Eller UG Accounting Program Learning Objectives & Measurements Updated June 2017

Ref# Overall Objective Specific Learning Objective Measurement Timing Responsible F16/S17 Results F15/S16 Results F14/S15 Results F13/S14 Results

1 Critical Thinking

Identifies a problem and the information needed to develop alternative 

solutions.  Evaluates alternative solutions, recommends an optimal solution, 

and evaluates the impact of the solution on stakeholders.

ACCT400B Assignment Fall Stussie 26.6/30 25.3/30 27.3/30 27/30

2 Critical Thinking

Understands the industry environment and company strategies. Compares 

firm performance, risks and growth.  Performs valuation analyses and 

identify investment opportunities for investors.   

ACCT451 Team Presentation Fall Cheng 11.07/12 11.05/12 10.7/12 10.9/12

3 Critical ThinkingUses mathematical  models and performs statistical data analysis in support 

of business decision‐making using statistical and/or business software.

ACCT310 Regression 

AssignmentFall Douthit 13.3/15 12.04/15 12.7/15 12.2/15

4 Communication

‐ Writes appropriately for a given audience with conciseness, clarity, strong 

organization, and in a professional format.

‐ Effectively utilizes financial data in a written report to communicate ideas 

with appropriately integrated supporting analyses.

ACCT451 Individual Project 

PaperSpring Yu 22.28/25 22.09/25 20/25 20/25

5 CommunicationPrepares and delivers a professional presentation on a business topic using 

appropriate business software.ACCT451 Team Presentation Fall Cheng 7.69/8 7.85/8 7.8/8 7.5/8

6 Teamwork

‐ Provides and receives feedback, ideas, and instruction in a professional 

manner.

‐ Organizes tasks and delegates responsibility to complete collaborative 

projects in a timely manner.

‐ Explains the impact of each team member (including self) on the 

collaborative project and the role each member plays.

ACCT461 Team Evaluations Spring Otto 5/5 5/5 5/5 5/5

7 Technical Knowledge

Explains concepts and techniques from core accounting subject matter 

including financial accounting, managerial accounting, accounting 

information systems, auditing and tax.

Multiple Choice Exam in 

ACCT451Fall/Spring Maxwell 16.2/25 13.78/20 13.3/20 15/20

8 Technical KnowledgeDemonstrates ability to apply tax laws to a set of data in prepration of an 

individual tax return.ACCT420 Tax Return Fall Stekelberg 4.98/5 4.92/5 4.8/5 97/100

9 Technology

Demonstrates ability to designs a database structure that addresses internal 

controls associated with the revenue cycle. Able to create efficient tables and

reports within Microsoft Access.

ACCT461 Access Database 

ProjectFall Otto 18.17/20 17.83/20 8.4/10 8.5/10

10 Technology Successfully utilizes tax return software to prepare an individual tax return. ACCT420 Tax Return Fall Stekelberg 4.95/5 5/5 4.9/5 97/100

11 Technology

Demonstrates ability to create a logical and efficient excel spreadsheet 

utilizing formulas to derive result.  Provides analysis and effectively 

articulates their understanding of the results.

ACCT310 Master Budget Excel 

AssignmentSpring Hewitt 19.3/20 17.5/20 17.7/20 18.6/20

12Ethics/

Social Responsibility

Identifies ethical dilemmas and develops appropriate courses of action that 

consider the well‐being of others and society.

ACCT430 Ethics Case 

AssignmentSpring Blanchard 18.46/20 19.89/20 9.5/10 N/A

13Outcomes/Student 

Satisfaction

Able to articulate program objectives and assess whether those objectives 

were achieved at the end of the program.

Student Assessment Survey 

ResultsFall/Spring Maxwell 6.22/7 6.23/7 5.92/7 6.25/7

14 Career and Placement Leverages skills and experiences for career successPlacement results obtained at 

graduationFall/Spring Maxwell 94% 87% 88% 87%

UG1

DEPARTMENT OF ACCOUNTING

ASSURANCE OF LEARNING PROGRAM

ANALYSIS OF OUTCOMES ASSESMENT

Fall 2016

PROGRAM: Undergraduate Accounting OBJECTIVE: Critical Thinking

Assessment Tool: Project Write-up Administered in: Accounting 400B

Description of Assessment and Results:

Students worked on a project in groups. Each group selected one from among three alternative

topics. In each topic there was a problem that involved alternative approached and an analysis of

a real life 10-K footnote. The group had to generate the alternative solutions to the problem,

evaluate them and justify their chosen solution.

The students were evaluated on five criteria:

• Student group explanation of the issue related to their assigned topic.

• Student group discussion of the pros and cons of alternative approached to their specific

topic.

• The conclusion was reasonable and supported by arguments in their paper.

• Student group wrote a concise paper using proper language.

• Student group understood the real life 10-K footnote and were able to identify the

important information and tie it to other parts of the 10-K.

Overall, the majority of students were able to perform in a manner indicating that the above

learning objectives were met. The average score was 26.6 out of 30 and the median was similar

at 27.

Evaluation of Quality of the Assessment Tool:

Critical thinking is a challenging skill to assess, especially of a group assignment. The

assignment was essay in nature, allowing the instructor to make an assessment of the groups

thinking process. The group assignment was important with these topics to allow for discussion

and debate regarding the topics and the conclusion drawn. The five items being evaluated are

appropriate to the objective of critical thinking requirement for this course.

Evaluation of Time and Place of Assessment:

This assessment is done in the later part of the semester as a way to allow course topics to be

taught and mastered so the assessment topics could be chosen from the current semester. The

timing worked well to provide critical topics for the assessment.

Satisfaction with the Level of Assessment Results:

Overall I was happy with the student group performance in the area of critical thinking. As

critical thinking is a challenging skill to teach and evaluate, we can continue to review and refine

UG1

the assignment to be sure our students have amble opportunity to demonstrate the ability to

complete assignments on critical thinking.

Accounting 400B - Fall 2016

Project – assurance of learning requirement – critical thinking (30 points)

Below are three alternative topics for the group project. Please form groups of 3-4 students

within your own section. Please email me if you have trouble forming a group. Choose a topic

from the choices below and follow the guidelines with respect to the page limit. The 10-Ks that

you need are also on D2L. You may add appendices to your report over and above the prescribed

page limit. The report will evaluated based on facts, the quality of the analysis and quality of

writing and support of conclusion. Please do not hesitate to meet me for additional pointers and

clarifications.

November 21, 2016: Paper due at start of class

Topic Choices

1. LIFO elimination

(a) Assume that in an effort to be consistent with the international accounting standards,

FASB decides to eliminate LIFO for financial reporting. Discuss the complicating

factors associated with eliminating LIFO (including comparability of gross margins

over time and tax issues). If you were the CFO of a company that uses LIFO how would

you lobby FASB on the implementation of LIFO elimination, assuming that the

elimination is unavoidable. Write your response in a 2-3 page write-up.

(b) Using the 2014 10-K of Graybar Electric Company Inc., explain what might have

caused the change in the deferred tax asset associated with inventory and how the

change would have affected taxes paid. Refer to numbers in the inventory and income

taxes footnotes to explain this in not more than 1 page.

2. Convertible/ Straight Debt

(a) ABC Corp. is a biotech company with several lucrative patents and they are working

on developing new drugs for diabetes. ABC Corp. has short-term cash flow problems

and wishes to raise financing using debt. Their investment banker suggests that they

should be able to raise $800,000 for a 7 year term and would like ABC to decide

whether they wish to issue convertible bonds or non-convertible bonds. In a 2-3 page

paper, please evaluate these two taking into account the likely differences in cost of

borrowing and the impact on EPS for shareholders and make a recommendation to

ABC Corp.?

(b) Using the 10-K of Gilead Sciences, discuss the effects of their convertible debt on their

cost of borrowing and their diluted EPS. Refer to numbers in their debt (footnote 10)

and EPS (footnote 14) footnotes to explain this in not more than 1 page.

UG1

3. Stock Options/Restricted Stock/ Bonus

(a) XYZ Inc. currently grants bonus to its senior executives based on specific

performance benchmarks and wishes to provide some long-term equity-based

incentive compensation for its senior managers and is considering adopting a plan

for either stock options or restricted stock. However, given all the recent bad press

about excessive compensation for top management and the link between equity

based compensation and excessive risk-taking by managers, they are seeking your

advice on introducing a new equity linked incentive compensation scheme. Please

provide a 2-3 page recommendation to XYZ Inc evaluating the choice between

options and restricted stock and their impact on managerial incentives and current

shareholders.

(b) Using the 10-K of Trulia Inc, comment on the shift away from stock options to

restricted stock in not more than 1 page. Refer to pages 132-134 of the pdf 10-K

document. You may also refer to the Wall Street Journal article at

http://blogs.wsj.com/cfo/2013/08/26/last-gasp-for-stock-options/.

UG2 & UG5

DEPARTMENT OF ACCOUNTING

ASSURANCE OF LEARNING PROGRAM

ANALYSIS OF OUTCOMES ASSESSMENT

FALL 2016

PROGRAM: Undergraduate OBJECTIVE: Critical Thinking & Communication

Assessment Tool: Evaluation Form Administered in: ACCT451 (M. Cheng)

Sample Size: 100% (8 out of 8 teams)

Description of Assessment and Results: Over the course of the semester, students work in four or five

person teams to complete a multipart analysis of a selected industry. At the end of the semester, each

team does a classroom presentation summarizing and explaining its analysis. The team presentations are

assessed based on critical thinking and communication criteria, as follows.

Critical Thinking Criteria:

C1: Team concisely discussed the industry, its products and its markets. Team made a convincing

assessment of the major issues facing the industry and development of expectations regarding

future growth and profitability.

C2: Team developed and presented analyses evaluating and comparing profitability, financial

condition and earnings quality of companies in the industry. Team made a convincing quantitative

comparison of the intrinsic values of companies in the industry.

C3: Team made explicit recommendations regarding investment potential of companies in the

industry. Recommendations were well supported and conflicting factors were appropriately

weighted and reconciled.

Communication Criteria:

C4: Team developed effective PowerPoint slides with an effective balance of text and graphics,

and successfully interacted with slides during the presentation.

