Unit: Linguistics
Program: Linguistics (PhD)
Degree: Doctorate
Date: Mon Oct 20, 2014 - 10:03:18 am

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

The primary objective of the Ph.D. program is to provide full professional training for those seeking careers in research. Our program goals are therefore to provide training in the relevant areas in the discipline and to cultivate research skills.

1. Understand theoretical issues in the current literature in the field of study.

2. Understand language patterns across a broad range of languages in the field of study.

3. Understand descriptions of research methods/analysis techniques in the current  literature in the field of study

4. Apply current research methods/analysis techniques in the field of study with minimal or no supervision from a faculty advisor.

5.  Critically assess current theories or findings in the field of study.

6. Communicate effectively in speaking about the theoretical issues and research methods in one’s area of expertise,

7. Communicate effectively in speaking about the theoretical issues and research methods in one’s area of expertise.

8. Communicate effectively in writing about the theoretical issues and research methods in one’s area of expertise.

9. Teach general introductory courses, such as Ling 102, setting one’s own curriculum

10. Teach within one’s area of expertise within linguistics.

11. Advise graduate students in the area of expertise on how to conduct research using the relevant methods and techniques and an appropriate theoretical framework.

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

Department Website URL: www.ling.hawaii.edu/degrees-and-requirements#phd
Student Handbook. URL, if available online: www.ling.hawaii.edu/graduate/pdfs/PhDmanual.pdf
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.

 The Department conducts a yearly faculty-wide assessment. In this, each student's grades, performance in class, and performance on research activities are evaluated. The goals are to provide faculty with a fully-informed view of the student's progress, as well as to provide students with individualized feedback on their performance and progress through the degree program.

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.

Student evaluations are based on grades and on general performance in classes and beyond. The advisor of each student also gives an evaluation of the student’s academic direction  and performance. This is augmented by comments from other faculty members who know the student’s work.

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

All faculty members participated in the evaluation. Each student was evaluated, and each student was sent a letter summarizing this evaluation. All students that were within the expected norm for progress through the degree were so informed, and those students that were delayed were also so informed. Overall, progress has steadily improved during the past several years, and relatively few students fall outside the norm.

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.

41 PhD students were judged to be making satisfactory progress. 5 were not and were so notified.

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

 Letters were sent to the students regarding their status.  The annual evaluations is also used to identify specific student problems (e.g. academic writing problems, English language difficulties, difficulties with analytic techniques, etc.).  Students’ advisors discuss these with the students and remedies are recommended.

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.

 We plan to continue to use the same assessment procedures, which have been very useful to both students and faculty.