School of Management (SOM) 2015-2016 Annual Assurance of … · 2016. 10. 28. · School of Management (SOM) 2015-2016 Annual Assurance of Learning Report . 1. Preamble . Name of

School of Management (SOM) 2015-2016 Annual Assurance of Learning Report

1. Preamble Name of the Program(s): Bachelor of Science in Business Administration (BSBA) Master of Business Administration (MBA) Master of Science in Human Resources Management/Labor Relations (MS HR/LR) Executive Master of Business Administration (EMBA) Year: 2015-2016 Date: July 20, 2016 Participants: Diamando Afxentiou, Joshua Bienstock, Jess Boronico, Krishnamur Chandrasekar, Deborah Cohn, Steve Hartman, Edwin Knox, Maya Kroumova, Jim Murdy, Purushottam Meena, Rakesh Mittal, Birasnav Muthuraj, Raja Nag, Bill Ninehan, Radek Nowak, Abram Poczter, Cristina Seaman, Joanne Scillitoe, Veneta Sotiropoulos, Amr Swid, Raj Tibrewala, Nitzan Weiss, Joo-Kwang Yun Introduction: For the purpose of assurance of learning and continuous/incremental improvement of curricula, the School of Management (SOM) Assurance of Learning Committee holds an annual assessment retreat in New York. During this retreat, course leaders and instructors (a) provide and discuss evidence of learning goal attainment, and identify one program-level learning goal/learning outcome per program that forms the basis for improvement during the upcoming year, and (b) develop interventions that represent incremental changes to courses that are anticipated to result in improvement of student performance against identified program-level learning goals/learning outcomes, including modification of course-level learning goals, revision to course-embedded elements of programmatic and contextualized learning goals, or approaches to teaching and learning.

2. BSBA Program Review:

During the annual retreat, the SOM faculty and administration reviewed BSBA program courses to:

1. Discuss the Master Syllabi and consider additional course revisions, including modifications to course level learning goals, assurance of learning validations, and scores associated with each assurance of learning validation that are linked to the targeted program-level learning objective;

2. Assist each course leader on a one-to-one basis to ensure that, for each course, the course-level learning objectives, assurance of learning validations and scores implemented within the GVS in Fall 2015 are consistent with those described in the revised syllabi; and

3. Close the loop on the course-level interventions related to G2O2, M3O2, M4O1 and M4O2, which were the programmatic learning objectives that were targeted for improvement during AY 2015-2016.

BSBA Program Review Outcomes:

Academic Year 2015-2016 forms the sixth year of assessing the BSBA program, which includes both general goals (that contribute to the skills relevant to all NYIT undergraduate students) and management specific goals (targeting skills relevant to SOM BSBA students). Each goal is supported by a minimum of two (2) measurable learning objectives. Appendix 1 provides a mapping matrix of the BSBA programmatic learning goals by course. The discussions on course modification led to the revision of two courses (MRKT 345 and MRKT 410) and to agreement among the faculty that the BSBA program will undergo a comprehensive review during AY 2016-2017. While this review is part on an ongoing periodic program review process implemented in AY 2008-2009, the review is also driven by the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) Peer Review Team (PRT) recommendation to “adopt a more focused approach to assessment by targeting the assessment of student performance on learning goals and objectives that continue to require attention, using sampling approaches that will be less demanding of faculty and administration, and rotating the collection of data” (Team Visit Report, p. 2; see Appendix 2 for the report). In that spirit, the SOM faculty agreed to redesign each course to include one (1) assessment instrument that would measure approximately three (3) BSBA learning objectives (see Appendix 1 for a list of learning objectives) in order to right-size the number of scores administered by the faculty. In addition, the faculty also agreed to limit the scope of learning objectives requiring intervention to those on which students to not attain a minimum score of three (3) on a five (5) point scale. The Assessment Committee was pleased to report that the faculty’s effort to improve student attainment of M4O1 and M4O2, two of the programmatic learning goals selected for improvement during AY15-16, resulted in a dramatic improvement. Student baseline scores on M4O1 and M4O2 averaged 2.97 and 2.94, respectively. With the implementation of the interventions designed to assist student attainment of this objective during AY15-16, the average score for M4O1improved to 3.23 by the end of the academic year, and the average score for M4O2 improved to 3.32 by the end of the academic year. This evidences the effectiveness of the interventions, and demonstrates that the faculty’s focus on these goals were successful. Appendix 3 provides a table of the BSBA programmatic learning goal scores for academic year (AY) 15-16. The Committee also reported that student attainment of G2O2 and M3O2 improved, but did not reach the minimum acceptable score of 3.0. Student baseline scores on G2O2 and M3O2 averaged 2.33 and 2.05, respectively. In AY 15-16, student attainment of G2O2 improved to 2.57, and M3O2 was nearly unchanged at 2.05. The faculty agreed that these scores will remain the focus for improvement during AY 16-17 as the syllabi are revised during the BSBA program review process.

3. MBA Program Review: In keeping with the assessment approach for the school’s programs, faculty and administration reviewed the MBA program courses to:

1. Discuss the Master Syllabi and consider additional course revisions, including modifications to course level learning goals, assurance of learning validations, and scores associated with each assurance of learning validation that are linked to the targeted program-level learning goal;

2. Assist each course leader on a one-to-one basis to ensure that, for each course, the course-level learning goals, assurance of learning validations and scores implemented within the GVS in Fall 2015 are consistent with those described in the revised syllabi; and

3. Close the loop on the course-level interventions related to MBA-2G, the programmatic learning goal that was targeted for improvement during AY 2014-2015.

MBA Program Review Outcomes: Summer 2016 is the fifth year of assessing the MBA program. Similar to the BSBA program, learning goals fall in two broad categories: general goals that contribute to the skills relevant to all NYIT graduate students, and management specific goals that target skills relevant to SOM MBA students. Appendix 4 provides a mapping matrix of the MBA programmatic learning goals by course. In addition, the integrative elements, or the interdisciplinary content areas, of each course are also shown in this matrix. All learning goal rubrics prescribe the following scale for the measurement of student performance: 5 = Excellent; 3 = Average; and 1 = Poor. A score of 4 is awarded for students who exceed expectations but are not exceptional. Similarly, a score of 2 is given for students who do not meet expectations, but are not failing. The School of Management target achievement for Programmatic Learning Goals is 3.0. MBA Programmatic Learning Goal rubrics are provided in Appendix 5. In support of the master syllabus review mentioned above, the faculty began a program review of the MBA during AY 15-16. During the revision process, inputs from key stakeholder groups, including industry leaders, students and faculty, was considered and implemented where appropriate. For example, the results from a student survey indicated a preference for three credit courses. Considering this preference, the faculty proposed the modification of economics, finance and quantitative analysis courses to three (3) credit courses, instead of the previous curriculum in which students completed two one and one half (1.5) credit courses. The results from this review a summarized in Table 1 below. Other highlights include:

1. Expanding the number of credits in MRKT from one and one half (1.5) credits to three (3) credits; 2. Eliminating the credits in SBES (ethics). Ethics will be discussed throughout the MBA core; and 3. Introducing a choice in the capstone course offerings to include BUSI 6XX – Business Analytics and

Decision Making.

TABLE 1: MBA PROGRAM REVI SI ON SUMMARY

Discipline Before Revision After Revision

Number of Core

Courses

Number of Core Credits

Number of Core Courses

Number of Core Credits1

ACCT 1 1.5 1 1.5

BUSI 1 0 2 3

ECON 2 3 1 3

FINC 2 3 1 3

MGMT 3 6 3 6

MIST 1 1.5 1 1.5

MRKT 1 1.5 1 3

1 The MBA core remains at twenty-one (21) credits. The increase reflected in the TOTALS column reflects a curriculum modification that allows students to choose from one of two capstone courses: MGMT 650 (Strategic Leadership) or BUSI 6XX (Business Analytics and Decision Manking).

QANT 2 3 1 3

SBES 1 1.5 0 0

TOTALS 14 21 11 24

The SOM anticipates that the revised MBA program will be brought before the NYIT Senate and its appropriate committee(s) for consideration during Fall 2016 semester. Finally, the Assessment Committee reported that the faculty’s effort to improve student attainment of MBA-2G, the programmatic learning goal selected for improvement during AY15-16, resulted in improved student outcomes. Baseline scores on MBA-2G averaged 2.76 during the Fall 2014 semester (the semester in which the score was selected for improvement). With the implementation of the interventions designed to assist student attainment of this objective during AY15-16, the average score increased to 2.89 by the end of AY 15-16 (see Appendix 6 for a table of MBA programmatic learning goal scores). The faculty are targeting MBA 2G for improvement in AY 16-17 by way of integrating ethics in content specific to MBA core disciplines. As the MBA continuous improvement goal for AY 16-17, the faculty agreed to complete the comprehensive program review started in AY 15-16. The faculty also agreed to pilot, where possible, revised MBA core courses for the purposes of benchmarking student attainment of MBA programmatic learning goals in the revised/new courses.

4. MS Program Review In keeping with the assessment approach for the school’s programs, faculty and administration reviewed the MS program courses during the Summer of 2016 to:

1. Identify one programmatic learning goal as a target of the school’s improvement efforts for AY 15-16 for any goal that does not meet expectations by way of a score below three (3);

2. Discuss the Master Syllabi and consider additional course revisions, including modifications to course level learning goals, assurance of learning validations, and scores associated with each assurance of learning validation that are linked to the targeted program-level learning goal;

3. Specify the course-level interventions in support of the selected programmatic learning objective identified in 1, above; and

4. Assist each course leader on a one-to-one basis to ensure that, for each course, the course-level learning goals, assurance of learning validations and scores implemented within the GVS in Fall 2016 are consistent with those described in the revised syllabi.

