Program: Molecular Biosciences and Biotechnology (BS)
Degree: Bachelor's
Date: Mon Sep 22, 2014 - 3:15:29 pm
1) Institutional Learning Objectives (ILOs) and Program Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs)
1. 1.Understand fundamental core science concepts and have the ability to apply their knowledge in the field of biotechnology.
(1a. General education, 1b. Specialized study in an academic field, 2a. Think critically and creatively, 3a. Continuous learning and personal growth, 3c. Stewardship of the natural environment)
2. 2.Have the knowledge and core sets of skills that span across basic Sciences and biotechnology, and Mathmatics portions of (STEM) education.
(1a. General education, 1b. Specialized study in an academic field, 2a. Think critically and creatively, 3a. Continuous learning and personal growth, 3c. Stewardship of the natural environment)
3. 3.Understand and be able to identify ethical issues and social impacts associated with biotechnology, and practice ethical standards of integrity honesty, and fairness in scientific practices and professional conduct.
(1a. General education, 1b. Specialized study in an academic field, 2a. Think critically and creatively, 2b. Conduct research, 3c. Stewardship of the natural environment)
4. Can communicate orally and in writing in clear, well organized manner that effectively informs and clarifies scientific principles and lab techniques to others.
(1b. Specialized study in an academic field, 2b. Conduct research, 2c. Communicate and report)
5. Are able to solve problems using hypothesis development and experimental methods on biological systems.
(1b. Specialized study in an academic field, 2a. Think critically and creatively, 3a. Continuous learning and personal growth, 3c. Stewardship of the natural environment)
6. Are well prepared for employment in the critically important and dynamic biotechnology industry.
(1a. General education, 1b. Specialized study in an academic field, 1c. Understand Hawaiian culture and history, 2a. Think critically and creatively, 2b. Conduct research, 3a. Continuous learning and personal growth, 3b. Respect for people and cultures, in particular Hawaiian culture, 3c. Stewardship of the natural environment, 3d. Civic participation)
2) Your program's SLOs are published as follows. Please update as needed.
Department Website URL: Student Handbook. URL, if available online: 
Information Sheet, Flyer, or Brochure URL, if available online: Flyer UHM Catalog. Page Number: Course Syllabi. URL, if available online: Other: Other: 3) 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.
The original four SLOs were expanded to six, clarified and an attempt was made to make them more suitable to assessment. All SLOs were targeted. SLO1, core sciences and SLO2, STEM skills are important because they are foundations on which the entire program rests. SLO3 is important in this day and age when there is suspicion about biotechnology. The ethics of what we do must be clear. SLO4, communication relates to the previous one. Concepts not communicated may as well not exist. SLO5, problem solving is the end outcome of the scientific training of MBB/PEB. SLO6, preparation for the future, either employment or graduate school is the after-program goal which depends on success in the other SLOs.
Special attention was paid to SLO3, ethics
As stated elsewhere all courses have course SLOs. Those of MBBE 304 which relates to ethical issues are especially clear. The General Education Committee approved the course as an E-Focus course, Contemporary Ethical Issues. SLOs for the course are
1. Enhanced awareness of the socio-ethical impacts of biotechnology on society and how it is changing our world and lives;
2. Increased basic knowledge of the scientific facts and concepts of biotechnology;
3. An ability to define and discuss the ethical issues, frontiers and controversies arising from the science;
4. An ability to think outside the box about the ethical impacts of biotechnology;
5. An ability to discuss biotechnology using facts to make responsible decisions about ethical controversies.
We did more than this. We changed the program's name and streamlined the confusing curricular options. These were long standing student requests. Our program had an unattractive name and we thought that a more modern name would be better.
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.
While a crude measure, grades are the first set of evidences for assessment. They are crude because single grades cover several SLOs. They also cover different kinds of work as exams, papers, class discussions, and so on. But grades are distributed by the Dean’s office to all advisors every semester and are a good sign that students are engaged in their major. They are an opportunity to tell students they are doing a good job. Students like this reinforcement.
