Technology Fluency of Undergraduate Business Students: A Sampling of Current Practice

Transcription

1 Technology Fluency of Undergraduate Business Students: A Sampling of Current Practice Mindell Reiss Nitkin 1 Simmons College Patricia Clarke Simmons College ABSTRACT Although technology fluency has been evaluated for undergraduate students in the information systems major, it has not been analyzed extensively for undergraduate students in the broader business curriculum. Accordingly, this paper discusses current practices in teaching and assessing the fluency that undergraduate business students are expected to have with core business software applications. The focus is primarily on the most widely used applications in word processing, spreadsheet, and presentation software. Data was collected through surveys of accounting and finance faculty at institutions of higher learning. Survey results indicate that 75% of faculty respondents expect proficient or advanced skills in word processing for the students. The same levels of proficiency are reported at 70% for spreadsheets and 66% for presentation software. Results also indicate that a relatively small percentage of colleges and universities have formal, explicit plans to assess the competency of core business software skills. INTRODUCTION An important objective for most undergraduate business degree programs is to insure that students graduate with competent technology skills. This goal is multifaceted and consists of both knowledge and skills components. It includes the ability to use technology to find and evaluate information as well as the ability to use software applications in a variety of business contexts. This objective of technology fluency is driven by a number of pedagogical concerns as well as a variety of market factors, including the requirements of employers and accreditation organizations, among others. In order to gain post graduation employment as well as subsequent promotions, students need to attain an appropriate level of technology fluency. Similarly, many accreditation organizations have technology fluency requirements. The Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB), for example, requires that undergraduate curriculum 1 The author gratefully acknowledges the generous financial support provided by the Pottruck Technology Research Grant Program of Simmons College and the Swahnberg-Novotny Research Grant Program of the Simmons College School of Management.

2 includes learning experiences in such general knowledge and skill areas as: use of technology, according to Eligibility Procedures and Accreditation Standards for Business Accreditation (AACSB, 2007, p.75). In addition, this goal of technology fluency is often reiterated by Boards of Trustees at colleges and universities. To satisfy these various stakeholder requirements, there needs to be a shared understanding of what constitutes competency and how this competency will be assessed. In this paper, we explore how undergraduate business and management programs define and assess competency relative to a specific subset of technology applications: word processing, spreadsheet, and presentation software skills. A survey instrument was developed and administered in 2005 to investigate current academic practices in teaching and assessing technology fluency. Intentionally a regional analysis, the survey was distributed to accounting and finance faculty members who teach at institutions of higher education in New England. The goal of the survey is to understand current practices in three related areas: What are the necessary technology skills required for graduates of undergraduate business programs? How do students gain these skills? And, how do schools assess the acquisition of these skills? This paper proceeds as follows: Section Two provides an overview of some themes in the literature. Section Three discusses the survey research methodology. Section Four reports on how fluency is defined. Section Five reviews methods that are used to teach core business software skills. Section Six reports assessment models and practices. Section Seven offers concluding remarks and suggestions for future research. SOME THEMES IN THE LITERATURE The continuing discussion of technology fluency involves innovative pedagogical approaches for teaching computer literacy skills (Bretz and Johnson, 2000). In addition, recent studies have analyzed various aspects of technology coverage and competencies, particularly within the context of the information systems major. For instance, information systems courses in a standard AACSB business program (Stephens and O Hara, 2001) or in a wider curriculum base (Gill and Hu, 1999) have been evaluated. Stephens and O Hara identify 18 key topics for a core information technology course, using content analysis of MBA and undergraduate syllabi at 84 AACSB-accredited schools. Assessment of computer literacy skills for the information systems majors is studied by McDonald (2004). He finds that approximately 50% of undergraduate computer information systems students are not able to successfully complete six exams covering word processing, basic spreadsheet and presentation skills, among others. Assessment of undergraduate students not majoring in management information systems is reported by Amini (1993). In his survey of 123 students enrolled in an upper-level computer science course, business students self-report on their computer literacy, broadly defined to include hardware and a variety of information processing tasks. Amini finds that students are most familiar with word processing and moderately familiar with spreadsheet and database applications. SURVEY RESEARCH METHODOLOGY In order to investigate faculty views on current practices in technology skills, a survey, hosted on zoomerang.com, was developed and distributed to 470 accounting and finance faculty who teach at colleges and universities in the Northeast region of the United States. Faculty lists were generated from the respective Hasselback faculty directories. Accounting and finance faculty were selected because the functional areas of accounting and finance would be more