MS Program Review Outcomes: Summer 2016 marked the fourth year of assessing the MS program. As with the BSBA and MBA programs, learning goals fall in two broad categories: general goals that contribute to the skills relevant to all NYIT graduate students, and management specific goals that target skills relevant to SOM MS students. Appendix 7 provides a mapping matrix of the MS programmatic learning goals by course. All Learning Goal rubrics prescribe the following scale for the measurement of student performance: 5 = Excellent; 3 = Average; and 1 = Poor. A score of 4 is awarded for students who exceed expectations but are not exceptional. Similarly, a score of 2 is given for students who do not meet expectations, but are not failing. The

School of Management target achievement for Programmatic Learning Goals is 3.0. MS programmatic learning goal rubrics are provided in Appendix 8. During the summer, faculty reviewed scores submitted during AY 15-16 to determine which programmatic learning goal would be targeted for improvement during AY16-17 by discussing the score data provided in Appendix 9. The Assessment Committee is pleased to report that all MS programmatic learning goals meet the minimum expectation by way of a score of three (3) or higher. Based on this success, and in keeping with the policy of implementing interventions for learning goals with scores lower than three (3), the faculty agreed to integrate interventions implemented during AY 14-15 and 15-16 as permanent parts of the coursework for the MS degree. In addition to the review of student attainment of programmatic learning goals, the course-level learning goals of the MS program were reviewed by HR professionals at the 3rd Annual SOM External Assessment Retreat. At this retreat, faculty and students discussed examples of student work generated in the MS core. Appendix 10, pages 1-8, contains a summary sheet for each of the courses. Based on this input, the faculty agreed to include case discussions in HRMT 708 and HRMT 733, both of which focus on the legal aspects of human resources management.

5. Concluding Statement Our sincerest thanks to the SOM faculty and staff for their continued support of and commitment to improving our curricula and student learning, to the Office of Planning and Assessment for their guidance and patience as the SOM assessment processes continue to unfold, and to the SOM Dean for his leadership of this process and our school. Respectfully Submitted: SOM Assurance of Learning Committee Jim Murdy, Chair Diamando Afxentiou, Executive Associate Dean Raj Tibrewala, Executive Director of Assessment Analytics

Appendix 1: BSBA Undergraduate Programmtic Learning Goal Mapping Matrix

BSBA UNDERGRADUATE PROGRAMMATIC LEARNING GOAL MAPPING MATRIX

Undergraduate Program Mission Statement: The mission of the School of Management undergraduate BSBA

program is to ensure workforce readiness by means of providing contemporary and competitive academic curricula,

supplemented by co-curricular activities that contribute to student success.

ECO

N2

02

ECO

N2

04

QA

NT2

01

AC

CT1

01

AC

CT1

10

LLA

W1

10

MG

MT1

02

MR

KT1

02

FIN

C2

01

MIS

T31

5Q

AN

T30

0B

USI

40

5Q

AN

T40

5B

USI

43

5Te

chn

olo

gyIn

tern

atio

n

BSBA Undergraduate Programmatic Learning Goals

Upon graduation from the SOM undergraduate BSBA program, the graduating student will be able to:

GEN PLG#1 …. Communicate clearly and concisely

LO#1: utilize effective written communication (substance and style) to demonstrate knowledge.

LO#2: utilize oral communication to effectively demonstrate knowledge.

LO#3: work effectively in teams.

GEN PLG#2…… Compare, contrast, and apply basic ethical concepts

LO#1: establish and support an ethical position on an emerging or contemporary business matter

LO#2: explore, compare, or contrast global value judgments and perspectives.

GEN PLG#3…… Illustrate cultural awareness and analyze the impact of globalization on business

LO#1: conduct a multinational or international study on a contemporary business issue

LO#2: demonstrate the impact of globalization in a business discipline

MGT PLG #1 ….. Demonstrate competency and make decision in each of the functional business disciplines

LO#1: demonstrate comprehension and scope of knowledge across each functional area.

LO#2: solve business problems in a functional area.

MGT PLG #2 ….. Use technology as a decision support tool in business and in the major

LO#1: access an information system to collect data and then conduct an analysis.

LO#2: use technology to model and solve an operational problem.

LO#3: utilize field specific software.

LO#4: prepare reports and presentations using MS-Office products.

MGT PLG#3 ….. Conduct and utilize research to support business innovation

LO#1: conduct business research.

LO#2: innovate or survey recent innovations.

MGT PLG#4…. Integrate functional disciplines together to affect sound policy making and business planning

LO#1: contribute an analysis in support of, or develop, a business plan.LO#2: solve business problems that integrate multiple functional areas together.

Sele

ctio

n C

rite

ria

Gen

eral

Edu

cati

on

Maj

or

Spec

ific

Bu

sin

ess

Pro

gram

Up

per

Co

re

INN

& R

ES

Stan

dal

on

e Te

stin

g

MG

RL

AC

CT

BU

S LA

W

Bu

sin

ess

Pro

gram

Low

er

Co

reC

OR

P F

IN

Gen

eral

AC

CT

1ST

AT

INFO

SYS

OP

MG

MT

Man

agem

ent

Spec

ific

ECO

N II

ECO

N I

MG

T SC

IST

RA

TEG

Y

MG

MT

MK

T

New York Institute of Technology School of Management

TEAM VISIT REPORT –

INITIAL ACCREDITATION REVIEW


I. Team Recommendation

The team recommendation reflects the opinion of the Peer Review Team only. It will be reviewed for concurrence or remanded to the team by the appropriate accreditation committee. The role of the accreditation committee is to ensure consistent application of the AACSB International accreditation standards and processes across peer review teams. Within ten days of receipt of this report, the applicant should send the team any comments and corrections related to factual information noted in this report. A copy should also be sent to the appropriate committee chair in care of the AACSB International office.

A. Team Recommendation

Initial Accreditation: The recommendation of the Peer Review Team is that the undergraduate, and master’s degree programs in business offered by New York Institute of Technology be granted initial accreditation with a Continuous Improvement Review to occur in year five. Concurrence by the accreditation committee and ratification by the Board of Directors are required prior to the confirmation of the accreditation decision. Following ratification by the Board of Directors, the applicant will be notified. The applicant must wait for this official notification before making any public announcement. AACSB International provides a list of applicants achieving accreditation to its members and the public.

B. Subsequent Review of Team Recommendation

The Initial Accreditation Committee will review this report, and any response from the applicant, at its next scheduled meeting (normally, provided that the report is received at least three weeks in advance of the meeting). The committee will meet February 11, 2015.

II. Identification of Areas That Must Be Addressed Prior to First Continuous

Improvement Review The first continuous improvement review will occur in five years. With this in mind, the NYIT’s School of Management should closely monitor the following items and incorporate them in your ongoing strategic planning initiatives:


NYIT’s School of Management has undergone a transformational change during its accreditation journey. It has significantly enhanced its portfolio of intellectual contributions and the qualifications of its faculty. Recently it defined new expectations for this portfolio, identifying a list of selective journals in each of the School’s disciplines. During the next five years, the School should target its publications to selective journals that it has identified, thereby increasing impact of its scholarly achievements. (Standard 2: Intellectual Contributions) The School of Management has implemented an impressive assessment system, closing the loop on all learning goals and objectives and generating over 100,000 observations. As the School moves forward it should adopt a more focused approach to assessment by targeting the assessment of student performance on learning goals and objectives that continue to require attention, using sampling approaches that will be less demanding of faculty and administration, and rotating the collection of data. By making these changes, the School may ensure the ongoing sustainability of this important system. (Standard 16: Undergraduate Learning Goals, Standard 18: Master’s Level General Learning Goals, Standard 19: Specialized Master’s Degree Learning Goals)

III. Relevant Facts and Assessment of Strengths and Weaknesses on a Standard-by-Standard Basis in Support of the Team Accreditation Recommendation

A. Assessment of Overall High Quality, Continuous Improvement Environment,

and Ability to Achieve Desired Outcomes

i. Assessment of Overall High Quality: Long time faculty have become intellectually re-engaged, global campuses have been unified by common practices and procedures, systems supporting the assessment of student learning have emerged, and students have taken ownership of school activities and their shared success.

ii. Continuous Improvement Environment: The School has implemented a

rigorous strategic planning process. Based upon the School’s mission statement, an eight-year strategic plan was developed. Stakeholder groups (Executive Council, Business Advisory Board, Student Advisory Board, faculty, and staff) review this plan annually. The strategic plan guides actions of the School on all of its campuses. Administrators (dean, associate deans, assistant deans, directors, chairs and faculty) are held accountable for initiatives with their contribution evaluated by the dean annually.

iii. Ability to Achieve Desired Outcomes: The School’s faculty and student body

well are aligned with its mission statement. It is the mission of the School of Management to “provide high quality, career advancing education opportunities…with a focus upon application-oriented scholarship.” Its student body is actively engaged in preparation for business careers, taking advantage of the School’s numerous professional enhancement initiatives. The focus of the faculty’s intellectual activity is on contributions to practice, which enable


faculty to maintain their relevancy in the classroom and to serve the business community. The University and School provide a physical infrastructure on its US and non-US campuses that support a high quality learning environment. Technical and library resources support student learning and faculty scholarship.

B. Standard-by-Standard Analysis

MAJOR ISSUES IDENTIFIED IN THE PRE-VISIT LETTER

The Peer Review Team during the visit will consider uniformity of student, faculty and staff experience and student educational outcomes across NYIT’s five campuses. Special attention will be paid to the manner in which practices implemented on each campus and the processes in place to ensure overall high quality.

To explore this issue the visit was extended by one day and the Peer Review Team teleconferenced with administrators, faculty, students, alumni, and members of the local business advisory boards on the Nanjing, Abu Dhabi and Vancouver campuses. A total of nine hours were dedicated to these teleconferences. The Peer Review Team concluded that the School of Management has chosen its global partners carefully and has developed a management system that empowers local faculty, students, and staff, subject to oversight by the School of Management and the University.

While NYIT’s School of Management describes numerous stakeholder groups who support the management and decision making of the School, the Peer Review Team during the visit wishes to explore the longevity of such groups, as well as the discernible results of their actions.

The Peer Review Team met with the numerous stakeholders groups. Their existence is longstanding and their agendas, robust. They play a vital role in the management of the School, ensuring that a variety of perspectives are considered in the decision making process. In addition to their role in strategic and operational decision-making, they are engaged in the day-to-day operations of the School, serving as guest lecturers in classes, assisting in the organization of professional enhancement activities, helping students as they plan their studies, and representing the School at various recruitment and orientation events.

ELIGIBILITY PROCEDURES. The School meets all eligibility requirements.

STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT STANDARDS


Standard 1: Mission Statement. New York Institute of Technology School of Management (SOM) provides a mission statement that was adopted in May 2008. This mission statement guides the intellectual contributions of its faculty, the identification of the student groups that it serves and the learning goals and objectives of its undergraduate and graduate curricula. It is aligned with the mission of the University and provides the foundation for the strategic plan of the School. The mission statement undergoes comprehensive review during the strategic planning cycle (every eight years). Annually the School evaluates progress to fulfillment of its mission. It engages key stakeholders in the annual and periodic review of the mission statement. The approved mission statement appears in digital and print media distributed by the School and the University to stakeholder groups. Standard is met.

