B. Program in Business Unit - PDF Free Download

A. Business or Business Related Programs & Degree Type B. Program in Business Unit C. To be Accredited by ACBSP D. Number of Degrees Conferred During Selfstudy Year EXAMPLE ONE: A.S. in Accounting or Accounting, A.S. degree or Accounting, Associate of Science Degree Yes Yes 17 EXAMPLE TWO: A.S. with concentrations in Accounting, Management, Marketing and Human Relations Management Yes Yes 23 PLEASE ENTER YOUR PROGRAMS & DEGREE TYPE BELOW: A.S. Business Administration Yes Yes 50 A.A.S. Accounting Yes Yes 18 A.A.S. Administrative Management Technology Yes Yes 3 A.A.S. Administrative Management Technology - Medical Administrative Management Specialization Yes Yes 5 A.A.S. Management Yes Yes 13 A.A.S. Paralegal Studies Yes No A.A.S. Culinary Arts Yes No

TABLE 1: Student and Stakeholder Focused Results (Standard 3) - Student, stakeholder, and market focused results examine how well your business unit satisfies students and stakeholders key needs and expectations. - Performance measures may include: satisfaction and dissatisfaction of current and past students and key stakeholders, perceived value, loyalty, persistence, or other aspects of relationship building, end of course surveys, alumni surveys, Internship feedback, etc. - Measurement instrument or processes may include end of course surveys, alumni surveys, Internship feedback, etc. - Each academic unit must demonstrate linkages to business practitioners and organizations, which are current and significant, including an advisory board. - Periodic surveys should be made of graduates, transfer institutions, and/or employers of graduates to obtain data on the success of business programs in preparing students to compete successfully for entry-level positions. - If for any given performance measure your goal is being exceeded repeatedly, consider either increasing the goal or changing the performance measure so that action can be taken to improve the program. - For all data reported, show sample size (n = 75). Analysis of Results Performance Measure: What is your performance measure? What is your goal? (The goal should be measurable.) What is your measurement instrument or process? (indicate length of cycle) Current Results: What are your current results? Analysis of Results: What did you learn from your results? Action Taken or Improvement Made: What did you improve or what is your next step? Provide a graph or table of resulting trends (3-5 data points preferred) Alumni Satisfaction Results 10 0 Overall student satisfaction with instructors will be at or above 4.25 Course Evaluations at the end of every course averaged for the year Five years of trend data exceeding the goal. Increasing or steady in most departments, but declining in Marketing. Overall satisfaction exceeded the goal in all current degree programs showed a positive trends for all three years; Marketing major was discontinued and we were in teach out of those courses for this time period Meeting with full-time faculty member with an evaluation score of 3.0 or lower to discuss strategies to improve performance (program head meets with adjunct faculty with an evaluation score or 3.0 or lower); increase performance standard to 4.50. Professional development opportunites for continous improvement in instruction available (New Horizons, VCCS Peer Conferences, Quality Matters, Blackboard training, etc.) 4.8 4.6 4.4 4.2 4 4.58 ACC (n=282) (n=210) (n=222) Student Satisfaction: Evaluation of Instructor 4.68 AST (n=252) (n=209) (n=184) 4.56 BUS/FIN (n=425) (n=314) (n=189) 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 4.37 MKT (n=50) (n=19) (n=13)

Performance Measure: What is your performance measure? What is your goal? (The goal should be measurable.) New Student rating of Overall quality of instruction will be at 4.0 or above What is your measurement instrument or process? (indicate length of cycle) New Student Survey conducted in SDV 100 each fall Current Results: What are your current results? Four years of trend data exceeding the goal but declining in Fall 2017 Analysis of Results: What did you learn from your results? Overall quality exceeded the goal all four years; Action Taken or Improvement Made: What did you improve or what is your next step? Offering different modalities of instruction to meet needs of students including on-campus, online, and hybrid. Faculty must follow common syllabus, course outline and teach to SLOs (Student Learning Outcomes) in each course; instructor resources such as multimedia technology, adequate classroom space, and instructional design provided to all faculty. Created discipline-specific student orientation course (SDV 101) taught by business faculty to ensure program placed students are in correct program and to assist learning, educational, and career goals applicable to chosen program Provide a graph or table of resulting trends (3-5 data points preferred) 4.4 4.35 4.3 4.25 4.2 4.15 4.1 4.05 Overall Quality of Instruction 4 2014 (n=469) 2015 (n=316) 2016 (n=347) 2017 (n=540)

