Unit: Pacific Island Studies
Program: Pacific Islands Studies (BA)
Degree: Bachelor's
Date: Sun Oct 12, 2014 - 2:27:20 pm

1) Institutional Learning Objectives (ILOs) and Program Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs)

1. 1.1 Students can describe the diversity of Oceania.

(1a. General education)

2. 1.2 Students can identify major events in the history of the region.

(1b. Specialized study in an academic field)

3. 1.3 Students can explain indigenous issues and concerns.

(1b. Specialized study in an academic field)

4. 1.4 Students can analyze processes of change in island societies.

(1b. Specialized study in an academic field, 2a. Think critically and creatively)

5. 1.5 Students can interact with and advocate for Pacific Island communities at home or abroad.

(1b. Specialized study in an academic field, 2c. Communicate and report, 3b. Respect for people and cultures, in particular Hawaiian culture, 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: NA
UHM Catalog. Page Number:
Course Syllabi. URL, if available online: NA
Other:
Other:

3) Select one option:

Curriculum Map File(s) from 2014:

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.

 Assessment goals

1) Review and revise program SLOs for the BA program (effective AY 2014-2015) to reflect development of the initial degree plan as new faculty joined the program,

2) Align new courses to program SLOs and revise curriculum map for AY 2014-2015,

3) Collect evidence of SLO2 across the program (100, 200, 300, and 400 level courses),

4) Interpret evidence collected,

5) Based on last year's assessment activity results, create and utilize a new rubric (all BA program SLOs) for assessment of Senior Capstone student projects, and analyze results, and

6) Conduct informal exit interviews with Senior Capstone students.

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.

We updated program SLOs and the BA curriculum map to address new courses and program development with the arrival of two new faculty members.

We gathered evidence (embedded course assignments) from 6 undergraduate classes (108, 201, 202, 301, 401, and 492 (Language/Culture) in review of SLO2.

Senior Capstone student projects were evaluated in terms of all program SLOs and recorded on a rubric. 

Informal interviews were conducted with Senior Capstone students regarding student experiences in the BA program.

8) State how many persons submitted evidence that was evaluated. If applicable, please include the sampling technique used.

FOR SLO2:

PACS 108 -- 6 persons. From a scanned set of exams which included the essay being assessed, every fifth response was examined.

PACS 201 -- 5 persons. From a scanned set of student essays submitted for class, every fourth response was examined.

PACS 202 -- 7 persons. From a scanned set of exams, the essay questions was chosen for evaluation. Every other paper in the set was selected.

PACS 301 -- 7 persons. From a scanned set of exams, the identification questions were selected for evaluation. Every third exam was selected.

PACS 401 -- 10 persons. All students' projects were evaluated for SLO2.

PACS 492 -- 12 persons. All students' final projects were evaluated.

For program SLOs in Capstone projects, all students' projects (10 in all) were evaluated.

All Captone students (10 in all) were interviewed.

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.

SLO2

PACS 108:  Averaged results reveal: 20% Accomplished, 23% Competent, 37% Developing, 20% Beginning.

PACS 201:  Averaged results reveal: 24% Accomplished, 52% Competent, 24% Developing, 0 Beginning.

PACS 202:  Averaged results reveal: 25% Accomplished,57% Competent, 18% Developing, 7% Beginning.

PACS 301: Averaged results reveal: 25% Accomplished, 39% Competent, 18% Developing, 18% Beginning.

PACS 401: 100% were developing proficiency. (As revealed in capstone projects only).

PACS 492: 42% were accomplished, 50% were competent , 8% were developing proficiency.

For program SLOS all 10 Capstone students' projects were evaluated.

Slo1: 40% competent, 60% developing

Slo2: 100% developing

Slo3: 40% accomplished, 60% competent

Slo4: 40% competent, 60% developing

Slo5: 100% accomplished

12) State how the program used the results or plans to use the results. Please be specific.

In reviewing assessment results, as well as the process of evaluating students work at multiple levels (100-400), we realized that we do not emphasize history as much as we do indigenous perspectives or collaborative work in communities. We might add more history choices to our electives lists, and spend more time historicizing course content, particularly at the upper division levels.

The Capstone project assessment revealed a gap in student preparation for the research and writing component. In response we are developing a writing curriculum beginning AY 2014-2015. It will provide our majors with a series of workshops, online activities, and exercises to complete prior to graduation. We began to integrate writing workshops into required courses and create a resouce for teaching writing, and critical reading skills on a Laulima site. Our new program, "Yeah, Write" is being developed and implemented gradually.

We also have altered our course assignments to include more research, citing of course materials in writing assignments and less reflection writing.

Exit interviews with Capstone students revealed student concerns about diverse writing assignments and skills, which also contributed to our decision to establish a writing curriculum. Student excel at service learning and community engagement and find it meaningful. We will continue to invest time and energy and will also survey our sites and explore ways to expand opportunities as new courses unfold in our program. We applied for a grant to enable the hiring of a Graduate Assistant to help with this development/coordination and expansion. (The NRC was awarded to UH CPIS in September 2014.)

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.

This year, although we struggle to obtain data for every course, we realized that we do a thorough job at covering most of our courses. In responding to Capstone projects and interviews with students, we had a very productive discussion regarding student writing, their concerns about writing, and ways we might better support both PACS BA students as well as others who take our courses. It's been a very rewarding process to move forward with the development of writing resources and writing workshops to build skills.

We are also aware that our Program SLOs might be revised again with stronger statements of outcomes and skills that align with Manoa's ILOs, since we do address many of them. Although we edited and added SLOs for AY 2014-2015, we will be reviewing our BA SLOs again for next academic year.

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.