MAINTENANCE OF ACCREDITATION REPORT OF ACCREDITATION REPORT Prepared for AACSB International December 2014 5th Year Report ... Guided by the University’s strategic plan “The Pathway

MAINTENANCE OF ACCREDITATION REPORT

Prepared for

AACSB International

December 2014

5th Year Report 2010-2014

Contact Person Brien N. Smith, Dean

Scott College of Business Indiana State University

30 N 7th St Terre Haute, IN 47807

(812) 237-2000 [email protected]

Table of Contents

Section 1 – Situational Analysis ................................................................................................... 1

Context ........................................................................................................................................ 1

Governance Structure .................................................................................................................. 2

Relative Strengths ....................................................................................................................... 2

Challenges ................................................................................................................................... 4

Section 2 – Progress Update on Concerns from Previous Review ............................................ 5

Section 3 – Strategic Management .............................................................................................. 7

Mission Statement and Strategic Framework.............................................................................. 7

Strategic Management Planning Process and Outcomes ............................................................ 8

Strategic Planning Process....................................................................................................... 8

Continuous Improvement Outcomes ..................................................................................... 10

Financial Strategies ................................................................................................................... 13

New Degree Programs .............................................................................................................. 15

Intellectual Contributions .......................................................................................................... 15

Section 4 – Participants .............................................................................................................. 16

Students ..................................................................................................................................... 16

Enrollment ............................................................................................................................. 16

Student Profile ....................................................................................................................... 18

Admission, Probation, and Separation .................................................................................. 20

Advising and Student Support ............................................................................................... 21

Student Engagement .............................................................................................................. 23

Faculty ....................................................................................................................................... 24

Faculty Deployment Standards .............................................................................................. 24

Scott College Alignment with Standards ............................................................................... 25

Faculty Management Processes ............................................................................................. 26

Section 5 – Assurance of Learning ............................................................................................ 29

Curricula Development ............................................................................................................. 29

Assessment Tools and Procedures ............................................................................................ 29

Undergraduate Business Curriculum ..................................................................................... 32

MBA Curriculum ................................................................................................................... 41

Section 6 – Other ......................................................................................................................... 45

SCOB Exemplary Practices ...................................................................................................... 45

APPENDIX 1 – Strategic Management .................................................................................... 46

1.1: Strategic Plan 2010 - 2015 ................................................................................................. 47

1.2: AACSB Standards Table 2-1 ............................................................................................. 55

1.3: Scott College of Strategy Framework 2015-2019 .............................................................. 64

APPENDIX 2 – Participants ...................................................................................................... 69

2.1: Summary of Faculty Sufficiency Table 9-1 ....................................................................... 70

2.2: Summary of Faculty Qualifications Table 10-1 ................................................................. 75

2.3: Deployment of Qualified Faculty Table 10-2 .................................................................... 84

2.4: Determination of Faculty Resources Document ................................................................ 90

2.5: Expectations Document ..................................................................................................... 96

APPENDIX 3 – Assurance of Learning .................................................................................. 102

Section 1 – Situational Analysis

Context

Founded in 1865 as the state normal school, Indiana State is a research-intensive state-assisted public institution offering degrees through the doctoral level. Indiana State is also classified as an engaged institution by the Carnegie Foundation and has been named to the President’s Higher Education Honor Roll for Community Service each year since its creation. The University has also been ranked first in the nation for the past two years by Washington Monthly’s College Guide for the community service performed by its students.

The university offers more than 80 undergraduate majors within the Colleges of Arts & Sciences, Business, Education, Nursing, Health and Human Services, and Technology. More than 90 graduate programs are offered through the College of Graduate and Professional Studies in conjunction with the academic Colleges. Indiana State has one of the most diverse student populations in Indiana. Enrollment has grown significantly in the last few years surpassing 13,000 in fall 2014. The majority of students are from Indiana but the University also attracts students from throughout the U.S. and has more than 1,000 international students. There are nearly 500 full-time faculty members. Guided by the University’s strategic plan “The Pathway to Success,” Indiana State also has experienced an expansion of its commitment to community service, an immersion of experiential learning into all degree programs, the development of eight Unbounded Possibilities centers of excellence, the addition of new degree programs in high-demand fields, and implementation of several measures to increase recruitment and retention of great faculty and staff.

The Scott College of Business (SCOB) began as the Commerce Department which was formed in 1918 with a focus on business education. Undergraduate degrees in commerce were added in the 1920’s and programs in business administration in the 1950’s. The School of Business was created in 1964 with both undergraduate and graduate degrees, and was advanced to the College of Business in 2004.

Today, the Scott College of Business is one of five colleges of Indiana State University and provides one of the three largest undergraduate majors of the University in business administration. The College is home to approximately 1390 students, over 40 faculty members in three departments, and 22 professional and support staff members. An institute along with five centers serves faculty, students, and the business community. The SCOB offers ten undergraduate major programs and a Master of Business Administration (MBA). Indiana State Business programs have earned AACSB – International accreditation since 1980. The College of Business was renamed in October of 2009 in recognition of a substantial gift from Donald and Susan Scott.

1

Governance Structure

The Constitution and Bylaws of the Faculty of Indiana State University, guarantees the SCOB a representative form of government with respect to the formulation and administration of internal policy and the right to participate in the selection, evaluation, and removal of its chief administrative officer or officers. Similarly, the Faculty of each academic subdivision of the Scott College of Business is guaranteed the right to participate in the selection, evaluation, and removal of department chairpersons.

The Scott College maintains the following standing committees as dictated by its constitution:

1. Curricular and Academic Affairs Committee - formulates and recommends policies governing the undergraduate curricula to facilitate continuous improvement.

2. Departmental Personnel Committee - makes recommendations to the Department Chairperson regarding applicants for tenure, promotion, and leaves, and regarding retention of faculty members. It also makes recommendations regarding professional performance and other additional personnel issues in the department as necessary.

3. Graduate Committee - formulates and recommends policies and processes governing the graduate program and to facilitate continuous improvement.

4. Faculty Affairs Committee - fulfills the advisory functions of the Business Faculty, and evaluates applicants for tenure, promotion, leaves, and retention.

5. Student Affairs Committee - formulates and recommends policies and procedures and plans events related to students in the Scott College of Business.

6. Teaching, Learning, and Research Committee - encourages excellence and continuous improvements in teaching, learning, and research.

7. Student Learning Assessment Committee - encourages and coordinates assessment of learning in all of the programs of the College.

The college Deans and Chairs Committee is convened by the dean. Its membership consists of the associate dean, the executive director for graduate programs, and the three department chairs. The committee assists the dean in communication of information to faculty and directing and evaluating the college strategic plan.

Relative Strengths

The SCOB has developed strategic niches in several areas that give the college competitive advantage in the state of Indiana and in the region. These areas of distinction are:

1. Meis Student Development Center. The Meis Center assists in the coordination of Scott College of Business professional development initiatives. It introduces programs and supports the activities proposed by faculty, by student organizations, classes, or other members of the ISU campus community. The college’s “Catapult” program is administered by the Meis Center. Through its SCOB faculty partners (24 faculty across 51 sections), Catapult presents course-required content in support of student professional development and delivers programming in

2

support of college assurance of learning efforts. Just a few examples of Catapult programming include: presentations from business professionals; cultural awareness seminars; conflict resolution; how to conduct an effective meeting; using social media in business; calendaring; ethical decision making; etiquette and networking; effective presentations; and employee benefits.

2. Networks Financial Institute. “NFI,” founded in 2003 with the help of a grant from the Lilly Endowment, Inc., strives to facilitate broad, collaborative thinking, dialogue and progress in the evolving financial services marketplace through student programs, and thought leadership. Indiana State University’s support of NFI through its “Unbounded Possibilities” program establishes NFI as a pillar of excellence for the University. NFI supports and administers:

a. The Networks Scholars Professional Development Program. “Networks Scholars” are recipients of a competitive and selective regional scholarship that provides intensive professional leadership development programming. The program is home to nearly 60 student scholars that are served by a dedicated educational support team. Along with the Gongaware scholarships, these high caliber students drive the reputation of the college’s Financial Services program.

b. Thought Leadership and the Washington Insurance Reform Summit. NFI has become a national thought leader working to answer challenges surrounding the financial services industry. NFI’s network of prominent research fellows, along with NFI’s own staff researchers, develop policy briefs, working papers and related research publications that inform industry leaders and decision-makers on some of today’s most pressing financial services issues. The annual Insurance Reform Summit in Washington, D.C. helps focus national policy-maker’s attention on pressing insurance issues for the coming year.

3. Sycamore Student Ventures. Sycamore Student Ventures is a capstone learning lab

created to implement experiential and entrepreneurial learning environments for senior level students. The organization oversees three companies:

a. Executive Express Café is a student-run café learning lab located in the garden level of the SCOB. New student teams reconstruct management and operations processes at the beginning of each semester, effectively building a functional, state-licensed café from the ground up;

b. Sycamore Business Advisors is a student-driven strategic planning and consulting service where students gain hands-on experience by providing strategic process consulting to local businesses; and

c. Sycamore Blitz Promotions is a student-run marketing service that works with local businesses to create a three week long promotional “blitz” using social media, print and online advertising.

4. Center for Sales and Negotiations. Since its founding in early 2010, the Sales and Negotiations Center has carved a niche in sales education and enabled the Scott College of Business to achieve national recognition as an emerging leader within this important

3

profession. The Center and associated sales program have been honored as a "top sales university" by the Sales Education Foundation, and have achieved full member status in the University Sales Center Alliance (USCA).

5. Federal Hall. In the fall of 2012 the SCOB completed its move into an award-winning historic facility with significantly improved learning resources and faculty/staff offices and meeting spaces. The facility is the first LEED certified building on campus. Indiana State’s investment into this facility:

a. demonstrates that the SCOB is an important priority; b. demonstrates that benefactors believe that the SCOB is competitive and moving

forward; c. builds closer community ties and opportunities for engagement; d. emphasizes the importance of historic preservation, sustainability, and social

responsibility to students and the community; and e. improves the student experience.

Challenges

Indiana State University Foundation. The Indiana State University’s endowment managed by its foundation was valued at $55,927,000 as of June 30, 2014. As compared to other institutions in its competitive group, this amount is low. The Foundation houses both development and alumni relations for ISU. Recent leadership changes within the Foundation have resulted in needed changes in policy to move the Foundation in the right direction. However, these investment policy changes have also classified many of the SCOB endowed investments as being “underwater” as compared to their original gift value. Expenditures from “underwater” funds are frozen but prudent Foundation investment strategies have recently restored many funds to their original value. With future and planned gift commitments exceeding $26,000,000, the Foundation’s future is more promising.

State Funding. As with the vast majority of states, Indiana’s funding for higher education still lags below 2008 higher education expenditures. Consistent cuts in ISU’s biennial budget have resulted in reductions in staff and the elimination of university programs. Indiana State has made a commitment to keep tuition rates low, but other strategies need to be employed to recoup losses in state funding. Indiana State’s strategy has been to increase applications and yield rates to push enrollments, and revenues, up. In addition, the University has sought efficiencies by marginally reducing full time equivalent faculty each academic year to increase faculty to student ratios.

Student Demographics. Indiana State serves a significant number of students who are the first in their family to seek a college degree. These students lack mentorship from family members or others in their reference group on how to succeed in a college environment. In addition, Indiana State serves a larger proportion of students with lower academic achievement. Without aggressive monitoring and intrusive academic advising, these students are more likely to drop out of college or be academically dismissed. In addition, over half of Indiana State freshmen are Pell grant eligible (a proxy for income level) which places ISU at risk for not retaining these students across four years. In fact, the biggest retention challenge to the SCOB is that many of its students are forced to stop out or drop out of school altogether due to financial challenges. 4

Section 2 – Progress Update on Concerns from Previous Review

Two areas were identified in the last maintenance affirmation letter, dated April 18, 2011, for the Scott College of Business to address in its ongoing strategic planning initiatives. These areas were:

1. The School should continue to fully implement and monitor progress towards meeting the strategic plan in place for 2010 to 2015. The Committee recommends adjusting its strategic direction with respect to changing conditions and movement towards strategic objectives. In the next reporting period, please report on the progression of the strategic planning process (Strategic Management Standards: 1 to 5).

2. Please continue to encourage the School’s faculty to work toward continuous improvement and achievement of objectives for maintaining AQ and PQ status. The Committee recommends that the School consider reviewing annually faculty qualification data to ensure congruence with the School’s definitions. The School should also consider developing a plan that will enhance the research portfolio of the faculty (Standard 2: Intellectual Contributions and Standard 10: Faculty Qualifications).

Strategic Plan

Following the 2010 Maintenance of Accreditation visit and suggestions from the Peer Review Team, the College articulated a new Strategic Plan 2010 – 2015. Elements of the plan were developed with input from internal and external constituents. Strategic objectives were reviewed for consonance with the University Strategic Plan and adopted in fall 2010. These objectives shape the allocation of resources and priorities for actions and direct the College in the areas of experiential learning; engagement of faculty, students, and community members; development of distinctive programs; and provision of distinctive facilities. In addition, the college was reorganized from two departments into its current three-department configuration to more tightly align organization and resources with strategic competencies. The department changes were made to facilitate interdisciplinary programming and research, to more directly focus on distinction in financial services, and to build at least one other area of distinction, per our strategic objectives. Each of the three departments now has fewer faculty, disciplines, students, and programs than the previous structure. Further, the disciplines within a department were selected to promote greater collaboration among faculty and with existing or potential new centers and institutes. These synergies help produce innovative programming that is positioned for growth, visibility and distinction. Such programming could also enhance support from university and external audiences, particularly if the programming is designed to respond to market needs and strengthen ties to the community. At the same time, the three-department model has resulted in greater effectiveness and efficiency of administration and operations. Indiana State University is a strategic plan driven institution with goal report-outs several times a semester. The tight congruence between the college and university plans requires the SCOB to regularly measure its progress toward goals, and to report out to stakeholder groups. 5

A recent college plan refresh and visioning in the fall of 2013 fostered broader constituent group buy-in into the planning process through multiple college-wide convocations across several semesters. This process yielded the “Community Experiencing Success” tagline, and this refresh will serve as the foundation for the next formal plan in 2015. Faculty Qualification

Following the Peer Review Team visit and recommendations, documentation for attaining and maintaining AQ and PQ status was revised. These revisions better reflect the determination of qualifications and provide further guidance to the faculty, the department chairs and dean in hiring and deploying the faculty.

Documentation for faculty qualifications is contained in multiple documents within the college governance structure. Synchronizing faculty expectations across college processes ensures the qualification process can be sustainable. First, the Determination of Faculty Resources document defines intellectual contributions needed for academic qualifications, as well as professional experience and continuing development needed for professional qualifications. The goal of this documentation is to assist department chairs and the dean in the hiring and deployment of faculty. Second, the Faculty Expectations document seeks to promote equity of effort among faculty by defining minimums for achieving standard performance in teaching, intellectual contributions and service. A stated goal of these expectations is to facilitate the maintenance of AACSB accreditation by setting appropriate faculty expectations for performance.

Faculty qualification status for the college is reviewed yearly by the college’s Deans and Chairs Committee. Strategies for addressing qualification concerns are discussed and chairpersons work with the faculty directly to notify them of a pending change in their status and develop performance plans as needed. Since the last review, Indiana State has instated a biennial post-tenure review process. Although post-tenure review is a university-level assessment, the evaluations and criteria are defined at the college and/or department level. For the SCOB, these criteria are consistent with documented faculty expectations. Performance plans are developed for individuals who perform below minimum standards for teaching, research, or service. Continued poor performance across the biennium may result in lack of pay raises and/or termination of employment.

To enhance the portfolio of faculty research, the SCOB has initiated a professional development fund in support of academic qualifications. Faculty who publish in peer reviewed outlets get a portion of the fund moved to their personal professional development account. Faculty may spend these funds as they wish in support of their personal professional development. For professionally qualified faculty, the SCOB reimburses faculty for continuing education expenses and other activities in support of their qualification. Finally, the Teaching, Learning, and Research Committee is charged to encourage excellence and continuous improvements in teaching, learning, and research across the college. This standing committee plans and delivers a number of activities each semester that are widely attended by faculty.

6

Section 3 – Strategic Management

Mission Statement and Strategic Framework

The foundation of SCOB’s strategic management is its strategic framework that includes three main parts: mission, vision, and shared commitment. The strategic framework guarantees that the SCOB set its priorities on activities that promote experiential learning, applied and pedagogical research, and relationships with the community.

Mission

The Indiana State University Scott College of Business is dedicated to providing an internationally-accredited professional education to qualified students at both the undergraduate and master’s levels.

Our primary focus is to provide an experiential learning environment that prepares students to take leadership roles in both public and private organizations.

In tandem with this commitment, the College supports, encourages, and produces applied and educational research, development of relationships with the business community, and service to the region and the professions.

Vision

The Scott College of Business will enhance its state and national reputation by:

• Providing innovative experiential learning to students within and beyond the classroom;

• Creating and disseminating scholarship commensurate with the highest accreditation;

• Engaging faculty, staff, and students with their communities; and • Advancing the college’s distinction in the field of financial services and other areas

of business. Shared Commitment

Our primary focus and commitment is to excellence in learning by students, faculty, staff, and the extended community. We achieve our mission and vision by engaging our faculty, staff, and students in an environment that:

• Stages rich interactions among participants and with community members; • Provides learning activities within and beyond the classroom; • Advances the role of research in learning and scholarship and supports

communication of results to the extended community; • Integrates global and ethical perspectives, current practices and technologies into

learning;

7

• Utilizes experiential learning to advance the knowledge and practice of effective and responsible decision making;

• Prepares learners to contribute to their professions; and • Supports the continual professional development of all of its participants.

Strategic Management Planning Process and Outcomes

Indiana State University is a data-driven institution guided by its most recent strategic plan, The Pathway to Success. The plan is the result of more than ten months of collaboration among several hundred faculty, staff, students, alumni, and community leaders. Goals of the plan direct the effort of the university community, including the academic colleges. As such, the SCOB plan must work in consonance with the overall university goals. The University’s strategic goals are as follows:

1. Increase enrollment and student success; 2. Advance experiential learning; 3. Enhance community engagement; 4. Strengthen & leverage programs of distinction and promise; 5. Diversify revenue - philanthropy, contracts and grants; and 6. Recruit & retain great faculty and staff.

Following the 2010 Maintenance of Accreditation visit and suggestions from the Peer Review Team, the Scott College of Business articulated a new Strategic Plan 2010 – 2015. Elements of the plan had been developed over the previous three years with input from internal and external constituents. In April 2010, the faculty of the College met in a day-long retreat to begin articulation of a new vision and strategic goals. Discussion and input from faculty and staff, advisory councils and University leadership continued from April through November.

Beginning with the College Mission, the Strategic Plan 2010 – 2015 includes a Vision and keys to achieving the Mission and Vision. From a base of shared values, the faculty expresses Shared Commitment to excellence in learning by students, faculty, staff, and the extended community. Further, the commitment articulates the environment for achievement of the Mission and Vision and a statement of Promise to Students (see Appendix 1.1).

Strategic goals were reviewed for agreement with the University Strategic Plan and adopted in fall 2010. These goals shape the allocation of resources and priorities for actions and direct the College in the areas of experiential learning; engagement of faculty, students, and community members; development of distinctive programs; and provision of distinctive facilities.

Strategic Planning Process

Figure 3.1 below depicts the SCOB strategic planning process. The five year process is represented as being linear for simplicity. In practice, assessment, review, and adjustments are conducted continuously while revision to the mission and vision occur less frequently. 8

Figure 3.1: Strategic Planning Process

The main participants in the strategic planning process are the college 1) Deans and Chairs Committee, 2) faculty, via college-wide meetings, membership on standing committees, and ad hoc task forces, and 3) the community (advisory councils, college alumni, and donors). The Scott College of Business Deans and Chairs Committee is responsible for organizing the strategic planning process. Its membership consists of the associate dean, the executive director for graduate programs, and the three department chairs. The committee regularly reviews data from college and university processes and determines progress toward goals. The Indiana State University Foundation also provides regular reports to the dean’s office. All information is then shared with stakeholders for informational purposes, but, more importantly, for working collaboratively to make adjustments in tactics when progress toward goals is not sufficient. For example, last year the SCOB made good progress toward its enrollment benchmarks but poor progress toward student retention was identified. Time was devoted during a college-wide meeting to discuss retention and each department convened a student success task force to write departmental success plans. Reports are also shared with ISU administration and the Dean’s Executive Counsel to gather input. This process of data gathering is important because it gives life to the plan. It is not unusual to add new action items or change the priority of existing items with respect to changing conditions and/or movement towards existing strategic goals.

The dean is responsible for organizing college-wide meetings and retreats. These gatherings are held at least four times during the academic year. The AACSB “big three”, strategy, faculty qualifications, and assurance of learning is a discussion of every meeting. Even during the beginning of semester faculty meetings, as required under SCOB governance structure, break-out time is devoted to reviewing data or discussing issues. Regardless of agenda, assurance of learning feedback and discussion is always included.

Assess College & University

Environments

Review Achievement of

Strategic Objectives

Report Out to Statekeholders

Gather Internal and External

Stakeholder Input

Adjust Plan & Define Priority

Actions

Stakeholder Discussion &

Recommendation

Revise Mision, Vision, &

Objectives

9

In addition to committee duties defined by the SCOB constitution, the dean may charge the various standing committees of the college to investigate and make recommendations on issues of strategic importance to the college. These committees were defined in the situational analysis section above. Recently, for example, the Faculty Affairs Committee instituted changes in the Expectations Document to make Assurance of Learning a stated expectation of every faculty member in the college. This change added assessment to the faculty performance evaluation process.

Beginning January of 2013, the Scott College of Business embarked on a strategic plan refresh in preparation for a formal plan rollout in 2015. The dean established an ad hoc task force with representation from college stakeholders, including staff and students. Several college-wide meetings were convened. In addition to considering changes in environmental conditions, a strategic management facilitator engaged participants in a story telling exercise where each person relayed what the college looked like ten to fifteen years out. The stories were content analyzed and task force members established a new plan platform. The plan, entitled Our Community Experiencing Success, draws from the Creole concept of Lagniappe or “a little something extra.” Lagniappe embodies the University and college history of nurturing servant leadership. The framework can be found in Appendix 1.3.

Continuous Improvement Outcomes

Progress toward college and university strategic plans goals was made during the review period. Progress outcomes are summarized below.

Goal 1: To recruit and enable the success of more high quality students by providing them with knowledge, professional development, and other experiences that will give them a competitive advantage in the global workplace. (SCOB mission: “provide internationally-accredited professional education to qualified students at both the undergraduate and master’s levels” and “provide an experiential learning environment…”; University: Goal 1 & 2)

Objective Outcome Increase SCOB Enrollments and total student credit hours in Undergraduate and Graduate Programs.

Undergraduate and Graduate enrollments and student credit hours have trended up since 2012 and are at their highest point since the 1970s.

Increase SCOB measures of student success including four-year graduation rates and number of college graduates.

Metrics related to student enrollment have risen steadily across the review period. Other student persistence measures remain stagnant. Each department has developed a student success plan in effort to improve student retention and success.

Maintain and Increase Student Scholarships. Scholarship support is up $107,310 to $631,300 as compared to $534,300 from the previous 5 year review.

Increase the number of students receiving professional development programming.

A $100,000 naming gift started the Meis Center for Student Professional Development. Student development programing has increased over four fold over the review period. See Appendix 3.6.

Increase student travel and international activities, including study trips for students and faculty exchanges

Student travel and experiences have remained stable over the review period despite budget reductions and poor foundation performance.

10

Encourage student-run businesses and other innovative experiential learning activities.

Student run business have been combined under the new Sycamore Student Ventures. Experiential programs continue to flourish.

Reach more students by offering business programs online.

The SCOB now offers online programs in Accounting, Business Administration, Insurance & Risk Management, and Marketing. Minors are offered in Accounting, Finance, and Marketing.

Goal 2: To target resources and efforts toward distinctive and innovative programs, learning opportunities, and research. (SCOB mission: “provide an experiential learning environment…”; University: Goal 2)

Objective Outcome Reorganize departments to smaller units with potential for focus on building distinction.

Completed in 2011. Moved from two departments to the current AFIRM, MISBE, and MO). Facilitated interdisciplinary programming and research, led to focus on distinction in financial services.

New faculty members in Financial Services and other areas with high potential for distinction

Two faculty lines have been approved. Recruitment is currently underway.

Encourage innovation in student programs, particularly with experiential learning inside and beyond the classroom.

Started the “MO Show” poster session series to showcase student research in their marketing and operations classes. Dedicated the new Meis Center.

Move Networks Financial Institute from Indianapolis to ISU campus. Support Networks Financial Institute and Program of National Distinction in Financial Services.

The move was completed in 2012. NFI has been included in the University’s “Unbounded Possibilities” program and is therefore eligible for funding through as a university strategic initiative funded through the President’s office.

Develop Sales and Negotiations Center to shore up college distinctiveness in Sales.

The Center was founded in 2010 and is one of only 21 programs nationally to achieve partnership in the University Sales Center Alliance.

Develop Supply Chain Management program to increase enrollments in Operations Management

Completed revision of Operations Management curriculum. Operations has the highest enrollment increase in the college. Started the Center for Supply Management Research.

Goal 3: To provide a physical environment with associated technology, centers, and resources that advance opportunities for engagement among the faculty, staff, and students and with the business community. (SCOB mission: “provide an experiential learning environment…” and “development of relationships with the business community”; University: Goals 2 & 6)

Objective Outcome Renovation of the Federal Building as the new home for the College

Completed move to Federal Hall in September of 2012. The award-winning historic facility with significantly improved learning resources and faculty/staff offices and meeting spaces. The facility is the first LEED certified building on campus. Classrooms are the most technically advanced on campus.

11

Goal 4: To advance the scholarship of faculty by providing resources and support to increase the number and quality of publications. (SCOB mission: “supports, encourages, and produces applied and educational research”; University: Goals 4 & 5)

Objective Outcome Faculty research grants Provided $42,569 for funding faculty research during

review period. Peer-reviewed journal article fund for faculty Developed faculty Professional Development Funds for

each faculty member. Faculty submit peer reviewed journal articles accepted or published during the year to the dean’s office to receive a portion of fund dollars available for that year. Money may be spent for their own professional development as they see fit.

Goal 5: To increase programming for our community and professional audiences in the region, state, and nation. (SCOB mission: “development of relationships with the business community, and service to the region and the professions”; University: Goals 3 & 4)

Objective Outcome Maintain high visibility of Networks Financial Institute events and speakers and Insurance and Risk Management sponsored programs

Sponsored the 10th annual Insurance Reform Summit in Washington D.C., targeting Insurance CEOs and Capitol Hill policy makers. Sponsored three Indianapolis Insurance conferences, most recently featuring Jonathan Gruber.

Enhance college visibility through local event sponsorships

Sponsored the Groundhog Day Economic Forecast for the local community each of the last 5 years. Sponsored the Junior Achievement Business Person of the Year for the last two years. Sponsored five annual business student’s “Ethics Conference”

Encourage community participation in speaker events and other programs of the College and University

Sponsor numerous speakers through the new Meis Student Development Center. Sponsored the annual “Leader in Action” series in the college. Sponsored the annual “Risk Manager in Residence” series.

Goal 6: To enhance involvement of alumni and business communities in our programs. (SCOB mission: “provide an experiential learning environment…” and “development of relationships with the business community”; University: Goals 2 & 3)

Objective Outcome Increase involvement of alumni and community in professional development programs and in the sales program.

The new Meis Center increased alumni and business involvement through more business leader presentations, and the “networking” etiquette dinner where student learn to network in business settings.

Increase the number of advisory councils in the college.

The college added three advisory councils during the review period bringing the total to eight: Accounting, Dean’s Executive Council, Financial Planning, Insurance, Operations, Sales, Small Business Development, and Young Professionals

12

Goal 7: To increase external support for the college in the form of revenue-generating programs, funds raised, and grants. (SCOB mission: Provides financial resources for mission attainment; See Financial Strategies below; University: Goal 5)

Objective Outcome Increase involvement of student and faculty in annual campaigns

Student teams are now involved in Foundation call campaigns. A “Department Innovation” fund has been established but true faculty involvement was not achieved. The concept of faculty involvement in department fundraising will be refreshed during our 50th anniversary celebration in April of 2015.

Comprehensive campaigns with the ISU Foundation

A $1.5 million campaign was introduced in early 2014. The endowment will be used to support further student professional development upon the expiration of Lilly funds in 2018. The campaign is $220,000 toward goal.

Offer a new “Professional MBA” in the Indianapolis metropolitan area to serve as a source of continuing review for the college.

The program was established. Since 2012, enrollments have grown 400% to approximately 40. The program brought in $180,774 in revenue last year.

Financial Strategies

To pursue the Scott College of Business mission it is important to have sufficient financial support to sustain quality educational programs. Indiana State University supports the college with superb classroom facilities, computing technology, resources for a student advising center, and outstanding library services support. It is incumbent on the SCOB to prioritize it goals, relative to its mission, and seek additional resources to achieve them. Table 3.1 lists college priorities pursued during the review period and beyond, and the resources needed for continuous improvement in those areas.

To continue to recruit “qualified students at both the undergraduate and master’s levels” it is important that the SCOB expend additional resources beyond those provided by the University Marketing and Communications. Further, the SCOB can do more to retain those students, thus helping the University meet its obligation to the state, and yield more student credit hours to the college (SCOB Goal 1).

To help provide “experiential learning environment that prepares students to take leadership roles in both public and private organizations” it is essential that the SCOB continue to find ways to fund the Networks Financial Institute and the Meis Student Professional Center. Both the Institute and Center help transform our students by offering innovated student leadership and development programs (SCOB Goals 1 & 2)

For the SCOB to “support, encourage, and produces applied and educational research” (SCOB Goal 4), it is important that the college’s Networks Financial Institution continues to support “thought leadership” and grants to our faculty. It is also necessary that we maintain databases and learning resources for our faculty. Finally, the college is seeking ways to expand its Faculty Development Funds which reward faculty scholarship.

13

Finally to support the “development of relationships with the business community, and service to the region and the professions” the SCOB needs to continue to fund and support programs that provide services to the community and bring business leaders, alums, and donors in closer contact with our students (SCOB Goals 5 & 6).

Table 3.1: Financial Resources Action Item Goal Timing Funding Funding Source

Networks Financial Institute (Center, Staff, Student Scholarships)

2,4 2012-2018 $1,130,000 annually Lilly Endowment (Terminal grants ends 2018). ISU “Unbounded Possibilities” support beyond 2018

Student Recruitment and Retention

1 2013-Ongoing $150,000 annually Distance Learning subvention funds; Administrative allocations; MBA revenues to college.

Meis Student Professional Development Center

1 2012-Ongoing $50,000 annually Private donors; Revenue programs.

Professional MBA

1,7 2013-Ongoing $400,000 annually Administrative Budget; MBA revenues.

Scholarships

1 2010-Ongoing $650,000 annually Networks Financial Institute; Administrative Budget; Scholarship endowments; Annual gifts

Faculty Professional Development Funds

4 2013-2019 $65,000 annually Networks Financial Institute; MBA revenues; Donor gifts.

