Program: Asian Studies (MA)
Date: Tue Oct 06, 2015 - 2:21:02 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.
A. We expect the student to:
1. Possess an advanced understanding of at least one (1) Asian language. This means college-level fluency in reading, writing, speaking at the 5th year level of Japanese, 4th year level Chinese and Korean, and 3rd year level Southeast and South Asian languages.
2. Demonstrate an understanding of issues and problems in the arts, humanities, and social sciences as related to Asia.
3. Demonstrate the ability to understand research and conduct research using at least one of the methodologies of various disciplines i.e. humanities, arts and social sciences.
4. Demonstrate ability in integrating all of the above factors in a final major research project (either Plan A or B).
2) Your program's SLOs are published as follows. Please update as needed.
Student Handbook. URL, if available online:
Information Sheet, Flyer, or Brochure URL, if available online:
UHM Catalog. Page Number:
Course Syllabi. URL, if available online: Professors post their course syllabus on their Laulima Site
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.
5) Did your program engage in any program learning assessment activities between June 1, 2014 and September 30, 2015?
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.)
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)
7) Briefly explain the assessment activities that took place in the last 18 months.
A template to aid in assessment of course outcomes was refined and completed. Professors were able to list each course SLO and assign a student achievement value.
Exit interviews were completed with students completing their MA programs in order to review program strengths and weaknesses, relevance and cohesion.
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)
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
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: External review of the Asian Studies Program.
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.)
9) State the number of students (or persons) who submitted evidence that was evaluated. If applicable, please include the sampling technique used.
47 Graduate students were reviewed by professors and submitted class evaluations.
10) Who interpreted or analyzed the evidence that was collected? (Check all that apply.)
Ad hoc faculty group
Persons or organization outside the university
Advisors (in student support services)
Students (graduate or undergraduate)
11) How did they evaluate, analyze, or interpret the evidence? (Check all that apply.)
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)
12) Summarize the results of the assessment activities checked in question 6. For example, report the percent of students who achieved each SLO.
SLO 1 100%
SLO 2 90.5%
SLO 3 93.6%
SLO 4 90.4%
The final class assessments indicate that our graduate students are attaining the SLO outcomes stated for each course. However, the assessment process has also resulted in professors analyzing how those SLO goals were achieved and the skills graduate students should have brought to the table before entering a graduate program. This in return caused some reflection on whether we were providing our undergraduates with the necessary skill sets to be successful graduate students.
13) What best describes how the program used the results? (Check all that apply.)
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)
14) Please briefly describe how the program used the results.
The course assessments indicated that we were successful in meeting our stated SLOs but in reviewing student comments via course evaluations and through exit interviews of students completing the program, we discovered that we were not creating a cohort among our graduate students. Students accidentally created cohorts and realized that many of their research topics dovetailed.
In a move to create a cohort among our graduate students, Asian Studies modified the ASAN 600 Scopes and Methods course. ASAN 600 is divided by geographic area meaning that students focused on Japan would take ASAN 600J while those focused on India would take ASAN 600I. Students still met within their geographic focus groups but some class sessions were reserved for group meetings for all ASAN 600 sections. Professors compiled a list of discussion topics and readings for all students to review and discuss with the goal of creating a sense of community as well as formulating an intra-Asia focus of study.
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.
Exit interviews with students indicated that students were drawn to the program again as in the undergraduate program due to the reputation of our faculty. Additionally, students were drawn to UHM because of the diversity of course offerings and the multiracial mix of cultures.
The exit interviews also highlighted the fact that we need to revisit the questions we are asking both our undergraduates and graduate students as their experiences within the program, their insights and criticisms can lead to dynamic changes that keep the program cohesive and relevant.