Unit: Electrical Engineering
Program: Electrical Engineering (PhD)
Degree: Doctorate
Date: Mon Oct 29, 2018 - 9:13:29 pm

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

1. Demonstrate mastery of the methodology and techniques specific to the field of study.

(2. Demonstrate understanding of research methodology and techniques specific to one’s field of study.)

2. Communicate both orally and in writing at a high level of proficiency in the field of study.

(5. Proficiently communicate and disseminate information in a manner relevant to the field and intended audience.)

3. Conduct research or produce some other form of creative work.

(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., 4. Critically analyze, synthesize, and utilize information and data related 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.)

4. Function as a professional in the discipline.

(6. Conduct research or projects as a responsible and ethical professional, including consideration of and respect for other cultural perspectives., 7. Interact professionally with others.)

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

Department Website URL: http://www-ee.eng.hawaii.edu/content.php?pag=5
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.

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.

The advisor of each PhD candidate along with the appropriate committee was asked to assess the candidate at three critical points (qualifying exam, comprehensive exam, defense) with respect to the performance questions

1)     SLO1:Theory

2)     SLO1:Methodology

3)     SLO2:Oral Communication

4)     SLO2:Written Communication

5)     SLO3:Original Research

6)     Overall Assessment.

by using the scoring rubrics

1)     Unacceptable

2)     Marginal

3)     Acceptable

4)     Exceptional

5)     Not Applicable.

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.

We have 32 assessments.

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.

Aggregate Assessment Results (43 PhD assessments):


Unacceptable: 0, Marginal: 1.5, Acceptable: 23.42, Exceptional: 18.08, Not Applicable: 0
Acceptable or better: 97% of 43 applicable assessments


Unacceptable: 0, Marginal: 0, Acceptable: 14, Exceptional: 28, Not Applicable: 0
Acceptable or better: 100% of 42 applicable assessments 

SLO2:Oral Communication

Unacceptable: 0, Marginal: 2, Acceptable: 14.5, Exceptional: 24.5, Not Applicable: 0
Acceptable or better: 95% of 41 applicable assessments

SLO2:Written Communication

Unacceptable: 0, Marginal: 1, Acceptable: 20.58, Exceptional: 10.42, Not Applicable: 11
Acceptable or better: 97% of 32 applicable assessments

SLO3:Original Research

Unacceptable: 0, Marginal: 0, Acceptable: 12, Exceptional: 31, Not Applicable: 0
Acceptable or better: 100% of 43 applicable assessments

Overall Assessment

Unacceptable: 0, Marginal: 0, Acceptable: 16.5, Exceptional: 23.5, Not Applicable: 0
Acceptable or better: 100% of 40 applicable assessments


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.

The results show that SLO1, SLO2, and SLO3 are met at an acceptable level or better.  The results also show that the overall performance of the EE PhD program is acceptable or better. These results do not raise any red flags in any area, which suggests that no drastic actions need to be taken at this point.  The results will be shared with the graduate committee, and discussions will take place to find ways of continually improving the EE PhD program.

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 following updates to the assessments are proposed by the Graduate Chair. These updates are currently under discussion by the faculty and will be adopted after the approval of the faculty:

- Include SLO4 ``Function as a professional in the discipline’’ in the assessments. Similar to the other SLOs, assess SLO4 at the time of qualifying exam, comprehensive exam, and defense.

- Add another rubric ``Very Good'' between ``Acceptable'' and ``Exceptional'' to make more refined assessments.

- Clarify the instructions in the assessment questionnaire to better relate the assessments to the SLOs. This includes a change of wording in SLO1.

In addition, the graduate committee worked on closing the loop from the assessment results to actual actions in order to continually improve the EE PhD program. Accordingly, we are in the process of addressing the SLOs in the graduate-level course syllabi.

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