Degree Program Assessment Reports

1. Demonstrated ability to engage in critical and interdisciplinary thinking, analysis, and problem solving through effective written and oral communication.

(1a. General education, 1b. Specialized study in an academic field, 2a. Think critically and creatively, 2b. Conduct research, 2c. Communicate and report, 3a. Continuous learning and personal growth)

2. Evidence of ability to integrate key concepts in Women's Studies, including the social construction of gender; intersectionalities among gender, sexuality, race, class and other vectors of power and identity; social stratification; and how these issues manifest in a Pacific-Asia context in written and oral work.

(1a. General education, 1b. Specialized study in an academic field, 1c. Understand Hawaiian culture and history, 2b. Conduct research, 3a. Continuous learning and personal growth, 3b. Respect for people and cultures, in particular Hawaiian culture, 3c. Stewardship of the natural environment)

3. Demonstrated ability to connect the classroom with "real world" feminist issues through active engagement in citizenship and civic participation.

(1a. General education, 1b. Specialized study in an academic field, 2a. Think critically and creatively, 2b. Conduct research, 3a. Continuous learning and personal growth, 3c. Stewardship of the natural environment, 3d. Civic participation)

• File (03/16/2020)

The three types of evidence gathered were student survey data, focus group data, and student papers.  Survey and focus group participation was done through emailing students and notifying them about surveys in class.  Student paper data was obtained through our feminist theory course.

The Women’s Studies department’s 2014 assessment efforts employed three research methods—a student survey; and evaluation of student papers; and a focus group with graduating seniors.  Our student survey investigated students’ perceptions about their achievement of our three student learning objectives. The survey received 30[1] responses.   Our paper assessment entailed a faculty member scoring 11 theory papers using the rubric developed by our department for such a task. During the focus group with three graduating seniors, we discussed their ideas for improving the department and their evaluation of various aspects of their experiences as UHM Women’s Studies (WS) majors.

Our first student learning objective (SLO) is that students demonstrate an ability “to engage in critical and interdisciplinary thinking, analysis, and problem solving through effective written and oral communication.”  We included three survey items that students’ fulfillment of this objective.  We asked students how much they had to write in their WS classes; how much they had to participate in class discussion; and how much interdisciplinary character their courses had.  Approximately forty-four percent (44.4%) of students reported writing 5-10 pages per class, while 29.6% reported having to write 10-15 pages and 25.9% of students reported writing 15-20 pages.  No students said they were required to write more than 20 pages.  Students reported a wide range of verbal participation in class.  The largest proportion of students (46.4%) reported talking about six times per semester.  Approximately 29 percent (28.6%) reported having to speak at least every other class or more, while 21.4% said they almost never spoke, and one (3.6%) said he/she never spoke.  Finally, most students felt that their courses were somewhat interdisciplinary in character; 96.3% of students either agreed or strongly agreed with the statement, “WS course(s) that I took this semester brought different academic disciplines together (e.g. to or more of sociology, psychology, gender students, law, political science, anthropology, medicine, environmental science, public health, and other natural sciences, etc.).”  No students disagreed with this statement, while one (3.7%) responded neutrally.

Our second SLO is that students show, “evidence of ability to integrate key concepts in Women's Studies, including the social construction of gender; intersectionalities among gender, sexuality, race, class and other vectors of power and identity; social stratification; and how these issues manifest in a Pacific-Asia context in written and oral work.”  Relating to this, we asked students about their comprehension of these key concepts, their intersections, and their manifestations in an Asia-Pacific context.  These survey items asked students to indicate their agreement with statements reading, “I understand the concept of “blank” better than I did at the beginning of the semester.”  In each statement, the “blank” was one of the key concepts listed above.  Table 1 provides the frequencies of student responses to these survey items.

Table 1

As Table 1 indicates, students generally felt that WS classes enhanced their understanding of these key concepts, though the degree to which they believed this varied among specific concepts.  Nearly everyone indicated he/she better understood gender, sexuality, masculinity, and intersectionality.  On the other hand significant numbers of students indicated they were unsure if they had furthered their understandings of race, class, social stratification, and how these key concepts manifest in an Asia-Pacific context. 

