Program: Environmental Design (BEnvD)
Date: Thu Nov 15, 2018 - 10:20:53 am
1) Program Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs) and Institutional Learning Objectives (ILOs)
1. Design Skills and Methods Understand the variety of design methods and demonstrate ability in applying them to analyze contexts, formulate concepts, evolve multiple solutions, and critically judge final designs incorporating cultural, technological, aesthetic, and ethical concerns.
(1b. Specialized study in an academic field, 2a. Think critically and creatively, 2b. Conduct research, 3a. Continuous learning and personal growth, 3d. Civic participation)
2. Design Communication Ability to use a variety of analog, digital, verbal, and written means to conceptualize, represent, and clearly communicate critical and complex design proposals.
(1b. Specialized study in an academic field, 2a. Think critically and creatively, 2c. Communicate and report)
3. Design Technology Understand materials, methods, and technological systems in environmental design communication and the construction of built environments, and be able to critically evaluate and apply them in final design solutions.
(1b. Specialized study in an academic field)
4. Sustainability in Environmental Design Understand and design projects that optimize, conserve, or reuse natural and built resources to provide healthful environments to users, and reduce the negative environmental impacts of building construction and operations on future generations.
(1b. Specialized study in an academic field, 1c. Understand Hawaiian culture and history, 2b. Conduct research, 3b. Respect for people and cultures, in particular Hawaiian culture, 3c. Stewardship of the natural environment)
5. Interdisciplinary Problem Solving and Design Research Understand and engage in collaborative interdisciplinary team-based research using appropriate methodologies in order to arrive at increased understanding and derive holistic and responsible environmental design solutions connecting to diverse technological, social, cultural, and environmental concerns.
(1a. General education, 1b. Specialized study in an academic field, 2a. Think critically and creatively, 2b. Conduct research, 3a. Continuous learning and personal growth, 3b. Respect for people and cultures, in particular Hawaiian culture, 3d. Civic participation)
6. History and Theory in Environmental Design Understand the historical and theoretical forces which impact current design thinking and provide critical insight into the shaping of cultural and social relationships, values, and decisions about the built and natural environment.
(1a. General education, 1b. Specialized study in an academic field, 1c. Understand Hawaiian culture and history, 2c. Communicate and report, 3b. Respect for people and cultures, in particular Hawaiian culture)
7. Professional Practice Understand the roles, methods, collaborative processes, and ethical considerations of the environmental design professions and their impact on local and global environmental contexts.
(1b. Specialized study in an academic field, 2b. Conduct research, 3a. Continuous learning and personal growth, 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: SLOs have been included on syllabi as "Student Performance Criteria" from the National Architecture Accrediting Board
Other: We plan to include the new SLOs on the website and all syllabi moving forward.
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)
Other: Since we have adopted new SLOs this year, we have not yet assessed student's work with the new framework. This will be done for the first time in December at our semester Faculty Review. Each faculty member will demonstrate how their classes met the assigned SLOs and we will discuss which SLOs best fit the content of each course after reviewing student work.
8) Briefly explain the assessment activities that took place.
We hold a faculty review session at the end of each semester, during which all faculty present student work from all their classes. We collectively discuss the students' achievements in relation to the SLOs, including whether students are meeting SLO criteria or whether there is a need for improvement and modification of our program.
In Spring 2018, our Doctor of Architecture program was accredited by NAAB. As a part of the accreditation process, we also reviewed and presented student work from the BEnvD program for the previous three years, according to high and low achievements. This extensive process, which required the review of hundreds of pieces of student work constituted the most complete and comprehensive assessment of our program and SLOs to date.
As a result of previous assessments and the NAAB accreditation visit, we elected to write a new set of SLOs in Fall 2018 which we will use moving forward.
We substantially shorted and streamlined our list of SLOs, reducing them from roughly 60 to 7 for coherence and manageability. At the time of this report, we have not yet assessed student work according to the new SLO framework. At the end of the Fall 2018 semester, we will assess the extent to which students have met the new SLOs, and discuss the SLOs in relation to the new curriculum map attached here. At that time, we will determine whether the curriculum map with the new SLOs accurately reflects course content and student achievement.
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.
Student work (2 examples of high and low achievement) are presented for each undergraduate course at our end-of-semester review, and other work is discussed. We also conduct studio visits to see all completed creative work. In this framework, we directly review the work of between 50-70 students per semester.
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.
Because we have not used the new SLOs in this report to review student work, we do not yet have data to report. Using the previous SLO framework, we typically found that roughly 60-70% of our students were meeting all of the SLOs. However, because the list was so long and detailed (with over 60 SLOs), it was exceedingly difficult to score and evaluate all students in a way that reflected their overall achievement. With an updated and refined list of SLOs, we expect that a higher percentage of our students will achieve all of the stated SLOs.
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 used the results of our previous end-of-semester assessments in order to write a new list of SLOs for Fall 2018 and beyond. Faculty discussions about how best to implement the new SLOs will continue over the course of this semster, as we refine the inetgration of the SLOs into the new curriculum map, and discuss strategies for collecting and evaluating student work in future assessments.
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.
Our previous (and very long) list of SLOs was based specifically on the NAAB (National Architecture Accrediting Board) Student Performance Criteria (SPC) for accreditation as an architecture program. Through conducting our semester reviews and assembling student work for NAAB accreditation, we realized that the SLO/SPCs we had were too complicated and far too specific to allow for thorough assessment of the BEnvD program. While the SLO/SPCs reflected the skill set necessary for accreditation as a professional architecture program, we believe that BEnvD SLOs need to be more holistic and fluid to reflect the interdisciplinary nature of the degree. As a result, we elected to write SLOs that were not so narrowly architecture-specific, and which more accurately reflect the diversity of education in environmental design.
17) If the program did not engage in assessment activities, please justify.