2015-2016 annual assessment reports nyit …...lifting the corporate veil – by mrs. seham hussein...

Global Academic Programs

2015-2016 Annual Assessment Reports

NYIT Global Campuses P. Burlaud, 07/20/16

Table of Contents

Foreword…………………………………………………………………………………p.2

Abu Dhabi BSBA & MBA, School of Management…………………………………. p.3

• Program Assessment Reports………………………………………… p.3 • Program Assessment Plans.…………………………………………... p.11

BFA in Interior Design, School of Architecture & Design………………………………….. p.12

• Table of Content………………………………………………………… p.13 • NYIT AAID CIDA Standard Four Assessment…………………….. p.14 • Supporting Documents………………………………………………… p.18

Nanjing1 Introduction……………………………………………………………………. p.66-69 BS in Computing Sciences………………….……………………………… p.70 BS in Electrical Engineering……………………………………………… p.81 BSBA, School of Management…………………………………………….. p.99 BFA in Communication Arts………………………………………………. p.120

Vancouver MBA, School of Management……………………………………………… p.126

• Program Assessment Report………………………………………….. p.126

1 All Nanjing program Assessment Reports and Plans are included in each program section.

Foreword

As for the past few years, this 2015-2016 Global Assessment Report evidences the significant work of the Global Assessment Committees at each site (Abu Dhabi, Nanjing and Vancouver) as the tangible result of their past years’ efforts to adhere to, and embark into, the institutional programmatic assessment process overseen by the Office of Planning and Assessment in New York.

It is with great pleasure that this report presents, for each of the NYIT programs taught at its global locations, a complete set of Assessment Report, Assessment Plan and their supporting evidences. This set actually provides the schools with an additional assessment perspective on their program outcomes, and enrich their data collection. It is expected that these reports will be considered as valuable inputs in addition to the ones already collected in New York.

The membership of each 2015-2016 Global Assessment Committee was composed as follows:

Abu Dhabi: - Ahmad Tabbara (Chair)- Garon Wheeler (CAS) [email protected] - Gantasala Prabhakar (SoM) [email protected] - Ravichandran Krishnamurty (SoM) [email protected] - Taha Al-Douri (SoAD) [email protected] - Raed El-Zenaty (Director, IRA) [email protected]

Nanjing: - David Adey (CAS/Physics, Chair) [email protected] - Eun Ho Cho (SoM/Management) [email protected] - Donglin Wang (SoECS/Elec. & Comp. Eng.) [email protected] - Reza Parizi (SoECS/Comp. Science) [email protected] - Patrick Karle (CAS/Comm. Arts) [email protected]

Vancouver: - Sekhar Amba Muni (SoM/ Management, Chair) [email protected] - Sinan Caykoylu (SoM/Business) [email protected]

It is anticipated that the “closing the loop” process will take place at each location during the next academic year 2016-2017.

P. Burlaud,Dean of Operations, Assessment & Accreditations,Global Academic Programs (Academic Affairs)July 20, 2016

2

mailto:[email protected]












NEW YORK INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, ABU DHABI

SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT

Assessment for the BSBA program

Courses considered: LLAW 210 and FINC 201

For the course LLAW 210:

Lifting the corporate veil – by Mrs. Seham Hussein and team (LLAW 210)

Piercing the corporate veil or lifting the corporate veil is a legal decision to treat the rights or duties of a corporation as the rights or liabilities of its shareholders. Usually a corporation is treated as a separate legal person, which is solely responsible for the debts it incurs and the sole beneficiary of the credit it is owed. All countries usually uphold this principle of separate personhood, but in exceptional situations may "pierce" or "lift" the corporate veil. This presentation investigates the circumstances where courts will lift the corporate veil.

Excellent 3

Good 2

Satisfactory 1

Weighted Average

Factor/Aspect of The assignment

No. of evaluations

No. of evaluations

No. of evaluations

Introduction shows where the talk is going

5 2 0 2.71

Body of presentation well organized 6 1 0 2.85

Speaking to the audience 5 2 0 2.71

Clear voice 7 0 0 3

Demeanor of speaker 5 2 0 2.71

Body of presentation well organized 6 1 0 2.85

Kept to 15 minute time limit 6 1 0 2.85

Summary at end 5 2 0 2.71

Overall Weighted Average score: 2.781

3

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shareholder

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personhood

The evaluation was done by seven members, three from the Business Advisory Board, one from the Alumni,

and three from the Student Advisory Board. A three-point scale was utilized that ranged from Excellent

(scored as 3), Good (scored as 2) and Satisfactory (scored as 1).

Overall weighted average was calculated and is 2.781 and weighted average scores were calculated for each

of the eight factors that were considered in the evaluation rubric. The performance of the student team was

good on all the factors and the overall performance on the assignment chosen was found to be good (2.781

from a possible 3 score).

The team presented a comprehensive presentation of piercing the corporate veil. The audience had many

questions about it. According to the BAB Members, the team had the most successful presentation. The

presentation was accompanied by a small video the students made. BAB Members were amazed by how

smoothly our students work on a team.

As a result, the team received the award for the best project. The presentation impressed the audience, and

the discussion lasted for a long time. The conference provided an excellent opportunity to establish and

develop relationships between the students and BAB Members.

4

For the course FINC 201:

Benchmarking using financial performance 'Al Etihad Airways case' – by Mr. Fayez and team (FINC201 'Corporate Finance') “Benchmarks” are financial metrics/ratios/results which show the average ranges of financial performance by companies in a given industry. When we use benchmarks, the main question is: what is the average level of performance for a given ratio/metric in a specific industry? In a way, a benchmark is a scorecard, against which one can assess the relative strength of a company. This presentation investigates 'Al Etihad Airways' financial statements to analyse its current financial performance using ration Analysis. It also calculates the same ratios for its competitor company and compares the same to benchmark Al Etihad Airways' performance.

Excellent

3 Good

2 Satisfactory

1 Weighted Average

Factor/Aspect of The assignment

No. of evaluations

No. of evaluations

No. of evaluations

Introduction shows where the talk is going

5 3 0 2.66

Objective and Methodology 5 4 0 2.55

Reviews organized 6 1 2 2.44

Financial Analysis 6 3 0 2.66

Bench Marking 4 4 1 2.33

Interpretation skills 5 3 1 2.44

Conclusions and recommendations 3 4 2 2.11

Presentation Skill 2 3 4 1.77

Overall Weighted Average score: 2.375

5

The evaluation was done by eight members, three from the Business Advisory Board, one from the Alumni,

and four from the Student Advisory Board. A three-point scale was utilized that ranged from Excellent

(scored as 3), Good (scored as 2) and Satisfactory (scored as 1).

Overall weighted average was calculated and is 2.375 and weighted average scores were calculated for each

of the eight factors that were considered in the evaluation rubric. The performance of the student team was

good on all the factors and the overall performance on the assignment chosen was found to be good (2.375

from a possible 3 score).

6

NEW YORK INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, ABU DHABI

SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT

Assessment for the MBA program

Courses considered: MGMT 620 and MRKT 610

Learning outcome: Learning outcome assessed: Ability of student teams to analyze global issues that corporates operate in.

For the course MGMT 620:

Global Leaders- Barclays Bank – by Mr. Fawad and team (MGMT 620)

The presentation is about analyzing global leadership, motivation of employees and team management in a

Multi-national company. Mr. Fawad will present an insightful analysis and presents recommendations to

improve/maintain leadership, motivation levels of employees and strengthen team work.

Excellent

3 Good

2 Satisfactory

1 Total score Weighted

Average Factor/Aspect of The assignment

No. of evaluations No. of evaluations No. of evaluations

Introduction to The Topic

6 1 0 20 2.85

Analysis of leadership

5 2 0 19 2.71

Analysis of motivation

4 3 0 18 2.57

Discussion on macro-economic Elements in the case

5 2 0 19 2.71

Implication of analysis

4 3 0 18 2.57

Organization of the presentation

5 2 0 19 2.71

Conclusions and recommendations

2 5 0 16 2.28

Presentation skills 4 3 0 18 2.57 147/8 = 18.37 Overall Weighted Average score: 2.625

7

The evaluation was done by seven members, three from the Business Advisory Board, one from the Alumni, and three

from the Student Advisory Board. A three-point scale was utilized that ranged from Excellent (scored as 3), Good

(scored as 2) and Satisfactory (scored as 1).

Overall weighted average was calculated and is 2.625 and weighted average scores were calculated for each of the

eight factors that were considered in the evaluation rubric. The performance of the student team was good on all the

factors and the overall performance on the assignment chosen was found to be good (2.62 from a possible 3 score).

However weighted average scores for four of the factors were lower than the overall weighted average score and are

considered as factors for which suggestions for improvement are presented below.

1. For the factor Analysis of motivation (2.57) in the case study chosen – there is scope for improvement. The

student team chose only one motivation theory and analyzed motivation as a concept from the Barclays Bank

case. The student team could have considered another motivation theory to present a comparative picture

using two divergent theories to explain initiatives at Barclays to motivate their employees and teams.

2. The Business Advisory Board members discussed in the ensuing feedback session that implications of analysis

(2.57) should be elaborated on. The analysis was good with respect to leadership, motivation and teamwork

in Barclays, but the implications could be better discussed if the student team could have chosen another bank

to present comparative practices and their impact on employees as individuals and as teams.

3. The student team’s presentation (2.57) was interesting, they exuded confidence, were vivid and clear. They

could have used better slide layout, employed a few graphics, used more examples and that could captivate

the audience for the entire duration of the presentation.

4. Conclusions and recommendations were good (2.28) but is one area that could be improved the most.

Conclusions must have presented the impact of leadership styles on the turnaround of Barclays bank during

the crisis and post-crisis scenarios using again a comparative approach. The team had the data and analysis

that supported this method of presentation.

8

For the course MRKT 610: Learning outcome assessed: Ability of student teams to analyze global issues that corporates operate in.

MRKT 610 Branding by Angshuman Banerjee and team

This presentation investigates difference between global and local brands in the UAE market. Study explores the brand history consumers’ awareness on COE with an illustration of the Brand Architecture, brand loyalty and brand equity

Excellent

3 Good

2 Satisfactory

1 Total score Weighted

Average Factor/Aspect of The assignment

No. of evaluations

5

No. of evaluations

3

No. of evaluations

1

Profile of the brand with name 25 12 0 37 4.11 History and meaning 20 12 1 33 3.66 Brand name and Logo 25 12 0 37 4.11 Brand association and brand ambassador

15 18 0 33 3.66

Brand Architecture 25 12 0 37 4.11 Country of origin 30 9 0 39 4.33 Eco Brand 20 15 0 35 3.88 Presentation skill 30 9 0 39 4.33 290/9 = 32.22 Overall Weighted Average score: 4.02

The evaluation was done by seven members, three from the Business Advisory Board, one from the Alumni, and three

from the Student Advisory Board. A three-point scale was utilized that ranged from Excellent (scored as 3), Good

(scored as 2) and Satisfactory (scored as 1).

Overall weighted average was calculated and is 4.02 and weighted average scores were calculated for each of the

eight factors that were considered in the evaluation rubric. The performance of the student team was good on all the

factors and the overall performance on the assignment chosen was found to be good (4.02 from a possible 5 score).

However weighted average scores for four of the factors were lower than the overall weighted average score and are

considered as factors for which suggestions for improvement are presented below.

9

The main three areas to be focused and scope for improvement are:

• In depth analysis of the history and meaning of branding ( 3.66)

• Brand Association and Brand ambassador ( 3.66)

• Eco brand ( 3.88)

Improvement: The instructor will encourage students to analysis and do in-depth research on understanding

the history and meaning of brands by providing more brand cases and logos inside the classroom.

Students will be asked to prepare short reports by exploring brand ambassadors associated to each brands

both from local and global markets. Considering the emerging trend of green marketing in class workshops

will be organized to discuss on the emerging Eco-brands in the UAE.

