AACSB STAFF Workshop

1. 6 July 2011 Dr. Kristie Ogilvie Director, AACSB Accreditation AACSB STAFF Workshop

2. How can I make a difference? What am I doing here? What value do I bring? What do I need to know for my job? Why am I important to Accreditation?

3. Who am I? • Industry: Aerospace / Pharma, 10+ Years. • Teaching: CSUS, Chapman, CSUF, CSUSB (Marketing) • Management Professor in the CBPA. • Teacher: MGMT 302, 335, 455, 601, 665, 641, 642. • Research: SNA, Teams, Technical Workforces. • Grant Writer • Service • Director, AACSB accreditation • Chair of the UG AoL committee historically. • 7/9 Faculty = Research and Teaching • Why am I here? • Focus on staff is a necessity. • Focus on quality is a necessity. • Are staff a Problem area? No, but we need to leverage our strengths. Who am I and why am I here?

4. Introduction to Accreditation / AACSB • AACSB Accreditation • Strategy / Mission • Faculty Qualifications • Assurance of Learning • Recent Trends and Future Actions • Second Half of Workshop Outline and Objectives Agenda

5. Standard of quality, emphasis differs. • Regional: Teaching Related • Professional : Teaching and Research Relation • Different disciplines have different accrediting bodies • US and European Accreditation for Business • AACSB (US) • EQUIS (European, though Bentley & Babson in US) • AMBA (Europe, founded by Harvard & 7 UK schools) • 50 Schools Worldwide have Triple Crown (None in US)* • Our Accreditation Bodies • CSUSB – WASC, CBPA – AACSB, PA - NASPAA What is accreditation

6. Standards – No Notation ICAM 2011 – Annual Conference BPAV 2011 - Best Practices from Accreditation Visits MOA 2011 – Maintenance of Accreditation Conference AAS 2010 - Applied Assessment Seminar USW 2009 - Updated Standards Webinar Presentation Structure and Notations

7. CBPA Structure Dean AACSB Accreditation Strat. Plan. Com (Faculty) Dean Director of Accreditation (Ogilvie) Analyst (Flynn) ASC – Varied based on Task Strategy / Mission Standard 1-15 Faculty Qualifications AQ/PQ Graduate Courses Digital Measures Publication Quality Standard 2, 9, 10* Assurance of Learning Undergraduate Graduate MSA Offsite & Online Standards 16-21* Documentation Liaison: AACSB Contact University Relations Milestones: Interim Report 5th Year Report On Site Visitation *Focus of Interim Report , 5th Year Report and Visit

8. Advanced quality management education worldwide through…… AACSB Missions Accreditation . Thought . Leadership Value Added Services

9. AACSB was established in 1916. • Headquarters in Tampa, Florida. • Accreditation is • awarded base on 21 standards. • made at the institutional level. • is awarded in business, accounting, or both. • awarded to less than 10% of Business Schools Worldwide. • Accredited Institutions • In 2011, 694 total, 620 in North America • In Process 184 – Mostly International. AACSB, An Introduction

10. Standards • Description of requirements • Less information on the “how to” • Interpretive material provided as a supplement • Conferences, seminars, webinars, whitepapers cover acceptable and best practices. • Mission / Strategy - Standard 1-5 • Faculty Qualifications - Standard 6-15 • Assurance of Learning - Standard 16-21 Standards

11. Initial accreditation must cover all standards • Maintenance of accreditation covers the areas of weakness from last 5 year visit • Upon initial accreditation an interim report is due 2.5 years (July 2011) • Every five years, a visit occurs in which a full report is due. • Documentation and Interview of faculty and staff is key. AACSB Reporting Cycle

12. Mission and Strategy Section 1

13. A school articulates its mission and action items as a guide to its view of the future, planned evolution, infrastructure, and use of resources. • The strategic management standards verify that a school focuses its resources and efforts toward a defined mission as embodied in a mission statement. • What is the overall mission to your organization? • How are resources deployed to support your mission? • How are your programs deployed to support your mission? • Profit / financial incentive is not enough of a reason for deployment. (BPAV 2011) AACSB Accreditation: Mission / Strategy

