Program: Sociology (BA)
Date: Mon Nov 02, 2009 - 11:46:57 am
1) List your program's student learning outcomes (SLOs).
I. CONCEPTUALIZATION: reflects an ability to present sociological ideas.
· is informative
· reflects a sociological significance of the topic
· displays familiarity with relevant literature
· relates the topic to sociological theory, states hypotheses, etc.
II. EVIDENCE: displays ability to collect and report relevant data/information.
· develops research methodology
· gathers data scientifically, relying on original or secondary data collected systematically
· is honestly presented, clarifying what are the student's values and personal opinions
· presents data that are relevant to the research topic
· presents data and results/findings in easily understandable formats, conforming to acceptable standards (e.g. contingency tables, graphs, quoted field notes, etc.)
III. INTERPRETATION: displays an ability to analyze data.
· displays ability to understand and interpret data
· demonstrates reasonably clear and logical reasoning in interpreting data
· understands the relevance of findings to theory
IV. WRITING SKILLS: shows acceptable writing skills.
· the prose is usually clear and the meaning of ideas is effectively conveyed
· displays a wide vocabulary and proper choice of words
· exhibits proper sentence structure, some sentence variety, and cohesion between sentences
· show minimum errors in grammar, observes conventions of standard written English
2) Where are your program's SLOs published?
Student Handbook. URL, if available online: NA
Information Sheet, Flyer, or Brochure URL, if available online: NA
UHM Catalog. Page Number:
Course Syllabi. URL, if available online: NA
3) Upload your program's current curriculum map(s) as a PDF.
- File (03/16/2020)
4) What percentage of courses have the course SLOs explicitly stated on the course syllabus, department website, or other publicly available document? (Check one)
5) State the SLO(s) that was Assessed, Targeted, or Studied
It is the policy of the Department of Sociology that each faculty member of courses that are “Writing Intensive” or otherwise require a good amount of writing (term papers, research projects, etc.), ask all students to keep copies of their written work on a disk or submitted to the instructor as e-mail attachments. The instructor turns in the written work from the class to the Department at semester’s end. Student’s names should be attached for tracking purposes, but during actual assessment writer’s identities will be removed.
For the annual assessment, we randomly select a sample of papers from each course level: freshman/sophomore (100-200 level courses), junior (300 level courses), and senior (400 level courses. Two members of the undergraduate studies committee (which may be a faculty member and the graduate student member or two faculty members) to read and evaluate each paper on the following four dimensions, on a scale of 5 to 1, as follows: 5= Excellent, A; 4=Good, B; 3= Fair, C; 2= Weak, D; 1= Fail, F.
The two scores for each paper are averaged, and then the scores for each course level are analyzed to assess whether the department’s curriculum is meeting its academic goals and identify areas for improvement of the program.
I. CONCEPTUALIZATION: The paper reflects an ability to present sociological ideas.
-reflects a sociological significance of the topic
-displays familiarity with relevant literature
-relates the topic to sociological theory, states hypotheses, etc.
II. EVIDENCE: The paper displays an ability to collect and report relevant data/information. _____
-develops research methodology
-gathers data scientifically, relying on original or secondary data collected systematically
-is honestly presented, clarifying what are the author’s values and personal opinions
-presents data that are relevant to the research topic
-presents data and results/findings in easily understandable formats, conforming to acceptable standards (e.g. contingency tables, graphs, quoted field notes, etc.)
III. INTERPRETATION: The paper displays an ability to analyze data. _____
-displays ability to understand and interpret data
-demonstrates reasonably clear and logical reasoning in interpreting data
-understands the relevance of findings to theory
IV. WRITING SKILLS: The paper shows the writer has acceptable writing skills. _____
-the prose is usually clear and the meaning of ideas is effectively conveyed
-displays a wide vocabulary and proper choice of words
-exhibits proper sentence structure, some sentence variety, and cohesion between sentences
-show minimum errors in grammar, observes conventions of standard written English
6) State the Assessment Question(s) and/or Goal(s) of Assessment Activity
The goals of the assessment activity are to assess the extent to which our courses at all levvels of undergraduate study are meeting our expectations as stated above. Where discrepancies are found these are discussed at the Undergraduate Studies Committee and action is taken either by that committee or at the departmentallevels on recommendation of that committee.
7) State the Type(s) of Evidence Gathered
As mentioned, a sample of completed papers are selected from each of the levels of courses at the undergraduate level that were collected as a result of the departmental policy memtioned previously.
