Degree Program Assessment Reports : View Reports

Unit: Earth Sciences
Program: Environmental Earth Science (BA)
Degree: Bachelor's
Date: Fri Nov 16, 2018 - 4:00:06 pm

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

1. Students can explain the relevance of geology and geophysics to human needs, including those appropriate to Hawaii, and be able to discuss issues related to geology and its impact on society and planet Earth.

(1a. General education, 1b. Specialized study in an academic field, 1c. Understand Hawaiian culture and history, 2a. Think critically and creatively, 2b. Conduct research, 2c. Communicate and report, 3a. Continuous learning and personal growth, 3b. Respect for people and cultures, in particular Hawaiian culture, 3c. Stewardship of the natural environment, 3d. Civic participation)

2. Students can apply technical knowledge of relevant knowledge base, theory, laboratory methods, field methods, computer applications and the supporting disciplines (math, physics, chemistry, biology) to solve real-world problems in geology and geophysics.

(1a. General education, 1b. Specialized study in an academic field, 2a. Think critically and creatively, 2b. Conduct research, 3a. Continuous learning and personal growth, 3b. Respect for people and cultures, in particular Hawaiian culture, 3c. Stewardship of the natural environment, 3d. Civic participation)

3. Students use the scientific method to define, critically analyze, and solve a problem in earth science

(1a. General education, 1b. Specialized study in an academic field, 2a. Think critically and creatively, 2b. Conduct research, 3a. Continuous learning and personal growth, 3c. Stewardship of the natural environment, 3d. Civic participation)

4. Students can reconstruct, clearly and ethically, geological knowledge in both oral presentations and written reports.

(1a. General education, 1b. Specialized study in an academic field, 2a. Think critically and creatively, 2b. Conduct research, 2c. Communicate and report, 3a. Continuous learning and personal growth, 3b. Respect for people and cultures, in particular Hawaiian culture, 3c. Stewardship of the natural environment, 3d. Civic participation)

5. Students can evaluate, interpret, and summarize the basic principles of geology and geophysics, including the fundamental tenets of the sub-disciplines, and their context in relationship to other core sciences, to explain complex phenomena in geology and geophysics.

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

Department Website URL: http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/GG/resources/docs/gg-undergrad-SLO_Master_Checklist_Final.pdf

Student Handbook. URL, if available online: http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/GG/resources/docs/Undergrad_Survival_Guide.pdf

Information Sheet, Flyer, or Brochure URL, if available online: http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/GG/resources/docs/gg-undergrad-SLO_Master_Checklist_Final.pdf

UHM Catalog. Page Number:

Course Syllabi. URL, if available online: Course syllabi for Fall 2015 are listed: http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/GG/academics/gg_syllabi.html

Other: A web link to all course syllabi exists: http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/GG/academics/gg_syllabi.html

Other: Our BA program has been revised, and its SLOs might need to be revised. This is under discussion now.

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: Some programmatic decisions were made based on faculty meetings and annecdotal evidence, but without a formal assessment. The new BA program was implemented without a curriculum map and without distinguishing its SLOs from those of our BS program. Shortcomings of this approach have become apparent. We are re-designing both the BA and BS programs to address shortcomings of both programs. The program revisions will be one of the major topics of a departmental retreat in late Spring of 2019. We recognize the need to build assessment into the re-designed programs, and we think having someone from the assessment office at the retreat would be helpful.

8) Briefly explain the assessment activities that took place.

Assessment data have been collected by individual faculty members, but the data have not been compiled in a systematic wasy by the department. Several faculty have met with the department's assessment coordinator to gather information for preparing standardized writing criteria for undergraduates. Numerous faculty discussions have addressed shortcomings of our undergraduate program that are evident even without the benefit of formal assessment data.

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: Number of students pursuing the BA degree.

Other 2:

10) State the number of students (or persons) who submitted evidence that was evaluated. If applicable, please include the sampling technique used.

25. All (or nearly all) the faculty in the department have presented annecdotal evidence or raised pertinent points regarding our undergraduate programs at faculty meetings. Much of the discussion has been directed at ways to increase the number of students in our undergraduate programs.

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.

The department is planning a retreat to thoroughly re-evaluate our undergraduate curriculum; this is tentatively planned for late in the Spring of 2019. The department also has begun to prepare a standardized compiliation of writing guidelines for undergraduates.

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: Many of these changes have been motivated by low student enrollment figures and have taken place though traditional faculty meetings and committees without utilizing formal assessment procedures. Our curriculum committee is coordinating efforts with our assessment coordinator.

15) Please briefly describe how the program used the results.

The department has conducted assessment activities for many years, but they have been funneled primarily to the department chair. The department needs to develop routine procedures to make this information more readily available to the faculty as a whole, including our assessment coordinator. This could be as simple as posting material to Google docs initially, but might be better pursued eventually by posting much of the material on the department web site. The department's assessment coordinator is also recommending some new ways to collect data on the SLOs that would provide for a broader evaluation of how well the SLOs are being met (e.g., using multiple labs or multiple assignment rather than single questions or single assignments).

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.

The new BA program was implemented without a curriculum map and without distinguishing its SLOs from thoese of our BS program. Shortcomings of this approach have become apparent. We are re-designing both the BA and BS programs to address shortcomings of both programs. The program revisions will be one of the major topics of a departmental retreat in late Spring of 2019. We recognize the need to build assessment into the re-designed programs, and we think having someone from the assessment office at the retreat would be helpful.

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

The program did engage in assessment activities.