ASSESSMENT REPORT

Written Communication2016-17

College of Business AdministrationCentral Michigan University | 2016-2017

“Measurement is the first step that leads to control and eventually to improvement. If you can’t measure something, you can’t understand it. If you can’t understand it, you can’t control it. If you can’t control it,

you can’t improve it.” - H. James Harrington

Table of ContentsExecutive Summary 2Introduction 3Results for MGT 258 5Results for BIS 101 11Aggregated Trends 16Aggregated Conclusions 17 Appendix A 18Appendix B 19Appendix C…………………………………………………………………………………….20

1

Executive SummaryStudents’ written communication skills were assessed in Management (MGT) 258 and Business Information Systems (BIS) 101 courses. 119 students were evaluated in MGT 258 on a written case study and 178 BIS 101 students were evaluated on a written memo assignment. To assess written communication skills, a new written communication rubric was employed.

During the spring and fall of 2016, faculty from the College of Business Administration worked together with an assessment specialist to develop rubrics for each student learning objective. These rubrics were faculty-driven and were adopted for assessment purposes.

The written communication rubric consists of 27 specific criteria. Performance is evaluated in several categories, including organization, content, style, proofreading, format, citations, and plagiarism. Only 25 criteria were applicable for the BIS 101 assignment. Ratings were made on a 3-point scale, including not met (1), met (2), and exceeds expectations (3).

The faculty members who taught these courses volunteered to rate assignments using the written communication rubric and to provide commentary on student performance. Mean scores, standard deviations, and additional basic descriptives are provided in this report.

Students were strong in a number of areas. In MGT 258, students were able to write a paper that clearly and effectively followed instructions, used appropriate voice and tone, used appropriate style to the intended audience, and provided a professional visual appearance that was reader-friendly. For the BIS 101 courses, strengths included limiting each paragraph to one topic, use of transitions, providing an evident structure, and adhering to a specified format.

Some development opportunities emerged as well. For MGT 258, use of an agenda, inclusion of transitions, use of a summary conclusion with recommendations, and appropriate referencing and citation of sources were rated low. In BIS 101, students performed lower in use of agenda, providing a summary conclusion, and punctuation. Although similarities emerged, the differences may be associated with the assignment itself (i.e., not having the chance to display the behavior) or class level rather than the students’ actual performance.

Overall, students performed well in 23 out of the 27 written communication criteria in MGT 258 and 24 out of 25 for BIS 101. The majority of students tended to score within the met category for each criterion. As the first measures using a new written communication rubric, these data provide some helpful information where our students are doing well and a few areas where we may work to improve.

2

IntroductionStudent written communication skills were assessed in Management (MGT) 258 and Business Information Systems (BIS) 101 courses in the spring of 2017. Out of 142 students enrolled in the MGT 258 courses, 119 students were evaluated. In the BIS 101 courses, 178 students were evaluated. The majority of students in these courses represent freshmen and sophomores in the BSBA program, but some upper-level students also take the MGT 258 course.

To determine a student’s written communication skills, a new written communication rubric was employed. During the spring and fall of 2016, faculty from the College of Business worked together with an assessment specialist to develop rubrics for each student learning objective (i.e., oral communication, written communication, problem-solving, and technology). These rubrics were faculty-driven and were adopted for assessment purposes.

The written communication rubric consisted of 27 specific criteria (see Appendix A). These criteria were categorized broadly into instructions, organization, content, style, proofreading, format, citations, and plagiarism. The rubric was designed as a multi-purpose tool that could be adapted based on the needs of a specific course. Results are discussed regarding all 27 criteria (listed below) for MGT 258 and 25 criteria for BIS 101.

