ArticlePDF Available

The Power of Compliments: Generating Positive Behavior Changes in Freshmen Students

January 2013

Authors:

Lake Superior State University

This study examined how giving compliments affected freshmen students in an “Intro to Business” course at a four-year public university. A review of the literature was completed in the areas of positive psychology, compliments, and retention. Primary data was collected from reflective essays that freshmen business students wrote after giving three objective compliments per day for twenty days. Grounded theory was used to analyze the data and determine appropriate categories. The author utilized double coding in order for the data to be placed into the determined categories. The findings included less stressful environments, increased self-confidence, and improved communication as a result of the experiment. Additionally, suggestions for future research linking positive psychology to increased retention were presented.

…

: Programs offered by Location and Online

…

: ANOVA Table for Classroom Success by Race

…

: ANOVA Table for Classroom Success by Number of Class Meetings per week

…

Figures - uploaded by Ralf Wilhelms

Content may be subject to copyright.

Content uploaded by Ralf Wilhelms

Content may be subject to copyright.

Recognizing Excellence

in Business Education

Volume 3

ISSN 2151-6022

Edited by Annette E. Craven, Ph.D. & Laura S. Mays, Ed.D.

2012 ACBSP ANNUAL EDI T I O N

11520 West 119th Street Overland Park, Kansas 66213

913-339-9356  Fax 913-339-6226  info@acbsp.org  www.acbsp.org

January 12, 2013

Dear ACBSP Members:

Volume 3 of the ACBSP Annual Edition: Recognizing Excellence in Business Education

represents ACBSP’s continuous commitment to support the scholarly efforts of its members. The

fundamental objective of the ACBSP Annual Edition is to provide a venue for ACBSP members

to present their research and findings, engage in scholarly research and inquiry, and support and

improve classroom teaching. The articles in Volume 3 went through a rigorous peer review

process prior to final acceptance for publication.

We are extremely grateful for the efforts of the authors who contributed to the ACBSP Annual

Edition, Volume 3 and the reviewers who found the time to provide professional and courteous

feedback to the authors.

We have worked diligently this year to refine the processes leading up to the publication of the

Annual Edition. Please visit the Annual Edition webpage at the ACBSP website under the

Special Initiatives link. There you will find an Open Call for Papers, applications for reviewers

and special topics editors, and instructions for submitting your research.

Finally, the Committee for Scholar-Practitioner Publications wants to thank you, the reader, for

investing the time and effort to read the Annual Edition, Volume 3. We hope you will find the

contents to be a rich source of relevant research, tools, and techniques which can be applied in

your academic environments. We also invite you to submit your scholarly research and activities

for publication in future ACBSP scholarly publications.

Annette E. Craven Laura S. Mays

Annette E. Craven, PhD Laura S. Mays, EdD

Peter S. Horn Anthony Negbenebor

Peter S. Horn, PhD, LLM Anthony Negbenebor, Ph.D.

ACCREDITATION COUNCIL FOR

BUSINESS SCHOOLS AND PROGRAMS

Bringing Together Those Dedicated to Teaching Excellence

ANNUAL EDITION, Volume 3, ISSN 2151-6022

Disclaimer: Neither the Editor nor the Reviewers provided any corrections to authors' final

content. Authors were responsible for choosing an acceptable publication style and applying it

consistently throughout their articles. Authors were also responsible for providing correct,

working URLs and website links within articles, footnotes, endnotes, and references. Articles

were formatted with a consistent typeface and heading style, preserving graphics to the extent

possible.

EDITORS

Annette E. Craven, PhD, Past President, ACBSP, DBA Program Director & Professor of

Management, University of the Incarnate Word

Laura S. Mays, EdD, Chair of Romanian Academic Programs, Professor of Management,

Tiffin University

2012 BOARD OF REVIEWERS

Diane Bandow, PhD, Troy University

Sara Cook, PhD, Viterbo University

Charlene Connor, DBA, Dallas Baptist University

Ruth Seibert-Couch, PhD, Owens Community College

Thomas Debbink, PhD, Tiffin University

Henry 'Rod' Elrod, PhD, University of the Incarnate Word

Nancy A. Floyd, PhD, North Carolina Wesleyan College

Doug Gilbert, DBA, University of Phoenix

Perry Haan, PhD, Tiffin University

Jose F. Moreno, PhD, University of the Incarnate Word

Cynthia Busin Nicola, EdD, Carlow University

Osman Ozturgut, PhD, University of the Incarnate Word

Scott D. Roberts, PhD, University of the Incarnate Word

Nicole Cornell Sadowski, PhD, York College of Pennsylvania

Kimberly Scruton, EdD, Methodist University

Barbara Vallera, DM, Sacred Heart University

11520 West 119th Street Overland Park, Kansas 66213

913-339-9356  Fax 913-339-6226  info@acbsp.org  www.acbsp.org

TABLE OF CONTENTS

The ACBSP Option for Implementing an AACSB Global Accreditation Strategy

Doug Viehland & Annette E. Craven, PhD

What Determines Student Performance in Principles of Economics Courses? A Case Study of

Principles of Economics Students at a US 2-Year College

Michael Machiorlatti & Germain Pichop

The Relationship Between Leadership Style and Team Dynamics

Charlene Connor, DBA, David Notgrass, PhD, & W. Ross O'Brien, PhD

Valuing Adult Development and Readiness through Potent and Relevant On-Line Learning

Diane Bandow, PhD, Victoria L. Figiel, DBA & Mike Whitlock, DBA

IFRS: A Catalyst for Change in US Accounting Education

Robert A. Singer, PhD, Zane L. Swanson, PhD, & Jennifer M. Mack, PhD

The Power of Compliments: Generating Positive Behavior Changes in Freshmen Students

Ralf Wilhelms, DBA

The Harmonization of Accounting Standards

Seth Sikkema, CPA

Proven Practices for Authentic Instruction and Online Delivery in Higher Education

Kurt D. Kirstein, EdD & Kelly A. Flores, EdD

Trends in Bringing Sustainability and Climate Change Content into the Curriculum

Terri Friel & Josetta McLaughlin

Factors Influencing Student Use of Online Homework Management Systems

Anita R. Morgan, DBA, CPA

Thriving in a Down Economy: Using Sound Business Principles to Increase Revenue and

Focus on Quality in a Poor Economy

William S. Lightfoot, PhD & Suzanne Erickson, PhD

113

Cybercheating: A Research Study on the Detection and Prevention of Plagiarism in an

Online Graduate Business Program from the Faculty Members' Perspective

Kevin J. Davies, PhD & Susan K. Fan, DM

121

Balance Score Card and the role of National Culture

Angela D. McCaskill, PhD & Steve Roussas, PhD

134

The ACBSP Option for

Implementing an AACSB Global

Accreditation Strategy

Douglas Viehland, Executive Director, ACBSP

Annette E. Craven, PhD, Past President, ACBSP

Abstract. This paper was submitted to the

AACSB Board of Directors on December 30,

2010 and offered a discussion of an alternative

approach to fulfilling the AACSB

International—The Association to Advance

Collegiate Schools of Business International

objectives of the Special Committee on Global

Accreditation Strategy via partnership with the

Accreditation Council for Business Schools &

Programs by utilization of the existing ACBSP

Baldrige-based standards and criteria, which

focus on quality and continuous improvement in

business education. All data included in this

paper was extracted from documentation made

available at ACBSP and/or AACSB conferences

and in public documentation dated on or before

December, 2010. This partnership would have

created an alternative to the Quality Business

School Certification proposed in the AACSB

presentation, Quality Management Education

Matters presented at various AACSB meetings,

conferences and a Web forum in mid- and late-

2010. Adoption of this partnership would have

created opportunities for more of the

approximately 12,600 institutions offering

business degrees globally that are not currently

accredited to enhance their business programs

through quality processes and continuous

improvement practices.

