Unit: Business, Shidler College of
Program: Undergraduate Office of Student Academic Services
Date: Tue Oct 06, 2015 - 11:15:08 am

1) Below are your program's student outcomes (SOs). Please add or update as needed.

1. Pre-business students will be able to identify admission requirements

2. Business students will develop an individual academic plan specific to their needs

 

2) Your program's SOs are published as follows. Please update as needed.

Program's Website. URL: shidler.hawaii.edu (Admissions Undergraduate)
Student Handbook. URL, if available online:
Information Sheet, Flyer, or Brochure. URL, if available online:
UHM Catalog. Page Number: 181
Other:
Other:

3) Provide the program's activity map or other graphic that illustrates how program activities/services align with program student outcomes. Please upload it as a PDF.

Activity Map File(s) from 2015:

4) Did your program engage in any program assessment activities between June 1, 2014 and September 30, 2015? (e.g., establishing/revising outcomes, aligning activities to outcomes, collecting evidence, interpreting evidence, using results, revising the assessment plan, creating surveys, etc.)

Yes
No (skip to question 14)

5) For the period between June 1, 2014 and September 30, 2015: State the assessment question(s) and/or assessment goals. Include the student outcomes that were targeted, if applicable.

Pre business and business were asked to rate the following areas using a Likert scale:

1) Availability of academic advisors to answer your questions

2) Academic advisor's knowledge of degree requirements

3) I was provided clear and precise information regarding admission requirements and prerequisites/program and graduation requirements

4) I am able to develop an academic plan specific to my needs

 

6) State the type(s) of evidence gathered to answer the assessment question and/or meet the assessment goals that were given in Question #5.

Assessment evidence continues to be collected as previous reporting years. Data is collected during three (3) points of student contact: 1) prior to admission (pre-business individual advising); 2) in the first semester of admission into the college (group advising); and 3) daily scheduled appointments/walk-in advising (individual advising). Types of evidence included student evaluations (indirect) that assessed knowledge of admission requirements, graduation requirements, policies and deadlines; and student generated academic plans (direct).

7) State how many persons submitted evidence that was evaluated. If applicable, please include the sampling technique used.

We asked 100% of the students who received some type of advising to complete an on-line survey (no sampling used).

927 business students received individual advising. Of this total, 195 or 21%, completed an electronic survey. For the 949 pre-business students who received individual advising, 316 or 33.2%, submitted surveys.

Of the 448 business students attended a mandatory group advising session, 428 or 95.5% responded to on-line evaluations.

During this reporting period, a total of 2304 pre-business and business students received some form of direct advising. Of this total, we received surveys from 939 students for a total response rate of 40.7%

 

 

 

8) Who interpreted or analyzed the evidence that was collected? Check all that apply.

Program faculty/staff member(s)
Faculty/staff committee
Ad hoc faculty/staff group
Director or department chairperson
Persons or organization outside the university
Students (graduate or undergraduate)
Dean or Associate Dean
Advisory Board
Other:

9) How did he/she/they evaluate, analyze, or interpret the evidence? Check all that apply.

Compiled survey results
Used quantitative methods on student data (e.g., grades, participation rates) or other numeric data
Used qualitative methods on interview, focus group, or other open-ended response data
Scored exams/tests/quizzes
Used a rubric or scoring guide
Used professional judgment (no rubric or scoring guide used)
External organization/person analyzed data (e.g., Social Science Research Institute)
Other:

10) For the assessment questions/goals stated in Question #5, summarize the actual results.

Of the pre-business respondents, 98% indicated they could accurately identify admission requirements after individual advising. These results are up 2% from last reporting period of 96%.

97% of business students developed an individual academic plan specific to their needs after attending a group advising session. Both pre-business and business students who were seen in individual advising, 99% indicated they were able to develop an academic plan specific to their needs.

 

11) What was learned from the results?

It appears our evidence collection suggests we have made good progress in meeting our student outcomes. Our student evaluation survey questions have helped us to accurately measure these outcomes. The information dissemination on requirements, policies and deadlines via print, web based, electronic mail, or face-to-face advising sessions appears useful to students.

Although the return rate of voluntary surveys from individual advising remains remains unchanged, we do not feel a need to implement strategies to increase this rate. Electronic weekly reminders had minimal effect and may have been viewed as a negative stimulus given the volume of UHM emails students receive throughout the year.

12) State how the program used the results or plans to use the results. Please be specific.

No plans to modify or change our current focus as the results are generally positive.

 

 

13) Reflect on the assessment process. Is there anything related to assessment procedures your program would do differently next time? What went well?

The only change was our internal method of data collection after individual advising sessions.

Last year, we asked studetns to "log in" on our desktop computer in our lobby vs signing in on a clipboard. This method allowed us to track the number of students serviced more accurately.

Since last reporting period, the advisor whose skill set was IT resigned from the position in September 2015. Accordingly, on-line advising surveys have not been initiated.

14) If the program did not engage in assessment activities, please explain.
Or, if the program did engage in assessment activities, please add any other important information here.