ACBSP Accredited

ACBSP Standard 4: Continuous Improvement

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

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

Our Assessment Process

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

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

Transparency and Communication

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

 

Undergraduate: Measurement and Analysis of Student Learning and Performance

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

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

Program Learning Objective 1 (PLO 1)

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

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

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

Image Transcript

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

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

Data Breakdown

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

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

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

Image Transcript

Webster Average vs. ACBSP (Learning Objective 1)

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

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

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

Program Learning Objective 2 (PLO 2)

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

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

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

Image Transcript

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

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

Data Breakdown

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

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

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

Image Transcript

Webster Average vs. ACBSP (Learning Objective 2)

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

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

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

Program Learning Objective 3 (PLO 3)

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

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

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

Image Transcript

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

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

Data Breakdown

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

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

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

Image Transcript

Webster Average vs. ACBSP (Learning Objective 3)

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

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

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

Program Learning Objective 4 (PLO 4)

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

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

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

Image Transcript

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

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

Data Breakdown

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

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

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

Image Transcript

Webster Average vs. ACBSP (Learning Objective 4)

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

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

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

Program Learning Objective 5 (PLO 5)

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

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

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

Image Transcript

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

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

Data Breakdown

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

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

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

Image Transcript

Webster Average vs. ACBSP (Learning Objective 5)

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

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

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

 

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

  • 80% Benchmark: At least 80% of the students score in the 鈥淢edium鈥� or 鈥淗igh鈥� category on the multiple choice exam.

Program Learning Objective 1 (PLO 1)

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

Analysis of Results: PLO 1
Performance Measure 80% Benchmark
Instrument/Process Multiple choice test in three required upper-level finance courses. Direct, formative, internal.
Current Results Please see graph. PLO 1 is divided into 3 subcategories and are provided as 1a, 1b, and 1c.
Analysis of Results Learning outcome 1a: 鈥淪tudents can solve time value of money problems鈥� continues to show strong results staying above the 80% goal. We believe we are on track with this outcome. 1b: 鈥淪tudents can determine the value of fixed income securities鈥� finally meets the goal.  The trend has been worse over the last three years. 1c: 鈥淪tudents can determine the value of stock鈥� this measure has reached satisfactory level.
Action Taken or Improvement Made Results for PLO 1a remain strong and consistent with previous results. PLO 1b continues to be below the acceptible level. Results on bond pricing is stronger than mortgage valuation. Meanwhile, PLO 1c has finally met our goal. However, the raw data suggests that students in one class did very well on a question and poorly on the next question. We will examine the instrument to see if our assessment questions are working correctly. We initiated an online version of the assessment and this is the first trial using it, and there appears to be an error.
Insert Graphs or Tables of Resulting Trends

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

Image Transcript

Program Learning Outcome 1

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

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

Academic Year High (%) Medium (%) Low (%)
AY 19/20 ~74% ~10% ~16%
AY 20/21 ~62% ~13% ~25%
AY 21/22 ~73% ~13% ~14%
AY 22/23 ~67% ~33% ~0%
AY 23/24 ~67% ~33% ~0%
AY 24/25 ~81% ~11% ~8%
AY 25/26 ~74% ~21% ~5%
  • Summary: Combined performance (High + Medium) consistently meets or exceeds the 80% benchmark across all seven academic years, with 100% combined achievement reached in AY 22/23 and AY 23/24. High achievement alone surpassed the benchmark in AY 24/25.

PLO 1b Learning Performance Data: Value Fixed Income Securities

Academic Year High (%) Medium (%) Low (%)
AY 19/20 ~26% ~42% ~32%
AY 20/21 ~12% ~63% ~25%
AY 21/22 ~18% ~50% ~32%
AY 22/23 ~22% ~67% ~11%
AY 23/24 ~25% ~42% ~33%
AY 24/25 ~16% ~38% ~46%
AY 25/26 ~21% ~37% ~42%
  • Summary: Combined performance met the 80% benchmark in AY 22/23 (~89%). However, performance levels dropped over the last two cycles, falling below the target to ~54% in AY 24/25 and ~58% in AY 25/26.

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

Academic Year High (%) Medium (%) Low (%)
AY 19/20 ~11% ~26% ~63%
AY 20/21 ~50% ~12% ~38%
AY 21/22 ~32% ~40% ~28%
AY 22/23 ~11% ~67% ~22%
AY 23/24 ~0% ~75% ~25%
AY 24/25 ~19% ~54% ~27%
AY 25/26 ~11% ~78% ~11%
  • Summary: Combined performance shows an overall upward trajectory over time, successfully surpassing the 80% benchmark for the first time in AY 25/26 (~89%), primarily driven by a substantial increase in Medium-level performance (~78%).

Program Learning Objective 2 (PLO 2)

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

Analysis of Results: PLO 2
Performance Measure 80% Benchmark
Instrument/Process Multiple choice test in three required upper-level finance courses. Direct, formative, internal.
Current Results Please see graph. PLO 2 is divided into 3 subcategories and are provided as 2a, 2b, and 2c.
Analysis of Results Results for Learning Outcome 2a, on topics of NPV and IRR, were slightly below the 80% level. Results for Learning outcome 2b "Students can utilize ratio analysis to assess an organization's financial condition" shows some improvement. Results for the Learning Outcome 2c are much better after we adjusted the assessment questions to be a better specification of our outcome.
Action Taken or Improvement Made We adjusted some questions in regard to PLO 2b and 2c beginning in the 23/24 year.  Below our goal, there was no change in PLO 2a.  PLO 2b continues to bounce around, but is still below goal. 2c approaches our goal.
Insert Graphs or Tables of Resulting Trends

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

Image Transcript

Program Learning Outcome 2

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

PLO 2a Learning Performance Data

Academic Year High (%) Medium (%) Low (%)
AY 19/20 ~21% ~68% ~11%
AY 20/21 ~50% ~37% ~13%
AY 21/22 ~41% ~36% ~23%
AY 22/23 ~33% ~11% ~56%
AY 23/24 ~25% ~16% ~59%
AY 24/25 ~43% ~30% ~27%
AY 25/26 ~42% ~31% ~27%
  • Summary: Combined performance (High + Medium) met or exceeded the 80% benchmark from AY 19/20 through AY 21/22, followed by a significant decline in AY 22/23 and AY 23/24. While results rebounded over the last two cycles, combined achievement remains slightly below target at ~73% in AY 25/26.