C5: Team members used appropriate tone, language and gestures, maintained eye contact with

audience and articulated words clearly

Scores: Lowest=0, Highest=4, Max = 20

Critical Thinking Communication

Team

#

Names C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 Total

1 Redacted 3.5 3.5 4 3.5 4 18.5

2 Redacted 4 4 3.5 4 4 19.5

UG2 & UG5

3 Redacted 4 3 4 4 4 19

4 Redacted 4 3.5 4 4 4 19.5

5 Redacted 4 3.5 3.5 4 4 19

6 Redacted 4 3.5 3 3.5 3.5 17.5

7 Redacted 4 4 4 4 4 20

8 Redacted 3.5 3.5 3 4 3 17

Mean 3.88 3.56 3.63 3.88 3.81 18.75

Average scores for critical thinking criteria (C1-C3): 11.07 out of 12

Average scores for communication criteria (C4 & C5): 7.69 out of 8

Satisfaction with the Level of Assessment Results: Overall we are happy with student performance in

both critical thinking and communication. All the scores were well above 90%. We also believe that this

assessment provides a reasonable perspective on student skills related to critical thinking and

communications.

DEPARTMENT OF ACCOUNTING ASSURANCE OF LEARNING PROGRAM

ANALYSIS OF OUTCOMES ASSESSMENT Fall 2016

PROGRAM: Undergraduate OBJECTIVE: Critical Thinking Assessment Tool: Excel regression in cost model applications (HW 2.42 & 2.43) Administered in: ACCT 310 Description of Assessment and Results: This assignment requires students to develop a linear cost function utilizing simple and multiple regression analysis in Excel. They are required to create scatter plots, run the regression models, interpret the results, adjust their cost drivers if necessary, and then document the cost model. They are also asked to interpret their results in written form.

The overall learning objective is to use mathematical models and perform statistical data analysis in support of business decision-making using appropriate software.

Separate from their grade on the assignment, I assessed a sample of students according to the following items to ensure the overall learning objective is accomplished:

• Scatter plot was formatted for understanding

• Simple and multiple regression resulted in the correct cost model

• Student was able to analyze the results and articulate their understanding Overall, the majority of students were successful with the assignment and able to demonstrate their ability to apply Excel skills to solve business problems. The average score was 13.30 out of 15, with the mode at 15. The average on the individual items ranged from 4.04 to 4.87. Evaluation of Quality of the Assessment Tool: The assessment tool provides a ‘real-life” application of regression modeling to predict an organization’s manufacturing overhead cost. It is an individual assignment which provides each student an opportunity to practice creating and interpreting regression model output. Evaluation of Time and Place of Assessment: The ACCT310 class is designed for first semester junior accounting majors, however, often students choose to take the class later in their major. Typically, students who were further along in the accounting major do better in the class overall. This proved true in this assignment, as these students are more likely to have more Excel experience. Success on this assignment can be attributed to the level of understanding of Excel and how regression analysis links to the cost function. Students who understood the role of the cost drivers performed well on this assignment. Satisfaction with the Level of Assessment Results: Overall, the students demonstrated adequate knowledge of the subject matter in order to complete this assignment. The largest problem occurred when students misinterpreted regression output and arrived at an incorrect cost equation by including an insignificant variable. The second, less concerning, issue was that students included insignificant drivers into their multiple regressions, but correctly excluded it from the cost function. Students seemed to better understand how regression output predicts an accurate cost function than in past years, but still struggled with the concept of “insignificant variables.” The largest improvement from previous years was that students had fewer mistakes in the scatterplots. Overall, the students did well, considering the complexity of the assignment.

Questions:Question 1 Scatter plot was formatted for understandingQuestion 2 Simple and multiple regression resulted in the correct cost model Question 3 Student was able to analyze the results and articulate their understanding

Student Q1 Q2 Q3 TotalMax 5 5 5 15

1 5 5 5 15 2 5 5 5 15 3 5 5 5 15 4 4 5 5 14 5 5 3 3 11 6 5 5 5 15 7 5 5 3 13 8 4 3 3 10 9 5 5 5 15

10 5 3 1 9 11 5 5 3 13 12 5 5 5 15 13 5 4 5 14 14 5 5 5 15 15 5 3 5 13 16 5 3 3 11 17 5 5 3 13 18 5 4 5 14 19 5 3 3 11 20 5 5 5 15 21 4 5 3 12 22 5 5 5 15 23 5 5 3 13

AVERAGE 4.87 4.39 4.04 13.30 97.39% 87.83% 80.87% 88.70%

Minimum 4 3 1 9 Median 5 5 5 14 Mode 5 5 5 15

Scale: 1-5 scale (1=Strongly Disagree; 5=Strongly Agree)

UG4

DEPARTMENT OF ACCOUNTING ASSURANCE OF LEARNING PROGRAM

ANALYSIS OF OUTCOMES ASSESSMENT

SPRING 2017 PROGRAM: Undergraduate OBJECTIVE: Communication: Writes appropriately for a given audience with conciseness, clarity, strong organization, and in a professional format. Effectively utilizes financial data in a written report to communicate ideas with appropriately integrated supporting analyses. Assessment Tool: Individual writing assignment Administered in: ACCT 451 Description of Assessment and Results: This is the last individual writing assignment in the undergraduate accounting major. It is the third individual-project submission. Instructions for the assignment are included as a separate attachment. Students are required to present calculations, summarize data in tables, explain assumptions, and discuss their results. A random sample of 36 of 101 (35.6% sample size) individual assignments was taken for evaluation on five attributes of proper written communication. Each of the five attributes was evaluated on a scale from 1 to 5 (1 Strongly disagree, 3 Agree, 5 Strongly agree). The five attributes and the average scores for each are indicated below:

1. Discussion of financial data is understandable to the reader (4.53)

2. Grammar, word choice, and writing style are appropriate to the topic (4.61)

3. Paper is organized in sections that facilitate clarity (4.61)

4. Supporting schedules and tables are appropriately integrated (4.14)

5. Overall appearance and quality of work is professional in presentation (4.39) On the 1 to 5 scale used, student averages ranged from 2.8 to 5.0. Evaluation of Quality of the Assessment Tool: The evaluation was originally performed by a communications instructor who collaborated with accounting faculty in the development of the evaluation form used in the assessment. The attributes included in the assessment reflect the nature of the document, which included presentation of technical financial information in tables, accompanied by an explanatory narrative. The instrument is effective for evaluating skills used by professional accountants. Evaluation of Time and Place of Assessment: Using the last individual writing assignment for a graduating senior accounting major should provide the best example of skills acquired and maintained in the program. Students receive a score on the assignment that affects their course grades, so they have an incentive to perform well. The course is required of all accounting majors. Satisfaction with the Level of Assessment Results: The 2016 statistics are comparable to the average range of scores from previous years (2013 scores ranged from 3.2 to 5.0, 2014 scores ranged from 2.0 to 5.0, 2015 scores ranged from 3.0 to 4.8, and 2016 scores ranged from 2.4 to 5.0). The total score on all attributes together was 22.28 out of 25. That is slightly higher than last year’s score of 22.09 out of 25.

UG4

Average score per individual attribute (understandable discussion, grammar & appropriate style, organization, tables, and professional appearance) had a narrower range than last year, varying by 0.47 across the population (4.14 to 4.61), as compared to 0.61 of last year. Similar to the last year, Item 4 received the lowest average score. Also similar to last year, Item 2 and Item 3 received the highest average score. Average scores increased from 2016 across all items except for Item 2 and Item 3, which remain unchanged. This could show an increase in quality, or could also reflect the change in grader. Specific comments about individual attributes are noted below: Item 1 - Discussion of financial data is understandable to the reader: The average score of 4.53 for this item in 2017 is slightly higher than last year, reflecting an increase of 0.01 in the average from 2016 to 2017. High scores were attributable to the students’ explanation of what the calculations actually meant in the context of company valuation, how valuations might change in response to changes in growth assumptions, and what are the basis for investment recommendation. Low scores can be attributed to the discussions that were contrary to what they should have been. For instance, if “A” always causes “B” to happen, but instead they said “A” caused “C,” the discussion was wrong and points were deducted. Item 2 - Grammar, word choice, and writing style are appropriate to the topic: The average score of 4.61 for this item in 2017 is identical to last year. Lost points came from grammatical errors and the use of non-professional language. Also, minor writing style errors were present, including changes in verb tenses, run-on sentences lacking proper punctuation, and wordy explanations that could have been more concise. Item 3 - Paper is organized in sections that facilitate clarity: This is one of the two items where students performed best on. The average score of 4.61 for this item in 2017 is also exactly the same as last year. Low scores were usually attributable to students not labeling sections at all, meaning they did not separate each topic. These papers either had very long paragraphs or flowed from one question to the next with no header to distinguish a new topic. Some papers lose points when they use incorrect headings, or when the parts were done out of order. Item 4 - Supporting schedules and tables are appropriately integrated: The average score of 4.14 for this item in 2017 is significantly higher than that of last year, reflecting an increase of 0.14 from 2016 to 2017. Though tables were not required to be ‘integrated’ for this report, there was an expectation of easy to read, clean tables. Therefore, students who inserted tables in a way that limited the readability and understandability of the paper lost points. If clarity was sacrificed, it was usually because tables were inconsistently formatted, broken up onto multiple pages, cut off, or too small to read with ease. Students who earned high scores for this section used tables to further their explanation or illustrate their conclusions. Item 5 - Overall appearance and quality of work is professional in presentation: The average score of 4.39 for this item in 2017 is slightly higher than last year, reflecting an increase of 0.03 in the average from 2016 to 2017. Some students effectively used formatting to ensure clarity throughout the paper, with subheadings to verify important topics. However, some students did not exert the necessary effort into their assignment, which was reflected by their inconsistent formatting and unprofessional presentation.

