Finance BBA students will be proficient in the quantitative formulas required in financial applications. This will prepare the student for a career in finance after graduation.

Finance BBA students will correctly apply financial models used in solving quantitative problems in finance.

Assessment will be made using embedded questions and assess student performance on core quantitative concepts and principles in finance. The core questions will be composed from the core modeling concepts addressed in each course. The embedded questions were created by collaboration of the finance faculty.  FIN 367, 432, 439

Based on assessment data from the previous year, it was determined that increased focus in the modeling and quantitative area would yield improved student performance.  Therefore, this year the average correct in this area of the exam will be 75%.  After data is compiled a review of the curriculum will be completed to ensure that the change in focus was successful.

The course is assessed by the Finance faculty selecting thirty multiple choice questions that cover the core material taught in the course.  The Spring 2011 assessment followed the same format as of Fall 2009.  The same questions were again embedded in the multiple choice section of the exam to assess the students’ knowledge of the quantitative finance skills and the general knowledge of the course. The questions are in line with the goals of the course goals and objectives. The assessment comprised a broad range of general finance topics. The questions were administered to the Fin 367 students in the Fall 2010. The sample data was collected in such a manner that we also requested that the students indicate their major in the assessment form. This sample contains 85 students and their average score was 70.47% which was lower than last fall. The difference between the concept and quantitative questions did not yield any difference in score. However, looking further into the results by major, finance and accounting major students outperformed students majoring in other business degrees. This only major difference between this results and the last one was that in this assessment the finance majors did better compared to management majors. This was a concern the last time because the management majors were better. It would appear that the last results were an anomaly, although only additional assessment can truly validate this claim.

This assessment was a follow-up to earlier assessments conducted in the spring and fall semesters of 2009 and the spring semester of 2010. This particular assessment is of interest is that it is the first one made since the introduction of new textbook for the course. As with the previous assessments it includes a selection of 20 multiple choice questions that were embedded in various student assessments (i.e., exams) throughout the course. The questions selected, some of which are quantitative and some qualitative, cover a wide variety of topics that are in line with the overall course objectives. (See the appendix for summary of questions used along with the correct responses to each question.) The majority of the questions test basic knowledge of terms and concepts and basic calculations used in the analysis of financial statements, although some involved a higher level of application of the course material.

The course introduces a variety of principles and methodologies applicable to the analysis of financial statements. The primary objectives are as follows:

• Reviewing and gaining factual knowledge of various accounting principles that affect financial reporting as well as methodologies (common-sized statements, ratio analysis, etc.) used to evaluate financial reports. Questions 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 12, 14, 16, and 18 assess student proficiency in this area.
• Finding and using appropriate resources for conducting financial analysis. Questions 4, 7, 10, 13, and 20 assess student proficiency in this area.
• Applying the appropriate resources in the analysis of financial statements. Questions 6, 9, 11, 15, 17, and 19 assess student proficiency in this area.

Overall, the percentage of correct responses to the assessment questions rose from 71.4 percent in the spring 2010 semester to 74.9 percent in the fall 2010 semester with improvements noted in two of the course learning objectives but with a decline in the third. Table 1 shows the results for the questions focused on assessing basic factual knowledge. Overall, 84.6 percent of the questions in this area were correctly answered, up from 79.7 percent for the previous semester, with gains seen in almost every question. One notable exception is seen in question 3, which saw a significant drop in results. This is likely attributed to the topic not being as strongly discussed in the new textbook and should be easily remedied by more detailed discussions in class.

We find the similar improvement in the series of questions dealing with the second objective, finding and using appropriate resources, as summarized in Table 2. Overall, 76.8 percent of the questions were answered correctly, up from 68.0 percent the previous semester. Again, the improvement is very much across the board with the exception of question 4, which continues to be a point with which students have difficulty. Continuing remedial accounting and finance reviews will need to be incorporated in the class to help the students better grasp the somewhat arcane topic of income statement presentation.

 

Assessment was completed through the use of embedded questions.  Questions were chosen based on the 3 topic areas emphasized in the course:

1. Qualitative understanding, including the characteristics and payoff/profit diagrams of option and futures position;
2. Binomial option pricing of European and American call and put options;
3. Path-weighted discounted average payoff method for path-dependent exotic options

The class had 7 students, and so dividing the data by major would not be as informative.  The sample is divided into undergraduates (all seniors) and graduate students.

The areas of the course where undergraduates had the most difficulty appear to be understanding the use of options and the concepts on which option theory is based.  Faculty will design additional course materials to provide additional practice in these areas.

The most quantitative parts of the course, including the 2-step binomial tree, 1-step binomial tree and calculation of vega, and exotic option pricing, all have an average of at least 80% for undergraduates and 100% for graduates.