14. Strategic Plan • Managed through strategic planning committee • Re-engergized in 2011-2012 with Dr. Mike Stull as Chair. • Primarily teaching based mission • Diverse student base • Areas for Concentration • Deployment of programs: MSA, Online MBA, International Partnerships • Institutional accreditation • Excluding programs from accreditation • If 25% or more of the program is taught by business faculty, it can not typically be excluded • Economics and International Faculty Contribution to Strategic Framework

15. Standard 4 – Continuous Improvement • Processes are continually improved to continue to fulfill mission. • Documented Processes and Action Items • Standard 5 – Financial • Costs vs. Resources carefully examined • Infrastructure fits activities: labs, classrooms, offices, communications, computer equipment, communication, basic facilities and processes • The key is to obtain data, track data, and base change from data. Staff Contribution to Strategy/Mission

16. Faculty Qualifications Section 2

17. A direct link exists between: • a school’s mission • the characteristics of students served by the educational programs • the composition and qualifications of the faculty members providing the programs • the overall quality of the school. Faculty Qualifications: Defined

18. A clear policy must be in place that delineates AQ / PQ criteria. Documentation must be maintained to substantiate the status designation in a portfolio. PRJs are universally required, though other ICs are expanding (MOC, 2011) Faculty Qualifications: Academic

19. At least 90-percent of faculty resources are either academically or professionally qualified. • At least 50-percent of faculty resources are academically qualified. • Trends (ICAM, 2011) . AQ PQ • 2002-2003 73% 22% • 2009-2010 63% 30% Faculty Qualifications: AQ/PQ ratios

20. To be AQ, one must hold a doctorate degree • Non-AACSB schools or programs may be questioned, in which a portfolio of ICs must be provided (ICAM, 2011) • Recent graduates receive a 5 year window to reach AQ standards • PhD students have 3 years to reach their graduation once ABD status is met • IC policy set by school and compared to peers. (ICAM, 2011) Faculty Qualifications: AQ Requirements

21. Normally, the professional experience should be relevant to the faculty member's teaching assignment, significant in duration and level of responsibility, and current at the time of hiring. • Once hired, the PQ status is granted for a five year period. • If the duration of employment is over five years, a portfolio of continued professional activity must be maintained. Faculty Qualifications: Professional

22. Regardless of the type of contractual relationships between faculty members and the school, the faculty is sufficient in numbers and presence to perform or oversee the following functions: • Curriculum Development • Course Development • Other activities that support the instructional goals of the school's mission, such as faculty development activities, community service, institutional service, service in academic organizations, economic development. Participating versus Supporting

23. Participating faculty members will deliver at least 75-percent of the school's teaching (whether measured by credit hours, contact hours, or other metric appropriate to the school). Normally, Participating faculty members will deliver at least 60-percent of the teaching in each discipline, each academic program, and location. Faculty Qualifications: PQ Ratios

24. Ratios must be tracked and reported in each discipline, each academic program, and location. A single dip in ratios does not jeopardize accreditation, though corrective action must be reported and taken. Faculty Qualifications

25. Policy Defined: AQ/PQ, Graduate Teaching and P/S • Update of Digital Measures Necessary • Area of Concentration • Recent trends issues (ICAM 2011) • Vitas matching database and tables • Non-AACSB Doctorates • PhD Students • Incentive programs underway for: • AQand Research • Research Quality • High Quality Research CSUSB’s Strategy for Faculty Qualifications

26. Assurance of Learning Section 3

27. Student learning is the central activity of higher education. Definition of learning expectations and assurance that graduates achieve learning expectations are key features of any academic program. The learning expectations derive from a balance of internal and external contributions to the definition of educational goals. Learning goals should be set and revised at a level that encourages continuous improvement in educational programs. Assurance of Learning