Standard 2: Intellectual Contributions. Consistent with its mission statement

the School of Management focuses its research upon professionally oriented and pedagogical journals. In Faculty Elaborations, the SOM requires that faculty have five intellectual contributions during the most recent five years, including at least three peer-reviewed journal articles to maintain AQ-M status, allowing them to teach at the graduate level and three intellectual contributions in five years with at least one peer reviewed journal article, permitting them to teach at the undergraduate level. The SOM has defined by academic area an aspirant list of publications and has established a target for the 2008-2016 planning window that faculty average one selective (acceptance rate of 25% or less) journal publication per full time faculty in the most recent five-year period. The School of Management has had 57 peer reviewed journal articles appearing in selective journal publications in the most recent five-year window. These intellectual contributions exceed the School’s goal of one per full-time faculty and represent 31% of peer-reviewed journal publications. Standard is met.

Standard 3: Student Mission. The School of Management’s mission statement targets students that are inclined towards career-advancing, business education opportunities. At the undergraduate level it focuses on providing an education that ensures workforce readiness through a contemporary and competitive academic curricula, supplemented by co-curricular and extra-curricular activities that contribute to student success. At the graduate level, the SOM focuses upon enhancing the ability of its graduates to lead effectively in a technology intensive global economy. Marketing information highlights the orientation of the School of Management. Placement information provided by the School indicates that it is successful in aligning its student population with its mission. Standard is met. Standard 4: Continuous Improvement Objectives. The School uses an eight-year planning process with annual review of action item achievement. The annual review of action items engages both administration (dean, associate deans, assistant deans and directors) and faculty, and takes place individually and collectively. Review of progress on action items also engages key stakeholder groups—Student Advisory Board, Staff Council Chairperson, Business Advisory


Board, Executive Council and Adjunct Faculty Council. At the final faculty-staff meeting of each academic year the year’s accomplishments are discussed and incremental changes are made to the School’s strategic plan. This process is replicated at the School’s global campuses. As indicated in the report and observed throughout the visit, significant organizational, cultural, and programmatic changes have occurred since the implementation of the revised strategic planning process in 2008. Standard is met. Standard 5: Financial Strategies. As a private institution, NYIT SOM’s revenues are driven first by enrollment. The Provost provides additional resources to advance approved strategic initiatives of School. Instruction is delivered at campuses in Manhattan, Old Westbury, Vancouver, Nanjing and Abu Dhabi. Significant investments have been made in the Manhattan and Old Westbury campus infrastructure to house the School’s various centers and support student engagement and outreach. Through partnership agreements with other institutions of higher education (Nanjing and Abu Dhabi) or through rental of facilities (Vancouver), a comparable infrastructure is supported at the School’s remote location. The School and University have also invested in technology, software licenses and library resources to enhance student learning and faculty scholarship. These resources are available to students and faculty worldwide. The School at its New York campuses makes staff support available that encourages retention and persistence to graduation. Local administrators, faculty and professional staff provide similar support at global locations. Standard is met.

PARTICIPANT STANDARDS

Standard 6: Student Admission. The School has clear admission criteria for its undergraduate and graduate programs. At the undergraduate level, the University sets the policies for admission and no separate criteria exist for the School. At the graduate level for admission into the MBA and MS in HRM, students require a baccalaureate degree from an accredited college or university, a minimum GPA of 3.0, although exceptions are considered, and submission of a GMAT or GRE score. For admission to the EMBA program, candidates must have a minimum GPA of 2.75 and significant work experience. All international students are required to submit TOEFL and IELTS scores. Consistent with the mission of the University and School is the focus upon career-oriented experiences. To support the admission of students from diverse backgrounds at the graduate level, the School provides a bridge program, ensuring that all students are ready to engage in graduate studies. Standard is met. Standard 7: Student Retention. Student retention policies for all degree programs are well defined, and transparent, and are communicated to all students. At the undergraduate level, the School through its Students Solutions Center works with students who are in academic difficulty seeking solutions to resolve their problems. At the graduate level, the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs monitors student progress. The School limits the ability of at-risk undergraduate


and graduate students to register for classes by “locking” their registration portal. Students must meet with their academic advisors to have this portal “unlocked.” Standard is met.

Standard 8: Staff Sufficiency – Student Support. The University and the College provide student support services designed to ensure timely degree completion, support the student learning and engage them in their programs of studies. Some of these support services include: advisement, academic support, mentoring, and career advisement. To ensure the uniformity of such services across campus locations, the School has disclosed in Appendix 2 the responsibility for such services at its non-NY campuses. Standard is met.

Standard 9: Faculty Sufficiency. The School employs a definition of participating faculty that requires faculty involvement in the “life” of the school beyond the delivery of instruction. The “life” of the School is defined as engagement in teaching, scholarship and service activities of the institution. Annually, all faculty are invited to meet with the academic dean (or associate/assistant dean at non-New York locations) to determine whether their status is as a participating or supporting faculty member. The School employs “sections taught” as the metric in determining faculty sufficiency. There are sufficient faculty by discipline, program and location, as well as for the School overall. Revised Table 9-1 is attached. Standard is met.

Standard 10: Faculty Qualification. The School employs a definition of academically qualified faculty that requires a faculty member to hold doctorate and have three intellectual contributions (one being a peer reviewed journal article) within a five year period for AQ to teach only at the undergraduate level and have five intellectual contributions (three being peer reviewed journal articles) to teach at the undergraduate or graduate level. To be professionally qualified a faculty member must have a master’s degree in the area of teaching. Individuals not holding a master’s degree may be considered to be professionally qualified if they have work experience and are recommended for employment by their department. Experience justifying initial classification as professionally qualified must hold a position of significant responsibility for a minimum of four years within the most recent five-year window. To maintain professional qualifications a faculty member must participate in a minimum of two qualifying activities within the past five years. The Self Evaluation Report indicates that there are an adequate percentage of academically or professionally qualified faculty teaching by discipline, location and program. Revised Tables 10-1 and 10-2 are attached. Standard is met. Standard 11: Faculty Management and Support. The University and School have well-established faculty management and support processes. For faculty under the collective bargaining agreement (CBA), these are defined by the agreement. For global faculty, not covered by the collective bargaining agreement, these policies and procedures are defined in the Global Faculty


Handbook, which is aligned with the collective bargaining agreement. Enhancing University materials is the SOM Faculty Elaborations, which delineates performance expectations for faculty employed in the school. These expectations are aligned with the School’s mission. New faculty are assigned mentors and participate in a University orientation. The University and the School provide support for teaching and learning activities. Annually the academic dean meets with all New York based faculty to discuss their faculty plan that defines their contribution for the coming year. Non-NY faculty meet with the associate/ assistant dean who has administrative responsibility for their campus. Standard is met. Standard 12: Aggregate Faculty and Staff Educational Responsibility It is the expectation of the School that every student engage in 2-3 hours of preparation outside of the classroom at the undergraduate level. No similar expectation exists at the graduate level, although formative assessments exist in every graduate concentration course to ensure faculty student interaction. As documented by the master syllabi and course portfolios, multiple opportunities for student faculty interaction exist. Co-curricular activities such as the Corporate Challenge, the Dean’s Teach with Technology Challenge, Day on Wall Street and Dress for Success, further enrich the student experience. The efficacy of curricular and co-curricular activities is measured using direct and indirect assessments. Standard is met. Standard 13: Individual Faculty Educational Responsibility. Policies that guide faculty behavior are defined by NYIT in the Integrity Policy and Faculty

Handbook. To maintain their currency faculty are encouraged to participate in University workshops that address matters of teaching and research. In addition, the School of Management provides resources for faculty to engage in external professional development activities. As indicated in the response to this standard and Standard 12, master syllabi and course portfolios provide further evidence of opportunities for student engagement and experiential learning. Learning is also supported by co-curricular and extra-curricular activities offered by the School. Standard is met. Standard 14: Student Educational Responsibility. Student responsibilities and expectations for conduct are stated in the University Code of Conduct for

Students. These policies and expectations are reinforced in the New Student Orientation and in core classes. In addition, the SOM has promulgated a student code of conduct that governs behavioral expectations for its students. Master syllabi and course portfolios state learning expectations and demonstrate the engagement of students. Numerous co-curricular and extra-curricular activities in the University and School support the goal of NYIT to become a student centered University. Standard is met.


ASSURANCE OF LEARNING STANDARDS

Standard 15: Management of Curricula. NYIT’s School of Management follows a well-defined curriculum management process. The current undergraduate and graduate curricula were developed based on the priorities and expected student outcomes identified through their strategic management process and included input from all relevant stakeholders. The process itself has been continuously refined and is quite robust. The faculty led the curriculum management process across programs, campuses, and platforms. There is systematic review engages all relevant stakeholder groups. This review is informed by environmental change (new knowledge in the discipline, business trends, and employer expectations) and by direct and indirect assessment results. Resulting from this process are significant changes to program design and course content, as documented in the report. In response to Standard 15, the School of Management also provides a mapping of general knowledge and skill areas as they pertain to the BSBA, and management specific knowledge and skill areas as they pertain to the BSBA, MBA and MS programs. The School has identified learning goals for each program that are consistent with the mission of the University and the School. The goals are clearly stated, have appropriate measuring systems, utilize technology to assist with recording and reporting, and provide confirmation of adjustments to pedagogy and process as evidenced by data collected in the AOL system. The goals were developed and are monitored through a system that involves the faculty, students, administrators, and external constituents representing the business community. There are multiple opportunities for stakeholder review and input through the Executive Council meeting, Advisory Board meetings, the Annual Stakeholders Conference, and the SOM’s annual retreat. The SOM has successfully created one business school across multiple regions and campuses. The consistency of instruction topics, modes, and assessment of learning is aided through the use of master syllabi that allow for the assessment of: (1) common SOM goals regardless of location or delivery format; (2) contextualized area goals that can be autonomously determined (Islamic Law goals at the Abu Dhabi campus for example); and (3) instructor specific learning goals that can be linked back to the instructor’s research. The last area encourages student involvement in scholarship, links research to the course topic, and can highlight the impact of research. Faculty uniformly understand the master syllabi and AOL process across all campuses and programs which fall under the scope of this review. The AOL system in place at NYIT’s School of Management is mature and fully integrated into curriculum management and instruction. Standard is met.


Standard 16: Undergraduate Learning Goals. The School has listed general, management-specific, and major-specific learning goals for the BSBA degree programs. The seven combined general and management specific goals are: General Learning Goals

G1: Communicate clearly & concisely, G2: Compare, contrast, and apply basic ethical concepts; and G3: Illustrate cultural awareness and analyze the impact of globalization on business.