PLO 2b Learning Performance Data

Academic Year High (%) Medium (%) Low (%)
AY 19/20 ~37% ~42% ~21%
AY 20/21 ~0% ~75% ~25%
AY 21/22 ~9% ~55% ~36%
AY 22/23 ~33% ~22% ~45%
AY 23/24 ~17% ~75% ~8%
AY 24/25 ~16% ~32% ~52%
AY 25/26 ~42% ~31% ~27%
  • Summary: Student achievement in this area has fluctuated, surpassing the 80% benchmark target in AY 23/24 (~92%). Following a drop in AY 24/25, combined performance improved in AY 25/26 (~73%), driven by a strong increase in High-level achievement (~42%).

PLO 2c Learning Performance Data

Academic Year High (%) Medium (%) Low (%)
AY 19/20 ~5% ~42% ~53%
AY 20/21 ~0% ~75% ~25%
AY 21/22 ~9% ~46% ~45%
AY 22/23 ~33% ~67% ~0%
AY 23/24 ~25% ~75% ~0%
AY 24/25 ~11% ~32% ~57%
AY 25/26 ~47% ~31% ~22%
  • Summary: Performance shows clear long-term improvement, achieving 100% combined success in both AY 22/23 and AY 23/24. After a downturn in AY 24/25, results rebounded strongly in AY 25/26, reaching ~78% combined performance and approaching the 80% benchmark.

Program Learning Objective 3 (PLO 3)

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

Analysis of Results: PLO 3
Performance Measure 80% Benchmark
Instrument/Process Multiple choice test in three required upper-level finance courses. Direct, formative, internal.
Current Results Please see graph. PLO 3 is divided into 2 subcategories and are provided as 3a and 3b.
Analysis of Results Learning Outcome 3a: 鈥淪tudents can identify determinants of interest rates and specify how they affect required returns of securities鈥� saw a slight increase in performance, but is just above the target. Learning Outcome 3b: 鈥淪tudents can estimate required rate of return鈥� is approaching the 80% goal.
Action Taken or Improvement Made Results for PLO 3a remain strong with students showing good understanding of the relation of interest rates to expectations of future rates and pricing.  We will see how results are in the next couple terms.  We changed the assessment to an online format for the first time and need a couple more results of students performance.
Insert Graphs or Tables of Resulting Trends

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

Image Transcript

Program Learning Outcome 3

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

PLO 3a Learning Performance Data

Academic Year High (%) Medium (%) Low (%)
AY 19/20 ~26% ~58% ~16%
AY 20/21 ~13% ~87% ~0%
AY 21/22 ~9% ~77% ~14%
AY 22/23 ~22% ~56% ~22%
AY 23/24 ~17% ~58% ~25%
AY 24/25 ~22% ~59% ~19%
AY 25/26 ~26% ~58% ~16%
  • Summary: Combined performance (High + Medium) consistently meets or exceeds the 80% benchmark across most cycles, achieving 100% in AY 20/21 and holding steady at ~84% in AY 25/26, despite slight dips near ~75鈥�78% in AY 22/23 and AY 23/24.

PLO 3b Learning Performance Data

Academic Year High (%) Medium (%) Low (%)
AY 19/20 ~11% ~21% ~68%
AY 20/21 ~0% ~25% ~75%
AY 21/22 ~5% ~27% ~68%
AY 22/23 ~11% ~33% ~56%
AY 23/24 ~0% ~42% ~58%
AY 24/25 ~3% ~40% ~57%
AY 25/26 ~37% ~42% ~21%
  • Summary: Performance experienced a prolonged period well below target, but demonstrates a dramatic upward trajectory over recent years. Driven by a major surge in High-level performance (~37%), total satisfactory results reached ~79% in AY 25/26, effectively meeting the 80% benchmark.

Program Learning Objective 4 (PLO 4)

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

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

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

Image Transcript

Program Learning Outcome 4

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

PLO 4 Learning Performance Data

Academic Year High (%) Medium (%) Low (%)
AY 19/20 ~52% ~22% ~26%
AY 20/21 ~50% ~50% ~0%
AY 21/22 ~54% ~37% ~9%
AY 22/23 ~55% ~45% ~0%
AY 23/24 ~67% ~25% ~8%
AY 24/25 ~46% ~24% ~30%
AY 25/26 ~74% ~15% ~11%
  • Summary: Performance for this outcome consistently performs at a strong level, meeting or surpassing the 80% benchmark in six of the seven academic years鈥攊ncluding 100% combined success in AY 20/21 and AY 22/23. Following a brief drop to ~70% in AY 24/25, performance rebounded strongly in AY 25/26, reaching ~89% combined achievement driven by a peak in High-level performance (~74%).

 

Graduate Programs: Measurement and Analysis of Student Learning and Performance

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

  • 80% Benchmark: At least 80% of the students score in the 鈥淢oderate鈥� or 鈥淕ood鈥� category on the the assessment case study.

Program Learning Objective 1 (PLO 1)

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

Analysis of Results: PLO 1
Performance Measure 80% Benchmark
Instrument/Process The instrument used is the Week 4 Outline and Annotated Bibliography assignment in the capstone course, HRMG 6000, which is a direct, formative, and internal instrument. This assignment requires students to summarize and evaluate peer-reviewed HR literature in an annotated bibliography and organize their final project plan into a formal outline, directly evidencing command of HR terminology, concepts, and theories. Ten students were assessed in Fall 1 2025 (OA), 21 students were assessed in Fall 2 of 2025 (QA), and 13 students were assessed in Spring 2 of 2026 (QA).
Current Results As the chart indicates, results for PLO 1 were mixed across the current assessment cycle. In Fall 1 and 2 2025 we saw section averages of 80% (OA) and 95.2% (QA) of students achieving 鈥渕oderate鈥� or 鈥済ood鈥� on this learning outcome. In Spring 2 2026 we saw 76.9% of students achieve 鈥渕oderate鈥� or 鈥済ood,鈥� falling below our 80% goal.
Analysis of Results While the Fall 2 2025 QA section exceeded our goal, the Fall 1 2025 OA and Spring 2026 QA sections fell at or below the 80% threshold, indicating inconsistent student command of HR terminology, concepts, and theories at the literature-review stage of the capstone project.
Action Taken or Improvement Made We will review the Week 4 Outline and Annotated Bibliography assignment guidance and rubric to ensure expectations for literature engagement are clear, and will consider adding an early formative check-in or exemplar annotated bibliography to better scaffold this skill before the Outline is due.
Insert Graphs or Tables of Resulting Trends

A bar chart displaying Moderate/Good student performance for PLO1 during the 2025-2026 academic year.