Programming for our community and professional audiences in the region, state, and nation

1,5,6 2012-2018 $200,000 annually Networks Financial Institute; Revenue Programs; Donor Gifts

Software and Data (Trading lab, Finance and Accounting Data, SAP, Rise Displays)

4 2010-2018 $50,000 annually Administrative Budget; Networks Financial Institute

Review and revision of undergraduate curriculum

1 2014-2015 $5,000 annually MBA revenues

Sales and Negotiations Center

2 2010-Ongoing $30,000 annually Sales Center advisory council

Student Travel 1 2010-Ongoing $40,000 annually Donor Gifts; Networks Financial Institute; MBA program funds; Revenue programs

14

New Degree Programs

No new AACSB degrees programs have been developed since the last maintenance of accreditation visit. During the review period, there were a number of curricular revisions (see Appendix 3.10 for a complete listing). These may be summarized as follows:

1. Refinement of College of Business Admission Requirements (COBA); 2. Credit hour changes for the degree (state mandated) and individual majors (university

initiative); 3. New modes of delivery to meet market demands (new distance delivery programs); and 4. Revision or development of curricula in response to anticipated market demand (Sales,

Operations; Financial Planning Concentration).

Looking ahead, the MISBE department is in the process of developing its own strategic plan and is considering a number new curricular and degree offerings. These include human resource management, entrepreneurship, and health analytics.

Intellectual Contributions

The five year SCOB portfolio of intellectual contributions is summarized in Table 3-1 below. The data indicate that a sizable percentage of Scott College of Business faculty engaged in the production of intellectual contributions over the review period. Appendix 1.3 contains AACSB Table 2-1 with a complete listing of faculty intellectual contributions. A close inspection of that data indicates that substantial cross section of the faculty in each discipline is producing intellectual contributions. With respect to the IC types, 71% of all contributions were made in research that contributes to practice, and another 28% of IC types were in pedagogical outlets. This balance of pedagogical and discipline-based research is consistent with the college’s mission of “applied and educational research.”

Table 3.1: Summary of the SCOB Portfolio of Intellectual Contributions

2010-2014

Portfolio of Intellectual Contributions Types of ICs

PRJ

Mon

ogra

phs

Book

s

Chap

ters

Proc

eedi

ngs

Pres

enta

tions

Sem

inar

s

Non

-PRJ

Oth

ers

Peda

gogi

cal

Prac

tice

Disc

iplin

e

Number of ICs 196 0 1 9 47 60 1 2 77 112 279 2 Percentage 50% 0% 0% 2% 12% 15% 0% 1% 20% 28% 71% 1%

Faculty Participating 46 0 1 6 16 15 1 2 25 27 45 2 Percent of Faculty

Participating 66% 0% 1% 9% 23% 21% 1% 3% 36% 39% 64% 3%

15

Section 4 – Participants

Students

Indiana State University students are enrolled in doctoral, master, bachelor, and associate degree programs across the College of Graduate and Professional Studies and five disciplinary colleges: Arts and Sciences; Business; Education; Nursing, Health, and Human Services; and Technology.

The Scott College of Business offers the Bachelor of Science (BS) degree for 10 undergraduate majors and the Master of Business Administration (MBA) degree at the graduate level. Undergraduate students may choose to major in more than one area and to complete one or more of the College’s minor and certificate programs. In addition, undergraduates from other colleges at ISU can complete one or more of the business minor and certificate programs and courses specifically for non-business students.

Enrollment

Overall Enrollment. Indiana State University has placed strategic importance on increasing enrollments and improving student retention to offset cuts in funding from the state. The University is less than 900 students away from its stated goal of 14,000 by 2017. Figure 4.1 depicts State’s consistent growth in graduate and undergraduate programs since 2008.

Figure 4.1: Indiana State University Enrollment

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014Graduate 2050 2071 2074 2121 2079 2038 2180 2302Undergraduate 8493 8386 8460 9373 9449 10076 10268 10881Total 10543 10457 10534 11494 11528 12114 12448 13183

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

Head

coun

t

16

Business Enrollments. As with the university, the Scott College of Business has increased its enrollments steadily since the last AACSB review. At ISU, faculty funding models are tied to the college’s student credit hour production, so continued increases in enrollment are important if the SCOB is to retain qualified faculty. In 2013 the SCOB increased its commitment to grow enrollment. Call campaigns, high school connection programs, and targeted advertising have had a positive effect on enrollment numbers. In 2014, the business college headcount grew by 6.4% and student credit hour production grew by 16% over 2013 numbers. Figure 4.2 depicts SCOB enrollment growth over the review period.

Figure 4.2: Scott College of Business Fall Enrollment

New freshmen enrollment over the review period has been inconsistent. Improvement in college recruitment methods has yielded a 24% increase in freshmen in the fall of 2014. Figure 4.3 depicts freshman enrollment trends across the review period.

Figure 4.3: Freshmen Enrollment Trends

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014Graduate 59 68 60 70 89Undergraduate 1125 1198 1226 1238 1303Total 1184 1266 1286 1308 1392

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

Head

coun

t

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014Freshmen 255 305 277 269 334% of ISU Freshmen 9.4% 12.1% 10.4% 10.1% 12.2%

0.0%2.0%4.0%6.0%8.0%10.0%12.0%14.0%

050

100150200250300350400

Head

coun

t

17

Student Profile

A profile of ISU students in fall 2014, reveals a strong majority are full-time (over 79 percent) and residents of the state of Indiana (75 percent). State has a high percentage of students who are recipients of the federal Pell Grant for low income students, and a majority of ISU students are first-generation college goers. Indiana State has a long history of providing opportunity and access to education and has the most diverse student population among Indiana’s public residential campuses.

Scott College of Business incoming first-year business students are somewhat better prepared than the University average based on high school GPA and standardized test scores. The high school grade-point average (GPA) for business freshmen in 2014 was approximately 3.11, compared to 3.07 for ISU freshmen. The combined SAT (verbal + math) scores for business freshmen in 2014 were 942; for all ISU freshmen, the combined SAT score was 919. See Table 4.1 for a review of freshmen statistics across the review period.

Table 4.1: Comprehensive SCOB Freshmen Statistics

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Male 64% 59% 59% 56% 64% Female 36% 41% 41% 44% 36%

SAT – Verbal (mean) 461 458 460 457 463 SAT – Math (mean) 497 479 486 469 479 Overall ISU SAT-V 462 461 460 457 461 Overall ISU SAT-M 469 467 463 457 458 Math Placement Pass Rate 31% 38% 30% 37% 46% HS GPA (4 pt) 3.15 3.13 3.14 3.20 3.11

Retention (starting in business) 60% 65% 63% 67% N/A Retention (switched to business) 67% 68% 66% 73% N/A

Diversity. The College of Business has a lower percentage of female students (40%) as compared to Indiana State as a whole where women are in the majority (55%). However, the SCOB student diversity has steadily increased over the review period.

Demographic characteristics for undergraduates are shown in Figure 4.4 below. Indiana State University attracts a significant number of African American students, especially from Indianapolis and the Chicago/Gary region. This percentage is 16.1% in the Scott College of Business, higher than both Vigo County (7.1%) and the State of Indiana (9.5%). The Scott College of Business has smaller percentages of other minorities, as do to the University, faculty, county, and state.

18

Figure 4.4: SCOB Enrollment by Demographic Characteristics

Diversity in Enrollment. Table 4.2 on the next page shows Scott College of Business student fall semester enrollments by major from 2010 to 2014. No new majors were introduced during the review period.

As it has for many years, the business administration major has the highest student enrollment with over 370 students. The Operations Management and Financial Services majors had 15 majors total in 2010 and have grown considerably over the last 5 years. Also, during the review period, positive growth was observed for Marketing (↑ 29%), Business Education (↑ 29%), Finance (↑ 27%), Accounting (↑ 15%), Business Administration (↑ 14%), and Management (↑ 12%).

Overall, Table 4.2 below reveals continued strong accounting enrollments and relatively large programs in management and marketing. A strategic goal for the college is to build new programs to add to the college’s distinctiveness in the market. Opportunities exist in management to build programs of distinction for the college and perhaps the university. Recent strategic planning sessions have targeted entrepreneurship and health analytics as potential new markets to be served in management. Marketing has grown its sales concentration to an area of strength over the review period. The sales concentration area currently has a faculty vacancy, and Dr. Hawes, a distinguished professor in sales, is entering into the twilight of his career. Continued efforts are needed to maintain Sales as a strength for the Scott College of Business.

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014Female 44.7% 44.3% 43.4% 41.0% 40.2%White 82.5% 73.7% 72.1% 79.0% 74.2%Black 11.6% 13.6% 15.3% 15.4% 16.1%Hispanic 1.2% 1.1% 2.1% 2.6% 3.6%Am. Indian 0.2% 0.3% 0.6% 0.5% 0.4%Other 3.5% 9.9% 1.2% 0.7% 2.9%

0.0%10.0%20.0%30.0%40.0%50.0%60.0%70.0%80.0%90.0%

19

Table 4.2: Scot College of Business Enrollments by Major

Major Fall Enrollments

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Accounting 205 225 198 204 241

Business Administration 321 331 354 341 372 Business Education 20 14 13 17 28 Business Non -designated 118 137 124 129 59 Finance 80 78 95 108 109 Financial Services 9 10 12 18 24 Information Design & End-User Computing1 3 4 2 2 3

Insurance and Risk Management 68 77 77 77 67

Management 131 160 138 135 149 Management Information Systems 27 22 24 17 22 Marketing 137 133 162 152 193

Operations Management and Analysis 6 7 27 38 36

Totals 1125 1198 1226 1238 1303 1 To be discontinued fall 2015

Admission, Probation, and Separation Incoming undergraduate and graduate students apply to the university admissions office. Admission policies for freshmen (source), transfer students (source), and graduate students (source) are available through ISU as internet resources. Freshmen and Transfer Admission. Unconditional admission to the university requires completion of the Indiana Core 40 high school curriculum (or equivalent for non-Indiana graduates) with a grade point of 2.5 on a 4.0 scale. SAT verbal and math composites of 1000 are desired. Conditional admits submit to intensive mentoring during their first year and are limited to 13 credit hours per semester. Transfer students must have a 2.0 cumulative grade point average in all college level studies. College of Business Admission (COBA). Scott College of business admission is determined by the professional advising staff in the Student Services Office in the SCOB. COBA forms the prerequisite for gaining access to the functional block junior year courses (finance, operations, management, and marketing). Admission is dependent on student completion of the first five pre-business courses with a GPA of 2.25 or higher, the completion of Math (college algebra or calculus), freshman composition, and a communications course. Graduate Admission. Applications to the MBA are accepted on a rolling basis, where students can start any semester. The Professional MBA is a cohort-style program for working professionals in the Indianapolis area that starts only in fall. Students must have an accredited undergraduate degree, an acceptable undergraduate GPA, and will usually submit the GMAT.

20

Scott College of Business graduates with a 3.0 or above undergraduate GPA, working professionals with five or more years’ responsible business experience, or other applicants with a GRE score comparable to a GMAT score of above 500 may petition for waiver of the GMAT requirement. In some cases, a resume and/or interview are also requested. An undergraduate statistics course is a prerequisite to the program. Probation and Separation. The university requires a student’s cumulative GPA to be 2.0 or better to be in good standing. Students with cumulative grade point averages less than 2.0 are placed on academic probation. The SCOB has a probation contract with students requiring them to visit the Student Services Office to discuss issues that affected academic problems. Students on probation who fail to achieve term GPA targets are academically dismissed for one term (first dismissal), one year (second dismissal), or permanently (third dismissal). Term GPA targets are as follows:

1. Freshmen (0-29 credits) target is 1.7; 2. Sophomores (30-59 credits) target is 2.0; and 3. Juniors and seniors (60 or more credits) target is 2.2.

Advising and Student Support

First Year Advising. All freshmen are advised through the University College which employs professional advisors who use a proactive (intrusive) advising model. The University College supports freshmen in transition to university life by assisting students with time management, study skills, available campus resources, and career exploration. Advisors use data from the MAPWorks survey to identify at-risk students and assist them in resolving issues that may hinder their persistence into the second year.

Beyond Freshmen Year. The Scott College of Business Student Services Office (SSO) provides academic advising services for all business students, assists with checks of graduation applications and assists faculty with academic advising of majors. Once a student has successfully completed the pre-business program, academic advising is assigned to a faculty member in the student’s major. Student Services continues to work in tandem with faculty advisors to resolve issues as they arise. To provide timely service, SSO tracks student inquiries and referrals using the Talisma customer relationship management software. MySAM. My Student Academic Map (MySAM) is a rebranded version of Ellucian Degree Works, a comprehensive academic advising, transfer articulation, and degree audit software package. The software provides Scott College of Business majors a number of services:

1. Student planning tools. Maps out students’ course by course academic progress to keep them on track for on-time graduation.

2. Degree Auditing: Provides student with clear visual indicators that show whether a course requirement has been met or is in progress; and

3. What-If and Look-Ahead Analyses: Interactive tools that inform students of their degree progress if they change their major.

21

Student Support. Students in the Scott College benefit from comprehensive services offered at both the university and college levels. ISU’s Center for Student Success offers a broad array of student and faculty resources to enhance student achievement of educational goals. For example the Center for Student Success hosts supplemental instruction programs including a writing center and a math center, and programs for parents of students to assist in the transition to college.

The SCOB hosts a staff representative from ISU Career Services. Career Services staff work in conjunction with the SCOB Meis Student Development Center to deliver training and workshops, career aptitude testing with counseling, career fairs, corporate site visits, and the Sycamore Career Link database. Data presented in Table 4.3 underscores the synergistic impact of the Career Services/Meis partnership. At the most recent university career fair, business students represented the majority of total participants. The high turnout for business majors is directly related to specific programming designed and administered in the Meis Center. The SCOB takes active interest in our students’ professional development and their ability to launch a career.

Table 4.3: Career Fair Participation College Students Percent of Total

Scott College of Business 495 60.81% Technology 119 14.62% Arts & Sciences 77 9.46% Grad & Prof Studies 54 6.63% Nursing, Health & Human Svs 37 4.55% Univ College Nondesignated 18 2.21% Arts & Sciences/Education 4 0.49% Non-degree 4 0.49% Bayh College of Education 3 0.37% Technology/Education 3 0.37%

Undergraduate Degree Completion. Approximately 29 percent of business majors earned a bachelor’s degree in four years, compared to the University average of 21 percent. After five years, these figures improve to 45 and 37 percent, respectively. The six-year graduation rates are 48 and 41 percent, respectively. Major degrees awarded by fiscal year are shown in Table 4.4 on the next page. The table includes the total number of business degrees conferred by fiscal year. The majors with the highest number of graduates are business administration, marketing, and management. Only first majors are reported. The drop-off in accounting graduates in 2014 can be attributed to a new program whereby many senior accounting majors do an internship in the spring semester and continue for a fifth year to complete their degree. 22

Table 4.4: College of Business Degrees Conferred by Major

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Total

Bachelors Degrees: Accounting 31 29 33 36 23 152

Business Administration 65 39 55 40 29 228 Business Education 3 3 1 1 1 9 Finance 15 26 20 9 21 91 Financial Services 3 6 2 0 2 13 Information Design & End User Comp 1 0 1 1 0 3 Insurance 12 17 11 22 17 79 Management 24 14 39 31 30 138 MIS 4 9 11 7 3 34 Marketing 33 39 27 43 25 167 Operations & Supply Chain Mgt 6 2 2 4 21 35 Masters Degrees:

Master of Business Admin 20 28 27 24 20 119 Professional MBA 0 0 0 8 6 14

Totals 217 212 229 226 198 1082

Student Engagement

The Scott College of Business places high importance on student engagement and experiential learning. Projects, field trips, learning labs, and community projects are numerous. Students in the capstone course manage a student-run business in the building. The following section lists some notable activities that help the SCOB and ISU stand out.

Ethics Conference. A student developed and led conference that features nationally renowned speakers and impactful seminars on ethics and social responsibility. Students are in the process of organizing their 10th annual conference for March 2015.

Meis Student Development Center. The Meis Student Development Center assists in the coordination of Scott College of Business professional development initiatives. The Center both initiates activities and supports the activities proposed by faculty, by student organizations, classes, or other members of the ISU campus community. Over 1000 students are involved in Meis Center programming each semester.

Community Engagement. Community service is a core component of the Scott College and Indiana State University. It is embedded in our teaching, our co-curricular activities, and our recognitions programs. Students, faculty and staff at ISU logged 1.2 million hours of community service this year. For the past two year the Washington Monthly College Guide placed Indiana State at the top of its list of 281 national universities in the category of community service participation.

23

Faculty

The Scott College of Business faculty represents eight disciplines, organized into three departments. During the review period, demographic characteristics of the faculty have changed slightly but the number of full time faculty has dropped nearly 25 percent consistent with the University’s intent to maintain an efficient student to faculty ratio. Full time equivalency of full-time and part-time faculty has decreased during the same period from 51.5 to 44.3, about a 14 percent decrease. The decrease in faculty numbers is related to decreases in state funding reported in the first section. Excess classroom capacity in our new building has helped the college absorb most of the cuts, and the college student-to-faculty ratio is now averaging just above 23.

Table 4.5: Full-Time Faculty Demographics

Category 2009-2010

2010-2011

2011-2012

2012-2013

2013-2014

Sex (M/F) 37 13 34 11 34 13 34 11 29 9 Asian or Pacific Islander 3 6 4 4 4

Black, Non-Hispanic 0 0 1 0 0 Hispanic 1 1 1 1 1

White, Non-Hispanic 43 38 39 36 29 Other 3 0 2 4 4 Total 50 45 47 45 38

All Faculty and Staff 85 77 78 73 74

Faculty resources are a key component in the Scott College’s ability to deliver high quality programs to its students. The following section reviews SCOB deployment standards and faculty management processes.

Faculty Deployment Standards

The SCOB has adopted a number of standards that guide faculty behavior and deployment of faculty resources. The standards are contained in two documents:

1. Determination of Faculty Resources: This document operationalizes AACSB standards regarding faculty sufficiency and qualification. Document contents are contained in Appendix 2.4

2. Expectations Document: This document establishes minimum standards for faculty performance in teaching, research and service relative to the SCOB mission. These standards are broader than those prescribed by AACSB sufficiency and qualification standards but are consistent with the definitions outlined in the Determination of Faculty Resources document. This document is contained in Appendix 2.5.

24

Scott College Alignment with Standards

Faculty Sufficiency. The SCOB involves full-time and part-time faculty members in teaching and other contributions to its mission. Participation beyond the classroom is encouraged in activities such as student advising, assurance of learning, course and other curriculum development, research, and service. All tenured or tenure track faculty are expected to participate in the life of the college beyond direct teaching. In addition, the Indiana State University Handbook directs that full-time lectures and instructors are to engage in instructional and non-instructional duties. Part-time adjunct faculty or visiting professors are not expected to demonstrate active involvement beyond classroom teaching. Appendix 2.1 contains AACSB Table 9-1. In the Scott College of Business, participating faculty members deliver at least 60 percent of the teaching in each discipline, and at least 75 percent of the school’s teaching as prescribed by AACSB Standard 9.

Faculty Qualification. Faculty qualifications are determined by the earned degree as well as scholarly and professional contributions. To maintain “Academically Qualified” status through scholarly activity, a faculty member must have earned the Ph.D., J.D., or other terminal degree in the teaching area and should complete, during the review period, at least two Intellectual Contributions. “Professionally Qualified” faculty must demonstrate both academic preparation and professional experience relevant to the subject and level of the classes they teach. Appendix 2.2 through 2.3 contains AACSB Tables 10-1 and 10-2.

Of the 53 faculty, three faculty (2 full-time) were classified with “other” qualifications. Overall, the College of Business has an AQ ratio of 73 percent, exceeding the 50 percent minimum standard, and an AQ + PQ ratio of 95.4 percent, exceeding the 90 percent standard. The discipline areas of Management and Management Information Systems failed to meet the AQ + PQ ratio standard of 90 percent.

Like all business schools, the Scott College of Business strives to have 100 percent of its faculty meet the highest of qualification standards. Of those faculty classified as “other” qualifications, the following qualitative information adds context to judgments concerning faculty qualification for the college.

1. Peter Mikolaj. Academically qualified as an Insurance faculty member in the previous maintenance review, Dr. Mikolaj completed a “phased retirement” agreement with Indiana State and taught one course due to a pressing need of the department. Dr. Mikolaj’s classification as “other” qualifications did not significantly affect the qualification standard of either the insurance discipline or the AFIRM department.

2. Jim Buffington. Academically qualified as an MIS professor in the previous maintenance review, Dr. Buffington transitioned into the twilight of his career during the current review period. After decades of dedicated service to Indiana State, Dr. Buffington retired in the spring of 2014.

3. Herschel Chait. Dr. Chait has served the college admirably for decades in various administrative and service roles. He has not achieved academic qualification over the past two review periods.

25

Faculty Management Processes

Communication. Performance expectations are routinely communicated to faculty in a number of different ways. Expectations are discussed, shaped and acknowledged at almost all bi-annual meetings of the Scott College of Business faculty. Copies of relevant documents are distributed to faculty via email and through the college webpage. Department chairpersons meet individually with faculty to review standards definitions and to gather information about faculty maintenance of qualification.

Recruitment, Hiring and Promotion. All faculty members are hired, evaluated and promoted according to standards specified in the College of Business Promotion and Tenure Policy, Faculty Expectations Document, Determination of Faculty Resources document and the University Handbook (Section 300). ISU hiring guidelines for instructors and lecturers are provided at http://www.indstate.edu/academicaffairs/temporary_faculty.htm. The College has implemented a strategy of hiring only academically or professionally qualified faculty members, regardless of whether the position is full-time or part-time. Recruitment of tenure-track faculty members is proposed by the faculty members of the discipline in most cases, recommended by the department chair, and authorized by the Scott College of Business Dean and ISU Provost. Qualifications are verified by the department prior to the hiring decision and confirmed by the dean before final authorization.

Performance Review. Through the University’s Biennial Review process, all regular faculty are evaluated biennially and a record of their evaluation is placed in their official personnel file. Information from the review is used to inform any performance-based salary adjustment. Biennial evaluations do not substitute for college-level annual reviews conducted of pre-tenure faculty or annual reviews of instructors. Faculty evaluated as meeting expectations will be eligible for across-the-board adjustments. Faculty evaluated as “contributing exceptionally” will receive an across-the-board adjustment plus an additional merit increase. Faculty designated as “contributing below expectations” will be ineligible for salary adjustments for at least the biennium, and will be placed on a performance improvement plan. Failure to show improvement during the improvement period may lead to additional consequences including termination. For the Scott College of Business, criteria for biennial review judgments are based on the Faculty Expectations Document which is, in turn, consistent with college AACSB qualifications definitions. Therefore, faculty who do not maintain their AQ or PQ status may be ineligible for salary adjustments and risk termination from the University.

At the college level, pre-tenure faculty members are evaluated at the college-level on an annual basis by the departmental Personnel Committee, department chairperson, College Faculty Affairs Committee and the dean. Following a reappointment recommendation from the Faculty Affairs Committee, the dean provides a copy of the reappointment recommendation form to the faculty member. The department chairperson then meets with each candidate to discuss the findings of the performance review and addresses concerns raised, if any, in the reappointment recommendation.

Performance of part-time temporary and full-time temporary faculty is evaluated on an annual basis by the departmental Personnel Committee, department chairperson, and the dean. The dean

26

forwards the reappointment recommendation to the faculty member and the Provost, and the department chairperson meets with candidates to discuss the findings of the performance review.

Qualification Determination. Continuous reaffirmation of faculty qualification status is of strategic importance to the Scott College in fulfilling its mission. The Deans and Chairs Committee of the college directs and measures the strategic plan for the college and regularly reviews full-time equivalency faculty needs and faculty qualification levels. Performance information is available to the Deans and Chairs committee from several sources:

1. The college maintains records for biennial and yearly evaluations; 2. The department chairpersons periodically query the department faculty for acceptances

and publications; 3. Faculty submit journal publication information to the dean’s office annually to receive

dollars into their personal professional development fund maintained by the department; 4. The three departments and college complete aggregate semester and annual reports of

faculty performance and recognitions.

Faculty Development. Support of the faculty is provided through professional development activities, course release, sabbatical leaves, grants, and funding. Professional development workshops, seminars, and conferences are sponsored and/or provided by the College, University, and professional associations.

Multiple sources of support for faculty development are available across the University:

1. Faculty Center for Teaching Excellence (website) – the center provides resources and programming to faculty to energize their students, maximize their classroom potential, enhance student learning, invigorate teaching, and foster relationships among faculty.

2. Office of Sponsored Programs (website) - Assists grant-seekers with grant searches and proposal preparation and submission to a funding agency.

3. Office of Information Technology (website) – supports the application of information technology and its utilization by faculty for teaching and research activities. The office funds faculty computers and software.

The college’s Teaching, Learning, and Research Committee encourages excellence and continuous improvements in teaching, learning, and research. The committee’s popular “x-connection” showcases faculty research and nurtures cross-connections between research disciplines to foster collaborative research. The program has resulted in SCOB research partnerships and publications. The committee develops a broad range of additional programing for teaching and learning in response to faculty need.

Sabbaticals are awarded to faculty members for the purpose of enhancing their professional skills and knowledge to better enable them to contribute to the mission of the University and College Faculty are eligible for leave every 12 semesters of full-time service. Requests require recommendations of the department, college, and provost. Three to five Business faculty members take sabbatical leaves each year.

The SCOB provides funding to faculty to assist with their professional development and pursuit of academic qualification. In addition, individual faculty members accumulate money in college- 27

funded faculty development accounts as a result of publishing refereed journal articles. Depending on the availability of funding, the college supports faculty travel to national conferences. In addition, travel, instructional and research development funding is available through the Networks Financial Institute.

28

Section 5 – Assurance of Learning During the current maintenance period 2010-14, the SCOB reviewed and revised learning objectives, revised and refined assessment plans and processes, conducted assessment activities (at least two complete loops on all learning goals), and made curricular improvements as a result of findings. In addition, the College has made great strides in creating a culture of assessment and in normalizing Assurance of Learning as part of the everyday activities in the College. This section of the report will discuss the highlights of our processes and results for our undergraduate and graduate programs.

Curricula Development The SCOB has affected a number of curricular changes since the last review. These changes were in response to a broad number of factors including:

5. Refinement of College of Business Admission Requirements (COBA); 6. Credit hour changes for the degree (state mandated) and individual majors (university

initiative); 7. New modes of delivery to meet market demands (new distance delivery programs); and 8. Revision or development of curricula in response to anticipated market demand (Sales,

Operations; Financial Planning Concentration). See Appendix 3.10 for a full listing of recent curricular changes within the SCOB.

Assessment Tools and Procedures

SCOB Mission, Strategic Plan & AOL

The Assurance of Learning program within the Scott College of Business supports our mission and aids in the implementation of our strategic plan. This mission emphasizes “experiential education” and providing “professional education” that “prepares students to take leadership roles” in organizations. The articulation of learning goals help the College accomplish its mission by (1) communicating to students and faculty the central elements of the degree programs, which will better position students for success; (2) positioning faculty to emphasize these outcomes and to continue to improve courses and experiences to better accomplish them. Likewise, the Scott College of Business Strategic Plan stresses that the college will enable the success of students by providing them with knowledge, professional development, and other experiences that will give them a competitive advantage in the global workplace. The learning goals specifically address business concepts and practices, problems solving, and professional skills in support of the Strategic Plan. By demonstrating that our graduates possess the knowledge and skills articulated as important program outcomes, we further support our mission and strategic plan. Communicating these outcomes and improvements to external constituents positions our students to contribute and take leadership roles in organizations and the community and aids in recruiting and funding opportunities. Demonstrating that we have made curricular improvements in these important

29

areas, for example, experiential learning and professional development opportunities for students, directly advances our strategic plan.

Assurance of Learning Process

In accordance with our mission and to ensure that our community experiences success, our Assurance of Learning process allows us to evaluate, measure, and improve student learning. In the SCOB, the assessment processes are well-established and are carried out by a number of groups and individuals. Our processes can be summarized in five stages, as shown in Figure 5.1 below.

Figure 5.1: Assurance of Learning Process

The responsibility for assuring that students are meeting the learning objectives falls on the whole faculty and staff of the College. Various faculty and staff groups, including Assessment Teams, the Student Learning and Assessment Committee (SLAC), the SCOB Faculty as a whole, and the curriculum committees have shared responsibility for conducting Assurance of Learning within the college. A summary of the various roles and responsibilities of each of these faculty and staff groups is shown in Appendix 3.12. These faculty and staff groups are aided and guided by several processes that have been established to facilitate AOL activities within the College, which are discussed in detail in Appendix 3.12. Here, we provide a short summary of the processes and responsibilities. Planning & Resources. An assessment plan for the undergraduate core has been developed by the Student Learning & Assessment Committee (SLAC), the faculty assessment teams, and teaching teams for courses in which course-embedded assessments are intended to take place.

Mission & Strategic Plan

Student Learning Outcomes

Assessment Action

Continuous Improvement

Our Community Experiencing

Success

Assessment Planning & Resources

Measurement of Student Learning

Outcomes

Reporting and Dissemination of Results

Discussion, Recommendations &

Action Plans

Implementation of Curricular Changes &

Documentation

30

The undergraduate core assessment program (shown in Appendix 3.13) calls for each of the six learning goals to be measured at least twice every five years. SLAC and the Assessment Teams consult the assessment plan each semester, and facilitate the review of the plans as well as the implementation of scheduled assessments. Resources are provided by SLAC or the College as needed. Measurement & Reporting. Individual faculty or teaching teams administer their assessments and compile results. Results are summarized for dissemination to the faculty and staff, generally at the next scheduled AOL Retreat, held once per semester. The main purpose is to share and discuss results from the previous semester, to evaluate and consider options to address deficiencies, and to form action plans. Results may also be shared with other constituents such as the Young Professionals Board, individual discipline-specific advisory boards, university administrators and students. Discussion, Recommendations & Action Plans are generally done at more than one level, including teaching teams for affected courses, SLAC, and the faculty and staff as a whole, where feedback is sought from a wider audience and all individuals are asked to consider how they might contribute to the learning goal. Action plans, individual and group, are formed and information is gathered and summarized by SLAC. When appropriate, follow up discussions or curricular actions may be pursued. Implementation & Documentation. If resources are required to implement action plans, those resources are provided by the college (see Appendix 3.12 for examples). Implementation is initiated by all relevant parties, and is documented and monitored by SLAC and the assessment teams. College-level documentation related to AACSB accreditation is warehoused in a Blackboard site accessible to all SCOB faculty and staff. To comply with University requirements, a select few individuals, currently SLAC members, use the TaskStream system document information related to core and major-specific assessment for NCA accreditation, which requires separate assessment of each undergraduate major (Accounting, Finance, Marketing, etc.).

Continuous Improvement Changes Related to AOL

During the self-study period, the Scott College has worked to continuously improve its Assurance of Learning process through developments that have made AOL a ubiquitous and essential part of our College’s success. The achievements relate to changes in cultural shift, faculty participation, and infrastructure.

1. Beginning in Spring 2011, the Student Learning & Assessment Committee (SLAC) was added as a standing faculty committee. This committee has three faculty members (one from each department within the College, plus a dean’s representative and a student member).

