nicolais school of business administration paul scrocco...

Nicolais School of Business Administration

Assessment Report 2016-17

Dr. Donald L. Crooks, Chair

Prepared by:

Dr. Joseph Ferrantelli, Director of Assessment

Prof. Ian Wise, Associate Director of Assessment

Dr. Shani D. Carter, Director of Accreditation

Paul Scrocco, Graduate Assistant, MBA Candidate

2

Table of Contents

What are the learning goals and specific learning outcomes for the students in the Nicolais School of

Business? ...................................................................................................................................................... 3

How are learning goals/outcomes made evident and discussed with students? ............................................ 3

a. At the department or academic program level? ........................................................................... 3

b. At the course level? ...................................................................................................................... 3

Provide data that documents assessment of department/major student learning goals. Include any relevant

assessment data of General Education goals. ................................................................................................ 4

Section 1: Undergraduate Data ..................................................................................................................... 4

Comp-XM Scores: ........................................................................................................................... 4

Class Standing ............................................................................................................................................... 6

Balanced Scorecard Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 7

Class Functional Scores ................................................................................................................................ 8

Assurance of Learning Goals ...................................................................................................................... 10

General Learning Goals .............................................................................................................................. 11

Undergraduate Oral Communication .......................................................................................................... 13

Undergraduate Written Communication ..................................................................................................... 16

Undergraduate Excel Project ...................................................................................................................... 18

Undergraduate Exit Survey ......................................................................................................................... 18

Internship Program/Employer Survey ........................................................................................................ 24

Section 2: Graduate Data ............................................................................................................................ 26

Comp-XM Scores .......................................................................................................................... 26

Class Standing ............................................................................................................................................. 27

Balanced Scorecard Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 28

Class Functional Scores .............................................................................................................................. 29

Assurance of Learning Goals ...................................................................................................................... 31

General Learning Goals .............................................................................................................................. 32

Graduate Oral Communication ................................................................................................................... 34

Graduate Written Communication .............................................................................................................. 36

Graduate Excel Project ............................................................................................................................... 38

Graduate Survey Data ................................................................................................................................. 39

Comprehensive Accounting Instrument ...................................................................................................... 53

Describe curricular and/or pedagogical changes made during the year based on assessment results from

the current or previous years. ...................................................................................................................... 56

Changes that have been implemented and/or are in progress which were initiated by data ....................... 57

Describe curricular and/or pedagogical changes desired or being planned, if needed or as indicated by

assessment results from prior years. ........................................................................................................... 57

Changes that have been implemented and/or are in continuous improvement mode ................................. 58

Appendix

Oral Presentation Rubric ............................................................................................................................. 59

Old Written Rubric ..................................................................................................................................... 60

Written Rubirc ............................................................................................................................................ 61

Excel Project Rubric ................................................................................................................................... 62

Undergraduate Survey ................................................................................................................................ 63

Traditional MBA Graduate Survey ............................................................................................................. 65

Employer Survey ........................................................................................................................................ 70

Syllabus Template ....................................................................................................................................... 71

3

What are the learning goals and specific learning outcomes for the students in the Nicolais

School of Business?

The Nicolais School of Business Department’s goal is to provide the academic and practical

skills necessary to enhance business knowledge at all learning levels. Students will develop their

understanding of business concepts and theories necessary for success in the real-world. Students

prepare to be effective communicators via oral and written presentations and the subsequent

critical feedback provided by instructors. Throughout their degree program, professors challenge

students with solving the business problems of the day to develop critical thinking, quantitative,

and decision-making skills necessary in today’s business environment. We believe that it is

imperative for our students to be able to implement effective actions based upon the synthesis of

the data presented to them.

By graduation, a Business major will demonstrate:

An enhanced knowledge of the relationship between business and economy

Mastery of key concepts and skills in business areas: accounting, finance, management,

and marketing

How to use quantitative methods to analyze and describe key business issues

How to conduct empirical study and report the results effectually and professionally

How are learning goals/outcomes made evident and discussed with students?

a. At the department or academic program level?

b. At the course level?

The Nicolais School of Business faculty voted to implement learning/assessment tools at the

course level several years ago to help students improve oral and written skills with the addition

of rubrics to all oral and written presentations. Students receive copies of the rubrics explaining

their grade construct. Business faculty submits copies to the Department’s Administrative

Assistant, and the data is included in the cumulative data files to provide quantitative assessment

data for the department. The graded oral and written rubrics are given to students as feedback to

help them improve their verbal and written skills. Copies of rubrics are in the Appendix.

Seniors and Traditional MBA students take the Comp-XM® exam. This exam is part of their

Capstone course and the final assessment for the Capsim® Virtual Simulation where students

run a 100 million dollar corporation with five segmented products and compete against as many

as five teams. The Comp-XM® measures the following seven assurance of learning skills gained

over the four years of matriculation for undergraduate and Traditional MBA students:

Analytical and Quantitative Skills

Critical-thinking and Decision-making skills

Functional Knowledge Application Skills

Teamwork and Leadership Skills

Ethics, Legal, and Social Responsibility Skills

Business Communication Skills

Cultural Competence skills

4

Provide data that documents assessment of department/major student learning goals.

Include any relevant assessment data of General Education goals.

Section 1: Undergraduate Data

Department Learning Goals

CompXM Exam Department Rubrics




Business Acumen and

Business Knowledge Written Oral Excel

An enhanced knowledge of the relationship between business and economy

Mastery of key concepts and skills in business areas: accounting, finance, management, and marketing

How to use quantitative methods to analyze and describe key business issues

How to conduct empirical study and report the results effectually and professionally

Comp-XM Scores

Up to the Spring of 2017, all Comp-XM® exams have a maximum score of 1000 points. 1000

points only cover the first three assurance of learning skills and are highlighted in this report

(i.e., Analytical and Quantitative Skills; Critical-thinking and Decision-making skills; Functional

Knowledge Application Skills). In the Fall of 2017, all Comp-XM® exams will have a

maximum score of 1200 points, which will cover all seven assurance of learning skills. Comp-

SM® also measures Business Acumen (simulation performance scores) and Business

Knowledge (theory knowledge scores)

Since the Fall of 2014, students have been required to take an undergraduate Management Lab

(MG 201L) coupled with MG 201. MG 201L provides students with the ability to enhance

practical application of management practices by managing a business enterprise via the

Foundation® on-line simulation. Foundation® is a comprehensive hands-on experience in how

business works in practice. Starting in Fall of 2017, students will take the Comp-XM® as part of

their final assessment for this lab, setting the stage for comparative assurance of learning data,

within the next two years, for each graduating senior when they complete the Comp-XM® exam

in MG 401.

5

The Masters of Science in Accounting has its assessment tools, which is different from the

MBA’s. They include a comprehensive accounting instrument, which is a cumulative accounting

exam. This exam has a satisfaction target score which has been set by Dr. Margaret H. Horan at

55. of a maximum of 100. The department is considering increasing the cutoff score

The Nicolais School of Business faculty has procedures in place to gather useful critical data

from our stakeholders. We have made several changes to our overall curriculum in the past four

years based on the advisement and encouragement of our various groups. For example:

Student Advisory Committee (SAC)

comprised of undergraduate students from all grade levels. This committee meets twice

each semester and shares results at department meetings. Many initiatives have been

reviewed, vetted, and enacted with a turnaround time of one semester. Several student

suggestions were accepted by the department for incorporation into our undergraduate

program such as the decoupling of the two Senior LC classes allowing students more

flexibility with internships and help students dedicate more time for the Capstone course.

Professional Advisory Committee (PAC)

is entirely populated by Adjunct faculty. By being connected to the professional world on

a daily basis, the PAC has provided critical insight into the direction of our program.

Adjunct faculty are encouraged to attend every department meeting.

Graduate Student Advisory Committee (GSAC)

was formed in 2014. This group meets in person annually and virtually multiple times

per year. This committee will eventually play a critical role in shaping our graduate

programs going forward.

BAC – Business Advisor Committee

consists of all students who graduate with a business or accounting degree are

automatically enrolled in the Business Advisory Committee, receive newsletter updates

every semester, and gave the opportunity to provide feedback as alumni.

Ex-BAC – Executive Business Advisory Council

10 to 12 high ranking individuals who are available on an as needed basis to review

program material

Provide data that documents assessment of department/major student learning goals.

Include any relevant assessment data of General Education goals.

Section 1: Undergraduate Data

Comp-XM Scores:

What follows are the results of the Comp-XM® testing data of undergraduate business students

for the past five years. Figure 1.1 represents the average score for all students taking the Comp-

XM® exam in a given year for a five-year span. Test scores declined by 6.5 percent in 2016-17

over the previous year. The five-year average is 713 of 1000. These results indicate that there are

areas in the curriculum that need improvement, and detail regarding areas that should be

improved are addressed in the following pages.

6

Figure 1.1. Average Comp-XM® Scores for BU401, 2012 to 2017.

Class Standing:

Each class is a sample from the larger group of their peers (undergraduate, graduate, etc.), all

business students taking Comp-XM®. The class median percentile is our students placing for

overall business acumen and business knowledge among their peers internationally. Figure 1.2

shows the average class median percentile for business acumen and business knowledge for

years 2012 to 2017. For the past five years, our student’s percentile score has fluctuated, but

have consistently been above the majority of their international peers based on business

knowledge for the last five years and business acumen for the past three years.

Figure 1.2. Average Class Median Percentile for Business Acumen and Business Knowledge

2012 – 17.

695 676765 738 690

0

500

1000

2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

Average Comp-XM® ScoresBU4012012-2017

48 48

7668 64

76

65

80 8176

Class MedianPercentile





2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

Class Median Percentiles for Business Acumen and Knowledge, BU401, 2012 to 2017

Overall Simulation Result (Business Acumen)

Overall Board Query (Business Knowledge)

7

Balanced Scorecard Analysis In Figure 1.3, Wagner student’s class average scores are compared to the international average of

all business students, undergraduate, graduate, etc., taking the Comp-XM® exam. The first

comparative heading is “Financial,” which includes an analysis of emergency loans, leverage,

market cap, profits, sales stock price. Next is “Internal Business Process,” which analyzes

contribution margin, days of working capital, inventory carrying costs, operating profit, plant

utilization and stock-out costs. For Financial and Internal, Wagner student scores have been

consistently about 20% above international average scores, but the Wagner scores have declined

by about 10% from 2015 to 2017.