Image Transcript

MA Human Resources Management PLO 1

Description: A bar chart displaying student performance at Moderate or Good levels for Program Learning Objective 1 across three terms during the 2025-2026 academic year. Each section is color-coded: blue for Fall 1 2025 (OA), orange for Fall 2 2025 (QA), and grey for Spring 2 2026 (QA).

Section Percent Moderate or Good
Fall 1 2025 80.0%
Fall 2 2025 95.2%
Spring 2 2026 76.9%
  • Summary: Student achievement peaked in Fall 2 2025 (QA) at 95.2%, following a solid baseline performance of 80% in Fall 1 2025 (OA). Performance experienced a slight dip in Spring 2 2026 (QA), dropping to 76.9%.

Program Learning Objective 2 (PLO 2)

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

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

Analysis of Results: PLO 2
Performance Measure 80% Benchmark
Instrument/Process The instrument used is the Week 8 Final Case Study (Northrop Grumman) assignment in the capstone course, HRMG 6000, which is a direct, summative, and internal instrument. This assignment requires students to analyze a real-world HR/M&A scenario and apply relevant HR concepts and theories to evaluate the organization's practices and support recommendations with outside references, directly evidencing the application sub-criteria of this outcome (2a, 2b, 2c). Ten students were assessed in Fall 1 2025 (OA), 21 students were assessed in Fall 2 2025 (QA), and 13 students were assessed in Spring 2 2026 (QA).
Current Results Results for PLO 2 were strong and consistent across the cycle. Section averages of 100% of students achieved 鈥渕oderate鈥� or 鈥済ood鈥� on this learning outcome.
Analysis of Results All sections assessed exceeded our goal of 80% of students achieving 鈥渕oderate鈥� or 鈥済ood,鈥� indicating students are effectively applying HR concepts and theories when analyzing the Final Case Study.
Action Taken or Improvement Made No corrective action is needed at this time. We will continue to monitor performance on this outcome to ensure it remains strong and that the case materials remain rigorous.
Insert Graphs or Tables of Resulting Trends

A bar chart displaying Moderate or Good performance for three sub-objectives of PLO 2 during 2025-2026 academic year.

Image Transcript

MA Human Resources Management PLO 2

Description: A bar chart displaying Moderate or Good student performance for three sub-objectives of PLO 2 (2A, 2B, and 2C) across three term sections during the 2025鈥�2026 academic year. Each section is color-coded: blue for Fall 1 2025 (OA), orange for Fall 2 2025 (QA), and grey for Spring 2 2026 (QA).

Section Percent Moderate or Good
Fall 1 2025 100.0%
Fall 2 2025 100.0%
Spring 2 2026 100.0%
  • Summary: Student achievement in Program Learning Objective 2 remained outstanding, with 100% of students achieving a "Moderate or Good" rating across all three sections in the 2025鈥�2026 academic year.

Program Learning Objective 3 (PLO 3)

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

Analysis of Results: PLO 3
Performance Measure 80% Benchmark
Instrument/Process The instrument used is the Week 9 Final Paper assignment in the capstone course, HRMG 6000, which is a direct, summative, and internal instrument. This capstone paper requires students to integrate HR concepts, theories, and evidence from multiple sources into a cohesive analysis, including a dedicated recommendations chapter, directly evidencing the ability to synthesize material into an original, evidence-based, actionable solution. Ten students were assessed in Fall 1 2025 (OA), 21 students were assessed in Fall 2 2025 (QA), and 13 students were assessed in Spring 2 2026 (QA).
Current Results Results for PLO 3 showed improvement over the cycle. In Fall 1 and 2 2025 we saw section averages of 90% (OA) and 100% (QA) of students achieving 鈥渕oderate鈥� or 鈥済ood.鈥� In Spring 2 2026, 100% of students achieved 鈥渕oderate鈥� or 鈥済ood.鈥�
Analysis of Results All sections assessed met or exceeded our goal of 80%, with the most recent section (Spring 2 2026) reaching full attainment, suggesting students are increasingly able to integrate HR concepts and theory into actionable, evidence-based recommendations in the Final Paper.
Action Taken or Improvement Made We will continue to reinforce the recommendations chapter requirement in the Final Paper guidance, as it appears to be effectively driving integrative thinking.
Insert Graphs or Tables of Resulting Trends

A bar chart displaying Moderate or Good student performance for PLO3 during the 2025-2026 academic year.

Image Transcript

MA Human Resources Management PLO 3

Description: A bar chart displaying student performance at Moderate or Good levels for Program Learning Objective 3 across three terms during the 2025-2026 academic year. Each section is color-coded: blue for Fall 1 2025 (OA), orange for Fall 2 2025 (QA), and grey for Spring 2 2026 (QA).

Section Percent Moderate or Good
Fall 1 2025 90.0%
Fall 2 2025 100.0%
Spring 2 2026 100.0%
  • Summary: Student performance for Program Learning Objective 3 remained exceptionally high throughout the 2025鈥�2026 academic year. After starting with a strong 90% achievement rate in Fall 1 2025 (OA), results peaked at 100% across both the Fall 2 2025 (QA) and Spring 2 2026 (QA) sections.

Program Learning Objective 1 (PLO 1)

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

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

  • 60% Benchmark: 60% overall mean post-test score (met) and significant improvement over mean pre-test score (met).
    • At least 70% of students scoring 60% and above (met).
    • Overall mean score equal to or above the national mean score (met).