3 likely than other business disciplines, such as management or marketing, to require technology components, such as spreadsheets. Faculty respondents were asked to respond according to institutional expectations, rather than personal or departmental preferences. Results are based on a 10% response rate (or 47 faculty members). Table 1 presents the sample demographics, specifically the faculty member s functional area(s), geographic location of the respondent s college or university, and the number of undergraduate business students who graduate each year. Panel A reports the primary teaching focus of the faculty respondents. By design, the faculty members teach, primarily, in the functional areas of accounting or finance. Of the total respondents, 56% report that they teach accounting, while 46% teach finance. Percentage totals exceed 100% because some faculty members teach in more than one functional area, including information technology, strategy, quantitative analysis, or marketing. Panel B reports the geographical distribution of the respondents, with 51% in Massachusetts (including 30% from the Boston area). Of the remainder, 21% are in Connecticut, and the remaining respondents are distributed, almost evenly, across Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont. Panel C reports the number of undergraduate business majors per year. While a weighted average calculation for average number of graduates per institution per year is approximately 250, institutions of all sizes are represented in the sample. Of the total, 15% of the respondents report 50 or fewer graduates per year, while 72% of the respondents report at least 101 graduates per year. Private, public, urban, rural, and suburban institutions alike are represented in the sample. DEFINING SKILLS While multiple stakeholders, such as employers and accreditation organizations, are interested in technology skills and fluency, there is no common understanding of what is meant by fluency or competency. One objective of the survey was to investigate faculty perspectives on what types of software are essential for graduates of undergraduate business programs and what level of proficiency is expected of these graduates. Consequently, the survey gathered information on the types of general tasks and specific functions a graduate should be able to perform using a particular software application. In the process, a common understanding of fluency is developed. Table 2 reports on the types of software with which students need to be familiar and the level of proficiency required of students to secure post graduation employment. A wide range of software applications is represented, including core business applications but also database and statistical software, among others. In Panel A, spreadsheet software and word processing software are considered essential by 98% and 96%, respectively, of the faculty respondents. Presentation software came in third at 85% of respondents, while database software (e.g. Microsoft Access) and statistical software (e.g. SPSS or SAS) followed at 52% and 40%, respectively. In Panel B, the level of expected proficiency by graduation is reported, using a 5 point scale ranging from none (1) to advanced (5). Consistent with the results above on spreadsheet, word processing, and presentation software, a higher level of proficiency is expected on these three core business software applications compared to the other listed software applications. A proficient (4.00 of 5.00) or advanced (5.00 of 5.00) skill level is expected by 75% of respondents for word processing, 70% for spreadsheets, and 66% for presentation software. Means correspond to these results with 3.89 (out of 5.00) for word processing, 3.79 for spreadsheets, and 3.75 for presentation software.

4 Lower mean results are reported for database software (2.58) and statistical software (2.26). Further, relatively little fluency is expected for financial software (e.g. Quicken), group-ware (e.g. Lotus Notes), project management (e.g. Microsoft Project), and customer relations software (e.g. Peoplesoft). Tables 3-5 provide additional detail on each of the three main core business applications. In each table, the general tasks and specific skills that students should be able to perform using each application are noted. In all three tables, Panel A focuses on general tasks, such as writing a research paper or creating a basic presentation, while Panel B focuses on specific skills, such as changing the format of text or copying formulas. For each of the three applications, the identified task or skill is cross-referenced with the respondents expected level of proficiency. By surveying faculty both on the types of tasks and the types of skills, the survey attempts to help flesh out a shared definition of fluency and proficiency. Table 3 focuses on word processing. Compared to the other two core business software applications, the most faculty respondents (at 64%) expect a proficient level of competency while 11% expect advanced level skills from their students. Panel A reports on the types of general tasks that students are expected to complete. All, or almost all, faculty respondents expect students to use word processing to write a business memo, a research paper, and a business report. Overall, 80% expect students to be able to embed tables and graphics into their written work. Despite the focus on teamwork in business curricula and the workplace, only 38% of faculty expects students to work collaboratively on a written document. This result is consistent with the low level of expectations relative to using co-authoring tools and functions. Faculty respondents are further asked to determine which tasks are consistent with various levels of proficiency. Results are also displayed in Panel A. At the moderate level of proficiency (3.00 of 5.00) and above, all faculty expect students to be able to write a business memo and write a research paper with proper citations, while most faculty (92%) expect students to be able to prepare a business report at the moderate level. At the proficient level, most faculty (93%) expect students to be able to also embed tables and graphs into a business report. Almost half of the responding faculty (47%) expects students to work collaboratively on a written document at the proficient level, while 80% of faculty expected students to be able to work collaboratively at the advanced level. Panel B of Table 3 reports on the types of specific word processing skills that students are expected to complete. All faculty respondents expect students to format text, set margins and paper layout, and use spell check. Faculty reports that 94% of their institutions expect students to use the "bullet and numbering" function to create a list while 74% expect students to be able to create an outline. When considering functions beyond the basics, 79% of respondents expect students to be able to create tables in word processing software, while 70% expect students to embed a table or a worksheet. Expectations were, again, lower for collaborative work; only 34% expect students to be able to use the "track changes" function. When the specific skills are cross-tabulated with the level of proficiency, clear patterns emerge that help distinguish among levels of proficiency. For students to demonstrate at least a moderate level of proficiency, all faculty report that formatting text, setting margins, and using spell check are essential. At the advanced level (5.00 of 5.00), all faculty agree that students must also use bullets to create lists, prepare tables, use headers/footers, and embed a table or worksheet. Tracking changes is critical to 60% of faculty respondents at the advanced level. At the proficient level, almost all faculty members (97%) think that students should be able to create bulleted lists. Further, 73%-83% report that this level of proficiency includes the