Figure 1.3. Balanced Scorecard Analysis. Class vs. International Average 2012 - 17.

Next is “Customer,” which analyzes customer accessibility, customer awareness, market share,

customer buying criteria, product count, SG&A expenses, and weighted average customer survey

score. Lastly is “Learning and Growth,” which analyzes assets, employee productivity, turnover

rate, profits, sales, Total Quality Management (TQM) administrative cost reduction, TQM

demand increase, TQM material reduction and TQM research and development reduction. For

the past five years, our students average has been about 15% above the international average for

every category, and Wagner scores have been stable.

6461

6660

75

60

73

58

69

57

WA

GN

ER…

INTE

RN

ATI

ON

AL…

WA

GN

ER…

INTE

RN

ATI

ON

AL…

WA

GN

ER…

INTE

RN

ATI

ON

AL…

WA

GN

ER…

INTE

RN

ATI

ON

AL…

WA

GN

ER…

INTE

RN

ATI

ON

AL…

2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

Financial Knowledge: Balanced Scorecard Analysis

Class vs. International Average

Financial

6460 63 59

76

59

72

58

69

57

WA

GN

ER…

INTE

RN

ATI

ON

AL…

WA

GN

ER…

INTE

RN

ATI

ON

AL…

WA

GN

ER…

INTE

RN

ATI

ON

AL…

WA

GN

ER…

INTE

RN

ATI

ON

AL…

WA

GN

ER…

INTE

RN

ATI

ON

AL…

2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

Internal Business Process Knowledge: Balanced Scorecard Analysis


Internal Business Process

8

Class Functional Scores Class functional scores compare Wagner’s class average to the Population average for the six

functional domains measured through the Comp-XM® exam. The six functional areas analyzed

are accounting, finance, human resources, marketing operations and strategy. Scores are

compiled as an average score earned between the relevant Board Queries (measuring business

knowledge) and Balanced Scorecard quadrants (measuring business acumen). For example,

Marketing scores are based on marketing-related Board Queries and the Customer quadrant of

the Balanced Scorecard. For Accounting, scores are based on accounting-related Board Queries

and accounting-specific simulation metrics.

Figure 1.4, compares the class average to the population average for these functional areas for

years 2013 to 2017. For Accounting and Finance, Wagner student scores have been consistently

about 20% above population average scores, but the Wagner scores have declined by about 10%

from 2015 to 2017.

65 65

7269

84

69

79

68

80

68

WA

G…

INTE

…

WA

G…

INTE

…

WA

G…

INTE

…

WA

G…

INTE

…

WA

G…

INTE

…

2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

Learning and Growth: Balanced Scorecard Analysis


Learning and Growth

73 72 73 71

83

71

80

70

80

69

WA

GN

ER…

INTE

RN

ATI

ON

AL…

WA

GN

ER…

INTE

RN

ATI

ON

AL…

WA

GN

ER…

INTE

RN

ATI

ON

AL…

WA

GN

ER…

INTE

RN

ATI

ON

AL…

WA

GN

ER…

INTE

RN

ATI

ON

AL…

2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

Customer: Balanced Scorecard Analysis


Customer

9

Figure 1.4. Class Functional Areas Comparing Class Average to Population Average 2013 – 17

For Strategy and Marketing, Wagner student scores have been consistently about 20% above

population average scores, but the Wagner Strategy scores have declined by about 10% from

2015 to 2017.

For Operations and Human Resources, Wagner student scores have been consistently about 20%

above population average scores, but the Wagner scores have declined by about 10% from 2015

to 2017.

66%61%

77%

60%

73%

58%

70%

58%

40%45%50%55%60%65%70%75%80%

CLA

SS A

VER

AG

E

PO

PU

LATI

ON

…

CLA

SS A

VER

AG

E

PO

PU

LATI

ON

…

CLA

SS A

VER

AG

E

PO

PU

LATI

ON

…

CLA

SS A

VER

AG

E

PO

PU

LATI

ON

…

2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

Accounting Class Average and Population Average

- Class Functional Areas, 2013-2017

Accounting

65%61%

75%

61%

72%

58%

66%

57%

40%45%50%55%60%65%70%75%80%

CLA

SS A

VER

AG

E

PO

PU

LATI

ON

…

CLA

SS A

VER

AG

E

PO

PU

LATI

ON

…

CLA

SS A

VER

AG

E

PO

PU

LATI

ON

…

CLA

SS A

VER

AG

E

PO

PU

LATI

ON

…

2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

Finance Class Average and Population Average -

Class Functional Areas, 2013-2017

Finance

67%61%

75%

62%

73%

59%

68%

59%

40%45%50%55%60%65%70%75%80%

CLA

SS A

VER

AG

E

PO

PU

LATI

ON

…

CLA

SS A

VER

AG

E

PO

PU

LATI

ON

…

CLA

SS A

VER

AG

E

PO

PU

LATI

ON

…

CLA

SS A

VER

AG

E

PO

PU

LATI

ON

…

2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

Strategy Class Average and Population Average


Strategy

69%

60%

75%

61%

76%

58%

73%

58%

40%45%50%55%60%65%70%75%80%

CLA

SS A

VER

AG

E

PO

PU

LATI

ON

…

CLA

SS A

VER

AG

E

PO

PU

LATI

ON

…

CLA

SS A

VER

AG

E

PO

PU

LATI

ON

…

CLA

SS A

VER

AG

E

PO

PU

LATI

ON

…

2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

Marketing Class Average and Population Average -

Class Functional Areas, 2013-2017

Marketing

10

Assurance of Learning Goals

Figure 1.5 shows the assurance of learning goals from 2013 to 2017. As mentioned earlier, until

now, all Comp-XM® exams have had a maximum score of 1000 points. 1000 points only cover

the first three assurance of learning skills and are highlighted in this report. Subsequent Comp-

XM® exams will have a maximum score of 1200 points allowing all seven assurance of learning

skills to be covered.

The three assurance of learning goals addressed in this report are:


Critical-thinking and Decision-making Skills


Figure 1.5 shows the CompXM scores as percentages. The Figure indicates that, for the last four

years, scores on all three assurance of learning goals declined by about 10%. These results

suggest that faculty must determine where students do well and where improvements in courses

and pedagogy are required to improve our students’ workplace skill set.

63%

52%

78%

53%

75%

50%

69%

49%

40%

45%

50%

55%

60%

65%

70%

75%

80%C

lass

Ave

rage

Po

pu

lati

on

Ave

rage

Cla

ss A

vera

ge

Po

pu

lati

on

Ave

rage

Cla

ss A

vera

ge

Po

pu

lati

on

Ave

rage

Cla

ss A

vera

ge

Po

pu

lati

on

Ave

rage

2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

Operations Class Average and Population

Average - Class Functional Areas, 2013-2017

Operations

71%

60%

76%

59%

75%

56%

68%

57%

40%45%50%55%60%65%70%75%80%

CLA

SS A

VER

AG

E

PO

PU

LATI

ON

…

CLA

SS A

VER

AG

E

PO

PU

LATI

ON

…

CLA

SS A

VER

AG

E

PO

PU

LATI

ON

…

CLA

SS A

VER

AG

E

PO

PU

LATI

ON

…

2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

Human Resources Class Average and Population Average


HR

11

Figure 1.5. Assurance of Learning Goals 2013 - 2017

General Learning Goals

Figure 1.6 shows the general learning goals of which there are three. Analytical and quantitative,

critical-thinking and decision-making, and functional knowledge application. Within each there

are four quadrants:

Learning and Growth quadrant

Customer quadrant

Internal Business Process quadrant

Financial quadrant

Since the overall simulation result for this part is based on 500 points, each quadrant is based on

125 points. Although there is fluctuation in the scores, the trend has been showing a slight

decline in every quadrant from 2015 to 2017.

Learning and Growth quadrant, decline 1.8%

Customer quadrant, decline 3.7%

Internal Business Process quadrant, decline 13.0%

Financial quadrant, decline 6.1%

67%

12%

77%

11%

73%

12%

69%

15%

AV

ERA

GE

STA

ND

AR

D D

EVIA

TIO

N

AV

ERA

GE

STA

ND

AR

D D

EVIA

TIO

N

AV

ERA

GE

STA

ND

AR

D D

EVIA

TIO

N

AV

ERA

GE

STA

ND

AR

D D

EVIA

TIO

N

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

2016-17

Analytical and Quantitative Assurance of Learning

Goals

Analytical andQuantitative Skills

67%

13%

77%

11%

74%

13%

71%

16%

AV

ERA

GE

STA

ND

AR

D D

EVIA

TIO

N

AV

ERA

GE

STA

ND

AR

D D

EVIA

TIO

N

AV

ERA

GE

STA

ND

AR

D D

EVIA

TIO

N

AV

ERA

GE

STA

ND

AR

D D

EVIA

TIO

N2013-

142014-

152015-

162016-

17

Critical ThinkingAssurance of Learning Goals

Critical-thinking andDecision-making Skills

67%

12%

76%

11%

73%

12%

69%

15%

AV

ERA

GE

STA

ND

AR

D D

EVIA

TIO

N

AV

ERA

GE

STA

ND

AR

D D

EVIA

TIO

N

AV

ERA

GE

STA

ND

AR

D D

EVIA

TIO

N

AV

ERA

GE

STA

ND

AR

D D

EVIA

TIO

N

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

2016-17

Functional Knowlege Application -


Functional KnowledgeApplication Skills

12

Figure 1.6. General Learning Goals 2013 – 17.

