Unit: Pacific Islands Studies
Program: Pacific Islands Studies (BA)
Degree: Bachelor's
Date: Thu Nov 15, 2018 - 4:01:49 pm

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

1. 1. Students can describe the diversity and similarity of issues in Oceania.

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

2. 2. Students can identify major events in the history of the region and analyze processes of change in island societies.

(1a. General education, 1b. Specialized study in an academic field, 1c. Understand Hawaiian culture and history, 2a. Think critically and creatively)

3. 3. Students can research and communicate indigenous issues and concerns.

(1b. Specialized study in an academic field, 2b. Conduct research, 2c. Communicate and report, 3a. Continuous learning and personal growth, 3b. Respect for people and cultures, in particular Hawaiian culture)

4. 4. Students can demonstrate critical thinking and write analytically.

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

5. 5. Students can interact with and advocate for Pacific Island communities at home or abroad.

(1b. Specialized study in an academic field, 2c. Communicate and report, 3a. Continuous learning and personal growth, 3b. Respect for people and cultures, in particular Hawaiian culture, 3d. Civic participation)

6. 6. Students can analyze and interpret creative practices in Oceania.

(1b. Specialized study in an academic field, 2a. Think critically and creatively)

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

Department Website URL:
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: New website, in progress.

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.


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.)

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)

8) Briefly explain the assessment activities that took place.

AY 2015-2016 Faculty utilized an existing Civic Engagement rubric to asses 11 samples of writing regaridng community engagement and service learning. All assignments by PACS majors in PACS 301, 302, 303 and 401 were collected and approximately 50% were randomly selected from each class for evaluation using the SLO5 rubric. All 11 samples were evaluated by all six faculty.

AY 2016-2017 Faculty created a new rubric, collectively, to assess SLO6 for PACS majors in PACS 303. 100% of PACS majors in this course were sampled and evaluated using the rubric.

Also in 2016-2017, Faculty utilized our collectively crafted SLO4 rubric to assess 25 samples of student writing (from exams, essays, assignments). In PACS 201, 202, 301, 302, 303, 493 a single assignment was collected from each PACS major. 50% of these writings were randomly selected per class for evaluation using the rubric. Six faculty evaluated ALL 25 samples.

In AY 2017-2018, Faculty collaboratively created a rubric for SLO1. Fifty percent of PACS majors' designated assignments were randomly selected per each course: PACS 201, 202, 301, 302, 492. Twelve samples were evaluated by  5 faculty using the new rubric.

Faculty used results to make programmatic changes. First we created a writing program to strengthen various critical thinking and analytic writing skills specific to Pacific Islands Studies. Next, faculty added Writing Intensive foci to core courses. The Center hired a graduate assistant to support students in this new "Write Oceania" program. With the help of a GA, pedagogies for certain courses were shifted (ex. 401, 302) to include more instruction on pre-writing and outlining, using citations, etc.

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.

SLO1: 6 (About 50% of all the majors enrolled in the relevant upper division courses)

SLO4: 25 (About 50% of all the majors enrolled in both lower (200 level) and upper division courses)

SLO5: 11 (About 50% of all the majors enrolled in upper division relevant courses)

SLO6: 3 (About 50% of all the majors enrolled in the relevant courses)


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)

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)

13) Summarize the results of the assessment activities checked in question 7. For example, report the percentage of students who achieved each SLO.

The mean score for SLO1 was 2.87; 83% scored a 2 or above. 

The mean score for SLO4 was 3.09; 96% scored 2 or above; 60% scored a 3 or above.

The mean score for SLO5 was 2.16; 55% scored 2 or above.

The mean score for SLO6 was 2.67; 100% scored 2 or above.

Faculty have not set expectations for each SLO. The scoring results demonstrated a necessity to do so, and to enhance particular content and instructional methods, as well as refining rubrics, and collecting coordinated, relevant data.

The rubrics used for SLO 1 and 6 were newly designed and used for the first time. The rubric for SLO5 came from a rubric bank and needs adaptation to be more useful. The rubric for SLO4 is an adaptation of a rubric that is effective for our students and the data collected.

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)

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

Results indicated a need to set standards for each SLO. A session is to be planned for Spring 2019 for faculty to do that.

Results indicated data and rubrics need better alignment did not enable evaluation of students'  student For example, the Civic Engagement Value rurbic we utilized did not adequately fit the SLO as written or the assignments collected, which were reflections on the impact of their interactions on communities and themselves.

The curriculum committee is identifying assignments to regularly be used for assessment so that they are better aligned to SLOs and rubrics.

Rubrics for SLO1, SLO5, and SLO6 will be revised. Additional rubrics for SLOs 2 and 3 are being created/adapted for the field of study this AY.

SLO6 assessment is on hold pending specialized faculty hire for this component of the curriculum. 

SLO4 assessment will continue on a 2-year cycle to determine the impact of "Write Oceania" program.

A Graduate Assistant was hired to develop and implement a writing program "Write Oceania" and to develop a web-based resource with video modules, quizzes and guides for various genres of writing.  We actually currently have TWO "Write Oceania " sites:




Faculty have changed course requirements (ex WI focus), assignments, and pedagogies to insert  "Write Oceania" components and GA support for the curriculum.  

Another outcome of assessment activities is a new discussion about developming courses to address stewardship, to craft a rubric for assessing Oral competencies in the Capstone presentation, and to assess 100% of the work of PACS majors, rather than 50%, given the relatively small number of majors.

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.

Using a spreadsheet data analysis template created by Yao Hill helped tremendously in our interpretation of data.

Results for SLO4 indicate writing/analytical thinking are improving. The program began out of concern for these outcomes, the development of a rubric, discussions about assignments and pedagogies. Investing as faculty in writing skills, varying assignments, using GA support and guidance has impacted our students positively.

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