Analysis of Results: PLO 1
Performance Measure 60% Benchmark
Instrument/Process Capsim ModExam Test 鈥� direct, formative, external, comparative.
Current Results All four goals met, several by the widest margin in five years. Posttest mean 80.70% (goal: 60%). Exceeded national mean (65.76%) by 14.94 pts. 89.3% of students scored 鈮�60% (goal: 70%). Posttest exceeded pretest by only +0.20 pts 鈥� pretest itself jumped to 80.50%.
Analysis of Results Improvement was broad-based 鈥� every score threshold rose vs. 24-25, with the top end (>90%) nearly tripling to 38.2%. But the pretest mean rose 17.5 pts over last year, nearly closing the pre/post gap. Possible causes: stronger incoming cohort, instrument/administration change, or an emerging ceiling effect (pretest was also volatile in 23-24).
Action Taken or Improvement Made Continued emphasis on decision-making instruction consistent with prior curriculum work; program performance remains well above goal and the national benchmark. Assessment will continue to be monitored as part of ongoing program review.
Insert Graphs or Tables of Resulting Trends

A line graph tracking student performance percentages for PLO1 over five academic years.

Image Transcript

PLO 1 Results

Description: A line graph tracking student performance percentages over five academic years. The chart compares the program's Posttest score (blue line), Pretest score (orange line), and National Mean (grey line) against a 60% Benchmark Goal (yellow horizontal line).

Academic Year Posttest (%) Pretest (%) National Mean (%)
AY 21/22 58.5% 55.5% 57.5%
AY 22/23 62.3% 51.5% 57.5%
AY 23/24 61.0% 61.5% 57.5%
AY 24/25 69.0% 70.5% 62.0%
AY 25/26 80.7% 80.5% 65.8%

Trend Summary: Student performance met all target goals for AY 25-26, with the Posttest mean reaching 80.70%, exceeding the 60% benchmark goal and outperforming the national mean (65.76%) by nearly 15 percentage points. While both pretest and posttest scores have shown strong upward trajectories over the five-year period, the pretest mean rose substantially in recent cycles (80.50% in 25-26), nearly closing the pre/post performance gap.

Program Learning Objective 2 (PLO 2)

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

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

  • 60% Benchmark: 60% overall mean post-test score (met) and significant improvement over mean pre-test score (met).
    • At least 70% of students scoring 60% and above (met).
    • Overall mean score equal to or above the national mean score (met).

Analysis of Results: PLO 2
Performance Measure 60% Benchmark
Instrument/Process Capsim ModExam 鈥� direct, formative, external, comparative.
Current Results All goals met, each by the widest margin in five years. Posttest mean 84.90% (goal: 60%). Exceeded national mean (74.15%) by 10.75 pts 鈥� the first year leading the national comparator by a wide margin. 95.7% of students scored 鈮�60% (goal: 70%).
Analysis of Results Improvement was broad-based across the score distribution, and this is the first year the program has decisively led the national mean after trailing it in three of the prior four years.
Action Taken or Improvement Made Continued emphasis on decision-making and strategic problem-solving instruction consistent with prior curriculum work; program performance remains well above goal and the national benchmark. Assessment will continue to be monitored as part of ongoing program review.
Insert Graphs or Tables of Resulting Trends

A line graph tracking student performance percentages for PLO 2 over five academic years.

Image Transcript

PLO 2 Results

Description: A line graph tracking student performance percentages over five academic years. The chart compares the program's Posttest score (blue line), Pretest score (orange line), and National Mean (grey line) against a 60% Benchmark Goal (yellow horizontal line).

Academic Year Posttest (%) Pretest (%) National Mean (%)
AY 21/22 58.5% 58.0% 67.3%
AY 22/23 64.3% 56.0% 67.3%
AY 23/24 66.7% 66.7% 70.5%
AY 24/25 74.0% 74.0% 73.0%
AY 25/26 85.0% 84.5% 74.2%

Trend Summary: Student performance for PLO 2 demonstrates a consistent upward trajectory over the five-year period. Combined scores have steadily climbed well above the 60% benchmark goal since AY 22-23, ultimately reaching a peak of ~85% in AY 25-26 and surpassing the national mean (~74.2%). Similar to PLO 1, pretest performance has tracked almost identically with posttest scores in recent cycles.

Program Learning Objective 3 (PLO 3)

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

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

  • 60% Benchmark: 60% overall mean post-test score (met) and significant improvement over mean pre-test score (met).
    • At least 70% of students scoring 60% and above (met).
    • Overall mean score equal to or above the national mean score (met).

Analysis of Results: PLO 3
Performance Measure 60% Benchmark
Instrument/Process Capsim ModExam 鈥� direct, formative, external, comparative.
Current Results All goals fully met in 25-26 (a change from 24-25, when the 70%-above-60% goal was only partially met at 68%). Posttest mean 79.00% (goal: 60%). Exceeded national mean (68.35%) by 10.65 pts. 91.4% of students scored 鈮�60%.
Analysis of Results  Improvement was broad-based across the score distribution, resolving the shortfall from 24-25.
Action Taken or Improvement Made Continued the BUSN 5100 revision undertaken to better align the course with this learning outcome; performance now exceeds both the internal goal and the national benchmark by the widest margin on record.
Insert Graphs or Tables of Resulting Trends

A line graph tracking student performance percentages for PLO 3 over five academic years.

Image Transcript

MA Management and Leadership PLO 3

Description: A line graph tracking student performance percentages over five academic years. The chart compares the program's Posttest score (blue line), Pretest score (orange line), and National Mean (grey line) against a 60% Benchmark Goal (yellow horizontal line).

Academic Year Posttest (%) Pretest (%) National Mean (%)
AY 21/22 60.0% 54.2% 58.0%
AY 22/23 61.8% 52.5% 58.0%
AY 23/24 64.5% 60.0% 65.0%
AY 24/25 68.5% 70.5% 66.7%
AY 25/26 78.8% 79.2% 68.3%

Trend Summary: Performance for PLO 3 has consistently met or exceeded the 60.00% benchmark goal across all five academic years. Both pretest and posttest scores have shown significant growth since AY 22-23, reaching peak levels of nearly 79% in AY 25-26 and comfortably outperforming the national mean (~68.3%).

Program Learning Objective 4 (PLO 4)

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

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

  • 60% Benchmark: 60% overall mean post-test score (met) and significant improvement over mean pre-test score (met).
    • At least 70% of students scoring 60% and above (met).
    • Overall mean score equal to or above the national mean score (met).

