ACBSP Accredited

ACBSP Standard 4: Continuous Improvement

The Walker School of Business & Technology is committed to educational excellence and transparency. We are proud to have earned specialized accreditation through the Accreditation Council for Business Schools and Programs (ACBSP) for both our undergraduate and graduate programs.

ACBSP’s global mission is to pursue a better tomorrow by advancing and recognizing excellence in business education through a philosophy of continuous improvement. As part of this commitment, we adhere to ACBSP Standard 4, which mandates that the business unit maintains a systematic student learning outcomes assessment process.

Our Assessment Process

To ensure our curriculum remains rigorous and relevant, we have developed and implemented specific Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs) for every accredited program. This systematic plan allows us to:

  • Measure Performance: Evaluate student mastery of core competencies using both internal case analyses and external standardized benchmarking, such as the Peregrine Assessment.
  • Identify Trends: Monitor multi-year data to determine where students are excelling and where instructional adjustments may be needed.
  • Implement Improvements: Use data-driven insights to update course materials, refine teaching strategies, and modernize program infrastructure.

Transparency and Communication

In alignment with ACBSP requirements, we communicate these assessment results to our stakeholders, including students, faculty, alumni and the broader business community.

 

Undergraduate: Measurement and Analysis of Student Learning and Performance

For all Program Learning Objectives, the following performance measure was used:

  • Pairwise Improvement: Peregrine Exam. Inbound scores measure a baseline at the beginning of a student's program, in MNGT 2100. Outbound scores are captured in the students' capstone, MNGT 4900. Goal is to meet or exceed ACBSP outbound average and to see an increase in matched sample of outbound vs. inbound.

Program Learning Objective 1 (PLO 1)

Objective: Students use information, analytical tools and problem-solving skills to make well-reasoned business decisions, considering both quantitative factors and qualitative factors such as ethical considerations. Topics included: Information Management Systems, Quantitative Research Techniques and Statistics

Analysis of Results: PLO 1
Performance Measure Pairwise Improvement
Instrument/Process Direct, formative, summative, external multiple choice exam developed and administered by Peregrine Global Services.
Current Results For the most recent AY, the average inbound score in the relevant areas 46/100. The average outbound score in the relevant areas is 56.7/100. This year's results show an 23.2% increase in students' scores as a result of completing the program. Average scores have exceeded benchmark over last 3 years.
Analysis of Results This year's inbound results were consistent with the prior three years. We have seen a decrease in Outbound results from the matched sample although earlier years have very small sample sizes and so the estimates are less reliable. We would like to reverse this decreasing trend.
Action Taken or Improvement Made Program revisions are under consideration, including increased use of technology such as Excel, Tableau, ERP, etc. Additional emphasis will be placed on data analysis.
Insert Graphs or Tables of Resulting Trends

A clustered bar chart comparing matched Inbound and Outbound scores for PLO1.

Image Transcript

BSBA Matched Sample: Inbound vs. Outbound (Learning Objective 1)

Description: A clustered bar chart comparing matched Inbound and Outbound scores for PLO1, with an overlaying line graph for sample size.

Data Breakdown

  • AY 18/19 (n=4):
    • Inbound: 46
    • Outbound: 69
  • AY 19/20 (n=9):
    • Inbound: 46
    • Outbound: 60
  • AY 20/21 (n=16):
    • Inbound: 48
    • Outbound: 61
  • AY 21/22 (n=15):
    • Inbound: 46
    • Outbound: 57

Trend Summary: The chart illustrates "value-added" learning by comparing student scores at the start (Inbound) and end (Outbound) of the program. While students consistently improve, there is a visible downward trend in outbound performance over the four-year period.

A line graph tracking student performance and numbers for PLO1 across four academic years.

Image Transcript

Webster Average vs. ACBSP (Learning Objective 1)

Description: A line graph tracking student performance and numbers for PLO1 across four academic years.

Data Series AY1819 AY1920 AY2021 AY2122
Webster (Blue Line) ~52.6 ~57.6 ~57.8 ~62.5
ACBSP (Red Line) 56.5 56.5 56.5 56.5
n (Green Line) 80 130 180 110

Trend Summary: Chart shows a strong upward trend, improving over four years to reach a peak score of 62.5. After the initial assessment period, the program consistently outperformed the ACBSP benchmark of 56.5, despite fluctuations in sample size.

Program Learning Objective 2 (PLO 2)

Objective: Students can develop strategies addressing the legal, ethical, economic and global environment in which the enterprise operates. Topics included: Business Ethics, Macroeconomics, Global Dimensions of Business, Legal Environment of Business

Analysis of Results: PLO 2
Performance Measure Pairwise Improvement
Instrument/Process Direct, formative, summative, external multiple choice exam developed and administered by Peregrine Global Services.
Current Results For the most recent AY, the average inbound score in the relevant areas 45.3/100. The average outbound score in the relevant areas is 62.9/100. This year's results show an 38.7% increase in students' scores as a result of completing the program. Scores have exceeded the benchmark all years with the exception of AY 20/21 where Walker School students fell 1 percentage point below the ACBSP average (54% vs. 55%).
Analysis of Results This year's inbound results were roughly the average of the three years' prior. Outbound scores have been increasing for the past three years.
Action Taken or Improvement Made Program revisions are under consideration, including an increased focus on ethics and global dimensions of business more purposefully distributed throughout the curriculum in order to give students both knowledge and context.
Insert Graphs or Tables of Resulting Trends

A clustered bar chart comparing matched Inbound and Outbound scores for PLO2.

Image Transcript

BSBA Matched Sample: Inbound vs. Outbound (Learning Objective 2)

Description: A clustered bar chart comparing matched Inbound and Outbound scores for PLO2, with an overlaying line graph for sample size.

Data Breakdown

  • AY 18/19 (n=4):
    • Inbound: 40
    • Outbound: 73
  • AY 19/20 (n=9):
    • Inbound: 42
    • Outbound: 55
  • AY 20/21 (n=16):
    • Inbound: 52
    • Outbound: 59
  • AY 21/22 (n=15):
    • Inbound: 46
    • Outbound: 63

Trend Summary: Outbound scores consistently exceed inbound scores, indicating value-added learning, though the gap was widest in the first year.

A line graph tracking student performance and numbers for PLO2 across four academic years.

Image Transcript

Webster Average vs. ACBSP (Learning Objective 2)

Description: A line graph tracking student performance and numbers for PLO2 across four academic years.

Data Series AY1819 AY1920 AY2021 AY2122
Webster (Blue Line) ~57.0 ~56.9 ~55.2 ~62.7
ACBSP (Red Line) 55.6 55.6 55.6 55.6
n (Green Line) 80 130 180 110

Trend Summary: Remained stable and above benchmark initially, dipped below benchmark in AY 2021, and then saw a sharp recovery to a peak in the final year.

Program Learning Objective 3 (PLO 3)

Objective: Students will have a working knowledge in a set of analytical business tools related to: math, statistics, accounting, economics, marketing, finance and behavioral science. Topics included:Accounting, Business Finance, Economics, Microeconomics, Management: Organizational Behavior, Marketing

Analysis of Results: PLO 3
Performance Measure Pairwise Improvement
Instrument/Process Direct, formative, summative, external multiple choice exam developed and administered by Peregrine Global Services.
Current Results The average inbound score in the relevant areas 44.9/100. The average outbound score in the relevant areas is 66.4/100. This year's results show a 48% increase in students' scores as a result of completing the program. Outbound scores exceeded benchmark each year.
Analysis of Results Inbound scores have been consistent over the last four years. Outbound scores have been steadily increasing over the last three years. We hope this trend will continue.
Action Taken or Improvement Made Program revisions are under consideration which will introduce more application and critical thinking assignments in the functional areas of business.
Insert Graphs or Tables of Resulting Trends

A clustered bar chart comparing matched Inbound and Outbound scores for PLO3.

Image Transcript

BSBA Matched Sample: Inbound vs. Outbound (Learning Objective 3)

Description: A clustered bar chart comparing matched Inbound and Outbound scores for PLO3, with an overlaying line graph for sample size.

Data Breakdown

  • AY 18/19 (n=4):
    • Inbound: 43
    • Outbound: 65
  • AY 19/20 (n=9):
    • Inbound: 47
    • Outbound: 55
  • AY 20/21 (n=16):
    • Inbound: 46
    • Outbound: 61
  • AY 21/22 (n=15):
    • Inbound: 45
    • Outbound: 66

Trend Summary: Shows consistent value-added growth. While outbound scores dipped in the second year, they recovered steadily to reach a four-year peak in AY 21/22.

A line graph tracking student performance and numbers for PLO3 across four academic years.

Image Transcript

Webster Average vs. ACBSP (Learning Objective 3)

Description: A line graph tracking student performance and numbers for PLO3 across four academic years.

Data Series AY1819 AY1920 AY2021 AY2122
Webster (Blue Line) ~56.2 ~56.0 ~56.1 ~62.0
ACBSP (Red Line) 54.6 54.6 54.6 54.6
n (Green Line) 80 130 180 110

Trend Summary: The score remained remarkably stable for the first three years before showing a sharp, significant increase in the final academic year.

Program Learning Objective 4 (PLO 4)

Objective: Students can apply business core concepts, principles and analytical skills across functional lines. Topics included: Management, Management: Human Resources, Management: Operations/Production Management

Analysis of Results: PLO 4
Performance Measure Pairwise Improvement
Instrument/Process Direct, formative, summative, external multiple choice exam developed and administered by Peregrine Global Services.
Current Results The average inbound score in the relevant areas 47.9/100. The average outbound score in the relevant areas is 68.9/100. This year's results show a 43.9% increase in students' scores as a result of completing the program. Scores exceed benchmark in each of last 2 years.
Analysis of Results Inbound scores were slightly lower than in prior years. Outbound scores have been increasing for the last three years. We hope this trend will continue.
Action Taken or Improvement Made Program revisions are under consideration, including a shift in focus toward a more deliberate connection of functional business areas. The whole program will have a main focus on systemic thinking as it relates to a corporation or other business entity.
Insert Graphs or Tables of Resulting Trends

A clustered bar chart comparing matched Inbound and Outbound scores for PLO4.

Image Transcript

BSBA Matched Sample: Inbound vs. Outbound (Learning Objective 4)

Description: A clustered bar chart comparing matched Inbound and Outbound scores for PLO4, with an overlaying line graph for sample size.

Data Breakdown

  • AY 18/19 (n=4):
    • Inbound: 53
    • Outbound: 68
  • AY 19/20 (n=9):
    • Inbound: 48
    • Outbound: 61
  • AY 20/21 (n=16):
    • Inbound: 55
    • Outbound: 67
  • AY 21/22 (n=15):
    • Inbound: 48
    • Outbound: 69

Trend Summary: Consistent "value-added" improvement across all years. The gap between entry and exit scores remains significant, with the highest outbound performance occurring in the final year.

A line graph tracking student performance and numbers for PLO4 across four academic years.

Image Transcript

Webster Average vs. ACBSP (Learning Objective 4)

Description: A line graph tracking student performance and numbers for PLO4 across four academic years.

Data Series AY1819 AY1920 AY2021 AY2122
Webster (Blue Line) ~57.5 ~57.3 ~60.1 ~66.5
ACBSP (Red Line) 57.7 57.7 57.7 57.7
n (Green Line) 80 130 180 110

Trend Summary: After a slight initial dip, the scores show an accelerating upward trend, significantly gapping the benchmark in the final year.

Program Learning Objective 5 (PLO 5)

Objective: Students can access, develop and use information to analyze business problems and propose feasible solutions. Topics included: Business Integration and Strategic Management, Business Leadership

Analysis of Results: PLO 5
Performance Measure Pairwise Improvement
Instrument/Process Direct, formative, summative, external multiple choice exam developed and administered by Peregrine Global Services.
Current Results The average inbound score in the relevant areas 51.7/100. The average outbound score in the relevant areas is 63.3/100. This year's results show a 22.6% increase in students' scores as a result of completing the program. Scores exceed benchmark in each year.
Analysis of Results Our program has the least impact in this LO, according to the percent increase between inbound and outbound scores. This year's results reversed a decreasing trend that we had seen over the prior three years.
Action Taken or Improvement Made Program revisions are under consideration, including a redesigned capstone course that will allow students to apply their knowledge to business problems and learn how to develop solutions.
Insert Graphs or Tables of Resulting Trends

A clustered bar chart comparing matched Inbound and Outbound scores for PLO5.

