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
Analytical and Quantitative Skills
Critical-thinking and Decision-making skills
Functional Knowledge Application Skills
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
Class MedianPercentile
Class MedianPercentile
Class MedianPercentile
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
Class vs. International Average
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
Class vs. International Average
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
Class vs. International Average
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
- Class Functional Areas, 2013-2017
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:
Analytical and Quantitative Skills
Critical-thinking and Decision-making Skills
Functional Knowledge Application 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
- Class Functional Areas, 2013-2017
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 -
Assurance of Learning Goals
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
Learning and Growth quadrant
Customer quadrant
Internal Business Process 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
Learning and Growth quadrant
Customer quadrant
Internal Business Process 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
Learning and Growth quadrant
Customer quadrant
Internal Business Process 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
Figure 1.17. Employer Survey Responses to Questions 5 to 8.
Figure 1.18. Employer Survey Responses to Questions 9 to 12.
Figure 1.19. Employer Survey Responses to Questions 13 to 16.
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
Percent of Students' Scores on Internship Outcomes
Excellent Good Average Poor N/A
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
Percent of Students' Scores on Internship Outcomes
Excellent Good Average Poor N/A
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
Percent of Students' Scores on Internship Outcomes
Excellent Good Average Poor N/A
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
Analytical and Quantitative Skills
Critical-thinking and Decision-making skills
Functional Knowledge Application Skills
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
Class vs. International Average
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
Class vs. International Average
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%.
Assurance of Learning Goals
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:
Analytical and Quantitative Skills
Critical-thinking and Decision-making Skills
Functional Knowledge Application Skills
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:
Learning and Growth quadrant
Customer quadrant
Internal Business Process 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
Analytical and Quantitative Skills
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:
Assurance of Learning Goals
Critical-thinking and Decision-making Skills
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:
Assurance of Learning Goals
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
Learning and Growth quadrant
Customer quadrant
Internal Business Process 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
Learning and Growth quadrant
Customer quadrant
Internal Business Process 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
Learning and Growth quadrant
Customer quadrant
Internal Business Process 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
Graduate Survey Question 8: Rank the facilities:
Library
1
1112
9
0
Graduate Survey Question 9: Rank the facilities:
Computer labs
10
6
11
6
0
Graduate Survey Question 10: Rank the facilities:
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.
24. Statistics for Managers
25. Financial and Managerial Accounting
26. Managerial Communication
27. Law and the Manager
28. Economics for Managers
29. Strategic Management
30. Strategic Leadership
31. Managing Organizational Change
32. Business and Economics Forecasting
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
Graduate Survey Question 26: How well was each of
the following courses instructedManagerial Communication
Question 26
47
3
6
12
10
3
Graduate Survey Question 18: importance of course
to providing you with relevant business education
Law and the Manager
Question 18
23
1011
7
Graduate Survey Question 27: How well was each of
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
Graduate Survey Question 28: How well was each of
the following courses instructedEconomics for Managers
Question 28
48
5
3
12
10
5
Graduate Survey Question 20: importance of course
to providing you with relevant business education
Strategic Management
Question 20
8
24
16
3
Graduate Survey Question 29: How well was each of
the following courses instructedStrategic Management
Question 29
2 2
11
14
5
Graduate Survey Question 21: importance of
course to providing you with relevant business education
Strategic Leadership
Question 21
24
9
12
5
Graduate Survey Question 30: How well was each of
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
Graduate Survey Question 22: importance of
course to providing you with relevant business education
Managing Organizational Change
Question 22
8
0
11 11
2
Graduate Survey Question 31: How well was each of
the following courses instructedManaging Organizational Change
Question 31
10
15
12
7
Graduate Survey Question 23: importance of
course to providing you with relevant business education
Business and Economics Forecasting
Question 23
0 0
9
14
8
Graduate Survey Question 32: How well was each of
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
Graduate Survey Question 34: Satisfaction w/
knowledge, skills, and abilities developed
Communication skills - Oral communication
Question 34
12
11
16
4
Graduate Survey Question 35: Satisfaction w/
knowledge, skills, and abilities developed
Communication skills - Written communication
Question 35
3
7 7
17
0
Graduate Survey Question 36: Satisfaction w/
knowledge, skills, and abilities developed
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
Graduate Survey Question 37: Satisfaction w/
knowledge, skills, and abilities developed
Professors that taught within your concentration
Question 37
24
12
16
0
Graduate Survey Question 38: Satisfaction w/
knowledge, skills, and abilities developed
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
Graduate Survey Question 40: I believe that my MBA
degree would provide me with:Credentials I need to increase career
options
Question 40
28
7
YES NO
Graduate Survey Question 41: I believe that my MBA
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
60
61
62
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
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
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
24. Statistics for Managers
25. Financial and Managerial Accounting
26. Managerial Communication
27. Law and the Manager
28. Economics for Managers
29. Strategic Management
30. Strategic Leadership
31. Managing Organizational Change
32. Business and Economics Forecasting
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!
70
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.