Program: Cell & Molecular Biology (MS)
Date: Thu Oct 09, 2014 - 9:35:38 am
1) Below are your program's student learning outcomes (SLOs). Please update as needed.
1.Sufficient breadth and depth of knowledge to assume responsibility for teaching classes in Cell and Molecular Biology at least at the undergraduate level, and teaching experience in these and related topics;
2.Knowledge of the process of research, including: familiarity with techniques for searching the literature; principles of measurement; and practical experience in the design and conduct of scientific experiments, collection of data, and interpretation of data sufficient to enable our students to interpret current literature, and to embark upon the next (doctoral) level of development as researchers;
3.Familiarity with the mechanics of scientific reporting sufficient to enable our students to prepare a publication for a scholarly journal and sufficient to enable students to successfully prepare applications for various types of funding to support their research;
4.Experience with oral presentation of material sufficient to enable our students to prepare and deliver reports on their work and present posters at seminars or meetings of scientific societies; present posters, give seminars and short presentations;
5. A degree of understanding and scientific maturity sufficient to enable our students to assess the work of others;
6. An understanding of the administrative procedures common to academic departments.
2) Your program's SLOs are published as follows. Please update as needed.
Student Handbook. URL, if available online: http://www.hawaii.edu/cmb/
Information Sheet, Flyer, or Brochure URL, if available online:
UHM Catalog. Page Number: 393-394, 242-244
Course Syllabi. URL, if available online: http://www2hawaii.edu/~lesaux/cmb621/Home
Other: portions distributed to prospective applicants by e-mail
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.
We again targeted Question 1, SLO #3. Familiarity with the mechanics of scientific reporting sufficient to enable students to prepare a publication for a scholarly journal and sufficient to enable students to successfully prepare applications for various types of funding to support their research.
Our curriculum committee identified a need for development of grant writing skills and have designed a course in the essentials of grant writing.
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.
This past spring each student in the class gave a oral presentation to the grant writing class and then did an application for a fellowship or grant with the help of the course instructor and volunteer mentors. The students also formed small groups and critiqued each other.
Outside reviewers also responded in writing on each application.
8) State how many persons submitted evidence that was evaluated. If applicable, please include the sampling technique used.
The first class consisted of 8 students. They each gave an oral presentaton that was evaluated by the class instructor and other faculty mentors.
Next the 8 students each did a fellowship or grant application with the help of the instructor and mentors. These applications where submitted and reviewed by ouside reviewers.
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.
The 8 students filled in a course evaluation form at the end of the course.
All 8 students felt it was valuable to learn how to write each section of a grant or fellowship application and especially appreciated the review process with faculty members.
During the course, each student was able to meet one on one with a faculty member and have their application reviewed and corrected.
The course was given in Spring 2014. No grants or fellowships were awarded from these applications so far but many constructive comments were received from outside reviewers.
Three students are now independently writing their 2nd fellowship applications.
12) State how the program used the results or plans to use the results. Please be specific.
Our new grant writing course has turned out to be such a success that we had several faculty sit in along with the students.
Further refinement of this new course is in progress.
Students expressed a wish for a more streamlined schedule and clear expectations and examples of assignments.
The instructor felt more time was needed to fully explore the different types of grants and has asked to increase the class time from 1 hour to 2 hours per week next year.
Students from the Department of Tropical Medicine, Medical Microbiology and Pharmacology are interested in the course and at least 3 of their graduate students and one faculty member will be involved when the course is offered again in Spring 2015.
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.
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.