Brief History and Introduction. The

Accreditation Council for Business Schools &

Programs (herein after referred to as ACBSP)

was created at a time when Association to

Advance Collegiate Schools of Business

International (herein after referred to as

AACSB) maintained a focus on the

advancement of knowledge through research and

faculty involvement in scholarly activity. As an

alternative for schools with limited budgets and

endowments and fulfilling a teaching mission,

ACBSP developed and offered access to a

quality based accreditation product without a

requirement to change to a research mission.

The ACBSP alternative offered schools with a

teaching mission to utilize standards and criteria

to continuously improve their educational

systems and processes and earn accreditation for

their business programs. 1 Since 1988, ACBSP

has evolved and expanded its market to include

members in the following countries:

• Asia: Bangladesh, China, India,

Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Mongolia,

Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam.

• Middle East and Africa: Afghanistan,

Iraq, Kuwait, Morocco, Nigeria, Qatar,

Republic of Benin, Saudi Arabia, and the

United Arab Emirates.

• Europe: Albania, Austria, Belgium,

Cyprus, Czech Republic, France,

Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy,

Macedonia, Netherlands, Russia,

Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland,

and the United Kingdom.

• Latin America: Argentina, Colombia,

Dominican Republic, Panama, Paraguay,

Peru, and Trinidad.

• North America: Canada, Mexico, and

United States of America.

AACSB has provided leadership and guidance

to institutions of higher education to further their

continuous and quality improvement goals since

1907. A part of this history is the creation

within AACSB institutions the quality education

that has produced the overwhelming majority of

faculty that currently teach at ACBSP business

schools, especially in the United States. This is

for both the Baccalaureate/Graduate Degree

members and the Associate Degree members.

Because of the predominance of doctoral

programs at AACSB institutions these faculty

members have benefited from and been a

witness to the value of accreditation. It was the

1 ACBSP was formed in 1988; in 1989 the initial

accreditation standards and criteria were finalized; the

standards were revised in 1998 at which time more

emphasis on the Baldrige standards for excellence were

incorporated. In 2004, the standards were again reviewed

and revised, and in 2010 there was a major revision to the

underlying criteria.

desire to create for their business schools an

accreditation process to meet the needs of their

schools that provided the strong motivation for

ACBSP to be created and to join AACSB in

meeting the needs of two very distinctive and

different markets.

However, the socio-economic and political

changes in the global landscape and the

emergence of movements such as the Bologna

Accord2 in the past two decades have made it

imperative that both organizations refine their

products to meet the needs of an evolving post-

secondary environment. For these and other

reasons, AACSB has broadened the language of

its standards to allow schools and programs to

become more mission-based, and ACBSP has

merged its dual option standards into one set,

which is completely grounded in quality

improvement principles.

A collaboration or partnership between the two

organizations, until now, has not been necessary

or feasible. However, the standards of the two

organizations have grown more similar and both

now focus on learning outcomes, continuous

improvement, and evidence of quality business

education supported by resources (financial and

human) relevant to each program’s mission

statement. A comparison of the standards of

both organizations (Table 1), demonstrates that

the priorities for quality business education are

fairly consistent.

Since 2003, with the hiring of the current

Executive Director, ACBSP has made concerted

efforts to better understand the needs of its

current and potential member schools, enhance

the quality practices and faculty qualifications of

its accredited members, and learn from peer

2 The Bologna Accord aims to harmonize 40 different

European higher education systems by creating a single

system of degrees (Bachelor and Master qualifications)

within an agreed framework and with a consistent credit

and grading system. A key objective is to create a more

competitive Europe by establishing a higher education

system compatible with global standards. Retrieved

December 17, 2010 from The Association of Business

Schools, http://www.the-abs.org.uk/?id=136.

associations like AACSB. The current Board of

Directors has made a commitment to the

availability of scholarly opportunities for its

members, including publication of a double-

blind, peer-reviewed annual journal,

appointment of a Committee for Scholar-

Practitioner Publications, and a highly qualified

Board of Reviewers whose members must meet

the highest scholarly activity criteria.

These activities are part of the new strategic

planning efforts and ACBSP's desire to build

cooperative relationships with other accrediting

bodies and with associations of business schools

and individuals affiliated with business schools

both in the United States and in areas outside of

the United States, and with government

ministries in certain developing countries. To

begin movement in that direction with AACSB,

ACBSP made the decision to recognize and

support member schools in their efforts to obtain

AACSB accreditation. ACBSP staff and Board

members attend a variety of AACSB seminars

and conferences and make every effort to engage

in positive discourse with AACSB staff and

members.

A New Vision. A key focus for the future is

collaboration. ACBSP leadership has

recognized there is an opportunity with the

recommendations of the Special Committee on

Global Accreditation Strategy (hereafter referred

to as SCOGAS) to move toward a collaborative

relationship with AACSB. The new vision

statement adopted by the ACBSP Board of

Directors at its September, 2010 board meeting

is that every quality business program

worldwide is accredited, and the new mission

statement is that ACBSP promotes continuous

improvement and recognizes excellence in the

accreditation of business education programs

around the world. These statements are not

dramatically different from that of the Mission

statement of AACSB, which states that AACSB

International advances quality management

education worldwide through accreditation,

thought leadership, and value-added services.

Much like AACSB, the ACBSP membership is

concerned about the proliferation of business

schools appearing around the globe and the

potential impact on business environments of

graduates from schools that do not engage in quality assurance practices.