 

 

Business Finance - FIN 367:  Business Finance students' performance decreased slightly in the Spring 2011 semester from the Fall 2010 semester.  Out of the thirty questions, students only had a passing grade in 76.67% of the overall concept and quantitative skills in this course. This is different from last semester when they had the passing grade in 80% of all the thirty questions. This obviously needs additional investigation. 

Financial Statement and Credit Analysis/FIN 432:  Based on earlier assessments the primary textbook for the course was changed. Based on the overall class performance it appears this change improved the performance of the students in most areas. However, whereas the book appears to provide a better summary of elementary course topics, it lacks some of the rigor that the course requires, rigor that must be thoroughly supplemented by the instructor.

Seminar in Financial Derivatives/FIN 439:  Based on assessment data  students did very poorly on the 2-step binomial option problem.  The course curriculum will be modified to allow for additional time in class going over this very foundational problem. 

The goal of the Finance program is to provide students with a broad base of knowledge in finance.

Finance students will demonstrate an understanding of the qualitative aspects of finance.

Assessment will be made using embedded questions and analyze the students performance on core qualitative concepts and principles of finance. The questions for the embedded questions were selected from each of the core areas of the respective course. The finance faculty collaborated on the selection of the questions to ensure that there is uniformity amongst the respective courses.  FIN 334W, 471

The class average on individual embedded exam questions will be 70% correct on the qualitative portion of the exam. Embedded questions will be included on each unit examination.

This assessment was a follow-up to the initial assessments conducted in the fall semester of 2009 and spring semester of 2010. It was deemed prudent to reassess the course to provide a baseline set of data to compare against the subsequent spring 2011 course offering that will be made in an online setting, especially given the change in textbook for the course. The assessment includes a selection of 20 multiple choice questions that are embedded in various student assessments (i.e., exams) throughout the course. The questions selected, some quantitative and some qualitative, cover a wide variety of topics that are in line with the overall course objectives and were made in consultation with the three primary or potential instructors of the course, Drs. Jesswein, Johnson, and Leavell. (See appendix for summary of questions used along with the correct responses to each question.) The majority of the questions test basic knowledge of terms and concepts and basic calculations used in international finance, although some involve a higher level of application of the course material.

The course introduces the economic and political environment of international finance and examines how various entities, most commonly multinationals, manage their financial activities in an increasingly global environment. The primary objectives are as follows:

• Gaining factual knowledge such as types of global financial markets, institutions, and instruments, foreign currency calculations, and tools used to manage foreign currency exposures. Questions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 11, 12, 14, 18, and 20 assess student proficiency in this area.
• Learning fundamental principles, generalizations, and theories such as the factors associated with the appreciation and depreciation of foreign exchange rates. Questions 7, 8, 9, 10, and 19 assess student proficiency in this area.
• Applying the knowledge base in the analysis of different scenarios common to businesses operating in a global environment. Questions 13, 15, 16, and 17 assess student proficiency in this area.

Overall, the students correctly answered the questions 66.2 percent of the time, virtually flat from 66.9 percent success rate from the previous semester. However, the results are mixed when analyzing the questions by course objective and then by individual questions within those course objectives. For example, Table 1 shows the results for the questions focused on assessing basic factual knowledge. Overall, 67.0 percent of the questions were answered correctly, down from 74.1 percent from the previous semester. Significant drops were noted in several areas, most notably questions 2, 3, and 11. The first two questions deal with technical aspects of foreign exchange trading, material which must be reinforced in future semesters. The third question (number 11) dealt with a simple trade financing issue, which certainly must be addressed more strongly in the future.

Questions dealing with the second course objective, developing an understanding of fundamental theories, continue to display disappointing results with correct answers occurring only around 59.4 percent of the time as compared to the previous semester’s 58.1 percent (see Table 2). Some continuing progress was noted with question 7 (dealing with interest rate parity) which unfortunately was largely offset by lower results in question 8 (purchasing power parity). All in all, providing a way for students to grasp a keener understanding of the theoretical relationships within international finance continues to be a challenge.

The third course objective, applying the course material, showed the greatest improvement as summarized in Table 3. Although only 72.5 percent of the questions were answered correctly, this was a marked increase from the previous semester’s abysmal 58.0 percent. Furthermore, improvements were noted in each question, although the marginal improvement in the results for question 17 (an increase from 18.2 to 26.7 percent) are still totally unacceptable. This question is arguably the most difficult of the twenty assessment questions used in that it brings together multiple theoretical constructs within the structure of one question. However, this concept is an extremely important one for the students to be able to grasp so considerable more time or effort must be made to have the students better understand the situation presented.

Lastly, the results for the course were also examined with respect to major as the majority of students were either international business majors (13), for which this course is required, or finance majors (14), for which this course is one of only a few elective courses available during the fall 2010 semester. The results, which are summarized in Appendix 4, show some discernible differences between the groups. For example, the finance majors scored on average nine percentage points higher than the international business majors. And the differences between majors are especially acute in selected areas, most notably questions 4, 5, and 6. No specific conclusions can be made about the differences except to note that the three questions occur on the first exam, perhaps signifying that the international business majors are not as comfortable with the style or phrasing of the questions and clearer explanations of what the course expectations are might provide them with clearer direction on what to focus on in their studies.

