Unit: Kawaihuelani Center for Hawaiian Language
Program: Hawaiian (BA)
Degree: Bachelor's
Date: Mon Nov 16, 2015 - 3:04:47 pm

1) Institutional Learning Objectives (ILOs) and Program Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs)

1. Speaking: Engage in conversations, provide and obtain information, express feelings and emotions, and exchange opinions on more abstract topics at an advanced level of fluency and accuracy

(1b. Specialized study in an academic field)

2. Speaking: Present information, concepts, and ideas to an audience of listeners at an advanced level of fluency and accuracy

(1b. Specialized study in an academic field, 2c. Communicate and report)

3. Listening: Understand and interpret spoken Hawaiian at an advanced level on a variety of topics beyond the immediacy of the situation

(1b. Specialized study in an academic field)

4. Reading: Comprehend and interpret a wide variety of texts written in Hawaiian that are more conceptually abstract and linguistically complex, and/or texts that focus on unfamiliar topics and situations (e.g., primary source materials like literature, poetry, newspaper articles written by native speakers of Hawaiian)

(1b. Specialized study in an academic field)

5. Writing: Present information, concepts, and ideas to an audience of readers in a variety of more lengthy written forms about a number of possible topics using advanced vocabulary, expressions, and structures

(1b. Specialized study in an academic field, 2c. Communicate and report)

6. Cultures, Comparisons, Connections, Communities: Deepen understanding of and respect for the Hawaiian culture and its people through the study of unique practices, perspectives, issues, and products of the culture that are expressed through and embedded in the Hawaiian language.

(1b. Specialized study in an academic field, 1c. Understand Hawaiian culture and history, 3b. Respect for people and cultures, in particular Hawaiian culture)

7. Cultures, Comparisons, Connections, Communities: Continue to develop insight into the nature of language and culture by comparing Hawaiian language and culture to other languages and cultures.

(1a. General education, 1b. Specialized study in an academic field, 1c. Understand Hawaiian culture and history, 2a. Think critically and creatively)

8. Cultures, Comparisons, Connections, Communities: Expand and broaden appropriate application of Hawaiian language and culture in authentic settings within and beyond the classroom in order to connect to other disciplines, contexts, and domains, access information, and interact with others in the Hawaiian language community.

(1b. Specialized study in an academic field, 1c. Understand Hawaiian culture and history, 2a. Think critically and creatively, 3b. Respect for people and cultures, in particular Hawaiian culture, 3d. Civic participation)

2) Your program's SLOs are published as follows. Please update as needed.

Department Website URL: available on Native Hawaiian Student Services website (http://manoa.hawaii.edu/nhss/academicadvising/kawaihuelani-majors/undergraduate-program-requirements/)
Student Handbook. URL, if available online: available on Native Hawaiian Student Services website (http://manoa.hawaii.edu/nhss/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Welina-Kawaihuelani_StdHndbk_Fall-2012.pdf)
Information Sheet, Flyer, or Brochure URL, if available online:
UHM Catalog. Page Number:
Course Syllabi. URL, if available online: NA

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.

During this past academic year, Kawaihuelani spent most of our time in the final stage of an assessment cycle where we prepared for implementation of programmatic changes that were informed by assessment data collected in previous years. Specifically, implementing revised undergraduate major requirements that align better with all of our program SLOs as well as new school requirements for all undergraduate majors pursuing Bachelor’s (BA) degrees in Hawaiian (HAW) and Hawaiian Studies (HWST) that represent the foundation of our field of Hawaiian knowledge and also fulfill Undergraduate General Educational requirements of the university. Our proposal that revised our major requirements and establish school requirements was submitted and approved last Fall 2014. We then spent the remainder of the academic year and during the summer getting ready for implementation this Fall 2015.