2. Since Fall 2012, Assurance of Learning has been on the agenda for every faculty meeting, whether for just updates or discussion of more significant issues.

3. In Fall 2012, we began holding AOL retreats each semester. These semi-annual retreats are approximately one-half day and attended by a large proportion of our faculty and staff

31

(approximately 30-35 attendees each semester). At these meetings, recent assessment results are discussed and action plans are developed.

4. In Spring 2013, language relating to assessment activities was added to two important documents, after being approved by the SCOB faculty: a. “Expectations of Business College Professors at Indiana State University In the 21st

Century,” a college-level document that outlines the minimum professional standards for faculty, now states that as a standard part of teaching duties, faculty members are expected to “regularly participate in course-level and program-level assessment activities.”

b. The “SCOB Promotion & Tenure Policy” was also amended to state that pre-tenure faculty should include “continuous instructional assessment and improvement” as part of their regular teaching responsibilities and that in order to be tenured and/or promoted, faculty must show evidence of quality teaching, including “efforts to assess and improve teaching effectiveness.”

c. In Spring 2013, we developed “assessment teams” consisting of faculty and staff. Each team is responsible for a particular learning goal or the assessment of individual undergraduate majors/programs (for the university’s North Central Association (NCA) accreditation). Currently we have six assessment teams for the undergraduate business core curriculum and a team for the MBA curriculum. In addition, in recognition of the university’s NCA accreditation needs, we also have nine assessment teams for the individual undergraduate majors. In total, these teams involve approximately 32 faculty and staff, with some individuals serving on two teams. The members of SLAC have served as facilitators for these teams as they strive to accomplish the planning and implementation of assessment for their learning goal or program.

These changes have substantively impacted the culture of assessment within the College, as these improvements have led to an integration AOL into our daily business of teaching and learning, and therefore into our strategic initiatives.

Undergraduate Business Curriculum

Undergraduate Curriculum & Learning Goals

Consistent with bachelor’s degree programs in the U.S., our undergraduate business major is based on completion of 120 credit hours, with standard 3-credit hour courses and typical completion of the degree in 8 semesters (15-credit hours per semester on average). As part of any undergraduate degree at Indiana State University, students must complete 43 to 52 credit hours of university Foundational Studies requirements. (See Appendix 3.1 for a complete list of foundational studies requirements.)

Undergraduate core business courses (required for every undergraduate business student) include courses in information tools, accounting, statistics, economics, business law, finance, operations, marketing, management and strategy. The College of Business offers 10 different undergraduate majors including Accounting, Business Administration, Business Education, Finance, Financial Services, Insurance & Risk Management, Management, Management Information Systems, 32

Marketing, and Operations & Supply Chain Management. A complete list of undergraduate core courses and business majors is presented in Appendix 3.2.

Revised Learning Goals (2013)

Consistent with Standard 16, the Scott College of Business has defined “learning goals for key general, management-specific, and/or appropriate discipline-specific knowledge and skills identified by the school.” In 2013, revised goals that simplified the original learning goals were approved unanimously by the faculty. The simplification resulted in six learning goals, two each under three easy-to-remember headings – What they Know, What they Can Do, How they Act (see Table 5.1 below). A description of how we have operationalized each of these learning goals can be found in Appendix 3.3. In Appendix 3.4, we explain how the 2007 learning goals were reorganized into the new 2013 goals.

Table 5.1: Undergraduate Learning Goals (2013)

Comprehension of business concepts and practices of organizations. (What they know) 1. Students will be knowledgeable about current business concepts. 2. Students will understand internal and external influences on domestic and international business

practices. Apply problem solving to address information needs of organizations. (What they can do) 1. Students will solve business problems by applying appropriate technology, tools, and decision-making

techniques. 2. Students will evaluate the ethical dimensions of business decisions. Demonstrate professional skills expected in the workplace. (How they act) 1. Students will demonstrate the ability to communicate effectively. 2. Students will demonstrate an understanding of appropriate workplace expectations and behaviors.

Analysis of Curriculum Coverage of Learning Goals (Curriculum Mapping) To analyze coverage of the six learning objectives in the business core, faculty determined the level of coverage of each learning objective in each core course, where “1” indicates an introductory level, “2” indicates a substantial emphasis, and “3” indicates a course focus. A “0” indicates no coverage of that learning goal. (Note that MATH 115 accounts for most of the values in the “0” column.) Below in Table 5.2, we show a summary of the curriculum’s coverage of each of our six undergraduate learning goals. In Appendix 3.5, we show a detailed curriculum map along with a discussion of our analysis of the curriculum coverage.

33

Table 5.2: Frequency count by level of coverage Learning Objective\Level # of 0s # of 1s # of 2s # of 3s Average

1. Business concepts 1 5 5 6 1.94 2. Business practices, incl. global 3 5 8 1 1.41 3. Problem Solving 0 2 6 9 2.41 4. Ethical decision making 1 13 3 0 1.12 5. Communication 1 11 3 2 1.35 6. Professional Skills 1 13 2 1 1.18

The curriculum map indicates strong emphasis on problem solving and business

concepts. On the other hand, results for the ethics learning goal reflects the integrative approach we have taken, with some coverage of ethical decision making in every business core course. The professional skills content looks similar to ethics in the curriculum scan, with all business courses touching upon this goal to some extent. Curricular content is supplemented by the CATAPULT program, a co-curricular program that provides numerous opportunities for students to develop professional skills, and many faculty require students to participate in these workshops. (See Appendix 3.6 for a description of the CATAPULT program and MEIS Student Development Center programs.)

Undergraduate Core Curriculum Coverage of AACSB Learning Goals

Information collected on the degree to which the undergraduate core curricula address the College’s learning goals has also enabled us to analyze the degree to which these curricula address the AACSB learning goals, both general and management specific, noted in Standard 15. While a detailed analysis of how our curriculum relates to the AACSB General Skill (GS) Areas is shown in Appendix 3.7, here we touch upon important highlights:

• GS1 – Communication Abilities. Business students take an oral communication, freshman composition and a junior-level business report writing classes. Courses require significant writing and speaking components. Several MEIS Center events supplement communication content.

• GS2 -- Ethical understanding and reasoning abilities. Ethical content is included in every core business class. Business students are heavily involved in the annual Ethics Conference. All ISU students must take a course in Ethics and Social Responsibility, and many take BUS 204: Ethics in Organizations.

• GS3 -- Analytical skills. Several of our core courses (e.g. 201, 202, 205, 305, 351 and 401) focus on analytical skills as a major course component. Numerous faculty and courses use case studies requiring analysis and application.

• GS4 – Use of Information technology. Business information tools (BUS 180) first exposes students to MS Excel and Access and these tools are used throughout the curriculum. Technology is ubiquitous throughout our curriculum, with students using course management systems, online homework systems, SAP and software specific to statistics, accounting systems, project management, and simulation.

• GS5 – Dynamics of the Global Economy. Several of our required core courses, including BUS 221, 263, 311, 351, 361, 371 and 401, have a significant global component (see curriculum mapping in Appendix 3.5), and several other courses touch upon this content.

34

Students also have opportunities for international travel and interactions with international students and faculty.

• GS6 -- Multicultural and diversity understanding. All business students are first exposed to diversity and multicultural issues during their first semester in BUS 100 and this exposure continues throughout the curriculum. Students are required to take a Foundational Studies course in Global Perspectives & Cultural Diversity, and students interact with others from different backgrounds on class projects. Some students participate in international travel opportunities through coursework in the Scott College. The MEIS Center supplements content with co-curricular offerings.

• GS7 -- Reflective thinking skills are integrated throughout the curriculum as they are expected with analytical thinking. Students are expected to apply these skills on large case studies and projects as well as small problems.

While detailed information on how our curriculum addresses the AASCB General Business and Management Knowledge Areas is shown in Appendix 3.8, important highlights are shown below:

• MK1 – Ethical and legal responsibilities in organizations and society. Business ethics topics are addressed in all core classes, and ethical responsibility in business processes is a substantial emphasis in some courses. All business majors must take the required BUS 263: Business Law course and many business students opt to take BUS 204: Ethics in Organizations. The annual ethics conference and Foundational Studies requirements in ethics and social responsibility supplement the business ethics curriculum.

• MK2 – Financial theories, analysis, reporting, and markets. The undergraduate core requires a course in business finance (BUS 311).

• MK3 – Creation of value through the integrated production and distribution of goods, services, and information. The undergraduate core includes a required course in operations management (BUS 351).

• MK4 – Group and individual dynamics in organizations. Students learn the theory of group and individual dynamics in a required Organizational Behavior Course (BUS 371), and significant teamwork is expected in many business courses through consulting and service projects. MEIS Center programming supplements the curriculum.

• MK5 – Statistical data analysis and management science as they support decision-making processes throughout an organization. Data-driven decision making is emphasized in the two required statistics/business analytics courses (BUS 205 & BUS 305) as well as in Operations Management (BUS 351).

• MK6 – Information technologies as they influence the structure and processes of organizations and economies, and as they influence the roles and techniques of management. All undergraduates must take BUS 221 (Intro to Management Information Systems) in which they learn about how organizations use information to achieve a strategic advantage.

• MK7 – Domestic and global economic environments of organizations. All SCOB undergraduates are required to take courses in macro and micro economics (ECON 200 & 201) and business law (BUS 263) in addition to courses in accounting, finance, and organizational behavior that provide background and context for conducting business in a global society.

35

• MK8 – Other management-specific knowledge and abilities as identified by the school. Each undergraduate major requires students earn between 18-27 additional, major-specific credit hours beyond the business core.

Refer to Appendix 3.9 for a summary of how our undergraduate learning goals map to AACSB General Skills (GS) and General Business/Management Knowledge (MK) Areas. Undergraduate Curriculum Management Process The SCOB follows processes to manage the undergraduate business curriculum and to include “inputs from all appropriate constituencies” as required by Standard 15. Our curriculum development, evaluation and revision processes have led to and facilitated several significant curriculum changes in the 2010-2014 timeframe. We believe that these changes have and will serve our students well by providing meaningful learning experiences that will prepare them for business and management careers. Please refer to Appendix 3.10 for a list of recent curriculum revisions.

Curriculum Development & Revision. The SCOB curriculum management process is led by faculty with the intent to provide our students with current, meaningful and relevant “learning experiences to prepare graduates for business and management careers”. Faculty members are current in their fields and are aware of changes in their disciplines that need to be filtered down to students. These changes range from discipline-specific developments addressed within a course to changes in programs or majors. Our curriculum management processes “engage perspectives from a variety of relevant constituencies.” (For several examples, as well as a detailed description of our curriculum development process, see Appendix 3.11.)

Depending on the magnitude of the change, a formal curriculum proposal may be brought before the Undergraduate Curriculum & Academic Affairs Committee (CAAC) for approval. Proposals are evaluated in the context of the particular discipline and the undergraduate business program as a whole. CAAC must also consider any university guidelines or restrictions, and any state level mandates or considerations, and will also consider accreditation ramifications, if any. If approved within the College, the package is sent to the university curriculum committee (University CAAC).

Curriculum Monitoring & Evaluation. Faculty, who are active in professional organizations, in touch with community leaders and employers, and are current with the literature in their disciplines, assume the responsibility for monitoring and evaluating curriculum related to their business disciplines. With recent information about discipline trends, faculty will evaluate courses, Master Course Outlines, programs, and majors on a regular, if not yearly, basis and will institute curriculum changes when appropriate. Faculty are kept abreast of curriculum developments through beginning and end-of-semester faculty meetings, and recently, a SCOB Curriculum Fair, initiated in spring of 2014 and planned for a regular occurrence in conjunction with AOL Retreats.

36

Undergraduate Assessment Results and Curricular Improvements

The SCOB has completed at least two complete assessment cycles for all six of its undergraduate core learning goals during the 2010-2014 cycle. In this subsection section, we discuss the assessment methods, results and curricular improvements related to each undergraduate core learning goal, and demonstrate that either students meet all of the learning goals for undergraduate degree programs, or describe efforts that have been instituted to eliminate the discrepancy.

ULG1: Current Business Concepts.

Outcomes: The learning outcome for this goal is operationalized as “Students will be knowledgeable about current business concepts.” (See Appendix 3.14).

Methods: We have used a comprehensive direct assessment as well as an indirect assessment to measure this learning goal. The comprehensive assessment is an exit exam, consisting of multiple choice questions from eleven different business disciplines and administered within our capstone course. It has been administered three times during the review period, in Spring 2010, 2012 and 2014. Students are scored on each topic and on overall performance. The indirect assessment is a survey given to our Young Professionals Advisory Board, given in 2008 and 2013. Board members were asked to rate how well their course work prepared them in current business concepts and thus far, alumni have rated their experiences highly and no issues have been identified.

Result & Actions: In 2010 and 2014, students performed at the overall target levels on the Exit Exam. However, in 2012, overall targets were not met. Also, in each iteration, the disciplines/topics in which students scored less than satisfactorily were identified. Some curricular initiatives related to business concepts have occurred due to the exit exam. Some brief highlights include:

• Changes to improve student learning of accounting principles through the use of WileyPlus, instituted after the 2010 exam. Accounting scores on the Exit Exam have been at acceptable levels since.

• Changes to include additional learning forums for students within BUS 361 after deficiencies in performance on the marketing questions arose in 2012.

• More emphasis on data-driven decision making within BUS 205 & 305 to address deficiencies in statistics performance in Spring 2014.

The Business Concepts Assessment Team is working to improve the content and reliability of the exit exam, which will be administered next in 2016. ULG2: Domestic & International Practices

Outcomes: The second undergraduate learning goal is operationalized as “Students will understand internal and external influences on domestic and international business practices.” See Appendix 3.15 for a description of learning outcomes, assessment methods, results and initiatives.

Methods: We have used direct and indirect assessments for this learning goal. One direct assessment includes the global/international concept questions on the SCOB Exit Exam, giving us three measurements during the period 2010-2014. However, realizing that an understanding of 37

concepts does not show how students are able to apply concepts, an international case was developed for our capstone course, piloted in summer 2014, and revised and administered again in Fall 2014 (results not yet available). As with all of our goals, we also have used feedback from alumni on the Young Professionals Board in 2008 and 2013 on how well their experiences prepared them in understanding global issues. A table summarizing the methods, instruments, results, actions and initiatives related to this learning goal can be found in Appendix 3.15.

Results & Actions: Students have historically performed at acceptable or even superior levels on these questions on the exit exam in all three iterations. While results are not yet available for the case study, our alumni have identified shortcomings in our program with respect to this content. Recognizing these issues, we have in recent years undertaken several initiatives to develop student learning in this area. (See Appendix 3.15 for examples)

Overall, we feel we have made significant progress in this area over the last several years and will continue to emphasize global business content and experiences for our students. ULG3: Problem Solving – Assessment Methods, Results and Improvements

Outcomes: Our third undergraduate learning goal is “Students will solve business problems by applying appropriate technology, tools, and decision-making techniques.” This goal has been operationalized to include students defining the problem, using evidence in the decision process and justify conclusions. (See Appendix 3.16 for a description of learning outcomes, assessment methods, results and initiatives.) Methods: The direct assessments used thus far to assess problem solving have been embedded in the statistics and information tools courses, though it is recognized that problem solving occurs across the curriculum. Thus far we have used assessments in the information tools course (in 2010 and 2013) to measure if students could analyze data to answer questions and solve problems. In 2012 and 2013 (and a current data collection cycle now in Fall 2014), we used a series of exam questions within BUS 205 and 305 to evaluate if students could effectively step through the problem solving process and use data to make decisions. Different assessment methods are being considered for future cycles. Again, indirect assessment methods include feedback from the Young Professionals Board in 2008 and 2013 on how well they feel the curriculum prepared them in problem solving.

Results & Actions: Appendix 3.16 summarizes the problem solving assessment instruments, methods results and curricular improvements. Students performed at acceptable levels on the information tools assessments in 2010 and 2013, but assessments have led to changes within the course, as instructors address student deficiencies with certain aspects of Excel and Access. Efforts have been made to emphasize effective use of these tools later in the curriculum, for example, in statistics and business report writing. Our alumni have rated their problem solving (technology and analytical skills) learning experiences highly, though they have identified some issues, such as the need for better Excel preparation, which our faculty has tried to address. Results on problem solving (previously analytical skills) assessments since 2012 have not been at target levels and identification of these deficiencies has led to some major changes and initiatives with regard to problem solving.

38

ULG4: Ethics – Assessment Methods, Results and Improvements Outcomes: Our fourth undergraduate learning goal is “Students will evaluate the ethical

dimensions of business decisions.” We have operationalized this learning goal into three student learning outcomes, including the identification of ethical dilemmas, the analysis of impact on stakeholders and the defense of the ethical framework used to make a decision.

Methods: We have used two direct assessments for ethics. First, we have used questions about ethical reasoning on the Exit Exam in our capstone course in 2010, 2012 and 2014. We have also used case studies in BUS 361: Principles of Marketing and BUS 351: Introduction to Operations Management in 2010 and 2013. The case studies involve a shipment of tainted products that cause consumer illness (marketing case) and delay of delivery and ethical implications (operations). An indirect assessment was feedback from our Young Professionals Board members in 2008 and 2013 about how well they were prepared in ethical reasoning. Another indirect assessment is our students’ participation in the annual Ethics Conference & Ethics Week activities. A summary of methods and results are presented in Appendix 3.17.

Results & Actions: In 2008, our Young Professionals feedback indicated some concern about deficiencies in the stakeholder analysis. Attendance at the Ethics Conference has fluctuated and will continue to be monitored. Student performance on ethics-related direct assessments was not at target levels in 2010 and 2013 and this has led to several major ethics initiatives to address this shortcoming.

Progress: Recent assessment results suggest that we are making some headway. By 2013, 100% of the Young Professionals alumni felt they were well prepared in ethical decision making, and in 2014, ethics Exit Exam results showing marked improvement over the 2012 results (74% of students at acceptable levels, compared to 43% in 2012). We will continue to emphasize ethics across the curriculum and continue to monitor these results. ULG5: Communication – Assessment Methods, Results and Improvements

Outcomes: Our fifth undergraduate learning goal is “Students will demonstrate the ability to communicate effectively,” which we have further defined as writing an effective report, giving an effective oral presentation, and conveying information in appropriate formats and settings.

Methods: Assessments for the writing outcomes have mainly come from BEIT 336, our junior level business report writing course. A collection of student writing samples, including long and short, formal and informal reports, has been gathered and evaluated with common rubrics twice during the review period, in 2010 and 2012. We are only beginning to address oral communication, with a pilot of an oral presentation rubric being conducted this semester, Fall 2014. We have plans to expand the assessment in 2015. As with all learning goals, our Young Professionals Board alumni were also asked to rate their communication preparation in both 2008 and 2013.

Results & Actions: Results from our Young Professionals Board survey indicated alumni felt well prepared in written communication but less so in oral communication. Writing results prior to 2010 were not at target levels, leading BEIT instructors to make changes to help students recognize the importance of drafts, proofreading and editing. In 2009, faculty discussions centered on the emphasis of writing in non-writing courses and resulted in the development of the SCOB Student Writing Guidelines, which several faculty provided to students with expectations that assignments for those courses would be held to those standards. 39

Subsequent administrations of writing assessments in 2010 and 2012 showed improvement over pre-2010 levels, with 76-77% of students performing, overall, at acceptable levels though deficiencies were noted in students’ abilities to write about quantitative information. In response to this feedback, a number of college-wide changes have been implemented to progressively improve student communication learning outcomes. Discussion and examples of these changes are presented in Appendix 3.18.

Overall, progress has been made with writing and we are cognizant of the need to step up efforts in oral communication, which we have begun.

ULG6:Professional Skills – Assessment Methods, Results and Improvements

Outcomes: Our final undergraduate learning goal is “Students will demonstrate an understanding of appropriate workplace expectations and behaviors.” We have operationalized this learning goal to specify that students should work effectively in teams, employ appropriate etiquette and engage in appropriate conversation during a professional event, and participate in professional development activities.

Methods: Direct assessments of teamwork have thus far included several cycles of peer evaluations in BUS 401, in which students evaluate their teammates on contributions to course consulting projects. These peer evaluations used a Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scale. Recognizing the limitations of peer feedback, in 2013 the Professional Skills Assessment Team developed an assessment using teaming exam questions in BUS 371: Management & Organizational Behavior, where teamwork is now formally “taught”. Indirect assessments for professional skills include feedback from the Young Professionals Board in 2008 and 2013, as well as the utilization of the MEIS Student Development Center since 2008.

Results: Direct assessments have resulted in largely acceptable outcomes, with historical peer evaluations from 2006-2010 resulting in large majorities (at least 83%) of students being rated as performing satisfactorily. Indirect assessments have included surveys from the Young Professionals Board, who have identified the need for more professional development among our students in 2007, and again in 2013.

Though indirect, probably the most impressive results in the area of professional skills is the continued expansion of our MEIS Student Development Center and the CATAPULT program. MEIS Center utilization, programming and student contacts has been steadily increasing, and our latest figures from Spring 2014 indicate that 70% of undergraduate business students had some contact with the center during the semester. (See Appendix 3.19 for more details.) Summary of Undergraduate Curriculum & Assurance of Learning

In summary, the Scott College has made significant progress in our undergraduate

Assurance of Learning program over the last five years. We have achieved positive shifts in culture and attitudes, acceptance of AOL as part of faculty role, buy in from faculty and increased participation in AOL activities. In addition, we have succeeded in measuring at least twice and in developing curricular improvements for all six of our learning goals. We have shown students are making progress in achievement of many of our goals, though we still have much work to do in some areas.

40

We are facing some significant challenges as well, including limitations on credit hours for our major that restrict some of the courses we would like to require for business majors. We also are working to improve existing assessments (for example, the SCOB Exit Exam) and to develop or identify appropriate assessments for the international case, for oral communication and for teamwork and professional skills. However, our trajectory in the AOL program is definitely in the right direction, and we are optimistic that the momentum we have gained in the last several years will continue to develop into a sustainable AOL program for the Scott College.

MBA Curriculum

The MBA Assurance of Learning program is based upon a set of learning goals established by the graduate faculty in 2004 after major curriculum revitalization (See Appendix 3.20). In 2010, the graduate faculty reaffirmed the learning goals of the program (see 3.1.2). Our first attempts at assurance of learning and closing the loop came in 2008. Since that point, we have continually revised our process to be more effective and meaningful. Today we utilize a three-pronged, data-driven process in which all students and graduate faculty participate to ensure that the curriculum delivers on the learning goals established by the faculty. We have completed two cycles of the assurance of learning process described below and have processes in place to continue to complete an additional cycle each academic year.

MBA Curriculum, Learning Goals & Objectives

Graduate Curriculum Description

The MBA curriculum provides a strategic focus and includes nine core courses and at least two elective courses. The nine courses in the core are Advanced Management Practices, Quantitative Problem Solving, Management Accounting, Management Information Systems, Managing the Strategic Workforce, Strategic Financial Decisions, Strategic Supply Chain and Operating Decisions, Strategic Marketing Management, and the Strategy Capstone class. In the case of the ProMBA program in Plainfield, three additional courses beyond the core are required (Negotiation, Risk Management, and Project Management). For the campus program, a student must take two additional graduate courses to complete the curriculum requirements. Additionally, an international experience is required in the campus program. All students are required to complete the ETS major field test as part of the Capstone course. Full details on the curriculum are provided at: catalog.indstate.edu.

MBA Learning Goals

The following are the learning goals for the MBA as established by the Graduate Faculty. The goals are mapped to the ISU mission and values statements, as well as to the ISU graduate student learning goals. All of the MBA learning goals map to at least two ISU graduate student learning goals.

Problem Solving: Each student will be able to systematically diagnose problems and/or opportunities, especially in business settings, and develop alternative courses of actions to resolve the problems or take advantage of the opportunity.

41

Strategic Thinking: Each student will have an understanding of long-range/strategic management and will be able to develop, implement, assess, and refine a strategic plan in a business setting.

Organizational Change: Each student will be able to systematically diagnose an organization's environment and operations to identify needed changes and to develop plans to successfully implement those changes in ways that achieve the organization's goal(s).

International/Global: Each student will have an understanding of global influences on business decisions/plans and/or develop plans for managing a business in a global environment.

Workgroup Functioning: Each student will be able to contribute to the success of his/her workgroup by occupying a leadership role and/or as a team member.

Graduate Curriculum Coverage of Learning Goals. The curriculum map for the MBA core courses is included as Appendix 3.21. With the exception of statistics, every course maps to multiple learning goals and each learning goal receives significant coverage in at least four of the core courses. Appendix 3.22 presents the corresponding learning outcomes between ISU’s mission and values, ISU Graduate student learning outcomes/goals, and the MBA learning goals.

MBA Assurance of Learning Methods

A brief description of the three dimensions of assurance of learning in the MBA program is provided below.

The Major Field Test. All students are required to take the ETS “Major Field Test for Masters of Business Administration” as part of MBA 690, the strategy capstone course. This is normally during the student’s last semester. The results of the students’ responses to each question on the major field test are compared with the national average of scores for that question. Each question on the major field test (typically a total of about 120 questions) is mapped to a specific learning goal. Some questions are mapped to multiple learning goals, although most map directly to one goal. The Graduate Faculty Committee reviews the cumulative results of the major field test each year. If our students’ scores deviate on any individual question by more than twenty percent from the national average, the question is investigated further. For those questions where our students are deficient when compared to the national average, the course(s) in which the topic should be taught are identified and the instructors associated with the course(s) are asked to develop a learning exercise to remediate the deficiency in the future. This change is documented through such things as the syllabus, the TaskStream software platform, and interoffice communications. The most recent analysis and resulting changes to the curriculum occurred in fall of 2013 and the fall of 2014.

Likert-type scale responses on the Exit Interview. Each student is required to complete an exit interview when applying for graduation. Included in the exit interview are five Likert-type items (1=strongly disagree, 5= strongly agree) asking the student to rate their understanding of the learning goal topics. These responses are collected, aggregated by academic year, and presented to the Graduate Committee in tabular form including mean, standard deviation, frequency, and

42

other descriptive statistics. The Graduate Committee reviews these reports and compares with prior years to determine whether to note any deficiencies. If deficiencies are noted, the courses associated with the topic are determined and the instructors are asked to provide remediation.

Open-ended response on the Exit Interview. Each student is given the opportunity to provide feedback regarding each of the learning goals in an open-ended, prose-type response. The Graduate Committee members are provided with the raw responses and asked to content-analyze them. Any themes identified that might cause concern regarding the learning outcomes are discussed in the committee and, when necessary, the faculty members that teach in that area are informed of the concerns, asked to address them, and provide documentation changes to their course.

MBA Assessment Results and Curricular Improvements

Two cycles have been completed for all MBA goals in the 2010-14 time frame.

Learning Goal 1 – No deficiencies were found in either cycle. Learning Goal 2 – Two questions on the Major Field Test were determined to be deficient for the 2013-2014 (data from the period of FA 2009 through SU 2013) cycle (See Table in Appendix 3.23). Remedies for each topic were implemented by the faculty members teaching MBA 613, MBA 614, MBA 622, and MBA 623. In the 2014-2015 (data for the academic year 2013-14) cycle, one question was determined to be deficient regarding learning goal 2 (See Table in Appendix 3.24). The faculty members teaching MBA 621 implemented changes in the course to address the shortcoming. The Likert-type responses and the open-ended responses on the exit interview did not identify any deficiencies within this learning goal. Learning Goal 3 – Two questions on the Major Field Test were determined to be deficient for the 2013-2014 (data from the period of FA 2009 through SU 2013) cycle (See Table in Appendix 3.23). Remedies for these topics were implemented by the faculty members teaching MBA 610 and MBA 621. The actual pedagogical enhancements can be found in the Assessment folder maintained by the MBA office. The Likert-type responses and the open-ended responses on the exit interview did not identify any deficiencies within this learning goal. Learning Goal 4 – The content analysis of the open-ended questions regarding the global perspectives learning goal indicated that most students found that FIN 500 – International Finance and OSCM 590 – Global Supply Chain Management provided them with a solid international focus. However, neither of these courses is in the core. The instructors of MBA 610, MBA 614, MBA 621, MBA 622, MBA 623, MBA 624, and MBA 690 were asked to examine the content of their respective courses to ensure that adequate attention was paid to the international dimension of the subject area. Faculty responses can be found in the Assessment folder maintained by the MBA office. No deficiencies were noted in the major field test or Likert-type responses. Learning Goal 5 – No deficiencies were found in either cycle.

Table depicted in Appendix 3.25 & Appendix 3.26 indicate the descriptive data associated with the Likert-type responses for each assessment cycle. The Graduate Faculty Committee reviewed these tables, as well as content-analyzed the open-ended questions on the exit interviews. No deficiencies were found. 43

Summary of MBA Curriculum & Assurance of Learning

In the past five years, assurance of learning has identified topics where our students were considered deficient compared to the national average of MBA students taking the major field test. Specifically, our students did not perform well on a total of five questions from the major field test (four in 2013-14, Table 1; one in 2014-15, Table 2). Each of these five questions was mapped to at least two MBA courses and the instructors for those courses were asked to provide a remedy. Remedies included things such as an additional case study, additional outside readings, and specific coverage of the topic by the instructor where none was offered in the past. These changes have been documented in email correspondence, syllabi, and the TaskStream software platform utilized by our program for assurance of learning. It should be noted that while there were five questions in recent years where our students did poorly, there were also thirteen questions where our students scored more than 20 percent higher than the national average. Since our first efforts to complete an assessment cycle in 2008, we have “closed the loop” twice (for the 2009-2012 period and the 2013-2014 academic year) and now have in place the procedures that will allow us to analyze the data each fall and to close the loop each year when deficiencies are discovered.

44

Section 6 – Other

SCOB Exemplary Practices

The Scott College of Business provides excellent opportunities for our students to pursue experiential learning and individual student professional development. Many of these programs have been briefly summarized earlier in this report and include:

1. Networks Financial Institute; 2. The Meis Student Professional Development Center and the “Catapult” program; 3. Sycamore Student Ventures including the Executive Express Café and Sycamore

Business Advisors; and 4. Center for Sales and Negotiations.

It cannot stressed enough how significant the new Federal Hall facility is for students, faculty, and staff. The new Scott College of Business home provides:

• Larger classrooms that are more functional and the most technologically advanced on campus; • Many tables and chairs on wheels that allow for easy classroom configuration; • Teaching stations with full media support; • Break out rooms with media and wall displays for class projects and student organizations; • Power connections conveniently located to students within each classroom, either in the floor or

in fixed tables. (ISU supports student laptop use in class and free laptops to many freshmen.); • Commons and corridor meeting spaces that provide important “third space” functionality; • Numerous web-addressable recording rooms located throughout the building, include three sale

laboratories; and, • Internet accessible print stations located conveniently to student study areas.

45

APPENDIX 1 – Strategic Management

1.1: Strategic Plan 2010 - 2015 ................................................................................................. 47

1.2: AACSB Standards Table 2-1 ............................................................................................. 55

1.3: Scott College of Strategy Framework 2015-2019 .............................................................. 64

46

SCOTT COLLEGE OF BUSINESS

Strategic Plan 2010-2015

Mission

Vision

The Indiana State University Scott College of Business is dedicated to providing an internationally-accredited professional education to qualified students at both the undergraduate and master’s levels.