5 ability to create an outline, prepare tables, use headers/footers, and embed a table or worksheet. Table 4 reports on spreadsheet software proficiency; 57% of respondents expect a proficient level of competency and 13% expect advanced skills. Panel A presents the results on general spreadsheet tasks. At least 90% of faculty report that all students should be able to enter number and text and build a basic spreadsheet from a blank worksheet, using basic formulas and basic arithmetic. Approximately 85% report that students should be able to use statistical or financial functions. What is clearly expected is the development of functional fluency (i.e. the ability to format number and text) within a context (i.e. the ability to create a spreadsheet model). This can present a challenge to educators because much of the commercially available instructional material asks students to enter numbers and formulae in pre-designed worksheets or templates, rather than build worksheets or spreadsheet models on their own. In addition, the focus of technology training is often on teaching the use of specific functions rather than covering more comprehensive design issues. When types of spreadsheet tasks are cross-tabulated with the level of proficiency in Panel A, clear patterns emerge that help distinguish among levels of proficiency. All faculty report that competency includes the ability to enter numbers and text, and use formulas with basic math operations. Most faculty members also respond that students should be able to create a basic spreadsheet model when starting with a blank worksheet. At the proficient and advanced levels, the ability to create more advanced models is included. At the advanced level, a third of the respondents include the ability to create models that feed into a company's database systems. Panel B of Table 4 presents the results on specific spreadsheet skills; 57% expect skills at the proficient level. Overall, at least 90% of respondents report that students should be able to format numbers and text, create formulas, copy formulas, and create graphs and charts. From some proficiency (2.00 of 5.00) and above, formatting numbers and text as well as creating and copying formulas are essential to all faculty. Approximately 85% report that students should be able to use financial and statistical functions. Only 13% report that students should use more advanced functions, such as spinners, macros, and solvers. In cross-tabulating types of spreadsheet skills with the level of proficiency, patterns again emerge that help distinguish among levels of proficiency. Regardless of the level of proficiency, all respondents report that they expect students to format numbers and text as well as create and copy formulas. The expectations around the ability to create graphs increase with level of proficiency from 83% at the moderate level to 100% at the advanced level. Similar patterns emerge for the use of data sort, financial, and statistical functions--ranging from 67% at the moderate level to 100% at the advanced level. Table 5 presents the results on presentation software. Compared to word processing and spreadsheet applications, expectations about competency are lower, often significantly. Panel A of Table 5 reports on the types of general tasks that students are expected to perform using presentation software. In general, faculty expect basic competency with 55% saying that a proficient level is essential and 11% expect advanced skills. A full 30% saying moderate competency is essential. Over 90% of faculty expects students to create or edit a basic presentation, while 91% expect the presentation to be visually appealing and theme appropriate. 73% expect students to embed tables and spreadsheets into the presentation. Yet, 32% or fewer respondents expect students to embed video, graphics, web-links, or other links. Given the fluency many students demonstrate with U-Tube, myspace, and wireless cellular technology, faculty expectations here seem rather low. Compared to accounting and finance courses, it is

