BUSINESS DIVISION

Student Learning Outcome Assessment Results

Figure 4.2 Student Learning Outcome Assessment Results

2

Performance Measure

Performance Target Indicator: 80% of the students will Pass overall without significant deviation by gender nor by campus. Pass rate is in line with the grade distribution expectations in all colleges. It is usually higher in the women’s colleges, so the target is differentiated, a Male campus is typically 2-7 % lower than that of a Female campus. Learners Pass a given course based upon performance against a combination of CSA (Common Specification) and FWA (Faculty-wide) assessments using a faculty approved marking scheme or rubric.

Measurement instrument A combination Common Specification Assessments (CSAs), internal, formative, and summative along with Faculty-wide Assessments, (FWAs) internal, summative and comparative which are common course level assessments measuring achievement of learning outcomes that are completed by all registered students at the end of the course.

Current Results 80% overall, 82% Women’s Campuses, 75% Men’s Campuses. Ruwais Men’s Campus and Madinat Zayed Men’s College show the greatest opportunity for improvement system-wide.

Analysis of Results Standard was close to being met for Spring 2017 for the Men’s and met by the Women’s campuses, with a clear trend of results demonstrating steady continuous improvement except at Ruwais which is a Western Region, remote desert location.

Action Taken or Improvement made

In Fall 2016 the taught curriculum was broadened in many of the courses the pass rate dropped due to greater rigor in the program. Some faculty teaching assignments have been adjusted, in subsequent semesters while new faculty have been recruited, such as at Al Ain Men’s College but otherwise, based on the generally positive results, targeted actions were required.

87 8779 80 8084 83

74 73 7589 88 81 82 82

0

20

40

60

80

100

Spring 2015 Fall 2015 Spring 2016 Fall 2016 Spring 2017

Course Pass Rate System-wide Business

HCT Men Women

0

20

40

60

80

100

AAMC AAWC ADMC ADWC DMC DWC FMC FWC MZMC MZWC RKMC RKWC RUMC RUWC SMC SWC

Cross-Campus Course Pass Rate in Business

Spring 2015

Fall 2015

Spring 2016

Fall 2016

Spring 2017

Figure 4.2 Student Learning Outcome Assessment Results

3

Performance Measure Performance Indicator: 100% of all course coverage with CSA (criteria standardized system-wide) and FWA Instrument standardized system-wide assessment.

Measurement instrument

Common Specification (CSA) and Faculty-wide (FWA) Assessments, internal summative and comparative common course level assessments, with an external component measuring achievement of learning outcomes that are completed by all registered students at the end of the course, CSA (instruments, typically 3-7 total (70%) and FWA (one instrument 30%) are worth 100% of the student’s course grade. CSA and FWA instruments are mapped to course and program learning outcomes by subject matter experts and curriculum leaders and are subject to the approval and modification by the Executive Dean, SCTL and Program Chair.

Current Results Projected 100% for current semester for the CSA, 80% on the FWA deployment.

Analysis of Results

Standard of full deployment was after Years 1-4, however with changes in the curriculum, and difficulty in adapting the FWA exam to integrated project courses FWA deployment fell to 69% and is has rebounded slightly to 73% for Spring 2017. The CSA and FWA metric are important because when analyzed together FWA score which is the final assessment is not expected to deviate significantly meaning more than 15% from the course work. The coursework is CSA driven while the Final assessment is CSA and FWA driven.

Action Taken or Improvement made

Initially only about handful of classes deployed the FWA, while roughly double that number employed the CSA which were experimental at that stage. ACBSP and CAA Federal Accreditation requirements mandated a wider deployment of an effective instrument to measure attainment of student learning outcomes. The use of CSAs and FWAs was gradually expanded and by Fall 2015 100% FWA deployment was achieved. CSA deployment lagged due to some project assessments were not yet mapped to learning outcomes. Since Spring 2016, while all courses were mandated to deploy a CSA in the BAS structure, the revision of course due to changes in the curriculum has led to less than full deployment of the FWA. Each semester new courses are selected for FWA implementation to close the gap. The greater these deployments, the curriculum is more accurately measured and the learning materials centralized, and regularly re-assessed to help students succeed.

25

40

60

75

100 100 100

12

25

40

100

85

6973

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Spring 2014 Fall 2014 Spring 2015 Fall 2015 Spring 2016 Fall 2016 Spring 2017

System-wide CSA and FWA Deployment

Systemwide Deployment of Systemwide Deployment of CSA Systemwide Deployment of Systemwide Deployment of FWA

Figure 4.2 Student Learning Outcome Assessment Results

4

Performance Measure

Program - Bachelor of Business Administration, BUS 3203 Strategic Management and Business Simulation which is a Business Core Capstone; SLOs – 1. Examine the framework of the strategic management process and the environment within which strategies are formulated. 2. Analyze sustainable strategy formulation and the various strategies developed by businesses to gain competitive advantage. 3. Analyze strategy implementation within the context of designing organizational structures and control systems. 4. Prepare a strategic plan for a simulated business environment. 5. Evaluate the implementation of a strategic plan for a simulated business environment. Goal - 80% competency=Shown by dashed line

Measurement instrument

Coursework (CW) This is measured through 1) a direct formative assessment, 2) an indirect, formative external simulation; This is a team based online simulation where students deploy skills in Accounting, Marketing, Finance, Production and Operations Management, Logistics, and Taxation, in a simulated international context; 3) a direct internal summative midterm; 4) a direct, formative and summative internally devised business plan/analysis project and finally 5) a Final Assessment (FA) is a Comprehensive, internally sourced, summative Final Examination developed within the business unit, by the teaching faculty. This is a direct, formative, internal assessment. The Final Exam (FA) is direct summative assessment developed internally within the business unit. Comparative results are available across campuses, between professors and externally.

