Unit: Family & Consumer Sciences
Program: Family Resources (BS)
Degree: Bachelor's
Date: Mon Oct 19, 2009 - 11:49:47 am

1) List your program's student learning outcomes (SLOs).

Goal 1: Acquire a knowledge base in human development.

Objective 1. The Family Resources graduate will demonstrate adequate knowledge of stages, processes, and ranges of typical human development.

Goal 2: Acquire a knowledge base in family science and resource management.

Objective 1. The Family Resources graduate will demonstrate adequate knowledge of family diversity in the global community.
Objective 2. The Family Resources graduate will demonstrate adequate knowledge of family resource management processes.

Goal 3: Acquire a knowledge base of the community context in which family functioning and development take place.

Objective 1. The Family Resources graduate will demonstrate adequate knowledge of the effects of context (social, economic, political, historical, and cultural environment) on family functioning and development.

Goal 4: Acquire professional skills

Objective 1. The Family Resources graduate will demonstrate adequate skills in written communication.
Objective 2. The Family Resources graduate will demonstrate adequate skills in oral communication.
Objective 3. The Family Resources graduate will demonstrate a basic level of computer literacy.
Objective 4. The Family Resources graduate will demonstrate basic competence in “helping” skills.
Objective 5. The Family resources graduate will demonstrate basic research skills.

Goal 5: Apply knowledge and professional skills to address issues encountered in professional settings.

Objective 1. The Family Resources graduate will demonstrate critical thinking skills and problem solving abilities.
Objective 2. The Family Resources graduate will demonstrate commitment to professional values and ethical behavior.
Objective 3. The Family Resources graduate will demonstrate a satisfactory level of preparation for the world of work and responsibility for continued professional growth.

2) Where are your program's SLOs published?

Department Website URL: DEPARTMENT WEBSITE
Student Handbook. URL, if available online: STUDENT HANDBOOK^
Information Sheet, Flyer, or Brochure URL, if available online:
UHM Catalog. Page Number:
Course Syllabi. URL, if available online:
Other:
Other:

3) Upload your program's current curriculum map(s) as a PDF.

Curriculum Map File(s) from 2009:

4) What percentage of courses have the course SLOs explicitly stated on the course syllabus, department website, or other publicly available document? (Check one)

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

5) State the SLO(s) that was Assessed, Targeted, or Studied

All

6) State the Assessment Question(s) and/or Goal(s) of Assessment Activity

Determine the extent to which the FamR program is meeting the program’s learning goals and objectives for its majors

7) State the Type(s) of Evidence Gathered

Three methodologies were employed and are described below:

a) A course-embedded assessment strategy that uses data from selected courses to assess students’ level of competence in skills and content associated with the SLOs.
b) A survey of graduating seniors’ attitudes and perceptions of their experience in the FamR Program, administered by the department.
c) An external evaluation of students’ competencies completed by their internship supervisors.

The assessment report is based on the performance of students who graduated with a Bachelor’s of Science degree in FamR in Summer 2008, Fall 2008, or Spring 2009. It is important to note that data for some of these graduates may be incomplete for a number of reasons:

a) Students frequently take FamR 230 at other institutions prior to transferring to UH Mānoa.
b) In some instances, faculty did not provide the requested data for their courses.
c) Specific assessment tools for certain objectives are yet to be identified.

Method 1. Course-Embedded Assessment

FamR has concluded the seventh year of using a course-embedded assessment strategy to determine the extent to which the FamR program is meeting the program’s learning goals and objectives for its majors. This strategy relies on selected course-embedded assessment tools in the program’s required courses as sources of assessment data. The required courses were selected because they most closely correspond to the program’s goals and objectives. All students in the major must take the following required courses: 1) FamR 230, Human Development; 2) FamR 340, Intimacy, Marriages and Families; 3) FamR 350 Leadership and Group Process; 4) FamR 352 Community Needs and Resources; 5) FamR 360 Family Resource Management; 6) FamR 380, Research Methods; 7) FamR 482, Senior Seminar; and 8) FamR 492, Internship. In addition to the required courses, FamR 444, Contemporary Family Issues, a W-focus course taken by most FamR majors, has also been included to assess writing skills.

