Program Learning Outcomes: Bachelor of Science in Diagnostic Imaging

Overview

The Lincoln University studies in Diagnostic Imaging (DI) with concentrations in Sonography and Echocardiography are dedicated to provide high-quality education and training that leads to employment as a competent, ethical health care professional, and results in the Bachelor of Science Degree. The programs emphasize the necessity of professional development and life-long learning. They include academic activities and externships that enable graduates to develop a knowledge base for the use of diagnostic ultrasound imaging and echocardiography equipment for testing of the human body. They also provide students with the knowledge of clinical skills, problem-solving abilities and interpersonal skills.

Sonography and Echocardiography technology are rapidly expanding allied health fields where the needs for professionals continue. Graduates have opportunities for employment in: hospitals, clinics, physician’s offices, mobile services, research; and also as managers/owners of private DI offices; and marketers or administrators of sales and product development for equipment manufacturers.

BS in Diagnostic Imaging Program Learning Outcomes and Assessment

BS in Diagnostic Imaging Program Learning Outcomes (PLOs) are program wide objectives that are set by Lincoln University faculty. Each PLO contributes to the achievement of one or several ILOs.

BS Diagnostic Imaging Courses Learning Outcomes and Assessment

PLO BS1: Develop and demonstrate knowledge in principles of ultrasound technology, medical terminology, physiology, sonography, and echocardiography.

Score of 4: Clearly identifies and summarizes the main principles of diagnostic imaging and UT, and successfully explains why/how the principles are used in diagnostics. Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of human gross and sectional anatomy relative to normal and abnormal sonographic imaging.

Score of 3: Successfully identifies and summarizes the main principles of diagnostic imaging and UT, and successfully explains why/how the principles are used in diagnostics, but fails to demonstrate knowledge and understanding of human gross and sectional anatomy.

Score of 2: Successfully identifies the main principles, but fails to summarize or explain them clearly or sufficiently.

Score of 1: Fails to identify or summarize the main principles.

PLO BS2: Demonstrate ability of accurate patient positioning techniques and use of imaging technology.

Score of 4: Able to make proper landmarks, measurements and any abnormalities are imaged of the liver, pancreas and gallbladder. Proper labeling of each image with respect to the scanning plane and organ. Proper machine settings are done regarding overall gain, depth, TGC, focal zone and proper transducer placement and selection.

Score of 3: Able to make proper landmarks, measurements and any abnormalities are imaged of the liver, pancreas and gallbladder, but struggles with proper labeling of each image with respect to the scanning plane and organ.

Score of 2: Makes proper landmarks, measurements and any abnormalities of some but no all of the organs.

Score of 1: Unable to make proper landmarks, measurements and any abnormalities are imaged of the liver, pancreas and gallbladder.

PLO BS3: Adapt imaging procedures based on patient’s needs and clinical limitations.

Score of 4: Appropriately positions patient for the sonography study. Uses appropriate UT head. Uses warm gel when possible, assists patient onto bed, keeps patient covered as much as possible, explains exam to patient and introduces self to the patient.

Score of 3: Successfully positions the patient, and uses appropriate UT head, but fails to explain the exam or introduce self to the patient.

Score of 2: Successfully positions the patient but straggles to use the appropriate UT head.

Score of 1: Unable to successfully position the patient.

PLO BS4: Practice effective oral and written communication skills in the clinical setting.

Score of 4: Consistently does all or almost all of the following: Accurately interprets evidence, statements, graphics, questions, etc. Identifies the salient arguments (reasons and claims) pro and con. Thoughtfully analyzes and evaluates major alternative points of view. Draws warranted, judicious, non-fallacious conclusions. Justifies key results and procedures, explains assumptions and reasons. Fair-mindedly follows where evidence and reasons lead.

Score of 3: Does most or many of the following: Accurately interprets evidence, statements, graphics, questions, etc. Identifies relevant arguments (reasons and claims) pro and con. Offers analyses and evaluations of obvious alternative points of view. Draws warranted, non-fallacious conclusions. Justifies some results or procedures, explains reasons. Fair-mindedly follows where evidence and reasons lead.

