Unit: Kinesiology & Rehabilitation Science
Program: Kinesiology & Rehab Sci (BS)
Degree: Bachelor's
Date: Wed Nov 28, 2018 - 10:47:59 am

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

1. (Health and Exercise Science SLO 1) Students will demonstrate knowledge of anatomical, physiological, biomechanical, and psychological principles of how the body moves in relation to space, time, and distance.

(1a. General education, 1b. Specialized study in an academic field)

2. (Health and Exercise Science SLO 2) Students will demonstrate knowledge in the application of movement principles and concepts related to movement.

(1a. General education, 1b. Specialized study in an academic field, 2a. Think critically and creatively, 3a. Continuous learning and personal growth)

3. (Health and Exercise Science SLO 3) Students will demonstrate and communicate the ability to coordinate, plan, manage, and facilitate exercise prescription and information

(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)

4. (Health and Exercise Science SLO 4) Students will demonstrate application of programming for healthy lifestyles through application and research venues.

(1a. General education, 2a. Think critically and creatively, 2b. Conduct research, 2c. Communicate and report)

5. (Health and Exercise Science SLO 5) Students will demonstrate civic responsibility through a service learning project [capstone experience]

(3d. Civic participation)

6. (Health and Exercise Science SLO 6) Students will demonstrate pro-social skills and professional dispositions in human interaction especially for persons of color and Native Hawaiians.

(1c. Understand Hawaiian culture and history, 3b. Respect for people and cultures, in particular Hawaiian culture, 3c. Stewardship of the natural environment)

7. (Health and Exercise Science SLO 7) Students will be able to demonstrate culturally responsive teaching and interaction with persons of color and Native Hawaiians.

(1c. Understand Hawaiian culture and history, 3b. Respect for people and cultures, in particular Hawaiian culture)

8. (Physical Education Teacher Education SLO 1)Knowledge- What should the students know and be able to do by the completion of the program? 1a. General Education 1b. Specialized study in an academic field 1c. Understand Hawaiian Culture and History

(1a. General education, 1b. Specialized study in an academic field, 1c. Understand Hawaiian culture and history)

9. (Physical Education Teacher Education SLO 2)Skills- What skills should the students be able to demonstrate and apply to a real-world setting? 2a. Think Critically and Creatively 2b. Conduct Research 2c. Communicate and Report

(2a. Think critically and creatively, 2b. Conduct research, 2c. Communicate and report)

10. (Physical Education Teacher Education SLO 3) Dispositions- How well do our students demonstrate professional dispositions? 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 in Their Communities

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

Department Website URL: https://coe.hawaii.edu/academics/kinesiology-rehabilitation-science/bs-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: Department Brochure
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.

Physical Education Teacher Education (PETE)

Collect/evaluate student work/performance to determine SLO achievement:

The COE licensure programs engaged in a collaborative effort to develop shared key assessments to assess student learning across all licensure programs. In 2015-16, a cross program committee worked on developing the four shared assessments. In 2016-17, the newly developed assessments were piloted by programs. In 2017-18, the shared assessments were fully implemented in all COE licensure programs.

1. Assessment A – Planning Instruction: Candidates must demonstrate their ability to plan instruction for P12 learners. Evidence for this assessment is a minimum of three lesson plans, which are scored on Domain 1 (Planning and Preparation) of the Charlotte Danielson Framework for Teaching (CDF). The assessment is completed prior to the student teaching semester.

2. Assessment B - Student Teaching Evaluation: Candidates demonstrate their competence as a teacher candidate in the four domains of the Charlotte Danielson Framework for Teaching (CDF): (1) Planning and Preparation, (2) the Classroom Environment, (3) Instruction, and (4) Professional Responsibilities. This assessment is completed during student teaching and is cumulative across the entire semester of work.

3. Assessment C – Effect on P12 Learning: Candidates demonstrate their ability to plan, teach, and assess a unit of instruction/sequence of lessons. This assessment specifically addresses candidates’ ability to plan and teach a unit of instruction/sequence of lessons, analyze student learning through assessment data, and reflect on their teaching practice to improve their instruction. The assessment is scored on designated components and elements of the Charlotte Danielson Framework for Teaching (CDF). This assessment is completed during student teaching.

4. Assessment D - Professional Dispositions:  Candidates must demonstrate professional dispositions, including professionalism, communication (verbal and nonverbal), collaboration, reflection, and diversity. This assessment is completed in all field and student teaching experiences.

Collect/analyze student self-reports of SLO achievement via surveys:

Each semester, program completer surveys are distributed by the Dean’s Office to our candidates in their final semester of the program. This data is published in reports aggregated by program in the COE Intranet and is also reported on the COE public website, “Measuring Our Success.”

