12/2017 1

Annual Academic Assessment Report Cover Sheet Assessment reports are due the 1st Wednesday after the Fall Term

Program Information:

Program Assessed MS Management Information Systems

Department

Management, Entrepreneurship and Technology

College

Lee Business School

Department Chair Sheng Wang

Assessment Coordinator Greg Moody

Date Submitted December 20, 2017

Contact Person for This Report

Name Greg Moody

Phone 702-895-1365

Email greg.moody@unlv.edu

12/2017 2

Student Learning Outcomes for MS MIS 1. The ability to interpret the role of information systems to enhance organizations 2. The ability to manage an information systems project 3. The ability to analyze business problems and apply technological solutions 4. The ability to work effectively with others in teams 5. The ability to communicate technological concepts to business executives and users Assessed Outcomes for MS MIS in 2015 1. The ability to interpret the role of information systems to enhance organizations 2. The ability to manage an information systems project 3. The ability to analyze business problems and apply technological solutions 4. The ability to work effectively with others in teams 5. The ability to communicate technological concepts to business executives and users How Student Learning Outcomes were Assessed for MS MIS 1. This objective was assessed by having two independent evaluators (two professors that do not teach in any of the courses that were assessed) review final project proposals. They used a rubric (Please see Appendix 1) that guided their evaluation of the students to interpret the role of information systems in enhancing organizations. Project proposals were obtained from final team projects in MIS 770. There was a total of ten project reports used for this assessment. Additionally, clients for three of the projects were asked to provide an assessment the role of information systems (in this case in the context of security) and its ability to impact the organization. These clients were all executives in their organizations. 2. This objective was assessed by means of an online survey. The survey implemented the assessment items (Please see Appendix 2) that assessed the students’ perceptions of the ability of themselves and their teammates to manage an information systems project. Students in sections of MIS 760 and MIS 762 were invited to participate via email. A total of 44 students were invited to participate in the survey, with 21 submitted completed responses, resulting in a response rate of 47.7%. 3. This objective was assessed by having two independent evaluators (two professors that do not teach in any of the courses that were assessed) review an individual coding assignment. They used a rubric (Please see Appendix 3) that guided their evaluation of the students’ ability to create a working coding project that solved the business problem identified in the assignment. Coding assignments were obtained from an Individual Assignment 4 in MIS 740. 4. This objective was assessed by means of an online survey. The survey implemented the assessment items (Please see Appendix 4) that assessed the students’ perceptions of the ability of themselves and their teammates to work effectively with others in teams. Students in sections of MIS 740 and MIS 760 were invited to participate via email. A total of 50 students were invited to participate in the survey, with 29 submitted completed responses, resulting in a response rate of 48.0%. 5. This objective was assessed by having two independent evaluators (two professors that do not teach in any of the courses that were assessed) review final project proposals. They used a rubric (Please see Appendix 5) that guided their evaluation of the students’ ability to communicate technological concepts to business executives and users through writing. Project proposals were obtained from final team projects in MIS 744 & 770. Additionally, clients for three of the projects were asked to provide an assessment of the communication abilities (written and oral communication). These clients were all executives in their organizations and both received the written reports and were presented to as part of these projects.