10

ACTION INTERVENTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT

(MBA & BSBA)

1. The main purpose of an informative presentation is to have the audience understand and remember

a certain amount of information. The student team should therefore have two purposes: a general

purpose and a specific one. The former is to inform: to give an overview, to present, to summarize,

to outline; to discuss the current situation or to explain how to do something or how something is

done. The latter is what you want the audience to take away with them after listening to you, what

you want them to do, what they should remember.

2. The student team’s presentation was satisfactory. They could have used better slide layout, used

more examples and that could captivate the audience for the entire duration of the presentation. A

good oral presentation is well structured; this makes it easier for the listener to follow.

3. The student team should have kept the outline simple so 2 or 3 main points are usually enough.

4. The student team should have explained abbreviations and said acronyms giving their full name when

they first mentioned them and be especially careful with the pronunciation.

11

S o A DSCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE

AND DESIGN

A B U D H A B ICIDA STANDARD 4A S S E S S M E N T

12

NEW YORK INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN

MAY 2016NEW YORK INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN

TABLE OF CONTENTS:

1. LettertoPatriciaBurlaud,DeanofOperations,Assessments&AccreditationOfficeofGlobalAcademic Programs

2. NYITAAIDCIDAStandardFourAssessment-FinalOutcomeTable

AAID 160 - FIRST/SECOND YEAR

DSGN 202 - SECOND YEAR

DSGN 301- THIRD YEAR

DSGN 402- FOURTH YEAR

13



Tuesday, May 24th, 2016

TO: Patricia Burlaud, Dean of Operations, Assessments & AccreditationOffice of Global Academic ProgramsNYIT, Tower HouseNorthern Bd, Old Westbury, NY 11568

FROM: Basak Yuksel, Assistant ProfessorNew York Institute of Technology School of Architecture & Design CERT Technology ParkAl-Muroor Road PO Box 5464Abu Dhabi, UAE

Dear Patricia:

The following Assessment Review matrix of Standard four evaluates four courses in the Interior Design School of Archi-tecture and Design Curriculum. The four courses represent each year of progress for a student: Course One being first year and Course Four being fourth year.

The following project end - products have been gathered for assessment:

ProjectsWritten Assignments

Program Assessment ReportNameoftheprogram:SchoolofArchitecture&DesignAbuDhabi(AAID)Bachelors of Fine Arts in Interior DesignYear 2015-2016Draft Assessment report: CIDA Standard 4Date: 05-19, 2015Faculty Participant: Assistant Professor Basak Yuksel Balakrishnan

1.Whichprogramlearningoutcomeshavebeenassessedfortheplannedacademicyear?

Council for Interior Design Accreditation Standard 4Standard4.GlobalContext

Interior designers have a global view and consider social, cultural, economic, and ecological contexts in all aspects of their work. Intent: This standard ensures that graduates are prepared to work in a variety of contexts as well as across geographic, political, social, environmental, cultural, and economic conditions.

StudentLearningExpectationsa) Students are aware that building technology, materials, and construction vary according to geographic location. Student work demonstrates understanding of: b) how social, economic, and cultural contexts inform interior design. c) how environmental responsibility informs the practice of interior design.

ProgramExpectationsThe interior design program provides:

d) exposure to the current and relevant events that are shaping contemporary society and the world. e )exposure to a variety of cultural norms. f) opportunities for developing multi-cultural awareness.

14



2:Whatmeasuringinstrumentswereusedfortheassessment?Grading RubricsNOTE: The Rubric points are NOT dependent on CIDA. CIDA Standards have been applied to the rubric criteria.

3:InconjunctionwithCIDAStandard4,wehavealsoassessedthefollowingstandardinNYITGlobalCompe-tence:Global Perspective/World View: Students gain an understanding of the nature and influence of culture as well as global interdependence. Upon graduation, students will be able to:

1. Recognize that the world consists of people from diverse cultures with different concerns. 2. Identify similarities, differences, and interdependencies among cultures. 3. Describe a complex global issue from multiple cultural perspectives and explain how those perspectives affect the treatment of the issue. 4. Interpret intercultural experience from the perspectives of one’s own and others’ world views to effectively work with others from different cultures.

4.Whatweretheimportantfindings?Howwellstudentsachievedthetargetedlearningoutcomes?

ThescoresachievedrelativetoCIDAstandard4(thecriterionusedtoassessperformancefortheselectedcourses)indicatesresultswellwithintherange.Tobenotedare:

a. The ranges are derived from the rubric results of the selected courses. b. The figures in the schedule correspond to individual assignments within the selected courses (e.g. A1. A2, A3, etc. or projects P1, P2, P3, etc.)

The findings directly point to the skills and sensitivities the students acquired through the selected courses including:

a. Context as a cultural and environmental question. b. Economic constraints and budget. c. Space planning and modification relative to program and location. d. The collective of skills acquired throughout the program as manifested in the students’ work of their Senior Thesis Project.

Weaknesses include:

a. Limited evidence to the students’ exposure to the current and relevant events shaping contemporary society and the world. b. Limited evidence to the students’ exposure to adequate variation in cultural norms. c. Limited evidence of opportunity for developing multi-cultural awareness.

5.Selectactionitemsthefacultybelievesmayenhancestudentlearning.Actiontobetakeninordertoenhancestudents’learningwillbeasfollows:

a. Faculty collaborating toward disseminating global concerns and factors. b. Inter-department meetings where global concerns are outlined and explained to ensure common understanding and agreement among faculty. c. Outlining the project(s) within the curriculum (or respective course syllabi) that most effectively examine global concerns. d. Program-wide direction that faculty must explain, and require awareness of global matters on two levels:

I. As integral to conceptual thinking while surveying, analyzing and designing. II. As a requirement in the course work and submitted material.

6.What’stheassessmentplanfornextacademicyear?CIDAStandard7(usedasamodel)Human-CenteredDesign:Interior designers apply knowledge of human experi-ence and behavior to designing the built environment.

15



NYITSoADAbuDhabiAssessmentReviewStandard4CIDA

Standard4.GlobalContext

Interiordesignershaveaglobalviewandconsidersocial,cultural,economic,andecologicalcontextsinallaspectsoftheir work. Intent: This standard ensures that graduates are prepared to work in a variety of contexts as well as across geographic, political, social, environmental, cultural, and economic conditions.

S t u d e n t Learning Ex-pectations

Students are aware

that building technology, materials, and construction vary according to geographic location

4a 86%

Student work demonstrates un-derstanding of:

how social, economic, and cultural contexts inform interior design 4b 86%

how environmental responsibility informs the practice of interior design. 4c 86%

Program Ex-pectations

The interior design program provides:

exposure to the current and relevant events that are shaping contemporary society and the world.

4d 88%

exposure to a variety of cultural norms. 4e 88%

opportunities for developing multi-cultural awareness. 4f 88%

16



NYITSoADAbuDhabiAssessmentReviewStandard4CIDA

88%Y1/Y2

86%Y2

87%Y3

84%Y4

86 90 88 86 85 91 86 81 90 88 87 83 83 90 87 75

AAID160: Critical Regionalist Buildings in

AbuDhabi

DSGN 201:AffordableHousing

DSGN 301:HomeModification

DSGN 402:Thesis Project

A1 A2 A3 A4 P1 P2 P3 P4 P1 P2 P3 P4 P1 P2 P3 P4

4a 80 80 100 80 87 92 90 82 90 90 87 82 86 91 83 74

4b 76 84 92 92 87 92 90 82 90 90 87 82 86 91 83 74

4c 76 84 92 92 87 92 90 82 90 90 87 82 86 91 83 74

4d 100 100 80 80 77 86 73 77 91 82 84 86 73 86 82 77

4e 100 100 80 80 77 86 73 77 91 82 84 86 73 86 82 77

4f 100 100 80 80 77 86 73 77 91 82 84 86 73 86 82 77

17

YF

IRS

T Y

EA

R

18

1F

IRS

T Y

EA

R

19



FIR

ST

Y

EA

R

AAID 160Introduction to History, Theory, and Criticism in Architecture & Design

20



FIR

ST

YE

AR

Course: AAID 160- Introduction to History, Theory, and Criticism in Architecture & Design

Students prepared presentations for “a Critical Regionalist Building in Abu Dhabi” with visual images (plans, photos, sketches etc) and written/descriptive text about the building and what makes it “Critical Regionalist”.The students submitted A4 presentation booklets in addition to the verbal presentations. There were four groups as listed below:

GROUP1-Assignment1:MasdarInstitutebyFosterArchitectsGROUP2-Assignment2:CentralMarket/SoukbyFosterArchitectsGROUP3-Assignment3:AlBahrTowersbyAedasArchitectsGROUP4-Assignment4:LouvreAbuDhabiMuseumbyJeanNouvelArchitects

21



FIR

ST

Y

EA

R

22



FIR

ST

YE

AR

AAID 160: Introduction to History, Theory, Criticism in Architecture and Design

Assignment1:CriticalRegionalistBuildinginAbuDhabi-MasdarInstitute

Assesment Criteria: Not Yet0

Falls below expected

standard

Beginning30%

Limited un-derstandingof the expect-ed standard

Developing 60%

ApproachesThe expected

Proficient80%

Meets the expected

standard

Exceeds100%

Exceeds the expect-ed

standard1 References 4d

4e4f

10% 10

2 Assignment Content:

2A Information about Critical Regionalism (definition, characteristics) 4a 10% 8

2B Explaining why this building is a Critical Regionalist Building

w/ written and visual examples

4b4c

20% 12

2C Written Information about the building (text)

(When was it built?Where was it built?

Program of the building?Characteristics of the building? Etc)

10% 10

2D Visual Information about The building

(plans, photos)

10% 10

2E Information about the architect of the chosen building

10% 6

2F Site visit 4d4e4f

10% 103 A4 booklet Layout/ Presentation 10% 10

4 In class Presentation 10% 10TOTAL 100% 86

23



FIR

ST

Y

EA

R

24



FIR

ST

YE

AR


Assignment2:CriticalRegionalistBuildinginAbuDhabi-WorldTradeCenterSouk



standard

Beginning30%


Developing 60%


Proficient80%

Meets the expected

standard

Exceeds100%

Exceeds the expected

standard

1 References 4d4e4f

10% 10





4b4c

20% 16




10% 8


(plans, photos)

10% 10


10% 8




25



FIR

ST

Y

EA

R

26



FIR

ST

YE

AR


Assignment3:CriticalRegionalistBuildinginAbuDhabi-AlBahrTowers



standard

Beginning30%


Developing 60%


Proficient80%

Meets the expected

standard

Exceeds100%


standard1 References 4d

4e4f

10% 10





4b4c

20% 20




10% 10


(plans, photos)

10% 8


10% 8




27



FIR

ST

Y

EA

R

28



FIR

ST

YE

AR


Assignment4:CriticalRegionalistBuildinginAbuDhabi-LouvreAbuDhabiMuseum



standard

Beginning30%


Developing 60%


Proficient80%

Meets the expected

standard

Exceeds100%

Exceeds the expected

standard

1 References 4d4e4f

10% 10





4b4c

20% 16




10% 10


(plans, photos)

10% 10


10% 10




29

YS

EC

ON

D Y

EA

R

30

2S

EC

ON

D Y

EA

R

31



SE

CO

ND

Y

EA

R

DSGN 202Interior Design II

32



SE

CO

ND

YE

AR

Course: DSGN 202 – Interior Design II

Students developed projects for Affordable Low Income Housing.The students chose low income groups who live in UAE from different nationalities and each student developed a housing solution for diiferent number of users.