Analysis of Results: PLO 4
Performance Measure 60% Benchmark
Instrument/Process Capsim ModExam 鈥� direct, formative, external, comparative.
Current Results All four goals met for the first time in six years of data. Posttest mean 74.47% (goal: 60%). Exceeded national mean (55.16%) by 19.31 pts. 76.6% of students scored 鈮�60% (goal: 70%). Posttest exceeded pretest by +4.68 pts, a genuine positive gain.
Analysis of Results This is a genuine turnaround after trailing the national mean and the 60% goal in every prior period on record; improvement was broad-based across the score distribution. Note: an alternate item-level averaging method gives a different reading (pretest 77.01% / posttest 71.50%, a negative gap) due to PLO4鈥檚 small and uneven semester sample sizes 鈥� worth settling on one standard aggregation method going forward.
Action Taken or Improvement Made Continued investment in the curriculum area supporting this outcome; 25-26 marks the first year all four goal criteria were met. Assessment will continue to be monitored as part of ongoing program review.
Insert Graphs or Tables of Resulting Trends

A line graph tracking student performance percentages for PLO 4 over five academic years.

Image Transcript

MA Management and Leadership PLO 4

Description: A line graph tracking student performance percentages over five academic years. The chart compares the program's Posttest score (blue line), Pretest score (orange line), and National Mean (grey line) against a 60% Benchmark Goal (yellow horizontal line).

Academic Year Posttest (%) Pretest (%) National Mean (%)
F2020 47.3% 39.8% 51.2%
S2021 43.5% 36.5% 51.2%
F2021 44.0% 39.8% 51.2%
S2022 40.8% 36.8% 51.2%
F2022 45.2% 35.5% 51.2%
S2023 43.3% 36.8% 51.2%
AY 24/25 51.2% NA 52.5%
AY 25/26 74.5% NA 55.2%

Trend Summary: After a prolonged period of remaining below both the national mean and the 60.00% benchmark goal from F2020 through S2023 (averaging ~40鈥�47%), student performance on PLO 4 experienced a sharp upward surge in recent cycles. In AY 25-26, the posttest score jumped significantly to ~74.5%, successfully surpassing both the national benchmark (~55.2%) and the target goal line. Pretest data collection ceased following the S2023 term.

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

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

Program Learning Objective 1 (PLO 1)

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

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

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

Image Transcript

MA PROC - PLO 1: Student Learning Results

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

Program Learning Objective 2 (PLO 2)

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

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

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

Image Transcript

MA PROC - PLO 2: Student Learning Results

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

Program Learning Objective 3 (PLO 3)

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

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

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

Image Transcript

MA PROC - PLO 3: Student Learning Results

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

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

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

Program Learning Objective 1 (PLO 1)

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

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

Insert Graphs or Tables of Resulting Trends

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

Image Transcript

Peregrine Pre-Test Percentile Rank

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

Data Breakdown

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

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

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

Image Transcript

Score Strategy

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

Data Breakdown

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

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

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

Image Transcript

Pairwise Strategy

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

Data Breakdown

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

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

Program Learning Objective 2 (PLO 2)

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

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

Insert Graphs or Tables of Resulting Trends

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

Image Transcript

PLO 2 Performance

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

Data Breakdown

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

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

Image Transcript

Score by Subject

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

Data Breakdown

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

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

Image Transcript

Pairwise by Subject

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

Data Breakdown

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

Program Learning Objective 3 (PLO 3)

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

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

Insert Graphs or Tables of Resulting Trends

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

Image Transcript

PLO 3 Performance

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

Data Breakdown

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

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

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

Image Transcript

Score Finance

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

Data Breakdown

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

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

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

Image Transcript

Pairwise Finance

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

Data Breakdown

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

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

Program Learning Objective 4 (PLO 4)

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

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

Insert Graphs or Tables of Resulting Trends

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

Image Transcript

PLO 4 Performance

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

Data Breakdown

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

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

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

Image Transcript

Score Ethics

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

Data Breakdown

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

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

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

Image Transcript

Pairwise Ethics

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

Data Breakdown

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

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

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

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

Program Learning Objective 1 (PLO 1)

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

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

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

Image Transcript

Outbound Avg. vs. Benchmark (Learning Objective 1)

Description: A clustered column and line chart comparing 91短视频's average outbound scores (blue columns) against a consistent external benchmark (red columns) for the years 2020, 2021 and 2022. A green line tracks the number of students (n) on a secondary Y-axis.

Assessment Performance Data

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

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

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

Image Transcript

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

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

Data Breakdown

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

Program Learning Objective 2 (PLO 2)

Objective: Students will be able to apply fundamental healthcare management skills to problem-solving,鈥痙ecision-making,鈥痯lanning,鈥痙elegation,鈥痗ommunication and鈥痶ime management.

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

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

Image Transcript

Outbound Avg. vs. Benchmark (Learning Objective 2)

Description: This chart is a clustered column and line graph comparing 91短视频's average outbound scores (blue columns) to an external benchmark (red columns) for the years 2020, 2021 and 2022. A green line tracks the student sample size (n) on the secondary Y-axis (right side).

Assessment Performance Data

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

Trend Summary: 91短视频 consistently outperformed the benchmark in 2020 and 2021, but saw a decline in 2022, falling below the institutional benchmark. The number of students participating in the assessment peaked in 2021 before returning to levels similar to 2020 in the following year.

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

Image Transcript

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

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

Data Breakdown

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

Program Learning Objective 3 (PLO 3)

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

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

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

Image Transcript

Outbound Avg. vs. Benchmark (Learning Objective 3)

Description: This visualization is a clustered column and line chart comparing 91短视频's average outbound scores (blue columns) against an external benchmark (red columns) for the years 2020, 2021 and 2022. A green line tracks the student sample size (n) on a secondary Y-axis (right side).

Assessment Performance Data

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

Trend Summary: 91短视频 scores remained above the benchmark in 2020 and 2021 but saw a notable decrease in 2022, dropping below the comparison benchmark. Student participation peaked in 2021 before decreasing by more than half in 2022.

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

Image Transcript

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

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

Data Breakdown

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

 

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

  • Peregrine Test: Pre and Post.