Current Results Overall competency (CF) in meeting student learning outcomes is 81% and it along with the Coursework (CW) exceeds the standard for Semester 201620, the FA competency is 61% and this is less than the standard. The trend over three data periods from semesters 201520, and 201610 is showing a slight decline.

Analysis of Results

While overall performance exceeds the standard, a text book change for Semester 201620 may have marginally contributed to the reduced 82% success rate in the course. The CSA Final Assessment (FA) seems to have a higher failure rate than the Coursework (CW). The Business unit perceives that success in final exam is based on the participation of students in the Cesim simulation and is normally an indication of students who were not fully engaged.

Action Taken or Improvement made

Faculty should ensure full engagement of all students in a team to understand the impact of their decisions. New faculty teaching the course should be trained in the deployment of the Cesim Global Challenge Business Simulation, and this has been arranged with the simulation provider. Standard raised from 70% to 80% in 2016 as part of "Raising the Bar" initiative.

92

67

88 92

62

87 89

61

82

0102030405060708090

100

CW FA CF CW FA CF CW FA CF

N = 484 N = 548 N = 546

201520 201610 201620

BUS 3203 Strategic Management and Business Simulation

Figure 4.2 Student Learning Outcome Assessment Results

5

Performance Measure

Program - Bachelor of Business Administration, Bachelor of Accounting; BUS 4163 Taxation. SLOs- o CLO 1- Differentiate the principles and practices in various tax systems o CLO 2- Critique the effectiveness of tax system compliance o CLO 3- Calculate the taxable income and tax liability of individuals o CLO 4- Calculate the taxable income of business entities o CLO 5- Calculate the taxable capital gains of assets o CLO 6- Recommend a business model predicated on a tax system Goal - 80% competency=Shown by dashed line

Measurement instrument

In BUS 4163 Taxation The instrument is a Final Assessment (FA). It is a FWA or faculty wide assessment which in this case implies a direct, summative, and internally developed assessment instrument. It is a comprehensive 3-hour, closed book examination covering all learning outcomes. The instrument is collectively developed by the business unit with input by the SCTL, CTL and faculty with a balanced and organized contribution all faculty teaching the course. The FWA is comparative by nature and allows performance to be reviewed and compared across, campuses, and between professors.

Current Results In Fall 2016, Semester 201620, Standard met, only 8% students did not meet the 70% benchmark for the Final Assessment (FA). It is a major improvement from 201520 when 39% of students were unable to meet the standard and the previous semester, 201610 when 30% were unable to meet the standard.

Analysis of Results

The ACCA mandated additional course content and a 3-hour rather than a 2-hour final exam. For term 201520, the summative final assessment (FA), student performance slipped to 9% points below the standard for meeting student learner outcomes (SLOs). HCT Business made adjustments, and students met the SLOs, achieving 70% competency for term 201610. The standard was exceeded for term 201620. Students' coursework (CW) performance is generally better than on the FA. The CWs cover less SLOs and provide student’s longer time to prepare. Students have shown greater interest in taxation with the UAE's introduction of a 5% Value added Tax (VAT). The FA compared to a major CW assessment, the group project with individual oral defense, also worth 30% of the overall grade, is open book and students achieved higher scores than on the closed book FA. Some students particularly those in evening sessions, produce excellent CW results with weaker performance on the FA, perhaps due to work schedule conflict impacting preparation. Finally, a small fraction of the students aim to just pass a course, and don’t put optimal efforts toward the FA once good marks are obtained in CW assessments.

Action Taken or Improvement made

We expect a reduction in future semesters on measured FA competency due to changing of the text book, and greater depth of learning outcome coverage to meet ACCA Certification requirements for their granting of an exemption of the Taxation class. There will be a greater inclusion and focus upon value added tax (VAT). Final Assessments will be augmented with a revised CSA document and new questions will be created by faculty currently teaching the course as there has been some turnover with the teaching staff. Coursework assessments strategies will be re-structured to ensure outcomes reflect students learning outcomes more genuinely, and prepare students for the comprehensive final exam. Standard raised from 70% to 80% in 2016 as part of "Raising the Bar" organizational initiative of HCT 2.0.