93

107104 103

80

100

94

8785

9996

93

75

100

125

2013-2014 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

Analytical and Quantitative -General Learning Goals for BU401 Taken from Balanced Score Card. Each Score is

based on 125


Customer quadrant


Financial quadrant

96

110 108 108

93

107 104 103

80

10094

8785

99 9693

75

100

125

2013-2014 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

Critial Thinking & Decision MakingGeneral Learning Goals for BU401 Taken from Balanced Score Card. Each Score is

based on 125


Customer quadrant


Financial quadrant

96

110 108 108

93

107104 103

80

100

94

8785

9996

93

75

100

125

2013-2014 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

Functional Knowledge ApplicationGeneral Learning Goals for BU401 Taken from Balanced Score Card. Each Score is

based on 125


Customer quadrant


Financial quadrant

13

Undergraduate Oral Communication

Figure 1.7 shows the undergraduate Oral Communication scores. Measured via a rubric (attached

in the appendix), these scores have fluctuated over the 2012-2017 period. Scores are down in the

2016-17 school year over the previous year averaging 8.18 of 10. This may be partially due to

the revamping of the old rubric mid-year and because faculty are grading more rigourously

across all areas on all rubrics. The categories that are measured are:

KS Knowledge of Subject

CU Correct Usage of Grammar

AR Avoidance of Repetitive "hums", "okays", etc.

VDS Voice/Diction-Speed

VDL Voice/Diction-Loudness

PEP Personalization/Engagement of Presentation

EC Eye Contact

PS Posture/Stance

AT Appropriateness of Attire

AV Appropriateness of Visuals

IAP Interaction Among Presenters

FQ Fielding of Questions

Figure 1.8. Shows the Undergraduate Oral Communication Scores by Category, 2012 – 17.

Figure 1.7. Undergraduate Oral Communication Scores 2012 – 17.

9.218.57

9.07 9.098.18

0

2

4

6

8

10

12-'13 13-'14 14-'15 15-'16 16-'17

Undergraduate Oral Presentations

14

Figure 1.8. Undergraduate Oral Communication Scores by Category, 2012 – 17.

,

8.20

8.40

8.60

8.80

9.00

9.20

9.40

9.60

Oral Rubric - Knowledge of Subject

8

8.2

8.4

8.6

8.8

9

9.2

9.4

9.6

Oral Rubric - Correct Use of Language & Grammar

7.50

7.70

7.90

8.10

8.30

8.50

8.70

8.90

9.10

9.30

9.50

Oral Rubric - Voice/Diction Speed

8

8.2

8.4

8.6

8.8

9

9.2

9.4

Oral Rubric- Voice/Diction Loudness

7.50

8.00

8.50

9.00

9.50

10.00

Oral Rubric - Posture/Stance

8

8.5

9

9.5

10

10.5

Oral Rubric- Personalization of Presentation

15

7.50

8.00

8.50

9.00

9.50

10.00

Oral Rubric - Intreraction Among Presenters

7.5

8

8.5

9

9.5

10

Oral Rubric - Fielding of Questions

7

7.5

8

8.5

9

9.5

Oral Rubric -Avoidance of Repetitive Terms

7

7.5

8

8.5

9

9.5

Oral Rubric - Eye Contact

7.5

7.7

7.9

8.1

8.3

8.5

8.7

8.9

9.1

9.3

9.5

Oral Rubric - Appropriateness of Visuals

16

Undergraduate Written Communication

Figure 1.9 shows the undergraduate written communication scores (measured via a rubric). They

show an upward trend from the Fall of 2012 to the Fall of 2016 with the Fall 2016 scores

averaging 4.26 of 5. The rubric has the following five categories; organization, mechanics,

format, style, and development (rubric is attached in the appendix). The last time faculty used

this rubric was in the Fall of 2016. Figure 1.10. Shows the undergraduate written communication

scores by category 2012 to Fall 2016. In the Spring of 2017 we used a rubric with the following

ten categories; layout, subject clarity, flow and interest, grammar and spelling, format, style,

substance, depth, organization of Ideas, sentence and paragraph structure. The old rubric was

based on a scale of five; this rubric is based on a scale of ten. Figure 1.11 shows the category

scores for the new undergraduate written communication scores used in the Spring of 2017.

Figure 1.9. Undergraduate Written Communication Scores 2012 to Fall 2016

Figure 1.10. Undergraduate Written Communication Scores by Category 2012

to Fall 2016

.

3.71 3.734.09 4.14 4.26

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

12-'13 13-'14 14-'15 15-'16 FALL 2016

Undergraduate Written Communication Scores 2012 to Fall 2016

3.00

3.20

3.40

3.60

3.80

4.00

4.20

4.40

Written Rubric - Organization

3.00

3.20

3.40

3.60

3.80

4.00

4.20

Written Rubric - Mechanics

17

Figure 1.11. Undergraduate Written Communication Scores by Category for Spring 2017

2.502.702.903.103.303.503.703.904.104.304.50

Written Rubric - Format

3.203.303.403.503.603.703.803.904.004.104.20

Written Rubric - Style

3.00

3.20

3.40

3.60

3.80

4.00

4.20

Written Rubric - Development

7.86 8.017.68 7.63

7.91 7.85 8.03 7.98 7.91 7.97

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

10.00

Undergraduate Written Communication Scores by Category Spring 2017

18

Undergraduate Excel Project

In the Fall of 2016, the Nicolais School of Business faculty voted to require an Excel project in

every class beginning in the Spring of 2017. Faculty are required to use a new rubric, (see

attached in the appendix), which scored the projects on the following six categories: data entry;

computatios and formulas; graph; organization/formatting; visual appearance and output; and

followed directions. This rubric is based on a scale of 10. Figure 1.12. Shows the undergraduate

Excel project results for the Spring 2017 by category. During 2017-2018, the faulty will develop

a minimum acceptable score. In Fall 2017 CS 260 the Excel course must be taken with the first

business course most students enroll , AC 101 to ensure students gain practical experience with

Excel.

Figure 1.12. Undergraduate Excel project results by category for Spring 2017.

Undergraduate Exit Survey The undergraduate exit survey contains three categories. The first category (i.e., Measurment of

Quality of Business Fundation Courses) asks students to answer the following questions on a

scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being high:

The material covered in AC 101 and AC 102 provided a good foundation in accounting

for a business major.

The material covered in FI 201 provided a good foundation in Finance for a business

major.

The material covered in MK 201 provided a good foundation in Marketing for a business

major.

The material covered in MG 201 provided a good foundation in management for a

business major.

The material covered in BU 201 provided a good foundation in Business Law for a

business major.

8.157.75 7.85 7.72 7.58 7.81

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

10.00

DATA ENTRY COMPUTATIONS, & FORMULAS

GRAPH ORGANIZATION/ FORMATTING

VISUAL APPEARANCE &

OUTPUT

FOLLOWED DIRECTIONS

Undergraduate Excel Project Scores by Category

19

The material covered in EC 101 and EC102 provided a good foundation in Economics for

a business major.

The material covered in MA 108 provided a good foundation in Statistics for a business

major.

Answer only if you took BU211: The material covered in BU 211 provided a good

foundation in international business for a business major.

Figure 1.13. shows how students rated this category. Scores are calculated out of 5. The response

data has been increasing over the last 5 years with 2017 averaging 4.18 out of 5. Responses

indicate that student satisfaction with the quality of their courses and the faculty continue to

improve

Figure 1.13. Measurement of Quality of Business Foundation Courses.

3.79

3.883.81

4.01

4.18

3.60

3.70

3.80

3.90

4.00

4.10

4.20

4.30

Category 1 - Measurement of Quality of Business Foundation Courses

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

20

Measurement of Quality of Business Foundation Courses

3.85

3.90

3.95

4.00

4.05

4.10

4.15

4.20

4.25

4.30

2011 2013 2015 2017

Accounting

3.00

3.20

3.40

3.60

3.80

4.00

4.20

4.40

4.60

2011 2013 2015 2017

Finance

3.50

3.60

3.70

3.80

3.90

4.00

4.10

4.20

4.30

2011 2013 2015 2017

Marketing

3.70

3.80

3.90

4.00

4.10

4.20

4.30

2011 2013 2015 2017

Management

3

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

4

4.2

4.4

2011 2013 2015 2017

Business Law

3.60

3.70

3.80

3.90

4.00

4.10

4.20

4.30

2011 2013 2015 2017

Economics

3.40

3.50

3.60

3.70

3.80

3.90

2011 2013 2015 2017

Business Statistics

4.10

4.12

4.14

4.16

4.18

4.20

4.22

4.24

4.26

4.28

2011 2013 2015 2017

International Business

21

The second category of questions asks student to rate the quality of Capstone, Practicum &

Internship on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being high. The questions posed for this category are:

BU 401 Business Policy and Strategy served as an excellent capstone course,

demonstrating the integration of all the business disciplines.

The 100-hour practicum required in BU 400 was an integral part of my experience as a

business major.

The senior thesis requirement in BU 400 was an integral part of my experience as a

business major.

The career development activities in BU 400 helped me transition from college to

career/graduate studies.

Answer only if you took BU397/497: My internship experience enhanced my business

skills/knowledge.

Figure 1.14 shows student confidence in the Capstone, practicum, and internship quality have

been increasing for the past two years with 2017 averaging 4.29 out of 5, except scores for BU

401 and BU 497 declined from 2016 to 2017. Faculty teaching BU 401 will need to determine

the reason for the decline. BU 497 will no longer be offered.

Figure 1.14. Measurement of Capstone, Practicum & Internship Quality.

4.04 4.05

3.80

4.13

4.29

3.50

3.60

3.70

3.80

3.90

4.00

4.10

4.20

4.30

4.40

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Category 2 - Measurement of Capstone, Practicum & Intership Quality

22

Measurement of Capstone, Practicum & Internship Quality

The third category is the Measurement of Faculty Advisement, Knowledge & Accessibility. The

questions asked in this category are:

I am satisfied with the advisement I received from my faculty advisor.

The Business Department faculty possess a high level of knowledge in their respective

disciplines.

3.80

3.90

4.00

4.10

4.20

4.30

4.40

4.50

2011 2013 2015 2017

BU 401

3.90

4.00

4.10

4.20

4.30

4.40

4.50

4.60

2011 2013 2015 2017

100 HR Practicum

3.40

3.50

3.60

3.70

3.80

3.90

4.00

4.10

4.20

2011 2013 2015 2017

Senior Thesis-BU 400

3.00

3.20

3.40

3.60

3.80

4.00

4.20

4.40

2011 2013 2015 2017

Career Development- BU 400

3.90

4.00

4.10

4.20

4.30

4.40

4.50

4.60

2011 2013 2015 2017

BU 397/497

23

The Business Department faculty were accessible to students and responsive to their

needs.