Image Transcript

BSBA Matched Sample: Inbound vs. Outbound (Learning Objective 5)

Description: A clustered bar chart comparing matched Inbound and Outbound scores for PLO5, with an overlaying line graph for sample size.

Data Breakdown

  • AY 18/19 (n=4):
    • Inbound: 5342
    • Outbound: 71
  • AY 19/20 (n=9):
    • Inbound: 52
    • Outbound: 61
  • AY 20/21 (n=16):
    • Inbound: 47
    • Outbound: 58
  • AY 21/22 (n=15):
    • Inbound: 51
    • Outbound: 63

Trend Summary: Students consistently demonstrate value-added learning gains. While outbound performance saw a decline between the first and third years, it recovered in AY 21/22.

A line graph tracking student performance and numbers for PLO5 across four academic years.

Image Transcript

Webster Average vs. ACBSP (Learning Objective 5)

Description: A line graph tracking student performance and numbers for PLO5 across four academic years.

Data Series AY1819 AY1920 AY2021 AY2122
Webster (Blue Line) ~58.9 ~58.4 ~58.1 ~61.9
ACBSP (Red Line) 58.0 58.0 58.0 58.0
n (Green Line) 80 130 180 110

Trend Summary: Scores showed a very slight downward trend for the first three years while remaining above the benchmark, followed by a significant sharp increase in the final year.

 

For all Program Learning Objectives, the following performance measure was used:

  • 80% Benchmark: At least 80% of the students score in the “Medium” or “High” category on the multiple choice exam.

Program Learning Objective 1 (PLO 1)

Objective: Students can apply time value of money techniques to security valuation. 

Analysis of Results: PLO 1
Performance Measure 80% Benchmark
Instrument/Process Multiple choice test in three required upper-level finance courses. Direct, formative, summative internal.
Current Results Please see graph. PLO 1 is divided into 3 subcategories and are provided as 1a, 1b, and 1c.
Analysis of Results Learning outcome 1a: “Students can solve time value of money problems” continues to show strong results staying above the 80% goal. Last year, AY 20/21 showed unsatisfactory results, but we also had a low sample size. We believe we are on track with this outcome. 1b: “Students can determine the value of fixed income securities” continues to be below our 80% goal. The trend has been slightly better over the last three years. 1c: “Students can determine the value of stock” this measure continues to be below the satisfactory level, but is better than the 19/20 and 20/21 results.
Action Taken or Improvement Made We will discuss the lower than goal performance for PLOs 1b and 1c. Reinforcements of TVM concepts and calculation throughout each course is needed.
Insert Graphs or Tables of Resulting Trends

A stacked bar chart shows student percentages at High, Medium and Low performance levels across 7 academic years.

Image Transcript

Program Learning Outcome 1

Description: A stacked bar chart showing the percentage of students achieving "High" (green), "Medium" (blue) and "Low" (yellow) performance levels across seven academic years for each of the three suboutcome goals. A red line marks the 80% benchmark.

PLO 1a Learning Performance Data: Solve Time Value of Money Problems

Academic Year High (%) Medium (%) Low (%)
AY 15/16 ~60% ~33% ~7%
AY 16/17 ~88% ~10% ~2%
AY 17/18 ~72% ~20% ~8%
AY 18/19 ~88% ~7% ~5%
AY 19/20 ~73% ~11% ~16%
AY 20/21 ~62% ~13% ~25%
AY 21/22 ~72% ~15% ~13%
  • Summary: Student performance remains strong and consistently stays above the 80% benchmark goal for the most recent academic cycle. Historically, this sub-category represents the highest area of achievement within the finance program.

PLO 1b Learning Performance Data: Value Fixed Income Securities

Academic Year High (%) Medium (%) Low (%)
AY 15/16 ~45% ~31% ~24%
AY 16/17 ~58% ~31% ~11%
AY 17/18 ~45% ~19% ~36%
AY 18/19 ~21% ~35% ~44%
AY 19/20 ~26% ~42% ~32%
AY 20/21 ~12% ~63% ~25%
AY 21/22 ~18% ~50% ~32%
  • Summary: Achievement levels in this area continue to fall below the 80% target. However, the data indicates a slight improvement in the performance trend over the last three academic years.

PLO 1c Learning Performance Data: Determine the Value of Stock

Academic Year High (%) Medium (%) Low (%)
AY 15/16 ~35% ~56% ~14%
AY 16/17 ~53% ~34% ~13%
AY 17/18 ~28% ~52% ~20%
AY 18/19 ~20% ~56% ~24%
AY 19/20 ~11% ~26% ~63%
AY 20/21 ~50% ~12% ~38%
AY 21/22 ~32% ~40% ~28%
  • Summary: While this measure remains below satisfactory levels, recent results show an upward trajectory compared to the performance recorded in the 19/20 and 20/21 academic years.

Program Learning Objective 2 (PLO 2)

Objective: Students can evaluate the financial strength of a corporation and analyze capital budgeting decisions.

Analysis of Results: PLO 2
Performance Measure 80% Benchmark
Instrument/Process Multiple choice test in three required upper-level finance courses. Direct, formative, summative internal.
Current Results Please see graph. PLO 2 is divided into 3 subcategories and are provided as 2a, 2b, and 2c.
Analysis of Results Results for Learning Outcome 2a, on topics of NPV and IRR, are slightly below the 80% level. Results for Learning outcome 2b- "Students can utilize ratio analysis to assess an organization's financial condition" continues to be unsatisfactory. Results for the Learning Outcome 2c, on capital structure and profitability, continue poorly. It was previously reported that “the questions may be too abstract” and we have discussed adjusting our assessment to better reflect our expectations for PLO 2c.
Action Taken or Improvement Made To address the question issues, particularly with PLO 2c, we adjusted a couple questions in our assessment for the spring portion of the academic year.
Insert Graphs or Tables of Resulting Trends

A stacked bar chart showing the performance level percentages of students for PLO2 over seven academic years.

Image Transcript

Program Learning Outcome 2

Description: A stacked bar chart showing the percentage of students achieving "High" (green), "Medium" (blue) and "Low" (yellow) performance levels across seven academic years for each of the three suboutcome goals. A red line marks the 80% benchmark.

PLO 2a Learning Performance Data

Academic Year High (%) Medium (%) Low (%)
AY 15/16 ~47% ~48% ~9%
AY 16/17 ~49% ~32% ~19%
AY 17/18 ~20% ~50% ~30%
AY 18/19 ~45% ~13% ~42%
AY 19/20 ~21% ~68% ~11%
AY 20/21 ~50% ~37% ~13%
AY 21/22 ~41% ~36% ~23%
  • Summary: Performance for Learning Outcome 2a has fluctuated over time and currently sits slightly below the 80% benchmark at a combined 77% for the most recent academic year.

PLO 2b Learning Performance Data

Academic Year High (%) Medium (%) Low (%)
AY 15/16 ~43% ~33% ~24%
AY 16/17 ~48% ~41% ~11%
AY 17/18 ~5% ~80% ~15%
AY 18/19 ~38% ~37% ~25%
AY 19/20 ~37% ~42% ~21%
AY 20/21 ~0% ~75% ~25%
AY 21/22 ~9% ~55% ~36%
  • Summary: Student achievement in ratio analysis continues to be unsatisfactory, as combined "High" and "Medium" results remain well below the 80% goal for the most recent cycle.

PLO 2c Learning Performance Data

Academic Year High (%) Medium (%) Low (%)
AY 15/16 ~36% ~44% ~20%
AY 16/17 ~47% ~32% ~21%
AY 17/18 ~5% ~50% ~45%
AY 18/19 ~8% ~54% ~38%
AY 19/20 ~5% ~42% ~53%
AY 20/21 ~0% ~75% ~25%
AY 21/22 ~8% ~47% ~45%
  • Summary: Performance for Learning Outcome 2c remains poor; the data for the latest academic year shows 55% of students achieved Medium or High results, leaving this sub-outcome 25 percentage points below the 80% goal.

Program Learning Objective 3 (PLO 3)

Objective: Students can understand the risk-return relationship and can estimate appropriate rates of return.

Analysis of Results: PLO 3
Performance Measure 80% Benchmark
Instrument/Process Multiple choice test in three required upper-level finance courses. Direct, formative, summative internal.
Current Results Please see graph. PLO 3 is divided into 2 subcategories and are provided as 3a and 3b.
Analysis of Results Learning Outcome 3a: “Students can identify determinants of interest rates and specify how they affect required returns of securities” saw a slight decrease in performance, but still above the target. Learning Outcome 3b: “Students can estimate required rate of return” has met the 80% goal only one of the past six years. There appears to be confusion with the wording of the first question and perhaps confusion with the amount of calculation required on the part of the student in the second question.
Action Taken or Improvement Made The survey questions for Learning Objective 3b was adjusted midyear in the AY 21/22 assessment to better reflect what we are trying to assess. Results from next year's assessment should more accurately reflect our desired outcome.
Insert Graphs or Tables of Resulting Trends

A stacked bar chart shows student percentages at High, Medium and Low performance levels across 7 academic years.

Image Transcript

Program Learning Outcome 3

Description: A stacked bar chart showing the percentage of students achieving "High" (green), "Medium" (blue) and "Low" (yellow) performance levels across seven academic years for each of the three suboutcome goals. A red line marks the 80% benchmark.

PLO 3a Learning Performance Data

Academic Year High (%) Medium (%) Low (%)
AY 15/16 ~51% ~38% ~11%
AY 16/17 ~54% ~45% ~21%
AY 17/18 ~24% ~43% ~33%
AY 18/19 ~17% ~58% ~25%
AY 19/20 ~26% ~58% ~16%
AY 20/21 ~13% ~87% ~0%
AY 21/22 ~9% ~77% ~14%
  • Summary: Combined High and Medium performance has consistently met or exceeded the 80% benchmark throughout the seven-year period. While the percentage of "High" achievement has declined in recent years, a significant increase in "Medium" performance (reaching 87% in AY 20/21) has kept total satisfactory results above the target line.

PLO 3b Learning Performance Data

Academic Year High (%) Medium (%) Low (%)
AY 15/16 ~49% ~24% ~27%
AY 16/17 ~53% ~31% ~16%
AY 17/18 ~23% ~34% ~43%
AY 18/19 ~0% ~64% ~36%
AY 19/20 ~11% ~21% ~68%
AY 20/21 ~0% ~25% ~75%
AY 21/22 ~5% ~28% ~67%
  • Summary: Performance for this sub-outcome shows a notable downward trend, falling below the 80% benchmark starting in AY 17/18. In the most recent cycle (AY 21/22), combined High and Medium performance stands at 33%, which is 47 percentage points below the red target line.

Program Learning Objective 4 (PLO 4)

Objective: Students can describe the intermediation services provided by financial institutions.

Analysis of Results: PLO 4
Performance Measure 80% Benchmark
Instrument/Process Multiple choice test in three required upper-level finance courses. Direct, formative, summative internal.
Current Results Please see graph.
Analysis of Results Learning Outcome 4: “Students can describe the intermediation services provided by financial institutions” has exceeded the 80% goal for four of the last six years, with a level of 100% most recently, although with a limited sample. The results are satisfactory for this PLO.
Action Taken or Improvement Made No actions taken at this time. Results have been strong.
Insert Graphs or Tables of Resulting Trends

A stacked bar chart shows student percentages at High, Medium and Low performance levels across 7 academic years.

Image Transcript

Program Learning Outcome 4

Description: A stacked bar chart showing the percentage of students achieving "High" (green), "Medium" (blue) and "Low" (yellow) performance levels across seven academic years. A red line marks the 80% benchmark.

PLO 4 Learning Performance Data

Academic Year High (%) Medium (%) Low (%)
AY 15/16 ~60% ~35% ~5%
AY 16/17 ~61% ~24% ~16%
AY 17/18 ~52% ~40% ~8%
AY 18/19 ~25% ~50% ~25%
AY 19/20 ~52% ~22% ~26%
AY 20/21 ~50% ~50% ~0%
AY 21/22 ~54% ~37% ~9%
  • Summary: Performance for this outcome has consistently remained above the 80% benchmark for most of the seven-year period, reaching its highest combined achievement in the two most recent cycles. In AY 20/21, 100% of students achieved Medium or High results, and in AY 21/22, combined performance remained strong at 91%, well above the red target line.

