Program: Political Science (MA)
Degree: Master's
Date: Tue Oct 07, 2014 - 1:50:20 pm
1) Below are your program's student learning outcomes (SLOs). Please update as needed.
Please note that the information provided in the Ph.D. assessment form applies to the MA as well. Thus, refer specifically to the Ph.D. program assessment.
We assume students who enter graduate level study have been given appropriate training in the fundamentals of the discipline and possess the qualities necessary to produce graduate-level work. From the admissions process on, students are assessed upon several important outcomes.
1. The ability to produce quality scholarship.
At the graduate level we anticipate that students will use their knowledge of the fundamentals of the discipline as well as the critical evolution of the discipline over time to help contribute to that field through their own research.
2. Mastery of one or more of the sub-fields offered in the major.
Our program offers subfields that form the specialization a graduate student will develop while enrolled in the program. We expect students graduating from the program to have mastered one or more of these subfields. Specifically, they should have an understanding of the traditional and critical literature of the subfield and be able to demonstrate a mastery of these fields.
3. Ability to think politically. Much like our expectations of the undergraduate majors, we require students to think politically about social phenomenon. Comprehending that all social, economic, and cultural processes are also political is a crucial learning outcome. That comprehension creates knowledgeable citizenry capable of acting on policy decisions and conduct. That no knowledge is innocent, but that all knowledge has consequences is key to this learning outcome.
2) Your program's SLOs are published as follows. Please update as needed.
Department Website URL: http://www.politicalscience.hawaii.edu/graduate-program.html Student Handbook. URL, if available online: NA
Information Sheet, Flyer, or Brochure URL, if available online: UHM Catalog. Page Number: Course Syllabi. URL, if available online: Other: Other: 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.
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.
An important change that was instituted was that every new incoming MA student was assigned an adviser who would chaperone the student through the program. This facutly adviser would first assess the degree of the student's backgroun in political science and then advise them accordingly on both courses they need to take as well as whether they should plan on pursuing the Thesis on the non-Thesis option. We felt that too many of our students tended to flounder a bit because of lack of systemtic faculty advising. I am happy to report that informal feedback from students and faculty on the advising process has been positive so far.
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.
8) State how many persons submitted evidence that was evaluated. If applicable, please include the sampling technique used.
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: Graduate Chair10) 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.
12) State how the program used the results or plans to use the results. Please be specific.
At both Masters and Doctoral levels we feel that the faculty - student advisory relationship is the key to a successful graduate program. We have decided to put a lot of emphasis on this. Quite simply, no student in the program will be without an adviser; they have to meet with their advisers once every semester, at the outset; and each year, advisers will have to fill out a form declaring their wards to be progressing either satisfactorily or unsatisfactorily through the program. In the event of an unsatisfactory report, the faculty member and student will have to jointly come up with a plan of action to address shortcomings in a timely manner. Two successive unsatisfactory reports will result in the student being terminated fromt the program.