Figure 1.15 show a favorable, steady increase in student responses since 2013 with 2017

averaging 4.31 out of 5. These results indicate the faculty members are continuously improving

their knowledge and pedagogy for the classroom as well as for advising of students.

Figure 1.15. Measurement of Faculty Advisement, Knowledge & Accessibility.

Measurement of Faculty Advisement, Knowledge & Accessibility

3.823.89

4.02

4.14

4.31

3.50

3.60

3.70

3.80

3.90

4.00

4.10

4.20

4.30

4.40

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Category 3 - Faculty Advisement, Knowledge & Accessibility

3.50

3.60

3.70

3.80

3.90

4.00

4.10

4.20

4.30

2011 2013 2015 2017

Satisfaction with Faculty Advisement

3.80

4.00

4.20

4.40

4.60

2011 2013 2015 2017

Business Dept. Faculty posessess high level of

knowledge

3.80

3.90

4.00

4.10

4.20

4.30

4.40

2011 2013 2015 2017

Business Faculty were accessible

to students

24

Internship Program/Employer Survey

The Internship Program at Wagner College gives our undergraduate business students the opportunity to

gain work experience. Faculty and professionals in the field supervise internships. Internships are usually

related to the students’ major and reserved for students who are in good academic standing. The student

has the responsibility to devote a minimum of 120 hours for 1 unit or 240 hours for two units. Each

student’s on-site supervisor submits a written evaluation of the student’s performance to the internship

professor. Supervisors are asked to rate their intern’s work by the following scale: Excellent, Good,

Average, Poor, or N/A. Interns are rated on how they perform in each of the following work attributes:

1. Quality of work

2. Quantity of work

3. Dependability

4. Motivation

5. Analytical/critical thinking skills

6. Writing skills

7. Research

8. Organizational ability

9. Creativity

10. Attitude toward work

11. Attitude toward co-workers

12. Attitude toward supervisor (s)

13. Openness to criticism/suggestion

14. Ability to learn new tasks

15. Maturity

16. Ability to work without supervision

Scores from surveys were compiled and are graphically represented below:

Figure 1.16. Employer Survey Responses to Questions 1 to 4.

48 4852

3935

17

26

48

9

30

13 139

0

9

004

0 0

QUALITY OF WORK QUANITY OF WORK DEPENDABILITY MOTIVATION

Pe

rce

nts

Percent of Students' Scores on Internship Outcomes

Excellent Good Average Poor N/A

25




4852

36

70

48

17

36

17

0

17

9 9

0

9 9

04 4

94

ANALYTICAL/CRITICALTHINKING SKILLS

WRITING SKILLS RESEARCH ORGANIZATIONALABILITY

Pe

rce

nts



61

48

39

48

17

30

22 2217

13

2217

49

17

40 0 0

9

CREATIVITY ATTITUDE TOWARDWORK

ATTITUDE TOWARDSCO-WORKERS

ATTITUDE TOWARDSUPERVISOR(S)

Pe

rce

nts



48

39

5956

39

48

23

119 9

14

33

04

0 04

05

0

OPENNESS TOCRITICISM/SUGGESTION

ABILITY TO LEARN NEWTAKS

MATURITY ABILITY TO WORKWITHOUT SUPERVISION

Pe

rce

nts



26

Section 2: Graduate Data

Learning Goals for MBA Program

A comprehensive knowledge of, and a global perspective on, key business concepts and

skills.

Competence in the application of business concepts and skills in the field of the student’s

major.

Strong quantitative skills to analyze and describe major business issues.

Ability to conduct empirical research and report the results effectively and professionally.

MBA Learning Goals

CompXM Exam Department Rubrics




Business Acumen and

Business Knowledge Written Oral Excel

A comprehensive knowledge of, and a global perspective on, key business concepts and skills.

Competence in the application of business concepts and skills in the field of the student’s major. accounting, finance, management, and marketing

Strong quantitative skills to analyze and describe major business issues.

Ability to conduct empirical research and report the results effectively and professionally.

Comp-XM Scores:

What follows are the results of the Comp-XM® testing data of graduate business students for the

past five years. Figure 2.1 represents the average score for all students taking the Comp-XM®

exam in a given year for a five-year span. Test scores have steadily increased from 2012 to 2016,

but decreased 5% from 2016-2017. These results indicate that faculty should review the scores

on individual learning outcomes to determine the source of the decrease in overall score from

2016 to 2017.

27

Figure 2.1. Average Comp-XM® Scores for BU669, 2012 to 2017.

Class Standing:

Each class is a sample from the larger group of their peers (undergraduate, graduate, etc.), of all

business students taking Comp-XM®. The class median percentile is our students’ scores for

overall Business Acumen (i.e., performance in simulation) and Business Knowledge (i.e.,

knowledge of theory) compared to their peers internationally. Figure 2.2 shows the average class

median percentile for business acumen and business knowledge for years 2014 to 2017. For the

past three years, graduate students have scored at or above the 66th median percentile for

business acumen and at or above the 80th median percentile for business knowledge when

compared to their peers internationally. The scores for Business Acumen (i.e., performance in

simulation) decreased 13.2% from 2016 to 2017, so faculty will need to be attentive to this area.

Figure 2.2. Average Class Median Percentile for Business Acumen and Business Knowledge

2013– 17.

552

807 777822

780

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

Average Comp-XM ScoreBU669 2012-2017

7176.0

66.0

80

89.5 93.0

50

60

70

80

90

100

Class Median Percentile Class Median Percentile Class Median Percentile

2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

Class StandingBU669

2014 to 2017

Overall Simulation Result (Business Acumen)

Overall Board Query (Business Knowledge)

28

Balanced Scorecard Analysis In Figure 2.3, Wagner’s graduate students class average scores are compared to the international

average of all business students, undergraduate, graduate, etc., taking the Comp-XM® exam.

The first comparative heading is “Financial,” which includes an analysis of emergency loans,

leverage, market cap, profits, sales stock price. Next is “International Business Process,” which

analyzes contribution margin, days of working capital, inventory carrying costs, operating profit,

plant utilization and stock-out costs. Next is “Customer,” which analyzes customer accessibility,

customer awareness, market share, customer buying criteria, product count, SG&A expenses,

and weighted average customer survey score. Last, is “Learning and Growth,” which analyzes

assets, employee productivity, turnover rate, profits, sales, Total Quality Management (TQM)

administrative cost reduction, TQM demand increase, TQM material reduction and TQM

research and development reduction. For the past three years, our graduate students average has

been above the international average for every category.

The CompXM scores for some areas decreased because some professors teach toward the

Balanced Scorecard Analysis, while other professors teach students to veer away from it in

response to real-world events. Going forward, all professors will lead the class in the same

manner.

29

Figure 2.3. Balanced Scorecard Analysis. Class vs. International Average 2012 - 17.

For 2016-2017, scoes on Financial decreased 11.4% while scores on Customer increased 7.6%.

From 2016 to 2017, scores on Internal Business Process decreased 11.2%, while scores on

Learning and Growth decreased 3.6%.

Class Functional Scores Figure 2.4 shows the class functional scores for graduate students which compare Wagner’s class

average to the Population average for the six functional domains measured through the Comp-

XM® exam. The six functional areas analyzed are accounting, finance, human resources,

5459

5159

76

59

79

59

70

57

WA

GN

ER…

INTE

RN

ATI

ON

AL…

WA

GN

ER…

INTE

RN

ATI

ON

AL…

WA

GN

ER…

INTE

RN

ATI

ON

AL…

WA

GN

ER…

INTE

RN

ATI

ON

AL…

WA

GN

ER…

INTE

RN

ATI

ON

AL…

2012-132013-142014-15 2015-16 2016-17

Financial: Balanced Scorecard AnalysisClass vs. International Average

Financial

69 7062

70

82

7079 78

85

69

WA

GN

ER…

INTE

RN

ATI

ON

AL…

WA

GN

ER…

INTE

RN

ATI

ON

AL…

WA

GN

ER…

INTE

RN

ATI

ON

AL…

WA

GN

ER…

INTE

RN

ATI

ON

AL…

WA

GN

ER…

INTE

RN

ATI

ON

AL…

2012-132013-142014-152015-162016-17

Customer: Balanced Scorecard AnalysisClass vs. International Average

Customer

55 58 54 58

75

59

80

58

71

57

WA

GN

ER…

INTE

RN

ATI

ON

AL…

WA

GN

ER…

INTE

RN

ATI

ON

AL…

WA

GN

ER…

INTE

RN

ATI

ON

AL…

WA

GN

ER…

INTE

RN

ATI

ON

AL…

WA

GN

ER…

INTE

RN

ATI

ON

AL…

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

2016-17

Internal Business Process: Balanced Scorecard Analysis


Internal Business Process

50

69

55

69

80

66

84

68

81

68

WA

GN

ER…

INTE

RN

ATI

ON

AL…

WA

GN

ER…

INTE

RN

ATI

ON

AL…

WA

GN

ER…

INTE

RN

ATI

ON

AL…

WA

GN

ER…

INTE

RN

ATI

ON

AL…

WA

GN

ER…

INTE

RN

ATI

ON

AL…

2012-132013-142014-152015-162016-17

Learning and Growth: Balanced Scorecard Analysis


Learning and Growth

30

marketing operations and strategy. Scores are compiled as an average score earned between the

relevant board queries (measuring business knowledge) and balanced scorecard quadrants

(measuring business acumen). For example, Marketing scores are based on marketing-related

Board Queries and the Customer quadrant of the Balanced Scorecard. For Accounting, scores are

based on accounting-related Board Queries and accounting-specific simulation metrics. For the

past five years, our graduate student’s averages have been higher than the population average for

all six functional domains.

Figure 2.4. Class Functional Areas Comparing Class Average to Population Average 2013 - 17

From 2016 to 2017, scores on Accounting decreased 6.1%, while scores on Finance decreased

11.1%.

From 2016 to 2017, scores on Human Resources increased 5.2%, while scores on Marketing

decreased 6.7%.