For assessment purposes, faculty teaching the required courses select up to three exams or comparable measurement tools, e.g. projects or papers, but not course grades, that best reflect the SLOs that their respective courses address (see Table 2 for summary of measurement tools). Thus, there is no uniform measure that is used for all courses. The average percentage of each student’s performance on the selected measurement tools is calculated and converted to an assessment rating for the associated SLOs. The rating scale, which has been modified from previous years, is as follows:

0% - 59% = 0 (does not meet expectations)
60% - 69% = 1 (minimally meets expectations)
70% - 79% = 2 (adequately meets expectations)
80% - 89% = 3 (more than adequately meets expectations)
90% - 100% = 4 (exceeds expectations)

To deal with multiple sections taught by different instructors and use of different measurement tools in these sections, the faculty agreed on the following premises:

a) Faculty hired to teach FamR courses are competent and knowledgeable in their subject matter.
b) There is agreement on the basic content to be covered among faculty teaching multi-section courses.
c) Examinations, projects, and/or other measurement tools used by the faculty are designed to assess students’ mastery of this basic content.

Based on the above premises, the faculty agreed that it is acceptable to use data from different exams, projects and/or other measurement tools in different sections of the same course as the basis for assessment. To ensure consistency in the course content in multi-sections, it was also agreed that designated line faculty are responsible for facilitating discussion and collaboration among all faculty who teach multiple sections of a particular course.

Table 2. Course-embedded Measurement Tools Used

SLO

Course 1

Course 2

Course 3

Goal 1

Objective 1

Composite scores on FamR 230 exams

Goal 2

Objective 1

Composite scores on FamR 340 exams & selected assignments

Objective 2

Composite scores on FamR 360 exams and writing assignments

Goal 3

Objective 1

Composite scores on FamR 352 exams

Goal 4

Objective 1

Score on FamR 482 Job Exploration assignment

Composite scores on four FamR 492 writing assignments

Composite scores on FamR 444 exams and paper

Objective 2

NA

NA

NA

Objective 3

NA

NA

NA

Objective 4

Composite scores on FamR 350 assignments

Scores on FamR 482 Helping Skills assignment

Objective 5

Composite scores on FamR 380 exams and projects

Goal 5

Objective 1

Score on FamR 482 critiques

Composite scores on FamR 492 Critical Incident Case Study Analysis assignment

FamR 340 score on selected assignment

Objective 2

Score on ethics section of FamR 492 Internship Supervisor’s final evaluation of student performance

Objective 3

Average scores on final evaluation of student performance completed by internship supervisors

8) State How the Evidence was Interpreted, Evaluated, or Analyzed

See answers to #7 and #10

9) State How Many Pieces of Evidence Were Collected

Course-embedded assessment methodology=61
Student survey = 29
Internship supervisors' final evaluation of students' performance = 57

10) Summarize the Actual Results

Table 3 summarizes the performance of 61 FamR graduates with respect to the program’s SLOs, using the course-embedded assessment methodology. Given the 5-point rating scale used (0= does not meet expectations; 1=minimally meets expectations; 2=adequately meets expectations; 3=more than adequately meets expectations; 4=exceeds expectations), the majority of FamR graduates adequately met or exceeded expectations. However, less than desirable performance must be noted with respect to Goal 2, Objective 1 in which a higher number of students (24%) than usual did not meet expectations. More detailed information on individual students’ performance with respect to the SLOs is available upon request.

Table 3. Outcomes for Summer 2008, Fall 2008, and Spring 2009 FamR Students (N=61)*

      Exceeds expectations More than adequately meets expectations Adequately meets expectations Minimally meets expectations Does not meet expectations
     
4
3
2
1
0

N

n

%

n

%

n

%

n

%

n

%

Goal 1

Obj 1

12

2

17

8

66

2

17

0

0

0

0

Goal 2

Obj 1

42

8

19

8

19

12

28

4

10

10

24

Obj 2

42

12

28

18

43

8

19

3

7

1

2

Goal 3

Obj 1

19

17

89

2

11

0

0

0

0

0

0

Goal 4

Obj 1

59

29

49

19

32

10

17

1

2

0

0

Obj 4

48

35

73

10

21

2

4

1

2

0

0

Obj 5

12

2

17

3

25

5

41

2

17

0

0

Goal 5

Obj 1

58

32

55

18

31

8

14

0

0

0

0

Obj 2

54

39

72

14

26

1

2

0

0

0

0

Obj 3

56

38

68

17

30

0

0

1

2

0

0

*Percentages are based on the number of cases for which data were available.