Undergraduate Assessment ACCT 451 UG4bObjective: Communication Skills

Spring 2017 Sample 36 of 101 enrolled

Item 1 Discussion of financial data is understandable to the reader

Item 2 Grammar, word choice, and writing style appropriate to topic

Item 3 Paper is organized in sections that facilitate clarity

Item 4 Supporting schedules and tables appropriately integrated

Item 5 Overall appearance and quality of work is professional in presentation

Scale 1-5 1 = strongly disagree 3 = agree 5 = strongly agree

Student Item 1 Item 2 Item 3 Item 4 Item 5 Average Total

1 4 5 5 4 4 4.4 22

2 5 5 4 5 5 4.8 24

3 3 4 5 2 3 3.4 17

4 5 4 4 4 4 4.2 21

5 5 4 5 5 5 4.8 24

6 5 5 4 5 4 4.6 23

7 5 5 5 5 5 5 25

8 4 5 5 4 4 4.4 22

9 5 5 5 5 5 5 25

10 4 4 4 4 4 4 20

11 4 5 4 5 5 4.6 23

12 5 4 5 5 5 4.8 24

13 3 3 4 2 2 2.8 14

14 5 4 5 5 5 4.8 24

15 4 5 4 3 4 4 20

16 5 5 3 3 4 4 20

17 5 4 5 5 5 4.8 24

18 5 5 5 4 5 4.8 24

19 5 5 5 4 5 4.8 24

20 4 5 4 3 4 4 20

21 5 5 5 5 5 5 25

22 4 4 4 3 3 3.6 18

23 4 5 4 3 4 4 20

24 5 5 5 4 5 4.8 24

25 4 5 5 4 4 4.4 22

26 5 5 5 5 5 5 25

27 4 5 5 5 5 4.8 24

28 5 4 5 5 5 4.8 24

29 5 5 5 5 5 5 25

30 5 5 4 2 3 3.8 19

31 5 5 5 4 5 4.8 24

32 5 5 4 5 5 4.8 24

33 5 5 5 3 4 4.4 22

34 3 4 5 5 4 4.2 21

35 4 3 5 5 4 4.2 21

36 5 5 5 4 5 4.8 24

Average 4.53 4.61 4.61 4.14 4.39 4.46 22.28

Range of individual overall scores 2.00 to 5.00

Range of student averages 2.80 to 5.00

Range of item averages 4.14 to 4.61

Individual Assignment 3

Due at the beginning of class on April 12. I will accept late assignments with a penalty of three

points per day or part of a day, excluding weekends and holidays. I only accept hard copies.

This assignment requires you to estimate the market values of the company you have been

working with and is an input to the team presentation. If you decide not to complete this

assignment, you will not be eligible to participate in the team presentation, and will lose all

those points as well as the points for this assignment.

Using the adjusted financial statements and forecasted numbers for your company from

individual assignment 2, do the following:

a. Using a risk-free rate of 2% and a market risk premium of 6%, calculate the cost of

equity capital, cost of debt capital and the weighted average cost of capital for your

company. Show detailed calculations. (Hint: you can obtain beta from online

resources like barchart.com, Yahoo Finance, MSN money, etc. If you capitalized

operating lease in individual assignment 2, you need to adjust interest expense and

total debt accordingly in calculating cost of debt capital and WACC.)

b. Apply the DCF valuation model to estimate the intrinsic value per share of the

company. Explicitly show the calculation of terminal value.

c. Apply the Residual Operating Income valuation model to estimate the intrinsic value

per share of the company. Explicitly show the calculation of terminal value.

d. How do your results compare to the current market value of the company? Based on

this, would you recommend an investment in this company, or not?

e. Examine the sensitivity of your results in parts b. and c. to changes in the long-term

growth rate assumptions to be very optimistic or very pessimistic. Explain the

optimistic and pessimistic versions of the assumptions, and discuss how results of the

analysis affect your conclusions about the value of the company. (Note: there is no

need for you to show the calculations again as in part b and part c. Just discuss how

the change affects the terminal value, the total value, and the estimated intrinsic value

per share.)

Scope guideline: Scope guideline: Only parts d and e require discussion, which should be at least

one paragraph each, but no more than one page. The other parts are calculation, and the number

of pages will depend on formatting.

Format: Use a cover page. Single space with double spaces between paragraphs or sections. Use

section headings and other formatting to make your work easy to read. Use 11 or 12 pt type,

with one inch margins. Staple your submission (no binders or folders, please). The assignment

will be graded based on appearance and professionalism as well as the quality of the analysis.

DEPARTMENT OF ACCOUNTING

ASSURANCE OF LEARNING PROGRAM

ANALYSIS OF OUTCOMES ASSESSMENT

Spring 2017 PROGRAM: Undergraduate OBJECTIVE: Teamwork

Assessment Tool: Peer Evaluations Administered in: ACCT 461

Prepared by: Karen Otto

Description of Assessment and Results:

Sixteen groups comprised of 5 or 6 students completed within group evaluations of

themselves and their group members after completing each of two group projects.

Groups remained intact for both projects. Group members were evaluated on seven

distinct attributes. The attributes evaluated were attendance, communication, feedback,

quality of individual work, timeliness of completing work, final product accountability,

and overall member performance. A 1 through 5 evaluation scale was used, with 5 as the

highest and 1 as the lowest. Although the evaluation scale is indicative of order,

differences between response categories cannot be assumed to be of equal magnitude.

The evaluation administered after completing the second project included an additional

assessment of whether each group member’s performance on the seven attributes

improved, remained the same, or declined from Project 1 to Project 2. This question was

included to gauge individual rating consistency across the two evaluations. Eighty-three

undergraduate students (100% of end of term enrollment) completed the evaluations.

On both evaluations, the mode scale value for each attribute was 5. This result indicates

that most students in ACCT 461 are considered by their peers to have strong group skills.

Project 1 evaluations revealed two clearly problematic members (as indicated by multiple

group members giving a rating of 1 or 2 on multiple attributes) and two potentially

problematic members (as indicated by at least one member giving a rating of 1 or 2 on at

least one attribute). Project 2 evaluations revealed the same two clearly problematic

members and one potentially problematic member.

Evaluation of Quality of the Assessment Tool: The instructor’s assessment of group dynamics, as determined by direct observation, was

consistent with the results of the group evaluations. Groups that appeared to be

functioning well reported that all members were performing at acceptable levels.

The second group evaluation included an assessment of group member’s performance

changes from project 1 to project 2 on each of the seven attributes. Project to project

assessments of group member performance changes were generally consistent with

changes in reported scale values. This consistency is compatible with stable performance

expectations and stable scale values across evaluations.

The results of the group evaluations combined with direct observation by the instructor

support the validity of the evaluation tool for its intended purpose.

Evaluation of Time and Place of Assessment: Evaluations were individually completed and submitted along with all other project

deliverables. Submission of evaluations prior to grade receipt should help minimize

grade outcome bias in the evaluation results. The timing and frequency of administration

of the group evaluation seem appropriate.

Satisfaction with the Level of Assessment Results:

Evaluation results indicate that students in ACCT 461 possess good team skills. In

addition, the results suggest that students can identify team members with poor skills, can

work productively despite a dysfunctional team member, can acknowledge areas in which

group members need improvement, and can sometimes assess areas for self

improvement. These results are consistent with instructor observation. We are satisfied

with the level of assessment results and believe continued administration of the two-part

group evaluation will provide opportunity to highlight desirable group member attributes.

UG7

DEPARTMENT OF ACCOUNTING ASSURANCE OF LEARNING PROGRAM

ANALYSIS OF OUTCOMES ASSESSMENT

FALL 2016/SPRING 2017 PROGRAM: Undergraduate OBJECTIVE: Technical Knowledge Assessment Tool: Examination Administered in: ACCT 451 Description of Assessment and Results: A 25-question multiple choice exam was given to all students enrolled in ACCT 451. Nearly all of these students are graduating, as this is the capstone accounting course. The exam contained 10 financial accounting questions, 5 managerial accounting questions, 5 internal control questions and 5 income tax questions. Students were not informed in advance of the exam and were not expected to study for it. Extra credit points were offered for any student that scored above 22 points (out of 25). Students were told they had 20 minutes to complete the exam. This year there were 5 tax questions added. Previously, the exam only had 20 questions with 0 tax questions. In Spring 2017, 99 students took the exam with an average score of 16.7 out of 25, or 66.8%. In Fall 2016, 37 students scored an average of 15.7 out of 25, or 62.7%. The weighted average for the two semesters was a 16.2 out of 25. The average scores for the spring semester decreased slightly (1.2%) from Spring 2016. The average for the Fall semester was lower than the previous Fall semester (8.6% decrease). Disregarding the new tax questions, the scores for the spring would have increased 2.8% and the scores for the fall would have only decreased 4.6%.

Spring 17 Fall 16

Managerial 87% 84%

Internal Control 64% 67%

Financial 65% 59%

Tax 51% 47%

The distribution of scores is also noted below:

UG7

Evaluation of Quality of the Assessment Tool: Ignoring the addition of five tax questions, the four most frequently missed questions related to the objectives of accounting information systems, the design of internal controls, the purchase of treasury stock, and revenue recognition. The question related to the objectives of accounting information systems asked students to identify which option was not an objective of the accounting information system. The most commonly chosen incorrect answer was “all valid transactions are recorded,” when the correct answer was “duties are segregated.” We believe that the students know that duties should be segregated, but are having difficulty realizing that this is not an objective of the accounting information system. We will discuss with faculty to reiterate in class which items are objectives of an effective accounting information system. The students should understand that although segregation of duties are important, it is not a required objective (rather it is a way to achieve the objective). The next question asked students to identify what internal controls are designed to provide reasonable assurance on. The correct answer was that “assets will be safeguarded,” but most students chose “the external auditor will provide an unqualified (clean) audit opinion” and “all irregularities will be eliminated.” We believe students associate the phrase “reasonable assurance” with auditors and are not interpreting the question correctly. We will review this question and the curriculum to ensure students are understanding the concepts of internal controls. The third question asked students what will happen to a company’s overall total stockholders’ equity when a company buys back its common stock as treasury stock. The correct answer is “decreases,” but a large number of students chose “no effect.” We believe students understand what treasury stock is, but we feel that students are not thoroughly analyzing the effect of the repurchase on stockholders’ equity. They are focusing on the idea that the company retains its common stock and not that the amount available to stockholders has decreased. The fourth commonly missed question asked students to identify which option was not required for revenue to be recognized. The correct answer was “receipt of cash from the customer,” but most students chose “reasonable expectation of receipt of payment” and “a purchase order or contract signed by the customer.” We feel this is a fair question, so we will not replace this question. However, we will review the curriculum of our Financial Accounting courses. This academic year we included five new tax related questions to the exam. The results of these added questions are not what we expected, as the average for the fall and spring semesters are 47% and 51%, respectively. We will review the tax questions with faculty to ensure that these topics are being adequately covered in class each semester. In two of the past three semesters, the tax course was taught by an adjunct due to faculty shortages. We will closely monitor the results of the tax questions on this exam in the next few semesters to see if results improve as adjuncts will not be teaching tax in the future semesters. Our students have proven to be successful in the workplace and also on the future certification exams (CPA). This leads us to believe that they must be leaving our program with a sufficient understanding of key accounting concepts. In fact, our graduate’s success rate on the CPA exam is significantly higher than the national

