Unit: Human Nutrition, Food & Animal Sciences
Program: Nutrition (PhD)
Degree: Doctorate
Date: Thu May 03, 2018 - 9:26:37 am

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

1. Comprehensive understanding of core nutrition knowledge;

(1. Demonstrate comprehensive knowledge in one or more general subject areas related to, but not confined to, a specific area of interest., 2. Demonstrate understanding of research methodology and techniques specific to one’s field of study., 4. Critically analyze, synthesize, and utilize information and data related to one’s field of study.)

2. Advanced scholarship in a specialty area (i.e., expertise in at least one overlapping biomedical discipline e.g., biochemistry, physiology, cell and molecular biology, food science/functional foods, epidemiology, biostatistics, medicine, etc.);

(1. Demonstrate comprehensive knowledge in one or more general subject areas related to, but not confined to, a specific area of interest.)

3. Appropriate exposure to social and career-building disciplines (e.g., education, communications, information technology, technical writing, social sciences, etc.);

(1. Demonstrate comprehensive knowledge in one or more general subject areas related to, but not confined to, a specific area of interest.)

4. Ability to conduct original scholarly research, develop skills in research methodologies

(1. Demonstrate comprehensive knowledge in one or more general subject areas related to, but not confined to, a specific area of interest., 2. Demonstrate understanding of research methodology and techniques specific to one’s field of study., 3. Apply research methodology and/or scholarly inquiry techniques specific to one’s field of study., 4. Critically analyze, synthesize, and utilize information and data related to one’s field of study., 6. Conduct research or projects as a responsible and ethical professional, including consideration of and respect for other cultural perspectives.)

5. Ability to conduct original scholarly research, develop skills in grant writing

(1. Demonstrate comprehensive knowledge in one or more general subject areas related to, but not confined to, a specific area of interest., 2. Demonstrate understanding of research methodology and techniques specific to one’s field of study., 3. Apply research methodology and/or scholarly inquiry techniques specific to one’s field of study., 4. Critically analyze, synthesize, and utilize information and data related to one’s field of study., 5. Proficiently communicate and disseminate information in a manner relevant to the field and intended audience., 6. Conduct research or projects as a responsible and ethical professional, including consideration of and respect for other cultural perspectives.)

6. Ability to understand research ethics

(1. Demonstrate comprehensive knowledge in one or more general subject areas related to, but not confined to, a specific area of interest., 2. Demonstrate understanding of research methodology and techniques specific to one’s field of study., 6. Conduct research or projects as a responsible and ethical professional, including consideration of and respect for other cultural perspectives.)

7. Ability to effectively disseminate research findings via peer-reviewed publications, seminars, and practical applications such as teaching

(1. Demonstrate comprehensive knowledge in one or more general subject areas related to, but not confined to, a specific area of interest., 2. Demonstrate understanding of research methodology and techniques specific to one’s field of study., 3. Apply research methodology and/or scholarly inquiry techniques specific to one’s field of study., 4. Critically analyze, synthesize, and utilize information and data related to one’s field of study., 5. Proficiently communicate and disseminate information in a manner relevant to the field and intended audience., 6. Conduct research or projects as a responsible and ethical professional, including consideration of and respect for other cultural perspectives., 7. Interact professionally with others.)

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

Department Website URL: https://cms.ctahr.hawaii.edu/hnfas2/Academics/Nutrition(PhD).aspx
Student Handbook. URL, if available online:
Information Sheet, Flyer, or Brochure URL, if available online:
UHM Catalog. Page Number: 342
Course Syllabi. URL, if available online:
Other: http://manoa.hawaii.edu/ctahr/nutritionPhD/the-phd-program/student-learning-outcomes/
Other:

3) Please review, add, replace, or delete the existing curriculum map.

Curriculum Map File(s) from 2018:

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) Does the program have learning achievement results for its program SLOs? (Example of achievement results: "80% of students met expectations on SLO 1.")(check one):

No
Yes, on some(1-50%) of the program SLOs
Yes, on most(51-99%) of the program SLOs
Yes, on all(100%) of the program SLOs

6) Did your program engage in any program learning assessment activities between June 1, 2015 and October 31, 2018?

Yes
No (skip to question 17)

7) What best describes the program-level learning assessment activities that took place for the period June 1, 2015 to October 31, 2018? (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)
No (skip to question 17)
Investigate other pressing issue related to student learning achievement for the program (explain in question 7)
Other:

8) Briefly explain the assessment activities that took place.

