13 May 2011
Dr. Kristie Ogilvie
 Introduction
of the AACSB Organization
 Accreditation
• Strategy / Mission
• Faculty Qualifications
• Assurance of Learning
 Learning Goals
 Curriculum Map
 Recent
Trends and Future Actions
 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
Dean
AACSB Accreditation
Strat. Plan. Com
(Faculty)
Dean
Director of Accreditation (Ogilvie)
Analyst (Flynn)
ASC (Wells)
Strategy /
Mission
Faculty
Qualifications
Standard
1-15
AQ/PQ
Graduate Courses
Digital Measures
Publication Quality
Standard 2, 9, 10*
Assurance of
Learning
Undergraduate
Graduate
MSA
Offsite & Online
Standards 16-21*
*Focus of Interim Report , 5th Year Report and Visit
Documentation
Liaison:
1. AACSB Contact
2. University
Relations
Milestones:
1. Interim Report
2. 5th Year Report
3. On Site Visitation
 Advanced
quality management
education worldwide through……
Accreditation
.
.
Thought
Leadership
Value Added
Services
 AACSB
was established in 1916.
 Headquarters in Tampa, Florida.
 Accreditation is
• awarded base on 21standards.
• 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.
 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
 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.
Mission and Strategy
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)
 Strategic Plan
• Managed through strategic planning committee
• 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 Qualifications
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.
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)
 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%
 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)
 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.

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
• Course delivery: The obligations specified in the
Assurance of Learning standards are met.
• 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
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.
 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.
 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
• AQ and Research
• Research Quality
for:
Assurance of Learning
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 Framework
• Create learning goals that reflect the outcomes
that an institution want 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”.
 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)

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
 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.
 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.
 There
are three most accepted data
collection methods (over 97% of
institutions use one of these methods):
• (1) Selection
 Entrance exam, such as SAT or GMAT
• (2) Course embedded measures
• (3) Stand alone testing
 Graduation exam
 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)

FACULTY DRIVEN

Director of AACSB Accreditation:
•
•
•
•

Chair of faculty AoL committee.
Facilitate and focal point for all tasks related to assurance of learning.
Includes graduate (MBA/MSA) and undergraduate levels.
Works directly with the administrative leadership for advisory for the
AoL programs.
Assurance of Learning Committee:
• The Director and six members of the faculty will make-up the strategic
assurance of learning committee.
• Tasks include assessment of the undergraduate and graduate
(MBA/MSA) programs, assessment of all core syllabi in programs
annually, and the assessment of the non-traditional offerings (online
and off site courses/programs).
• Various other tasks will be assigned as needed, such as curriculum
mapping, rubric refinement, department meetings status, etc.
 Leadership
Stakeholders: Dean, Associate
Dean, Chairs, and MBA Director will provide
input in relation to AoL from an
administrative perspective.
 Other
Stakeholder Groups: Various other
stakeholders, such as the department
faculty, curriculum committees, graduate
committee, strategic planning committee,
University assessment leadership and
committee, etc.
 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

Oral Communication
•
Assessment
 Oral presentation in class, though participation is not enough
 Group presentation is acceptable, though assessment is captured at the individual level
•
Syllabi Analysis***
 Oral presentation discussed in grade section or schedule of syllabi

Written Communication
•
•
•
•

Problem Solving
•
•



Needs to be an individual assignment**
At least 2 pages
Can be in- or out-of-class assignment
Mature framework would have consistent content, textbook, assignments between
sections*
Individual Assignment**
Essay style submission
*Not consistently applied with UG framework, except PA315.
**Not consistently applied with MBA framework
***Only at UG level

Ethical Reasoning
• Assessment
 Essay style submission for assessment**
• Syllabus analysis*
 Coverage in course with learning outcomes, content covered in course, and/or
assignment.
 Most approved texts have a chapter or portion of text related to ethics in various
disciplines.

Information Technology
• Project based assignment

Management and Specific Skills
• BAT Test
 First valid and reliable exam issued in Spring 2011, have been piloting since 2009.
• Comp / Portfolio
 Aggregated data compiled from each chair of the comp committee***



*Analysis only at UG level
**Not consistently applied to with MBA.
***Not acceptable practice from AACSB perspective.

Course Embedded Measures
•
•
•
•

Core Course Methodology
Double Blind External Review Process (Single moving forward)
Framework Piloted, looking to standardize, like PA315.
Rubrics Refined from a 3 category system to a 5 category system, has resulted in more
meaningful data.
Individual Courses
•
•
Oral
Written
MGMT490
PA315/MGMT302
 Varied faculty buy in
•
•
INFO
Problem Solving
INFO 309
MGMT302
 Varied faculty buy in and assessments.
•
Ethics
PA315
 Varied assessment during pilot, matured system now in place.
•
MGMT Specific
MGMT490
 Spring 2011 first valid and reliable test.