Project1:AffordableHousingforSouthAsianTaxiDriversProject2:AffordableHousingforNepaleseWorkersProject3:AffordableHousingforFilipinaDomesticWorkersProject4:AffordableHousingforSouthAsianSecurityGuards

33



SE

CO

ND

Y

EA

R

34



SE

CO

ND

YE

AR

DSGN 202 Interior Design II

Project1:AffordableHousingforSouthAsianTaxidrivers

Not Yet0


standard

Beginning1


Developing 2


Proficient3

Meets the expected

standard

Exceeds4


standardAnalysis Case Studies 4d

4e4f

4% 2Existing Home Analysis/

Existing Plan/Sections2% 2

Interviews/User definition 4% 4Programming 4% 3

Anthropomorphics 4% 3Prototype Study 4% 3

Concept Conceptual Diagrams 4a4b4c

4% 3

Inspiration/Concept Board 4% 3Design Concept 24% 18

DesignProcess

Bubble Diagrams 4a4b4c

4% 4Adjacency/Area Matrix 4% 4

Blocking Diagrams 4% 4

Presentation Rendered Floor Plans 4a4b4c

4% 4Floor Plans 4% 4

Rendered RCPs 2% 2Rendered Longitudinal

Sections2% 2

Rendered Cross Sections 2% 2Materials and Furniture Board 4% 3

Interior Views-Perspectives 4% 3Axonometric Views-

Revit Model4% 4

Final Graphic Presentation 4% 4Final Verbal Presentation 4% 4

TOTAL 100% 85

35



SE

CO

ND

Y

EA

R

36



SE

CO

ND

YE

AR


Project2:AffordableHousingforNepaleseworkers

Not Yet0


standard

Beginning1


Developing 2


Proficient3

Meets the expected

standard

Exceeds4



4e4f






4% 4


DesignProcess







Sections2% 2



Revit Model4% 4


TOTAL 100% 91

37



SE

CO

ND

Y

EA

R

A101RAZAN FARAH 1797 12/03/2016

RESIDENTIAL SPACE A3INTERIOR DESIGN IIPROFESSOR ADRIENNENYIT

PLANS

A102RAZAN FARAH 1797 12/03/2016

RESIDENTIAL SPACE A3INTERIOR DESIGN IIPROFESSOR ADRIENNENYIT

ELEVATION PERPECTIVES

38



SE

CO

ND

YE

AR


Project3:AffordableHousingforFilipinaDomesticWorkers

Not Yet0


standard

Beginning1


Developing 2


Proficient3

Meets the expected

standard

Exceeds4



4e4f






4% 4


DesignProcess







Sections2% 2



Revit Model4% 4


TOTAL 100% 86

39



SE

CO

ND

Y

EA

R

40



SE

CO

ND

YE

AR


Project4:AffordableHousingforSecurityGuards

Not Yet0


standard

Beginning1


Developing 2


Proficient3

Meets the expected

standard

Exceeds4



4e4f






4% 2


DesignProcess







Sections2% 2



Revit Model4% 4


TOTAL 100% 81

41

YT

HIR

D Y

EA

R

42

3T

HIR

D Y

EA

R

43



TH

IRD

Y

EA

R

DSGN 301ID Problems I

44



TH

IRD

YE

AR

Course:DSGN301-IDProblemsI

Students developed Home Modification Projects for users with specific disabilities. Students chose well known public figures who have a specific disability and modified an existing House based on each individu-al’s needs. They also implemented Sustainability as part of their Third Year Interior Design Studio Project :

Project1:HomeModificationforanAutisticMusicBand(Autistix)Project2:HomeModificationforanactressw/downsyndrome(LaurenPotter)Project3:HomeModificationforanscientistw/wheelchair(StephenHawking)Project3:HomeModificationforamotivationalspeakerw/Phocomelia(NickJamesVujicic)

45



TH

IRD

Y

EA

R

46



TH

IRD

YE

AR

DSGN301InteriorDesignProblemsI:

Project1:HomeModificationforanAutisticMusicBand

Not Yet0


standard

Beginning1


Developing 2


Proficient3

Meets the expected

standard

Exceeds4



4e4f






4% 4


Sustainability 8% 4Universal Design IntegrationBoard (Strategy and Visual

examples)

8% 4

DesignProcess







Sections2% 2



Revit Model4% 4


TOTAL 100% 90

47



TH

IRD

Y

EA

R

48



TH

IRD

YE

AR


Project2:HomeModificationforanActresswithDownSyndrome

Not Yet0


standard

Beginning1


Developing 2


Proficient3

Meets the expected

standard

Exceeds4



4e4f






4% 3



examples)

8% 6

DesignProcess







Sections2% 2



Revit Model4% 4


TOTAL 100% 88

49



TH

IRD

Y

EA

R

50



TH

IRD

YE

AR


Project3:HomeModificationforaScientistw/wheelchair

Not Yet0


standard

Beginning1


Developing 2


Proficient3

Meets the expected

standard

Exceeds4



4e4f






4% 4



examples)

8% 6

DesignProcess







Sections2% 2

Rendered Cross Sections 2% 2Materials and Furniture

Board4% 2


Revit Model4% 4


TOTAL 100% 87

51



TH

IRD

Y

EA

R

52



TH

IRD

YE

AR


Project4:HomeModificationforamotivationalspeakerw/Phocomelia

Not Yet0


standard

Beginning1


Developing 2


Proficient3

Meets the expected

standard

Exceeds4



4e4f






4% 3



examples)

8% 6

DesignProcess







Sections2% 2



Revit Model4% 4


TOTAL 100% 83

53

YF

OU

RT

H Y

EA

R

54

4F

OU

RT

H Y

EA

R

55



FO

UR

TH

YE

AR

DSGN 402Senior Thesis Project

56



FO

UR

TH

YE

AR

Course:DSGN 402- Senior Thesis Project

Students prepared Senior Thesis projects:

Project 1- Museum of EmotionsProject 2- Cultural Center for EgyptProject 3- Museum for African Arts

57



FO

UR

TH

YE

AR

58



FO

UR

TH

YE

AR

DSGN 402 Senior Project in Interior Design:

Project 1: Museum of Emotions

Not Yet0


standard

Beginning1

Limited un-derstanding

of the expected standard

Developing 2

ApproachesThe expect-

ed

Proficient3

Meets the expected

standard

Exceeds4


standard

Analysis Case Studies 4d4e4f






4% 4


DesignProcess







Sections2% 2


Board4% 2


Revit Model4% 2


TOTAL 100% 83

59



FO

UR

TH

YE

AR

MODERN EGYPTIAN

HUB

• Connection between dance, music and the narrative.

• The strongest representation of the Egyptian culture is the Pyramid with its grand triangular form.

• I aim to introduce a new view to the culture to illustrate the different sides of the Egyptian people away from any past stereotype or present media by using that triangular form as my main inspiration.

• Incorporating tradition with contemporary to enrich the experience and help maintain some identity.

Concept Sketches

60



FO

UR

TH

YE

AR


Project 2: Cultural Center for Egypt

Not Yet0


standard

Beginning1



Developing 2


ed

Proficient3

Meets the expected

standard

Exceeds4


standard







4% 3


DesignProcess







Sections2% 2


Board4% 4


Revit Model4% 4


TOTAL 100% 90

61



FO

UR

TH

YE

AR

ART & ANT1-0PPRESS10N:cREAT1VE T00LS F0R L1BERAT10N

c0NCEPT 1MAGES & SKETCHES

S1TE PLAN & EX1ST1NG PLAN

cH0SEN ART1ST PR0F1LE


NTS S0c1AL SUPP0RT cENTER KHAL1FA A

1:200EX1ST1NG FL00R PLAN

1:50RENDERED LEVEL 1 FL00R PLAN

1:100LEVEL 2 FL00R PLAN

1:50RENDERED SEcT10N AA

1:50ELEVAT10N

RANDA BASH1R 1635GRADUAT10N PR0JEcT2016DR. TAHA AL-D0UR1

1:250R00F & S1TE PLAN

1:50ELEVAT10N

1:50ELEVAT10N

1:50ELEVAT10N

1:50RENDERED SEcT10N BB


1:100LEVEL 2 CE1L1NG PLAN



ART & ANT1-0PPRESS10N:cREAT1VE T00LS F0R L1BERAT10N

c0NCEPT 1MAGES & SKETCHES


cH0SEN ART1ST PR0F1LE


NTS S0c1AL SUPP0RT cENTER KHAL1FA A

1:200EX1ST1NG FL00R PLAN



1:50RENDERED SEcT10N AA

1:50ELEVAT10N

RANDA BASH1R 1635GRADUAT10N PR0JEcT2016DR. TAHA AL-D0UR1

1:250R00F & S1TE PLAN

1:50ELEVAT10N

1:50ELEVAT10N

1:50ELEVAT10N

1:50RENDERED SEcT10N BB





62



FO

UR

TH

YE

AR


Project 3: Museum for African Arts

Not Yet0


standard

Beginning1



Developing 2


ed

Proficient3

Meets the expected

standard

Exceeds4


standard







4% 3


DesignProcess







Sections2% 1


Board4% 4


Revit Model4% 4


TOTAL 100% 87

63



FO

UR

TH

YE

AR

64



FO

UR

TH

YE

AR


Project 4: Maritime Center/Spa

Not Yet0


standard

Beginning1



Developing 2


ed

Proficient3

Meets the expected

standard

Exceeds4


standard







4% 3


DesignProcess







Sections2% 2


Board4% 2


Revit Model4% 4


TOTAL 100% 75

65

Nanjing Campus Assessment Committee - Final Report

David Adey (Chair), Eunho Cho (SoM), Patrick Karle (CA),Reza Parizi (CS) and Donglin Wang (ECE)

July 18, 2016

66

Contents

Introduction p. 2

Computer Science p. 4

Electrical Engineering p.15

Management p.33

Communication Arts p.54

167

Introduction

Nanjing campus

This report covers assessment of program goals at the Nanjing campus, where studentsundertake a dual degree program with the Nanjing University of Posts and Telecommuni-cations within the departments of Communication Arts, Computer Science, Electrical andComputer Engineering, and Management, with core syllabus covering additional scienceand humanities topics.

The assessment was carried out across the fall term of 2015 and the spring term of 2016,with final analysis presented to the Nanjing faculty at an assessment day at the end of May

2016.

Assessment undertaken

Each program carried out individual assessment based on the program and course goalswithin their departments, with a single faculty member responsible for each program’sassessment. This naturally involved coordination with their faculty peers and management,and within this assessment committee. The assessments carried out can be summarizedfor each program as follows. The detailed results, analysis and action plans can be foundin the sections for each program.

Computer Science

Investigation of the students ability to test and debug software was performed with auto-mated testing. Students would be required to identify compile- and run-time errors witha section of code, within a specified time limit. Initial issues were found with students’ability to identify run-time errors, although progress was identified through the year.

268

INTRODUCTION

Electrical and Computer Engineering

Students’ ability to apply mathematics, science and engineering was assessed through themedium of quizzes throughout the academic year. Progress was categorized by increasinggrade bands both short-time (within an academic year) and long-term (between academic-years), with long-term progress exceeding short-term progress.

School of Management

The focus was on students’ command of Microsoft Office products, and the ability tocommunicate clearly, analyzed through the medium of questionnaires. A majority reportedthat they were satisfied the program met this goal.

Communication Arts

The Communication Arts assessment focussed on students ability to critically analyzehistorical, social and cultural impact of the media through their strength in identifyingnews values. This was done by a set of quizzes which asked students to identify or prioritizethe indicated news values.

369

Computer Science

470

2. School of Engineering and Computing Sciences- Computer Science (CS)

Contributing Committee Member: Reza M. Parizi

2.1 Testing Program Abilities

Rationale:

Computer Science (CS) is in high demand and is a growing major not only in NYIT-Nanjing but also worldwide. Programming is a must-to-know and lifelong skill to CS students, which plays a vital role in their life during studies and after graduation. In this view, this year learning program outcome assessment broadly includes “An ability to apply programming language concepts such as data models, control structures, language translation, testing and debugging in the development of software systems”.

Based on my experiences and the close observation during programming classes, students often show poor skills in testing and debugging faulty programs. Even changing one part of code or altering one variable to a different scope can leave them in wonder for hours to fix it, or they may never do! Inspired by this observation, I have placed the focus of this year assessment within the chose program outcome on testing and debugging aspect.