6 likely that organizational behavior and communication courses would include higher expectations for presentation software skills. When the types of presentation software tasks are cross-tabulated with the level of proficiency, patterns are less clear in terms of distinguishing among levels of proficiency. All or almost all of respondents indicate the ability to create and edit a presentation is essential, regardless of the level of competency. Expectations about the ability to embed graphics and tables range from 54% at the moderate level to approximately 80% at the proficient and advanced levels. At the advanced level, 60% expect the ability to embed video or link other objects. Panel B of Table 5 presents the results on types of presentation software skills. As with the other core business applications, almost all faculty members (98%) expect students to be able to format text and numbers. Of the total, 84% expect students to insert graphics, while 77% expect students to insert tables or spreadsheets. Expectations about using higher level functions are considerably lower. Of the total faculty respondents, 59% expect students to be able to use animation and only 36% expect students to be able to insert audio or video clips. In cross-tabulating presentation software skills with the level of proficiency, some patterns emerge but distinguishing among levels of proficiency is not straightforward. At each level of competency, faculty members report that students should be able to format text and numbers. Less important is the ability to insert graphics. Results on all of the other skills are similar between the proficient and advanced levels; a range of 60%-80% for most skills is reported. For presentation software, this fairly consistent pattern suggests that there may not be a consistent definition or expectation for these two levels of competency. TECHNOLOGY TRAINING AND ACADEMIC USE OF TECHNOLOGY Typically, pedagogical discussions about technology fluency include the identification of the best methods for teaching and reinforcing technology skills so that students achieve and maintain the expected level of fluency. Panel A of Table 6 reports on methods for students to learn software applications. Increasingly, students are expected to begin college with at least some fluency in core business software applications. According to survey results, students come to college knowing less about spreadsheets (58%) and presentation software (55%), compared to word processing (73%). While some colleges and universities provide dedicated technology courses on word processing for credit (48% of respondents), most other methods to learn are ad hoc or voluntary. For instance, students teach themselves (42% reported) or can take standardized online training (50%) or non-credit labs and workshops (19%). Because usage of spreadsheets and presentation software prior to college seems to be lower, there is more pedagogical emphasis on dedicated technology courses and non-credit labs or workshops. Compared to 48% for word processing, spreadsheet skills are offered in dedicated courses for credit at 69% of respondent institutions, while presentation software is similarly taught at 57% of the represented institutions. Similarly, spreadsheet and presentation software instruction is often embedded in specific functional courses for 69% and 51% of the respondents, respectively. (The corresponding figure for word processing instruction is 0%.) For example, spreadsheet skills may be taught in a required accounting or finance class while presentation skills may be taught in a required management class. In addition, 40% report that required labs are added to specific courses, such as finance or accounting, rather than including technology skills in an existing class and,

7 perhaps, reducing the amount of time for course content. However, two issues arise in terms of methodology. If a program requires a dedicated technology course, it is often not clear what the content of the course should be. Since many students begin college with competency in core business software, it may be difficult to design a one size fits all course. In a dissertation study by Dickerson (2005), students who are pretested for computer application skills are often able to do many of the skills prior to taking a mandatory computer skills course. On the other hand, if students are left on their own to acquire business software skills, they may master the basics, but never be exposed to more advanced functionality. Regardless of the method employed by schools to insure competency, faculty should consider designing projects and deliverables to motivate the use of increasingly advanced skills. Students would, therefore, be alerted to the potential of the software and become motivated to expand their skill sets. Panel B of Table 6 reports on course requirements involving core business software applications. Word processing and spreadsheet skills are widely used in individual as well as group assignments. Over 90% of faculty report that students use these two tools in graded homework, individual and group projects. Faculty also report that about three-quarters of the students use these tools in non-graded assignments as well as graded assignments. More than 70% of respondents say that word processing and spreadsheet skills are used in assignments across a variety of courses. In apparent acknowledgement of the free rider issue, faculty expects students to use spreadsheet software individually as well as in group assignments. The use of word processing and spreadsheet applications seems, consequently, to be embedded throughout the academic programs. The results for presentation software are, generally, lower. Of the total, 96% of faculty report that students use this tool for group projects, while 85% use it for individual projects. Usage drops to 55% in relation to graded homework assignments. Clearly, these expectations result in less practice and development of individual student skills in this technology area. In addition, only 45% of faculty report that this tool is reinforced in a series of classes. This result may require further investigation, given the general perception that presentation skills are essential for undergraduate management majors and that students should be more than moderately proficient in using presentation software applications. Overall, the results suggest that faculty expect students to enter college with at least some exposure to core business software applications. If necessary, students are expected to improve their level of proficiency for word processing independently (i.e. outside their coursework). On the other hand, spreadsheet and presentation skills are most often taught in dedicated courses or are included in the curriculum of courses in the business functional areas. Students are expected to use their skills across a series of courses in a variety of both individual and group projects and assignments. Some inconsistency appears to exist with presentation software, however. The shared definition and student level of proficiency as well as the degree of use may be less clear than with either word processing or spreadsheet software. ASSESSING THE RESULTS The need to assess results and to use these results to improve educational programs is part of continuous improvement. The emphasis has been increasing, given the focus on assessment by Boards of Trustees, employers, and accreditation agencies, such as AACSB. Accordingly, the final set of questions on the survey investigate who is responsible for assuring that the expected level of proficiency is achieved and how technology skills are assessed. Table 7 reports the

