Sport Management (Baccalaureate) Outcomes Matrix – Academic Year 2015 – 2016

**Explanation of course action for intended outcomes not realized:

Assessment of Student Learning Outcomes for SM 2140: AY 2015-16

Brief Explanation of Assessment Tools

Students enrolled in SM 2140 – Introduction to Research in Human Movement, Sport, and Leisure Studies are required to complete a major research project. This research project is comprised of two components: a research proposal (RP) and a data analysis report (DAR). The first half of the course is focused on research design, and the RP requires students to select a topic, find relevant scholarly research, formulate research questions (or hypotheses), and design the methodology to collect data to answer their research question(s). The RP is then presented to the class and a written report is submitted to the professor. The second half of the course is focused on statistical data analysis, and the students then follow their proposed methodology to collect and analyze data which is then reported in the DAR. As with the research proposal, the results of their data analysis is presented to the class and a written report is submitted to the professor.

Students were also surveyed twice during the course: one near the RP due date and the other near the DAR due date. Students were asked several questions related to perceptions about their ability to locate research articles using research databases, to organize information from multiple sources, and to communicate information clearly and concisely in a research paper as well as in a research presentation. Two additional questions were added to the survey for the DAR regarding their perceived ability to evaluate information from multiple sources and to analyze data from a survey. Survey items were rated on a scale from 1 – Strongly disagree, 2 – Disagree, 3 – Agree, and 4 – Strongly Agree. Students reporting a score of 3 or 4 were considered as meeting expectations regarding their perceived ability to complete the respective task.

Interpretation of the Results

As shown on the Student Assessment Results Summary Table, students did better at meeting expectations for the presentations (RP: 93%; DAR: 77%) compared to the written reports (RP: 55%; DAR: 76%). The presentations do not require quite as much detail as the reports, and students seem better prepared for verbal presentations. Since this is a course taken primarily by 2^nd year students, they typically have not been required to write scholarly research reports. Unfortunately, a large number of students did not meet expectations for the written portion of the research proposal despite efforts to inform them of the level of detail and specificity that was required. On the other hand, the level of work improved substantially for the written DAR that was required later in the semester. Students meeting expectation rose from 55% (RP) to 76% (DAR) which represents a 38% improvement, p < .0001. It should also be noted that there was a substantial increase in the number of students in each section from fall 2015 to spring 2016 (~10 more students per class). There was much less time to meet with students during class which resulted in fewer students meeting expectation for the RP written report in the spring (fall: 69%; spring: 40%, p = .0001). The written report and verbal presentation for the DAR still fell slightly below expectations of 80% of the class receiving a grade of C+ or higher, but this may be attributed to the difficulty that many students have with statistical analysis and interpretation of these results.

Clearly, indirect assessment of the students’ perceived ability was much higher than the direct assessment of their work on the research project. A majority of students (i.e., 90% or higher) selected Agree or Strongly Agree regarding their ability to do various tasks related to the research project. However, this may be partially explained by the fact that the survey was not anonymous. The professor wanted to be able to reach out to students who might be having difficulty, but students may have been wary about providing lower scores to their professor. Also, the survey was administered near the end of class, and students may have hurried to complete the survey. Some students did indicate perceived difficulty, and the professor reached out to those students which may have partially contributed to the better performance for the written report of the DAR compared to the RP. Also, a closer examination of the data revealed that at the 2^nd assessment near the end of the semester as compared to the 1^st assessment near the middle of the semester, a larger percentage of students selected Strongly Agree for locating articles (69% vs 59%, p = 0.08) and organizing information (48% vs. 31%, p < .005).

Action Plan: Assessment-based Changes to the Course

As revealed in the assessment data, students need to be better prepared for the written reports and verbal presentations despite their perceived ability to accomplish the required tasks. The following changes will be implemented for AY 2016-17 to help achieve the benchmark for this course:

• In collaboration with the Sport Management Program Coordinator, enrollment in each class section of SM 2140 for fall 2016 has been restricted to 30 students. This classroom size will be consistent with the enrollment in fall 2015 as opposed to spring 2016 which was around 40 students per class.
• With the change in classroom size noted above, more time will be devoted to providing individual feedback and assistance during class. Specifically, in each 50-minute course section, the last 10-15 minutes will be dedicated for students to work on their research project and/or class assignments. This will allow the professor time to provide assistance and feedback.
• Less time will be spent lecturing on research terminology and concepts, and more time will be devoted to practical application of such concepts. In past years, the professor has provided examples to illustrate various concepts, but these examples were not related to each other and not necessarily presented in the form of a research project. The professor will spend the first 10-15 minutes of class to clarify terminology that students should have read before class. Then, the next 20-30 minutes will be spent on an illustrative classroom research project that will show students how to conduct research from the beginning of a research proposal through data analysis and interpretation. This illustrative classroom project should help students be better prepared to write and present their own RP and DAR.
• Some students are apprehensive to ask questions during class, even if time is allotted for such assistance. Thus, students will be required to meet with the professor at least once prior to the RP due date and at least once prior to the DAR due date. This will allow for an indirect, individual assessment of student learning.
• Based on the last bullet point, the quantitative survey assessment for the RP and DAR will now be anonymous and administered at the beginning of class. These changes should help reduce any potential response distortion.

Notes: 1) If you are using different direct and indirect measures for different degree programs, please replicate this form, using one form for each program that has different measures.  If different programs use the same measures, only one copy of this form is needed. 2) At a minimum, you are required to use two direct and two indirect measures to assess all of your student learning outcomes. You are not required to measure each student learning outcome with more than one measure, though it is encouraged. This matrix offers space to show that you have more than one measure for each SLO, but it is not required.