28. Assurance of Learning Framework • Create learning goals that reflect the outcomes that an institution wants students to obtain upon graduation. • Assess student learning, based on those learning goals. • Analyze and report results of the data from the assessment process to the stakeholders. • Drive change for continuous improvement from the assessment program. – “Closing the loop”. Assurance of Learning: Definition

29. AACSB states accredited schools must illustrate a mature system for collecting and assessing data for maintaining accreditation, outlined from the AACSB standards. “For schools with visit years in 2007-08 and beyond, the impact of assessment outcomes on continuing development of degree programs should be evident.” (AACSB 2011, p. 69) Assurance of Learning

30. Methodology is sound (reliable and valid) • Established and well thought out learning goals • No group data • Mature rubrics for assessment and rater reliability • Not a major concern, except if shows to be an issue (such as no improvement necessary for a majority of learning goals) • Assessment • Course selection • Does not exclude any set of students that makeup the program • Consistency between courses for multi course sample (i.e. PA 315) • Portfolios / Comps • No selection bias (population / e-portfolios) • Faculty driven • Data drives change in curriculum • Issues discussed in “recent trends” • Mounds of data, does not drive change and improvements of curriculum • *** Accumulation of discussions from seminars/conferences What is a ‘mature’ framework?***

31. Universal Skills that all students should possess through development in their program upon graduation • Four to six recommended. • Goals can vary per program • “Less is more... assess four learning goals well, rather than six with less quality” (Trapnell, MOC 2011) • Examples from AACSB Material • Leadership, Globalism, Teamwork, Information Technology, Oral Communication, Written Communication, Ethical Reasoning, Problem Solving, etc. Assurance of Learning: Learning Goals

32. One Direct Measure of each learning goal required. • Direct = Student Assessment • Indirect learning goals, as necessary. • Syllabi analysis, employer surveys, faculty feedback, etc. • Two cycles of data collection and analysis required each five year cycle. Assurance of Learning: Learning Goals

33. Programs have two options for selection of their data target • (1) assessment of each concentration • (2) assessment of the core courses of a program • Virtually every school uses the core course program technique (ICAM 2011) Assurance of Learning: Methodology

34. Communication, Oral • Communication, Written • Problem Solving Skills • Innovative for UG/MBA • Ethical Reasoning Skills • Informational Technology • Not included for MSA • General and Specific Management Knowledge and Skills Learning Goals - UG, MBA, MSA

35. Oral Communication • Oral presentation in class, though participation is not enough • Written Communication • Needs to be an individual assignment at least two pages • Can be in- or out-of-class assignment • Mature framework would have consistent content, textbook, assignments between sections* • Problem Solving • Individual Assignment with an essay style submission • Ethical Reasoning • Essay style submission for assessment • Information Technology • Project based assignment • Management and Specific Skills • BAT Test and Comp / Portfolio CSUSB Learning Goals Defined

36. Undergraduate • Course Embedded Measures • Core Course Methodology • Blind Review Process • MBA • Oral Presentation – Course Embedded, Instructor assessment • Portfolio: Three assignments of the student choosing, some data is group assignments. • Comp Exam • Proposal for improved framework in work for Spring 2011 (not met). • MSA • Framework in Place • Will begin collecting data in 2011-2012 • Online Courses and PDC • Issues obtaining data in a timely manner . • Not enough core courses, expanded to concentration courses for online classes Methodology

37. Data Collection Refined Proposed * Two Learning Goals can be combined via one measure

38. Data Collection Timeline

39. Skill Previous Cycle Cycle 2 Cycle 3 3 category 5 category Oral 36% 7% Spring 2011 Written 30% 41% Spring 2011 Problem Solving NA 40% Spring 2011 Info Tech 7% 11% Spring 2012 Ethics 17% 15% Spring 2012 MGMT Skills 48% (47% CSU) 49% (49% CSU) 48.9% (52% CSU), UG Learning Goals Results % of students not meeting minimum learning goal skill.