UG7

average. In 2016, our students achieved a 70% pass rate on their first attempt of the CPA exam within one year of graduation compared to the national average pass rate of 49%. Evaluation of Time and Place of Assessment: Utilizing ACCT451 for the class to administer the exam is appropriate since it serves as the capstone course immediately prior to graduation. We prefer not to require advance preparation, although it might be worth considering a high level review sheet given to students in advance with some small incentive or reward for performing well. Doing so may significantly improve the results of the exam. Faculty members discussed the idea of using embedded questions on exams in each course where the material being tested is taught. However, it was felt that this level of knowledge is important for students to leave our program with, not just at the time they are taking the respective class. Satisfaction with the Level of Assessment Results: While the scores in the Fall semester were lower from the prior Fall semester, they are consistent with the prior three Fall semesters, disregarding the added tax questions. Conversely, the Spring results (without the tax questions) are higher than the past two Spring semesters.

UG7a

# Students 99 37 95 40 114 46 100 37 89

# Right % Right # Right % Right # Right % Right # Right % Right # Right % Right # Right % Right # Right % Right # Right % Right # Right % Right1 MGR 86 87% 27 73% 64 67% 29 73% 79 69% 32 70% 74 74% 23 62% 75 84%2 MGR 86 87% 31 84% 74 78% 36 90% 95 83% 38 83% 83 83% 28 76% 83 93%3 MGR 87 88% 31 84% 85 89% 38 95% 107 94% 45 98% 95 95% 34 92% 82 92%4 MGR 75 76% 35 95% 77 81% 38 95% 67 59% 32 70% 79 79% 23 62% 56 63%5 MGR 96 97% 32 86% 91 96% 36 90% 92 81% 40 87% 92 92% 28 76% 75 84%6 I/C 93 94% 30 81% 62 65% 31 78% 79 69% 36 78% 82 82% 27 73% 69 78%7 I/C 35 35% 11 30% 33 35% 18 45% 51 45% 21 46% 39 39% 19 51% 45 51%8 I/C 74 75% 25 68% 78 82% 36 90% 81 71% 36 78% 76 76% 25 68% 64 72%9 I/C 66 67% 33 89% 66 69% 27 68% 58 51% 24 52% 70 70% 19 51% 59 66%

10 I/C 47 47% 18 49% 48 51% 19 48% 55 48% 25 54% 60 60% 17 46% 48 54%11 FIN 84 85% 30 81% 82 86% 31 78% 95 83% 43 93% 88 88% 34 92% 84 94%12 FIN 61 62% 22 59% 71 75% 28 70% 85 75% 22 48% 59 59% 19 51% 57 64%13 FIN 54 55% 17 46% 47 49% 22 55% 55 48% 21 46% 68 68% 18 49% 60 67%14 FIN 79 80% 30 81% 69 73% 26 65% 78 68% 35 76% 88 88% 28 76% 79 89%15 FIN 30 30% 20 54% 30 32% 25 63% 48 42% 16 35% 53 53% 18 49% 67 75%16 FIN 44 44% 16 43% 64 67% 24 60% 62 54% 21 46% 67 67% 11 30% 73 82%17 FIN 79 80% 21 57% 67 71% 23 58% 81 71% 33 72% 77 77% 21 57% 72 81%18 FIN 73 74% 19 51% 41 43% 29 73% 96 84% 44 96% 96 96% 31 84% 89 100%19 FIN 78 79% 22 59% 70 74% 28 70% 62 54% 24 52% 72 72% 30 81% 70 79%20 FIN 66 67% 23 62% 71 75% 35 88% 92 81% 35 76% 75 75% 30 81% 87 98%21 TAX 48 48% 19 51%22 TAX 33 33% 20 54%23 TAX 44 44% 3 8%24 TAX 67 68% 21 57%25 TAX 59 60% 24 65%

MGR 87% 84% 82% 89% 77% 81% 85% 74% 83%I/C 64% 67% 60% 66% 57% 62% 65% 58% 64%FIN 65% 59% 64% 68% 66% 64% 74% 65% 83%TAX 51% 47%

Average Score 16.69 66.75% 15.68 62.70% 13.58 67.89% 14.25 71.25% 13.25 66.3% 13.5 67.7% 15.0 74.8% 13.1 65.3% 15.1 75.4%

Score Distribution24/25 0 0% 0 0%22/23 4 4% 2 5%20/21 13 13% 3 8%18/19 (18&above) 29 29% 5 14% 9 9% 8 20% 11 10% 6 13% 15 15% 1 3% 17 19%17/16 21 21% 9 24% 20 21% 5 13% 21 18% 8 17% 30 31% 7 19% 21 24%15/14 14 14% 7 19% 21 22% 5 13% 23 20% 8 17% 23 23% 10 27% 29 33%13/12 13 13% 8 22% 22 23% 16 40% 23 20% 13 28% 21 21% 6 16% 12 13%11/10 2 2% 2 5% 13 14% 4 10% 24 21% 4 9% 9 9% 11 30% 9 10%9 & below 3 3% 1 3% 10 11% 2 5% 12 11% 7 15% 0 0% 2 5% 1 1%

99 100% 37 100% 95 100% 40 100% 114 100% 46 100% 98 100% 37 100% 89 100%

Total % above 70% 46% 27% 53% 45% 48% 48% 69% 49% 75%(was 14 pts, F16+ 18 pts)

2.4%

Spring 2017

Spring 2016

Spring 2016

Fall 2014

Fall 2014 Spring 2013

Spring 2013

Fall 2016

Fall 2016Spring 2017

Fall 2015

Fall 2015

Spring 2015

Spring 2015

Spring 2014

Spring 2014

Fall 2013

Fall 2013

UG8 & UG10

DEPARTMENT OF ACCOUNTING ASSURANCE OF LEARNING PROGRAM

ANALYSIS OF OUTCOMES ASSESSMENT Fall 2016

PROGRAM: Undergraduate OBJECTIVE: Technical Knowledge Technology Assessment Tool: Computerized tax preparation project Administered in: ACCT 420 Description of Assessment and Results: This assignment requires students to prepare a moderately-complicated tax return for a fictitious individual taxpayer using tax preparation software. Specifically, this project required students to apply the concepts learned in class to a practical tax compliance exercise. The tax return included a number of common but potentially difficult tax issues including:

• Itemized deductions (Schedule A)

• Interest and dividends (Schedule B)

• Self-employment income (Schedule C)

• Capital gains and losses (Schedule D)

The overall learning objectives are to use technology (tax preparation software) to prepare an individual tax return and to apply tax laws learned in ACCT 420 to a set of data. Students were graded on the accuracy of their tax return, including inclusion of correct tax forms and correct calculations. Overall, the majority of students were quite successful with the assignment and able to demonstrate their ability to apply tax law to a set of data and prepare a tax return using tax preparation software. More specifically, the average on the first Learning Objective (“Demonstrates Ability to Apply Tax Laws to a Set of Data in Preparation of an Individual Tax Return”) was 4.98 / 5.00, or approximately 99%. The average on the second Learning Objective (“Successfully Utilizes Tax Return Software to Prepare an Individual Tax Return”) was 4.95 / 5.00, or 99%. This maps into an overall average grade on the assignment of 99%. All students/groups received averages of at least 4.50 / 5.00 on both Learning Objectives. Evaluation of Quality of the Assessment Tool: The assessment tool provides a ‘real-life” application of tax preparation for a representative individual taxpayer. As in practice, I permitted students to work in groups of up to three individuals (although many more students chose to work alone this year compared to prior classes). This provided students the opportunity to learn from their peers while maintaining a small enough group such that each student had the opportunity to significantly participate in the completion of the project. Also as in practice, I required students to use professional-quality tax preparation software, specifically Intuit ProSeries. Evaluation of Time and Place of Assessment: ACCT 420 is designed for senior accounting majors. As such, the majority of students in this class are very driven and knowledgeable, with little variation. This proved true in this assignment, as all students performed extremely well on this project. Success on this assignment can be attributed to students’ prior accounting knowledge; students’

UG8 & UG10

understanding of the tax law; students’ ability to work in teams and learn from teammates; and—especially—students’ ability and willingness to obtain feedback on their projects prior to the due date. Satisfaction with the Level of Assessment Results: Overall, the students demonstrated strong knowledge of the tax law and the ability to apply the law using tax preparation software. This evaluation measured how well students could apply tax law impacting a representative yet reasonably complex fictitious individual taxpayer, by preparing that taxpayer’s tax return using tax preparation software. All students did an excellent job on this assignment.

