College of Business

CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT REVIEW

2011 – 2015

AACSB 2013 Standards

Prepared for the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business

Frostburg State University College of Business 101 Braddock Road

Frostburg, MD 21532

Date of Submission: August 1, 2015

ii

PLEASE NOTE: In addition to the 5th Year Continuous Improvement Review Report (50 pages)

and relevant appendices, the following documents will also be available for review.

1. CoB AACSB Annual Reports (2011-2014): Available in Print and on the CoB web page.

2. Full Report of CoB Assurance of Learning: Available in Print and on the CoB web page.

3. The College of Business Process Manual: Available in Print and on the CoB web page.

4. College of Business Newsletters: Available in Print and on the CoB web page.

5. CoB Faculty Members’ 5-Year Profile and Vita: Available in Print.

6. Copies of CoB Faculty Members’ Articles in Peer-Reviewed Journals: Available in Print.

7. Syllabi for Courses in the CoB Common Body of Knowledge: Available in Print.

iii

Table of Contents

PREFACE ............................................................................................................................................................. v

I. Executive Summary: Innovation, Impact, and Engagement ...................................................................... 1

II. Situational Analysis.......................................................................................................................................... 4

The University Context ......................................................................................................................... 4

The College ............................................................................................................................................. 4

Impacting Forces and Opportunities .................................................................................................. 8

III. Progress Update on Concerns from Previous Review ........................................................................... 11

IV. Strategic Management and Innovation ..................................................................................................... 12

Vision, Mission, Core Values .............................................................................................................. 13

FSUBusiness’ Emphasis on Teaching, Intellectual Contributions, and Service ............................ 14

Strategic Management Planning Process ........................................................................................... 15

Overview of Continuous Improvement Outcomes ........................................................................ 17

On-going and Future Planning ........................................................................................................... 23

Intellectual Contributions and Impact............................................................................................... 24

Financial Strategies and Allocation of Resources ............................................................................ 25

New Degree Programs ........................................................................................................................ 28

V. Participants – Students, Faculty, and Professional Staff .......................................................................... 29

Students ................................................................................................................................................. 29

Management and Support of Faculty and Professional Staff ......................................................... 30

VI. Learning and Teaching ................................................................................................................................ 32

Curricula Management ......................................................................................................................... 32

Curricula Content ................................................................................................................................. 32

Assurance of Learning ......................................................................................................................... 33

iv

How High Quality Teaching is Encouraged, Supported, and Developed ................................... 44

VII. Academic and Professional Engagement ................................................................................................ 45

Student Engagement ............................................................................................................................ 45

Faculty Engagement and Qualifications ............................................................................................ 47

VIII. Other .......................................................................................................................................................... 48

IX. Consultative Review – Response to PRT Advice during 2010 Maintenance of Accreditation / Continuous Improvement Review Visit .......................................................................................................... 49

Appendix A - AACSB Prescribed Tables ........................................................................................................ 51

Table 2-1: Intellectual Contributions for the 5-year period ......................................................... 52

Table 2-1A: Breadth: Summary of Member Qualifications and Intellectual Contributions for the 5-year period…………………………………………………………………………... 54

Table 2-2: Summary of Peer Reviewed Journals ............................................................................. 55

Table 15-1A: Sufficiency and Qualifications Summary for 2014-2015 ...................................... 61

Table 15-1B: Summary View: Sufficiency and Qualifications Summary Benchmarks for 2014-2015 .............................................................................................................................................. 76

Table 15-2: Deployment of Participating and Supporting Members by Qualification Status 77

Appendix B - Accreditation Standards Implementation Documents ......................................................... 78

Participating and Supporting Faculty ................................................................................................ 78

Faculty Qualifications, Engagement Criteria, and Workload ........................................................ 78

Appendix C .......................................................................................................................................................... 87

Vision Statement, Mission Statement, and Core Values ................................................................ 88

Strategic Plan ......................................................................................................................................... 89

v

PREFACE

Vision Statement:

FSUBusiness will be recognized for its high-quality academic and experiential learning programs.

Mission Statement:

FSUBusiness prepares students to successfully meet professional opportunities through a dynamic, student-centered educational environment that emphasizes leadership, notable and timely research, application of knowledge, and global experiential learning.

Mission Statement Components:

FSUBusiness emphasizes excellence in teaching through innovative approaches, small-class

environment, caring faculty, and interactive focus.

FSUBusiness provides intellectual and professional development to students through

coursework, research, and global experiential learning with a focus on leadership, ethical values,

and community engagement.

FSUBusiness measures students’ learning outcomes to ensure continuous improvement and

positive impact of its programs.

FSUBusiness engages business practitioners, alumni, students, and community and considers

their input to enhance its programs.

FSUBusiness provides professional development opportunities for enhancement of faculty’s

teaching skills, research capabilities, practical application, and global experiential learning.

FSUBusiness’ Ten Core Values:

1. Accountability: We seek to create a culture of accountability wherein we take responsibility

for the consequences of our decisions and behavior with commitment to our ethical, legal,

and moral obligations to all of our constituencies.

2. Excellence: We are committed to the pursuit and practice of excellence through creativity

and innovation in teaching, research, service, and outreach that provides our students with

progressive learning experiences.

3. Fairness: We take pride in infusing a spirit of fairness and equity in all of our decision-

making processes in order to buffer all of our constituencies from discrimination, harassment,

or any act that violates their personal dignity.

vi

4. Openness: We embrace openness to and flexibility in the examination and institution of

new, creative, emerging, and diverse ideas, viewpoints, processes and practices in all aspects

of our operations.

5. Professionalism: We seek to institute standards and recognize behaviors that manifest

professionalism in our representation both to ourselves internally as well as externally.

6. Respect: We seek to build a climate of mutual respect characterized by a respectful regard

for the individual positions, knowledge, beliefs, and philosophies of our students, faculty,

staff, and administrators.

7. Service: We strive to ensure that our decisions are guided by a spirit of service, foremost to

our students, as well as to the faculty, staff, and administration of the College and University

and to the global society.

8. Teamwork: We are committed to a culture that fosters teamwork through qualities of

inclusiveness, collaboration, and a collective investment in the larger good of all those we

serve.

9. Transparency: We strive to achieve transparency in our decision-making, record-keeping, and

reporting with commitment to the highest standards of individual and institutional integrity.

10. Trust: We strive to create an environment in which trust and personal integrity underpins all our

individual and professional interactions.

1

I. Executive Summary: Innovation, Impact, and Engagement Who We Are:

Frostburg State University (also referred to as FSU, University, or Institution) is a co-educational, comprehensive, public university enrolling 5,645 students (undergraduate and graduate, a record).

FSU serves a predominantly traditional undergraduate student body from the tri-state area (Maryland, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia).

FSU holds the designation, “College of Distinction,” for its high-quality teaching, student engagement, vibrancy of college community, and success of graduates.

The College of Business (also referred to as FSUBusiness, CoB, or College) is one of FSU’s three colleges with an enrollment of approximately 1,000 students at the undergraduate and MBA levels.

FSUBusiness produces high quality graduates positioned for successful careers, as evidenced by the successes of our alumni, and in the 63% improvement from pre to post- test results along with strong and improving rubric scores recorded in our Assurance of Learning (AoL) program.

In 2010, FSUBusiness celebrated its 5th anniversary as an AACSB accredited member.

FSUBusiness is administratively organized into four academic departments that offer three undergraduate majors, eight concentrations, and an online MBA program.

One FSUBusiness faculty member has been honored to serve as a Fulbright Scholar.

FSUBusiness joined the Beta Gamma Sigma International Business Honor Society (BGS) in 2005 and since then a total of 262 undergraduate and MBA students as well 17 faculty have been inducted into BGS.

FSUBusiness is home to ten active student organizations, many affiliated with nationally prominent associations, like: the American Marketing Association, the Society for the Advancement of Management, Beta Gamma Sigma International Honor Society, and Society for Human Resource Management.

The MBA program was recognized by GetEducated.com as a ‘Best Buy’ for online masters; it was ranked # 9 in 2011 and # 8 in 2012 among AACSB accredited schools.

The MBA has been listed as number 12 in 2015 (up from number 25 in 2014) in Affordable Colleges Foundation’s ranking of the nation’s Best Online MBA Programs (more than 500 colleges were analyzed).

How We Innovate:

Students and Learning

In 2013, the MBA program was moved to a solely online delivery in response to student demand. Since 2013, 15 students from 7 different nations have enrolled in to the program.

In cooperation with the Office of Information Technology, our MBA faculty members are in the first phase of achieving the ‘Quality Matters’ certification for their online MBA courses.

FSUBusiness’ Advising Center (created in 2004) served as the model for the university as it instituted a university Advising Center in 2011. It also serves as a model for the two other campus colleges as they begin creation of their own Advising Center.

FSUBusiness partnered with Vanung University, Taiwan, and the University of Maryland Eastern Shore on a Hospitality Management concentration, Business Administration major.

FSUBusiness has developed a proposal for its first doctoral program, an applied Doctor of

2

Business Administration (DBA) degree with a concentration in Management. It is in the governance approval process with expected implementation in fall 2017.

The college Dean created a College of Business Global Experiential Learning program (CoBGEL) to foster study abroad for students, international teaching opportunities for faculty, and hosting visiting scholars from overseas.

Through the CoBGEL program, college faculty offered study abroad opportunities in other countries during the summer, including: China, Peru, Ecuador, and Brazil. Plans have been developed for study abroad experiences in France in 2016 and India in 2017.

Through CoBGEL, CoB faculty members participate in teaching opportunities in Germany with five college faculty participants since 2011.

Based on assessment data, the college faculty replaced a core computer science course with a different computer science course for improved student learning and preparation for upper-level business courses.

Based upon assessment data, the college faculty redesigned two Professional Development courses for greater student success.

Operations

FSUBusiness established a Process Manual which provides a framework for the strategic direction and decision-making, as well as the management of academic, personnel, professional, and operational matters of the College. The Process Manual is revised and updated annually based on input from the college’s constituencies.

The Dean created a College of Business Students Global Experiential Learning Fund as part of its CoBGEL program, to provide scholarship assistance to FSUBusiness students studying abroad. Sixteen scholarships have been disseminated to students from this fund since its inception in 2012.

In 2014, the college unanimously adopted a revised Vision Statement and Mission Statement, and embraced a set of Core Values; consistent with the AACSB 2013 Standards.

FSUBusiness underwent a new round of strategic planning based on the revised Vision and Mission Statements. In Fall 2014, faculty voted unanimously to adopt the revised Strategic Plan.

The faculty developed new Faculty Sufficiency and Qualification guidelines to align with the 2013 AACSB Standards. In Fall 2014, faculty voted unanimously to adopt those guidelines.

How We Impact:

FSUBusiness faculty worked with the faculty of Mathematics to enhance the quality, content, and delivery of a required mathematics course for business students. This effort resulted in a reduction of students’ failure rate from 54% in 2011 to 17% in 2014.

FSUBusiness graduates impact the corporate world through their leadership. Outstanding alumni include the V.P. of Industry Development for Mondelez International (brand families: Chips Ahoy, Cadbury, Ritz, Trident, etc.), Manager of Quality Assurance for Pricewaterhouse-Coopers, NASA Shuttle Astronaut, V.P. Operations at NewPage Corporation, Director of Information Management at the CIA, and former CEO of Cliffs Natural Resources, Inc.

The College impacts business scholars throughout the world via its two academic journals: Journal of International Business Disciplines and International Journal of Interdisciplinary Research.

FSUBusiness faculty members produced 226 peer reviewed journal publications over the last five years.

3

Several faculty members have been commended for the number of times they have been utilized by other researchers; one cited 322 times via the Emerald Group and another who received the Literati Network Excellence 2013 Award for “Most Downloaded Paper.”

Faculty member’s book, “Stand Your Ground,” has been adopted by FSU’s business ethics course, Virginia Tech's Corps of Cadets, Indiana University of PA, and Texas A&M.

One College faculty member received the Board of Regents’ Award for Teaching in 2015 and the University’s Faculty Achievement Award for Teaching in 2013. Another received the President’s Distinguished Faculty Award in 2015 and yet another the University’s Outstanding Mentor Award in 2014 and University Faculty Achievement Award for Teaching in 2012. Each nomination was accompanied by letters from impacted students.

The college Dean was invited to Hunan University of Commerce (HUC) and the Central South University of Forestry and Technology (CSUFT) in Changsha, China where he made 12 leadership presentations and worked with faculty, staff, and students to develop research agendas and assisted in enhancing their publication capabilities.

The college Dean co-authored a book, “Foundation and Practical Elements of Leadership,” which has been used as a resource for teaching and leadership development workshops in the U.S. and overseas.

Annually, FSUBusiness provides approximately $65,000 in support of faculty travel to national and international conferences for presentations and professional development.

How We Engage:

The faculty has placed a renewed emphasis on experiential projects in undergraduate courses.

Undergraduate students participate in applied projects for external constituents, like: the Allegany County Chamber of Commerce, The Evergreen Heritage Center Foundation, Target Corporation, and for many local entrepreneurial businesses.

Approximately 25 percent of FSUBusiness students participate in student organizations and honor societies.

Approximately 12 percent of FSUBusiness students participate in internship programs for practical experience in such organizations, as: IBM, Edward Jones Investments, Baltimore Ravens, Target, ClosetMaid, U.S. State Department, and more.

FSUBusiness students enjoy small classes and individual attention not available at larger universities. The average course enrollment across FSUBusiness is 24 (89% of university courses have fewer than 30 students).

The college, through its Center for Leadership Development, hosts professional development/training seminars and workshops both for local employers as well as campus faculty and staff. Eight CoB faculty members have been highly engaged in these projects.

Faculty members actively contribute their time and talents to local professional and community organizations via consulting or other volunteer services.

The college Global Business student organization created and hosted its first (to be annual) Maji Shule Festival in support of raising awareness about the Uganda Water School project. Its first festival was held in Fall 2014 to resounding success; the club raised awareness and $2,500 for the Uganda Water School.

Through a faculty member’s networking, two FSUBusiness students were selected to be part of the U.S. delegation at the APEC China CEO Forum held in Beijing, China, 2013.

The Dean has placed emphasis on public relations to enhance the image of FSUBusiness on campus and within the community. The goal is to foster partnerships with the college.

FSUBusiness provides full coverage of travel expenses for undergraduate and MBA students’ participation in the Beta Gamma Sigma annual Student Leadership Development conference. A total of 16 students have participated in the past four years.

4

II. Situational Analysis

The University Context

Frostburg State University, established in 1898, is a comprehensive regional public University located on the Allegheny Plateau in Frostburg, Maryland (elevation 2,000 feet). It is one of 11 universities within the University System of Maryland (USM). It is the only four-year degree-granting, primarily teaching-oriented state institution in Western Maryland, with approximately 4,915 undergraduate students and 661 graduate students. Students at FSU study on a traditional residential campus composed of 260 acres within the town limits of Frostburg (population 7,500). The local region is rich in both history and outdoor activities.

FSU’s Mission

Frostburg State University is a student-centered teaching and learning institution featuring

experiential opportunities. The University offers students a distinctive and distinguished

baccalaureate education along with a select set of applied master’s and doctoral programs.

Frostburg serves regional and statewide economic and workforce development; promotes

cultural enrichment, civic responsibility, and sustainability; and prepares future leaders to meet

the challenges of a complex and changing global society.

The College

The College of Business is one of three Colleges at FSU. As of Fall 2014, University enrollment hit a record 5,645 students (both undergraduate and graduate) with the College of Business enrollment steadied at approximately 1,000 students (both undergraduate and MBA). In two subsequent years, the MBA program has been ranked 8th (2012) and 9th (2011) by GetEducated.com as a “Best Buy” for online masters. The MBA has been ranked number 12 in 2015 (up from number 25 in 2014) in Affordable Colleges Foundation’s ranking of the nation’s Best Online MBA Programs. FSUBusiness is administratively organized around four academic departments: Accounting, Economics, Management, and Marketing & Finance. Each academic department is led by a faculty chair elected by faculty, endorsed by the dean, and approved by the Provost. The General Faculty of the college is comprised of a total of 39 tenured and tenure-track professors with an additional four full-time lecturers. Each academic department is supported by an Administrative Assistant and Graduate Assistant. The Dean’s Office is comprised of Dean, an Associate Dean, an MBA Director, and a Director of Business Programs at the University System of Maryland in Hagerstown (USMH). The Dean’s office is supported by an Executive Administrative Assistant, a Coordinator of the academic Advising Center, and four Graduate Assistants. Please see the College of Business Organizational Chart on the next page.

5

FSUBusiness offers three undergraduate baccalaureate majors: Accounting, Economics, and Business Administration. For purposes of administrative convenience, the Business Administration major is offered by faculty in two departments: Department of Management and Department of Marketing and Finance. Seven concentrations are offered under the Business Administration degree program: four of them [General Management, Hospitality Management, Human Resource Management, and Small Business/Entrepreneurship] are offered by the Department of Management; three concentrations [Finance, Global Business, and Marketing] are housed in the Department of Marketing and Finance. One concentration, Business Economics, offered within the Economics major lies within the purview of the College. All FSUBusiness students must complete eighteen Common Body of Knowledge courses (CBK) along with courses in the major and concentration, as applicable. Table I below shows current FSUBusiness students’ enrollments across all degree programs, international students’ enrollments in CoB programs are shown in Table II, and a demographic profile of the CoB student body is provided in Table III.

Table I: FSUBusiness Enrollment by Program and Major, Five Year Trends

Major Fall 2010 Fall 2011 Fall 2012 Fall 2013 Fall 2014

Accounting 137 115 133 133 137

Business Administration 483 461 450 486 528

Economics 17 21 29 33 30

Total Undergraduate 637 597 612 652 695

MBA 144 252 313 307 277

Total CoB 781 849 925 959 972 Source: Office of Institutional Research, FSU

6

Table II: FSUBusiness International Student Enrollment

Major Fall 2010 Fall 2011 Fall 2012 Fall 2013 Fall 2014

Accounting 1 1 1 0 4

Business Administration 4 4 3 6 14

Economics 1 0 1 2 1

Total Undergraduate 6 5 5 8 19

MBA 7 20 24 16 8

Total CoB 13 25 29 24 27 Source: Office of Institutional Research, FSU

Table III: Demographic Profile of FSUBusiness Students

By Enrollment Status

Fall 10 Fall 11 Fall 12 Fall 13 Fall 14

ACCT Full Time 135 113 131 125 131

Part Time 5 6 7 10 6

BUAD Full Time 416 404 385 429 468

Part Time 67 57 68 57 60

ECON Full Time 20 27 36 41 41

Part Time 3 2 1 1 .

MBA Full Time 57 66 77 62 42

Part Time 87 186 236 245 235

Total All 790 861 941 970 983

…Continued

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Fall 2010 Fall 2011 Fall 2012 Fall 2013 Fall 2014

FSUBusiness Undergraduate Enrollment Trends, 2010-2014

Accounting Business Administration Economics

7

By Gender and Race

Fall 10 Fall 11 Fall 12 Fall 13 Fall 14

ACCT Male Unknown 1 1 2 1 1

Black 28 27 25 28 28

Asian 2 3 3 1 .

Hispanic 3 2 2 2 6

White 54 45 57 52 40

Other . 1 1 5 6

Female Black 20 13 19 15 15

Asian . . . 2 1

Hispanic . 1 1 1 4

White 31 25 27 27 30

Other . . . 1 2

BUAD Male Unknown 1 1 1 2 1

Black 75 73 67 88 106

Asian 6 2 4 3 4

Hispanic 16 13 14 14 11

White 198 195 193 186 178

Other . 10 8 11 10

Female Unknown . 1 1 1 1

Black 47 51 37 36 59

Asian 1 . 2 3 6

Hispanic 10 8 8 16 15

White 125 97 108 112 107

Other . 5 6 7 14

ECON Male Unknown . . 1 1 1

Black 1 3 5 6 8

Asian 1 . . . 1

Hispanic . . . 2 1

White 17 21 20 19 15

Other . . 1 3 4

Female Black 1 1 . 2 1

Hispanic . . . . 2

White 2 4 9 7 7

MBA Male Unknown 1 2 3 8 21

Black 12 9 13 8 8

Asian 4 3 9 10 9

Hispanic 1 2 4 5 4

White 55 103 116 115 96

Other . . 1 2 2

Female Unknown . 1 2 5 14

Black 7 14 13 19 20

Asian 2 5 5 4 4

Hispanic . . 3 1 2

White 55 93 116 112 85

Other . 1 4 3 4

Total All 790 861 941 970 983 Source: Office of Institutional Research, FSU

8

There has been no change in leadership within the college since the last reaffirmation visit. Dr. Ahmad Tootoonchi remains as Dean and Dr. Sudhir Singh as Associate Dean. Daily operations of the FSUBusiness are overseen by the College Executive Council (CEC), which is comprised of the dean, associate dean, four department chairs, MBA Coordinator, and the dean’s executive administrative assistant. Further, the dean receives counsel from two external bodies: (1) the college’s Business Advisory Board, comprised of successful college alumni and prominent members of the business community; and (2) the college’s Student Advisory Council comprised of selected FSUBusiness undergraduate and graduate students. Two academic journals are housed within FSUBusiness: Journal of International Business Disciplines (JIBD) and International Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR). The JIBD was founded in 2006; it focuses on the publication of peer-reviewed research articles that contribute to the knowledge and practice of business internationally. The IJIR, founded in 2012, publishes peer-reviewed research articles that are interdisciplinary in nature. Both journals are co-sponsored by FSUBusiness and the International Academy of Business Disciplines, and are in the Cabell’s directory, as well as EBSCO data base. The college is home to ten active student organizations including clubs and honorary societies. Many are affiliated with national associations, like: the American Marketing Association, Beta Gamma Sigma International Honor Society, the Society for the Advancement of Management, and Society for Human Resource Management. These organizations focus heavily on the exploration of career path options for student members. Selected members of the Beta Gamma Sigma participate in the BGS Annual Student Leadership Development Conference, The Marketing Club participates in the Collegiate Advertising Career Conference in Manhattan, Society for Advancement of Management participates in the Annual Student Case competition, Society for Human Resource Management organizes the SHRM student Annual Conference (“Big Event”), and the Finance Club participates in the RISE Investments Career Conference. FSUBusiness boosts prominent alumni, including Rick Brindle, V.P. of Industry Development for Mondelez International (formerly the Kraft Company); Michael Gallagher, Manager of Quality Assurance for Pricewaterhouse-Coopers LLC; Richard ‘Ricky’ Arnold, NASA Shuttle Astronaut; William Oliver, V.P. Operations at NewPage Corporation; Kevin Turley, V.P. for Marketing and Promotion at the Western Maryland Regional Health System; Joe Carrabba, former CEO of Cliffs Natural Resources; and Craig Bowman, Manager of the National Security Programs at Adobe.

