Degree Program Assessment Reports : View Reports

Unit: Human Nutrition, Food & Animal Sciences
Program: Nutritional Sciences (MS)
Degree: Master's
Date: Fri May 04, 2018 - 2:15:59 pm

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

1. Demonstrate mastery of fundamental knowledge in the field of nutrition

(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.)

2. Demonstrate advanced scholarship in their specialty area in the field of nutrition

3. Communicate both orally and in writing at a high level of proficiency

4. Conduct and interpret nutrition research

5. Function as a professional in their chosen discipline

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

Department Website URL: https://cms.ctahr.hawaii.edu/hnfas2/Academics/NutritionalSciences(MS).aspx

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:

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

Curriculum Map File(s) from 2018:

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.

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):

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.

Program faculty created a curriculum map to determine the degree to which SLOs are reflected in program requirements.

In addition, the program chair has examined courses currently required and has initiated a discussion among faculty regarding making requirements more flexible to ensure timely graduation of students.

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 in AY 2018 was 10 students

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

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

- 2 end of semester teaching evaluations were completed by advisors for 2 students

· Survey emailed to teaching advisors

- Thesis defense and manuscript completed by 5 students

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: Graduate chairperson

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)

· Developed a student teaching evaluation to be completed by faculty supervisors based on 6 areas of teaching experience: Content Delivered, Classroom teaching technique, Classroom management, Teacher attitude, Voice, and Language use.

· A program requirement checklist was created and distributed to help students track and discuss their academic progress with their faculty advisors.

· Created a student self-assessment survey of SLO achievement.

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

· 3 MS 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 Fundamental knowledge in the field of nutrition (SLO #1) – 66.7% very good; 33.3% good.

o Preparation in a specialty area of nutrition (SLO #2) – 33.3% very good; 66.7% good.

o Oral and writing communication skills (SLO #3) – 33.3% very good; 66.7% good.

o Ability to conduct and interpret nutrition research (SLO #4) – 100% good.

o Ability to function as a professional in your chosen discipline area (SLO #5) – 33.3% very good; 66.7% good.

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

· Draft completed of a curriculum map with alignment of program requirements with 5 SLOs.

· In response to student feedback, the program added 2 alternative courses (PH 748 and PH 663) for students to complete the epidemiology course requirement and ensures that students can graduate in a timely manner.

· Student self-assessment of oral and writing communication skills as “good” can be improved through the use of the student teaching rubric where faculty supervisors identify areas to help mentor students during their required teaching experience.

Faculty members discussed a new teaching practicum course to provide credit for student teaching experience requirement when students do not have a paid teaching position.

· As a result of increasing MS student and applicant inquiries to obtain a MS degree and dietetics program qualifications to become a registered dietician, faculty will continue to discuss development of a MS/RD degree pathway.

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.

The curriculum map will be circulated among faculty to gather input, and faculty will collectively evaluate current course offerings.

Faculty will also continue the discussion of courses required and potential flexibility to ensure timely graduation.

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.

Changes in program course requirements are being discussed to increase the flexibility in the number and availability of required courses.

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

No other information.