Program: French (MA)
Degree: Master's
Date: Thu Oct 08, 2015 - 11:38:16 am
1) Below are your program's student learning outcomes (SLOs). Please update as needed.
1. Understand theoretical issues and research methods discussed in the current literature in French literature, philosophy, film, cultural studies, art, and the history of the French language.
2. Critically evaluate theoretical issues and research methods discussed in the current literature in French literature, philosophy, film, cultural studies, art, and the history of the French language.
3. Communicate effectively in speaking about the theoretical issues and research methods in French literature, philosophy, film, cultural studies, art, and the history of the French language.
4. Communicate effectively in writing about the theoretical issues and research methods in French literature, philosophy, film, cultural studies, art, and the history of the French language.
5. Conduct research or engage in systematic investigation in your area of expertise by applying certain theoretical frameworks and methodological knowledge and techniques specific to the field.
6. Teach first-year French language courses under supervision.
1) Institutional Learning Objectives (ILOs) and Program Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs)
2) Your program's SLOs are published as follows. Please update as needed.
Department Website URL: 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.
- 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.
The division used a number of different procedures for gathering evidence, including:
A. Faculty meetings to discuss assessment issues. Multiple graduate faculty and general faculty meetings were devoted to discussing the topics above.
B. Meetings with faculty from other departments and units both in the college of LLL and in other colleges and schools
1.The Initiative on French-speaking Oceania and Asia involves faculty from French, Pacific Islands Studies, Indo-Pacific Languages and Literatures, Center for Southeast Asian Studies, Hamilton Library Pacific Collection. Informal and formal meetings continue to develop shared programs in the French-speaking Pacific and Asia.
C. Organizing the conference Old Roots, New Routes in The Francophone Islands of the Pacific fhat will take place at UH Manoa November 12-13 2015, with faculty from across UHM’s departments and centers including Anthropology, English, Ethnic Studies, French, Hawaiian Studies, History, Indo-Pacific Languages and Literatures, Political Science, and Pacific Islands Studies.
D. M.A. exit surveys were distributed to the graduate faculty, analyzed by Graduate Advisor and the Division chair and discussed a graduate faculty meetings.
E. Student course evaluations and peer evaluations. The language coordinator reads all evaluations of 102-202 students and observes all graduate assistants. The division chair reads all evaluations of tenure-track faculty, instructors, and lecturers and discusses the results with those faculty. New evaluation forms were developed for class observations that mesh with teaching and assessment goals.
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.
a. Six/seven full-time faculty, all graduate assistants (9), 2 graduate students, faculty from other units interested in shared programs (approximately 12-15)
b. Exit surveys: French MA (data collected during Fall 2014-Spring 2015 and distributed in August 2014 100% participation rate).
c. Narrative course evaluations: approx. 1,500 students at all levels from Fall 2012-Summer 2013 (evaluation ongoing).
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.
Exit surveys revealed high student satisfaction in a number of important areas.
Actual results included:
MA exit surveys (Fall 2014, Spring 2015)
- 6/7 answered “very satisfied” for: “Faculty mentoring and advising” 1 answered “somewhat satisfied.”
- 6/7 answered “very satisfied” with “Research opportunities in class” 1 answered “No opinion”
- Among the comments: The courses were very interesting and varied. They covered a wide range of subjects and epoch. I think some courses should be offered more than just one semester. • We have amazing professors in the French Department and I am very satisfied about my experience at UH Manoa.
- To the questions “What are the strength of the program?” Students answered:
- Diversity of professors. • Great professors and very interesting courses. • It's costs are minimal and experience in teaching is amazing. • Professors and care for the students. The TA coordinator was what made my experience in the French program so enjoyable. • The knowledge, availability and the programs are fantastic! • This program does a good job of giving students teaching experience, as well as good researching skills in the field of French. The professors are very helpful in helping students discover research areas that they might want to pursue. • Very good professors.
- 7/7 answered « Definitely yes » to the question « Would you recommend the program to other students who are interested in your field of study ? »
Exit survey comments were collected, summarized, distributed, and analyzed.
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.
Results of the survey came at the beginning of fall 2015
A. The division diffuses more information about study, work, and teaching assistant opportunities in France to students at all levels via the instructors
B. The division maintains and distributes records of the number of students participating in weekly social and cultural activities in French. Teaching staff attend all activities and also gather informal reactions to the activities. Activities are popular with students, offer opportunities for learning and language use outside of class, and continue.
C. F. In keeping with the research interests of the current faculty, the division keeps increasing research requirements in several 400- and 600-level courses in Spring 2014 and Fall 2015, and encouraged the most qualified graduate students to pursue thesis options and to apply for scholarships through the division or the College of Arts and Sciences. 100% of the MA students currently enrolled full-time are conducting research projects inside or outside of class and several are considering thesis options.
C. In order to give more opportunities for our students to improve their French, we have increased our French activities. We have more tutoring sessions on campus offered by instructors and graduate students. We have doubled the opportunities for students to speak French at the “table Française” now twice a week. We have also given more opportunities for students to watch French films on campus, our cine club has 3 movie projection each week.
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 assessment activities reveal high student satisfaction in the MA program especially in the areas of teaching, mentoring, graduate student teaching and peer relationships. The results are shared with the faculty to boost morale and encourage continued program planning. While faculty and graduate students all wish to increase student reseach and this is a highly desirable goal, students and faculty are also concerned about loss of faculty lines that limits our ability to direct thesis projects and other graduate research. The loss of faculty lines in the Medieval, Renaissance and more recently, the 18th century / Enlightenment limits the range of our program. These concerns are being communicated to the appropriate administrative bodies, supported by evidence gathered from assessment activities.