40. Skill Cycle 1 Cycle 2 Cycle 3 Oral n/a 6% 12% Written 2% 5% 27% Problem 0% 3% 7% Solving Info Tech 2% 13% 0% Ethics 13% 31% 6% MGMT 0% 18% 7% Specific Skills MBA Learning Goals Result % of students not meeting minimum learning goal skill.

41. Undergraduate Framework: • MGMT 306 Curriculum Change for Prerequisite of CBPA program courses: • 18 courses will implement the prerequisite from all departments in the CBPA. • Human Resources Concentration Approval by SHRM/AACSB: • 13 specific learning outcomes that must be aligned in a concentration prior to approval by Society for Human Resources (SHRM). • Need more results with each learning goal in this area. Closing the Loop

42. From Communiqué • Majority of learning goals resulted in less than 10% of students at unacceptable levels. • Faculty Action • Include Learning Goals in Syllabi and course content • 2 of 3 assignments in portfolio should be individual • There are not enough individual assignments to cover the required three assignments • 3 assignments required, but five learning goals • Need one assignment to cover multiple learning goals • Ethical reasoning assignments limited. • Encourage students to go to writing center • Comp exam feedback • See Communiqué - feedback by concentration MBA Refinement of process (Not truly closing the loop)

43. Core Course Committee Revitalization at the Undergraduate Level or other faculty driven process • Consider at Graduate Level • Rubric Refinement, All Programs. • Syllabi analysis and improvements at undergraduate levels • Will Implement at Graduate Level • Dream Project (possible direct measure) Indirect Measures

44. The team found that the College has not developed an assessment program that leads to improvement in the undergraduate and MBA programs. Particular concern: • Closing the Loop: “the impact of assessment outcomes on continuing development of degree programs”. • Not completed assessments at the Undergraduate and MBA level • … (UG) …re-evaluate the UG assessment plan and make appropriate changes to ensure that the process will lead to program improvements. • Assessment of various programs: MBA Regular, Professionals, and Executive Programs. • Report changes of learning goals, admission standards, or program design. From 2009 AACSB Report AoL

45. Identification of Learning Goals through syllabi analysis (Undergraduate) • Last two years of analysis was to communicate the need for more detail in syllabi. • Now, consideration of integrating learning goals not previously integrated is being asked of faculty. • Not all learning goals can be integrated in all courses. • 180 size classes, Online classes, etc. • But we can do more! Syllabi Analysis – Learning Goals

46. Providing Syllabi to Department • Need the population of syllabi • Historically takes 2 months to collect syllabi • Provide to department ASC each term • Respond to emails requesting syllabi. • Consider Learning Goals • Individually • Core Areas Groups • Curriculum Committee Faculty Action Necessary

47. Indirect Measures: Syllabi Less than 50% and No Improvement 2011: Green = 19 Yellow = 2 Red = 6 2010: Green = 11 Yellow = 2 Red = 142009: Green = 14 Yellow = 3 Red = 10 *Will mature system at UG level and redefine categories. **Graduate categories will go through same cycle. Less than 50%, but improving 50% or more

48. Standard 7 – Student Retention • Evaluation of progress, retention rates, corrective action • Standard 8 • Staff Sufficient to program • Academic Advising, Career Advising • Standard 14 • Syllabi and learning assessment must be documentation and maintained • Standard 15 • Managing curriculum through documented processes. Standards

49. Reporting Requirements

50. Strategy / Mission • Updated and the governing focus of all accreditation tasks • Faculty Qualifications • Faculty reports for full academic year prior to visit • Annual reports should be maintained for internal use, but not necessary for report, except if requested by team • Assurance of Learning • Two full loops of cycles • All programs must be assessed, including off site, online, etc. • Result of 5th year report: Maintenance Award, 6th year, removal of accreditation Timeline: 5 Year Cycle