Program: Honors
Date: Thu Sep 10, 2015 - 4:51:48 pm
1) Below are your program's student outcomes (SOs). Please add or update as needed.
· Enhance breadth of knowledge through Honors course offerings that also fulfill Foundations, Diversification and Focus requirements
· Enrich and make more rigorous the process of gaining specialized knowledge in an academic field
· Foster a culture of shared academic excellence and discipline
· Promote innovative teaching and learning that prioritize interdisciplinary, collaborative and/or experiential methods
· Cultivate intellectual rigor and independence through mentorship and substantive research and/or creative opportunities
· Develop and improve oral and written communication skills
· Encourage community engagement, civic participation, and stewardship with attention to local and regional issues and problems
· Instill a philosophy and habits of life-long learning, intellectual curiosity, reflection and personal growth
2) Your program's SOs are published as follows. Please update as needed.
Program's Website. URL: Student Handbook. URL, if available online: Information Sheet, Flyer, or Brochure. URL, if available online: UHM Catalog. Page Number: 
Other: Not yet published, as they were recently drafted and have yet to be formally approved by Honors Council. Once they are, they will go on our website. Other: 3) Provide the program's activity map or other graphic that illustrates how program activities/services align with program student outcomes. Please upload it as a PDF.
4) Did your program engage in any program assessment activities between June 1, 2014 and September 30, 2015? (e.g., establishing/revising outcomes, aligning activities to outcomes, collecting evidence, interpreting evidence, using results, revising the assessment plan, creating surveys, etc.)
Yes
No (skip to question 14)5) For the period between June 1, 2014 and September 30, 2015: State the assessment question(s) and/or assessment goals. Include the student outcomes that were targeted, if applicable.
Assessment questions were more structural and broad, rather than specifically addressing program outcomes. We wanted to understand if the two-tier structure of the Honors Program (selected studies targeting first and second year students, upper division targeting juniors and seniors undertaking research):
- promoted intellectual coherence from first year to graduation
- contributed to the drop-off in upper division enrollments (fewer than 200 vs. over 700 in selected studies) and why
- was a source of confusion for participants (students and Honors faculty) in navigating the program
- truly incorates and encourages experiential learning as a hallmark
6) State the type(s) of evidence gathered to answer the assessment question and/or meet the assessment goals that were given in Question #5.
- SEED-funded survey and focus group follow up of Honors students
- study of Honors Program curriculum maps and comparison with Honors programs and colleges at peer and benchmark institutions
- study of individual course offerings (ongoing) and syllabi
- program sheets being currently used by the program for advising
7) State how many persons submitted evidence that was evaluated. If applicable, please include the sampling technique used.
Survey and focus group study done by junior specialist advisor and APT yielded 19 students in 2 focus groups and 164 student surveys
Comparison study explored 18 peer and benchmark insitutions with Honors Programs and Colleges.
We collated Honors syllabi for HON 101, 291, 491 and 495 for the last three years (a total of 16)
Program sheets
8) Who interpreted or analyzed the evidence that was collected? Check all that apply.
Program faculty/staff member(s) Faculty/staff committee Ad hoc faculty/staff group Director or department chairperson Persons or organization outside the university Students (graduate or undergraduate) Dean or Associate Dean Advisory Board Other: 9) How did he/she/they evaluate, analyze, or interpret the evidence? Check all that apply.
Compiled survey results Used quantitative methods on student data (e.g., grades, participation rates) or other numeric data Used qualitative methods on interview, focus group, or other open-ended response data Scored exams/tests/quizzes Used a rubric or scoring guide Used professional judgment (no rubric or scoring guide used) External organization/person analyzed data (e.g., Social Science Research Institute) Other: 10) For the assessment questions/goals stated in Question #5, summarize the actual results.
Does the two tier Honors Program:
-
promote intellectual coherence from first year to graduation:
- Not quite: there is a distinct lack of articulation between the expectations, training and goals of the Selected Studies program and the upper division program
-
contribute to the drop-off in upper division enrollments (fewer than 200 vs. over 700 in selected studies) and why
- very likely: based on the surveys and focus groups, the selected studies provided an easy exit ramp for students to stop their Honors program involvement after sophomore year
- some students are not interested in doing research or independent creative work, which is the hallmark of the upper division program, but did not necessarily want to stop being in honors--but felt that there was no alternative for them but to drop
-
provide a source of confusion for participants (students and Honors faculty) in navigating the program
- there was a lack of understanding regarding the differences between the two programs and how much or how little additional work was needed to fulfill the upper division requirement
-
truly incorate and encourage experiential learning as a hallmark
- inconsistent across the board, and definitely not something that is ensured in any one course
11) What was learned from the results?
We learned that UHM's Honors Program is actually not aligned with the standard four year programs at peer and benchmark institutions in terms of its structure and curriculum. Clarifying this and moving toward a four year program as our standard program (with an option to enroll as a transfer or upper-division student) is our goal for the next year, along with reviewing and/or establishing clear course SLOs that align with our draft PLOs.
12) State how the program used the results or plans to use the results. Please be specific.
We are in the midst of a program restructuring that will align us with our peer and benchmark programs, which means working to articulate and merge the two current tiers into one program. We will be having an Honors Program retreat inviting Honors faculty and Honors council members, along with the General Education and Study Abroad directors, to help with mapping out a four year track with a thesis option, and one with a portfolio option to accommodate students who want to continue with Honors without a thesis, or use alternative capstone experiences outside of an original research or creative project.
13) Reflect on the assessment process. Is there anything related to assessment procedures your program would do differently next time? What went well?
It was perhaps a bigger project than we anticipated, in terms of what the findings pointed to as our action plan. However, sometimes big changes are necessary. Having an assessment action plan helped us stay on target with regard to what our goals were.