Table 1: Comparison of Accreditation Standards

AACSB

ACBSP

Standard 1: Mission Statement

Institutional Overview: Statement of Mission

Standard 2: Intellectual Contributions

Standard 5: (5.8) Scholarly & Professional Activities based on the

Boyer Model of Scholarship (1997; see attached table)

Standard 3: Student Mission

Standard #3 Student and Stakeholder Focus

Standard 4: Continuous Improvement

Objectives

Standard 1: Leadership

Standard 2: Strategic Planning

Standard 3: Student & Stakeholder Focus

Standard #4: Measurement & Analysis of Student Learning &

Performance

Standard 5: Financial Strategies

Standard 1: Leadership

Standard 2: Strategic Planning

Standard 6: Educational & Business Process Management

Standard 6: Student Admission

Standard 6: Educational & Business Process Management (6.3.1

Admissions Policies & Procedures)

Standard 7: Student Retention

Standard 6: Educational & Business Process Management (6.3.6

Enrollment Management)

Standard 8: Staff Sufficiency-Student

Support

Standard 6: Educational & Business Process Management (6.2.1

Educational Support Processes)

Standard 9: Faculty Sufficiency

Standard 5: Faculty & Staff Focus (5.5 Faculty Size & Load)

Standard 10: Faculty Qualifications

Standard 5: Faculty & Staff Focus (5.3 Faculty Qualifications,

Workload & Coverage)

Standard 11: Faculty Management &

Support

Standard 5: Faculty & Staff Focus (5.7 Faculty and Staff

Operational Procedures, Policies and

Practices, and Development)

Standard 12: Aggregate Faculty & Staff

Educational Responsibility

Standard 5: Faculty & Staff Focus (5.7 Faculty and Staff

Operational Procedures, Policies and

Practices, and Development)

Standard 13: Individual Faculty

Educational Responsibility

Standard 5: Faculty & Staff Focus (5.7 Faculty and Staff

Operational Procedures, Policies and

Practices, and Development)

Standard 14: Student Educational

Responsibility

Standard 3: Student & Stakeholder Focus

Standard 15: Management of Curricula

Standard 6: Education Design & Delivery

Standard 16: UG Learning Goals

Standard 4: Measurement & Analysis of Student Learning &

Performance

Standard 17: UG Educational Level

Standard 6: (6.1.3) Undergraduate Common Professional

Component (CPC)

Standard 18: Master’s Level General

Management Learning Goals

Standard 4: Measurement & Analysis of Student Learning &

Performance

Standard 19: Specialized Master’s Degree

Learning Goals

Standard 4: Measurement & Analysis of Student Learning &

Performance

Standard 20: Master’s Educational Level

Standard 6: (6.1.6) Curriculum Design in Graduate Programs

Standard 21: Doctoral Learning Goals

Standard 6: (6.1.6) Curriculum Design in Graduate Programs

The Opportunity. While acknowledging the

name of the new product is a placeholder, a

review of the proposed Quality Business School

Certification (hereafter referred to as QBSC)

product reveals a close fit with the qualities of

ACBSP accreditation as outlined below. The

Preliminary Guiding Principles identified by

SCOGAS and included in the Quality

Management Education Matters presentation

were that the QBSC would be mission-driven;

focus on quality and continuous improvement;

have maximum distinction from AACSB

Accreditation; provide quality assurance of

multiple programs in a business school format;

and serve the needs of schools that are not

designed to meet AACSB's academic faculty

and intellectual contribution standards. The

following commentary illustrates how ACBSP

accreditation standards and processes satisfy

these guiding principles.

1. Mission-driven: The ACBSP process is

mission driven. It not only requires links to

fulfillment of the business unit mission, but

also to the institution as well. A great

number of Historically Black Colleges and

Universities, Hispanic-Serving Institutions,

faith-based institutions, and private for-

profit colleges find value in what is offered

through ACSBP accreditation. Institutions

which place heavier emphasis on teaching

than research historically have been and

remain the primary candidates for ACBSP

accreditation. The 2003 revisions to the

AACSB standards clearly reveal intent on

the part of AACSB to enable its member and

accredited institutions to articulate the

manifestation of their missions. The

evolution of the AQ/PQ Bridge programs

demonstrates AACSB's commitment to

faculty credentials and quality both as

researchers and as teachers. At the same

time, ACBSP has formalized its Faculty

Credential Review Committee and has been

very intentional in its requirement of a

qualified faculty in its accredited business

schools and programs.

2. Quality and continuous improvement: The

ACBSP standards for accreditation are

based on the Baldrige Education Criteria for

Performance Excellence. Similar systemic

processes exist in other parts of the world,

many supported by government or industry,

as a way to promote performance

excellence, data collection, systematic

processes, and continuous improvement

(ISO 9000, Six Sigma, Kaizen, Lean Sigma,

etc.). Several members of the ACBSP

headquarters staff, Boards of Directors and

Commissioners, mentors, evaluators, and

member institution faculty and staff are

national and/or state Baldrige Examiners.

The ACBSP standards and criteria contain

specific reference to continuous

improvement in several key areas, and

Baldrige experts have been instrumental in

the training of Commissioners, evaluators,

and mentors.

3. Maximum distinction from AACSB

Accreditation: A review of current ACBSP

and AACSB practices reveal some clear

areas of distinction--an issue the SWOT

Taskforce believes is important to AACSB’s

current accredited members. We are not

AACSB experts and the following

statements represent only our perceptions

and understanding of AACSB.

• Geographic distinctions: The AACSB

headquarters office is located in Tampa,

Florida and the ACBSP headquarters

office is located in Overland Park,

Kansas.

• Forum distinctions: AACSB and

ACBSP each offer a variety of

educational seminars and annual

conferences on different dates and with

different content emphasis.

• Organizational distinctions: AACSB

accredits baccalaureate, graduate, and

accounting programs at the institutional

level. ACBSP accredits associate

degree programs in addition to

baccalaureate, graduate and accounting

programs at the business school level.

• Brand/Name Recognition: Both

AACSB and ACBSP have recently

undergone branding initiatives with the

name recognition continuing to carry the

distinction between research vs.

teaching focused missions. Both

organizations have made efforts to

emphasize mission, quality, and

continuous improvement in their

accreditation standards.

• Accreditation Governance: Each

organization has an established

governance structure that is similar. The

key difference is that AACSB has a

series of committees which engage in

the process with a final ratification by

the AACSB Board of Directors, whereas

ACBSP has two Boards of

Commissioners (Associate Degree and

Baccalaureate/ Graduate Degree) which

receive recommendations and make the

final accreditation decisions.

• Maintenance of Accreditation: AACSB

institutions, once accredited, are

required to prepare maintenance reports

every year and undergo maintenance of

accreditation every five (5) years.

ACBSP institutions, once accredited, are

required to file Quality Assurance

Reports every two (2) years with

reaffirmation of accreditation every ten

(10) years.

4. Quality assurance of multiple programs in a

'business school' format: In the U.S., the

Council for Higher Education Accreditation

(CHEA) designates both AACSB and

ACBSP as programmatic accreditors.

Currently ACBSP, because of its focus at

the program level, has the structure to

facilitate quality assurance of multiple

programs in a business school format (4,862

programs in 47 countries).

5. Serves the needs of schools that are not

designed to meet AACSB's academic faculty

and intellectual contributions standards.

ACBSP was created shortly after one of the

most severe periods of retrenchment in

higher education history (1980-1990).

Many faculty had retired and the U.S. was

beginning to see a severe shortage in the

production of academically qualified faculty

in a variety of disciplines, including

business. As a result, there was an influx of

professionally qualified faculty into the

academy. ACBSP recognized this trend in

the creation of its standards and criteria in

1988 and 1989. Secondly, in 1990, Ernest

Boyer published his work titled Scholarship

Reconsidered: Priorities of the

Professoriate, in which he argued for a

broader definition of scholarship in light of

the overwhelming workloads and demands

on faculty time. The ACBSP founders made

a conscious decision to adopt the widely

accepted Boyer model of scholarship which

allows academics to expand their scholarly

activity to include public dissemination of

research in the areas of intellectual

contributions (discovery), pedagogy

(teaching), professional activity

(application), and engagement (integration).

