Degree Program Assessment Reports : View Reports

Unit: Public Health Studies
Program: Public Health (DrPH)
Degree: Doctorate
Date: Sat Oct 13, 2018 - 11:47:48 am

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

1. Advocacy and Policy Development: Analyze and translate the impact of current and proposed policy on public health

(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. Communications: Demonstrate effective written and oral skills for communicating with persons across the lifespan from diverse cultural, lifestyle, socioeconomic, educational, racial, ethnic and professional backgrounds

(1. Demonstrate comprehensive knowledge in one or more general subject areas related to, but not confined to, a specific area of interest., 3. Apply research methodology and/or scholarly inquiry techniques specific to one’s field of study., 5. Proficiently communicate and disseminate information in a manner relevant to the field and intended audience., 7. Interact professionally with others.)

3. Community Collaboration: Facilitate and expand collaborative relationships with a variety of entities (e.g. government, non-profits, community, and academia

4. Community Collaboration: Utilize the integrating concepts and skills involved in culturally appropriate community engagement, empowerment, and intervention translation with diverse communities

5. Data: Apply data management, analysis, interpretation, and visualization techniques in: intervention development, evaluation, and monitoring of public health problems and interventions

(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. Ethics: Demonstrate and apply high ethical standards to all activities, including communication and interaction with diverse populations, the conduct of research, and the handling of information and data

(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., 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.)

7. Leadership: Engage stakeholders and manage teams, groups, and organizations to identify issues of concern and develop and/or translate public health solutions to diverse communities

(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., 7. Interact professionally with others.)

8. Planning and Evaluation: Integrate evidence and community experience to describe, anticipate, and mediate public health needs and problems

(2. Demonstrate understanding of research methodology and techniques specific to one’s field of study.)

9. Planning and Evaluation: Identify and apply appropriate theory and evidence-based approaches to inform the design and evaluation of public health interventions for diverse communities

(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., 6. Conduct research or projects as a responsible and ethical professional, including consideration of and respect for other cultural perspectives.)

10. Planning and Evaluation: Apply monitoring and evaluation frameworks to assess global and domestic programs, policies, and systems

11. Research: Select appropriate research designs and methods to address public health questions of importance to diverse communities

(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., 6. Conduct research or projects as a responsible and ethical professional, including consideration of and respect for other cultural perspectives.)

12. Research: Critique research appropriateness, including the ethical aspects of research designs, subject recruitment, and data collection that involves communities

13. Research: Promote co-learning between researchers, public health professionals, and communities

14. Systems Thinking: Critically analyze, use and synthesize information from multiple sources to address public health problems/issues

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

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

Department Website URL: manoa.hawaii.edu/publichealth/

Student Handbook. URL, if available online: http://manoa.hawaii.edu/publichealth/sites/manoa.hawaii.edu.publichealth/files/downloads/1819_phd-cbtr_handbook_20180417.pdf

Information Sheet, Flyer, or Brochure URL, if available online:

UHM Catalog. Page Number:

Course Syllabi. URL, if available online: http://manoa.hawaii.edu/publichealth/courses

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.

In moving from the DrPH to the PhD in Public Health (approved Fall 2017), we relooked at our competencies and revised our course map.

We provide opportunities to demonstrate competency mastery in our courses, with explicit assignments for each competency.

We conduct an annual review of students each October in which they report level of mastery for each PhD in PH competency. Faculty advisors present on their students and also provide an assessment of their mastery of each PhD in PH competency and progress with program milestones (qualifying phase, proposal phase, and disseration phase). Findings are collated to look for patterns in competency mastery and used to improve the curriuclum.

Annually, the PhD in PH program head provides a report of student admissions, retention, progress, and completion of the program. This includes data on post-graduation employment and publications. We believe these indicators reflect well on program quality, e.g., of our 26 graduates since 2011, 22/26 (78%) submitted and/or publised manuscripts from ther disserations or work completed while in the program and 100% secured jobs within 12 months of graduation, including 15/26 (58%) in academia, 7 with health NGOs, 2 with UNICEF, 1 with NIH, and 1 in the Army.

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.

100% (24 out of 27 entering since 2014; 3 dropped out).

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:

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.

Students in the program 2 or more years rate themselves on mastery in 4 competency areas each October. 13 of 13 students in this phase of the program rated themselves in 2017, and their ratings were confirmed by the interim or permanent advisors at our annual assessment meeting. These percentages of students were rated as median or high in the 4 areas.

100% in Data, Research, and Ethics

92% in Leadership

92% in Policy and Program

100% in Teaching and Communication

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.

Results are shared with the PhD Exec Cmte and used to tweak the program. Last year, we made modifications to the program to keep pre-proposal students and ABDs engaged and moving forward toward completion by adding another course. In it, students present their own research and critque the research of their peers.

This year, we are trialing rubrics for our milestones (qualifying paper, specific aims, and proposal).

Next year, we will look at improving the curriculum around the leadership and policy/program competencies.

To celebrate, we publically acknolwege student publications.

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.

Because we discovered that some students were not progressing quickly through the program after finishing the first 2 years of coursework, we piloted and have now applied for permanent status of a PH Proposal and Dissertation Writing course. In the 2 semesters of piloting, 2 have successfully defended their dissertations, another 2 have scheduled their dissertation defenses, and 2 have succesfully defended their proposals. Hooray!!

We believe this will help us maintain our average-time-in-program, which is 4 years.

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

not applicable