8 results. Panel A reports the results about who carries responsibility for assessment. There is high consensus (81% of respondents) that responsibility rests with individual faculty members and that is consistent with a corresponding low level of institutional engagement. For instance, survey results suggest that assessment responsibility rests with the institution (13%), program director (11%), or technology department (9%). Almost 30% report that responsibility for assuring that students meet a given level of proficiency is the students own responsibility. Other responses include a group of professors (26%) or no specific person, group, or department (15%). Panel B reports the results of when and where assessment is done. Given that 81% of respondents say that individual faculty members are responsible for assessing technology skills, it is not surprising that 62% report that assessment is course embedded. Additionally, 17% of faculty responds that assessments are conducted at the beginning of a student s academic career. This suggests that some institutions assume that students arrive knowing how to use core business software and perhaps offer workshops and on-line options for students who matriculate with technology skills below an acceptable level. Equivalently, 29% of respondents report that technology skills are not assessed at all, which is seemingly inconsistent with the reported importance of these skills. Panel C presents the results on the types of assessments used to determine whether students have reached the appropriate level of proficiency. Most assessment is based on course assignments, with printed copies of students work (29%) or electronic versions (24%). Some institutions use a customized institutional testing program (14%), while others use a standardized commercial testing program (10%). An additional 10% of faculty report that assessment is based on students self-reporting their level of competency. A final set of questions investigates whether the institution has a formal assessment plan. Results are reported in Table 8. Only 20% of respondents report that their institutions have a formal plan and, specifically, that assessment is part of a particular course. The assessment instruments are equally split between printed and electronic examples of student work and either customized or commercial standardized tests. The results of cross-tabulating of whether an institution does formal assessment and the level of proficiency are also presented in Table 8.Those institutions that have a formal assessment plan expect a higher level of proficiency, on average, compared to institutions without a formal plan. While overall 75% expect that students would be proficient or advanced in word processing, 89% of institutions with formal assessment plans expect that students would be proficient or advanced. In regards to competency using spreadsheets software, 66% of faculty overall report that they expected their students to have a proficient level of competency, while 89% of faculty at institutions with formal assessment plans expect that level of competency. Consistent with previous results on presentation software, 55% of faculty overall expect proficiency yet the number increases to 78% if there is a formal assessment plan at the respective institution. CONCLUDING REMARKS AND AREAS OF FUTURE RESEARCH Proficiency in word processing, spreadsheet, and presentation software applications is essential for preparing students for post-graduation employment, according to the survey results. Proficiency for all three is generally defined as the ability to start with a blank sheet of paper and use the software application in a wide variety of contexts. More advanced skills, such as using

9 solver with spreadsheets, track changes with word processing, or developing templates in presentation software are not, generally, considered in most institutions' expectations. The methodologies on how software skills are taught generally fall into one of three models. First, many institutions expect students to enter college with at least some skills in these areas. Consequently, institutions offer online training and workshops as a remedy when skills are lacking. Second, many institutions require a technology course that covers the three types of core business software. These courses are required of all students and may be pass/fail or graded. In addition, institutions embed technology training in specific courses. In this way, institutions can both teach basic and advanced skills as students progress in their academic programs. It may be that the preferred method of instruction for a given institution needs to combine the level of skills at matriculation and the institution's desired outcome at graduation. In terms of assessment, there is little evidence of institution-wide competency standards or assessment methodology. Oversight of technology training and skills acquisition is most often the responsibility of individual faculty members. Institutions that do have formal standards seem to expect higher levels of competency from their students. In addition to the current study on faculty perspectives, alternative forms of the survey have been distributed to undergraduate business graduates and area employers to separately consider their respective viewpoints. A comparative analysis will be beneficial to determine the overlap and intersection among these three stakeholder groups. SELECTED REFERENCES AACSB International. Eligibility Procedures and Accreditation Standards for Business Accreditation. Adopted April 2003 and Revised January 31, 2007, p. 75, pdf Amini, Minoo S. Factors Affecting the Perception of Computer Literacy Among Business Majors, Journal of Education for Business, Nov/Dec 1993, 69:2, p. 79. Bretz, Robert and Linda Johnson. An Innovative Pedagogy for Teaching and Evaluating Computer Literacy, Information Technology and Management, 2000, 1:4, pp Dickerson, Jeremy Glenn. Analysis of Computing Skills and Differences Between Demographic Groups: A Basis for Curriculum Development in Computer Technology Courses at UNC-Wilmington. Unpublished dissertation in the Department of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, Gill, T. Grandon and Qing Hu. The Evolving Undergraduate Information Systems Education: A Survey of U.S. Institutions, Journal of Education for Business, May/June 1999, 74:5, pp Hasselback, James R Accounting Faculty Directory, 11/e, Prentice Hall, 2004, 496 pp Hasselback, James R Finance Faculty Directory, 10/e, Prentice Hall, 2005, 288 pp