12/2017 3

Activities Requiring Originality, Critical Analysis and Expertise This graduate level requirement is assessed through Assessment Objective #5. Students are required to work on a project with a client in the area, and their work is summarized in the report for this assessment item. Each project is entirely unique and requires critical analysis and expertise in the area of MIS. This is a required course for all of the students entering our program, and a similar experience is required in our capstone course (MIS 781), which is required for all students graduating in our program. We thus assert that our students are required to do original work, which requires critical analysis per client requirements. Student Learning Outcome Assessment Results 1. Our results from our evaluation of final project proposals to project clients show that students find themselves to be well equipped to understand the role of information systems within an organization and enhance its performance. Most averages placed students’ abilities to be in the 80+% range. For detailed statistics please see Appendix 6. 2. Our results from our surveys show that students find themselves to be well equipped to manage projects. Most averages placed students’ perceptions of their abilities to be in the 90+% range. For detailed statistics please see Appendix 7. 3. Our results from our evaluation of the submitted coding assignment show that students are modestly equipped to use technology to solve organizational problems. The averages were around the 50th to the 75th percentiles. This is comparable to last year’s ranges. For detailed statistics for this year’s assessment and the results from the previous year’s assessment, please see Appendix 8. 4. Our results from our surveys show that students find themselves to be well suited to work effectively in teams, with the exception of one team, which ratings all scored relatively low. Overall the ratings amongst the two courses, placed Most averages placed students’ perceptions of their team capabilities to be in the 80+% range. For detailed statistics please see Appendix 9. 5. Our results from our evaluation of final project proposals to project clients show that students written communication is at acceptable levels, with the exception of their abilities to cite and document sources of their research. This citation and documentation rating was a 2.9 out of 5 (St deviation of 1.2). This places it lower than we would like this score to be. Most averages placed students’ writing abilities to be in the 80+% range. For detailed statistics please see Appendix 10. Program Response to Assessment Results 1. Given that our assessment reveals an acceptable result in this area we plan to evoke no changes to improve this outcome in our program. 2. Given that our assessment reveals an acceptable result in this area we plan to evoke no changes to improve this outcome in our program. 3. Given that our assessment focuses on the first semester students in our program and no statistically significant change from last year, we plan no alterations to the program. 4. Given that our assessment reveals an acceptable result in this area we plan to evoke no changes to improve this outcome in our program. 5. Given that our assessment reveals acceptable results in all categories of written communication, excepting citation and documentation, there are no changes for those areas.

12/2017 4

Appendix 1. Rubric for Objective 1.

12/2017 5

Appendix 2. Rubric for Objective 2.

12/2017 6

Appendix 3. Rubric for Objective 3.

12/2017 7

Appendix 4. Rubric for Objective 4.

12/2017 8

Appendix 5. Rubric for Objective 5.

12/2017 9

Appendix 6. Results for Objective 1. Assessment item Mean St. Dev. Minimum Maximum N Analysis 4.5 1.1 3 5 10 Content 4.5 1.2 3 5 10 Organization 4.3 1.0 3 5 10 Style 4.6 0.9 3 5 10

12/2017 10

Appendix 7. Results for Objective 2.

Assessment items Mea

n

Stan

dard

D

evia

tion

Min

imum

Max

imum

N

During its work on the project assigned for this course, my team . . . Showed good time-management 4.3 0.6 3 5 21 Displayed good comprehension of the team’s responsibilities on the project 4.2 0.8 2 5 21 Organized and planned project activities well 4.2 0.8 2 5 21 Effectively communicated with each other 4.2 0.9 2 5 21 Had an effective leader 4.1 0.9 2 5 21 Made appropriate decisions regarding the project 4.4 0.7 3 5 21 During the course of my team’s work on the project assigned for this course I would say that the team as a whole. . . Had great time management skills on the project (i.e., prioritized tasks, delegated tasks, made deadlines, etc.) 4.2 0.7 3 5 21 Understood the roles of everyone on the team 4.1 0.8 2 5 21 Made assignments to complete the project, and followed through on these assignments 4.1 1.1 1 5 21 Clearly communicated regarding the project in a manner that reduced conflict 4.3 0.6 3 5 21 Had a clear leadership structure that aided in completing the project 4.1 0.9 2 5 21 Effectively discussed and made sound decisions in regards to the project 4.3 0.6 3 5 21 (C) When thinking about everyone’s contribution to the project our team completed for this course, I would say Team Mate #, or myself . . . Managed his or her time on the project effectively 4.2 0.8 1 5 98 Abided by the established roles for the project 4.3 0.8 1 5 98 Planned and adhered to assigned project activities 4.2 0.8 1 5 98 Kept in contact with other team-members regarding the project 4.3 0.8 1 5 98 Showed leadership or followed the team leadership structure 4.2 0.9 1 5 98 Adhered to decisions made related to the project 4.3 0.7 1 5 98