This more flexible framework for scholarly

activity has been very attractive for ACBSP

member schools and has enabled faculty

members to maintain a practitioner focus

and schools to live within their limited

salary budgets.

The following table at the top of the next page is

excerpted from the presentation, Quality

Management Education Matters, presented at

the September 2010 AACSB Accreditation

Conference in Houston, Texas, in regional

meetings of business deans, and in a Web

Forum. It outlines the key differences presented

by SCOGAS members between the proposed

QBSC and the existing AACSB accreditation.

Table 2: SCOGAS Proposal

Quality Business School Certification

AACSB Accreditation

Certification

Accreditation

Excellence in teaching and faculty development

Advancement of knowledge

Qualified business faculty

AQ/PQ faculty

Business unit

Institution

Teaching focus

Research & teaching

The following table adds ACBSP accreditation

(for baccalaureate and graduate business degree

programs) and identifies differences and

similarities to the proposed QBSC and existing

AACSB Accreditation.

Table 3: ACBSP/QBSC/AACSB Comparison

ACBSP Accreditation Standards for

Baccalaureate & Graduate Business

Programs

Quality Business School

Certification

AACSB Accreditation

Accreditation

Certification

Accreditation

Excellence in teaching, scholarly activity,

& professional development

Excellence in teaching and

faculty development

Advancement of knowledge

AQ/PQ Faculty

Qualified business faculty

AQ/PQ faculty

Business Programs

Business unit

Institution

Practitioner focus

Teaching focus

Research & teaching

This table demonstrates that the ACBSP

accreditation standards for baccalaureate and

graduate business programs not only incorporate

the QBSC elements, but elevate each area to a

slightly higher level of quality. ACBSP

leadership believes an accreditation product

would be more attractive to current and potential

members in the global marketplace than a

certification which might be perceived as a lower

quality product that implies a less reputable

business degree program.

The Proposal. The ACBSP leadership would

like the opportunity to explore, in collaboration

with AACSB, an alternative to the proposed

QBSC. Currently, there are approximately

12,600 business schools and programs globally.

The following table demonstrates the number

and percentage of schools which are accredited

by eight business education associations3 that

offer accreditation:

3CHEA recognized organizations include only

AACSB International and ACBSP as of December,

2010.

Table 4: Accredited Business Programs

Accredited

% of Total

% of

12,600

AACSB

596

44.75%

4.73%

ACBSP

215

16.14%

1.71%

EQUIS

129

9.68%

1.02%

EPAS

2.63%

0.28%

AMBA

161

12.09%

1.28%

IACBE

154

11.56%

1.22%

ECBE

2.10%

0.22%

CEEMAN

1.05%

0.11%

Totals

1,332

100.00%

10.57%

If the current proliferation of non-accredited

business schools continues, there is an increased

risk of poor quality business education and the

production of graduates ill-equipped to make the

critical business decisions that impact our

society on a global scale.

Therefore, collaboration between the two

leading business accreditation associations based

in the United States becomes imperative as a

4 As of December, 2010

viable option to be considered if the goals of the

SCOGAS are to be met. The ACBSP leadership

suggests collaboration between ACBSP and

AACSB and proposes the following three

options and the relative advantages of each.

1. Each association's endorsement of the

other's accreditation product. This option

would be most easily attained and strengthen

the goal of both ACBSP and AACSB to

improve quality in business education in the

global arena. The public statement of

endorsement would emphasize that each

provides a quality product which meets the

needs of specific markets. This option will

encourage schools which have

unsuccessfully attempted to obtain AACSB

accreditation to consider ACBSP

accreditation as a way to better prepare for

and make the necessary improvements in

order to become AACSB accredited.

2. Joint creation of a new accreditation

product that would address the needs of

institutions which currently meet ACBSP

standards but not AACSB standards. This

option would require the greatest

expenditure of time, expense and

preparation but would preserve the

autonomy that currently exists between the

two associations. There would be a need,

however, to create a communication

structure and process to facilitate an ongoing

collaboration between the two associations

in order to guarantee the distinctive nature

of this accreditation product from the

existing accreditation products. Mentors,

examiners and directors/commissioners

would either need to be cross-trained, or a

new cadre of qualified individuals would

have to be developed. This option would

seemingly have the greatest impact on the

current governing structures of the two

associations.

3. A fee structure that would enable schools

the flexibility to obtain dual membership in

AACSB and ACBSP and select the

accreditation best suited to the institution's

mission, faculty demographic, and financial

strength. This option is perceived to be

most attractive and would likely produce the

highest revenue stream for the two

associations (increased memberships and

attendance at conferences and seminars).

Each association would preserve its

accreditation product while offering choices

for current and potential members and

accredited schools. Like option #1, this

option might encourage schools which do

not have AACSB accreditation or have

unsuccessfully attempted to obtain AACSB

accreditation to consider ACBSP

accreditation as a way to better prepare for

and make the necessary improvements in

order to become AACSB accredited.

The Benefits to AACSB. In addition to the

benefits outlined in this section, ACBSP

leadership believes the main benefit from

collaboration is that AACSB would be able to

document that it is now supporting quality

assurance for business education for schools that

currently are unable to obtain AACSB

accreditation. That is the goal of SCOGAS.

While all the other alternatives to QBSC being

considered by AACSB are not fully known to

ACBSP, this paper speculates that the accredited

membership will find collaboration between

ACBSP and AACSB appealing for the following

additional reasons, primarily option #1.

1. An Existing Infrastructure versus a New

Infrastructure for Accreditation. The proposed

QBSC product or any similar process will

require a substantial investment in time, effort,

and funds to create standards and criteria, a

process, committees, mentors and evaluators.

Some proposed restructuring options will require

extensive staff time to implement and substantial

legal expense. There is expense and time to

develop new accreditation/certification

documents, marketing plans, and alterations in

existing materials.

If the product is truly distinct and separate from

the AACSB brand, there is a risk the product

will not be considered viable and, therefore, not

widely adopted. Candidates for this new

product may find the cost to obtain this new

product unreasonable since it is a certification

rather than full accreditation. If the product is

offered only outside the U.S., then the overall

market seeking the product is reduced and the

costs to travel, promote, and maintain the

product are increased. Additionally, existing

non-U.S. members may take offense to the

availability of a product that is perceived as

lower quality and harmful to their reputation in

their geographic region.

Collaboration between AACSB and ACBSP

would not require the creation of a new

infrastructure or organizational structure as

illustrated in the presentation, Quality

Management Education Matters. The

collaboration proposal has high potential for

positive revenue to both organizations in

addition to the expanded use of quality

assurance practices in post-secondary business

education.