Score of 2: Does most or many of the following: Misinterprets evidence, statements, graphics, questions, etc. Fails to identify strong, relevant counter-arguments. Ignores or superficially evaluates obvious alternative points of view. Draws unwarranted or fallacious conclusions. Justifies few results or procedures, seldom explains reasons. Regardless of the evidence or reasons, maintains or defends views based on self-interest or preconceptions.

Score of 1: Consistently does all or almost all of the following: Offers biased interpretations of evidence, statements, graphics, questions, information, or the points of view of others. Fails to identify or hastily dismisses strong, relevant counter-arguments. Ignores or superficially evaluates obvious alternative points of view. Argues using fallacious or irrelevant reasons, and unwarranted claims. Does not justify results or procedures, nor explain reasons. Regardless of the evidence or reasons, maintains or defends views based on self-interest or preconceptions.

BS General Education Courses Learning Outcomes

PLO BS1: Demonstrate proficiency in college-level mathematics, English, natural sciences, and social sciences.

Score of 4: Clearly identifies and summarizes the main principles of college-level mathematics, science, humanities and social sciences. For mathematics, this included arithmetic, algebra, and statistics. For English, this includes writing, reading, speaking, and critical thinking. Demonstrate proficiency in college-level biology, chemistry, and physics.

Score of 3: Successfully identifies and summarizes the main principles of college-level mathematics, science, humanities and social sciences. However, for mathematics, lacks experience in application. For English, lacks critical thinking or fails to demonstrate proficiency in college-level biology, chemistry, and physics.

Score of 2: Successfully identifies the main principles, but fails to summarize or explain them clearly or sufficiently.

Score of 1: Fails to identify or summarize the main principles.

PLO BS2: Being able to interpret and apply arithmetical, algebraic, and statistical methods to solve problems.

Score of 4: Able to represent mathematical information symbolically, using formulas. Able to translate words into mathematical expressions. Demonstrates ability to use geometric methods to solve problems.

Score of 3: Able to represent mathematical information symbolically, using formulas. Able to translate words into mathematical expressions, but not able to use geometric methods to solve problems.

Score of 2: Able to represent mathematical information symbolically, using formulas, but unable to translate words into mathematical expressions.

Score of 1: Fails to represent mathematical information symbolically, using formulas

PLO BS3: Communicate effectively in diagnostic field by applying Standard American English. Be able to use appropriate terminology accepted in DI field.

Score of 4: Consistently does all or almost all of the following: Accurately interprets evidence, statements, graphics, questions, etc. Identifies the salient arguments (reasons and claims) pro and con. Thoughtfully analyzes and evaluates major alternative points of view. Demonstrates proficiency in knowledge and application of terminology accepted in the DI field.

Score of 3: Accurately interprets evidence, statements, graphics, questions, etc. Identifies relevant arguments (reasons and claims) pro and con. Offers analyses and evaluations of obvious alternative points of view. However, fails to demonstrate proficiency in knowledge and application of terminology accepted in the DI field.

Score of 2: Does most or many of the following: Misinterprets evidence, statements, graphics, questions, etc. Fails to identify strong, relevant counter-arguments. Ignores or superficially evaluates obvious alternative points of view. Draws unwarranted or fallacious conclusions. Justifies few results or procedures, seldom explains reasons. Regardless of the evidence or reasons, maintains or defends views based on self-interest or preconceptions. Fails to demonstrate proficiency in knowledge and application of terminology accepted in the DI field.

Score of 1: Consistently does all or almost all of the following: Offers biased interpretations of evidence, statements, graphics, questions, information, or the points of view of others. Fails to identify or hastily dismisses strong, relevant counter-arguments. Ignores or superficially evaluates obvious alternative points of view. Argues using fallacious or irrelevant reasons, and unwarranted claims. Does not justify results or procedures, nor explain reasons. Regardless of the evidence or reasons, maintains or defends views based on self-interest or preconceptions. Fails to demonstrate proficiency in knowledge and application of terminology accepted in the DI field.

