Program: Spanish (MA)
Date: Mon Oct 20, 2014 - 11:49:06 am
1) Below are your program's student learning outcomes (SLOs). Please update as needed.
SLO 1. Demonstrate advanced language skills in Spanish.
SLO 2. Apply analytical and critical skills in the interpretation of different texts (literary and other forms of visual expression).
SLO 2a. Locate and retrieve relevant secondary criticism.
SLO 2b. Apply secondary criticism in research projects.
SLO 3. Demonstrate breadth and depth of knowledge of Spanish and Latin American literary expressions.
SLO 4. Demonstrate breadth and depth of knowledge of Spanish and Latin American traditional and cultural expressions.
SLO 5. Demonstrate knowledge of Spanish linguistics.
SLO 6. Read, write and use oral skills for specific professional purposes.
SLO7. (Teaching Assistants only) Demonstrate familiarity with current L2 teaching methodologies, language learning technologies and practices.
2) Your program's SLOs are published as follows. Please update as needed.
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: NA
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.
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.
Are students achieving the SLOs?
Are the courses and faculty effective and productive?
How can we improve the language learning level of first year 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.
End of semester student evaluations (eCAFE and departmental)
Final projects/research papers
Language diagnostic exam
Anonymous exit survey for graduating students
Teaching Assistant observations and evaluations
Faculty meetings to revise Teaching Assistant performance
8) State how many persons submitted evidence that was evaluated. If applicable, please include the sampling technique used.
End of semester evaluations (all students that chose to submit)
Final projects/research papers (all students)
Exams - All students (depending on the course)
Language diagnostic exam (graduate students and first year students)
Observation and evaluation of TAs performance (all TAs)
Faculty review of TA performance (14 faculty members)
9) Who interpreted or analyzed the evidence that was collected? (Check all that apply.)
Ad hoc faculty group
Persons or organization outside the university
Advisors (in student support services)
Students (graduate or undergraduate)
10) How did they evaluate, analyze, or interpret the evidence? (Check all that apply.)
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.
The results of the observation and evaluation of Teaching Assistants pointed out the need for more hands-on direct training.
The evaluation of placement exams as well as final grades at the first year level taught by our graduate teaching assistants suggested that we could improve the level of performance of students in these courses (given the type of students that we have in our program).
12) State how the program used the results or plans to use the results. Please be specific.
We have included our program SLOs on our website to make them more salient for students and faculty.
From last year’s exit survey, it was clear that most of the students will pursue a career in language teaching or continue their studies. They were in general (n=3) satisfied with the program and believed that the SLOs for the program had been achieved well or very well. They pointed out the main strength of the department is the faculty and suggested a greater variety of graduate courses. We reorganized the structure of the department that involves Teaching Assistants (TAs). A faculty member who specializes in methodology is meeting weekly during this semester with all TAs to address training issues that will improve the quality of their teaching of first year Spanish classes.
The exit surveys for this year reflected the same perceptions by MA graduates as those for 2013, listed above.
The new Advanced Graduate Certificate in Spanish Applied Linguistics, in conjunction with the department of SLS, to address the results of previous MA exit surveys requesting more advanced classes in Spanish linguistics has been approved for fall 2014 admissions. A new faculty position has been requested from the LLL Dean in order to allow the program to offer more courses to meet the graduate students' interests.
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 continue to recognize that we cannot offer a better education or more variety of courses (as requested by the students) unless we get more faculty positions. So doing this evaluation exercise to try to improve our program is in itself an empty exercise. We know what we need but we are not getting the manpower to do it. We are particularly in need of two Latin American literature specialists, to fill vacancies that have lasted almost ten years.