COSMA Public Disclosure Requirements
The sport management degree program at The University of North Florida (UNF) 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 2022 - 2023
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 | 59 |
57 |
96.6% |
Meets 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 | 52 | 48 |
92.3% | 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: Supervisor Evaluation [indirect] |
90% of students will receive scores of 4 or higher | 56 | 53 | 94.6% | Exceeds Expectation |
|
Measure 2: SPM4941 Final Project [direct] |
Minimum of 95% at proficient or better | 56 | 55 | 98.2% | Exceeds Expectation |
|
Measure 3: SPM Senior Survey [indirect] |
Minimum of 90% agree on ability to | 52 | 52 | 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 | 80 | 93.0% | Meets Expectations |
|
Measure 2: Fact Pattern [direct] |
Minimum of 90% will score 80% or better | NA | NA | Insufficient Data | |
|
Measure 2: SPM Senior Survey [indirect] |
Minimum of 90% agree on ability to | 52 | 46 | 88.4% | Does Not Meet 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: Brand Identity Audit [direct] |
Minimum of 90% at proficient or better | 41 |
38 | 92.6% | Exceeds Expectation |
| Measure 2: SPM Senior Survey [indirect] | Minimum of 90% agree on ability to | 52 | 48 | 92.3% | 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 | 61 | 58 | 95.0% | Exceeds Expectation |
|
Measure 2: Senior Survey [indirect] |
Minimum of 90% agree on ability to | 52 | 49 | 94.2% | 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: Financial Analysis [direct] |
Minimum of 90% at proficient or better | 53 | 50 | 94.3% | Meets Expectations |
|
Measure 2: Senior Survey [indirect] |
Minimum of 90% agree on ability to | 52 | 47 | 90.3% | Meets 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 aligned with sport industry best-practices. In general, SLOs meet or exceeded during the reporting year. We have two measures that have insufficient data because of changes in faculty. We will ensure that these measures are reported in AY 23-24. Faculty reviewed performance on SLO measures compared to previous years and note the following as strong points: SLO1: Overall, results on the press release were relatively the same as the previous AY. We reported only report written communication measures for this academic year given a change in staffing. Our visiting faculty member for the previous five years implemented the video interview assignment, and this was not assigned during the reporting year. Thus, the reason we report “Insufficient Data” for Measure 2. During AY 22-23, the video interview will be assigned and reported. We continue to work 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 and APA. The university will begin to measure written communications skills directly on the senior survey so in future reporting years this student learning outcome should report those findings and/or consider revising this student learning outcome. SLO2: Compared to previous year reporting on site supervisor evaluations, we had a slight decrease in the percent of students scoring “4” or higher on their site supervisor evaluations. This AY we had three students who scored less than a “4” on his/her site supervisor evaluations. Student 1 scored “3” on the dependability/promptness, creativity/resourcefulness, and professional appearance. Student 2 scored “3” on the potential for further development and communication skills. Student 3 scored “3” on professional appearance. All three students scored a “4” for his/her overall performance. Overall, we still exceed of expectation of 90% of student receiving “4” or higher on each of the 11 items he/she is evaluated on. Moving forward, faculty will revise our site supervisor evaluation to capture skills and dispositions most accurately from site supervisors for both practicum and internship. Additionally, we had an increase in student performance on final internship projects with 98.2% of students at proficient or better from the prior reporting year. Lastly, in our AY 21-22 report we noted that we would look at ways to broaden this SLO by including additional measures of student learning related to student ability to demonstrate knowledge, skills, and dispositions – specifically as it relates to in-demand sport industry skills. Faculty developed digital badges earned through two credit-bearing sport management courses – SPB3603 and PET4464. Both digital badges integrate academic and professional development training. In SPB3603 Diversity in Sport, 106 students successfully completed the requirements for the digital badge. In PET4464, 51 out of 53 students successfully completed the requirements for the digital badge. Both digital badges had a 96% completion rate. The requirements are listed below. Moving forward, we may consider adding digital badges or micro-credentials as a direct measure of student learning across SLOs. Diversity in Sport Requirements
Sport Industry Finance Requirements
SLO3: Compared to previous year reporting, we saw a 3% increase on Measure 1 Legal Issues Presentation or Paper. This course was taught by a new visiting faculty member that did not implement Measure 2 thus we report “Insufficient Data”. Moving forward, we will work to ensure that both assignments are completed in all sections of Sport Law. Compared to AY21-22, we saw an increase of graduating seniors (88.4%) 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. SLO4: 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 eliminated the Brand Profile Measure this reporting year. Overall, review of direct and indirect measures of student learning appear consistent with students meeting expectations. SLO5: During AY 21-22, we reported that “Faculty continue to review and if appropriate revise curriculum and/or learning experiences to increase the degree of intercultural competence and cultural self-awareness and demonstrate our commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion order to increase the degree of intercultural and cultural self-awareness.” Like last year, our students continue to exceed our expectations on this SLO. Our results on Measure 1 and Measure 2 were 95% and 94.2% respectfully. These results are relatively the same as AY 21-22 wherein direct Measure 1 was 93.5% and indirect Measure 2 was 97.1%. While we did not make any formal changes to how we measured the student learning outcome, we enhanced our education strategies by adding the digital badge in Diversity in Sport (see SLO2). While this is not a formal assessment measure for COSMA reporting purposes, it provides us with a more comprehensive way to gauge student learning. By using various types of assessment, we can better understand our student’s skills and knowledge across student learning outcomes. For example, within the digital badge, students’ complete courses, that have assessment components that could potentially measure learning across several of our SLOs (1,2,4). Below are two examples of courses completed within the digital badge: Communicating about Culturally Sensitive Issues: A course that includes discussions about cultural differences and provides students with the principles and strategies to help them have more