Unit: Social Work
Program: Social Welfare (PhD)
Degree: Doctorate
Date: Tue Dec 11, 2018 - 1:00:30 pm

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

1. Analyze and apply social welfare theories, research findings and research methodologies �to resolve critical social welfare problems (Qualifying Examination);

(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.)

2. Formulate relevant research questions, and apply appropriate research methods in culturally-appropriate research design. (Qualifying Examination);

(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.)

3. Understand and analyze social welfare policies, and their impact on social work practice within communities and populations in-need. (Qualifying Examination);

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

4. Develop substantive knowledge in a field of social welfare (e.g. child welfare, health and mental health disparities, poverty, indigenous wellbeing, aging). �(Specialization Plan);

(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. Conduct rigorous research which aims to advance social work practice, policy and knowledge development. (Comprehensive Examination);

(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. Integrate and synthesize research findings into the body of professional knowledge (Final Examination/completion of the Dissertation); and

(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.)

7. Disseminate knowledge through publications and/or teaching (Publications, presentations at conferences, teaching internship/regular courses while in the PhD program).

(5. Proficiently communicate and disseminate information in a manner relevant to the field and intended audience., 7. Interact professionally with others.)

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

Department Website URL: https://www.hawaii.edu/sswork/
Student Handbook. URL, if available online: https://www.hawaii.edu/sswork/wp-content/uploads/2018-2019-PHD-Manual.pdf
Information Sheet, Flyer, or Brochure URL, if available online: http://www.hawaii.edu/sswork/bulletin.html
UHM Catalog. Page Number:
Course Syllabi. URL, if available online:
Other:
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.

Revised Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs) and finalized the curricum map in August 2015.

Used rubrics developed in 2015 to collect direct evidence on students' performance on program SLOs. 

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.

Rubric for Comprehensive Exam = dissertation committee members completed/submitted for four students.

Rubric for Dissertation Defense = dissertation committee members completed/submitted for six students

Students submitted individual annual student review rubrics:

Fall 2015 = 15 students submitted individual student review rubric

Fall 2016, 2017, and 2018 = 8 students submitted individual student review rubric

Three students took Qualifying Exams. 

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.

Per our currculum map, benchmarks for SLO1,2, and 3 are Qualifying Exam (QE).

SLO1, Three students took QE related section, two pass.

SLO2. Two students took QE related sections, one pass.

SLO3. Three students took QE related section, three pass.

Benchmark for SLO4 is Specialization plan.

No students worked on Specialization plan during this review period time.

Benchmark for SLO5 is Comprehensive Exam (CE), evaluated by Dissertation committee members. 

SLO5. Four students took CE with rubric data, four students meets or exceeds SLO5 rated by all committee members. 

Benchmarks for SLO6 and SLO7  are Final Exam, Dissertation Defense (DD), evaluated by Dissertation committee members.

SLO6. Six students took DD with rubric data, five students meets or exceeds SLO6 rated by all committee members. One student meets SLO6 rated by majority of committee members.

SLO7, Six students took DD with rubric data, five students meets or exceeds SLO7 rated by all committee members. One student meets SLO7 rated by majority of Committee members. 

 

 

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 PhD program used the assessment results to make changes in the following areas:

Assessment procedure changes: Annual student review form revision and annual review procedure changes

Course changes: Developed new courses, e.g. Systemactic Review

Program policy changes: Revisited and clarified admission policies, i.e. master degree requirement, pre-requesite courses; Revised the Qualify exam policies.

Students' out-of-course expereince changes: Developed and used Student Academic Plan for advising, and supported PhD student monthly gathering/mentoring. 

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.

Since 2015 we developed the rubics for program assessments, this is the frist time we analyzed the rubric data. We will review and revise the rubrics as needed in the future. 

Meanwhile, we have been using results from other data, e.g. survey data from student annual reviews, for on-going program improvement.

 

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

N/A