61 7082

020406080

100

FA FA FA

N = 167 N = 185 N = 203

201520 201610 201620

BUS 4163 Taxation

Figure 4.2 Student Learning Outcome Assessment Results

6

Figure 4.2 Student Learning Outcome Assessment Results

7

Performance Measure Performance Indicator: An HCT Team equals or betters the colleges previous best, and secures a First Place finish in global business simulation in the UAE Bracket, & competes internationally/>> against the World’s best in business strategy simulation competition.

Measurement instrument HCT has since 2014 competed in the Global Business Challenge, the World’s largest business simulation contest, Prior to that HCT competed in the Collegiate Business Strategy Competition. In 2016 HCT Won the ACBSP Region 8 Simulation Challenge

Current Results 2016 Highest ever participation by HCT fielding 60 teams of 3-5 students. For 2017 The UAE Bracket alone had 55 HCT teams and 222 total competing teams from a range of institutions and business programs across the UAE. For 2018 registration is underway.

Analysis of Results

Benchmarking business programs externally is an important measure used to validate learner competency. HCT has delivered consistent stellar performance as an organizational participant in business simulation, by excelling at not only the Regional level but challenging internationally as well. Seeking to parlay past successes in global business simulation HCT, is aiming for a placement in the 2018 Global Management Challenge where they will be competing against a likely 200+ teams from the UAE alone.

Action Taken or Improvement made

HCT has a history of success having won or first or second place in past Global competitions. In the past four years HCT has moved up into the Global Management Challenge, which being largest strategy simulation competition overall, is the most competitive. HCT has placed Second in the UAE Bracket and made the Global finals last year, bettering the previous year’s performance, where HCT placed Second in the UAE but did not advance to the Finals. Action has been taken this year to encourage greater participation in business simulation and HCT has deployed a phenomenal 54 teams into a bracket populated by 237 competitors.

26

67 6877

243

222

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2010Tied 1st with 11

other teams

20121st Performance/2nd in Annual

Reports, San DiegoCalifornia

20142nd Place UAE

20152nd Place UAE

competed in GlobalFinal Prague

2016 1st PlaceACBSP Region 8

Business Simulation,3rd Place Al Futtaim

Global Challenge

2017 1st PlaceOverall-Global AlFuttaim Global

Challenge, & 2ndBest Emirati Team

External Benchmarking: Student Engagement and Success in Global Business Simulation

HCT Teams Fielded Number of Competitor Teams

1 Team4 Teams 5 Teams 2 Teams

60 Teams 55 Teams

Business simulation (CESIM Global Challenge), is taught internally to all business students as a class at HCT as a Year 3 capstone (BUS 3203 in 2017). Students will have completed the common core, and it is summative in terms of outcomes, but formative in terms of participation and experience, occurring prior to completing Year 4 specialization courses. Since 2010 HCT has encouraged participation in external, globally-based, strategic business simulations. A concerted effort is made to field globally competitive teams. HCT has a history of strong placements. Winning first place in both 2016 and 2017.

Business simulation is an ideal external benchmark that measures marketing, accounting, finance, operations management, R & D investment, logistics, and Taxation against a Global standard.

https://managementchallenge.ae/

https://www.cesim.com/simulations/cesim-global-challenge-international-business-strategy-simulation-game

Figure 4.2 Student Learning Outcome Assessment Results

8

Performance Measure Performance Indicator: Each Business degree is Benchmarked Externally through a relevant and recognized industry certification, Performance measure for 2017-18 is 89% (Executive Dean, 2017) -100% (Revised).

Measurement instrument HCT has since 2014 contemplated that an external certification will increase the value of the degree while measuring achievement against an external standard. The measurement instrument is to obtain external validation through a certification for each major.

Current Results HCT already had the ACCA in Accounting. Business has added three new certifications in 2017.CIPD in HRM, CISI in Finance and CIM in Marketing.

Analysis of Results Benchmarking business programs externally is an important measure used to validate learning. The business unit has succeeded in gaining external certification on three additional programs, but achievement of this target is not yet achieved for 5 out of 9 programs. ACCA for example in accounting reviews the rigor of assessments versus what is taught for each course in the accounting specialization.

Action Taken or Improvement made

HCT is aware of ACBSP’s pivot toward certifications. For example, HCT is aware, ACBSP’s relationship with GAFM, Global Academy of Finance and Management. HCT continues to work toward external certification of all degrees, and has over three years responded with obtaining certification on four out of nine majors. Certification have been identified and are currently process for the other majors.

2014-152015-16

2016-172017-18 (Target)

0

2

4

6

8

10

Degrees Benchmarked Against Professional Certifications

2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 (Target)

Target

✓ Association of Certified

Chartered Accountants

✓ Chartered Institute of Personnel

Development

✓ Chartered Institute for Securities

and Investment

✓ Chartered Institute for Marketing

Below certifications have been

identified but not yet achieved.

Entrepreneurship and Innovation

International Association of

Innovation Professionals (IAOIP)

Quality Management American

Society for Quality (ASQ)

Tourism Management International

Air Transport Association (IATA)

Business Analytics BNA a Potential Certification Body

Logistics and Supply Chain CIPS

Diploma in Procurement and Supply