2. A Pathway to AACSB Accreditation. Each

year a small number of institutions with ACBSP

accreditation obtain AACSB accreditation. Six

currently have both ACBSP and AACSB

accreditation:

• Drury University, Missouri

• Queens University of Charlotte, North

Carolina

• Southeastern Oklahoma State

University, Oklahoma

• Southern Utah University, Utah

• North Carolina Central University,

North Carolina

• Midwestern State University, Texas

All of these schools achieved their AACSB

accreditation in recent years and, typically, each

school found that first obtaining ACBSP

accreditation helped in the process to secure

AACSB accreditation. Several reasons these

and other schools have shared with ACBSP

include:

• Although the school's administration

was initially unwilling to make the

substantial investment in AACSB

accreditation and chose to make the

investment in ACBSP accreditation at a

reduced cost, once they recognized the

value of accreditation, a decision was

made to begin pursuit of AACSB

accreditation.

• Using the continuous improvement,

learning outcomes, human resource

planning, strategic planning, and

scholarly activity guidelines included in

the ACBSP accreditation standards, the

business unit was then able to make a

deliberate effort to convert itself from a

business unit with a primary teaching

mission to one which included an

emphasis on research. Using the

AACSB criteria as a guideline, changes

were made and AACSB accreditation

was ultimately achieved.

• The AACSB accreditation often requires

seven or more years. The ACBSP

accreditation process takes less time

assuming outcomes assessment of

student learning is in place, from two

years to five years. Many business unit

or academic services administrators

recognize even if they begin the long

and difficult process for AACSB

accreditation, they may not be in their

position of responsibility when the

business unit obtains accreditation. This

is even more relevant to many schools

outside the U.S.. A focus on short term

achievement as a means to making long-

term change may be seen as an

opportunity to create a legacy of quality.

With collaboration, ACBSP could work in

tandem with AACSB to conduct seminars

and activities to support schools that obtain

ACBSP accreditation to learn and

experience how other schools have used

ACBSP accreditation as a pathway to

AACSB accreditation. There would also be

opportunities for AACSB members to

mentor ACBSP members in a variety of

ways including the creation of research

agendas which contribute to the

development of new knowledge and the

profession.

3. Valued Added to Fulfillment of the

Mission Statement of AACSB. The opening

paragraphs of this white paper noted the

AACSB mission statement as follows:

AACSB International advances quality

management education worldwide through

accreditation, thought leadership, and

value-added services. The certification

option is being considered, but it is not

accreditation. This option does not result in

fulfillment of the mission statement as

clearly and accurately as would

collaboration with ACBSP. The offering of

a collaborative accreditation process is more

in line with this mission statement than a

certification product.

Adding a new scope of membership that

includes ACBSP membership would add a

value to the current AACSB thought

leadership and service products. ACBSP

accredited members include more faith-

based institutions, more HBCU schools,

more Hispanic-Serving Institutions and

more for-profit institutions than the current

AACSB membership. This will create

additional avenues for sale of thought

leadership and service related products and

valued input into surveys and processes to

create more diversity and a wider reflection

of management education worldwide.

4. CHEA Recognition. An important

criterion for both organizations is to assure

recognition by CHEA is not endangered by

any action undertaken. The proposed due

diligence timetable takes these discussions

into account.

It is speculated at this early date that the

adoption of a collaboration between two

existing CHEA accreditation agencies is a

more friendly option for preserving AACSB

recognition with CHEA than the creation of

a new certification or other similar product.

The offering of certification will certainly

require a change in CHEA scope of

recognition for AACSB. The offering of a

different accreditation product for non-U.S.

institutions might only create further

complications for a U.S. based accrediting

body.

5. The Alternative Option for Certain

Schools. There are currently business

school deans and others who understand the

creation of a new product in addition to

AACSB's existing accreditation product

offers an alternative for schools that

currently have accreditation to be moved or

recommended for movement to the new

accreditation product. This is especially the

case for schools that have not been able to

maintain their AQ and PQ levels since the

time of previous accreditation and the

maintenance of accreditation is underway.

This recommendation may come from (a)

academic administrators unwilling to

commit financially during this time of

budget constraints, (b) senior leadership

trying to balance multiple programmatic

accreditations in institutions where business

is only one of many academic disciplines, or

unwilling to recommend maintenance of

accreditation but are willing to recommend a

change to this certification option.

Currently the options are accreditation or no

accreditation; this may lead to difficult

budgetary decisions being made and a strong

measure to reinforce the maintenance of the

current standards. If an ultimatum is

delivered, decision makers may choose the

alternative of QSBC in order to maintain

affiliation with AACSB.

The use of an alternative which does not

create the financial impact exists as well for

schools that are currently in the AACSB

accreditation process or seeking to enter the

process. Again the same sources may

recommend not the pursuit of accreditation

but rather the switch to certification or

similar options to the disappointment and

frustration of those leading the effort to

achieve AACSB accreditation.

The offering of a collaborative product does

not eliminate the use of an alternative

product for currently accredited AACSB

members or those in the process. However,

there will be less incentive to forfeit

membership and progress toward AACSB

accreditation when the accreditation is

maintained and operated by a distinct and

different accreditation body.

Essential Requirements for Collaboration.

Collaboration between associations usually

requires the conduct of due diligence regarding

the product being offered, a revenue stream from

the collaboration, and a binding agreement of

some type between the organizations.

1. Conduct of Due Diligence. ACBSP offers to

present to AACSB staff and leadership the

various documents they require for due diligence

including audited financial statements, bylaws,

and copies of the standards and criteria. Other

material may be released only on the assurance

of confidentially. The latter includes minutes of

meetings of any of the governing boards.

While only the membership of the

Baccalaureate/Graduate Degree Commission can

make changes in the standards and the Board of

Commissioners can make changes in the criteria,

ACBSP invites comments for changes suggested

by the Blue Ribbon Committee on Accreditation

Quality or AACSB staff. There can be a

dialogue on rationale and importance of the

content to both groups. In the spirit of

continuous improvement and the pursuit of

excellence, ACBSP would welcome the

opportunity.

AACSB staff or leadership may elect to attend

all or part of the meeting of an upcoming Board

of Commissioners to better understand the

dynamics of the decision making that occurs for

a report back to an established body with the

understanding that these are confidential

meetings.

2. Binding Agreement of Some Type between the

Organizations. It is proposed the ACBSP

bylaws be changed to reflect an agreed upon

collaboration between the two associations.

This bylaw change would not be applicable to

accredited members of the Associate Degree

Commission. There is no endorsement of the

accreditation being proposed at this time nor is it

possible for community colleges to become

AACSB members. However, these changes can

be reviewed and discussed as part of the

discussions that occur.

It is important to note in this document that the

collaboration being considered will offer

benefits to AACSB institutions at a time when

enrollments in many of these schools are flat.

There are greater opportunities for articulation in

collaboration between these two accrediting

bodies, one that offers associate degree

accreditation and one that does not. This will

provide benefits for students attending ACBSP

associate degree business schools and programs.

It is envisioned that business schools will be

able to maintain accreditation with both AACSB

and ACBSP as there is no conflict with this

action.