Online Courses and PDC
•
•
Issues obtaining data in a timely manner .
Not enough core courses, expanded to concentration courses for online classes.

Oral Presentation – Course Embedded, Instructor assessment
• Invasion of instructor priorities during oral presentation of students.

Portfolio Analysis - Student select three assignments for five
learning goal illustration.
•
•
•
•

Student selection of assignments
Group and individual data collection
Lack of comparable data between portfolios
Some learning goals not present for assessment
Comp Exam – Aggregate data collection by each concentration.
• Comparable data between concentrations
• Aggregating rubrics for comp exams


Both core and concentration courses are selected in assessment.
Four of five learning goals showing no improvement necessary.
• 3 category system.



Data Collected every year (rather than the two cycles every five
years).
Proposal for improved framework in work for Spring 2011.
Goal to accelerate maturity to meet standards in 2013.
Oral
Communication
Written
Communication*
Problem Solving *
Ethical
Reasoning*
Information
Technology**
Specific Content
Skills
UG
MGMT490
MBA
MGMT685
MSA
ACCTG 615
MGMT601
Essay
Essay
PA315,
MGMT302
MGMT302
PA315
MGMT601
MGMT601
Culm. Exp. Or
ACCTG620
Culm. Exp.
ACCTG 620
Project
INFO309
INFO609
NA
Exam
MGMT 490
MGMT685 or Culm. Exp.
comp
Method
Course
Eval.
Essay
* Two Learning Goals can be combined via one measure
** IDS Planning Necessary for Inclusion
AY
09-10
10-11
11-12
12-13
Cycles
completed
Undergraduate
Ethics, Info Tech, Gen
MGMT
Written, Oral, Problem
Solving, Gen MGMT
Pilot UG: All LGs
Close Loop
2
MBA
Portfolio/Comp
MSA
Conceptualization
Portfolio /Comp
Framework
Defined
Pilot: All LGs
All LGs
2
Pilot: All LGs
All LGs
2 (Portfolio) and
2 (Course Embedded)
Skill
Previous Cycle
3 category
Cycle 2
5 category
Cycle 3
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),
Skill
Cycle 1
Cycle 2
Cycle 3
Oral
n/a
6%
12%
Written
2%
5%
27%
Problem
Solving
0%
3%
7%
Info Tech
2%
13%
0%
Ethics
13%
31%
6%
MGMT
Specific
Skills
0%
18%
7%

Undergraduate Framework:
• MGMT 306 Curriculum Change for Prerequisite of
CBPA program courses:
 34 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.
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
 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
• Consider at Graduate Level
 Dream
Project

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.
 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!
 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
Written
2009
2010 Sp2011
50%
0%
75%
0%
0%
0%
50%
0%
60%
2008
0%
0%
0%
Oral
2009 2010 Sp2011
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0% 25%
0%
2008
0%
0%
0%
Ethics
2009
2010 Sp2011
0%
0%
50%
0%
0%
50%
0%
0%
20%
40%
75%
0%
FIN 313
FIN 314
SCM 304
2008
33%
33%
75%
MGMT 302
MGMT330
MKTG 305
100% 100%
75% 75%
0%
0%
100%
80%
33%
80%
100%
17%
100%
25%
0%
PA 315
MGMT 490
INFO 309
100% 100%
25% 71%
100%
33%
29%
50%
50%
50%
80%
0%
50%
2011: Green = 19
2010: Green = 11
2009: Green = 14
Yellow = 2
Yellow = 2
Yellow = 3
80%
40%
0%
80%
50%
17%
67%
75%
60%
100%
100%
100%
100%
80%
71%
100%
100%
100%
33%
0%
100% 100%
100% 67%
0%
90%
50%
50%
50%
66%
57%
100%
100%
14%
83%
50%
100%
83%
Red = 6
Red = 14
Red = 10
*Will mature system at UG level and redefine categories.
**Graduate categories will go through same cycle.
Less than 50% and
No Improvement
Less than 50%,
but improving
50% or more
 Establish a Strategic View of AoL
• Leverage Best Practices from Each Framework
• Utilize Resources More Productively
 Communication / Discussion with Various
Stakeholders
•
•
•
•
Curriculum Committee(s)
Department(s)
Graduate Committee
Administrative Team
 Create
a mature framework which will be
implemented in 2011-2012 (to meet AACSB
requirements)

Please rank order those goals that you feel are most critical for inclusion
in our UG and MBA Frameworks (Rank 1-6 and 7 if applicable, 1 being
most critical for inclusion)
UG | MBA
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
Communication, Oral: Each student can effectively present
information orally.
Communication, Written: Each student can effectively
communicate in writing.
Innovative Problem Solving Skills: Each student can apply
knowledge in new and unfamiliar circumstances and devise
innovative solutions to cope with unforeseen events.
Ethical Reasoning Skills: Each student can recognize / analyze
problems and choose / defend resolutions for practical business
situations.
Information Technology Skills: Each student can use information
technology to support the structure and processes of the
organization, and use information technology in decision-making.
General and Specific Management Knowledge and Skills: Each
student should obtain required general and specialized
management knowledge and skills for the creation of value
through integrated operations and distribution of goods, services,
and information.
Other: ___________________________________________________