Instructions1. The paper clearly and effectively follows the instructions given

Organization (OABC)2. Opening gets attention, provides context, and introduces topic3. Agenda previews content of the document4. Sound paragraphing decisions (length and development)5. Paragraphs limited to one topic per paragraph6. Complete discussion of one topic before moving to the next topic7. Transitions and flow between paragraphs smooth8. The overall flow/logic/structure of document is apparent9. Closing summarizes and concludes, recommends, if applicable10. Structure evident, suited for the message and type of document

Content11. The content of the document is relevant; information is meaningful12. The document is developed with adequate support and examples13. The content is accurate and appropriate, with insightful analysis

Style14. The writing is clear and concise; wordiness avoided15. Overused, trite phrases, clichés, and slang are avoided16. An appropriate voice and tone is used17. The style is appropriate to the intended audience and purpose

Proofreading18. The grammar and spelling are correct (proofread)

3

19. Punctuation-comma usage, capitalization, etc.- used correctly20. The sentence structure and length are appropriate

Format21. Appropriate formatting is used for type of document written22. Visual appearance is professional; information is reader-friendly23. Good use of font, margins, spacing, headings, and visuals24. Format adheres to specified/required style (APA, Chicago, MLA)

Citations (excluded for BIS 101)25. The quality and integrity of the sources are excellent26. Sources are appropriately referenced and cited

Plagiarism27. The document is original work with others’ work appropriately cited; no

plagiarism

Faculty members teaching the courses were asked to rate students’ written communication skills for assessment purposes. Students were asked to complete a business case study assignment for MGT 258 and a written memo for BIS 101. The case study for MGT 258 described an aircraft manufacturing business that had recently hit hard times and was considering adopting a new production method to improve (see Appendix B). Students were asked to take on the perspective of a new Vice President and describe how they would go about changing the company. The assignment also focused on the decision of whether to use teams in production rather than the company’s historical production methods. Students completed the assignment outside of class. For BIS 101, students were given a memo template and asked to write a memo to their professor about a lesson they learned during an in-class SAP exercise (see Appendix C).

Upon submission, each student was evaluated on the 27 criteria using a 3-point scale, including not met (1), met (2), and exceeds expectations (3). A “not applicable” response option was also included in the rubric, but was not used for the current assessment of written communication skills. Mean scores (M), standard deviations (SD), and additional basic descriptives are provided in the tables below.

Throughout this report, figures are presented using a specific color scheme to detail the percentage of students that met or exceeded the performance criteria: green (with diagonal lines) implies that more than 90% of students met or exceeded expectations for a particular criterion, yellow (with brick pattern) means that 71%-89% students met or exceeded, and red indicates that fewer than 70% of students met expectations (excludes missing data).

4

Results for MGT 258InstructionsThe instructions category included a single criterion, “The paper clearly and effectively follows the instructions given.” Most students met or exceeded the standards for the instructions criterion (M = 1.97, SD = .28). Approximately 95% of students followed instructions and only 5% did not.

OrganizationOrganization was evaluated based on the OABC method (opening, agenda, body, and conclusion). The majority of students met expectations for the organization category. Students performed well in making sure that they completed their discussion of one topic before moving to the next, having an overall flow to the document, and providing an evident structure. Table 1 presents a breakdown of the basic descriptives for the organization category. Figure 2 presents mean scores and the percentage of students that met or exceeded the criterion (indicated by color/pattern).

Table 1

Organization Basic DescriptivesCriterion Mean SD N % Not Met % Met % Exceeds MissingOpening 1.92 .51 119 18 73 9 0Agenda 1.80 .65 119 33 55 13 0Sound Paragraph Decisions 1.87 .41 119 16 82 3 0One Topic per Paragraph 1.84 .43 119 18 79 3 0Complete Discussion 1.93 .28 119 8 92 1 0Transitions 1.58 .66 119 51 39 9 0Overall Flow 1.94 .27 119 7 92 1 0Closing 1.66 .64 119 44 47 9 0Structure Evident 1.92 .27 119 8 92 0 0

Notes. SD = standard deviation. N = number of observations.

