Program: Marine Biology (PhD)
Date: Mon Oct 06, 2014 - 3:57:37 pm
1) Below are your program's student learning outcomes (SLOs). Please update as needed.
SLO 1 A working, in‐depth understanding of marine biological systems and processes in both offshore and near shore environments, with an emphasis on the important links between these habitats.
SLO 2. Demonstrated expertise in quantitative and qualitative methods for field and laboratory research with the ability to develop a comprehensive research plan.
SLO 3 Advanced competency in competitive grant writing and the publication, dissemination and communication of research findings in professional and practical applications.
2) Your program's SLOs are published as follows. Please update as needed.
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:
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.
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.)
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.
During the 2013-14 academic year, the MBGP Assessment Committee was formed. This committee reviewed and revised the programmatic student learning outcomes to better reflect graduate level expectations. The committee also revised the Curriculum Map in accordance with the new SLOs and included a more comprehensive list of Requirements and Assessment Opportunities.
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.
Thus far we have not gathered evidence, but have identified possible sources of evidence and created a plan for program assessment for this academic year.
8) State how many persons submitted evidence that was evaluated. If applicable, please include the sampling technique used.
No evidence has been submitted or evaluated yet.
9) Who interpreted or analyzed the evidence that was collected? (Check all that apply.)
Ad hoc faculty group
Persons or organization outside the university
Advisors (in student support services)
Students (graduate or undergraduate)
10) How did they evaluate, analyze, or interpret the evidence? (Check all that apply.)
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: Evidence has been identified, but not yet evaluated.
11) For the assessment question(s) and/or assessment goal(s) stated in Question #6:
Summarize the actual results.
No results yet.
12) State how the program used the results or plans to use the results. Please be specific.
The program has identified the annual Student Progress Reports as convenient and appropriate evidence for our first evaluation project. We are in the process of creating a rubric that can be used to assess student learning and progress toward SLO 1 and 2 from these reports. The rubrics will be distributed to MBGP faculty to complete for each of their own students. Since students submit a progress report each year, we will be able to track student improvement as they progress in the program.
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 are also working on developing a set of guidelines for students on "what makes a good progress report?". We have found that some students feel the need to write too much information in these reports and would benefit from some guidelines for critically summarizing the salient points.
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.
We are also considering changing the timing of student oral exam and research prospectus so that the prospectus is completed before the comp exams are taken. This would allow a much more focused assessment in the student's area of interest and research during the exams and move the student towards engaging in their dissertation research earlier in their tenure.