Program: Ethnic Studies (BA)
Date: Thu Nov 08, 2018 - 10:28:11 am
1) Program Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs) and Institutional Learning Objectives (ILOs)
1. To demonstrate-through papers, exams, class discussions, service learning, et al.- a grasp of the core concepts in the ethnic studies field. This includes ethnic and racial group dynamics, histories and identities, as well as challenges facing indigenous peoples and minorities, inter-group conflicts, racism and discrimination.
(1b. Specialized study in an academic field)
2. To demonstrate-through class discussions, papers, exams service learning, et al.-the ability to make explicit connections between ethnicity/race and other aspects of social life (i.e.. economy, politics, cultural values and gender relations).
(1a. General education, 1b. Specialized study in an academic field, 2b. Conduct research)
3. To demonstrate an understanding-through class discussions, papers, exams, service learning, et. al.- of the unique history of Hawai’i’s multi-ethnic working people and the importance of social justice everywhere.
(1a. General education, 1b. Specialized study in an academic field, 1c. Understand Hawaiian culture and history, 3b. Respect for people and cultures, in particular Hawaiian culture)
4. To demonstrate through the use of reading, writing and thinking skills the ability to critically analyze both historic and contemporary patterns and issues in multi-ethnic societies.
(1b. Specialized study in an academic field, 2a. Think critically and creatively, 2b. Conduct research, 2c. Communicate and report)
5. To demonstrate the ability to connect classroom ideas and knowledge to current events and processes in both Hawai’i’s communities and the world beyond.
(1a. General education, 1b. Specialized study in an academic field, 1c. Understand Hawaiian culture and history, 2a. Think critically and creatively, 2b. Conduct research)
6. To demonstrate an understanding of civic engagement and the skills involved in change-oriented democratic citizenship.
(1a. General education, 3a. Continuous learning and personal growth, 3b. Respect for people and cultures, in particular Hawaiian culture, 3d. Civic participation)
2) Your program's SLOs are published as follows. Please update asneeded.
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:
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.
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?
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.)
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)
8) Briefly explain the assessment activities that took place.
We asssessed student learning achievement of SLO 5 using three methods.
(1) We surveyed our alumni (2015 and 2016, 2017 and 2018 graduates) using emails and phone calls to ask their perception of learning achievement on SLO 5. Sample questions include:
(2) Faculty teaching 300 and 400 level courses in Fall 2018 asked students to self-evaluate their learning achievement on SLO 5 and provide explanations: Where you do you think you are and explain why?
(3) Faculty teaching 300 and 400 level courses scored student papers and evaluated papers on SLO 5 achievement using a common rubric.
We used all three methods of assessment in 2017 and 2018. Students felt that they had achieved mastery in the rubric
9) What types of evidence did the program use as part of the assessment activities checked in question 7? (Check all that apply.)
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.)
10) State the number of students (or persons) who submitted evidence that was evaluated. If applicable, please include the sampling technique used.
The work of twenty-seven majors (mainly seniors) was analyzed and evaluated for its quality by both the teacher of that studentʻs course and the department assesment coordinator and assigned a student learning outcome designation.
11) Who interpreted or analyzed the evidence that was collected? (Check all that apply.)
Ad hoc faculty group
Persons or organization outside the university
Advisors (in student support services)
Students (graduate or undergraduate)
12) How did they evaluate, analyze, or interpret the evidence? (Check all that apply.)
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)
13) Summarize the results of the assessment activities checked in question 7. For example, report the percentage of students who achieved each SLO.
Our evaluations showed that most students (52%) were in the "Exceeding Expectations" Category; 33% were in the "Meeting the Expectations" Category and 15% were in the "Approaching Mastery" Category.
14) What best describes how the program used the results? (Check all that apply.)
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)
15) Please briefly describe how the program used the results.
We have used the results to conduct discussions at departmental meetings about our successes and faiures in accomplishing our goals and what changes we need to make in our pedagogy. The most promising result of this process is the raised consciousness faculty now have of the connection betwen what our goals are as individual teachers and as a department and the work that our students are actually producing. This is connecting us to stuents in ways we werenʻt before.
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 process forced us to think and discuss the relationship of actual student learning and course work to the core goals that we as a department hold sacred. It introduced a new and valuable consciousness to our classroom work and causes us to reflect on our role