Program: Tropical Plant Pathology (PhD)
Date: Thu Oct 08, 2015 - 12:41:20 pm
1) Below are your program's student learning outcomes (SLOs). Please update as needed.
SLO 1. TPP students communicate effectively.
SLO 2. TPP students are competent and knowledgeable biologists.
SLO 3. TPP students conduct research in plant pathology.
1) Institutional Learning Objectives (ILOs) and Program Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs)
2) Your program's SLOs are published as follows. Please update as needed.
Student Handbook. URL, if available online: http://www.ctahr.hawaii.edu/peps/Academics/GraduateProgram/TropicalPlantPathology/GradStudentHandbook.aspx
Information Sheet, Flyer, or Brochure URL, if available online:
UHM Catalog. Page Number: http://www.catalog.hawaii.edu/schoolscolleges/ctahr/peps.htm
Course Syllabi. URL, if available online:
Other: With graduate chair
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.
Discussions of the graduate faculty focused on how new course offerings would be rolled out and how best to ensure SLOs were addressed in new course offerings.
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: Informal interviews with employers and former graduates.
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.
We are a small program, consequently we use ad hoc faculty committees to evaluate samples from all available evidence. For evaluation of oral communication, we evaluated submissions from 2 students. For written communication, we evaluated from 1 student. Sample evidences were not necessarily from different students. Some students contributed multiple evidences in written and/or oral formats.
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.
We found that in general TPP students communicated effectively both orally and in written formats. In general, students farther along in their graduate program communicated better than those early in their graduate programs. Native English speakers tended to have better written and oral communication than English as a second language speakers. Students demonstrated acceptible knowledge of pathogen biology but do not have the breadth of knowledge that we would like to see. All students are succeeding in conducting research.
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.
With this assessment result, we begin discussing if we want more written assignments (grant proposals, papers, reviews, etc.) incorporated into our classes. We will also discuss whether we feel a common core of SLOs are appropriate for our topic seminar as we currently rotate among faculty in the program. This is a disruptive idea and will require time to vet and garner support from graduate faculty members.
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.