82%

62%

75%

59%

82%

60%

77%

57%

CLA

SS A

VER

AG

E

PO

PU

LATI

ON

AV

ERA

GE

CLA

SS A

VER

AG

E

PO

PU

LATI

ON

AV

ERA

GE

CLA

SS A

VER

AG

E

PO

PU

LATI

ON

AV

ERA

GE

CLA

SS A

VER

AG

E

PO

PU

LATI

ON

AV

ERA

GE

2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

Accounting: Class Functional Areas

Accounting

79%

60%

74%

61%

81%

59%

72%

56%

CLA

SS A

VER

AG

E

PO

PU

LATI

ON

AV

ERA

GE

CLA

SS A

VER

AG

E

PO

PU

LATI

ON

AV

ERA

GE

CLA

SS A

VER

AG

E

PO

PU

LATI

ON

AV

ERA

GE

CLA

SS A

VER

AG

E

PO

PU

LATI

ON

AV

ERA

GE

2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

Finance: Class Functional Areas

Finance

77%

59%71%

59%

77%

57%

81%

56%

CLA

SS A

VER

AG

E

PO

PU

LATI

ON

…

CLA

SS A

VER

AG

E

PO

PU

LATI

ON

…

CLA

SS A

VER

AG

E

PO

PU

LATI

ON

…

CLA

SS A

VER

AG

E

PO

PU

LATI

ON

…

2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

HR: Class Functional Areas

HR

86%

59%

79%

60%

89%

59%

83%

57%

CLA

SS A

VER

AG

E

PO

PU

LATI

ON

…

CLA

SS A

VER

AG

E

PO

PU

LATI

ON

…

CLA

SS A

VER

AG

E

PO

PU

LATI

ON

…

CLA

SS A

VER

AG

E

PO

PU

LATI

ON

…

2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

Marketing: Class Functional Areas

Marketing

31

From 2016 to 2017, scores on Strategy decreased 6.0%, while scores on Operations decreased

9.6%.


Figure 2.5 shows the assurance of learning goals from 2013 to 2017. For these years, all Comp-

XM® exams had a maximum score of 1000 points. This only covered the first three of the seven

assurance of learning goals. Beginning in the Fall of 2017, Comp-XM® exams will be based on

1200 points. This will covered all seven assurance of learning goals.

The seven assurance of learning goals addressed in this report are:




Teamwork and leadershiop Skills

Ethics, Legal, and Social Responsibility Skills

Business Communication Skills

Cultural Competence Skills.

Figure 2.5 indicates that, for the last four years, all assurance of learning goals have had minimal

fluctuation. These results suggest that faculty needs to identify what they do well and where

improvements in courses and pedagogy are necesary, so students will develop a better workplace

skill set.

80%

60%

75%

63%

83%

62%

78%

58%

CLA

SS A

VER

AG

E

PO

PU

LATI

ON

AV

ERA

GE

CLA

SS A

VER

AG

E

PO

PU

LATI

ON

AV

ERA

GE

CLA

SS A

VER

AG

E

PO

PU

LATI

ON

AV

ERA

GE

CLA

SS A

VER

AG

E

PO

PU

LATI

ON

AV

ERA

GE

2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

Strategy: Class Functional Areas

Strategy

79%

53%

78%

53%

83%

51%

75%

48%

CLA

SS A

VER

AG

E

PO

PU

LATI

ON

AV

ERA

GE

CLA

SS A

VER

AG

E

PO

PU

LATI

ON

AV

ERA

GE

CLA

SS A

VER

AG

E

PO

PU

LATI

ON

AV

ERA

GE

CLA

SS A

VER

AG

E

PO

PU

LATI

ON

AV

ERA

GE

2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

Operations: Class Functional Areas

Operations

32

Figure 2.5. Assurance of Learning Goals 2013 - 2017

From 2016 to 2017, scores on Analytical and Quantitative increased 7.2%, while scores on

Critical Thinking and Decision-Making decreased 13.3%.

From 2016 to 2017, scores on Functional Knowledge Application increased were stable.

General Learning Goals

Figure 2.6 shows the general learning goals of which there are three. Analytical and quantitative,

critical-thinking and decision-making, and functional knowledge application. Within each there

are four quadrants:


Customer quadrant


Financial quadrant

83%

2%

75%

8%

83%

7%

77%

8%

AV

ERA

GE

STA

ND

AR

D …

AV

ERA

GE

STA

ND

AR

D …

AV

ERA

GE

STA

ND

AR

D …

AV

ERA

GE

STA

ND

AR

D …

2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

Analytical and Quantitative Skills: Assurance of Learning Goals


77%

8%

76%

9%

83%

6%

72%

7%

AV

ERA

GE

STA

ND

AR

D …

AV

ERA

GE

STA

ND

AR

D …

AV

ERA

GE

STA

ND

AR

D …

AV

ERA

GE

STA

ND

AR

D …

2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

Critical Thinking and Decision-Making Sckills:



81%

6%

75%

8%

83%

6%

81%

8%

AV

ERA

GE

STA

ND

AR

D …

AV

ERA

GE

STA

ND

AR

D …

AV

ERA

GE

STA

ND

AR

D …

AV

ERA

GE

STA

ND

AR

D …

2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

Functional Knowledge Application Skills:


Functional Knowledge ApplicationSkills

33

Since the overall simulation result for this part is based on 500 points, each quadrant is based on

125 points. Scores fluctuate from year to year within quadrants over the four year period

depicted in the graph.

Figure 2.6. General Learning Goals 2013 – 17.

107 106

112108

90

95

101

89

99 98 99

89

80

85

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

125

2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

Analytical and Quantitative -General Learning Goals for BU669 Taken from Balanced Score Card. Each Score is based on

125


Customer quadrant


Financial quadrant

102 101

110

102

107 106

112108

90

95

101

89

99 98 99

89

80

85

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

125

2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

Critial Thinking & Decision MakingGeneral Learning Goals for BU669 Taken from Balanced Score Card. Each Score is based on

125


Customer quadrant


Financial quadrant

102 101

110

102

107 106

112108

90

95

101

89

99 98 99

89

80

85

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

125

2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

Functional Knowledge ApplicationGeneral Learning Goals for BU669 Taken from Balanced Score Card. Each Score is based on

125


Customer quadrant


Financial quadrant

34

Graduate Oral Communication

Figure 2.7 shows the graduate Oral Communication scores. Measured via a rubric (rubric is

attached in the appendix), these scores have fluctuated over the 2012-2017 period. Scores are

down in the 2016-17 school year over the previous year averaging 9.15 of 10. This may be

partially due to the revamping of the old rubric mid-year. The categories measured are:

KS Knowledge of Subject

CU Correct Usage of Grammar

AR Avoidance of Repetitive "hums", "okays", etc.

VDS Voice/Diction-Speed

VDL Voice/Diction-Loudness

PEP Personalization/Engagement of Presentation

EC Eye Contact

PS Posture/Stance

AT Appropriateness of Attire

AV Appropriateness of Visuals

IAP Interaction Among Presenters

FQ Fielding of Questions

Figure 2.8. Shows the graduate Oral Communication Scores by Category for 2012 to 2017.

Scores decreased because faculty are grading more rigorously now.

Figure 2.7. Graduate Oral Communication Scores 2012 – 17.

8.91

8.73

8.65

9.27

9.15

12-'13 13-'14 14-'15 15-'16 16-17'

Graduate Oral

35

Figure 2.8. Graduate Oral Communication Scores by Category, 2012 – 17.

7.500

8.000

8.500

9.000

9.5002

00

7-2

00

8

20

08

-20

09

20

09

-20

10

20

10

-20

11

20

11

-20

12

20

12

-20

13

20

13

-20

14

20

14

-20

15

20

15

-20

16

20

16

-20

17

Oral Rubric -Knowledge of Subject

7.50

8.00

8.50

9.00

9.50

20

07

-20

08

20

08

-20

09

20

09

-20

10

20

10

-20

11

20

11

-20

12

20

12

-20

13

20

13

-20

14

20

14

-20

15

20

15

-20

16

20

16

-20

17

Oral Rubric - Correct Usage of Grammar

7.607.808.008.208.408.608.809.009.20

20

07

-20

08

20

08

-20

09

20

09

-20

10

20

10

-20

11

20

11

-20

12

20

12

-20

13

20

13

-20

14

20

14

-20

15

20

15

-20

16

20

16

-20

17

Oral Rubric - Avoidance of Repetitive Terms

7.607.808.008.208.408.608.809.009.20

20

07

-20

08

20

08

-20

09

20

09

-20

10

20

10

-20

11

20

11

-20

12

20

12

-20

13

20

13

-20

14

20

14

-20

15

20

15

-20

16

20

16

-20

17

Oral Rubric-Voice/Diction Speed

7.50

8.00

8.50

9.00

9.50

20

07

-20

08

20

08

-20

09

20

09

-20

10

20

10

-20

11

20

11

-20

12

20

12

-20

13

20

13

-20

14

20

14

-20

15

20

15

-20

16

20

16

-20

17

Oral Rubric-Voice/Diction

Loudness

7.50

8.00

8.50

9.00

9.50

20

07

-20

08

20

08

-20

09

20

09

-20

10

20

10

-20

11

20

11

-20

12

20

12

-20

13

20

13

-20

14

20

14

-20

15

20

15

-20

16

20

16

-20

17

Oral Rubric-Personalization of

Presentation

36

Graduate Written Communication

Figure 2.9 shows the graduate Written Communication scores (measured via a rubric). They

show an upward trend from the Fall of 2012 to the Fall of 2016 with the Spring of 2016 scores.

2016-17 scores took a little dip. The rubric has the following nine categories: Layout; Subject

Clarity; Flow and Interest; Grammar and Spelling; Format; Style; Substance; Depth;

Organization of Ideas; and Sentence & Paragraph Structure (rubric is attached in the appendix).