Management Specific Learning Goals M1: Demonstrate competency and make decisions in each of the functional business disciplines, M2: Use technology as a decision support tool in business and in the major, M3: Conduct and utilize research to support business innovation, and M4: Integrate functional disciplines together to effect sound policy making and business planning.

The School has mapped all these learning goals for each program to individual business core courses for assessment in Table 16-1. Rubrics are well developed for all learning goals and easily accessible. Reporting results has been streamlined through the use of course embedded technology. The SOM has implemented a strong process for the documentation of results as well as interventions employed when performance is deemed deficient. All results, interventions, and resulting outcomes are recorded and reported. In addition to direct course-level assessment, the School has implemented stand-alone testing (e.g. ETS major field test). For the BSBA, the ETS Major Field Test (MFT) is administered in the BUSI405 – Business Research and Innovation course. The outcomes from this assessment are then used to gauge learning outcomes associated with the demonstration of functional business area knowledge. The major field test is also administered to incoming and outgoing MBA students. There is no indication, however, that the School benchmarks their students’ performance on the ETS against other schools. A number of indirect assessments also provide feedback regarding student learning Prior to the visit, there were three concerns related to learning goals and outcomes assessment: (1) With regard to the embedded assessment process; no information had been

given about the method of assessment inside each course (2) The SER did not indicated the frequency or sample sizes for learning goal

assessment.


(3) Whether or not the assessments are conducted in every section of every course

connected to a given learning goal was not clear. (4) .It was not clear if multiple faculty teaching courses and/or course sections

that have a common learning goal collaborate. The findings of the Peer Review Team allayed all of the above concerns. Specifically, there are well-defined individual course learning objectives connected to the assigned learning goals. The method of course embedded assessment is well defined with common rubrics. Furthermore, these learning objectives are used to create student deliverables that generate an assessment score. The assessments are conducted in every section of every course connected to a specific learning goal. Finally, multiple faculty, across campuses even, are involved in the dissemination of results and creation of interventions if necessary. In sum, all concerns for this area were addressed. Standard is met. Standard 17: Undergraduate Educational Level. The School is in compliance with Standard 17. It offers undergraduate programs of sufficient time, rigor, depth of coverage, and faculty interaction to insure its stated learning goals are met. The New York State Board of Regents defines criteria for the awarding of an undergraduate degree. To receive a baccalaureate degree a student must earn 120 credits. The relationship of contact hours varies by campus. At the NY based campuses and the Nanjing campus, a three-credit course requires 37.5 contact hours of instruction. At the Vancouver campus, a three-credit course meets for 40 hours and at the Abu Dhabi campus, for 45 hours. These locations use the additional contact hours to address contextualized elements of the master syllabus. Standard is met. Standard 18: Master’s Level General Management Learning Goals. The SOM is in compliance with Standard 18. The School of Management has a well-defined set of learning goals and objectives for its MBA program, as well as processes in place to evaluate graduate student learning. The School also provides a mapping of learning expectations for the MBA to course coverage. The School has provided examples of interventions that have resulted from review of direct and indirect assessment measures. As was the case for the BSBA, there is considerable evidence and examples of interventions resulting from the SOM’s AOL process. The distinctions and levels of differentiation for the BSBA and MBA are appropriate. Standard is met.

Standard 19: Specialized Master’s Degree Learning Goals. The NYIT School of Management offers an MS in Human Resources and Labor Relations. The findings of the PRT are that the SOM delivers a consistent curriculum across each


campus location, that a well-defined curriculum management process is in place, and that well defined learning goals and outcomes are in place. The MS in HR/LR has the following established learning goals: General Learning Goals

1G: Design and implement organization development and change initiatives in collaboration with relevant stakeholders. 2G: Demonstrate professionalism and apply ethical standards. 3G: Utilize technology applications, and research, in order to make data-driven decisions.

Management Specific Learning Goals

1M: Develop, manage, and evaluate HR practices that produce the workforce needed by an organization to achieve its strategic and operational goals in a dynamic global economy. 2M: Build productive relationships between employees and employers in both the union and non-union workplaces; devise practices that recognize the needs of a diverse workforce. 3M: Apply behavioral science theories, legal doctrines, and economic concepts, and critically analyze and synthesize findings relevant to human resources management and labor relations.

The provided documentation showed that course level and content changes were made as part of the AOL process. Furthermore, the AOL process is both mature and robust, as was found for the BSBA degree. Standard is met. Standard 20: Master’s Educational Level. The SOM is meeting Standard 20. To receive a master’s degree from NYIT’s School of Management, students must engage in 30 to 54 credit hours of work. Credit hours differences are associated with requirements to take prerequisite courses before engaging in graduate work or the desire of the student to take additional course work to earn a concentration. Minimum credit hours required for the MBA are 30 credit hours, and for the MS-HR/LR, 39 credit hours. The MBA, across campuses, meets for sufficient time, has appropriate content, requires student effort and provides for faculty interaction with students to meet learning goals. The MS in HR/LR has a dedicated set of learning goals and objectives. As with the MBA, the program meets expectations for an MS program in terms of content, time, student effort, and appropriate and sufficient faculty interactions. Standard is met. Standard 21: Doctoral Learning Goals. Not applicable.


IV. Commendations of Strengths, Innovations, and Unique Features

Beginning in 2008, the School embarked upon a transformational change process, introducing new expectations for the scholarly achievements of its faculty. The School’s leadership and faculty members are to be commended for their whole-hearted embrace of this valuable work. For example, some senior faculty have reestablished their research agendas after years of dormancy and have emerged as active scholars once again excited by their research. A distinctive strength of NYIT is its cadre of adjunct faculty who have formed the adjunct faculty council. Through this organization, they have established a student mentoring program, created a tutoring program, and have worked in close collaboration with full-time faculty. The adjunct faculty also engage in a variety of community building initiatives, engendering esprit de corps among its members, and benefiting the School and its students. These efforts, taken purely out of a commitment to an institution, are laudable. The School of Management has implemented a highly successful professional enrichment program on its five campuses. This program requires that graduate and undergraduate students participate in a fixed number of professional enrichment activities as a requirement for graduation. These activities prepare students for entry into the workforce or advancement in their place of work, while recognizing cultural differences that exist on each of the campuses. What makes this effort particularly praise-worthy is the way that it serves a student population that might not otherwise have access to role models or personal networks within their chosen field. An impressive, online, data warehouse supports the School’s assessment program. The system currently has over 100,000 observations that can be analyzed on a variety of dimensions. This data warehouse will not only enable the evaluation of student performance, but may serve as a excellent resource for pedagogical research.

V. Opportunities for Continuous Improvement Relevant to the Accreditation Standards

NYIT’s School of Management is a complex organization maintaining five campuses, Manhattan, Old Westbury, Nanjing, Abu Dhabi, and Vancouver. Currently the School employs a manual system to maintain faculty records that support alignment with Standards 9 and 10. Given the complexity of the data gathering process and the need to ensure faculty sufficiency and qualifications by discipline, by program and by location, the Peer Review Team recommends that the School consider automating this process. (Standard 9: Faculty Sufficiency and Standard 10; Faculty Qualifications).

VI. Opportunities for Continuous Improvement Not Relevant to the Accreditation Standards


Streamlining: The Dean and his administrative team in the last six years has effected significant changes, implementing many new programs and processes, and uniting five locations. With the recommended accreditation of its programs, there exists the opportunity for the School to evaluate the efficiency and efficacy of programs, policies and procedures, thereby ensuring the sustainability of the changes that have occurred, and supporting the implementation of future initiatives. Career Services: Many comments received from students and faculty led the Peer Review Team to question the adequacy of a centralized career services function on the New York campuses. While the current office provides routine services to all NYIT students, there is need to target opportunities to the various groups of students represented at NYIT. In some cases the technical fields of business (e.g. accounting) require more specialized expertise and more focuses efforts that a centralized function at the University level can provide. MBA Admissions: A discussion with MBA admissions indicates that decisions to admit students to the MBA program are routinely based upon test scores and grade point averages, without consideration to other circumstances that may influence success in the program. The Peer Review Team recommends that the School of Management control decisions to admit students to its MBA program.

VII. Summary of Visit

A. Brief description of the school or accounting unit, including its size and the institutional setting;

The New York State Board of Regents is responsible for the general supervision of all educational activities with the State, presiding over The University of the State of New York (USNY) and the New York State Education Department (http://www.oms.nysed.gov/orgchart/). Two main branches of the State Education Department oversee NYIT’s business programs: the Office of Higher Education and the Office of the Professions. The various units comprising these branches recommend and implement higher education policies, provide oversight, monitor the quality of the State’s higher education system, and ensure access to higher education for all New York State citizens (http://www.highered.nysed.gov/about.html). The Middle States Commission on Higher Education also accredits NYIT. The Middle States Commission on Higher Education is an institutional accrediting agency recognized by the U.S. Secretary of Education and the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (http://nyit.edu/accreditation/).

Currently, the School of Management academic programs are licensed and/or accredited by the following agencies worldwide:

Canada (Vancouver): The Master of Business Administration academic degree program is supported by the Degree Quality Assessment Board of the Ministry of Advanced Education and is authorized for delivery under the Degree Authorization Act.

http://www.oms.nysed.gov/orgchart/orgchart12-6-10.pdf

http://www.highered.nysed.gov/about.html

http://nyit.edu/accreditation/

http://www.aved.gov.bc.ca/degree-authorization/board/welcome.htm

http://www.gov.bc.ca/aved/

http://www.gov.bc.ca/aved/


United Arab Emirates (Abu Dhabi): The Bachelor of Science and Master of Business Administration academic degree programs are licensed and accredited by the Commission for Academic Accreditation (CAA) of the Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research.

China (Nanjing): The School of Management, by way of its affiliation with Nanjing University of Post and Telecommunication, is licensed and accredited by the Jiangsu Province Education Department to deliver its Bachelor of Science academic degree program.

The School of Management enrolls approximately 950 FTE students, in the aggregate, across all campus locations.