Impacting Forces and Opportunities

Historical and Local Factors The mission and operations of FSUBusiness are rooted in Frostburg State University’s historical legacy of serving the citizens of Western Maryland. The university was founded during the region’s heyday of growth and prosperity as a coal mining area and railroad hub. Originally conceived as a state normal school to prepare vocational teachers, FSU maintains a connection to its past through strong programs and dedication to providing higher education in support of economic development. With the demise of mining and retrenchment of railroads, the economy of Western Maryland became reliant on what manufacturing was left. For the past several decades, economic growth has stagnated and incomes consistently lag national averages. Many of the students served by FSU are first-generation college students from families with local roots. The college mission is driven by the collective desire to provide an affordable high-quality business education that offers the opportunity, not only for personal success, but also supports the reinvigoration of the region’s economy.

9

While FSU is actively involved in community economic development, and although it is a major employer in Western Maryland, this area of the state has nonetheless seen thousands of jobs lost as manufacturing industries have been shuttered over the past three decades. For example, the population of Cumberland, the largest city in Allegany County, is less than half of what it was 50 years ago. This presents a number of challenges to the leadership at FSU but it also presents opportunities for the University to play an important role in fostering local economic development, as well as, to provide leadership in other areas such as growth in the rich local arts community.

Relative Advantages and Disadvantages

Western Maryland is most scenic. It is a favorite with students who enjoy outdoor winter sports. The Wisp Resort, a popular ski resort located by Deep Creek Lake, is only about 40 minutes away from campus. The weather, however, can be a challenge to students who are not used to snow and cold winters. They find that they must make some adjustments if they wish to enjoy their time at FSU. A disadvantage to living in the scenic Cumberland-Frostburg area is the lack of proximity to major airports. There are four major airports, Pittsburgh International, Baltimore-Washington International, Dulles International, and Reagan National—all within about three hours of FSU. There exists three small regional airports but each has very limited flight options.

FSU, Western Maryland’s only four-year degree granting institution of higher education, enjoys a strong positive reputation within the local region on issues, like: sustainability, campus safety, and discouraging binge-drinking. FSUBusiness has enthusiastically marketed its AACSB accreditation

status and MBA ‘Best Buy’ designation. The future of FSU and FSUBusiness obviously are inextricably linked; strategic opportunities and challenges that face the University also affect the College. However, out of challenges arise opportunities that provide the impetus for development and promotion of new academic programs, such as the solely online MBA, proposed DBA, and new Hospitality Management concentration. Historically, the alumni and friends of the College financially support it through the University Foundation’s annual giving campaign, but the levels of this support remain low. Significant gifts are generally targeted for student scholarships with limited financial support for faculty and operational initiatives. No endowed professorships or chairs exist in the college. The major disadvantages faced by the College are the lack of dedicated revenue streams and outdated/outmoded physical facilities.

Internal, Environmental, and Competitive Forces With the full support of the university administration and FSUBusiness faculty, the internal position of FSUBusiness is strong, considering the external factors and challenges facing the University, including:

FSU is located in a region that has suffered population losses in the past few decades.

The majority of students at FSU must be recruited from outside Western Maryland.

The Maryland State Government has been experiencing serious budget problems, which led

to significant reductions in the University System of Maryland’s (USM) budget.

The number of high school graduates in the state of Maryland is shrinking, and therefore,

competition with other universities within the system for recruitment of in-state students is

tighter than ever before.

10

The state-supported portion of the university’s budget has been reduced from approximate

70% in 1980’s down to 25% presently.

Due to the challenge of location and because FSU must look toward large population centers to attract new students, the University has developed strategies for recruitment of young people from the Baltimore-Washington, D.C. area. One benefit of these recruitment efforts has been the increased diversity of students at FSU. FSU also faces other challenges. First, there are two, two-year colleges in the immediate vicinity: Allegany College of Maryland, located in Cumberland, Maryland, and Potomac State College in Keyser, West Virginia. While these institutions do play a limited role as feeder colleges for FSU, they also compete with Frostburg State University for freshmen and sophomores. Second, FSU also competes for students with numerous four-year and two-year colleges and universities in the Baltimore-Washington, D.C. areas. Thus, even though FSU is more than 140 miles from institutions such as Towson University, Morgan State University, and Salisbury University, these college/universities are viewed as our competitors. We believe that FSU has something unique to offer and many FSU alumni still fondly recall their days at the ‘Burg.’ FSU is committed to providing its students with opportunities to develop their own skills, engage in experiential learning, and be guided by faculty and staff that are excellent at what they do. We are particularly proud of our small class size environment that enables us to provide individualized attention to students.

Enhancement Opportunities

During the past few years, FSUBusiness has initiated two new programs: (1) a new concentration in Hospitality Management under the Business Administration major, and (2) an applied doctoral DBA program. As part of the strategic planning process, FSUBusiness faculty engage in annual review of the college curriculum to ensure that it is aligned with the mission of the college and the current and future needs of our students. The Hospitality Management concentration has been approved and the DBA is in the faculty governance approval process now. At the MBA level, based on feedback from alumni and employers, we are examining the option of developing concentration options in the areas of Finance and Information Technology. Each opportunity entails the reallocation of existing resources and the acquisition of new revenue streams.

Scope of Accreditation Review

The degree programs within the scope of the current Continuous Improvement Review include: BA/BS Accounting, BA/BS Business Administration, BA/BS Economics, Business Economics, BS Accounting/MBA, as well as Master of Business Administration (MBA). Table IV on the following page presents the number of graduates for these programs for the past five years.

11

Table IV: Number of FSUBusiness Graduates by Degree Program

Degree Program Department(s) Offering the Program

Fall 2010

Fall 2011

Fall 2012

Fall 2013

Fall 2014

Accounting Accounting 23 27 17 33 26

Economics (Business Economics Concentration)

Economics 7 7 3 12 12

Business Administration Management

Marketing and Finance 115 114 100 100 110

Concentrations in Business

Administration Degree Program

Department (s) Offering the

Concentration

Fall

2010

Fall

2011

Fall

2012

Fall

2013

Fall

2014

Finance Marketing and Finance 6 3 4 3 4

General Management Management 72 66 57 49 46

Global Business Marketing and Finance - - - - 2

Hospitality Mgmt. (Fall 2015) Management - - - - -

Human Resource Mgmt. Management 11 8 9 14 10

Int’l Business (phased-out) Marketing and Finance 1 2 2 1

Marketing Marketing and Finance 19 25 19 21 34

Small Bus./Entrepreneurship Management 7 11 9 11 13

MBA All Departments 31 39 39 68 98

Total 176 187 159 213 246 Source: Office of Institutional Research, FSU

III. Progress Update on Concerns from Previous Review Two areas were addressed in the report of the Peer Review Team from its visit in October, 2010. Our efforts to address each concern are noted below.

A. “While it appears that faculty members currently surpass the minimum definitions for AQ, the definition itself may give an incorrect impression. In the spirit of continuous improvement, the college should consider addressing and possibly revising the AQ/PQ definitions thereby more clearly defining them. The faculty in the College of Business should address the definition of AQ status, perhaps by considering a differential expectation for faculty who will teach in the MBA program. (Standard 10: Faculty Qualifications)”

Following the 2010 PRT visit, College faculty redefined and sharpened definitions of AQ/PQ status in accordance with 2003 AACSB Standards. Higher expectations for AQ faculty teaching in the graduate program were articulated in general terms. Specifically, enrollment in a doctoral degree program in the field of teaching would previously have placed a faculty member in the AQ category. In response to the PRT’s recommendation, we redefined this requirement for AQ status. As a result, the earlier requirement of “enrollment in a doctoral degree program” was tightened to specify that a faculty member must earn “ABD” status in order to be classified as “AQ”. As for AQ standards for graduate faculty, we added the following requirement to our, then, existing AQ standards: “Faculty teaching in the MBA Program will need to demonstrate additional professional development activities (e.g. presentation of scholarly paper at national/international conferences, publication of scholarly papers in refereed conference proceedings)” to be considered AQ.

12

Since the adoption of the 2013 Business Accreditation Standards, the faculty have delineated, ratified, and adopted the criteria in accordance with Standard 15 [Faculty Qualifications and Engagement]. Please see Appendix B for our College of Business Statement on Faculty Sufficiency and Qualifications.

B. “While the College of Business engages in strategic planning; estimates financial needs for key initiatives; and has the support of FSU leadership, the college should consider developing financial strategies to fund a set of more clearly defined objectives and action initiatives that are derived from the strategic planning process. (Standard 5: Financial Strategies)”

In response to this concern, the College has developed a set of financial strategies that are appropriate to a clearly defined set of priorities and objectives. Seven specific goals that the College has identified for fulfillment over the next 3-5 years are noted as follows: 1. New Building for the College 2. Support for Faculty Travel to Academic/Professional Conferences 3. Journal Award for Enhancement of Faculty IC Productivity and Contribution 4. Support for Faculty Travel for Global Experiences 5. Support for Student Travel for Global Learning 6. Support for Student Travel for Targeted Experiential Learning Opportunities 7. Support for Faculty Need for New Technology/Software and Training Details associated with each of the above goals, and funding implications thereof, are discussed under the section, Financial Strategies/Allocation of Resources on pp. 25-28.

IV. Strategic Management and Innovation Since the last reaffirmation visit, FSUBusiness has focused on program enhancement and development. Dean Tootoonchi created a College of Business Global Experiential Learning program (CoBGEL) to foster opportunities in international teaching for faculty, hosting visiting scholars from overseas and short-term study abroad programs for faculty and students. Program faculty significantly revised the Global Business concentration in the BUAD major, college faculty created a Doctor of Business Administration (DBA) program, and management faculty collaborated with the University of Maryland Eastern Shore and Vanung University in Taiwan to establish a Hospitality Management concentration in the Business Administration major. Additionally, the college underwent annual review of its strategic plan to ensure: (1) a strategic planning effort via participation of relevant constituencies; (2) FSUBusiness’ strategic direction is aligned with the institutional strategic plan; and (3) the college’s mission reflects at least one distinctive aspect. In early 2013, and in preparation for transition from the AACSB 2003 to 2013 standards, Dean Tootoonchi initiated a thorough review of the college’s strategic plan. This process was overseen by the College Strategic Planning Committee (SPC). This committee is comprised of the College Executive Council (CEC) plus additional faculty representing each department within the College of Business. Input is obtained from the faculty, staff, Student Advisory Council and Business Advisory Board. Based upon feedback, appropriate revisions were undertaken and the new document was developed. The following revised Vision and Mission Statement, Mission Statement Components, and CoB Core Values were approved by a unanimous vote of faculty at the faculty meeting in November 2014. The complete FSUBusiness Strategic Plan is presented in Appendix “C”.

13

Vision, Mission, Core Values

Vision Statement:

FSUBusiness will be recognized for its high-quality academic and experiential learning programs. Mission Statement:

FSUBusiness prepares students to successfully meet professional opportunities through a dynamic, student-centered educational environment that emphasizes leadership, notable and timely research, application of knowledge, and global experiential learning.

Mission Statement Components:

FSUBusiness emphasizes excellence in teaching through innovative approaches, small-class

environment, caring faculty, and interactive focus.

FSUBusiness provides intellectual and professional development to students through

coursework, research, and global experiential learning with a focus on leadership, ethical values,

and community engagement.

FSUBusiness measures students’ learning outcomes to ensure continuous improvement and

positive impact of its programs.

FSUBusiness engages business practitioners, alumni, students, and community and considers

their input to enhance its programs.

FSUBusiness provides professional development opportunities for enhancement of faculty’s

teaching skills, research capabilities, practical application, and global experiential learning.

FSUBusiness’ Ten Core Values:

1. Accountability: We seek to create a culture of accountability wherein we take responsibility for the consequences of our decisions and behavior with commitment to our ethical, legal, and moral obligations to all of our constituencies.

2. Excellence: We are committed to the pursuit and practice of excellence through creativity and innovation in teaching, research, service, and outreach that provides our students with progressive learning experiences.

3. Fairness: We take pride in infusing a spirit of fairness and equity in all of our decision-making processes in order to buffer all of our constituencies from discrimination, harassment, or any act that violates their personal dignity.

4. Openness: We embrace openness to and flexibility in the examination and institution of new, creative, emerging, and diverse ideas, viewpoints, processes and practices in all aspects of our operations.

5. Professionalism: We seek to institute standards and recognize behaviors that manifest professionalism in our representation both to ourselves internally as well as externally.

6. Respect: We seek to build a climate of mutual respect characterized by a respectful regard for the individual positions, knowledge, beliefs, and philosophies of our students, faculty, staff, and administrators.

7. Service: We strive to ensure that our decisions are guided by a spirit of service, foremost to our students, as well as to the faculty, staff, and administration of the College and University and to the global society.

14

8. Teamwork: We are committed to a culture that fosters teamwork through qualities of inclusiveness, collaboration, and a collective investment in the larger good of all those we serve.

9. Transparency: We strive to achieve transparency in our decision-making, record-keeping, and reporting with commitment to the highest standards of individual and institutional integrity.

10. Trust: We strive to create an environment in which trust and personal integrity underpins all our individual and professional interactions.

FSUBusiness’ Emphasis on Teaching, Intellectual Contributions, and Service

The faculty members in FSUBusiness are active in all three dimensions of teaching, intellectual contribution, and service. Faculty is expected to demonstrate excellence in teaching at all levels offered in their department appropriate for their credentials and under a variety of circumstances. The research emphasis included in the College mission statement stresses the need for notable and timely intellectual contributions from faculty. Faculty service activities are expected in support of the University, College, department, and community.

University policies address the relative weights given to each dimension. In addition, these policies reflect the understanding that faculty can contribute in different ways -- the total contributions of the entire faculty must meet University and College goals.

Each faculty’s performance is evaluated within the following ranges:

Teaching 50-80 percent Intellectual Contributions 10-30 percent Service 5-25 percent

Collectively, FSUBusiness faculty members are productive in all three areas of intellectual contributions: (1) basic or discovery scholarship; (2) applied or integration/application scholarship; and (3) teaching and learning scholarship. Given the mission of the College and its adherence to AACSB standards, emphases in all three areas of intellectual contributions are critical to the success of FSUBusiness. However, as a comprehensive teaching institution, FSU places heavy emphasis on teaching and learning. Therefore, in maintaining our commitment to AACSB accreditation standard 2, and alignment of our college’s mission with that of the institution, the CoB faculty voted to have the their intellectual contributions be distributed in the following manner:

Basic or Discovery Scholarship (BDS) 40 percent Applied or Integration/application Scholarship (AIS) 40 percent Teaching and Learning Scholarship (TLS) 20 percent

The above distribution has been determined based on the assumption that the purpose of “application scholarship” is to build a connection between theory and practice in the field. Consequently, the 40% emphasis on “Applied” and 20% emphasis on “Teaching and Learning” scholarship will, jointly, serve to align the CoB mission with the mission of Frostburg State University. The revised mission maintains the essence of FSUBusiness’ focus on teaching and research while facilitating and supporting the college’s Global Experiential Learning program for faculty and students, which characterizes its distinctiveness.

15

Strategic Management Planning Process

College Governance – FSUBusiness operates on the principle of shared governance under the leadership of the Dean. The faculty, staff, Student Advisory Council, and CoB Advisory Board are all engaged in the strategic planning of the college. All operations of the College are expected to be in accordance with FSUBusiness Code of Ethics and Core Values.

FSUBusiness’ strategic planning process operates within the framework of FSU’s overall “Strategic Planning and Institutional Effectiveness” system. Within this system, academic units develop their own strategic plans which are forwarded and reviewed by the university-wide Institutional Effectiveness Committee. Each unit’s goals must be tied to the university’s overall strategic plan. In addition to the goals and objectives, each unit must also submit strategies, action items, and performance measures. All academic units are responsible for annually updating their plans and providing a progress summary.

The primary responsibility of FSUBusiness’ strategic plan resides with the College’s Strategic Planning Committee (SPC). The SPC oversees major revisions or modifications to the College’s plan. As noted earlier, the SPC is comprised of the College Executive Council (CEC) as well as faculty from the College of Business. It is ensured that each of the four departments has at least one representative on the SPC. Input is obtained from the faculty, staff, Student Advisory Council and Business Advisory Board regarding all components of the strategic plan. Additional members may be appointed by the Dean, as appropriate, to ensure that all relevant stakeholders are represented. A schematic diagram of the strategic planning process illustrating the relationships between the stakeholders is shown in Figure 1 on the following page.

16

Figure 1: FSUBusiness Strategic Planning Process The initial Strategic Plan of the College of Business is developed by the CEC based on the AACSB 2013 Standards and the university (FSU) strategic plan. The plan is then forwarded to the College’s Strategic Planning Committee for review and revision. The Strategic Planning Committee forwards the revised version to the College’s Advisory Board and Student Advisory Council for review and inputs. The Advisory Board and Student Advisory Council forward their feedback to the Strategic Planning Committee for consideration. After consideration of the feedback received from the College of Business Advisory Board and the Student Advisory Council, the Strategic Planning Committee presents the document to the faculty for review and ratification. The plan is sent back to the CEC for implementation. Overall, the process goes through four stages as shown below.

Initiation Development Ratification Implementation

Initial Strategic Plan Developed by the College Executive

Council (CEC)

CoB Strategic Planning

Committee (CEC and Faculty Representatives)

CoB Advisory Board (Alumni and Business

Leaders)

CoB Student Advisory Council

CoB Faculty [For Ratification]

College Executive Council (CEC)

[For Implementation]

AACSB 2013 Standards

University Vision and

Mission

17

In adherence to FSU’s strategic planning system, FSUBusiness reviewed its strategic plan each year over the past accreditation cycle. Modifications to the action items and performance measures were made in response to ongoing experiences and feedback. The current strategic plan has six goals as shown in Table V. Each goal defines a consistent framework to help guide the college as it strives to enhance learning, research, and service.

Table V: FSUBusiness Strategic Planning and Effectiveness Master Goals

Master Goal 1: Deliver high-quality academic programs to students.

Master Goal 2: Disseminate notable and timely research to the academic, business, and governmental communities.

Master Goal 3: Strive to have a positive impact on business development and economic growth of the region.

Master Goal 4: Recruit, develop, and retain high-quality students, faculty, staff, and administrators.

Master Goal 5: Engage Stakeholders in collaborative relationships.

Master Goal 6: Use innovative approaches to facilitate and support opportunities for development of ethical leadership and global experiential learning.

Overview of Continuous Improvement Outcomes Throughout 2011-2015, FSUBusiness has demonstrated a strong commitment to continuous improvement. Highlights of this progress are briefly described below for each master goal.

Master Goal 1: Deliver high-quality academic programs to students.

To achieve this goal, the Dean, Associate Dean, faculty, department chairs, the MBA coordinator, and the CoB Advising Center Coordinator collaborated in taking three sequential steps.

Offered below are examples of problem areas which were identified and corrective actions taken in response to each problem followed by relevant outcomes/improvement.

Problem One: Math 106, Algebra with Calculus, revealed one of the highest “DWF” (failure) rates among all courses in the College (54% in spring 2011). The course is part of the Common Body of Knowledge (CBK) required of all business students, and a prerequisite to the Corporate Finance and Managerial Economics courses. The high rate

Identifying Problem Areas

Taking Corrective Actions

Outcomes and Improvement

18

of failure in this course slowed students’ progress towards graduation and overall success in our programs. Corrective Actions: The Dean, Associate Dean, and faculty of Management, Finance, and Economics met with the Chair and instructors from the Mathematics Department to discuss the problem and search for alternative solutions. The results were changes in the course number, title, description, and content. The course is now renumbered and retitled as Math 118, Applied Mathematics for Business, with revised content. Further, the Dean allocated funds to hire a business student to serve as a tutor exclusively for students enrolled in Math 118.

Outcome: Math 106, Algebra with Calculus was redesigned. Students’ performance in the [current] Math 118, Applied Mathematics for Business course improved and the DWF rate dropped from 54% in 2011 to 17% in 2014.

Problem Two: FINA 370, Corporate Finance revealed a high rate of DWF, as well as students’ dissatisfaction. This problem manifested itself through: (1) increased number of complaints from students; (2) increased number of requests to take the course at another institution; and (3) a decline in enrollment in the Finance concentration. Corrective Actions: The Dean, Associate Dean, and Chair of the Marketing and Finance Department met several times, discussed the issue and searched for a solution. The conclusion was that the faculty member, who, at the time, was almost exclusively teaching the course, although very knowledgeable in the subject matter, had a teaching style that was more suitable for upper-level finance courses. It was decided that the faculty member be re-assigned to teach upper-level finance courses. A search was opened and a new finance faculty was hired to become the primary instructor of FINA 370.

Outcome: FINA 370, Corporate Finance, experienced an instructor change. Since the hiring of the new Finance faculty, no complaint was expressed by students, very few requests are submitted by students for taking the course at another institution, and the enrollment in the Finance concentration grew by 177% from 13 in 2010 to 36 in 2014. The failure rate (DWF) for this class has also dropped from 32.5% to 20.8%, since the change was made.

Problem Three: BUAD 300 and BUAD 400, Professional Development I and II were designed to increase business students’ success in the CoB and after graduation. However, students’ feedback revealed that these two courses were not serving their intended purposes. Corrective Actions: Upon the Dean’s request, a management faculty member conducted a comprehensive survey of current business students, alumni, and faculty with the purpose of pinpointing any concerns and determining what changes should be made. The survey results were tabulated and analyzed with the results presented to faculty at one of the CoB meetings. As a result, the courses’ HEGIS-codes, numbers, and titles were changed to MGMT 110, Career and Professional Development I (reduced credit hours from 2 to 1) and MGMT 310, Career and Professional Development II (increased credit hours from 1 to 2). The content of each redesigned. Additionally, instead of offering

19

multiple sections of each of course, one section of each is offered every semester and team-taught by two faculty members for consistency in the quality of teaching and learning. Outcome: Students’ comments now reflect their satisfaction with the content and delivery of the two newly redesigned courses (MGMT 110 and MGMT 310, Career and Professional Development I and II).

Problem Four: COSC 100, Introduction to Computer Science was identified by faculty of Accounting and MIS to be a problem because the course did not prepare students with computer skills needed for success in accounting and MIS. Since COSC 100 was part of the CBK, it needed careful attention and appropriate action. Corrective Actions: After a meeting and discussion with the faculty of the Computer Science Department, the Chair of the CoB Curriculum Committee prepared a proposal to delete COSC 100 from the list of CBK courses and replace it with COSC 220, Introduction to Software Applications. The proposal was approved.

Outcome: COSC 100, Introduction to Computer Science was removed and its replacement stands approved. Beginning Fall 2015, COSC 220, Introduction to Software Applications, will be required in the CBK. Additionally, it will serve as a prerequisite to several Accounting and BMIS courses.

Problem Five: Routine focus-groups with MBA students revealed students’ concerns about: (1) course and textbook information not being posted online in a timely manner; (2) inadequate interactive sessions via video conferencing in MBA classes; and (3) lack of tech-support service hours during the evening and weekends.

Corrective Actions: The MBA Coordinator met with the CoB graduate faculty several times to discuss and identify solutions to three concerns expressed by MBA students. As a result, the CoB provided financial support for seven graduate faculty members to participate at the AACSB “Effective Online Teaching Strategies” seminars. MBA faculty members are working toward “Quality Matters” certification via formal training at FSU. The MBA Coordinator participated at the Online Learning Consortium International Conference in October 2014, to enhance her knowledge of advanced online teaching tools and techniques. Further, due to concerns expressed by faculty and students, and upon the Dean’s request in Spring 2015, the FSU IT Office began providing 24-hour tech-support to faculty and students via contract with Blackboard.