PLO BS4: Think critically and apply common sense in approaching and solving DI and real-world problems.

Score of 4: Appropriately integrates and applies basic scientific, DI, and analytical concepts to make well-informed decisions. Demonstrates comprehension of an argument, and illustrates it with examples.

Score of 3: Appropriately integrates and applies basic analytical concepts to understand an argument and to make well-informed decisions, but fails to demonstrate comprehension of the argument or to illustrate it with examples.

Score of 2: Successfully understands the problem, but fails to make well-informed decisions.

Score of 1: Unable to use analytical skills to understand the problem and to make well-informed decisions.  

PLO BS5: Demonstrate proficiency in skills that sustain lifelong learning, particularly to think critically and responsibly. Be able to evaluate and integrate DI information.

Score of 4: Consistently accurately interprets evidence, and questions; identifies the salient arguments (reasons and claims) pro and con. Thoughtfully analyzes and evaluates major alternative points of view. Demonstrates ability to apply these principles to solve DI-related problems.

Score of 3: Consistently accurately interprets evidence, and questions; identifies the salient arguments (reasons and claims) pro and con. Thoughtfully analyzes and evaluates major alternative points of view, but fails to demonstrate ability to apply these principles to DI-related problems.

Score of 2: Consistently accurately interprets evidence, and questions; identifies the salient arguments (reasons and claims) pro and con, but fails to identify and evaluate major alternative points of view.

Score of 1: Consistently fails to interpret evidence, and questions; identifies the salient arguments (reasons and claims) pro and con.

PLO BS6: Understand the responsibilities of active citizenship, community engagement, and social responsibility.

Score of 4: Identifies and accurately describes complex ethical dilemmas from life situations and theoretical scenarios. Understands legal principles, and principles of good citizenship, and able to collect and evaluate different ethical perspectives.

Score of 3: Able to identify and accurately describe ethical dilemmas, and principles of good citizenship but is unable to recognize legal principles or evaluate different ethical perspectives.

Score of 2: Successfully understands the ethical problem, but fails to make well-informed decisions.

Score of 1: Unable to use analytical skills to understand ethical problems.

PLO BS7: Develop basic understanding of bioethics’ standards acceptable in the field of diagnostic imaging.

Score of 4: Understands and recognizes the basic and advanced concepts of bio-ethics, can defend him/herself if challenged. Able to articulate the value of information and to apply the information to make informative decision related to patient care.

Score of 3: Understands and recognizes the basic and advanced concepts of bio-ethics, can defend him/herself if challenged, but unable to articulate the value of information and to apply the information to make informative decision related to patient care.

Score of 2: Understands and recognizes the basic and advanced concepts of bio-ethics, but can’t defend him/herself if challenged.

Score of 1: Unable to understand and recognize the basic and advanced concepts of bio-ethics.

Program Learning Outcomes:Doctor of Business Administration

Overview

The Doctor of Business Administration (DBA) program at Lincoln University is an advanced academic degree program preparing students for teaching and research positions within universities and/or the pursuit of careers in management or consulting at senior levels. The purpose of the program is to educate students in the concepts and techniques needed to understand a range of business disciplines and to conduct research on issues arising in professional business practice.

The program objectives are: 1) provide students with the opportunity to learn the latest academic theories, concepts, techniques and applications with emphasis on teaching, research, practice in the field of concentration, and consulting, 2) extend the knowledge, expertise and skill of students through the application of research to business problems and issues by including internships, teaching experiences, and special study projects as a part of the curriculum, 3) develop the student’s ability to carry out independent research at an advanced level, and enhance their ability to deliver their ideas, research methodology and findings by means of formal presentations with critiques of their analytical, written, oral and media presentation skills in business, professional, and educational environments, 4) create opportunities for Lincoln University’s bachelor’s and master’s degree students to continue their business education by undertaking the doctoral degree course of study.