B. List of degree programs included in the review and the number of program graduates in

the most recent year;

Name of Degree Program Major(s), Concentration(s), Area(s) of Emphasis

Graduates

Bachelor of Science in Business Administration

Accounting, Finance, Human Resource Management, International Business, Management, Marketing, Small Business and Entrepreneurial Studies

202

Master of Business Administration Decision Sciences, Finance, Marketing

296

Master of Science in Human Resource Management

NA 26

Executive Master of Business Administration

NA 9

C. List of Comparison Groups:

i. Comparable Peers

Drexel University (Bennett S. LeBow School of Business) Hofstra University (Frank G. Zarb School of Business) Pace University (Lubin School of Business) Suffolk University (Sawyer School of Management) University of Denver (Daniels College of Business)

ii. Competitive Group

https://www.caa.ae/caa/DesktopDefault.aspx

https://www.caa.ae/caa/DesktopDefault.aspx

http://www.njupt.edu.cn/en/

http://www.njupt.edu.cn/en/

http://www.js.gov.cn/JSGOVEN08/08jsgov_GovernmentStructure/ProvincialGovernmentDepartments/200805/t20080526_214364.html

http://www.js.gov.cn/JSGOVEN08/08jsgov_GovernmentStructure/ProvincialGovernmentDepartments/200805/t20080526_214364.html


Long Island University Pace University Queens College St. John’s University Stony Brook University

iii. Aspirant Group

Baruch College (Zicklin School of Business) Quinnipiac University (School of Business) Rochester Institute of Technology (Saunders College of Business) Syracuse University (Whitman School of Management) New York University (Stern School of Business)

D. Review Team Members (State team member names and institutional or corporate

affiliations.)

Linda R. Garceau (Chair ) Dean Emerita East Tennessee State University College of Business and Technology 210 Sam Wilson Hall, PO Box 70699 Johnson City, TN 37614-0699 UNITED STATES Tel: +1 423 439 5489 Fax: +1 423 43 95274 Eml: [email protected] Alan Jay White ( Business Member ) Dean Indiana University Southeast School of Business 4201 Grant Line Road, Hillside Hall #214 New Albany, IN 47150-6405 UNITED STATES Tel: +1 812 941 2325 Fax: +1 812 941 2672 Eml: [email protected]

Michael E. Johnson-Cramer ( Business Member ) Dean Bucknell University School of Management Moore Avenue, Taylor Hall 307 Lewisburg, PA 17837 UNITED STATES

mailto:[email protected]



Tel: +1 570 577 1756 Fax: +1 570 577 1338 Eml: [email protected]

E. Visit Schedule



AACSB PEER REVIEW TEAM VISIT (09 NOVEMBER 2014 – 13 NOVEMBER 2014)

SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT (SOM): AGENDA

TIME ................ ACTIVITY ........................................................................ PARTICIPANTS ........................................................................ LOCATION 09 NOVEMBER (MANHATTAN)

2:00 – 4:00 Private Meeting ............................................................... Peer Review Team ................................................................................ XXXX 4:30 – 5:30 Administrative Briefing (G) .............................................. Boronico, Murdy ............................................... 26 W.61st Street: Room 509 6:00 – 8:30 Dinner (P) ................. Executive Council/Business Advisory Board/Alumni ..... AVOCE: 10 Columbus Circle, Time Warner Building 10 NOVEMBER (MANHATTAN) 8:30 – 9:25 On-Campus Breakfast (G) ................................... Boronico, Koenig, Murdy ............................................... 26 W.61st Street: Room 408 9:35 – 11:00 Strategic Planning (G) ....................................................... Leadership Team ............................................... 26 W.61st Street: Room 408 11:10 – 12:10 Tenured/Non-Tenured/Contracted Faculty Members (P) ............ Numerous ............................... 26 W.61st Street: Rooms 408/212/407 12:10 – 12:35 Short break .................................................................................................... ............................................................................................ 12:45 – 2:10 Lunch (G) ............................................................... Student Advisory Board ........................................... Café Fiorello: 1900 Broadway 2:20 – 3:20 Center Directors/Tour (P) ................................. Scillitoe, Shapiro/Arjun Rai ........................................... 26 W.61st Street: Room 408/X 3:20 – 3:45 Short Break .................................................................................................... ............................................................................................ 3:55 – 4:55 NYIT Student Services/SOM Staff (P) ........................................ Numerous ....................................... 26 W.61st Street: Rooms 408/407 4:55 – 5:20 Short Break and update with Dean (G) .......................................... Boronico ............................................... 26 W.61st Street: Room 408 5:35 – 6:35 MBA Students/ Adjunct Faculty Members/MS Students (P) ...... Numerous 26 W.61st Street: Rooms XXX/408/16 W. 61st: Room 821 7:05 – 8:20 Dinner (G) .................................................................. Student Ambassadors .............................. Gabriel’s Restaurant: 11 W. 60th Street 11 NOVEMBER (OLD WESTBURY) 8:30 – 9:25 On-Campus Breakfast (G) ..................................... Afxentiou, Koenig, Murdy ................................................. Wisser Library: Room 322 9:35 – 11:00 NYIT Liaisons (G) ..... Compton, Feinsilver, Harvey, Lane. Moizuddin, Rios ................................................. Wisser Library: Room 322 11:10 – 12:35 Assurance of Learning* (G) ....................................... Assessment Committee ................................................. Wisser Library: Room 322 12:45 – 2:10 Lunch (G) ........................................................................... Department Chairs ................................................ deSeversky Manor: XXXX 2:20 . – 3:20 BSBA Students/Senior Center Director/Tour (P) ... BUSI 435/Dibble/Koenig .... Schure Hall: Room 206/ Wisser Library: Room 322/X 3:20 – 5:00 Work Session .................................................................................................... ................................................. Wisser Library: Room 322 5:00 – 5:30 Student Session (G) ..................................................... Dean’s Student Interns ................................................. Wisser Library: Room 322 5:45 – 6:55 Dinner (G) ........................................................................ Key Administrators .......................................... Bar Frites, 400 Wheatley Plaza 7:05 – 10:05 Nanjing Teleconference (G) ..... Administration/SOM Faculty/SOM Students ................................................. Wisser Library: Room 322 *Includes Assessment and Curriculum


12 NOVEMBER (OLD WESTBURY)

8:00 – 8:50 On-Campus Breakfast (G) ........ Global Programs: Boronico, Burlaud, Murdy ................................................. Wisser Library: Room 322 9:00 – 12:00 Abu Dhabi Teleconference (G) Administration/SOM Faculty/SOM Students ................................................ Wisser Library: Room 322 12:00 – 3:00 Vancouver Teleconference* (G)Administration/SOM Faculty/SOM Students ................................................. Wisser Library: Room 322 *Includes a working lunch

13 NOVEMBER (OLD WESTBURY) 8:00 – 8:50 On-Campus Breakfast and De-Briefing (G) ......................... Boronico, Murdy ................................................. Wisser Library: Room 322 9:00 – 10:00 Exit Interview (G) ............................... President Guiliano, Provost Shoureshi ........................................ Tower House Conference Room


F. Materials Reviewed

Self-Evaluation Report AAUP Contract Faculty Handbook Employee Handbook Global Faculty Handbook School of Management Faculty Elaborations Aspirant Journal Listing Annual Action Plans Global Academic Program Report (for School of Management) Admissions Data Reports Retention Data Reports Employment Data Reports School of Management and NYIT Curriculum Planning Processes Faculty Development Funding Report Course Portfolios Master Course Portfolios Faculty One-to-One Documents Aggregate Faculty: Scholarship Data Indirect Assessment Data Reports Faculty Engagement Data Reports Noel Levitz and NSSE Data Reports External Environment Engagement Validations/Evidences Direct Assessment Reports: Assurance of Learning

Standard Deviation Standard Error Median Number Of Scores

Used

1.01 0.04 3 805

1.17 0.05 3 607

1.04 0.04 3 747

1.04 0.05 3 489

0.98 0.08 3 157

0.93 0.05 4 311

1.1 0.07 3 280

1.06 0.02 3 3,396

1 0.04 4 559

1.1 0.04 3 852

0.94 0.05 3 335

0.69 0.09 4 58

1.03 0.04 3 663

0.96 0.04 3 558

0.71 0.09 2 68

1.06 0.04 3 903

1.12 0.06 3 370

1.05 0.02 3 4,366

1.03 0.03 4 1,053

1.05 0.01 3 8,815

CourseLevelCode All Levels for the Chosen Course(s).

SectionLocationCode ALL

MBA_BSBA BSBA

CourseID All Courses for the Chosen Parameters.

SectionID All Sections for the Chosen Course(s).

Reporting Term 2016SP 2016QCZ 2016Q

School Management

Department -- ALL

Assurances of Learning Validation = 81

Number of Students = 829 Total Number of Scores Assigned = 7845

Parameters Selected:

Academic Year 2015 - 2016

Goal Attainment 3.29 52

Composite



Major Specific

M402 3.32 18

Composite Management

M302 2.03 2

M401 3.23 40

M204 3.28 35

M301 3.42 27

M202 3.44 12

M203 4.21 5

M102 3.47 30

M201 3.28 41


Management

G302 3.28 16

Composite General

G202 2.57 11

G301 3.4 13

G201 3.17 30

G101 3.34 42

G102 3.31 32

APPENDIX 3: 2015-2016 BSBA Goal Report

Goal Mean Number Of Course

Sections Used

General

G103 3.17 43

User: ADMIN\\jmurdy

Run at: 5/11/2016 3:50:57 PM

NEW YORK INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY Data Source: DWDB1-I1\\INSTANCE1/ODS_GVS

Data as of 03/08/2016

Page 1

COURSE COURSE LEADER AC

CT

BU

SIN

ESS

ENV

IRO

NM

ENT

ECO

NET

HIC

SFI

NC

INTE

RN

ATI

ON

AL

MG

MT/

OR

GA

NIZ

ATI

ON

AL

BEH

AV

IOR

MIS

TM

RK

TQ

AN

T, P

OM

, or

STA

TC

OM

MU

NIC

ATI

ON

PO

LITI

CA

L SC

IEN

CE

SOC

IAL

SCIE

NC

ES

1G

2G

3G

1M

2M

3M

Use

of

Tech

no

logy

(a)

Use

of

the

We

b (

b)

Team

wo

rk/C

olla

bo

rati

ve W

ork

(In

terd

ep L

earn

ing

(c)

Serv

ice

Lea

rnin

g o

r C

om

mu

nit

y En

gage

men

t (d

)

Solv

ing

Pro

ble

ms

(e)

Cas

e-B

ased

Lea

rnin

g (f

)

In-C

lass

Inte

ract

ive

Dis

cuss

ion

(g)

Ref

lect

ion

Act

ivit

ies

(h)

Co

urs

e P

roje

cts

(i)

Ineg

rati

ng

Inte

rnat

ion

al/G

lob

al P

ersp

ecti

ves

(j)

Ineg

rati

ng

Pri

nci

ple

s o

f Et

hic

s/So

cial

Re

spo

nsi

bili

ty (

k)

Tim

e M

anag

emen

t (l

)

Tim

ely

Fee

db

ack

(m)

Facu

lty-

Stu

den

t In

tera

ctio

n (

n)

Rel

evan

t C

on

ten

t to

Stu

den

t Fu

ture

Car

eer/

Go

als

(o)

Act

ive

Stu

den

t En

gage

men

t in

to t

he

Lear

nin

g P

roce

ss (

p)

Cri

tica

l An

alys

is o

f Th

eir

Wo

rk (

q)

Ind

epen

den

t Le

arn

ing

(r)

Inn

ova

tive

an

d c

reat

ive

Thin

kin

g (s

)

Freq

uen

t Fe

ed

bac

k (t

)

SBES 601 Bill Lawrence

MGMT 620 Sinan Caykoyu

ECON 610 Frank Lorne

MRKT 610 Abram Poczter

ECON 620 Paul Kutasovic

FINC 610 Steve Shapiro

MIST 610 Ben Khoo

QANT 610 Rajen Tibrewala

ACCT 610 Petra Dilling

FINC 620 Nitzan Weiss

MGMT 630 Steve Hartman

QANT 620 Jess Boronico

MGMT 650 Irwin Gray

Appendix 4: MBA Programmatic Learning Goal and Integrative Elements Mapping Matrix

INTEGRATIVE ELEMENTS Teaching and Learning Strategies

MBA

LEARNING

GOALS

APPENDIX 5: MBA PROGRAM RUBRICS

1G: Work Collaboratively in Groups

Dimension 5 (Superior) 3 (Benchmark/Expectation) 1 (Minimal)

Contributes to Team Helps the team move forward by articulating the merits of alternative ideas or proposals.