 

Graduate Programs: Measurement and Analysis of Student Learning and Performance

For all Program Learning Objectives, the following performance measure was used:

  • 80% Benchmark: At least 80% of the students score in the “Moderate” or “Good” category on the multiple choice exam.

Program Learning Objective 1 (PLO 1)

Objective: Students will be able to explain the important terminology, facts, concepts, principles, analytic techniques and theories used in the field of business and organizational security management.

Analysis of Results: PLO 1
Performance Measure 80% Benchmark
Instrument/Process Multiple choice cumulative exam and case study in Capstone course. Summative, internal. A case study which requires responses to an individual scenario for each of the six core course subject matter areas. Summative, internal.
Current Results The goal has not been met over the past five years. A total of 291 students have completed the program over the past five year with an overall average of only 69%. The 2016-17 academic year was the only year in the past five years reaching the target at 82%.
Analysis of Results The performance results have been declining as the assessment tool we use for this program ages and is becoming increasingly obsolete. Although students consistently report that the curriculum is relevant to their job functions, the assessment tool does not reflect current program content, industry standards or professional practice.
Action Taken or Improvement Made We are currently updating our program level learning outcomes, course level learning outcomes and assessment methodology for the program. This includes evaluating the possible use of the "Canvas Outcomes" tool to support assessment. We are meeting with Course Leads on this effort and have formed a Program Advisory Council consisting of industry leaders to provide input on curriculum and assessment modification plans.
Insert Graphs or Tables of Resulting Trends

A line graph shows percentage of students meeting the knowledge goal for foundation areas from 2015-2016 to 2020-2021.

Image Transcript

MFT Knowledge of Foundation Areas (PLO 1)

Description: A line graph tracking the percentage of students meeting the knowledge goal for foundation areas from Academic Year 1516 to 2021.

Academic Year Percentage Result
AY 1516 ~88%
AY 1617 ~81%
AY 1718 ~68%
AY 1819 ~67%
AY 1920 ~60%
AY 2021 ~69%

 

  • Benchmark Goal: A solid red horizontal line represents the target goal of 80%.
  • Trend Summary: Performance started above the goal in AY 1516 but trended downward, remaining below the 80% benchmark for the final four measurement periods.

Program Learning Objective 2 (PLO 2)

Objective: Students will be able to effectively apply important terminology, facts, concepts, principles, analytic techniques and theories used in the field of business and organizational security management when analyzing complex situations.

Analysis of Results: PLO 2
Performance Measure 80% Benchmark
Instrument/Process Multiple choice cumulative exam and case study in Capstone course. Summative, internal. A case study which requires responses to an individual scenario for each of the six core course subject matter areas. Summative, internal.
Current Results The goal has not been met over the past five years. A total of 291 students have completed the program over the past five year with an overall average of only 69%. The 2016-17 academic year was closest to reaching the target at 79%.
Analysis of Results The performance results have been declining as the assessment tool we use for this program ages and is becoming increasingly obsolete. Although students consistently report that the curriculum is relevant to their job functions, the assessment tool does not reflect current program content, industry standards or professional practice.
Action Taken or Improvement Made We are currently updating our program level learning outcomes, course level learning outcomes and assessment methodology for the program. This includes evaluating the possible use of the "Canvas Outcomes" tool to support assessment. We are meeting with Course Leads on this effort and have formed a Program Advisory Council consisting of industry leaders to provide input on curriculum and assessment modification plans.
Insert Graphs or Tables of Resulting Trends

A line graph displaying student performance percentages for Program Learning Objective 2 across six academic years.

Image Transcript

MFT Knowledge of Foundation Areas (PLO 2)

Description: A line graph displaying student performance percentages for Program Learning Objective 2 across six academic years.

Academic Year Percentage Result
AY 1516 ~95%
AY 1617 ~79%
AY 1718 ~65%
AY 1819 ~71%
AY 1920 ~70%
AY 2021 ~72%
  • Benchmark Goal: A solid red horizontal line represents the target goal of 80%.
  • Trend Summary: After a high start in AY 1516, performance dropped below the 80% goal line and remained relatively stable between 65% and 72% in subsequent years.

Program Learning Objective 3 (PLO 3)

Objective: Students will be able to effectively integrate important facts, concepts, principles and theories used in business and organizational security management when developing solutions to multifaceted business and organizational security management problems in complex situations.

Analysis of Results: PLO 3
Performance Measure 80% Benchmark
Instrument/Process Multiple choice cumulative exam and case study in Capstone course. Summative, internal. A case study which requires responses to an individual scenario for each of the six core course subject matter areas. Summative, internal.
Current Results The goal has not been met over the past five years. A total of 291 students have completed the program over the past five year with an overall average of only 69%. The 2016-17 academic year was closest to reaching the target at 79%.
Analysis of Results The performance results have been declining as the assessment tool we use for this program ages and is becoming increasingly obsolete. Although students consistently report that the curriculum is
relevant to their job functions, the assessment tool does not reflect current program content, industry standards or professional practice.
Action Taken or Improvement Made We are currently updating our program level learning outcomes, course level learning outcomes and assessment methodology for the program. This includes evaluating the possible use of the "Canvas Outcomes" tool to support assessment. We are meeting with Course Leads on this effort and have formed a Program Advisory Council consisting of industry leaders to provide input on curriculum and assessment modification plans.
Insert Graphs or Tables of Resulting Trends

A line graph titled "Webster" tracking student achievement percentages against a set goal over six academic years.

Image Transcript

MFT Knowledge of Foundation Areas (PLO 3)

Description: A line graph titled "Webster" tracking student achievement percentages against a set goal over six academic years.

Academic Year Webster Result
AY 1516 ~94%
AY 1617 ~67%
AY 1718 ~59%
AY 1819 ~64%
AY 1920 ~72%
AY 2021 ~65%
  • Benchmark Goal: A solid orange horizontal line labeled "Goal" represents the target of 80%.
  • Trend Summary: Performance significantly exceeded the goal in AY 1516 but fell below the benchmark for all following years, reaching its lowest point in AY 1718.

For all Program Learning Objectives, the following performance measure was used:

  • 80% Benchmark: At least 80% of the students score in the “Moderate” or “Good” category on the the assessment case study.

Program Learning Objective 1 (PLO 1)

Objective: Students will be able to explain the important terminology, facts, concepts, principles, analytic techniques and theories used in human resources management

Analysis of Results: PLO 1
Performance Measure 80% Benchmark
Instrument/Process New Case Study: the final assignment in the capstone course, HRMG 6000, which is a direct, summative and internal instrument.
Current Results We are pleased that our students showed an 18% increase over the previous year.
Analysis of Results While one might suggest this is a dramatic increase over the previous year, we acknowledge that a portion of the increase may be due to COVID regulations regarding classroom learning loosening and student engagement in coursework may have increased as well.
Action Taken or Improvement Made The replacement of the final case with a more current case reflecting organizational issues that may resonate more with students could also have contributed to this increase in the learning outcome.
Insert Graphs or Tables of Resulting Trends

A combination chart displaying student performance and enrollment for PLO1 across five academic years.

Image Transcript

MA Human Resources Management PLO 1

Description: A combination chart displaying student performance for Program Learning Objective 1 across five academic years. It uses blue columns to represent achievement percentages and an orange line to track the total student population.

Academic Year Percent Meeting Goal Total Students (Count)
AY 1617 88% Data not labeled
AY 1718 90% 281
AY 1819 82% 106
AY 1920 73% 99
AY 2021 84% 62
  • Benchmark Goal: A red horizontal line indicates a target goal of 80%.
  • Summary: Students exceeded the 80% goal in four out of five years, with the only dip occurring in AY 1920.

Program Learning Objective 2 (PLO 2)

Objective: Students will be able to effectively apply important terminology, facts, concepts, principles, analytic techniques and theories used in human resources management when analyzing situations.

  1. Identifies important topics and issues;
  2. Identifies and correctly applies relevant concepts and theories in the analysis;
  3. Supports conclusions or claims with relevant facts and sound reasoning.

Analysis of Results: PLO 2
Performance Measure 80% Benchmark
Instrument/Process New Case Study: the final assignment in the capstone course, HRMG 6000, which is a direct, summative and internal instrument.
Current Results The results for each of the three sub-learning outcomes were each 84%, which significantly higher than those obtained the previous year (69%, 70% and 71%).
Analysis of Results While our results were over the goal of reaching 80% for each sublearning outcome, it is noted that the results are lower when compared to the years prior to COVID. Thus, while it is true that we reached the minimum goal that we set, we need to work to get back to the 90% range.
Action Taken or Improvement Made The first sub-learning outcome showed a 15% improvement over the previous year, the second showed a 14% improvement, and the third sub-learning outcome showed a 13% increase over the previous academic year.
Insert Graphs or Tables of Resulting Trends

A combination chart displaying performance and enrollment for three sub-objectives of PLO 2 across four academic years.

Image Transcript

MA Human Resources Management PLO 2

Description: A combination chart displaying student performance for three sub-objectives of PLO 2 (2A, 2B, and 2C) across four academic years. Blue, orange and gray columns represent achievement for each sub-objective, while an orange line tracks total student enrollment.

Academic Year PLO 2A (%) PLO 2B (%) PLO 2C (%) Total Students (Count)
AY 1718 92% 88% 89% 281
AY 1819 88% 86% 88% 106
AY 1920 69% 70% 70% 99
AY 2021 84% 84% 84% 62
  • Benchmark Goal: A red horizontal line indicates a target goal of 80%.
  • Summary: Performance was consistently high in the first two years and the final year, though all three sub-objectives fell below the 80% benchmark in AY 1920.

Program Learning Objective 3 (PLO 3)

Objective: Students will be able to effectively integrate important facts, concepts, principles and theories used in human resources management when developing solutions or analyzing situations.

Analysis of Results: PLO 3
Performance Measure 80% Benchmark
Instrument/Process New Case Study: the final assignment in the capstone course, HRMG 6000, which is a direct, summative and internal instrument.
Current Results The results of this learning outcome showed that 84% of the students achieved either "moderate" or "good" results.
Analysis of Results Compared to the previous academic year, we see an 11% increase which is significant. However, we are aiming toward achieving the same higher level seen in previous academic years.
Action Taken or Improvement Made To address what has been mentioned several times in this report with respect to increasing the number of students who achieve either "moderate" or "good", a comprehensive yearlong review of the entire HRMG program was completed in 2021. At the same time, a newly formed HRMG advisory council was identified and has begun meeting in order to determine whether any key aspects of industry trends should be added to the curriculum. With respect to course offerings, we are in the process of proposing the addition of a Data Analytics course as well as adding DEI content to several current courses.
Insert Graphs or Tables of Resulting Trends

A combination chart displaying student performance and enrollment for PLO3 across five academic years.

Image Transcript

MA Human Resources Management PLO 3

Description: A combination chart displaying student performance for Program Learning Objective 3 across five academic years. Blue columns represent achievement percentages and an orange line tracks the total student population.

Academic Year Percent Meeting Goal Total Students (Count)
AY 1617 95% Data not labeled
AY 1718 92% 281
AY 1819 89% 106
AY 1920 72% 99
AY 2021 90% 62
  • Benchmark Goal: A red horizontal line indicates a target goal of 80%.
  • Summary: Performance remained very strong throughout the period, significantly exceeding the 80% goal in all years except for AY 1920.

Program Learning Objective 1 (PLO 1)

Objective: Students will demonstrate proficiency in group dynamics, collaboration, interpersonal relations, and leading individuals, teams or organizations.

For this Program Learning Objective, the following performance measure was used:

  • 70% Benchmark: Post test scores should show improvement demonstrating that the coursework is enhancing student proficiency with PLO1. Measurements were taken in FA 2020, SP 2021, FA 2021 and SP 2022 — 70% overall mean score and at least 70% of students scoring at or above national average. Stretch goal:
    • A percentage of scores will be significantly above the National Benchmarking scores for items measured for PLO1.
    • 75% overall of average score and at least 70% of students scoring 75% will be above national average.

