Banking BBA graduates will be competent communicators

Banking BBA graduates will be competent communicators.

Students will give an oral presentation during the Commercial Banking and Commercial Bank Lending courses.

At least 80% of the sampled students must meet expectations on the presentation portion of the grading rubric.

Students in the Commercial Banking course were assessed using a case study. The assignment allowed students to utilize the information obtained in the class and complementary classes to exhibit a degree of competency as well as an ability to apply course materials in the problem-solving process. The cases were evaluated by Dr. Jim Bexley (course instructor), Dr. Steve Johnson (finance faculty), and two area banking professionals. The groups were graded by each of the 4 evaluators on a scale of 1 to 10 for both presentation and communication, for a maximum subscore of 40 points in each area. This is a slight change over last year, in which there was only 1 score given for communication.  The evaluators determined that given the difficulty of the case, a minimum subscore of 20 was needed to meet expectations, 24 to 28 to exceed expectations, and 29 and above to significantly exceed expectations.

Full results are attached. In the area of Presentation, 7 of 10 groups significantly exceeded expectations, and the remaining 3 exceeded expectations (none failed to meet expectations). Raw scores ranged from 27 to 39. In summary, the evaluators reported very good written presentations and use of PowerPoint.

In the area of Communication, 9 of 10 groups significantly exceeded expectations, and the remaining group exceeded expectations (none failed to meet expectations). Raw scores ranged from 26 to 37. In summary, the evaluators reported that the students did a very good job in communicating the suggested solutions. 

Students in the Commercial Bank Lending course completed small group case presentations related to a lending request. Students were graded using a rubric addressing both content and delivery (see attachment).

To meet expectations for delivery (communication), a group must score 35/50; 40/50 to exceed expectations, and 45/50 to significantly exceed expectations. For the Spring 2013 course, 4 of the 8 groups significantly exceeded expectations, and the remaining 4 exceeded expectations. No group failed to meet expectations. The scores for communication were somewhat higher than 2012, due to the increased emphasis on the importance of presenting the results.  A summary of scores is attached.

Few significant modifications appear to be needed. The “outside” evaluators for the Commercial Banking course stated that the students performed very well and appeared ready for real-world activities.  This is a slight improvement over last year, when the evaluators indicated the students should focus more on using the presentation to “sell” the solutions.

In the Commercial Bank Lending course, more focus was placed on the communication of the results than in the past years.  For example, the instructor provided a more detailed example of the presentation required, used a more standard format for all presentations, and presented an “example” for the students to see what was required.   However, the analysis seemed to take a step back.  For subsequent semesters, emphasis will be placed more equally on both the presentation and the analysis. 

Banking BBA graduates will correctly apply financial models in solving quantitative problems in banking and in presenting solutions to banking problems.

Students will present one or more cases involving issues in banking.  Students will evaluate the information given, identify alternative solutions, and then recommend the most appropriate solution. 

80% of the sampled students must meet expectations on the solution portion of the presentation grading rubric.

Students in the commercial banking class were assessed using a case study. The assignment allowed students to utilize the information obtained in the class and complementary classes to exhibit a degree of competency as well as an ability to apply course materials in the problems solving process. The cases were evaluated by the Dr. Jim Bexley (course instructor), Dr. Steve Johnson (finance faculty), as well as 2 area banking professionals. The groups were graded by each of the 4 evaluators on a scale of 1 to 10 for critical thinking, for a maximum of 40 points. The evaluators determined that given the difficulty of the case, a minimum subscore of 20 was needed to meet expectations, 24 to 28 to exceed expectations, and 29 and above to significantly exceed expectations.

Full results are attached. In the area of Critical Thinking, 9 of the 10 groups significantly exceeded expectations, and the remaining group exceeded expectations (none failed to meet expectations). Raw scores ranged from 27 to 38. In summary, the evaluators reported that the students did a very good job in analyzing the case. They had a good understanding of the financial analysis necessary to evaluate the situation.   

Students in the Commercial Bank Lending course completed small group case presentations related to a lending request. Students were graded using a rubric addressing both content and delivery (see attachment).

To meet expectations for content (critical thinking), a group must score 35/50; 40/50 to exceed expectations, and 45/50 to significantly exceed expectations. In the Spring 2013 semester, 3 of the 8 groups significantly exceeded expectations, 4 exceeded expectations, and the remaining group met expectations. No groups failed to meet expectations. A summary of scores is attached.

Few significant modifications appear to be needed. The “outside” evaluators for the Commercial Banking course reported no major suggestions for improvement.  Critical Thinking subscores were substantially higher this year compared to last year.

In the Commercial Bank Lending course, there was increased emphasis placed on the effective presentation of the cases this semester.  While the presentations improved over past years, the analysis regressed slightly compared to the previous year.  Going forward, the importance of both the analysis and the presentation will be emphasized and demonstrated.  Additionally, the Commercial Bank Lending Cases are revised each semester to involve additional analysis to reflect current issues. The more standardized platform of analysis implemented this year did help with student expectations of the depth of the analysis.

Students should develop an excellent working knowledge of bank operations.  This primarily includes the lending function and bank management.

In the regular class exams, students answer 21 qualitative and quantitative questions which cover the core areas of banking. The questions are attached. These questions have been developed by both the Chair of Banking and members of the finance faculty. The knowledge that is tested is reviewed on an annual basis to ensure that core knowledge is tested.  A new text was implemented in the Fall of 2012, and several questions were added while others from the previous year were deleted.  

The class average on individual embedded exam questions will be 70% correct. The embedded questions are selected based on the core objectives of the course. The core objectives of the banking courses were determined by the Chair of Banking and the finance faculty teaching the related banking courses.

Overall, the students averaged 78.3 percent correct in the spring 2013 semester (see attached table).  This percentage was down slightly from the average of 81.5 percent for the previous year.  However, since several questions changed, this decrease is not considered significant.  Additionally, 2 individual questions did not meet the 70% goal (this is down from 6 questions in Fall 2011 and 4 questions in Spring 2012. The questions are #6 (spreading financial statements) and #10 (the 5C’s of credit).

With question 6, the students appear to be unfamiliar with the term “spreading.”  There were several homework assignments and a case assignment in which spreading the financial was required.  This suggests they are familiar with process, but not the specific term naming that process.  Next year, the term “spreading” will be used more in the actual homework assignments so students better understand the name.  Question 10 asks about the 5 C’s of credit.  A potential reason for the higher number missed is that the question asks the student to identify which of the terms listed is not one of the 5 C’s.  Experience shows that students generally miss this type of question more often than others.  Regardless, more emphasis will be placed on the class discussion of the 5 C’s.  Also, we may add a section of the case assignment dedicated to the 5 C’s in order to reinforce the concept.