Health and Exercise Science (HES)

Assessment questions have been presented, evidence for each, along with a description of each direct evidence.

Assessment Question # 1- Knowledge- What should the students know and be able to do by the completion of the program?  

  1. KRS 113- Anatomy and Physiology Rubric- Students receive a cumulative scores for all exams and quizzes and are rated unacceptable, acceptable or target on the following criteria: Knowledge of human micro- and macro- anatomy of the organ system; Knowledge of human physiology of the organ systems; and Ability to apply knowledge of structural anatomy and physiological principles to understand complex human functions.   
  2. KRS 353- Structural Anatomy Rubric- Students must demonstrate knowledge of structural anatomy and are rated on their overall knowledge of gross anatomy through major exams and quizzes and on their anatomical knowledge for structural anatomy through identification of anatomical structures. Students receive a cumulative score for all exams and quizzes and are rated unacceptable, acceptable, or target on the following elements: knowledge of gross human anatomy; ability to identify anatomical structures; and ability to apply knowledge.  For structural anatomy, students are asked to identify anatomical structures and are rated on the following scale: 1 = unacceptable; 2 = acceptable; and 3 = Target.   
  3. KRS354L Rubric Students must demonstrate knowledge and ability to properly administer exercise physiology assessments for the following: anthropometric measurements; flexibility; isometric strength and maximal muscular strength; cardiovascular, metabolic and respiratory responses to graded exercise; ventilatory threshold (respiratory compensation in response to acidosis); metabolic pathways used to develop anaerobic and aerobic power and associated tests; pulmonary function and maximal/submaximal cardiorespiratory fitness assessments; body composition. Students are rated on the following scale: Course grade A & B: target, C: acceptable, D and lower: unacceptable). <
  4. KRS 463- Biomechanics Rubric- Students must demonstrate knowledge of biomechanics and are rated on their overall knowledge of biomechanics through major exams and quizzes and on their direct application of biomechanical knowledge. Students receive a cumulative score for all exams and quizzes and are rated unacceptable, acceptable, or target on the following elements: combination of human anatomy and physics; application of mathematical skills to motor activity; and association of biomechanical principles along with analysis of fundamental activities. For application of biomechanical knowledge, students are asked to directly apply biomechanical principles to sporting activities and are rated on the following scale: 1 = unacceptable; 2 = acceptable; and 3 = Target.   

Data are reported for AY2015/16, 2016/17 and 2017/18 here: https://manoa.hawaii.edu/assessment/update2/uploads/2018/q3/report_1745_3.pdf

Assessment Question # 2- Skills- What skills should the students be able to demonstrate and apply to a real world setting?

1.Entry Level Volunteer Evaluation Rubric- Students in the program are required to complete 40 hours of volunteer work. The evaluation is one part of the application process. Students are rated at an “Unacceptable,” “Acceptable,” or “Target” level. Students are assessed on the following criteria: Punctuality and Dependability; Attire and Dress; Interpersonal and Communication Skills; Motivation; and Rapport with Staff and Supervisor.

Data are reported for AY2015/16, 2016/17 and 2017/18 here: https://manoa.hawaii.edu/assessment/update2/uploads/2018/q3/report_1745_3.pdf

Assessment Question # 3- Dispositions- How well do our students demonstrate professional dispositions?     

1.KRS 488- Practicum Evaluation Form- Students enrolled in the program are required to complete a practicum experience. They are assessed on professional dispositions and must achieve at least a “Good” level. Students are assessed in the following three areas: General evaluation; Specific skills; and Strengths and weaknesses. Levels include: Exceptional; Good; Fair; Poor; and No Basis for Evaluation.

2.KRS 488- Professional Dispositions Rubric – Students in the program are assessed on professional dispositions and are assessed in the following areas: Character; Respect; Work ethic; Effective Communication; and Collaboration. Students must achieve an “Acceptable” level. Levels include: Unacceptable; Acceptable; and Target.

Data are reported for AY2015/16, 2016/17 and 2017/18 here: https://manoa.hawaii.edu/assessment/update2/uploads/2018/q3/report_1745_3.pdf

Indirect Evidence includes the collection of program completer surveys that are distributed by the Dean’s Office to candidates in their final semester. These data are published in reports aggregated by program in the College of Education Intranet and are also reported on the College of Education website “Measuring our Success.”

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.

Physical Education Teacher Education (PETE)

Scoring rubrics for direct evidence in the identified classes have been aggregated and presented below. Direct evidence is gathered from specified courses, depending on the assessment. Given the size of the physical education program, we were able to collect direct evidence from all participants. Over the last three years the following number of students submitted assignments that were assessed using the identified rubrics. Additionally, at the end of student teaching students were asked to complete an exit survey in order to reflect on their experiences within the program.

