Degree Program Assessment Reports

Department Website URL: http://manoa.hawaii.edu/history/undergraduate
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: Some individual faculty share departmental SLOs on their syllabi.
Other: Course listings on departmental website: http://manoa.hawaii.edu/history/courses
Other: Our curriculum map is also published: http://manoa.hawaii.edu/history/undergraduate

0%
1-50%
51-80%
81-99%
100%

Create/modify/discuss program learning assessment procedures (e.g., SLOs, curriculum map, mechanism to collect student work, rubric, survey)
Collect/evaluate student work/performance to determine SLO achievement
Collect/analyze student self-reports of SLO achievement via surveys, interviews, or focus groups
Use assessment results to make programmatic decisions (e.g., change course content or pedagogy, design new course, hiring)
Investigate curriculum coherence. This includes investigating how well courses address the SLOs, course sequencing and adequacy, the effect of pre-requisites on learning achievement.
Investigate other pressing issue related to student learning achievement for the program (explain in question 7)
Other:

Direct evidence of student learning (student work products)

Artistic exhibition/performance
Assignment/exam/paper completed as part of regular coursework and used for program-level assessment
Capstone work product (e.g., written project or non-thesis paper)
Exam created by an external organization (e.g., professional association for licensure)
Exit exam created by the program
IRB approval of research
Oral performance (oral defense, oral presentation, conference presentation)
Portfolio of student work
Publication or grant proposal
Qualifying exam or comprehensive exam for program-level assessment in addition to individual student evaluation (graduate level only)
Supervisor or employer evaluation of student performance outside the classroom (internship, clinical, practicum)
Thesis or dissertation used for program-level assessment in addition to individual student evaluation
Other 1:
Other 2:

Indirect evidence of student learning

Alumni survey that contains self-reports of SLO achievement
Employer meetings/discussions/survey/interview of student SLO achievement
Interviews or focus groups that contain self-reports of SLO achievement
Student reflective writing assignment (essay, journal entry, self-assessment) on their SLO achievement.
Student surveys that contain self-reports of SLO achievement
Other 1:
Other 2:

Program evidence related to learning and assessment
(more applicable when the program focused on the use of results or assessment procedure/tools in this reporting period instead of data collection)

Assessment-related such as assessment plan, SLOs, curriculum map, etc.
Program or course materials (syllabi, assignments, requirements, etc.)
Other 1:
Other 2:

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:

 

 

The Assessment Committee of the Department of History met during the period mainly to discuss the findings of the Five-Year Assessment of the history undergraduate program and determine the Committee's recommendations for the Department regarding the future implementation of the assessment tools and curriculum improvement. The report was completed in March 2015 and presented to the faculty at large toward the end of the spring semester of 2015. The full report is as shown below:

*****************************************************************************************

 

To:         Professor David Hanlon, Chair, Department of History

From:     Assessment Committee, Department of History

               Current members: Ned Bertz, Matthew Romaniello, John Rosa, Saundra Schwartz, Wensheng Wang (on sabbatical), and Yuma Totani (chair)

Date:      March 10, 2015

Subject:  Five-Year Report of Annual Reviews of the Undergraduate Program, Based on an Assessment Plan Implemented in 2009-2014

 

 

I. Background Information regarding the Five-Year Report

 

The Assessment Committee of the Department of History has the responsibility to “devise and implement tools for reviewing the undergraduate and graduate programs, conduct regular reviews using these tools, and make recommendations to the Department regarding changes to improve the undergraduate and graduate programs” in order to ensure the departmental compliance with the “university and WASC accrediting standards and procedures regarding assessment” (Department Manual).

 

With assistance from the Assessment Office and the College of Arts and Humanities, this committee in the academic year 2008-2009 carried out a major overhaul of its assessment tools in order to increase their effectiveness. The committee’s work thereafter comprised the following:

 

1. Drawing up an undergraduate curriculum map and the departmental Student Learning Outcomes (the “SLO”s).* The Department of History had neither until 2008. The new curriculum map and SLOs underwent a number of revision and approval processes involving the Department Chair, the Assessment Office, and the College of Arts and Humanities. The finalized version of the curriculum map and the departmental SLOs are shown in Appendices I and II of this report. They are also available at the Department of History Web site: http://manoa.hawaii.edu/history/undergraduate. 

 

*The curriculum map provides visual representation of how varying-level courses are taught to achieve the departmental SLOs, i.e. department-wide goals and program outcomes. Definitions and functions of the curriculum mapping and the SLOs can be found at the Assessment Office Web site: http://manoa.hawaii.edu/assessment/howto/mapping.htm.