Performance Measure: What is your performance measure? What is your goal? (The goal should be measurable.) New Student rating of Overall quality of your academic program will be at 4.0 or above What is your measurement instrument or process? (indicate length of cycle) New Student Survey conducted in SDV 100 each fall Current Results: What are your current results? Four years of trend data exceeding the goal but declining in Fall 2017 Analysis of Results: What did you learn from your results? Overall quality exceeded the goal all four years; Action Taken or Improvement Made: What did you improve or what is your next step? Faculty review and develop curriculum annually based on student and employer feedback; redesigning curriculum to embed industry credentials for workforce readiness; program redesigns also consisted of sequential pathways to improve completion time; developed common first semester classes across business unit programs for potential student transition between programs; implemented scheduling guidelines for streamlined offerings during most popular meeting times/dates; created discipline-specific student orientation course (SDV 101) taught by business faculty to assist with transition into programs and ensure correct program placement that aligns with educational/career goals. Provide a graph or table of resulting trends (3-5 data points preferred) 4.4 4.3 4.2 4.1 4 3.9 3.8 Overall Quality of your Academic Program(s) 2014 (n=469) 2015 (n=316) 2016 (n=347) 2017 (n=540)

Performance Measure: What is your performance measure? What is your goal? (The goal should be measurable.) New Student rating of Relationship with Faculty will be at 4.0 or above What is your measurement instrument or process? (indicate length of cycle) New Student Survey conducted in SDV 100 each fall Current Results: What are your current results? Four years of trend data exceeding the goal but declining in Fall 2017 Analysis of Results: What did you learn from your results? Overall quality exceeded the goal all four years; Action Taken or Improvement Made: What did you improve or what is your next step? After the completion of 12 credits, students are transitioned to business faculty advisors; meeting with faculty advisors allows for more meaningful relationships with students than when students meet with only professional advisors who have generic knowledge of college programs and career opportunities; Full-time faculty also teach the discipline-specific two credit student orientation course (SDV 101) that assists business students with transitioning into programs and ensuring correct program placement that aligns with educational and career goals. Provide a graph or table of resulting trends (3-5 data points preferred) 4.2 4.1 4 3.9 3.8 3.7 Relationship with Faculty Alumni satisfaction with preparation for transfer, preparation for employment and overall will be at 4.0 or above Alumni survey administered in the summer, the year following graduation Five years of trend data Overall quality exceeded exceeding the goal. the goal all four years; Increasing through 2015-16 graduates with a slight decrease for 2016-17 graduates. Created discipline-specific two credit student orientation course (SDV 101) to be taught by business faculty to better help with transition into programs and ensure correct program placement that aligns with educational and career goals. Updates to the Curriculum Advisory Committee memberships have been allowed updates to workforce-ready KSAs to be implemented into each program. 3.6 5 4.5 4 3.5 2014 (n=469) Preparation for Transfer 2012-13 (n=148) 2015 (n=316) 2016 (n=347) 4.36 4.26 Preparation for Employment 2017 (n=540) Alumni Satisfaction one year after Graduation 2013-14 (n=103) 2014-15 (n=96) 4.4 Overall Satisfaction 2015-16 (n=72) 2016-17 (n=123)

Performance Measure: What is your performance measure? What is your goal? (The goal should be measurable.) Graduate satisfaction with academic program, relationship with faculty, enrollment services and learning resources will be at 4.0 or above What is your measurement instrument or process? (indicate length of cycle) Graduate survey administered when applying for graduation each semester Current Results: What are your current results? Five years of trend data exceeding the goal. 2017-18 graduates slightly lower for three of the four categories. Analysis of Results: What did you learn from your results? Overall quality exceeded the goal all four years; Action Taken or Improvement Made: What did you improve or what is your next step? Created discipline-specific two credit student orientation course (SDV 101) to be taught by business faculty to help with transition into programs and ensure correct program placement that aligns with educational and career goals. VCCS Initiative Guided Pathways will target more meaningful and efficient onboarding, enrollment, advising, and program placement of students. This technology is to be implemented in fall 2018 semester. College provides 24/7 Student Support Center - assistance via chat, online questions submisson, and phone. Provide a graph or table of resulting trends (3-5 data points preferred) 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.3 4.2 4.1 4 Graduating Student Satisfaction Academic Program 4.43 4.34 Relationship with Faculty Enrollment Services 4.2 Learning Resources 4.36 2013-14 (n=404) 2014-15 (n=461) 2015-16 (n=402) 2016-17 (n=394) 2017-18 (n=271)

