Unit: East Asian Languages & Literatures
Program: East Asian Lang & Lit: Japanese (MA)
Degree: Master's
Date: Fri Oct 09, 2015 - 2:00:09 pm

1) Below are your program's student learning outcomes (SLOs). Please update as needed.

M.A. in Japanese Language and Linguistics

1. Knowledge Base of Language and Linguistics
(a) Demonstrate familiarity with general topics and concepts fundamental to the field of Japanese linguistics, including, phonology, pedagogy, and syntax, and sociolinguistics.
(b) Demonstrate comprehensive knowledge of key issues and theoretical approaches in the area of their specialization

 2. Utilization of Research
(a) Review critically the purposes, approaches, designs, and analyses of published research in the field
(b) Conduct research (i.e., systematic and principled investigation) of the field and present the work orally and as a research paper.

3. Professionalism
(a) Write a research abstract and submit it the conferences in the filed
(b) Communicate effectively and productively with a group of peers/colleagues regarding research, teaching or other professional matters.
(c) Design and teach Japanese language skill courses 

M.A. in Japanese Literature

Recipients of the M.A. in Japanese literature should be able to:

1. Read primary Japanese literary texts of all major periods with appropriate academic tools. 

2. Read annotations in standard literary editions, use standard reference works, and read secondary sources in Japanese with authority. 

3. Narrate a basic literary history of Japan. 

4. Summarize and evaluate the critical reception of Japanese literature, past and present.

5. Situate and evaluate Japanese literature in its social, historical, intellectual, and religious contexts.

6. Utilize literary theory, both western and traditional East Asian.

7. Conduct original research in his/her area of specialization.


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: http://www.hawaii.edu/eall/jpn/grad.html
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.

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.


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.)

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)

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 diagnostic and comprehensive examinations, 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 activities:

a. The Japanese linguistics (JPN Ling) faculty reexamined the list of courses on our current Curriculum Map for M.A. in Japanese linguistics, and decided to delete two courses based on the SLOs.


b. Capstone Paper: For the JPN Ling MA program, there is a capstone paper requirement which is intended to reflect each student’s ability to engage in thorough research in their area of specialization.  All capstone papers are read and evaluated by two reviewers, and they are expected to minimally meet all the criteria of six: (a) the significance of the problem addressed, (b) originality, (c) responsiveness to existing literature, (d) contribution to the relevant field, (e) soundness of argumentation and (f) clarity of organization.  These criteria are used to assess what extent students have achieved primary leaning outcomes (i.e., first five SLOs).  As part of this capstone requirement, students are also expected to present their work at a public forum such as LLL Student Conference.

c. Participation in the College of LLL Graduate student exit survey

d. 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)

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.

JPN Linguistics:  Five MA students submitted their capstone papers, which were assessed based on the five criteria mentioned above, and they all met the expectations.

JPN Literature: One MA student completed a non-thesis MA degree.  Her Comprehensive Examination was graded by two faculty members using standards that align with the SLOs.

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)

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)

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 MA program continue to be positive.  

For the Japanese Linguistics section, as mentioned above, there were five students who submitted their capstone papers. Below is the percentage of students who met the expectation for each of the primary SLOs.

SLO1: Demonstrate familiarity with general topics and concepts fundamental to the field of Japanese linguistics, including phonology/morphology, pedagogy, and syntax, and sociolinguistics

                          5 out of 5 (100%)

SLO2: Demonstrate comprehensive knowledge of key issues and theoretical approaches in the area of their specialization

                  5 out of 5 (100%)

SLO3:  Review critically the purposes, approaches, designs, and analyses of published research in the field

                 5 out of 5 (100%)

SLO4: Conduct research (i.e., systematic and principled investigation) of the field and present the work orally and as a research paper

                  5 out of 5 (100%)

       SLO5: Write a research abstract and submit it to the conferences in the filed

                  3 out of 5 (60%)

The M.A. student who completed a non-thesis degree in the Japanese Literature program was not explicitly evaluated using the program SLOs, but the general program standards for Comprehensive Exams insure that the student successfully achieved SLOs 1-6.  This student was subsequently admitted to the Ph.D. program in Japanese literature, another sign that expected outcomes had been reached.

*Note that in AY2014-15, six MAs were granted, but no report of the Student Exit Survey was made because the number of respondents 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.)

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)

14) Please briefly describe how the program used the results.

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.

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