 

2. Developing a Five-Year Assessment Plan. Specifics of the Five-Year Assessment Plan are shown in Appendix III. The committee carried out regular reviews of the undergraduate program between 2009 and 2014 according to this plan.

 

3. Developing an assessment guide, or a “rubric,”* for each SLO. The rubrics, which the committee developed over the course of the implementation of the Five-Year Assessment Plan, are shown in Appendix IV.

 

*A rubric describes levels of achievement in a specific area of the department SLOs. Definitions and functions of rubrics can be found at the Assessment Office Web site: http://manoa.hawaii.edu/assessment/howto/rubrics.htm.

 

4. Undertaking concurrently the assessment of the graduate programs. Details on this matter are omitted in this report, as they fall outside its scope.

 

5. Filing annual reports of the committee’s work, indicating the compliance or otherwise of the Department of History with the university and WASC accrediting standards and procedures regarding assessment. The annual reports on the history undergraduate program have been filed with the Assessment Office since 2006, and those on the graduate programs since 2009. All reports are open to public and can be viewed online at the Assessment Office Web site: https://manoa.hawaii.edu/assessment/update2/view.php

 

6. Drawing up a final report on the Five-Year Assessment Report. This refers to the present report.

 

 

II. Summary and Recommendations

 

Based on the outcomes of the Five-Year Assessment Plan, this committee makes the following findings and recommendations to ensure the Department’s compliance with the university and WASC accrediting standards and procedures regarding assessment.

 

1. The committee finds the present curriculum map and SLOs are generally sound, but it recommends the following revisions with the current SLOs:

 

1. That SLO#2 and SLO#3 be combined, since they are substantially the same.

 

2. That a new SLO that emphasizes the oral component (originally included in SLO#3) be developed. This is partly to ensure that the departmental SLOs are in compliance with the Institutional Learning Objectives (the “ILO”s). The ILOs, approved by the Mānoa Faculty Senate in 2012, apply to all UH Mānoa undergraduate programs. Details are available at the OVCAA Web site: http://manoa.hawaii.edu/ovcaa/ilo/.

 

3. That a new SLO that emphasizes the information literacy component, which is a General Education requirement, be also considered for addition.

 

2. The committee recommends that the members of the history faculty have the opportunity to review and discuss the curriculum map and the SLOs at department-at-large meetings. For reviewing purposes, the faculty is referred to the assessment model set out in Anne Hyde, “Confessions from the Field: Building Assessments with the History Discipline Core,” in the American Historical Association’s Perspectives on History (January 2015). This article is available at http://www.historians.org/publications-and-directories/perspectives-on-history/january-2015/confessions-from-the-field.

 

It should be noted that any changes and revisions, based on recommendations either by the Assessment Committee or by individual members of the Department, will require approval by the Department Chair, the Assessment Office, the Dean’s Office of the College of Arts and Humanities, and OVCAA.

 

3. The committee recommends that individual instructors of history undergraduate courses clearly state course-based SLOs in course syllabi. “Course-based” SLOs need not be identical with the departmental SLOs, but they should reflect the latter.

 

4. The committee recommends that the history majors be encouraged to complete their coursework in accordance of the curriculum map. There is anecdotal evidence that the undergraduate history majors try to “jump ahead” to the two required courses (History 396 and 496) rather than working their way through the curriculum. The jumping-ahead invariably bears unsatisfactory results, as students have not mastered the necessary skills or intellectual maturity to undertake the complex coursework required in these advanced-level courses.

 

To address this particular problem, the Assessment Committee supported two substantive changes in the undergraduate curriculum, initiated by Professor Matt Romaniello just recently, which were namely:

 

1. Adding a new requirement that history majors complete one 300- or 400-level course before enrolling HIST 396.

 

2. Adding a new requirement that history majors complete History 396 and one 400-level course before enrolling HIST 496. 

 

These changes received recommendation for approval by the Curriculum Committee, which was followed by approval of the Department Chair. The changes will take effect in Fall 2015 or later.

 

5. The committee recommends that individual course instructors create course assignments that reflect the goals of the curriculum map in existing courses. In addition, this is also a formal requirement of OVCAA for new courses.

 

All course instructors should be aware that those students who take HIST 300-/400-level courses must be either “introduced” or “practicing” all of the departmental SLOs, in accordance with the curriculum map.

 

Closing the gap between the departmental SLOs and the curriculum map on the one hand, and assignments in the actual courses of the undergraduate program on the other, is key to strengthening the history undergraduate curriculum. Cooperation of individual course instructors will be essential in this regard.

 

6. The committee recommends that the Curriculum Committee take into account the curriculum map and the departmental SLOs when deliberating recommendation or otherwise of all future proposals for new courses and changes to existing courses.

