Unit: Linguistics
Program: Linguistics (PhD)
Degree: Doctorate
Date: Mon Oct 12, 2015 - 8:41:45 am

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.

The primary objective of the Ph.D. program is to provide full professional training for those seeking careers in research. Our program goals are therefore to provide training in the relevant areas in the discipline and to cultivate research skills.

1. Understand theoretical issues in the current literature in the field of study.

2. Understand language patterns across a broad range of languages in the field of study.

3. Understand descriptions of research methods/analysis techniques in the current  literature in the field of study

4. Apply current research methods/analysis techniques in the field of study with minimal or no supervision from a faculty advisor.

5.  Critically assess current theories or findings in the field of study.

6. Communicate effectively in speaking about the theoretical issues and research methods in one’s area of expertise,

7. Communicate effectively in speaking about the theoretical issues and research methods in one’s area of expertise.

8. Communicate effectively in writing about the theoretical issues and research methods in one’s area of expertise.

9. Teach general introductory courses, such as Ling 102, setting one’s own curriculum

10. Teach within one’s area of expertise within linguistics.

11. Advise graduate students in the area of expertise on how to conduct research using the relevant methods and techniques and an appropriate theoretical framework.

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

Department Website URL: www.ling.hawaii.edu/degrees-and-requirements#phd
Student Handbook. URL, if available online: www.ling.hawaii.edu/graduate/pdfs/PhDmanual.pdf
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.

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.

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 Department conducts a yearly faculty-wide assessment. In this, each student's grades, performance in class, and performance on research activities are evaluated. The goals are to provide faculty with a fully-informed view of the student's progress, as well as to provide students with individualized feedback on their performance and progress through the degree program.

 

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.

All faculty members participated in the evaluation. Each student was evaluated, and each student was sent a letter summarizing this evaluation. All students that were within the expected norm for progress through the degree were so informed, and those students that were delayed were also so informed. Overall, progress has steadily improved during the past several years, and relatively few students fall outside the norm.

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.

)  Letters were sent to the students regarding their status.  The annual evaluations is also used to identify specific student problems (e.g. academic writing problems, English language difficulties, difficulties with analytic techniques, etc.).  Students’ advisors discuss these with the students and remedies are recommended.

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.

   Letters were sent to the students regarding their status.  The annual evaluations is also used to identify specific student problems (e.g. academic writing problems, English language difficulties, difficulties with analytic techniques, etc.).  Students’ advisors discuss these with the students and remedies are recommended.

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.

We plan to continue to use the same assessment procedures, which have been very useful to both students and faculty.

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