Academic advising/planning Transfer credit assistance Financial aid advising Performance Measure: What is your performance measure? What is your goal? (The goal should be measurable.) Student satisfaction with the support provided and the educational experience at Virginia Western does not decline more than.10 from the previous administration of the survey. What is your measurement instrument or process? (indicate length of cycle) CCSSE survey administered every two or three years. Current Results: What are your current results? Three cycles of trend data exceeding the goal with an upward trend. Analysis of Results: What did you learn from your results? Overall quality exceeded the goal all four years; Action Taken or Improvement Made: What did you improve or what is your next step? BTT added a full-time program advisor who has become integral to the support of new and returning students during the completion of their programs. Created discipline-specific two credit student orientation course (SDV 101) to be taught by business faculty to better help with transition into programs and ensure correct program placement that aligns with educational and career goals. Faculty regularly develop reallife, meaningful experiences for students similar to what they would experience in the workforce; faculty have embedded industry credentials in business programs so students can enter the workforce with fundamental, marketable skills. Business programs share common set of classes in first semester so students are not behind if they change their program. Provide a graph or table of resulting trends (3-5 data points preferred) 3.2 3.15 3.1 3.05 3 2.95 2.9 2.85 Student Satisfaction - CCSSE 3.07 Providing the support you need to help you succeed at this college 3.16 Your entire educational experience at this college 2011 (n=914) 2014 (n=916) 2016 (n=835) Student satisfaction with Academic Advising, Transfer Assistance and Financial Aid Advising does not decline more than.10 from the previous administration of the survey. CCSSE survey administered every two or three years. Three cycles of trend data exceeding the goal in the last cycle with an increase in each area from 2014 to 2016. Overall quality exceeded the goal all four years; BTT has added a program adivsor with specialized knowledge of the business programs. The program advisor also supports students and faculty with resource referrals. Created discipline-specific two credit student orientation course (SDV 101) to be taught by business faculty to better help with transition into programs and ensure correct program placement that aligns with educational and career goals. 2.4 2.35 2.3 2.25 2.2 2.15 2.1 2.05 2 1.95 1.9 1.85 CCSSE - Advising 2.27 2.18 2.28 2011 (n=914) 2014 (n=916) 2016 (n=835)

Peer or other tutoring Skill labs (writing, math, etc.) Computer lab Student organizatio ns Performance Measure: What is your performance measure? What is your goal? (The goal should be measurable.) What is your measurement instrument or process? (indicate length of cycle) Student satisfaction with career CCSSE survey administered counseling and job placement every two or three years. assistance does not decline more than.10 from the previous administration of the survey. Current Results: What are your current results? Analysis of Results: What did you learn from your results? Three cycles of trend Overall quality exceeded data exceeding the goal the goal all four years; in career counselingthis last year, but a low rating for job placement assistance. Action Taken or Improvement Made: What did you improve or what is your next step? Created discipline-specific two credit student orientation course (SDV 101) to be taught by business faculty to better help with transition into programs and ensure correct program placement that aligns with educational and career goals. Faculty regularly incorporate the use of the college's career center into their classes including career exploration, and to learn about the additional resources offered such as job placement, interviewing skills, resumes editing, job shadowing, internships, and mentoring opportunities. Provide a graph or table of resulting trends (3-5 data points preferred) 2.2 2.1 2 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.6 CCSSE - Career Assistance 2.07 Career counseling 2011 (n=914) 2014 (n=916) 1.85 Job placement assistance 2016 (n=835) Student satisfaction with tutoring, skills labs, computer labs and student organizations does not decline more than.10 from the previous administration of the survey. CCSSE survey administered every two or three years. Three cycles of trend Overall quality exceeded data exceeding the goal the goal all four years; in each area with a slight decline over time related to tutoring. Implementation of the two credit SDV 101 course aids in providing students with additional resources in terms of assistance from faculty. The college provides tutors specifically for accounting students which has improved student success, and a dedicated computer lab exists that provides specific resources needed for instructional aid (i.e. Microsoft Office Suite, QuickBooks, Certa Port, and GMetrix software). 3 2 1 0 CCSSE Resources/Services 2.2 2.32 2011 (n=914) 2014 (n=916) 2.57 2016 (n=835) 2.1

Score Performance Indicator 1. Student Learning Results TABLE 2: Student Learning Results (Standard 4) Use this table to supply data for Criterion 4.2. Definition A student learning outcome is one that measures a specific competency attainment. Examples of a direct assessment (evidence) of student learning attainment that might be used include: capstone performance, third-party examination, faculty-designed examination, professional performance, licensure examination). Add these to the description of the measurement instrument in column two: Direct - Assessing student performance by examining samples of student work Indirect - Assessing indicators other than student work such as getting feedback from the student or other persons who may provide relevant information. Formative An assessment conducted during the student s education. Summative An assessment conducted at the end of the student s education. Internal An assessment instrument that was developed within the business unit. External An assessment instrument that was developed outside the business unit. Comparative Compare results between classes, between online and on ground classes, Between professors, between programs, between campuses, or compare to external results such as results from the U.S. Department of Education Research and Statistics, or results from a vendor providing comparable data. - If for any given performance measure your goal is being exceeded repeatedly, consider either increasing the goal or changing the performance measure so that action can be taken to improve the program. - For all data reported, show sample size (n=75). Analysis of Results Performance Measure: For each assessment, identify the following - 1. Academic Program, 2. Student Learning Outcome, 3. Measurable Goal What is your measurement instrument or process? Do not use grades. Indicate type of instrument (e.g. direct, formative, internal, comparative) Current Results: What are your current results? Analysis of Results: What did you learn from your results? Action Taken or Improvement Made: What did you improve or what is your next step? Provide a graph or table of resulting trends (3-5 data points preferred) Data Point 1 (2015-16) Data Point 2 (2016-17) Data Point 3 (2017-18) Data Point 4 (year or semester) Data Point 5 (year or semester) EXAMPLE In ACC-213 (Managerial Program - AAS in Accounting), students scores on Accounting Technology; SLO embedded test questions on - "The student will the final exam will assess ability demonstrate the ability to to analyze financial statements. analyze financial statements"; This is a direct, summative, Goal - 80% score on internal assessment. embedded test questions After three years of subpar student performance, the goal has been met for the last two years. Although instructors review various examples in class, students were not getting enough practice analyzing financial statements on their own outside of class. Graded homework assignments where students analyze financial statements were introduced in 2014. This led to improved student performance on this measure. Now, further work will be done to improve the graded homework assignments. AS in Accounting SLO: Analyze Financial Statements 100 80 60 0.66 0.7 0.43 70 67 72 86 92 Program - AS in Business Administration SLO - Demonstrate a wellrounded understanding of financial accounting and reporting Goal - 70% of students will score 70% or better In ACC 211 (Principles of Accounting I), student scores on embedded test questions on the comprehensive financial accounting final exam will assess understanding of financial accounting and reporting. This is a direct, summative, internal assessment. SLO goal is 70% of students will score a 70% or above on the assessment. 43% of the students scored a 70% or above on the assessment. The goal was not achieved. One particular class section (ACC 212-11 in Spring 2018) had 18% of students score a 70% or above which brought down the average. Omitting this section, 55% of the students scored a 70% or above on the assessment. Students that had good class attendance and good homework completion rates met the SLO goal. Overall, student performance was strong on terminology but weaker on cost of goods manufactured, job order cost sheet, activity based costing, and standard costing. Faculty will meet in late summer/early fall to discuss the following possible modifications: 1- review of exam questions for possible changes/clarification. 2- tracking of assessment results by students' program of study. 3- heavier weighting of final exam 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 AS Business Administration SLO: Financial Accounting and Reporting 2015-16 (n=226) 2016-17 (n=106) 2017-18 (n=119) 66% 70% 43%