Analysis of Results: PLO 1
Performance Measure 70% Benchmark
Instrument/Process Capsim ModXm Test — direct, formative, external.
Current Results Both goals were met in FA 2020, SP 2021, FA 2021 and SP 2022. We found that course level learning outcomes were met with regards to teams, leading individuals and organizations. The results indicate that student demonstrate mastery of the content tested. Scores indicate students in the program achieve results at or above national benchmark scores.
Analysis of Results In terms of what the results indicate we see that students are performing at par with other students from across the nation when compared to benchmark scores. Especially performance with reference to PLO 1 is clear. We plan to continue providing active learning assignments and tutoring support for students and introduce review content and add other course content to help students better prepare to grasp and demonstrate mastery with these concepts. The graph indicates the percentage of students who scored above the set goal scores.
Action Taken or Improvement Made We added self-assessments and individual development plans for students to chart a course to improve their knowledge, skills and abilities. These activities are designed to provide students with deeper understanding of their managerial and leadership abilities. The concepts of group dynamics and leading individuals and organizations is an important concept discussed and applied in the majority of the courses in the M&L program. These assessments are benchmarked across the nation and hence provided reliable datapoints for us to improve upon. We continue to monitor student results and how these compare to national standards and adjust as needed going forward.
Insert Graphs or Tables of Resulting Trends

A line graph titled "PLO1 Results" tracking student performance percentages over four terms.

Image Transcript

PLO 1 Results

Description: A line graph titled "PLO1 Results" tracking student performance percentages over four terms.

Term Percentage
Fall 2020 84.62%
Spring 2021 94.25%
Fall 2021 90.23%
Spring 2022 98.28%

Trend Summary: Performance fluctuates but shows an overall strong upward trend, ending at nearly 98.3%.

Program Learning Objective 2 (PLO 2)

Objective: Students will demonstrate proficiency in complex problem-solving skills, logical reasoning and idea generation for making strategic business-related decisions.

For this Program Learning Objective, the following performance measure was used:

  • 70% Benchmark: Overall mean score should be on par with National mean score — 65% overall mean score and at least 70% of students scoring 70%. Stretch goal:
    • Overall mean score significantly above the National mean score.
    • 70% overall mean score and at least 50% of students scoring 80%.

Analysis of Results: PLO 2
Performance Measure 70% Benchmark
Instrument/Process Capsim ModExam — direct, formative, external.
Current Results The goals were met. A total of 105 students completed the assessment in Fall 2020 with 25.71% scoring above 70%. In Fall 2021 24.7% of the students completing the assessment scored above 70%. When we designed the assessment we were expecting that some students may not demonstrate mastery with problem solving skills. We are pleased to see indications that some students did exhibit mastery and we plan to help other students in the program achieve a level of mastery that is at par with national benchmarks.
Analysis of Results While the minimal nor stretch goals were accomplished, scores are closer to the national average. We have high expectations for our students and plan to provide additional support to help them achieve these expectations. The M&L program results indicate that students need more preparation to achieve mastery of strategic decision making skills. To help with this we intend to make the individual development plans mandatory. Currently students are given the option to create individual development plans. Making this mandatory will help students engage with tutoring and review of content activities that can generate better results going forward. The graph shows percentage of students achieving set goal scores
Action Taken or Improvement Made We added self-assessments and optional individual development plans for students to chart a course to improve their knowledge, skills and abilities. These activities are designed to provide students with deeper understanding of their managerial and leadership abilities. The concepts of group dynamics and leading individuals and organizations is an important concept discussed and applied in the majority of the courses in the M&L program. These assessments are benchmarked across the nation and hence provided reliable datapoints for us to improve upon. We continue to monitor student results and how these compare to national standards and adjust as needed going forward.
Insert Graphs or Tables of Resulting Trends

A line graph tracking "PLO 2" results with an overlaying "Trend - PLO 2" line.

Image Transcript

PLO 2 Results

Description: A line graph tracking "PLO 2" results with an overlaying "Trend - PLO 2" line.

Term Result
Fall 2020 84.62
Spring 2021 92.31
Fall 2021 88.41
Spring 2022 88.43

Trend Summary: After a sharp increase in Spring 2021, results plateaued and stabilized around 88.4 for the following year.

Program Learning Objective 3 (PLO 3)

Objective: Students will demonstrate proficiency in managerial finance, accounting, marketing, operations and human resources, as well as the capacity to synthesize and apply this functional knowledge for decision making.

For this Program Learning Objective, the following performance measure was used:

  • 70% Benchmark: Assessment test scores should show improvement demonstrating that the coursework is enhancing student proficiency with PLO 3. Measurements were taken in FA 2020, SP 2021, FA 2021 and SP 2022 — 70% overall mean score and at least 70% of students scoring at or above national average. Stretch goal:
    • A percentage of scores will be significantly above the National Benchmarking scores for items measured for PLO3.
    • 75% overall of average score and at least 70% of students scoring 75% will be above national average.

Analysis of Results: PLO 3
Performance Measure 70% Benchmark
Instrument/Process Capsim ModExam — direct, formative, external.
Current Results Both stretch goals were partially met. One data point in Spring 2021 indicates we met this goal while other data points indicate that we came close but did not meet expected goal.
Analysis of Results The goals were partially accomplished leaving room for improvement. While we desire to improve scores in all topics of this PLO, Building Effective skills students need in managerial finance and accounting is a must to help achieve this goal in the future. Students underperformed as compared to national scores of 80% or higher. Students comments and feedback also indicate that we need to provide additional preparatory materials and content and support to help students achieve mastery with this PLO. Students from the home campus and Live Virtual, via Zoom, students fare better when compared to online, metro/military students. Graph indicates the data points when students achieved set goals.
Action Taken or Improvement Made We are planning to add a new course in the program core to help students prepare for mastery of the concepts as indicated in this PLO. We are also seeking to revise content in courses that address the individual development plans. This Individual Development Plan based on individual student test scores will be made mandatory going forward.
Insert Graphs or Tables of Resulting Trends

A line graph tracking performance scores for PLO 3 over four terms.

Image Transcript

PLO 3 Results

Description: A line graph tracking performance scores for PLO 3 over four terms.

Term Score
Fall 2020 72.5
Spring 2021 77.92
Fall 2021 69.39
Spring 2022 59.55

Trend Summary: Performance peaked in Spring 2021 and has shown a consistent decline through Spring 2022.

Program Learning Objective 4 (PLO 4)

Objective: Students will demonstrate proficiency in statistical and other mathematical techniques, data analysis and quantitative modeling of business-related information to construct solutions for management and leadership problems.

For this Program Learning Objective, the following performance measure was used:

  • 70% Benchmark: Goal of 70% overall mean score and at least 70% of students scoring 70% or above in the assessments. Stretch goal:
    • A percentage of scores will be significantly above the National Benchmarking scores for items measured for PLO3.
    • 75% overall of average score and at least 70% of students scoring 75% will be above national average.

Analysis of Results: PLO 4
Performance Measure 70% Benchmark
Instrument/Process Capsim ModXm Test — direct, formative, external.
Current Results Both goals were not met in FA 2020, SP 2021, FA 2021 and SP 2022. We found that course level learning outcomes did not produce the desired results with regards to this PLO. The results indicate that students did not demonstrate mastery of the content tested. We are examining the results to determine what steps will help our students achieve mastery with the concepts indicated in this PLO. Most of the course level learning objectives show high to moderate concern as it relates to student mastery of concepts.
Analysis of Results Less than 5% of students scored at or above national averages. The graph indicates the percentage of students who scored above 50% in the assessment test at different data gathering points of the program completion. This indicates topics that these results warrant our attention. For example, these areas might suggest future interventions to improve mastery and subsequent assurance of learning results. Webster students averaging more than 10% lower than the national population average are of great concern. Especially performance in strategic thinking indicate that some students do not seem to understand these concepts as well as they should. We plan to provide additional active learning assignments tutoring support for students and introduce review content and add other course content to help students better prepare to grasp and demonstrate mastery with these concepts. We intend to make mandatory the individual development plans students will create based on the test scores.
Action Taken or Improvement Made We added self-assessments and individual development plans for students to chart a course to improve their knowledge, skills and abilities. These activities are designed to provide students with deeper understanding of their managerial and leadership abilities. The concepts involving statistical and mathematical techniques are important concepts for leaders and managers to succeed. We plan to add more content and discussions and in the majority of the courses in the M&L program. Based on student feedback and test results we are making some of the review tests mandatory and being added to course level assessments.
Insert Graphs or Tables of Resulting Trends

A line graph tracking performance scores for PLO 4 over four terms.

Image Transcript

PLO 4 Results

Description: A line graph tracking performance scores for PLO 4 over four terms.

Term Score
Fall 2020 52.5
Spring 2021 46.75
Fall 2021 55.31
Spring 2022 43.86

Trend Summary: Scores for PLO 4 are volatile, showing significant peaks and valleys term-over-term.

For all Program Learning Objectives, the following performance measure was used:

  • 80% Benchmark: The assessment goal is to have 80% of students rated as 2 (Moderate) or 3 (High) on a scale of 0-3 based on the results of an assessment exam..

Program Learning Objective 1 (PLO 1)

Objective: Students will be able to explain the important terminology, facts, concepts, principles, analytic techniques and theories used in the field of procurement and acquisitions management.

Analysis of Results: PLO 1
Performance Measure 80% Benchmark
Instrument/Process A Multiple-Choice test based on nine dimensions of the learning objective is administered in PROC 6000. Goals are to measure the students' performance and assess the effectiveness of the Procurement program. Direct, Summative, Internal.
Current Results 100% of students rated at a 2 (Moderate) or 3 (High) on a scale of 0-3.
Analysis of Results The results showed that the goals for all nine dimensions are met.
Action Taken or Improvement Made None. Results showed the standards were met.
Insert Graphs or Tables of Resulting Trends

Combination column and line chart showing percentage meeting benchmark and total student numbers across years.

Image Transcript

MA PROC - PLO 1: Student Learning Results

  • Chart Type: Combination clustered column and line chart.
  • Primary Data: Percentage of students meeting the benchmark across Academic Years (AY).
  • Secondary Data: Total number of students evaluated.
Academic Year Meeting Goal (Percent) Total Students (Count)
AY 1718 ~95% 198
AY 1819 ~82% 145
AY 1920 ~89% 93
AY 2021 ~98% 57
AY 2122 100% 17
  • Benchmark Goal: A static orange line is set at 80%.
  • Performance Trend: The percentage of students meeting the goal remained above the 80% benchmark for all five years, peaking at 100% in the final year.
  • Enrollment Trend: The total number of students evaluated followed a steady downward trend from 198 to 17.

Program Learning Objective 2 (PLO 2)

Objective: Students will be able to effectively apply important terminology, facts, concepts, principles, analytic techniques and theories used in the field of procurement and acquisitions management when analyzing complex factual situations.

Analysis of Results: PLO 2
Performance Measure 80% Benchmark
Instrument/Process A Multiple-Choice test based on nine dimensions of the learning objective is administered in PROC 6000. Goals are to measure the students' performance and assess the effectiveness of the Procurement program. Direct, Summative, Internal.
Current Results 94.12% of students rated at a 2 (Moderate) or 3 (High) on a scale of 0-3.
Analysis of Results The results showed that the goals for the learning objective were met.
Action Taken or Improvement Made None. Results showed the standards were met.
Insert Graphs or Tables of Resulting Trends

Combination clustered column and line chart showing percentage reaching benchmark and total evaluated for PLO2.

Image Transcript

MA PROC - PLO 2: Student Learning Results

  • Chart Type: Combination clustered column and line chart.
  • Primary Data: Percentage of students meeting the benchmark across Academic Years (AY).
  • Secondary Data: Total number of students evaluated.
Academic Year Meeting Goal (Percent) Total Students (Count)
AY 1718 ~96% 198
AY 1819 ~87% 145
AY 1920 ~78% 93
AY 2021 100% 57
AY 2122 ~94% 17
  • Benchmark Goal: A static orange line is set at 80%.
  • Performance Trend: Students met or exceeded the benchmark in four out of five years, with a slight dip below the goal (to approximately 78%) in AY 1920.
  • Enrollment Trend: The total number of students evaluated declined significantly over the period, starting at 198 and ending at 17.

Program Learning Objective 3 (PLO 3)

Objective: Students will be able to effectively integrate (or synthesize) important facts, concepts, principles and theories in the field of procurement and acquisitions management when developing solutions to multifaceted procurement and acquisitions management problems in complex factual situations.

Analysis of Results: PLO 3
Performance Measure 80% Benchmark
Instrument/Process A Multiple-Choice test based on nine dimensions of the learning objective is administered in PROC 6000. Goals are to measure the students' performance and assess the effectiveness of the Procurement program. Direct, Summative, Internal.
Current Results 94.12% of students rated at a 2 (Moderate) or 3 (High) on a scale of 0-3.
Analysis of Results The results showed that the goals for the learning objective were met.
Action Taken or Improvement Made None. Results showed the standards were met.
Insert Graphs or Tables of Resulting Trends

Combination clustered column and line chart showing percentage at benchmark and total evaluated over academic years.