Outcome: Concerns expressed by MBA students were addressed. Although anecdotal information reflects higher satisfaction of our MBA students, the MBA Coordinator plans to organize more focus groups to gauge students’ reactions regarding the impact of corrective actions that have been taken in response to their concerns.

Master Goal 2: Disseminate notable and timely research to the academic, business, and governmental communities.

Ninety one percent of FSUBusiness faculty members are academically and/or professionally

20

active as evidenced by their Curriculum Vitae, which are available as a separate document for review. During five-year period, 2010-11 through 2014-2015, FSUBusiness has provided one course release per semester, as well as journal publication awards of up to $4,000 annually to every faculty member who remained productive in the publication of research articles in peer-reviewed journals. As a result, a total of 40 faculty of the CoB generated an aggregate portfolio of 226 published research articles in peer-reviewed journals, and 4 faculty members had award-winning papers in national and international conferences. Additionally, since our last accreditation visit, the Dean published a leadership book and one management faculty member produced an introductory business text.

Master Goal 3: Strive to have a positive impact on business development and economic growth of the region.

The following are examples of how FSUBusiness faculty, students, and staff contribute to the business development and economic growth of the region in numerous ways as follows.

Dean Tootoonchi serves on the Cumberland Allegany County Industrial Foundation (CACIF), and helped develop a new Strategic Plan for this regional organization.

Dean Tootoonchi serves on the Community Advisory Board and the Audit Compliance Committee of the Western Maryland Regional Health System; the largest employer in the Western Maryland region.

FSUBusiness has established a Center for Leadership Development, under the leadership of the Associate Dean, to organize development workshops for the owners/managers of businesses in the region. Under this Center, eight CoB faculty conducted seminars/workshops for regional organizations on various topics, including: HRM, Leadership, Branding, and Strategic Management.

One College faculty member, Dr. Evan Offstein, is the owner and founder of Excelerated Leadership Partners, a fast-growing consulting firm focusing on providing services to local and regional organizations, such as: Allegany College, Gettysburg College, Sheetz, PSEG, CHEP International, City of Hagerstown, Washington County Schools, Bedford County, Somerset County, and the Maryland Transportation Authority.

One CoB faculty, Dr. Carol Gaumer, conducted a series of focus groups for the Allegany Arts Council in summer 2014. The purpose was to assess the arts’ impact on local economic development. She presented the findings to 90 members of the community at the 'Creative Placemaking Summit.'

FSUBusiness students at both the graduate and undergraduate levels routinely engage with local and regional organizations in class projects on advertising, branding, and strategic management.

Master Goal 4: Recruit, develop, and retain high-quality students, faculty, staff, and administrators.

To meet this objective, FSUBusiness administrators, faculty and staff participate in various university recruiting efforts, including: facilitating presentations at Admissions Open House, local/regional high schools and community colleges, and area collegiate receptions. The College supports and facilitates students’ activities and engagement in ten student organizations, which impact retention of students.

21

Although the institution, as a whole, experienced noticeable budget reduction in the past five years, with the support of the central administration, FSUBusiness has been able to hire 12 new faculty members since 2010. All of our new hires have terminal degrees in the field except for two who are presently enrolled in a doctoral degree program with support from College of Business in the way of one course release per semester for the duration of their enrollment in the program. To enhance faculty satisfaction and retention, each full-time faculty member receives $800 for presenting at a conference and up to $4,000 journal publication awards, depending upon research productivity through publication of articles in peer-reviewed journals. Faculty in the Accounting department classified as Scholarly or Instructional Practitioners receive an additional annual allowance of $500 support for the maintenance of their professional license/certification. The Chair of each Department receives an additional $600 for attending conferences and/or other professional development meetings. FSUBusiness has established an ‘EXTRA MILE’ Award that is presented each year to one member of the faculty or staff who goes beyond the normal ‘call of duty’ in support of our students and College. The award is in the form of $300 that is credited to the recipient’s travel fund in the following academic year. In the past five years, FSUBusiness awarded 83 scholarships to 101 business students for a total of $94,488. The scholarship recipients, their parents, CoB Advisory Board members, CoB faculty/staff, and university officials are invited to the annual College of Business Honors Ceremony where the recipients are formally recognized for their achievements. They are also publically recognized in the semi-annually published CoBNews as well as the local newspapers. Over the review period, approximately 25 students (undergraduate and graduate) participated in the FSUBusiness’ VITA (Volunteer Income Tax Assistance) program. They prepared a total of 1,707 income tax returns (federal and state/local) under the supervision of VITA program director, Dr. Joyce Middleton, Accounting Department. This is a cooperative effort with the IRS to provide free tax preparation to low-income, elderly, and students. VITA is an opportunity for supervised students to apply skills learned in tax classes to actual practice. In 2011, the university established a special fund called President’s Experiential Learning Enhancement Fund (PELEF), which is distributed annually among the three colleges in support of the institutional emphasis on experiential learning and the development and retention of high-quality faculty and students. Faculty members are invited to submit an application to the dean specifying the type of experiential learning project, number of students engaged, and the costs. The Dean forwards the applications to the CoB Curriculum Committee for review, evaluation, and recommendation. Since our last accreditation visit, five CoB faculty members received funding for their experiential projects, engaging a total of 110 students in various forms of participation at national/international conferences/seminars and professional networking events. FSUBusiness has established a Staff Development Committee with the Dean’s Executive Administrative Assistant as its Chair. The committee meets periodically to discuss concerns with feedback given to CEC for appropriate action. The CoB Staff are encouraged to attend a regional/national staff development conference/seminar; fully supported by the College. FSUBusiness has established a formal orientation and mentoring program for the purpose of

22

reducing stress typically experienced by new faculty members and to ease the process of their integration and socialization into the new professional environment. At the end of each academic year, Dean Tootoonchi invites the entire CoB faculty/staff and their spouse/significant other to a dinner reception at his home for socialization and enhancing cohesiveness among CoB members. Master Goal 5: Engage Stakeholders in collaborative relationships.

Graduate and undergraduate students work with local organizations using one of the company’s functional areas as the subject of investigation for their class projects. In the past five years, a significant number of class projects were completed by FSUBusiness students, engaging a variety of businesses/organizations. During the past five years, the College’s Center for Leadership Development (CLD) has collaborated with two local organizations to contribute to business development of the region. The collaboration between the CLD, The Greater Cumberland Committee (TGCC), and The Accounting Clerical Technical Services (ACT) resulted in a number of seminars/workshops that were conducted by CoB faculty for the business owners/managers in the region. FSUBusiness maintains a Business Advisory Board that is comprised of 30 business leaders and alumni from various areas of the region and the country. The advisory board members meet with the College Executive Council usually twice a year to discuss the college’s strategic direction, and ways to improve the quality of our business programs and activities. Since our last accreditation visit, the Advisory Board reviewed and suggested revision in the vision and mission of the College. They also contributed to redefinition of the Core Values of the College. At the Advisory Board meeting in May 2015, members voted to form a Steering Committee to explore strategies to raise funds for a new CoB building. The Steering committee has been formed and the work is in progress. In addition, in the past five years, some of the members of our Advisory Board have visited our Professional Development classes as guest-speakers and/or panelists to share their knowledge, insights, and success stories as business leaders. FSUBusiness maintains a Student Advisory Council comprised of 20 undergraduate and graduate students. The Council meets with the Dean usually twice a year to provide input, express concerns, and become engaged in the college’s strategic planning process. FSUBusiness has one finance faculty member, who is awarded a two-course release; serve as a consultant with the regional Small Business Development Center, providing financial counseling services to area business owners/managers in need of advice. FSUBusiness faculty invites business leaders and alumni as guest speakers to make presentations in their classes sharing practical experiences with students on variety of topics. FSUBusiness student-organizations, such as: the Finance Club, Marketing Club, Society for Human Resource Management, and Society for Advancement of Management have worked with business leaders and alumni to organize events for business students in order to give students

23

opportunities to interact and network with successful business leaders and alumni. FSUBusiness Department Chairs collaborate with variety of organizations to create internship opportunities for business students (in-country and abroad). Since our last accreditation visit, 269 CoB students performed internships in over 170 different organizations. The list of organizations includes, but is not limited to: IBM, Hunter Douglas, Target, Edward Jones Investments, ClosetMaid, U.S. State Department, and the Baltimore Ravens. The Chair and faculty of the Department of Management collaborated with representatives from Target Department Stores to sponsor a case competition for business students. In the past four years, students in four management courses participated. The top teams of students presented their case analyses to a team of faculty and regional representatives from Target, who served as judges. The winning team in each course received a $4,000 scholarship from Target. Master Goal 6: Use innovative approaches to facilitate and support opportunities for development of ethical leadership and global experiential learning.

Ethical Leadership: The MBA faculty worked with the CoB Graduate Policy Committee to revise the title, description, and content of an MBA course to add more emphasis on ethical leadership. As a result, the title of the course “Leadership Process,” changed to “Leadership and Ethics,” and so did its description and content to reflect the higher emphasis on ethical leadership. Global Business concentration: The undergraduate Global Business concentration under the Business Administration major was redesigned to strengthen students’ knowledge of international trade, international finance, and foreign culture/language. Global Experiential Learning: The CoB Global Experiential Learning program, established since the last accreditation visit, saw 14 CoB faculty and 60 business students study abroad in 4 different countries (China, Peru, Ecuador, and Brazil). CoB faculty have travelled and taught in several countries, including: Croatia, Ecuador, Germany, Hungary, and Taiwan. Additional opportunities are being formulated. Faculty and students who return from CoBGEL trips are invited to Professional Development classes and Advisory Board meetings to share their learning experiences and encourage other faculty/students to participate in this experiential program. Faculty and students’ presentations for the CoB Advisory Board members have had two primary objectives: 1) to keep them informed about the impact of such an important program on students’ learning experiences, and 2) to generate ongoing financial contribution to the College of Business Student Global Experiential Learning Fund (an account that is used solely to subsidize students’ expenses for these international trips).

Ongoing and Future Planning

Building upon the success of meeting and maintaining the strategic goals established during the last accreditation cycle, Dean Tootoonchi has marked the following as areas of future focus.

24

Resource Allocation o Address building and infrastructure needs with specific focus on a new or redesigned

CoB building within the next 5 years (a steering committee comprised of the Advisory Board and the VP of University Advancement has been formed and work is in progress)

o Explore additional funding sources for the College of Business Students Global Experiential Learning Fund

Curriculum and Enrollment Enhancement o Create concentration(s) in the online MBA program o Launch the DBA program in 2017 o Seek strategies for increasing U/G enrollment by 20% in the next 3-5 years

Outreach o Provide more opportunities for students’ experiential learning o Seek opportunities to extend international teaching to more CoB faculty

Research o Enhance professional development incentives for better quality research with greater

impact

Organization and Leadership o Establish a brand for FSUBusiness consistent with the university’s brand and

showcasing the distinctive features of the College

Intellectual Contributions and Impact Contributions and Alignment with Mission

Table 2-1 in Appendix A provides the five-year summary of intellectual contributions (ICs) produced by FSUBusiness’ Participating Faculty in the academic years 2010-11 through 2014-15. In the aggregate, the college generated a portfolio of ICs diversified across multiple categories of research and types of products. Out of the 289 ICs, 89 (31%) represented basic or discovery scholarship, 139 (48%) were applied in nature, and 61 (21%) were focused on teaching and learning. Examination of the portfolio of 226 PRJs alone across the three categories of scholarship indicates a similar distribution. This distribution is in broad alignment with the research portfolio emphasis embraced by the College and supports the mission of the university. College faculty will primarily focus their scholarly activities toward making the connection of theory to application for practice, as well as generate appropriate discipline-based knowledge; teaching of business also remains an important area of scholarship in recognition of the teaching-learning emphasis in the College and institution’s missions.

Substantial Cross-Section of Participation

As evidenced in Table 2-1A in Appendix A, in the five year period, 2010-11 through 2014-15, significant breadth of participation by Participating Faculty in FSUBusiness across both departmental and programmatic lines exists in the generation of IC activity. For the college as a whole, 93 percent participated in the production of scholarship. When broken out by departmental programs, participation percentages ranged from 89 percent in Accounting, 96 percent in Business Administration (as represented by a composite of 28 Participating

25

Faculty in the departments of Management and Marketing & Finance), and 87.5 percent in Economics.

Table 2-2 in the Appendix reports the five-year summary of peer reviewed journals (PRJs) for FSUBusiness faculty. Between AY 2010-11 and 2014-15, Participating Faculty members authored 226 PRJ articles in a total of 105 different journal titles spanning across the three categories: basic/discovery scholarship, application/integration scholarship, and teaching and learning scholarship.

Impact and Quality

Our faculty members have impacted peers and students through books, texts, as well as publication of peer-reviewed journal articles and conference paper presentations.

Several faculty members have garnered ‘Best Paper’ awards at national and international conferences. Dr. Ali Ashraf earned a ‘Distinguished Best Paper’ award at the Federation of Business Disciplines conferences in 2012 and 2013. He was a runner-up for a best paper award for a different manuscript in 2013. In 2014, Dr. Evan Offstein and Dr. Rebecca Chory earned the ‘Top Paper Award’ for a co-authored article presented in the Academy of Management (Division of Management Education).

Dr. Chory’s academic research has also been quoted in popular publications such as the April 2015 edition of Buzzfeed and May 2015 issue of Glamour magazine. Dr. Offstein also had an article cited 322 times via the Emerald Group. Dr. Evan Offstein’s book on ‘Stand Your Ground: Building Honorable Leaders the West Point Way,’ has been adopted by several organizations, like Virginia Tech’s Corps of Cadets, Indiana University of Pennsylvania’s doctoral program, and Texas A&M’s Corps of Cadets, as a part of their mandatory reading lists. Dr. Amit Shah published an introductory business text that has been adopted by FSU. The Dean co-authored a book, “Foundations and Practical Elements of Leadership,” which has been used as a resource for teaching and leadership development in the U.S. and overseas. Dr. Lilly Ye received the Literati Network Excellence 2013 Award for “Most Downloaded Paper.” Recently, in 2015, Dr. Lilly Ye was interviewed by both The Content Strategist and the Glammonitor (online publications) about her published article on ‘Gender Identity: Does It Matter for Consumers’ Perceptions.’ Drs. Cathy Ashley-Cotleur (2014), Michael Monahan (2013), Dwane Dean (2012), and Amit Shah (2011) were recipients of the CoB ‘Extra Mile’ Award for Research for consistently producing quality research.

Financial Strategies and Allocation of Resources

FSU is a state-supported institution and, as a constituent academic unit of the institution, the College of Business, structurally, draws upon institutional resources as the principal driver of its operating budget. The overall College budget is comprised of separate allocations to each academic department and to the Dean’s Office.

Each unit maintains fiscal responsibility for its annual budgetary allocation. Coordination of expenditures across departments and the College as a whole is undertaken by the Dean in consultation with members of the CEC. Major expenditures and those affecting multiple units

26

are discussed and reviewed by the CEC. Following university protocols, the Dean has final signatory authority over all expenditures of the College of Business.

The College’s operating budget supports salaries for its faculty, staff, and administration, provides resources for the delivery and enhancement of its academic programs, enables year-round functioning of its Academic Advising Center, and provides travel/research support for the professional development of faculty and staff. All major technology and facility expenditures are supported by the General Institutional Fund. The total operating funds available to FSUBusiness for 2014-15 are $6.06 million. This amount represents an eight percent growth over the college’s 2010-11 budget of $5.6 million. Despite the fiscal challenges experienced by the State of Maryland and the University, budgetary allocations to the College over the past five years have been stable, exhibiting a modestly upward trend, and enabled the College to hire a total of 12 new faculty members. External fund-raising opportunities are sought and administered primarily through the Office of University Advancement, whereas specific grant opportunities are pursued in collaboration with the Office of Research and Sponsored Programs (ORSP). The Dean of the College collaborates with the University Advancement office to generate financial contributions for the College’s foundation account in order to provide scholarships for students and to augment funding for selected operational needs of the College. The total account balance of the College of Business foundation accounts has grown impressively by about 90 percent from $272,120 in 2009 to $514,870 in 2014. Some of the goals of the College for the next 3-5 years and the financial strategies developed toward their fulfillment are discussed as follows and summarized in Table VI below.

1. New Building for the College: Currently, the College of Business faculty members on the main campus have their offices and classrooms in two different buildings. There is a need for a new facility that will offer a unified home for the entire College faculty and staff, as well as classroom facilities for all business programs on the main campus. A proposal has been developed for submission to the University System of Maryland Board of Regents and to private donors toward seeking funding commitment for a new building for the College with a 2019-21 project timeline. Based on a benchmarking analysis of new buildings at colleges of business at similar institutions including those within the state of Maryland, it is estimated that with a space need of 50,000 GSF and an estimated cost of $500/sq. ft., a new building will cost $25 million. Further, annual maintenance cost has been estimated at $40,000 based on the projected need for a dedicated maintenance/IT staff member.

2. Support for Faculty Travel to Academic/Professional Conferences: The College of Business is committed to continue its financial support for faculty’s Intellectual Contribution and Professional Development activities via a base-level support of $800 per participating faculty member for presentation of research output at conferences. Furthermore, to assist with the maintenance of professional certification support for faculty designated as Scholarly Practitioner [SP] or Instructional Practitioner [SP] in Accounting, an additional amount of $500 per faculty member is allotted. Department Chairs also receive an incentive support of $600 per Chair. The annual outlays cumulatively result in an annual commitment of approximately $40,000 borne within the College’s operating budget.

27

3. Journal Award to Enhance Faculty IC Productivity and Contribution: In order to both incentivize and reward faculty’s IC productivity, the College has established a $26,000-28,000 fund which is distributed among faculty annually, with specific award levels depending on the number and quality of articles published in peer-reviewed journals in the preceding year. Each faculty member has the opportunity to earn a journal award of up to $4,000/year subject to budgetary constraints. The Process Manual of the College of Business outlines the application process and criteria.

4. Support for Faculty Travel for Global Experiences: The College has been funding faculty members’ short-term study abroad travel with students in support of the College and institutional plan to enhance global experiential learning opportunities for students. Under the auspices of the College of Business Global Experiential Learning program [CoBGEL], since the summer of 2012, a total of six different groups of students, faculty, and staff have visited China, Peru, and Ecuador, and Brazil; and one group is planning a trip to France in 2016.

5. Support for Student Travel for Global Learning: The College has established a restricted fund with the FSU Foundation titled College of Business Students Global Experiential Learning Fund [COBSGELF] with contributions from the College Advisory Board, alumni, and faculty for the purpose of defraying students’ costs of participation in overseas experiential education. All annual contributions to the fund, in entirety, are disbursed to students in support of their participation in the faculty-led study abroad experience.

6. Support for Student Travel for Targeted Experiential Learning Opportunities: Since 2012, the College has carved out a portion of its Operating Budget to fund student travel either wholly or partially to targeted, high-impact events. Examples include the Beta Gamma Sigma Leadership Forum, the RI.S.E. Investments Forum, the ENGAGE Finance Symposium, S.A.M.S. Student Team Case Competition, Marketing-Advertising Career Conference, as well as academic conferences and professional networking opportunities.

7. Support for Faculty Need for New Technology/Software and Training: The College continues to earmark a portion of its Operating Budget to support faculty needs for new technological hardware, purchase of specialized software, as well as training in areas such as SAP/ERP that is being embedded in selected coursework, as well as AACSB “Best Practices” Seminars in Online Teaching, in support of the MBA program.

28

Table VI: Financial Strategies

Activity Start Date First Year Cost or Revenue

Continuing Annual Cost or Revenue

Source or Disposition of Fund

1. New Building for the CoB

2019-21 $25,000,000 $40,000 State of Maryland / Private Donors

2. Support for Faculty Travel to Academic/ Professional Conferences

Ongoing $39,000 $39,000 CoB Operating Budget

3. Journal awards for Enhancement of

Faculty IC and PD activities

Ongoing $26,000 - $28,000

$26,000 -$28,000

CoB Operating Budget

4. Support of Faculty Travel for Global Experiences

2012- Ongoing

$12,000 $15,000 CoB Operating Budget

5. Support of Student Travel for Global Experiences

2012- Ongoing

$3,000 $5,000 COBSGELF, Foundation/ Other Grants

6. Support of Student Travel for Targeted Experiential Learning Opportunities

2012- Ongoing

$4,000 $5,000 CoB Operating Budget

7. Support for Faculty Need for New Technology/ Software/Training

2012- Ongoing

Variable up to $15,000

Variable up to $15,000

CoB Operating Budget

In summary, FSUBusiness is confident in reporting on the sustainability of the financial support it has been receiving from the university administration that enables it to deliver a high-quality educational experience to its students. In spite of the current fiscal challenges facing the institution, the College is assured of a steady stream of resources that are adequate to meet its educational mission. We do not anticipate any reduction in financial resources, facilities and infrastructure, or restrictions in the hiring and deployment of qualified faculty in the foreseeable future.

New Degree Programs Since the last continuous improvement accreditation review, two new programs were developed and an existing program was significantly revised. An undergraduate Hospitality Management concentration was created under the Business Administration major. This program is a cooperative partnership with the University of Maryland-Eastern Shore (UMES) and Vanung University, Taiwan. Students in this Hospitality Management concentration will take classes online with UMES, then travel to Vanung University, Taiwan, to take four face-to-face classes over six weeks at their world-renowned hospitality facility. The program has been approved to begin in Fall 2015. FSU’s first-ever business doctoral program has also been created. The proposed Doctor of

29

Business Administration (DBA) program with concentration in Management is FSU’s first advanced educational degree in business. As an applied, professional practice doctorate, the proposed program is consonant with the educational mission of the university; it also meets critical workforce needs of the State of Maryland. The proposal for the program is in the governance approval-process currently, with implementation expected to occur in Fall Semester 2017.

The Global Business concentration under the Business Administration major has been significantly revised to include courses in International Trade, International Financial Management, and Intercultural Communication. The electives list was enhanced to include courses in political geography, economics of developing countries, and additional language options. Further, the capstone course was revised to include more emphasis on international trade, comparative advantage, and entry-decisions. V. Participants – Students, Faculty, and Professional Staff

Students

FSUBusiness is subject to the admissions standards established by the university; the College does not have additional admissions criteria. However, the plan, within the next two years, is to engage faculty in an exploratory investigation of opportunities for establishment of additional admissions criteria for selected programs in CoB (e.g. Accounting, Economics). Students begin their college career assigned to a university orientation advisor and take courses in the General Education Program (GEP). Once students declare a major in the College of Business, they are assigned a faculty advisor in that program of study. Once declared, students take courses in the College’s Common Body of Knowledge (CBK). CBK courses include, but are not limited to: managerial accounting, financial accounting, micro-economics, macro-economics, operations - management, principles of marketing and corporate finance. In the Business Administration major, students must select a concentration or area of specialization within the major (i.e., finance, general management, global business, hospitality management, human resource management, marketing, or small business/entrepreneurship). As noted in Section II, the long-term enrollment for the college has averaged around 900 students per year, including both undergraduates and MBAs. This is approximately one fifth of the overall Frostburg State University student body. Historically, the distribution of undergraduate students across the College’s majors has remained relatively stable. Table VII reports the number of students enrolled and graduated from each of the three majors for last academic year. As seen in the table, Business Administration is the most popular major among College undergraduates.

