Program: French (BA)
Date: Tue Oct 07, 2014 - 12:31:00 pm
1) Institutional Learning Objectives (ILOs) and Program Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs)
1. 1. Read and comprehend texts written in French from a variety of genres and contexts, (e.g. newspapers, commercial materials, literature, etc.)
2. 2. Analyze and demonstrate understanding of major French literary, philosophical, and artistic works, genres, periods, and topics.
(2a. Think critically and creatively)
3. 3. Engage in oral communication in French in various communicative contexts.
(2c. Communicate and report)
4. 4. Engage in writing in French in various contexts and for various audiences, using correct grammar and demonstrating appropriate vocabulary, tone, and style for the context.
(2c. Communicate and report)
5. 5. Conduct research on the language, literature, and/or culture of France and the French-speaking world using knowledge and skills learned in the program.
(2b. Conduct research)
6. 6. Demonstrate familiarity with the current events, traditional and popular culture, and social structures of the society/societies in which French is spoken.
(3a. Continuous learning and personal growth, 3b. Respect for people and cultures, in particular Hawaiian culture)
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.
The French Division continues a vigorous process of assessment, targeting multiple aspects of the program. The assessment areas and questions have included, since June 2012:
- Program assessment for the past five years, as part of the five-year Program Review. The Division produced its own self-assessment, including assessment of its 5-year accomplishments and areas of strength (which include growth in the BA and MA programs, international and cross-disciplinary initiatives, student-focused instruction, student successes before and after graduation), as well as weaknesses (losses in our tenure lines that impact courses and student progress towards degrees)
- Strategic planning for the next decade. The short and long term goals of the program at all levels were discussed and analyzed by the faculty and M.A. students, with input from faculty from other departments and units. A meeting with undergraduates is upcoming.
- Understanding student expectations and responding to their perceived needs.
- Better communicating to all students in our program about possibilities for use of the field of study in careers, study abroad, teaching abroad, etc.
- Increasing feedback from students at all program levels
- How to revise existing courses and/or prepare new courses that respond to student interests, that take advantage of research opportunities unique to U.H. and/or the Pacific, or that will enrich the learning experience
- Seeking to establish better and deeper connections to other departments, units, and faculty with overlapping interests/fields of study.
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.
The division used a number of different procedures for gathering evidence, including:
A. Faculty meetings to discuss assessment issues. Multiple graduate faculty and general faculty meetings were devoted to discussing the topics above.
B. Meetings with faculty from other departments and units both in the college of LLL and in other colleges and schools
1.The Initiative on French-speaking Oceania and Asia involves faculty from French, Pacific Islands Studies, Indo-Pacific Languages and Literatures, Center for Southeast Asian Studies, Hamilton Library Pacific Collection. Informal and formal meetings continue to develop shared programs in the French-speaking Pacific and Asia
2. French and Fashion. In 2012, a series of meetings between faculty in French, the Department of Apparel Design and Merchandising (CTAHR), Study Abroad, and involving an institution in Paris were begun to look at ways of combining fashion and French/Italian studies for students who want to pursue fashion studies with a European focus or study abroad experience. Those discussions continue.
C. A meeting for undergraduates in the B.A., certificate, and language programs is held each semester or annually.
D. Exit surveys. B.A. exit surveys were distributed to the faculty and analyzed by the Assessment Coordinator/Undergraduate Language Coordinator, the Undergraduate and the Graduate Advisors, and the Division chair.
E. Student course evaluations and peer evaluations. The language coordinator reads all evaluations of 102-202 students and observes all graduate assistants. The division chair reads all evaluations of tenure-track faculty, instructors, and lecturers and discusses the results with those faculty. New evaluation forms were developed for class observations that mesh with teaching and assessment goals (such as student-focused instruction, use of French in class, etc.).
8) State how many persons submitted evidence that was evaluated. If applicable, please include the sampling technique used.
a. Six out of seven full-time faculty, six out of six lecturers, all graduate assistants (10), faulty from other units interested in shared programs (approximately 12-15).
b. Exit surveys: French BA data collected in August 2013.
c. Narrative course evalautions: approx. 1,500 students from Fall 2013 - Summer 2014 (evaluation ongoing).
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)
11) For the assessment question(s) and/or assessment goal(s) stated in Question #6:
Summarize the actual results.
B.A. exit surveys distributed Aug. 15, 2013 (nr. 5) 100% (5/5) were somewhat to very satisfied with: availability of program information; academic standards; relevance of program to academic goals; appropriateness to degree; faculty ability to keep pace; overall quality of instruction.
Student comment: “The French department is amazing, they help their students not only in the academic sense but with the outside activities... it is the best department on campus.”
Growth in the BA program is tied to satisfaction with the above categories.
12) State how the program used the results or plans to use the results. Please be specific.
A. Two hires were made in 2013 and began during the Fall 2013 semester. Both positions, while replacements for faculty who had left/retired, were also targeted to respond to student interests. One position includes work in French-speaking Oceania and Asia. The other position inlcudes work on translation. Both new faculty are currently developing and offering courses that respond to student interests indicated in assessment activities. Survey results and assessment information gathered at meetings were used to help structure the two position requests.
B. A visiting professor from ISTI, the advanced institute for translation and interpretation studies in Brussels, Belgium, will be part of our program in the Spring 2015 semester and will offer translation and other advanced language courses. A formal exchange has been set up between UHM and the Institut Supérieur de Traducteurs et Interprètes, Haute Ecole de Bruxelles. This is a direct response to student interest in French-English translation studies from earlier assessment activities.
D. The division maintains and distributes records of the number of students participating in weekly social and cultural activities in French. Teaching staff attend all activities and also gather informal reactions to the activities. Activities are popular with students, offer opportunities for learning and language use outside of class, and continue.
E. In response to student interest in translation, FR 406 is being taught in Fall 2013.
F. Undergraduate majors who received awards were featured on the divisional web page to highlight our student successes
G. Facebook and Pinterst pages were created to showcase and advertise extracurricular activities and interests of undergraduate students.
H. Extra-curricular activities were expanded to respond to student interest.
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.
The assessment activities reveal high student satisfaction in teaching, mentoring, graduate student teaching, and the language courses and degree programs. The results are shared with the faculty to boost morale and encourage continued program planning. Students and faculty are also concerned about loss of faculty lines that slows down student progress. Required courses cannot be offered often enough, and students at the BA level cannot now always finish in 4 years due to an insufficient number of 400-level courses. Faculty have deep concerns about the reduced number of tenure lines in French. These concerns are being communicated to the appropriate administrative bodies, supported by evidence gathered from assessment activities.