10 McDonald, David S. Computer Literacy Skills for Computer Information Systems Majors: A Case Study, Journal of Information Systems Education, Spring 2004, 15:1, pp Stephens, Charlotte S. and Margaret T. O Hara. The Core Information Technology Course at AACSB-Accredited Schools: Consistency or Chaos? Journal of Education for Business, Mar/April 2001, 76:4, pp

11 Table 1: Sample Demographics Panel A: Functional Area of Faculty Member Number of respondents Percentage of respondents Accounting 27 56% Finance 22 46% Strategic Management 4 8% Quantative Analysis/Statistics 3 6% Marketing/Marketing Research 2 4% Management Information Systems 1 2% Organizational Behavior 1 2% NOTE: Number of responses exceeds 47 as some faculty teach in multiple functional areas Panel B: Location of the college or university Boston area 14 30% Connecticut 10 21% Massachusetts, other than Metropolitan Boston 10 21% Maine 3 6% New Hampshire 2 4% New York 0 0% Rhode Island 3 6% Vermont 4 9% Other, Please Specify 1 2% Total Number of Respondents % Panel C: Number of undergraduate business graduates per year % % % % 400 or more 13 28% Total %

12 Table 2: Software Requirements and Level of Proficiency Panel A: Types of Software Considered Essential for Undergraduate Business Majors Percentage of Type of software respondents Word processing software (e.g. Microsoft Word, WordPerfect) 96% Spreadsheet software (e.g. Microsoft Excel, Lotus 123) 98% Presentation software (e.g. Powerpoint, Keynote) 85% Database software (e.g. Microsoft Access, Filemaker Pro) 52% Statistical software (e.g. SPSS, SAS, Minitab) 40% Financial software (e.g. Peachtree Accounting, Quickbooks, Quicken) 21% Groupware (e.g. Lotus Notes, Exchange, Groupwise) 10% Project management software (e.g. Microsoft Project) 4% Customer relations software (e.g. Peoplesoft, Siebel) 0% Panel B: Level of Proficiency Considered Essential for Undergraduate Business Majors Distribution of Level of Proficiency None Some Moderate Proficient Advanced Type of software mean Word processing software (e.g. Microsoft Word, WordPerfect) % 0% 26% 64% 11% 75% Spreadsheet software (e.g. Microsoft Excel, Lotus 123) % 4% 26% 57% 13% 70% Presentation software (e.g. Powerpoint, Keynote) % 5% 30% 55% 11% 66% Database software (e.g. Microsoft Access, Filemaker Pro) % 40% 32% 18% 0% 18% Statistical software (e.g. SPSS, SAS, Minitab) % 37% 31% 9% 0% 9% Financial software (e.g. Peachtree Accounting, Quickbooks, Quicken) % 21% 15% 6% 3% 9% Groupware (e.g. Lotus Notes, Exchange, Groupwise) % 12% 12% 6% 6% 12% Project management software (e.g. Microsoft Project) % 14% 4% 0% 0% 0% Customer relations software (e.g. Peoplesoft, Siebel) % 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

13 Table 3: Word Processing Software Proficiency: General Tasks and Specific Skills Panel A: General WORD PROCESSING software tasks that a graduating business student should be able to complete Level of proficiency institution expects students to attain using WORD PROCESSING software by graduation None Some Moderate Proficient Advanced Total Overall expeccted level of proficiency 0 0% 0 0% 12 26% 30 64% 5 11% % Write a business memo 0 0% 0 0% % % 5 100% % Write a research paper with proper citations 0 0% 0 0% % % 5 100% % Prepare a business report 0 0% 0 0% 11 92% % 5 100% 46 98% Prepare a report with embedded tables 0 0% 0 0% 5 42% 28 93% 4 80% 37 79% Work collaboratively on a written document 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 14 47% 4 80% 18 38% Create a newsletter with embedded items 0 0% 0 0% 2 17% 5 17% 2 40% 9 19% We do not expect any skills in this area 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Panel B: Specific WORD PROCESSING software skills that a graduating business student should be able to complete Level of proficiency institution expects students to attain using WORD PROCESSING software by graduation None Some Moderate Proficient Advanced Total Overall expeccted level of proficiency 0 0% 0 0% 12 26% 30 64% 5 11% % Format text (e.g., font, size, alignment) 0 0% 0 0% % % 5 100% % Set margins and paper layout 0 0% 0 0% % % 5 100% % Use spell check to edit for spelling / grammar 0 0% 0 0% % % 5 100% % Use bullets to prepare lists 0 0% 0 0% 10 83% 29 97% 5 100% 44 94% Prepare tables 0 0% 0 0% 7 58% 25 83% 5 100% 37 79% Create an outline 0 0% 0 0% 7 58% 23 77% 5 100% 35 74% Use headers and footers 0 0% 0 0% 6 50% 24 80% 5 100% 35 74% Embed a table or worksheet 0 0% 0 0% 6 50% 22 73% 5 100% 33 70% Use "track changes" to work collaboratively 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 13 43% 3 60% 16 34% We do not expect any skills in this area 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Overall desired level of proficiency indicates the number and percent of respondents who responded that students should have skills at the indicated level of proficiency. The percentages for general tasks and specific skills indicate the proportion of respondents (at each desired level of proficiency) who indicated that a given task or skill was required.