Offers alternative solutions or courses of action that build on the ideas of others. Offers new suggestions to advance the work of the group.

Shares ideas but does not advance the work of the group.

Individual Contributions To the team

Completes all assigned tasks by deadline; work accomplished is thorough, comprehensive, and advances the project. Proactively helps other team members complete their assigned tasks to a similar level of excellence.

Completes all assigned tasks by deadline; work accomplished is thorough, comprehensive, and advances the project. Completes all assigned tasks by deadline; work accomplished advances the project.

Completes all assigned tasks by deadline.

Fosters Constructive Team Climate

Supports a constructive team climate by doing all of the following: • Treats team members respectfully by being polite and constructive in communication. • Uses positive vocal or written tone, facial expressions, and/or body language to convey a positive attitude about the team and its work. • Motivates teammates by expressing confidence about the importance of the task and the team's ability to accomplish it. • Provides assistance and/or encouragement to team members.

Supports a constructive team climate by doing any two of the following: • Treats team members respectfully by being polite and constructive in communication. • Uses positive vocal or written tone, facial expressions, and/or body language to convey a positive attitude about the team and its work. • Motivates teammates by expressing confidence about the importance of the task and the team's ability to accomplish it. • Provides assistance and/or encouragement to team members.

Does not demonstrate the following: • Treats team members respectfully by being polite and constructive in communication. • Uses positive vocal or written tone, facial expressions, and/or body language to convey a positive attitude about the team and its work. • Motivates teammates by expressing confidence about the importance of the task and the team's ability to accomplish it. • Provides assistance and/or encouragement to team members.

Responds to Conflict Addresses destructive conflict directly and constructively, helping to manage/resolve it in a way that strengthens overall team cohesiveness and future effectiveness.

Identifies and acknowledges conflict and stays engaged with it. Redirecting focus toward common ground, toward task at hand (away from conflict).

Passively accepts alternate viewpoints/ideas/opinions

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


Recognition of Social Issues Student states and discusses in detail/analyzes the cultural and social issues that affect the strategies and the operations of a business organization. The discussion has depth and clarity.

Student states and discusses the cultural and social issues that affect the strategies and the operations of a business organization. The discussion contains clear arguments with limited depth.

Student states the cultural and social issues that affect the strategies and the operations of a business organization.

Evaluate economic impact Student states and discusses in detail/analyzes the economic theories and the applications of these theories that lead to the strategies and the operations in a diverse cultural environment. The discussion has depth and clarity.

Student states and discusses in the economic theories and the applications of these theories that lead to the strategies and the operations in a diverse cultural environment. The discussion contains clear arguments with limited depth.

Student states and discusses the economic principles that lead to the strategies and the operations in a diverse cultural environment.

Ethical Issue Recognition Student can recognize ethical issues when presented in a complex, multilayered (gray) context AND can recognize cross-relationships among the issues.

Student can either (a) recognize ethical issues when issues arepresented in a complex, multilayered (gray) context ORcan grasp cross-relationships among the issues, or (b) can recognize basic and obvious ethical issues and grasp (incompletely) the complexities or interrelationships among the issues.

Student can recognize basic and obvious ethical issues but fails to grasp complexity or interrelationships.

Application of Ethical Perspectives/Concepts

Student states a position and can state the objections to, assumptions and implications of and can reasonably defend against the objections to, assumptions and implications of different ethical perspectives/concepts, and the student's defense is adequate and effective.Student can independently apply ethical perspectives/concepts to an ethical question, accurately, and is able to consider full implications of the application.

Student states a position and can state the objections to, assumptions and implications of, and respond to the objections to, assumptions and implications of different ethical perspectives/concepts, but the student's response is inadequate.Student can apply ethical perspectives/concepts to an ethical question, accurately, but does not consider the specific implications of the application.

Student states a position but cannot state the objections to and assumptions and limitations of the different perspectives/concepts.Student can apply ethical perspectives/concepts to an ethical question with support but is unable to apply ethical perspectives/concepts.

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


Situational Analysis and Problem Statement Identifies and describes a reasonably complete set of problems present in the leadership situation, utilizing appropriate concepts and theory to define and explain the situation. Articulates a degree of interrelatedness and complexity in describing elements of the problem. Carries out problem analysis before recommending solutions.

Identifies and describes several salient problems in the situation presented. Analyzes the problems in depth, and articulate their interrelatedness and complexity. Problem statements are presented adequately in a clear, concise fashion.

Identifies and describes a few salient problems in the situation presented, but misses some critical points. Lacks analysis of the problems in depth, or articulate their interrelatedness and complexity. Problem statements are sufficiently presented in a clear, concise fashion.

Communication / Interaction Style Proposes communication/ interaction behaviors appropriate to the situation. Describes which communication style (e.g., coaching or counseling) or interaction process (e.g., task or relationship) is appropriate and explains why. Addresses communication needs such as active listening, supportive feedback and assertive communication.

Acknowledges importance of communication and provides specific guidance. Lists communication/ interaction options with differentiating situational requirements. Mentions several additional communication processes (e.g., active listening, feedback assertive communication).

Acknowledges importance of communication but provides limited specific guidance. Lists communication/ interaction options without differentiating situational requirements. Mentions one or two additional communication processes (e.g., active listening, feedback assertive communication).

Motivation / Goal Setting Process Effectively analyzes situational demands to recommend appropriate response for creating a motivating environment, incorporating the need for goals, feedback, rewards, and equity. Recommends workable goals for self and team using “SMART” format, prioritizing goals according to organizational demands and importance. Incorporates mechanisms for participation and input from the team.

Acknowledges the need to address motivation issues. Mentions goal setting and/or rewards. Addresses specificity or complexity in dealing with situational demands. Creates goals which are reasonably complete in addressing requirements of SMART goals. Suggests soliciting and using team input when creating goals and plans.

Acknowledges the need to address motivation issues. Mentions goal setting and/or rewards but lacks specificity or complexity in dealing with situational demands. Creates goals, but goals may be incomplete.Suggests soliciting and using team input when creating goals and plans.

Leadership Power and Team Empowerment Acknowledges centrality of problem solving in a leader’s role, and suggests problem solving approaches which would empower team members to effectively solve problems and implement solutions. Describes a complete rational decision making process, referring to important group processes that must be navigated when making team decisions. Suggests ways to facilitate creativity in team problem solving using brainstorming, nominal group techniques, lateral thinking, etc.

Describes importance of problem solving, and recommends rational problem solving, and describes the process or the obstacles that must be confronted. Does adequately address team decision making processes. Addresses importance of supporting creativity and provides specific guidance.

Describes importance of problem solving, and may recommend rational problem solving, but barely describes the process or the obstacles that must be confronted. May adequately address team decision making processes. Mentions importance of supporting creativity, but may lack in the way of specific guidance.

Conflict Resolution Accurately analyzes situational sources of conflict and advises on appropriate responses for generating positive outcomes from conflict. Describes and applies a collaborative (win/win) conflict resolution process when appropriate, referring to other conflict modes (e.g., avoiding, accommodating, compromising) as called for by the circumstances. Encourages conflict as a source of positive outcomes.

Describes a comprehensiveapproach to conflict resolution with analyzing situational factors and acknowledging other modes of conflict resolution. Refers to situational sources of conflict or to the possible benefits of conflict. Discusses conflict in positive terms, thus preferring not to avoid conflict.

Describes a generic approach to conflict resolution (e.g., collaboration) with barely analyzing situational factors or acknowledging other modes of conflict resolution. Minimally refers to situational sources of conflict or to the possible benefits of conflict. Discusses conflict in positive terms.

1M: Utilize technology support systems to strengthen organizational decision processes


Access the Needed Information Accesses technology information using effective, well-designed search strategies and most appropriate information sources.

Accesses technology information using variety of search strategies and some relevant information sources. Demonstrates ability to refine search.

Accesses technology information randomly, retrieves information that lacks relevance and quality.

Use Information Effectively to Accomplish a Specific Purpose

Communicates, organizes and synthesizes information from sources to fully achieve a specific purpose, with clarity and depth.

Communicates, organizes and synthesizes information from sources. Intended purpose is achieved.

Communicates information from sources. The information is fragmented and/or used inappropriately (misquoted, taken out of context, or incorrectly paraphrased, etc.), so the intended purpose is not achieved.

Design Process and Technology Choice All elements of the methodology or theoretical framework are skillfully developed within the technology chosen. Technology choice is among the best known. Appropriate methodology or theoretical frameworks may be synthesized from across disciplines or from relevant sub-disciplines.

Critical elements of the methodology or theoretical framework are developed, however, more subtle elements are ignored or unaccounted for, or some are missing, incorrectly developed, or unfocused. Technology choice is satisfactory.

Inquiry design demonstrates a misunderstanding of the methodology or theoretical framework or technology choice is not suitable.

Implement Technology Implements technology in a manner that addresses thoroughly and deeply multiple contextual factors of the problem.

Implements technology in a manner that addresses the problem statement but ignores relevant contextual factors.