Opening

Agend

a

Sound

Par

agra

ph Decis

ions

One Topic

per P

aragr

aph

Complete

Discus

sion

Trans

itions

Overa

ll Flow

Closing

Structu

re E

viden

t1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Figure 2

5

Regarding areas for development within the organization category, students’ use of an agenda, proper transitions, and a closing that summarizes information can be improved. As Figure 2 demonstrates, several students did not meet the standards of performance for these criteria. A large proportion of students did not include an agenda in their introduction (33%), did not include transitions within their writing (51%), or did not include a summary conclusion (44%).

ContentThe content category was assessed with three items, which included ensuring that the content of the document was 1) relevant, 2) developed with adequate support, and 3) accurate. Students performed very well on the content category, with the majority meeting or exceeding the criteria. Table 2 presents the frequency breakdown for performance on the three items. Figure 3 presents the mean scores and percentage of students that met or exceeded the criterion (indicated by color/pattern).

Table 2

Content Basic DescriptivesCriterion Mean SD N % Not Met % Met % Exceeds MissingRelevant 1.94 .37 119 10 86 4 0Supported 1.97 .39 119 9 85 6 0Accurate 1.93 .35 119 9 87 3 0Notes. SD = standard deviation. N = number of observations.

Relevant Supported Accurate1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Figure 3

StyleThe next category, style, included several criteria. Most of the students scored well in this category. Table 3 presents the different criteria and basic descriptives for each. The highest performing criteria included avoiding overused or trite phrases and use of an appropriate voice/tone. The mean scores and percentage of students that met or exceeded expectations are presented in Figure 4.

6

Table 3

Style Basic DescriptivesCriterion Mean SD N % Not Met % Met % Exceeds MissingClear and Concise 1.93 .31 119 8 90 2 0Overused Phrases Avoided 1.97 .22 119 4 95 1 0Appropriate Voice/Tone 1.97 .22 119 4 95 1 0Style is Appropriate 1.93 .28 119 8 92 1 0Notes. SD = standard deviation. N = number of observations.

Clear a

nd C

oncis

e

Overu

sed P

hras

es A

voide

d

Appro

priate V

oice/T

one

Style i

s App

ropr

iate1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Figure 4

ProofreadingStudents were also evaluated on their proofreading. More specifically, students were evaluated on their grammar, punctuation, and sentence structure/length. Most of the students scored well in this category. Table 4 presents a breakdown of the basic descriptives. The highest performing criterion was sentence structure/length. Figure 5 presents the mean scores and percentages of students who at least met expectations.

Table 4

Proofreading Basic DescriptivesCriterion Mean SD N % Not Met % Met % Exceeds MissingGrammar 1.87 .34 119 13 87 0 0Punctuation 1.92 .28 119 8 92 0 0Sentence Structure/Length 1.95 .22 119 5 95 0 0Notes. SD = standard deviation. N = number of observations.

7

Grammar Punctuation Sentence Structure/Length

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Figure 5

FormatThe format section of the rubric consisted of four items, including 1) appropriate formatting, 2) professional visual appearance, 3) good use of font, margins, spacing, headings, and visuals, and 4) adhering to specified format. Most students scored well on appropriate formatting and professional appearance (M = 1.97, SD = .16; M = 1.97, SD = .16). Most students exceeded or met expectations for the other criteria as well (see Table 5). Figure 6 displays mean scores and percentages in the met and exceeded performance categories.

Table 5

Format Basic DescriptivesCriterion Mean SD N % Not Met % Met % Exceeds MissingAppropriate Formatting 1.97 .16 119 3 97 0 0Professional Appearance 1.97 .16 119 3 97 0 0Good Use of Resources 1.92 .30 119 8 91 1 0Specific Format Used 1.95 .22 119 5 95 0 0Notes. SD = standard deviation. N = number of observations.