The assessment activities we engaged in during the past few years not only lead to the programmatic changes described above, but also in part lead to: 1) the development of a new course that specifically addresses two of our most important program SLOs, speaking and culture, which our students continue to need extra opportunities to practice and master (at the undergraduate level); and 2) the piloting and assessment of a new meta-linguistic system for Hawaiian developed by Professor Sam L. Noʻeau Warner that reflects Hawaiian thinking and rules of grammar modeled after the language spoken and written by Native speakers of Hawaiian. The pedagogy that facilitates the teaching and learning of this new system in the classroom is founded in activity-based teaching of language, where oral-aural use of language in specific contexts is stressed, emphasizing the students’ abilities to ask and answer questions that are appropriate to those contexts. Where some Hawaiian language approaches stress reading and writing via pencil and paper only, with the hope that someday the students will be able to speak and comprehend, this new approach stresses all forms of communication from the start, with special attention paid to speaking and listening so that Hawaiian can truly be perpetuated as a living language.

This broad-scoped, long-term activity involved both the piloting of the new system and pedagogy in a select number of our first and second year classes, the training of new first-year teachers at Kawaihuelani in the new system and pedagogy through professional development workshops, and the assessment of this new system and pedagogy by collecting indirect evidence from students and faculty involved in these pilots and workshops. This data helps us to refine the system and pedagogy so that we can eventually implement it across our curriculum.

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: Student and faculty surveys and focus groups that contain self-reports of success of new pilot system and pedagogy
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.

Our implementation of our new major and school requirements over the past year did not involve submission of new evidence since we were in the last stage of our assessment cycle-- making and implementing programmatic changes based on analysis of evidence collected previously.

In terms of our assessment of our new system and pedagogy for teaching and learning Hawaiian, students enrolled in the first- and second-year pilot courses for the past several years, including this last academic year, completed surveys and participated in focus groups as a way to self-report the impact of the new pilot system and pedagogy on their learning of Hawaiian. We also administered a survey for our first-year teachers who attended our professional development workshop series (3 of the 6 who participated responded).

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.

One of the things we learned during past assessment activities is that culture and worldview is the focus of three of our program SLOs but we did not have a specific course required in the major core at the time that addressed these SLOs. Furthermore, we know that many of our BA students become students in our MA program, where there is also a culture SLO that we could do better in preparing our students to be successful in achieving, as substantiated by assessment evidence collected at the graduate level. We realized we needed to make some changes to our undergraduate requirements and course offerings, which I will explain in Question #14.

In terms of assessing our new system and pedagogy for Hawaiian, student and faculty comments during focus groups and on surveys have been overwhelmingly positive. They also provided helpful feedback on what could be improved about the system and pedagogy for the future. In addition, all three teachers who completed the survey about the professional development workshops rated the new system and pedagogy at either a 4 or 5 (5 being the highest). Here are examples of comments from students in our pilot courses:

  • “I have never studied a language course where things connected so well with me until I took this class! The way that he taught things was wonderful, and really helpful. I wish that every language could be taught by his style.”
  • “Learning this system has given me a love for the language. I have taken Hawaiian Language courses from other kumu but was not able to grasp the language as well until this class.”
  • “I love this class.  After taking Kumu's 101 class last semester, I became extremely driven to learn the language.  After spending 2 weeks in his 102 class, I deided that Hawaiian was my calling and immediately changed my major to ʻōlelo Hawaiʻi.  I look forward to continue to follow Kumu's system while striving to become a fluent speaker.  If I could have him as my kumu until I graduate I would be beyond happy.”
  • “I feel it’s (the system is) really helpful. I prefer learning ʻōlelo Hawaiʻi using the Hawaiian grammar vs. english grammar. It makes it easier to learn instead of converting.”
  • “I enjoy how interactive the class is. It’s great for practicing use of the language.”

In addition, approximately 30 of the 42 students in the first year pilot requested a HAW 201 course be offered to them using the same system. The majority of these students continued to enroll in our upper division courses with the professors who developed and piloted the system, and many of those students have gone on to major in Hawaiian language.

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.