ACCT 420 Assurance of Learning for Tax Return Preparation Project UG8a

Fall 2016 69 Students enrolled, all included in evaluation (some students worked in teams)

LO1 - Demonstrates Ability to Apply Tax Laws to a Set of Data in Preparation of an Individual Tax ReturnItem 1 Correctly identifies filing status and dependency exemptionsItem 2 Correctly identifies and calculates items of gross incomeItem 3 Correctly identifies and calculates itemized deductionsItem 4 Correctly identifies and calculates self-employment income and expensesItem 5 Correctly identifies and calculates tax credits

Item 1 Item 2 Item 3 Item 4 Item 5 Total AverageStudent/Group

1 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 25.0 5.002 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 25.0 5.003 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 25.0 5.004 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 25.0 5.005 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 25.0 5.006 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 25.0 5.007 5.0 4.5 4.5 5.0 5.0 24.0 4.808 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 25.0 5.009 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 25.0 5.00

10 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 25.0 5.0011 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 25.0 5.0012 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 25.0 5.0013 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 25.0 5.0014 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 24.5 4.9015 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 24.5 4.9016 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 25.0 5.0017 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 25.0 5.0018 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 24.5 4.9019 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 25.0 5.0020 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 25.0 5.0021 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 25.0 5.0022 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 25.0 5.0023 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 25.0 5.0024 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 24.5 4.9025 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 25.0 5.0026 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 25.0 5.0027 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 24.5 4.9028 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 25.0 5.0029 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 25.0 5.0030 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 25.0 5.0031 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 25.0 5.0032 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 25.0 5.0033 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 25.0 5.0034 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 25.0 5.0035 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 25.0 5.0036 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 25.0 5.0037 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 25.0 5.0038 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 25.0 5.0039 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 24.5 4.9040 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 25.0 5.0041 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 25.0 5.0042 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 25.0 5.0043 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 25.0 5.0044 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 24.5 4.9045 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 25.0 5.0046 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 25.0 5.0047 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 25.0 5.0048 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 25.0 5.00

Average 4.97 4.96 4.98 5.00 5.00 4.9899% 99% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Scale: 1-5 1 = strongly disagree 5 = strongly agree

ACCT 420 Assurance of Learning for Tax Return Preparation Project UG10a

Fall 2016 69 Students enrolled, all included in evaluation (some students worked in teams)

LO2 - Successfully Utilizes Tax Return Software to Prepare an Individual Tax ReturnItem 1 Successfully includes all required tax forms and related schedulesItem 2 Successfully performs data entry using source documents (including inputting data) onto appropriate tax forms

Item 1 Item 2 Total AverageStudent/Group

1 5.0 5.0 10.0 5.002 5.0 5.0 10.0 5.003 5.0 5.0 10.0 5.004 5.0 5.0 10.0 5.005 5.0 5.0 10.0 5.006 5.0 5.0 10.0 5.007 5.0 5.0 10.0 5.008 5.0 5.0 10.0 5.009 5.0 5.0 10.0 5.00

10 5.0 5.0 10.0 5.0011 5.0 5.0 10.0 5.0012 5.0 5.0 10.0 5.0013 5.0 5.0 10.0 5.0014 5.0 5.0 10.0 5.0015 5.0 5.0 10.0 5.0016 4.0 5.0 9.0 4.5017 5.0 5.0 10.0 5.0018 5.0 5.0 10.0 5.0019 5.0 5.0 10.0 5.0020 4.5 5.0 9.5 4.7521 5.0 5.0 10.0 5.0022 5.0 5.0 10.0 5.0023 5.0 5.0 10.0 5.0024 5.0 5.0 10.0 5.0025 5.0 5.0 10.0 5.0026 5.0 5.0 10.0 5.0027 4.0 5.0 9.0 4.5028 5.0 5.0 10.0 5.0029 5.0 5.0 10.0 5.0030 5.0 5.0 10.0 5.0031 5.0 5.0 10.0 5.0032 4.0 5.0 9.0 4.5033 5.0 5.0 10.0 5.0034 4.0 5.0 9.0 4.5035 5.0 5.0 10.0 5.0036 5.0 5.0 10.0 5.0037 4.5 5.0 9.5 4.7538 5.0 5.0 10.0 5.0039 5.0 5.0 10.0 5.0040 5.0 5.0 10.0 5.0041 5.0 5.0 10.0 5.0042 5.0 5.0 10.0 5.0043 5.0 5.0 10.0 5.0044 5.0 5.0 10.0 5.0045 5.0 5.0 10.0 5.0046 5.0 5.0 10.0 5.0047 5.0 5.0 10.0 5.0048 5.0 5.0 10.0 5.00

Average 4.90 5.00 4.9598% 100% 99%

Scale: 1-5 1 = strongly disagree 5 = strongly agree

UG9

DEPARTMENT OF ACCOUNTING ASSURANCE OF LEARNING PROGRAM

ANALYSIS OF OUTCOMES ASSESSMENT

Fall 2016

PROGRAM: Undergraduate OBJECTIVE: Technology Assessment Tool: Access Homework Administered in: ACCT 461 Prepared by: Karen Otto Description of Assessment and Results: Students completed two successive Access database assignments requiring them to (1)

import data from Microsoft Excel to tables in a Microsoft Access database; (2) establish

the appropriate relationships between the database tables; (3) create a well controlled form to enter new data to a table; (4) create a set of queries that return meaningful

revenue cycle information; and (5) convert queries into formalized revenue cycle reports. Students were asked to complete each assignment individually. Satisfaction with the Level of Assessment Results: Seventy-seven students (93%) completed both Access database assignments. The first assignment required students to import basic revenue cycle data from Excel to a set of

tables in an Access database, establish appropriate relationships between the database

tables, and create a customer form to enter new customers to their customer table and create a sales order form to enter new data to their sales order table. Within the forms,

students were asked to create controls to prevent the manipulation of transaction numbers, dates, order quantities, and prices. They were also asked to create controls to

increase input efficiency and decrease the likelihood of errors related to customer and

product input.

Using the database created in the first assignment, the second assignment required students to import additional data, establish appropriate relationships between the new

data and previously imported data, and to create a set of queries that returned meaningful

revenue cycle information (e.g., Accounts Receivable by Customer), and convert a subset of those queries into formalized revenue cycle reports (e.g., Weekly Cash Receipt

Report).

The following four criteria were evaluated on a 1 – 5 scale (1= Strongly Disagree,

5=Strongly Agree) to assess learning outcomes: (1) Data is properly imported, primary keys are properly identified, and tables are logically linked (2) appropriate form controls

are consistently and correctly implemented, (3) queries are logically designed and yield accurate results, and (4) reports are properly formatted and yield accurate results.

UG9

The results of the assessment are shown in the table below. The results generally indicate that students in ACCT 461 are able to design a database structure for the revenue cycle of

a simple retail firm. They are able to create efficient tables, controlled forms, and useful queries and reports in Microsoft Access.

Q1: Data is properly imported, primary keys are properly identified, & tables are logically linked.

Q2: Appropriate form controls are consistently and correctly implemented.

Q3: Queries are logically designed and yield accurate results.

Q4: Reports are properly formatted and yield accurate results.

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Total

AVERAGE 4.49 4.48 4.56 4.64 18.17

89.87% 89.61% 91.17% 92.73% 90.84%

Minimum 2 3 1 1 12

Median 5 5 5 5 19

Mode 5 5 5 5 19 AVERAGE 4.49 4.48 4.56 4.64 18.17

1-5 scale (1=Strongly Disagree; 5=Strongly Agree)

Questions: UG9a

Question 1 Q1: Data was properly imported, primary keys were properly identified, and tables were logically linked.Question 2 Q2: Appropriate form controls were consistently and correctly implemented.Question 3 Q3: Queries were logically designed and yielded accurate results.Question 4 Q4: Reports were properly formatted and yielded accurated results.Student Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 TotalMax 5 5 5 5 20

1 5 5 5 5 20

2 5 4 5 4 18

3 5 5 5 5 20

4 5 5 5 5 20

5 5 5 5 4 19

6 5 4 5 5 19

7 4 5 5 5 19

8 3 5 5 5 18

9 2 5 4 5 16

10 5 5 5 4 19

11 5 5 5 5 20

12 5 5 5 5 20

13 4 5 5 4 18

14 5 4 5 5 19

15 4 5 3 5 17

16 5 5 5 5 20

17 4 5 5 5 19

18 5 4 5 3 17

19 4 5 5 5 19

20 5 4 2 1 12

21 5 5 5 5 20

22 4 5 5 5 19

23 5 3 5 5 18

24 5 5 5 5 20

25 4 5 5 5 19

26 5 5 3 5 18

27 3 5 5 5 18

28 5 5 5 4 19

29 4 5 5 5 19

30 4 5 5 5 19

31 4 5 5 5 19

32 4 5 4 3 16

33 5 5 5 5 20

34 5 5 4 5 19

35 5 5 5 4 19

36 5 3 5 5 18

37 5 5 5 5 20

38 4 5 1 5 15

39 5 5 5 5 20

40 3 5 5 1 14

41 4 4 4 5 17

42 5 3 5 5 18

43 4 5 5 5 19

44 5 5 4 5 19

45 5 4 5 5 19

46 4 5 5 5 19

47 4 5 4 5 18

48 4 5 3 5 17

49 4 3 4 5 16

50 5 5 3 1 14

51 5 5 5 5 20

52 5 5 3 5 18

53 4 4 5 5 18

54 4 3 5 5 17

55 5 5 5 5 20

56 4 3 5 5 17

57 5 4 5 5 19

58 4 5 5 5 19

59 5 4 5 5 19

60 5 3 3 5 16

61 5 3 3 5 16

62 5 3 5 4 17

63 5 5 4 5 19

64 4 5 5 5 19

65 5 3 5 5 18

66 5 5 4 5 19

67 5 3 5 4 17

68 4 5 5 5 19

69 4 5 3 5 17

70 5 3 5 5 18

71 4 3 3 5 15

72 5 3 5 5 18

73 3 5 5 1 14

74 4 5 5 5 19

75 4 3 5 5 17

76 5 5 5 5 20

77 5 5 5 5 20

AVERAGE 4.49 4.48 4.56 4.64 18.17 89.87% 89.61% 91.17% 92.73% 90.84%

Minimum 2 3 1 1 12 Median 5 5 5 5 19 Mode 5 5 5 5 19

Scale: 1-5 scale (1=Strongly Disagree; 5=Strongly Agree)

Department of Accounting AOL Program – Specific Learning Objective Ref #11 Page 1

Department of Accounting

Assurance of Learning Program

Specific Learning Objective Ref #11

Spring 2017

PROGRAM: Undergraduate

OVERALL OBJECTIVE: Technology

SPECIFIC LEARNING OBJECTIVE: “Demonstrates ability to create a logical and efficient Excel spreadsheet utilizing formulas to derive result. Provides analysis and effectively articulates their understanding of the results.”