As part of the due diligence, it is anticipated that

work could begin on a binding agreement which

will define the relationship between AACSB and

ACBSP. The contents would provide for the

terms of such an agreement including periodic

review, reporting relationships, requirements

imposed on the respective parties, and

termination clauses with penalties.

3. Revenue Stream from the Collaboration. As

noted above, it is proposed that the key binding

mechanism between ACBSP and AACSB be

opportunities for dual membership, participation

in a wider variety of conferences and seminars,

and collaborative training activities. A number

of ACBSP accredited members already have this

membership status. Each new AACSB member

would provide membership revenues for

AACSB, and it is anticipated that this will

continue for years in the future as more

members seek and obtain ACBSP accredited

status and maintain AACSB membership.

The membership will also provide access to a

larger number of people attending AACSB

seminars and conferences, and participation and

purchase of survey products enhancing the value

for AACSB from a financial position as well as

the richness and diversity of business schools

that participate in the member only activities.

Draft Timeline. Similar to all other portions of

this white paper, the following timeline is open

to discussion and change.

December 30, 2010: The contents of this white

paper with a one page summary are transmitted

to Mr. John Fernandes, Dr. Jerry Trapnell and

Dr. Andrew Policano.

January 10, 2011: As part of the discussion on

the agenda item related to a recommendation to

the membership on creating a new quality

assurance product, consideration is given by the

AACSB Board of Directors during their board

meeting or planning session to opening a

dialogue with ACBSP on what can be offered to

determine if this is a viable option.

February: During the first meeting of the Blue

Ribbon Committee on Accreditation Quality, the

Committee or an appointed sub-committee

agrees to review the ACBSP Standards and

Criteria for comment back to ACBSP on a

timeline that is mutually agreed upon.

February 25-26: An update and considerable

time is devoted at the February meeting of the

ACBSP Board of Directors, including specific

action items and motions prepared in

cooperation with AACSB.

April: The Report of the Executive Director in

the Spring issue of ACBSP Update and possibly

other officer columns mention and describe this

work underway.

April 17-19: An update and considerable time is

devoted at the April meeting of the ACBSP

Baccalaureate/Graduate Degree Board of

Commissioners, including specific action items

and motions prepared in cooperation with

AACSB.

April 28-30: ACBSP is willing to make staff

and leadership available during the International

Conference and Business Meeting in New York

City for questions and discussion from the

membership and leadership.

June 25: A presentation is scheduled with

opportunities for discussion during meetings of

the Baccalaureate/Graduate Degree Commission

in Indianapolis. Additional items may be

presented, including changes in the ACBSP

bylaws. AACSB representatives are invited to

be in attendance.

July and August: Based on discussions and

action items, work is begun in earnest on the

legal agreement required to implement the

endorsement. Informal discussions occur with

the Council on Higher Education Accreditation

to ensure the recognition status by CHEA is

preserved for both organizations.

September through November: The details of

what is being proposed are provided to ACBSP

members during regional meetings of business

deans associations affiliated with AACSB and at

regional meetings of the ACBSP membership.

January and February 2012: The legal

agreement is accepted by the respective Boards

of Directors during regular or special called

meetings, subject to membership approval of

selected provisions. Membership approval

actions are scheduled for April and June.

Conclusion. Endorsement of ACBSP

accreditation is one of several options that

should be explored during 2011 for AACSB to

implement a global business accreditation

strategy. This paper presents that compelling

case.

Outcome. This white paper was presented to

the AACSB Board of Directors for discussion at

the January, 2011 Board meeting. In a letter

from Dr. Andrew Policano, Chair, AACSB

Board of Directed dated January 19, 2011 the

response was “While we appreciate the thought

and effort that you have put into the proposal,

the Board believes that it is in AACSB’s best

interest to proceed separately in developing a

strategy to advance quality management

education worldwide. Governance, strategy and

control are a few of the many challenges that

cause the Board to decline ACBSP’s offer.”

Subsequently Mr. Viehland and Dr. Craven

traveled to Tampa, FL in July, 2011 to discuss

opportunities for alliance and/or partnership on a

variety of other areas with John Fernandes,

AACSB President, and Jerry Trapnell, AACSB

Executive Vice President and Chief

Accreditation Officer. Neither Mr. Fernandes or

Dr. Trapnell felt the time was right for an

alliance or partnership. ACBSP continues to

explore ways to partner toward high quality

business program accreditation through its

strategic planning efforts.

What Determines Student

Performance in Principles of

Economics Courses? A Case Study

of Principles of Economics Students

at a U.S. 2-Year College

Michael Machiorlatti, Oklahoma City Community

College

Germain Pichop, Oklahoma City Community College

Correspondence concerning this paper should be

addressed to Michael Machiorlatti,

mmachiorlatti@occc.edu, School of Business,

Oklahoma City Community College, 7777 S. May

Avenue, Oklahoma City, OK 73159

Abstract. This paper investigates the determinants

of student success in introductory economics courses

at 2-year colleges. A sample of 146 students enrolled

in introductory macroeconomics and microeconomics

courses were surveyed at Oklahoma City Community

College (OCCC) in the Fall of 2008. Background as

well as performance data were collected on the

students in order to identify the most important

contributing factors to student success on these

courses. The research focused not only on the

traditional variables found through prior research to

influence student success, but also on unexplored

variables such as class meeting arrangements and the

type of students enrolled in these courses. Results

show that math background and physical activity had

no impact on student’s performance, and neither did

the class meeting time arrangement. However, the

testing location and the total amount of study hours

influenced student performance, and foreign/non-

native English speaking students performed better

than their domestic counterparts.

Keywords: Business education, principles of

economics, student success, 2-year colleges

One of the main issues faced in higher education is

how to assist students in their classroom

performance. Students enrolled in introductory

economics courses often struggle in those course.

This struggle, sometimes attributed to the difficulty

level of the subject matter, has always intrigued both

faculty members and school administrators. Other

factors such as the amount of study time allocated to

these courses and aptitude have also been used to

explain student success or lack thereof in these

courses. While study time and aptitude are largely

considered important and readily identifiable

contributing factors to student classroom

performance, it may be useful to investigate other

variables that may influence student success. This

study aims to identify the factors that may explain

student success or lack thereof in principles of

economics at a 2-year higher education institution.

Community colleges serve as a meeting ground for

students with a wide array of interests, educational,

and socioeconomic backgrounds. Open enrollment

policies in these institutions mean that the variability

in the quality of students enrolled in the principle of

economics course will be high. The determinants of

success should therefore be expected to differ

between 2-year and 4-year higher education

institutions.

Although it could be argued that for the most part

more study time may always be beneficial (until the

point of negative returns is reached), there is no

consensus regarding the other factors that may impact

student performance in the classroom. This study

focuses not only on the traditional variables found to

influence classroom success, but also on unexplored

variables such as class meeting arrangements (once,

twice or three times a week) and the type of students

(day-time versus evening students). It was not

possible to collect information on students GPAs.

Because our institution does not use the standardized

tests as entrance exam requirement, this variable will

be omitted from our study and math skills will be

used as an indicator of students’ natural ability.