Our primary focus is to provide an experiential learning environment that prepares students to take leadership roles in both public and private organizations.

In tandem with this commitment, the College supports, encourages, and produces applied and educational research, development of relationships with the business community, and service to the region and the professions.

The Scott College of Business will enhance its state and national reputation by:

• Providing innovative experiential learning to students within and beyond the classroom;

• Creating and disseminating scholarship commensurate with the highest accreditation;

• Engaging faculty, staff, and students with their communities; and

• Advancing the college’s national distinction in the field of financial services and at least one other area of business.

Keys to Achieving the Mission and Vision

• Strong support of students for their learning both inside and outside the classroom;

• Development of effective, innovative hands-on learning experiences for students;

• Provision of physical and programming environments that enhance engagement among the faculty, staff, and students and with the business community;

• Support of faculty professional development and research contributions; and

• Involvement of our alumni and the business community.

Shared Commitment

Our primary focus and commitment is to excellence in learning by students, faculty,

staff, and the extended community. We achieve our mission and vision by

engaging our faculty, staff, and students in an environment that:

• Stages rich interactions among participants and with community members;

• Provides learning activities within and beyond the classroom;

• Advances the role of research in learning and scholarship and supports communication of results to the extended community;

• Integrates global and ethical perspectives, current practices and technologies into learning;

• Utilizes experiential learning to advance the knowledge and practice of effective and responsible decision making;

• Prepares learners to contribute to their professions; and

• Supports the continual professional development of all of its participants.

Our Promise to Students

The Scott College of Business promises you

An education that meets the highest standards, combines core business knowledge

with depth in your fields of study, and provides abundant opportunities for

experiencing learning in and beyond the classroom.

Throughout your time as a student and as a career professional, we commit to

engaging you with a powerful network of faculty, alumni, business partners, and

community members.

Strategic Goals

1. To recruit and enable the success of more high quality students by providing them with knowledge, professional development, and other experiences that will give them a competitive advantage in the global workplace;

2. To target resources and efforts toward distinctive and innovative programs, learning opportunities, and research;

3. To provide a physical environment with associated technology, centers, and resources that advance opportunities for engagement among the faculty, staff, and students and with the business community;

Strategic Goals

4. To advance the scholarship of faculty by providing resources and support to increase the number and quality of publications;

5. To increase programming for our community and professional audiences in the region, state, and nation;

6. To enhance involvement of alumni and business communities in our programs; and

7. To increase external support for the college in the form of revenue-generating programs, raised funds, and grants.

For more information:

Brien N. Smith Phone: (812) 237-2000 Scott College of Business Email: [email protected] Indiana State University Website: www.indstate.edu/business Terre Haute, IN 47809

1.2: AA

CSB

Standards Table 2-1

Table 2-1: 2010-2014 (C

alendar Years)

Five-Year Sum

mary of Intellectual C

ontributions

Portfolio of Intellectual Contributions

Types of ICs

PRJ

Monographs

Books

Chapters

Proceedings

Presentations

Seminars

Non-PRJ

Others

Pedagogical

Practice

Discipline

Programs W

ithin the AFIRM Departm

ent

ACCOU

NTIN

G

Czyzew

ski, Alan AQ

6

4

3

7

Decker, Jeffrey (left the University, 2013) AQ

2

3

5

Harm

on, Michael AQ

3

3

M

oncada, Susan AQ

14

3 3

8 24

4

Sanders, Joseph AQ

3

3

Cohen, M

att (contract as of Aug, 2014) PQ

Gallatin, E. Harry (contract) PQ

1

1

Harris, Thomas PQ

M

cMahan, Robert (contract) PQ

55

1.2: (continued): AA

CSB

Standards Table 2-1


Types of ICs

PRJ

Monographs

Books

Chapters

Proceedings

Presentations

Seminars

Non-PRJ

Others

Pedagogical

Practice

Discipline

Programs W

ithin the AFIRM Departm

ent

FINAN

CE

Ferreira, Eurico (passed aw

ay, Jan, 2014) AQ

7

1

8

Haque, Mahfuzul AQ

12

3

1

16

Zaher, Tarek AQ

4

2

6

Robinson, Sharon PQ

IN

SURAN

CE

Liu, Zhiyong AQ

3

6

4

13

Park, Jin AQ

6

9

15

W

arfel, William

AQ

5

2

7

M

ikolaj, Peter (retired in 2011, adjunct since) Other

2 4

6

Pigg, Daniel (adjunct) PQ

AFIRM

Dept. Chairperson

Lam

b, Steven (Chair) AQ

3

1

1

3

56


CSB

Standards Table 2-1


Types of ICs

PRJ

Monographs

Books

Chapters

Proceedings

Presentations

Seminars

Non-PRJ

Others

Pedagogical

Practice

Discipline

Programs W

ithin the MO

Department

M

ARKETING

Bhowm

ick, Sandeep, AQ (Ph.D. in 2010)

1

5 2

2 2

8

Chiesl, New

ell, AQ (Retired in 2007)

2

2

Clark, Paul, AQ (Left in 2011)

2

1

3

Hawes, Jon, AQ

5

2

11

4 14

Jam

es, Kevin, AQ (Left in 2013)

2

2

Maher, Am

ro, AQ (Left in 2010)

4

4

Redmond, W

illiam, AQ

(Left in 2011) 6

2

2

1 9

Sw

eetin, Vernon, AQ (Ph.D. in 2010)

1

1

Varble, Dale, AQ

2

1 3

Young, Joyce, AQ

5

2

8 2

13

W

illiams, Sara, PQ

57


CSB

Standards Table 2-1


Types of ICs

PRJ

Monographs

Books

Chapters

Proceedings

Presentations

Seminars

Non-PRJ

Others

Pedagogical

Practice

Discipline

Programs W

ithin the MO

Department

O

PERATION

S & SU

PPLY CHAIN M

GT

Bhattacharyya, Kuntal, AQ

6

2 7

7

1

22

1 DePaolo, Concetta, AQ

8

1

3

11 1

Hozak, Kurt, AQ

(Left in 2010) 8

8

M

cLaren, Constance, AQ

3

2 5

Moates, W

illiam, AQ

(Left in 2010) 1

1

Schikora, Paul, AQ

2

3

1

2 4

Bonnell, Angela, PQ (Left in 2010)

Brunnemer, Tim

othy, PQ

Creasy, Chad, PQ

Jones, Kenneth, PQ

58


CSB

Standards Table 2-1


Types of ICs

PRJ

Monographs

Books

Chapters

Proceedings

Presentations

Seminars

Non-PRJ

Others

Pedagogical

Practice

Discipline

Programs W

ithin the MISBE Departm

ent

BUSIN

ESS EDUCATIO

N

Chao, Chia-An, AQ

5

1

6

Wilhelm

, William

, AQ

5

2

7 8

6

Wilkinson, Kelly, AQ

6

2 4

2

12 2

Erthal, Margaret, PQ

Edw

ards, Linda, PQ

1

2

3

Blank, Martin, PQ

(Left in 2012)

Flott, Robert, PQ

(Left in 2010)

M

cCabe, Rebecca, Other (Left in 2011)

59


CSB

Standards Table 2-1


Types of ICs

PRJ

Monographs

Books

Chapters

Proceedings

Presentations

Seminars

Non-PRJ

Others

Pedagogical

Practice

Discipline

Programs W


ent

MAN

AGEM

ENT

Chait, Herschel, Other

1

1

Chandrasekaran, Aruna, AQ

8

1

2 3

8

Douglas, Max, AQ

2

1

1 1

2 3

He, W

ei, AQ

2

5

2

5

Sherwood, Arthur, AQ

(Left in May 2014)

3

5 12

6 4

22

Smith, Brian, AQ

2

1

1 2

Robinson, David, AQ

4

1

3 2

Tanoos, Jam

es, AQ

11

1

1

12 1

LaGrange, Kim

berly, PQ

Strohm, Heather, PQ

(Left in 2011)

W

ray, Rebecca, PQ

60


CSB

Standards Table 2-1


Types of ICs

PRJ

Monographs

Books

Chapters

Proceedings

Presentations

Seminars

Non-PRJ

Others

Pedagogical

Practice

Discipline

Programs W


ent

MAN

AGEM

ENT IN

FORM

ATION

SYSTEMS

Abuhamdieh, Aym

an, AQ

3

2

1

Bialaszewski, Dennis, AQ

4

1

1

2

5 3

Buffington, Jam

es, Other (Retired as of Spring 2014)

Harper, Jeffrey, AQ

3

1

2 3

3

Harder, Joseph, AQ

3

2 2

3

Jacobs, Aimee, AQ

(Ph.D. in 2013)

1 6

7

M

cLaren, Bruce, AQ

3

3

Moates, W

illiam, AQ

(Left in 2010) 1

1

Sim

mons, Lakisha, AQ

(Left in 2012) 4

2 2

Cooper, Charles, PQ (Left in 2010)

Campbell, Cory, PQ

Review Period

2004-2009 171

2 0

10 70

51 14

0 100

176 131

145 2010-2014

196 0

1 9

47 60

1 2

77 112

279 2

61


CSB

Standards Table 2-1

1. Peer review

ed journal articles (learning and pedagogical research, contributions to practice, and/or discipline-based scholarship)

2. R

esearch Monographs (teaching/pedagogical, practice/applied and /or discipline-based research)

3. B

ooks (textbooks, professional/practice/trade, and/or scholarly) 4.

Chapters in books (textbooks, professional/practice/trade, and/or scholarly)

5. Peer review

ed proceedings from teaching/pedagogical m

eetings, professional/practice meetings, and/or scholarly m

eetings 6.

Peer reviewed paper presentations at teaching/pedagogical m

eetings, professional/practical meetings, and/or academ

ic m

eetings 7.

Faculty research seminars (teaching/pedagogical, practice oriented, and/or discipline-based research sem

inar) 8.

Non-peer review

ed journals (learning and pedagogical, contributions to practice, and/or discipline-based scholarship). School m

ust provide substantive support for quality 9.

Others (peer review

ed cases with instructional m

aterials, instructional software, publicly available m

aterial describing the design and im

plementation of new

curricula or courses, technical reports related to funded projects, publicly available research w

orking papers, etc. please specify) 10.

Summ

ary of ICs m

ust reflect total number of IC

s in each category (learning and pedagogical research, contributions to practice, and/or discipline-based scholarship)

62


CSB

Standards Table 2-1

INT

EL

LE

CT

UA

L C

ON

TR

IBU

TIO

NS

In support of teaching and learning, there is a need for contributions in basic scholarship, applied scholarship and instructional developm

ent (instructional design, pedagogies, teaching related research) by all faculty. Given the C

ollege of Business m

ission, it is expected that the em

phasis will be on applied scholarship and instructional developm

ent. “A

pplied Scholarship” is defined as the application, transfer, and interpretation of knowledge to im

prove managem

ent practice and teaching. “Instructional D

evelopment” is the enhancem

ent of the educational value of instructional efforts of the institution or discipline. Evidence of intellectual contributions include, but are not lim

ited to: �

publishing in refereed journals; �

writing articles for trade journals and in-house publications;

� giving presentations at local, state, regional, national, and international m

eetings; �

publishing in proceedings; �

submitting successful external grant proposals;

� w

riting textbooks; �

developing instructional software and publicly available m

aterials; �

writing cases w

ith instructional materials; and

� com

piling a collection of works for publication.

Minim

um Standard for Intellectual C

ontributions In order to m

eet the minim

um standard of perform

ance for intellectual contributions as a tenured or tenure-track faculty, it is expected that each faculty m

ember w

ill make at least one intellectual contribution every year w

ith the further requirement that there be tw

o refereed journal publications every five years. (N

ote; the expectation that faculty make at least one IC

every year is to ensure appropriate em

phases on scholarship, and to help facilitate the critical goal of accomplishm

ent of two refereed journal publications every five years.) In the event that the faculty m

ember does not publish tw

o refereed journal articles in five years, it is the faculty mem

ber’s responsibility to “m

ake the case” to his/her academic departm

ental personnel comm

ittee of how his/her specific intellectual contribution perform

ance m

eets or exceeds this requirement during the period. The appropriate academ

ic discipline(s) will establish acceptable venues for

publication. It is expected a faculty mem

ber’s portfolio of publications will show

a progression of publication to higher level and/or peer-review

ed journals over a career.

63

APPENDIX 2 – Participants

2.1: Summary of Faculty Sufficiency Table 9-1 ....................................................................... 70

2.2: Summary of Faculty Qualifications Table 10-1 ................................................................. 75

2.3: Deployment of Qualified Faculty Table 10-2 .................................................................... 84

2.4: Determination of Faculty Resources Document ................................................................ 90

2.5: Expectations Document ..................................................................................................... 96

69

2.1: Summ

ary of Faculty Sufficiency Table 9-1

TABLE 9-1: (Academic Year 2013-2014)

SUM

MARY O

F FACULTY SU

FFICIENCY BY DISCIPLIN

E AND SCHO

OL

(RE: Standard 9 - Using Student Credit

Hours as metric:

Nam

e

Participating or

Supporting (P or S)

Am

ount of teaching if P (blank if S)2

Am

ount of teaching if S (blank if P)2

Faculty Within AFIRM

Department

Accounting

Czyzewski, Alan

P 477 sch

Harmon, M

ichael P

288 sch

M

oncada, Susan P

459 sch

Joseph, Sanders

P 441 sch

Cohen, Matt

P 1074 sch

Gallatin, Harry P

1371 sch

Harris, Thom

as P

732 sch

M

cMahan, Robert

P 939 sch

TOTAL ACCO

UN

TING

5781

100%

P / (P + S) must be > 60%

Finance

Ferreira, Eurico (Passed aw

ay in Jan. 2014), P

126 sch

M

ahfuzul, Haque P

462 sch

Zaher, Tarek

P 534 sch

Robinson, Sharon P

783 sch

TO

TAL FINAN

CE

1905

100% P / (P + S) m

ust be > 60%

70

2.1 (continued): Summ


Insurance and Risk M

anagement

Liu, John P

297 sch

M

ikolaj Peter (adjunct since he retired in 2011)

S

21 sch

Park, Jin P

450 sch

W

arfel, William

P

102 sch

TO

TAL INSU

RANCE &

RISK MG

T

849 21

98% P / (P + S) m

ust be > 60%

Lam

b, Steven (AFIRM Departm

ent Chair) P

147 sch

OVERALL TO

TAL FOR AFIRM

DEPT

8682 21

100% P / (P + S) m

ust be > 75%

Faculty Within M

O Departm

ent

Marketing

Bhowm

ick, Sandeep P

294 sch

Chiesl, N

ewell

S

78 sch

Hawes, Jon

P 300 sch

Sweetin, Vernon

P 531 sch

Varble, Dale P

546 sch

W

illiams, Sara

P 690 sch

Young, Joyce P

360 sch

TO

TAL MARKETIN

G

2721 78

97% P / (P + S) m

ust be > 60%

O

perations & Supply Chain M

gt

Bhattacharyya, Kuntal

P 393 sch

Brunnemer, Tim

othy S

75 sch

71



Creasy, Chad S

90 sch

DePaolo, Concetta

P 747 sch

Jones, Kenneth S

198 sch

M

cLaren, Constance P

597 sch

Schikora, Paul

P 372 sch

TOTAL M

ANAG

EMEN

T

2109 363

85.3% P / (P + S) m

ust be > 60%

O

VERALL TOTAL FO

R MO

DEPT

4830 441

91.6% P / (P + S) m

ust be > 75%

Faculty Within M

ISBE Department

Business Education

Chao, Chia-An P

378 sch

Edw

ards, Linda P

879 sch

Erthal, M

argaret S

141 sch

W

ilhelm, W

illiam

P 563 sch

Wilkinson, Kelly

P 159 sch

TOTAL BU

SINESS EDU

CATION

1979 141

93% P / (P + S) m

ust be > 60%

M

anagement

Chait, Herschel P

390 sch

Chandrasekaran, Aruna

P 354 sch

Douglas, Max

P 114 sch

He, Wei

P 573 sch

LaGrange, Kimberly

P 429 sch

Robinson, David P

201 sch

Sherw

ood, Arthur P

441 sch

Tanoos, Jam

es S

690 sch

72



Wray, Rebecca

P 101 sch

TOTAL M

ANAG

EMEN

T

2603 690

79% P / (P + S) m

ust be > 60%

M

anagement Inform

ation Systems

Abuhamdieh, Aym

an P

369 sch

Bialaszew

ski, Dennis P

375 sch

Buffington, Jam

es P

675 sch

Cam

pbell, Cory S

273 sch

Harper, Jeffrey

P 123 sch

Harder, Joseph P

327 sch

M

cLaren, Bruce P

162 sch

Jacobs, Aim

ee P

651 sch

TO

TAL MIS

2682

273 91%

P / (P + S) must be > 60%

OVERALL TO

TAL FOR M

ISBE DEPT

7264 1104

87% P/ (P + S) m

ust be > 75%

O

VERALL TOTAL FO

R SCOB

20974

1368 93%

P/ (P + S) must be > 75%

1.

Faculty should be listed by academic discipline as defined in the organizational structure that is used by the school. The organizational

structure should be clear to the Peer Review Team

. 2.

The measure “am

ount of teaching” must reflect the operations of the school, e.g. student credit hours (SCHs), European Credit Transfer

Units (ECTU

s), contact hours, individual courses, modules or other designation that is appropriately indicative of the am

ount of teaching contribution. Concurrence on the m

easurement process m

ust be reached with the peer review

team early in the review

process. 3.

Table 9-1 must be com

pleted for the most recently com

pleted, normal academ

ic year. Peer review team

s may request docum

entation for additional academ

ic years, individual terms, as w

ell as by program, location, and/or discipline.

73



Annual Determination of Participating and Supporting Faculty M

embers

College of Business

Th

is d

ocu

me

nt

de

scrib

es h

ow

P

artic

ipa

tin

g a

nd

Su

pp

ortin

g fa

cu

lty w

ill b

e d

ete

rm

ine

d fo

r p

urp

ose

s o

f A

AC

SB

re

affir

ma

tio

n o

f

accre

dit

atio

n. It

is c

on

sis

te

nt w

ith

exis

tin

g fa

cu

lty g

ove

rn

an

ce

do

cu

me

nts a

nd

AA

CSB

gu

ide

line

s

Faculty who are classified as Participating w

ill include

1. Tenured or tenure-track faculty of the College of Business w

ho, in addition to their teaching responsibilities, demonstrate

annual involvement in at least tw

o of the following: curricular developm

ent and approval, advising, other non-classroom

instructional and student activities, faculty governance, research, and professional service. 2.

Other instructors w

ho demonstrate ongoing involvem

ent in curricular development and approval, advising, other non-

classroom instructional and student activities, faculty governance, research, or professional service.

Faculty w

ho are classified as Supporting will include

1. Visiting, adjunct, or any other faculty w

ho do not demonstrate active involvem

ent beyond classroom teaching.

74

2.2: Summ

ary of Faculty Q

ualifications Table 10-1

TABLE 10-1

SUM

MARY O

F FACULTY Q

UALIFICATIO

NS, DEVELO

PMEN

T ACTIVITIES, AND PRO

FESSION

AL RESPON

SIBILITIES

Name

Highest Degree Earned and Year

Date of First Appointment to the School

Percent of Time Dedicated to the School’s Mission

Academically Qualified Professionally Qualified4 Other

Five-Year Summ

ary of Development

Activities Supporting AQ or PQ

Status

Normal Professional Responsibilities

Intellectual Contributions

Professional Experience

Consulting

Professional Development

Other Professional Activities

Programs w

ithin AFIRM

Dept.

Accounting

Czyzewski, Alan; AQ

Ph.D. 1985

1992 100%

Yes

10

U

G/GR/RES/SER

Harmon, M

ichael; AQ

J.D 1977

1986 100%

Yes

3

U

G/GR/RES/SER

Moncada, Susan; AQ

Ph.D. 1991

1990 100%

Yes

28

U

G/GR/RES/SER

Sanders, Joseph; AQ

Ph.D. 1992

1992 100%

Yes

3

U

G/GR/RES/SER

75


ary of Faculty Q


Cohen, Matt; PQ

M

BA 1997

1997 100%

Yes

5

1 3

6 U

G/SER

Gallatin, E.Harry; PQ

MBA

1998 1999

100%

Yes

5

2 5

UG/SER

Harris,Thomas; PQ

Ph.D. 1989

1988 100%

Yes

5

1 1

3 U

G/RES/SER

McM

ahan, Robert; PQ

J.D 1987

1988 100%

Yes

5

1 U

G/SER

Finance

Ferreira,Eurico died, Jan 2014; AQ

Ph.D. 1982

1991 50%

Yes

8

U

G/GR/RES/SER

Haque, Mahfuzul; AQ

Ph.D. 1999

2000 100%

Yes

16

U

G/GR/RES/SER

Zaher,Tarek; AQ

Ph.D. 1989

1990 100%

Yes

6

U

G/GR/RES/SER

Robinson, Sharon; PQ

MBA

1983 1988;Continous since 2012

100%

Yes

5 1

5 5

UG/SER

Insurance

Liu, Zhiyong; AQ

Ph.D. 2005

2012 100%

Yes

13

U

G/GR/RES/SER

Park,Jin; AQ

Ph.D. 2003

2009 100%

Yes

15

U

G/GR/RES/SER

Warfel,W

illiam; AQ

Ph.D. 1990

1990 100%

Yes

7

U

G/GR/RES/SER

76


ary of Faculty Q


Mikolaj, Peter (adjunct,

retired professor); Ph.D. 1970

1989 12.5%

Yes

6

U

G

Dept. Chair

Lamb, Steven; AQ

Ph.D. 1970

1970 100%

Yes

4

U

G/GR/ADM/RE

S/SER

Programs w

ithin MO

Dept.

Marketing

Bhowm

ick, Sandeep; AQ

Ph.D. 2010

2010 100%

Yes

10

U

G/SER/RES

Chiesl, New

ell; AQ

(Retired in 2007) Ph.D. 1974

1978 12.5%

Yes

2

U

G/RES

Hawes, Jon; AQ

Ph.D. 1981

2009 100%

Yes

18

U

G/GR/SER/RES/ADM

Sw

eetin, Vernon; AQ

(Ph.D. in 2010) Ph.D. 2010

2010 100%

Yes

1

U

G/G/SER/RES

Varble, Dale; AQ

Ph.D. 1970

1980 100%

Yes

3

U

G/SER/RES

Young, Joyce; AQ

Ph.D. 1993

1993 100%

Yes

15

U

G/GR/SER/RES

William

s, Sara; PQ

MM

R 2004

2007 100%

Yes

5

2

U

G/SER

77


ary of Faculty Q


OSCM

Bhattacharyya, Kuntal; AQ

Ph.D. 2011

2010 100%

Yes

23

U

G/GR/SER/RES

DePaolo, Concetta; AQ

Ph.D. 2001

1997 100%

Yes

12

U

G/GR/SER/RES

McLaren, Constance;

AQ

Ph.D. 1976

1979 100%

Yes

5

U

G/GR/SER/RES

Schikora, Paul; AQ

Ph.D. 1999

1999 100%

Yes

6

U

G/GR/SER/RES/ADM

Brunnemer, Tim

othy; PQ

M

BA 2008

2008 12.5%

Yes

5

1 U

G

Creasy, Chad; PQ

MBA

2007 2014

12.5%

Yes

5

2

UG

Jones, Kenneth; PQ

MBA

1992 2011

37.5%

Yes

11 2

3

UG

Programs w

ithin M

ISBE Dept.

Business Education

Chao, Chia-An; AQ

Ph.D. 2002

2002 100%

Yes

6

U

G/ RES/ SER

Wilhelm

, William

; AQ

Ed D 1998

2001 100%

Yes

14

U

G/GR/RES/SER

Wilkinson, Kelly; AQ

Ph.D. 1997

2003 100%

Yes

14

U

G/GR/RES/SER/ADM

78


ary of Faculty Q


Edwards, Linda; PQ

M

.S 2002

2011 100%

Yes

3 5

1 U

G/SER

Erthal, Margaret; PQ

Ph.D. 1993

2007 25%

Yes

5

U

G/GR

Managem

ent

Chait, Herschel; Other

Ph.D. 1974

1981 100%

Yes

1

U

G/GR/RES/SER/ADM

Chandrasekaran, Aruna; AQ

Ph.D. 2001

2001 100%

Yes

11

U

G/GR/RES/SER

Douglas, Max; AQ

Ed D 1979

1968 100%

Yes

5

U

G/RES/SER

He, Wei; AQ

Ph.D. 2004

2002 100%

Yes

7

U

G/GR/RES/SER

Robinson, David; AQ

Ph.D. 1999

2005 100%

Yes

5

U

G/GR/RES/SER

Sherwood, Arthur; AQ

Ph.D. 2002

2002 100%

Yes

26

U

G/RES/SER

Tanoos, James; AQ

Ph.D. 2011

2006 87.5%

Yes

13

U

G/GR/RES

LaGrange, Kimberly;

PQ

MBA

1993 2008

100%

Yes

5 1

1

UG/GR/SER/AD

M

Wray, Rebecca; PQ

M

BA 2007

2007 100%

Yes

5

U

G/SER

79


ary of Faculty Q


Managem

ent Inform

ation Systems

Abuhamdieh, Aym

an; AQ

Ph.D. 2001

2001 100%

Yes

3

U

G/GR/RES/SER

Bialaszewski, Dennis;

AQ

Ph.D. 1980

1984 100%

Yes

8

U

G/RES/SER

Buffington, James;

Other

Ph.D. 1986

1985 100%

Yes

U

G/SER

Harper, Jeffrey; AQ

Ph.D. 1998

1998 100%

Yes

6

U

G/GR/RES/SER/ADM

Harder, Joseph; AQ

Ph.D. 2001

1998 100%

Yes

5

U

G/GR/RES/SER

McLaren, Bruce; AQ

Ph.D. 1977

1979 100%

Yes

3

U

G/GR/RES/SER/ADM

Jacobs, Aim

ee; AQ

(Ph.D. in 2013) Ph D 2013

2013 100%

Yes

7

U

G/RES/SER

Campbell, Cory; PQ

M

BA 2012

2013 37.5%

Yes

5

2

U

G

80


ary of Faculty Q


Scott College of Business Determination of Academ

ic Qualification

Th

is d

ocu

me

nt d

escrib

es h

ow

aca

de

mic

ally

qu

alifie

d fa

cu

lty w

ill be

de

te

rm

ine

d a

nd

th

eir

qu

alific

atio

n m

ain

ta

ine

d fo

r p

urp

ose

s o

f an

nu

al A

AC

SB

re

po

rtin

g. It

is c

on

sis

te

nt w

ith

AA

CS

B g

uid

elin

es.

Fa

cu

lty ca

n b

e cla

ssifie

d a

s A

ca

de

mic

ally

Q

ua

lified

th

ro

ug

h e

ith

er re

ce

nt e

du

ca

tio

n o

r sch

ola

rly

a

ctiv

ity in

th

e a

re

a o

f te

ach

ing

. In

te

llectu

al

co

ntrib

utio

ns w

ill be

re

vie

we

d b

y t

he

AA

CS

B t

ask

force

wit

h fin

al d

ete

rm

ina

tio

n b

y D

ea

ns a

nd

Ch

air

pe

rso

ns. T

he

re

vie

w p

erio

d is

th

e p

re

vio

us fiv

e

ca

len

da

r y

ea

rs.

• F

acu

lty w

ho

h

ave

e

arn

ed

a

P

h.D

., J.D

., o

r o

th

er te

rm

ina

l d

eg

re

e in

th

e te

ach

ing

a

re

a d

urin

g th

e re

vie

w p

erio

d,

or th

ose

w

ho

h

ave

ach

ieve

d A

BD

sta

tu

s in

th

e p

re

vio

us t

wo

ye

ars, w

ill be

co

nsid

ere

d t

o b

e A

ca

de

mic

ally

Qu

alifie

d.

• T

o m

ain

ta

in A

ca

de

mic

ally

Q

ua

lified

sta

tu

s th

ro

ug

h sch

ola

rly

a

ctiv

ity,

a fa

cu

lty m

em

be

r m

ust h

ave

e

arn

ed

th

e P

h.D

., J.D

., o

r o

th

er

te

rm

ina

l de

gre

e in

th

e t

ea

ch

ing

are

a a

nd

sh

ou

ld c

om

ple

te

, du

rin

g t

he

re

vie

w p

erio

d, a

t le

ast t

wo

Le

ve

l 1 In

te

llectu

al C

on

trib

utio

ns. In

so

me

insta

nce

s, a

pe

rso

n w

ith

a s

ing

le, h

igh

qu

alit

y L

eve

l 1 p

ub

lica

tio

n p

lus a

stro

ng

co

mb

ina

tio

n o

f oth

er a

ctiv

itie

s m

ay b

e d

ete

rm

ine

d

to

be

Aca

de

mic

ally

Qu

alifie

d.

Le

ve

l 1 In

te

llectu

al C

on

trib

utio

ns

• Published article in an academ

ic peer-reviewed journal *

• Published scholarly book

• Published textbook (1

st edition)

* At the time of article acceptance or publication, the journal w

as classified as academic peer-review

ed.

Oth

er In

te

llectu

al C

on

trib

utio

ns*

• Published research m

onograph •

Chapter in scholarly book •

Published textbook (revision) •

Article published in journal that is not peer-reviewed

• Editor of peer-review

ed journal

81


ary of Faculty Q


• Article published in proceedings from

scholarly meeting

• Article presentation at scholarly m

eeting •

Publication in trade or professional journal •

Published book review

• Instructional softw

are that is widely used

• Published instructional m

aterials (e.g. Merlot)

• Editor of conference proceedings

• Service on editorial board of peer- review

ed journal •

Other presentation (e.g. as panelist, discussant) at scholarly m

eeting •

Presentation at faculty research seminar

• Publicly available m

aterials describing design and implem

entation of new curriculum

or course •

Published technical report related to funded research project •

Courseware, study guide, test bank etc.

*N

ote

: this list is not exhaustive. Any activities that do not appear in the list should be discussed with the review

team for appropriate

classification.

Scott College of Business Determination of Professionally Q

ualified

This portion of the document describes how

Professionally Qualified (PQ

) faculty will be determ

ined and their qualification maintained for

purposes of annual AACSB reporting. It is consistent with existing faculty governance docum

ents and AACSB standards.

Professionally qualified faculty must dem

onstrate at the time of hire both the academ

ic preparation and professional experience relevant to the subject and level of the courses they teach. For exam

ple, those who teach upper-level courses are expected to have m

ore specialized credentials and/or higher levels of responsibility in professional experiences than those w

ho teach introductory courses.

In a

dd

itio

n,

facu

lty m

em

be

rs m

ust m

ain

ta

in p

ro

fessio

na

l q

ua

lifica

tio

n th

ro

ug

h co

ntin

uin

g d

eve

lop

me

nt,

ad

dit

ion

al

ed

uca

tio

n,

ce

rtific

atio

ns,

an

d/o

r o

th

er professional experiences as show

n below. Professional activities are reported and review

ed on an annual basis to demonstrate

relevancy and currency of the qualification. The review period for m

aintenance of Professional Qualification is defined as the previous five

calendar years.