12/2017 11

Appendix 8. Results for Objective 3. Descriptives Analysis Content Style Mean 2.8 2.9 2.7 Standard Deviation 1.2 1.3 1.2 Minimum 1 1 1 Maximum 5 5 5 N 30 30 30 Previous year’s results Descriptives Analysis Content Style Mean 3.1 3.2 3.2 Standard Deviation 0.9 0.8 0.9 Minimum 1 1 1 Maximum 5 5 5 N 26 26 26

12/2017 12

Appendix 9. Results for Objective 4.

Assessment items Mea

n

Stan

dard

D

evia

tion

Min

imum

Max

imum

N

During its work on the project assigned for this course, my team . . . Aimed to accomplish far more than the project assignment called for 3.9 1.0 1 5 29 Devised a very different and unusual way to split up the work 2.9 1.1 1 5 29 Could be said to have had multiple team leaders at various points in time 3.7 1.3 1 5 29 Rarely missed a day when members did not discuss the project 2.9 1.0 1 5 29 Hardly formed expectations for each team member 2.5 1.2 1 5 29 Randomly assigned team roles and duties 2.7 1.2 1 4 29 Had trouble identifying a single team leader 2.5 0.9 1 4 29 Completed the project with minimal amounts of team discussion 2.1 1.0 1 4 29 I would say that the team as a whole. . . Acted professionally (i.e., reliable, honest, respectful, and work focused) 4.1 1.0 1 5 29 Generally avoided conflicts 4.1 0.9 1 5 29 Made significant contributions to the project 3.9 1.0 1 5 29 Was more comfortable with greater discussions 3.8 0.9 1 5 29 Regularly provided unsolicited help, thereby making everyone's job easier 3.8 1.0 1 5 29 Ran into unexpected conflicts 2.5 1.3 1 5 29 Poorly judged the quality of contributions of the project 2.3 0.9 1 5 29 Easily tolerated an unacceptable variety of viewpoints 3.4 0.9 1 5 29 When thinking about everyone’s contribution to the project our team completed for this course, I would say Team Mate # . . . Easily produced more than the team asked of them 3.4 1.1 1 5 96 Pushed themselves to the highest extent of their abilities 3.4 1.2 1 5 96 Often checked to see how their efforts affected team mates’ efforts 3.4 1.1 1 5 96 Fulfilled their responsibilities to the team 3.7 1.1 1 5 96 Provided just enough effort to meet their team duties 3.4 1.1 1 5 96 Carefully guarded their work from team mates 2.8 1.2 1 5 96 Relied little on team mates to help with their duties 3.0 1.2 1 5 96

12/2017 13

Appendix 10. Results for Objective 5. a. Oral Communication

Descriptives Org

aniz

atio

n

Con

tent

Del

iver

y

Non

-Ver

bal

App

eara

nce

Vis

ual A

ids

Mean 4.0 4.1 3.8 4.5 4.5 4.1 Standard Deviation 1.3 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.7 1.1 Minimum 1 3 2 2 4 3 Maximum 5 5 5 5 5 5 N 20 20 20 20 20 20 b. Written Communication

Descriptives Con

tent

Org

aniz

atio

n

Styl

e

Gra

mm

ar a

nd

Mec

hani

cs

Cita

tion

and

Doc

umen

tatio

n

Prof

essi

onal

ism

Mean 4.0 4.2 3.9 4.0 2.9 4.5 Standard Deviation 1.1 1.0 1.3 1.0 1.2 1.1 Minimum 2 2 2 2 1 3 Maximum 5 5 5 5 4 5 N 20 20 20 20 20 20