8

Appropriate Formatting

Professional Appearance

Good Use of Resources

Specific Format Used

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Figure 6

CitationsThe next category concerned citations, specifically the quality and integrity of sources and whether sources were appropriately referenced. As can be seen in Table 6, most students performed well in their ability to find quality sources (e.g., course text or course material), but did not appropriately reference or cite sources. The mean scores and percentages are presented in Figure 7.

Table 6

Citations Basic DescriptivesCriterion Mean SD N % Not Met % Met % Exceeds MissingQuality and Integrity Sources 1.98 .54 119 15 71 13 0Sources Referenced 1.62 .78 119 56 25 18 0Notes. SD = standard deviation. N = number of observations.

Quality and Integrity Sources Sources Referenced1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Figure 7

9

As Figure 7 demonstrates, the majority of students did not cite the sources appropriately. Most students attempted to cite the material, but either incorrectly cited the content according to the specified format or did not provide all of the necessary information. Faculty members who provided the ratings often recognized the source of the material (e.g., course text or course materials).

PlagiarismFinally, students were evaluated on whether their work was original and appropriately cited, without plagiarism. Although students performed low on their ability to appropriately cite and reference sources, the majority of students (96%) attempted to cite the content from the course and paraphrased material (M = 1.96, SD = .20). Approximately 4% of students copied material verbatim from the course without attempting to cite the material.

Results for BIS 101InstructionsMost students met or exceeded the standards for the instructions criterion (M = 1.90, SD = .36). Approximately 88% of students followed instructions and only 12% did not.

OrganizationAs mentioned, organization was evaluated based on the OABC method (i.e., opening, agenda, body, and conclusion). The majority of students met expectations for the organization category. Students performed well in making sure to include a proper opening, having a complete discussion before moving on to another idea, and having proper overall flow. Similar to MGT 258, inclusion of a closing section was rated low by faculty. Table 7 presents the basic descriptives for criteria falling under organization. Mean scores are also presented in Figure 8.

Table 7

Organization Basic DescriptivesCriterion Mean SD N % Not Met % Met % Exceeds MissingOpening 2.10 .47 178 7 77 16 0Agenda 2.03 .69 178 22 53 25 0Sound Paragraph Decisions 2.03 .38 178 6 85 8 0One Topic per Paragraph 2.03 .26 178 2 93 5 0Complete Discussion 2.06 .56 178 13 69 19 0Transitions 2.00 .21 178 2 96 2 0Overall Flow 2.06 .40 178 5 84 11 0Closing 1.93 .68 178 27 53 20 0Structure Evident 2.03 .26 178 2 93 5 0Notes. SD = standard deviation. N = number of observations.

10

Opening

Agend

a

Sound

Par

agra

ph Decis

ions

One Topic

per P

aragr

aph

Complete

Discus

sion

Trans

itions

Overa

ll Flow

Closing

Structu

re E

viden

t1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Figure 8

As Figure 8 demonstrates, several students did not include a summary conclusion (44%).

ContentThe content category was assessed with three items, which included 1) ensuring that the content of the document was relevant, 2) developed with adequate support, and 3) accurate. Students performed very well on the content category, with the majority meeting or exceeding each of the criteria. Table 8 presents the frequency breakdown for not met, met, and exceeds expectations. Figure 9 presents mean scores and proportions of students who met or exceeded expectations for each item.

Table 8

Content Basic DescriptivesCriterion Mean SD N % Not Met % Met % Exceeds MissingRelevant 1.99 .39 178 8 85 7 0Supported 2.02 .49 178 11 76 13 0Accurate 1.97 .31 178 6 89 3 1Notes. SD = standard deviation. N = number of observations.

11

Relevant Supported Accurate1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Figure 9

StyleThe next category, style, included four items. Again, most of the students scored well in this category. Table 9 presents the different criteria and basic descriptives. The highest performing criteria included clear and concise writing and appropriate style. Average scores are presented in Figure 10.