DBA Program Learning Outcomes and Assessment

Doctor of Business Administration Program Learning Outcomes (PLOs) are program wide objectives that are set by Lincoln University faculty. Each PLO contributes to the achievement of one or several ILOs.

PLO DBA1: Demonstrate advanced knowledge and competence in the latest academic theories, concepts, and techniques in the field of business administration.

Score of 4: Clearly identifies and summarizes latest academic theories and successfully explains why/how they are applicable to the business problems or questions. Clearly and accurately labels not only all the factual, conceptual, and value, but also those implicit in the assumptions and the implications of positions and arguments.

Score of 3: Able to identify latest academic theories but fails to successfully explain why/how they are applicable to the business problems or questions. Successfully separates and labels all the factual, conceptual, and value claims, but lacks solid theoretical perspective.

Score of 2: Able to identify latest academic theories but fails to apply them.

Score of 1: Unable to identify and apply academic theories

PLO DBA2: Demonstrate effective research skills including formulation of research problem; integration of previous publications into an appropriate literature review; design of a research study; data analysis; ability to summarize and present the results.

Score of 4: Able to identify, collect, summarize and use in an argument information based on classical and modern academic theories and work of other researchers. Able to plan, design, and execute a research study including applying appropriate methodology and data analysis.

Score of 3: Able to identify, collect, summarize and use in an argument information based on classical and modern academic theories and work of other researchers. Able to plan, design, and execute a research study including applying appropriate methodology or data analysis.

Score of 2: Able to identify, collect, summarize and use in an argument information based on classical and modern academic theories and work of other researchers. Able to plan, design, and execute a research study including applying appropriate methodology and data analysis.

Score of 1: Unable to understand, design or conduct research.

PLO DBA3: Create and present advanced forms of oral and written communications, including teaching and advising.

Score of 4: Consistently does all or almost all of the following: Accurately interprets evidence, statements, graphics, questions, etc. Identifies the salient arguments (reasons and claims) pro and con. Thoughtfully analyzes and evaluates major alternative points of view. Draws warranted, judicious, non-fallacious conclusions. Justifies key results and procedures, explains assumptions and reasons. Fair-mindedly follows where evidence and reasons lead.

Score of 3: Does most or many of the following: Accurately interprets evidence, statements, graphics, questions, etc. Identifies relevant arguments (reasons and claims) pro and con. Offers analyses and evaluations of obvious alternative points of view. Draws warranted, non-fallacious conclusions. Justifies some results or procedures, explains reasons. Fair-mindedly follows where evidence and reasons lead.

Score of 2: Does most or many of the following: Misinterprets evidence, statements, graphics, questions, etc. Fails to identify strong, relevant counter-arguments. Ignores or superficially evaluates obvious alternative points of view. Draws unwarranted or fallacious conclusions. Justifies few results or procedures, seldom explains reasons. Regardless of the evidence or reasons, maintains or defends views based on self-interest or preconceptions.

Score of 1: Consistently does all or almost all of the following: Offers biased interpretations of evidence, statements, graphics, questions, information, or the points of view of others. Fails to identify or hastily dismisses strong, relevant counter-arguments. Ignores or superficially evaluates obvious alternative points of view. Argues using fallacious or irrelevant reasons, and unwarranted claims. Does not justify results or procedures, nor explain reasons. Regardless of the evidence or reasons, maintains or defends views based on self-interest or preconceptions.

PLO DBA4: Generate, evaluate, and assess the ethical obligations and responsibilities of business for the purpose of responsible management.

Score of 4: Understands and recognizes the concept of intellectual property, can defend him/herself if challenged, and can properly incorporate the ideas/published works of others into their own work building upon them. Able to articulate the value of information to a free and democratic society, and can use specific criteria to discern objectivity/fact from bias/propaganda.

Score of 3: Gives credit for works used by quoting and listing references. Student is an ethical consumer and producer of information, and understands how free access to information, and free expression, contribute to a democratic society.

Score of 2: Student is an ethical consumer and producer of information, and understands how free access to information, and free expression, contribute to a democratic society, but fails to provide appropriate references to the work of others.