14 Table 4: Spreadsheet Software Proficiency: General Tasks and Specific Skills Panel A: General SPREADSHEET software tasks that a graduating business student should be able to complete Level of proficiency institution expects students to attain using SPREADSHEET software by graduation None Some Moderate Proficient Advanced Total Overall expected level of proficiency 0 0% 2 4% 12 26% 27 57% 6 13% % Enter numbers and text in a pre-designed worksheet 0 0% 1 50% % 23 85% 6 100% 42 89% Use formulas to combine values 0 0% 1 50% % 24 89% 6 100% 43 91% Create basic spreadsheet models 0 0% 1 50% 11 92% 25 93% 6 100% 43 91% Create advanced spreadsheet model 0 0% 2 100% 6 50% 25 93% 6 100% 39 83% Create spreadsheets that feed into a co. system 0 0% 0 0% 1 8% 6 22% 2 33% 9 19% Create interactive spreadsheet models 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 2 7% 1 17% 3 6% We do not expect any skills in this area 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Panel B: Specific SPREADSHEET software skills that a graduating business student should be able to complete Level of proficiency institution expects students to attain using SPREADSHEET software by graduation None Some Moderate Proficient Advanced Total Overall expected level of proficiency 0 0% 2 4% 12 26% 27 57% 6 13% % Format numbers (dollars, percentages) 0 0% 2 100% % % 6 100% % Create formulas using basic operations 0 0% 2 100% % % 6 100% % Copy formulas 0 0% 2 100% % % 6 100% % Format text (font, size, alignment) 0 0% 2 100% % 26 96% 6 100% 46 98% Create graphs and charts 0 0% 2 100% 10 83% 26 96% 6 100% 44 94% Use financial functions (present/future value) 0 0% 2 100% 8 67% 24 89% 6 100% 40 85% Use statistical functions (average, mean) 0 0% 2 100% 8 67% 23 85% 6 100% 39 83% Use data sort function 0 0% 2 100% 8 67% 24 89% 4 67% 38 81% Use advanced functions (spinners, solver) 0 0% - 0% 1 8% 5 19% 0 0% 6 13% We do not expect any skills in this area 0 0% - 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Overall desired level of proficiency indicates the number and percent of respondents who responded that students should have skills at the indicated level of proficiency. The percentages for general tasks and specific skills indicate the proportion of respondents (at each desired level of proficiency) who indicated that a given task or skill was required.

15 Table 5: Presentation Software Proficiency: General Tasks and Specific Skills Panel A: General PRESENTATION software tasks that a graduating business student should be able to complete Level of proficiency institution expects students to attain using PRESENTATION software by graduation None Some Moderate Proficient Advanced Total Overall expected level of proficiency 0 0% 2 5% 13 30% 24 55% 5 11% % Create a basic presentation with 5 slides 0 0% 2 100% % 23 96% 5 100% 43 98% Edit a presentation created by someone else 0 0% 2 100% 11 85% 23 96% 5 100% 41 93% Create a theme appropriate presentation 0 0% 1 50% 11 85% 23 96% 5 100% 40 91% Embedded tables and spreadsheets 0 0% 1 50% 7 54% 20 83% 4 80% 32 73% Embed video, graphics, and web links 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 11 46% 3 60% 14 32% Links objects from other applications 0 0% 0 0% 1 8% 7 29% 3 60% 11 25% We do not expect any skills in this area 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Panel B: Specific PRESENTATION software skills that a graduating business student should be able to complete Level of proficiency institution expects students to attain using PRESENTATION software by graduation None Some Moderate Proficient Advanced Total Overall desired level of proficiency 0 0% 2 5% 13 30% 24 55% 5 11% % Format text and numbers 0 0% 2 100% % 23 96% 5 100% 43 98% Insert graphics 0 0% 1 50% 10 77% 22 92% 4 80% 37 84% Insert tables and/or spreadsheets 0 0% 1 50% 8 62% 21 88% 4 80% 34 77% Choose appropriate templates 0 0% 0 0% 7 54% 19 79% 4 80% 30 68% Edit an electronic presentation 0 0% 1 50% 6 46% 19 79% 4 80% 30 68% Modify standardized templates and tools 0 0% 0 0% 6 46% 18 75% 3 60% 27 61% Use animations and transitions 0 0% 0 0% 5 38% 18 75% 3 60% 26 59% Insert audio and/or video clips 0 0% 0 0% 2 15% 12 50% 2 40% 16 36% Create new templates 0 0% 0 0% 2 15% 6 25% 1 20% 9 20% We do not expect any skills in this area 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Overall desired level of proficiency indicates the number and percent of respondents who responded that students should have skills at the indicated level of proficiency. The percentages for general tasks and specific skills indicate the proportion of respondents (at each desired level of proficiency) who indicated that a given task or skill was required.

