Unit: Anthropology
Program: Anthropology (PhD)
Degree: Doctorate
Date: Sat Nov 03, 2018 - 4:21:39 pm

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

1. Acquire a broad knowledge of one anthropological field (archaeology, physical anthropology, linguistic anthropology or cultural anthropology;

2. Demonstrate a deep and critical knowledge of the topic that is most relevant to the research that the student plans to carry out for his or her dissertation;

3. Demonstrate a thorough familiarity with the relevant literature concerning any geographical region in which he student may plan to do research for his or her dissertation;

4. Design research projects, including an ability to formulate problems clearly, to use concepts creatively, to employ appropriate methods in data collection, and to relate empirical data to theoretical constructs;

5. Write clearly and cogently and make effective oral presentation before critical audiences.

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

Department Website URL: The URL will be provided later. The Anthropology department is currently redesigning its website and the SLOs will be published at that time.
Student Handbook. URL, if available online: It is still under development but will be made available next semester.
Information Sheet, Flyer, or Brochure URL, if available online:
UHM Catalog. Page Number:
Course Syllabi. URL, if available online:
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.

The Ph.D. dissertation defense rubric (1st draft) was approved in Spring 2017.  It was agreed that the rubric would be finalized after a pilot run.  In Fall 2017, the evaluation rubric was used by the Chair of the doctoral committee.   Very minor recommendations were made to the evaluation rubric draft in Fall 2018, and they were incorporated into the final version.

The student that was evaluated not only met expectations but exceeded expectations in every criteria.

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.

Ph.D. Dissertation Rubric- evaluated 1 student.   Used the Faculty Evaluation Rubric for Anthropology Ph.D. Dissertation (c. 2017) to evaluate the following criteria:

1.  Writing is clear, organized and of professional quality (SLO#5);

2.  Demonstrate the ability to describe clearly a well-conceptualized problem (SLO#1,4);

3.  Demonstrate the ability to integrate and critique relevant literature (SLO#1, 2, 3)

4.  Uses appropriate research methods (SLO#2, 3, 4)

5.  Demonstrate ethical considerations when conducting research (SLO#3)

6.  Presents justified and defensible conclusions (SLO#5)

7.  Demonstrate ability to orally present and defend problem, objectives, approach, and conclusions (SLO5).

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: Chair of the doctoral committee

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.

Developed draft of rubric for Ph.D. dissertation defense in December 2017.

Final draft approved by department faculty in Spring 2018 for piloting.

Rubric was piloted in Fall 2017 with one student.

Rubric was revised in Fall 2018.

The one student that was evaluated exceeded expectations for each SLO criteria in the evaluation rubric for Anthropology Ph.D. dissertation defense.

 

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.

The minor changes made to the rubric were related to clarifying the rubric instructions.  Now that the rubric is piloted and finalized, the department will distribute the rubric to doctoral students during the first semester that he/she is admitted.  This will help students to understand what are faculty expectations early in the doctoral 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.

None

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

NA