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

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

Image Transcript

Peregrine Pre-Test Average

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

Performance Data

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

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

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

Image Transcript

Peregrine Pre-Test Percentile Rank

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

Percentile Data

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

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

 

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

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

Program Learning Objective 1 (PLO 1)

Objective: Students can determine the value of financial assets.

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

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

Image Transcript

LO1: Asset Valuation Pairwise Results By Year

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

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

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

Image Transcript

MSF AY21/22 Learning Objective 1 by Location

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

Outcome 1.1

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

Outcome 1.2

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

Outcome 1.3

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

 

Program Learning Objective 2 (PLO 2)

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

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

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

Image Transcript

LO2: Financial Decisions Pairwise Results By Year

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

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

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

Image Transcript

MSF AY21/22 Learning Objective 2 by Location

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

Outcome 2.1

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

Outcome 2.2

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

Outcome 2.3

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

Outcome 2.4

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

Program Learning Objective 3 (PLO 3)

Objective: Students can evaluate credit and interest rate risk.

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

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

Image Transcript

LO3: Risk and Return Pairwise Results By Year

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

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

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

Image Transcript

MSF AY21/22 Learning Objective 3 by Location

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

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

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

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

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

Program Learning Objective 1 (PLO 1)

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

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

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

Image Transcript

MA Information Technology Management PLO 1

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

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

Program Learning Objective 2 (PLO 2)

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

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

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

Image Transcript

MA Information Technology Management PLO 2

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

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

Program Learning Objective 3 (PLO 3)

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

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

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

Image Transcript

MA Information Technology Management PLO 3

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

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

Program Learning Objective 1 (PLO 1)

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

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

  • 70% Benchmark: 70% overall mean score and at least 70% of students scoring 70%. Overall mean score should be on par with National mean score.
    • Stretch goal: 75% overall mean score and at least 70% of students scoring 80%. Overall mean score significantly above the National mean score.

Analysis of Results: PLO 1
Performance Measure 70% Benchmark
Instrument/Process Capsim ModExam 鈥� direct, formative, external, comparative.
Current Results

The minimal goals were met:

  • Overall mean is 73.87%, essentially flat versus 74.19% (AY24-25), and exceeds the national average (68.63%).
  • Overall mean exceeds the 70.0% metric, and for the first time 75% of students scored at least 70%, meeting the 70%-of-students benchmark.

The stretch goals were partially met:

  • Overall mean (73.87%) remains above national (68.63%), though the margin narrowed as national norms rose.
  • Overall mean does not reach the 75% metric, but 75% of students scored at least 80% (up from 0% in AY24-25), meeting that portion of the stretch goal. 
Analysis of Results

The most notable development this cycle is distributional. For the first time, the program met its internal benchmark of at least 70% of students scoring above 70%: 75% of students cleared that bar, up from 67% in AY24-25. The share scoring above 80% also rose sharply, from 0% to 75%. No student reached the 90% threshold. These gains are encouraging but must be weighed against the small cohort.

At the item level, 14 of 26 concepts improved year over year, 11 held steady, and only 1 declined, a marked reversal from AY23-24, when 13 concepts fell. Eight of 26 concepts remained below their national norm, fewer than in prior cycles, while the national norms themselves rose (overall national average of 68.63%, up from 65.47%), narrowing Webster's margin.

Areas of Strength

  1. Sustained mastery. Competitive Positioning, Forecasting, Unstructured Interviews, Differentiation Strategy, and Crowdsourcing all posted 100% post-test scores with positive Web-Nat margins.
  2. Recovery in previously flagged areas. Building a SWOT Analysis turned positive (Web-Nat +15.7%) after three years below national. Content Analysis in Qualitative Research recovered to parity (from -46.8% to roughly 0%). Identifying Why SWOT Analyses Are Used and Product-Attribute Analytical Procedures rebounded strongly, with post-test scores up 100% and 200% year over year.
  3. Largest relative margin. Understanding Strategic Alternatives posted the widest Web-Nat gap (+65.4%), reflecting solid Webster performance against a very low national norm (17.3%).

Areas for Improvement

These concepts stayed below national norms in both AY24-25 and AY25-26 and warrant continued attention:

  1. Understanding Concepts in Strategic Performance. The clearest persistent gap: Web-Nat deepened from -70.7% to -83.7% on flat post-test performance.
  2. Understanding a SWOT Analysis. Improved from -106.6% to -82.0%, but still well below national.
  3. Concentration vs. Diversification and Analyzing for International Opportunities. Both improved materially (post-test up 33% each) yet remain below national (-65.8% and -58.6%).
  4. Identifying the Steps in the Marketing Research Process. Still above national (+14.0%) but down 50% year over year, a trend to monitor.
  5. Multi-segment Targeting and Understanding Porter's Five Forces. Marginally below national (-12.7% and -6.4%) and broadly stable.

The overall pattern is one of broad but fragile improvement: several previously flagged concepts recovered, the score distribution shifted upward, and only the Strategic Performance cluster shows a widening gap. Given the small sample, these results are best treated as directional rather than definitive.
Action Taken or Improvement Made

Actions to Overcome Challenges

  1. Strategic-Analysis Cluster (priority) Persistent gaps now concentrate in strategy concepts: Strategic Performance, SWOT interpretation, Concentration vs. Diversification, and International Opportunities. Make sure these topics are emphasized earlier and reinforce them through case-based application, with particular focus on Strategic Performance, where the gap widened.
  2. Monitor Emerging Slippage Track Identifying the Steps in the Marketing Research Process, which fell 50% year over year despite remaining above national, along with the marginal Multi-segment Targeting and Porter's Five Forces items. Hopefully, this is not a trend.

Actions to Leverage Current Success

  1. Peer-Assisted Learning Use instructor peer discussions to create consistency and reinforce strong teaching/learning methods.through sharing effective practices.
  2. Expand Effective Teaching Practices Analyze the methods behind the recovered and high-performing modules (interactive lectures, applied exercises, multimedia aids) and extend them to the strategy cluster.
  3. Curriculum Alignment and Integration Develop integrated projects that pair strong and weak concepts so students reinforce learning through application, and use ongoing student feedback to make targeted adjustments.
Insert Graphs or Tables of Resulting Trends

Line graph tracking student performance for Program Learning Objective 1 across five academic cycles

Image Transcript

MRKT PLO1 Avg. Scores

Description: A line graph tracking student performance for Program Learning Objective 1 across five academic cycles. The chart compares Post-test scores (black line with blue squares), Pre-test scores (light blue line with triangles), and the National Average (solid red line) against a Benchmark Goal of 70% (dashed red line with red Xs).

