Program: Political Science (BA)
Degree: Bachelor's
Date: Thu Oct 08, 2015 - 2:16:00 pm
1) Institutional Learning Objectives (ILOs) and Program Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs)
1. 1. Students will be able to think critically and historically about power and the political. Students identify and analyze power dynamics in a range of social contexts and processes, including but not limited to language, government, images of the future and civil society institutions. Students will be able to pose and explore relevant, open-ended questions about authority and legitimacy.
(1a. General education, 1b. Specialized study in an academic field, 2a. Think critically and creatively, 2b. Conduct research, 3a. Continuous learning and personal growth, 3b. Respect for people and cultures, in particular Hawaiian culture, 3d. Civic participation)
2. 2. Students will be able to craft and defend evidence-based arguments. This argumentative capacity is built upon their ability to rigorously and respectfully weigh competing views, synthesize multiple sources and critically reflection their own and others assumptions. Students should be able to make arguments in both written and oral forms of communication.
(1a. General education, 2a. Think critically and creatively, 2b. Conduct research, 2c. Communicate and report, 3a. Continuous learning and personal growth, 3d. Civic participation)
3. 3. Students will be able to communicate effectively in public settings, with attention to and appreciation of diverse cultural contexts. Students are equipped for productive, civic participation in their communities, able to synthesize critical thinking, empathic, collaborative and argumentative capacities, and futures thinking with an audience in mind.
(1a. General education, 2a. Think critically and creatively, 2b. Conduct research, 2c. Communicate and report, 3a. Continuous learning and personal growth, 3d. Civic participation)
4. 4. Students will be able to cogently explain the interconnectedness of local and global dynamics of power within the context of the political and cultural specificities of Hawai`i nei.
(1a. General education, 1b. Specialized study in an academic field, 1c. Understand Hawaiian culture and history, 2a. Think critically and creatively, 3a. Continuous learning and personal growth, 3b. Respect for people and cultures, in particular Hawaiian culture, 3d. Civic participation)
2) Your program's SLOs are published as follows. Please update as needed.
Department Website URL: http://www.politicalscience.hawaii.edu/undergraduate-program.html Student Handbook. URL, if available online: NA Information Sheet, Flyer, or Brochure URL, if available online: NA
UHM Catalog. Page Number: Course Syllabi. URL, if available online: Other: Other: 3) Please review, add, replace, or delete the existing curriculum map.
- 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.
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.
In the last 18 months, the department has developed a rubric to assess SLOs #1 and #2. We selected Pols335, the upper division political theory course that is required for majors, for a pilot project. We applied the rubric to all the papers required for that class. (See Appendix). We did an initial assessment of this information to determine how well the course is addressing SLO # 1 and #2.
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: 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.
We assessed the mid-semester and final papers of all 27 students in one section of Pols 335.
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: 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: 12) Summarize the results of the assessment activities checked in question 6. For example, report the percent of students who achieved each SLO.
|
|
Accomplished - 4 |
Effective - 3 |
Developing - 2 |
Emerging - 1 |
|
Issue Identification
|
First paper: 52%
Second paper: 56% |
First paper: 30%
Second paper: 19% |
First paper: 11%
Second paper: 19%
|
First paper: 0% . Second paper: 0%
|
|
Power analysis
|
First paper: 30%
Second paper: 37% |
First paper: 37%
Second paper: 26%
|
First paper: 26%.
Second paper: 30%
|
First paper: 0%
Second paper: 0%
|
|
Central Argument
|
First paper: 19%
Second paper: 19%
|
First paper: 30%
Second paper: 41%
|
First paper: 37%
Second paper: 30%
|
First paper: 7%
Second paper: 4%
|
|
Use of evidence
|
First paper: 11%
Second paper: 19%
|
First paper: 26%
Second paper: 41%
|
First paper: 26%
Second paper: 30%
|
First paper: 30%
Second paper: 4%
|
|
Embracing complexity and contradictions |
First paper: 19%.
Second paper: 26%
|
First paper: 33%
Second paper: 37%
|
First paper: 33%
Second paper: 30%
|
First paper: 7%
Second paper: 0%
|
NOTE: two papers were not included in the evaluation (although they were counted in the total sample) because they were either plagiarized or obviously written for another class. That is why the percentages do not add up to 100%. The omitted papers were 7% of the total sample.
This rubric was developed to focus on two of the Political Science departments program-wide undergraduate student learning objectives. It is designed to be used on various kinds of final products, including written, oral and other forms of student work.
1. Students will be able to think critically and historically about power and the political.
Students identify and analyze power dynamics in a range of social contexts and processes, including but not limited to language, government, images of the future and civil society institutions. Students will be able to pose and explore relevant, open-ended questions about authority and legitimacy.
2. Students will be able to craft and defend evidence-based arguments.
This argumentative capacity is built upon their ability to rigorously and respectfully weigh competing views, synthesize multiple sources and critically reflect on their own and others assumptions. Students should be able to make arguments in both written and oral forms of communication.
DISCUSSION: While of course one cannot draw hard and fast conclusions from one assessment of one body of work, some patterns are detectable here that could guide departmental reflections on curriculum and pedagogy. If we combine the “4’s” and “3’s” in one group, and the “2’s” and “1’s” in another, then these patterns emerge:
1. The strongest performance is in identifying a central issue and analyzing power relations:
· 70%-80% of the papers are accomplished/effective at identifying a central issue and analyzing power;
· 59%-69% of the papers are accomplished/effective at making an argument.
2. What could be called “middle performance” is evinced in making a strong central argument and articulating complexity:
- 49%-60% of the papers are accomplished/effective at making a strong central argument;
- 57%-63% of the papers are accomplished/effective at articulating complexity and nuanced argument.
3. The weakest performance is in utilizing evidence:
· 37% - 60% of the papers are accomplished/effective at utilizing evidence.
If we compare the first paper (written midterm) with the second (written at the end of the term), these patterns emerge:
- The papers improved noticeably in utilizing evidence:
· 61% are accomplished/effective at utilizing evidence by the end of the semester, while only 37% had been so scored at the midterm.
· Only 4% of the papers were weak in this area by the end of the semester, while 30% of the papers were weak in this area at the midterm.
- The papers improved somewhat in articulating complexity and nuanced differences:
63% of the papers are accomplished/effective at this skill by the end of the term, while 52% were so at the midterm.
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.
This pilot assessment will be reviewed by the department in the near future.
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.
The results from the pilot study are encouraging with regard to supporting the importance of our new class, Reading and Writing Political Science. This one credit course will be Writing Intensive and will be required of all majors. This class should be particularly useful in helping students learn to craft arguments and utilize evidence.