Here are a list of the different implementation activities we engaged in over the last academic year getting ready for this Fall 2015 when our new undergraduate major and school requirements were going into effect:

·      Updated the course catalog

·      Updated the OVCAA’s program sheets & 4-year plans for our BA program

·      Updated the internal documents of our academic advisors used with our majors

·      Coordinated with STAR to update their system to reflect these changes

·      Updated Hawaiʻinuiākea’s and Native Hawiaiian Student Services websites

·      Announced the changes to students via email and our websites

In regards to addressing our need to offer more opportunities for students to be introduced to, get practice in, and develop mastery of (at the undergraduate level) Hawaiian cultural knowledge, behavior, and skills, we have decided to add a new requirement for all undergraduate majors to take one of our mele (poetry, song, dance, chant) courses because it is common knowledge in our field that one of the highest forms of Hawaiian cultural expression is through mele where language is expertly woven together and given voice as a way of connecting to our kūpuna (ancestors) in all their many forms as well as each other and other indigenous people. This requirement is now being implemented in our new major requirements this semester.

Something new we did in this assessment report period related to our cultural SLOs was to develop a new undergraduate course in the basic study of ʻŌlelo Niʻihau, the dialect of the Hawaiian language from the island of Niʻihau spoken and perpetuated primarily by Native speakers from this small, isolated Hawaiian community. HAW 453 was approved in Spring 2015 to be offered as early as Spring 2016. This new undergraduate course is specifically designed to prepare students for our graduate course in ʻōlelo Niʻihau that was offered for the first time last year (Hawaiian 654: Intensive, advanced study and analysis of traditional Hawaiian Ni‘ihau dialect through face-to-face conversations with Ni‘ihau native speakers, listening to audio recordings and watching video recordings of Ni‘ihau native speakers). By first introducing students to the basic conventions of ʻōlelo Niʻihau and developing their listening comprehension and speaking skills in ʻōlelo Niʻihau, they will leave HAW 453 ready to engage in the more advanced, research focused work of HAW 654. In both courses, students engage with Native speakers of ʻōlelo Niʻihau, including the professor herself, whose style of speech reflects Hawaiian worldview and cultural values and whose depth of cultural knowledge is deeply connected to our kūpuna (ancestors). This first-hand interaction is invaluable to students in developing their understanding of, appreciation for, and application of Hawaiian cultural values and worldview through their language and their appropriate behavior with members of the larger Hawaiian language community.

We are excited about our new major and school requirements as well as our new courses, and we look forward to seeing how these changes and additions will impact student learning and achievement of our program SLOs.

We are also encouraged by the preliminary findings from our course pilots and faculty professional development workshops about our new system and pedagogy for teaching and learning Hawaiian. We are continually making changes to the system and pedagogy based on these results and then implementing them immediately with students and colleagues to test them out again. Because this is such a huge undertaking—to develop and implement a new way to teach Hawaiian—our assessment activities related to this project (collecting evidence, using results, etc.) will likely be ongoing for a while.

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.

With the implementation of our new major and school requirements, one large assessment cycle has come to an end. We anticipate this academic year to be the beginning of discussions among our faculty about the focus of our next big undergraduate program assessment cycle. For example, Kawaihuealni’s Academic Affairs and Curriculum committees plan to meet this semester to revisit articulation decisions, program and course SLOs, and curriculum maps as well as begin to discuss the development of a new assessment plan to assess student achievement of these SLOs given our recent programmatic changes.

In terms of piloting our new system and pedagogy for Hawaiian, we hope to broaden our reach by inviting colleagues who teach our intermediate and upper division courses to our professional development workshops so that eventually the basic way we teach our students Hawaiian will be similar across all courses taught at UH Mānoa, providing students with a seamless transition from class to class. Eventually, we hope that this work we are doing now will lead to widespread changes in Kawaihuelani’s curriculum and instruction overtime, thus positively impacting our student’s achievement of SLOs but more importantly our fulfillment of our mission at Kawaihuelani to revitalization Hawaiian language and culture through quality Hawaiian education.

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