Assessment Methodology

An experimental simulation was used to provide faulty Java programs to two groups of student subjects and quantitatively assess their ability in testing and debugging (i.e. assessment aspect). Hence, the main objective was to measure how students’ performance could reflect their ability in terms of the said assessment aspect. The entire assessment was conducted in two separate experiments. The subjects were not given any access to Integrated Development Environment (IDE) tools nor compilers to help identifying bugs in the programs during the execution of experiments. The sessions with each group were embedded in the course materials and were carried out simultaneously to avoid the bias in the results, most importantly the familiarity with the tasks by the participants. The details of experimental process are explained in the following.

Objects (faulty programs):

Two different faulty programs were used in the experiments: • FP1: contains 3 instance of compilation faults (cf1-cf3) and 1 instance of runtime

fault (rf1) — difficulty level from minor-medium• FP2: contains 6 instance of compilation faults (cf1-cf6) and 2 instance of runtime

faults (rf1-rf2) — difficulty level from medium-highThe subjects involved the experiments were not aware of these numbers.

Subjects: • G1: 120 students of Computer Programming I- Fall 2015 (4 cohorts)• G2: 180 students of Computer Programming II- Spring 2016 (6 cohorts)

Dependent variables (data collection metrics):

571

• Number of faults detected (represents the effectiveness aspect of assessment)• Time spent (in mins.) (represents the efficiency aspect of assessment)

To perform the experiments, the whole process (from receiving programs, performing the tasks of detection, collecting data, etc.) was fully automated. In this setup, students who were gathered used a simple Intranet-enabled auxiliary UI (where they have no access to the Internet to seek for possible solutions) to carry out their tasks, within a maximum amount of 45-minute session. To avoid any technical snag and ensure a smooth run through, studentswere briefed on how to use the UI program at the beginning of each session. The design ofthe experiment avoided students from talking to one another or any kind of discussion on thespot. The auxiliary program used came in handy as it automated the experiments, and mostimportantly, facilitated the data collection without any human intervention or a threat to thateffect. Not to mention, the experiment itself was a great learning experience to students, interms of automated point of view and the power of programming in various contexts.

To achieve the objective of the assessment, two different experiments were performed. In the first experiment, G1 received FP1 and they were asked to identify the bugs in this faulty program. This experiment was performed in NYIT-NUPT building #1 in November 2015. In the second experiment, G2 received FP2 to do the same tasks as required in the first experiment. The latter experiment was also carried in NYIT-NUPT building #1 but in April 2016.

Results and Analysis:

Results from the first experiment (G1):

The total number of faults found by G1 in relation to FP1 was 159 (out of 120*4= 480). The results show that approximately 33% of faults were identified in all. From another angle, almost 55% of students (out of 120) could identify 2 compile faults (cf) but less than 10% could identify the runtime fault (rf).

The results related to the second metric are shown in the following table:

Nu

mb

er

of

stu

den

ts

(G1

)

0

22

43

65

86

108

129

Faults

cf1 (FP1) cf2 (FP1) cf3 (FP1) rf1 (FP1)

672

This particular analysis shows that students of G1 have spent 39 minutes as a whole to locate 159 faults correctly. On average, 14.71 seconds was taken each student to locate a single fault.

Overall, G1 students performed quite poorly in debugging faulty programs. This could be due to their background in understanding the logic behind programming languages (i.e. algorithmic design) and poor code analysis skills, which they had basically no exposure to it before starting the program in NYIT.

Results from the second experiment (G2):

The total number of faults found by G2 in relation to FP2 was 603 (out of 180*6= 1080), which is pretty much higher and is promising compared to the first experiment. The results show that approximately 56% of faults were identified. In particular, almost 75% of students (out of 180) could identify 4 compile faults (cf) but less than 30% could identify the 2 runtime faults (rf).

The results related to the second metric are shown in the following table:

As it can be seen from the table, students of G2 have accumulately spent 32 minutes to locate 603 faults correctly, which alone outperforms the performance figure of the first experiment. On average, 3.18 seconds was taken each student to locate a single fault.

#Fault found Time spent (min) Average time spent per fault (s)

159 39 14.71

Nu

mb

er

of

stu

den

ts

(G2

)

0

45

90

135

180

Faults

cf1 (FP2) cf3 (FP2) cf5 (FP2) rf1 (FP2)

#Fault found Time spent (min) Average time spent per fault (s)

603 32 3.18

773

First experiment (G1) vs. second experiment (G2):

To realize what the progress is made over time in students’ learning (with respect to testing and debugging ability), we have additionally compared the results obtained from both the experiments to get some insight into this matter. To this end, we first compared the results in terms of the number of faults found in two different groups (i.e. G1 and G2). Secondly, we compared the results with respect to the time spent by two groups to locate faults. The analyses are shown in the following figures respectively.

The results of this comparison (in the previous figure) show a positive improvement of 22.71% in students’ ability to test and debug faulty programs. This in turn can imply that the teaching strategy and the course materials (e.g. inclusion of more tutorials on program design and planning) have been effective in a sense that they could bring students’ knowledge to a higher level of quality over a short time.

Progress made in fault detection ability

0.00%

15.00%

30.00%

45.00%

60.00%

G1 G2

874

The results of this comparison (in above figure) also show a positive progress of over 70% in time efficiency performed by the students compared to the first experiment, which attests to the students’ learning enhancement and competence of testing and debugging.

Actions and Recommendations:

Below are two of the action items that were implemented based on the last year Assessment Report, which worked very well in the favour of students’ learning. Thus, it is strongly advised to be all implemented in the upcoming academic year as well:

Progress made in time efficiency

0

4

8

12

16

G1 G2

975

I. The class size for programming language courses were reduced to 30 maximum this year and there was a lab assistant available in every class, which was of a great help.

II. All classes took place in the computer lab, which provided students with more opportunities for hands-on experience to reinforce what they have learned in the lectures.

While an attempt to improve the quality of our educational delivery to students is clearly visible, there are still some lingering issues in various areas that require attention and actions. In view of this assessment and its direct and indirect implications, the following summarizes these issues and recommends actions to alleviate for the next year:

1. Freshmen CS background: Many students at the freshmen level seriously lack in prerequisite knowledge (or even CS terminologies) related to programming and most importantly problem-solving skills and algorithmic design. This possibly was one of the underlying reasons that students of G1 did not do well in the first experiment. As my strong recommendation to new Faculty, whenever possible, please explain the algorithmic design and keywords used in the lessons and provide students with definitions and real-world examples to make conscious of their learning. It would be also be very beneficial to CS students if English department collaboratively with CS faulty add CS-specific contents to the ESL sessions. Even much better, if a course such as “fundamental of computer science” could be offered to freshmen students. Such amendments will equip students with competence in a wide range of essential skills when they enter the program, most importantly programming and debugging skill.

2. Infrastructure and facility: We need more computer labs equipped with WIFI Internet, since CS student numbers are increasing every year. One lab is definitely not enough anymore. It is busy all the time (morning to evening), since it is often shared by ECE and CA faculties, and all freshman, sophomore, and junior classes take place in just one lab. As a result, students who want to use the lab in their time (for instance, work on projects, demo prototypes, testbed etc.) often find no free slots available. Having not enough labs is also one of the main reasons that we often get classes scheduled in the evenings, which is very bad timing for learning programming-related courses!

3. Assistantship: the recent implementation of lab assistant availability in programming classes has shown a great positive effect on facilitating student learning (most importantly, improving programming-related skills) and their engagement both inside and outside classrooms. In fact, due to some cultural variables, students feel less scared and shy to talk to an assistant compared to a professor, in case they run into any difficulties during hands-on sessions (not to mention a bit of Chinese translation might come in handy sometimes!). In addition, faculty usually gets caught up with preparing materials, administrative jobs, scholarly works etc. beyond their office hours to attend students. In this case, the availability of an assistant will be great to help the students and accommodate their needs.

1076

It has to be said that, not only computer programming I and II need lab assistants but also other programming-intensive courses such as CSCI 300 Database Management (taught to juniors) involves lots of database programming and hands-on session, which needs a qualified lab assistant to render a good delivery. Having said that, more than one lab assistant should be hired by CS department so that they can actively be present in various courses taking care of the students’ problems in the programming centre/lab in their time.

4. Variety in programming courses: As a technology institute, students should be taughtmore than one programming language throughout their 4 years’ time at the universityso that they can get an exposure to more industrial-strength skills in new areas ofcomputer science and software engineering. This issue was many times raised by CSstudents when they strongly asked me to convey the message to the management forinclusion of more courses and required actions. As such, I would like to suggestincluding two additional important programming courses: “Mobile Development andProgramming”-for the second year; and “Web and Distributed Programming “- for thethird year.

5. Entrepreneurship, talent management and industry tie: It is important to bring out thebest in our students. There will be always talented students in classes who have ideaswanting to be entrepreneurs, but as such do not know how to begin this journey. As afacilitator, I always value their thoughts and try to give them a start. However, is thatenough to help put them on the right track towards nurturing their ideas? AbsolutelyNot! The career services department should possibly have a setup coordinated withCS department in NYIT-Nanjing to work closely with the software industry,companies, funding agencies, etc. to make this happen and bring it to the next level.

2.2 Teamwork Assessment

Introduction

In addition to the chosen program-specific outcome, “teamwork” as one core learning outcome was designated by the Assessment Committee to be examined this year. As a consummate technologist, I would always like to be current and effective with technology use in my teaching. Inspired by this and the part of international push from educational institutes (including NYIT) to use Technology to Improve Student Learning, a qualitative assessment was performed to evaluate a technology-inspired teamwork this year. Specifically, the assessment targets on the adoption of a project management tool (called Asana) used in the projects assigned to several groups to see how it could streamline to move work forward in teamwork.

Asana is a web and mobile application designed to help teams track their work. It was 1

founded in 2008 by Facebook co-founder Dustin Moskovitz and ex-engineer Justin Rosenstein. Asana is an easy way for teams to track their work (from start to finish) and get

https://asana.com/1

1177

results. From tasks and projects to conversations and notifications, powerful enough to run your entire project.

Assessment Methodology

Teamwork was assessed by means of a major group-based project that the students were supposed to carry out based on open topics in CSCI-185 Computer Programming II in spring 2016. Details of this assessment are given in the following.

Project objective: To establish a good understanding and knowledge of all object-oriented topics (i.e. Objects and classes, Inheritance and Polymorphism, Abstract classes and Interfaces, Exception handling, GUI programming and basic Java concept learned) covered in the fifteen-week CSCI-185 course as well as good teamwork. The project description was handed out to 180 students in early April 2016 to be completed in a 7-week time span.

Project Details: Each group to select a domain area that is interested in from the following:

1. Medical/Healthcare 2. Sport 3. Energy Security 4. Transportation and Safety 5. Cyber Crimes and Security 6. Social Media 7. E-learning 8. Board Game 9. Data Science 10. Smart Cities and Life

Based on the chosen domain, each group was required to design and develop a complete system using Java programming language. Prior to starting the project, each group should have proposed a project title and must have obtained permission from the instructor on the proposed project title (done by the group “leader”). It was well communicated to the students that it is very important to know that a proposed project must be authentic and has not been designed or implemented elsewhere (Note: groups could not have the same title or project but the domain areas can be the same!). The project deliverables included a software system, report, and a PowerPoint presentation. Hence, there were 47 groups (maximum of four people) with diversified topics.

Upon approval, groups were supposed to kick off their project while utilizing Asana (its Mobile app preferred) as the management tool to carry out the work. Tutorials and online manual were given to students to ensure everyone knows how to use the tool upfront.

Data collection method: The subjects (47 groups) filled up an online survey questionnaire to investigate the usefulness aspect of Asana in their teamwork (it was conducted in May 2016). The questionnaire was composed of questions with closed answering according to the Likert scale (Oppenheim, 1992), from strongly agree (5) to strongly disagree (1).