Score of 1: Unclear regarding proper citation format, and/or copies and paraphrases the information and ideas of others without giving credit to authors. Student does not know how to distinguish between information that is objective and biased, and does not know the role that free access to information plays in a democratic society.

PLO DBA5: Apply the knowledge from the area of specialization and provide consulting to other business industries or other fields.

Score of 4: Student is aware and able to  analyze search results, and evaluate the appropriateness of the variety of multiple relevant sources of information that directly fulfill an information need for the particular discipline, different from his/her own.

Score of 3: Executes an appropriate search strategy within a reasonable amount of time. Can solve problems by finding a variety of relevant information resources, and can evaluate search effectiveness; however, struggles with application of this information to different fields.

Score of 2: Executes an appropriate search strategy within a reasonable amount of time, but is unable to solve problems by finding a variety of relevant information resources. Struggles with application of this information to different fields.

Student is unfocused and unclear about search strategy. Time is not used effectively and efficiently. Information gathered lacks relevance, quality, and balance.

Program Learning Outcomes: Master of Science in Finance Management

Overview

The MS in Finance Management (FM) degree program enables students with undergraduate and/or graduate degrees in business to gain an in-depth and applied understanding of the complexities and functions of finance professionals in a globally competitive and rapidly changing business and economic environment. This specialized degree program is designed to address major financial issues facing multinational firms such as capital sourcing, foreign and domestic investment risk, financial performance assessment, and financial forecasting and planning. The coursework supporting this program draws heavily on actual business firms’ financial practice and experience and the distinctive differences between operating a purely domestic versus a global or international business. This program prepares students upon graduation to assume management-level positions, which require an understanding of the tools and techniques used in sophisticated financial analysis, planning and forecasting as well as current business financial functions and practice. Students graduating from this degree program are expected to have a demonstrable set of skills and knowledge that makes them very attractive employment candidates for business firms seeking new financial management-level talent.

MS in FM Program Learning Outcomes and Assessment

MS in Finance Management Program Learning Outcomes (PLOs) are program wide objectives that are set by Lincoln University faculty. Each PLO contributes to the achievement of one or several ILOs.

PLO MSFM1: Demonstrate expert-level understanding of the aspects of finance management including mathematical, statistical, financial, and economic.

Score of 4: Recognizes the business problems, and independently chooses appropriate concepts to describe the problem and to offer a possible solution. Utilizes knowledge in mathematics, statistics, finance and economic to solve this problem.

Score of 3: Recognizes the real-world business problems, but is seeking help to find and apply the appropriate concepts to describe the problem and to offer a possible solution. Lacks knowledge in mathematics, statistics, finance and economic to solve this problem.

Score of 2: Able to recognize the real-world business problem, but is unable to come up with a solution.

Score of 1: Unable to recognize or solve a real-world business problem.

PLO MSFM2: Develop knowledge of finance management including international finance, international securities, commercial banking and lending, investment science, real estate, and stock market.

Score of 4: Clearly identifies and summarizes latest academic theories and successfully explains why/how they are applicable to the business problems or questions. Clearly and accurately labels not only all the factual, conceptual, and value claims, but also the implications of positions and arguments.

Score of 3: Able to identify latest academic theories but fails to successfully explain why/how they are applicable to the business problems or questions. Successfully separates and labels all the factual, conceptual, and value claims, but lacks solid theoretical perspective.

Score of 2: Able to identify latest academic theories but fails to apply them.

Score of 1: Unable to identify and apply academic theories

PLO MSFM3: Recognize financial problems and provide creative solutions. Integrate theory and practice for strategic analysis in the field of finance management.

Score of 4: Able to identify, collect, summarize and use in an argument information based on classical and modern academic theories and work of other researchers. Able to plan, design, and execute a research study including applying appropriate methodology and data analysis.

Score of 3: Able to identify, collect, summarize and use in an argument information based on classical and modern academic theories and work of other researchers. However, not able to plan, design, and execute a research study including applying appropriate methodology and data analysis.