Analysis of Results Performance Measure: For each assessment, identify the following - 1. Academic Program, 2. Student Learning Outcome, 3. Measurable Goal What is your measurement instrument or process? Do not use grades. Indicate type of instrument (e.g. direct, formative, internal, comparative) Current Results: What are your current results? Analysis of Results: What did you learn from your results? Action Taken or Improvement Made: What did you improve or what is your next step? Provide a graph or table of resulting trends (3-5 data points preferred) Data Point 1 (2015-16) Data Point 2 (2016-17) Data Point 3 (2017-18) Data Point 4 (year or semester) Data Point 5 (year or semester) Program - AS in Business Administration SLO - Demonstrate a wellrounded understanding of managerial accounting Goal - 70% of students will score 70% or better In ACC 212 (Principles of Accounting II), student scores on embedded test questions on the comprehensive managerial accounting final exam will assess understanding of managerial accounting. This is a direct, SLO goal is 70% of students will score a summative, internal assessment. 70% or above on the assessment. 63% of the students scored a 70% or above on the assessment. The goal was not achieved. The fall scores of 68% were significantly better than the spring scores of 55%. Overall student strengths were in preparation of financial statements. Students were somewhat weaker in steps in the accounting cycle, calculation of bond interest, calculation of partial year depreciation, and accrual adjustments. Faculty will meet in late summer/early fall to discuss the following possible modifications: 1- Modifying the assessment to a computer-based final exam which will allow for consistent grading and feedback on areas of strengths and weaknesses. 2- Heavier weighting of assessment (final exam) in course grade. 3- Possible tracking of assessment results by students' program of study. 0.72 0.7 0.68 0.66 0.64 0.62 0.6 AS Business Administration SLO: Managerial Accounting 62% 62% 63% 0.58 2015-16 (n=127) 2016-17 (n=62%) 2017-18 (n=206) Program - AAS in Accounting SLO - Demonstrate a wellrounded understanding of financial accounting and reporting Goal - 70% of students will score 70% or better In ACC 211 (Principles of Accounting I), student scores on embedded test questions on the comprehensive financial accounting final exam will assess understanding of financial accounting and reporting. This is a direct, summative, internal assessment. SLO goal is 70% of students will score a 70% or above on the assessment. 43% of the students scored a 70% or above on the assessment. The goal was not achieved. One particular class section (ACC 212-11 in Spring 2018) had 18% of students score a 70% or above which brought down the average. Omitting this section, 55% of the students scored a 70% or above on the assessment. Students that had good class attendance and good homework completion rates met the SLO goal. Overall, student performance was strong on terminology but weaker on cost of goods manufactured, job order cost sheet, activity based costing, and standard costing. Faculty will meet in late summer/early fall to discuss the following possible modifications: 1- review of exam questions for possible changes/clarification. 2- tracking of assessment results by students' program of study. 3- heavier weighting of final exam 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 AAS Accounting SLO: Financial Accounting and Reporting 66% 70% 43% 0.1 0 2015-16 (n=226) 2016-17 (n=106) 2017-18 (n=119)