Data Series Post-test Pre-test National Avg.
AY21/22 (1) 72.5% 56.1% 65.2%
AY21/22 (2) 77.3% 54.6% 64.8%
AY22/23 73.6% 55.2% 64.1%
AY23/24 71.1% 55.0% 64.0%
AY24/25 74.2% 63.4% 65.4%

Key Takeaway: Post-test scores consistently exceed both the benchmark goal of 70 and the national average across all five measurement periods. Following a gradual decline from 2021-22ay through 2023-24ay, post-test performance rebounded to ~74.2 in 2024-25ay. Notably, pre-test scores experienced a sharp rise in 2024-25ay, narrowing the gap between pre- and post-test results.

Program Learning Objective 2 (PLO 2)

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

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

  • 55% Benchmark: Overall mean score should be on par with National mean score 鈥� 55% overall mean score and at least 70% of students scoring 50%.
    • Stretch goal: Overall mean score significantly above the National mean score 鈥� 60% overall mean score and at least 50% of students scoring 70%.

Analysis of Results: PLO 2
Performance Measure 55% Benchmark
Instrument/Process Capsim ModExam 鈥� direct, formative, external, comparative.
Current Results

The average post-test score for PLO2 in 2025-26 was 55.45%, down from 58.6% in 2024-25 (a year-over-year decline of about 5.4%) and still below the program goal of 60%. For the first time in this reporting window the overall mean also fell below the national average (57.05%): Webster's score declined while national norms rose from 54.15% to 57.05%, flipping a prior margin of roughly +4.5 points to about -1.6 points.

As in the prior cycle, the cohort is very small (n=3 as recorded), which limits generalizability and the reliability of year-over-year comparisons. The distribution softened at the top: 75% of students scored at least 50% (down from 100%), 50% scored at least 60% (up from 33%), and no student reached the 70% threshold for a second consecutive cycle. Item-level results point to a concentrated weakness in quantitative and statistical concepts, several of which registered 0% post-test performance.
Analysis of Results

PLO2 results declined in 2025-26. The overall post-test mean fell to 55.45% from 58.6%, dropping below both the 60% program goal and, for the first time in this window, the national average (57.05%). The decline reflects both lower Webster performance and rising national norms. With only three students recorded, these figures should be read as directional rather than conclusive.

At the item level the picture is mixed: 15 of 25 concepts met or exceeded their national norm, but the 10 that fell below cluster heavily in quantitative and statistical topics.

Areas of Strength

Several concepts reached 100% post-test performance, well above national norms:

  1. Computing the Retail Price of a Product rose sharply from 25% to 100%, the largest year-over-year gain, moving well above the national average.
  2. Consumer Behavior, Integrated Marketing Communications, Personal Selling and Advertising, New-product Development, and the Three Levels of Distribution Intensity each improved to 100%.
  3. Measures of Central Tendency and Understanding Correlation held at 100%, the two consistently strong quantitative items.

Areas for Improvement

The weaknesses concentrate in quantitative and analytical concepts, several scoring 0% this cycle:

  1. Calculating Contribution Margins and Interpreting Multiple Regression both scored 0% post-test, continuing multi-year underperformance against national norms.
  2. Conducting a Break-Even Analysis fell from 25% to 0%, the largest year-over-year decline, and remains below national. This is notable given how broadly break-even analysis is used across the program.
  3. Understanding Multiple Regression Formulas (38% vs 78% national) and Calculating with Basic Data Sets (38% vs 61%) remain well below national, despite a strong year-over-year gain on the latter.
  4. Calculating Confidence Intervals (12.5% vs 30% national) and Understanding Linear Regression (25% vs 42%) remain weak areas of statistical interpretation.
  5. Understanding the Role of a Marketing Manager stayed at 50%, below national (63%). This foundational concept has now sat below national for multiple cycles and continues to warrant a look at the item's alignment with the construct.

The through-line is quantitative reasoning: statistics, regression, margins, and break-even analysis are the consistent soft spots, while conceptual and strategy items (channels, distribution, IMC, consumer behavior) are strengths. The drop below national this cycle, combined with the small sample, makes PLO2 the clearest priority for both instructional attention and measurement review.
Action Taken or Improvement Made

The Role of a Marketing Manager item remains below national, and it is hard to imagine graduates lacking a grasp of this role. We will continue to review the validity of this measure on the Capsim ModExam against how we define marketing-manager roles, and decide whether to have Capsim revise the item, remove it, or revise our own definition.

The clearer and more consequential pattern this cycle is weakness in quantitative and analytical concepts.

Curriculum and Instructional Design

  • Prioritize the quantitative cluster: contribution margins, break-even analysis, regression (linear and multiple), confidence intervals, and basic data sets. Rebuild these with worked, data-driven exercises and reinforce them earlier and more often across the program.
  • Refresh conceptual content with current examples, interactive content, and real cases, sustaining the strong results in channels, distribution, IMC, and consumer behavior.

Enhanced Teaching Methods

  • Use industry-standard analytical and statistical tools so students apply quantitative concepts in realistic scenarios rather than in the abstract.

Collaborative Learning and Peer Engagement

  • Continue case studies and role-playing (for example, taking a reseller's perspective) to build applied understanding across stakeholder viewpoints.
Insert Graphs or Tables of Resulting Trends

A line graph comparing average scores for Program Learning Objective 2 across five academic cycles.

Image Transcript

MRKT PLO2 Avg. Scores

Description: A line graph tracking student performance for Program Learning Objective 2 across five academic cycles. The chart compares Post-test scores (black line with blue squares), Pre-test scores (light blue line with triangles), and the National Average (solid red line with diamonds) against a Benchmark Goal of 60% (dashed red line).