productive, meaningful conversations on topics related to diversity. Students develop an understanding and appreciating that difference is the first step in being able to discuss sensitive topics. Students learn various techniques to help them navigate these difficult conversations. Unconscious Bias: Students gain a better understanding of how individual experiences shape who we are, and how our dimensions of diversity—race, ethnicity, gender, height, weight, sexual orientation, place of birth, and other factors—impact the lens through which we view the world. In this course, through compelling examples that explore the most common forms of unconscious bias and its implications. Students learn how to recognize and acknowledge their own biases and develop skills to effectively address the most common forms of unconscious bias—affinity bias, halo bias, perception bias, confirmation bias, and group think. SLO6: Compared the prior reporting year, we reported 94.3% of students proficient or better in their ability demonstrate an understanding of financial decision-making in relation to the sport industry. This is a nearly 4% increase from AY 21-22. To continue to provide students with relevant sport industry experience, we added a digital badge in Sport Industry Finance that included learning on topics including but not limited to: Microsoft Excel, storytelling for data and design, business analysis foundations and blockchain and cryptocurrency basics. Moving forward, the digital badge should be incorporated into all sections of sport finance and used as a potential new measure for the SLO. Indirect measure, senior survey results, are nearly consistent with the previous academic year with 90.3% (22-23) and 92.9% (21-22) 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 |
60% of FTICs met 4-year graduation rates |
Meets Expectations Meets Expectations |
| 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 93.1% engaged in sport management work (non-required field experience, volunteer, or paid employment) in addition to required filed experiences |
Exceeds Expectations
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 62.7% well-prepared 37.3% prepared |
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 | 81.4% completely or a lot confident in their ability to determine what is expected of them on the job | Meets 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 |
100% of students agree our faculty provide valuable course content 92.5% of students agree faculty are knowledgeable in the field |
Exceeds Expectations Exceeds Expectations |
| 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 2022-23 was 4.23/5 |
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 |
96.2% of students agree that faculty provide excellent quality instruction 100% of students agree that faculty are available after class and during office hours |
Exceeds Expectations Exceeds Expectations |
| 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 70.6% well-prepared 29.4% prepared |
Exceeds Expectations |
| Measure 2 | 60% of undergraduate students will be working in sport industry careers. | 67.3% of seniors indicated they would be employed FT in sport industry | Meets Expectations |
We modified OEG 2, Measure 2. As noted in our 2021-22 report, OEG 2, Measure 2, Program Senior Survey can provide somewhat conflicting results. Given that OEG 2, provides pathways & strategies for student success throughout their educational journey, enabling them to reach and exceed their goals. We felt it might be more appropriate to measure student preparedness for pre-professional experiences including practicum and internship. In making this change, we can examine any difference between OEG 2, Measure 2 and OEG 5, Measure 1 for differences in preparedness during different points in a student’s educational journey.
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 two designated OEG measurements during AY 2022-23.
OEG 1: We met or exceeded measures related to student retention and graduation rates. 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. We believe this is
OEG 2: All measures were met or exceeded. Compared to AY 2021-22 reporting on Measure 3, 2022-23 graduates’ confidence in their ability to determine what is expected of them on the job increased to 81.4% compared to 76% in 21-22. Ninety-six percent of graduates, compared to 97.5% from AY 21-22, felt at least moderately confident in their ability to determine what is expected on the job. While we exceeded expectations of Measure 2, it is important to note that nearly one in ten graduating seniors reported an increase in preparedness from pre-professional experiences (practicum/internship) and upon entering a sport industry career (OEG 5, Measure 1).
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.
OEG4: We met or exceeded measures related to excellence in every teaching and demonstrating an ethos of student care and mentorship. We pride ourselves on OEG 4 measures and take pride in the fact that more than 95% of graduating seniors reported that faculty provided excellent quality instruction and were available outside of class to assist, respectively. We note that our overall instructor ISQ for tenured and tenure-earning sport management faculty is slightly higher from last year at 4.23 compared to 4.08. For all instructors teaching sport management coursework including tenured, tenure-earning, visitors, and adjuncts our we 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 fall below the 15%. We will continue to monitor ISQ data especially given the university measures to revise the existing measures. Moving forward, the overall instructor rating is not being used in annual evaluations so there may be some alterations to the reporting. There were no implications for this reporting year.
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 graduating seniors reported they were well-prepared or prepared to enter sport industry career and 70% of respondents indicated they were well-prepared – this finding is nearly equivalent to last reporting cycle. Additionally, 67.3% of seniors indicated they would be employed FT in sport industry. Notably, one in four graduates indicated they would be attending graduate school full-time. 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: University of North Florida
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
Indicators of Effectiveness with Undergraduates as Determined by the Program
-
Graduation
Year: 2022-23
# of Graduates: 52
Graduation Rate - Because students are not in a declared major until they complete 60 hours, we cannot use a traditional 150% graduation rate for this population.
-
Completion of Educational Goal (other than certificate or degree - if data collected)
# of Students Surveyed: 52
# Completing Goal: 52
- Average Time to Certificate or Degree
4-Year Degree: 4.03 yrs
- Annual Transfer Activity (into Program)
Year: 2022-23
# of Transfers: 43
Transfer Rate: 36.1%
- Graduates Entering Graduate School
Year: 2022-23
# of Graduates: 52
# Entering Graduate School: 12
-
Job Placement (if appropriate)
Year: 2022-23
# of Graduates: 52
# Employed: 32 (FT)
Form developed by the Council for Higher Education Accreditation. © updated 2015