82


ary of Faculty Q


Faculty mem

bers may attain Professional Q

ualification at the time of hire or w

ithin the five-year review period. Dem

onstration of relevancy and currency of the qualification is required for m

aintenance of Professional Qualification.

To be Professionally Qualified, a faculty m

ember m

ust satisfy each of the three requirements listed below

.

Degree Completion

• A m

aster’s degree or higher in business or in the specific area of teaching, or •

A master’s degree or higher in a non-business field w

ith significant professional or educational development in the teaching area (e.g.,

certification, advanced courses, intellectual contributions)


• Relevant to the teaching area and the level of the teaching responsibility; and

• Significant professional experience (at least one year in a professional capacity related to the teaching area and the level of the teaching responsibility. Additional years and higher levels of responsibility are required for teaching courses that are beyond introductory level). Exam

ples include current business experience at a managerial or applied level, consulting, service on boards, executive education,

programs, publications, conferences, sem

inars, and professional development activities); and Current at the tim

e of hire or during the review

period.

Continuing Development

• Annual dem

onstration of significant professional activity comm

ensurate with the area and level of the teaching responsibility (e.g.,

current business experience, consulting projects, service on boards, executive education programs, publications, conferences, sem

inars, professional developm

ent activities); or •

Attainment or current m

aintenance of certification relative to the teaching area (e.g., Certified Public Accountant; Certified Financial Planner); or

• A com

bination of professional activities, certification, and/or intellectual contributions (as listed in the requirements for m

aintenance of Academ

ic Qualification).

* The examples provided are not exhaustive. Any activities that do not appear in the list should be discussed w

ith the review team

for appropriate classification.

83

2.3: Deploym

ent of Qualified F

aculty Table 10-2

TABLE 10-2. CALCULATIO

NS RELATIVE TO

DEPLOYM

ENT O

F QU

ALIFIED FACULTY

% of Tim

e is determined from

the Academic Year 2013-2014

NAM

E

QU

ALIFICATION

(ACADEM

IC-AQ,

PROFESSIO

NAL-

PQ

OTHER-O

) (FRO

M TABLE

10-1)

AQ

FACULTY-

% O

F TIME

DEVOTED

TO M

ISSION

(FRO

M

TABLE 10-1)

PQ FACU

LTY- %

OF TIM

E DEVO

TED TO

MISSIO

N

(FROM

TABLE 10-1)

OTHER2

FACULTY- %

O

F TIME

DEVOTED TO

M

ISSION

(FRO

M TABLE

10-1)

QU

ALIFICATION

RATIO

S PER STD 10

Programs W

ithin AFIRM Dept

Accounting

Czyzew

ski, Alan AQ

100

Harm

on, Michael

AQ

100

Moncada,Susan

AQ

100

Sanders,Joseph AQ

100

Cohen, M

att PQ

100

Gallatin, E.Harry

PQ

100

Harris,Thomas

PQ

100

McM

ahan, Robert PQ

100

Total for Accounting Program

400

400

50.0% AQ

/(AQ+PQ

+O) > 50%

100%

(AQ+PQ

)/(AQ+PQ

+O) > 90%

84

2.3 (continued): Deploym

ent of Qualified F

aculty Table 10-2

Finance

Ferreira, Eurico AQ

50

Haque, M

ahfuzul AQ

100

Zaher,Tarek

AQ

100

Robinson, Sharon PQ

100

Total for Finance Program

250

100

71.4% AQ

/(AQ+PQ

+O) > 50%

100%

(AQ+PQ

)/(AQ+PQ

+O) > 90%

Insurance & Risk M

anagement

Liu,Zhiyong

AQ

100

Park,Jin AQ

100

W

arfel,William

AQ

100

M

ikolaj, Peter O

ther

12.5

Total for Insurance and Risk M

anagement Program

300

12.5 96%

AQ/(AQ

+PQ+O

) > 50%

96%

(AQ+PQ

)/(AQ+PQ

+O) > 90%

Lamb,Steven (AFIRM

Dept Chair) AQ

100

TO

TAL FOR AFIRM

DEPT

950

500

12.5

65.1% AQ

/(AQ+PQ

+O) > 50%

99.3%

(AQ+PQ

)/(AQ+PQ

+O) > 90%

85


ent of Qualified F

aculty Table 10-2

Programs W

ithin MO

Dept

Marketing

Bhow

mick, Sandeep

AQ

100

Chiesl, New

ell (Retired in 2007) AQ

12.5

Haw

es, Jon AQ

100

Sw

eetin, Vernon (Ph.D. in 2010) AQ

100

Varble, Dale

AQ

100

Young, Joyce AQ

100

W

illiams, Sara

PQ

100

Total for Marketing Program

512.5 100

85%

.4 AQ/(AQ

+PQ+O

) > 50%

100%

(AQ+PQ

)/(AQ+PQ

+O) > 90%

Operations &

Supply Chain Mgt

Bhattacharyya, Kuntal

AQ

100

DePaolo, Concetta AQ

100

M

cLaren, Constance AQ

100

Schikora, Paul

AQ

100

Brunnemer, Tim

othy PQ

12.5

Creasy, Chad

PQ

12.5

Jones, Kenneth PQ

37.5

86


ent of Qualified F

aculty Table 10-2

Total for Operations &

Supply Chain M

gt Program

400

62.5

86.5% AQ

/(AQ+PQ

+O) > 50%

100%

(AQ+PQ

)/(AQ+PQ

+O) > 90%

TOTAL FO

R MO

DEPT

912.5

162.5

84.9%

AQ/(AQ

+PQ+O

) > 50%

100% (AQ

+PQ)/(AQ

+PQ+O

) > 90%

Programs W

ithin MISBE Dept

Business Education

Chao, Chia-An

AQ

100

Wilhelm

, William

AQ

100

W

ilkinson, Kelly AQ

100

Edw

ards, Linda PQ

100

Erthal, M

argaret PQ

25

Total for Business Education Program

300

125

70.6% AQ

/(AQ+PQ

+O) > 50%

100%

(AQ+PQ

)/(AQ+PQ

+O) > 90%

Managem

ent

Chait, Herschel O

ther

100

Chandrasekaran, Aruna

AQ

100

Douglas, Max

AQ

100

He, Wei

AQ

100

Robinson, David AQ

100

Sherw

ood, Arthur AQ

100

87


ent of Qualified F

aculty Table 10-2

Tanoos, James

AQ

87.5

LaGrange, Kimberly

PQ

100

Wray, Rebecca

PQ

100

Total for Managem

ent Program

587.5

200 100

66.2% AQ

/(AQ+PQ

+O) > 50%

88.7%

(AQ+PQ

)/(AQ+PQ

+O) >90%

Managem

ent Information System

s

Abuhamdieh, Aym

an AQ

100

Bialaszew

ski, Dennis AQ

100

Buffington, Jam

es O

ther

100

Harder, Joseph

AQ

100

Harper, Jeffrey AQ

100

Jacobs, Aim

ee AQ

100

M

cLaren, Bruce AQ

100

Cam

pbell, Cory PQ

37.5

88


ent of Qualified F

aculty Table 10-2

Total for Managem

ent Information

Systems Program

600 37.5

100 81.3%

AQ/(AQ

+PQ+O

) > 50%

86.4%

(AQ+PQ

)/(AQ+PQ

+O) > 90%

TOTAL FO

R MISBE DEPT

1487.5

362.5

200

72.6% AQ

/(AQ+PQ

+O) > 50%

90.2%

(AQ+PQ

)/(AQ+PQ

+O) > 90%

TO

TAL FOR SCO

B

3350 1025

212.5 73%

AQ/(AQ

+PQ+O

) > 50%

95.4% (AQ

+PQ)/(AQ

+PQ+O

) > 90%

NO

TES: Table 10-2 addresses the ratios described in Standard 10 regarding deployment of academ

ically and professionally qualified faculty. It m

ust be developed for the peer review team

to confirm that qualified faculty resources are deployed in support of the school m

ission. Faculty should be listed by discipline consistent w

ith the organizational structure of the business school. It is expected that qualified faculty w

ill generally be distributed equitably across normal academ

ic years, each discipline, each academic program

, and location consistent with

the school’s mission and student needs. Distance delivered program

s are considered to be a unique location. The threshold for deployment

of academically qualified faculty resources is higher for a school w

ith graduate degree programs than for a school w

ith no graduate degree program

s and is higher for a school with a research doctoral program

than for a school without a research doctoral program

.

1. The m

etric used is the “percent of time devoted to m

ission” as derived from Table 10-1.

2. The “O

ther” category must be used for those individuals holding a faculty title but w

hose qualifications do not meet the definitions

for academically or professionally qualified.

89

2.4: Determination of Faculty Resources Document

Determination of Faculty Resources for the AACSB Reaffirmation of Accreditation

Scott College of Business Indiana State University

Context The following document has been discussed, shaped and acknowledged at almost all bi-annual meetings of the Scott College of Business Faculty since the last formal AACSB reaffirmation. The definitions and criteria are endorsed by the SCOB faculty. The definitions and criteria are part of the criterion of our decision making. The AACSB Guidelines require that all faculty (anyone who provides instruction to students) be classified in each of two dimensions. These dimensions are given in

• Standard 9, which describes Participating or Supporting Faculty • Standard 10, which describes Academically or Professionally Qualified Faculty

To determine that faculty resources are sufficient, colleges must meet specific requirements for adequacy in each dimension. Among these are

• Participating faculty members will deliver at least 75 percent of the school’s teaching. • Participating faculty members will deliver at least 60 percent of the teaching in each discipline,

academic program, and location. • Participating faculty are distributed across programs, disciplines and locations consistent with

the school’s mission. • At least 90 percent of faculty resources are either academically or professionally qualified. • At least 50 percent of faculty resources are academically qualified. • Qualified faculty resources are distributed across programs and disciplines consistent with the

school’s mission.

Participating / Supporting Faculty AACSB Standard 9 states: The school maintains a faculty sufficient to provide stability and ongoing quality improvement for the instructional programs offered. The deployment of faculty resources reflects the mission and programs. Students in all programs, majors, areas of emphasis, and locations have the opportunity to receive instruction from appropriately qualified faculty. The language goes on to state “A school should develop appropriate criteria consistent with its mission for the classification of faculty as participating and supporting… This distinction categorizes faculty

90

members into those who are participants in the life of the school beyond direct teaching involvement, and those who are not.” Scott College of Business Determination of Participating and Supporting Faculty Members This portion of the document describes how Participating and Supporting faculty will be determined for

purposes of AACSB reaffirmation of accreditation. It is consistent with existing faculty governance

documents and AACSB guidelines1

Faculty who are classified as Participating will include

3. Tenured or tenure-track faculty of the Scott College of Business who, in addition to their teaching responsibilities, demonstrate annual involvement in at least two of the following: curricular development and approval, advising, other non-classroom instructional and student activities, faculty governance, research, and professional service.

4. Other instructors who demonstrate ongoing involvement in curricular development and approval, advising, other non-classroom instructional and student activities, faculty governance, research, or professional service.

Faculty who are classified as Supporting will include

2. Visiting, adjunct, or any other faculty who do not demonstrate active involvement beyond classroom teaching.

1 From the AACSB Standards for Accreditation

A participating faculty member actively engages in the activities of the school in matters beyond direct teaching responsibilities. Such matters might include policy decisions, educational directions, advising, research, and service commitments…The school considers the faculty member to be a long-term member of the faculty regardless of whether or not the appointment is of a full-time or part-time nature…

A supporting faculty member does not, as a rule, participate in the intellectual or operational life of the school beyond the direct performance of teaching responsibilities…

91

Academically Qualified/Professionally Qualified Faculty AACSB Standard 10 states: The faculty has, and maintains, intellectual contributions and current expertise to accomplish the mission and to assure that this occurs, the school has a clearly defined process to evaluate individual faculty member’s contributions to the school’s mission. The language goes on to specify that faculty members will be classified as Academically Qualified, Professionally Qualified, or other, and says “A school should develop appropriate criteria consistent with its mission for the classification of faculty as academically or professionally qualified.” Scott College of Business Determination of Academically Qualified Faculty Members This portion of the document describes how Academically Qualified (AQ) faculty will be determined at the time of hire and how qualification is maintained for purposes of annual AACSB reporting. It is consistent with the college’s mission, existing faculty governance documents and AACSB standards. Faculty members are classified as Academically Qualified (AQ) through academic degree completion at the doctoral level and current scholarly activity in the area of teaching. Intellectual contributions are reported and reviewed on an annual basis to demonstrate relevancy and currency of the qualification. The review period for maintenance of Academic Qualification is defined as the previous five calendar years. Degree Completion

1. Ph.D. or other research doctoral degree in the area of teaching; or 2. Doctoral degree in a related field with evidence of further education, development, and/or

intellectual contributions in the area of teaching; or 3. Juris Doctorate (JD) in the teaching area of business law and legal environment; or 4. Juris Doctorate (JD) and an advanced degree in accounting in the teaching area of taxation.

Faculty members who have completed doctoral degrees as identified above within the past five calendar years will be Academically Qualified. Those who have achieved all-but-dissertation (ABD) status in the previous two years will be Academically Qualified. All other holders of the appropriate doctoral degrees must maintain Academic Qualification through continued scholarly activity. Scholarly Activity Academically Qualified faculty members must have earned doctoral degrees as listed above and must maintain relevancy and currency of the qualification through scholarly activity. The college mission focuses on learning and pedagogical research and contributions to practice. Discipline-based scholarship is also encouraged. Valued scholarly activity covers a number of venues in the evaluation of faculty productivity and in the relevancy and currency of faculty qualifications. Emphasis is placed upon Level 1 Intellectual Contributions (as shown below). Maintenance of Academic Qualification during the five-year review period is demonstrated by producing at least two Level 1 Intellectual Contributions in the area of teaching. Articles published in academic peer-reviewed journals and scholarly books may be focused on learning and pedagogical research, 92

contributions to practice, or discipline-based scholarship. In recognition of the College’s mission, publication of a first-edition textbook is also a Level 1 Contribution. Level 1 Intellectual Contributions

• Published article in an academic peer-reviewed journal * • Published scholarly book • Published textbook (1st edition)

* At the time of article acceptance or publication, the journal was classified as academic peer-reviewed. Other Intellectual Contributions*

• Published research monograph • Chapter in scholarly book • Published textbook (revision) • Article published in journal that is not peer-reviewed • Editor of peer-reviewed journal • Article published in proceedings from scholarly meeting • Article presentation at scholarly meeting • Publication in trade or professional journal • Published book review • Instructional software that is widely used • Published instructional materials (e.g. Merlot) • Editor of conference proceedings • Service on editorial board of peer- reviewed journal • Other presentation (e.g. as panelist, discussant) at scholarly meeting • Presentation at faculty research seminar • Publicly available materials describing design and implementation of new curriculum or course • Published technical report related to funded research project • Courseware, study guide, test bank etc.

In some instances, the faculty member may demonstrate maintenance of academic qualification through the publication of one high quality Level 1 contribution plus a strong combination of other contributions as listed above. * This list is not exhaustive. Any activities that do not appear in the list should be discussed with the review team for appropriate classification. 93

Scott College of Business Determination of Professionally Qualified Faculty Members This portion of the document describes how Professionally Qualified (PQ) faculty will be determined and their qualification maintained for purposes of annual AACSB reporting. It is consistent with existing faculty governance documents and AACSB standards. Professionally qualified faculty must demonstrate at the time of hire both the academic preparation and professional experience relevant to the subject and level of the courses they teach. For example, those who teach upper-level courses are expected to have more specialized credentials and/or higher levels of responsibility in professional experiences than those who teach introductory courses. In addition, faculty members must maintain professional qualification through continuing development, additional education, certifications, and/or other professional experiences as shown below. Professional activities are reported and reviewed on an annual basis to demonstrate relevancy and currency of the qualification. The review period for maintenance of Professional Qualification is defined as the previous five calendar years. Faculty members may attain Professional Qualification at the time of hire or within the five-year review period. Demonstration of relevancy and currency of the qualification is required for maintenance of Professional Qualification. To be Professionally Qualified, a faculty member must satisfy each of the three requirements listed below. Degree Completion

• A master’s degree or higher in business or in the specific area of teaching, or • A master’s degree or higher in a non-business field with significant professional or

educational development in the teaching area (e.g., certification, advanced courses, intellectual contributions)


• Relevant to the teaching area and the level of the teaching responsibility; and

• Significant professional experience (at least one year in a professional capacity related to the teaching area and the level of the teaching responsibility. Additional years and higher levels of responsibility are required for teaching courses that are beyond introductory level). Examples include current business experience at a managerial or applied level, consulting, service on boards, executive education, programs, publications, conferences, seminars, and professional development activities); and

94

• Current at the time of hire or during the review period.

Continuing Development

• Annual demonstration of significant professional activity commensurate with the area and level of the teaching responsibility (e.g., current business experience, consulting projects, service on boards, executive education programs, publications, conferences, seminars, professional development activities); or

• Attainment or current maintenance of certification relative to the teaching area (e.g., Certified Public Accountant; Certified Financial Planner); or

• A combination of professional activities, certification, and/or intellectual contributions (as listed in the requirements for maintenance of Academic Qualification).

* The examples provided are not exhaustive. Any activities that do not appear in the list should be discussed with the review team for appropriate classification.

(Reconfirmed, August, 2014)

95

2.5: Expectations Document

INDIANA STATE UNIVERSTIY – SCOTT COLLEGE OF BUSINESS EXPECTATIONS OF BUSINESS COLLEGE PROFESSORS AT

INDIANA STATE UNIVERSITY IN THE 21ST CENTURY The Indiana State University Scott College of Business Mission Statement begins with the following paragraph:

The Indiana State University Scott College of Business is dedicated to providing an internationally-accredited professional education to qualified students at both the undergraduate and master’s levels. Our primary focus is to provide an experiential learning environment that prepares students to take leadership roles in both public and private organizations. In tandem with this commitment, the College supports, encourages, and produces applied and educational research, development of relationships with the business community, and service to the region and the professions.2

Experiential learning and community engagement are important components of the ISU experience. Activities that support these components are highly valued. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE In support of the expressed mission and shared values, the Scott College of Business Faculty Affairs Committee proposes the following:

Policy Concerning Minimum Professional Standards for The Scott College of Business Tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty

The purpose of this policy is to establish standards which: � facilitate the maintenance of AACSB accreditation, � promote equity of effort among faculty, and � develop minimums for achieving standard performance in teaching, intellectual contributions and

service INTRODUCTION Teaching, intellectual contributions and service comprise the primary components of faculty endeavor. Variations in talents, interests, and stage-of-career imply that different faculty, and the same faculty at different times, will demonstrate different levels and types of performance within and among these components. Additionally, faculty rank and departmental mission provide other determinants of diversity, thus differences among faculty are expected AND encouraged. Any development of standards involves a dynamic process; i.e. appropriate standards will be developed and monitored so that effectiveness in teaching, intellectual contributions and service can be evaluated. It is

2 The Mission of the Scott College of Business of Indiana State University was revised and approved by the faculty on January 9, 2009, and is included in its entirety at the end of this document. 96

understood that these standards will be continuously evolving, as will the entire academic environment, in response to societal needs and strategic directions of the university. Development of “Minimum Professional Standards” for the Scott College of Business is a necessary and unifying concept because of the homogeneous nature of a professional College that has one primary accrediting body and is comprised of organizational units with similar goals and similar stakeholders. Implementation of these standards is expected through the organizational units of the Scott College of Business; the broad criteria identified in the standards will require definition and interpretation by individual departments (units). Overall, these standards will establish the basis upon which faculty evaluations for performance can be based. BACKGROUND The Scott College of Business Faculty Affairs Committee has engaged in vigorous debate throughout the 1996-1997 academic year over faculty performance standards. These discussions have been in response to Dean Donald Bates Memoranda of September 11, 1996 to Scott College of Business Faculty and August 29, 1997 to the Scott College of Business Faculty Affairs Committee. Throughout this engaging process, the Committee has wrestled with maintaining a balance between general performance criteria and accommodating individual strengths and differences at different times in one’s career. The Committee has relied on many resources throughout this process; Ernest Boyer’s “Scholarship Reconsidered: New Priorities For The Professorate” (1990), a variety of responses from eighty-seven AACSB member business programs concerning their College or college statement or document, responses from a survey of Scott College of Business faculty, and FAC meetings with Dean Bates on March 19, 1997 and October 6, 1997. This document is intended to establish MINIMUM standards for faculty performance within the Scott College of Business. In other words, the following expectations would need to be met by all faculty in order to achieve Standard Performance in any given year. Further, faculty are expected to meet minimum standards for each area; teaching, intellectual contributions, and service. The goal in establishing these standards is not to have all faculty meet the minimum, rather FAC would hope that these standards will be exceeded by the vast majority of Scott College of Business faculty. Interpretation and implementation of minimum performance adds another dimension to the process. Underlying both of these difficult areas is the need for flexibility. While it is important to establish minimum standards for all faculty within the College, it is also necessary to provide a role for the department (more important the peers in one’s discipline). For this reason, FAC recommends that a faculty member’s peers, within the department, be the implementing force of these standards. Thus, the peer group could set additional criteria beyond those mentioned. Finally, the role of the department is envisioned to be that of administering the procedural process including fair and impartial appeal mechanism. TEACHING Teaching is central to the mission for all faculty at Indiana State University and is the primary focus of the Scott College of Business. Evidence of good teaching includes but is not limited to: providing opportunities for experiential learning and community engagement; 97

regularly participating in course level and program level assessment activities, including but not limited to: incorporating assessment activities into selected classes, participating in faculty assessment teams, implementing accepted assessment techniques, and following up on assessment results – taking appropriate steps to ensure continuous improvement in teaching and student learning;

developing innovative courses and teaching materials; maintaining currency in subject matter and integration of the course content with the theory and practice of business;

developing and reviewing curriculum; counseling and advising students (classroom, curriculum and professional development); providing feedback of progress to students in a timely fashion;

respecting students as persons, being concerned about their progress, and being willing to hear their points of view without prejudice; and

holding classes and examinations as scheduled. However, in the event alternative arrangements are made, informing the students in advance of such changes.

The evaluation of teaching is a qualitative process requiring multiple sources which could include but are not limited to student evaluations, classroom visits, course syllabi, continued instructional development, and other teaching and learning materials supporting the quality, relevance, and delivery of subject matter. Minimum Standard For Teaching Given that teaching is the primary focus for all faculty in the Scott College of Business, to meet the minimum standard of performance for teaching, all faculty will be expected to show evidence of:

determining and communicating appropriate learning objectives, acquired skills, instructional outcomes, and evaluation of instructional techniques;

maintaining currency in subject matter and integrating course content with the theory and practice of business;

counseling and advising students (classroom, curriculum and professional development);

providing feedback of progress to students in a timely fashion;

respecting students as persons, being concerned about their progress, and being willing to hear their points of view without prejudice; and

holding classes and examinations as scheduled. However, in the event alternative arrangements are made, informing the students in advance of such changes.

98

INTELLECTUAL CONTRIBUTIONS In support of teaching and learning, there is a need for contributions in basic scholarship, applied scholarship and instructional development (instructional design, pedagogies, teaching related research) by all faculty. Given the Scott College of Business mission, it is expected that the emphasis will be on applied scholarship and instructional development. “Applied Scholarship” is defined as the application, transfer, and interpretation of knowledge to improve management practice and teaching. “Instructional Development” is the enhancement of the educational value of instructional efforts of the institution or discipline. Evidence of intellectual contributions include, but are not limited to: publishing in refereed journals; writing articles for trade journals and in-house publications; giving presentations at local, state, regional, national, and international meetings; publishing in proceedings; submitting successful external grant proposals; writing textbooks; developing instructional software and publicly available materials; writing cases with instructional materials; and compiling a collection of works for publication. Minimum Standard for Intellectual Contributions In order to meet the minimum standard of performance for intellectual contributions as a tenured or tenure-track faculty, it is expected that each faculty member will make at least one intellectual contribution every year with the further requirement that there be two refereed journal publications every five years. In the event that the faculty member does not publish two refereed journal articles in five years, it is the faculty member’s responsibility to “make the case” to his/her academic departmental personnel committee of how his/her specific intellectual contribution performance meets or exceeds this requirement during the period. The appropriate academic discipline(s) will establish acceptable venues for publication. It is expected a faculty member’s portfolio of publications will show a progression of publication to higher level and/or peer-reviewed journals over a career. SERVICE COMPONENT Service, both internal and external, is an integral part of the mission of the Scott College of Business.

99

Faculty have a responsibility to actively participate in the internal affairs and governance of the department, the College, and the university. Activities include regular and ad hoc committee work, special assignments and more than casual involvement with College-related groups including student organizations. Another source of service can come from involvement in one’s professional discipline where the contribution can be in the form of growth to either the individual or the profession. Obtaining certification or designation through a relevant professional organization or society documents individual professional growth. Activities directed toward the profession can include serving as a chair, discussant or reviewer in local, regional or national conferences. Holding key leadership roles in professional organizations provides another form of service as does serving as a journal editor or referee. Engagement with the external community is also an important link and connection for the Scott College of Business. Consulting with businesses and other organizations or conducting professional development seminars are examples of service to the business and corporate community. Minimum Standard For Service To meet the minimum standard of faculty performance for service, it is expected that all faculty will demonstrate a significant commitment of time and energy to service activities each year. As faculty members advance in their careers, significant involvement is expected in university governance, or in professional organizations or with the business/professional community. OVERALL PERFORMANCE It is expected that all faculty will maintain a level of professionalism which will translate into at least meeting the minimum standards of performance for each area (teaching, intellectual contribution and service) every year. Additionally, there is an implicit understanding that all faculty will, at times, maintain varying levels of emphasis on teaching, intellectual activities, and service. For promotion and tenure decisions, higher levels of performance beyond meeting minimum standards will be expected and required. For untenured faculty, scholarship productivity will be a significant component of the tenure decision. For both untenured and tenured faculty, promotion beyond current rank will require ongoing evidence of scholarly activities. Amended April 19, 2013

100

Mission Statement (Revised January 9, 2009)

The Indiana State University Scott College of Business is dedicated to providing an internationally-accredited professional education to qualified students at both the undergraduate and master’s levels. Our primary focus is to provide an experiential learning environment that prepares students to take leadership roles in both public and private organizations. In tandem with this commitment, the College supports, encourages, and produces applied and educational research, development of relationships with the business community, and service to the region and the professions. ___________________________________________________________________________ Instruction The Scott College of Business is committed to pedagogical excellence. With the support of professional development activities, faculty assess and improve their pedagogy. They integrate technology, connect students to the business community, and prepare students for the life-long learning needed to adapt to, and succeed in, a complex global society. Intellectual Contributions Through research, the faculty of the Scott College of Business contribute to the scholarship of their professions. By pursuing this inquiry, the faculty apply theory, engage in critical thinking, develop teaching materials, and share their results in a national arena. Professional Service Faculty contribute their professional expertise to organizations by consulting and by serving in leadership or advisory roles. By assuming positions of responsibility in professional organizations, faculty foster the regional, national, and international exchange of ideas. The Scott College of Business recognizes the synergy created by these areas and encourages the faculty to incorporate scholarship and service in the classroom and to involve students in these areas whenever possible. Our commitment to instruction, intellectual contributions, and professional service enables us to be known as a distinctive learning-centered Scott College of Business within our geographic region.

101

APPENDIX 3 – Assurance of Learning 3.1: Foundational Studies Curriculum at Indiana State University ......................................... 103

3.2: Undergraduate Business Core Curriculum & Undergraduate Majors ............................. 104

3.3: SCOB Undergraduate Learning Goals & Student Learning Outcomes ........................... 105

3.4: Relationship Between Old & Revised Undergraduate Learning Goals ........................... 106

3.5: Curriculum Map - Level of Coverage of Learning Goals in Required Core Courses ..... 107

3.6: MEIS Student Development Center & Catapult Professional Development Program .... 108

3.7: Details of SCOB Curriculum Coverage of AACSB General Skills Areas ...................... 109

3.8: Detailed Coverage of AACSB Business & Management Knowledge Areas .................. 111

3.9: Mapping of Undergraduate Learning Goals to AACSB areas ......................................... 113

3.10: Summary of Recent Curricular Changes within the Scott College ............................... 114

3.11: Undergraduate Curriculum Management Process ......................................................... 115

3.12: Assurance of Learning Processes, Roles & Responsibilities ......................................... 117

3.13: Undergraduate Core Assessment Plan, Last Updated Fall 2014.................................... 121

3.14: Assessment Results & Curricular Changes for LG1: Business Concepts...................... 122

3.15 - Assessment Results & Curricular Changes for LG2: Domestic & International Business Practices .................................................................................................................................. 124

3.16: Assessment Results & Curricular Changes for LG3: Problem Solving ......................... 127

3.17: Assessment Results & Curricular Changes for LG4: Ethics .......................................... 131

3.18: Assessment Results & Curricular Changes for LG5: Communication .......................... 134

3.19 - Assessment Results & Curricular Changes for LG6: Professional Skills ..................... 137

3.20 - MBA Assurance of Learning Process ........................................................................... 140

3.21 - Map of Goals to Core MBA Classes ............................................................................ 141

3.22: Corresponding Learning Outcomes Matrix ................................................................... 142

3.23: Major Deviations from the National Mean – Major Field Test ..................................... 143

3.24: Major Deviations from the National Mean – Major Field Test ..................................... 144

3.25: Descriptive Statistics for the Exit Interview Likert-type Items ..................................... 145

3.26: Descriptive Statistics for the Exit Interview Likert-type Items* ................................... 146

3.27: Electronic Resources for AOL Report ........................................................................... 147

102

3.1: Foundational Studies Curriculum at Indiana State University All Indiana State University Students are required to complete the Foundational Studies program, consisting of coursework in these required areas:

I. Composition – Ranges between 6-9 credits II. Communication – 3 credits

III. Quantitative Literacy – 3 credits IV. Non-native language – Ranges between 0-6 credits V. Health and Wellness – 3 credits

VI. Lab science – 4 credits VII. Social & Behavioral Sciences – 3 credits

VIII. Literary Studies – 3 credits IX. Fine and Performing Arts – 3 credits X. Historical Studies – 3 credits

XI. Global Perspectives and Cultural Diversity – 3 credits XII. Ethics and Social Responsibility –3 credits

XIII. Upper Division Integrative Electives – 6 credits Total 43 to 52 credit hours The Student Learning Outcomes for Foundational Studies are:

1. Locate, critically read, and evaluate information to solve problems. 2. Critically evaluate the ideas of others. 3. Apply knowledge and skills within and across the fundamental ways of knowing (natural

sciences, social and behavioral sciences, arts and humanities, mathematics, and history). 4. Demonstrate an appreciation of human expression through literature and fine and

performing arts. 5. Demonstrate the skills for effective citizenship and stewardship. 6. Demonstrate an understanding of diverse cultures within and across societies. 7. Demonstrate the skills to place their current and local experience in a global, cultural, and

historical context. 8. Demonstrate an understanding of the ethical implications of decisions and actions. 9. Apply principles of physical and emotional health to wellness. 10. Express themselves effectively, professionally, and persuasively both orally and in

writing. For more information about the ISU Foundational Studies program, see http://www.indstate.edu/fs/Learning%20Outcomes%20and%20Category%20Learning%20Objectives%20for%20FS.htm

103

3.2: Undergraduate Business Core Curriculum & Undergraduate Majors

Core Curriculum - Required of all Undergraduate Business Majors

BUS 100—Introduction to Contemporary Business BUS 180—Business Information Tools MATH 115 – College Algebra BUS 201—Accounting Principles I BUS 202—Accounting Principles II BUS 205—Business Statistics I BUS 221—Introduction to Management Information Systems BUS 263—Legal Environment of Business ECON 200—Principles of Macroeconomics ECON 201—Principles of Microeconomics BEIT 336—Business Report Writing BUS 305—Business Statistics II BUS 311—Business Finance BUS 351—Introduction to Operations Management BUS 361—Principles of Marketing BUS 371—Management and Organizational Behavior BUS 401—Senior Business Experience 3 credit hours each, Total 51 credit hours Master Course Outlines and recent syllabi for all core courses can be found in our electronic resources under AOL-ER-7. Students may pursue one of ten undergraduate majors:

1. Accounting 2. Business Administration 3. Business Education* 4. Finance 5. Financial Services 6. Insurance and Risk Management 7. Management 8. Management Information Systems 9. Marketing 10. Operations & Supply Chain Management Each major requires between 18 and 27 hours in the major beyond the business core. See AOL-ER-8 for details on major requirements. * Business Education majors complete the same business core classes as all other business majors, but have major requirements that include education courses and student teaching.