30

Table VII: Distribution of Enrollment and Graduation across College Majors, AY 2014-15

College Major Enrollment Count* Percent of Total Graduation Count** Percent of Total Accounting

137

14.1% 26 9.9%

Business Administration 528 54.3% 110 42.0% Economics 30

82 3.1% 28 10.7%

Undergraduate Programs Total 695 71.5% 164 62.6% MBA 277

35 28.5% 98 37.4%

College Total 972 100% 262 100%

* Fall enrollment, last AY (2014-15) ** Full academic year.

No major changes in the demographic distribution of our students have occurred since the last review. As reported in Table III (by Gender and Race), the typical FSUBusiness undergraduate is a white student, native of Maryland and enrolled full-time. A significant percentage of our business students, nearly 64%, received financial aid assistance during the academic year 2013-2014. This is up since 2011. As a whole, 74% of our university students received financial aid in 2013-2014. Given this and a soon-to-be increase in tuition, efforts were undertaken to expand and extend the availability of private scholarship dollars. In 2014, the total dollar amount of private scholarships awarded to business students increased by 61% (since 2011). This is the most significant environmental change affecting students since the last review. Management and Support of Faculty and Professional Staff Faculty Management Policies. Oversight of the university’s human resource policies lies with the respective department chairs and the Dean. This includes the responsibility to ensure that all personnel decisions are made in accordance with the Maryland Board of Regents policy and state and federal laws. A brief overview of major functions is provided below.

Recruitment and Hiring. The decision to fill an open faculty position is made by the Dean after consultation with the chairs. The Dean’s decision must be approved by the Provost. Positions that are approved by the Provost are then filled following standard search procedures. The recruitment and hiring process for faculty positions is overseen by a search committee formed within the respective department. All tenure-track faculty searches are national in-scope. Applications are screened and ranked by the committee prior to the preliminary interviews. Two or three finalists are invited to campus for in-person interviews. All relevant parties are asked to participate in the on-campus interviews which normally include classroom and research presentations. Evaluation forms are completed by those involved in the interview and collected by the committee. The hiring committee meets and provides a recommendation to the department chair. The department chair recommends a hire to the Dean; the Dean requests a formal ‘letter of offer’ from the President.

Mentoring. FSUBusiness has a formal mentoring program for all newly hired faculty members. Department chairs recruit a senior faculty member to serve as a mentor to work with and provide guidance to new faculty over the course of their first year on a variety of topics, such as: the annual evaluation, tenure/promotion, financial support for professional development, etc. Performance Evaluation. The evaluation system follows a calendar year cycle: each January, faculty members complete a department-created evaluation form and report their accomplishments

31

for the previous year. The completed forms and supporting evidence are reviewed and scored by a department evaluation committee and the department chairs. These evaluations are then sent to the Dean for his review and rating. Faculty members are provided with written feedback and an evaluation rating by mid-March. Faculty, who receive exceptional ratings are eligible for merit increases in salary. Full-time participating non-tenured faculty members participate in this evaluation process as well. Professional staff are evaluated annually by their respective supervisor. Reward Systems. In addition to the merit increase for exceptional performance ratings as described above, tenured/tenure-track faculty members and staff are eligible for across-the-board salary increases negotiated each year through the State of Maryland. Recent annual increases have been modest – two percent for each of the past two years which followed several years of no raises. Participating and Supporting Faculty. The criteria outlined below were approved by the College faculty to classify instructional personnel as either “Participating” or “Supporting.” A copy of the full document is provided in Appendix B. All full-time faculty members in good standing, at the rank of Instructor and above, are Participating Faculty. Part-Time or adjunct instructors are classified as Supporting Faculty. The Participating Faculty of the College of Business consists of all persons appointed to a Department to a full-time position with the title of Professor, Associate Professor, Assistant Professor, or Lecturer. The Participating Faculty have legislative jurisdiction over broad policies and guidelines affecting the College of Business’ academic mission in regard to teaching, research, and service, including the definitions of purpose and objectives. Supporting Faculty members are faculty who are hired on a contractual basis to teach one or more courses over a fixed contract period. Supporting Faculty may attend general meetings of the faculty and may actively participate in the meetings. Normally, Supporting Faculty members do not have deliberative or voting rights on faculty issues. They do not normally have membership on faculty committees, nor are they assigned responsibilities beyond their direct teaching function.

Professional Staff and Support Services. The four academic departments and the Dean’s Office are served by one Administrative Assistant each. In addition, the College maintains one professional staff position that provides advising services to students and advising training to new faculty. This position is the Coordinator of the Advising Center. The College is also supported by six Graduate Assistants. All of these professional staff positions are essential to the daily operations of the College and directly or indirectly impact the fulfillment of its mission. Coordinator of the Advising Center. The Coordinator of the Advising Center is a full-time twelve-month position that is supported by a work-study assistant. The role of the Coordinator is to meet with students about course scheduling, satisfying university and college major requirements, transfer issues, proper form compliance, assignment of an advisor, and advising-training for new faculty. Once students declare an FSUBusiness major, their university advising record is forwarded to our Advising Center Coordinator. She contacts and meets with each new declared major. In addition to these professional staff positions, the College also benefits from the services provided by a number of offices across campus. Perhaps, most importantly, the Career and Professional Development Center works closely with the College’s faculty in offering professional placement services to both our undergraduate and MBA students. The Office also provides

32

students with numerous development programs/workshops, personal career counseling, job and internship fairs, and other such events. That office maintains a computerized internship and job placement service, ‘College Central.’ This office works with College faculty to arrange special events, including: employer-panel discussions, guest speakers, and field trips to prominent regional businesses. In addition, the office seeks and promotes internship opportunities (here and abroad). VI. Learning and Teaching

Curricula Management The curriculum is owned, developed, and managed by the faculty. All curricular decisions are tied directly to the College’s mission statement, as well as, learning goals established by the faculty for each degree program. Proposals for curriculum changes are reviewed and approved by the College Curriculum Committee, endorsed by the Dean, and forwarded to university committees and the Faculty Senate for final approval. Specifically, all new course and program proposals originate with the faculty and are reviewed by the respective department’s curriculum review committee, the College Curriculum Committee, the Dean, campus-wide governance committees, and the Faculty Senate for final approval. Graduate level program governance also includes the College Graduate Policy Committee, the University Graduate Council, and Faculty Senate. New academic programs and significant changes to majors and minors must also be approved by the Maryland Board of Regents.

Curricula Content

The content of the CoB undergraduate curriculum is designed to prepare students to be successful in their careers. Courses within the undergraduate curriculum provide instruction in generally accepted sets of learning experiences across the major functional areas of business. Undergraduate CoB students complete the 40 credit General Education program (GEP) as prescribed by the university; the College’s Common Body of Knowledge courses (CBK) at 51-52 credits; and their major course requirements of 30 credits. FSU requires a minimum of 120 credit hours to graduate. The MBA program prepares students for executive-level leadership positions in business and public service. Current admission standards for the MBA, include: a minimum GMAT of 450 plus a minimum score based on a formula which considers their undergraduate GPA and earned GMAT. All MBA students must possess a bachelor‘s degree and have earned credit in a series of foundation courses across the various disciplines prior to starting graduate study. Students with non-business undergraduate degrees must complete two ‘Essentials’ courses (BUAD 507, Accounting and Finance; and BUAD 508, Marketing and Management) both designed to provide necessary requisite knowledge. The MBA is 36-42 credit hours depending upon the student’s academic background. Accounting majors from FSU can opt to enter the MBA/ACCT program with a GPA of 2.75 or better in the major and this will provide waiver of two required accounting courses. These students can complete the MBA/ACCT program in as little as 30 credit hours. Those students holding a CPA licensure can be given credit for the two accounting courses.

33

Assurance of Learning In 2010, the College of Business earned the reaffirmation of its AACSB maintenance of accreditation. One of the significant factors influencing the visiting team’s decision was the quality of our Assurance of Learning (AoL) program. In the summer of 2011, Dean Tootoonchi appointed Dr. Evan Offstein to serve as the AoL Coordinator. We believe our AoL program is strong and has improved over the last five years. Evidence of producing high quality graduates can be found in the successes of our alumni, and in a 63% improvement rate from pre- to post-test results along with strong and improving rubric scores. Improved Rigor in the Development of an AoL Plan and AoL Management System: The prior AoL system lacked internal validity to a degree that it made it difficult to draw meaningful conclusions about the efficacy of the pedagogical interventions. This serious finding was based on several major, and a series of minor, self-critiques of our program. Namely, there are two primary ways to test for causation. The first is a pre versus post experimental design. The second is the presence of a control and experimental group. From these experimental designs, inferences relating to causality can be made. In other words, an experimental design allows us to better determine whether “learning” did, indeed, occur. Specifically, making curricular or pedagogical changes based on a testing model that did not address causality was limiting. We found that our previous testing mechanism suffered a few shortcomings with real and perceived integrity issues. Specifically, Common Bodies of Knowledge (CBK) and Concentration areas were tested on Blackboard. A student would be allowed to take a 10-question exam and score at least 70% to pass their Concentration and CBK tests. They could take the online exam up to five times to generate a passing score. First, we were concerned about the integrity of the exam protocol. Simply, we had no way of knowing whether the actual student was taking the exam or not. Second, the standards of passing were too low for our standards. Lastly, after careful review, we found the exam questions to be poorly worded and repetitive. Although we were satisfied with the initial mechanism of our AoL program, several key initiatives were undertaken to close the existing gaps.

Curriculum-Driven AoL: In 2005, a new curriculum initiative was launched. The CoB designed two required courses: Professional Development I (PD I) and Professional Development II (PD II). Generally, the curriculum and pedagogical approach in PD I was to socialize and orient incoming students in ways that would enable them to succeed. PD II was designed to showcase some of the career development and networking skills to enhance their employability in the global market. At the end of Spring 2010 semester and through the summer of 2010, the CoB launched a comprehensive survey to three key stakeholders: faculty, students, and alumni to better understand some of the concerns regarding the efficacy of PD I and PD II courses. Two key issues emerged:

Many respondents felt that waiting to engage students in PD II’s career preparation was occurring too late and that PD II should be moved to the first semester of the senior year.

Related to our first point, there was confusion whether the PD II course was an assessment or career preparation course. There was a general feeling that this course lacked coherence.

34

In response to survey feedback, PD II was moved earlier in course sequencing, AoL assessment activities were repositioned and content of both courses were revised. From this survey, we realized that the purposes were being co-mingled between PDI and PDII. Also, we gleaned that not enough early emphasis was placed on career preparation. Accordingly, we moved to simplify and focus PD and AoL activities. In particular, we moved the AoL pretest to PDI. Curricular and catalogue changes ensured that PDI could no longer be taken in a student’s junior or senior year. Rather, PDI was made a prerequisite to the typical entry courses in the CoB such as ACCT 211, MGMT 251, and MKTG 361. We shifted credit hours to more properly provide room for content between the courses as they were focused more tightly. We also designated PD II as the home for competence testing, using rubrics for written and oral communications. Lastly, PD I became the home of the pre-test and MGMT 485 (the capstone course) would be the home for the post-test. Exam Re-design: At the undergraduate level, we overhauled testing, both in content and process. First, new exams were created with a more purposeful nature. Specifically, all faculty were involved in developing new common body of knowledge (CBK) questions along with new concentration exams. To help with purpose and intentionality, faculty were given guidance to focus on ‘buckets’ and domains that mattered or that they believed were worthy of testing. A sample tool that helped faculty decide on content areas is also included in the full AoL report. This major undertaking resulted in two sets of exams with high levels of content validity for both CBK and Concentration domains. The CBK exams resulted in a 180-question exam covering all major CoB domains. Importantly, these questions were not purchased but were proposed, written and vetted by faculty and their respective departments. Like the CBK exams, the Concentration exams also showed considerable rigor improvements. Specifically, Concentration exams consisted of 35 questions, designed and reviewed by discipline faculty. This exercise resulted in significantly better-constructed exams that were more purposeful in design and aligned with our mission.

Rubric Review and Design: The pre and post tests were meant to test for causality in learning. However, a balanced AoL program cannot rest entirely on testing. As a result, we sought balance by testing for competence in areas as opposed to only causality. We chose to rely on rubrics to assist in assessing competence. In 2011, we discovered that our rubrics possessed considerable variance and that chain-of-custody of the rubric program was lost. Evidence of the potential destructive variance of the previous rubrics is presented in our full AoL report. Therefore, in the fall of 2012, we launched a review of all rubrics with significant levels of faculty participation in our CoB. The outcome was a stepwise improvement in our AoL program. Most notably, the confidence in using rubrics throughout the College has increased. And to effectively deal with the chain-of-custody and control of the rubrics, these tools were posted on the CoB home-page to ensure that the latest versions were available. We shared our rubrics with the College of Education and the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences; exemplars of our new and improved rubrics are found in our full AoL report. Syllabi Redesign and Distribution: Through the AoL Coordinator serving on both the AoL Committee and the Curriculum Committee, improvements were made to the design of the ‘syllabi- shell’ used by all faculty. While each Learning Objective has a designated “home” where formal assessment occurs, the CoB faculty understands that all faculty members contribute to satisfying CoB Learning Objectives. To further institutionalize this, the curriculum and the AoL committees partnered to incorporate AoL into our syllabi-shell. The revised syllabi-shell was approved by the

35

entire CoB faculty at the end-of-semester retreat in December 2012. Like the rubrics, the syllabi-shell was also posted on the CoB intranet. A full version can be viewed in our full AoL report. Review of the Learning Objectives - Removal of Technological Fluency: One of the recommendations from our previous AACSB visiting team was to reduce the number of learning objectives. This sentiment was directed primarily at the undergraduate-level. Based on this feedback, the AoL committee felt that technological fluency was not as important to assess as the other learning objectives. However, we sought the input of the faculty. In August 2011, AoL coordinator asked all faculty to rank-order learning objectives based on perceived importance. The faculty rankings reaffirmed that of the AoL committee: technological fluency ranked lower than others. The key rationale behind this ranking involved university and social factors, which were also validated by the CoB’s business information technology professor. Specifically, technology fluency is tested and captured at the university level. Second, many of the incoming students already possess high levels of technical savvy to include particular acumen in social/sharing technologies. Thus, in fall of 2011, faculty voted unanimously to remove technological fluency as a learning objective.

Continual Improvement in Assessment Activities: Rather than just closing the gap, the AoL Committee attempted to continually improve. As a result, many improvements took place throughout the years. In Spring 2013, the AoL Committee recognized the following shortcomings:

Previous reporting did not assess at the individual trait or criteria level. That was fixed early in our new process and system.

After attending an AoL Curricula conference in Phoenix in the Spring of 2013, it was realized that: (a) on some learning objectives, assessment was occurring at the team-level as opposed to the individual-level. We addressed that upon our immediate return from the conference. All appropriate learning objectives are now assessed at the individual-level, but we do capture some group statistics to augment individual data; and (b) prior reporting for the undergraduate learning objective of quantitative decision-making was done using grades. Upon our immediate return, a new Quantitative Rubric was designed and implemented.

Peer grading was implemented after reviewing the efficacy of the teamwork assessment in our graduate program. In Spring 2013, we implemented a composite score that encompassed both instructor and team perceptions of teamwork.

Resource Allocation - Building Capacity for a Better AoL Program: After realizing some of these deficiencies in our AoL testing/assessment (non-rubric areas), we invited Dr. Tom Sigerstad, Management, to serve as AoL Testing Officer. Dr. Sigerstad also maintains joint committee membership in both AoL and the Curriculum Committee. In 2012, the Dean designated a Graduate Assistant position for the AoL program. These resources positively impacted our AoL program. Removal of Oral Communication from the MBA Learning Objectives: During this assessment period, a significant strategic shift occurred in the delivery of our MBA program. Specifically, in 2012, we moved exclusively to an online delivery approach. As a result, it became less tenable to assess for oral communication. In Spring 2013, we conducted a benchmarking analysis regarding peer institutions’ approach to capturing oral communication at the graduate-level. From this analysis, we voted to remove oral communication from our graduate learning goals.

36

Experiential Survey and Capture: Experiential learning has received increased emphasis in the university’s mission. The CoB has been a long supporter of encouraging experiential learning. The AoL committee also realizes that experiential learning, while more difficult to measure, is an important part of a student’s academic career. In 2012, we launched an effort to track experiential activities; the results were presented to the CoB faculty during the 2013 Fall faculty retreat. Our process has been shared with the Middle States Working Group and key leaders from the College of Education and the College of Liberal Arts & Sciences. The full AoL report highlights these efforts. Integration with Larger University Assessment Programs and Personnel: Linking vertically with the university and the global institutional learning goals was also an important initiative. First, CoB Learning Objectives link directly to a primary, and sometimes, a secondary institutional learning goal. Second, we worked with a FSU research analyst to more tightly integrate our efforts. Partnering with this office included an enhanced devotion of considerable resources. For instance, a University research analyst contracted with Campus Labs to build a BASELINE software function that allowed us to automate our rubric process. Until then, paper rubrics and pen and ink calculations were the norm. This software tool allowed easy measurement, access, and analysis to our new and improved rubric system. In addition, the Office of Planning, Assessment, and Institutional Research devoted local office space so to accelerate collaboration between the CoB AoL program and the larger university assessment initiative. Finally, the AoL Coordinator was invited to take a leadership role on one of the university’s standing committees: the Student Learning Assessment Advisory Group (SLAAG). The culmination of all of these efforts resulted in a much closer coordination between CoB assessment efforts and the university.

Learning Goals - CBK and Concentration

As mentioned above, one of the most substantial improvements to our AoL program was the concerted effort to improve our inferences of causality as it related to our testing program. Dissatisfied with the rigor of our previous AoL program, we devoted considerable effort to improve. We highlight our methods and results as it relates to three critical AoL Learning Goals: CBK Knowledge and Skills, Majors/Concentrations, and Business Ethics and Values below. All three categories were assessed using our experimental design approach. Hence, inferences regarding causality and actual learning are much more substantive. Method Procedure The entire faculty participated in the construction of the CBK and Concentration exams. Their collective efforts resulted in the design of a180-question CBK exam and nine 35-question Concentration exams. Both exams were vetted by AoL committee members which included one student who also previewed the exam. Preliminary changes were made based on this vetting and feedback. A pilot test with graduating students in a capstone course was launched in the spring of 2012 (n =58). Pre-tests occurred early in the academic career of students. Specifically, incoming business students were given the pre-test in PD I. Structurally; we made this course a pre-requisite for other CBK courses to ensure that students took this as early in their academic career. To assess learning, a post test was administered in the capstone business administration course, MGMT 485, Business Policy

37

and Strategy. This is often, the last course a student enrolls in before graduation. Thus, it is at the very end of a student’s academic career. Because of a typical two to two and a half year cycle between entering and leaving an upper division professional program, early results are omnibus averages of the College of Business student population from multiple pre-tests and multiple post-tests. At this time, we are just beginning to capture large enough groups of students who have now taken both the pre- and post-tests to make dyadic comparisons with individual student pre-post data matches. However, at this time and in our analysis, we report only general omnibus characteristics of the entire population. It is our intent to continue this process with regularity and to report dyadic analysis in future reports. Of particular note, we also captured a variety of other control and student characteristic data that would refine our analysis and inform learning outcomes. These include a variety of demographic data by student, surveys about their extra-curricular activities, and psychological profiles collected on incoming freshman by the University in determining student characteristics. We have also collected control data on courses taken prior to the pre-test which potentially affects results for students who take the pre-test with differing academic backgrounds prior to the test. This, in particular, affects transfer students. Of course, while beyond the scope of this current report, including these variables in future analysis could allow us to create models of success to benchmark successful students as well as develop intervention programs and test treatment effects to enhance success and improve metrics for retention and graduation rates. Participants The pre-test population consisted of 642 students enrolled in PDI courses from 2012 on. (Note that we tested essentially all students and did not use a sampling procedure.) The post-test population consisted of 386 students enrolled in capstone courses during that time period. The difference in population sizes is based on students exiting the program as transfer to other majors or schools, dropping out of college and the natural delay in reaching the capstone course as we will not see current pre-test students for 2-2.5 years before they get to the post-test. The pre-test population is from four semesters of enrollment and the post-test population is from five semesters of enrollment. At any point in time, another pre-test group will be added to the total population within the first half of each semester and another post-test group added to the total population in months following a semester. Approximately 110-140 students are added each semester for the pre-test and 50-80 students added for the post-test. Data is collected in our satellite campus but is not collected for students taking the course online during summer months. The rationale for non-capture is that maintaining the integrity of the testing in an online environment is doubtful.

Results Individual pre-test CBK results range from 33-37% correct over the data accumulation period with an average of 35%, or 63 of 180 questions correct, with an 18 question standard deviation. Post-test CBK results range from 54-61% with an average of 57%, or 103 of 180 questions correct, with a 23 question standard deviation. On average, this represents a 63% improvement overall in pre-post test results. We have not set a “pass rate” for the exam because of unmeasured extinction effects for early versus late courses in the academic program and controlling for differing amounts of courses taken prior to the pre-test. This area of concern will be reflected in the discussion area of this section. The following graph represents the distribution of student pre-test performance. The background bell curve is arbitrarily set in the center of the 180-question and the results indicate that students

38

entering the program know something less than half of the content thought to be required. The distribution would suggest that the majority of students fall into such a group as they enter the College. Note, however, that there is a wide group of more knowledgeable students which we hypothesize are those that take the pre-test after having taken more coursework. This group, likely, contains many transfer students, who have taken some preparatory courses at community colleges.

The next graph shows post-test results with the background bell curve in the center position once again, but now the distribution is much wider with more weight to the left of center representing a higher knowledge attainment.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

180 170 160 150 140 130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

CBK Pre-test Score FrequencyN 642Mean 63StDev 18Normal @ 90

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

180 170 160 150 140 130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

CBK Post-test Score FrequencyN 386 Mean 104 StDev 23 Normal @ 90

39

While the overall student learning suggested by our pre-post analysis is highly encouraging, we also drill down to see learning measures by discipline-area. There are nine broad discipline areas incorporated in the 180-question CBK exam covering ethics, business law, finance, economics, marketing, accounting, strategy, operations, and general management. That order may contribute to test-fatigue effects. There are 20 questions per discipline area. In the chart below we show the post scores and the unit gain from the pre-test. For example, students end up with relatively high scores in overall knowledge of the business law area and less overall knowledge in the finance or accounting areas. On the other hand, students gain less from their pre to post test in the accounting discipline.

CBK COURSE CUME POST SCORE UNIT GAIN

MGMT 405 65% 15%

BLAW 291 73% 31%

FINA 370/476 41% 10%

ECON 210/202 54% 21%

MKTG 361 70% 37%

ACCT 211/212 41% 9%

MGMT 485 63% 32%

MGMT 355 49% 19%

MGMT 251 59% 26%

To assist departments and faculty in their delivery of material, we take these discipline results and break it down to focal areas within each discipline to question-level analysis. Reports like the one below are provided to the departments whose course inventory contains the discipline area and to the faculty who teach the courses so they know how students performed. CoB faculty decide if the instrument or question is relevant or if the course design and curriculum is doing its job.

