Program: English (PhD)
Degree: Doctorate
Date: Thu Aug 09, 2018 - 11:13:56 am
1) Program Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs) and Institutional Learning Objectives (ILOs)
1. Demonstrate comprehensive knowledge of three areas of specialization, along with an enhanced understanding of English as a discipline of study.
(1. Demonstrate comprehensive knowledge in one or more general subject areas related to, but not confined to, a specific area of interest.)
2. Demonstrate ability to apply advanced research methods and/or creative writing techniques. Demonstrate ability to map, historicize, and contextualize specialized areas.
(2. Demonstrate understanding of research methodology and techniques specific to one’s field of study.)
3. Apply one or more theoretical models in the study or production of literature, culture, or rhetoric/composition.
(3. Apply research methodology and/or scholarly inquiry techniques specific to one’s field of study.)
4. Employ close reading skills to analyze a range of texts, engaging with ethical, cultural, esthetic, and political issues salient to the archive they construct.
(4. Critically analyze, synthesize, and utilize information and data related to one’s field of study.)
5. Present their research findings to varied audiences, including specialists and non-specialists alike in both oral and written formats. Develop and practice college-level teaching skills.
(5. Proficiently communicate and disseminate information in a manner relevant to the field and intended audience.)
6. Engage in responsible and ethical research, including IRB training when conducting research with human subjects. Develop responsible frameworks and practices for work in English studies from our cultural location in Hawaii and the Pacific. Acquire and integrate other disciplinary perspectives.
(6. Conduct research or projects as a responsible and ethical professional, including consideration of and respect for other cultural perspectives.)
7. Demonstrate written and oral ability to place creative and/or scholarly work within broader artistic and/or critical conversations with peers, students, and established scholars/writers as well as in publication.
(7. Interact professionally with others.)
2) Your program's SLOs are published as follows. Please update asneeded.
Department Website URL: http://english.hawaii.edu/graduate-program/the-phd-program/
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: Other: 3) Please review, add, replace, or delete the existing curriculum map.
- 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.
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 SLOs6) 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.
Assessment Activity 1: Assessment of SLO #5 (Present their research findings to varied adiences, including specialists and non-specialists alike, in oral and written formats) (Fall 2015 - Spring 2016)
Faculty were asked to assess students' oral area exams using a rubric. Students were ranked as Unsatisfactory, Satisfactory, or Exemplary on the following four areas: Content selection, Organization, Delivery (verbal and nonverbal), and Ability to demonstrate advanced critical analysis in oral format.
Assessment Activity 2: GA Feedback Survey (Fall 2016)
Current and former graduate assistants provided feedback on what they found helpful in their teaching training and what types of support they felt future graduate assistants would benefit from.
Assessment Activity 3: New GA Pre-Semester Orientation Survey (Fall 2017)
Incoming graduate assistants attended a mandatory New GA Pre-Semester Orientation and were surveyed to 1) evaluate the orientation and 2) assess the larger GA preparation program, namely the relationship between the orientation and ENG 605: Theory and Practice of Teaching Composition, the first course they teach.
Assessment Activity 4: ILP Workshop Survey (Spring 2018)
Graduate assistants who attended the Introduction to Literature (ILP) workshop series were surveyed to 1) evaluate the ILP workshop series and 2) assess the larger GA preparation program, namely the relationship between the ILP workshops and attendees' ability to teach an ILP course, the second type of course assigned to GAs.
Assessment Activity 5: PhD Student Exit Survey (Fall 2015 - Spring 2017)
Graduating students were asked for feedback on various aspects of the program as well as how confident they felt in their achievement of each of the SLOs.
Assessment Activity 6: Revised program student learning objectives (Spring 2018)
The Graduate Program Committee revised the program's SLOs based on the newly approved ILOs
Assessment Activity 7: Tracking written and oral student achievements (Fall 2015 - Spring 2017)
Students were asked to report their achievements in the following categories: publications, conference papers and colloquia, readings and events.
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.
Assessment Activity 1: Assessment of SLO #5 (Present their research findings to varied adiences, including specialists and non-specialists alike in both oral and written formats) (Fall 2015 - Spring 2016)
64 faculty members submitted rubrics assessing the oral component of 11 students' Area Exams.
Assessment Activity 2: GA Feedback Survey (Fall 2016)
24 current and former graduate assistants responded to the GA Feedback Survey.
Assessment Activity 3: New GA Pre-Semester Orientation Survey (Fall 2017)
6 graduate assistants responded to the survey on the New GA Pre-Semester Orientation.
Assessment Activity 4: ILP Workshop Survey (Spring 2018)
8 graduate assistants responded to the survey on the ILP Workshop Series.
Assessment Activity 5: PhD Student Exit Survey (Fall 2015 - Spring/Summer 2017)
5 graduating students responded to the exit survey.
Assessment Activity 6: Revised program student learning objectives (Spring 2018)
The Graduate Program Committee, Associate Chair, and Department Chair contributed to the revision (7 faculty and one graduate student representative)
Assessment Activity 7: Tracking written and oral student achievements (Fall 2015 - Spring 2017)
34 PhD students reported their achievements
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: English Graduate Director, Assistant Director, Center for Teaching Excellence12) 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.
Assessment Activity 1: Assessment of SLO #5 (Fall 2015 - Spring 2016)
64 assessment rubrics completed by faculty members to assess 11 students showed that the majority of these students are performing at exemplary levels on SLO #5 in their oral area exams:
| Unsatisfactory | Satisfactory | Exemplary | |
| Content Selection | 3 | 27 | 34 (53%) |
| Organization | 3 | 22 | 38 (60%) |
| Delivery (verbal & nonverbal) | 2 | 15 | 46 (73%) |
| Ability to demonstrate advanced critical analysis in oral format | 8 | 21 | 35 (55%) |
Assessment Activity 2: GA Feedback Survey (Fall 2016)
Survey takers indicated that one of the most helpful resources for teaching preparation was access to online resources (sample syllabi, assignments, etc.). Having previous experience as a Teaching Assistant for a large enrollment class or in The Writing Center was also helpful.