Table 9

Style Basic DescriptivesCriterion Mean SD N % Not Met % Met % Exceeds MissingClear and Concise 2.04 .49 178 10 76 14 0Overused Phrases Avoided 1.94 .36 178 10 87 3 0Appropriate Voice/Tone 1.92 .47 178 15 78 7 0Style is Appropriate 1.98 .37 178 8 86 6 1Notes. SD = standard deviation. N = number of observations.

12

Clear a

nd C

oncis

e

Overu

sed P

hras

es A

voide

d

Appro

priate V

oice/T

one

Style i

s App

ropr

iate1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Figure 10

ProofreadingStudents were also evaluated on their proofreading. More specifically, students were evaluated on their grammar, punctuation, and sentence structure/length. Most of the students scored well in this category, with the exception of punctuation (similar to MGT 258) and, to some extent, grammar. Table 10 presents a breakdown of the basic descriptives. Students performed best when it came to sentence structure/length. Mean scores and percentages of students who met or exceeded expectations on each criterion are presented in Figure 11.

Table 10

Proofreading Basic DescriptivesCriterion Mean SD N % Not Met % Met % Exceeds MissingGrammar 1.81 .47 178 22 75 3 0Punctuation 1.71 .57 178 35 59 6 0Sentence Structure/Length 1.96 .36 178 8 87 4 0Notes. SD = standard deviation. N = number of observations.

13

Grammar Punctuation Sentence Structure/Length

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Figure 11

As can be seen in Figure 11, there were some students who had issues with their grammar and punctuation. Approximately 22% of students did not meet performance expectations for grammar and 35% of students did not meet performance expectations for punctuation.

FormatThe format section of the rubric consisted of four items, including appropriate formatting, professional visual appearance, good use of font, margins, spacing, headings, and visuals, and adhering to a specified format. Most students scored well on the professional appearance (M = 2.08, SD = .52). Most students exceeded or at least met expectations for the other criteria as well (see Table 11). Figure 12 displays the mean scores.

Table 11

Format Basic DescriptivesCriterion Mean SD N % Not Met % Met % Exceeds MissingAppropriate Formatting 2.01 .38 178 7 86 4 0Professional Appearance 2.08 .52 178 10 72 18 0Good Use of Resources 2.02 .52 178 12 74 14 0Specific Format Used 2.01 .24 178 2 94 3 0Notes. SD = standard deviation. N = number of observations.

14

Appropriate Formatting

Professional Appearance

Good Use of Resources

Specific Format Used

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Figure 12

CitationsThe citations criteria were not applicable to the BIS 101 memo assignment because students were not required to cite any material. Therefore, they were not evaluated on this for assessment purposes.

PlagiarismThe last category evaluated included plagiarism. Students were evaluated on whether their work was original and appropriately cited, without plagiarism. All students (100%) submitted original work for this assignment (M = 2.00, SD = .00).

Aggregated TrendsThese assessments were the first to apply the new written communication rubric tool and also represent new measures. Therefore, comparing this assessment with prior assessment cycles is not possible. Additional data will be collected in the 2018-19 academic year, at which time trend analysis will be possible.

Aggregated ConclusionsThe present results suggest that students are meeting expectations in the majority of written communication skills criteria (24 out of 25). Most students followed instructions, applied the correct format, used transitions, and provided one topic per paragraph as well as an evident structure.

The assessment identified several areas for growth in future assessment cycles, some of which were consistent across both groups. Across measures students need to improve on their agenda and conclusion. In MGT 258, a large proportion of students did not include an agenda in their introduction (33%), did not include transitions within their writing (51%), or did not include a summary conclusion (44%), thus additional

15

instruction in the OABC method of organization of written works could help students improve in this area. In the introductory level, students struggled more with punctuation and grammar, so early instructions and frequent reinforcement of these skills in all classes is recommended.