CBK 180 Questions: Learning Gain Test Analysis Pre-Test n = 502 Post-Test n = 323 Pre-Post Unit Gain

cume error rates by: cume error rates by: gain by:

question bucket disc question bucket disc question bucket disc

Average 65% 65% 65% 42% 42% 42% 23% 23% 23%

ERROR RATES Standard Deviation 14% 8% 7% 20% 14% 12% 17% 11% 10%

Average minus 1 St Dev 78% 73% 71% 63% 56% 54% 5% 12% 12%

Average minus 2 St Dev 92% 81% 78% 83% 69% 66% -12% 1% 2%

Q# Disc buckets bucket name

Q1 mgmt405 1a Legal, Regulatory, and Political 21% 10% 11%

Q2 mgmt405 1a 79% 63% 16%

Q3 mgmt405 1a 37% 17% 20%

Q4 mgmt405 1a 38% 24% 14%Q5 mgmt405 1a 61% 47% 17% 26% 44% 21%

Q6 mgmt405 1b Business Ethics and Ethical Decision Making 69% 33% 36%

Q7 mgmt405 1b 45% 43% 2%

Q8 mgmt405 1b 56% 46% 10%

Q9 mgmt405 1b 72% 69% 3%Q10 mgmt405 1b 45% 57% 25% 43% 20% 14%

Q11 mgmt405 1c Governance 50% 33% 17%

Q12 mgmt405 1c 24% 5% 19%

Q13 mgmt405 1c 46% 47% -2%

Q14 mgmt405 1c 71% 51% 20%Q15 mgmt405 1c 33% 45% 17% 31% 16% 14%

Q16 mgmt405 1d The Environment & Sustainability 12% 7% 5%

Q17 mgmt405 1d 49% 34% 15%

Q18 mgmt405 1d 58% 50% 7%

Q19 mgmt405 1d 41% 22% 20%Q20 mgmt405 1d 91% 50% 50% 89% 40% 35% 2% 10% 15%

40

The above report represents just one of nine discipline categories of the CBK exam and, in this case, for the ethics area. There were four sub-areas of knowledge that the larger ethics area was broken down to and in this case five questions were asked in each area. For other discipline areas there may have been a different number of internal areas and questions representing those topics but always totaling 20 questions; however, most posed five questions. As can be seen in the above error rates by question, there were three questions singled out as one or two standard deviations away from average which required attention of some sort in the post-test as having higher than expected error rates. There were also five questions that showed less than expected learning change from pre to post-test. Overall, only one sub-area showed less than expected learning but the entire ethics discipline area, in total, fell within norms. This chart, now in the hands of the department and faculty teaching the course leads to deciding what intervention is needed to address concepts that are not being understood or where we would expect a higher achievement level based on the original assessment of what was important material to learn. The Ethics discipline also represented a learning objective area for the College. Therefore, we decided to use the CBK exam to measure that learning objective rather than create a separate set of Rubrics. Another reason it is highlighted here while the other eight learning areas are represented in the appendices of this report. The other part of the testing involved a deeper knowledge test within the student’s chosen area of concentration or focus. The charts below will show that there is also a falloff for these concentration exams as there is for the CBK exams. The reasons are similar but students, once in the College of Business, may also change their minds with regard to their focus of study. This will, of course, also have an effect on creating the dyadic measures later on to match up only those students who took both the pre and post-exam in the same concentration. Cumulative Pre Tests Concentration exams (5)

Cumulative Post Tests Concentration exams (5)

Pre-Post

Pre-Post

Counts: n mean St

Dev %of35

Counts: n mean St

Dev %of35

Unit Gain

% Gain

ACCT 140 12.1 3.4 34%

ACCT 65 19.2 4.6 54%

20% 58%

ECON 20 15.8 5.0 45%

ECON 7 23.0 4.7 76%

31% 68%

FINA 30 8.9 2.7 25%

FINA 12 14.3 4.5 51%

26% 102%

GLOB 17 19.0 4.8 54%

GLOB 10 21.8 4.8 67%

13% 24%

HRM 19 19.1 4.8 54%

HRM 34 24.3 4.3 70%

15% 28%

MGMT 302 15.9 5.0 45%

MGMT 117 23.1 3.9 66%

21% 45%

MKTG 76 18.0 3.6 52%

MKTG 68 25.1 2.9 70%

19% 36%

SBE 36 18.1 4.6 52%

SBE 24 23.5 4.4 68%

17% 32%

TOTAL 640 15.3 5.0 44%

TOTAL 265 22.6 4.6 65%

21% 48%

Discussion and Conclusions The initial objective to create a pre-post testing environment was to assess learning has been successful at the omnibus level allowing us to see results across the curriculum and institute a feedback mechanism to close the loop on learning. This comes from having faculty create testing instruments based on what they want students to learn and then having those instruments be fielded to measure whether that is happening at broad and down-to-question or idea/concept levels.

41

We understand that, in the analysis, not every factor has been controlled for. We did early pilot testing and have recently engaged in question analysis, which will in the near future, most likely, result in adjusting the instrument where we might think it is faulty in question-design. In the process, we have already tested other hypotheses that emerge in testing environments. We ran a several semester test on incentive treatments built around students being verbally encouraged to perform well to telling students that their grades for these tests would be used in their course grading. For example, in the capstone course we ran several semesters where some sections used the post-test grade as a final exam (scores were curved) and other sections did not use the post-test grade in their course grade. We found that there was no statistically significant difference in outcomes from those groups. We have since abandoned the use of the post-test in the capstone grading scheme. We performed a similar experiment in the pre-test environment with no discernible differences in performance. Finally, and maybe most importantly, the results of the pre and post data are shared with faculty via their Department Chairs. The intent is to provide them targeted, laser-like intelligence on which particular areas their students are under-performing. Each chair is then required to submit a close-the-loop audit form in collaboration with their departmental representative, who sits on the AoL committee. An actual close-the-loop audit form exemplar can be found in Appendix 10 of the full AoL report. In the example below, the lead instructor along with the Department Chair decided to focus on Question 44 (Agency Cost), Questions 47, 50 (Bond and Stock Valuation), Questions 53, 54 (Investment Decisions and Net Present Value), and Questions 57, 58, and 59 (Risk and Return Decisions). In general, the professor was going to put more conceptual emphasis on these specific arenas in class along with providing more practice problems. Results here are mixed with error rates going down, as predicted, in some areas, but, contrary to expectation, going up in others (highlighted). One hypothesis is that this audit activity occurred late in the spring semester of 2014 and some of these students may have not yet taken the post-test. In other words, results in these specific areas could improve in the upcoming semesters as these students make it to the post test course of MGMT 485. Of particular note, this analysis closely mirrors the results in other departments and in other arenas. We will continue to trend and monitor. Question # before Sp 2014 post-test error rates Sp 2014 and Fa 2014 post-test error rates 44 62%/73%/78%/76%; avg=72% 53%/75%; avg=64%↓ error rate down 47 69%/79%/69%/78%; avg=74% 78%/81%; avg=80%↑ above group error rate 50 67%/62%/68%/69%; avg=67% 78%/70%; avg=74%↑ above group error rate 53 69%/71%/76%/80%; avg=74% 75%/75%; avg=75%↑ inconclusive 54 78%/68%/76%/69%; avg=73% 62%/81%; avg=72%↓ error rate down 57 59%/78%/81%/75%; avg=74% 63%/68%; avg=66%↓ error rate down 58 76%/70%/79%/71%; avg=74% 84%/76%; avg=80%↑ above group error rate 59 79%/83%/82%/82%; avg=82% 82%/83%; avg=83%↑ inconclusive

Learning Goals - Objectives:

We highlight each learning goal and offer our summary analysis below. More detail is presented in the full AoL report.

42

Undergraduate:

Communication - Writing: We want our students to demonstrate skill and competence in written communication as such reflects their professional development. Conclusion: Overall, our average scores exceeded our desired expectation of ‘3.’ While our scores above indicate competence in this area, we believe that inflationary pressures may be at work. Thus, a “close the loop” activity that we initiated in the fall of 2014 was for all PD instructors to undergo rubric “anchoring” training. In addition, the AoL committee has agreed to evaluate and interpret exemplars and writing samples. Thus, we could encounter lower scores moving forward. In the meantime, while we are stating proficiency, we will continue monitor and improve. Communication - Oral: We want our students to demonstrate skill and competence in oral communication as such reflects their professional development. Conclusion: Overall, our average scores exceeded our desired expectation of ‘3’. Problem Solving Skills - Qualitative: We want our students to demonstrate skill and knowledge in solving problems of a qualitative nature (analysis, synthesis, evaluation, etc.). Conclusion: Overall, our average scores exceeded our desired expectation of ‘3’. Problem Solving Skills - Quantitative: We want our students to demonstrate skill and knowledge in solving problems of a quantitative nature (analysis, computation). Conclusion: Overall, our average scores exceeded our desired expectation of ‘3’. Leadership-General Skills/Teamwork and Collaboration Skills: We want our students to demonstrate skill and knowledge in leading groups to successful outcomes and results. Conclusion: Overall, our average scores exceeded our desired expectation of ‘3’. Problem Solving Skills - Practice and Application: We want our students to demonstrate skills and knowledge appropriate to different business disciplines in capstone course project work of an applied nature. Conclusion: Overall, our average scores exceeded our desired expectation of ‘3’.

Graduate:

Communication -Writing: We want our students to demonstrate skill and competence in written communication as such reflects their professional development. Conclusion: Overall, our average scores exceeded our desired expectation of ‘3’. Ethical Issues and Ethical Based Reasoning: We want our students to demonstrate knowledge and skill in the understanding of ethical issues and application of ethics based reasoning. Conclusion: Overall, our average scores exceeded our desired expectation of ‘3’. Apply Knowledge in New & Unfamiliar Situations: We want our students to demonstrate an ability to identify mission-appropriate opportunities, effectively manage organizational resources, and the like. Conclusion: Overall, our average scores barely met our desired expectation of ‘3’.

43

Leadership and Management Abilities - General: We want our students to demonstrate knowledge and skill to be able to exhibit vision, goal-setting, planning, etc., and to guide a team. Conclusion: Overall, our average scores exceeded our desired expectation of ‘3’. Leadership and Management Abilities - Teamwork and Collaboration: We want our students to demonstrate knowledge and skills to achieve teamwork and collaboration in a group. Conclusion: Overall, our average scores exceeded our desired expectation of ‘3’. Strategic Integration & Critical Thinking: We want our students to be able to identify problems, use discipline-specific information to analyze situations, propose and evaluate alternatives, and prepare implementation plans. Conclusion: Overall, our average scores met and slightly exceeded our desired expectation of ‘3’. Self-Identified Findings Moving forward, and in the spirit of continuous improvement, we have identified three key focus areas that warrant future attention and resources. Rubric Inflation and Assessment While we are proud that we undertook a massive overhaul of our rubric system, we are not satisfied. Not only do rubrics need further review, there is some evidence that we may need training on how to use these rubrics. Of particular concern, is this notion of assessment inflation. A cursory review of this report indicates rather high scores across multiple dimensions of all competence arenas. To the AoL committee, this indicates either a lack of standards, a move toward leniency, or improper training on the rubric instrument itself. Perhaps, the greatest area where this inflation arises is in the area of Written Communication. Specifically, while our assessment scores indicate competence in writing, the majority of our faculty are not in agreement. While some compensatory measures have been enacted to include the PD coordinator training the PD instructors on rubric use to include “anchoring” activities and sharing exemplars of “exceeds,” “meets”, and “below” standards with the AoL committee and CoB faculty, more investigation into the causes and remedies is required. Graduate Assessment Resources, both real and cognitive, are scarce. For those reasons, we had to choose carefully as we undertook a massive overhaul of our assessment program. Purposefully and intentionally, we chose to level our efforts at our undergraduate program first. It may be time to focus on graduate assessment for a number of reasons. Concurrently, our MBA has undergone structural changes such as moving to a completely on-line delivery format. The marketplace seems undeterred as our MBA has earned rankings from a number of stakeholders suggesting “best value”. While a pre/post assessment strategy may not be apropos for our graduate students, the AoL Committee must ensure the continued quality of our graduate program. The AoL Committee plans to place considerably more energy into examining, then enhancing, our AoL activities at the graduate-level. Putting it All Together In conclusion, we have embraced a “proud, but not satisfied” approach to assessment and curriculum. Rather than awaiting feedback, we have been tremendously proactive seeking counsel to

44

continually improve. Partnering with AACSB to impact assessment is part and parcel of our mantra. We welcome, even demand, constructive counsel to continuously improve our program. It is in this spirit that we offer our full AoL report to all stakeholders of our CoB. It is available in print and at the CoB webpage.

How High Quality Teaching is Encouraged, Supported, and Developed Continuous Improvement Activities of Faculty

There are several support mechanisms in place to encourage and develop high quality teaching. The College’s Faculty Development Committee holds a brown bag workshop each semester on a teaching-related topic, such as: ‘Best Practices in Online Education’ and ‘The Role of Differing Teaching and Learning Styles.’ FSU’s Center for Teaching Excellence holds an annual ‘Technologies and Strategies for Teaching Excellence’ Conference (TASTE) each year on-campus. The annual TASTE Conference has covered such varied topics as: (1) Using Web-based Tools to Enhance Study Systems; (2) Engaging Students Online: An Effective Design Using Technology for an MBA Accounting Class; (3) Developing Leadership Through Experiential Learning; and (4) Motivating Students to Understand (Rather than Memorize) in Intro Courses by Dual Testing, among others. Other teaching support mechanisms include the College’s Faculty Mentoring Program, College’s Professional Development fund for faculty presentation and attendance at a teaching-related (or research-oriented) conference, as well as, the university and College’s New Faculty Orientation programs.

a. Faculty Development Committee (FDC). Each semester, FDC holds at least one brown

bag workshop that is teaching-related. During the accreditation review period, FDC hosted a total of 15 brown bag workshops with 9 of them being teaching-related. Nine teaching-oriented brown bags had 120 total participants.

b. TASTE. This is an annual teaching and technology conference held on campus each semester, sponsored by the Center for Teaching Excellence (CTE) and the Office of Information Technology. It’s a one-day conference where ideas and best practices on teaching excellence and technology are shared emphasizing teaching and technology that transforms today's educational experiences.

c. Faculty Mentoring Program. In the College, a newly hired faculty member is assigned to a senior faculty member to serve as his/her mentor. The mentor guides the mentee through the first year of employment. The mentorship focuses on teaching, scholarly activity, service, and professional behavior. The mentor works closely with the Department Chair when providing guidance to the assigned mentee.

d. New Faculty Orientation. The Provost’s Office offers a “New Faculty Orientation” program each Fall with a focus on all aspects of a faculty member’s academic life. Particular attention is given to policy and procedure acclimation and teaching support activities. New faculty members are invited to attend subsequent workshops on advising, the PAWS academic record system, etc. Additionally, the College conducts a ‘New Faculty Orientation’ held each semester for all new faculty. It is facilitated by the Dean in cooperation with the Associate Dean and Department Chairs. This orientation covers all aspects of faculty life in the College, including: CoB core values, faculty evaluation, tenure/promotion, travel and technology support mechanisms, etc.

45

Instructional Development across Diverse Delivery Modes. FSU, in an effort to support online teaching and learning goals as set forth in the university Strategic Plan, has instituted a ‘Teaching Online 101’ training program administered by the Center for Instructional Technology. Faculty members receive training and tips for online teaching through this certification program. The university has also established a ‘Best Practices’ certification for faculty who teach online and use the Blackboard instructional component. Faculty members seeking a ‘Best Practice’ certification must submit their course for rigorous review by the FSU Senior Instructional Designer. Further, the university has purchased a subscription to Quality Matters (QM) which enables faculty access to a fully annotated rubric to aid in creation or re-design of quality online courses. The College’s Graduate Policy Committee is introducing MBA faculty to QM and subsequent QM training.

VII. Academic and Professional Engagement

Student Engagement FSUBusiness students remain engaged with faculty and the business community throughout their academic careers in a variety of ways. In the classroom, students engage with faculty through a number of experiential learning activities which comprise a significant portion of course time for the undergraduate and graduate programs.

In additions, FSUBusiness also offers students opportunities to acquire business experience through a variety of internship opportunities and to interact with business leaders through periodic special guest lectures. Over the past five years, 269 CoB students have had an internship engaging 170 different organizations, including: IBM, Edward Jones Investments, ClosetMaid, Hunter Douglas, Saks Fifth Avenue, U.S. State Department, U.S. Department of Defense, Baltimore Ravens, Baltimore Orioles, MCI Center, Wolftrapp, Ruby Tuesday, Kohls, Target, local and regional Accounting firms, and various financial institutions/banks/credit unions. Table VIII shows the distribution of student participants in CoB internships as well as GEL summer study abroad

Table VIII: FSUBusiness Formalized Student Experiential Learning Enrollments for Credit

___________________________________________________________________________________

Program: 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 ___________________________________________________________________________________

CoB Internships 64 68 55 64 18 * GEL Study Abroad -- 18 26 10 6 (China) (China & Peru) (China & Ecuador) (Brazil) ___________________________________________________________________________________

* Number is Spring semester only

Some FSUBusiness students elect to engage in more extensive learning experiences through Study Abroad. The university has study abroad opportunities for one semester, one academic year, and over the summer and Intersession. According to FSU’s Center for International Education (CIE), FSU students most prefer ‘short term’ study abroad (2-8 weeks in summer or Intersession). In 2014-2015, 94 University students studied abroad in 19 different countries (including: Italy, China, Spain, Ecuador, Germany and Ireland). The number of University students studying abroad has increased from 42 in 2011 to 94 in 2014/2015.

46

The College of Business, through its Global Experiential Learning program (GEL), offers short-term, course-based, faculty-led study abroad opportunities for its students. Over the past five years, CoB students have participated in short-term course-based study abroad in China, Peru, and Ecuador with planned future trips to Brazil (Summer 2015), France (Summer 2016), and India (Summer 2017). Approximately, 60 CoB students or 6% have participated in these programs in the past five years.

A number of courses routinely create opportunities for students to interact with the local business community and non-profit groups through special projects (see Table IX). All students in MGMT 356, Leadership CBK course, must complete a ‘Leadership in Action’ project where they perform community service and learn by applying theories learned in class to practice. Some organizations served through this experiential outreach project are the Salvation Army, local Animal Shelter, Western Maryland Food Bank, and the County United Way-City of Cumberland. Students in the marketing program engage in experiential learning through survey research, advertising analysis/planning, and comprehensive marketing planning. Businesses served by these student projects, include: the Allegany County Chamber of Commerce, Frostburg State University Children’s Literature Center, Garrett County Memorial Hospital, Evergreen Heritage Foundation, Garrett Community College-Continuing Education Division, etc. Further, our students (undergraduate and graduate) participate in the VITA (Volunteer Income Tax Assistance) program under the direction of sour Accounting faculty. Over the past five years, 25 students engaged in the preparation of over 1,707 Federal/State/Local income tax returns for community residents.

Table IX: FSUBusiness Experiential Learning Projects in the Classroom

Experiential class project Course(s) Students Impacted

Case Analyses / Case Competition *

MKTG 465 MGMT 251 * MGMT 485 MGMT 620 (G) MGMT 640 (G)

2 sections/semester 4 sections/semester 3 sections/semester 2 sections/semester 1-2 sections/semester

Student Consulting MKTG 469 MGMT 690 (G)

1 section/semester 2 sections/semester

Event Study Analysis Event Planning **

FINA 370 FINA 479 MGMT 357 **

2 sections/semester 1 section each Spring 1 section/semester

Research Projects BMIS 607 (G) ECON 491 MKTG 363 MKTG 462, MKTG 469 MKG 640, MGT 680 (G)

2 sections/semester 1 section/semester 1 section/semester 1 section each/semester 1 section/semester

Financial Analysis/Research FINA 420, FINA 475 FINA 610 (G)

1 section each/ each Spring 2 sections/semester

Leadership-Community Service MGMT 356 3 sections/semester

Service-Learning (TAX – VITA) ACCT 425 1 section each Spring

Governmental Acct. Project ACCT 330 1 section each Fall

General Ledger Package Audit Software Assignments

ACCT 311 ACCT 325

2 sections/semester 2 sections/semester

Quick Books Assignment Microsoft Access, Excel Projects

ACCT 211 ACCT 305

5-6 sections/Fall & Spring 1-2 sections/Fall & Spring

Computer Software Project (SAP) MGMT 355 ACCT 305

3 sections/semester 1-2 sections/Fall & Spring

47

MBA students complete a major industry analysis in MKTG 640 and a ‘Strategic and Competitive Analysis’ in MGMT 680 which encompasses an analysis of macro-environmental conditions, the industry, internal functional areas, financial analysis, competitive comparisons, and strategy development, implementation and recommendation in a global context of a top tier firm. Lastly, the College works closely with the university Office of Career and Professional Development to provide students with opportunities to meet employers/company recruiters, network, attend job fairs, and participate in career information sessions facilitated by practitioners. The college receives regular feedback from employers that our students are well-prepared and present themselves professionally.