The majority felt that, given the discontinuation of the apprenticeship program, new Graduate Assistants would benefit most from a series of workshops on teaching assignments and strategies throughout the semester.
When asked what type of support would help GAs most before teaching ENG 100, 270-273, and 3xx, an overwhelming majority selected "opportunities to observe experienced ENG [___] teachers"
Assessment Activity 3: New GA Pre-Semester Orientation Survey (Fall 2017)
Attendees indicated that the most helpful topics covered in the week-long orientation were getting oriented to the many demands placed on ENG 100; lesson planning; and generating major course materials. When asked whether there were topics covered in the orientation that they would have liked to have revisited in ENG 605, the most common answers were inviting more experienced GAs to share their experiences and to spend more time developing course materials.
Assessment Activity 4: ILP Workshop Survey (Spring 2018)
Attendees indicated that the most helpful workshops were on Constructing ILP (Creative Writing and Non-Creative Writing) Course Assignments, and that the most helpful resources were sample assignments and syllabi, as well as having outside guest speakers. Attendees also indicated that they valued the cohort-building fostered by these workshops.
Assessment Activity 5: PhD Student Exit Survey (Fall 2015 - Summer 2017)
| 1 Not at all | 2 | 3 Adequately |
4 |
5 Very well | |
| Understand the discipline of English today and its relationship to other disciplines | 1 | 4 | |||
|
Demonstrate awareness of the contributions of Oceanic and/or Asian cultures to the formation of English Studies in the 21st century
|
1 | 1 | 3 | ||
| Understand advanced research methods and/or creative techniques | 2 | 3 | |||
| Demonstrate advanced critical analysis in both written and oral formats | 1 | 2 | 2 | ||
| Demonstrate ability to map, historicize and contextualize 3 specialized sub-fields | 1 | 4 | |||
| Demonstrate advanced research and or creative skills for book-length publication | 1 | 4 |
Assessment Activity 6: Revised program student learning objectives (Spring 2018)
Program SLOs were revised to align with the current ILOs. See the PhD SLO chart on the English Department website
Assessment Activity 7: Tracking written and oral student achievements (Fall 2015 - Spring 2017)
34 students reported on their publications, conference papers and colloquia, and readings and events.
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: GA training especially concerning PSLO #5, which includes developing teaching skills15) Please briefly describe how the program used the results.
Assessment Activity 1: Assessment of SLO #5 (Present their research findings to varied adiences, including specialists and non-specialists alike in both oral and written formats) (Fall 2015 - Spring 2016)
The results were strongly positive, and we are putting them to use in our PhD program in two ways: 1. Faculty met to discuss the importance of training our graduate students to be articulate, effective, and confident in their oral presentations so as to maximize the communication of their knowledge of the subject at hand. We shared assignments; strategies to develop our studentsʻ oral skills; and ways to encourage self-reflection and constructive critique of oral presentations. 2. While in the assessment of this SLO in the MA we were collecting data on studentsʻ discussing their own projects, the culmination of their research and creative efforts in the program, for the PhD we focused on the more stressful context of the exams and the articulation of competence, rather than individual interventions, in an area of study. The assessment activity confirmed that PhD students who have completed coursework and are on their way to becoming ABDs are performing well, with over 50% of them performing in "exemplary" fashion when asked to present orally their understanding of issues, shifts, and conversations in an area of study. While there is no need for big changes in the program to meet the oral component of SLO #5, based on the data, the Graduate Director will at the Area Exam Workshop that is held every semester underscore the importance of preparing for the oral exams by developing distinctive skills.
Assessment Activity 2: GA Feedback Survey (Fall 2016)
Survey takers indicated that access to sample syllabi and assignments was an important resource. For several years now, our program has made these readily available online for First Year Writing and ILP courses (the first two courses that GAs teach) and will continue to add resources in response to the positive feedback.
Survey takers also felt that new GAs would benefit most from a series of workshops on teaching assignments and strategies throughout the semester. The FYW Director now offers a one-week intensive Orientation, and ILP Coordinator now offers a series of workshops that cover these topics and more.
Assessment Activity 3: New GA Pre-Semester Orientation Survey (Fall 2017)
The First Year Writing Director reviewed the survey results with the Department Chair, Associate Chair, and Graduate Director.
Assessment Activity 4: ILP Workshop Survey (Spring 2018)
The ILP Coordinator reviewed the survey results with the Department Chair, Associate Chair, and Graduate Director.
Assessment Activity 5: PhD Student Exit Survey (Fall 2015 - Spring 2017)
The Graduate Program Committee discussed the survey results.
Assessment Activity 6: Revised program student learning objectives (Spring 2018)
The new PSLOs are posted on the department's website. Each semester, faculty teaching graduate classes are referred to these PSLOs when creating their course descriptions and SLOs (which are published on the website).
Assessment Activity 7: Tracking written and oral student achievements (Fall 2015 - Spring 2017)
Achievements are posted on the department's website to celebrate students' success. While number of publications varies over the years, there is ample evidence of strong engagement and professionalization on the part of our PhD students.
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.
We made use of assessment to rehaul our training of Graduate Assistants, which means we focused on "develop and practice college-level teaching skills" PSLO#5 taking into account students' self-assessment and assessment of our earlier training. And we immediately incorporated assessment--via instruments developed with and administered by the Center for Teaching Excellence--to obtain feedback on the new training program and tweak it as necessary.