16

Appendix ACBA Written Communication Rubric

Performance DimensionsN/A

Not Met

Met Exceeds Comments

InstructionsThe paper clearly and effectively follows the instructions given

Organization (OABC)Opening gets attention, provides context, and introduces topicAgenda previews content of the documentBody

Sound paragraphing decisions (length and development)Paragraphs limited to one topic per paragraphComplete discussion of one topic before moving to next topicTransitions and flow between paragraphs smoothThe overall flow/logic/structure of document is apparent

Closing summarizes and concludes, recommends, if appropriateStructure evident, suited for the message and type of document

ContentThe content of the document is relevant; information meaningfulThe document is developed with adequate support and examplesThe content is accurate and appropriate, with insightful analysis

StyleThe writing is clear and concise; wordiness avoidedOverused, trite phrases, clichés, and slang are avoidedAn appropriate voice and tone is used The style is appropriate to the intended audience and purpose

ProofreadingThe grammar and spelling are correct (proofread)Punctuation—comma usage, capitalization, etc.—used correctly The sentence structure and length are appropriate

FormatAppropriate formatting is used for type of document writtenVisual appearance professional; information is reader friendlyGood use of font, margins, spacing, headings, and visualsFormat adheres to specified/required style (APA, Chicago, MLA)

Citations (if applicable)The quality and integrity of the sources are excellentSources are appropriately referenced and cited

PlagiarismThe document is original work with others’ work appropriately cited; no plagiarism

17

Appendix BInstructions: Read the following business case study. Provide a typed response (no more than 1 single-spaced page) to the included questions using the materials we have covered in chapter 10. Feel free to use your lecture notes and book, and to consider concepts outside of chapter 10. Answers will be graded on the application of course content and the two attached rubrics.

The words “Skyhawk” have special meaning for anyone who has ever wanted to learn to fly. At 27 feet long and 8 feet tall, with a 36-foot wingspan, a 140 mph cruising speed, and room for two adults and their luggage, more people have learned to fly with a Higgins than with any other plane in aviation history. In fact, the Skyhawk is the best-selling plane of all time. Clyde Higgins built his first plane in 1911, and Higgins became a storied name in aviation. Higgins built 750 gliders for the army in World War II, introduced the Skyhawk in 1956, produced the first turbo-charged and cabin-pressurized single-engine planes in the 1960s, delivered its first business jet in the 1970s, topped $1 billion in sales in the 1980s, and then, in one of the worst downturns in the history of aviation business, nearly went out of business over the next decade and a half.

Sales of general aviation aircraft, which had topped out at 17,000 planes per year, dropped to 12,000 planes within a year, and over the next decade finally hit rock bottom at 928 planes for the entire industry. During the same time, Higgins’ sales of piston-engine planes, like the Skyhawk, dropped from 8,000 per year to just 600. Higgins was forced to lay off 75 percent of the employees at its piston-engine plane factories (Higgins also makes business jets and larger planes) and eventually stopped making piston-engine planes altogether. However, after the economy improved and the U.S. government approved the General Aviation Revitalization Act (barring product liability lawsuits on any plane over 18 years old), Higgins decided to start building its legendary Skyhawks again.

This is where you come in. With nearly 20 years in the company, your first job with Higgins was teaching Higgins dealers how to service and maintain single-engine planes. But now, with profits flowing again and the company’s legal risk greatly reduced thanks to the Revitalization Act, you’ve been made the vice-president of Higgins’ “new” single-engine business. It’s your job to rebuild this part of the business from the ground up. And because pilots tend to remain loyal to the kind of airplane on which they learned to fly, much depends on your success or failure. If you can rebuild Higgins’ single-engine business, the pilots that learn to fly on today’s Higgins Skyhawks will be buying Higgins business jets 20 years from now.