Numerous authors have studied the factors that

influence student success in principles of economics

courses. Becker (1997) studied the difference in

student performance in regards to their gender. In

this study, it was found that grades are often lower in

economics classes compared to grades in other

college departments, and women have consistently

performed worse than men. Some authors have

researched the causes of low performances by women

(Anderson, Benjamin and Fuss, 1994; Ballard and

Johnson, 2005; Becker, 1997; Dynan and Rouse,

1997; Greene, 1997; Ziegert, 2000). McCarty,

Pagdgham and Bennett (2006) found that gender was

in fact a factor in student performance, a result that

Borg and Shapiro disagreed with. In a study

conducted in 1996, they found that gender was not a

significant factor affecting student performance.

They reached this conclusion by applying the Myers-

Briggs Personality Type Indicator to assess students’

performance, and found that students performed

better when matched with professors with the same

personality types.

Maloney & McCormick (1992) studied the impact of

physical activity on students’ performance and found

that students who competed in intercollegiate

athletics were more successful than students who did

not. Other authors have focused their efforts on the

impact of class size on student performance. While

research by Arias and Walker (2004) found a

significant negative influence of class size on student

performance, other authors (Akerhielm, 1995;

Siegfried & Kennedy, 1997; Raimondo, Esposito &

Gershenberd, 1990; and Kirby & McElroy, 2003)

determined that class size has no significant effect on

student performance and learning. Studying the

relationship between classroom attendance and grade,

Kirby and McElroy (2003) found that attendance had

a positive but diminishing marginal effect on

students’ grade. Similarly, Romer, 1993; Schmidt,

1983; Park and Kerr, 1990; Marburger, 2001; and

McCarty, Pagdgham & Bennett, 2006 confirmed this

positive and significant effect. Kirby and McElroy

(2003) also studied the effect of concurrent

employment on classroom performance and found

that hours worked and travel time had a negative

effect on student performance.

An additional set of researchers focused their

attention on the effects of students’ natural ability on

their performance in introductory economics courses.

Research results by Park and Kerr (1990) suggest that

students’ abilities have an influence on their

performance, which may be stronger than attendance.

Several others authors (Ballard and Johnson, 2005;

Anderson et al., 1994; Jensen and Owen, 2001) found

that math skills are important determinants of student

performance in economics.

In summary, even though there is no consensus as to

which factors definitely impact student performance,

the review of the existing literature suggest that the

following variables can be considered the most

important determinants of student performance:

student ability, gender, physical activity, attendance,

concurrent employment and commute distance (also

known as travel time).

Methods. Data were collected from a convenience

sample of students in macroeconomics and

microeconomics course sections at Oklahoma City

Community College (OCCC) in the Fall semester of

2008, using a self-administered questionnaire. OCCC

enrollment nears 15,000 students of which 9,000 are

full-time students. OCCC offers over fifty degree

programs leading associate of art (AA), associate in

Science (AS) and Associate in Applied Sciences

(AAS). In addition, the college offers a number of

certificate programs. The targeted classes sections

covered the complete spectrum of courses offered.

The targeted course sections offered a wide variety in

terms of meeting times, section and student types,

which represented the typical students’ population at

OCCC. For completeness, t-tests and chi-square tests

were conducted on the sample relative to the OCCC

population at-large and no significant differences

were found. Tables 1, 2 and 3 provide demographic

information on the students surveyed.

Table 1: Descriptive Statistics on the Quantitative Variables Collected in the Study (N=146)

Variable

Minimum

Maximum

Mean

Std. Dev

Age (Years)

146

23.5

6.95

Total Credit Hours Enrolled

144

11.8

4.0

Total Credit Hours Enrolled at OCCC

144

11.0

3.9

Total Credit Hours Completed

146

150

45.5

26.4

Business Credit Hours

127

12.1

12.2

Hours of Study (per week)

140

3.9

5.4

Test preparation hours/ test

137

3.7

4.0

Commuting Distance (miles)

141

15.3

9.7

Hours Worked per week

145

25.1

17.6

Exercise Hours per week

142

3.5

3.6

Attendance (%)

146

100

89.4

10.7

Overall Grade (%)

146

60.3

103.5

85.1

9.2

Table 2: Descriptive Statistics on the Categorical Variables Collected in the Study (n=146)

Variables

Class:

Macro

54.1

Micro

44.5

Dual

1.4

Class Time (Day Time)

Day

64.5

Night

Meeting Frequency per week

Once

30.8

Twice

51.4

Three times

17.8

Gender

Male

48.6

Female

51.4

Race

Hispanic

9.6

American Indian/ Alaskan

6.8

Asian

17.1

Black/ African American

7.5

Hawaiian/ Pacific Highlander

1.4

White

57.5

Married

16.4

Single

122

83.6

Children

18.5

No Children

119

81.5

Domestic Student

128

87.7

Native English Speaker

116

79.5

Business Major

100

68.5

Classroom Testing

51.4

Proctor Testing (Test center)

48.6

Math Background

Algebra

117

80.1

Calculus

42.5

Extracurricular activities*

Yes

124

84.7

15.3

Intramurals*

Yes

4.8

139

95.2

Degree Seeking*

Yes

133

93.0

7.0

* Non-responses (2-4 n=142-144)

Table 3: Descriptive Statistics of the Variable Race

Race

Mean

Standard

Deviation

Hispanic

83.571

11.9196

American Indian or Alaska Native

84.250

10.7932

Asian

86.656

9.2233

Black or African American

79.282

10.9935

Native Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander

80.300

14.5664

White

85.885

7.9604

Students were informed of the study at the beginning

of class. The questionnaire was administered in the

last 30 minutes of the class. Information related to

the purpose of the study and directions as to how to

complete the questionnaire were given. Participation

was voluntary, but all the students solicited agreed to

participate. A total of 146 completed surveys were

returned, and while no surveys were rejected because

of incomplete answers, there were some instances of

non-responses to specific questions.

The survey instrument used investigated many

variables that are either believed to contribute to

classroom success or were thought to do so. Some of

the variables that were considered included age, sex,

commuting distance, whether or not the students

were business majors; math background (based on

math classes completed), the number of credit hours

completed, the number credit hours completed in the

field of business, the number of hours worked per

week and other such variables. During the

preliminary analysis, some variables were excluded

because there was insufficient variation in the

responses to warrant any further consideration. Table

4 contains the definition of the variables used in the

analysis.

