Unit: Pacific Island Studies
Program: Pacific Islands Studies (BA)
Degree: Bachelor's
Date: Wed Nov 18, 2015 - 4:34:39 pm

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

1. 1. Students can describe the diversity and similarity of issues in Oceania.

(1a. General education)

2. 2. Students can identify major events in the history of the region and analyze processes of change in island societies.

(1b. Specialized study in an academic field)

3. 3. Students can research and communicate indigenous issues and concerns.

(1b. Specialized study in an academic field, 2b. Conduct research, 2c. Communicate and report, 3b. Respect for people and cultures, in particular Hawaiian culture)

4. 4. Students can demonstrate critical thinking and write analytically.

(2a. Think critically and creatively)

5. 5. Students can interact with and advocate for Pacific Island communities at home or abroad.

(1b. Specialized study in an academic field, 3b. Respect for people and cultures, in particular Hawaiian culture, 3d. Civic participation)

6. 6. Students can analyze and interpret creative practices in Oceania.

(2a. Think critically and creatively)

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

Department Website URL:
Student Handbook. URL, if available online:
Information Sheet, Flyer, or Brochure URL, if available online: NA
UHM Catalog. Page Number:
Course Syllabi. URL, if available online: NA
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.

We reviewed samples of student writing from 100, 300, and 400 level courses in regard to SLO4.

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.

We evaluated 12 randomly selected samples student writing (33% of the students in two sections) from PACS 108, in regard to SLO 4.

We evaluated 6 randomly selected samples of PACS 301 writings (approx. 30% of students) in regard to SLO 4.

We evaluated 5 randomly samples of student writing in PACS 492 (approximately 25% of students) in regard to SLO 4.

 

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.

Using a rubric for SLO4 and being attentive to the Introductory vs Reinforced skill levels of developing students in the program, we had the following outcomes:

Pacs 108 samples averaged a score of 2.84 (out of 4.0).

Pacs 301 samples averaged a score of 3.48.

Pacs 492 samples averaged a score of 3.24

 

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.

The results of our assessment led us to discussions about the benefits of writing intensive courses for our students. PACS 108 is not writing intensive and its scores for introductory writing and thinking were lower than we anticipated, as were those scored for the PACS 492 course.

While satisfactory overall, we used the results to discuss ways to strengthen writing instruction for our particular student body and we made two significant program changes: 1) we would add writing intensive foci to our core required courses (201, 202, 301, 302, and 303); 2) we would activly integrate a planned curriculum of research, writing, and information literacy across our curriculum beginning in Fall 2015. Some of the workshops for this new curriculum would be conducted by our faculty and our managing editor (we publish a monograph and journal through the Center) in our courses, while other opportunities would be extracurricular.

We are testing this program in AY 2015-2016 with a plan to create a master checklist of writing, research, and info literacy workshops and activities (in collaboration with UH librarians) for PACS BA students to complete prior to graduation from our BA program.

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.

Through the process of evaluating student work and reflecting on writing skills we commited ourselves to our students' needs. We also realized the value of the process of assessment in shedding light on many aspects of our program.

We have planned to revise our curriculum map to more accurately reflect the SLOs addressed in our courses, especially as we add Writing Intensive foci to 3 more courses this academic year. The process of assessment and reflection has fostered a sense of purpose, as well as pride and accomplishment as we advocate and work for our students' best interests.

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

NA