Faculty Engagement and Qualifications Several College faculty members have earned prestigious honors for their engagement. Dr. Yan Bao, Accounting, received the Board of Regent’s Award for Teaching in 2015 and the University’s Faculty Achievement Award for Teaching in 2013. Dr. Carol Gaumer, Marketing, received the President’s Distinguished Faculty Award in 2015, and Dr. Amit Shah, Management, was honored with the University’s Outstanding Mentor Award in 2014 and the University Faculty Achievement Award for Teaching in 2012. Dr. Tony Stair, Economics, received the College’s Extra Mile Award for Teaching in 2013 as did Dr. Cathy Ashley-Cotleur, Marketing, in 2011. Each nomination package was accompanied by letters from peers and impacted students. Participating and Supporting Faculty. To prepare for the 2013 AACSB Standards, FSUBusiness’ Faculty Development Committee reviewed and revised the criteria for Participating and Supporting Faculty status. The general Faculty approved the changes in September, 2014. A copy of the approved document is included in Appendix B. Participating Faculty members must be actively engaged in college activities beyond their direct teaching responsibilities. Supporting Faculty members generally hold less than a full-time appointment and have responsibilities that are exclusively instructional. Tables 15-1A and 15-1B for 2014-15, in Appendix A, show the percentage of faculty members in each of the five categories of faculty qualifications [SA, PA, SP, IP, Other] broken out by department and the College. Table 15-A provides the detailed basis for classification of each Participating and Supporting Faculty member in the College of Business for the current year, AY 2014-15. Table 15-1B offers a summary view by department and for the College. Data in the two tables reveals that FSUBusiness, as a whole, exceeded the minimum thresholds required for each of the Faculty Qualification indicators: SA, (SA + PA + SP), and (SA + PA + SP + IP). The minimums are similarly met for the major disciplines in all but one instance. The Economics department fell short of meeting the 90 percent benchmark for the (SA + PA + SP + IP) standard with a statistic of 75 percent; however, the department significantly exceeded the percentage thresholds for both SA and (SA + PA + SP) measures. Table 15-1B indicates that, based upon the aggregation unit of total classes taught, each CoB department and major program, significantly exceeded the minimum sufficiency standard of 6 0 % for instructional coverage by Participating Faculty. Both Accounting and Economics programs provided 100 percent coverage, and Business Administration [offered by Management and Marketing & Finance departments] experienced 82 percent coverage by Participating Faculty. As

48

a whole, the College of Business offered about 91 percent of its classes staffed by Participating Faculty, significantly exceeding the overall minimum standard of 75 percent. Table 15-2 in Appendix A provides the data on deployment of Participating and Supporting Faculty by type of qualification broken out by degree program for the most recent academic year, 2014-15. As evidenced in the table, FSUBusiness maintained a highly qualified cadre of faculty during this time frame, as 53 percent of all Bachelor’s-level and 98 percent of MBA-level courses were taught by faculty classified in the ‘Scholarly Academic’ category. Only 11% percent of undergraduate instruction was delivered by ‘Other Qualified’ faculty and, for the full inventory of courses offered by the College, that percentage falls to about 9 percent. Academic Qualifications. During the Fall 2014, the CoB unanimously approved to adopt the “Faculty Qualifications and Sufficiency Criteria” document that is included in Appendix B. This document was originally drafted by the Faculty Development Committee (FDC) and revised based on faculty feedback. The document defines the four categories of academic qualification – Scholarly Academics (SA), Practice Academics (PA), Scholarly Practitioners (SP), and Instructional Practitioners (IP), and was ratified by faculty at the CoB faculty retreat in November 2014. The guidelines specifically detail both the initial academic preparation and the sustained engagement activities that must be obtained for each category of faculty. The document additionally specifies the level and types of professional preparation that are necessary for the two practitioner categories. Going forward, the appropriate classification of each faculty member will be determined by the department chairs during the annual performance appraisal process. Faculty members will convey to their chair which category they believe is the most appropriate fit, but the final determination will be made by the chair in consultation with the dean. In order to complete the transition to the 2013 Standards, the chairs and the dean reviewed the records of each faculty member for each of the past five years. Using a five year rolling window, faculty members were assigned to a classification for each year according to the new college guidelines. VIII. Other Early adopters of the 2013 AACSB Standards are required to demonstrate that they are making significant progress toward fulfillment of the new guidelines. In anticipation of the new standards, FSUBusiness began a transition process over one year ago to prepare itself. In Fall 2014, the College Executive Council (CEC) and the AoL Coordinator attended the AACSB’s Annual Accreditation Conference. The dean also attended the AACSB Annual Deans Conference and ICAM during the past several years in order to familiarize himself with the 2013 Standards prior and up to their ratification in April 2013. In Spring 2014, at a CoB faculty meeting, the Dean made a presentation of the AACSB 2013 standards. After a discussion, the faculty voted unanimously to transition to and adopt the 2013 Standards in a forward-looking manner. Throughout 2014 and 2015, the CEC and faculty worked together to complete a number of important steps necessary to prepare for the college’s reaffirmation visit under the 2013 Standards.

49

The most notable among these steps included:

Revision of the College’s mission statement to highlight our distinctive characteristics and strategic priorities;

Revision of the College’s strategic plan in support of the new mission;

Efforts toward strengthening the criteria for Participating and Supporting Faculty;

Development and adoption of new Faculty Qualifications guidelines aligned with the 2013 standards;

Collection and analysis of data to gather the faculty scholarship portfolio in accordance with the 2013 standards;

Engaging faculty in the preparation of an individual ‘Profile’ indicating his/her qualifications consistent with AACSB 2013 Standards; and

Curricular review designed to reinforce learning goals associated with the themes and competencies needed for global competition including the College’s emphasis on global experiential learning.

The College will continue in its efforts to operationalize more clearly the documentation of quality and impact of its intellectual contributions in a manner that is mission-appropriate with a focus on continuous improvement. IX. Consultative Review – Response to PRT Advice during 2010 Maintenance of Accreditation / Continuous Improvement Review Visit

The consultative advice of the visiting Peer Review Team during its last re-affirmation visit and our response to each component of their report is presented as follows:

1. The PRT would encourage the College of Business to engage in discussions, including: a. A clarification of intellectual contribution classifications as pedagogical, contribution to

practice, or discipline based. The PRT calculated that over 50 percent of the intellectual contributions were classified as discipline-based. That large of a percentage may suggest a need for a clarification and agreement on these categories of publications. The PRT suggests that faculty consult the peer institution guidelines for definitions to help with these discussions, including the possibility of an audit team to review individual faculty member classifications.

CoB Response: In an effort to incorporate the AACSB PRT recommendation, the College faculty undertook a comprehensive review of the nature of their intellectual contributions that resulted in a more intentional classification of their research. Following the work of a year-long review and analysis by an ad-hoc committee, College faculty voted unanimously, in fall 2013, to generate an aggregate portfolio of research that would be approximately 40 percent discipline-based (basic/discovery scholarship), 40 percent contribution to practice (applied or integration/application scholarship), and 20 percent learning or pedagogical scholarship (teaching and learning scholarship) in nature. Over the spring and summer 2015, CoB faculty members have undertaken a fresh round of review of their IC activities, resulting in additional reclassification of contributions across the three categories of scholarship [BDS/AIS/TLS]. In Fall 2015 and beyond, the College will continue its deliberations toward a more precise system of coding and classification of IC activities at the time of data-entry that is consistent with the nature of the activity itself and in consonance with the College and institutional missions.

50

b. An inclusive discussion concerning the desired focus for the direction over the next five years as stated in the mission of the college. The PRT feels that the mission statement may be simplified to focus on a smaller number of initiatives.

CoB Response: Over annual reviews of the College’s mission and strategic priorities by the Strategic Planning Committee, a more simplified mission has been adopted that is focused on key outcomes that emphasize: leadership; generation of notable and timely research; a significant emphasis on application of knowledge; and implementation and expansion of global experiential learning.

2. The PRT would encourage the College of Business to continue to brand the College (in

conjunction with FSU initiatives) by collecting and disseminating the stories of success for alumni, faculty, staff, and students.

CoB Response: The College of Business has made several notable efforts over the past few years to “tell its story” in a more organized manner which has garnered positive feedback. A semi-annual CoBNews newsletter has been created to highlight the achievements of FSUBusiness alumni, faculty, staff and students. It is posted on the CoB website and disseminated to stakeholders. Further, notable achievements of College faculty, staff, students, and alumni are publicized in the university’s Profile magazine that is also widely-shared. Additionally, the CoB faculty’s achievements and recognitions in the areas of teaching, research, and service are reported to the local news media via the University’s Media Relations Office.

3. The PRT would encourage the College of Business to work to develop funding initiatives that

support the mission and that estimate the costs associated with developing new programs and approaches (e.g. travel to China and India; scholarships; exchange programs; and other steps).

CoB Response: As noted in the financial strategies section of the report earlier, the College is working closely with the Office of University Advancement to procure extramural funding from alumni, interested donors, as well as its own faculty and staff in significantly augmenting the finding base of the College of Business Student Global Experiential Learning Fund (COBSGELF) with the express purpose of defraying student participation costs in overseas experiential education.

4. The PRT would encourage FSU to continue the planning for a place that would gather all College of Business constituents in one location.

CoB Response: The College of Business developed and submitted a ‘Case Proposal’ in early 2013 articulating its vision for a single College of Business building to the university administration. Present projections for a new building for the College of Business at the State level indicate a 2019-21 timeline for plan development. However, the Dean has been making persistent efforts in developing strategies to shorten the timeline, in concert with the University Advancement Division, and with the consultative support from the CoB’s advisory board members.

51

Appendix A

AACSB Prescribed Tables

Table 2-1: Five Year Summary of Intellectual Contributions Table 2-1A: Five Year Summary of Breadth of Faculty Participation in Intellectual

Contributions Table 2-2: Five-Year Summary of Peer Reviewed Journals Table 15-1A: Faculty Sufficiency and Qualifications Detailed View Table 15-1B: Faculty Sufficiency and Qualifications Summary View Table 15-2: Deployment of Participating and Supporting Faculty

52

Table 2-1: Intellectual Contributions for the 5-year period Academic Years: 2010-11 to 2014-2015

Part A: A 5-year Summary of Intellectual Contributions

Portfolio of

Intellectual Contributions Types of Intellectual Contributions

Percentages of Faculty Producing

Intellectual Contributions

Department BDS AIS TLS PRJ Mono Proc Grant Txbk Case OTM OIC Total Part All

Accounting [9 members, 9.00 FTE] 12 34 16 37

21

4 62 88.89% 88.89%

Economics [8 members, 8.00 FTE] 10 7 1 17

1 18 87.50% 87.50%

Management [16 members, 16.00 FTE] 32 83 30 122 1 14 1

6

1 145 100.00% 100.00%

Marketing and Finance [12 members, 12.00 FTE] 35 15 14 50

14

64 91.67% 91.67%

College Totals: [45 members, 45.00 FTE] 89 139 61 226 1 49 1 0 6 0 6 289 93.33% 93.33%

Part B: Alignment with Mission, Expected Outcomes, and Strategy

See pp. 24-25.

Part C: Quality of 5-year Portfolio of Intellectual Contributions

See pp. 24-25.

Part D: Impact of Intellectual Contributions

See pp. 24-25.

53

NOTE: Participating Faculty Only

BDS: Basic or Discovery Scholarship AIS: Applied Integrative/Application Scholarship TLS: Teaching and Learning Scholarship PRJ: Articles in peer-reviewed journals Mono: Research Monographs Proc: Articles the in Proceedings of an Academic or Professional Meeting Grant: Competitive Research Awards Received Txbk: Textbooks Case: Cases OTM: Other Teaching Materials Selected on Settings tab: OIC: Other Intellectual Contributions, selected by school (peer reviewed paper presentations, books,

chapters, research seminars, papers presented at workshops, instructional software, study guides, instructor's manuals, publicly available material describing the design and implementation of new curricula or courses, technical reports related to funded projects, publicly available research working papers, supplements, non-refereed journal articles, etc.) Selected on Settings tab: Non-refereed journal articles %: Percent of Member FTEs Producing Intellectual Contributions

54

Table 2-1A: Breadth: Summary of Member Qualifications and Intellectual Contributions for the 5-year period

Academic Years: 2010-11 to 2014-2015

Qualification Status

(Department) # of Intellectual Contributions Percentages of

Faculty Producing Intellectual

Contributions Member Counts Qualification Categories BDS AIS TLS Totals (Annual Mean/FTE)

Department FTE Head SA PA SP IP Oth PRJ OIC PRJ OIC PRJ OIC PRJ OIC Total Part All

Accounting 9.00 9 4 2 1 2 9 3 16 18 12 4 37 (0.82) 25 (0.56) 62 (1.38) 88.89% 88.89%

Economics 8.00 8 6 2 9 1 7 1 17 (0.43) 1 (0.03) 18 (0.45) 87.50% 87.50%

Management 16.00 16 13 2 1 23 9 78 6 21 9 122 (1.53) 24 (0.30) 146 (1.83) 100.00% 100.00%

Marketing and Finance 12.00 12 9 2 1 26 9 12 3 12 2 50 (0.83) 14 (0.23) 64 (1.07) 91.67% 91.67%

College Totals: 45.00 45 32 4 4 2 3 67 22 113 27 46 15 226 (1.00) 64 (0.28) 290 (1.29) 93.33% 93.33%

Of the current 45.00 Participating FTE, 93.33% have Intellectual Contributions during the selected period (2010-2011 through 2014-2015). Of the current 45.00 Total FTE, 93.33% have Intellectual Contributions during the selected period (2010-2011 through 2014-2015).

Members who have intellectual contributions in this portfolio: 42 Participating members have intellectual contributions, and these 42 represent 42 FTE: 42/45= 93.33%. 42 Total members have intellectual contributions, and these 42 represent 42 FTE: 42/45= 93.33%.

Other Intellectual Contributions Selected on Settings tab: , Non-refereed journal articles

55

Table 2-2: Summary of Peer Reviewed Journals and Number of Publications in Each by Department

(Synced with IC Summary) (Academic Years: 2010-11 to 2014-2015)

133 Journals Publication

Count

ACCT: Accounting

Accounting and Taxation 1.00

Accounting Education: An International Journal 1.00

Advance Management Research ((AMRIJ) 1.00

AIMS International: The Association of Indian Management Scholars 1.00

American International Journal of Social Science 2.00

Business Education & Accreditation 1.00

Computers In Human Behavior 1.00

Development and Learning in Organizations 1.00

European Journal of Training and Development 2.00

Industrial And Commercial Training 2.00

International Business & Economics Research Journal 5.00

International Journal Of Business 1.00

International Journal of Business and Finance Research 1.00

International Journal of Business and Public Administration 1.00

International Journal of Business, Marketing, and Decision Sciences 1.00

International Journal of Education Research 2.00

International Journal of Effective Management 1.00

International Journal of Interdisciplinary Research 1.00

International Journal of Management and Human Resources 1.00

International Journal of Management Entrepreneurship and Technology 1.00

International Journal of Science & Informatics 1.00

International Journal of Strategic Management 1.00

Journal Of Business & Entrepreneurship 1.00

56

Journal of Business Case Studies 1.00

Journal of International Business Disciplines 1.00

Quarterly Review of Business Disciplines 1.00

Research in Higher Education Journal 1.00

Training & Management Development Methods 1.00

Training and Management Development Methods 1.00

Accounting Totals: 37.00

ECON: Economics

Business & Professional Ethics Journal 1.00

Economics of Peace and Security Journal 2.00

International Journal of Interdisciplinary Research 2.00

Journal of Business, Industry, and Economics 1.00

Journal Of Futures Markets 1.00

Journal of International Business Disciplines 3.00

Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship 1.00

New Perspectives on Political Economy 1.00

Perspectives on Economic Education Research 1.00

Review Of Financial Economics 1.00

Sustainability, Science, Policy and Practice 1.00

The Independent Review 2.00

Economics Totals: 17.00

MGMT: Management

Academy Of Entrepreneurship Journal 1.00

Academy of Management Learning and Education Journal 1.00

Accounting and Taxation 1.00

Advance Management Research ((AMRIJ) 2.00

AIMS International: The Association of Indian Management Scholars 3.00

American Business Review 1.00

57

American Journal of Business 1.00

Case Research Journal 1.00

Coastal Business Journal 6.00

Communication Education 4.00

Communication Quarterly 1.00

Communication Research Reports 1.00

Communication Studies 3.00

Competition Forum 3.00

Competitiveness Review 3.00

Complicity: 1.00

CyberPsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking 1.00

Development and Learning in Organizations 1.00

European Journal of Management 1.00

Group And Organization Management 1.00

Howard Journal of Communications 1.00

Interactive Learnng Environments 1.00

International Journal of Education Research 1.00

International Journal of Effective Management 4.00

International Journal of Interdisciplinary Research 3.00

International Journal Of Management 2.00

International Journal of Management Entrepreneurship and Technology 2.00

International Journal of Management Information Systems 1.00

International Journal of Servant Leadership 3.00

International Journal of Strategic Management 2.00

International Journal of Supply Chain Management 1.00

International Leadership Journal 1.00

Journal of Academic Leadership 1.00

Journal Of Business & Entrepreneurship 1.00

58

Journal of Business and Economics 1.00

Journal Of Business Communication 1.00

Journal of Business, Industry, and Economics 1.00

Journal of Global Information Technology 3.00

Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 1.00

Journal of International Business and Cultural Studies 6.00

Journal of International Business Disciplines 6.00

Journal of International Management Studies 2.00

Journal of Leadership Education 1.00

Journal of Management Policy and Practice 3.00

Journal of Marketing Development and Competitiveness 6.00

Journal Of Organizational Change Management 1.00

Journal of Strategic Innovation and Sustainability 1.00

Kommunikáció, Média, Gazdaság 1.00

Leadership Advance Online 1.00

NACADA Clearinghouse of Academic Advising Resources 3.00

New England Journal of Entrepreneurship 1.00

New Perspectives on Political Economy 1.00

Organization Management Journal 1.00

Quarterly Review of Business Disciplines 2.00

Quarterly Review of Entrepreneurship 3.00

Research In Higher Education 1.00

Resources In Education 1.00

Review Of Business 2.00

Strategic HR Review 1.00

The Coastal Business Journal 2.00

The Mentor: An Academic Advising Journal, 3.00

Training & Management Development Methods 1.00

59

Training and Management Development Methods 1.00

Western Journal Of Communication 1.00

Management Totals: 120.00

MKFI: Marketing and Finance

African Development Review 1.00

American International Journal of Contemporary Research 1.00

American International Journal of Social Science 1.00

Business Education & Accreditation 1.00

Case Research Journal 1.00

Coastal Business Journal 3.00

Global Journal of Finance and Economics 1.00

Humanomics 1.00

International Business & Economics Research Journal 3.00

International Journal of Business and Public Administration 1.00

International Journal of Interdisciplinary Research 2.00

Journal Of Applied Management And Entrepreneurship 1.00

Journal of Business Case Studies 1.00

Journal of Business Diversity 3.00

Journal Of Consumer Marketing 1.00

Journal Of Empirical Finance 1.00

Journal Of Food Products Marketing 3.00

Journal of International Business Disciplines 4.00

Journal Of International Consumer Marketing 1.00

Journal of Marketing Development and Competitiveness 4.00

Journal Of Retailing And Consumer Services 1.00

Journal of Strategic Innovation and Sustainability 1.00

Managing Service Quality 1.00

Marketing Education Review 2.00

60

Review of Accounting and Finance 1.00

Services Marketing Quarterly 2.00

The Journal of Retail Marketing and Management Research 1.00

Young Consumers 5.00

Marketing and Finance Totals: 49.00

GRAND TOTAL 223.00

In this report:

Include Only Members who taught the selected term(s)

What teaching term would you like to include? 2015-Spring, 2014-Fall

Source of Member status: SCHEDULE

FTE filter: 100%

Only include Participating members

Include data for 2010-2011 through 2014-2015

61

Table 15-1A: Sufficiency and Qualifications Summary for 2014-2015

(Terms included: 2014-Fall, 2015-Spring)

Organizational Unit: Department Status source: Teaching Schedule Aggregation Unit: Classes

Department: Accounting - SA

Faculty Portfolio Faculty Sufficiency *

Normal Professional

Responsibilities

Percent of Time Devoted to Mission for Each Faculty Qualification Group *

Brief Description of Basis for Qualification Faculty

Member’s Name

Appt. Highest Degree,

Year Earned

Participating Faculty teaching Productivity (P)

Supporting Faculty

Teaching Productivity

(S)

SA PA SP IP Other

Bao, Yan 2002 Ph.D., 2004 6.00 UG, Grad., Res., Prof. Credentials, Svc.

100%

Academic Prep: Ph.D. Professional Preparation: employment in primary teaching area. Academic Engagement: 6 PRJs, 11 conf. presentations, 1 prof. presentation, maintenance of certification.

Shaffer, Kathie 1988 DM, 2009 7.00 UG, Grad., Res., Prof. Credentials, Svc.

100%

Academic Prep: D.M. Professional Preparation: C.M.A.; Academic Engagement: 4 PRJs, 4 conference presentations, and maintenance of professional certification.

Tilley, Patricia 2013 Ph.D., 2005 6.00 UG, Grad., Res., Svc.

100%

Academic Prep: Ph.D. Professional Preparation: Employment in the primary teaching area; Academic Engagement: 2 PRJs, 2 conference presentations.

Venezia, Chiulien 2007 D.B.A., 2004 3.00 UG, Grad., Res., Prof. Credentials, Svc.

100%

Academic Prep: D.B.A. Professional Preparation: C.P.A., Employment in the primary teaching area with significant achievement. Academic Engagement: 9 PRJs, 10 conf. present., maintenance of professional certification.

62

Department: Accounting - PA

Faculty Portfolio Faculty Sufficiency *

Normal Professional

Responsibilities

Percent of Time Devoted to Mission for Each Faculty Qualification Group *

Brief Description of Basis for Qualification Faculty

Member’s Name

Appt. Highest Degree,

Year Earned

Participating Faculty

teaching Productivity

(P)

Supporting Faculty

Teaching Productivity

(S)

SA PA SP IP Other

Johnson, Richard 1978 Ph.D., 1989 7.00 UG, Res., Prof. Credentials, Svc.

100%

Academic Prep: Ph.D. Professional Preparation: C.P.A.; Academic Engagement: 1 PRJ, 4 conf. presentations, and maintenance of professional certification.

Middleton, Joyce 1990 Ph.D., 1992 7.00 UG, Res., Prof. Credentials, Svc.

100%

Academic Prep: Ph.D. Professional Preparation: C.P.A., V.I.T.A., Academic Engagement: 4 conf. presentations, and maintenance of professional certification.

Department: Accounting - SP

Faculty Portfolio Faculty Sufficiency *

Normal Professional

Responsibilities

Percent of Time Devoted to Mission for Each Faculty Qualification Group *

Brief Description of Basis for Qualification Faculty

Member’s Name

Appt. Highest Degree,

Year Earned

Participating Faculty

teaching Productivity

(P)

Supporting Faculty

Teaching Productivity

(S)

SA PA SP IP Other

Bandura, Randall 1983 M.S., 1976 6.00 UG, Res., Prof. Credentials, Svc.

100%

Academic Prep: M.S. Professional Preparation: C.P.A., Employment in primary teaching area with significant achievements. Academic Engagement: 13 PRJs, 6 conf. presentations, and maintenance of certifications.

63

Department: Accounting - IP

Faculty Portfolio Faculty Sufficiency *

Normal Professional

Responsibilities

Percent of Time Devoted to Mission for Each Faculty Qualification Group *

Brief Description of Basis for Qualification Faculty

Member’s Name

Appt. Highest Degree,

Year Earned

Participating Faculty

teaching Productivity

(P)

Supporting Faculty

Teaching Productivity

(S)

SA PA SP IP Other

Gilmore, Joseph 1989 M.B.A., 1984 8.00 UG, Res., Prof. Credentials, Svc.

100%

Academic Prep: M.B.A. Professional Preparation: C.P.A, Extensive government experience. Academic Engagement: 1 PRJ article, maintenance of certifications.

Groer, Connie 1987 M.B.A., 1982 7.00 UG, Res., Prof. Credentials, Svc.

100%

Academic Prep: M.B.A. Professional Preparation: C.P.A, Board member-Maryland Assoc. CPAs. Academic Engagement: 1 PRJ article, maintenance of certification.

Accounting: 54.00 FTE: 4.00 2.00 1.00 2.00

Department: Economics - SA

Faculty Portfolio Faculty Sufficiency *

Percent of Time Devoted to Mission for Each Qualification Group *

Faculty Member’s Name

Appt Highest Degree,

Year Earned

Participating Faculty

Teaching Productivity

Supporting Faculty

Teaching Productivity

(S)

Normal Professional

Responsibilities SA PA SP IP Other

Brief Description of Basis for Qualification

Anderson, William

2001 Ph.D., 1999 6.00

UG, Grad., Res., Svc.

