COSMA Public Disclosure Requirements
The sport management degree program at The 老澳门资料 (老澳门资料) has received specialized accreditation through the Commission on Sport Management Accreditation (COSMA) located in Fort Collins, Colorado, USA. The sport management program in the following degree are accredited by COSMA:
- Bachelor of Science, Sport Management
Program-Level Student Learning Outcomes Matrix
Academic Year 2023 - 2024
Assessment Results Options:
- Does not meet expectation
- Meets expectation
- Exceeds expectation
- Insufficient data
| Identify Each Student Learning Outcome |
Identify the Benchmark | Total # of Students Observed | Total # of Students Meeting Expectation | Assessment Results: % of Students Meeting Expectation | Assessment Results: |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Measure 1: Press Release [direct] |
Minimum of 90% at proficient or better | 93 |
85 |
91.3% |
Exceeds Expectations |
|
Measure 2: Video Interview [direct] |
Minimum of 90% at proficient or better | NA | NA | Insuffient Data | |
|
Measure 3: SPM Senior Survey [indirect] |
Minimum of 90% agree on ability to | 23 | 23 |
100% | Exceeds Expectation |
| Identify Each Student Learning Outcome |
Identify the Benchmark | Total # of Students Observed | Total # of Students Meeting Expectation | Assessment Results: % of Students Meeting Expectation | Assessment Results: |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Measure 1: Supervisor Evaluation [indirect] |
90% of students will receive scores of 4 or higher | 66 | 63 | 95.4% | Exceeds Expectation |
|
Measure 2: SPM4941 Final Project [direct] |
Minimum of 95% at proficient or better | 66 | 60 | 90.9% | Does Not Meet Expectations |
|
Measure 3: SPM Senior Survey [indirect] |
Minimum of 90% agree on ability to | 23 | 23 | 100% | Exceeds Expectation |
| Identify Each Student Learning Outcome |
Identify the Benchmark | Total # of Students Observed | Total # of Students Meeting Expectation | Assessment Results: % of Students Meeting Expectation | Assessment Results: |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Measure 1: Legal Issue Presentation/Paper [direct] |
Minimum of 90% at proficient or better | 86 | 71 | 82.5% | Does Not Meet Expectations |
|
Measure 2: Fact Pattern [direct] |
Minimum of 90% will score 80% or better | NA | NA | Insufficient Data | |
|
Measure 3: SPM Senior Survey [indirect] |
Minimum of 90% agree on ability to | 23 | 21 | 91.3% | Exceeds Expectation |
| Identify Each Student Learning Outcome |
Identify the Benchmark | Total # of Students Observed | Total # of Students Meeting Expectation | Assessment Results: % of Students Meeting Expectation | Assessment Results: |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Measure 1: Brand Identity Audit [direct] |
Minimum of 90% at proficient or better | 25 |
25 | 100% | Exceeds Expectation |
| Measure 2: SPM Senior Survey [indirect] | Minimum of 90% agree on ability to | 23 | 21 | 91.3% | Exceeds Expectation |
| Identify Each Student Learning Outcome |
Identify the Benchmark | Total # of Students Observed | Total # of Students Meeting Expectation | Assessment Results: % of Students Meeting Expectation | Assessment Results: |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Measure 1: Sport Issues Presentation [direct] |
Minimum of 90% at proficient or better | 107 | 98 | 91.5% | Exceeds Expectation |
|
Measure 2: Sport Industry/Workplace Digital Credential (Badge) [indirect] |
Minimum of 90% agree on ability to | 120 | 109 | 90.8% | Exceeds Expectation |
|
Measure 3: Senior Survey [indirect] |
Minimum of 90% of student earn digital credential | 23 | 23 | 100% | Exceeds Expectations |
| Identify Each Student Learning Outcome |
Identify the Benchmark | Total # of Students Observed | Total # of Students Meeting Expectation | Assessment Results: % of Students Meeting Expectation | Assessment Results: |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Measure 1: Complete Financial Digital credential (Badge) [direct] |
Minimum of 90% at proficient or better | 60 | 54 | 90% | Meets Expectations |
|
Measure 2: Senior Survey [indirect] |
Minimum of 90% agree on ability to | 23 | 21 | 91.3% | Exceeds Expectation |
|
Student Learning Outcomes Matrix Narrative: Your outcomes assessment plan must include, at minimum, two direct and two indirect measures of all student learning outcomes. Some measurement tools will be used to measure more than one student learning outcome. Each student learning outcomes must be measured at least once; including more and varied measures is a better practice and is encouraged. Below, narrate how you “close the loop” by describing any changes and improvements you made and plan to make as a result of your assessment activity:
Faculty continue to review and revise learning measures and outcomes to ensure that sport management curriculum and course content in alignment with sport industry best-practices. In general, most SLOs met expectations or exceeded expectations during the reporting year. We have two measures that have insufficient data because of changes in faculty. If these measures are retained, we will ensure that they are reported in AY 24-25. We will review SLO 1 and consider including more and varied measures as a better practice. A review of SLO measures compared to previous years is as follows: SLO1: Overall, results on the press release were relatively the same as the previous AY. We reported only report written communication measures again this academic year given a change in staffing our sport communications course. We report “Insufficient Data” for Measure 2. We will review SLO 1 and consider options continue to work toward including more and varied measures as a better practice. We will continue to seek more and varied measures as a better practice to aid in student communication skill development. This will include working with students to produce writing that clearly addresses audience and purpose; identify and use relevant and reliable source materials; compose documents that adhere to generally accepted standards of English usage. SLO2: Compared to previous year reporting on site supervisor evaluations, we had an increase in the percent of students scoring “4” or higher on their site supervisor evaluations, from 94.6% to 95.4%. There is no significant difference in performance on the measure but we noted a slight increase. This AY we had three students who scored less than a “4” on his/her site supervisor evaluations. Last year we noted that we would explore options for revising our site supervisor evaluation to capture skills and dispositions most accurately from site supervisors for both practicum and internship. At the time of this report, we have not made changes. Additionally, we had a decrease in student performance on final internship project, falling just below our expectations for the year. We are encouraged by this nonetheless as we had increased our measure seeking 95% rather than the previous standard of 90% (as we had 90.9% this reporting period). SL03: Compared to previous year reporting, we saw a slight decrease on Measure 1 Legal Issues Presentation or Paper. All sections of sport law were taught by a returning visiting faculty member that does not implement Measure 2. We value including more and varied measures of student learning, as this is recognized as a better practice and is encouraged by COSMA as we our SLOs and the most appropriate measures for these learning outcomes for our sections of Sport Law. Compared to AY22-23, we saw an increase of graduating seniors (91.3%) who agreed/strongly agreed in their ability and preparedness to analyze and explain legal concepts relevant to the sport industry. Our goal to is to continue in graduates’ ability and preparedness on this SLO. SL04: We seek to continue to increase content knowledge in sport marketing and develop content associated with the fundamentals of marketing that that can be used across courses. We implemented an updated approach utilizing multiple opportunities to demonstrate proficiency associated with brand profile assessment this reporting year. We expand beyond the application of the brand identity audit component to a more holistic view of brand analysis. Overall, review of direct and indirect measures of student learning appears strong as we attained a mark of 100% for Measure 1 (exceeding expectations). We will continue to implement efforts to refine the assignment seeking continued success. We also exceeded our expectations in measure 2 with 91.3% of graduating seniors who agreed/strongly agreed in their ability and preparedness in this area. Our goal to is to continue in graduates’ ability and preparedness on this SLO. SL05: Our faculty made curricular revisions to student learning measures to increase their ability to recognize and understand the socio-cultural variables that influence sport. Our students continue to meet or exceed our expectations on this SLO. Our results were consistent with previous years. We incorporated a new measure (Measure 2) for this past academic year – the Sport Industry/Workplace Digital Credential (Badge). SL06: We reported 90% of students proficient or better in their ability demonstrate an understanding of financial decision-making in relation to the sport industry. We believe this is a better overall measure of student learning as it measures understanding and demonstrated proficiencies in: Microsoft Excel, storytelling for data and design, business analysis foundations, in addition to blockchain and cryptocurrency basics. Indirect measure, senior survey results, are nearly consistent with the previous academic year with 91.3% of students agreeing with their ability to demonstrate an understanding of financial decision-making within the sport industry.