Data Series Post-test Pre-test National Avg.
AY21/22 (1) 65.2% 46.0% 54.4%
AY21/22 (2) 61.1% 43.5% 53.2%
AY22/23 57.5% 43.1% 53.3%
AY23/24 59.3% 43.5% 53.3%
AY24/25 58.6% 50.0% 54.1%
AY25/26 55.5% N/A 57.1%

Key Takeaway: Post-test performance shows an overall downward trend after exceeding the 60 benchmark goal in both 2021-22ay measurement periods. From 2022-23ay onward, post-test scores remained slightly below target, ultimately dipping to ~55.5 in 2025-2026 and falling below the rising national average (~57.1). Pre-test data collection showed notable improvement in 2024-25ay (~50.0) before being omitted in 2025-2026.

 

Program Learning Objective 3 (PLO 3)

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

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

  • 65% Benchmark: Overall mean score should be on par with National mean score 鈥� 65% overall mean score and at least 70% of students scoring 80%.
    • Stretch goal: Overall mean score significantly above the National mean score 鈥� 75% overall mean score and at least 70% of students scoring 85%.

Analysis of Results: PLO 3
Performance Measure 65% Benchmark
Instrument/Process Capsim ModExam 鈥� direct, formative, external, comparative.
Current Results

PLO3 post-test performance fell sharply in 2025-26 to 45.71%, down from 70.83% in 2024-25 (a year-over-year decline of about 35%). This is the first year in this window that the overall mean fell below the national average (69.55%) and, notably, below the cohort's own pre-test average (57.97%), indicating a negative overall learning gain: three of the four items scored lower on the post-test than the pre-test. The result also falls well short of the revised 65% minimal target that was set to be more attainable.

The decline is broad. Three of the four items dropped year over year, and only Building Effective Goals held its performance. As in recent cycles the sample is very small (n=4), which limits generalizability, but a drop of this size across most items is a signal rather than noise.
Analysis of Results

PLO3 declined across the board in 2025-26. The overall post-test mean fell to 45.71% from 70.83%, dropping below the 65% target, below the national average (69.55%), and below the cohort's own pre-test average, the first negative overall learning gain in this window. With four students the figures are directional, but the pattern is consistent across items.

Developing Cross-Cultural Knowledge

This remains the most serious and persistent concern, continuing a multi-year decline from 69.2% (2022-23) to 55.6%, 37.5%, and now 25%, far below the national average (66.9%). Students also scored lower on the post-test than the pre-test. This points to a sustained problem in instruction, engagement, or assessment alignment and needs urgent attention.

Preparing to Execute in a Team Setting

This item fell again, from 37.5% to 25%, and sits well below national (62.7%), with a post-test below pre-test. Two weak cycles in a row make it the second priority for redesign of group-based learning.

Cultural Competence

Previously a strength, this item slipped in 2025-26 from 75% to 62.5% and drew even with the national average (63.1%), with a post-test below pre-test. The prior upward trend did not hold, so the item now warrants monitoring rather than serving as a model.

Building Effective Goals

The lone strength. Post-test performance held at 95%, above the national average (85.5%), and it was the only item with a positive pre-to-post gain. The instructional approach here, structured goal-setting frameworks, is the clearest candidate to adapt for the weaker items.

The through-line is that the cross-cultural and teamwork items collapsed while the goal-setting item held, pulling the outcome below national and below pre-test for the first time. Combined with the small sample, PLO3 is the most concerning of the three outcomes this cycle and the strongest case for both instructional and measurement review.
Action Taken or Improvement Made
  1. Reassess the Revised Target and Investigate the Drop: The minimal target was reset from 80% to 65% to be data-driven and attainable. The 2025-26 result (45.71%) fell well below even that revised benchmark and below the pre-test, so before adjusting the goal again we will investigate whether the drop reflects a genuine learning gap, a cohort effect (n=4), or a measurement problem on the Capsim ModExam.
  2. Urgent Reinforcement of Cross-Cultural Knowledge:
    • Launch a full review of instructional materials and delivery for 'Developing Cross-Cultural Knowledge,' which has now declined for four consecutive cycles.
    • Determine whether Capsim assessment alignment or curriculum sequencing is driving the outcome, and revise accordingly.
    • Integrate global case studies and cross-cultural communication modules that emphasize reflection and applied practice.
  3. Strengthen Team-Based Learning:
    • For 'Preparing to Execute in a Team Setting,' build structured peer-collaboration projects with feedback loops and team-performance metrics.
    • Pilot small-group simulations mirroring real team dynamics to assess communication, leadership and conflict resolution.
  4. Watch Cultural Competence:
    • Previously a strength, this item slipped to national parity this cycle. Confirm whether this is a one-year, small-sample effect before drawing conclusions.
  5. Leverage Building Effective Goals:
    • Use the goal-setting item, the only sustained strength, as a model. Identify the techniques driving its success (clear outcomes, applied practice, interactive tools) and scale them through faculty peer review and internal workshops.
Insert Graphs or Tables of Resulting Trends

A line graph tracking performance for Program Learning Objective 3 over five academic cycles.

Image Transcript

MRKT PLO3 Avg. Scores

Description: A line graph tracking student performance for Program Learning Objective 2 across six academic cycles. The chart compares Post-test scores (black line with blue squares), Pre-test scores (light blue line with triangles), and the National Average (dotted red line with diamonds) against a Benchmark Goal (dashed red line) that shifts from 80 down to 65 in later periods.

Data Series Post-test Pre-test National Avg.
AY21/22 (1) 84.5% 66.2% 54.4%
AY21/22 (2) 71.1% 67.8% 64.1%
AY22/23 73.6% 64.6% 64.1%
AY23/24 70.2% 66.5% 65.9%
AY24/25 70.8% 56.8% 65.9%
AY25/26 45.6% 58.0% 69.5%

Key Takeaway: Post-test scores began strong in 2021-22ay (~84.5), exceeding the initial benchmark goal of 80. Performance then stabilized in the 70鈥�74 range across subsequent cycles, staying above the national average and easily meeting the revised 65 benchmark goal in 2024-25ay (~70.8). However, the final period saw a sharp drop in post-test scores down to ~45.6, falling below the pre-test mean (~58.0), the national average (~69.5), and the benchmark goal line.

Operational Key Performance Indicators: Student Achievement

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

In alignment with standards, the data below provides a transparent look at our retention and graduation trajectories.

Retention and Graduation Rates

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

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

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

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

The following data tracks new degree-seeking transfer cohorts.

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

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

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

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

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