AY 2015-2016

Student Teaching Evaluation: 6 students

Dispositions Rubric: 6 students

Student Self Report: 7 students/ 7 students

AY 2016-2017

Student Teaching Evaluation: 9 students

Dispositions Rubric: 9 students

Student Self Report: 1 student/ 9 students

AY 2017-2018

Assessment A: 13 students

Assessment B: 13 students

Assessment C: 13 students

Assessment D: 31 students

Student Self Report: 10 students/ 13 students

 
Health and Exercise Science (HES)
A convenience sample was used for all direct evidence.
AY 2015-2016
SLO 1 (Asssessment Question 1) N=237
SLO 2 (Assessment Question 2) N=49
SLO 3 (Assessment Question 3) N=100
 
AY 2016-2017
SLO 1 (Asssessment Question 1) N=492
SLO 2 (Assessment Question 2) N=50
SLO 3 (Assessment Question 3) N=122
 
AY 2017-2018
SLO 1 (Asssessment Question 1) N=359
SLO 2 (Assessment Question 2) N=37
SLO 3 (Assessment Question 3) N=144
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

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: Director of Assessment

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.

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.

Note: results are here (question 13 response)

Physical Education Teacher Education (PETE)

Faculty in the program consistently use results of direct evidence to make improvements to individual classes and to enhance learning experiences of students. As faculty, we conducted inter-rater reliability on a few of the assessments, discussed the results, and discussed ways to improve performance on the assignments.

Ways to improve performance within the program included:

  1. Worked to integrate concepts around lesson planning and assessment earlier and throughout the program so that students have been exposed to the concepts sooner and are more familiar with it once they are assessed on it
  2. Gave clear directions with rubrics for all assignments as well as provide past student work as examples of what the instructor is expecting. Many of our students are visual learners and this can help them conceptualize the given task better. Our conversations around the last set of data have allowed us to begin discussions about restructuring pieces of the program. It seems as though some students are unhappy with their experiences and we are continuing to reflect on the data that was received in order to help improve the program and hopefully get to the point where 99% of our students are happy with the program and will recommend it to others in the profession. We are planning to host a series of student focus group with past and current students to help better understand what improvements can be made.
  3. Given the strategic goals of the University, coupled with feedback provided from our students, we will be looking to utilize expertise of new faculty and increase cultural competence among our students. We are still discussing as a program what this might look like, but making sure that our physical education teachers are culturally competent and have a clear understanding of Hawaiian and other cultures in Hawaii.

After discussions among our program we also made additional changes as noted below.

  1. Clear rubrics have been created to align with assignments.
  2. Examples of assignment are posted as a visual for students to follow along with guidelines
  3. Course syllabi are reviewed at the end of each semester by each individual faculty member and necessary changes to ensure student success are implemented
  4. Syllabus quiz is given to reinforce guidelines to students
  5. Additional time to review assignment guidelines have been implemented into class time
  6. Students are given class time to work on assignments. This allows them to ask questions for clarification while the professor is present
  7. Mandatory drafts of assignments that are graded have been added to courses to allow students additional time to work on and apply material.

Health and Exercise Science (HES)

Overall, given the total number of students the amount of students achieving an “unacceptable” level is within a bell curve. However, direct evidence has been looked at carefully to see whether it was directly related to performance of students or how content was administered across the program.

 

Entry Level Assessment. A modification that was made based on the 2015 assessment report, was the addition of KRS 113 Anatomy and Physiology data since Fall 2015.  Performance of this course reflects the student’s basic knowledge in anatomy and physiology that is needed to advance to a higher level course (KRS 353) and to healthcare/health science related professions. Results were used each semester to modify the course structure and design, (e.g., changing the number of exams from 4 to 6, adding in-class active learning tasks, and types of quizzes/assignment to increase hand written HW and Laulima question pools outside of class).

The additional course exams, quizzes, and homework assignments tended positively impact the students who were in class regularly and proactive in their learning. Surprisingly, additional coursework that was intended to help,actually negatively impacted the grades of students who did not take an active approach and regularly engage in the course.