8) State How the Evidence was Interpreted, Evaluated, or Analyzed
Here are the instructions for the reviewers:
Scoring Papers for Department Assessment
- You will receive a computer file containing all the materials needed. These include:
- pdfs of the sample of papers to be evaluated with personal identifiers removed. The file name is a code for the assessment system.
- the Scoring Instrument, entitled Program Learning Assessment, that gives the criteria for scoring each paper
- the Scoring Sheet, an Excel spreadsheet set up to receive the scores and tabulate them
- Two persons need to score each paper, and there are a total of 30 papers in the sample, representing courses at different levels. We use two evaluators for each paper and average the scores to control for individual differences in how the criteria are applied.
- The list on the Excel spreadsheet is arranged so that all papers from one class are together. The person managing the evaluation process may divide the sample so that scorers do not have to do so many papers. However, this should be done by assigning alternate paper numbers to each group, so that each group of evaluators is scoring papers across the whole range, to avoid bias introduced by different evaluators scoring different courses with different standards.
- Evaluators may either do the entire task at the computer, or print out copies of everything and do it manually. Caution: if you print out the papers, be sure that the file name of the pdf file appears on the printout, or you will not be able to identify which paper you are scoring.
- It should take only a few minutes to read a paper, evaluate it using the criteria given, and assign a score from 5 (highest) to 1 (lowest) for each criterion. You do not need to agonize over the process. A quick judgment is fine. Then enter the score for each criterion for that paper into the Excel Scoring Sheet, making sure you put the score onto the right row for each paper. The spreadsheet will automatically total the scores (if you do it online).
- The completed Scoring Sheet should be renamed so that the evaluator’s name is added to the filename, and then it should be sent as an e-mail attachment to the person managing the evaluation process.
- The person managing the evaluation process should then copy and paste the two sets of scores to produce one final spreadsheet with two sets of scores for each paper. That spreadsheet will then be used to produce the assessment report, and the score will be added to the files in the database for any future use.
Thanks very much for your cooperation.
9) State How Many Pieces of Evidence Were Collected
30, randomly selected by quota from each level of course
10) Summarize the Actual Results
Overall the average scores for all levels of classes were:
Total Score 12.55 of a possible 20 points
Conceptualization Score 3.16 of a possible 5 points
Evidence Score 3.22 of a possible 5 points
Interpretation Score 3.00 of a possible 5 points
Writing Score 3.17 of a possible 5 points
Of the 100-200 level courses scores were
Total=10.1/20 | Conceptualization=2.6/5 | Evidence=2.5/5 | Interpretation=2.4/5 | Writing=2.5/5
Of the 300 level courses scores were:
Total=15.1/20 | Conceptualization=3.72/5 | Evidence=4/5 | Interpretation=3.66/5 | Writing=3.72/5
Of the 400 level courses scores were:
Total=12.45/20 | Conceptualization=3.15/5 | Evidence=3.15/5 | Interpretation=2.95/5 | Writing=3.20/5
In addition, 2 of the papers examined contained plagiarized materials
11) Briefly Describe the Distribution and Discussion of Results
Reesults were discussed at the Undergraduate Studies Committee and it was recommended thatt he issue of plagiarized materials be discussed at the departmental meeting of October 30, 2009.
12) Describe Conclusions and Discoveries
The scores of the assessment were discussed and incorporated into a larger effort being undertaken by the Undergraduate Studies Committee, namely a curricular review of the undergraduate offerings.
The issue of plagiared materials in student papers was discussed at the departmental meeting of 10/30/09 and it was decided that it was becoming a common occurence across many of our classes, including graduate level classes. Consistency in response to the finding of plagiarized materials was recommended. It was suggested that faculty adopt a proccess such as using a preliminary draft of the paper or by taking the submitted paper, annotating it and attaching materials on plagiarism and giving the student 48 hours to resubmit the paper correcting the plagiarized materials prior to assigning a grade. Second offence, assigning a "0" for the paper, no option to revise and resubmit. Third or subsequent occurrence, "F" for the course.
Materials on plagiarism have been circulated to faculted from those faculty already presenting the materials to their classes. Agreement that, within the discretion of faculty, these materials would become a part of the lectures in all classes.
13) Use of Results/Program Modifications: State How the Program Used the Results --or-- Explain Planned Use of Results
14) Reflect on the Assessment Process
The process worked well. No faculty felt overburdened by the assessment. It was thought that a slightly larger sample might be useful in the future. This is under advisement by the Undergraduate Studies Committee.