Score of 2: Able to identify, collect, summarize but not use in an argument information based on classical and modern academic theories and work of other researchers.

Score of 1: Unable to understand, design or conduct research.

PLO MSFM4: Design a research project and apply quantitative methods to analyze financial data.

Score of 4: Able to use advanced quantitative methods to analyze the data, derive conclusions, and report results. Able to communicate quantitative/statistical information to persons with limited or no knowledge in statistics.

Score of 3: Able to use advanced quantitative methods to analyze the data, derive conclusions, and report results. However, struggles to communicate quantitative/statistical information to persons with limited or no knowledge in statistics.

Score of 2: Able to use some quantitative methods to analyze the data, derive conclusions, and report results.

Score of 1: Unable to use quantitative methods to analyze the data.

PLO MSFM5: Communicate to relevant audiences including written and oral communication

Score of 4: Consistently does all or almost all of the following: Accurately interprets evidence, statements, graphics, questions, etc. Identifies the salient arguments (reasons and claims) pro and con. Thoughtfully analyzes and evaluates major alternative points of view. Draws warranted, judicious, non-fallacious conclusions. Justifies key results and procedures, explains assumptions and reasons. Fair-mindedly follows where evidence and reasons lead.

Score of 3: Does most or many of the following: Accurately interprets evidence, statements, graphics, questions, etc. Identifies relevant arguments (reasons and claims) pro and con. Offers analyses and evaluations of obvious alternative points of view. Draws warranted, non-fallacious conclusions. Justifies some results or procedures, explains reasons. Fair-mindedly follows where evidence and reasons lead.

Score of 2: Does most or many of the following: Misinterprets evidence, statements, graphics, questions, etc. Fails to identify strong, relevant counter-arguments. Ignores or superficially evaluates obvious alternative points of view. Draws unwarranted or fallacious conclusions. Justifies few results or procedures, seldom explains reasons. Regardless of the evidence or reasons, maintains or defends views based on self-interest or preconceptions.

Score of 1: Consistently does all or almost all of the following: Offers biased interpretations of evidence, statements, graphics, questions, information, or the points of view of others. Fails to identify or hastily dismisses strong, relevant counter-arguments. Ignores or superficially evaluates obvious alternative points of view. Argues using fallacious or irrelevant reasons, and unwarranted claims. Neither justifies results or procedures, nor explains reasons. Regardless of the evidence or reasons, maintains or defends views based on self-interest or preconceptions.

PLO MSFM6: Work effectively with a team of colleagues on diverse projects.

Score of 4: Acts with confidence when exercising leadership duties. Circulates a prepared agenda in advance, and balances the need for task accomplishment with the needs of individuals in the groups. Listens actively and shows understanding by paraphrasing or by acknowledging and building on others’ ideas. Shows respect to all group members. Shares information openly. Assigns tasks by seeking volunteers, delegating as needed. Gives recognition and encouragement.

Score of 3: Engages all group members and keeps the group on track by managing time, providing coaching or guidance, using humor, or resolving differences, as needed. Intervenes when tasks are not moving toward goals. Involves the group in setting challenging goals and planning for their accomplishment.

Score of 2: Shows occasional signs of insecurity about leading, or is overly confident about own leadership skills. Gives too much attention to the task or to interpersonal relations in the group, and asks for ideas and suggestions but neglects to consider them. Lets the group ramble or stray off track too much, or keeps the group so rigidly on track that relevant issues or concerns are ignored.

Score of 1: Gives an impression of reluctance or uncertainty about exercising leadership duties. Focuses exclusively on the task to be accomplished without regard for the people, or focuses exclusively on the interpersonal relations and attitudes of people in the group without regard for the task. Asks for ideas or suggestions without intending to consider them. May show favoritism to one or more group members.

PLO MSFM7: Identify and analyze the ethical obligations and responsibilities in the field of finance management.

Score of 4: Understands and recognizes the ethical responsibilities of an organization; can defend ethical decision if challenged. Capable of making business decisions based on ethical principles. Able to properly incorporate the ideas/published works of others into their own work building upon them. Able to articulate the value of information to a free and democratic society.