- Evaluated the SLOs met using examination rubrics (Qualifying Exam, Comprehensive and Dissertation Proposal, and Dissertation Defense)

- Revised the curriculum map based on prior assessment report feedback to be in IRMA format as well as to ensure curriculum aligns with SLO

- Held faculty meeting discussing curriculum map revisions (September 15, 2015)

- Students completed end of semester evaluations 

- End of semester teaching evaluations completed 

 

9) What types of evidence did the program use as part of the assessment activities checked in question 7? (Check all that apply.)

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
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
Assessment-related such as assessment plan, SLOs, curriculum map, etc.
Program or course materials (syllabi, assignments, requirements, etc.)
Other 1:
Other 2:

10) State the number of students (or persons) who submitted evidence that was evaluated. If applicable, please include the sampling technique used.

Enrollment in the program is small (Enrollment in AY 2018 was 10 students)

- 3 students completed the end of semester evaluation in Spring 2017, 5 completed in Spring 2018.

·Survey emailed to all students and the other student reports are in-progress

- 1 student completed the alumni survey

·Survey emailed to 1 alumni (graduated in Spring 2017)

- 7 end of semester teaching evaluations were completed by advisors for 4 students 

·      Survey emailed to teaching advisors 

- Dissertation Defense rubrics completed for 2 students (MT, CG)

·Completed by the committee members 

-  Comprehensive Exam rubrics completed for 3 students (MT, CG, UT)

·Completed by the committee members

- Qualifying Exam form completed for 1 student (UT)

·               1 student planning to take qualifying exam in May 2018 


 

11) 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: Program Assessment Coordinator, Program Chair

12) 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:

13) Summarize the results of the assessment activities checked in question 7. For example, report the percentage of students who achieved each SLO.

Create/modify/discuss program learning assessment procedures (e.g., SLOs, curriculum map, mechanism to collect student work, rubric, survey)

·Updated the core competencies for the qualifying exam.

·Revised dissertation proposal and comprehensive exam and comprehensive exam rubric.

·Discussed Nutrition PhD program requirements to include demonstrated competency and the minimum number of required credits.   

·Prepared the Nutrition PhD Established Status Proposal report and finalizing the draft with OVCAA. 


Collect/analyze student self-reports of SLO achievement via surveys, interviews, or focus groups

· 5 PhD students completed a google survey in the spring 2018 about their SLO achievement. Students surveyed had been in the program from three years to less than one year.

o   Comprehensive understanding of core nutrition knowledge (SLO #1) – 40% very good or excellent; 60% good.

o   Preparation in a specialty area (SLO #2) – 40% very good or excellent; 60% good.

o   Career building skills (SLO #3) – 60% very good or excellent; 40% good.

o   Research methodology demonstrated by conducting original scholarly research (SLO #4) – 60% very good or excellent; 20% good; 20% fair.

o   Grant writing skills (SLO #5) – 80 % good; 20% poor.

o   Understanding of research ethics (SLO #6) - 40% very good; 60% good.

o   Ability to disseminate research findings via peer-reviewed publications, seminars and practical applications such as teaching (SLO #7) - 80% very good; 20% good.

·Student teaching evaluation completed by faculty supervisors based on 6 areas of teaching experience

o   Developed a teaching rubric to more adequately address the SLO #7 related to dissemination of research findings via practical applications such as teaching. The results more clearly show the areas where students are performing well and where they could use mentoring. 

  • Content Delivered:  71% excellent; 29% good
  • Classroom teaching technique: 43% excellent; 57% good
  • Classroom management: 43% excellent; 57% good
  • Teacher attitude: 86% excellent; 14% good
  • Voice: 43% excellent; 57% good
  • Language use: 43% excellent; 57% good

o   Teaching rubric used over time shows improvement of 2 students’ overall teaching skills.


Use assessment results to make programmatic decisions (e.g., change course content or pedagogy, design new course, hiring)

  • PhD faculty members discussed a new Teaching Practicum course to provide credit for student teaching experience. 

14) 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:

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

  1. Revise curriculum map
  2. Make recommendations on required coursework and modification for dissertation proposal format to align with mock grant proposal
  3. Creation of rubric for assessing teaching experience
  4. Modification of rubric to assess appropriate SLO
  5. Reinvigorated collaboration and planning with MS Nutritional Sciences Program on curricular changes.

16) 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.

Opened up discussion among faculty for other opportunities for alignment with other courses.

Assessment will contribute to a stronger program.

Strengthened momentum for curricular changes.

Will also share with current students to gather feedback on proposed changes.

 

17) If the program did not engage in assessment activities, please justify.

Not applicable