Implements technology in a manner that does not directly address the problem statement.

Analysis Utilizes technology to determine correct problem solutions and reveal insightful patterns, differences, or similarities related to focus.

Utilizes technology to determine a reasonable solution, but may be questions in organization or effective in revealing of important patterns, differences, or similarities.

Utilizes technology to generate a problem solution, and lists evidence, but is not

organized and/or is unrelated to focus.

Evaluate Outcomes Reviews results relative to the problem defined with thorough, specific considerations of need for further work.

Reviews results relative to the problem defined with some consideration of need for further work.

Reviews results superficially in terms of the problem defined with no consideration of need for further work.

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


Determine the Extent of Information Needed Effectively defines the scope of the research question or thesis. Effectively determines key concepts. Types of information (sources) selected directly relate to concepts or answer research question.

Defines the scope of the research question or thesis incompletely (parts are missing, remains too broad or too narrow, etc.). Can determine key concepts. Types of information (sources) selected partially relate to concepts or answer research question.

Has difficulty defining the scope of the research question or thesis. Has difficulty determining key concepts. Types of information (sources) selected do not relate to concepts or answer research question.

Access and Use Information Appropriately Students use correctly all of the following information use procedures: use of citations and references; choice of paraphrasing, summary, or quoting; using information in ways that are true to original context; distinguishing between common knowledge and ideas requiring attribution) and demonstrate a full understanding of the ethical and legal restrictions on the use of published, confidential, and/or proprietary information.

Students use correctly two of the following information use procedures: use of citations and references; choice of paraphrasing, summary, or quoting; using information in ways that are true to original context; distinguishing between common knowledge and ideas requiring attribution) and demonstrates a full understanding of the ethical and legal restrictions on the use of published, confidential, and/or proprietary information.

Students use correctly none of the following information use procedures: use of citations and references; choice of paraphrasing, summary, or quoting; using information in ways that are true to original context; distinguishing between common knowledge and ideas requiring attribution) and demonstrates a full understanding of the ethical and legal restrictions on the use of published, confidential, and/or proprietary information.

Evaluate Information and its Sources Critically Thoroughly (systematically and methodically) analyzes own and others' assumptions and carefully evaluates the relevance of contexts when presenting a position.

Identifies own and others' assumptions and several relevant contexts when presenting a position.Questions some assumptions. Identifies several relevant contexts when presenting a position. May be more aware of others' assumptions than one's own (or vice versa.

Shows an emerging awareness of present assumptions (sometimes labels assertions as assumptions). Begins to identify some contexts when presenting a position.

Application / Analysis

Uses the analysis of data as the basis for deep and thoughtful judgments, drawing insightful, carefully qualified conclusions from this work.

Uses the quantitative analysis of data as the basis for workmanlike (without inspiration or nuance, ordinary) judgments, drawing plausible conclusions from this work.

Uses the quantitative analysis of data as the basis for tentative, basic judgments, although is hesitant or uncertain about drawing conclusions from this work.

Propose a solution Proposes one or more solutions/hypotheses that indicate a deep comprehension of the problem. Solution/hypotheses are sensitive to contextual factors as well as all of the following: ethical, logical, and cultural dimensions of the problem.

Proposes one or more solutions/hypotheses that indicate comprehension of the problem. Solutions/hypotheses are sensitive to contextual factors as well as the one of the following: ethical, logical, or cultural dimensions of the problem.

Proposes a solution/hypothesis that is difficult to evaluate because it is vague or only indirectly addresses the problem statement.

Evaluate Potential Solutions Evaluation of solutions is deep and elegant (for example, contains thorough and insightful explanation) and includes, deeply and thoroughly, all of the following: considers history of problem, reviews logic/reasoning, examines feasibility of solution, and weighs impacts of solution.

Evaluation of solutions is adequate(for example, contains thorough explanation) and considers history of problem, reviews logic/reasoning, examines feasibility of solution, and weighs impacts of solution.

Evaluation of solutions is superficial (for example, contains cursory, surface level explanation) and includes the following: considers history of problem, reviews logic/reasoning, examines feasibility of solution, and weighs impacts of solution.

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


Awareness of culture

Student is highly knowledgeable about specific cultural beliefs, values, and sensibilities that might affect the way that he / she and others think or behave

Student possesses some knowledge of specific beliefs, values, and sensibilities that contribute to the way that he / she and others behave.

Student is largely ignorant of specific value systems that contribute to the way that he / she and others behave, OR he/she possesses negative, stereotyped beliefs about different cultural groups.

Problem Definition

Student demonstrates the ability to construct a clear and insightful problem statement with evidence of all relevant contextual factors.

Student demonstrates the ability to construct a problem statement with evidence of most relevant contextual factors, and problem statement is adequately detailed.

Student demonstrates a limited ability in identifying a problem statement or related contextual factors.

Understanding of the impact of global economy on political decision-making

Student possesses knowledge of economic considerations that drive specific national policies and decisions. He/she can critically evaluate the gains and losses that result from these policies.

Student is aware of some of the economic considerations that drive political decisions. However, this knowledge is somewhat limited or tends to cast issues in black and white terms.

Student is unaware of the impact of economic considerations on political decision-making. He/she may be largely unaware of political events and international economic conditions.

Understanding the impact of decisions made by national, international organizations on

societies, environment, economies

Student has an excellent understanding of the way specific decisions made by national/international organizations impact his/her day-to-day world. He/she is able to evaluate these issues critically and thoroughly.

Student understands how some specific decisions made by national/international organization impact many facets of his/her day-to-day world; however, knowledge is limited or tends to cast issues in black and white.

Student has no knowledge of the impacts of decisions made by national/international organizations. He/she has little knowledge of these organizations or their functions.

Comparative Analysis of Factors in Domestic and Global Business Environments of

Organization

Detailed comparative analysis of factors in domestic and global business environments

Some comparative analysis of factors in domestic and global business environments

No comparative analysis of factors in domestic and global business environments; Incorrect analysis of factors in domestic or global business environment

Application of Analysis to Management Situation

Clear application of analysis to specific management situation; Valid conclusions and good recommendations given

Some application of analysis to specific management situation; Weak conclusions or recommendations made

No application of analysis to specific management situation; Incorrect conclusions or recommendations made


Used

1.12 0.06 3 396

1.09 0.05 4 455

1.07 0.07 3 210

1.13 0.03 4 1,061

1.14 0.03 4 1182

1.09 0.04 4 603

1.09 0.05 3 455

0.92 0.06 4 267

1 0.1 2 101

0.77 0.09 3 66

1.19 0.08 3 207

0.98 0.06 3 305

0.95 0.04 4 530

0.97 0.06 4 256

1.02 0.05 3 453

0.81 0.17 2 23

0.66 0.08 3 62

0.69 0.14 2 25

0.72 0.11 4 46

1.1 0.09 4 156

1.08 0.1 3 116

1.09 0.02 4 4,853

0.42 0.02 5 454

1.12 0.01 4 6,368





School Management

Department -- ALL

MBA_BSBA MBA






Composite




Major Specific

MBAQANTM 3.21 8

Composite Management

MBAPOMM 3.52 4

MBAPSYCHOLOGYM 3.73 8

MBAMRKTM 3.39 5

MBAPOLITICSM 2.16 2

MBAMGMTM 3.36 23

MBAMISTM 1.87 1

MBAFINCM 3.82 21

MBAINTERNATIONAL

M

3.85 11

MBAECONM 3.14 12

MBAETHICSM 3.53 16

MBABUSINESSENVIO

RNMENTM

2.52 4

MBACOMMUNICATIO

NM

3.08 3

MBA3M 3.22 18

MBAACCTM 3.93 12

MBA1M 3.77 23


Management

Composite General

MBA3G 3.43 18

MBA1G 3.62 22

MBA2M 3.53 32

APPENDIX 6: 2015-2016 MBA Goal Report


Sections Used

General

MBA2G 2.89 9

User: ADMIN\\jmurdy

Run at: 5/11/2016 4:06:53 PM


Data as of 03/08/2016

Page 1

Course Course Leader HR

M G

1

HR

M G

2

HR

M G

3

HR

M M

1

HR

M M

2

HR

M M

3

GLO

BA

LIZA

TIO

N

Use

of

Tech

no

logy

(a)

Use

of

the

Web

(b

)

Team

wo

rk/C

olla

bo

rati

ve W

ork

(In

terd

ep L

earn

ing

(c)

Serv

ice

Lear

nin

g o

r C

om

mu

nit

y En

gage

men

t (d

)

Solv

ing

Pro

ble

ms

(e)

Cas

e-B

ase

d L

earn

ing

(f)

In-C

lass

Inte

ract

ive

Dis

cuss

ion

(g)

Re

flec

tio

n A

ctiv

itie

s (h

)

Co

urs

e P

roje

cts

(i)

Ineg

rati

ng

Inte

rnat

ion

al/G

lob

al P

ersp

ecti

ves

(j)

Ineg

rati

ng

Pri

nci

ple

s o

f Et

hic

s/So

cial

Res

po

nsi

bili

ty (

k)

Tim

e M

anag

emen

t (l

)

Tim

ely

Feed

bac

k (m

)

Facu

lty-

Stu

den

t In

tera

ctio

n (

n)

Re

leva

nt

Co

nte

nt

to S

tud

ent

Futu

re C

aree

r/G

oal

s (o

)

Act

ive

Stu

den

t En

gage

men

t in

to t

he

Lear

nin

g P

roce

ss (

p)

Cri

tica

l An

alys

is o

f Th

eir

Wo

rk (

q)

Ind

epen

den

t Le

arn

ing

(r)

Inn

ova

tive

an

d c

reat

ive

Th

inki

ng

(s)

Freq

uen

t Fe

ed

bac

k (t

)

HRMT 703 Richard Dibble Strategic Human Resource Management

HRMT 708 Leon Applewhaite Employment and Labor Law and Policy

HRMT 722 William Ninehan Financial Decisions for HR Management

HRMT 733 Leon Applewhaite Labor Management Relations

HRMT 737 Maya Kroumova Methods of Research in Organizations

HRMT 744 Maya Kroumova Managing the Global Workforce

HRMT 887 Maya Kroumova Human Resources Management Seminar

HRMT 802 Talent Management

HRMT 803 Maya Kroumova Organizational Psychology

HRMT 807 Training and Development of Human Resources

HRMT 812 Management of Compensation

HRMT 817 Management of Employee Benefits

HRMT 822 Alternative Dispute Resolution

HRMT 842 The Collective Bargaining Process

HRMT 875 Human Resources Policies and Procedures

HRMT 874 Internship in Human Resource Management or Labor Relations

HRMT 882 Directed Studies

MS LEARNING GOALS Teaching and Learning Strategies

APPENDIX 7: MS IN HR/LR PROGRAM LEARNING GOALS AND INTEGRATIVE ELEMENTS

APPENDIX 8: MS HRM/LR Program Rubric General Learning Goals: Upon the successful completion of the MS HR/LR program, a student will be able to:

HRM G1 Design and/or implement organization development and/or change initiatives in collaboration with relevant stakeholders;

HRM G2 Demonstrate professionalism and/or apply ethical standards; and

HRM G3 Utilize technology applications and/or research to make data-driven decisions.