Score of 3: Understands and recognizes the ethical responsibilities of an organization; can defend ethical decision if challenged. Capable of making business decisions based on ethical principles. However, not able to properly incorporate the ideas/published works of others into their own work building upon them or to articulate the value of information to a free and democratic society.

Score of 2: Understands and recognizes the ethical responsibilities of an organization; can defend ethical decision if challenged. However, not capable of making business decisions based on ethical principles.

Score of 1: Not able to understand and recognize the ethical responsibilities of an organization.

Program Learning Outcomes: Master of Science inInternational Business

Overview

The MS in International Business (IB) degree program enables students with undergraduate and/or graduate degrees in business to gain an in-depth and applied understanding of the complexities and functions of international management professionals in a globally competitive business and economic environment. This specialized degree program is designed to address major managerial, economic and strategic planning issues facing multinational firms such as product development and competitive strategies, foreign direct investment risks, and managing globally diverse businesses and organizations. The coursework supporting this program draws heavily on actual business firms’ international management practice and experience and the distinctive differences between operating a purely domestic versus a global or international business. This program prepares students upon graduation to assume management-level positions, which require an understanding of the management skills and knowledge necessary to provide effective leadership and vision required to successfully guide the development and management of a complex network of global operations. Students graduating from this degree program are expected to have a demonstrable set of skills and knowledge that makes them very attractive employment candidates for business firms seeking new international management-level talent.

MS in IB Program Learning Outcomes and Assessment

MS in International Business Program Learning Outcomes (PLOs) are program wide objectives that are set by Lincoln University faculty. Each PLO contributes to the achievement of one or several ILOs.

PLO MSIB1: Demonstrate expert-level understanding of the aspects of international business.

Score of 4: Recognizes the real-world business problems, and independently chooses appropriate concepts to describe the problem and to offer a possible solution.

Score of 3: Recognizes the real-world business problems, but is seeking help to find and apply the appropriate concepts to describe the problem and to offer a possible solution.

Score of 2: Able to recognize the real-world business problem, but is unable to come up with a solution.

Score of 1: Unable to recognize or solve a real-world business problem.

PLO MSIB2: Exhibit deep knowledge of international business functioning, including marketing, finance, management, operations, accounting, and entrepreneurship.

Score of 4: Clearly identifies and summarizes latest academic theories and successfully explains why/how they are applicable to the business problems or questions. Clearly and accurately labels not only all the factual, conceptual, and value claims, but also the implications of positions and arguments.

Score of 3: Able to identify latest academic theories but fails to successfully explain why/how they are applicable to the business problems or questions. Successfully separates and labels all the factual, conceptual, and value claims, but lacks solid theoretical perspective.

Score of 2: Able to identify latest academic theories but fails to apply them.

Score of 1: Unable to identify and apply academic theories.

PLO MSIB3: Recognize business problems and provide creative solutions. Integrate theory and practice for strategic analysis in the field of international business.

Score of 4: Able to identify, collect, summarize and use in an argument information based on classical and modern academic theories and work of other researchers. Able to plan, design, and execute a research study including applying appropriate methodology and data analysis.

Score of 3: Able to identify, collect, summarize and use in an argument information based on classical and modern academic theories and work of other researchers. However, not able to plan, design, and execute a research study including applying appropriate methodology or data analysis.

Score of 2: Able to identify, collect, summarize but not use in an argument information based on classical and modern academic theories and work of other researchers.

Score of 1: Unable to understand, design or conduct research.

PLO MSIB4: Design a research project and  apply quantitative and qualitative methods of analysis to business situations in a complex global business environment.

Score of 4: Able to use advanced quantitative methods to analyze the data; derive conclusions, and report results. Able to communicate quantitative/statistical information to persons with limited or no knowledge in statistics.

Score of 3: Able to use advanced quantitative methods to analyze the data; derive conclusions, and report results. However, struggles to communicate quantitative/statistical information to persons with limited or no knowledge in statistics.