104

3.3: SCOB Undergraduate Learning Goals & Student Learning Outcomes

Broad Category Learning Goal Student Learning Outcomes

What they Know:

Comprehension

of business concepts and practices of

organizations

LG1 -- Students will be knowledgeable about current business concepts.

A. Students will demonstrate knowledge of a core body of discipline-specific concepts, including principles in accounting, finance, management and marketing.

B. Students will apply a core body of discipline-specific knowledge to business situations.

LG2 -- Students will understand internal and external influences on domestic and international business practices.

C. Students will be aware of the complexities of the political/legal, economic and historical environments as they relate to domestic and international business practices.

D. Students will understand the role of culture and customs in business practices when evaluating business alternatives in domestic and international settings.

E. Students will understand motivations for expanding into international markets, will articulate practical issues involved in these endeavors, and will analyze differences in operating domestically vs. globally.

What they Can Do:

Apply problem

solving to address

information needs of

organizations

LG3 -- Students will solve business problems by applying appropriate technology, tools, and decision-making techniques.

A. Students will articulate the main issues of a business decision.

B. Students will use evidence in the decision process. C. Students will justify conclusions and develop

recommendations.

LG4 -- Students will evaluate the ethical dimensions of business decisions.

A. Students will identify ethical dilemmas, gather pertinent facts and express possible actions.

B. Students will analyze the impact of an action on all stakeholders.

C. Students will be able to explain and defend the ethical framework in which they make business decisions.

How They Act:

Demonstrate professional

skills expected in the

workplace

LG5 -- Students will demonstrate the ability to communicate effectively.

A. Students will prepare an effective written report. B. Students will give an effective oral presentation. C. Students will be able to effectively convey information in

an appropriate format and setting. LG6 -- Students will demonstrate an understanding of appropriate workplace expectations and behaviors.

A. Students will work effectively in teams B. Students will employ appropriate business etiquette

during a professional event C. Students will engage in appropriate conversation during a

business event D. Students will participate in professional development

events

105

3.4: Relationship Between Old & Revised Undergraduate Learning Goals

REVISED LEARNING GOALS (2013) CORRESPONDING TO 2007 LEARNING GOALS Comprehension of business concepts and

practices of organizations

1, 7

1. Students will be knowledgeable about current business concepts.

1. Students will be knowledgeable about current business

practices and concepts.

A. Students will understand the functional areas of and interdisciplinary nature of business, and will be able to solve business problems utilizing current theory and practices.

2. Students will understand internal and external influences on domestic and international business practices.

7. Students will be cognizant of the complexities of operating

in a global business environment.

A. Students will understand the basic economic, political, cultural and operational motivations for international business.

Apply problem solving to address information

needs of organizations 2, 4 & 5

3. Students will solve business problems by applying appropriate technology, tools, and decision-making techniques.

2. Students will be able to make prudent business decisions by

employing analytical and critical thinking.

A. Students will demonstrate the ability to solve business problems by applying appropriate decision-making techniques, including defining the problem, collecting appropriate data, identifying alternatives, analyzing information, and interpreting results. 4. Students will be competent in applying relevant technology to

business problems.

A. Students will understand the nature, function and limitations of commonly used business information systems. B. Students will demonstrate proficiency in using technology to solve business problems.

4. Students will evaluate the ethical dimensions of business decisions.

5. Students will be competent in ethical decision making.

A. Students will be able to explain and defend the ethical framework in which they make business decisions. B. Students will be able to identify parties affected by a business decision, identify how a decision may affect each stakeholder, and arrive at a decision that is (ideally) mutually beneficial or one that minimizes harm to any one party.

Demonstrate professional skills expected in the

workplace 3 & 6

5. Students will demonstrate the ability to communicate effectively.

3. Students will be effective communicators.

A. Students will demonstrate the ability to effectively convey information using appropriate means of communication.

6. Students will demonstrate an understanding of appropriate workplace expectations and behaviors.

6. Students will be able to function effectively in professional

settings.

A. Students will demonstrate commitment to standards of professional behavior. B. Students will demonstrate an understanding of individual and group dynamics in organizations, including team building and collaborative behavior in the accomplishment of tasks.

106

3.5: Curriculum Map - Level of Coverage of Learning Goals in Required Core Courses

Process To analyze coverage of the six learning objectives in the undergraduate business core, faculty determined the level of coverage of each learning objective in each core course. Levels were defined according to student involvement rather than sophistication of content. For example, an introductory business statistics class would receive a “3” for analytical thinking because it is the focus of the course, even though the material being covered is introductory. Specifically:

• 0 represents “No significant coverage” • 1 represents “Introductory level, expectations for application to basic problems” • 2 represents “Substantial emphasis, expectations for appropriate application and analysis • 3 represents “Course focus, expectations for synthesis and retention

Curriculum Mapping

Intro Info

Tools Algebra Macro Micro Acct 1 Acct II Stat I MIS

Learning Objective\Core Course

BUS 100

BUS 180

MATH 115

ECON 200

ECON 201

BUS 201

BUS 202

BUS 205

BUS 221

1. Business concepts 1 1 0 1 2 2 2 1 2 2. Business practices, incl.

global 1 0 0 2 2 1 1 0 2

3. Problem Solving 1 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 2 4. Ethical decision making 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 5. Communication 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 6. Professional Skills 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1

Bus Law Stat II Finance Writing Ops Mktg Mgt Capstone

Learning Objective\Core Course BUS 263

BUS 305

Bus 311

BEIT 336

BUS 351

BUS 361

BUS 371 BUS 401

1. Business concepts 2 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 2. Business practices, incl. global 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 3 3. Problem Solving 1 3 2 3 3 2 2 3 4. Ethical decision making 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 5. Communication 1 2 1 3 1 2 2 3 6. Professional Skills 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 3

Summary of Curriculum Map

Learning Objective\Level # of 0s # of 1s # of 2s # of 3s Average 1. Business concepts 1 5 5 6 1.94 2. Business practices, incl. global 3 5 8 1 1.41 3. Problem Solving 0 2 6 9 2.41 4. Ethical decision making 1 13 3 0 1.12 5. Communication 1 11 3 2 1.35 6. Professional Skills 1 13 2 1 1.18

107

3.6: MEIS Student Development Center & Catapult Professional Development Program

The MEIS Student Development Center has, in recent years, greatly expanded its offering of professional development events for students and has seen large growth in the number and percentage of students within the Scott College who are served by the center. In the years 2010-2014, utilization of the center nearly doubled, with the latest figures indicating that 70% of our enrolled students participated in at least one professional development event in Spring 2014. Overall in 2013-14, the MEIS Center had over 4000 interactions with our students. Year Overall

2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14

Total Students Served One-on-One 240 260 206 130 0 Total Students Attending at Meis SDC Events 1730 2692 2924 3662 4259 Total Student Interactions by Meis SDC 1970 2952 3130 3792 4259 One of the main reasons for the increase in students served is the CATAPULT program, which was piloted in 2009. CATAPULT is a co-curricular program that faculty can opt to tie to one of their courses. Students receive course incentives or credit for participating in professional development events. In fall 2013, students in 42 courses taught by 21 faculty members participated in the CATAPULT program; by Spring 2014, that number had grown to 51 classes taught by 25 faculty members, a figure more than double that of 2010-2011. See also AOL-ER-30 for more details about the CATAPULT Program as it was conceived in 2009.

108

3.7: Details of SCOB Curriculum Coverage of AACSB General Skills Areas

Our curriculum relates to the AACSB General Skill Areas in the following ways:

• GS1 – Communication Abilities. A course in oral communication, COMM 101, is required of every Indiana State University student, as are freshman composition (ENG 105, 107 or 108) and junior-level writing classes (our business students take BEIT 336; MCO found in AOL-ER-7; descriptions of other courses can be found at http://catalog.indstate.edu/ ). Many of the core classes in the College of Business have a significant writing and speaking component, as revealed in analysis of learning goal 5 in our curriculum map shown in Appendix 3.5, as well as documented by the number of oral presentations required in undergraduate courses (see AOL-ER-7a.) In addition, MEIS Center programming aids students in this area, offering multiple workshops that help students with both written and oral communication skills. (See AOL-ER-13 for a recent calendar of MEIS Center events; at least nine different workshops were offered in Fall 2014 relating to communication skills.)

• GS2 -- Ethical understanding and reasoning abilities. In addition to addressing ethical issues and decisions in all of our business core courses (see learning objective 4 and refer to AOL-ER-14 for more details on this coverage), College of Business students are heavily involved with activities supporting ethical business behavior through the annual student-driven Ethics and Corporate Social Responsibility Conference. For more information about this conference, see http://www.indstate.edu/ethics/ . As part of Foundational Studies requirements, all ISU students are also required to take a course in Ethics and Social Responsibility (see http://www.indstate.edu/fs/learning_objectives/ethicsAndSocialResponsibilty.htm for details) and many business students (an estimated 175 since 2011) opt to take BUS 204: Ethics in Organizations (see AOL-ER-14a for a recent syllabus). There is also a MEIS Center event on Plagiarism and Respecting Intellectual Property (see AOL-ER-13).

• GS3 -- Analytical skills. As analysis of our third learning goal indicates, problem solving and analytical thinking is a significant portion of our core curriculum. Several of our core courses (e.g. 201, 202, 205, 305, 351 and 401) focus on analytical skills as a major course component. Our students are also given ample opportunity to apply analytical skills and problem solving to real or realistic business cases. One key location in our undergraduate curriculum for this application is the capstone course in business in which students are expected to apply knowledge gained over their entire College of Business experience to solving problems in organizations. However, students are also expected to do much of this application in our other required business core courses, notably 311, 351, 361 and 371. Numerous faculty and courses use case studies in which application to real or realistic business problems is required. (See AOL-ER-15 for a list of at least 25 faculty using cases in 41 business courses.) In addition, MEIS Center workshops facilitate problem solving skills in students through sessions on Tools for Effective Problem Solving (see AOL-ER-13).

(continued on next page)

109

3.7 (continued) – Curriculum Coverage of AACSB General Skills Areas

• GS4 – Use of Information technology. The 2008 revision of the freshman core classes established a more challenging course in business information technology tools, and successor courses build heavily on the MS Excel and Access concepts learned in that class. ISU is a laptop university and students are frequently expected to have their laptops available in classes. Many traditional classroom courses incorporate a course management system (Blackboard) to push content to students and to enable electronic interaction within class teams and several use electronic homework systems such as MyITLab, MyStatLab and WileyPlus. As technology becomes more ubiquitous, students are expected to use technology as a tool in problem solving in many of our business courses. For example, Excel and statistical software such as StatCrunch and Minitab are used extensively in BUS 205 and 305, required for all business majors, while R and SPSS are used in upper level courses in Marketing and Operations & Supply Chain Management. SAP is used in multiple upper-division courses throughout the SCOB, including courses in operations and human resource management. Students are also exposed to accounting systems, project management, database management and simulation software in upper-division courses in the majors (See AOL-ER-16.) The MEIS Center events on use of social media and leveraging online resources also contribute to the technological savvy of our students (see AOL-ER-13).

• GS5 – Dynamics of the Global Economy. Several of our required core courses, including BUS 221, 263, 311, 351, 361, 371 and 401, have a significant global component (see curriculum mapping in Appendix 3.5. In addition, several other required core courses such as BUS 100, BUS 201 (accounting), BUS 305 (statistics II) and BEIT 336 (report writing) address global issues within selected assignments, and many upper-level courses within the disciplines, including accounting, marketing, finance, management, and operations, have courses that either focus on or have significant coverage of international business. (See AOL-ER-17.) Our students also have several opportunities for international travel and interactions with international students and faculty, which not only enhance their understanding of the global economy, but also increase their exposures to other cultures, as in GS6 below. (See AOL-ER-18 for more information about these student opportunities.)

• GS6 -- Multicultural and diversity understanding. All business students are first exposed to diversity and multicultural issues during their first semester, in BUS 100, and this exposure continues throughout their stay. (Also refer to AOL-ER-17 for more information.) In addition to direct instruction, students interact with others from different backgrounds on class projects, during required co-curricular activities, and during international travel or contact with international visitors (see AOL-ER-18). The MEIS Student Development Center offers workshops on diversity and cultural understanding. (See AOL-ER-13.) The university Foundational Studies program requires all students to take a course in Global Perspectives and Cultural Diversity. (For details, see http://www.indstate.edu/fs/learning_objectives/globalPerspectivesAndCulturalDiversity.htm.)

• GS7 -- Reflective thinking skills are expected not only in the junior level business writing class (BEIT 336), but in a variety of other classes where, as the third learning goal indicates, analytical thinking should be accompanied by critical thinking. The large number of case studies and substantial projects our students complete obviously require these reflective thinking processes; however, the expectations throughout our curriculum are that students articulate the reasoning behind their conclusions, on both large and small problems, and regardless of whether those conclusions are quantitative or qualitative in nature.

110

3.8: Detailed Coverage of AACSB Business & Management Knowledge Areas

Our curriculum addresses the AASCB General Business and Management Knowledge Areas in the following ways:

• MK1 – Ethical and legal responsibilities in organizations and society. In addition to the coverage of

ethics topics in all core classes, some required core courses, particularly those in accounting, operations, marketing and organizational management, have strong content about ethical responsibility in business processes (AOL-ER-14 shows some details of this content). In addition, as indicated previously, all ISU students are required to take a course in Ethics and Social Responsibility (see http://www.indstate.edu/fs/learning_objectives/ethicsAndSocialResponsibilty.htm for details) and many business students opt to take BUS 204: Ethics in Organizations (an estimated 175 since Fall 2011). All business majors are exposed to Business Law in our required BUS 263 course. Lastly, SCOB students are heavily involved with ethics and social responsibility through the annual student-driven Ethics and Corporate Social Responsibility Conference. For more information about this conference, see http://www.indstate.edu/ethics/.

• MK2 – Financial theories, analysis, reporting, and markets. The undergraduate core requires a course in business finance (BUS 311).

• MK3 – Creation of value through the integrated production and distribution of goods, services, and

information. The undergraduate core includes a required course in operations management (BUS 351).

• MK4 – Group and individual dynamics in organizations. Students learn the theory of group and individual dynamics in a required Organizational Behavior Course (BUS 371), and practical team functioning is also taught this course and other business courses. (See AOL-ER-19 for more information.) In addition, Scott College of Business students learn experientially through significant team project work (see AOL-ER-20.) These consulting and service projects further our SCOB mission and strategic plan and contribute heavily to both our students experiencing success and our community experiencing success. In many of these team experiences, students receive feedback on their performance from peers (see also AOL-ER-20). Additionally, the MEIS Student Development Center offers workshops on conflict resolution and team dynamics to help develop student interpersonal and teaming skills. (See AOL-ER-13.)

• MK5 – Statistical data analysis and management science as they support decision-making processes throughout an organization. All undergraduates are required to take two statistics/business analytics courses (BUS 205 & BUS 305) in which they learn about collection and reporting of data, analytics and ethical issues related to data analysis and reporting. These courses, along with the required course in Operations Management (BUS 351), emphasize the importance of data-driven decision-making within organizations.


111

3.8 (continued) – Coverage of Business & Management Knowledge Areas

• MK6 – Information technologies as they influence the structure and processes of organizations and economies, and as they influence the roles and techniques of management. All undergraduates are required to take BUS 221 (Intro to Management Information Systems) in which they learn about how organizations use information to achieve a strategic advantage, including topics such as collection and storage of data, security and ethical handling information.

• MK7 – Domestic and global economic environments of organizations. All SCOB undergraduates are required to take courses in macro and micro economics (ECON 200 & 201) and business law (BUS 263) in addition to courses in accounting, finance, and organizational behavior that provide background and context for conducting business in a global society. Some undergraduates also take HIST 113: History of globalization to provide further depth into these issues.

• MK8 – Other management-specific knowledge and abilities as identified by the school. Each

undergraduate major requires students earn between 18-27 additional credit hours beyond the business core. These additional courses provide depth in individual majors. Information on required courses for our ten undergraduate majors can be found in the electronic resource AOL-ER-21.

112

3.9: Mapping of Undergraduate Learning Goals to AACSB areas

AACSB: General Knowledge and Skills GS1. Communication abilities GS2. Ethical understanding and reasoning abilities GS3. Analytic skills GS4. Use of information technology GS5. Dynamics of the global economy GS6. Multicultural and diversity understanding GS7. Reflective thinking skills

AACSB Management Specific Knowledge

MK1. Ethical and legal responsibilities in organizations and society MK2. Financial theories, analysis, reporting, and markets MK3. Creation of value through the integrated production and distribution of goods,

services, and information MK4. Group and individual dynamics in organizations MK5. Statistical data analysis and management science as they support decision-making

processes throughout an organization MK6. Information technologies as they influence the structure and processes of

organizations and economies, and as they influence the roles and techniques of management

MK7. Domestic and global economic environments of organizations MK8. Other management-specific knowledge and abilities as identified by the school

SCOB Undergraduate Learning Goal AASCB

1. Students will be knowledgeable about current business concepts.

MK1 through MK8

2. Students will understand internal and external influences on domestic and international business practices.

GS5, MK1, MK2, MK3,

MK7, MK8

3. Students will solve business problems by applying appropriate technology, tools, and decision-making techniques.

GS3, GS4, GS7 MK5, MK6

4. Students will evaluate the ethical dimensions of business decisions.

GS2, GS7 MK1

5. Students will demonstrate the ability to communicate effectively.

GS1

6. Students will demonstrate an understanding of appropriate workplace expectations and behaviors.

GS6, MK4

113

3.10: Summary of Recent Curricular Changes within the Scott College

Business Core Curriculum Changes Originating with CAAC 1. Changes to Business Administration major: Fall 2008

a. Required Emphasis Area courses increased from 2+2+2 to 3+3+3 (from 18 to 27 credits beyond business core)

b. Added course distribution requirement (Accounting, Finance, and IRM; Marketing and Management; MIS, OSCM and Business Education)

c. Added Career Curriculum Plan 2. Renumber BUS 321 to 221 to permit course to be taken without COBA status; changed prerequisite for

BUS 221 Fall 2012 3. Changes to core requirements – this was the big one Fall 2012

a. COBA determination – for admission to the college and to use as a prerequisite check b. Drop general requirement due to larger foundational studies requirements c. Changes to course prerequisites to implement COBA: 205, 305, 311, 351, 361, 371 d. Clarified graduation requirements: overall bus & econ course GPA 2.25; major GPA 2.25;

4. Allow BUS 100 or MGT 140 in core; separate change to make MGT 140 2 credits (eff. fall 2015) 5. Clarified that we must list as required because they are directed foundational studies courses: MATH 115

or 131 or 301; BEIT 336; added six credits to each SCB major Fall 2013 6. Considered how SCOB majors can meet the 71 credit major size rule without eliminating courses Fall

2014-15 a. Filed appeal for business education major to exceed 71 credits b. Submitted clarification for all SCB majors to exclude Jr.-Sr. foundational studies courses and use

BUS 100 or MGT 140. 7. Informal: no longer required students who took or transferred MGT 140 to take BUS 220. BUS 100

replaced BUS 101, 102, and 220 Fall 2008 8. CAAC studied how we meet the community engagement requirement for majors and the business core

2011 9. New master course outlines for all business core course (internal) Fall 2013

Program Area Changes from Departments

1. MIS major and MIS minor – substantial change to program requirements and prerequisites Fall 2010 2. OMA major and minor – convert to OSCM major and SC minor Fall 2012

a. Rename the major and minor b. New program requirements c. Substantial course revisions d. Changes to prerequisites

3. Marketing major and minor – substantial revisions to add sales & negotiations and marketing management tracks Fall 2012

4. Marketing major – convert tracks to concentrations Fall 2013 5. Finance major changes to add concentrations in financial management and financial planning Fall 2013 6. Business Education major changes to meet the 120 credit limit Fall 2014 7. Insurance major change – added genomics course and new electives in major and minor Fall 2014 8. Second insurance major change: reverse role of 342 and 432 Fall 2014 9. Marketing certificates – Medical Sales; Insurance Sales Fall 2009; later minor changes to these

certificates Fall 2014-15 10. Applications for two new distance delivery programs: Fall 2014 (both of them)

a. Accounting major and minor b. Marketing major and minor

114

3.11: Undergraduate Curriculum Management Process

Curriculum Development & Revision Processes Overview: The SCOB curriculum management process is led by faculty with the intent to provide our students with current, meaningful and relevant “learning experiences to prepare graduates for business and management careers”. Faculty members are current in their fields and are aware of changes in their disciplines that need to be filtered down to students. In some cases, these small, discipline-specific developments are addressed directly in a course, with a change in an individual syllabus. Teaching teams may discuss and agree to changes in a Master Course Outline, which is then sent to the Undergraduate Curriculum & Academic Affairs Committee (CAAC) for approval. Curriculum Development within a Program (Major). Larger discipline-based shifts that affect teaching and learning of the discipline within a program (major) are subject to a more rigorous process. While discipline-faculty (e.g. all management faculty, all accounting faculty, etc.) are usually on the front lines of discussion and evaluation of a proposal regarding a course or program in that discipline, our curriculum management processes “engage perspectives from a variety of relevant constituencies.” First, a proposal is raised by faculty, or may be brought to the attention of faculty by constituents such as community members, alumni, employers, university administrators, etc.). For example, recent curricular changes in Operations & Supply Chain Management were vetted by at least seven industry professionals before implementation. The Sales Advisory Council provided feedback on recent changes to the marketing program, and a new course in Digital Marketing was inspired by interactions with student project teams and local businesses. When the new Certified Financial Planner curriculum was being developed, input was sought from other universities, multiple alumni and industry professionals, and several national and regional companies.

Proposals may include major changes to or the development of a course, courses, or an entire program, and must be accompanied by some kind of assessment evidence to justify the change (see http://www.indstate.edu/academicaffairs/caps2013/curriculum.htm ). The first evaluation and discussion of the curriculum change goes to the department faculty, if appropriate. If a department supports the curriculum change, then a formal curriculum proposal packet is prepared in accordance with Indiana State University guidelines. (See procedures at http://www.indstate.edu/academicaffairs/caps2013/ .) Curriculum Development within the Business Core. Other changes that affect the business core and therefore span departments will generally begin with the Undergraduate Curriculum and Academic Affairs Committee (CAAC). CAAC consists of faculty representation from all three departments within the Scott College. (See SCOB Constitution, AOL-ER-1.) This committee will discuss, gather pertinent information, consult constituent groups, and seek feedback from the SCOB faculty. A formal curriculum proposal is then developed.

Curriculum Approval Process. A formal curriculum proposal originating either from a department or with the curriculum committee itself, then goes before CAAC where it is evaluated in the context of the particular discipline and the undergraduate business program as a whole. CAAC must also consider any university guidelines or restrictions, and any state level mandates or considerations, and will also consider accreditation ramifications, if any.


115

3.11 (continued) - Undergraduate Curriculum Management Process

If the change is deemed appropriate, then CAAC will approve the package and send it forward to the university curriculum committee (University CAAC), which is made up of faculty representing all of Indiana State University. University CAAC will consider the proposal with regard to university curriculum and any Indiana State level requirements. If approved, changes will be made to the appropriate catalog, course description, and any other official documentation of the course. Curriculum Monitoring & Evaluation

Faculty assume the responsibility for monitoring and evaluating curriculum related to their business disciplines. Faculty are active in professional organizations, in touch with community leaders and employers, and are current with the literature in their disciplines. All of these venues allow faculty to stay in touch with recent developments, shifts and needs within their fields.

With recent information about discipline trends, faculty will evaluate courses, Master Course Outlines, programs, and majors on a regular, if not yearly, basis. When changes are deemed appropriate, faculty will follow the processes shown above under curriculum development and revision.

The Scott College has assisted faculty in sharing information about our core curriculum through a Curriculum Fair, first instituted in spring of 2014, and planned for a regular occurrence in conjunction with AOL Retreats. This fair allows all of our faculty to explore, become familiar with, or keep abreast of changes in our broad curriculum. Curriculum developments are also shared at beginning of semester and end of semester faculty meetings, where discussion and feedback is sought and obtained.

116

3.12: Assurance of Learning Processes, Roles & Responsibilities

Step Assessment Teams SLAC SCOB Faculty Curriculum Committee

Assessment Planning & Resources

· Regularly evaluate assessment plan for assigned learning goal (at least every 2 years), recommend changes in consultation with SLAC

· Coordinate and facilitate AOL and assessment activities, including AOL Retreat each semester

· Participate in planning activities, provide feedback on and suggest changes to assessment plans

· Review selection procedures and effects on student success; identify issues

· Develop and/or provide assessment resources, e.g. checklists, rubrics, templates, documents, guidance, faculty development · Maintain assessment plans; notify assessment teams before assessments are due to take place

· Update and document any changes to assessment plans based on feedback from Assessment teams on Blackboard site and in TaskStream

Measurement of Student Outcomes

· Implement assessment plans, including: identifying measures, setting benchmarks, working with faculty or teaching teams to gather data, summarizing results

· Conduct or coordinates some non-course embedded assessments that address multiple learning goals (e.g. alumni surveys)

· Provide student artifacts

· Implement selection criteria (entrance or graduation requirements)

· Disseminate methods and results of assessments to faculty and staff, either during retreats, meeting, emails or special discussion sessions

· Assist teams in gathering data and summarize results

· Gather data on student success

Reporting & Dissemination of Results

· Summarize and report assessment methods and results to teaching teams, SLAC and other interested parties

· Communicate methods and results to other stakeholders, e.g. advisory boards, students, community members, university parties

· Attend retreats, review results during meetings and/or electronically

· Report and share selection procedures and consequences with faculty as a whole


117

3.12 (continued) - Processes, Roles & Responsibilities

Step Assessment Teams SLAC SCOB Faculty Curriculum Committee

Discussion & Recommenda-tions

· Discuss assessment results with stakeholders; provide context and insight; determine if benchmarks are met

· Facilitate and document discussions, recommendations and action plans

· Participate in discussions of results, either at retreats, meetings, special discussions, or online through email and/or surveys

· Discuss selection criteria with faculty and external constituents

· Gather feedback, recommendations, and suggestions for curricular adjustments from stakeholders

· Make recommendations regarding curricular changes

· Form action plans

Implementation of Curricular Changes & Documentation

· Work with teaching teams to implement changes within a course or other local changes

· Work with teaching teams to update Master Course Outlines (MCOs) and syllabi to incorporate new pedagogy or content suggested by assessment activities

· Implement curricular initiatives

· Review and possibly revise selection criteria with feedback from faculty and external constituents

· Identify and gather documentation of assessment activities, results and curricular changes.

· Facilitate and document discussions among faculty regarding learning goals and results, gather and document feedback from faculty, collect evidence of curricular changes

· Approve major curriculum-wide changes and updates learning goals

· Propose or review programmatic (curriculum-wide) changes

· Document assessment activities, discussions, feedback and curricular changes in Blackboard and TaskStream

· Supply documentation of curricular changes

· Encourage, track and document changes to Master Course Outlines (MCOs)


118

3.12 (continued) – Further Details of AOL Processes

Planning & Resources

The assessment plan for the undergraduate program (shown in Appendix 3.13) has undergone some more substantial revisions as well as several minor refinements in recent years. The plan is reviewed yearly. The undergraduate assessment plan was initially developed in 2007, with periodic updates through 2009. The plan underwent several minor adjustments until 2013. At that point, the learning goals were revised, so a new plan was implemented. The plan calls for each of the six learning goals to be measured at least twice every five years. All six learning goals have undergone at least two complete assessment cycles within the 2010-2014 calendar years. Before each semester begins, SLAC (in conjunction with the Assessment Teams) consults the assessment plan and identifies which learning goals are due to be assessed and which activities are scheduled to take place in the undergraduate core, and contacts the appropriate instructor or teaching team. At this point, the assessment approaches are reviewed by all involved parties to ensure that the methods are still appropriate, and minor adjustments may be made.

Once the assessments have been identified, the Assessment Team and SLAC coordinate with the teaching team to ensure that the instructors administering the assessments have all of the information and resources that they need. They may be provided with process documents such as historical information related to this assessment, timelines and expectations of what they are to provide to the assessment team and when, possibly examples of rubrics, if requested, any other support the teaching team requires to complete the task. Members of the assessment team or committee are likely to be in contact with teaching teams at various points throughout the semester to ensure that the assessments are on track and to address any issues that may arise. Discussion, Recommendations & Action Plans Discussion, recommendations and action plans are generally done at more than one level. The teaching teams will initially discuss and may make recommendations or form action plans for a course or courses. The teaching teams or individual faculty may consult with the Assessment Team for that learning goal, and other discussions or action plans may be formed. SLAC may be consulted. Any plans or insights are shared with faculty and staff at the AOL Retreat.

Once the information is shared at the next AOL Retreat with the faculty as a whole, more discussion, recommendations and feedback are sought from the wider audience. Other individuals besides the teaching team consider how they might contribute to the learning goal and are asked to form and report actions that they themselves intend to take. For example, while the BEIT 336 teaching team may discuss how they will address writing about technical information within that course, other SCOB faculty may consider and decide to implement learning activities in their own courses to develop student skills in writing about technical information. During the retreat, information about such plans is gathered and documented by SLAC for possible follow-up. If a topic is deemed more complex or requiring further discussion, follow-up brown bag lunch sessions may be scheduled. Faculty and staff may be updated on progress at future AOL Retreats. If major curricular changes are warranted, then those discussions may be forwarded to the appropriate curriculum committee for consideration.