Our third learning objective is that students demonstrate “ability to connect the classroom with "real world" feminist issues through active engagement in citizenship and civic participation.”  In relation to this objective, we asked students how much they agreed with the statement, “As a result of taking this course, I have engaged in feminist activities in my community or in other contexts outside the classroom.”  Students’ responses to this item were somewhat evenly divided.  Approximately 40 percent (39.3%) marked agree or disagree, while 35.7 % marked disagree or strongly disagree and 25% marked neutral.

In addition to asking students about the department and their academic experiences, we examined 11 student papers from our theory course, to determine if these papers indicated that students were able to meet our SLOs.  Evaluation of students’ achievement of our first SLO was broken into two components critical and interdisciplinary thinking, and effective writing.  On the first component, students’ papers averaged a score of 3.72 out of 4.  On the second component, papers averaged a 3.10 out of 4.  Scoring of papers for our second SLO averaged 3.55 out of 4.  Finally, papers averaged a score of 2.90 out of 4 on our third SLO.  Thus, it seems students are largely meeting our SLOs, especially our fist SLO, though they could improve most in regards to our third SLO.

As stated earlier, our spring assessment program also included a focus group with some of our graduating seniors.  During the focus group, participants primarily spoke about what they believed were the strengths and weaknesses of the Women’s Studies undergraduate program, as well as ways to improve the program. The focus group was comprised of 3 graduating seniors who were all moving onto post-bachelaureate programs in law or social work next year.

            Participants were quite satisfied with their experience as WS majors, and seemed that they were at a loss when asked to specifically identify the most satisfying elements of their experience.  However, participants did explicitly reference the department’s international focus, flexibility and responsiveness of faculty, and the performance of the office staff as standout factors.  For example, one participant remarked on the availability and flexibility of faculty.  She stated,

If professors needed to change anything about the syllabus, they were really good at negotiating with students.  So, they weren’t just imposing these changes top-down.  They tried to be very considerate of students’ needs.  They’re very good at communication with students.  I’ve never felt like they didn’t want to see you.  There were always, door’s open, ready to answer emails.  Very timely, I think the Women’s Studies professors I’ve had always emailed me back in a timely fashion.

Another student commented on the office staff, stating,

I had to come up [to the office], and everybody was very welcoming.  I appreciated that.  I appreciated the warmth, and the personnel, being willing to listen to what I needed, and being very helpful.

Participants also stated that they enjoyed the courses offered by the department, specifically in regards to courses that had international components.  For example, one student remarked, “I think our department is very good at having that international focus, which I’d like to see more of.” 

            Though they expressed a high degree of satisfaction with the Women’s Studies undergraduate program, students did provide some suggestions for improvement.  All participants felt that the program could be strengthened by increased promotion and community-building efforts within the department.  One student stated, “I would also recommend trying to advertise this department more.  A lot of the people I met in this major, they just came upon it by chance.  But, I think there’s a lot more demand out there.”  She continued, discussing how she wished Women’s Studies majors were personally closer, stating, “I only know one other WS major, and I only know her because we went to elementary school together.  Having advising would be perfect, but what would also be good would be like, talking to your peers.  I think that would be really helpful as well.”  Elaborating on this theme, another student suggested some communal study space for WS students.  She stated,

There could be a dedicated space for it, because the Women’s Center it never really did it for me.  It was very isolating.  I felt very isolated there.  So I think something more user friendly, in Women’s Studies.  I don’t know what it would look like, but like a Women’s Studies study lounge or something.  You know, something outside the box.

This student also suggested that the department could build community by having an online social networking space, stating,

I guess what it would look like now, is maybe some kind of social media hub, where people connect ideas.  Something where people could connect 24/7 to Women’s Studies issues, like events in the community.  Kind of like a networking site.  That could help kind of active, people doing active stuff, instead of just like the [coursework].