MEASUREMENT: ACCT 310 Master Budget Excel Assignment

TIMNG: Spring 2017

RESPONSIBLE: Hewitt

F16/S17 RESULTS: 19.3 (out of 20)

Description of the Assessment and the Results of the Assessment: This assessment required students to develop an Excel spreadsheet and prepare a master budget

and related financial statements. The assessment included a budget for revenue, production,

direct materials, direct labor, manufacturing overhead, and ending finished goods inventory.

Students were required to use an ‘Input’ sheet for sensitivity analysis and to format the

spreadsheets in a logical and organized fashion. Aside from creating the budgets in Excel, the

students were also required to analyze various budgets.

Consistent with previous years, I assessed all students according to the following items:

Spreadsheet organization was logical and easy to follow [LOGICAL]’; Spreadsheet setup was efficient in performing the calculation tasks (links and formulas)

[LINKING]’; Budget solution and financial statements were accurate [ACCURATE] ; and,

Student was able to analyze the results and articulate her/his understanding

[ANALYSIS].

Department of Accounting AOL Program – Specific Learning Objective Ref #11 Page 2

Overall, the majority of students were successful on this assessment and were able to

demonstrate the ability to use Excel to solve business problems. The detailed assessment results

indicate that the vast majority of the students succeeded on this assessment. The average

overall score on the evaluated attributes was 19.3 (out of 20).

Evaluation of the Quality of the Assessment: The assignment used for this assessment is arguably one of the more complicated that the

students encounter during the semester. I believe that this assessment provides assurance that

the technology learning objective is accomplished. Students were required to submit an

electronic file so that their use of Excel technology could be evaluated.

In addition, the criteria used to evaluate each student’s technological capabilities seem

appropriate. Students’ organization, efficiency, technology, and analysis skills were examined;

all of which are arguably critical to their future professional success. I recommend continuing

with these assessment criteria to assess the technology objective in the future.

Finally, this year I attempted to integrate more broad accounting-related principles into the

information set underlying the budgeting task. For example, I provided information related to

investing (sale of a non-current asset) and financing (dividends paid) cash flows to supplement

the manufacturing focus of the budgets with core accounting principles related to other

courses in the accounting major. I think further improvements can be made to this assessment

by supplementing the technological aspects of the master budgeting task with more

accounting-related principles.

Evaluation of the Timing of the Assessment: This assessment occurs towards the end of the semester. Not only does this assessment evaluate

students’ use of technology, but it also evaluates their broad understanding of accounting and

budgeting. Given the broad nature of the assessment, the timing of the assessment (i.e., toward

the end of the semester) seems appropriate. I recommend not changing the timing of the

assessment in the future.

ACCT 310 is designed for first semester junior-level accounting majors. However, students

often choose to take the course later in their studies in order to balance their course load.

Students who were further along in their studies generally did better in the course overall.

This trend was also observable on this assessment.

Satisfaction with the Assessment Results: This is my second year with this specific assessment. One of the factors that students struggled

with last year was analyzing and interpreting the budgeting results. This year, I noticed

considerable improvement in this aspect of the assessment after pedagogical refinements were

made when introducing the master budget on a conceptual level.

Department of Accounting AOL Program – Specific Learning Objective Ref #11 Page 3

As was the case last year, students were given a budgeting template when the budgeting topic

was covered in the course. The template was arguably very helpful for students’ learning as

they were able to envisage the overall structure of a master budget and how the specific

budgets link together. Following the example set in previous years, only a pdf version of the

template was given to students (instead of a formula-based Excel file). This approach arguably

motivated students to create their own budgets in Excel. Students were also required to make

use of an ‘Input’ sheet. Overall, I was very pleased with the setup and readability of the Excel

files. I was also impressed by students’ use of multiple sheets within their Excel files (i.e., one

budget per sheet) to link the various budgets with formulas. All students were able to

successfully create an Excel-based master budget. I plan to continue providing only a pdf

version of the budget templates to students so that they can gain practice creating an Excel-

based master budget.

However, I also observed two major opportunities with respect to curriculum development

this year as a result of this assessment:

1. Foundational knowledge of Excel. It was apparent this year that many students’ existing

knowledge of Excel was extremely weak before commencing the assessment.

Therefore, remedial one-on-one training in Excel was required to help some students

gain sufficient expertise in Excel before completing the task. From my perspective, this

issue highlights an opportunity for Eller to develop a junior-level undergraduate course

that is–at least partly–devoted to developing strong Excel skills (e.g., basic skills through

to the use of macros).

2. Ability to link accounting concepts across courses. A continuing challenge is to

encourage students to apply core accounting concepts across different courses. It

appears that some students ‘isolate’ some financial accounting and managerial

accounting concepts such that they struggle to see the interrelationship between these

subfields of accounting. I believe that there is an opportunity to better develop our

students’ understanding of the interrelationships across major subfields of accounting

(auditing, financial, managerial, tax).

F16/S17 Results: 19.3

StudentLOGICAL

(max.: 5 points)LINKING

(max.: 5 points)ACCURATE

(max.: 5 points)ANALYSIS

(max.: 5 points)TOTAL

(max.: 20 points)1 5 5 5 5 202 5 5 5 4 193 5 5 5 4 194 5 5 5 4 195 5 5 5 4 196 5 5 5 5 207 5 5 5 5 208 5 5 5 5 209 5 5 5 5 2010 5 5 5 4 1911 5 5 5 4 1912 5 5 5 4 1913 5 5 5 4 1914 5 5 4 4 1815 5 5 5 4 1916 5 5 5 5 2017 5 5 5 5 2018 5 5 5 5 2019 5 5 5 5 2020 5 5 5 4 1921 5 5 5 4 1922 5 5 5 5 2023 5 5 5 4 1924 5 5 4.5 5 19.525 5 5 5 4 1926 5 5 5 4 1927 5 5 5 5 2028 5 5 5 4 1929 5 5 5 4 1930 5 5 5 5 2031 5 5 5 4 1932 5 5 5 5 2033 5 5 5 4 1934 5 5 4 5 1935 5 5 5 4 1936 5 5 5 0 1537 5 5 5 4 1938 5 5 5 4 1939 5 5 5 5 2040 5 5 5 5 2041 5 5 5 5 2042 5 5 5 5 2043 5 5 5 4 1944 5 5 5 5 2045 5 5 5 5 2046 5 5 5 5 2047 5 5 5 4 1948 5 5 5 5 2049 5 5 5 5 2050 5 5 5 5 2051 5 5 5 4 1952 5 5 5 4 1953 5 5 5 5 2054 5 5 5 5 2055 5 5 5 4 1956 5 5 5 4 1957 5 5 5 4 1958 5 5 5 4 1959 5 5 5 4 1960 5 5 5 5 2061 5 5 5 4 1962 5 5 5 4 1963 5 5 5 4 1964 5 5 5 4 1965 5 5 5 5 2066 5 5 5 4 1967 5 5 5 5 2068 5 5 5 4 1969 5 5 5 4 1970 5 5 5 4 1971 5 5 5 5 2072 5 5 5 5 2073 5 5 5 5 2074 5 5 5 4 1975 5 5 4 2 1676 5 5 5 5 2077 5 5 5 4 1978 5 5 5 5 20Mean 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.4 19.3Median 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 19.0Mode 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 19.0

Timing: Spring 2017Measurement: ACCT 310 Master Budget Excel Assignment

SPECIFIC LEARNING OBJECTIVE: Demonstrates ability to create a logical and efficient Excel spreadsheet utilizing formulas to derive result. Provides analysis and effectively articulates their understanding of the results. (Ref # 11)

OVERALL OBJECTIVE: TechnologyELLER UG ACCOUNTING PROGRAM LEARNING OBJECTIVES & MEASUREMENTS

Responsible: Hewitt(out of 20)

* Spreadsheet organization was logical and easy to follow [LOGICAL]* Spreadsheet setup was efficient in performing the calculation tasks (links and formulas) [LINKING] * Budget solution and financial statements were accurate [ACCURATE]* Student was able to analyze the results and articulate her/his understanding [ANALYSIS]

UG12

DEPARTMENT OF ACCOUNTING

ASSURANCE OF LEARNING PROGRAM

ANALYSIS OF OUTCOMES ASSESSMENT

SPRING 2017

Program: Undergraduate

Learning Objective: Ethics / Social Responsibility

• Students identify ethical dilemmas that arose in connection with alleged and/or proven fraudulent

activity at SEC registrants,

• Students consider the distributed roles of management, the Board of Directors, other stakeholders in the

fraudulent activity, and identifies alternative courses of action that consider the well-being of others with

a focus on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR).

Responsible: Phillip A. Blanchard

Measurement: ACCT 430 sections .001 and .002:

• Research, analysis discussion and presentation of historically significant financial fraud cases, as

described below.

430 section .001 – 7 teams (5 students each team)

430 section .002 – 8 teams (6 students each team)

Description:

In this semester-long exercise, student teams analyzed a collection of landmark fraud cases. Each fraud case

deals with large publicly owned corporations where significant financial frauds occurred during the last twenty

years. Prior to launch of the team project phase of the course, the concept of fraud, personal integrity, corporate

social responsibility, ethical decision-making, and dealing with the challenges of managing agency relationships

while focusing on the maximization of shareholder wealth were discussed during lectures and concurrent with

course activities during and following standard class meeting times.

The completion of the assigned case studies allowed students to gain a multi-dimensional understanding of

the role that integrity and ethics (or the absence thereof) plays in the prevention, manifestation, development,

and the eventual collapse of a large-scale fraud. Students focused specific attention on critical decision points

and actions that either facilitated the fraud, perpetuated the fraud, concealed the fraud and/or brought the fraud

to light. Classroom discussions involved extensive reinforcement of the fact that the best business decisions are

always those formulated within a corporate culture that focuses on a control environment supported by a strong

commitment to ethical behavior supported by well-understood policies requiring individual comprehension of

what constitutes actions of integrity.

UG12

Each case analysis required teams to:

• Provide an overview of the company and the evolution of its business model over time (cradle to grave).