Figure 2.10. shows the graduate written communication scores by category for 2012 to Fall 2016

7.607.808.008.208.408.608.809.009.20

20

07

-20

08

20

08

-20

09

20

09

-20

10

20

10

-20

11

20

11

-20

12

20

12

-20

13

20

13

-20

14

20

14

-20

15

20

15

-20

16

20

16

-20

17

Oral Rubric - Eye Contact

7.00

7.50

8.00

8.50

9.00

9.50

20

07

-20

08

20

08

-20

09

20

09

-20

10

20

10

-20

11

20

11

-20

12

20

12

-20

13

20

13

-20

14

20

14

-20

15

20

15

-20

16

20

16

-20

17

Oral Rubric-Posture/Stance

7.007.508.008.509.009.50

10.00

20

07

-20

08

20

08

-20

09

20

09

-20

10

20

10

-20

11

20

11

-20

12

20

12

-20

13

20

13

-20

14

20

14

-20

15

20

15

-20

16

20

16

-20

17

Oral Rubric-Appropriateness of

Attire

6.50

7.50

8.50

9.50

10.50

20

07

-20

08

20

08

-20

09

20

09

-20

10

20

10

-20

11

20

11

-20

12

20

12

-20

13

20

13

-20

14

20

14

-20

15

20

15

-20

16

20

16

-20

17

Oral Rubric -Appropriateness of

Visuals

7.007.508.008.509.009.50

20

07

-20

08

20

08

-20

09

20

09

-20

10

20

10

-20

11

20

11

-20

12

20

12

-20

13

20

13

-20

14

20

14

-20

15

20

15

-20

16

20

16

-20

17

Oral Rubric -Interaction among

Presenters

7.00

7.50

8.00

8.50

9.00

9.50

20

07

-20

08

20

08

-20

09

20

09

-20

10

20

10

-20

11

20

11

-20

12

20

12

-20

13

20

13

-20

14

20

14

-20

15

20

15

-20

16

20

16

-20

17

Oral Rubric - Fielding of Questions

37

Figure 2.9. Graduate Written Communication Scores 2012 to Fall 2016

Figure 2.10. Graduate Written Communication Scores by Category 2012 to Fall

2016

6.50

7.00

7.50

8.00

8.50

9.00

9.50

20

07

-20

08

20

08

-20

09

20

09

-20

10

20

10

-20

11

20

11

-20

12

20

12

-20

13

20

13

-20

14

20

14

-20

15

20

15

-20

16

20

16

-20

17

Written Rubric - Layout

6.006.507.007.508.008.509.009.50

20

07

-20

08

20

08

-20

09

20

09

-20

10

20

10

-20

11

20

11

-20

12

20

12

-20

13

20

13

-20

14

20

14

-20

15

20

15

-20

16

20

16

-20

17

Written Rubric -Subject Clarity

6.006.507.007.508.008.509.009.50

20

07

-20

08

20

08

-20

09

20

09

-20

10

20

10

-20

11

20

11

-20

12

20

12

-20

13

20

13

-20

14

20

14

-20

15

20

15

-20

16

20

16

-20

17

Written Rubric - Flow & Interest

6.00

6.50

7.00

7.50

8.00

8.50

9.00

9.50

20

07

-20

08

20

08

-20

09

20

09

-20

10

20

10

-20

11

20

11

-20

12

20

12

-20

13

20

13

-20

14

20

14

-20

15

20

15

-20

16

20

16

-20

17

Written Rubric -Grammar & Spelling

6.00

6.50

7.00

7.50

8.00

8.50

9.00

9.50

20

07

-20

08

20

08

-20

09

20

09

-20

10

20

10

-20

11

20

11

-20

12

20

12

-20

13

20

13

-20

14

20

14

-20

15

20

15

-20

16

20

16

-20

17

Written Rubric - Format for Research Papaers

6.00

6.50

7.00

7.50

8.00

8.50

9.00

9.50

20

07

-20

08

20

08

-20

09

20

09

-20

10

20

10

-20

11

20

11

-20

12

20

12

-20

13

20

13

-20

14

20

14

-20

15

20

15

-20

16

20

16

-20

17

Written Rubric- Style

38

Graduate Excel Project

In the Fall of 2016, the Nicolais School of Business Faculty voted to require an Excel project in

every class beginning in the Spring of 2017. Faculty would be required to use a new rubric, (see

attached in the appendix), which scored the projects in the following six categories, data entry,

computations and formulas, graph, organization/formatting, visual appearance, and output,

followed directions. This rubric was based on a scale of 1 to 10. Figure 2.11 shows the graduate

Excel project results for the Spring 2017 by category.

5.50

6.00

6.50

7.00

7.50

8.00

8.50

9.00

9.50

20

07

-20

08

20

08

-20

09

20

09

-20

10

20

10

-20

11

20

11

-20

12

20

12

-20

13

20

13

-20

14

20

14

-20

15

20

15

-20

16

20

16

-20

17

Written Rubric -Substance

5.50

6.00

6.50

7.00

7.50

8.00

8.50

9.00

9.50

20

07

-20

08

20

08

-20

09

20

09

-20

10

20

10

-20

11

20

11

-20

12

20

12

-20

13

20

13

-20

14

20

14

-20

15

20

15

-20

16

20

16

-20

17

Written Rubric - Depth

6.006.507.007.508.008.509.009.50

10.00

20

07

-20

08

20

08

-20

09

20

09

-20

10

20

10

-20

11

20

11

-20

12

20

12

-20

13

20

13

-20

14

20

14

-20

15

20

15

-20

16

20

16

-20

17

Written Rubric -Organization of Ideas

6.006.507.007.508.008.509.009.50

10.002

00

7-2

00

8

20

08

-20

09

20

09

-20

10

20

10

-20

11

20

11

-20

12

20

12

-20

13

20

13

-20

14

20

14

-20

15

20

15

-20

16

20

16

-20

17

Written Rubric -Sentence & Paragraph

Structure

39

Figure 2.11. Graduate Excel project results by category for Spring 2017.

Graduate Survey Data Graduate students are asked to complete a survey at the end of their capstone class, BU669. They

were asked to rate various components of the Traditional MBA program. The survey asks 43

questions. What follows are the results of that survey taken by 35 graduate students during the

school year 2016-17.

The first part asks students to rate the following four components as; A. Poor, B. Fair, C. Good,

D. Excellent, E. Outstanding.

1. Faculty Knowledge

2. Faculty responsiveness to students

3. Talent level of the students in the TMBA Program

4. Cooperative atmosphere among students in my cohort

Figure 2.12 shows how graduate students rated these four components.

40

Figure 2.12. Graduate Survey Responses to Questions 1 to 4.

0

2

16

14

1

Graduate Survey Question 1: Faculty Knowledge

Question 1

2

5

14

8

4

Graduate Survey Question 2: Faculty responsiveness

to students

Question 2

1

5

18

7

2

Graduate Survey Question 3: Talent level of the students in the TMBA Program

Question 3

12

15

12

3

Graduate Survey Question 4: Cooperative

atmosphere among students in my cohort

Question 4

41

Questions 5 asks:

How helpful was the Program Director’s involvement in the Program to improving your MBA

experience? A. Not helpful, B. Somewhat not helpful, C. Somewhat helpful, D. Helpful,

E. Very helpful. Figure 2.13 shows the results to question 5.

Figure 2.13. Graduate Student Responses to Question 5 from Graduate Survey.

Questions 6 asked to rate their class schedules based on convenience. The following responses

were used: A. Not convenient, B. Somewhat not convenient, C. Somewhat convenient,

D. Convenient, E. Very convenient. Figure 2.14 show student response results.

Figure 2.14. Graduate Student Responses to Question 6 from Graduate Survey.

5

7

11

9

3

A. NOT HELPFUL

B. SOMEWHAT

NOT HELPFUL

C. SOMEWHAT

HELPFUL

D. HELPFUL E. VERY HELPFUL

Graduate Survey Question 5: How helpful was the Program Director’s involvement in

the Program

23

8

17

5

A. NOT CONVENIENT

B. SOMEWHAT

NOT CONVENIENT

C. SOMEWHAT CONVENIENT

D. CONVENIENT

E. VERY CONVENIENT.

Graduate Survey Question 6: Rate your class schedules based on convenience

42

In questions 7 through 12, graduate students were asked to rank the facilities based on the

following scale: A. Poor, B. Fair, C. Good, D. Excellent, E. Outstanding.

7. Classrooms

8. Library

9. Computer labs

10. Sports complex

11. Dining hall/catering

Figure 2.15 shows how graduate students rated these five facilities.

Figure 2.15. Graduate Student Responses to Questions 7 through 11 form Graduate Survey.

2

1614

10

Graduate Survey Question 7: Rank the facilities:

Classrooms

3

8

14

8

0


Library

1

1112

9

0


Computer labs

10

6

11

6

0


Sports complex

43

Questions 12 through 14 asked graduate students to rate the admissions process. Questions 12

asked: Information provided on the website/information kits. Students were asked to rate this

question as follows: A. Completely irrelevant, B. Lacking, C. Somewhat lacking, D. Complete

E. Very thorough. Figure 2.16 shows the responses.

Figure 2.16. Graduate Student Responses to Question 12 form Graduate Survey.

12

6

13

2

0

Graduate Survey Question 11: Rank the facilities: Dining

hall/catering

0

7

12

14

1

A. COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT

B. LACKING C. SOMEWHAT LACKING

D. COMPLETE E. VERY THOROUGH.

Graduate Survey Question 12: Information provided on the website/information kits

44

Question 13 asked: Access and responsiveness of staff. And 14 asked: Overall ease of the

application process. Students were asked to rate these questions based on the following scale:

A. Poor, B. Fair, C. Good, D. Excellent, E. Outstanding. Figure 2.17 shows the results of student

responses to these questions.

Figure 2.17. Graduate Student Responses to Question 13 and 14 from Graduate Survey.

In questions 15 through 23, graduate students were asked: In your opinion, how important was

each of the following courses to providing you with relevant business education?: Please use the

following to rank each course: A. Not important, B. Somewhat not important, C. Somewhat

important, D. Important, E. Very important. The following courses were rated. Figure 2.18

shows the graduate student ratings.