Analysis of Results Performance Measure: For each assessment, identify the following - 1. Academic Program, 2. Student Learning Outcome, 3. Measurable Goal What is your measurement instrument or process? Do not use grades. Indicate type of instrument (e.g. direct, formative, internal, comparative) Current Results: What are your current results? Analysis of Results: What did you learn from your results? Action Taken or Improvement Made: What did you improve or what is your next step? Provide a graph or table of resulting trends (3-5 data points preferred) Data Point 1 (2015-16) Data Point 2 (2016-17) Data Point 3 (2017-18) Data Point 4 (year or semester) Data Point 5 (year or semester) Program - AAS in Accounting SLO - Demonstrate a wellrounded understanding of managerial accounting Goal - 70% of students will score 70% or better In ACC 212 (Principles of Accounting II), student scores on embedded test questions on the comprehensive managerial accounting final exam will assess understanding of managerial accounting. This is a direct, summative, internal assessment. SLO goal is 70% of students will score a 70% or above on the assessment. 63% of the students scored a 70% or above on the assessment. The goal was not achieved. The fall scores of 68% were significantly better than the spring scores of 55%. Overall student strengths were in preparation of financial statements. Students were somewhat weaker in steps in the accounting cycle, calculation of bond interest, calculation of partial year depreciation, and accrual adjustments. Faculty will meet in late summer/early fall to discuss the following possible modifications: 1- Modifying the assessment to a computer-based final exam which will allow for consistent grading and feedback on areas of strengths and weaknesses. 2- Heavier weighting of assessment (final exam) in course grade. 3- Possible tracking of assessment results by students' program of study. 0.72 0.7 0.68 0.66 0.64 0.62 0.6 0.58 0.8 AAS Accounting SLO: Managerial Accounting 2015-16 (n=127) 2016-17 (n=62%) AAS Accounting SLO: Business Terms 2017-18 (n=206) 62% 62% 63% 0.78 0.76 Program - AAS in Accounting SLO - Demonstrate a wellrounded understanding of business terms and their applications Goal - 70% of students will score 70% or better In BUS 100 (Introduction to Business), student scores on embedded test questions on the comprehensive final exam will assess understanding of business terms and their applications. This is a direct, summative, internal assessment. The standard of success for this SLO was that 70% or more of the students would achieve a score of 70 or better on the departmental final exam. This academic year 74.8% completed the assessment with at grade of 70% or better. Therefore, the goal for this SLO was fully achieved. It should be noted that only one of the two online sections used the assessment this year, but 81.8% of those students achieved the 70% benchmark. The students did well in the economics, management, and marketing areas. The students struggled a bit on finance and banking (however spring students showed improvement). We are going to continue to develop the company tracking assignment to integrate each chapter. This will allow the students to apply the material to a real world company, thus helping ensure learning. We are also implementing the IncludED in the Fall 2018 for all sections. This will ensure that all students have access to the textbooks on Day 1. It will also allow us to implement online quizzing, thus freeing up class time for more hands-on experiences. 0.74 0.72 0.7 0.68 0.66 0.64 2015-16 (n=253) 2016-17 (n=234) 2017-18 (n=163) 79% 69% 75%

Analysis of Results Performance Measure: For each assessment, identify the following - 1. Academic Program, 2. Student Learning Outcome, 3. Measurable Goal What is your measurement instrument or process? Do not use grades. Indicate type of instrument (e.g. direct, formative, internal, comparative) Current Results: What are your current results? Analysis of Results: What did you learn from your results? Action Taken or Improvement Made: What did you improve or what is your next step? Provide a graph or table of resulting trends (3-5 data points preferred) Data Point 1 (2015-16) Data Point 2 (2016-17) Data Point 3 (2017-18) Data Point 4 (year or semester) Data Point 5 (year or semester) Program - AAS in Administrative Management Technology SLO - Demonstrate the knowledge of basic word processing concepts and the proficiency to apply these concepts in word processing assignments. Goal - 75% of students will score 75% or better In AST 141 (Word Processing I), student scores on embedded test questions on the Unit Two test will assess understanding of basic word processing concepts and the proficiency to apply these concepts. This is a direct, formative, internal assessment. The standard of success for this SLO was that 75% of students will score 75% or better. All students made an A on this exam. Out of 18 students, 11 made 100%, 4 made 96%, 2 made 92%, and 1 made 90%. The students proved that they have a strong command of displaying a document for review, creating and applying styles, inserting a table of contents, inserting page numbers in headers and footers, using document property fields, applying page breaks, inserting cover pages, inserting SmartArt graphics, converting text to a table, formatting a table, sorting a table, inserting pictures, and inserting symbols. However, formatting Smart Art and changing table cell margins were more commonly missed. Class lecture will include special emphasis on selecting and formatting Smart Art and changing table cell margins. 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 AAS Administrative Management Technology SLO: Word Processing 2015-16 (n=14) 2016-17 (n=9) 2017-18 (n=18) 88% 100% 100% Program - AAS in Administrative In AST 232 (Microcomputer Office Management Technology Applications), student scores on the SLO - Demonstrate the MOS Excel Exam will assess knowledge of basic spreadsheet understanding of basic spreadsheet concepts and the ability to apply concepts and the ability to apply these concepts in spreadsheet these concepts. This is a direct, assignments summative, external assessment. Goal - 75% of students will score a 70% or better Students did excellent on this year's SLO. Over 90% of students earned a score of 70% or better on the Excel 2016 Microsoft Office Specialist industry certification exam. According to the individual score reports provided when students submit their exam for grading, the majority of students scored very high in the categories of 'Create and Manage Worksheets and Workbooks' and 'Create Charts and Objects.' Students scored lower in the categories of 'Manage Data Cells and Ranges' and 'Perform Operations with Formulas and Functions.' This is the last semester that PowerPoint instruction and PowerPoint MOS exam was included in AST 232. This will now be covered in AST 205. This change will provide AST 232 students an opportunity to cover additional instruction in Excel for the purpose of attempting the Excel Expert level MOS exam, in addition to the Excel Core level MOS exam. The Excel Core MOS exam will still be required by all students, for students demonstrating proficiency within the Excel Expert level MOS exam objectives, they will now have an opportunity to attempt the Excel Expert level as well. Specifically, course content and assignments will be modified to incorporate additional Excel concepts not presently covered in this course. Also the SLO should be modified to: Demonstrate the knowledge of basic spreadsheet concepts and the ability to apply these concepts in spreadsheet assignments-85% of students will score 80% or better on The Excel Core 2016 Microsoft Office Specialist industry certification exam. 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 AAS Administrative Management Technology SLO: Spreadsheet Concepts 2015-16 (n=12) 2016-17 (n=11) 2017-18 (n=12) 75% 91% 90%

