Program: Earth and Planetary Sciences (PhD)
Date: Tue Oct 07, 2014 - 3:01:43 pm
1) Below are your program's student learning outcomes (SLOs). Please update as needed.
Student Learning Objectives for the Ph.D.
1. Technical knowledge Ph.D. graduates are proficient in applying technical knowledge of relevant theory, laboratory methods, field methods, computer applications, and the supporting disciplines (math, physics, chemistry, biology) to advance the fields of geology and geophysics.
2. Expertise in a sub-discipline Ph.D. graduates are able to comprehensively synthesize, evaluate, and interpret relevant fundamental knowledge in her or his sub-discipline.
3. Scientific method (effective and ethical practice) Ph.D. graduates are able to independently (a) construct scientific hypotheses, (b) design and carry out research to evaluate them in a timely manner, (c) analyze and synthesize the results of their research, and (d) derive conclusions that advance the fields of geology and geophysics. The highest standards of ethical practice are emphasized.
4. Communicate geological knowledge Ph.D. graduates are able to effectively communicate the findings of their research in writing at a level comparable to that of scientific journal publications, and defend it orally to the satisfaction of a scientific audience. They are also able to communicate orally about Geology though seminar or conference presentations.
5. Employability/Contributions Post-Graduation Ph.D. graduates have acquired the knowledge and skills in the profession needed to pursue employment or other activities that contribute to the advancement of the Earth sciences and/or the solution of societal problems.
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: http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/GG/resources/docs/gg-grad-SLO_Master_Checklist_Final.pdf
UHM Catalog. Page Number:
Course Syllabi. URL, if available online: Course syllabi for Fall 2014 are listed: http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/GG/academics/gg_syllabi.html
Other: A web link to all course syllabi is in preparation now.
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.
Every graduate student meets with and is assessed by their doctoral committee of faculty mentors every semester.
Each student is evaluated by their advisor and the graduate studies faculty committee once each year.
GG610 assesses oral communication skills once per year for students. Oral skils also are evaluated at the PhD defense.
PhD students without an MS must pass an oral and written qualifying exam, and all PhD students must pass a comprehensive exam (usually after 2 years in program). Student performance on these exams is documented.
PhD students must meet a series of milestones in the graduate program, along with course work, that contribute to the assessment process. Satisfaction of these milestones is documented.
PhD students complete an exit interview upon completion of their degree.
No PhD program SLOs are targeted for revision.
No graduate-level class SLOs are targeted for revision.
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.
Questionnaires, course grades, test results, and faculty observations.
8) State how many persons submitted evidence that was evaluated. If applicable, please include the sampling technique used.
Approximately 31 PhD students provided information that was evaluated during the annual graduate student evaluations. The number of faculty members who provided information is about 25, the approximate number of faculty in the department; they provided information in the form of grades, advisor and supervisor evaluations, and graduate studies evaluations. Departmental support staff collated exit interviews from the PhD students. All graduate students were evaluated, so the sample of graduate students evaluated is the complete set of graduate students.
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)
Other: Departmental support staff
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.
All students evaluated were either found to be adequately reaching milestones on the way to the degree and satisfying each SLO, or else corrective action was taken by the GG Chair and Faculty Advisor, in consultation with the Graduate Studies Committee.
No changes were made in the PhD program SLOs or in graduate-level course SLOs.
12) State how the program used the results or plans to use the results. Please be specific.
No program changes are being proposed at this time, but the information we are collecting would be of greater use to us if we evaluated it in a more systematic and coordinated manner.
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 review of GG assessment activities of the past year reveals several key points:
1 Many of the assessment activities, especially those pertaining to data collection, are conducted (and have been conducted for many years) on a regular, systematic, and formal basis.
2 The coordination of many of the activities, on the other hand, has been largely informal and nonsystematic.
3 We need to analyze, share, and use our assessment information in a more formal, complete, systematic, and coordinated way to more effectively guide our programs.
4 The communication and coordination among the appropriate faculty committees and department chair regarding assessment activities should be improved.
5 Assessment Information needs to be easier for GG faculty to access.
6 Syllabi and SLOs for all courses need to be complete and available on line.
7 The graduate student SLOs need to be included in our online graduate student handbook.
8 The graduate exit interview results need to be evaluated as part of the departmental assessment activities.
9 The assessment activities need to be conducted such that they are effective yet do not overburden GG faculty (especially the department chair) who are grappling with many matters in areas of teaching, research, service, and administration.
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.
With regard to question #4, all graduate courses for Fall of 2014 for which syllabi are appropriate have syllabi posted. The response to question #4 gives the percentage of all graduate courses on the books that have syllabi posted.