|
|||||
Program-Level Operational Effectiveness Goals Matrix
Assessment Results Options:
- Does not meet expectation
- Meets expectation
- Exceeds expectation
- Insufficient data
| Identify Each Operational Effectiveness Goal | Identify the Benchmark | Data Summary | Assessment Results: |
|---|---|---|---|
| Measure 1: Graduation rate from university administration and excess hours from University Administration |
60% 4-year graduation rate |
51% of FTIC met 4-year graduation rates Insufficient Data |
Does Not Meet Expectations Insufficient Data |
| Measure 2: Student Retention | At least 50% of FTIC students will enroll in SPM coursework during their first 50 hours. | 80% of FTIC retained for the F23 enrolled in SPM coursework during reporting year |
Exceeds Expectations |
| Identify Each Operational Effectiveness Goal | Identify the Benchmark | Data Summary | Assessment Results: |
|---|---|---|---|
| Measure 1: Program Senior Survey High Impact Practice Inventory | 80% of students engaged in high impact practices. |
100% graduating seniors engaged in at least one high impact practice prior to graduation |
Exceeds Expectations
|
| Measure 2: Progam Senior Survey | 90% of students will indicate confidence in their preparedness to enter required pre-professional experiences including practicum and internship |
100% of students will indicate confidence in their preparedness to enter required pre-professional experiences including practicum and internship
|
Exceeds Expectations |
| Measure 3: University Graduating Senior Survey | 80% of students will report that they feel confident in their ability to determine what is expected of them on the job | 83.8% completely or a lot confident in their ability to determine what is expected of them on the job | Exceeds Expectations |
| Identify Each Operational Effectiveness Goal | Identify the Benchmark | Data Summary | Assessment Results: |
|---|---|---|---|
| Measure 1: University Graduating Senior Survey | 90% of students agree our faculty provide valuable course content; and are knowledgeable in the field |
Insufficient data as survey changed and they did not ask these questions (Survey could be adapted to include next year). |
Insufficient Data |
| Measure 2: Faculty Scholarship Record | Evidence of achievement based on department scholarship policies and annual evaluation | SPM faculty evaluated as meeting or exceeding expectations during annual review | Meets Expectations |
| Measure 3: Faculty Development | Faculty will engage in at least one professional development or faculty enhancement initiative per academic year | All SPM faculty engaged in at least one during AY | Meets Expectations |
OEG 4: Sport management faculty demonstrate excellence in teaching effort and demonstrate an ethos of student care and mentorship.
| Identify Each Operational Effectiveness Goal | Identify the Benchmark | Data Summary | Assessment Results: |
|---|---|---|---|
| Measure 1: Overall Instructor Rating - ISQs | Faculty maintain an average overall instructor rating of 4/5 |
SPM Faculty Overall Instructor Rating Average for AY 2023 - 24 was 4.29/5 |
Meets Expectations |
| Measure 2: University Graduating Senior Survey | 90% of students agree that faculty provide excellent quality instruction; and are available after class and during office hours |
Insufficient data as survey changed and they did not ask these questions (Survey could be adapted to include next year) |
Insuficient Data |
| Measure 3: Chair Evaluation of Instructor Performance | Faculty meet or exceed expectations of excellence in teaching set forth in the CBA and department policies in annual review | FT tenure and tenure earning faculty all met or exceeded expectations based upon 2022-23 Annual Evaluations | Meets Expectations |
| Identify Each Operational Effectiveness Goal and Measurement Tool(s) | Identify the Benchmark | Data Summary | Assessment Results: |
|---|---|---|---|
| Measure 1: Program Senior Survey | 80% of students will indicate confidence in their preparedness to enter the sport industry workforce |
100% indicated they were well-prepared or prepared to enter sport industry career
|
Exceeds Expectations |
| Measure 2 | 60% of undergraduate students will be working in sport industry careers. | 60.8% of seniors indicated they would be employed FT in sport industry | Meets Expectations |
Required Narrative: Close the loop and explain why you met, exceeded or did not meet any expectations. Explain why there was insufficient data (if applicable). Discuss what you may do differently next year or any corrective action you will take.