100%

Academic Prep: Ph.D. Professional Preparation: Editorial BD member- 2 PRJs; Academic Engagement: 5 PRJs, 3 conf. presentations

Kucher, Oleg 2013 Ph.D., 2013 6.00 UG, Res., Svc. 100%

Academic Prep: Ph.D. Professional Preparation: Served as referee for PRJs for economics and finance; Academic Engagement: 2 PRJs, 2 presentations.

64

Mizak, Daniel 1977 Ph.D., 1997 6.00 UG, Res., Svc. 100%

Academic Prep: Ph.D. Professional Preparation: Developer of online content for major textbooks in Econ; Academic Engagement: 2 PRJs.

McCoskey, Suzanne

2011 Ph.D., 1997 6.00 UG, Res., Svc. 100%

Academic Prep: Ph.D. Professional Preparation: Invited as referee for economics journals and African-related professional committees sponsored by the US government; Academic Engagement: 3 PRJs, 4 conf. presentations.

Neral, John 1986 Ph.D., 1989 6.00 UG, Res., Svc. 100%

Academic Prep: Ph.D. Professional Preparation: Public Sector Econ. Academic Engagement: 2 PRJs.

Stair, Anthony 1984 Ph.D., 1993 7.00 UG, Res., Svc. 100%

Academic Prep: Ph.D. Professional Preparation: Employment in primary teaching area; Academic Engagement: 2 PRJs, invited to Dr. James Dunn of Penn State U to speak concerning dairy industry research.

Department: Economics – Other

Faculty Portfolio Faculty Sufficiency *

Percent of Time Devoted to Mission for Each Qualification Group *

Faculty Member’s Name

Appt Highest Degree,

Year Earned

Participating Faculty

Teaching Productivity

Supporting Faculty

Teaching Productivity

(S)

Normal Professional

Responsibilities SA PA SP IP Other

Brief Description of Basis for Qualification

Kiriazis, David 1997 Ph.D., 1997 4.00 UG, Res., Svc. 100%

Academic Prep: Ph.D. Professional Preparation: Managerial Economics Academic engagement: 1 PRJ article.

65

Rossi, Armond

1988

Ph.D., 1993

8.00

UG, Res., Svc.

100%

Academic Prep: Ph.D. Professional Preparation: Community Presentation, Academic Engagement: Works with local schools and local businesses and educates community on economic issues.

Economics: 49.00 FTE: 6.00 2.00

66

Department: Management - SA

Faculty Portfolio Faculty Sufficiency *

Percent of Time Devoted to Mission for Each Faculty Qualification Group *

Faculty Member’s Name

Appt Highest Degree,

Year Earned

Participating Faculty

teaching Productivity (P)

Supporting Faculty

Teaching Productivity

(S)

Normal Professional

Responsibilities SA PA SP IP Other

Brief Description of Basis for Qualification

Chory, Rebecca

2014 Ph.D., 2000 6.00

UG, Grad., Res., Svc.

100%

Academic Prep: Ph.D. Professional Preparation: Employment in primary teaching area; Academic Engagement: 17 PRJs, 22 conf. presentations.

Gearhart, Troy

2011 Ph.D., 2011 2.00 UG, Grad. 50%

Academic Prep: Ph.D. Professional Preparation: Senior Pastor, Acad. Engmt.: 3 PRJs, 3 pres.

Hopwood, Rebecca 2014 PhD/HDR, -- 2.00 Grad. 25%

Academic Prep: Ph.D. Professional Preparation: Staff Nurse for Ruby Memorial Hospital. Acad. Engagement: University of Phoenix faculty.

Huh, Dong-Wook 2014 PhD/HDR, 2014

6.00 UG, Res., Svc. 100%

Academic Prep: Ph.D. Professional Preparation: Employment in primary teaching area; Academic Engagement: Earned Ph.D.,5 conf. pres.

Levitt, Kenneth 2014 Ph.D., 1998 6.00

UG, Grad., Res., Svc.

100%

Academic Prep: Ph.D. Professional Preparation: Editorial board member of a PRJ, Board member of 2 non-profits; Acad. Engagement: 1 PRJ, 7 conf. pres., 1 book chap.

Lightner-Laws, Carin 2014 Ph.D., 2008 6.00

UG, Grad., Res., Svc.

100%

Academic Prep: Ph.D. Professional Preparation: Employment in the primary teaching area; Academic Engagement: 3 PRJs, 6 conf. pres.

67

Mattare, Martha 2001 Ph.D., 2006 5.00

UG, Grad., Res., Svc.

100%

Academic Prep: Ph.D. Professional Preparation: Member of editorial board for one PRJ. Academic Engagement: 12 PRJs, 18 conference presentations, 2 book chapters, 2 prof pres.

McClellan, Jeffrey 2008 Ph.D., 2008 6.00 UG, Res., Svc. 100%

Academic Prep: Ph.D. Professional Preparation: Reviewer for two PRJs. Academic Engagement: 3 book chapters, 17 PRJs, 4 editorial-reviewed articles, 12 conf. pres., 35 prof. pres.

Monahan, Michael 2004 Ed.D., 2004 2.00 UG, Res., Svc. 100%

Academic Prep: ED.D. Professional Preparation: Employment in primary teaching area; Acad. Engagement: 23 PRJs, 28 conf. pres.

Offstein, Evan 2004 Ph.D., 2004 2.00 UG, Res., Svc. 100%

Academic Prep: Ph.D. Professional Preparation: 50+ prof./consulting pres. Academic Engagement: 9 PRJs, 9 conf. pres.

Rahman, Shakil 1990 Ph.D., 1989 6.00 UG, Res., Svc. 100%

Academic Prep: Ph.D. Professional Preparation: Co-Principle Investigator HIV/AID for MD Dept. of Health & Hygiene. Academic Engagement: 5 PRJs, 11 conf. pres., reviewed 19 articles.

Shah, Amit 1989 D.B.A., 1988 6.00 UG, Grad., Res., Svc.

100%

Academic Prep: Ph.D. Professional Preparation: Member of three PRJ Boards, Co-Principle Investigator HIV/AID for MD Dept. of Health & Hygiene. Academic Engagement: 1 textbook, 23 PRJs, 29 conf. pres., 4 cases pub. in texts.

68

Shore, JoAnna 1999 D.B.A., 2004 7.00 UG, Grad., Res., Svc.

100%

Academic Prep: DBA. Professional Preparation: Employment in the primary teaching; Academic Engagement: 2 PRJs, 5 conference presentations.

Sigerstad, Thomas 2001 Ph.D., 2004 6.00 UG, Grad., Res.,

Svc. 100%

Academic Prep: Ph.D. Professional Preparation: Employment in the primary teaching area; Academic Engagement: 5 PRJ articles, 5 conf. pres., significant pub. views/ citations.

Tootoonchi, Ahmad [NTF]

1989 Ph.D., 1986 Dean - ADM 100%

Academic Prep: Ph.D. Professional Preparation: Employment as Dean with signif. achievement. Academic Engagement: 1 book, 3 PRJs, 4 conf. pres., Chief Editor of two PRJs, Board member of prof. organizations.

Department: Management - PA

Faculty Portfolio Faculty Sufficiency *

Percent of Time Devoted to Mission for Each Faculty Qualification Group *

Faculty Member’s Name

Appt Highest Degree,

Year Earned

Participating Faculty

teaching Productivity (P)

Supporting Faculty

Teaching Productivity

(S)

Normal Professional

Responsibilities SA PA SP IP Other

Brief Description of Basis for Qualification

Ketterman Jr., Jesse

2007 Ph.D., 2006 2.00 UG 8.30%

Academic Prep: Ph.D. Professional Preparation: Facilitate judicial programs and administrative hearings for students at the university-level. Academic Engagement: 14 yrs of in student affairs.

69

Milsom, Gregory 2013 M.B.A., 2011 1.00 UG, Grad. 25%

Academic Prep: M.B.A. Professional Preparation: Director of finance and owner of financial planning business, PRJ reviewer, Conf. reviewer; Academic Engagement: 3 conference presentations.

Department: Management – SP

Faculty Portfolio Faculty Sufficiency *

Percent of Time Devoted to Mission for Each Faculty Qualification Group *

Faculty Member’s Name

Appt Highest Degree,

Year Earned

Participating Faculty

teaching Productivity (P)

Supporting Faculty

Teaching Productivity

(S)

Normal Professional

Responsibilities SA PA SP IP Other

Brief Description of Basis for Qualification

Kentrus, Ryan

2007 M.B.A., --N/A-- 8.00

UG, Res., Doctoral Program,

Svc.

100%

Academic Prep: M.B.A. Professional Preparation: Employment in the primary teaching area; Academic Engagement: 1 PRJ, 2 conf. pres., current enrollment in Doct. Prog.

Schrader, Chelsea 2011 M.B.A., 2011 6.00

UG, Res., Doctoral Program,

Svc.

100%

Academic Prep: M.B.A. Professional Preparation: Staff for C.P.A. firm. Academic Engagement: 1 PRJ, 3 conf. pres., current enrollment in Doct. Prog. 1 prof. presentation.

Department: Management - IP

Faculty Portfolio Faculty Sufficiency *

Percent of Time Devoted to Mission for Each Faculty Qualification Group *

Faculty Member’s Name

Appt Highest Degree,

Year Earned

Participating Faculty

teaching Productivity (P)

Supporting Faculty

Teaching Productivity

(S)

Normal Professional

Responsibilities SA PA SP IP Other

Brief Description of Basis for Qualification

Gladhill, Kathryn 2012 M.B.A., 2008 2.00 UG 50%

Academic Prep: M.B.A. Professional Preparation: Target corporation transportation supervisor. Academic Engagement: Extensive leadership and management experiences.

70

McClintock, Jodi 2012 M.B.A., 2009 2.00 UG 8.30

%

Academic Prep: M.B.A. Professional Preparation: Licensed administrator, Comptroller/Co-Owner of small business. Academic Engagement: Garrett County Board of Educ.

Wiles, Thomas 2013 M.B.A., 2011 3.00 UG 50%

Academic Prep: M.B.A. Professional Preparation: Strategic planning agency owner. Academic Engagement: Market research/analysis, C.R.M.

York, Judith 2013 M.S., 2003 1.00 UG 25%

Academic Prep: M.S. Professional Preparation: Professional consulting business owner. Academic Engagement: 7 presentations and/or speaking engagements.

Department: Management – Other

Faculty Portfolio Faculty Sufficiency *

Percent of Time Devoted to Mission for Each Faculty Qualification Group *

Faculty Member’s Name

Appt Highest Degree,

Year Earned

Participating Faculty

teaching Productivity (P)

Supporting Faculty

Teaching Productivity

(S)

Normal Professional

Responsibilities SA PA SP IP Other

Brief Description of Basis for Qualification

Harrell-Cook, Gloria 2002 Ph.D., 1999 7.00 UG, Res., Svc. 100%

Academic Prep: Ph.D. Professional Preparation: Employment in the primary teaching area; Academic Engagement: 1 PRJ, 4 conf. pres., 1 PRJ-in-progress.

Shimko, Amy 2008 M.P.H., --N/A-- 2.00 UG 8.30%

Academic Prep: M.P.H. Professional Preparation: Individual counseling at the professional level. Academic Engagement: Student development at university-level.

71

Wassell, Stacy 2014 M.B.A., 2014 2.00 UG, Doctoral Program

8.30%

Academic Prep: M.B.A. Professional Preparation: Executive administrative assistant at FSU-CoB. Academic Engagement: 1 conf. pres., current enrollment Doct. Prog.

Management: 85.00 22.00 FTE: 12.75 0.08 2.25 1.33 1.17

72

Department: Marketing & Finance - SA

Faculty Portfolio Faculty Sufficiency *

Percent of Time Devoted to Mission for Each Faculty Qualification Group *

Faculty Member’s Name

Appt Highest Degree,

Year Earned

Participating Faculty

teaching Productivity (P)

Supporting Faculty

Teaching Productivity

(S)

Normal Professional

Responsibilities SA PA SP IP Other

Brief Description of Basis for Qualification

Ashley-Cotleur, Catherine

1983 Ph.D., 1998 4.00

UG, Grad., Res., Svc.

100%

Academic Prep: Ph.D. Professional Preparation: Employment in the primary teaching area; Academic Engagement: 8 PRJs, 3 conf. pres., 2 prof. presentations

Ashraf, Ali 2013 Ph.D., 2013 6.00 UG, Grad., Res., Svc.

100%

Academic Prep: Ph.D. Professional Preparation: Reviewer of two PRJs, Review committee member for a conf.; Academic Engagement: 3 PRJs, 3 conf. pres., 2 prof. presentations

Dean, Dwane 2009 Ph.D./HDR, 2000

6.00 UG, Res., Svc. 100%

Academic Prep: Ph.D. Professional Preparation: Member Editorial Board; Academic Engagement: 11 PRJs, 2 prof. pres.

Gaumer, Carol 1999 D.B.A., 2004 2.00 UG, Res., Svc. 100%

Academic Prep: D.B.A. Professional Preparation: Reviewer and Editor for two PRJs, 2 professional consulting projects. Academic Engagement: 8 PRJs, 2 conf. pres., 5 prof. presentations.

Han, Seonghee 2015 Ph.D., 2014 3.00 UG, Res., Svc. 100%

Academic Prep: Ph.D. Professional Preparation: 2 papers presented at national and int’l conf., Academic Engagement: Earned Ph.D., 5 conf. presentations.

Kim, Tae-Nyun 2011 Ph.D., 2011 6.00 UG, Res., Svc. 100%

Academic Prep: Ph.D. Professional Preparation: PRJ Editorial advisory board; Earned Ph.D. 2011, 2 PRJs, 4 pres.

73

Venezia, Gerald 2014 D.P.A., 2004 6.00 UG, Grad., Res., Svc.

100%

Academic Prep: D.P.A. Professional Preparation: 1 Conf. session chair, Reviewer of 1 PRJ. Academic Engagement: 5 PRJs, 3 conf. pres., 1 professional presentation.

Ye, Lei 2008 Ph.D., 2008 6.00 UG, Res., Svc. 100%

Academic Prep: Ph.D. Professional Preparation: PRJ Editorial Board, Reviewer for 3 PRJs. Academic Engagement: 7 PRJs, 11 conf. pres., 6 academic presentations; significant citations

Department: Marketing & Finance - PA

Faculty Portfolio Faculty Sufficiency *

Percent of Time Devoted to Mission for Each Faculty Qualification Group *

Faculty Member’s Name

Appt Highest Degree,

Year Earned

Participating Faculty

teaching Productivity (P)

Supporting Faculty

Teaching Productivity

(S)

Normal Professional

Responsibilities SA PA SP IP Other

Brief Description of Basis for Qualification

Shin, Hung Sik 1991 Ph.D., 1991 4.00 UG, Res., Svc. 100%

Academic Prep: Ph.D. Professional Preparation: Financial consultant for local Small Business Technology Dev. Center SBTDC); Academic Engagement: 1 PRJ-under review, 4 conference proceedings.

Singh, Sudhir [NTF]

1992 Ph.D., 1992 Associate Dean - ADM

100%

Academic Prep: Ph.D. Professional Preparation: Bd Memb. of Non-profit Heritage Organ., Dir., CoB Ctr for Leadership Dev., Service on Middle States Accreditation; Academic Engagement: 1 PRJ, 1 commissioned Research Study on FSU’s Economic Impact on Region and State, Member, 1 Ed.D. student Doctoral Dissertation Committee.

74

Department: Marketing & Finance - SP

Faculty Portfolio Faculty Sufficiency *

Percent of Time Devoted to Mission for Each Faculty Qualification Group *

Faculty Member’s Name

Appt Highest Degree,

Year Earned

Participating Faculty

teaching Productivity (P)

Supporting Faculty

Teaching Productivity

(S)

Normal Professional

Responsibilities SA PA SP IP Other

Brief Description of Basis for Qualification

Arnone, Carol 2005 M.B.A., 1986 8.00 UG, Res., Svc. 100%

Academic Prep: M.B.A. Professional Preparation: 2 Manuscripts reviewed for conf., PRJ reviewer, Academic Engagement: 4 PRJs, 1 conference presentation

Department: Marketing & Finance - IP

Faculty Portfolio Faculty Sufficiency *

Percent of Time Devoted to Mission for Each Faculty Qualification Group *

Faculty Member’s Name

Appt Highest Degree,

Year Earned

Participating Faculty

teaching Productivity (P)

Supporting Faculty

Teaching Productivity

(S)

Normal Professional

Responsibilities SA PA SP IP Other

Brief Description of Basis for Qualification

Farris, Rachel 2013 M.B.A., 2012 1.00 UG 25%

Academic Prep: M.B.A. Professional Preparation: Asst. Director-Bookstore university-level; University speaker (students, parents, fac.)

Jan, Pamela 2008 M.P.A., 1991 1.00 UG 25%

Academic Prep: M.P.A. Professional Preparation: Certified public procurement officer / buyer; Academic Engagement: Managed procurement teams at the university-level.

Thayer IV, Frederick 2014 MBA, -N/A- 1.00 UG 25%

Academic Prep: M.B.A. Professional Preparation: Director of credit risk at First United Bank; Academic Engagement: Honors graduate with significant business leadership awards.

75

Department: Marketing & Finance – Other

Faculty Portfolio Faculty Sufficiency *

Percent of Time Devoted to Mission for Each Faculty Qualification Group *

Faculty Member’s Name

Appt Highest Degree,

Year Earned

Participating Faculty

teaching Productivity (P)

Supporting Faculty

Teaching Productivity

(S)

Normal Professional

Responsibilities SA PA SP IP Other

Brief Description of Basis for Qualification

Plucinski, Daniel 1974 J.D., 2002 8.00 UG, Res., Svc. 100%

Academic Prep: J.D. (teaches bus. law); Professional Preparation: C.M.A., C.P.A.; Academic Engagement: 1 PRJ article, 1 conference presentation

Marketing and Finance: 59.00 3.00 FTE: 8.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00

College Totals [58 members]:

247.00 25.00 FTE: 30.75 3.08 4.25 4.08 4.17

[NTF] Member did not teach in the terms selected.

76

Table 15-1B: Summary View: Sufficiency and Qualifications Summary Benchmarks for 2014-2015 (Terms included: 2014-Fall, 2015-Spring)

Organizational Unit: Department Status source: Teaching Schedule Aggregation Unit: Classes

U n i t S u m m a r y B e n c h m a r k s Faculty Sufficiency Indicators * Full-Time Equivalents Faculty Qualifications

Indicators **

Department Participating Supporting Total % SA PA SP IP Oth Total SA (40%) SA+PA+ SP (60%)

SA+PA +SP+IP

(90%)

Accounting 54.00 54.00 100.00% 4.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 9.00 44.44% 77.78% 100.00%

Economics 49.00 49.00 100.00% 6.00 2.00 8.00 75.00% 75.00% 75.00%

Management 85.00 22.00 107.00 79.44% 12.75 0.08 2.25 1.33 1.17 17.58 72.52% 85.79% 93.37%

Marketing and Finance 59.00 3.00 62.00 95.16% 8.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 11.75 68.09% 85.11% 91.49%

College Totals: 247.00 25.00 272.00 90.81% 30.75 3.08 4.25 4.08 4.17 46.33 66.37% 82.20% 91.01%

Faculty Sufficiency Indicators *

Department: P/(P+S) >=60% required to be taught by participating members

College: P/(P+S) >= 75% required to be taught by participating members

Faculty Qualifications Indicators **

Aggregation of the qualifications of participating and

supporting members, based on % dedicated to mission.

Minimum SA: (SA)/(SA+PA+SP+IP+Oth) >= 40%

Minimum SA + PA + SP: (SA+PA+SP)/(SA+PA+SP+IP+Oth) >= 60%

Minimum SA + PA + SP + IP: (SA+PA+SP+IP)/(SA+PA+SP+IP+Oth) >= 90%

This report includes all participating and supporting faculty members, including graduate students, who have formal teaching responsibilities.

This report includes all faculty members who joined the College for any part of the Most Recently Completed Normal Academic Year.

This report excludes all faculty members who left the College during the Most Recently Completed Normal Academic Year.

77

Table 15-2: Deployment of Participating and Supporting Members by Qualification Status in Support of Degree Programs for 2014-2015

(Terms included: 2014-Fall, 2015-Spring)

Percent of Teaching (Classes)

Academic Practitioner

Degree Program

Scholarly [SA] Practice [PA] Scholarly [SP] Instructional [IP] Other Total

Bachelors 53.27% 9.35% 13.55% 13.08% 10.75% 100.00%

MBA 98.28%

1.72%

100.00%

Specialized Masters

Doctoral Programs

Other

Qualification Status Totals:

62.87% 7.35% 11.03% 10.29% 8.46% 100.00%

This report gives an analysis of the percentage of total teaching (whether measured by credit hours, contact hours, or other appropriate metric) for each qualification category by degree program level. The total percentage for each qualification category in 15-2 may not exactly match the total percentage for each qualification category in the 15-1 summary report, depending on how closely the aggregate of the qualifications of participating and supporting faculty members, based on % dedicated to mission (15-1) aligns with the percentage of total teaching, based on credit hours, contact hours, or other appropriate metric (15-2).

78

Appendix B

Accreditation Standards Implementation Documents

College of Business: Statement on Faculty Sufficiency and Qualifications Introduction The Frostburg State University (FSU) College of Business (CoB) ensures that the faculty, who provide instruction to our students, are qualified to do so based on the standards established by The Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) as detailed in the “Eligibility Procedures and Accreditation Standards for Business Accreditation.” This document outlines the College’s definitions of Participating and Supporting Faculty as prescribed in Standard 5. In addition, we provide clarification regarding the qualification standards, engagement criteria, and workload requirements of faculty based on the AACSB faculty classification standards.

Participating and Supporting Faculty The Participating Faculty of the College of Business shall consist of all persons appointed to a Department within the College of Business to a full-time position with the title of Professor, Associate Professor, Assistant Professor, or Lecturer. Unless otherwise stated, reference to the Faculty hereafter refers to the Participating Faculty. The Participating Faculty shall have legislative jurisdiction over broad policies and guidelines affecting the College of Business’ academic mission in regard to teaching, research, and service, including the definitions of purpose and objectives. Typically, Supporting Faculty members are faculty who are hired on a contractual basis to teach a course or several courses over a fixed contract period. Supporting Faculty may attend general meetings of the faculty and may actively participate in the meetings. Normally, Supporting faculty members do not have deliberative or voting rights on faculty issues. They do not normally have membership on faculty committees, nor are they normally assigned responsibilities beyond their direct teaching function (that is, classroom and office hours).