Table 4: Description of Variables and Definition of Measurement

Variable

Definition of Measurement

Math Background

= 1 If completed College Algebra or Calculus; = 0 otherwise

Age

Measured in years

Sex

M = 1; F = 0

Married

1 = yes; 0 = no

Total Credit Hours Enrolled

Measures the number of credit hours enrolled for the semester

Disability

Whether or not they have a registered disability with student support services

= 1 yes; = 0 no

Domestic

= 1 if Domestic; = 0 if not

Business Major

= 1 if major; = 0 if not

English First Language

= 1 if English is first language; = 0 if not

Total Credit ours Completed

Measures the total hours a student has finished overall

Bus Credit Hours Completed

Measures the total business credit hours completed

Hours of Study Week

Number of hours studied each week

Commute Distance

Distance student commutes to school

Hours Worked/ Week

Number of hours they work each week

Exercise Hours Per Week

Number of hours they exercise each week

Extracurricular

= 1 if participate in extracurriculars; = 0 otherwise

Degree Seeking

= 1 if seeking AAS/AA or have received degree previously; = 0 otherwise

Attendance (%)

The percentage of time a student attended classes

Race (White vs. Non-White)

= 1 if white; = 0 if non-white (all other groups combined)

Test Location

= 1 if in test center; = 0 if in class

Note: all quantitative variables were measured in whole numbers

In accordance with previous studies, the following

seven hypotheses were made.

(1) Students with a larger quantitative reasoning

background will perform better in

economics/business courses. Jensen and Owen

(2001) found out that students that exhibited math

skills performed better in introductory economics

courses. This has been a long held idea since

economics is essentially a hybrid class which strives

to use mathematical and statistical tools in order to

analyze societal behavior. We defined math

reasoning as having completed at least college

algebra. We also suspected that math reasoning and

study time jointly influenced overall course grade. It

should be the case that a student with more math

reasoning should be able to study less in a principles

course.

(2) Total credit hours completed will have a positive

effect on student success. It was postulated that the

more college courses a student completes the higher

his/her reasoning skills. The same applies to math

background. The more math background the student

has, the better his/her performance in principles of

economics. We also thought that there should be an

interaction between credit hours completed and study

time with respect to student success in the same way

as math background might also affect study time.

(3) ‘Evening’ or non-traditional students will perform

worse in economics/business classes. Given the fact

that many night students or non-traditional age

students are working-class individuals, have family

constraints, or are choosing to go back to school after

a brief time away they should have less time to study.

It is a common notion that they are more motivated

inside the classroom and might therefore perform

better, but this study intends to test this idea.

(4) There is no ‘optimal’ meeting time arrangement

and structure for classes. Time arrangement here

refers to the time of the day classes meet, whereas

structure refers to the numbers of meeting days per

week and weekends versus traditional weekday

classes (i.e. fast-track/2-day versus. 3-day meetings

etc.) Classes that are at different time or have

different structures should have an equal rate of

success when it comes to classroom performance.

Although students might clamor for earlier class

times, it is a common notion that students don’t do as

well in these earlier classes.

(5) Students who perform some physical activity or

actively participate in extracurricular activities should

perform better in the classroom. This hypothesis will

allow us to compare our finding with that of another

study (Maloney & McCormick 1992), which found

that students who competed in intercollegiate

athletics were more successful than students who did

not.

(6) The amount of study time and the overall number

of credit hours completed by the student within the

business curriculum is positively related to success in

the course, although the earlier is a self-reported

value. A different than expected result may indicate

a lack of truthfulness from the students in their report

of the amount of study time they allocated to the

course. If some students indicated a large amount of

study time, which was not supported by their final

course grade, these students could be overestimating

or exaggerating study time.

(7) Testing location may have an impact on student

performance. A number of instructors at our

institution use the college’s testing center as a proctor

location to administer tests. While we believe using

the testing center contributes to the learning process

by giving students more latitude and flexibility in

their assessment, many students have claimed that the

testing center environment is not a convenient

location for test taking. It would be interesting to

compare the grades for students that are tested

through the testing center to those that do not.

The survey participants were nearly all business

majors (68.5%). However, there were enough non-

business majors in our sample majors to warrant a

valid comparison. Most of the variables were skewed

in some fashion, but not enough to render the

comparison difficult. Namely, the variable

“participation in intramurals” was heavily skewed

towards one direction. Only 4.8% of the surveyed

students participated in intramurals.

In this study, the impact of the variables of interest on

student performance in introductory economics was

assessed in two ways. First, how certain

characteristics and background variables affected

student performance was analyzed, and second, two

types of models were investigated in order to assess

how the variables collected influenced student

performance. Studying the effect of characteristics

and background variables on course performance, t-

tests were performed on course grade (in percentage

form) with respect to each grouping variable when

the variable was categorical. Some continuous

variables were converted into dichotomous outcomes

for the purposes of testing the difference between

groups. In the case of credit hours enrolled, a cut

point of 9 credit hours was used. Students enrolled in

9 credit hours or more were considered full-time

students. Conversely, those students enrolled in less

than 9 credit hours were considered part-time

students. With regard to the total credit hours,

students who had completed 60 credit hours or more

(≥60) were considered upperclassman and

underclassmen otherwise (< 60).

In analyzing the hours of study (per week), the cut

point of 4 hours was used. Students studying less

than 4 hours a week were considered ‘low’ for the

course and values above 4 constituted ‘high’.

Although this might seem like a loose value, the idea

was that for each hour spent in class you should

spend roughly 1.5-2 times more time out of class

studying. In analyzing working hours, if a student

worked 20 or more hours per week, the student was

considered as working half-time. This value was a

natural cut point for hypothesis testing purposes. In

analyzing physical exercise, students were divided in

two groups: those that were highly active versus

those that were moderately to not active. The

Healthier US definition of activity was adopted to

define students that are highly active. According to

this definition, an active individual is someone who

exercises 30-60 minutes per day.1 Finally, in

analyzing attendance, a student with classroom

attendance greater than 89.4% or more was

considered a student with ‘high’ attendance rate.

Given that our sample average classroom attendance

was 89.4%, this figure seemed like a logical cut-point

for measuring classroom attendance because the

difference in class averages for students with above

or below average attendance could be tested. This

same notion was used with commuting distance with

a cut point of 15 miles.

The same procedure was used when comparing class

grades with categorical variables of different classes.

When dealing with multi-level variables, a single-

factor CRD ANOVA was performed. No post hoc

multiple comparisons were needed since no

differences in our treatments with race and number of

class meetings per week were found. The test was

run for number of class meetings per week which had

values of 1, 2, and 3 as well as race, which had 6

designations. The results are listed below in the

appendix. It should be noted that only “white” versus

“non-white” variables were used a in the regression

analysis. Because of the high percentage of

Caucasian students in our sample and the small

number for each of the other races/ethnicities, it was

more convenient to group the non-whites into one

single group.

Two types of models were investigated in order to

assess how the variables collected influenced student

performance. A simple OLS regression analysis was

performed on the grade each student received on the

courses and called this model 1. We then included

both interaction and higher order terms involving

study hours per week, as it was hypothesized that

study hours should not be linearly associated with

1 Executive Office of the President and the U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services.

HealtheirUS.Gov: Physical Activity. Accessed April

22, 2009. http://www.healthierus.gov/index.html

course grade (i.e. we would expect diminishing

returns) and ‘hours of study’ should not be constant

across students. ‘Hours of study’ was interacted with

variables we assumed were associated with increased

higher reasoning skills, which were ‘math

background’ and total credit hours completed. An

interaction between with hours of study and exercise

was also performed in order to determine whether

The Power of Compliments: Generating Positive Behavior Changes in Freshmen Students

Abstract and Figures