1278

Results and Analysis:

We analysed the feedback of the participants, which were collected from the survey. As mentioned earlier, the survey mainly aimed at assessing the quality of the teamwork with the help of the technological tool as well as better understanding of students’ opinions. The average of the responses for each question was compared among all groups. According to the results achieved, the participants were Strongly agreed on Q2, Q5,Q9, Q10 and Q11, as the mean value is around 4.6. For the remaining questions, the responses were Agreed, with approximately, a mean value of 4.2. The following figure summarizes the agreement level of the subjects who participated in this assessment.

The analysis of the results revealed a significant agreement on the usage of the tool and its effectiveness in moving forward teamwork.

Recommendation:

Questionnaire

Id Questions

Q1 Asana establishes people links in team accurately

Q2 Asana is easy to use

Q3 Asana is an user-friendly tool

Q4 Asana is a reliable tool

Q5 Asana reduces time for finding team players

Q6 Asana is helpful for facilitating project management

Q7 The notification information provided by Asana was helpful

Agreement Level

Mean

0

1

2

3

4

5

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11

1379

The results from this particular assessment were very promising and showed an instance of potential interest in adopting new technologies by students. On a personal note, students were so excited to use such technology for the first time in their studies. This was underpinned by their direct and positive feedback during and after assessment. Having said that, it would be generally recommended to future faculty, whenever possible, to embed relevant technology-inspired tools in their course delivery, especially those coursework related to teamwork would be a right fit to give it a go. Hence, my final point concludes to make technology as one slice of your teaching pie.

1480

Electrical and ComputerEngineering

1581

Student Assessment Report 2015-16

3. Electrical and Computer Engineering (ECE)

Contributing Committee Member: Donglin Wang

Description

A. Program Outcome: “An ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and

engineering.”

B. (Partial) Specific Course Contents Regarding Mathematics and Engineering

Knowledge of Mathematics

Integration, derivative, continuous/discrete differential equation, signal

time/amplitude transformation

Calculation based on Unit Step function, Delta function, Sinc

function and Sign function (Singular functions), Convolution

Fourier Series, Fourier Transform, Concave/Convex Optimization

Knowledge of Engineering

Time Domain Representation, Frequency Domain Representation,

Impulse Response, Spectrum and Band, Noise and

In-Phase/Quadrature Representation, Input/Output and System,

Parseval’s Theory, Sampling Theory, Filters and Signal Recovery

Inverting Amplifier, Summing Amplifier, Noninverting Amplifier,

Integrated Circuit Biasing and Active Loads

Multi-Stage Amplifier, Single/Dual-Input Differential Amplifier,

Common-Mode and Differential-Mode Signal, Complementary Output,

Feedback and Stability, Complete Power Amplifier Circuit Analysis

C. Assessment on Short-Term Progress

C1. Measuring Instrument (Evidence Source): Even though the majority of our

EENG courses are on the basis of mathematics, science and engineering, EENG341

Signals and Systems is related more to the mathematics and calculation, while

EENG310 Microelectronics II is related more to the science and engineering

knowledge. So both courses are employed for this assessment.

a). Data source:

- EENG341 Quiz I on Oct.21, 2015, and Midterm on Oct.27, 2015

- EENG310 Quiz I on Oct.22, 2015, and Midterm on Oct.27, 2015

- EENG341 Quiz II on Dec.7, 2015, and Final Exam on Dec.14, 2015

- EENG310 Quiz II on Dec.8, 2015, and Final Exam on Dec.15, 2015

b). Students involved:

- All 2015-16 junior students

- Class 1 through Class 3, i.e. 89 students

c). Number of records in data set:

1682

- Group CI: 89 records for Quiz I and Midterm respectively

- Group CII: 89 records for Quiz II and Final exam respectively

C2. Rubric: Our purpose is to assess the performance of Group CI, the performance

of Group CII, and the progress of Group CII in terms of Group CI. The key feature

of this assessment is given as follows:

a). Small-scale data set

b). Same students

c). Same grading criteria

d). Same Instructor

e). Same courses in Group CI and Group CII

f). Assess the short-term progress (2 months)

In a word, this kind of source is called “Same Source”.

C3. Methodology: Because Group CI and Group CII have a same source, two

methods are used for assessment:

a). Direct comparison based on student scores

b). Indirect comparison based on k-means clustering. This algorithm is to

minimize 2

1 j i

k

j i

i x S

V x

, where i is the

thi cluster center which is

obtained by a dynamic procedure, jx represents the thj score record and the number of

clusters k is equal to 3.

D. Assessment on Long-Term Improvement

D1. Measuring Instrument (Evidence Source): All 1st-year EENG courses and

3rd

-year EENG courses are considered for this assessment. Their performance is

assessed based on final exams. So a comparatively large-scale data set is obtained.

a). Data Source:

- Final exams of all EENG courses for freshmen

- Final exams of all EENG courses for junior students

b). Students involved:

- All 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, and 2015-16 freshmen

- All 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, and 2015-16 junior students

- Several hundreds of different students

c). Number of records in data set:

- Group DI: 781 records based on the final exam of freshmen

- Group DII: 781 records based on the final exam of junior students

D2. Rubric: Our purpose is to assess the improvement of Group DII in terms of

Group DI. The key feature of this assessment is given as follows:

a). Large-scale data set

b). Different students

c). Different grading criteria

d). Different Instructors

e). Completely different courses in Group DI and Group DII

1783

f). Assess the long-term improvement (2 year)

In a word, this kind of source is called “Different Source”.

D3. Methodology: Because Group DI and Group DII have a different source, only

k-means clustering is used for assessment:

a). Indirect comparison based on k-means clustering. This algorithm is to

minimize 2

1 j i

k

j i

i x S

V x

, where i is the

thi cluster center which is

obtained by a dynamic procedure, jx represents the thj score record and the number of

clusters k is from 2 to 6.

E. Findings:

E1. Observation on Short-Term Improvement by using dataset of Group CI and Group

CII

Firstly, let’s directly assess the performance of all 2015-16 junior students on the

course of EENG310 Microelectronics. Based on the Quiz I and Midterm, as shown

Fig.1, 20% students are higher than 90 points, 40% students are higher than 80 points,

62% students are higher than 70 points, and 78% students are higher than 60 points.

Considering the dataset from Quiz II and final exam, as shown in Fig.2, 33% students

are higher than 90 points, 54% students are higher than 80 points, 81% students are

higher than 70 points, and 94% students are higher than 60 points.

Fig. 1 Performance on EENG310 Quiz I and Midterm, where 78% students got a score of 60 above

16%

22%

12%

Performance of Students on EENG310 Quiz I and Midterm

3%3%4%

20%

< 1%

20%

90 - 100

80 - 89

70 - 79

60 - 69

50 - 59

40 - 49

30 - 39

20 - 29

10 - 19

1884

Fig. 2 Performance on EENG310 Quiz II and Final, where 94% students got a score of 60 above

Direct comparison based on student scores only works for the case that all tests

have the same difficulty. However, it is hard to keep an exactly same difficulty for all

tests. So the k-means clustering is used to classify all students into three categories:

Excellent, Ordinary and Unsatisfactory. The test difficulty has no effect on this

method. Fig.3 shows three clusters obtained for Quiz I and Quiz II, respectively, and

Fig.4 shows three clusters obtained for Midterm and Final, respectively.

The red line with the mark of circle represents the Tier I score records of Quiz I and

Midterm I while the red line with the mark of square represents the Tier I score

records of Quiz II and Final; the blue line with the mark of circle represents the Tier II

of Quiz I and Midterm I while the blue line with the mark of square represents the

Tier II of Quiz II and Final; the purple line with the mark of circle represents the Tier

III of Quiz I and Midterm I while the purple line with the mark of square represents

the Tier III of Quiz II and Final. The solid cyan line connects all score records from

Quiz I and Midterm I and the dashed cyan line connects all score records from Quiz II

and Final.

27%

21%

13%

Performance of Students on EENG310 Quiz II and Final

5%< 1%< 1%

33%

90 - 100

80 - 89

70 - 79

60 - 69

50 - 59

40 - 49

30 - 39

1985

Fig. 3 Three clusters obtained for EENG310 Quiz I and Quiz II respectively

Fig. 4 Three clusters obtained for EENG310 for Midterm and Final exam respectively

The number of students in three clusters obtained for EENG310 Quizzes and

Exams is illustrated in Table 1. Based on the performance of students on Quiz I, by

using k-means clustering, there are 44 excellent students, 30 ordinary students and 15

unsatisfactory students. Based on the performance of students on Quiz II, by using

k-means clustering, there are 49 excellent students, 32 ordinary students and 8

unsatisfactory students. Based on the performance of students on Midterm, by using

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 9010

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Indices of Students

Score

K-Means (Three Clusters) on EENG310 Quiz I and Quiz II

QUIZ I: Excellent

QUIZ II: Excellent

QUIZ I: Ordinary

QUIZ II: Ordinary

QUIZ I: Unsatisfactory

QUIZ II: Unsatisfactory

QUIZ I

QUIZ II

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 9040

50

60

70

80

90

100

Indices of Students

Score

K-Means (Three Clusters) on EENG310 Midterm and Final

MIDTERM: Excellent

FINAL: Excellent

MIDTERM: Ordinary

FINAL: Ordinary

MIDTERM: Unsatisfactory

FINAL: Unsatisfactory

MIDTERM

FINAL

2086


unsatisfactory students. Based on the performance of students on Final, by using


unsatisfactory students. Totally, there are 62 excellent students, 71 ordinary students

and 45 unsatisfactory students from Quiz I and Midterm, and there are 67 excellent

students, 74 ordinary students and 37 unsatisfactory students from Quiz II and Final.

EENG310 Excellent Ordinary Unsatisfactory

Quiz I 44 30 15

Quiz II 49 32 8

Midterm 18 41 30

Final 18 42 29

Quiz I/Midterm 62 71 45

Quiz II/Final 67 74 37

Table 1 No. of students in three clusters obtained for EENG310 Quizzes and Exams

Secondly, let’s directly assess the performance of all 2015-16 junior students on the

course of EENG341 Signals and Systems. Based on the Quiz I and Midterm, as

shown Fig.5, 13% students are higher than 90 points, 38% students are higher than 80

points, 64% students are higher than 70 points, and 77% students are higher than 60

points. Considering the dataset from Quiz II and final exam, as shown in Fig.6, 25%

students are higher than 90 points, 53% students are higher than 80 points, 81%

students are higher than 70 points, 96% students are higher than 60 points.

Fig. 5 Performance on EENG341 Quiz I and Midterm, where 77% students got a score of 60 above

13%

26%

14%

Performance of Students on EENG341 Quiz I and Midterm

6%2%2%

25%

13%

90 - 100

80 - 89

70 - 79

60 - 69

50 - 59

40 - 49

30 - 39

20 - 29

2187

Fig. 6 Performance on EENG341 Quiz II and Final, where 96% students got a score of 60 above

Similarly, k-means clustering is used to classify all students into three categories:

Excellent, Ordinary and Unsatisfactory. Fig.7 shows three clusters obtained for

EENG341 Quiz I and Quiz II, respectively, and Fig.8 shows three clusters obtained

for EENG341 Midterm and Final, respectively.

Fig. 7 Three clusters obtained for EENG341 Quiz I and Quiz II respectively

28%

15%

Performance of Students on EENG341 Quiz II and Final

28%

3%1%< 1%

25%

90 - 100

80 - 89

70 - 79

60 - 69

50 - 59

40 - 49

30 - 39

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 9010

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Indices of Students

Score


QUIZ I: Excellent

QUIZ II: Excellent

QUIZ I: Ordinary

QUIZ II: Ordinary



QUIZ I

QUIZ II

2288

Fig. 8 Three clusters obtained for EENG341 Midterm and Final exam respectively

The number of students in three clusters obtained for EENG341 Quizzes and


using k-means clustering, there are 43 excellent students, 31 ordinary students and 15

unsatisfactory students. Based on the performance of students on Quiz II, by using






unsatisfactory students. Totally, there are 69 excellent students, 63 ordinary students

and 46 unsatisfactory students from Quiz I and Midterm, and there are 84 excellent

students, 63 ordinary students and 31 unsatisfactory students from Quiz II and Final.

