives are accurate, and current.

The meeting adjourned after an hour of discussion and collaboration.

AoL Committee 2012 -2013 Activity

The AoL Committee met during the Fall, 2012 semester and reviewed its charter and objectives:

AoL Committee Objectives related to AACSB Accreditation Maintenance

AACSB  Context

AACSB promotes standards regarding College mission, student support, resources, strategy, faculty development, quality of instruction, learning objectives, student learning achievement, and:

  • AACSB  Assurance of Learning  Standards

Required: annual documentation + 5 year visit using AACSB:

  • Basis for judgment (criteria)  and  guidance for documentation (evidence)

AoL Committee 2012 Objectives1

Provide documented evidence of  adherence to AACSB  Assurance of Learning  Standard, including:

  • M&IB Department Assurance of Learning process and results (ends)
  • M&IB Department faculty engagement (means and ends)
    • Faculty participation rate

AoL Committee Objectives

Review AACSB  Assurance of Learning Standards

(how to define and measure achievement of learning goals?)

 Review curriculum & major learning objectives and measures (requires full faculty participation)

(assurance of learning of what?)

Curriculum and Major Alignment Matrix1: Validate alignment of curriculum/major LO and course LO (requires full faculty participation)    (where are learning objectives of Major addressed?)

Review 2011 – 2012 exit exam results

(is learning achievement demonstrated?)

Surface related learning improvement opportunities

        (is diagnosis followed by prescription?)

1. undergraduate only        2. http://management.fiu.edu/assurance_learning/objectivesallmajorsnew.xls

 

The Committee reviewed the 2012 Exit Exam data and discussed underachieved learning objectives that could benefit from improved or redesigned learning objectives in key courses: (see attached URL: 2012- 2013 AoL Committee Agenda)

The annual report to the Chair of the M&IB Department is summarized below:

To: Department Chair

This memo summarizes the M&IB Department Assurance of Learning Committee activities for the 2012-2013 academic year.

The committee’s progress-to-date is represented on the attachment labeled “Subcommittee Member Faculty Assignments Spring 2013”. While a few committee members have yet to complete their tasks to ensure alignment of course and major learning objectives for the courses they were assigned, the Department’s other courses listed on the attachment have been audited and amended to ensure they align with Department major and College curriculum learning objectives.

In addition, the follow-up task of documenting pedagogical improvements based on the analysis of recent student exit exam results was initiated by the Committee. The plan for these tasks, outlined in the second attachment labeled “M&IB Department AoL Committee Tasks 2012-2013”, was to document pedagogical and learning improvement activities involving enhanced learning experiences recently developed by faculty for courses within the Department’s three majors.

The plan was implemented and the results documented. Information collected from the College’s Faculty Assessment System and from direct solicitation of Department faculty members was used to generate the attachments labeled CBA IB, CBA HR, and CBA MAN. These documents, which were compiled by the College’s Accreditation Office with direct input from the Department’s AoL Committee represented by Donald Roomes, Constance Bates, and Doreen Gooden, were submitted as a key component of the College’s recent AACSB Accreditation Report. 

While the Committee will attempt to get task closure from each of its member and will encourage completion of assigned tasks by the end of the 2012-2013 academic year, please consider this report to be the AoL Committee’s final report for the year.  We look forward to continuing to support the M&IB Department’s objectives for the next academic year.

Regards,

AoL Chair

AoL Committee 2013 -2014 Activity

The AoL Committee met in the Fall, 2013 to establish its activities for the coming academic year, as follows:

AoL Committee Objective related to AACSB Accreditation Maintenance

AACSB  Context

AACSB promotes standards regarding College mission, student support, resources, strategy, faculty development, quality of instruction, learning objectives, student learning achievement, and:

  • AACSB  Assurance of Learning  Standards

Required: annual documentation + 5 year visit using AACSB:

  • Basis for judgment (criteria)  and  guidance for documentation (evidence)

AoL Committee 2013 Objectives1

Provide documented evidence of  adherence to AACSB  Assurance of Learning  Standard, including:

  • M&IB Department Assurance of Learning process and results (ends)
  • M&IB Department faculty engagement (means and ends)
    • Faculty participation rate

AoL Committee Objectives

Review AACSB  Assurance of Learning Standards

(how to define and measure achievement of learning goals?)

Review curriculum & major learning objectives and measures (requires full faculty participation)

(assurance of learning of what?)

Curriculum and Major Alignment Matrix1: Validate alignment of curriculum/major LO and course LO (requires full faculty participation)    (where are learning objectives of Major addressed?)

Review 2011 – 2012 or 2012-2013 (if available) exit exam results

        (is learning achievement demonstrated?)

Surface related learning improvement opportunities

        (is diagnosis followed by prescription?)

1. undergraduate only      2. http://management.fiu.edu/assurance_learning/objectivesallmajorsnew.xls)

The Committee reviewed its processes and procedures to ensure the quality of intersection of learning objective, and for identifying underachieved learning objectives revealed by the recent Exit Exam data and the opportunities for associated course learning experience redesign. (see attached URL: Fall 2013 AoL Committee Agenda)

In addition, the Committee reviewed the division of labor and faculty course responsibility, and indicated updates and changes on the following assignment diagram: (see attached URL: 2013_2014 Subcommittee Member and Course Coordinator Assignments)

Back to top