Analysis Rubric General Program Learning Goal 1 (HRM G1) Design and/or implement organization development and/or change initiatives in collaboration with relevant stakeholders

Core Type Performance Area

5 Exceeds Standards 3 Meets Standards 1 Fails to Meet Standards

G1 A

Design org. development/ change initiatives

Designs org. development /change initiatives fully meeting all of these 3 criteria :

Fully applies relevant theories and frameworks

Customizes initiatives to fit the needs of the organization/the context of the case

Substantiates proposed courses of action with thorough research / analysis

Designs org. development /change initiatives meeting 2 of these 3 criteria:




Designs inadequate org. development /change meeting 1 or less of these criteria:




G1 B Take into account relevant

stakeholders

Designs org. development /change initiatives fully meeting all of these 3 criteria :

Correctly identifies all relevant stakeholders

Correctly analyzes the interests/positions of relevant stakeholders

Proposed plans/solutions take into account the interests of all relevant stakeholders

Designs org. development /change initiatives meeting 2 of these 3 criteria :




Designs org. development /change initiatives meeting 1 or less of these 3 criteria :




Analysis Rubric General Program Learning Goal 2 (HRM G2) Demonstrate professionalism and/or apply ethical standards

Core Type

Performance Area 5 Exceeds Standards 3 Meets Standards 1 Fails to Meet Standards

HRM G2 A

Apply ethical or professional

standards

Assignments fully meet all of the following criteria, when applicable:

Applies ethical/professional standards when solving HRM/LR problems.

Develops ethical HRM/LR practices and procedures.

Understands the difference between ethical and legal compliance as applied to HRM/LR

Assignments fully meet any two of the following criteria:




Assignments do not meet any of the following criteria:




HRM G2 B

Analyze problems using ethical or professional standards

Assignments fully meet all of the following criteria, when applicable:

Correctly identifies the ethical issues present in an HRM/LR problem or practice

Uses ethical theories/frameworks in the analysis of an HRM/LR problem or practice

Draws on best practices / professional standards in analyzing an HRM/LR problem or practice

Assignments fully meet two of the following criteria:



Draws on best practices / professional standards in analyzing an HRM/LR problem

Assignments do not meet any of the following criteria:



Draws on best practices / professional standards in analyzing an HRM/LR problem

or practice or practice

HRM G2 C Demonstrate professionalism

Written work exceeds the expectations for clarity and presentation an average employer would have

Oral presentations are delivered in a professional manner, exceeding the expectations an average employer would have

Teamwork is carried out in a professional way - students demonstrate high levels of involvement, responsibility and accountability

Written work meets the expectations for clarity and presentation an average employer would have

Oral presentations are delivered in a professional manner, meeting the expectations an employer would have

Teamwork is carried out in a professional way - students demonstrate involvement, responsibility and accountability

Written work does not meet the expectations for clarity and presentation an average employer would have

Oral presentations are not delivered in a professional manner, meeting the expectations an employer would have

Teamwork is not carried out in a professional way - students do not demonstrate involvement, responsibility and accountability

Analysis Rubric General Program Learning Goal 3 (HRM G3)

Utilize technology applications and/or research to make data-driven decisions Core Type Performance

Area 5 Exceeds Standards 3 Meets Standards 1 Fails to Meet Standards

HRM G3 A

Utilize technology and

research techniques

Demonstrates theoretical understanding of basic research techniques.

Demonstrates appropriate use of technology.

Demonstrates ability to work independent of instructions on assignments involving research techniques and application of technology.

Demonstrates theoretical understanding of basic research techniques.

Demonstrates appropriate use of technology.

Demonstrates ability to follow instructions in the application of research techniques and application of technology

Does not demonstrate comprehension of basic research techniques

Does not demonstrate appropriate use of technology.

Does not demonstrate the ability to apply research techniques and technology

HRM G3 B Evaluate data to make data-driven decisions

Comprehends data analysis results.

Interprets results correctly.

Recommends correct managerial decisions based on the data interpretation.

Understands data analysis results.

Correctly interprets results.

Based on the results, makes incorrect recommendations for managerial decisions.

Does not show basic understanding of data analysis results.

Does not interpret results correctly.

Makes incorrect recommendations for managerial decisions.

MS HRM/LR Program:

Specific Learning Goals: Upon the successful completion of the MS HR/LR program, a student will be able to:

HRM M1 Develop, manage, and evaluate HR practices that produce the workforce needed by an organization to achieve its strategic and operational goals in a dynamic global economy;

HRM M2 Build productive relationships between employees and employers in both the union and non-union workplaces; devise

practices that recognize the needs of a diverse workforce; and HRM M3 Apply behavioral science theories, legal doctrines, and economic concepts; critically analyze and synthesize findings relevant to

human resources management and labor relations.

Analysis Rubric Program-Specific Learning Goal 1 (HRM M1) Develop, manage, and evaluate HR practices that produce the workforce needed by an organization to achieve its strategic and

operational goals in a dynamic global economy Core Type Performance


HRM M1 A

Develop or Manage HRM

Practices

Develops HRM practices that fulfill all of the following requirements completely:

HRM practices are grounded in organizational requirements based on the internal and external environment

HMR practices are linked with the business strategy of the organization

HRM practices are mutually supportive

Develops HRM practices that fulfill any two of the following requirements:




Develops HRM practices that do not fulfill any of the following requirements:




HRM M1 B

Analyze the Environment of HRM Practices

Provides analysis that fulfills all of the following requirements completely:

External organizational environment outlining major environmental factors

Organizational business need

An analysis grounded in research.

Provides analysis that fulfills any two of the following requirements:


Organizational business needs


Provides analysis that lacks all of the following requirements:


Organizational business needs


HRM M1 C Evaluate HRM Practices

Evaluates HRM practices that fulfill all of the following requirements completely:

Identify/create benchmarks for evaluated HRM practices

Assess alignment of HRM practices with the organizational strategy

Assess the fit between HRM practices and the external organizational environment.

Evaluates HRM practices that fulfill any two of the following requirements:




Does evaluation of HRM practices that lack all of the following requirements:




Analysis Rubric Program-Specific Learning Goal 2 (HRM M2) Build productive relationships between employees and employers in both the union and non-union workplaces; devise

practices that recognize the needs of a diverse workforce Core Type Performance


HRM M2 A

Analyze employment relationship /

workforce needs

The analysis fulfills all of the following requirements completely:

Describes and explains the relationship between employers and employees

Correctly identifies workforce needs

Discusses alternate explanations and reasons for employer and employee relations and workforce needs

The analysis fulfills any 2 of the following requirements completely:




The analysis does not fulfill any of the following requirements:




HRM M2 B

Evaluate workplace practices

Identifies, describes and discusses all of the following completely:

workplace practices

internal and external fit of workplace practices

fit between workplace practices and workforce needs

alternate explanations, issues, and solutions

Identifies, describes and discusses any 2 of the following:

workplace practices




Does not identify, describe or discuss any of the following: workplace practices




HRM M2 C Develop workplace practices

Develops workplace practices that meet all of the following criteria completely:

build a productive employment relationship

have internal and external fit

meet workforce needs

Develops workplace practices that meet any 2 of the following criteria:




Develops workplace practices that do not meet any of the following criteria:




Analysis Rubric Program-Specific Learning Goal 3 (HRM M3) Apply behavioral science theories, legal doctrines, and economic concepts; critically analyze and synthesize findings relevant to

human resources management and labor relations Core Type Performance


HRM M3 A

Analyze using theory

Provides analysis of HR/LR problems that meets all of the following comprehensively:

uses all relevant theories /doctrines /concepts/terminology

correctly applies theories to the problem(s)

clearly expresses ideas, structures the analysis well

Provides analysis of HR/LR problems that meets 2 of the following:




Provides analysis of HR/LR problems that does not meet any of the following:




HRM M3 B

Evaluate using theory

Provides an evaluation of HR/LR policies and procedures that meets all of the following comprehensively:

discusses compatibility with relevant theories/doctrines/concepts

suggests ways to improve policies/procedures based on relevant theories/doctrines/concepts

evaluation/suggestions are clearly articulated

Provides an evaluation of HR/LR policies and procedures that meets any two of the following:

discusses compatibility with relevant theories / doctrines /concepts

suggests ways to improve policies/procedures based on relevant theories/doctrines/concept


Provides an evaluation of HR/LR policies and procedures that does not meet any of the following:

discusses compatibility with relevant theories / doctrines /concepts

suggests ways to improve policies/procedures based on relevant theories/doctrines/concepts


HRM M3 C Synthesize HR/LR

knowledge

Provides synthesis of HR/LR findings / literature that meets all of the following comprehensively:

correctly identifies and summarizes relevant articles/sources

uses databases such as Proquest, Lexis/Nexis, First Search, etc.

provides a coherent overview of the state of knowledge on a particular subject; identifies gaps in knowledge

Provides synthesis of HR/LR findings / literature that meets any two of the following:




Provides synthesis of HR/LR findings / literature that does not meet any of the following:





Used

0 0 5 9

0.87 0.29 5 9

0.89 0.17 5 27

1.09 0.21 4 27

0.84 0.37 3 5

0.8 0.21 4 14

0.84 0.37 3 5

0.97 0.26 4 14

0.99 0.09 4 110

0.99 0.09 4 110

APPENDIX 9: 2015-2016 MSHRLR Goal Report


Sections Used

Major Specific

HRMT HRMG1A 5 2

HRMT HRMG1B 4.33 2

HRMT HRMG3A 4.52 3

HRMT HRMG3B 4.11 3

HRMT HRMM1B 3.2 1

HRMT HRMM2A 3.79 3

HRMT HRMM2B 3.2 1

HRMT HRMM2C 3.79 3

Composite Major Specific


Composite







School Management

Department -- ALL



MBA_BSBA MSHR



User: ADMIN\\jmurdy

Run at: 5/11/2016 4:11:21 PM


Data as of 03/08/2016

Page 1