Program: French (BA)
Degree: Bachelor's
Date: Fri Oct 09, 2015 - 5:08:23 pm
1) Institutional Learning Objectives (ILOs) and Program Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs)
1. 1. Read and comprehend texts written in French from a variety of genres and contexts, (e.g. newspapers, commercial materials, literature, etc.)
(1a. General education, 1b. Specialized study in an academic field, 2a. Think critically and creatively, 2b. Conduct research, 2c. Communicate and report, 3a. Continuous learning and personal growth)
2. 2. Analyze and demonstrate understanding of major French literary, philosophical, and artistic works, genres, periods, and topics.
(1a. General education, 1b. Specialized study in an academic field, 2a. Think critically and creatively, 2b. Conduct research, 3a. Continuous learning and personal growth)
3. 3. Engage in oral communication in French in various communicative contexts.
(1a. General education, 1b. Specialized study in an academic field, 2a. Think critically and creatively, 2c. Communicate and report, 3a. Continuous learning and personal growth)
4. 4. Engage in writing in French in various contexts and for various audiences, using correct grammar and demonstrating appropriate vocabulary, tone, and style for the context.
(1a. General education, 1b. Specialized study in an academic field, 2a. Think critically and creatively, 2b. Conduct research, 2c. Communicate and report, 3a. Continuous learning and personal growth)
5. 5. Conduct research on the language, literature, and/or culture of France and the French-speaking world using knowledge and skills learned in the program.
(1a. General education, 1b. Specialized study in an academic field, 2a. Think critically and creatively, 2b. Conduct research, 3a. Continuous learning and personal growth)
6. 6. Demonstrate familiarity with the current events, traditional and popular culture, and social structures of the society/societies in which French is spoken.
(1a. General education, 1b. Specialized study in an academic field, 3a. Continuous learning and personal growth, 3b. Respect for people and cultures, in particular Hawaiian culture)
2) Your program's SLOs are published as follows. Please update as needed.
Department Website URL: http://manoa.hawaii.edu/llea/
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: 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 several different procedures for gathering evidence, including:
A. Faculty meetings to discuss assessment issues.
B. A meeting for undergraduates in the B.A., certificate, and language programs is normally held annually.
C. Exit surveys. B.A. exit surveys were distributed to the faculty and analyzed by the Assessment Coordinator/Undergraduate Language Coordinator, the Undergraduate and the Graduate Advisors, and the Division chair.
D. 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.
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. Approximately five full-time faculty, four-five lecturers, ten-eleven graduate assistants.
b. Exit surveys: French BA data collected in August 2015.
c. Narrative course evalautions: approx. 1,000 students from Fall 2014 - Summer 2015 (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.
B.A. exit surveys, narrative student evaluation forms, major/certificate meetings, and faculty discussions/meetings have been used to adjust course offerings (i.e. offering more translation courses, advanced grammar). The B.A. requirements have been adjusted as well, to facilitate students' completing the program in a timely manner, and to encourage study abroad. We are currently discussing how to update our curriculum map, and how to better gather information and use it to better assess our program.
More discussion and evaluation of the 2015 B.A. exit survey results are still ongoing.
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.
B.A. exit surveys, narrative student evaluation forms, major/certificate meetings, and faculty discussions/meetings have been used to adjust course offerings (i.e. offering more translation courses, advanced grammar). The B.A. requirements have been adjusted as well, to facilitate students' completing the program in a timely manner, and to encourage study abroad. We are currently discussing how to update our curriculum map, and how to better gather information and use it to better assess our program.
Discussion and evaluation of the B.A. exit surveys is still ongoing at this time.
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 teaching, mentoring, graduate student teaching, and the language courses and degree programs. The results are shared with the faculty to boost morale and encourage continued program planning. Students and faculty are also concerned about loss of faculty lines that slows down student progress. Faculty have deep concerns about the reduced number of tenure lines in French. These concerns are to be communicated to the appropriate administrative bodies, supported by evidence gathered from assessment.