Method 2. Program Review Student Survey

A 24-item survey, including two open-ended questions, of students’ attitudes and perceptions about their experience in the FamR program was developed by the Department. It is administered in the last week of each semester in the FamR 492 Internship class. FamR 492 is required of all majors in their final semester in the FamR program.

The results of this survey, compared with the data for Fall 2007-Spring 2008, indicate that graduates are extremely positive about the FamR program, the faculty, and the learning they have accomplished (see Table 4). Students were very proud to be FamR majors and would recommend the program to other students. Faculty members received high marks, particularly treating students with respect and offering constructive feedback. However, one area of concern for the Fall 2008 graduates involved addressing students’ complaints although there had been a marked improvement in this area over last year. Other areas of program strength included career development as well as learning writing, oral communication, and leadership skills. The following is a summary of the responses to the survey.

Table 4. Comparison of Program Review Student Survey Results (N=29)

Perceptions about the FamR Program

Spring 2008*
Graduates
% Agree or
Strongly Agree

Fall 2008+
Graduates
% Agree or
Strongly Agree

I am proud to be a FamR major

97

100

I would recommend the FamR program to other students

97

100

The courses cover essential subject matter to prepare students for their careers

95

100

The program is free of harassment and coercion

95

100

The length of time needed to complete the program is reasonable

89

97

Students morale in the program is high

95

96

I received adequate information regarding program requirements and graduation requirements

92

96

Students have opportunities to evaluate their courses and their instructors

100

93

The quality of the program attracts students to this major

89

93

There are adequate procedures to address student complaints

58
(24% not sure)

86

The program provides adequate job or career advising

76

82

Perceptions about the Faculty

Faculty members treat students with respect

95

100

The faculty offer constructive and timely feedback to students

95

100

Faculty members have high standards of performance for students

92

96

The quality of teaching in the program is high

89

96

The faculty’s scholarly work and contributions are assets to the program

92

93

Faculty advising is sufficient to help students attain their educational goals

79

90

Perceptions about Student Learning

I have learned important skills for my future career

92

100

I have learned how to conduct research in my field

76

97

The program has helped me improve my writing, oral communication, and leadership skills

97

96

*No data available for Fall 2007.
+No data available for Spring 2009.

Students were asked to respond to two open-ended questions. The question “The strengths of the program are…” elicited comments from 28 out of 29 students (97%) who completed the survey. The most frequently made comments addressed topics such as usefulness of the content to professional and/or personal life, quality of faculty, positive interaction with classmates, and focus on family- and child-related social issues. Twenty-three students (79%) responded to the question “Aspects of the program that need improvement are…” The most frequent comments included need for: more sections and/or selection of classes, greater consistency in teaching standards and/or quality of teaching among faculty, consistency in quality of academic advising and helpfulness of advisors, and modification of curriculum to introduce career/internship opportunities earlier. These comments are consistent with those obtained in Spring 2008.

Method 3. External Evaluation of Students’ Competencies by Internship Supervisors

A one-semester internship experience is required of all FamR majors. Each student completes 180 hours of supervised work over a 15-week period. At the conclusion of the internship experience, the on-site internship supervisor completes an evaluation of the student’s performance in the following areas: ethics, work with clients, interaction with staff, professional development and improvement, problem solving and critical thinking, communication skills, and general work performance. A supervisor rates the student on 49 items, using a scale of 1-4, with 1=poor, 2=average, 3=good, and 4=excellent, and completes 6 open-ended questions. Based on mean scores, FamR interns were rated between “good” and “excellent” on all 49 items. The results of the internship supervisors’ evaluations are shown in Table 5.

Table 5. Summary of FamR 492 Internship Supervisors' Final Evaluation of Students' Performance,
Fall 2008 and Spring 2009 Graduates (N=57)

Evaluation Items:

Mean

Ethics

3.67

Demonstrates knowledge of general ethical guidelines

3.68

Demonstrates knowledge of ethical guidelines specific to internship placement site

3.70

Demonstrates awareness and sensitivity to ethical issues

3.71

Conducts self in a manner consistent with ethical guidelines

3.72

Consults with others about ethical issues if necessary

3.56

Work with Clients

3.64

Demonstrates knowledge of client population

3.46

Demonstrates knowledge of theories, concepts, approaches/strategies for working with client population