16 Table 6: Learning Methods and Use of Technology Skills Panel A: Instructional methods for undergraduate business students to learn Percentage of Respondents technology skills Word Processing Spread Sheet Presentations Students come to our college knowing this type of software 73% 58% 55% Students teach themselves or teach each other once in college 42% 60% 70% Students enroll in a dedicated technology course for credit 48% 69% 57% Our college offers standardized on-line training 50% 19% 15% Academic Technology department offers non-credit labs and workshops 19% 46% 40% Technology training is embedded in specific functional courses 0% 69% 51% Technology training is provided in labs that are linked to specific courses 0% 40% 0% Other, Please Specify 0% 2% 2% Panel B: Course requirements involving technology skills for undergraduate Percentage of Respondents business students Word Processing Spread Sheet Presentations Individual projects 94% 96% 85% Group projects 96% 92% 96% Graded homework assignments 94% 94% 55% Non-graded homework assignments 74% 69% 34% Homework or projects in one class 57% 56% 38% Homework or projects in a series of classes 72% 77% 45% Other, Please Specify 2% 4% 4%

17 Table 7: Assessing Technology Fluency Panel A: Who is responsible for assuring students reach proficiency? Percentage of respondents Individual professor 81% The students themselves 28% Group of professors 26% No specific person, group, or department has responsibility 15% Institutional level responsibility 13% Program director 11% Technology department 9% Other, Please Specify 9% Panel B: When/Where is assessment done? Assessments are conducted as part of a specific functional course 62% Assessments are conducted as part of a dedicated technology course 26% Competency exam 12% My institution does not assess technology skills 29% Assessments are conducted prior to or at the beginning of a students' first semester 17% Assessments are conducted close to graduation 4% Panel C: What types of assessments are done? Printed examples of students' work 29% My college does not assess technology competency 29% Electronic examples of students' work 24% Customized institutional testing program 14% Self reporting (ask students to describe their competency) 10% Standardized commercial testing program 10% Note: Percentages total more than 100% as more than one response could be appropriate

18 Table 8: Relationship between Level of Proficiency and Formal Assessment Plan Panel A: Formal Assessment and Software Proficiency Does institution formally assess the technology competency of students Level of WORD PROCESSING proficiency Yes No Not Sure Total None 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Some 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Moderate 1 11% 8 30% 3 33% 12 27% Proficient 7 78% 17 63% 4 44% 28 62% Advanced 1 11% 2 7% 2 22% 5 11% % expecting proficient or advanced level 8 89% 19 70% 6 67% 33 73% Total 9 20% 27 60% 9 20% % Level of SPREADSHEET proficiency Yes No Not Sure Total None 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Some 0 0% 2 7% 0 0% 2 4% Moderate 1 11% 8 30% 3 33% 12 27% Proficient 7 78% 14 52% 4 44% 25 56% Advanced 1 11% 3 11% 2 22% 6 13% % expecting proficient or advanced level 8 89% 17 63% 6 67% 31 69% Total 9 20% 27 60% 9 20% % Level of PRESENTATION SOFTWARE proficiency Yes No Not Sure Total None 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Some 0 0% 1 4% 1 11% 2 5% Moderate 2 22% 8 33% 3 33% 13 31% Proficient 5 56% 13 54% 4 44% 22 52% Advanced 2 22% 2 8% 1 11% 5 12% % expecting proficient or advanced level 7 78% 15 63% 5 56% 27 64% Total 9 21% 24 57% 9 21% %

19 Table 8: Relationship between Level of Proficiency and Formal Assessment Plan (con't) Panel B: When is assessment conducted? Assessments are conducted as part of a specific course 9 100% Assessments are conducted at beginning of college career 3 33% Assessments are conducted close to graduation 1 11% Panel C: What types of assessment methods are used? Printed examples of students' work 3 33% Electronic examples of students' work 3 33% Custom institutional testing program 3 33% Standardized commercial testing program 1 11% Self reporting (ask students to describe their competency) Customized institutional testing program 0 0% * Some institutions conduct assessment multiple times and using multiple tools