(continued on next page) 119

3.12 (continued) - Details of AOL Processes

If the faculty agrees on an action plan that requires resources to carry out, then those may be provided by the College. For example, when it was recommended that all faculty integrate more Excel and Access into upper division courses, the Teaching, Learning & Research Committee (TLR) provided workshops and sessions to help faculty do this more effectively. When it was proposed that faculty across the curriculum, not just in the junior writing course, emphasize and hold students accountable for the quality of their writing, then the Student Learning & Assessment Committee coordinated with the writing instructors to develop student writing guidelines that were disseminated to all faculty to share with students. (See AOL-ER-22.) The TLR Committee also routinely offers sessions on Blackboard and other technology resources to help faculty implement initiatives such as grading with rubrics and facilitating discussion boards (see AOL-ER-23 for examples of recent sessions). Implementation of Curricular Changes, Documentation & Resources The rich discussions at AOL Retreats lead to intentions to make curricular changes among individual faculty, programs, teaching teams or by the College as a whole. Documentation of planned changes at a local level are gathered by SLAC at the end of the retreats and in follow-up emails and surveys and at subsequent retreats. Changes to syllabi or assignments are documented. If major curricular changes are proposed, then the appropriate curriculum committee will consider, debate, and make proposals, which may be brought back to the SCOB faculty as a whole.

The Student Learning & Assessment Committee (SLAC) disseminates AOL resources to the College, including rubrics, timelines, process steps, conceptual assessment articles and other guidance. (See AOL-ER-24 for examples of assessment resources.) This sharing of resources, as well as documentation of our processes and results, has been accomplished in two different ways. First, for College-level documentation and AACSB accreditation purposes, the responsible parties (assessment committee, coordinator or assessment team members) post appropriate documentation on a shared Blackboard site that is accessible to all SCOB faculty and staff. This repository is our main vehicle for sharing resources and documentation within the College. Beginning in 2010, the university began requiring the software TaskStream be used for assessment documentation for ISU’s HLC/NCA accreditation; thus, for these purposes, we have been storing select documentation on TaskStream. Unlike those for AACSB, NCA accreditation requires the College of Business to assess each undergraduate major (Accounting, Finance, Marketing, etc.) separately; thus, we use TaskStream primarily for that purpose. The software provides a repository to track all assessment plans, goals, instruments, rubrics, benchmarks, results, and recommendations. This system, however, has restricted access, so only a few individuals within the College have access. In addition, the user interface and organization makes exploration unwieldy. For example, we cannot track a single learning goal over several years in a simple fashion. For this reason, we have complied with the university documentation procedures with regard to Task Stream, but have continued to use a Blackboard site for our primary, easy to use and full documentation site. Fortunately, the university Assessment & Accreditation Office has provided human resources to aid our College with required data input.

120

3.13: Undergraduate Core Assessment Plan, Last Updated Fall 2014

Academic Year

Semester ULG1: Bus. Concepts

ULG 2: Practices

(incl. Global)

ULG 3: Problem Solving

ULG 4: Ethics

ULG 5: Commun.

ULG 6: Profess.

Skills

AY 09-10 Spring 2010 Exit Exam Exit Exam Stat analysis,

Using Excel

Exit Exam, Ethics Week,

Case Study

Written Reports

AY 10-11 Fall 2010 Peer Evaluations, MEIS Center Utilization

AY 10-11 Spring 2011 Ethics Week

MEIS Center Utilization

AY 11-12 Fall 2011 MEIS Center Utilization

AY 11-12 Spring 2012 Exit Exam Exit Exam Stat analysis

Exit Exam, Ethics Week


AY 12-13 Fall 2012 Written Reports

AY 12-13 Spring 2013 Using Excel Ethics Week


AY 13-14 Fall 2013 Case Study Peer Evaluations, Teamwork

Assessment, Professional Events Evals

AY 13-14 Spring 2014 Exit Exam Exit Exam Exit Exam, Ethics Week


AY 14-15 Fall 2014 Case Study Stat analysis

Written Reports, Oral Presentations

PLANNED

AY 14-15 Spring 2015 Ethics Week


AY 15-16 Fall 2015 Oral Presentations

Peer Evaluations, Teamwork

Assessment, Professional Events Evals

AY 15-16 Spring 2016 Exit Exam Exit Exam & Case Study

Exit Exam Ethics

Week, Case Study


121

3.14: Assessm

ent Results &

Curricular C

hanges for LG1: B

usiness Concepts

Assessment M

ethods Prior to 2010

First Measurem

ent, Results &

Recomm

endations Second M

easurement, Results &

Recom

mendations

Third Measurem

ent, Results &

Recomm

endations

Comprehensive exit exam

administered

to students in the capstone course, BUS

401. Consists of multiple choice

questions, 5 each from different areas

including Accounting, Statistics, Finance, M

IS, Operations, M

arketing, O

rganizational Behavior, Strategy, Ethics*, and Global/International. Student perform

ance classified as: SU

5/5 correct (subject) or >=85% total;

SA 3-4/5 correct (subject) or 70-84%

total; DV 2/5 correct (subject) or 50-69%

total;

DF 0-1/5 correct (subject) or <=50%

total. Target: At least 70%

of students at SU

/SA levels.

*E

th

ics r

esu

lts r

ep

orte

d in

its o

wn

lea

rn

ing

go

al

Spring 2008: Pilot resulted in question revisions.

Revised exam adm

inistered Fall 2008: overall 71%

were at SU

/SA levels. Target: M

et.

Spring 2009: again, 71% of

students performed at the

Superior or Satisfactory levels. Target: M

et. Problem

areas 2009: Acct, only 67%

of students at acceptable levels

Recom

mendations &

Actions: Accounting faculty arranged m

ore uniform

ity of coverage among

sections and planned to im

plement uniform

use across sections of W

iley Plus and/or M

yAccountingLab in required accounting classes.

Spring 2010: 81%

performed at SA or SU

levels. In all content areas (excluding ethics), students perform

ed at acceptable levels w

ith at least 73%

correct in other areas, including Accounting.

Target: Exceeded.

Recomm

endations & Actions:

None at this tim

e. Changes in accounting appeared to have

helped somew

hat. Continue to m

onitor accounting results.

Spring 2012: Approximately 53%

of students scored at Satisfactory or

Superior levels on the overall exam.

Target: Not M

et. N

otes: Another 17% perform

ed at just under 70%

passing (67-69%).

Problem

areas: Marketing (only 53%

SA/SU

). All other areas (excluding ethics), 70%

or more of students

performed SA/SU

.

Recomm

endations & Actions: M

arketing results not consistent w

ith previous adm

inistrations (84% to 95%

satisfactory/superior). M

onitor these results. In the m

eantime, im

provements

to marketing (BU

S 361) to help enhance student learning include m

arketing plan requirem

ent (as of 2013) and the introduction of blogs/discussion boards to allow

more student discussion and

interaction with the m

aterial.

Spring 2014: Approximately 70%

of students scored at Satisfactory or

Superior levels on the overall exam

. Target: M

et.

Problem areas: Statistics (only 65%

scored at SU

/SA). All other areas (excluding ethics), 70%

or more of

students performed SU

/SA.

Recomm

endations & Actions:

Statistics results not consistent w

ith previous administrations

when 77%

and 82% of students

performed at satisfactory/superior

levels. Monitor to determ

ine if this is a trend or an aberration. In the

meantim

e, more focus on problem

solving, data driven-decision

making, conceptual understanding

and practice with real data w

ithin BU

S 205 & 305.

Young Professionals Board Survey: Survey board m

embers at least every 3-

5 years in how w

ell SCOB prepared

them in Business Concepts. W

ant at least 85%

to indicate Very Well or

Adequately Prepared.

Fall 2008: Respondents indicated no issues w

ith preparation in business concepts; 100%

of respondents indicated SCO

B prepared them

Very Well (20%

) or W

ell (80%). N

o issues identified.

Fall 2013: 92% said prepared Very

Well (46%

) or Well (46%

) in business concepts. The one person

indicated “Somew

hat Inadequately” m

entioned data collection and integration and

decision making. This issue w

as addressed by the problem

solving assessm

ent team in 2014.

122

3.14 (continued) - Detailed Discussion of Assessment Results & Curricular Changes for LG1: Business Concepts

Student Learning Outcomes The first undergraduate learning goal is what we call our “Business Concepts” learning goal and is stated specifically as “Students will be knowledgeable about current business concepts.” We have operationalized this learning goal by specifying the following student learning outcomes.

A. Students will demonstrate knowledge of a core body of discipline-specific concepts, including principles in accounting, finance, management and marketing.

B. Students will apply a core body of discipline-specific knowledge to business situations. Assessment Methods The business practices learning goal has thus far been measured with one comprehensive direct assessment, an exit exam administered within BUS 401, the business capstone course. The exam consists of 55 multiple choice questions, five each from eleven different business disciplines: Accounting, Statistics, Economics, Finance, MIS, Operations, Marketing, Management/Organizational Behavior, Strategy, Ethics, and Global/International issues. (See AOL-ER-25 for a full description of the instrument, methods, results and action plans related to this assessment.) The exam is administered through Blackboard in the spring semester of even numbered years. Students are not told of the exact content of the exam, nor are they instructed to study or review any of the material. The exam is intended to ask questions that general managers would know and understand about general business concepts and are not intended to quiz students on their memory of details or complex calculations. Students are scored on each topic and overall. The exam has been administered three times during the review period, including Spring 2010, 2012 and 2014.

Results & Curricular Changes In 2010 and 2014, students performed at target levels on the Exit Exam, with at least 70% of

students performing at satisfactory or superior levels on the overall exam. However, in 2012, targets were not met. Also, in each iteration, disciplines/topics in which students scored less than satisfactorily were identified; prior to 2010, accounting was a weak area; in 2012, students did not perform well on the marketing portion; and in 2014, student deficiencies were identified on the statistics questions, with less than 70% of students performing at satisfactory levels on questions within each area. As a result of the Exit Exam assessments, some major initiatives and substantial changes related to business concepts have arisen. For example:

• As a result of deficiencies identified from the accounting questions in 2010, accounting faculty discussed and agreed upon uniform topic coverage and uniform use of an electronic accounting homework system across sections of BUS 201 & 202. Accounting classes used WileyPlus, followed by a brief change to MyAccountingLab in 2012-13, before a switch back to WileyPlus in 2013. Accounting scores on the Exit Exam have been at acceptable levels since 2010.

• After deficiencies in student performance on the marketing questions arose in 2012, some changes have been instituted in BUS 361: Principles of Marketing. Specifically, students are now required to develop marketing plans and are given opportunities to discuss marketing concepts and issues on electronic discussion boards and blogs.

• In Spring 2014, a deficiency in statistics knowledge was detected from the exit exam. Though this result was not consistent with past iterations and will be monitored in the future, statistics instructors have discussed strategies for improving student understanding of statistical concepts, including more practice in-class, more hands-on analysis with real data emphasizing data-driven decision making, and stressing of concepts rather than emphasis on calculation details.

(See AOL-ER-25 for all supporting documentation.) 123

3.15 - Assessm

ent Results &

Curricular C

hanges for LG2: D

omestic &

International Business Practices

Assessment

Methods

Prior to 2010 First M


Recom

mendations

Second Measurem

ent, Results &

Recomm

endations

Third & Beyond

Measurem

ent, Results &

Recomm

endations

International/Global questions (5) on SCO

B Exit Exam

. Student perform

ance evaluation:

• SU 5/5 correct;

• SA 3-4/5 correct; • DV 2/5 correct; DF 0-1/5 correct.

Target: At least 70%

of students at SU

/SA levels.

2008: Pilot exams:

61% of students perform

ed at SA/SU

levels. Target: N

ot Met.

Actions: Question revisions; changes to

administration procedures.

Spring 2009: 94% of students at SA/SU

levels.

Target: Met.

Comm

ents: Revisions may have m

ade questions too easy. Review

again. Actions: Add m

ore global/international content to the core curriculum

. Explore options, global m

odules, additional course, etc.

Spring 2010: 98% of students

performed at SU

/SA levels. Target: M

et. O

bservations: Questions probe general

understanding and cannot tell us if student can apply principles.

Actions: Continue to explore how

to add m

ore global content to core curriculum

. Brown bag discussion from

N

ov 2010. Ideas: global modules in all

core courses will be explored.

Investigate possibility of requiring students to take a course in global

economics or history.

Spring 2012: 87% of students perform

ed at SA/SU

levels. Target: M

et. Actions:

Several international/global content/cases added to BU

S 201 & 351, M

GT 140, INS 340, M

GT 370. A 2013 faculty survey on global curriculum

indicated intent to add or addition of m

ore cultural and international content added to BU

S 100. 201, 221, 305, 311, 351, 361, FIN

400. New

course in Global Sourcing (O

SCM 455). HIST 113: History of

Globalization offered as elective to business students starting in Spring 2013. Develop professional

development events around cultural aw

areness. Encourage study abroad &

international travel and exchange opportunities.

Spring 2014: 98% of

students performed at

SA/SU levels.

Target: Met.

Actions:

Continue to increase global content, cases, and assignm

ents in core courses.

Continue to encourage HIST 113 option for business

students. Continue offerings of

cultural understanding events, study abroad and international travel and exchange opportunities.

International Case Study in BU

S 401. Evaluated w

ith rubric. Target: 70%

of students at SA/SU

levels.

Pilot: Summ

er 2014 Case description and questions w

ere too open ended and did not provide

sufficient context. Revisions needed to m

ake viable for assessm

ent.

Fall 2014: Revised case was adm

inistered. Results not yet available.

Young Professionals Board Survey board

mem

bers at least every 3-5 years in how

w

ell SCOB prepared

them in International

Global. Target: at least 85%

Very Well or

Adequately Prepared

Fall 2008: (Old learning goal:

“Understand the basic econom

ic, political, cultural and operational

motivations for international

business”): 60% Very W

ell or Adequately prepared in G

lobal issues. Target: N

ot Met.

Actions: Add more global/

international content to the core curriculum

. Explore options, global m

odules, additional course, etc.

Fall 2013: (New

learning goal: “understand internal and external

influences on domestic and

international business practices.”). Results: 69%

very well/adequately

prepared. Target: N

ot Met.

Actions: Add global cases to core courses; encourage HIST 113; cultural

professional development events;

international travel.

124

3.15 (continued): Detailed Discussion of Assessment Results & Curricular Changes for LG2: Business Practices incl. Global


Our 2nd learning goal is that “Students will understand internal and external influences on domestic and international business practices.” We have operationalized this statement by defining three student learning outcomes:

A. Students will be aware of the complexities of the political/legal, economic and historical environments as they relate to domestic and international business practices.

B. Students will understand the role of culture and customs in business practices when evaluating business alternatives in domestic and international settings.

C. Students will understand motivations for expanding into international markets, will articulate practical issues involved in these endeavors, and will analyze differences in operating domestically vs. globally.

Results Students have historically performed at acceptable or superior levels on the exit exam questions regarding global content (at least 87% at acceptable levels); however, we recognize that these questions may need to be changed. That work in ongoing through the Assessment Team for this learning goal and should be implemented in 2016. Results are not yet available for the international business case administered in Fall 2014. Thus far, our alumni have identified shortcomings in our program with respect to this content, with only 69% of alumni on the Young Professionals Board indicating that they were adequately or well prepared in global business practices. (See AOL-ER-26 for details.) Curricular Changes Recognizing these issues, we have in recent years undertaken several initiatives to develop student learning in this area. For example:

• Several faculty have recently added global course content, cases or assignments to undergraduate courses, including, for example, BUS 201 (Accounting) and BUS 351 (Operations). Other faculty have increased or further emphasized international issues in courses such as BUS 100, 221, 305, and 361, OSCM 490 and FIN 400. (See AOL-ER-17.)

• A new course in Global Sourcing has been developed (OSCM 455) for Fall 2014. • We have held brown bag discussions on ways to incorporate more global content issues in the

curriculum (fall 2010) and have done online surveys and discussions on the same topic (2013).

• The University Foundational Studies Program developed in 2010 requires a course in history. Faculty from the Scott College worked with the history department, resulting in a new course in the History of Globalization (HIST 113), which has been taught in both Spring 2013 and 2014, and will be taught again in Spring 2015, to approximately 90-100 business majors each year. (See AOL-ER-12.) While we are unable to require that our students take this history course at this time (due to university and state limitations on credit hours in majors), we will continue, through advising, to encourage business students to take this course.


125

3.15 (continued): Detailed Discussion of Assessment Results & Curricular Changes for LG2: Business Practices incl. Global

• We have continued to offer and expand international travel and exchange opportunities for our students. For example, Dr. Wei He has received travel grants and a recognition award from the University for his efforts in this area, which include taking a student group to Taiwan as part of a Management course in 2010; developing a guest student program with Southwest University of China in 2014; and sponsoring four visiting scholars from China. Dr. Aruna Chandra has also been active in providing international exposures for our students, taking student groups to Brazil and Morocco as part of her undergraduate entrepreneurship course, with a trip to Italy planned in 2015. For these courses, there is a significant curricular component to the travel. Also, Dr. Chandra has been involved in bringing visiting groups and exchange students (who take our courses) from Brazil and Morocco to the Scott College.

• The MEIS Center has offered professional development sessions on Cultural Understanding.

(See AOL-ER-13.) Again, detailed assessment methods and results, as well as information about these initiatives, can be found in the AOL-ER-26 folder.

126

3.16: Assessm

ent Results &

Curricular C

hanges for LG3: Problem

Solving

Assessment M


First Measurem

ent, Results &

Recomm

endations

Second Measurem

ent, Results &

Recom

mendations

Third Measurem

ent, Results &

Recomm

endations

BUS 205/305 problem

Solving Assessm

ent: 1st measurem

ent: Students w

ere given scenarios and asked to choose an

appropriate “approach” to solving the problem

. There were five

questions/areas mirroring the

steps in the problem solving

process: 1) Problem Definition; 2)

Collecting data; 3) Evaluating alternatives; 4) Analyzing

information; 5) Interpreting

output. Target – 70% of students

“passing”, used a rubric to evaluate. (Previous LG: Analytical

Thinking)

Assessments done w

ith problem

solving using BUS

205 and 305 quizzes and BU

S 351 exams but in

largely different formats

from current ones being

used. Through Spring 2010, w

e completed 3 cycles.

Improvem

ents were m

ade in all three of these courses

from unacceptable to

acceptable percentages of students at satisfactory levels. Assessm

ents in these analytical courses have show

n that giving students m

ore hands-on classroom

exercises with

interpreting and analyzing data im

proves learning; instructors w

ill continue to em

phasize active learning and practicing.

SPRING 2012:

Overall, 60%

of students scored at satisfactory levels.

Target: Not M

et

Problem areas: * Defining the problem

(53%

of students satisfactory) and ** Analyzing inform

ation (understanding variation, sam

ple information, sam

pling error) (50% of

students satisfactory) ** Other three areas

of problem solving, at or above target of

70% of students perform

ing satisfactorily.

Instructors’ Action plan: (1) standardizing how

the instruments are presented to

students in different sections; (2) spending m

ore time on developing hypotheses and

setting up the problem (problem

definition); and (3) developing additional m

aterials and giving students m

ore opportunity to practice problem

s related to analyzing information.

Summ

er 2013: O

verall, 61% of students

scored at satisfactory levels.

Target: Not M

et

Comm

ents: BUS 305

students performed m

uch better than BU

S 205 students.

Problem areas for all

students: Defining the problem

, Evaluating Alternatives and Analyzing Inform

ation (each had less than 50%

of students at satisfactory levels).

Instructors Action Plan: Em

phasize context of analysis. Additional

emphasis on problem

definition.

Fall 2014. Data w

ill be collected at final exam

s.

Notes: Because of their w

ork on the problem

solving fram

ework, statistics

instructors have put substantial em

phasis this sem

ester on the context of decision m

aking and reasons for data analysis.

(Ta

ble

co

ntin

ue

d o

n n

ext p

ag

e)

127

3.16 (continued) – LG3 Problem

Solving

Assessment M


First Measurem

ent, Results & Recom

mendations

Second M

easurement,

Results &

Recomm

endations

Third M

easurement,

Results &

Recomm

endations

BUS 180 live final exam

: Skills w

ith Access tables, queries, reports and Excel tasks (copying expressions, charts, form

atting, com

plex functions). On each

skill, students were classified as

mastered (1 point), partly

mastered (0.5 points), and not

mastered (0 points). O

verall, out of 9 points:· SU

: 8-9 points; · SA: 6-7.5 points; · DV: 4-5.5 points; and · DF: 0-3.5 points. Target: 70%

of students should perform

at satisfactory levels. (Previous LG: U

sing Technology)

Spring 2009: 76% SU

/SA, acceptable. Recom

mendations: m

ore hands-on in-class exercises; change to custom

textbook with

better coverage of complex Excel functions

and more and better end of chapter

exercises; use myitlab, a hands-on O

ffice 2007 learning system

; more em

phasis on laptops in the classroom

. Brow

n bag discussions on technology in spring 2009 led to a com

mitm

ent from

some faculty to use Excel/Access in m

ore sophisticated w

ays in upper level courses; som

e will incorporate cases. Instructional &

Professional Developm

ent comm

ittee will

offer Excel, Access demonstrations for

faculty development.

Spring 2010: 75% SU

/SA, acceptable. Observations: problem

s with

complex Excel functions continue; Access skills still not at level of Excel

skills, may be because final exam

questions not in the same form

as in-class exercises.

Recomm

endations: continue using myitlab; address student concerns

and coach students on successful use of myitlab at the beginning of the

course; more closely align final exam

questions with course objectives

and exercises.

Other notes: Inform

al assessment from

statistics instructors indicate student Excel skills have im

proved since BUS 180 replaced BU

S 170. Both BU

S 180 and BUS 205 have show

n improvem

ents when students

are given more hands-on, in-class exercises using technology, so these

practices will continue.

Spring 2013: 77% of

students met the

Satisfactory or Superior m

astery of the outcom

es. Target: M

et.

Recomm

endations: Continue to use

myitlab and continue hands-on, in-class

activities and problem

solving using technology.

Planned: Spring 2015.

Assessment in

BUS 180, after

using problem

solving fram

ework.

Young Professionals Board Survey: Survey board m

embers

at least every 3-5 years in how

well SCO

B prepared them in

Problem Solving. W

ant at least 85%

to indicate Very Well or

Adequately Prepared. (Previous LGs: Analytical Thinking and

Technology)

Fall 2008: 87% Very W

ell or Adequately prepared in Analytical Thinking. N

o recom

mendations. Fall 2008: 67%

Very W

ell or Adequately prepared in applying technology to solve business problem

s; alum

ni identified the need for more

advanced preparation in Excel and Access. Supported inform

al feedback from

instructors and employers that our

students’ Excel and Access skills needed im

provement.

Partially addressed with redesign of BU

S 180. YPB board m

embers volunteered to

share real-world cases from

their organizations.

(New

LG: Problem Solving) Fall 2013: 92%

of respondents indicated that they felt the SCO

B prepared them Very W

ell (69%) or Adequately

(23%) in "Solving business problem

s by applying appropriate technology, tools, and decision-m

aking techniques." Only 8%

indicated they felt they w

ere not well prepared at all.

Comm

ents from alum

ni: Always room

for improvem

ent (i.e. application), but I felt m

ore than prepared to begin my career; As I

transitioned to the workplace, I w

as advanced in my use of technology;

I feel that the college did provide adequate exposure to technology and various tools; [Several professors] w

ere excellent in preparing me

for decision making; I graduated prior to a m

ajor shift towards

technology; I will say adequately but at the tim

e of my degree

technology was not m

uch of a focus; Many classroom

opportunities to strategize and use data to drive decisions; N

etworks (Bus 401). Target:

MET; Recom

mendations: N

one at this time.

(co

ntin

ue

d o

n n

ext p

ag

e)

128

3.16 (continued) - Detailed Discussion of Assessment Results & Curricular Changes for LG3: Problem Solving

Student Learning Outcomes Our third undergraduate learning goal is “Students will solve business problems by applying appropriate technology, tools, and decision-making techniques.” We have operationalized this goal into three student outcomes, the main “steps” in the problem solving process.

A. Students will articulate the main issues of a business decision. B. Students will use evidence in the decision process. C. Students will justify conclusions and develop recommendations.

Within this revised learning goal, we have folded in both the previous goals of “analytical thinking” and “using technology”. The faculty discussed this revision and felt that because technology is so ubiquitous in everything that we do, that it should be assumed that when students “use evidence” in the decision process, they will employ appropriate tools, including technology. Assessment Methods The assessments used thus far to assess problem solving have been embedded in the statistics and information tools courses. When the technology and analytical skills learning goals were separate, we used problems on the BUS 180 (information tools) final exam as measure of whether students could use technology (Excel and Access) to manipulate and analyze data, answer questions and solve problems. We also used a series of exam questions within BUS 205 and 305 to evaluate if students could effectively step through the problem solving process and use data to make decisions. Each of these two assessment approaches has been used in two cycles during the review period (2012 and 2013 for the statistics assessment and 2010 and 2013 for the Excel/Access assessment). Full documentation of assessment methods, instruments, results and actions regarding these assessments can be found in AOL-ER-27.

As an indirect assessment of problem solving, we have used feedback from the Young Professionals Board survey, which was done in 2008 and 2013. These young alumni were asked to rate how well their course work in the College of Business prepared them in problem solving and to provide any comments or feedback related to this learning goal. For a full description of the instrument and results of the Young Professionals Board surveys, see AOL-ER-27. Results & Curricular Changes Students generally performed satisfactorily on the Excel/Access assessments that occurred after the BUS 180 course redesign in 2008 (see AOL-ER-27 for details), with 75% and 77% of students at satisfactory levels in 2010 and 2013. These assessments have led to changes within the course, as BUS 180 instructors have worked to address student deficiencies with certain aspects of Excel and Access. For example, instructors put more emphasis on using certain challenging Excel functions. Also, we have made progress in emphasizing effective use of these tools more strongly as students proceed through the curriculum. For example, BUS 205 and 305 instructors rely heavily on Excel for statistical analysis and manipulation of data and students are required to summarize and manipulate data to report and recommend in BEIT 336 analysis.


129

3.16 (continued) - Detailed Discussion of Assessment Results & Curricular Changes for LG3: Problem Solving

Thus far, our alumni have rated their problem solving (technology and analytical skills) learning experiences highly, with 87-92% of alumni indicating they were adequately or well prepared in problem solving; however, the Young Professionals Board members have identified some issues, such as the need for better Excel preparation, which our faculty has tried and continues to try to address. Results on problem solving (previously analytical skills) assessments since 2012 have not been at target levels, with only 60-61% of students performing satisfactorily (see table above and AOL-ER-27 for more information). The deficiencies identified have resulted in some substantial curriculum changes and initiatives.

• Assessments prior to 2009 showed that students improved understanding when more hands-on

activities and in-class practice with data, analysis and drawing conclusions were included in BUS 205 and 305. Those practices have been continued and are an emphasis of the statistics curriculum.

• Assessments in 2012 pointed to some issues with students being able to adequately define problems and approaches and to use information to inform decision making. This finding led statistics instructors to place more emphasis and practice on problem definition and on analyzing information to inform decisions.

• Assessments in 2013 showed similar patterns to 2012, with deficiencies in problem definition, analyzing information and evaluating alternatives. Instructors have since redoubled efforts to incorporate context and scenarios to motivate problem definition and analysis of information. This emphasis on Data-Driven Decision Making has become a focal point of the statistics courses. Instructors provide materials to define and motivate data-driven decisions, and provide regular opportunities for students to experience and observe how evidence is used in business planning and operations. (See AOL-ER-27 for examples.) This fall, the statistics instructors put a great deal of emphasis on this approach and hope to see some improvement on student performance when the Fall 2014 assessment results are available.

• The 2012 revision of the Operations Management & Analysis major to Operations & Supply Chain Management included two Business Analytics courses: OSCM 310: Data-Driven Decision Making and OSCM 435: Business Analytics.

• A major initiative to develop a college-wide Problem Solving Framework was undertaken by the Problem Solving Assessment Team in 2014. The group is in the process of developing the framework and the processes to integrate the framework into courses in 2015. This framework (see AOL-ER-27) recognizes that qualitative and quantitative evidence, along with critical thinking and reasoning, are essential to answering questions, and is designed to be applicable across all types of business courses.

130

3.17: Assessment Results & Curricular Changes for LG4: Ethics

Assessment Methods Prior to 2010

First Measurement, Results &

Recommendations

Second Measurement, Results &

Recommendations

Third & Beyond Measurement,

Results & Recommendations

Ethics questions (5) on SCOB Exit

Exam. Student

performance evaluation:

• SU 5/5 correct; • SA 3-4/5

correct; • DV 2/5 correct; DF 0-1/5 correct.

Target: At least 70% of students at SU/SA levels.

2008: Pilot exam: Only 53% of students performed at SA/SU

levels. Target: Not Met. Actions: Question

revisions; changes to administration

procedures.

Spring 2009: 61% of students at SA/SU levels.

Target: Not Met. Actions: Add more ethics

to curriculum: (1) encourage faculty to add

specific coverage and assignments; (2) continue

to expand, encourage student participation in ethics conference and

week; (3) encourage use of Dr. Wilhelm’s

instructional resources into other business

disciplines.

Spring 2010: 68% of students performed at

SU/SA levels. Target: Not Met.

Observations: While

target is still not met, there appears to be some improvement.

Actions:

Continue with action plan developed in 2009.

Continue to monitor results.

Spring 2012: 43% of students performed

at SA/SU levels. Target: Not Met.

Observations:

Increase from 2009 to 2010 was not

sustained. Actions warranted.

Actions:

While continuing to emphasize ethics in

many core courses and to encourage ethics

conference participation, several faculty have/will add

ethics cases to courses such as BUS 221, 201, 205, 305, and 371, as well as BEIT 336 and

ACCT 311.

Spring 2014: 74% of students

performed at SA/SU levels. Target: Met.

Actions:

Continue to emphasize ethics across the core

curriculum. Work to increase number of

business majors who elect to take

BUS 204.

Ethics Case Studies

BUS 361: Marketing case

involving shipment of

tainted products that caused consumer illnesses; BUS 351:

Operations/supply chain case study involving delay of

delivery and implications.

Both cases were evaluated with

rubrics.

Spring 2009 (BUS 361): 71% of students

performed at SA/SU levels.

Target: Met.

Observations: Faculty noted students appear to “understand the role of

ethics in real world marketing situations” but many did not adequately

describe the effects of those actions on

stakeholders.

Actions: Emphasize effects on stakeholders in discussions and examples.

Spring 2010 (BUS 361): 67% of students

performed at SU/SA levels.

Target: Not Met.

Observations: While the %SA went down, the % at superior increased

from 13% in 2009 to 44% in 2010. In this iteration, students had difficulty articulating the ethical

dilemma.

Actions: Clarify question wording; monitor results

in the future.

Fall 2013 (BUS 351): 66% of students

performed at SA/SU levels.

Target: Not Met.

Actions: More emphasis on

ethics in global operations in BUS 351

Core curriculum suggestions:

Implement ethics projects in core classes

to present at Ethics Week or conference.

Continue to emphasize ethics across the core curriculum in multiple

ways.

(table continued on next page)

131

3.17 (continued) – LG4 Ethics (indirect measures)

Assessment Methods Prior to 2010

First Measurement, Results &

Recommendations

Second Measurement, Results &

Recommendations

Third & Beyond Measurement,

Results & Recommendations

Ethics Conference & Ethics Week

Activities Participation

Spring 2009: Conference: 375 students

Week: 435 students Instructors: At least 12

faculty incorporated ethics activities into their

classroom and/or required students to

attend the conference and complete a related

assignment.