EENG341 Excellent Ordinary Unsatisfactory

Quiz I 43 31 15

Quiz II 56 26 7

Midterm 26 32 31

Final 28 37 24



Table 2 No. of students in three clusters obtained for EENG341 Quizzes and Exams

Thirdly, let’s consider the EENG341 and EENG310 together. Fig.9 shows three

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 9040

50

60

70

80

90

100

Indices of Students

Score


MIDTERM: Excellent

FINAL: Excellent

MIDTERM: Ordinary

FINAL: Ordinary



MIDTERM

FINAL

2389

clusters obtained for Quiz I and Quiz II of both courses, respectively, and Fig.10

shows three clusters obtained for Midterm and Final of both courses, respectively.

Fig. 9 Three clusters obtained for Quiz I and Quiz II of both courses respectively

Fig. 10 Three clusters obtained for Midterm and Final of both courses respectively

The number of students in three clusters obtained for both courses’ Quizzes and

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 18010

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Indices of Students

Score

K-Means (Three Clusters) on EENG310/EENG341 Quiz I and Quiz II

QUIZ I: Excellent

QUIZ II: Excellent

QUIZ I: Ordinary

QUIZ II: Ordinary



QUIZ I

QUIZ II

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 18040

50

60

70

80

90

100

Indices of Students

Score

K-Means (Three Clusters) on EENG310/EENG341 Midterm and Final

MIDTERM: Excellent

FINAL: Excellent

MIDTERM: Ordinary

FINAL: Ordinary



MIDTERM

FINAL

2490


using k-means clustering, there are 105 excellent students, 52 ordinary students and

21 unsatisfactory students. Based on the performance of students on Quiz II, by using






unsatisfactory students. Totally, there are 133 excellent, 139 ordinary and 84

unsatisfactory students from Quiz I and Midterm, and there are 152 excellent students,

142 ordinary students and 62 unsatisfactory students from Quiz II and Final.

EENG310/EENG341 Excellent Ordinary Unsatisfactory

Quiz I 105 52 21

Quiz II 97 64 17

Midterm 28 87 63

Final 55 78 45



Table 3 No. of students in three clusters obtained for both courses’ Quizzes and Exams

E2. Assessment on Long-Term Improvement by using Group DI and Group DII

As known, direct comparison based on student scores only works for the case that

all tests have the same difficulty. The dataset Group DI and Group DII comes from

totally different courses, different instructors and different criteria. So it is impossible

to have a similar difficulty for all tests. So only the k-means clustering is considered

to classify all students into K categories, where K=2, 3, 4, 5 or 6. Fig.11 shows the

direct plot of 781 score records of both freshmen and junior students

However, it is hard to see the difference. So I further plot the difference between

Group DI and Group DII in Fig.12, where the mean and standard variance of this

difference is found around 6.2 and 16.7 respectively. However, because the source of

Group DI and Group DII is different, it is still hard to clarify the progress. That is why

I propose K-mean clustering for indirect comparison.

2591

Fig. 11 Scores of freshmen and juniors on EENG courses

Fig. 12 Difference of Scores of freshmen and juniors on EENG courses

The k-means clustering is considered to classify all students into two categories:

Excellent students and Ordinary students. Fig.13 shows two clusters obtained for

freshmen and juniors, respectively. No. of students of two clusters is illustrated in

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 80010

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100Statistical Comparison of Freshmen and Junior

Indices of Students

Gra

de

Freshmen

Junior

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800-80

-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

80Statistical Improvement: Mean = 6.1895 and STD = 16.7759

Indices of Students

Diffe

rence o

f G

rades

Junior - Freshmen

Average

2692

Table 4, where there are 516 excellent freshmen and 265 ordinary freshmen, and 556

excellent juniors and 215 ordinary juniors.

Fig. 13 Two clusters obtained for freshmen and juniors, respectively

Excellent Ordinary

Freshmen 516 265

Junior 556 225

Table 4 No. of students in two clusters obtained for freshmen and juniors

The k-means clustering is considered here to classify all students into three

categories: Excellent students, Ordinary students and Unsatisfactory students. Fig.14

shows three clusters obtained for freshmen and juniors, respectively. No. of students

of three clusters is illustrated in Table 5, where there are 312 excellent freshmen, 313

ordinary freshmen and 156 unsatisfactory freshmen, and 389 excellent juniors, 328

ordinary juniors and 64 unsatisfactory juniors.

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 80010

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Indices of Students

Score

K-Means for Two Clusters

Freshmen: Excellent

Junior: Ordinary

Freshmen: Excellent

Junior: Ordinary

2793

Fig. 14 Three clusters obtained for freshmen and juniors, respectively

Excellent Ordinary Unsatisfactory

Freshmen 312 313 156

Junior 389 328 64

Table 5 No. of students in three clusters obtained for freshmen and juniors

The k-means clustering is considered here to classify all students into four

categories: Outstanding students, Excellent students, Ordinary students and

Unsatisfactory students. Fig.15 shows four clusters obtained for freshmen and juniors,

respectively. No. of students of four clusters is illustrated in Table 6, where there are

177 outstanding freshmen, 265 excellent freshmen, 229 ordinary freshmen and 110

unsatisfactory freshmen, and 217 outstanding juniors, 252 excellent juniors, 232

ordinary juniors and 80 unsatisfactory juniors.

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 80010

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Indices of Students

Score

K-Means for Three Clusters

F: Excellent

J: Excellent

F: Ordinary

J: Ordinary

F: Unsatisfactory

J: Unsatisfactory

2894

Fig. 15 Four clusters obtained for freshmen and juniors, respectively

Outstanding Excellent Ordinary Unsatisfactory

Freshmen 177 265 229 110

Junior 217 252 232 80

Table 6 No. of students in four clusters obtained for freshmen and juniors

The k-means clustering is considered here to classify all students into five

categories: Outstanding students, Excellent students, Good students, Ordinary

students and Unsatisfactory students. Fig.16 shows five clusters obtained for freshmen

and juniors, respectively. No. of students of five clusters is illustrated in Table 7,

where there are 156 outstanding freshmen, 179 excellent freshmen, 208 excellent

freshmen, 168 good freshmen and 70 unsatisfactory freshmen, and 186 outstanding

juniors, 254 excellent juniors, 199 good freshmen, 123 ordinary juniors and 19

unsatisfactory juniors.

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 80010

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Indices of Students

Score

K-Means for Four Clusters

F: Outstanding

J: Outstanding

F: Excellent

J: Excellent

F: Ordinary

J: Ordinary

F: Unsatisfactory

J: Unsatisfactory

2995

Fig. 16 Five clusters obtained for freshmen and juniors, respectively

Outstanding Excellent Good Ordinary Unsatisfactory

Freshmen 156 179 208 168 70

Junior 186 254 199 123 19

Fig. 17 No. of students in five clusters obtained for freshmen and juniors

The k-means clustering is considered here to classify all students into six categories:

Outstanding students, Excellent students, Good students, Ordinary students,

Unsatisfactory students and Bad students. Fig.17 shows six clusters obtained for

freshmen and juniors, respectively. No. of students of six clusters is illustrated in

Table 8, where there are 60 outstanding freshmen, 117 excellent freshmen, 189

excellent freshmen, 204 good freshmen, 144 unsatisfactory freshmen and 67 bad

freshmen, and 186 outstanding juniors, 150 excellent juniors, 178 good freshmen, 174

ordinary juniors, 89 unsatisfactory juniors and 4 bad juniors.

In the K-mean clustering, when K increases from 6 to 7, the square error V has a

very small variation. As well known, a bigger K indicates a heavier computation locad.

This means the best K for this dataset is 6.

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 80010

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Indices of Students

Score

K-Means for Five Clusters

F: Outstanding

J: Outstanding

F: Excellent

J: Excellent

F: Good

J: Good

F: Ordinary

J: Ordinary

F: Unsatisfactory

J: Unsatisfactory

3096

Fig. 18 Six clusters obtained for freshmen and juniors, respectively

Outstanding Excellent Good Ordinary Unsatisfactory Bad

Freshmen 60 117 189 204 144 67

Junior 186 150 178 174 89 4

Table 7 No. of students in six clusters obtained for freshmen and juniors

F. Comparison Between Short-Term Progress and Long-Term Progress (K=3)

From Table 8 and Table 9, it is easy to see that the long-term progress is bigger than

the short-term progress, which makes sense. In the long-term progress, the number of

students in Tier I and Tier II is more than that respectively in the short-term progress,

and the number of students in Tier III is less than that in the short-term progress.

EENG310/EENG341 Tier I

Excellent

Tier II

Ordinary

Tier III

Unsatisfactory

Group I

Quiz I/Midterm

37.4% 39.0% 23.6%

Group II

Quiz II/Final

42.7% 39.9% 17.4%

Short-term Progress 5.3% 0.9% -6.2%


0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 80010

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Indices of Students

Score

K-Means for Six Clusters

F: Outstanding

J: Outstanding

F: Excellent

J: Excellent

F: Good

J: Good

F: Ordinary

J: Ordinary

F: Unsatisfactory

J: Unsatisfactory

F: Bad

J: Bad

3197

All Courses Tier I

Excellent

Tier II

Ordinary

Tier III

Unsatisfactory

Group I

Freshmen

39.9% 40.0% 20.1%

Group II

Junior

49.8% 42.0% 8.2%

Long-term Progress 9.9% 2.0% -11.9%


G. Drawbacks and Suggestions

Drawbacks:

This dataset of score records comes from quizzes, midterm and final exams. However,

it is not a professional dataset for assessment.

Suggestion:

- It seems that freshmen need more mathematics exercises to enhance their

capability on math.

- Because dataset is crucial for assessment, I suggest NYIT to organize a

professional team to collect data.

3298


3399


Contributing Committee Member: Eunho Cho (Andy)

Comments

In 2015-16 there were 116 students entering for the year 2015 (Nanjing 90 and Beijing 26). Those students in this degree program at NYIT Nanjing who go to New York for their senior year will receive BSBA Business Administration degree with a concentration in Finance(Nanjing) and Marketing(Beijing).

1. Preparing Reports and Presentations Using MS Office Product

A. Program Learning Outcome:

“Upon graduation students will be expected to prepare reports and presentations using MS-Office Products.” (M204)

B. Measuring Instrument:

10 survey questions ware conducted by Andy Cho, Accounting Professor of SoM (final respondents: 113 out of 116 students). Total 10 questions consist of: 6 questions are scaled from 1 to 5, 2 questions are a multiple choice type, and 2 questions are a qualitative type asking any opinions. Further, GVS data based on SoM Program rubrics designed by the NYIT SoM, a 5-1

point scale (Highest score is 5 and the lowest is 1) was used. GVS data are only based on two subjects (Accounting and Economics) of the 2015 fall semester because 2016 spring semester is not finished yet.

C. Findings :2

WHAT IS GVS: The Goal Validation System (GVS) is an Assessment Tool, designed to capture, store, analyze and 1

report scores used to assess the degree of success in meeting the learning goals for a course, major, or program within the School of Management (SOM). The process begins with the Master Syllabus for a course, which defines a set of specific learning goals and several assignments (Assurance of Learning Validations) which are linked to specific learning goals in various categories. Every instructor teaching assigns scores to each student for each assignment. The scores are downloaded to the Data Warehouse and flexible sets of reports are generated to assess the degree of goal attainment by any sub-unit within SOM. GVS is used routinely on a continual basis by SOM.