3.34

Is comfortable interacting with clients

3.70

Initiates interactions with clients

3.62

Communicates effectively and respectfully with clients

3.76

Is able to build rapport with clients

3.73

Is sensitive and responsive to client’s needs

3.71

Is sensitive to cultural, gender, socio-economic, or other differences

3.76

Interaction with Staff

3.66

Is comfortable interacting with other staff members

3.65

Initiates interactions with other staff members

3.62

Communicates effectively with staff

3.60

Actively seeks new information from staff or supervisor

3.65

Is receptive to learning when new information is offered

3.77

Is able to incorporate new information into work

3.68

Is able to assume leadership role, when needed

3.63

Professional Development and Improvement

3.65

Is able to evaluate self and own work

3.47

Is willing to examine personal strengths and weaknesses

3.56

Seeks supervision when necessary

3.70

Is willing to explore ways to improve performance

3.70

Is receptive to feedback and suggestions from supervisor or others

3.78

Is able to implement suggestions for improvement from supervisor or others

3.70

Problem Solving and Critical Thinking

3.52

Is able to identify problem/question at issue

3.46

Is able to recognize different perspectives relevant to analysis of the problem/question

3.48

Is able to distinguish between observations and interpretations

3.56

Is able to apply previously acquired knowledge and/or new information to the problem solving process

3.67

Is able to identify and assess conclusions, implications, and consequences relevant to proposed solutions to problem/questions at issue

3.44

Communication Skills

3.65

Writes clearly and in an organized and grammatically correct manner

3.62

Writes appropriately in style and content for intended audience

3.66

Articulates clearly and in an organized and grammatically correct manner

3.64

Articulates appropriately in style and content for intended audience

3.61

Responds appropriately in words or actions in order to maintain good relations with others

3.70

Effectively conveys information and expresses own opinions

3.54

Effectively receives information and opinions from others

3.75

General Work Performance

3.75

Arrives ready to work, consistently and on time

3.67

Informs supervisor and makes arrangements for absences

3.82

Organizes and complete tasks in a timely manner

3.72

Produces high quality work

3.67

Works independently; shows initiative and resourcefulness

3.67

Works effectively and cooperatively as part of a team

3.82

Handles personal and work-related frustrations appropriately

3.70

Exhibits professionalism in manner and work performance

3.71

Shows interest in operations of agency/organization/program

3.82

Shows confidence and pride in self and work

3.84

Is responsive to on-site norms about appropriate, clothing, language, behaviors, etc.

3.86

Overall Mean

3.65

11) Briefly Describe the Distribution and Discussion of Results

12) Describe Conclusions and Discoveries

13) Use of Results/Program Modifications: State How the Program Used the Results --or-- Explain Planned Use of Results

The insights provided by the on-going assessment process are being used to inform the FamR faculty’s review and modification of the curriculum and to examine use of appropriate instructional methods to promote the desired student outcomes. Actions include:

  • Revisiting goals and objectives to determine their appropriateness for the FamR program and clarifying them as needed.
  • Ongoing discussions about how faculty can enhance teaching strategies to strengthen students’ skills, particularly with respect to oral communication, writing, and critical thinking.
  • Continued exploration of alternative ways to structure the FamR program’s capstone courses, FamR 482 Senior Seminar and FamR 492 Internship.
  • Continued effort to seek new tenure line faculty positions to reduce the heavy reliance on lecturers to teach required and support courses, to increase consistency in the quality of teaching, and to have more advisors available for students.
  • Developing/refining strategies/tools for measuring students’ performance on learning objectives, including ways to assess depth of knowledge, beyond that acquired in first-level courses and ways to involve all faculty members, including lecturers, in the on-going assessment and curriculum development processes.
  • Ongoing efforts to align this work with CTAHR’s strategic planning.

The insights gained from the on-going assessment process are also being used in a broader context to share curriculum ideas and to exchange successful instructional methods. Actions include:

  • Annual participation in the Western Region Teaching Symposium, sponsored by a consortium of land universities.
  • Participation in workshops and consultations offered by UHM Center on Teaching Excellence.
  • In-service training/feedback provided by faculty that have attended national and international conferences.
  • Collaboration with specialty services to promote student equity, excellence, and diversity.
  • Contributions to new faculty orientation sessions provided by CTAHR in addition to sessions provided by UHM.

14) Reflect on the Assessment Process

15) Other Important Information

16) FOR DISTANCE PROGRAMS ONLY: Explain how your program/department has adapted its assessment of student learning in the on-campus program to assess student learning in the distance education program.

17) FOR DISTANCE PROGRAMS ONLY: Summarize the actual student learning assessment results that compare the achievement of students in the on-campus program to students in the distance education program.