Program: East Asian Lang & Lit: Japanese (PhD)
Date: Fri Oct 09, 2015 - 1:51:16 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.
Japanese Language and Linguistics
1. Demonstrate comprehensive knowledge about the field, especially in areas of their expertise and its connection of related areas of research
2. Evaluate the purposes, approaches, designs, and analyses of published research in areas of their expertise
3. Produce scholarly work at the level of quality adequate for publication
4. Establish membership in their field and develop their presence in that discipline
5. Design and teach graduate-level courses in the areas of their specialization
6. Handle a job interview and job talk
1. Demonstrate comprehensive knowledge of the history of Japanese literature and the relevant scholarship in the field of Japanese literary studies
2. Use and analyze sources written in classical and modern Japanese, and evaluate them from an informed theoretical perspective
3. Develop their field of scholarly expertise in the area of their concentration, and situate themselves within the critical field of Japanese literary studies
4. Develop analytical and critical skills, and apply them to close textual readings of primary and secondary sources
5. Use Japanese and Western theoretical literature, both premodern and modern
6. Integrate relevant research in designing and teaching courses in their area of specialization
7. Produce an original contribution to the scholarly discourse in their area of specialization
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: http://www.hawaii.edu/eall/jpn/courses.html
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.
The faculty in each academic program regularly review data such as results of qualifying and comprehensive examinations, the quality of completed dissertations, and student surveys to assess how effectively it meets its objectives (satisfaction with the program, learning outcomes in terms of publications and conference presentation, suggestions for program improvement, etc.)
Below is a list of specific assessment activities.
a. Participation in the College of LLL Graduate student exit survey
b. Monitoring postgraduate professional activities and achievements. The department's Graduate Student Services Specialist monitors postgraduate professional activities and achievements. This information is compiled and published each semester in a newsletter which is distributed to faculty, graduate students, and interested community members as well as to peer programs at other institutions. Newsletters are regularly posted on the department website.
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
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.
Three (two in JPN Ling; 1 in JPN Lit) submitted a dissertation.
Two in JPN Ling took a comprehensive exam.
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.
Overall, the results of our assessment activities in the Ph.D. program are positive.
Although the three submitted dissertations were not explicitly evaluated using SLOs, the general standards for dissertations insures that they will be accepted only if relevant SLOs are met.
Of the three students who completed their Ph.D., two have found employment as the university level.
Note that in AY2014-15, three Ph.Ds were granted, but no report of the Student Exit Survey was made because the number of respondants is still less than five.Therefore, we won’t be able to provide a summary of our findings from the survey.
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)