One of the advantages of starting completely over is that you get to design the entire production facility, from its location, to the new workers, to the suppliers, everything is up for grabs. For instance, Higgins does most of its production in Wichita, Kansas. But since it left the single-engine plane business, Wichita mostly produces a small number of highly customized jets each year, just the opposite of your business, which is a high number of standardized, single-engine planes. So, given the differences, you locate the new single-engine plane factory in Independence, Kansas, two hours away by car, and only 40 minutes away in one of Higgins’ small planes. Along with a new location, you’re debating taking a new approach to manufacturing planes by using production teams. This decision may strike some colleagues as radical, particularly at conservative-minded Higgins where, one of your fellow managers admitted, “we

18

probably got into a mode of doing things for the future based on how we'd always done things in the past.” But the more you think about it, the more you are convinced that it is the right decision. Instead of using a standard production line where each worker does just one task, you are thinking about using teams to assemble Skyhawks and other single-engine planes. In an incredible departure from the engineering-based standards in which the motions of every worker on the assembly line are studied for time, cost, and efficiency implications, production teams would be completely responsible for assembling the planes and for costs and quality.

You expect to see several benefits from a team-based approach, increased customer satisfaction from improved product quality, faster, more efficient production, and higher employee job satisfaction. A few things worry you, however. Despite all of their promise, teams and teamwork are also prone to significant disadvantages. They’re expensive to implement. They require significant training. And they only work about a third of the time they’re used. So, despite their promise, you can’t ignore the reality that using teams would be quite risky for Higgins.

Still, you can’t help thinking that teams could pay off and that there might be ways for you to minimize the risk of failure. For example, because the plant will be in a new location, Independence, Kansas, you get to start with a brand new workforce. What kinds of people should you hire for teamwork? What kinds of skills and experience will they need to succeed in a team environment? If you decide to take the plunge and use teams, how much authority and responsibility should you give them? Should they be limited to just advising management, or should you make them totally responsible for quality, costs, and productivity? Finally, while you’re considering using teams on the assembly line, are there other places in which you might use teams? Not all teams are alike. Maybe there are other places in which teams could contribute to the success of Higgins’s “new” single-engine plane-manufacturing facility?

If you were in charge of Higgins’s “new” single-engine factory, what would you do?

19

Appendix CBIS 101 Memo Assignment

Directions: You are required to summarize what you learned at the end of every rotation. This should be about the hands-on exercises that you completed using SAP. Details on each requirement can be reviewed in the supplement documents. These documents can be located in the Combined Blackboard shell/Course Materials folder/Memo folder.

Step 1: Complete the assigned exercises in SAP.

Step 2: Create a business memo using the OABC writing rules. You should start by writing an outline. Your outline will make your writing more efficient and organized. This memo will have three agenda items, so you will have three headings. The headings must answer the following: What did you do during your rotation and what are two take-aways from the experience? Remember to proofread, make revisions, and proofread again. Use feedback from others to revise and strengthen your report.

Content Requirements: Use simple, concise sentences to tell what you did while completing the exercises. Short sentences are clearer and eliminate the need for punctuation within the sentence. Know and use the three most common comma usage rules when using longer sentences. Supplemental content documents: OABC – How to write a memo using OABC outline Video – Fundamental Writing Rules – Video Lecture – Dr. Nancy Hicks

o NOTE – Dr. Hicks teaches BIS 360 and has graciously allow you to use her video from this class. The video states she will be grading your work but this is incorrect. Your instructor is responsible for grading your submission.

Fundamental Writing Rules – Dr. Nancy Hicks 8 Comma Rules – additional information on comma usage.

Step 3: A business memo has specific formatting requirements. Format Requirements: Use proper block memo format for this assignment. The memo must have single-spaced paragraphs, double spacing between paragraphs, and no indents. Use 11 pt. font and default margins (1”) top, bottom, and side margins. The length requirement is 350 – 400 words. It should fit on one page. Supplemental formatting documents: OABC Memo Report Template

o Example

Step 4: Include your writing statistics at the bottom of your memo. Writing Statistics - How to Compute

Step 5: Review rubric. Upload document to Blackboard. Refer to the grading rubric before submitting your document. Fix issues before submitting.

Rubric – Grading Criteria

20