All students must do a capstone, oral or poster presentation to graduate. In this task which is covered by the 499 courses and students must prepare and submit a written report for this course. Usually the report is quite extensive, covering at least a semester of literature review and laboratory work. The papers offer the mentor the first opportunity to interact with students in a serious and in-depth manner. Basic skills may be assessed (SLOs 1 and 2), students must confront ethical issues, the draft is intended for communication to the public and should be so oriented, it is a problem solving document, and often students move on to the next step in their careers based on their capstone presentations. These early written reports have the advantage of the mentor seeing what the student thinks and is free of interference as occurs with oral presentations which are typically highly polished.
The final assessment tool is performance at the oral or poster presentation at the Student Research Symposium. The presentations are scored by a panel of faculty judges. They are truly a peer review group. Score sheets are Ph.D. score sheets but one can judge SLOs nevertheless. Judging category names are different, but one can extrapolate. I.e. the ethics SLO is usually covered in the talk’s introduction section. When score sheets were made available to the coordinator, high scoring presentations had a high baseline of criteria that related to the SLOs. The differences between all-College and other winners is in the problem solving category (SLO5) during question and answer periods. They measure the students’ true understanding as mentor is not present to assist students. On more than one occasion, graduate assistantships or employment was offered at the conclusion of the oral or poster presentation. Award winner names are published in the banquet program. There are usually 5 awards for undergraduates so one can see all the names of students who did well whether winners (best in College) or winners of different categories of award (best in Department).
We also did a comprehensive student survey and comprehensive student exit survey. The changes reflect what students wanted.
8) State how many persons submitted evidence that was evaluated. If applicable, please include the sampling technique used.
Regarding course grades, one professor per course submitted evidence.
For written 499 reports, one professor per student who is graduating provided an assessment.
For the Student Research Symposium a panel of 6 or 8 judges is usually functional. They are selected so that they have no conflicts of interest (they do not have competing students). They are faculty from all departments in the College and therefore have a broad view. They are probably more representative of the general public because while all are Ph.D. scientists they are not all in molecular bioscientists.
For the comprehensive survey, all students were surveyed. We had about 15 majors at a time. In addition, each student is given an exit interview by the advisor.
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.
For routine analysis, grades in beginning courses might on occasion be low (e.g. chemistry). Students are told that they should pay attention to these foundational courses. They generally improve so during most of the major courses, students generally receive A grades. On occasion, there is a B grade but these tend to be rare.
In the 499 courses, written work usually receives an A grade.
For the symposium, MBB/PEB students generally do very well and more often than not win the top award.
For the comprehensive survey, students did not generally volunteer that they didn't like the name of the program though a few would use a nickname. When asked, however, they almost unanimously preferred the new name, Molecular Biosciences and Bioengineering. All along the students and their advisor were flexible as to the electives in the specialties. Flexibility was insured by abolishing specialties.
12) State how the program used the results or plans to use the results. Please be specific.
It was a major thing to change the program's name. It was only accepted after a third meeting of the Council of Deans. We hope that with the new name enrollment will rise.
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 will be discussing scoring individual course SLOs.
For the comprehensive survey, the main thing we always discover is that the best liked aspect of the program is spending a year in a mentor's laboratory doing a project.
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.
The program relies on the peer reviews by a board of faculty members who act anonymously and have no conflict of interest as its main assessment tools. As non-specialists, they have a mindset closer to the public's mindset. Secondary tools are acceptances into graduate schools especially those which off assistantships and professional schools which are highly selective.
Achievements of SLOs by MBB students as judged by performance in the capstone presentation*
|
|
Core science |
STEM Skills |
Ethical issues |
Communi- cation |
Problem solving |
Prep for employment |
|
|
J. Guterrez |
A |
A |
A |
B |
A |
B |
|
|
S. Short |
A |
B |
A |
A |
A |
A |
Won for the year. Got job in his field. |
|
A.Williams |
A |
A |
A |
A |
B |
B |
grad school |
|
C. Garza |
B |
A |
B |
A |
B |
B |
|
|
A.Park |
B |
B |
A |
A |
A |
A |
Won for the year. Sorting among grad schools |
*In the judgement of the coordinator. Winning and getting other awards due to an 8 judge panel who tend to favor perceived problem solving abilities during questions. “Won for the year” means that they were judged to be the best of the year for the undergraduate class.