Image Transcript

MA PROC - PLO 3: Student Learning Results

  • Chart Type: Combination clustered column and line chart.
  • Primary Data: Percentage of students meeting the benchmark across Academic Years (AY).
  • Secondary Data: Total number of students evaluated.
Academic Year Meeting Goal (Percent) Total Students (Count)
AY 1718 ~96% 198
AY 1819 ~85% 145
AY 1920 ~92% 93
AY 2021 100% 57
AY 2122 ~94% 17
  • Benchmark Goal: A static orange line is set at 80%.
  • Performance Trend: Performance consistently remained above the 80% benchmark for all measured years, reaching 100% in AY 2021.
  • Enrollment Trend: Similar to other objectives, the population size decreased from 198 students in AY 1718 to 17 students in AY 2122.

For all Program Learning Objectives, the following three performance measures were used:

  • 80% Benchmark: 80% of students will achieve High or Medium High.
  • Score Trend: Student scores will show an upward trend on the related Peregrine subject matter areas.
  • Pairwise Improvement: Student Pairwise results will show improvement between MBA 5010 and MBA 5910.

Program Learning Objective 1 (PLO 1)

Objective: Students can identify activities that align organizational ability with market opportunities to create value for relevant stakeholders.

Analysis of Results: PLO 1
Performance Measure 80% Benchmark Score Trend Pairwise Improvement
Instrument/Process Analysis of written response to case analysis in the MBA 5910 capstone course - Summative, Direct, Internal Review and analysis of Peregrine results — Summative, Direct, External, Comparison. Review and analysis of Peregrine results — Summative, Direct, External, Comparison.
Current Results 89% of students achieved the desired benchmark. The trend in scores was upward for the measured period. With the exception of the first term, the students do show improvement over their MBA career.
Analysis of Results The results are satisfactory, but questionable due to sample size. The results are satisfactory and so no action will be taken. The results are satisfactory and so no action will be taken.
Action Taken or Improvement Made The sample size was very small and so this may be revisited when more data ia available. None. Sample size for the first term was very small and ignored.

Insert Graphs or Tables of Resulting Trends

A column chart showing the percentile rank for three specific sessions in 2022.

Image Transcript

Peregrine Pre-Test Percentile Rank

Description: A column chart showing the percentile rank for three specific sessions in 2022. The Y-axis represents a scale from 0 to 1.

Data Breakdown

  • Spring 1 2022: 0 (No data shown)
  • Spring 2 2022: .89
  • Summer 2022: 0 (No data shown)

Trend Summary: The chart highlights a single significant performance point of .89 in the Spring 2 2022 session, with no recorded values for the preceding or following terms shown on this specific graph.

A column chart tracking "Score Strategy" values over three academic sessions.

Image Transcript

Score Strategy

Description: A column chart tracking "Score Strategy" values over three academic sessions. The Y-axis is focused on a range between 48 and 64.

Data Breakdown

  • Spring 2021: Approximately 54.3
  • Sum/Fall 2021: Approximately 60.5
  • Spring 2022: Approximately 63.2

Trend Summary: The data shows a consistent upward trend in the score strategy across all three sessions, showing steady improvement from Spring 2021 through Spring 2022.

A column chart showing the results of a pairwise strategy across three distinct academic sessions from 2021 to 2022.

Image Transcript

Pairwise Strategy

Description: A column chart showing the results of a pairwise strategy across three distinct academic sessions from 2021 to 2022. The Y-axis represents a numerical value ranging from -10 to 25.

Data Breakdown

  • Spring 2021: Approximately -4.5
  • Sum/Fall 2021: Approximately 21.5
  • Spring 2022: Approximately 17.0

Trend Summary: The pairwise strategy began with a negative result in Spring 2021, followed by a significant increase to its peak in the Summer/Fall 2021 session, and a slight decrease in the Spring 2022 session.

Program Learning Objective 2 (PLO 2)

Objective: Students can identify opportunities to improve internal processes toward the goal of increasing operational efficiency, market reach and/or customer satisfaction.

Analysis of Results: PLO 2
Performance Measure 80% Benchmark Score Trend Pairwise Improvement
Instrument/Process Analysis of written response to case analysis in the MBA 5910 capstone course — Summative, Direct, Internal. Review and analysis of Peregrine results — Summative, Direct, External, Comparison. Review and analysis of Peregrine results — Summative, Direct, External, Comparison.
Current Results 79% of students achieved the desired benchmark. For most of the related subject areas, the trend was upward as desired. Org Behavior and Marketing showed a very small downward turn in the third observation. The first term showed negative results. With one exception, the remaining observations showed improved performance between 5010 and 5910.
Analysis of Results The results are very slightly below the benchmark. The results are very slightly below the goal. The results are satisfactory with the one HRM exception.
Action Taken or Improvement Made Since the discrepancy was very small, we will wait for further results before taking any action Since the discrepancy was very small, we will wait for further results before taking any action. The one contrary result may be an anomaly and so we will wait for more data before taking action.

Insert Graphs or Tables of Resulting Trends

A column chart showing Program Learning Objective 2 (PLO 2) results for three sessions in 2022.

Image Transcript

PLO 2 Performance

Description: A column chart showing Program Learning Objective 2 (PLO 2) results for three sessions in 2022. The Y-axis represents a scale from 0 to 0.9.

Data Breakdown

  • Spring 1 2022: No data plotted.
  • Spring 2 2022: A single blue column with a value of 0.789473684.
  • Summer 2022: No data plotted.

A clustered column chart showing score distribution across eight academic subjects for three semesters.

Image Transcript

Score by Subject

Description: A clustered column chart showing score distribution across eight academic subjects for Spring 2021 (blue), Sum/Fall 2021 (orange), and Spring 2022 (gray). The Y-axis scales from 0 to 80.

Data Breakdown

  • Comm: Consistent growth from ~61 to ~70 across the three terms.
  • Leadership: Improved from ~52 in Spring 2021 to ~65 in both subsequent terms.
  • MIS: Increased from ~55 to ~61.
  • Mngt: Increased from ~48 to ~60.
  • HRM: Increased from ~40 to ~59.
  • Operations: Increased from ~49 to ~60.
  • Org Beh: Peak performance in Sum/Fall 2021 (~62) with a slight dip in Spring 2022 (~59).
  • Mrkt: Peak performance in Sum/Fall 2021 (~68) with Spring 2022 at ~66.

A clustered column chart displaying pairwise comparison data across eight different academic subjects for three terms.

Image Transcript

Pairwise by Subject

Description: A clustered column chart displaying pairwise comparison data across eight different academic subjects for three terms: Spring 2021 (blue), Sum/Fall 2021 (orange), and Spring 2022 (gray). The Y-axis represents numerical values ranging from -30 to 30.

Data Breakdown

  • Comm: Spring 2021 (~ -12); Sum/Fall 2021 (~ 7); Spring 2022 (~ 13).
  • Leadership: Spring 2021 (~ -6); Sum/Fall 2021 (~ 21); Spring 2022 (~ 14).
  • MIS: Spring 2021 (~ -1); Sum/Fall 2021 (~ 15); Spring 2022 (~ 12).
  • Mngt: Spring 2021 (~ -9); Sum/Fall 2021 (~ 9); Spring 2022 (~ 10).
  • HRM: Spring 2021 (~ -19); Sum/Fall 2021 (~ -3); Spring 2022 (~ 15).
  • Operations: Spring 2021 (~ -8); Sum/Fall 2021 (~ 12); Spring 2022 (~ 8).
  • Org Beh: Spring 2021 (~ -2); Sum/Fall 2021 (~ 19); Spring 2022 (~ 7).
  • Mrkt: Spring 2021 (~ -5); Sum/Fall 2021 (~ 15); Spring 2022 (~ 14).

Program Learning Objective 3 (PLO 3)

Objective: Students can determine the potential financial impact of a given value creating activity.

Analysis of Results: PLO 3
Performance Measure 80% Benchmark Score Trend Pairwise Improvement
Instrument/Process Analysis of written response to case analysis in the MBA 5910 capstone course — Summative, Direct, Internal. Review and analysis of Peregrine results — Summative, Direct, External, Comparison. Review and analysis of Peregrine results — Summative, Direct, External, Comparison.
Current Results 84% of students achieved the desired benchmark. There was a slight downward turn in the results between Summer/Fall 2021 and Spring 2022. The pairwise results show improving relative performance over time.
Analysis of Results The results are satisfactory, but questionable due to sample size. The discrepancy is small and so may be an anomaly. The results are very positive.
Action Taken or Improvement Made The sample size was very small and so this may be revisited when more data ia available. Since the discrepancy was very small, we will wait for further results before taking any action. No action is necessary.

Insert Graphs or Tables of Resulting Trends

A column chart displaying Program Learning Objective 3 (PLO 3) performance results for three specific sessions in 2022.

Image Transcript

PLO 3 Performance

Description: A column chart displaying Program Learning Objective 3 (PLO 3) performance results for three specific sessions in 2022. The Y-axis represents a scale from 0 to 1.0.

Data Breakdown

  • Spring 1 2022: 0 (No data shown)
  • Spring 2 2022: 0.842105263
  • Summer 2022: 0 (No data shown)

Trend Summary: The chart highlights a single significant performance result of approximately 0.84 during the Spring 2 2022 term, with no data recorded for the other two sessions displayed.

A column chart tracking "Score Finance" values over three academic terms.

Image Transcript

Score Finance

Description: A column chart tracking "Score Finance" values over three academic terms. The Y-axis is focused on a range between 45 and 60.

Data Breakdown

  • Spring 2021: Approximately 48
  • Sum/Fall 2021: Approximately 56
  • Spring 2022: Approximately 54.5

Trend Summary: There is an upward trend in finance scores, showing incremental improvement from Spring 2021 through the Spring 2022 term.

A column chart displaying pairwise comparison data for finance-related metrics across three specific academic terms.

Image Transcript

Pairwise Finance

Description: A column chart displaying pairwise comparison data for finance-related metrics across three specific academic terms. The Y-axis represents a numerical scale from 0 to 30.

Data Breakdown

  • Spring 2021: Approximately 2.0
  • Sum/Fall 2021: Approximately 19.5
  • Spring 2022: Approximately 25.0

Trend Summary: The pairwise data shows consistent growth over the three terms, starting at 2.0 and reaching a peak of 25.0 in the Spring 2022 session.

Program Learning Objective 4 (PLO 4)

Objective: Students can evaluate the potential ESG impact of a given value creating activity.

Analysis of Results: PLO 4
Performance Measure 80% Benchmark Score Trend Pairwise Improvement
Instrument/Process Analysis of written response to case analysis in the MBA 5910 capstone course — Summative, Direct, Internal. Review and analysis of Peregrine results — Summative, Direct, External, Comparison. Review and analysis of Peregrine results — Summative, Direct, External, Comparison.
Current Results 95% of students achieved the desired benchmark. There was a very small upward trend over the past two terms. The pairwise results show improving relative performance over time.
Analysis of Results The results are satisfactory, but questionable due to sample size. The difference is almost certainly not statistically significant. These results are satisfactory.
Action Taken or Improvement Made The sample size was very small and so this may be revisited when more data ia available. No action will be taken. No action is necessary.

Insert Graphs or Tables of Resulting Trends

A column chart of PLO4 performance results (Environmental, Social and Governance impact) for three semesters in 2022.

Image Transcript

PLO 4 Performance

Description: A column chart displaying performance results for Program Learning Objective 4 (Environmental, Social and Governance impact) for three specific sessions in 2022. The Y-axis represents a decimal scale from 0 to 1.0.

Data Breakdown

  • Spring 1 2022: 0 (No data shown)
  • Spring 2 2022: 0.95
  • Summer 2022: 0 (No data shown)

Trend Summary: The chart highlights an exceptionally high performance result of 0.95 (95%) for the Spring 2 2022 term, which is the only session with recorded data shown on this visualization.

A column chart tracking "Score Ethics" values over three academic sessions.

Image Transcript

Score Ethics

Description: A column chart tracking "Score Ethics" values over three academic sessions. The Y-axis focuses on a specific range between 45 and 65.

