Unit: Civil and Environmental Engineering
Program: Civil Engineering (MS)
Degree: Master's
Date: Fri Oct 10, 2014 - 1:56:06 pm

1) Below are your program's student learning outcomes (SLOs). Please update as needed.

The student learning outcomes are 1) attainment of in-depth technical knowledge in subdiscipline of specialization; 2) an ability to perform engineering with enhanced technical proficiency in subdiscipline of specialization; 3) an ability to present work orally and in written form; and 4) an ability to perform either original research, possibly with direction, and/or detailed, open-ended project work.
Please note: we modified these in the spring/summer of 2014.  The assessments in this report are based on the "old" SLOs. The new SLOs are as follows:

Students will be able to:

  1. demonstrate in-depth technical knowledge in a subdiscipline of specialization;
  2. evaluate critically and synthesize literature to inform engineering solutions;
  3. present effectively technical work orally in a formal setting;
  4. produce technical reports and/or publishable manuscripts; and
  5. perform engineering research or conduct projects that address open-ended problems.


2) Your program's SLOs are published as follows. Please update as needed.

Department Website URL: www.cee.hawaii.edu/content/gradstudy.htm
Student Handbook. URL, if available online:
Information Sheet, Flyer, or Brochure URL, if available online:
UHM Catalog. Page Number:
Course Syllabi. URL, if available online:

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.


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 assessed all 4 of the old SLOs

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.

All graduating MS students were evaluated at defense and thesis by his/her graduate committee

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

16 MS

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)

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)

11) For the assessment question(s) and/or assessment goal(s) stated in Question #6:
Summarize the actual results.

There were 10 students who completed Plan B and 6 students who completed Plan A.  The results are presented in the following charts.  The scores are 1=Unsatisfactory, 2=Developing, 3=Satisfactory, and 4=Exemplary.  The charts indicate that for all students, there were no scores of 1.  For Plan A students there was just one score of 2 and there were none for Plan B. Plan B students, there are 80% 3's and 20% 4's for oral presentations and greater numbers of 4's for the Plan B report (40%; and 60% 3's).  Plan A students, 5 of 6 scored 4's for the oral defense and the other student scored a 2 (this was an ESL student). For the thesis document, the number of 3's was 80 to 100%, with justa few 4's. Overall, the results indicate very satisfactory performance of the MS students on these SLOs. The evaluation sheet also has space for comments, however very few comments were received.  The comments are all complementary and do not offer much insight.

 I cant seem to paste the figures in here, so I will send them in an email








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

We have informed the faculty of the results

Because the results are positive, no major or minor program modifications are suggested/required.

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.

We decided to revise the SLOs and to create a more descriptive rubric.

This was accomplished in summer 2014 and is now being used (starting Fall 2014).

Some of our students are ESL and they ned some help with practicing oral presentations, we have not formulated any plans to do this however.

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.