Analysis of Results Performance Measure: For each assessment, identify the following - 1. Academic Program, 2. Student Learning Outcome, 3. Measurable Goal What is your measurement instrument or process? Do not use grades. Indicate type of instrument (e.g. direct, formative, internal, comparative) Current Results: What are your current results? Analysis of Results: What did you learn from your results? Action Taken or Improvement Made: What did you improve or what is your next step? Provide a graph or table of resulting trends (3-5 data points preferred) Data Point 1 (2015-16) Data Point 2 (2016-17) Data Point 3 (2017-18) Data Point 4 (year or semester) Data Point 5 (year or semester) Program - AAS in Administrative Management Technology - Medical Administrative Management Specialization SLO - Demonstrate the knowledge of basic spreadsheet concepts and the ability to apply these concepts in spreadsheet assignments Goal - 75% of students will score a 70% or better In AST 232 (Microcomputer Office Applications), student scores on the MOS Excel Exam will assess understanding of basic spreadsheet concepts and the ability to apply these concepts. This is a direct, summative, external assessment. Students did excellent on this year's SLO. Over 90% of students earned a score of 70% or better on the Excel 2016 Microsoft Office Specialist industry certification exam. According to the individual score reports provided when students submit their exam for grading, the This is the last semester that PowerPoint instruction and PowerPoint MOS exam was included in AST 232. This will now be covered in AST 205. This change will provide majority of students scored AST 232 students an opportunity to very high in the categories of 'Create and Manage Worksheets and Workbooks' and 'Create Charts and Objects.' Students scored lower in the categories of 'Manage Data Cells and Ranges' and 'Perform Operations with Formulas and Functions.' cover additional instruction in Excel for the purpose of attempting the Excel Expert level MOS exam, in addition to the Excel Core level MOS exam. The Excel Core MOS exam will still be required by all students, for students demonstrating proficiency within the Excel Expert level MOS exam objectives, they will now have an opportunity to attempt the Excel Expert level as well. Specifically, course content and assignments will be modified to incorporate additional Excel concepts not presently covered in this course. Also the SLO should be modified to: Demonstrate the knowledge of basic spreadsheet concepts and the ability to apply these concepts in spreadsheet assignments-85% of students will score 80% or better on The Excel Core 2016 Microsoft Office Specialist industry certification exam. 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 AAS AMT - Medical SLO: Spreadsheet Concepts 2015-16 (n=12) 2016-17 (n=11) 2017-18 (n=12) 77% 91% 90% Program - AAS in Administrative In BUS 205 (Human Resource Management Technology - Management), student scores on the Medical Administrative Human Resource Management Management Specialization Project will assess understanding of SLO - Demonstrate an in-depth the hiring process. This is a direct, understanding of the hiring summative, internal assessment. process. Goal - 75% of students will score 80% or better Pending Pending Pending 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 2015-16 (n=) AAS AMT - Medical SLO: Hiring Process 2016-17 (n=34) 2017-18 (n=) Program - AAS in Management SLO - Accurately complete the steps in the accounting cycle for a business entity including the preparation of financial statements. Goal - 70% of students will score 70% or better In ACC 212 (Principles of Accounting II), student scores on embedded test questions on the comprehensive managerial accounting final exam will assess understanding of managerial accounting. This is a direct, summative, internal assessment. SLO goal is 70% of students will score a 70% or above on the assessment. 63% of the students scored a 70% or above on the assessment. The goal was not achieved. The fall scores of 68% were significantly better than the spring scores of 55%. Overall student strengths were in preparation of financial statements. Students were somewhat weaker in steps in the accounting cycle, calculation of bond interest, calculation of partial year depreciation, and accrual adjustments. Faculty will meet in late summer/early fall to discuss the following possible modifications: 1- Modifying the assessment to a computer-based final exam which will allow for consistent grading and feedback on areas of strengths and weaknesses. 2- Heavier weighting of assessment (final exam) in course grade. 3- Possible tracking of assessment results by students' program of study. 0.72 0.7 0.68 0.66 0.64 0.62 0.6 0.58 AAS Management SLO: Managerial Accounting 2015-16 (n=127) 2016-17 (n=62%) 2017-18 (n=206)