15. Statistics for Managers

16. Financial and Managerial Accounting

17. Managerial Communication

18. Law and the Manager

19. Economics for Managers

20. Strategic Management

21. Strategic Leadership

22. Managing Organizational Change

23. Business and Economics Forecasting

4

9

16

5

0

Graduate Survey Question 13: Access and responsiveness of staff

Question 13

34

11

14

2

Graduate Survey Question 14: Overall ease of the

application process

Question 14

45

In questions 24 to 32, graduate students were asked: In your opinion, how well was each of the

following courses instructed? Please use the following to rank each course:

A. Not well at all, B. Somewhat not well, C. Somewhat well, D. Well, E. Very well. The

following courses were rated, and figure 2.19 shows the results.










Figure 2.18. Graduate Student Responses to Question 15 to 23 from Graduate Survey.

Figure 2.19. Graduate Student Responses to Question 24 to 32 from Graduate Survey

4 4

9

14

4

Graduate Survey Question 15: importance of course to providing you with relevant business

educationStatistics for Managers

Question 15

4 4

9

15

2

Graduate Survey Question 24: How well was each

of the following courses instructedStatistics for Managers

Question 24

46

1 2

7

20

5

Graduate Survey Question 16: importance of course to providing you with relevant business

educationFinancial and Managerial Accounting

Question 16

1

4

9

17

3

Graduate Survey Question 25: How well was each of

the following courses instructedFinancial and Managerial

Accounting

Question 25

3 4

15

10

3

Graduate Survey Question 17: importance of course

to providing you with relevant business education

Managerial Communication

Question 17

3 3

11

13

3


the following courses instructedManagerial Communication

Question 26

47

3

6

12

10

3



Law and the Manager

Question 18

23

1011

7


the following courses instructedLaw and the Manager

Question 27

13

16

11

4

Graduate Survey Question 19: importance of

course to providing you with relevant business education

Economics for Managers

Question 19

12

10

12

7


the following courses instructedEconomics for Managers

Question 28

48

5

3

12

10

5



Strategic Management

Question 20

8

24

16

3


the following courses instructedStrategic Management

Question 29

2 2

11

14

5



Strategic Leadership

Question 21

24

9

12

5


the following courses instructedStrategic Leadership

Question 30

49

In questions 33 to 38, graduate students were asked: How satisfied are you with the knowledge,

skills, and abilities you developed in each of the following? Please use the following to answer

the questions: A. Not satisfied, B. Somewhat not satisfied, C. Somewhat satisfied, D. Satisfied,

E. Very satisfied. Figure 2.20 shows the students responses to these questions.

33. Computer skills – Excel/PowerPoint/Word

34. Communication skills - Oral communication

35. Communication skills - Written communication

36. Number of courses offered within your concentration

37. Professors that taught within your concentration

38. Overall satisfaction

54

12

9

5



Managing Organizational Change

Question 22

8

0

11 11

2


the following courses instructedManaging Organizational Change

Question 31

10

15

12

7



Business and Economics Forecasting

Question 23

0 0

9

14

8


the following courses instructedBusiness and Economics

Forecasting

Question 32

50

Figure 2.20. Graduate Student Responses to Question 33 to 38 from Graduate Survey.

01

9

16

8

Graduate Survey Question 33: Satisfaction w/

knowledge, skills, and abilities developed

Computer skills –Excel/PowerPoint/Word

Question 33

0 1

8

20

5



Communication skills - Oral communication

Question 34

12

11

16

4



Communication skills - Written communication

Question 35

3

7 7

17

0



Number of courses offered within your concentration

Question 36

51

In questions 39 to 41 and 43, graduate students were asked to answer A. for Yes and B. for no to

the following:

I believe that my MBA degree would provide me with…

39. The opportunity to get a better job in the future

40. Credentials I need to increase career options

41. The chance to make more money

43. Would you recommend Wagner to someone who has decided to pursue a Traditional MBA

degree?

Figure 2.21 shows the responses to the above questions.

Figure 2.21. Graduate Student Responses to Question 39 to 41 and 43 from Graduate Survey.

For the following questions where the possible responses are yes and no, we will add a

comments box for students to indicate why they responded no.

34

10

17

0



Professors that taught within your concentration

Question 37

24

12

16

0



Overall satisfaction

Question 38

52

Question42 asked: When you compare the total monetary cost of your graduate business

program to the quality of education you received, how would you rate the overall value of your

MBA degree? Students were asked to rate this question based on the following scale: A. Poor, B.

Fair, C. Good, D. Excellent, E. Outstanding. Figure 2.22 shows the results of student responses

to these questions.

28

6

YES NO

Graduate Survey Question 39: I believe that my MBA

degree would provide me with:The opportunity to get a better job in

the future

Question 39

27

8

YES NO


degree would provide me with:Credentials I need to increase career

options

Question 40

28

7

YES NO


degree would provide me with:The chance to make more money

Question 41

22

13

YES NO

Graduate Survey Question 43: Would you recommend Wagner to someone who has decided to pursue a Traditional MBA degree?

Question 43

53

Figure 2.22. Results of student responses to question 42 from Graduate Survey.

Comprehensive Accounting Instrument

Figure 2.23 shows the scores on the Comprehensive Accounting Instrument. Last year this score

dipped to an average score of 52. Accounting professors met and collaborated on a common goal

to raise this score by ensuring that emphasis was placed on student’s acquiring the necessary

conceptual understanding of important accounting content. Their strategy was successful with

2016-17 score hitting an all-time high of 69.8.

Overall, across the undergraduate and MBA programs, for most indicators, we have seen steady

upward trends over the long term. For a few indicators, we have seen slight short-term declines,

and we will need to determine whether these small declines are significant or whether they are

due to small sample sizes.

The target score of the accounting assessment exam was set at 55 by department faculty. This

exam mirrors the CPA exam on a micro level as it test all four content areas of the CPA exam.

The CPA exam is a rigorous exam that has an average passing percent of approximately 25%.

Most students take off a year or less after the MS degree to study continuously for the heavy

content of the exam, while others work full or part-time and devote waking hours to its study.

The passing grade for the CPA exam is 75% which enables its earner to the prestigious

credential. Thus 55 was considered fair, since no advanced study is no place, the students take it

as a surprise exam, with no prior immediate preparation. This represents mastery of more than

50% of the content areas that cover financial accounting, managerial accounting, taxation and

audit, which was deemed satisfactory of an unprepared assessment exam with heavy specific

accounting applications.

The test scores have been consistently around the 55 level since 2009. However in 2016 the

grade dipped to 52. The classes are small: ranging from 11-18 students, so poor performance of

one or two can have a dramatic effect. None the less, corrective action was undertaken. As part

of the learning component of the graduate accounting classes, the students were give nightly

exams that were take home, that were taken from the test banks of undergraduate accounting

classes. They were graded and in the cumulative grade on the exams were incorporated in to the

final exam. This was done in three of the graduate classes. The outcome was remarkable. This

reinforcement enabled the students to move into their permanent memory, information

4

1210

54

A. NOT HELPFUL

B. SOMEWHAT

NOT HELPFUL

C. SOMEWHAT

HELPFUL

D. HELPFUL E. VERY HELPFUL

Graduate Survey Question 42: When you compare the total monetary cost of your

graduate business program to the quality of education you received, how would you rate the overall value of your MBA

degree? :

54

previously learned stored in their temporary memory. This will be applied to all graduate

accounting classes going forward on some level.

Figure 2.23. Comprehensive Accounting Instrument for MS in Accounting 2012 to 2017.

Accounting Students’ Thesis Scores

The Account Theis requires students to demonstrate proficieny in the four program learning

goals. Since 2014, there has been significant improvement in two of the areas, while one area has

remained stable, as shown in the chart on the following page.

(1) A strong knowledge in the relationship between accounting and its impact on business.

No change since 2014.

(2) Mastery of major accounting concepts and application skills in real-world problems.

There has been a 16.5% increase since 2014.

(3) Strong quantitative skills to analyze and process business accounting information.

There has been a 2.0% decrease since 2014.

(4) Proficiency in accounting research and effective communication of results.

There has been an 8.7% increase since 2014.

57.44 55.75 55.4252

69.78

12-'13 13-'14 14-'15 15-'16 16-'17

MS Accocunting2012-2017

55

Accounting Students’ Satisfaction

Accounting students’s satisfaction with the program was measured via four questions in the exit

survey. There have been several changes in scores since 2014.

Q 11: Recommend the program.

There has been a 7.9% decrease since 2014.

Q 10: Overall value of the degree.

There has been no change since 2014.

Q 9: Fulfill expectations.

There has been a 5.3% increase since 2014.

Q 8: Career Services.

There has been a 20% increase since 2014.

56

Describe curricular and/or pedagogical changes made during the year based on assessment

results from the current or previous years.

Based upon the feedback from students, employers, and the student advisory council, the

department determined that in order to help further our students’ careers, implementation of

Excel into every business class was essential. The department voted to make it mandatory for all

professors to incorporate at least one Excel assignment per class. This is meant to help expand

our students’ knowledge base in Excel and to promote better analytical skills needed in today’s

business environment.

The Management Lab has been in place for six semesters now, and the data provides the

department with a foundational benchmark to assess changes in critical business skills currently

being measures in the Comp-Xm® scores in the undergraduate senior year. Going forward, all

Foundation students will take Comp-XM® exam at the end of MG 201 Lab. This will give us

comparative data based on assurance of learning goals that are embedded in the exam, when they

re-take the Comp-XM® exam two years later in the BU401 class.

Given that the corporate world has implemented Microsoft Office exams for prospective

employees, the department has been proactive in establishing proficiency in our students for

Word, Excel and PowerPoint. A department-wide consensus and effort has been made to ensure

that all students (on the graduate and undergraduate levels) have the ability to demonstrate

proficiency in business software such as Excel, Word and PowerPoint to solve business

problems. In CS 260, the final exam is the Microsoft Office Specialist Certification test. This has

allowed students to not only have the proficiency needed, but the official certification from

Microsoft as well. The department has seen this as a critical necessity for our graduating students

57

who are entering the workforce. An effort has also been made to promote the use of these

programs throughout the business department course offerings.

