Degree Program Assessment Reports : View Reports

Unit: Communicology
Program: Communicology (MA)
Degree: Master's
Date: Tue Sep 16, 2014 - 4:06:47 pm

1) Below are your program's student learning outcomes (SLOs). Please update as needed.

Demonstrate mastery of theories of communication, particularly in the areas of relational, persuasion/social influence, and message processing functions
Demonstrate mastery of fundamentals of research design and analysis in communication
Demonstrate an integrative and systematic understanding of the human communication process

2) Your program's SLOs are published as follows. Please update as needed.

Department Website URL: manoa.hawaii.edu/communicology

Student Handbook. URL, if available online: https://laulima.hawaii.edu/access/content/group/51af1472-6046-45d0-a17f-4b168b0b7118/Graduate%20Handbook%202012.pdf

Information Sheet, Flyer, or Brochure URL, if available online:

UHM Catalog. Page Number:

Course Syllabi. URL, if available online:

Other:

3) Select one option:

Curriculum Map File(s) from 2014:

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.

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 targeted all of our SLOs and tried to assess how well our students were meeting them.

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.

In a meeting at the end of each Fall and Spring semester (usually 2 hours in length), the entire faculty assess how well each current graduate student is meeting the SLOs. We use a rubric of the SLOs and evaluate the extent to which the graduate student is exceptional, acceptable, developing, or unacceptable in meeting the SLOs. Consensus is the primary mode of decision-making.

8) State how many persons submitted evidence that was evaluated. If applicable, please include the sampling technique used.

All faculty are present at the assessment meeting and we evaluate all current and active graduate students. Those who could not be present submit written notes on the students and those notes are read aloud and shared at the meeting.

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: Graduate Chair

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.

Fall 2013 End of Semester Student Performance Evaluation Results

Results for End of Fall 2013 Semester

Sample (N=14): first semester (n=7), second semester (n=0), third semester (n=7), fourth semester (n=0)

SLO	Unacceptable	Developing	Acceptable	Exceptional
SLO1: Theory	0	5	6	3
SLO2: Research	0	7	5	2
SLO3: Understanding	0	6	6	2
SLO4: Ph.D. Preparation	3*	7	2	2
SLO5: Conduct Research	0	9	4	1
SLO6: Oral Articulation	0	8	5	1
SLO7: Written Articulation	0	8	4	2
SLO8: Presentation/Teaching	0	4	7	3
TOTAL	3 (3%)	54 (48%)	39 (35%)	16 (14%)

*Note: “Unacceptable” for the SLO4: Ph.D. Preparation should be interpreted as “Not Applicable”

Spring 2014 End of Semester Student Performance Evaluation Results

Results for End of Spring 2014 Semester

Sample (N=10): first semester (n=0), second semester (n=7), third semester (n=0), fourth semester (n=7)

SLO	Unacceptable	Developing	Acceptable	Exceptional
SLO1: Theory	0	5	7	2
SLO2: Research	0	7	5	2
SLO3: Understanding	0	6	6	2
SLO4: Ph.D. Preparation	5*	4	4	1
SLO5: Conduct Research	0	7	5	2
SLO6: Oral Articulation	0	7	5	2
SLO7: Written Articulation	0	7	5	2
SLO8: Presentation/Teaching	0	7	4	3
TOTAL	5 (4%)	50 (45%)	41 (37%)	16 (14%)

*Note: “Unacceptable” for the SLO4: Ph.D. Preparation should be interpreted as “Not Applicable”

12) State how the program used the results or plans to use the results. Please be specific.

We plan to use the results to see if graduating students generally meet our SLOs and if not, then we will investigate how our teaching and implementation of our required classes and the culminating thesis or applied project can be modified. Given that our MA program is relatively small, we need to accumulate several years of data before we will be able to see any patterns that may emerge. We expect that by Spring 2016, we should be able to judge more concretely if our students are meeting our SLOs and make appropriate changes to our program if they are not meeting them.

In the meantime, the graduate chair writes individual letters to each active graduate student to apprise them of the faculty's general assessment of whether they are meeting expectations with regard to our SLOs. The graduate chair also shares, based on the faculty assessment meeting of the graduate program, a strength and a weakness of the student. We have discovered that this feedback has been very effective in creating positive change in our program and helps students better meet our SLOs.

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.

We have seen that our graduating students tend to meet the program level SLOs.

Students who were deficient in meeting the SLOs tended to drop out of the program.

Beyond these results, we have undertaken to assess the factors that might be especially critical when making graduate student admission decisions. We examined whether an applicant’s undergraduate GPA, scores on the verbal reasoning portion of the GRE, scores on the quantitative reasoning portion of the GRE, and/or scores on the analytical writing portion of the GRE predicted a graduate student’s GPA upon graduation from our program. We used GPA upon graduation from our program as another proxy for success. We analyzed data from 2005 to 2014. The results showed that the model with undergraduate GPA and the individual components of the GRE was statistically significant in predicting GPA upon graduating from our MA program in Communicology, F(4, 33) = 3.31, p = .02, adjusted R² = .20. Specifically, scores on the quantitative reasoning portion of the GRE was the only significant predictor of GPA upon graduation from our MA program in Communicology, b = .39, t = 2.40, p = .02. The model also indicated that there was minimal collinearity among the four predictors. Tolerance of the predictors ranged from .66 to .81 and the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) ranged from 1.24 to 1.53.

We used this information to provide guidance to prospective graduate students and to help with admission decisions in borderline cases.

Regression Analysis of Predictors of GPA Upon Graduation from MA Program in Communicology

Predictor	b	SE	β	t
Undergrad GPA	0.13	.10	.22	1.30
Verbal Reasoning GRE	>-0.01	.01	-.12	-0.67
Quantitative Reasoning GRE	0.01	.01	.39	2.40*
Analytical Writing GRE	0.03	0.04	.15	0.88

* p < .05

14) If the program did not engage in assessment activities, please explain.
Or, if the program did engage in assessment activities, please add any other important information here.

Based on our past assessments, we have now begun to hold faculty meetings on all of the graduate students at the end of each semester, rather than at the end of only the fall semesters.

We send individual letters to each student to let them know how well they are meeting our program level SLOs.

We have also developed SLOs for our graduate courses and have placed them on the syllabi.