• Identify the nature of the financial fraud, including the timeline of events, the “major players” in the fraud,

and the type(s) of fraud

• Evaluate the effectiveness of corporate governance before and after the alleged fraud, and the role that the

“Tone at the Top” in the organization (regarding internal controls and business ethics) had on the

perpetuation of the fraud

• Consider whether, and to what extent, the company’s business strategies (and perceived pressures to meet

earnings’ forecasts) played a role in decision-making that resulted in ethical dilemmas.

• Evaluate each case to identify specific Internal Controls over Financial Reporting (or the lack thereof) that

failed to prevent, detect and/or correct attempts to circumvent such controls

• Identify how the fraud was revealed, discovered, or otherwise brought to light

• Consider whether the adoption of new laws and regulations (such as Sarbanes-Oxley and Dodd-Frank);

or, judicial actions or SEC sanctions related to each company; or regulatory changes imposed after each

fraud was uncovered; would have prevented the frauds had those legislative and judicial restriction been

in place at the time the frauds commenced.

The following fraud cases were analyzed be student teams:

• HealthSouth, a company that operates rehabilitation hospitals and allegedly overstated earnings

• Parmalat, an Italian dairy and food company that established shell corporations to create the illusion of

profitability

• Tyco, a diversified company that allegedly permitted improper use of company funds by senior

management, failed to disclose related party transactions and improperly accounted for mergers.

• WorldCom, a telecommunications company that improperly accounted for operating expenses and

provided inappropriate loans to senior management

• ZZZZ Best, accused of overstating millions of dollars of revenues that did not exist

• Freddie Mac – Income smoothing in the extreme, understating Net Income by more than $5 Billion

over more than three years,

• Cendant – Hotel Franchise and hospitality company (Ramada Inn, Howard Johnsons and Days Inn)

accounting irregularities related to inflated revenue recognition overstatement in excess of $500 million.

• Adelphia – sixth largest cable company excluded $2,4 billion in liabilities from consolidated financial

statements by hiding them on the books of “off-balance sheet” affiliates and SPEs

Evaluation:

Student teams analyzed their assigned fraud case, prepared written reports and gave oral presentations before

the class of their peers. Teams were evaluated based on the thoroughness of their analysis of the fraud genesis;

the identification and analysis of senior management actions (or inactions) leading up to the frauds; the quality of

corporate governance that allowed the fraud to exist and flourish; the collapse of the fraud; and the impact on

stakeholders and society. Separate from grades awarded for team participation, research quality and presentation

skills. Teams were also collectively assessed to determine to what extent each of the following learning objectives

were met:

UG12

• Student members of the team were able to distinguish errors from irregularities

• Student members of the team were able to understand the complex motivations, opportunities and

rationalizations related to fraud under examination

• Student members of the team were able to differentiate between integrity and ethical/unethical decisions

and actions that were identified in the case study

• Student members of the team are able to identify ethically appropriate alternative decisions and actions

that serve to mitigate fraudulent behavior

Each team was evaluated over four observation criteria, using a five point Likert scale. A mark of (5) indicates

the team composition very well understood the individual criterion, and a mark of (1) indicates the team most

likely did not collectively understand the criterion.

• a higher score indicates the criterion objective was well understood by the team on a collective basis.

• a lower score indicates the criterion objective was not well understood by the team on a collective

basis.

The overall class average was 18.46 points out of 20 possible points.

Conclusion:

The case studies reinforced the lectures and readings on ethical dilemmas and allowed the students to

apply what they learned in a manner they seemed to enjoy. Each team of students accomplished thoughtful and

well organized research; engaged in thorough and well developed analyses; integrated the lessons discussed

during class lectures into their presentation; and provided well contemplated opinions as the possibilities as to

whether or not similar frauds could exist today.

Overall, I am very pleased with each team’s achievements in the class and I feel confident that each

member of the class significantly improved their understanding of the objectives established in the course

including the role that independent Certified Public Accountants play in the maintaining the public trust.

Questions: UG12a

Observation #1: Student members of the team were able to distinguish errors from irregularitiesObservation #2: Student members of the team were able to understand the complex motivations, opportunities and rationalizations related to fraud under examinationObservation #3: Student members of the team were able to differentiate between integrity and ethical/unethical decisions and actions that were identified in the case studyObservation #4: Student members of the team are able to identify ethically appropriate alternative decisions and actions that serve to mitigate fraudulent behavior

Student Team: O1 O2 O3 O4 TotalHealthSouth #1 4.90 4.75 4.80 4.80 19.25 HealthSouth #2 4.80 4.90 4.80 4.60 19.10

Parmalat #1 4.90 4.90 4.90 5.00 19.70 Parmalat #2 4.60 4.80 4.80 4.75 18.95

Tyco #1 4.70 4.80 4.70 4/75 14.25 Tyco #2 4.80 4.60 4.80 4.75 18.95

WorldCom #1 4.00 4.20 4.50 4.50 17.20 WorldCom #2 5.00 4.90 5.00 4.90 19.80 ZZZZ Best #1 4.70 4.80 4.60 4.75 18.85 ZZZZ Best #2 4.50 4.20 4.40 4.25 17.35

FreddieMac #1 4.40 4.40 4.00 4.00 16.80 FreddieMac #2 4.95 4.80 5.00 5.00 19.75

Adelphia #1 5.00 4.90 5.00 4.70 19.60 Adelphia #2 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.20 17.70 Cendant #2 4.80 5.00 5.00 4.80 19.60

AVERAGE 4.70 4.70 4.72 4.34 18.46

Minimum 4.00 4.20 4.00 0.05 14.25 Median 4.80 4.80 4.80 4.75 18.95 Mode 4.80 4.90 4.80 4.75 18.95

Scale: 5-1 scale (5 = Very Well Understood; 1 = Not Well Understood)

ACCT 430 2016/2017

UG13

DEPARTMENT OF ACCOUNTING ASSURANCE OF LEARNING PROGRAM

ANALYSIS OF OUTCOMES ASSESSMENT FALL 2016/SPRING 2017

PROGRAM: Undergraduate OBJECTIVE: Outcomes & Satisfaction Assessment Tool: Survey Administered in: ACCT 451 Description of Assessment and Results: An assessment survey is sent to all graduating seniors towards the end of their final semester. The survey asks for the graduates’ perspectives on a variety of topics, including the quality of our curriculum, faculty, career development efforts, advising, as well as ASA and BAP membership. After asking these specific questions, we ask for an overall rating of these aspects, the results are listed below. We have a 100% response rate for students enrolled in ACCT451, which is our senior capstone course taken for almost all students during their final semester. Responses were gathered from 38 students in Fall 2016 and 103 students in Spring 2017 (total 141 students). We have summarized responses to the following overall questions in the table below (all responses on a 1 – 7 scale*).

1) Please indicate your level of satisfaction with your accounting education supporting your personal development.

2) Please indicate your level of satisfaction with your accounting education supporting your development of technical knowledge.

3) Please indicate your perception of the overall level of teaching effectiveness for the accounting department.

4) Please indicate your satisfaction with the Accounting Department Faculty mentoring program.

*Effectiveness of teaching methods was evaluated on an 8-point scale during this academic year, however, we have scaled the responses to align to a 7 point scale for consistency (we will adjust in future years).

S17 F16 S16 F15 S15 F14 Avg Trend

Personal Development 6.29

6.34

6.17 5.76 5.54 5.67 5.96

Positive

Technical Knowledge 6.39

6.35

6.29 6.11 5.68 5.67 6.08

Positive

Teaching Effectiveness 7.13

6.21

6.89 6.73 6.48 6.46 6.65

Positive

Mentoring Program Satisfaction

5.43

n/a 5.66 n/a n/a n/a 5.43

n/a

F16/S17 average score across all survey questions: 6.22/7 Evaluation of Quality of the Assessment Tool: Questions were reviewed in detail by faculty in Fall 2016 and updated where appropriate. We are satisfied with the quality of the assessment tool and will continue to utilize the same questions next academic year. Evaluation of Time and Place of Assessment: We are comfortable with the student response rate and the time in which is it administered.

UG13

Satisfaction with the Level of Assessment Results: We are very pleased with the satisfaction level of our undergraduate students. Our department places considerable focus on enhancing the student experience, so to see these assessment results validate that our efforts are worthwhile.

ASSESSMENT SURVEY OF UNDERGRADUATE ACCOUNTING MAJORSComparison Chart

DemographicsAge Overall GPA

Male Female No Yes Full-time Part-time No Yes

Spring 17 23 49 54 78 25 101 2 92 11 3.41Fall 16 25 17 21 23 15 38 0 30 8 3.26Spring 16 23 46 53 81 17 95 4 84 15 3.39Fall 15 23 27 19 40 6 45 1 34 12 3.34Spring 15 23 62 63 97 28 122 3 23 102 3.46Fall 14 23 24 30 35 19 53 1 38 16 3.34Spring 14 22 70 42 97 15 112 0 89 23 3.38Fall 13 24 16 20 27 9 35 1 9 27 3.18Spring 13 23 50 53 19 84 103 0 83 20 3.50Fall 12 22 29 26 41 14 53 2 12 43 3.33Spring 12 23 59 46 94 11 99 7 17 89 3.42

Satisfaction with your Accounting Education -Personal Development Spring 17 Fall 16 Spring 16 Fall 15 Spring 15 Fall 14 Spring 14 Fall 13 Spring 13a) Technical preparation for accounting career 1 = low 6.17 6.18 5.84 5.61 5.22 5.31 5.63 5.52 5.78b) Developing analytical skills 7 = high 6.25 6.21 5.98 5.85 5.39 5.50 5.80 5.91 5.67c) Developing time management skills 6.32 6.16 6.12 5.85 5.56 5.67 5.88 5.80 5.76d) Developing writing skills 5.73 5.87 5.56 5.35 4.70 5.15 5.14 5.29 5.08e) Developing public speaking skills 6.00 6.00 5.86 5.52 5.10 5.33 5.49 5.60 5.41f) Developing team skills 6.27 6.39 6.26 5.87 5.57 5.78 5.97 6.06 5.73g) Developing problem-solving skills 6.31 6.24 6.21 5.93 5.54 5.72 5.96 6.03 5.74h) Developing self-confidence 6 Semester Avg 6.04 5.97 5.81 5.59 5.22 5.41 5.64 5.56 5.41i) Overall personal development 5.96 6.29 6.34 6.17 5.76 5.54 5.67 5.88 5.84 5.79