Data Breakdown

  • Spring 2021: Approximately 52
  • Sum/Fall 2021: Approximately 60
  • Spring 2022: Approximately 60.5

Trend Summary: Ethics scores show a positive upward trend, with the most significant improvement occurring between the Spring 2021 and Sum/Fall 2021 sessions.

A column chart displaying pairwise comparison results for Ethics across three academic terms.

Image Transcript

Pairwise Ethics

Description: A column chart displaying pairwise comparison results for Ethics across three academic terms. The Y-axis represents numerical values from -10 to 20.

Data Breakdown

  • Spring 2021: Approximately -7.0
  • Sum/Fall 2021: Approximately 13.0
  • Spring 2022: Approximately 9.0

Trend Summary: The pairwise Ethics results show a significant rebound following an initial negative score in Spring 2021. The performance peaked during the Sum/Fall 2021 term at approximately 13.0, followed by a slight moderate decline to 9.0 in Spring 2022.

For all Program Learning Objectives, the following performance measure was used:

  • 50% Benchmark: It is anticipated that the students' outbound scores will be at or above the 50th percentile as compared to other MHA peer education programs and that matched sample data will show outbound score exceed inbound scores.

Program Learning Objective 1 (PLO 1)

Objective: Students will be able to explain the importance healthcare leadership styles and communication skills have in professional development and in managing effective teams and predicting human behavior in an organization.

Analysis of Results: PLO 1
Performance Measure 50% Benchmark
Instrument/Process Students take the peregrine MHA exam in both HLTH 5000 and HLTH 6000. External, direct, comparative, formative and summative.
Current Results MHA outbound students’ scores were less than expected in the last academic year. After exceeding the benchmark the prior 2 years the average fell below the benchmark by 10 percentage points. In AY2021/2022 the matched sample similarly shows a decline in performance with a difference of -4.6% from the inbound scores.
Analysis of Results These results might be explained by a small sample size or the introduction of the new Live Virtual learning format which was recently initiated. More testing is needed to determine the validity of the results.
Action Taken or Improvement Made MHA faculty have increased efforts to involve students in identifying future career goals and in developing mentorship networking primarily in HLTH 5000 and HLTH 6000 course.
Insert Graphs or Tables of Resulting Trends

A clustered column and line chart comparing student numbers, average outbound scores and a benchmark for the 3 years.

Image Transcript

Outbound Avg. vs. Benchmark (Learning Objective 1)

Description: A clustered column and line chart comparing Webster University's average outbound scores (blue columns) against a consistent external benchmark (red columns) for the years 2020, 2021 and 2022. A green line tracks the number of students (n) on a secondary Y-axis.

Assessment Performance Data

  • 2020:
    • Webster Score: 78.43
    • Benchmark: 73.27
    • Sample Size (n): Approximately 38 students.
  • 2021:
    • Webster Score: 76.28
    • Benchmark: 73.27
    • Sample Size (n): Approximately 74 students.
  • 2022:
    • Webster Score: 62.94
    • Benchmark: 73.27
    • Sample Size (n): Approximately 34 students.

Trend Summary: While Webster outperformed the benchmark in 2020 and 2021, the 2022 score shows a significant decrease, falling below the benchmark. The student sample size reached its peak in 2021 before declining again in 2022.

A clustered column chart for Learning Objective 1, comparing matched Inbound and Outbound scores.

Image Transcript

Matched Sample: Inbound vs. Outbound (Learning Objective 1)

Description: A clustered column chart for Learning Objective 1, comparing matched Inbound and Outbound scores.

Data Breakdown

  • AY 20/21 (n=4):
    • Inbound: 74.75
    • Outbound: 76.25
  • AY 21/22 (n=22):
    • Inbound: 68.36
    • Outbound: 63.77
  • AY 22/23 Summer (n=19):
    • Inbound: 67.32
    • Outbound: 68.95

Program Learning Objective 2 (PLO 2)

Objective: Students will be able to apply fundamental healthcare management skills to problem-solving, decision-making, planning, delegation, communication and time management.

Analysis of Results: PLO 2
Performance Measure 50% Benchmark
Instrument/Process Students take the peregrine MHA exam in both HLTH 5000 and HLTH 6000. External, direct, comparative, formative and summative.
Current Results As in PLO 1 we observe a decline in performance in AY2021/2022. Additional investigation needs to be conducted to determine a course of action to potentially improve the comparative inbound/outbound test results for PLO 2.
Analysis of Results Results from the inbound/outbound testing pools identified three areas which indicate less than desired results, i.e., Organizational Climate and Culture, Risk Management, and the Patient Perspective.
Action Taken or Improvement Made Additional faculty meeting will be conducted to discuss and evaluate curriculum changes or enhancements to the MHA Live Virtual teaching format, so MHA comparative scores will improve.
Insert Graphs or Tables of Resulting Trends

A clustered column and line graph with student numbers compares average outbound scores to benchmark for 3 years.

Image Transcript

Outbound Avg. vs. Benchmark (Learning Objective 2)

Description: This chart is a clustered column and line graph comparing Webster University's average outbound scores (blue columns) to an external benchmark (red columns) for the years 2020, 2021 and 2022. A green line tracks the student sample size (n) on the secondary Y-axis (right side).

Assessment Performance Data

  • 2020:
    • Webster Score: Higher than the benchmark (approximately 76).
    • Benchmark: Approximately 69.
    • Sample Size (n): Approximately 38 students.
  • 2021:
    • Webster Score: Higher than the benchmark (approximately 74).
    • Benchmark: Approximately 69.
    • Sample Size (n): Approximately 74 students.
  • 2022:
    • Webster Score: Lower than the benchmark (approximately 63).
    • Benchmark: Approximately 69.
    • Sample Size (n): Approximately 34 students.

Trend Summary: Webster University consistently outperformed the benchmark in 2020 and 2021, but saw a decline in 2022, falling below the institutional benchmark. The number of students participating in the assessment peaked in 2021 before returning to levels similar to 2020 in the following year.

A clustered column chart specifically for Learning Objective 2, comparing matched Inbound and Outbound scores.

Image Transcript

Matched Sample: Inbound vs. Outbound (Learning Objective 2)

Description: A clustered column chart specifically for Learning Objective 2, comparing matched Inbound and Outbound scores.

Data Breakdown

  • AY 20/21 (n=4):
    • Inbound: 65.42
    • Outbound: 72.50
  • AY 21/22 (n=22):
    • Inbound: 64.55
    • Outbound: 65.95
  • AY 22/23 Summer (n=19):
    • Inbound: 67.81
    • Outbound: 64.06

Program Learning Objective 3 (PLO 3)

Objective: Students will be able to incorporate strategic thinking to set priorities, focus energy and resources, strengthen operations, ensure that employees and other stakeholders are working towards common goals, and to operationalize healthcare organization’s mission and vision.

Analysis of Results: PLO 3
Performance Measure 50% Benchmark
Instrument/Process Students take the peregrine MHA exam in both HLTH 5000 and HLTH 6000. External, direct, comparative, formative and summative.
Current Results While, as with previous PLOs, we observe lower scores in the AY2021/2022, we do note that the most recent matched sample data shows outbound performance does improve by 5% over inbound scores. 
Analysis of Results It appears that an analysis of the overall aggregate inbound scores did change by approximately 4.4
percent. This increase represents major gains in financial management, leadership skills and behavior, organizational climate and culture and the community and the environment.
Action Taken or Improvement Made The MHA Program lead, along with core MHA adjunct faculty will vigorously monitor the programmatic core competencies to determine areas for improvement. Efforts will be made with core faculty to outline the primary areas tested by the Peregrine testing service to ensure these fundamental concepts are included in the MHA curriculum.
Insert Graphs or Tables of Resulting Trends

A clustered column and line chart shows student numbers and compares average outbound scores and benchmark for 3 years.

Image Transcript

Outbound Avg. vs. Benchmark (Learning Objective 3)

Description: This visualization is a clustered column and line chart comparing Webster University's average outbound scores (blue columns) against an external benchmark (red columns) for the years 2020, 2021 and 2022. A green line tracks the student sample size (n) on a secondary Y-axis (right side).

Assessment Performance Data

  • 2020:
    • Webster Score: Approximately 74.
    • Benchmark: Approximately 67.
    • Sample Size (n): Approximately 38 students.
  • 2021:
    • Webster Score: Approximately 72.
    • Benchmark: Approximately 67.
    • Sample Size (n): Approximately 74 students.
  • 2022:
    • Webster Score: Approximately 61.
    • Benchmark: Approximately 67.
    • Sample Size (n): Approximately 34 students.

Trend Summary: Webster University scores remained above the benchmark in 2020 and 2021 but saw a notable decrease in 2022, dropping below the comparison benchmark. Student participation peaked in 2021 before decreasing by more than half in 2022.

A clustered column chart shows matched performance results between Inbound and Outbound assessments across 3 periods.

Image Transcript

Matched Sample: Inbound vs. Outbound (Learning Objective 3)

Description: A clustered column chart showing matched student performance results between Inbound and Outbound assessments across three academic periods. The chart tracks average scores (primary Y-axis) and the sample size (gray bars, secondary Y-axis).

Data Breakdown

  • AY 20/21 (n=4):
    • Inbound: 69.17
    • Outbound: 70.50
  • AY 21/22 (n=22):
    • Inbound: 64.55
    • Outbound: 63.71
  • AY 22/23 Summer (n=19):
    • Inbound: 62.46
    • Outbound: 67.19

 

For all Program Learning Objectives, the following three performance measure was used:

  • Peregrine Test: Pre and Post.

Analysis of Results
Performance Measure Peregrine Test
Instrument/Process Summative, External, Comparative data derived from Peregrine Tests
Current Results Peregrine Tests (Pre Tests) - Public Administration - have been administered in redeveloped PADM 5000 Public Administration sections, and the Post Tests will be administered in PADM 6000 Integrated Studies in Public Administration (3) section.
Analysis of Results Initial results are being tied to program learning outcomes, and additional data is needed for further decision making.
Action Taken or Improvement Made Pretest will be compared to posttests upon student completion.
Insert Graphs or Tables of Resulting Trends

A line graph showing the average scores achieved by MPA students across three distinct cohorts or sessions in 2022.

Image Transcript

Peregrine Pre-Test Average

Description: A line graph showing the average scores achieved by MPA students across three distinct cohorts or sessions in 2022.

Performance Data

  • F2 2022 Online: 55.33333333
  • S2 2022 LRAF: 50.5
  • S2 2022 WEBG: 58.33333333

Trend Summary: The data shows a slight decline in averages between the Fall (Online) and Spring (LRAF) sessions, followed by a peak performance average in the Spring (WEBG) session.

A line graph tracking the percentile rankings of MPA students across the same three sessions in 2022.

Image Transcript

Peregrine Pre-Test Percentile Rank

Description: A line graph tracking the percentile rankings of MPA students across the same three sessions in 2022. Percentile rank indicates how the cohorts performed relative to a broader comparison group.

Percentile Data

  • F2 2022 Online: 70%
  • S2 2022 LRAF: 33%
  • S2 2022 WEBG: 89%

Trend Summary: There is a significant fluctuation in percentile rankings. While the Online cohort ranked in the 70th percentile, the LRAF cohort saw a sharp decrease to the 33rd percentile, followed by a substantial increase to the 89th percentile for the WEBG cohort.

 

For all Program Learning Objectives, the following performance measure was used:

  • Pairwise Improvement: Peregrine Exam administered in FINC 5100 (Inbound) and FINC 6290 (Outbound). Goals are to show an increase in outbound vs. inbound results and to have all learning outcomes average in the Medium or High category (40% or above) on outbound exam.

Program Learning Objective 1 (PLO 1)

Objective: Students can determine the value of financial assets.

Analysis of Results: PLO 1
Performance Measure Pairwise Improvement
Instrument/Process Direct, formative, summative, comparative external multiple choice exam developed and administered by Peregrine Global Services.
Current Results Average overall scores out of 100%: 74.7% (Outbound). 60.0% (Inbound). Average overall outbound results for sub-outcomes: Outcome 1.1: 73.2% (High). Outcome 1.2: 75.5% (High). Outcome 1.3: 75.5% (High).
Analysis of Results All location types met the goal for each suboutcome. Outbound scores exceeded inbound scores for each sub-outcome. Outbound results have been very similar for the past three academic years, but are trending slightly down. WEB results are weaker than Online. Military data are less reliable because there are only 2 students assessed.
Action Taken or Improvement Made None. Results meet standards.
Insert Graphs or Tables of Resulting Trends

A bar chart comparing Inbound and Outbound scores for Asset Valuation over three academic years.