Junior Level Assessment. A recent effort has been made in KRS 353 Exercise Physiology to improve progamatic outcomes.  Assessment of 6 top-performing undergraduate students enrolled in a hands-on clinical internship (The results of previous KRS488 assessment showed that students were not meeting competencies such as measuring blood pressure and anthropometric measurement. This was the driving force behind the re-organization of KRS354L for Fall 2018.  The following changes were made: each student will complete a practical test, where the student will randomly choose a technique (from those listed above), will perform the chosen skill on a subject and be rated using the scale outlined above. The student will be evaluated by his/her ability to describe the test in lay terms to the subject, why it will be performed and what it measures; then the student will administer the test and be scored on the accuracy of his/her technique, and ability to explain the results to the subject.  Another change that was made based upon the Jan 2018 assessment includes the revamping of the lab material where newly created lab worksheets challenges students to use critical thinking as worksheets no longer provide the solutions. Student performance on the worksheets serves as a gauge of their understanding of the technique and methods. Lastly, students are evaluated through 4 lab reports in which graphing and analyses in Excel are required. Thus, the lab reports serve as an indicator of their retention of the material presented in the Excel tutorial that is provided to them in lab. Course grades/SLO scale will reflect if students are meeting SLOs. In KRS 354 (lecture) Students must demonstrate knowledge of exercise and sport physiology and are evaluated by the cumulative score of major exams. The following SLO’s are reiterations of objects of KRS 354L with the distinction that this course requires students to understand the assumptions, theories and foundational knowledge of the immediate, chronic and residual effects of specific exercise, physiological adaptations and alterations that occur when additional stresses are applied on the body in combination with the exercise, an understanding of the aerobic-anaerobic energy metabolism continuum and its effect on exercise performance. Additionally, students shown have knowledge of the relationship of nutrition, ergogenic substances, and environmental conditions with physical performance and have an overall understanding of exercise prescription.

A reliable assessment system geared toward evaluating content knowledge of students enrolled in KRS 354 and KRS354L has yet to be developed. Using data gathered from the scores of 4 exams in KRS 354 and 3 lab reports in 354L indicates that students show a better grasp of knowledge when given the opportunity to work with resources outside of class.  However, since 354L is a writing intensive course, the lab report score is heavily scored upon inclusion of all aspects of a scientific report (i.e., proper citations, inclusion of graphs/tables) and is not only focused on understanding of the topic. KRS 354 exam scores indicate that about one-half of the enrolled students have not gained knowledge in skeletal muscle recruitment, muscle metabolism, cardiovascular and respiratory systems. On the other hand, the majority of the students (ie 70-80%) of students retain knowledge on topics such as how the body responds to exercise, and aerobic/anaerobic adaptations to training. However, the higher scores on the latter two topics were most likely influenced by additional review sessions prior to the exam. Thus, implementation of additional review sessions may be one method to improve content knowledge retention.

Senior Level Assessment. In KRS 488 courses, students achieving an unacceptable level, were those who received” Incompletes” for a course grade and did not complete the course requirements by the regular due date for grade submission.  When course requirements are not completed by extension due date, “Incomplete” grades automatically revert to a failing grade; however over the reporting period a vast majority of students did finish the requirement before the extension due date and received passing letter grades.  One of the measures that was taken was to start the internship in summer session I to give students a length of summer (until the end of summer session II) to complete. While there were still 29.6% of students who received “incomplete” in the most recent summer 2018, the percentage decreased from the previous years as shown in the data.

Additional changes included the following:

1. Assignments have been revised to make rubrics more clear

2. Examples of assignment are posted as a visual for students to follow along with guidelines

3. Course syllabi were reviewed

4. Syllabus quiz was given to reinforce guidelines

5. Additional time to review assignment guidelines have been implemented into class time

6. Mandatory drafts of assignments that are graded have been added to courses to allow students additional time to work on and apply material. All drafts are graded.

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.

Physical Education Teacher Education (PETE)

Insights gained were that options for additional review along with examples are more helpful for students. Also giving class time for students to work on assignments is beneficial. Students are more likely to work on the assignments and ask the course instructor questions if class time is given and are less inclined to seek outside help during office hours. 

Health and Exercise Science (HES)

Health and Exercise Science

A significant number of students are not achieving SLOs at an acceptable or target level across the program and this is evident in the data presented in the tables above. As a department, we determined that the major conclusion of this assessment report was the need to appoint a program coordinator to ensure the programmatic outcomes are met and to help this program thrive in the future. Over the reporting period, the Kinesiology Health and Exercise Science BS program has sustained high enrollment (~500 students) and is one the largest undergraduate programs on campus. Consequently, the department needs to provide commensurate support in coordinating activities to ensure that all students achieve SLOs. This coordinator position would have similar responsibilities as required by other National Accrediting bodies in the College of Education and the Department of Kinesiology and Rehabilitation Science, and have similar release time to conduct such activities.

We also concluded that the underachievement may be attributed to the large percent of adjunct and teaching assistants that have been used to fill all the classes and sections to run this large program. Increasing the proportion of tenure track instructional faculty commensurate with the growth of the program over the last 5 years should help more students achieve SLOs and also help the program prosper.  

 

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

Not applicable