Unit: Anatomy, Biochemistry, Physiology
Program: Developmental & Reproductive Biology (MS)
Degree: Master's
Date: Fri Nov 02, 2018 - 6:52:24 am

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

1. Demonstrate comprehensive knowledge in Developmental and Reproductive Biology, including major concepts and techniques

(1. Demonstrate comprehensive knowledge in one or more general subject areas related to, but not confined to, a specific area of interest., 2. Demonstrate understanding of research methodology and techniques specific to one’s field of study., 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., 5. Proficiently communicate and disseminate information in a manner relevant to the field and intended audience., 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. Critically evaluate research data and theories in literature in Developmental and Reproductive Biology and those relevant to one�s research projects

(1. Demonstrate comprehensive knowledge in one or more general subject areas related to, but not confined to, a specific area of interest., 2. Demonstrate understanding of research methodology and techniques specific to one’s field of study., 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., 5. Proficiently communicate and disseminate information in a manner relevant to the field and intended audience., 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.)

3. Orally discuss and present one�s research projects to peers/advisors.

(1. Demonstrate comprehensive knowledge in one or more general subject areas related to, but not confined to, a specific area of interest., 2. Demonstrate understanding of research methodology and techniques specific to one’s field of study., 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., 5. Proficiently communicate and disseminate information in a manner relevant to the field and intended audience., 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.)

4. Interact professionally with peers/advisors in broader academic contexts.

(1. Demonstrate comprehensive knowledge in one or more general subject areas related to, but not confined to, a specific area of interest., 2. Demonstrate understanding of research methodology and techniques specific to one’s field of study., 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., 5. Proficiently communicate and disseminate information in a manner relevant to the field and intended audience., 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://www3.jabsom.hawaii.edu/Grad_DRB/index.html
Student Handbook. URL, if available online: http://www3.jabsom.hawaii.edu/Grad_DRB/students.html
Information Sheet, Flyer, or Brochure URL, if available online: http://www3.jabsom.hawaii.edu/Grad_DRB/students.html
UHM Catalog. Page Number: http://www.catalog.hawaii.edu/courses/departments/drb.htm
Course Syllabi. URL, if available online: http://www3.jabsom.hawaii.edu/Grad_DRB/students.html
Other:
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.

Qualifying exam

Course-specific exams (DRB 601)

Study reports and presentations (DRB 614, DRB 666, CMB 626)

Professional judgment of instructors/research supervisors (DRB 695)

Comprehensive exam

Dissertation and final exam (defense)

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.

1. Student survey was conducted for all registered students for the corresponding courses, including DRB graduate students

as well as non-DRB students: DRB 601 (8), DRB 613 (9), DRB 614 (4), CMB 621 (2)

 

2. Embedded exams were conducted for all registered students for the corresponding courses: DRB 601 (8), CMB 621 (2)

 

3. Oral performance: DRB 695 (2); DRB 614 (4)

 

4. Thesis (4)

 

5. Qualifying exam (3)

 

6. Faculty discussion (5; program committee members)

 

7. Exit survey (2)

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.

1. Student survey generally covers the four main questions: i) Gained a good understanding of factual materials and concepts in this field, ii) Lecturer’s oral presentation was clear and effective, iii) Lecturer’s slides were organized and helpful, and iv) Had sufficient background to follow the lecture. Generally, the students gave very positive response to the questions i), ii) and iii), as the averages were about 4.5-4.8 out of 5 (5 being the best) for all the course that were offered from the DRB program. In response to the question iv), on the other hand, was 4.2-4.5 out of 5. Even though we consider this high enough, it implies that some students may not have enough background to keep up with the fast pace of the courses.

 

2. Embedded exams tested whether the students gained sufficient knowledge and understanding that were presented during the courses. All the students passed all the exams.

 

3. Oral performances of the students were satisfactory based on the instructors’ professional judgment.

 

4. The students defended their theses successfully.

 

5. All the students passed the qualifying exams.

 

6. The DRB program committee members meet in person few times per year to discuss the program.

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.

Student survey, including any additional comments that were made by the students, were used to improve the quality and contents of the courses for the next year. Embedded exams were used to assess students learning with respect to course materials and instructors performance. Any observations made of quality of students oral presentitons and theses preparations were used to amend relevant instructional activities.

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.

We recently updated student survey by creating an exit survey for graduating students. This survey is informative regarding students satisfaction with various aspects of the program, such as 1) Program overall, 2) Chair’s performance, 3) Usefulness of our website, 4) Orientation, 5) Administrative assistance, etc.

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

Not applicable