Detail analysis is provided in the Appendix A. 2

1

34100

Survey results of question 2 and 3 show that 69% of the respondents agree that our current SoM curriculum help the students achieve the learning outcome (Upon graduation students will be expected to prepare reports and presentations using MS-Office Products). 49% of the respondents are satisfied with their ability to use MS-Office products (e.g. MS Word, Excel, PPT) compared to the time when they enter the NYIT in September 2015. During the 2015 fall semester, the students finished 9 hours Excel special lecture given by Andy Cho, SoM Accounting professor. This lecture may impact their agreement and satisfaction. In contrast, 5 % give the negative opinions on the agreement that our current SoM curriculum help the students achieve the learning outcome. 9.7% of the respondents are not satisfied. Given that they are all freshman who entered NYIT in September 2015, we can assess that they can be more satisfied with their ability to use MS-Office product as they go through more semesters.

The result of M204 (Students will be expected to prepare reports and presentations using MS-Office products.) based on GVS data shows that 56% of the respondents are more than average level, which is likely to be correlated with survey results on agreement on the SoM curriculum and satisfaction on the ability to use MS Office products. That is, there is enough room to improve the students’ ability to improve their ability to use MS-Office products.

D. Action Items:

Excel special training was conducted in the special lecture periods. All students are learning the MS Excel in the computer lab during the class of Accounting. For example, during the 2015 fall semester, the students finished 9 hours Excel special lecture given by Andy Cho, SoM Accounting professor. This lecture may contribute to satisfaction on MS-Office products. In addition, all SoM students are learning the MS Excel in the computer lab during the regular class of Accounting. SoM program also includes the group and individual research activities in the courses including English courses on writing and speech. These Excel lectures, intensive major related research requirements and English courses are highly likely to contribute to the assessment results.

E. Future Assessment Plan:

The SoM recommends that the same LOs be assessed next year to evaluate improvement, to have consistency in measuring tools, and to compare the results. Further, experimental research is recommended to measure the students’ real ability to use MS Office product. That is, the researcher gives them several questions to finish a project using Excel by certain time (e.g. 20 minutes) in the beginning and end of the semester. Then, the results can be compared.

F. Improvements recommended:

2

35101

To enhance the students’ ability to use to prepare reports and presentations using MS-Office products, special Excel class is needed to be conducted especially in the computer lab next semester. More advanced Excel special lecture is needed to be conducted by experts. Furthermore, Power Point special lecture is also needed by experts.

3

36102

2. Communication Ability Assessment

A. Program Learning Outcome:

“Upon graduation students will be expected to communicate clearly and concisely.” (G101-written perspective)

B. Measuring Instrument:

10 survey questions were conducted by Andy Cho, Accounting Professor of SoM (final respondents: 113 out of 116 students). Total 10 questions consist of: 6 questions are scaled from 1 to 5, 2 questions are a multiple choice type, and 2 questions are a qualitative type asking any opinions. Further, GVS data based on SoM Program rubrics designed by the NYIT SoM, a 5-point scale (Highest score is 5 and the lowest is 1) was used. GVS data are only based on two subjects (Accounting and Economics) of the 2015 fall semester because 2016 spring semester is not finished yet.

C. Findings :3

Survey results of question 7 and 8 report that 67% of the respondents agree that our current SoM curriculum help the students achieve the learning outcome (Upon graduation students will be expected to communicate clearly and concisely). 52% of the respondents are satisfied with their ability to communicate clearly and concisely compared to the time when you enter the NYIT, Nanjing, SoM in September, 2015. In contrast, 5.3 % give the negative opinions on the agreement that our current SoM curriculum help the students achieve the learning outcome. 8.8% of the respondents are not satisfied with their ability to communicate clearly and concisely. Given that they are all freshman who entered NYIT in September 2015, we can assess that they can be more satisfied with their ability to communicate clearly and concisely as they finish more semesters.

The result of G101 (Utilize effective written communication to demonstrate knowledge) using GVS data indicates that 67% of the respondents are more than average level, which is also likely to be positively correlated with survey results on agreement on the SoM curriculum and satisfaction on the ability to communicate clearly and concisely. Thus, given that they are all freshman, our faculties have enough room to improve the students’ ability to improve to communicate clearly and concisely.

D. Action Items:

Detail analysis is provided in the Appendix A. 3

4

37103

The SOM in Nanjing has adequate opportunities for exposure, and students should be encouraged to form teams to make presentations and write more reports together. In SoM program, instructors are supposed to include team project and research that are mostly needed to present.

E. Future Assessment Plan:

SOM recommends that next year the same LO and courses be measured and compared with other NYIT campuses.

F. Improvements recommended:

SoM needs to coordinate more with English department to enhance the students’ ability to communicate precisely and concisely in writing and oral. And SoM needs to consider how to enhance the students’ English level that is essential for our program. Inviting Professional Development Speakers and teaching students how to write and speak their reports will be one of the good ideas.

5

38104

(Appendix A)

Contributing Committee Member: Eunho Cho (Andy)

1. Survey data analysis

Comments

In 2015-16 there were 116 students entering for the year 2015 (Nanjing 90 and Beijing 26). Those students in this degree program at NYIT Nanjing who go to New York for their senior year will receive BSBA Business Administration degree with a concentration in Finance(Nanjing) and Marketing(Beijing).

Survey method

We employ the survey method because the GVS data we used last year are not enough to assess our two learning outcomes . To obtain a large enough sample for statistical tests, we include 4

most of Freshman of School of Management (SoM) in Nanjing and Beijing NYIT campus. 116 freshman students (Nanjing 90 and Beijing 26) were solicited to participate in the survey. Our total usable sample size is 113 (88 + 25). We perform two analyses to assess whether our two learning outcome are being achieved through SoM course curriculum, using total samples and separated samples of Nanjing and Beijing, respectively. The questionnaire includes 10 questions as follows: 6 questions are scaled from 1 to 5, 2 questions are a multiple choice type, and 2 questions are qualitative questions asking any opinions.

Survey results

The result of the question 1 indicate that 56% of respondents adopted Frequently (scale 4) or Very Frequently (scale 5), suggesting that majority of the Freshman are using MS-Office products in the courses of SoM. Even though Beijing students (68%) use MS-Office product more than Nanjing students (52%), the level of using Excel is likely to similar if we consider the number of students who adopted Average (scale 3) (Beijing 88% vs. Nanjing 84%).

The GVS data will be additionally analyzed to compare the main analysis based on the survey.4

6

39105

! !

The result of the question 2 show that 69% of the respondents agree that our current SoM curriculum help the students achieve the learning outcome (Upon graduation students will be expected to prepare reports and presentations using MS-Office Products (M204)). During the 2015 fall semester, the students finished 9 hours Excel special lecture given by Andy Cho, SoM Accounting professor. This may impact their agreement. Only 5 % give the negative opinions. Given that they are all freshman who entered NYIT in September 2015, we can assess that our SoM courses of study are going well. Interestingly, Nanjing students (72%) agree more than Beijing students (56%). What are the implications of this result? We think that faculties teaching Accounting and Economics are primarily staying in Nanjing. Thus, Nanjing students have more opportunities to contact the faculties than Beijing students. When they have Marketing major professor mainly staying in Beijing Spring semester of 2017, we expect the Beijing students to have more position opinions on our SoM program.

! !

The result of the question 3 reports that 49% of the respondents are satisfied with their ability to use MS-Office products (e.g. MS Word, Excel, PPT) compared to the time when they enter the NYIT in September 2015. Only 9.7% of the respondents are not satisfied. Given that they are all freshman who entered NYIT in September 2015, we can assess that they can be more satisfied

7

40106

with their ability to use MS-Office product as they go through more semesters. The results of satisfaction for Nanjing students (49%) are very similar to Beijing students (48%). During the 2015 fall semester, the students finished 9 hours Excel special lecture given by Andy Cho, SoM Accounting professor. This may contribute to their satisfaction.

! !

The result of the question 4 indicates that 93% of the respondents want to learn more about MS-Office product in the next semester. The results of desire to learn MS-Office products for Nanjing students (96%) are very similar to Beijing students (92%).

! !

The result of the question 5 describes the other opinions the survey questions do no deal with as follows:

• “I hope to know more about formula in MS Excel.”

• “Hope more classes related to learning MS-office products.”

• “We can have more times to learn in computer room.”

8

41107

• “The frequent use of Microsoft office products benefits us a lot. I hope I can practice more in using Excel.”

The result of the question 6 indicates that 94% of respondents adopted Mostly Agree (scale 4) or Definitely Agree (scale 5), implying that most freshman recognize the importance of clear and concise communication in their future career. The level of agreement for Nanjing students (93%) is similar to Beijing students (96%). This result also shows that the students read this survey questions carefully, making this data more reliable.

! !

The result of the question 7 shows that 67% of the respondents agree that our current SoM curriculum help the students achieve the learning outcome (Upon graduation students will be expected to communicate clearly and concisely). Only 5.3 % give the negative opinions. Given that they are all freshman who entered NYIT in September 2015, we can assess that our SoM courses of study are going well. Interestingly, Nanjing students (71%) agree more than Beijing students (56%). Why? First, faculties teaching Accounting and Economics are primarily staying in Nanjing. Thus, Nanjing students have more opportunities to talk to the faculties than Beijing students. When they have Marketing major professor mainly staying in Beijing at spring semester of 2017, we expect the Beijing students to have more position opinions on our SoM program. Second, Nanjing students’ major is Finance, whereas Beijing students’ major is Marketing. Thus, considering that Accounting course is more related to Finance Subject, Beijing students need to wait to learn Marketing major related subjects. Then, Beijing students’ agreement level will increase in the future.

9

42108

! !

The result of the question 8 reports that 52% of the respondents are satisfied with their ability to communicate clearly and concisely compared to the time when you enter the NYIT, Nanjing, SoM in September, 2015. Only 8.8% of the respondents are not satisfied. Given that they are all freshman who entered NYIT in September 2015, we can assess that they can be more satisfied with their ability to communicate clearly and concisely as they finish more semesters. The level of satisfaction for Nanjing students (53%) is similar to Beijing students (48%).

! !

The result of the question 9 indicates that most students like to study more to communicate clearly and concisely by group or individual project and homework. Interestingly, they do not choose a specific study method as the best method.

10

43109

!

The result of the question 10 describes the other opinions the survey questions do no deal with as follows:

• “I want to have more opportunities to improve spoken English.”

• “Perhaps we could invite some native American students so that we could havemore chances to speak English.”

• “More class discussion is very important.”

• “Communicate more with the foreigners.”

• “Reduce some writing procedures and talk more.”

• “Have more speech class.”

Summary of survey data

11

44110

!

12

45111

2. GVS data analysis

Comments

Additionally, we conducted the analysis based on GVS data evaluated by instructors for the students’ performance on learning outcomes. This data are only based on the 2015 fall semester because 2016 spring semester is not finished yet. In 2015-16 there were 116 students entering for the year 2015 (Nanjing 90 and Beijing 26). Those students in this degree program at NYIT Nanjing who go to New York for their senior year will receive BSBA Business Administration degree with a concentration in Finance(Nanjing) and Marketing(Beijing).

Method

GVS data based on SoM Program rubrics designed by the NYIT SoM, a 5-point scale (Highest 5

score is 5 and the lowest is 1) was used. GVS data are only based on two subjects (Accounting and Economics) of the 2015 fall semester because 2016 spring semester is not finished yet.

GVS data analysis results

The result of M204 (Students will be expected to prepare reports and presentations using MS-Office products.) shows that 56% of the respondents are more than average level, which is likely to be correlated with survey results on agreement on the SoM curriculum and satisfaction on the ability to use MS Office products. There is no significant difference between Beijing and Nanjing students. We can find that there is enough room to improve the students’ ability to improve their ability to use MS-Office products.