In the spring semester of 2010, the College of Business Administration (COBA) began offering FIN 334 without the writing-enhanced designation. In other words, the predecessor to FIN 334 was FIN 334W. As such, FIN 334W was assessed through answers to short answer questions for which partial credit was possible. These fall 2010 assessment results are the first reported for FIN 334 via embedded multiple choice questions. 

This semester, FIN 334 was offered online for the first time. The course has not been assessed since this development. As such, statistics on the online sections are compared to the in-class sections.

Additionally, the faculty now teaching the non-writing-enhanced sections met in August 2010 to discuss and revise the learning objectives for the course. The revised learning objectives are a bit more general but not materially different from the objectives previously assessed.

There were six (6) sections of FIN 334 taught during the semester with a total of 225 students who completed the assessment questions. Assessment consisted of a series of sixteen (16) multiple choice questions embedded within the examinations given throughout the semester. Questions were developed to test student knowledge relating to five key learning objectives.

1. Understand the basic structure of our financial system and why the financial system is important
2. Understand interest rates and their role in valuation
3. Understand the structure of the Federal Reserve System and how the Fed conducts monetary policy
4. Understand the principles of specific financial markets
5. Understand the principles of specific financial institutions

As one would expect for such a large course, assessment results for the embedded questions were mixed by instructor, section, pedagogical method and student major.  

Students performed very well on the questions related to the overall financial system and financial institutions (learning objectives 1 and 5).  Performance on questions related to financial markets (learning objective 4) was also 70.66%.  Scores on questions related to learning objectives 2 and 3 (interest rates and the Federal Reserve System) were lower than the scores on other objectives.  

The results indicate that, on average, finance majors (80.0%) performed better on the embedded questions than did non-finance majors (71.45%).  Compared with fall 2009 assessment, the disparity between finance majors and non-finance majors remained about the same.  

When parsed on discipline, all College of Business Administration (COBA) majors (72.67%) performed slightly better than other non-business disciplines (71.29%). A portion of these results can be explained by the requirement for business majors (and specifically finance majors) to take FIN 367. Many COBA majors have either completed FIN 367 prior to taking FIN 334W or took it concurrently with the course.  In many instances, finance majors have even completed more advanced electives before taking FIN 334.

The difference in the overall results of the fall 2010 assessment and the fall 2009 assessment stems from several reasons.

1. FIN 334 was a writing enhanced course in fall 2009.  Assessment was conducted via response to short answer questions in 2009 rather than multiple choice format in 2010.
2. The fall 2009 assessment data was not comprehensive.  Data for some sections was not available.  The results were biases toward sections taught by tenured or tenure-track faculty and did not include data on sections taught by adjunct faculty.

 

 

International Finance/FIN 471:  Minor modifications appear to be needed. As discussed in the course findings, the difficulties that the students have are primarily in the theoretical portions of the course and the application of some of that material in “real-world” and quantitative situations. Thus, stronger emphasis will be made in these areas. 

Financial Institutions and Markets/FIN 334:  Based on the assessment data collected students performance was poorest on questions related to interest rates and the Federal Reserve System.  Emphasis will be added in future semesters on these topics and reassessed.   

Interest rates (and associated bond prices) are perhaps the most technical topic discussed in FIN 334.  Due to their complexity, performance on questions in this area is historically low.

Additionally, the Federal Reserve System is currently a hot-button political topic – not just a financial one.  Much of the “spin” in the financial press and mainstream media may have led to some confusion on the topic.  For example, if students observed a television interview of Ron Paul during the semester, he or she would have a different perspective of the Federal Reserve than a student who saw an interview with Ben Bernanke.

Finance students will be satisfied with the instruction that they receive.

Finance students will be satisfied with the level of instruction that they receive.

Ratings and feedback of the Finance student as measured by the IDEA form.

Finance faculty will have an IDEA score average of 50% in at least one course taught.

The department, college, and university utilize the IDEA System as part of its evaluation of classroom performance. The IDEA System, developed by the IDEA Center at Kansas State University, is a nationally normed, validated and reliable measure of classroom performance based on the top 12 learning objectives. The IDEA scores are a major portion of the department's Faculty Evaluation System (FES) as it relates to classroom performance.

The finance faculty have exceeded the goal set of achieving a score of fifty percent or greater in at least one course taught.  One hundred percent of the finance faculty met this goal. 

The finance faculty have exceeded the goal set of achieving a score of fifty percent or greater in at least one course taught.  One hundred percent of the finance faculty met this goal.  Based on the performance of the finance faculty members, this goal will need to be increased for the next academic year.