It should be noted that the WS Department has a Facebook page.  However, it could perhaps be better promoted considering this student’s comments.

            Participants also felt that some Women’s Studies courses could be more focused on contemporary issues facing women in Hawaii and extra-curricular feminist praxis.  One student stated,

I would like to see, a course, like ‘Women in Hawaii,’ women living in poverty, in homelessness, for women’s issues in Hawaii.  I would have liked, maybe, some course on that, that focused on what’s happening to women in our state.  Who’s being marginalized, who’s living on the margins?  More of a here and now.  Because we have the history stuff, and we have the Asian Studies stuff, and we have other, you know, women and work and things.  All that’s great, but we aren’t talking about socially, what’s happening to women in Hawaii.

Another student discussed praxis outside of academia, stating,

I feel like my experience has left me with a great set of analytical tools to think about everyday life, how my government treats me and how I treat other people.  But in terms of actually going out and doing work… I just think it’s the nature of academia.  We learn history, we learn theories, but reality of how we actually do politics, how we do activism in the real world is very different from what we describe in the classroom.

These students suggested that one way to both focus on contemporary women’s issues in Hawaii and encourage praxis was to engage Hawaii’s youth.   They suggested that the department somehow reach out to local high school girls.  One student suggested,

Bring in some youth, open it up to youth.  Have like one day a semester where there’s like an invitation for high school girls to sit in on our classes. Link the youth out there to the idea that there is a Women’s Studies literature and give them a venue for some participation.

On a related note another student suggested that the WS department have a capstone project that somehow involved going to local schools to interact with students.

Finally, two participants also suggested that the department include more course material on men and masculinities.  They stated that they enjoyed these portions of the courses that they took, and wanted more of this material.  One student stated,

I was pleasantly surprised that we had the men and masculinities course.  It was useful to see how we construct the other side, the male gender.  And, I would like to see more of that, that maybe we would be more of a gender studies department.  But, then again, we’re already very invested in the transgender, homosexuality, just the fluidity of those kinds of things, so I don’t think it would be a bad thing to discuss men a little more. 

In summary, respondents felt that the undergraduate program could be improved in terms of better promoting itself, and adding some course material on contemporary women’s issues in Hawaii, real-world praxis, and masculinities.  They also felt that the department could enhance the student community by providing spaces, both actual and virtual, for students to interact and congregate.  Finally, they suggested that the department engage in some youth outreach in the community.

            The final topic discussed during the focus group was obstacles to timely graduation.  None of the participants felt that they had encountered significant hindrances that stopped them from graduating in a timely manner.  However, they identified three obstacles, which did interfere somewhat.  Two students who had completed double majors indicated that advisors from their other majors expressed some resistance towards their entering the women’s studies program.  They felt that other majors were unconvinced that WS was a valuable second major.  Students also stated that the limited availability of courses and a lack of program-specific advising were problems.  One student stated,

Advising is always a problem.  Talking to the Manoa peer advisor, they don’t know anything about our major.  So, it would be nice if there were a professor that was not quite as busy as the undergraduate chair, but still was well versed in advising, who students could go to.

When they were informed that the department was hiring a part-time advising specialist[4], participants agreed that this was precisely what they wished was provided while they were completing their coursework.

            To recap, our assessment activities have yielded data on student achievement of our SLOs, the strengths of the undergraduate program, and ways to improve the student experience.  It seems, for the most part, that students believe they are meeting out SLOs, and evaluations of theory papers support such a hypothesis.  Furthermore, our graduating seniors expressed that their experiences in the department were positive overall.  On the other hand, they suggested that the department could better promote itself; do more to build a WS student community; and perhaps offer more substance in relation to several topics.  However, the major intradepartmental obstacle identified by students—inadequate advising—was addressed by our creating a position for an advising specialist position.

Ongoning discussion among faculty are influenced by assessment data and processes.  These discussions relate to refinement of curricula, rifinement of SLOs, and community building within the department.