Curriculum Mapping: Where are our Learning Goals: (I)ntroduced,
(D)eveloped, and (M)astered
UG: Lower Division Core Courses:
•
INFO 102 &103, ACCTG 211 & 212, MGMT230, SCM210
•
Fin 313 & 314, PA315, MKTG 305, MGMT302, MGMT330, INFO 309, SCM304, MGMT 490
•
Acct 606 Fin 602, Info 609, Mgmt 601, Mgmt 685, Mktg 605, Scm 607.
UG: Upper Division Core Courses:
MBA Core:
.
Course 1
.
Course # __________
Oral Communication |
Written Communication|
Ethical Reasoning
|
Problem Solving
|
Information Technology|
MGMT Specific Skills |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Course 2
________
Course 3
________
|
|
|
|
|
|
.


Curriculum Mapping: Where are our Learning Goals:
(I)ntroduced, (D)eveloped, and (M)astered
UG: Lower Division Core Courses:
• INFO 102 &103, ACCTG 211 & 212, MGMT230, SCM210

UG: Upper Division Core Courses:
• Fin 313 & 314, PA315, MKTG 305, MGMT302, MGMT330, INFO 309, SCM304,
MGMT 490

MBA Core:
• Acct 606 Fin 602, Info 609, Mgmt 601, Mgmt 685, Mktg 605, Scm 607.








.
Course 4
.
Course # __________
Oral Communication
|
|
Written Communication
|
|
Ethical Reasoning
|
|
Problem Solving
|
|
Informational Technology |
|
Management Specific Skills |
|
Course 5 Course 6
________ ________
|
|
|
|
|
|

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
 6th Year
report does not delay cycle.
 Must sufficiently take corrective action to
get reaffirmed.
 25% of schools at this time get 6th year
(ICAM 2011)
• Previous years 40-60% (MOC, 2010)
 Top
reasons for 6th year review (ICAM
2011)
• Faculty Qualifications
• Assurance of Learning




Interim Report and Application due Summer at 2.5 year mark.
• Covers Areas of Concern from last report with corrective action
• Identifies Peer and Aspirant Schools, which typically (though not
necessarily) are a derivative of the peer vitiation committee (ICAM,
2011)
Annual Reporting of data
• BSQ
• Salary Report
• Misc. Surveys
Other AACSB Reports
• If we participate, we will be given others aggregate data
Affinity Groups
• Specialized groups, meetings, and information.
• MBA for Working Professionals, Entrep., Assessment, etc.
 Ensure
that actions, strategy, and philosophy
are derived from your mission.
• A recent issue are institutions that are expanding
their programs – it is not enough to say it is based on
increasing funding, but needs to align to the mission
of the institution.
 Faculty
qualifications – need clear policy as
to what designated AQ/PQ and P/S. THIS
STATEMENT MUST MATCH VITAS.
• Teams are now checking, due to % in tables not
matching vitas recently.
 Committee
meeting minutes should be
available to visiting team.
 NO SURPRISES. Don’t let the team find
something you did not tell them. Two
examples given:
• A program that should have been excluded and
was not, though discovered by team.
• A hostile faculty to the visitation team (though
this was explained before the faculty meeting).
 Collect
less data for AoL and use it more
• Mounds of data collection and not closing the
loop.
 Inaccurate
% of AQ/PQ/O
• Teams will be sampling Vitas per the Policies,
which need to match.
 Questioning
of graduates of non-AACSB
schools with IC review (MAC2011)
 In
state student pay less
 Public Institutions are becoming financially
dependent
 Out of state / Country students given
priority, though not for Mission based
reasons
 This needs a strong look at resulting
implications
 Recommendation: Increase in-state tuition,
decrease out-of-state/country tuition
 Update
of standards with recognition of
the issues and “continuously improve”
the accreditation process
 2011 Committee
• Members - 21 Deans/Provosts and 2 AACSB
representatives
• Recognizes major issues and concerns at a
strategic level
• ~5 years to adapt to new standards
 Required
research for accreditation
 Recognized importance of PQ faculty
 Focused on strategic management
 Improved global applicability to
standards
 Introduced Assurance of Learning (AoL)
 ICAM
2011

Faculty Intellectual Contributions
• Research and Teaching Relationship
More consistent definition of participating and
supporting designations
 Faculty employment at more than one institution
 Deployment of international partnerships,
especially with non-AACSB schools
 Scope: Institutional rather than school (major
issue with international schools)


Long term moving to multiple levels or models of
accreditation.