 

 

 

 

APPENDICES

 

 

 

I. Undergraduate Student Learning Outcomes (“SLO”s)

In the fall of 2009, the Department adopted the following SLOs:

 

1. Students can explain historical change and continuity.
2. Students can develop a clear argument using recognized historical methods.
3. Students can write clear expository prose and present their ideas orally according to disciplinary conventions.
4. Students can interpret and use primary sources.
5. Students can identify the main historiographical issues in a specific area of concentration.

 

 

 

II. Curriculum Map

In the fall of 2009, the Department also adopted the following curriculum map. This matrix shows how the Department of History envisions the alignment of instruction with desired goals and program outcomes.

 

 

Courses	SLO 1	SLO 2	SLO 3	SLO 4	SLO 5
100s	Introduced
200s	Introduced	Introduced	Introduced
300s	Practiced	Practiced & Assessed	Practiced & Assessed	Introduced	Introduced
396		Practiced	Practiced	Practiced	Practiced & Assessed
400s	Practiced	Practiced	Practiced & Assessed	Practiced & Assessed	Practiced
496	Mastered & Assessed	Mastered & Assessed	Mastered & Assessed	Mastered & Assessed	Mastered & Assessed

 

 

 

III. Five-Year Assessment Plan

The Assessment Committee carried out regular reviews of the undergraduate program between 2009 and 2014. The assessment plan comprised the following.

 

1. Collection and analysis of syllabi (annually)
2. Sampling of representatives range of undergraduate papers at the levels of HIST 300s, 396, 400s, and 496.
3. Assessment of collected writing samples in relation to different elements of SLOs, in accordance of the plan shown below:

2009-10: Assess SLO #4 (HIST 496 in Fall, HIST 400-level in Spring)

2010-11: SLO #5 (HIST 496 in Fall, HIST 396 in Spring)

2011-12: SLO #3 (HIST 496 in Fall, HIST 400-level in Spring)

2012-13: SLO #3, continued (HIST 300-level in Fall);

2013-14: SLO #1 (HIST 496 in Fall, HIST 300-level in Spring)

*The original Five-Year Assessment Plan included the assessment of SLO#2, but it was subsequently dropped based on the committee’s decision that there was significant overlap between SLO#3 and #2.

4. Development of rubrics for SLOs

 

 

 

IV. SLO Rubrics

The following scoring guide was developed over the course of the implementation of the Five-Year Assessment Plan.

 

Scoring Guide SLO#1: “Students can explain historical change and continuity.”

 

Level	Interpretation and Use
4 – Accomplished	Analyzes change over time as an integral part of thesis Demonstrates a critical understanding of change and continuity
3 – Competent	Recognizes significance of change and continuity Develops a thesis not based change and continuity
2 – Developing	Includes some chronology, but fails to interpret it Fails to develop a thesis
1 – Beginning	Has errors of chronology Unclear or incoherent narrative

 

 

Scoring Guide for SLO#2: Omitted.

This SLO is recommendation for elimination as it overlaps substantially with SLO#3. No rubric is thus included in this report.

 

 

Scoring Guide for SLO #3: “Students can write clear expository prose and orally present their ideas according to disciplinary conventions.”

 

Level	Interpretation and Use
4 – Accomplished	Communicates sophisticated analytical ideas and arguments Clear and coherent narrative Expressive grammatical use of language Correct use of citations and formatting
3 – Competent	Clear and coherent narrative Grammatical use of language Correct use of citations and formatting
2 – Developing	Lacks clarity and narrative organization Has some grammatical errors Has errors of citations and formatting
1 – Beginning	Unclear and incoherent narrative Has grammatical errors Has errors of citations and formatting

 

 

Scoring Guide for SLO #4: “Students can interpret and use primary sources.”

 

Level	Interpretation and Use
4 – Accomplished	Crafts argument based on primary sources Recognizes historiographical significance of argument
3 – Competent	Interprets primary sources Develops an argument not based on primary sources
2 – Developing	Includes some primary sources, but fails to interpret them Fails to develop an argument
1 – Beginning	Uses incorrect or few primary sources

 

Scoring Guide for SLO #5: “Students can identify the main historiographical issues in a specific area of concentration.”

 

Level	Interpretation and Use
4 – Accomplished	Situates their own argument in historiographical debate Demonstrates a critical understanding of historiography
3 – Competent	Recognizes issues or shifts in historiography
2 – Developing	Incorporates secondary sources as evidence Fails to evaluate or critique secondary sources
1 – Beginning	Fails to identify secondary sources

 

 

                                                                                     

 

 

 

n/a