Unit: Geology & Geophysics
Program: Geology & Geophysics (PhD)
Degree: Doctorate
Date: Thu Oct 08, 2015 - 1:29:59 pm

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.

Student Learning Objectives for the Ph.D.

1. Technical knowledge Ph.D. graduates are proficient in applying technical knowledge of relevant theory, laboratory methods, field methods, computer applications, and the supporting disciplines (math, physics, chemistry, biology) to advance the fields of geology and geophysics.

2. Expertise in a sub-discipline Ph.D. graduates are able to comprehensively synthesize, evaluate, and interpret relevant fundamental knowledge in her or his sub-discipline.

3. Scientific method (effective and ethical practice) Ph.D. graduates are able to independently (a) construct scientific hypotheses, (b) design and carry out research to evaluate them in a timely manner, (c) analyze and synthesize the results of their research, and (d) derive conclusions that advance the fields of geology and geophysics. The highest standards of ethical practice are emphasized. 

4. Communicate geological knowledge Ph.D. graduates are able to effectively communicate the findings of their research in writing at a level comparable to that of scientific journal publications, and defend it orally to the satisfaction of a scientific audience. They are also able to communicate orally about Geology though seminar or conference presentations.

5. Employability/Contributions Post-Graduation Ph.D. graduates have acquired the knowledge and skills in the profession needed to pursue employment or other activities that contribute to the advancement of the Earth sciences and/or the solution of societal problems.

 

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

Department Website URL: http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/GG/resources/docs/gg-grad-SLO_Master_Checklist_Final.pdf
Student Handbook. URL, if available online:
Information Sheet, Flyer, or Brochure URL, if available online: http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/GG/resources/docs/gg-grad-SLO_Master_Checklist_Final.pdf
UHM Catalog. Page Number:
Course Syllabi. URL, if available online: Course syllabi for Spring 2015 and Fall 2015 are listed: http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/GG/academics/gg_syllabi.html
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.

All PhD candidates in our department are evaluated annually (by their employers, advisors and the Graduate Studies

Committee). They must also submit updated CV’s annually. In addition, they are formally

evaluated during their dissertation proposals, comprehensive exams and final oral exams.

 

As a follow up to this, we adjust the timing and offerings of our graduate lecture and seminar courses to accommodate our students. We do this to respond to student needs, keep course offerings current, topical, and up-to-date.

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: The student surveys contain information on progress on their thesis and class availability; this bears on SLOs.
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.

All PhD candidates in our department are evaluated annually (by their employers, advisors and the Graduate Studies

Committee) as noted in above.

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.

We adjust the timing and offerings of our graduate lecture and seminar courses to accommodate our students. One of the adjustments this past year was to open up more classes at the 600-level.

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 adjusted the timing and offerings of our graduate lecture and seminar courses to accommodate our students. We also have filed forms to open up more classes at the 600-level.

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.

We need to better coordinate and share information on assessment matters on faculty members. This might be done via

Google docs.

 

We have been focusing our assessment attention primarily on our undergraduate curriculum and our new MGeo program.  We are aware that we need to also address the assessment of our graduate program beyond the assessment of our graduate students.

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

We did engage in assessment activities.