Program: History (BA)
Degree: Bachelor's
Date: Fri Sep 12, 2014 - 3:37:47 pm
1) Institutional Learning Objectives (ILOs) and Program Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs)
1. Students can explain historical change and continuity.
(1a. General education, 1b. Specialized study in an academic field, 2a. Think critically and creatively, 2b. Conduct research, 3b. Respect for people and cultures, in particular Hawaiian culture)
2. Students can write clear expository prose and present their ideas orally according to disciplinary conventions.
(2c. Communicate and report, 3a. Continuous learning and personal growth)
3. Students can interpret and use primary sources.
(1a. General education, 1b. Specialized study in an academic field, 2a. Think critically and creatively, 2b. Conduct research, 3a. Continuous learning and personal growth, 3b. Respect for people and cultures, in particular Hawaiian culture)
4. Students can identify the main historiographical issues in a specific area of concentration.
(1a. General education, 1b. Specialized study in an academic field, 2a. Think critically and creatively, 2b. Conduct research, 3b. Respect for people and cultures, in particular Hawaiian culture)
2) Your program's SLOs are published as follows. Please update as needed.
Department Website URL: http://manoa.hawaii.edu/history/undergraduate
Student Handbook. URL, if available online: Information Sheet, Flyer, or Brochure URL, if available online: UHM Catalog. Page Number: Course Syllabi. URL, if available online: Some individual faculty share departmental SLOs on their syllabi. Other: Course listings on departmental website: http://manoa.hawaii.edu/history/courses Other: Our curriculum map is also published: http://manoa.hawaii.edu/history/undergraduate3) Select one option:
- File (03/16/2020)
4) For your program, the percentage of courses that have course SLOs explicitly stated on the syllabus, a website, or other publicly available document is as follows. Please update as needed.
0% 1-50%
51-80% 81-99% 100%5) Did your program engage in any program assessment activities between June 1, 2013 and September 30, 2014? (e.g., establishing/revising outcomes, aligning the curriculum to outcomes, collecting evidence, interpreting evidence, using results, revising the assessment plan, creating surveys or tests, etc.)
Yes No (skip to question 14)6) For the period between June 1, 2013 and September 30, 2014: State the assessment question(s) and/or assessment goals. Include the SLOs that were targeted, if applicable.
We have completed the last segment of our Five-Year Assessment in the academic year 2013-14 and confirmed the adequacy of our decision in the last academic year that SLO#2 be eliminated as it was substantially the same as SLO#3. The History Department Undergraduate SLOs and the rebric for each SLO at the end of Spring 2014 stand as follows:
Scoring Guide SLO#1:
Students can explain historical change and continuity.
|
Level |
Interpretation and Use |
|
4 – Accomplished |
Analyzes change over time as an integral part of thesis Demonstrates a critical understanding of change and continuity
|
|
3 – Competent |
Recognizes significance of change and continuity Develops a thesis not based change and continuity
|
|
2 – Developing |
Includes some chronology, but fails to interpret it Fails to develop a thesis
|
|
1 – Beginning |
Has errors of chronology Unclear or incoherent narrative
|
[SLO#2 recommended for deletion in 2013 report]
Scoring Guide for SLO #3:
Students can write clear expository prose and orally present their ideas according to disciplinary conventions.
|
Level |
Interpretation and Use |
|
4 – Accomplished |
Communicates sophisticated analytical ideas and arguments Clear and coherent narrative Expressive grammatical use of language Correct use of citations and formatting
|
|
3 – Competent |
Clear and coherent narrative Grammatical use of language Correct use of citations and formatting
|
|
2 – Developing |
Lacks clarity and narrative organization Has some grammatical errors Has errors of citations and formatting
|
|
1 – Beginning |
Unclear and incoherent narrative Has grammatical errors Has errors of citations and formatting
|
Scoring Guide for SLO #4:
Students can interpret and use primary sources.
|
Level |
Interpretation and Use |
|
4 – Accomplished |
Crafts argument based on primary sources Recognizes historiographical significance of argument
|
|
3 – Competent |
Interprets primary sources Develops an argument not based on primary sources
|
|
2 – Developing |
Includes some primary sources, but fails to interpret them Fails to develop an argument
|
|
1 – Beginning |
Uses incorrect or few primary sources
|
Scoring Guide for SLO #5:
Students can identify the main historiographical issues in a specific area of concentration.