Image Transcript

LO1: Asset Valuation Pairwise Results By Year

Description: A bar chart comparing Inbound and Outbound scores for Asset Valuation over three academic years.

  • AY19/20: Inbound ~65, Outbound ~75.
  • AY20/21: Inbound ~53, Outbound ~76.
  • AY21/22: Inbound ~60, Outbound ~74.

combination chart showing the percentage achieving score levels for three outcomes across three locations.

Image Transcript

MSF AY21/22 Learning Objective 1 by Location

Description: A combination chart showing the percentage of students achieving High, Medium or Low scores for three outcomes (1.1, 1.2, 1.3) across Military, Online and WEBG locations. It includes an 80% performance goal and tracks the number of students (N) per location.

Outcome 1.1

  • Military (N=2): 50% High, 50% Medium.
  • Online (N=23): ~83% High, ~13% Medium, ~4% Low.
  • WEBG (N=9): ~67% High, ~33% Medium.

Outcome 1.2

  • Military (N=2): 100% High.
  • Online (N=23): ~83% High, ~17% Medium.
  • WEBG (N=9): ~44% High, ~56% Medium.

Outcome 1.3

  • Military (N=2): 50% High, 50% Medium.
  • Online (N=23): ~70% High, ~30% Medium.
  • WEBG (N=9): ~44% High, ~56% Medium.

 

Program Learning Objective 2 (PLO 2)

Objective: Students can analyze the financial decisions of a corporation.

Analysis of Results: PLO 2
Performance Measure Pairwise Improvement
Instrument/Process Direct, formative, summative, comparative external multiple choice exam developed and administered by Peregrine Global Services.
Current Results Average overall scores out of 100%: 71.5% (Outbound). 55.5% (Inbound).
Average overall outbound results for sub-outcomes: Outcome 2.1: 70.0% (High). Outcome 2.2: 66.8% (High). Outcome 2.3: 73.6% (High). Outcome 2.4: 75.5% (High).
Analysis of Results All location types met the goal for each sub-outcome. Outbound scores exceeded inbound scores for each suboutcome. Outbound results have been very similar for the past three academic years. An increase last year was followed by a slight decrease this year. WEB results are weaker than Online. Military data are less reliable because there are only 2 students assessed.
Action Taken or Improvement Made None. Results meet standards.
Insert Graphs or Tables of Resulting Trends

A bar chart comparing Inbound and Outbound student scores for Financial Decisions over three academic years.

Image Transcript

LO2: Financial Decisions Pairwise Results By Year

Description: A bar chart comparing Inbound and Outbound student scores for Financial Decisions over three academic years.

  • AY19/20: Inbound ~62, Outbound ~72.
  • AY20/21: Inbound ~51, Outbound ~75.
  • AY21/22: Inbound ~54, Outbound ~71.

A combination chart tracking student achievement for four outcomes across three locations, measured against an 80% goal.

Image Transcript

MSF AY21/22 Learning Objective 2 by Location

Description: A combination chart tracking student achievement for four outcomes (2.1 through 2.4) across Military, Online and WEBG locations, measured against an 80% goal.

Outcome 2.1

  • Military (N=2): 50% High, 50% Medium.
  • Online (N=23): ~61% High, ~39% Medium.
  • WEBG (N=9): ~33% High, ~56% Medium, ~11% Low.

Outcome 2.2

  • Military (N=2): 100% Medium.
  • Online (N=23): ~65% High, ~35% Medium.
  • WEBG (N=9): ~22% High, ~67% Medium, ~11% Low.

Outcome 2.3

  • Military (N=2): 100% High.
  • Online (N=23): ~78% High, ~22% Medium.
  • WEBG (N=9): ~78% High, ~22% Medium.

Outcome 2.4

  • Military (N=2): 50% High, 50% Medium.
  • Online (N=23): ~83% High, ~17% Medium.
  • WEBG (N=9): ~56% High, ~44% Medium.

Program Learning Objective 3 (PLO 3)

Objective: Students can evaluate credit and interest rate risk.

Analysis of Results: PLO 3
Performance Measure Pairwise Improvement
Instrument/Process Direct, formative, summative, comparative external multiple choice exam developed and administered by Peregrine Global Services.
Current Results Average overall scores out of 100%: 79.1% (Outbound), 55.9% (Inbound)
Analysis of Results All location types met the goal for each sub-outcome (note: military was not included, as there was only one student assessed). Outbound scores exceeded inbound scores for each sub-outcome. As with the other learning objectives, WEBG's results were weaker than online.
Action Taken or Improvement Made None. Results meet standards.
Insert Graphs or Tables of Resulting Trends

A bar chart comparing Inbound and Outbound scores for Risk and Return over three academic years.

Image Transcript

LO3: Risk and Return Pairwise Results By Year

Description: A bar chart comparing Inbound and Outbound scores for Risk and Return over three academic years.

  • AY19/20: Inbound ~61, Outbound ~72.
  • AY20/21: Inbound ~50, Outbound ~75.
  • AY21/22: Inbound ~56, Outbound ~74.

A combination chart showing achievement for Learning Objective 3 (Risk and Return) by location.

Image Transcript

MSF AY21/22 Learning Objective 3 by Location

Description: A combination chart showing achievement for Learning Objective 3 (Risk and Return) by location.

  • Military (N=2): 100% High.
  • Online (N=23): ~78% High, ~22% Medium.
  • WEBG (N=9): ~56% High, ~44% Medium.

Goal: The performance goal for all locations is set at 80%.

For the Program Learning Objectives, the following performance measures were used:

  • PLO1 and PLO2 — 70% Benchmark: At least 80% of the students receive "Medium" or "High" scores on the multiple choice exam given in Capstone class.
  • PLO3 — 80% Benchmark: At least 80% of the students are rated "Medium" or "High" scores on the successful completion of final ITM project and oral defense of the study.

Program Learning Objective 1 (PLO 1)

Objective: Marketing Sensing – Graduates will be able to effectively acquire relevant information as well as evaluate and analyze it in order to make impactful strategic marketing decisions

Analysis of Results: PLO 1
Performance Measure 80% Benchmark
Instrument/Process Scores on capstone exam. Summative, Internal, direct.
Current Results All results exceed goal.
Analysis of Results Additional written assignments and continued review of concepts and theories reviewed in core courses.
Action Taken or Improvement Made Stress additional course reading material of new and existing IT theories.
Insert Graphs or Tables of Resulting Trends

Combination bar and line chart showing percentage meeting the learning goal and total number of students assessed.

Image Transcript

MA Information Technology Management PLO 1

Description: This chart uses blue bars to represent the percentage of students meeting the learning goal and a black line to show the total number of students assessed.

Academic Year Percent Meeting Goal Total Students (Line)
AY 1516 91% 292
AY 1617 94% 209
AY 1718 91% 184
AY 1819 87% 164
AY 1920 89% 91
AY 2021 93% 69
  • Benchmark Goal: A constant orange line represents the target goal of 80%.
  • Summary: Student performance for PLO 1 consistently remained between 7% and 14% above the target benchmark across all six measurement periods.

Program Learning Objective 2 (PLO 2)

Objective: Students will be able to effectively apply important terminology, facts, concepts, principles, analytic techniques and theories used in the field of information technology management when analyzing complex factual situations.

Analysis of Results: PLO 2
Performance Measure 80% Benchmark
Instrument/Process Scores on capstone exam. Summative, Internal, direct.
Current Results All results exceed goal.
Analysis of Results The ITM projects have increase technical specificity and deeper student knowledge in development of problems solutions and analysis.
Action Taken or Improvement Made Students prove they can take a problem and do statistical analysis and review of problems with IT tools and solutions.
Insert Graphs or Tables of Resulting Trends

A combination bar and line chart showing the percentage of students meeting PLO 2 objectives and total student count.

Image Transcript

MA Information Technology Management PLO 2

Description: A combination chart showing the decimal percentage of students meeting PLO 2 objectives (bars) against the total student count (line).

Academic Year Result (Decimal) Total Students (Line)
AY 1516 0.90 292
AY 1617 0.98 209
AY 1718 0.92 184
AY 1819 0.87 164
AY 1920 0.92 91
Final Term 0.93 69
  • Benchmark Goal: A constant orange line represents the target goal of 0.8 (80%).
  • Summary: Performance for PLO 2 peaked in Academic Year 1617 at 98% and maintained a high level of achievement significantly above the 80% goal.

Program Learning Objective 3 (PLO 3)

Objective: Students will be able to effectively integrate (or synthesize) important facts, concepts, principles and theories in the field of information technology management when developing solutions to multifaceted information technology management problems in complex factual situations.

Analysis of Results: PLO 3
Performance Measure 80% Benchmark
Instrument/Process Summative, Internal, direct data derived from test developed within the program.
Current Results Student success is proven by student comments and verification of results.
Analysis of Results Completing students are staying in the field and enrollments are increasing.
Action Taken or Improvement Made None at this time.
Insert Graphs or Tables of Resulting Trends

A combination bar and line chart showing percentages for PLO 3 achievement and declining trend of the student numbers.

Image Transcript

MA Information Technology Management PLO 3

Description: A combination chart tracking the precise decimal percentages for PLO 3 achievement (bars) and the declining trend of the student population (line).

Academic Year Result (Decimal) Total Students (Line)
AY 1516 0.9041 292
AY 1617 0.9808 209
AY 1718 0.9212 184
AY 1819 0.872 164
AY 1920 0.923076923 91
Final Term 0.927536232 69
  • Benchmark Goal: A constant orange line represents the target goal of 0.8 (80%).
  • Summary: Despite a 76% decrease in the total number of students assessed over the period (from 292 to 69), the percentage of students meeting the outcome remained highly stable and well above the target goal.

Program Learning Objective 1 (PLO 1)

Objective: Marketing Sensing — Students can identify activities that align organizational ability with market opportunities to create value for relevant stakeholders.

For this Program Learning Objective, the following performance measure was used:

  • 70% Benchmark: 70% overall mean score and at least 70% of students scoring 70%.
    • Stretch goal: 75% overall mean score and at least 70% of students scoring 80%.

Analysis of Results: PLO 1
Performance Measure 70% Benchmark
Instrument/Process Capsim ModExam — direct, formative, external, comparative.
Current Results Both stretch goals were met. A total of 16 students completed the Capsim ModExam with 12 students averaging 70.83% in F2 and 4 students averaging 83.65% in S2 for a cumulative weighted average of 74.04% overall. In addition, 67% of students in F2 and 75% in S2 were above 80% for a cumulative 81% scoring above 80%.
Analysis of Results While the overall goal was accomplished, room for improvement was still identified. In a deeper dive, scores across topics, SWOT analysis score was surprisingly poor. Both in terms of pre- and post- results as well as underperforming as compared to national scores. This score was low last year as well so demonstrates consistency. Strategic performance is another area which was low compared to national scores and represents an opportunity for improvement. (See PLO1 Item Scores Worksheet for data).
Action Taken or Improvement Made The SWOT analysis is an important concept discussed and applied in the majority of the MRKT courses. However, we will need to incorporate more explanation of the SWOT analysis in the future, especially comparing and contrasting it to the PESTEL and Porter's Five Forces analyses.
Insert Graphs or Tables of Resulting Trends

Line graph tracking student performance for Program Learning Objective 1 across three measurement periods.

Image Transcript

Image 1: MRKT PLO1 Avg. Scores

Description: A line graph tracking student performance for Program Learning Objective 1 across three measurement periods (1, 2 and 3).

Data Series Period 1 Period 2 Period 3
Post-test (Blue Square) ~73 ~71 ~84
Goal (Red Diamond) 70 70 70
National Avg (Dashed) ~65 ~65 ~65
Pre-test (Light Blue X) ~56 ~54 ~55

Key Takeaway: Post-test scores remained above the goal and national average for all periods, showing a significant upward trend in the final measurement.

Program Learning Objective 2 (PLO 2)

Objective: Market Value Creation — Graduates will be able to effectively manage value creation by developing and evaluating marketing strategies and objectives to foster long-term success and promote meaningful relationships.

