Unit: English
Program: English (MA)
Degree: Master's
Date: Thu Oct 01, 2015 - 8:02:52 am

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

1) Below are your program's student learning outcomes (SLOs). Please update as needed.

1) Foundational knowledge of the theories and methods of two concentrations within English

2) Ability to account for continuing relevance of earlier cultural formations and literary and rhetorical practices

3)  Awareness of the contributions of Oceanic and/or Asian cultures to the formation of the field of English Studies in the 21st Century

4) Understanding of advanced research methods and/or creative techniques

5) Written and oral ability to place one’s own creative and/or scholarly work within broader artistic and/or critical conversations

6) Independent research (using primary and secondary sources) and/or creative skills 

 

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

Department Website URL: http://www.english.hawaii.edu/grad/grad.html
Student Handbook. URL, if available online:
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.

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 assessed the oral component of SLO #5: Written and oral ability to place one's own creative and/or scholarly work within broader artistic and/or critical conversations.  Faculty serving as thesis or project committee members were asked to evaluate student performances in the thesis defense / project discussion using a rubric to indicate Unsatisfactory, Satisfactory, or Exemplary performances in the following areas:

  • Content selection
  • Organization
  • Delivery (verbal & nonverbal)
  • Oral ability to place one's own creative and/or scholarly work within broader artistic and/or critical conversations

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.

21 rubrics were completed for 6 students' thesis/project discussions (3-4 faculty per committee)

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.

Category Unsatisfactory Satisfactory Exemplary
Content Selection 0% 23.8% 76.2%
Organization 4.8% 23.8% 71.4%
Delivery 0% 38.1% 61.9%

Oral ability to place one's own creative

and/or scholarly work within broader artistic

and/or critical conversations

9.5% 28.6% 61.9%

 

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.

We collected data for 6 students, the 5 who graduated in Fall 2014 and Spring 2015 with their MAs, and 1 who has not graduated yet but completed the project/thesis defense. The results were overwhelmingly positive, and we are putting them to use in our MA program in three ways: 1. Faculty met to discuss the importance of training our graduate students to be articulate, effective, and confident in their oral presentations so as to maximize the communication of their knowledge of the subject. We shared assignments, including those in the foundational ENG 625 courses; strategies to develop our studentsʻ oral skills; and ways to encourage self-reflection and constructive critique of oral presentations. 2. We have confirmation that students graduating with an MA in English are performing well if not very well when asked to discuss their scholarly or creative work orally. While there is no need for big changes in the program to meet the oral component of SLO #5, based on sharing the data along with assignments and coaching strategies, some faculty members indicated they may tweak the "oral presentation" component of their courses. 3. We are continuing to collect data for one more year so as to increase the numbers and also because in a two-year program we want to assess that programmatically the SLO is met by two different cohorts.

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.

Part of answer #14 addresses the question already.

The process also affirmed that faculty understand the difference between student assessment and program assessment. 

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

n/a