Analysis of Results Performance Measure: For each assessment, identify the following - 1. Academic Program, 2. Student Learning Outcome, 3. Measurable Goal What is your measurement instrument or process? Do not use grades. Indicate type of instrument (e.g. direct, formative, internal, comparative) Current Results: What are your current results? Analysis of Results: What did you learn from your results? Action Taken or Improvement Made: What did you improve or what is your next step? Provide a graph or table of resulting trends (3-5 data points preferred) Data Point 1 (2015-16) Data Point 2 (2016-17) Data Point 3 (2017-18) Data Point 4 (year or semester) Data Point 5 (year or semester) Program - AAS in Management SLO - Demonstrate an understanding of business vocabulary and their applications. Goal - 70% of students will score 70% or better In BUS 100 (Introduction to Business), student scores on embedded test questions on the comprehensive final exam will assess understanding of business terms and their applications. This is a direct, summative, internal assessment. The standard of success for this SLO was that 70% or more of the students would achieve a score of 70 or better on the departmental final exam. This academic year 74.8% completed the assessment with at grade of 70% or better. Therefore, the goal for this SLO was fully achieved. It should be noted that only one of the two online sections used the assessment this year, but 81.8% of those students achieved the 70% benchmark. The students did well in the economics, management, and marketing areas. The students struggled a bit on finance and banking (however spring students showed improvement). We are going to continue to develop the company tracking assignment to integrate each chapter. This will allow the students to apply the material to a real world company, thus helping ensure learning. We are also implementing the IncludED in the Fall 2018 for all sections. This will ensure that all students have access to the textbooks on Day 1. It will also allow us to implement online quizzing, thus freeing up class time for more hands-on experiences. 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% AAS Management SLO: Business Terms 2015-16 (n=253) 2016-17 (n=234) 2017-18 (n=163) Program - AAS in Management In BUS 165 (Small Business SLO - How to prepare a business plan Goal - 75% of students will score 80% or better Management), student scores on the small business management plan project will assess ability to prepare a business plan. This is a direct, summative, internal assessment. The standard of success for this SLO was 75% of students will score 80% or better. The actual results were that 80% completed the assessment with an 80% or better. The goal for this SLO was fully achieved. The students showed improvements on the financial sections of the project. They did well with the formatting and presentation of the ideas in both presentation and easily readable document. However, the students struggled with effectively defining the target market. The "book" being developed by Lee Frye will be updated in the Fall 2018 based on this year's student performance. A research librarian will be brought in to help with researching target markets. More time will also be devoted to target markets. 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 2015-16 (n=43) AAS Management SLO: Business Plan 2016-17 (n=42) 2017-18 (n=20) 70% 59% 80%

TABLE 3a: Faculty and Staff Focus Results (Standard 5) Complete the following table. Provide three or four examples, reporting what you consider to be the most important data. It is not necessary to provide results for every process. Faculty and Staff Focused Results Faculty and staff-focused results examine how well the organization creates and maintains a positive, productive, learning-centrered work environment for business faculty and staff. Key indicators may include: professional development, scholarly activities, community service, administrative duties, business and industry interaction, number of advisees, number of committees, number of theses supervised, satisfaction or dissatisfaction of faculty and staff, positive, productive, and learning-centered environment, safety, absenteeism, turnover, or complaints. - If for any given performance measure your goal is being exceeded repeatedly, consider either increasing the goal or changing the performance measure so that action can be taken to improve the program. - For all data reported, show sample size (n=75). Analysis of Results Performance Measure: What is your performance measure? What is your goal? (The goal should be measurable.) What is your measurement instrument or process? (indicate length of cycle) Current Results: What are your current results? Analysis of Results: What did you learn from your results? Action Taken or Improvement Made: What did you improve or what is your next step? Provide a graph or table of resulting trends (3-5 data points preferred) EXAMPLE Faculty satisfaction will exceed 85% Annual faculty satisfaction survey Exceeded goal, however, the trend declined in 2014 Held a faculty meeting to discuss issues raised on surveys Satisfaction increased 1% 100 Faculty Satisfaction 95 90 85 80 75 2013 (n=14) 2014 (n=14) The value placed on teaching in my department 5 4 4.22 4.58 4.16 3 Faculty satisfaction will be at or above 3.5 on a 5 point scale Annual Employee Survey Exceeded goal, however, the trend declined in 2018 Faculty feel overworked and are not happy with the current course evaluation process. Course evaluation will change based on faculty input. Offer more support to faculty to help with administrative tasks. 2 1 0 Spring 2016 (n=204) Spring 2017 Spring 2018 (n=149) Employee satisfaction will be at or above 3.5 on a 5 point scale Annual Employee Survey Exceeded goal, however, the trend declined in 2018 Employees feel that the overall quality of the work environment has decreased slightly over the past three years. Based on the The next step is to improve comments, some communication and set clear employees are unclear on expectations and goals to lead their job responsibilties to an improved work and feel under appreciated. environment. 4.2 4 3.8 3.6 3.4 3.2 3 Overall quality of the work environment 4.11 Spring 2016 (n=204) 4.04 3.92 Spring 2017 Spring 2018 (n=149)