Score of 2: Able to use some quantitative methods to analyze the data; derive conclusions, and report results.

Score of 1: Unable to use quantitative methods to analyze the data.

PLO MSIB5: Develop and exhibit effective communication skills for relevant international audiences.

Score of 4: Consistently does all or almost all of the following: Accurately interprets evidence, statements, graphics, questions, etc. Identifies the salient arguments (reasons and claims) pro and con. Thoughtfully analyzes and evaluates major alternative points of view. Draws warranted, judicious, non-fallacious conclusions. Justifies key results and procedures, explains assumptions and reasons. Fair-mindedly follows where evidence and reasons lead.

Score of 3: Does most or many of the following: Accurately interprets evidence, statements, graphics, questions, etc. Identifies relevant arguments (reasons and claims) pro and con. Offers analyses and evaluations of obvious alternative points of view. Draws warranted, non-fallacious conclusions. Justifies some results or procedures, explains reasons. Fair-mindedly follows where evidence and reasons lead.

Score of 2: Does most or many of the following: Misinterprets evidence, statements, graphics, questions, etc. Fails to identify strong, relevant counter-arguments. Ignores or superficially evaluates obvious alternative points of view. Draws unwarranted or fallacious conclusions. Justifies few results or procedures, seldom explains reasons. Regardless of the evidence or reasons, maintains or defends views based on self-interest or preconceptions.

Score of 1: Consistently does all or almost all of the following: Offers biased interpretations of evidence, statements, graphics, questions, information, or the points of view of others. Fails to identify or hastily dismisses strong, relevant counter-arguments. Ignores or superficially evaluates obvious alternative points of view. Argues using fallacious or irrelevant reasons, and unwarranted claims. Neither justifies results or procedures, nor explains reasons. Regardless of the evidence or reasons, maintains or defends views based on self-interest or preconceptions.

PLO MSIB6: Work effectively with a team of international colleagues on diverse projects.

Score of 4: Acts with confidence when exercising leadership duties. Circulates a prepared agenda in advance, and balances the need for task accomplishment with the needs of individuals in the groups. Listens actively and shows understanding by paraphrasing or by acknowledging and building on others’ ideas. Shows respect to all group members. Shares information openly. Assigns tasks by seeking volunteers, delegating as needed. Gives recognition and encouragement.

Score of 3: Engages all group members and keeps the group on track by managing time, providing coaching or guidance, using humor, or resolving differences, as needed. Intervenes when tasks are not moving toward goals. Involves the group in setting challenging goals and planning for their accomplishment.

Score of 2: Shows occasional signs of insecurity about leading, or is overly confident about own leadership skills. Gives too much attention to the task or to interpersonal relations in the group, and asks for ideas and suggestions but neglects to consider them. Lets the group ramble or stray off track too much, or keeps the group so rigidly on track that relevant issues or concerns are ignored.

Score of 1: Gives an impression of reluctance or uncertainty about exercising leadership. Focuses exclusively on the task to be accomplished without regard to the people, or focuses exclusively on the interpersonal relations and attitudes of people in the group without regard to the task, and asks for ideas or suggestions without intending to consider them. May show favoritism to one or more group members.

PLO MSIB7: Identify and analyze the ethical obligations and responsibilities in the field of international business.

Score of 4: Understands and recognizes the ethical responsibilities of an organization; can defend ethical decision if challenged. Capable of making business decisions based on ethical principles. Able to properly incorporate the ideas/published works of others into their own work building upon them. Able to articulate the value of information to a free and democratic society.

Score of 3: Understands and recognizes the ethical responsibilities of an organization; can defend ethical decision if challenged. Capable of making business decisions based on ethical principles. However, not able to properly incorporate the ideas/published works of others into their own work building upon them or to articulate the value of information to a free and democratic society.

Score of 2: Understands and recognizes the ethical responsibilities of an organization; can defend ethical decision if challenged. However, not capable of making business decisions based on ethical principles.

Score of 1: Not able to understand and recognize the ethical responsibilities of an organization.