Satisfaction with your Accounting Education -Technical Knowledgea) Theoretical basis of financial accounting 1 = low 6.27 6.38 6.15 5.91 5.66 5.57 5.96 6.10 5.79b) Application of GAAP in financial statements 7 = high 6.26 6.35 6.07 6.07 5.55 5.39 5.94 6.03 5.78c) Cost accounting as an input to decision-making 5.96 6.41 5.79 5.70 5.28 5.56 5.71 5.75 5.68d) Tax law as it applies to individuals & business 6.19 5.32 5.67 5.77 5.20 5.46 5.91 5.33 5.63e) Auditing theory and application 5.79 5.69 5.89 5.88 5.04 5.35 5.29 5.56 5.06f) Ethical implications of the profession 6.50 6.40 6.42 6.25 5.75 5.85 6.04 6.38 6.01g) Role of accounting in the global economy 6 Semester Avg 6.16 6.08 5.84 5.64 5.12 5.30 5.50 5.45 5.27h) Overall accounting education 6.08 6.39 6.35 6.29 6.11 5.68 5.67 6.04 5.87 5.89

Effectiveness of Teaching Methods Spring 17 Fall 16 Spring 16 Fall 15 Spring 15 Fall 14 Spring 14 Fall 13 Spring 13a) Casework in class 1 = not effective 6.55 5.89 6.45 6.39 6.00 5.74 6.54 6.72 6.55b) Lecture 8 = very effective 7.04 6.21 6.86 6.78 6.46 6.41 6.96 7.45 6.93c) In-class discussion 6.98 6.08 6.69 6.50 6.22 5.99 6.61 6.86 6.50d) Group projects 6.19 5.78 6.3 6.36 5.42 5.39 6.31 6.35 5.95e) In-class exercises 7.43 6.32 7.31 7.07 6.73 6.48 7.13 7.15 6.82f) Computer simulations 6.27 5.71 6.34 6.38 5.35 6.01 6.63 6.19 6.04g) Independent research 6 Semester Avg 6.31 5.71 6.13 6.13 5.23 6.03 6.23 6.01 5.95h) Overall effectivensss of teaching 6.65 7.13 6.21 6.89 6.73 6.48 6.46 6.88 6.99 6.83

Double-majorTransfer StudentGender Primary Status

B‐3  

Page

1 of 2

ASSESSMENT SURVEY OF UNDERGRADUATE ACCOUNTING MAJORSComparison Chart

ASA & BAP Membershipa) Aware of opportunities Yes 1 = not worthwhile 100 36 88 41 117 46 110 33 98

No 7 = very worthwhile 3 2 11 5 8 8 2 3 5b) Membership ASA x = not a member 51 14 43 27 51 26 63 20 52

BAP 25 3 31 5 22 11 22 4 30Other Eller 17 5 8 6 25 5 N/A N/A N/A

c) Satisfaction ASA 5.78 5.80 5.67 5.52 4.30 4.97 4.85 4.83 5.06BAP 5.96 6.20 5.85 5.75 5.15 5.50 5.09 6.30 5.48

Other Eller 5.84 5.83 6.08 6.00 5.62 5.89 N/A N/A N/A

Job Search ResultsRegistered with Career Services 75% 87% 85% 85% 87% 89% 92% 83% 95%

Effect of Resources on Job Searcha) UA Career Services 1 = no effect 6.59 5.65 6.90 6.83 5.47 5.69 5.61 5.78 5.74b) Eller Career Resource Center 8 = very positive 6.86 6.26 6.89 6.60 4.75 4.99 5.03 4.58 4.57c) Accounting Department Faculty 7.23 6.16 7.13 6.82 5.38 5.02 5.70 5.47 5.26d) Accounting Department Events 7.00 6.19 6.96 6.81 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/Ae) Other Resources 6.52 5.89 6.83 6.11 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Treated with Respect by:a) UG Program Director 1 = strongly disagree 6.72 6.84 6.74 6.59 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/Ab) Accoutning Faculty 7 = strongly agree 6.56 6.66 6.53 6.36 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/Ac) Department Staff/ Front Desk 6.52 6.61 6.42 6.33 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/Ad) Teaching Assistants 6.44 6.53 6.42 6.30 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Faculty Mentoring Programa) Did you participate? Yes 1 = very dissatisfied 60 N/A 53 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

No 7 = very satisfied 43 N/A 46 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/Ab) Satisfaction with Menoring Program 5.43 N/A 5.66 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

 B‐3   

Page

2 of 2

UG14

DEPARTMENT OF ACCOUNTING ASSURANCE OF LEARNING PROGRAM

ANALYSIS OF OUTCOMES ASSESSMENT

FALL 2016/SPRING 2017

PROGRAM: Undergraduate OBJECTIVE: Gainful Employment Assessment Tool: Collection of Placement Data Administered by Dept. Staff

Description of Assessment and Results: Shortly before graduation, students in the capstone course receive an invitation to the Department’s Graduation Brunch and a Placement Survey is sent to them electronically following class. The department survey is completed by students expecting to graduate in December and May, so some differences from actual graduation numbers may occur. Additional information is collected from the brunch RSVP forms if initial survey data were incomplete. To obtain information about students who did not report through the department, the Undergraduate Program Director emails students to gain missing information, searches LinkedIn accounts, and gathers survey data from the Professional Development Center. Surveys were distributed to 145 students expecting to graduate in December (35) and May (110). Data was gathered from other sources if students did not complete the department survey (as described above). Of the students who reported placement information, 94% (133 students) had defined plans following graduation. This includes students who had accepted employment (66 students) or had been admitted to a Masters of Accounting program (62 students). The remaining 5 students included in our placed number either already had employment, were not seeking employment or were returning to their home country. Of the 66 students who accepted employment, 28 were entering public accounting, 27 industry, 2 financial services, 8 in government and not-for-profit organizations, and 1 in other areas. The number of students choosing industry employment continues to run above past averages (noted for the first time two years ago). We believe this is driven by higher salaries in financial services and more students seeking to work after four years, rather than incur the expense of an additional year of graduate school to work in public accounting. This year we again saw a slight increase in the number of students joining a public accounting firm without first going to the MAcc program. We believe students starting college with a high number of college credits already achieved is helping students reach the 150 hours without the MAcc. In addition, financial pressures often motivate students to enter work directly after undergraduate, which is why maintaining funding for TA positions and scholarships in the MAcc program is important. This is a trend we will continue to watch. Of the 62 students entering a graduate program, 42 (68%) selected the University of Arizona. This attests to the significant effort made by the Accounting department to attract our top students into our MAcc program.

F11/S12 F12/S13 F13/S14 F14/S15 F15/S16 F16/S17

Placed 109 133 118 144 114 133

Reported 150 160 136 163 135 145

% Placed 73% 83% 87% 88% 87% 94%

UG14

Placement results have significantly increased from the prior year as we continue to focus considerable efforts at maintaining this high rate of placement. In addition, we incorporated alternative methods of gathering placement information from our students this year, including reported employment on LinkedIn accounts, as well as graduation survey results from the Professional Development Center. Detailed information is included in the attached report. Evaluation of Quality of the Assessment Tool: We continue to revise the Placement Survey form to capture useful data related to placement. Recent revisions include more specific questions about location, one both where unplaced students are looking or where students are placed. Working with data gathered from Eller Undergraduate Career Services also helps improve accuracy and completeness of the information. Evaluation of Time and Place of Assessment: We are satisfied with the time and place of the assessment and appreciate the opportunity to gather data from Linkedin and the UG PDC surveys. Satisfaction with the Level of Assessment Results: We are thrilled with the improvement but will not be fully satisfied with placement until it reaches 100% of those students with legal authorization to work in the US. Unfortunately, placement requires effort on the part of our department (which we control) as well as employers (which we can influence) and graduates (which we do not control). We are confident in the number of opportunities being presented to our students. Not all students are as active in the search process as they should be or are unwilling to achieve the 150 hours needed to work in public accounting (where more opportunities exist for employment).

PLACEMENT OF ACCOUNTING UNDERGRADUATES (SELF-REPORTS) UG14a

Spring 

2011

Fall 

2011

Spring 

2012

Fall      

2012

Spring 

2013Fall 2013

Spring 

2014Fall 2014

Spring 

2015

Fall

2015

Spring

2016

Fall 

2016

Spring 

2017

Total 

F16/S17

Big 4 CPA 7 4 5 4 7 1 8 2 14 3 7 2 11 13

Public Accounting 6 7 8 6 4 6 14 6 13 7 15 7 8 15

Industry 23 4 4 7 9 3 11 10 15 2 8 7 20 27

Financial Services 1 2 1 0 6 2 1 1 9 1 3 1 1 2

Government & Non‐profit 5 1 2 2 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 2 6 8

Other Areas 21 1 5 0 5 0 6 3 0 0 0 0 1 1

Additional Education (non‐grad) 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2

Graduate School 0

U of A MAcc 30 8 36 9 46 8 38 7 40 11 39 7 37 44

Elsewhere 21 2 15 2 17 3 9 1 10 0 9 2 14 16

Not Seeking Employment (already employed or 

other) 3 1 2 0 5 1 2 3 4 3 4 1 3 4

Returning to Home Country 0 0 1 1 3 1 2 1 5 0 1 0 1 1

Total Placements 118 30 79 31 103 25 94 34 110 27 87 30 103 133

Seeking or Undecided 12 7 23 8 12 3 11 5 11 4 8 3 5 8

Interviewed/ Waiting 2 5 6 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 3 0 0 0

Not Reported 4 2 6 0 5 3 8 1 0 0 4 2 2 4

18 14 35 9 18 8 21 7 13 6 15 5 7 12

Total Graduates 136 44 114 40 121 33 115 41 123 33 102 35 110 145

% Placed Overall (of those reporting) 89% 71% 73% 78% 89% 83% 88% 85% 89% 82% 89% 91% 95% 94%