Faculty Sufficiency Indicators:*

Overall: P/(P+S) ≥ 75%

By disciplines, location, delivery mode, or program: P/(P+S) ≥ 60% *As per AACSB 2013 Standards, Standard 5

Faculty Qualifications, Engagement Criteria, and Workload

AACSB Faculty Categories College of Business faculty members are categorized according to their initial academic preparation and professional experience, and, to their sustained academic and professional engagement activities. As detailed in AACSB Standard 15, the following four categories are used to classify faculty, inclusive of those holding administrative appointments (e.g., chairs, directors, and deans), deployed by the college:

79

Sustained Engagement Activities Academic Applied / Practice (Research / Scholarship)

Scholarly Practitioners (SP)

Instructional Practitioners (IP)

Scholarly Academics (SA)

Practice Academics (PA)

Scholarly Academics (SA) sustain currency and relevance through scholarship and related activities. SA status is granted to faculty members who earned their terminal doctorate degree in a field consistent and appropriate to their teaching assignment.* Practice Academics (PA) sustain currency and relevance through professional engagement, interaction, and relevant activities. PA status is applied to faculty members who augment their initial preparation as academic scholars with development and engagement activities that involve substantive linkages to practice, consulting, other forms of professional engagement.* Scholarly Practitioners (SP) sustain currency and relevance through continued professional experience, academic engagement, or interaction and scholarship related to their professional background and experience. SP status is applied to practitioner faculty members who augment their experience with development and engagement activities involving substantive scholarly activities in their fields of teaching.* Instructional Practitioners (IP) sustain currency and relevance through continued professional experience and engagement related to their professional backgrounds and experience. IP status is granted to newly hired faculty members who join the faculty with significant and substantive professional experience. * Documenting faculty qualification status requires the school to demonstrate faculty members are either: “Scholarly Academics,” “Practice Academics,” Scholarly Practitioners,” or “Instructional Practitioners.” Those individuals, who do not meet the criteria for these categories, will be classified as “Other.”

Faculty Qualifications Indicators:*

Mínimum SA: (SA)/(SA + PA + SP + IP + O) ≥ 40%

Minimum SA + PA + SP: (SA + PA + SP )/(SA + PA + SP + IP + O) ≥ 60%

Minimum SA + PA + SP + IP: (SA + PA + SP + IP)/(SA + PA + SP + IP + O) ≥ 90%

*As per AACSB 2013 Standards, Standard 15

FSU College of Business Faculty Categories To ensure compliance with the AACSB standards and to ensure that our faculty members are appropriately qualified to serve our student population, the College of Business employs the

Professional Experience, substantial in duration and level of responsibility Doctoral degree

Initial

Academic Preparation and

Professional Experience

80

following faculty classification standards. Chart 1 summarizes this information which is explained in detail in the section that follows.

Chart 1: Faculty Categories, Engagement, and Workload

Faculty Categories

Scholarly Academics (SA)

Practice Academics (PA)

Scholarly Practitioners (SP)

Instructional Practitioners (IP)

Academic Preparation

Earned Doctoral Degree OR ABD with expected completion within a year of the date of hire.

Earned Doctoral Degree

Master’s Degree + Significant Professional Experience

Master’s Degree + Significant Professional Experience

Professional Experience

Doctoral degree obtained within the previous 5 years OR 2 Publications and 2 academic engagement activities in 5 Years OR ABD with expected completion within a year of the date of hire.

1 academic engagement activity annually and 1 validating experience annually

1 Publication and 1 academic engagement activity in 5 years

2 activities in 5 years from either practice academic engagement list or validating experience list

Workload* 3 - 3 3 - 4 or 4 - 3 3 - 4 or 4 - 3 4 - 4 *Workload for academic & professional activities beyond those outlined here is granted at the discretion of the Dean via consultation with the Department Chairs.

NOTE: all publications and other scholarly activities must be undertaken with emphasis on quality and impact.

To ensure compliance with the AACSB standards and to ensure that our faculty is appropriately qualified to serve our student population, the College of Business employs the following faculty classification standards.

Scholarly Academics (SA) To be classified as a Scholarly Academic, faculty members must satisfy both the initial academic preparation criteria and the professional experience requirements over the previous five years. NOTE: Faculty members with ABD status for a maximum of one year prior to completion of their doctoral degree, or with a doctorate degree obtained within the previous five years are considered Scholarly Academics. Initial Academic Qualification: Scholarly Academic faculty are required to hold a doctorate in their primary teaching field. Faculty members holding a doctorate that is outside of their primary teaching field shall be considered to have met the initial academic preparation criteria for SA status provided they exhibit evidence of active involvement in the teaching area through activities such as authorship, participation in professional meetings, or related activities devoted to the teaching area.

81

Professional Experience Requirements:

Research Proficiency – Over the previous five years, Scholarly Academics must publish a minimum of two (2) peer-reviewed research articles in academic journals and two (2) academic engagement activities in 5 years, all relevant to the mission of the FSU College of Business. (Acceptable academic journals include those indexed by leading bibliographic sources, are frequently cited, and are readily available to researchers through major academic libraries and the Internet. Normally, conference proceedings and non-peer-reviewed journals are not acceptable for this criterion). Academic Engagement Proficiency – broadens one’s engagement in the discipline and maintains currency in the field. Over the previous five years, Scholarly Academics must maintain active academic engagement as evidenced by the production of a minimum of two (2) academic engagement activities in 5 years such as:

1. Peer-reviewed or invited conference presentation* 2. Publication of a conference proceedings paper* 3. Publication of an original article in an edited volume published by an academic press 4. Publication or revision of a textbook 5. Publication of an authored or edited volume published by an academic press 6. Publication of original research in an open source, non-peer-reviewed, electronic journal 7. Publication of a business case study by an academic press 8. Service as an editor, associate editor or editorial board member of an established

academic journal or periodical 9. Publication of a book review in an academic or practitioners’ journal 10. Receipt of a peer-reviewed funded grant that demonstrates currency in your field 11. Receipt or renewal of a discipline-relevant certification that enhances the classroom

and/or research and demonstrates currency in your field 12. Service as an officer for an academic association or scholarly organization 13. Engagement in other scholarly activities that demonstrate currency in your field or

discipline**

* The same research paper cannot be counted twice ** The same type of academic engagement activity cannot be counted twice

NOTE: all publications and other scholarly activities must be undertaken with emphasis on quality and impact. Workload Standards for Scholarly Academics Scholarly Academic faculty members are placed on a 3-3 schedule in an Academic Year and must account annually for their release time productivity.

Practice Academics (PA) To be classified as a Practice Academic, faculty members must satisfy both the initial academic preparation criteria and the professional experience requirements over the previous five years. Initial Academic Qualification: Practice Academic faculty members are required to hold a doctorate in their primary teaching field. Faculty members holding a doctorate that is outside of

82

their primary teaching field shall be considered to have met the initial academic preparation criteria for PA status provided they exhibit evidence of active involvement in the teaching area through activities such as authorship, participation in professional meetings, or related activities devoted to the teaching area. Professional Experience Requirements: Research Proficiency – Over the previous five years, Practice Academics must produce a minimum of one (1) academic engagement activity annually and one (1) validating professional experience annually, all relevant to the mission of the FSU College of Business. Practice Academic Engagement Proficiency – Over the previous five years, Practice Academics must maintain active academic engagement as evidenced by the production of a minimum of one (1) academic engagement activity annually:

1. Acceptance or publication of a peer-reviewed manuscript in a scholarly or practitioner-oriented journal

2. Peer-reviewed or invited conference presentation 3. Publication of a conference proceedings paper 4. Publication of an original article in a non-peer-reviewed journal or periodical 5. Publication of an original article in an edited volume 6. Publication or revision of a textbook 7. Publication of an authored or edited volume 8. Publication of original research in an open source, non-peer-reviewed, electronic journal 9. Publication of a business case study 10. Service as an editor, associate editor or editorial board member of an established journal

or periodical 11. Publication of a book review in an academic or practitioners’ journal 12. Receipt of a peer-reviewed funded grant that supports the FSU College of Business 13. Renewal of a discipline-relevant certification that enhances the classroom and/or

research and demonstrates professional competency 14. Service as an officer for an association or organization in one’s profession 15. Production of other practitioner-oriented scholarly work that demonstrates a high-level

of professional confidence. NOTE: all publications and other practitioner scholarly activities must be undertaken with emphasis on quality and impact. Validating Professional Experience – A validating experience is an activity or accomplishment that is considered to add value to an independent third-party and is relevant to one’s area of expertise. Typically, the third-party has “purchased” the talent or expertise of a faculty member, either literally or by selecting the faculty member to perform a highly valued function. The rationale for a validating experience is that a faculty member possesses a certain degree of current knowledge, skill, or ability that is sought after by the business community or by others in academe.

83

Examples of validating experiences for professional qualification include, but are not limited to, the following:

1. Maintaining active, on-going consulting that involves ‘clients’ (ex. SBDC, VITA, Executive Education Seminars, member of a board of directors); consulting on an ad hoc basis is not sufficient to qualify here

2. Authoring reports (from sponsored research) that are widely disseminated 3. Publishing (and sustaining the publication of) a newsletter or sequence of reports 4. Operating or owning a business that is a significant contributor to one’s annual income

(not a hobby) 5. Obtaining new (and appropriate) discipline-relevant certification

Workload Standards for Practice Academics Practice Academics will be placed on a 3-4 or 4-3 schedule.

Scholarly Practitioners (SP)

To be classified as a Scholarly Practitioner, faculty members must satisfy both the initial academic preparation and professional experience requirements over the previous five years.

Initial Academic and Professional Preparation – Scholarly Practitioner faculty are required to hold at least a Master’s degree and significant professional experience prior to employment.

Academic and Professional Preparation Faculty members holding Scholarly Practitioner status will have obtained a non-terminal graduate degree in business or their primary field of teaching. This is defined as having received a Master’s degree in a field related to the area of the teaching assignment and the demonstration of professional experience relevant to the teaching assignment, significant in duration and level of responsibility, and current at the time of hiring. Professional Experience Requirements:

Research Proficiency – Over the previous five years, Scholarly Practitioners must publish a minimum of one (1) peer-reviewed research article in an academic journal and one (1) academic engagement activity in 5 years. (Acceptable academic journals include those indexed by leading bibliographic sources, are frequently cited, and are readily available to researchers through major academic libraries and the Internet. Normally, conference proceedings and non-peer-reviewed journals are not acceptable for this criterion.) A textbook, with significant national or international distribution, may substitute for a journal article.

Scholarly and Practitioner Academic Engagement Proficiency – broadens one’s engagement in the discipline and maintains currency in the field. Over the previous five years, Scholarly Practitioners must maintain active academic engagement as evidenced by the production of a minimum of one (1) academic engagement activities in 5 years such as:

1. Enrollment and coursework in an accredited doctoral program 2. Peer-reviewed or invited conference presentation (academic or practitioner conference)* 3. Publication of a conference proceedings paper(academic or practitioner conference)* 4. Publication of an original article in an edited volume 5. Publication or revision of a textbook

84

6. Publication of an authored or edited volume 7. Publication of original research in an open source, non-peer-reviewed, electronic journal 8. Publication of a business case study 9. Service as an editor, associate editor or editorial board member of an established

academic/practitioner-oriented journal or periodical 10. Publication of a book review in an academic or practitioners’ journal 11. Receipt of a peer-reviewed funded grant that that supports the FSU College of Business 12. Receipt or renewal of a discipline-relevant certification that enhances the classroom

and/or research and demonstrates professional competency 13. Service as an officer for an association or organization in one’s profession 14. Production of other scholarly or practitioner-oriented activities that demonstrate

currency or a high level of professional confidence**

* The same research paper cannot be counted twice ** The same type of academic engagement activity cannot be counted twice

NOTE: all publications and other scholarly activities must be undertaken with emphasis on quality and impact. Workload Standards for Scholarly Practitioners Scholarly Practitioners will be placed on a 3-4 or 4-3 schedule.

Instructional Practitioners (IP)

To be classified as an Instructional Practitioner, faculty members must satisfy both the initial academic preparation and professional experience requirements over the previous five years.

Initial Academic and Professional Preparation – Instructional Practitioner faculty are required to hold at least a Master’s degree and significant professional experience prior to employment.

Academic and Professional Preparation - Faculty members holding Instructional Practitioner status will have obtained a non-terminal graduate degree in business or their primary field of teaching. This is defined as having received a Master’s degree in a field related to the area of the teaching assignment and the demonstration of professional experience relevant to the teaching assignment, significant in duration and level of responsibility, and current at the time of hiring. Professional Experience Requirements: Research Proficiency – Over the previous five years, Instructional Practitioners will have maintained professional currency by completing two (2) activities during that 5 year period from either the practice academic engagement list and/or the validating professional experience list [lists below].

Practice Academic Engagement Proficiency – Over the previous five years, Instructional Practitioners complete two (2) activities from either of the following two lists:

85

Academic Engagement Activities:

1. Acceptance or publication of a peer-reviewed manuscript in a scholarly or practitioner-oriented journal

2. Peer-reviewed or invited conference presentation 3. Publication of a conference proceedings paper 4. Publication of an original article in a non-peer-reviewed journal or periodical 5. Publication of an original article in an edited volume 6. Publication or revision of a textbook 7. Publication of an authored or edited volume 8. Publication of original research in an open source, non-peer-reviewed, electronic journal 9. Publication of a business case study 10. Service as an editor, associate editor or editorial board member of an established journal

or periodical 11. Publication of a book review in an academic or practitioners’ journal 12. Receipt of a peer-reviewed funded grant that supports the FSU College of Business 13. Renewal of a discipline-relevant certification that enhances the classroom and/or

research and demonstrates professional competency 14. Service as an officer for an association or organization in one’s profession 15. Production of other practitioner-oriented scholarly work that demonstrates a high-level

of professional confidence. Validating Professional Experience Activities:

1. Enrollment and coursework in an accredited doctoral program 2. Maintaining active, on-going consulting that involves ‘clients’ (ex. SBDC, VITA,

Executive Education Seminars, member of a board of directors); consulting on an ad hoc basis is not sufficient to qualify here

3. Authoring reports (from sponsored research) that are widely disseminated 4. Publishing (and sustaining the publication of) a newsletter or sequence of reports 5. Operating or owning a business that is a significant contributor to one’s annual income

(not a hobby) 6. Obtaining new (and appropriate) discipline-relevant certification

NOTE: all academic and professional activities must be undertaken with emphasis on quality and impact. Workload Standards for Instructional Practitioners Instructional Practitioners will be placed on a 4-4 schedule.

‘Other’ Status

Documenting faculty qualification status requires the school to demonstrate faculty members are either: “Scholarly Academics,” “Practice Academics,” Scholarly Practitioners,” or “Instructional Practitioners.” Those individuals, who do not meet the criteria for these categories, will be classified as “Other.” These individuals must develop and pursue a professional development plan to achieve classification in one of the four categories (see ‘Implementation’ section).

86

Workload Standards for ‘Other’ classification: Those classified as ‘Other’ will be placed on a 4-4 schedule and required to create a Professional Development Plan.

Implementation of Faculty Categories – The appropriate qualification and engagement category for all FSU College of Business faculty members will be determined each spring semester. A determination of the appropriate category for each faculty member will be made by his or her department chair in consultation with the Dean’s Office. Annual performance reviews, current curriculum vitae, and other appropriate documentation provided by faculty members may be used in making a classification determination. Newly hired faculty members will be classified at the time of employment. Faculty category classification status and workload will be valid for the forthcoming academic year.

Faculty Professional Development Plan – A Faculty Development Plan must be created then pursued by only those individuals classified as “Other.” Those classified as “Other” do not meet the criteria for one of the four categories (“Scholarly Academics,” “Practice Academics,” Scholarly Practitioners,” or “Instructional Practitioners”). A Faculty Development Plan for those individuals classified as “Other” must consist of actionable professional activity and research goals followed by proposed activities to meet each goal. The plan is to be approved by the individual’s department chair. NOTE: the goals must be Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic, and Timely (S.M.A.R.T. goals). The desired end-result is to enhance professional development of the faculty member and move that individual to one of the four classification categories. NOTE: all professional development plans must emphasize quality and impact.

Graduate Faculty Membership

Membership on the College’s Graduate Faculty is required to teach graduate courses. 1. All faculty who meet CoB Standards of Qualifications for Scholarly Academics (SA),

Scholarly Practitioners (SP), and Practice Academics (PA) are eligible to be members of the Graduate Faculty.

2. Based on the College’s need, temporary membership may be requested by the Department Chair and approved by the Dean

87

Appendix C

Mission and Strategic Planning Documents

AACSB Prescribed Document

College of Business Strategic Plan o Section 1

Vision Statement

Mission Statement

Core Values

Teaching, Intellectual Contributions, and Service

o Section 2

Strategic Plan: Master Goals and Action Priorities

88

College of Business Strategic Plan

Vision Statement, Mission Statement, and Core Values PART 1: Vision Statement

FSUBusiness will be recognized for its high-quality academic and experiential learning programs.

PART 2: Mission Statement

FSUBusiness prepares students to successfully meet professional opportunities through a dynamic, student-centered educational environment that emphasizes leadership, notable and timely research, application of knowledge, and global experiential learning.

Mission Statement Components:

FSUBusiness emphasizes excellence in teaching through innovative approaches, small-class environment, caring faculty, and interactive focus.

FSUBusiness provides intellectual and professional development to students through coursework, research, and global experiential learning with a focus on leadership, ethical values, and community engagement.

FSUBusiness measures students’ learning outcomes to ensure continuous improvement and positive impact of its programs.

FSUBusiness engages business practitioners, alumni, students, and community and considers their input to enhance its programs.

FSUBusiness provides professional development opportunities for enhancement of faculty’s teaching skills, research capabilities, practical application, and global experiential learning.

PART 3: FSUBUSINESS Core Values

Accountability

Excellence

Fairness

Openness

Professionalism

Respect

Service

Teamwork

Transparency

Trust

PART 4: Teaching, Intellectual Contributions, and Service The faculty members of FSUBusiness are active in all three dimensions of teaching, intellectual contribution, and service. Faculty is expected to demonstrate excellence in teaching at all levels

89

offered in their department appropriate for their credentials and under a variety of circumstances. The research emphasis included in the College mission statement stresses the need for notable and timely intellectual contributions from faculty. Faculty service activities are expected in support of the University, College, department, and community. University policies address the relative weights given to each dimension. In addition, these policies reflect the understanding that faculty can contribute in different ways -- the total contributions of the entire faculty must meet University and College goals. Each faculty’s performance is evaluated within the following ranges:

Teaching 50-80 percent Intellectual Contributions 10-30 percent Service 5-25 percent

Collectively, FSUBusiness faculty members are productive in all three areas of intellectual contributions: basic or discovery scholarship, applied or integration/application scholarship, and teaching and learning scholarship. Given the mission of the College and its adherence to AACSB standards, emphases in all three areas of intellectual contributions are critical to the success of FSUBusiness. The goal is to have the College of Business faculty’s intellectual contributions be distributed in the following manner:

Basic or Discovery Scholarship (BDS) 40 percent Applied or Integration/application Scholarship (AIS) 40 percent Teaching and Learning Scholarship (TLS) 20 percent

Strategic Plan Master Goals and Action Priorities

Recommendations to chart FSUBusiness’ future can be grouped into six Master Goals with corresponding Action Priorities. Each define a consistent and efficient framework to help guide the organization as it strives to enhance learning, research, and service. These Master Goals are intended to set the broad course for FSUBusiness rather than provide specific programmatic direction; specific direction is provided by the Action Priorities. The Master Goals are that FSUBusiness will:

I. Deliver high-quality academic programs to students. II. Disseminate notable and timely research to the academic, business, and governmental

communities. III. Have a positive impact on business development and economic growth of the region. IV. Recruit, develop, and retain high-quality students, faculty, staff, and administrators. V. Engage stakeholders in collaborative relationships.

VI. Use innovative approaches to facilitate and support opportunities for development of ethical leadership and global experiential learning.

Note: these master goals serve as the link between the Vision, Mission, and Strategic Plan. All objectives and strategies contained within this Strategic Plan are grouped under these master goals.

90

MASTER GOAL I: Deliver high-quality academic programs to students.

ACTION PRIORITIES: A. Engage students in their own learning through innovative teaching methodologies,

programs, and content. B. Enhance faculty capabilities and support their efforts for greater teaching effectiveness. C. Encourage teaching innovation through faculty interactions at in-house presentations,

seminars, workshops, and conference participation. D. Ensure that advanced instructional technology is available and utilized by the faculty. E. Monitor student learning outcomes to ensure quality, rigor, critical thinking, and

currency through an effective Assurance of Learning program. F. Engage students in experiential learning activities including internships, applied projects,

study abroad, etc. G. Evaluate the feasibility of concentrations in the MBA program.

MASTER GOAL II: Disseminate notable and timely research to the academic, business, and governmental communities.

ACTION PRIORITIES: A. Provide an environment that nurtures and supports faculty research capabilities. B. Ensure availability of adequate technology, software, and databases to support faculty

research. C. Foster an environment conducive to interdisciplinary research and faculty-student

collaboration. D. Ensure qualifications of faculty according to College of Business’ standards of faculty

qualifications and engagement. MASTER GOAL III: Strive to have a positive impact on business development and economic growth of the region.

ACTION PRIORITIES: A.Encourage and facilitate engagement between students, faculty, alumni, the business

community, and government agencies.

B.Facilitate and support delivery of professional services to external constituencies through developmental workshops, contract research, and/or consulting.

MASTER GOAL IV: Recruit, develop, and retain high-quality students, faculty, staff, and administrators.

ACTION PRIORITIES: A. Recruit, develop, and retain high-quality students

1. Develop and implement new strategies to increase enrollment. 2. Ensure that students receive support for professional development and career

planning. 3. Provide opportunities for individual faculty-student interaction through academic

advising, student club activities, independent study opportunities, and developmental coursework.

91

4. Expand developmental opportunities for students through field trips, internships, academic conferences, guest speakers, faculty-led research projects, and global experiential learning programs.

B. Recruit, develop, and retain high-quality faculty, staff, and administrators 1. Recruit highly-qualified faculty, staff, and administrators with salaries

commensurate with comparable institutions. 2. Support and expand professional development opportunities. 3. Maintain and support the Faculty Mentoring Program. 4. Foster an environment conducive to teaching, learning, and intellectual

excitement. 5. Ensure that the evaluation process is fair and effective. 6. Ensure that the faculty renewal, promotion, sabbatical, and tenure processes are

fair and effective. 7. Foster a spirit of collegiality, cooperation, engagement and mutual respect as a

major component of FSUBusiness culture. 8. Value and promote diversity in the FSUBusiness team. 9. Maintain and support a Staff Development Committee.

MASTER GOAL V: Engage Stakeholders in collaborative relationships.

ACTION PRIORITIES: A. Maintain an effective CoB Advisory Board as an integral part of its strategic direction and

planning. B. Promote and facilitate students’ participation and involvement in the Student Advisory

Council and other College of Business committees. C. Ensure full-time faculty members’ participation in the governance of the College. D. Continue to engage and incorporate input from constituencies regarding FSUBusiness’

strategic direction and decision-making. E. Inform constituencies about the FSUBusiness through the College’s newsletter and website. F. Continue to improve communications among students, alumni, faculty, staff,

administrators, and the community. MASTER GOAL VI: Use innovative approaches to facilitate and support opportunities for development of ethical leadership and global experiential learning.

ACTION PRIORITIES: A. Expand global experiential learning opportunities for students, faculty, and staff. B. Develop and utilize strategic partnerships to enhance experiential learning. C. Expand leadership opportunities for students and faculty. D. Continue to support ethical leadership and global perspectives in business curricula.