|
Level |
Interpretation and Use |
|
4 – Accomplished |
Situates their own argument in historiographical debate Demonstrates a critical understanding of historiography
|
|
3 – Competent |
Recognizes issues or shifts in historiography
|
|
2 – Developing |
Incorporates secondary sources as evidence Fails to evaluate or critique secondary sources
|
|
1 – Beginning |
Fails to identify secondary sources
|
7) State the type(s) of evidence gathered to answer the assessment question and/or meet the assessment goals that were given in Question #6.
Following our revised Five-Year Assessment Plan, we collected sample papers from HIST 300-level courses and HIST 496 papers for assessing SLO #1. We also used the same sample papers to assess and reconfirm the adequacy of our decision in the last academic year to eliminate redundancy between SLO#2 and SLO#3.
8) State how many persons submitted evidence that was evaluated. If applicable, please include the sampling technique used.
A total of 13 papers were collected from 300-level courses and 8 papers from HIST 496. The sampling technique was to request all 300-level instructors and HIST 496 instructors to provide a representative range of papers based on scoring rubric we designed for the targeted SLOs.
9) Who interpreted or analyzed the evidence that was collected? (Check all that apply.)
Course instructor(s) Faculty committee Ad hoc faculty group Department chairperson Persons or organization outside the university Faculty advisor Advisors (in student support services) Students (graduate or undergraduate) Dean/Director Other: 10) How did they evaluate, analyze, or interpret the evidence? (Check all that apply.)
Used a rubric or scoring guide Scored exams/tests/quizzes Used professional judgment (no rubric or scoring guide used) Compiled survey results Used qualitative methods on interview, focus group, open-ended response data External organization/person analyzed data (e.g., external organization administered and scored the nursing licensing exam) Other: 11) For the assessment question(s) and/or assessment goal(s) stated in Question #6:
Summarize the actual results.
Due to scheduling complications in Fall 2013, the Assessment Committee held a longer meeting at the start of Spring 2014 to assess the sample papers from both the 300-level history courses and HIST 496 papers. We confirmed during the meeting the adequacy of revised SLOs (in which SLO#2 was eliminted) and the soundness of the rubrics for each SLO. As for scores, we found that students in the 300-level courses generally met the SLOs at levels between 2 and 3 (i.e. between "Developing" and "Competent") while students in HIST 496 courses met the SLOs at levels between 3 and 4 (i.e. between "Competent" and "Accomplished").
12) State how the program used the results or plans to use the results. Please be specific.
Based on results gained from the academic year 2013-14 as well as preceding four years, the Assessment Committee has tentatively concluded that our undergraduate curriculum is generally satisfactory but that there is room for some improvement in order to make our program more effective in helping students master important skills as history majors.
Now that our Five-Year Assessment Plan has been completed, the Assessment Committee will work on the final report in which the summary of its findings and recommendations will be indicated. The report will be submitted to the department chair for review and to the Department at large by the end of Spring 2014.
13) Beyond the results, were there additional conclusions or discoveries?
This can include insights about assessment procedures, teaching and learning, program aspects and so on.
Some suggestions we have tentatively made in our 2013 report (item 13; quoted in full below) will be discussed fully this academic year in preparation for the final report.
"Next academic year (2013-2014) will be the final year of our first 5-Year Assessment Plan, and therefore we will be preparing a final report to the Department based on our survey results from the previous years. In addition to eliminating SLO#2, we will be discussing the possibility of adding a new SLO for the future. One possibility is separating the oral presentation component from SLO#3 to its own SLO, though we will have to have further discussions about how best to evaluate this task. Another possibility is to add an SLO that focuses on digital literacy, though we will have to be discussions about where this new skill would be assessed in our program.
"We have also had discussions about requiring a new course for our majors, History 296, which has a focus on critical reading of primary sources and developing writing skills, to join History 396 and 496 as an arc of structured courses to better prepare our students in our core skills. During the upcoming year, the committee will be using our accumulated data to make a formal recommendation to the Department about revising our undergraduate curriculum."