WHAT IS GVS: The Goal Validation System (GVS) is an Assessment Tool, designed to capture, store, analyze and 5

report scores used to assess the degree of success in meeting the learning goals for a course, major, or program within the School of Management (SOM). The process begins with the Master Syllabus for a course, which defines a set of specific learning goals and several assignments (Assurance of Learning Validations) which are linked to specific learning goals in various categories. Every instructor teaching assigns scores to each student for each assignment. The scores are downloaded to the Data Warehouse and flexible sets of reports are generated to assess the degree of goal attainment by any sub-unit within SOM. GVS is used routinely on a continual basis by SOM.

13

46112

! !

The result of G101 (Utilize effective written communication to demonstrate knowledge) indicates that 67% of the respondents are more than average level, which is also likely to be correlated with survey results on agreement on the SoM curriculum and satisfaction on the ability to communicate clearly and concisely. There is no significant difference between Beijing and Nanjing students. Thus, given that they are all freshman, our faculties have enough room to improve the students’ ability to improve to communicate clearly and concisely.

! !

Summary data of GVS data analysis

14

47113

!

15

48114

(Sample of Survey Questionnaire)

Program Learning Objective Survey_2016_Spring Semester

This survey will be conducted for the purpose of assessing the program learning outcome. The main purpose of this survey is to assess the opinion of all the students from Freshman of School of Management(SoM) regarding the two learning outcome SoM selected, which are two of the most important learning outcomes. This survey will be conducted only for the use of assessing and developing the SoM learning program in the future. Thus, the students’ frank opinion is very important. It does not require your name and student number. This survey does not affect your grade at all. Please take time and give your valuable opinion to this survey. It will take about 10 or 15 minutes. Thank you for your time.

▬ I am a ❶male / ❷female student.

First program learning outcome:

“Upon graduation students will be expected to prepare reports and presentations using MS-Office Products.”

Q1. How much do you use MS-Office Products in the courses of homework, project, and study?

Q2. Do you agree that our current SoM curriculum or courses of study help you achieve this first learning outcome?

!

16

49115

Q3. At present, how much are you satisfied with your ability to use MS-Office products (e.g. MS word, Excel, PPT) compared to the time when you enter the NYIT, Nanjing, SoM in September, 2015.

!

Q4. In the next semester, which software do you like to learn more to prepare reports and presentations using MS-Office Products?

❶MS Word ❷MS Excel ❸MS Power Point ❹Others (Specify: )

Q5. If you have any other opinions regarding the first learning outcome, write it down in the below box.

18

50116

Second program learning outcome:

“Upon graduation students will be expected to communicate clearly and concisely.”

Q6. How much do you agree that it is very important to communicate clearly and concisely upon graduation in your future career?

Q7. How much do you agree that our current SoM curriculum or courses of study help you achieve this second learning outcome to communicate clearly and concisely?

!

19

51117

Q8. At present, how much are you satisfied with your ability to communicate clearly and concisely compared to the time when you enter the NYIT, Nanjing, SoM in September, 2015.

!

Q9. In the next semester, which course do you like to study more to communicate clearly and concisely?

❶Group research project ❷ Individual research project ❸Group homework ❹ Individual homework ❺Others (Specify: )

Q10. If you have any other opinions regarding the second learning outcome to communicate clearly and concisely, write it down in the below box.

20

52118

Sample of Rubrics

RUBRICS for M204

RUBRICS for G101

END.

21

53119

Communication Arts

54120

Communication Arts Outcome Assessment for 2015-16 Academic Year: News Values

Global Outcome for CA Students: “Upon graduation, Communication Arts students will be able to critically analyze historical, social, and cultural impact of the media on our global society.”

Theoretical and Pedagogical Considerations: The NYIT-NUPT Communication Arts (CA) faculty felt demonstrating an acceptable level of understanding how to read, critically analyze and interpret global news according to generally accepted news values is an important component of the CA program’s outcome.

Understanding news criteria (i.e. what makes information newsworthy) is an important step in the Communication Arts (CA) students’ education; therefore, we chose this year to attempt to measure and evaluate the CA students’ news judgement.

Teaching News Values in the CA Curriculum: News values are currently taught in the following freshman, sophomore, and junior CA classes at NYIT-NUPT:

• Introduction to Mass Communication COMM 101

• Journalism 101

• Advertising 101

• Public Relations 101

• COMM 240 Writing for the Mass Media

• News values are also taught Television Production and Digital Media Courses

0%

8%

15%

23%

30%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

23%

13%

23%28%

9%3%

55121

Definition of News Values: British TV journalist Owen Spencer-Thomas defines news values as “general guidelines or criteria used by newspapers or TV stations to determine how much prominence to give to a story. They are fundamental to understanding news production and the choices that editors and other journalists face when deciding that one piece of information is news while another is not.” 1

There are elements essential to every good news story, but news editors apply many standard news values use to evaluate news. Gerald Lanson and Mitchell Stephens, authors of Writing and Reporting The News, emphasize the following judgments that news editors, and journalism students, should make when evaluating newsworthiness. 2

• Impact: Facts that have the greatest effect on the audience are the mostnewsworthy.

• Weight: The significance of a particular fact or event lies in its value withrespect to other facts or events.

• Timeliness: Emphasize what is new. (Time makes the difference between news andhistory.)

• Prominence: More prominent individuals are given more attention

• Proximity: Concentrate on local news. The closer the home the better. home thebetter

• Conflict/Controversy: Arguments, debates, charges, countercharges, and fightsincrease the value of news.

• The Unusual: When a dog bites a man it's not news. But when a man bites adog, it is news.

• Currency: Take into account what’s on peoples’ mind. Tie local news to a globalissue.

• Emotion: Take into account human interests that touch our emotions.

The 2015-16 Assessment Goal: We were looking to establish an acceptable baseline in news values for students in the NYIT-Nanjing CA program, and decided 70 percent was an acceptable baseline.

Throughout the 2015-16 assessment process, the CA faculty regularly consulted with each other and fellow members of the College of Arts and Sciences (CAS) and 2015-16 Outcome Assessment Committee colleagues regarding various points of expertise.

Measuring Instrument/Evidence Source: A 30-question news values survey (adjusted to 100 percent) based on various examples of news values was

56122

administered in April 2016 to 86 CA majors in freshman, sophomore, and junior classes.

The survey measured students’ knowledge of news values—For example: how well they evaluated and determined important facts in a news event according to news values, including Impact, Timeliness, Prominence, Proximity, Conflict, and so on.

There were four sections to the survey 1) Defining News Values; 2) Using News Values to Evaluate a News Lead; 3) Testing News Judgement; and 4) Identifying Common News Characteristic or Trends in News Judgement. Each used a different testing pattern/objective. All (86) students in the NYIT-NUPT CA major were tested.

Scoring Rubrics: Each section was based on a seminal work by journalism academics used to evaluate students on their knowledge of news values.

Section 1 Defining News Values: Definitions of news criteria were derived from Lanson and Stephens, authors of “Writing and Reporting the News.” Retrieved April 2, 2016 from

http://faculty.georgetown.edu/bassr/511/projects/letham/final/values.htm

Sections 2 Using News Values to Evaluate a News Lead & 3) Testing News Judgement: Sample news leads were informed by and based on descriptions and examples of news leads found in James Stovall’s excellent text “Journalism: Who, What When, Where, Why and How?” Stovall was used as the JOUR 101 course text in NYIT-Nanjing from 2011-2014.

Section 4 Identifying Common News Characteristic or Trends in News Judgement: Answer were derived from statements found in Owen Spencer-Thomas,’ What Are News Values? In Owen Spencer-Thomas’ Personal Website. Retrieved April 2, 2016, from http://www.owenspencer-thomas.com/.

Results: Approximately 40 percent of the 86 CA majors scored 70 percent or higher, 23 percent scored between 60-70 percent, 13 percent scored from 50 to 60 percent, while 23 percent below 50 percent (See Figure.)

In May 2016, the two full-time CA faculty met and held a norming session to discuss and analyze the survey data. We reached a consensus that 70 percent was an acceptable benchmark, based on the resulting distribution of student scores.

Action Plan: We spend considerable time teaching our students how to read, analyze and interpret global news, not just in journalism, but in other courses we teach. Therefore, CA faculty need to work together across the curriculum to:

• Provide ongoing news reading and analysis across the entire CA curriculumincluding standard news criteria in Journalism, Public Relations and Advertisingcourses;

57123

• Broaden and strengthen study of visual news values in the film, video anddigital media courses, especially in relation to current use of digital videohardware and software, social media and the Internet.

Faculty Research Interests in News Values: Because we should constantly evaluate our own methods and materials for teaching students news values and judgement, CA faculty should continue researching, teaching and testing students’ to improve their understanding of news and principles and application of those concepts and principles to real-world situations.

• CA faculty should actively research developing data of news mediacommunication technologies, of public relations, advertising, social marketing,video production, visual journalism and develop areas of expertise.

• We look to NYIT’s generous support for these projects, helping us contribute toNYIT’s considerable expertise in global, cross-cultural media management atNYIT-NUPT.

A Final Recommendation: The area of global news values is a rich area for Journalism/Mass Communications research. One recommendation that came out of our norming session is that we would like to expand our knowledge base in a global NYIT research project in Teaching Global News Values by sharing the NYIT-NUPT News Values survey with Communication Arts faculty and their students in NYIT New York and other NYIT global campuses. We can then compare the global data to see if cultural differences exist in the global evaluation of news and publish the results in refereed journals of Journalism/Mass Communication.

References:

1Spencer-Thomas, O. (2009, March 31. Updated 2013, September 18.) What Are News Values? In Owen Spencer-Thomas’ Personal Website. Retrieved April 2, 2016, from http://www.owenspencer-thomas.com/.

Lanson, G. and Stephens. (1994.) Writing and Reporting The News. Fort Worth: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc. Retrieved April 2, 2016 from http://faculty.georgetown.edu/bassr/511/projects/letham/final/values.htm

58124

Dr Sekhar Amba

Department Assessment Director

SOM –NYIT Vancouver.

1st June 2016

NYIT – School of Management Vancouver

MBA Learning Goal Assessment report School Year 2015 -16

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

SOM -NYIT Vancouver targeted to improve scores on learning goals MBA 2G for the year 2015-2016.

Enhancing the scores of MBA 2G is of paramount important as it pertains to business data analysis and business

communication in the context of socio-economic issues in an uncertain global environment upholding business

ethos.

One to one faculty GVS system orientation / consultation was held in Fall 2015. The scores for the AY 2015-16

are compiled. SOM –NYIT Vancouver has reported a significant improvement in MBA 2G score as it is

evident from table below. As part of continuous improvement plan for AY 2016-17 targeted learning goals will

be identified during summer 2016 DAD retreat.

The following courses were run during AY 2015-16:

AACT 610, ACCT 721, BUSIE 702,ECON 610, ECON 620,FINC 610, FINC 620,FINC 734 , MGMT 620,

MGMT 630, MGMT 650, MGMT 735, MGMT 740,MGMT 785 MIST 610 , MRKT 610 MRKT 715,MRKT

745,MRKT 765, QANT 610, QANT 620,SBES 601, SBES 710.

MBA General / Management Learning goals score for AY 2015-16

Learning Goal

Vancouver Fall

2015

Vancouver Spring 2016

All Campuses

AY 2015-16

Vancouver AY

2014-15

MBA 1G: Work collaboratively in groups. 4.07 4.35 3.67 3.85

MBA 2G: Recognize socio-economic issues, and establish and define a position supported by ethical reasoning

3.78 3.18

2.98

2.70

MBA 3G: Lead effectively, particularly in an uncertain global environment.

3.59 3.81

3.42

3.97

MBA1M: Utilize technology support systems to strength organizational decision process.

4.19 3.81

3.67

4.11

MBA 2M: Conduct industry, company specific or environmental business analysis using appropriate data and informational resources to bridge the gap between abstract theory and practice.

3.99 3.91

3.57

3.64

MBA 3M: Identify and analyze country / region-specific contemporary business issues; establish and effectively communicate and support recommendations.

3.71 3.65

3.39

3.50

125