Changes that have been implemented and/or are in progress which were initiated by data:

** Successfully implemented and ongoing improvement by June 1, 2017

* In Progress

Investigate offering online courses on the Graduate level during Fall/Spring semesters as

well as creating an online program during the Winter intersession*

Implemented changes to the TMBA program which was approved by the New York

State, which include embedding MS degrees in all Majors, restructuring of our TMBA,

reducing credits to 39 allowing greater flexibility in both student and program

scheduling, Reduced EMBA by 3 credits while maintaining current tuition structure*

Make Business Department in Campus Hall an information rich environment with

addition of five bulletin boards in the second floor corridor and continuously updated our

website so all information is current and accessible to all.

Successfully submit updated ACBSP two year report---September 2017

Continue to review certain aspects of the BU 400 syllabus with the department, including

practicum rules, thesis professors and content of workshops offered, including a new

Excel Review workshop, added workshops in BU 400 as a zero credit Lab**

Investigate a totally online TMBA as well as a hybrid model*

Describe curricular and/or pedagogical changes desired or being planned, if needed or as

indicated by assessment results from prior years.

a. The department will continue to discuss at department meetings each semester and via

email to adjuncts what oral and written strengths and weaknesses have been revealed

from the rubric scores and encourage faculty to focus on the areas that need attention.

b. We will establish better communication protocols between students and professors to

reduce turnaround times of all correspondence and create a better communicative

environment.

c. Based upon the assessment data, we will continue to find new ways to challenge our

student intellectually by increasing the academic rigor of each program and adapt each

program to the changing business environment to ensure that our graduating students

have the necessary skills needed to pursue further academic and professional careers.

d. We will address and define plagiarism at the beginning of each course and identify to

students the resources available at the library.

58

Changes that have been implemented and/or are in continuous improvement mode:

** Successfully implemented and ongoing improvement by June 1, 2017

* In Progress

Improve Retention on an ongoing basis*

Increase CompXm® Scores**

Raise Accounting Exam Scores*

Work closely with Assessment Director Dr. Anne Love to collect data and monitor

student progress**

Increase Wagner specializations with additions such as Lean/Six Sigma initiatives

currently employed in EMBA and added to AccMBA*

Continue to review undergraduate concentrations and Graduate majors to better align

with AACSB standards as well as scheduling classes that reflect professor’s terminal

degree and professional experience**

With addition of our TC courses at both the undergraduate and graduate level generate

superior skills and better employment opportunities for our graduates**

Continued refinement of dedicated assessment tools to help further the academic and

professional careers of our graduates and alum while maintaining high academic

standards for the business department*

Successfully align all courses with professors’ academic and professional credentials

5 Year FAST TRACK BS/Dual Finance/Management MBA, using the AccMBA as the

Graduate component. Approved by Full Faculty and sent to NYS for Fall approval.

Currently under review by two Professors from an AACSB Institution

We established protocols necessary to assure no classes are taken without the required

prerequisites.**

59

APPENDIX

63

WAGNER COLLEGE

Department of Business Administration Undergraduate Survey

This survey is intended to assess your level of satisfaction with the instruction you received in

required courses for your major in Business Administration. Please indicate your agreement with the

following statements using the following scale:

5. Strongly Agree

4. Agree

3 Neutral

2 Disagree

1 Strongly Disagree

1 The material covered in AC 101 and AC 102 provided a good

foundation in Accounting for a business major.

5 4 3 2 1

2 The material covered in FI 201 provided a good foundation in

Finance for a business major.

5 4 3 2 1

3 The material covered in MK 201 provided a good foundation

in Marketing for a business major.

5 4 3 2 1

4 The material covered in MG 201 provided a good foundation

in Management for a business major.

5 4 3 2 1

5 The material covered in BU 201 provided a good foundation

in Business Law for a business major.

5 4 3 2 1

6 The material covered in EC101 and EC 102 provided a good

foundation in Economics for a business major.

5 4 3 2 1

7 The material covered in MA 108 provided a good foundation

in Statistics for a business major.

5 4 3 2 1

8 BU401 Business Policy and Strategy served as a good

capstone course, demonstrating the integration of all of the

business disciplines.

5 4 3 2 1

9 The 100-hour practicum required in BU 400 was an integral

part of my experience as a business major.

5 4 3 2 1

10 The senior thesis requirement in BU 400 was an integral part

of my experience as a business major.

5 4 3 2 1

11 The career development activities in BU 400 helped me

transition from college to career/graduate studies.

5 4 3 2 1

64

12 I am satisfied with the advisement I received from my faculty

advisor.

5 4 3 2 1

13 The Business Department faculty possesses a high level of

knowledge in their respective disciplines.

5 4 3 2 1

14 The Business Department faculty were accessible to students

and responsive to their needs.

5 4 3 2 1

15 Answer only if you took BU 211: The material covered in BU

211 provided a good foundation in international business for a

business major.

5 4 3 2 1

16 Answer only if you took BU397/497: My Internship

experience enhanced my business skills/knowledge.

5 4 3 2 1

17. What are the major strengths of the Business Administration Department (i.e., what do we do well)?

18. What would you like to see changed/improved; what are we missing?

19. Additional Comments:

65

Wagner College Traditional MBA Graduates’ Survey

QUALITY OF THE TRADITIONAL MBA PROGRAM

Rate each of the following components of your program, based on your entire educational

experience as an MBA student:

Please use the following to rank each component:

a. Poor b. Fair c. Good d. Excellent e. Outstanding

1. Faculty Knowledge

2. Faculty responsiveness to students

3. Talent level of the students in the TMBA Program

4. Cooperative atmosphere among students in my cohort

5. How helpful was the Program Director’s involvement in the Program to improving your MBA

experience?

a. Not helpful

b. Somewhat not helpful

c. Somewhat helpful

d. Helpful

e. Very helpful

6. Class schedule

a. Not convenient

b. Somewhat not convenient

c. Somewhat convenient

d. Convenient

e. Very convenient

66

Please use the following to rank the facilities in questions 7-12:

a. Poor b. Fair c. Good d. Excellent e. Outstanding

7. Class rooms

8. Library

9. Computer labs

10. Sports complex

11. Dining hall/catering

ADMISSIONS PROCESS

12. Information provided on the website/information kits

a. Completely irrelevant

b. Lacking

c. Somewhat lacking

d. Complete

e. Very thorough

13. Access and responsiveness of staff

a. Poor

b. Fair

c. Good

d. Excellent

e. Outstanding

14. Overall ease of the application process

a. Poor

b. Fair

c. Good

d. Excellent

e. Outstanding

CURRICULUM

In your opinion, how important was each of the following courses to providing you with relevant

business education?

Please use the following to rank each course:

67

a. Not important

b. Somewhat not important

c. Somewhat important

d. Important

e. Very important










In your opinion, how well was each of the following courses instructed?

Please use the following to rank each course:

a. Not well at all

b. Somewhat not well

c. Somewhat well

d. Well

e. Very well










How satisfied are you with the knowledge, skills, and/or abilities you developed in each of the

following?

Please use the following to answer questions 40-42:

68

a. Not satisfied

b. Somewhat not satisfied

c. Somewhat satisfied

d. Satisfied

e. Very satisfied

33. Computer skills – Excel/PowerPoint/Word

34. Communication skills - Oral communication

35. Communication skills - Written communication

CONCENTRATION

How satisfied were you with…

Please use the following to rank each criterion:

a. Not satisfied

b. Somewhat not satisfied

c. Somewhat satisfied

d. Satisfied

e. Very satisfied

36. Number of courses offered within your concentration

37. Professors that taught within your concentration

38. Overall satisfaction

EXPECTATIONS FROM THE MBA DEGREE

I believe that my MBA degree would provide me with…

39. The opportunity to get a better job in the future a. Yes b. No

40. Credentials I need to increase career options a. Yes b. No

41. The chance to make more money a. Yes b. No

42. When you compare the total monetary cost of your graduate business program to the quality of

education you received, how would you rate the overall value of your MBA degree?

a. Poor

69

b. Fair

c. Good

d. Excellent

e. Outstanding

43. Would you recommend Wagner to someone who has decided to pursue a Traditional MBA

degree?

a. Yes

b. No

Thank you for completing the survey!

Good luck!

71

Wagner College

Nicolais School of Business Spring 2017

NAME OF COURSE

COURSE NUMBER/SECTION

CLASS DAY/TIME

CLASS LOCATION

NAME OF PROFESSOR

EMAIL ADDRESS

OFFICE LOCATION

PHONE NUMBER

OFFICE HOURS

IA. Class summary

TO BE TAKEN DIRECTLY FROM BUSINESS DEPT WEBPAGE COURSE DESCRIPTION.

INCLUDE PREREQUISITES.

I.B Course Objectives (Specific learning Outcomes such as Critical Thinking, improving Excel skills,

Creativity, and Self-reflection)

II. Learning Tools Textbook:

Financial Calculator: Texas Instrument BA II Plus Professional

Since all software utilized in this program is PC friendly and not fully compatible with

Apple computers; students at the Nicholas's School of Business are required to have a PC.

NOTE TO INSTRUCTORS --- DEPARTMENT REQUIREMENT: EVERY CLASS YOU TEACH MUST

INCLUDE AN EXCEL EXERCISE

72

III. Class Participation: (optional statement) Class attendance and participation are required.

Ten percent of your final grade is derived from your attendance, preparedness and active

participation in classroom discussion and learning.

IV. Statement on Plagiarism

Students must accept the responsibility to be honest and respect the ethical standards in meeting

their academic assignments and requirements. Integrity requires that students demonstrate

intellectual and academic achievement that is independent of all assistance, except of that

authorized by the instructor. The use of an outside source in any paper, report or submission for

academic credit, without the appropriate acknowledgement is plagiarism. It is the student’s

responsibility to give credit for any quotation, idea or data borrowed from an outside source.

V. Statement on Disability Services

Wagner College believes it is important that students receive appropriate accommodation for any

disability. In that regard, you are encouraged to contact

Dina Assante, Assistant Dean of Advising, at (718) 390-3278 or by e-mail at [email protected] .

VI. Grading Policy

VII. Course Outline/Chapter Readings:

NOTE: Course outline is tentative.

The instructor reserves the right to alter content to better serve students’ needs.

Students are not permitted to tape record class lectures.

mailto:[email protected]

nicolais school of business administration paul scrocco...

Documents