For this Program Learning Objective, the following performance measure was used:

  • 65% Benchmark: Overall mean score should be on par with National mean score — 65% overall mean score and at least 70% of students scoring 65%.
    • Stretch goal: Overall mean score significantly above the National mean score — 70% overall mean score and at least 50% of students scoring 80%.

Analysis of Results: PLO 2
Performance Measure 65% Benchmark
Instrument/Process Capsim ModExam — direct, formative, external, comparative.
Current Results The minimal goals were partially reached but only in S22. The stretch goals were not met. A total of 16 students completed the Capsim ModExam with 12 students averaging 53.33% in F2 and 4 students averaging 69.00% in S2 for a cumulative weighted average of 57.25%, overall. While scores were above the national scores, only the S22 scores exceeded the minimal goal of 65%. In addition, only 41% of students in F2 scored above 60% on PLO2, while 100% in S2 were above 60%. However, 0% were above 80% on this PLO.
Analysis of Results While the neither the minimal nor stretch goals were completely accomplished, score exceed the national average for PLO2. We have set high expectations for our students, which upon comparison to national scores might be unreasonable. That said, a deeper dive into scores across topics reveals that several areas are lower than we expect. Conducting a break-even analysis scored 12% compared to the national score of 25%. In addition, understanding New-product Development Process (59%) and Computing Retail Price (53%) were low compared to national scores of 78% and 64%, respectively. There are other topics, such as E-Commerce, which are important aspects of marketing but are not thoroughly covered in the MRKT program. (See PLO2 Item Scores Worksheet for data).
Action Taken or Improvement Made Financial calculations, such as breakeven analysis, are discussed in the MRKT program but could be incorporated throughout the program much more thoroughly. Currently, these topics are covered in MRKT 5000 and reinforced in MRKT 5960 and MRKT 6000. These types of financial concepts are important in all aspects of marketing and could easily be included in most of the marketing courses. E-commerce is an elective course that has not been offered in recent years. However, it will be required as part of the Graduate Digital Marketing Certificate starting 2023-24 academic year. As such, it will be available for all MRKT students to take. We will continue to keep the goal at 65% and monitor progress.
Insert Graphs or Tables of Resulting Trends

A line graph comparing average scores for Program Learning Objective 2 across Spring 2021, Fall 2021, and Spring 2022.

Image Transcript

Image 2: MRKT PLO 2 Avg. Scores

Description: A line graph comparing average scores for Program Learning Objective 2 across Spring 2021, Fall 2021, and Spring 2022.

Data Series Spring 2021 Fall 2021 Spring 2022
Post-test (Blue Square) ~65 ~54 ~69
Goal (Red Diamond) 70 70 70
National Avg (Dashed) ~54 ~53 ~53
Pre-test (Light Blue X) ~46 ~42 ~45

Key Takeaway: Performance dipped to the national average in Fall 2021 but recovered to nearly meet the program goal (70) by Spring 2022.

 

Program Learning Objective 3 (PLO 3)

Objective: Personal Management — Graduates will demonstrate personal skills (e.g. communication, personal brand management, ethics, team management) which are important keys to success as a marketing manager.

For this Program Learning Objective, the following performance measure was used:

  • 70% Benchmark: 70% overall mean score and at least 70% of students scoring 70%.
    • Stretch goal: 75% overall mean score and at least 70% of students scoring 80%.

Analysis of Results: PLO 3
Performance Measure 70% Benchmark
Instrument/Process Capsim ModExam — direct, formative, external, comparative.
Current Results Both stretch goals were met. A total of 16 students completed the Capsim ModExam with 12 students averaging 66.25% in F2 and 4 students averaging 87.50% in S2 for a cumulative weighted average of 71.56% overall. In addition, only 42% of students in F2 were above 80%; however, 75% in S2 were above the goal for a cumulative 94% scoring above 80%.
Analysis of Results The goals were partially accomplished leaving room for improvement. While we desire to improve scores in all topics of this PLO, Building Effective Goals is an area of deficit. Students scored a reasonable 80% but underperformed as compared to national scores of 86%. This score was much stronger last academic year at 93%. Scores in F22 were much lower than the other two terms which might have been an anomaly. We hope to see more consistently high scores for this PLO. (See PLO3 Item Scores Worksheet for data).
Action Taken or Improvement Made We will be revising course PLOs and course assessment requirements to make sure the personal goals are covered across the MRKT program.
Insert Graphs or Tables of Resulting Trends

A line graph tracking performance for Program Learning Objective 3 over three semesters.

Image Transcript

Image 3: MRKT PLO3 Avg. Scores

Description: A line graph tracking performance for Program Learning Objective 3 over three semesters.

Data Series Spring 2021 Fall 2021 Spring 2022
Post-test (Blue Square) ~85 ~66 ~88
Goal (Red Diamond) 85 85 85
National Avg (Dashed) ~54 ~64 ~64
Pre-test (Light Blue X) ~66 ~60 ~75

Key Takeaway: While scores saw a notable decline in Fall 2021, the Spring 2022 results show that students exceeded the high goal of 85.

 

Operational Key Performance Indicators: Student Achievement

The Walker School of Business & Technology closely monitors operational key performance indicators (KPIs) to ensure our programs foster student persistence and timely degree completion. These metrics, managed in coordination with the Office of Institutional Effectiveness, serve as vital benchmarks for our continuous improvement efforts and institutional health.

In alignment with National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) standards, the data below provides a transparent look at our retention and graduation trajectories.

Retention and Graduation Rates

Retention rates measure the percentage of students who continue their studies from one academic year to the next, while graduation rates track the successful completion of degree programs within established timeframes. These figures reflect our success in providing the academic support and resources necessary for students to reach their educational goals.

The following data tracks first-time, full-time (FTFT) degree-seeking freshmen cohorts.

Retention Rates of First-Time, Full-Time Degree-Seeking Freshmen at the Webster Groves Campus, 2000-2021
Cohort Year FTFT Freshmen 2nd Year # 2nd Year Rate 3rd Year # 3rd Year Rate 4th Year # 4th Year Rate
2000 412 326 79.1% 284 68.9% 256 62.1%
2001 399 315 78.9% 268 67.2% 230 57.6%
2002 387 304 78.6% 267 69.0% 229 59.2%
2003 458 368 80.3% 327 71.4% 287 62.7%
2004 448 361 80.6% 324 72.3% 303 67.6%
2005 394 302 76.6% 275 69.8% 246 62.4%
2006 413 334 80.9% 302 73.1% 281 68.0%
2007 483 375 77.6% 328 67.9% 299 61.9%
2008 407 325 79.9% 288 70.8% 264 64.9%
2009 486 382 78.6% 337 69.3% 314 64.6%
2010 413 332 80.4% 288 69.7% 254 61.5%
2011 472 372 78.8% 341 72.2% 312 66.1%
2012 411 332 80.8% 290 70.6% 262 63.7%
2013 487 375 77.0% 332 68.2% 309 63.4%
2014 457 357 78.1% 302 66.1% 273 59.7%
2015 412 308 74.8% 264 64.1% 242 58.7%
2016 433 343 79.2% 290 67.0% 266 61.4%
2017 511 398 77.9% 351 68.7% 317 62.0%
2018 479 377 78.7% 339 70.8% 308 64.3%
2019 387 298 77.0% 265 68.5% - -
2020 390 301 77.2% - - - -
2021 343 - - - - - -

Graduation Rates of First-Time, Full-Time Degree-Seeking Freshmen at the Webster Groves Campus, 2000-2021
Cohort Year FTFT Freshmen 4th Year # 4th Year Rate 5th Year # 5th Year Rate 6th Year # 6th Year Rate
2000 412 168 40.8% 226 54.9% 243 59.0%
2001 399 179 44.9% 228 57.1% 242 60.7%
2002 387 178 45.9% 220 56.8% 232 60.0%
2003 458 214 46.7% 285 32.2% 296 64.6%
2004 448 229 51.1% 278 32.1% 296 66.1%
2005 394 175 44.4% 226 57.4% 239 60.7%
2006 413 183 44.3% 249 60.3% 263 63.7%
2007 483 203 42.0% 265 54.9% 286 59.2%
2008 407 173 42.5% 247 60.7% 259 63.6%
2009 486 208 42.8% 276 56.8% 302 62.1%
2010 413 178 42.9% 233 56.4% 243 58.8%
2011 472 225 47.7% 284 60.2% 300 63.6%
2012 411 188 45.7% 236 57.4% 243 59.1%
2013 487 186 38.2% 261 53.6% 282 57.9%
2014 457 188 41.1% 243 53.2% 252 55.1%
2015 412 184 44.7% 224 54.4% 235 57.0%
2016 433 190 43.9% 241 55.7% - -
2017 511 252 49.3% - - - -
2018 479 - - - - - -
2019 387 - - - - - -
2020 390 - - - - - -
2021 343 - - - - - -

The following data tracks new degree-seeking transfer cohorts.

Retention Rates of New Degree-Seeking Transfers at the Webster Groves Campus, Fall 2009-Fall 2021
Cohort Year New Transfers 2nd Year # 2nd Year Rate 3rd Year # 3rd Year Rate 4th Year # 4th Year Rate
2009 349 249 71.3% 144 41.3% 68 19.5%
2010 368 281 76.4% 181 49.2% 73 19.8%
2011 339 270 79.6% 161 47.5% 45 13.3%
2012 353 278 78.8% 180 51.0% 68 19.3%
2013 319 262 82.1% 161 50.5% 50 15.7%
2014 318 250 78.6% 140 44.0% 51 16.0%
2015 319 246 77.1% 138 43.3% 46 14.4%
2016 288 211 73.3% 128 44.4% 43 14.9%
2017 233 177 76.0% 110 47.2% 27 11.6%
2018 246 192 78.0% 113 45.9% 39 15.9%
2019 222 157 70.7% 85 38.3% - -
2020 158 123 77.8% - - - -
2021 176 - - - - - -

Graduation Rates of New Degree-Seeking Transfers at the Webster Groves Campus, Fall 2009-Fall 2021
Cohort Year New Transfers 4th Year # 4th Year Rate 5th Year # 5th Year Rate 6th Year # 6th Year Rate
2009 349 202 57.9% 219 62.8% 223 63.9%
2010 368 226 61.4% 245 66.6% 256 69.6%
2011 339 216 63.7% 227 67.0% 233 68.7%
2012 353 239 67.7% 253 71.7% 262 74.2%
2013 319 209 65.5% 219 68.7% 227 71.2%
2014 318 197 61.9% 206 64.8% 210 66.0%
2015 319 201 63.0% 210 65.8% 215 67.4%
2016 288 179 62.2% 184 63.9% - -
2017 233 153 65.7% - - - -
2018 246 - - - - - -
2019 222 - - - - - -
2020 158 - - - - - -
2021 176 - - - - - -

The following data tracks degree-seeking graduate students across fall and spring cohorts.

One-Year Retention Rate of New Degree-Seeking Graduate Students, Fall and Spring Cohorts 2016-2021
Cohort Session Initial Headcount Avg. Credits Earned After 1 Year Avg. Terms Enrolled in 1 Year
FA16 2069 20.1 4.8
SP17 1465 19.3 4.7
FA17 1977 20.1 4.8
SP18 1260 19.3 4.7
FA18 1685 20.6 4.9
SP19 1103 20.8 4.7
FA19 1522 23.0 5.0
SP20 962 22.1 4.8
FA20 1174 20.7 4.9
SP21 637 - -

Graduation Rates of New Degree-Seeking Graduate Students, Fall and Spring Cohorts 2016-2021
Cohort Session Initial Headcount 1-Year Rate # 1-Year Rate % 2-Year Rate # 2-Year Rate % 3-Year Rate # 3-Year Rate % 4-Year Rate # 4-Year Rate % Avg. Time to Degree
FA16 2069 308 14.9% 869 42.0% 1240 60.0% 1345 65.0% 2.2
SP17 1465 209 14.3% 591 40.3% 857 58.5% 927 63.3% 2.2
FA17 1977 251 12.7% 847 42.8% 1191 60.2% 1290 65.3% 2.2
SP18 1260 138 11.0% 531 42.1% 737 58.5% - - 2.1
FA18 1685 297 17.6% 751 44.6% 1022 60.7% - - 1.9
SP19 1103 146 13.2% 526 47.7% - - - - 1.7
FA19 1522 314 20.6% 684 44.9% - - - - 1.4
SP20 962 130 13.5% - - - - - - 1.1
FA20 1174 256 21.8% - - - - - - 1.0
SP21 637 - - - - - - - - -