Overall, the program met or exceeded expectations all but one designated OEG measurements during AY 2023-24. The three others were due to insufficient data (addressed below):
OEG 1: We did not meet our measure for graduation rates. We will continue to monitor this, but we note that this is potentially an end result of the COVID-19 pandemic, given that FTICs were enrolling in college during an unprecedented global pandemic. At the time of this report, we did not have university data available to us on excess hours. We will provide an update if one is available. We monitor FTICs on progress toward degree and put registration holds on students who are not on track to graduate in four years. We communicate with SPM majors numerous times throughout the year to ensure they are proactive in enrolling in courses and applying for field experience. We work hard to maintain a curriculum that is relevant and reflective of sport-industry best practice. The university if very committed to student retention and timely graduation. During the AY, we established a student success plan that be found in the Appendix. This plan addresses monthly FTIC Academic Progress Reports that are reviewed by the Department Chair/Assistant Chair, notice to Program Faculty of FTIC with unsatisfactory midterm grades, among other measures.
OEG 2: All measures were met or exceeded. As with preceding years, in reporting on Measure 3, 2023-24 graduates’ confidence in their ability to determine what is expected of them in the workforce and reflected at least moderate confidence in their ability to determine what is expected on the job.
OEG 3: We meet or exceed measures related to attracting and retaining a vibrant and diverse group of faculty and staff that are committed to quality of instruction and student success. We pride ourselves in the feedback students provided related to value of course content and faculty knowledge within the field. We work hard to maintain this type of high feedback and strive to exceed expectations.
Previously our program has taken pride in our OEG 3 measures, specifically Measure 2, which has previously reflected data showing that more than 95% of graduating seniors reported that faculty provided excellent quality instruction and were available outside of class to assist, respectively. Unfortunately, during this cycle, the university senior survey was changed and these questions were removed. We are working with Institutional Research to have these questions added back for the next academic year.
OEG4: We met or exceeded measures related to excellence in every teaching and demonstrating an ethos of student care and mentorship. We note that our overall instructor ISQ for tenured and tenure-earning sport management faculty is slightly higher from last year at 4.29 compared to 4.23. For all instructors teaching sport management coursework including tenured, tenure-earning, visitors, and adjuncts faculty met the expectation of 4/5. This overall average includes ALL ISQ data regardless of meeting validity and reliability measures (for example, some response rates may fall below the 15%).
As noted above, Measure 2, the university senior survey was changed thus we report insufficient data. We will include questions related to quality of instruction and availability outside of class to assist among others back into the measure. We will work with Institutional Research prior to make the necessary adjustments prior to upcoming data collection.
OEG5: We work hard to maintain a curriculum that is relevant and reflective of sport-industry best practice and prepares students to work it the industry upon graduation. All reporting graduating seniors (100%) reported they were well-prepared or prepared to enter sport industry career and over 60% of respondents indicated they were well-prepared – this finding is slightly below the last reporting cycle. We will continue explore ways to increase employability of our graduates within our curriculum.
PROGRAM INFORMATION PROFILE
This profile offers information about the performance of a program in the context of its basic purpose and key features.
Name of Institution
Institution: 老澳门资料
Program/Specialized Accreditor(s): Commission on Sport Management Accreditation
Institutional Accreditor: Southern Association of Colleges and Schools
Date of Next Comprehensive Program Accreditation Review: 2028
Date of Next Comprehensive Institutional Accreditation Review: 2029
URL where accreditation status is stated: /coehs/lscsm/sport/
Indicators of Effectiveness with Undergraduates as Determined by the Program
-
Graduation Year: 2023-24
# of Graduates: 76
Graduation Rate - Data varies for FTIC and transfer students.
-
Completion of Educational Goal (other than certificate or degree - if data collected)
# of Students Surveyed: 23
# Completing Goal: 23
- Average Time to =Degree
4-Year Degree: 4.10 yrs
- Annual Transfer Activity (into Program)
Year: 2023-24
# of Transfers: 12
Transfer Rate: 55% - This is the three-year transfer rate of FTIC students
- Graduates Entering Graduate School
Year: 2023-24
# of Graduates: Information not available/insufficient data
# Entering Graduate School: Information not available/insufficient data
-
Job Placement (if appropriate)
Year: 2023-24
# of Graduates: 76
# Employed: Information not available/insufficient data
Form developed by the Council for Higher Education Accreditation. © updated 2020