Analysis of Results Performance Measure: What is your performance measure? What is your goal? (The goal should be measurable.) What is your measurement instrument or process? (indicate length of cycle) Current Results: What are your current results? Analysis of Results: What did you learn from your results? Action Taken or Improvement Made: What did you improve or what is your next step? Provide a graph or table of resulting trends (3-5 data points preferred) Effectiveness of the Governance Structure Employee satisfaction will be at or above 3.5 on a 5 point scale Annual Employee Survey Exceeded goal in three areas, however, the governance structure changed in 2016-17 and the trend is increasing as adjustments are made Based on survey comments and a meeting with the Governance Task Force that originally redesigned the structure, changes were made to the committees and detailed charges and deliverables were identified for each group. Satisfaction with effectiveness increased, but is still not meeting the threshold for some areas. Based on additional feedback on the 2018 survey, changes for the 2018-19 committee structure are being considered at this time. 5 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 3.31 3.88 3.77 Spring 2017 Spring 2018 (n=149) 3.38 4.45 All full-time, nine-month faculty members will attend at least one professional development conference annually. % of faculty attending at least one professional development activity each year 100 % of faculty attended at least one professional development activity for each of the last three years. Even with a significant reduction in professional development budget, faculty were able to participate in meaningful activities. Improvements in finding alternative sources and low cost options for professional development. BTT values this measure and will continue to monitor this goal. All full-time, nine-month faculty members serve on at least one college committee each year. % of faculty on college committees each year Every business faulty member served on at least one college committee each year. The goal has been met each year. BTT values this measure and will continue to monitor future data.

Complete this table for full-time and part-time faculty members. TABLE 5.1 - Full-time and Part-time Faculty Qualifications (Standard 5) Use a separate line in the table for each level of qualification. For example, if Joe Smith is Masters qualified to teach management and professionally qualified to teach accounting then Joe Smith will be on two lines justifying each level of qualification. TABLE 5.1 - NEW AND FULL-TIME AND PART-TIME FACULTY QUALIFICATIONS FACULTY MEMBER NAME (alphabetically by Last Name) COURSES TAUGHT (List the courses taught during the reporting period, include number of credit hours) Aaron, Fredona ACC 124 Payroll Accounting (3 cr hrs) LIST ALL EARNED DEGREES (State Degree as documented on transcript, must include major field) BS Accounting - Ferrum College - 1991 DOCUMENT AT LEAST TWO OTHER PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATION CRITERIA : 1. Two Years Work Experience (other than teaching) 2. Teaching Excellence Awards 3. Professional Certifications 4. Research and/or Publication 5. Additional Coursework Exception Master's qualified in Accounting ACBSP QUALIFICATION (Choose one) 1. Masters 2. Doctorate 3. Professional 4. Abbatello, Donna Abbatello, Donna Abbatello, Donna Armentrout, Jennifer AST 113 Keyboarding for Speed and Accuracy (1 cr hr) AST 141 Word Processing (3 cr hrs) AST 238 Advanced Word Processing (3 cr hrs) BUS 241 Business Law 1 (3 cr hr) MS Accounting - State University of New York - 2004 BS Business Education - Bluefield State College - 1968 MA Education Supervision - West Virginia College of Graduate Studies - 1977 BS Business Education - Bluefield State College - 1968 MA Education Supervision - West Virginia College of Graduate Studies - 1977 BS Business Education - Bluefield State College - 1968 MA Education Supervision - West Virginia College of Graduate Studies - 1977 BS Journalism - Ohio University - 1994 JD Law - Ohio University - 1999 7 years professional work experience in the teaching field of Administrative SupportTechnology Teaching excellence as recipient of J. Andrew Archer Award in 2005 7 years professional work experience in the teaching field of Administrative SupportTechnology Teaching excellence as recipient of J. Andrew Archer Award in 2005 7 years professional work experience in the teaching field of Administrative SupportTechnology Teaching excellence as recipient of J. Andrew Archer Award in 2005 Professionally qualified in the field of Administrative Support Technology Professionally qualified in the field of Administrative Support Technology Professionally qualified in the field of Administrative Support Technology JurisDoctorate