Spring 2010: Conference: 481 students

Week: 651 students Instructors: At least 22 instructors required or offered extra credit to business students to

attend

Spring 2011: Conference: 503

students Week: 751 students


Week: 732


Week: 562

Young Professionals Board Survey: Survey board

members at least every 3-5 years in

how well SCOB prepared them in

Business Concepts. Want at least 85% to indicate Very

Well or Adequately Prepared.

Fall 2008: (Old learning goals with (A) Ethical Framework and (B) Stakeholder SLOs)

93% of respondents indicated they felt well or

adequately prepared in Ethical Frameworks; only

80% in Stakeholder considerations.

Comments: a few alumni indicated they felt this

was an area that should be more developed, while

a similar number felt it was fine as is.

Fall 2013 (new learning goal):

100% of respondents indicated they felt well

(31%) or adequately (69%) prepared in ethics.

Comments: Alumni made positive comments about

BUS 204 & MGT 370 as well as Ethics Conference

participation and Networks Professional Development program.


132

3.17 (continued) - Detailed Discussion of Assessment Results & Curricular Changes for LG4: Ethics

Student Learning Outcomes Our 4th undergraduate learning goal is “Students will evaluate the ethical dimensions of business decisions.” We have operationalized this learning goal into three student learning outcomes:

A. Students will identify ethical dilemmas, gather pertinent facts and express possible actions. B. Students will analyze the impact of an action on all stakeholders. C. Students will be able to explain and defend the ethical framework in which they make business

decisions. Results With respect to our indirect assessments, in 2008, under the former ethics learning goal with two parts – (A) ethical frameworks and (B) stakeholder analysis – our alumni indicated some concern about deficiencies in the stakeholder analysis. By 2013, after efforts to increase the ethics content across the curriculum, 100% of these alumni felt they were well prepared in ethical decision making. Attendance at the Ethics Conference has fluctuated and was down slightly in 2014, but we are unsure if this is a trend and will monitor the situation.

Student performance on ethics-related direct assessments has generally not been at target levels; in 2010 and 2013, only 66-67% of students performed at satisfactory levels when their work was evaluated with a rubric. Recognizing the importance of ethics and the deficiencies in student ethical reasoning, we have undertaken several major ethics initiatives in the last several years. Curricular Changes

• In 2009, after deficiencies in ethical reasoning were identified from multiple sources, we began a concerted effort to add more ethics content to the curriculum, including (1) encouraging faculty to add or expand specific ethics coverage and assignments; (2) continuing to promote and encourage student participation in ethics conference and week; (3) encourage use of Dr. Wilhelm’s instructional resources for non-ethics faculty to incorporate ethics into their business disciplines.

• In 2010, the University began requiring that all students complete a Foundational Studies requirement in Ethics and Social Responsibility (see http://www.indstate.edu/fs/learning_objectives/ethicsAndSocialResponsibilty.htm). Thus, all business students must fulfill this university requirement.

• Partially in response to this university initiative, Dr. William Wilhelm developed a new course BUS 204: Ethics in Organizations, which was first taught in 2011 as a course open to all university students. While we, as a College, feel strongly that all business students should take this course, we have encountered issues making this a requirement, as it counts toward our “major” hours, which the university and state have mandated that we decrease. Specifically, in 2013, we were required to reduce all of our undergraduate degree programs from 124 credit hours to 120. Then in 2014, we were required to either reduce our “majors” to 71 credit hours or to file a petition for exception. Since our undergraduate core is counted as 51 hours (including Math 115) and students complete 18 – 24 hours in major courses beyond the core, we are severely restricted in adding required courses. (For more information, please consult our Associate Dean.) Through advising, we have strongly encouraged business students to take BUS 204 and approximately 175 students have taken the course in the last several years. After ethics results on the Spring 2012 Exit Exam again showed deficiencies, we redoubled our efforts to add or expand ethics content and assignments to core courses, including BUS 221, 201, 205, 305, 371 and BEIT 336 and ACCT 311. (See AOL-ER-14.) We seem to be making some headway, with the 2014 ethics exit exam results showing marked improvement over 2012. We will continue to emphasize ethics across the curriculum and continue to monitor these results.

133

3.18: Assessm

ent Results &

Curricular C

hanges for LG5: C

omm

unication

Assessment M

ethods &

Details Prior to 2010

1

st Measurem

ent, Results &

Recomm

endations 2

nd Measurem

ent, Results &

Recomm

endations 3

rd Measurem

ent, Results &

Recom

mendations

Course Embedded, BEIT 336,

Written reports

Instrum

ent: combination of

writing assignm

ents from

course, including formal

report, recomm

endation report, inform

ational report, and progress report; all

submissions evaluated based

on rubrics. Perform

ance classification: •

SU: 90-100%

of total points;

• SA: 70-89%

; •

DV: 60-69%; and

• DF: 0-59%

. Target: 70%

of students perform

at SU or SA levels.

Spring 2008 & earlier:

Results: 65%

of students perform

ed at Superior or Satisfactory levels. Targets not m

et.

Issues: Students appear to be not taking tim

e to revise, edit, proof-read.

Recom

mendations/Actions:

Structure deadlines and require drafts to reduce

poor performance due to

procrastination; impress

upon students across the im

portance of always

writing professionally, even

if it is not in a writing course.

Develop student writing

guidelines for non-writing

faculty to disseminate to

students.

Spring 2010:

Results: 76.6% of students perform

ed at Superior or Satisfactory levels.

Target met.

Issues: A w

eakness for students identified as analyzing and

comm

unicating quantitative inform

ation.

Recomm

endations/Actions: Enhance/extend in-class discussions on

data visualization; introduce guided peer review

s of drafts.

Fall 2012:

Results: 77.3% of students perform

ed at Superior or Satisfactory levels.

Target met.

Issues: Analyzing and com

municating

quantitative information w

as emphasized in

lectures and two assignm

ents. Som

e students still struggled with

presenting quantitative data and results effectively; how

ever, improvem

ents were

noted for the group as a whole.

Recom

mendations/Actions:

Changes in discussions on data visualization to m

ake them m

ore user-friendly, including m

ultiple ways to analyze and present the

information w

ill be instituted. Also, guided peer review

s of drafts of short reports seem

ed to have improved the overall

quality of reports containing quantitative inform

ation. Continue to include quantitative inform

ation in report cases and to use these m

ethods.

Fall 2014:

Results not yet available.

Evaluation of Oral

Presentations

Fall 2014: Pilot oral comm

unication rubric.

Expected 2015

Young Professionals Board Survey.

Survey board mem

bers at least every 4 years in how

well

SCOB prepared them

in business practices. W

ant at least 85%

to indicate Very W

ell or Adequately Prepared.

Fall 2008: 87%

Very Well or

Adequately prepared in Com

munication, acceptable.

Respondents identified need for m

ore verbal com

munication preparation.

Fall 2013: 93%

indicated they were prepared Very

Well or W

ell in comm

unication, acceptable results. Again, som

e respondents indicated a need for m

ore verbal and inform

al personal com

munications.

Expected Fall 2017

134

3.18 (continued) - Detailed Discussion of Assessment Results & Curricular Changes for LG5: Communication Student Learning Outcomes Our 5th undergraduate learning goal is “Students will demonstrate the ability to communicate effectively.” Operationally, we expect that:

A. Students will prepare an effective written report. B. Students will give an effective oral presentation. C. Students will be able to effectively convey information in an appropriate format and setting.

Assessment Methods Assessments for the writing outcomes have mainly come from BEIT 336, our junior level business report writing course. A collection of student writing samples, including a long research report, a recommendation report, an informal report and a progress report, have been evaluated with common rubrics twice over the review period, in 2010 and 2012. Student progress is evaluated on each report and also overall.

Our assessment of oral communication is not as well developed as our assessment of written communication, but we are currently working to step up these efforts. All business students are required to take a freshman communication course (COMM 101) to develop oral communication skills, and oral communication is expected in many business courses (see AOL-ER-7a). We are piloting the AAC&U oral communication value rubric this semester, Fall 2014 (see AOL-ER-29), and if the rubric appears to meet the College’s needs, the Communication Assessment Team in conjunction with SLAC will push out the rubric to all faculty and encourage its use across the college. Then, beginning in 2015-2016, regular assessments of oral communication will commence.

As with all of our other learning goals, we also gathered indirect assessment information from our Young Professionals Board alumni in 2008 and 2013 by asking them to rate and provide feedback about their preparation in communication from the Scott College. The table above summarizes our methods, results and recommendations for our communication assessments. Complete supporting documentation for communication assessments, including instruments, rubrics, writing samples, summarized results and action plans are provided in AOL-ER-29. Results & Curricular Changes Results from our Young Professionals Board survey indicated alumni felt they were well prepared in written communication, though concerns with the extent of oral/verbal communications, especially informal, were identified in both 2008 and 2013.

Writing results prior to 2010 were not at target levels, with only 65% of students performing at satisfactory or superior levels. This result led BEIT instructors to make changes to help students recognize the importance of drafts, proofreading and editing. In 2009, several faculty discussions surrounded the idea of writing across the curriculum and though the idea did not manifest itself as an official policy of the Scott College, several faculty embraced the idea of emphasizing writing in non-writing courses. By Fall 2009, the initial incarnation of the SCOB Student Writing Guidelines was disseminated to faculty, several of whom shared these guidelines with their students. (See AOL-ER-29.)


135

3.18 (continued) - Detailed Discussion of Assessment Results & Curricular Changes for LG5: Communication

Subsequent administrations of writing assessments in 2010 and 2012 showed improvement over pre-2010 levels, with 76-77% of students performing, overall, at acceptable levels on the combined writing measures. However, deficiencies were noted with respect to students’ abilities to write about quantitative information in both iterations.

In response to issues identified by these assessments, BEIT 336 instructors have initiated further changes to the course to help students with revisions and writing improvement, for example:

• Encouraging students to write with more time and effort toward revision. For example, interim deadlines may be required or students may be encouraged to submit, receive feedback, and rewrite.

• Having students engage in guided peer review and feedback in class. • Using technology such as voice recordings to provide constructive feedback on submitted writing

assignments. • Requiring journaling and writing improvement plans to help students improve their writing. • Developing and incorporating materials and devoting class time to writing about quantitative

information.

Another round of data collection on these writing assignments is in progress for the Fall semester of 2014, thought results are not yet available. Refer to AOL-ER-29 for detailed information about communication assessments, results and actions.

Other changes with respect to communication within the college (but not restricted to BEIT 336) have also occurred in the last several years. For example:

• Several faculty (see AOL-ER-29 for examples) have shared and expect student submissions in their non-writing courses to conform to the College of Business Student Writing Guidelines, which were most recently updated in 2013. This effort in many courses (for example, within statistics or operations courses) is intended to send the message to students that writing well is always important and that students are expected to maintain high writing standards within the College and also after they leave us.

• The MEIS Center has been instrumental in providing resources and development opportunities for our students to develop their communication skills. There are several professional development sessions offered for students to improve their written (e.g. sessions on plagiarism, writing professional emails and correspondence, resume and cover letter writing) as well as their verbal communication (e.g. sessions on giving presentations, networking, interviewing) skills. (See AOL-ER-13.)

• Marketing 445: Business Negotiations is a new course (Fall 2010) that emphasizes verbal communications and many other courses (at least 22 courses taught by at least 14 different faculty) require oral presentations or communications from students (see AOL-ER-29 for examples.)

Overall, progress has been made with writing and we are cognizant of the need to step up efforts in oral communication, which we have begun.

136

3.19 - Assessm

ent Results &

Curricular C

hanges for LG6: Professional Skills

Assessment M


First Measurem

ent, Results &

Recomm

endations Second M


Recom

mendations

Third & Beyond

Measurem

ent, Results &

Recom

mendations

Peer Evaluations

Evaluate teamw

ork in BUS 401

consulting teams. U

se Behaviorally Anchored Rating

Scale; students rate each other on several dim

ensions of team

work; scores standardized.

SU: M

ore than 1 st dev above m

ean rating; SA: W

ithin 1 st dev of mean

rating; DV: Betw

een 1 and 2 st devs below

the mean rating;

DF: Below 2 st devs below

mean

rating.

5 cycles, 2006-2008 BU

S 401 peer evaluations of team

mem

bers showed

acceptable percentages (84-95%

) of students at SU/SA

levels. Target: M

et.

Comm

ents & Actions: Students

evaluated by peers who have

little to no work experience;

tend to rate peers more highly

than would an instructor or

supervisor. Reconsider classification schem

e.

Fall 2010: 83%

of students rated SA/SU by peers.

Target: Met.

Com

ments &

Actions: Still recognize peer evaluations as not

showing com

plete picture. Explore other options to evaluate team

work,

including where and how

done in the curriculum

.

Fall 2013: N

ew Team

work assessm

ent: Teamw

ork now

“taught” in BUS 371. Five exam

questions on team

functioning. 37%

of students correctly answered 4

or 5 out of 5 (considered SA/SU);

another 44% correctly answ

ered 3/5 questions.

Target: N

ot Met.

Comm

ents & Actions:

Consider adding more questions to

better differentiate performance;

continue to teach teamw

ork in BUS

371. Take inventory of teamw

ork and peer evaluations across the curriculum

; explore standardizing peer evaluations.

Professional Event Evaluations

Executives & Professionals

evaluate business etiquette and professional com

munications at

Executive Dining Experience (EDE) &

Speed Netw

orking Event (SN

E) Target: 90%

of participating students rated as O

utstanding or Good (O

/G)

Fall 2013: EDE: 92%

-95% of students rated O

/G by Executives in Com

munication; 98%

-100%

rated O/G in Etiquette.

SNE: 90%

of students rated O/G in

Comm

unication; 92%-96%

rated O/G

in First Impressions &

Professional Etiquette

Target: Met.

Comm

ents: Participating students are not typical; should be above average

compared to population.

(ta

ble

co

ntin

ue

d o

n n

ext p

ag

e)

137

3.19 (continued) – LG6 Professional Skills (indirect m

easures)

Assessment M


First Measurem

ent, Results &

Recomm

endations Second M


Recom

mendations

Third & Beyond

Measurem

ent, Results &

Recomm

endations

MEIS Center U

tilization

Measures:

1- Num

ber of unique students served

2 - Percent of all enrolled SCO

B students served

Fall 2008: 462 student-sessions

Fall 2009: 990 student-sessions

Catapult Program Piloted 2009

Actions: Pilot successful; im

plement

CATAPULT program

with som

e changes

Fall 2010: 413 students

(36% of enrollm

ent) Spring 2011: 398 students

(39% of enrollm

ent) Actions:

Continue to expand offerings and encourage CATAPU

LT participation am

ong faculty

Fall 2011: 600 students

(50% of enrollm

ent) Spring 2012: 717 students

(62% of enrollm

ent) Actions:

Continue to expand offerings and encourage CATAPU

LT participation am

ong faculty

Fall 2012: 519 students (41%

) Spring 2013:

763 students (64%)

Fall 2013: 784 students (63%

) Spring 2014:

762 students (70%)

Actions: Continue to encourage CATAPU

LT participation am

ong faculty

Young Professionals Board Survey

Survey board m

embers at

least every 3-5 years in how

well SCO

B prepared them

in Business Concepts. Want

at least 85% to indicate

Very Well or Adequately Prepared.

Fall 2008: (Former learning goals

A – professional skills and B – team

work).

87% indicated very

well/adequately prepared in

professional skills. Target: Met

Only 80%

very well/adequately

prepared in teamw

ork. Target: N

ot Met.

Observations &

Actions: Respondents identified need for m

ore professional development

in the core. Develop professional developm

ent program

(CATAPULT).

Fall 2013: (New

learning goal: W

orkplace expectations & behaviors)

77% indicated very w

ell/adequately prepared.

Target: Not M

et. O

bservations: Com

ments m

ixed. Some thought did

really well, som

e indicated lacking. Could be due to the graduation date of alum

ni, whether before or after

professional development program

s in 2009.

Actions: Continue to m

onitor. Ask graduation date on next survey.

(c

on

tin

ue

d o

n n

ext p

ag

e)

138

3.19 (continued) - Detailed Discussion of Assessment Results & Curricular Changes for LG6: Professional Skills


Our final undergraduate learning goal is “Students will demonstrate an understanding of appropriate workplace expectations and behaviors.” We have operationalized this learning goal using the following four student learning outcomes.

A. Students will work effectively in teams B. Students will employ appropriate business etiquette during a professional event C. Students will engage in appropriate conversation during a business event D. Students will participate in professional development events

Results & Curricular Changes

Thus far, direct assessments have resulted in largely acceptable outcomes, with peer evaluations resulting in large majorities (at least 83%) of students being rated as performing acceptably, and with Fall 2013 executive ratings of students during professional events also at high levels. However, it is recognized that the students participating in these executive events are probably better prepared than our average student; thus the results for these direct assessments must be kept in perspective. Indirect assessments have included surveys from the Young Professionals Board, who have identified the need for more professional development among our students in 2007, and again in 2013. Though also an indirect measure, probably the most substantive and impressive development in the area of professional skills is the expansion of our MEIS Student Development Center and the CATAPULT program. MEIS Center utilization, programming and student contacts has been steadily increasing, and our latest figures from Spring 2014 indicate that 70% of undergraduate business students had some contact with the center during the semester. The CATAPULT program continues to grow, with 25 faculty members requiring students in 51 classes to participate in professional development events through the MEIS Center. Programming offered by the MEIS Center directly contributes to the teamwork learning outcome (A), with two sessions – one on Team Dynamics and one on Conflict Resolution – offered regularly through the Center.

Again, we recognize that the measurements of this goal are not telling us the whole story, and we are continuing to look for different and better ways to evaluate this learning goal, especially with regard to teamwork.

139

Establish Learning Goals

Assess each goal using M

ajor Field Test item

s

Assess each goal using exit

interview Likert-

type questions

Assess each goal using Exit

Interview open-

ended questions

Deficiency?

Deficiency?

Deficiency? Com

parison of each item

w

ith national average

Content analysis for them

es or deficiencies

Descriptive Statistics

Contact faculty with

statement of

deficiency

Faculty adjust syllabi, exercises, readings, etc. to

address deficiency


statement of

deficiency


address deficiency


statement of

deficiency


address deficiency

Assess again next year



Every 6 years (Established 2004,

Updated 2010,

Next update 2016)

Every Year Initial Cycle 2008 (Initial trial)

Second Cycle 2009-2013 (Complete cycle; 4 areas of deficiency rem

ediated) Third Cycle 2013-2014 (Com

plete cycle; 1 area of deficiency remediated)

Fourth Cycle 2014-2015 (Now

underway, one sem

ester of data collected)

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

3.20 - MB

A A

ssurance of Learning Process

140

3.21 - Map of Goals to Core MBA Classes

MBA Core Course 1: Problem

Solving 2: Strategic

Thinking 3: Organizational

Change

4: International/

Global

5: Workgroup Functioning

MBA 610 Advanced Management

Practices X X X

MBA 612 Quantitative

Problem Solving X

MBA 613 Management

Accounting X X X

MBA 614 Management

Information Systems X X X

MBA 621 Managing the Strategic Workforce

X X X X

MBA 622 Strategic Financial Decisions

X X X

MBA 623 Strategic Supply Chain and

Operating Decisions X X X X

MBA 624 Strategic Marketing

Management X X X

MBA 690 Dynamic Strategy: An

Integrated Approach X X X X

An “X” indicates significant coverage of a goal in a course.

141

3.22: Corresponding Learning Outcomes Matrix

ISU Mission and Values ISU Graduate Student Learning Outcomes/Goals

Program Student Learning Outcomes/Goals

High standards Students demonstrate professional communication proficiencies.

3: Organizational Change 4: International/Global 5: Workgroup Functioning

Diversity Personal growth Integrity Stewardship

Students engage in and meaningfully contribute to diverse and complex communities and professional environments.

2: Strategic Thinking 3: Organizational Change 4: International/Global 5: Workgroup Functioning

Well-rounded education Integrity Personal growth Stewardship Responsibility

Students recognize and act on professional and ethical challenges that arise in their field or discipline.

1: Problem Solving 3: Organizational Change 4: International/Global

High standards Students achieve mastery of the knowledge required in their discipline or profession.

1: Problem Solving 2: Strategic Thinking 3: Organizational Change 4: International/Global 5: Workgroup Functioning

High standards Students achieve mastery of the skills (including using appropriate tools) required in their discipline or profession.

1: Problem Solving 2: Strategic Thinking 3: Organizational Change 4: International/Global 5: Workgroup Functioning

142

3.23: Major Deviations from the National Mean – Major Field Test n =108

Year Section Item # Percent Correct

Institution

Percent Correct

National Variance Domain Content Area

Sub Content

Area

Learning Goal

Courses Faculty

2011 2 8 93.3 71.5 21.8 Accounting Relevant Cost Make or Buy

1

09-10 1 4 47.1 74.3 -27.2 Accounting Resource Planning &

Analysis

Variance Analysis

2 MBA 613 MBA 622

Czyzewski Zaher Haque

2011 2 37 46.7 68.7 -22 Management, Strategic

Integration

Operations Planning/

Management Science

Supply Chain

Logistics

2 MBA 614 MBA 623

Abuhamdieh Bhattacharyya

Harper Schikora

2011 2 56 80 60.3 19.7 Accounting, Strategic

Integration

Resource Planning &

Analysis

-- 2

2011 1 45 50 27.5 22.5 Accounting, Strategic

Integration

Relevant Cost Make or Buy

2

12-13 2 27 70.5 46.6 23.9 Finance Corporate Finance

-- 2

2011 2 54 83.3 58.7 24.6 Accounting, Strategic

Integration

Resource Planning &

Analysis

Forecasting 2

09-10 2 2 38.2 63.2 -25 Management Organizational Behavior

-- 3 MBA 610 MBA 621

Robinson He

La Grange Sherwood

2011 2 2 43.3 63.2 -19.9 Management Organizational Behavior

-- 3 MBA 610 MBA 621

Robinson He

La Grange Sherwood

Questions not appearing in this table were within 20.0 variance of the national mean.

143

3.24: Major Deviations from the National Mean – Major Field Test Review Period: Fall 2013, Spring 2014, and Summer 2014

Assessment Cycle: 2014-2015 n =22

Year Section Item

Number

Percent Correct

Institution

Percent Correct

National Variance Domain Content Area Sub Content Area

Learning Goal

Courses Faculty

13-14 1 2 86.4 66.8 19.6 Management Operations Planning/

Management Science

Planning 1

13-14 2 1 77.3 53.5 23.8 Management Operations Planning/

Management Science

Planning 1

13-14 2 41 68.2 41 27.2 Finance Investments Risk and Return 1 13-14 1 50 40.9 61.1 -20.2 Management Human

Resource Management

Recruiting and Selection

2 MBA 621 He La Grange

13-14 2 58 59.1 39 20.1 Marketing Buyer Behavior

Factors Influencing Consumer and

Business Purchasing

2

13-14 1 46 68.2 47.9 20.3 Marketing Strategic Marketing

Metrics and Control

Mechanisms (CLV)

2

13-14 1 45 68.2 47 21.2 Marketing Marketing Planning: Target Segments and Marketing Mix

Promotion (Integrated Marketing

Communication)

2

13-14 1 11 95.5 67.9 27.6 Marketing Strategic Marketing

Environment Scanning and

Marketing Planning

2

13-14 1 21 77.3 57.8 19.5 Management Human Resource

Management

Recruiting and Selection

5

Questions not appearing in this table were within 20.0 variance of the national mean.

144

3.25: Descriptive Statistics for the Exit Interview Likert-type Items Review Period FA 2009 – SU 2013

Assessment Cycle: 2013-2014 n=8

1: The MBA program of

study significantly

improved my problem solving skills


study significantly shaped my

understanding of how to plan

for strategic change.



understanding of how to plan

for organizational

change.



understanding of the global

business environment.


study significantly

improved my ability to

work with others.

Mean 4.5 4.5 4.375 4.125 4.5 Standard

Error 0.188982237 0.267261242 0.182981264 0.295048422 0.267261242

Median 4.5 5 4 4 5 Mode 4 5 4 5 5

Standard Deviation

0.534522484 0.755928946 0.51754917 0.83452296 0.755928946

Sample Variance

0.285714286 0.571428571 0.267857143 0.696428571 0.571428571

Kurtosis -2.8 0.875 -2.24 -1.391715976 0.875 Skewness 0 -1.322875656 0.644061189 -0.276528318 1.322875656

Range 1 2 1 2 2 Minimum 4 3 4 3 3 Maximum 5 5 5 5 5

Sum 36 36 35 33 36 Count 8 8 8 8 8

Strongly Disagree

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Disagree 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Neither Agree Nor Disagree

0.0% 12.5% 0.0% 25.0% 12.5%

Agree 50.0% 25.0% 62.5% 37.5% 25.0% Strongly

Agree 50.0% 62.5% 37.5% 37.5% 62.5%

145

3.26: Descriptive Statistics for the Exit Interview Likert-type Items* Review Period FA 2013 – SU 2014

Assessment Cycle: 2014-2015 n=12

The MBA program of

study significantly

improved my problem

solving skills

The MBA program of study

significantly shaped my

understanding of how to plan for

strategic change.

The MBA program of study

significantly shaped my

understanding of how to plan for organizational

change.

The MBA program of


understanding of the global

business environment.

The MBA program of

study significantly

improved my ability to

work with others.

Mean 4 3.916666667 3.666666667 3.833333333 4.25 Standard

Error 0.301511345 0.287579589 0.256235372 0.344509606 0.32856437

Median 4 4 4 4 4.5 Mode 4 4 4 5 5

Standard Deviation

1.044465936 0.99620492 0.887625365 1.193416283 1.138180366

Sample Variance

1.090909091 0.992424242 0.787878788 1.424242424 1.295454545

Kurtosis 7.088888889 7.98568848 8.884615385 1.661204165 6.622345337 Skewness -2.297825059 -2.456651433 -2.946496033 -1.162405828 2.358334941

Range 4 4 3 4 4 Minimum 1 1 1 1 1 Maximum 5 5 4 5 5

Sum 48 47 44 46 51 Count 12 12 12 12 12

Strongly Disagree

8.33% 8.33% 8.33% 8.33% 8.33%

Disagree 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Neither Agree Nor Disagree

0.00% 0.00% 8.33% 25.00% 0.00%

Agree 66.67% 75.00% 83.33% 33.33% 41.67% Strongly

Agree 25.00% 16.67% 0.00% 33.33% 50.00%

*While we are unable to substantiate this, we believe that one student inadvertently inverted the response scale so that “Strongly Disagree” shows as one response across the five dimensions when the student meant to strongly agree.

146

3.27: Electronic Resources for AOL Report

Assessment Culture

Name Description Purpose

AOL-ER-1 Constitution of the SCOB, approved Dec 2010

Demonstrates that SLAC added as standing committee, commitment to AOL

AOL-ER-2 Agendas of Beginning of Semester Meetings, F12, S13, F13, S14, F14

Demonstrates cultural shift

AOL-ER-3 Agendas and files from AOL Retreats held F12, S13, F13, S14, F14

Demonstrates commitment to processes and cultural shift

AOL-ER-4 Expectations of Business College Professors at Indiana State University In The 21st Century, revised Spring 2013

Demonstrates participation in assessment expected for our faculty, pointing to cultural shift

AOL-ER-5 SCOB Promotion & Tenure Policy, revised Spring 2013

Demonstrates participation in assessment expected for our faculty, pointing to cultural shift

AOL-ER-6 AACSB AOL Team Assignments Demonstrates widespread participation and cultural shift

Curriculum Description


AOL-ER-7 Master Course Outlines and recent syllabi for all BUS core courses.

Curriculum description

AOL-ER-8 Curricular requirements beyond the business core for all undergrad majors

Curriculum description

AOL-ER-9 Explanation of experiential component for all business majors, from 2011-12

Curriculum description, demonstrates commitment to experiential learning aspect of mission

AOL-ER-10 Sycamore Student Ventures – sample of projects

Curriculum description, demonstrates commitment to experiential learning aspect of mission

AOL-ER-11 Summary of Transfer Policies Curriculum description, addresses Standard 17

AOL-ER-12 Description of History of Globalization Course

Curriculum description, demonstrates global content


147

3.27 (Continued): Electronic Resources for AOL Report

Coverage of AACSB Learning Goals in Standard 15


AOL-ER-7 MCO of BEIT 336, in particular Demonstrates communication coverage in curriculum

AOL-ER-7a Examples of required oral communications in undergraduate courses

Demonstrates communication coverage in the curriculum

AOL-ER-13 Recent calendar of MEIS Center events Demonstrates communication enhancement from co-curricular events

AOL-ER-14 Examples of Ethics coverage within core business courses

Demonstrates ethics content

AOL-ER-14a BUS 204: Ethics in Organizations Syllabus

Demonstrates ethics content

AOL-ER-15 Case Studies & Substantial Projects, updated Fall 2014

Demonstrates widespread use of realistic problems in which students must apply problem solving and analytical skills

AOL-ER-16 Information tools & technologies employed in the undergraduate curriculum

Demonstrates widespread exposure to information tools

AOL-ER-17 Examples of International/ Global content within the curriculum

Demonstrates international/global content coverage, , as well as multicultural and diversity understanding

AOL-ER-18 Descriptions of International travel and exchange opportunities

Demonstrates international/global content coverage, as well as multicultural and diversity understanding

AOL-ER-19 Effective teaming - content Demonstrates how curriculum addresses group and individual dynamics in organizations

AOL-ER-20 Examples of student team assignments and peer evaluations

Demonstrates how curriculum addresses group and individual dynamics in organizations

AOL-ER-21 Required courses beyond the Business Core for all undergraduate majors

Demonstrates Other management-specific knowledge and abilities as identified by the school.

148


Processes & Resources


AOL-ER-22 SCOB Student Writing Guidelines Demonstrates resources that may be available to improve student achievement

AOL-ER-23 List of TLR (Teaching, Learning & Research) Committee workshops and sessions

Demonstrates resources provided to faculty to aid in implementation of curricular changes

AOL-ER-24 Examples of Assessment Resources Provided to Faculty

Demonstrates resources provided to faculty


149


Assessment Methods, Outcomes & Actions


AOL-ER-25 Folder containing all assessment instruments, results, actions, etc. for LG1: Business Concepts, including SCOB Exit Exam

Demonstrates either students meet LG1, or describes efforts to improve learning for the goal

AOL-ER-26

Folder containing all assessment instruments, results, actions, etc. for LG2: Domestic and International Business Practices including SCOB Exit Exam and the international business case


AOL-ER-27 Folder containing all assessment instruments, results, actions, etc. for LG3:Problem Solving including BUS 180 and BUS 205 & 305 assessments


AOL-ER-28 Folder containing all assessment instruments, results, actions, etc. for LG4: Ethical Reasoning including SCBO Exit Exam, ethics case studies, and ethics conference attendance


AOL-ER-29 Folder containing all assessment instruments, results, actions, etc. for LG5: Communication including writing assessments and the oral communication pilot


AOL-ER-30 Folder containing all assessment instruments, results, actions, etc. for LG6: Professional Skills including peer evaluations, professional event evaluations and MEIS Center statistics.


150

Documents

MAINTENANCE OF ACCREDITATION REPORT OF ACCREDITATION REPORT Prepared for AACSB International December 2014 5th Year Report ... Guided by the University’s strategic plan “The Pathway