Unit: Communications
Program: Communication (BA)
Degree: Bachelor's
Date: Mon Nov 16, 2015 - 10:06:18 am

1) Institutional Learning Objectives (ILOs) and Program Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs)

1. Design communication and media projects to make meaningful contributions to diverse social, professional or academic communities, communicating effectively orally, in writing, and through digital media.

(1b. Specialized study in an academic field, 2b. Conduct research, 2c. Communicate and report)

2. Reflect critically on communication products such as media productions, research and policy reports and everyday texts.

(1b. Specialized study in an academic field, 2a. Think critically and creatively)

3. Demonstrate preparedness for academic and professional careers in communication.

(1b. Specialized study in an academic field, 3a. Continuous learning and personal growth)

4. Demonstrate global awareness, including an awareness of cultures in the Hawaii-Pacific region and issues related to cross-cultural communication.

(1a. General education, 1c. Understand Hawaiian culture and history, 3b. Respect for people and cultures, in particular Hawaiian culture)

5. Engage in collaborative problem solving, both face-to-face and in online environments.

(1a. General education)

6. Analyze the ethical dimensions of communication.

(1a. General education, 2a. Think critically and creatively)

7. Critically evaluate the use of technology in communication.

(1b. Specialized study in an academic field, 2a. Think critically and creatively)

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

Department Website URL: http://www.communications.hawaii.edu/com/index.html
Student Handbook. URL, if available online:
Information Sheet, Flyer, or Brochure URL, if available online: NA
UHM Catalog. Page Number: 108
Course Syllabi. URL, if available online: http://socialsciences.people.hawaii.edu/esyllabi/index.cfm
Other: Many faculty post syllabi on their own UHM websites
Other: Department website --http://www.communications.hawaii.edu/com/index.html

3) Please review, add, replace, or delete the existing curriculum map.

Curriculum Map File(s) from 2015:

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 learning assessment activities between June 1, 2014 and September 30, 2015?

Yes
No (skip to question 16)

6) What best describes the program-level learning assessment activities that took place for the period June 1, 2014 to September 30, 2015? (Check all that apply.)

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:

7) Briefly explain the assessment activities that took place in the last 18 months.

We used results from the previous three years to discuss program improvements and ensure coherence.

8) What types of evidence did the program use as part of the assessment activities checked in question 6? (Check all that apply.)

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: We did not analyze new data, but instead took a year off from data collection to better process previous results.
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:

9) State the number of students (or persons) who submitted evidence that was evaluated. If applicable, please include the sampling technique used.

NA this year. We intend to analyze data again in 2016.

10) 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: NA for 2015

11) 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: We did not collect new evidence

12) Summarize the results of the assessment activities checked in question 6. For example, report the percent of students who achieved each SLO.

We did not analyze new data this year. Using data from previous years, we had multiple faculty meetings to identify manageable, but meaningful, changes that would improve student learning. These included ensuring that more courses have an ethics component, discussing a signature assignment for some required courses, and ways to improve the rubric used in assessment. We also used data when planning future course schedules.

13) What best describes how the program used the results? (Check all that apply.)

Assessment procedure changes (SLOs, curriculum map, rubrics, evidence collected, sampling, communications with faculty, etc.)
Course changes (course content, pedagogy, courses offered, new course, pre-requisites, requirements)
Personnel or resource allocation changes
Program policy changes (e.g., admissions requirements, student probation policies, common course evaluation form)
Students' out-of-course experience changes (advising, co-curricular experiences, program website, program handbook, brown-bag lunches, workshops)
Celebration of student success!
Results indicated no action needed because students met expectations
Use is pending (typical reasons: insufficient number of students in population, evidence not evaluated or interpreted yet, faculty discussions continue)
Other:

14) Please briefly describe how the program used the results.

As noted, using data from previous years, we had multiple faculty meetings to identify manageable, but meaningful, changes that would improve student learning. These included ensuring that more courses have an ethics component, discussing a signature assignment for some required courses, and ways to improve the rubric used in assessment. We also used data when planning future course schedules.

15) Beyond the results, were there additional conclusions or discoveries? This can include insights about assessment procedures, teaching and learning, and great achievements regarding program assessment in this reporting period.

Our entire junior faculty in Communication, along with the assessment coordinator and Yao Hill, co-authored a journal article that was accepted for publication. The article highlights our senior capstones and our program success.

 

In 2014, the Media Arts track faculty carried out a different procedure and summarized their efforts in a report:  http://manoa.hawaii.edu/assessment/2015Uploads/COM_Media_Arts_2014-11.pdf

16) If the program did not engage in assessment activities, please explain.

NA