Unit: Kawaihuelani Center for Hawaiian Language
Program: Hawaiian (BA)
Degree: Bachelor's
Date: Mon Nov 05, 2018 - 3:38:50 pm

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

1. Speaking: Engage in conversations, provide and obtain information, express feelings and emotions, and exchange opinions on more abstract topics at an advanced level of fluency and accuracy

(1b. Specialized study in an academic field)

2. Speaking: Present information, concepts, and ideas to an audience of listeners at an advanced level of fluency and accuracy

(1b. Specialized study in an academic field)

3. Listening: Understand and interpret spoken Hawaiian at an advanced level on a variety of topics beyond the immediacy of the situation

(1b. Specialized study in an academic field)

4. Reading: Comprehend and interpret a wide variety of texts written in Hawaiian that are more conceptually abstract and linguistically complex, and/or texts that focus on unfamiliar topics and situations (e.g., primary source materials like literature, poetry, newspaper articles written by native speakers of Hawaiian)

(1b. Specialized study in an academic field)

5. Writing: Present information, concepts, and ideas to an audience of readers in a variety of more lengthy written forms about a number of possible topics using advanced vocabulary, expressions, and structures

(1b. Specialized study in an academic field, 2c. Communicate and report)

6. Cultures, Comparisons, Connections, Communities: Deepen understanding of and respect for the Hawaiian culture and its people through the study of unique practices, perspectives, issues, and products of the culture that are expressed through and embedded in the Hawaiian language.

(1b. Specialized study in an academic field, 3b. Respect for people and cultures, in particular Hawaiian culture)

7. Cultures, Comparisons, Connections, Communities: Continue to develop insight into the nature of language and culture by comparing Hawaiian language and culture to other languages and cultures.

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

8. Cultures, Comparisons, Connections, Communities: Expand and broaden appropriate application of Hawaiian language and culture in authentic settings within and beyond the classroom in order to connect to other disciplines, contexts, and domains, access information, and interact with others in the Hawaiian language community.

(1b. Specialized study in an academic field, 1c. Understand Hawaiian culture and history, 2a. Think critically and creatively, 3b. Respect for people and cultures, in particular Hawaiian culture, 3d. Civic participation)

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

Department Website URL: http://manoa.hawaii.edu/nhss/academicadvising/kawaihuelani-majors/undergraduate-program-requirements/
Student Handbook. URL, if available online: http://manoa.hawaii.edu/nhss/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Fall-2017-Welina-Kawaihuelani-Student-Handbook-Final.pdf
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.

Kawaihuelani started a new program assessment process since June 2015, focused primarily on the first basic steps of program assessment within the context of our First Year Hawaiian language courses (HAW 101 & 102). A subcommittee of the faculty who regularly teach our First Year courses met for the past three years under the leadership of one of Kawaihuelani’s Associate Professors as well as our department’s Assistant Specialist for Curriculum in order to revisit previously created program materials/documents for this language level (e.g., Program SLOs, internal articulation agreements), revise these where necessary, and then create new materials/documents/processes (e.g., course SLOs, exam, rubric) for the purposes of aligning the content, pedagogy, and student learning outcomes of our First Year courses as well as assessing our student’s learning at this important entry point into our program. It had been over 5 years since a thorough review of our First Year Hawaiian courses had been done so it was time. Our hope was that through this process, our students and instructors would become more aware of expectations in terms of what should be taught and learned in these courses, our students would be better prepared to matriculate through our undergraduate curriculum no matter who their instructor is, and, thus, be poised to succeed in their coursework. Please see question #13 for a description of the specific outcomes of this important process.

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.

No direct or indirect evidence of student learning was collected during this round of assessment. Instead, we focused our attention on the important early steps of program assessment: establishing SLOs, determining learning opportunities, and creating the tools and processes needed to begin collecting and analyzing evidence of student learning in the coming years.

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: No data from students was collected; instead program documents were collected, analyzed, and updated in preparation for assessment of student learning in the coming years.

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

During this timeframe, our ad hoc faculty committee...

  • created standard course SLOs for our First Year Hawaiian courses (HAW 101 & 102). Prior to this, Kawaihuelani only had Program SLOs for key points in our undergraduate curriculum (after HAW 202 and upon completion of a BA in Hawaiian). We also had standardized Course SLOs for HAW 202 and 402, but up until this point, faculty who taught HAW 101 & 102 created their own, specific Course SLOs that aligned with our Program SLOs, and these did not have to be the same across all sections. However, our First Year faculty subcommittee decided to work together over the last few years to craft standard Course SLOs for HAW 101 & 102 that would align with our Program SLOs so that all students would be striving for the same outcomes and all instructors would be teaching towards the same outcomes across Kawaihuelani. We researched other First Year language Course SLOs at other institutions, including HAW courses throughout the UH system. We also examined the Can-Do statements and proficiency guidelines set by the American Council for the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) and made sure to align our new Course SLOs with these well-established standards, leaving room, however, for deviations given the uniqueness of Hawaiian. The final Course SLOs for HAW 101 & 102 that were created last year were then disseminated throughout our department in early Summer 2018 with the expectation that all First Year instructors would begin using these new Course SLOs in Fall 2018.
  • updated and revised our First Year articulation documents that outline what content (e.g., grammatical sentence patterns, vocabulary) and pedagogies should be taught in our HAW 101 & 102 courses regardless of instructor. The foundation of this revision process is the revolutionary research by our late colleague, Professor Sam L. Noʻeau Warner. His meta-linguistic system for Hawaiian language reflects Hawaiian thinking and rules of grammar modeled after the language spoken and written by Native speakers of Hawaiian. The pedagogy that facilitates the teaching and learning of this new system in the classroom is founded in activity-based teaching of language, where oral-aural use of language in specific contexts is stressed, emphasizing the students’ abilities to ask and answer questions that are appropriate to those contexts. His research is what guided the changes we made to our articulation document. This revised document was then disseminated throughout our department in early Summer 2018 with the expectation that all First Year instructors would begin following it in creating their syllabi and assignments for HAW 101 & 102 courses taught in Fall 2018.
  • began drafting standard final exams for HAW 101 & 102, which align with the new Course SLOs as well as the content and pedagogies outlined in the revised First Year articulation document.
  • began drafting rubrics based on the new Course SLOs to be used to assess these new final exams when implemented.

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.

As a result of our review of existing program assessment procedures and documents, we developed new Course SLOs and revised our internal articulation documents for our First Year Hawaiian courses (HAW 101 & 102). We then used these new documents to help us begin drafting final exams for HAW 101 & 102 that align with these new Course SLOs along with rubrics to assess these exams for achievement of student learning outcomes. While the focus was on the final exams, the new Course SLOs and revised articulation document also sparked exciting conversations about and workshops to create new lessons, activities, teaching materials, etc. that reflect these governing documents.

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.

Beyond the development of the program assessment documents themselves, the most valuable outcome of this process so far has been the coming together of teachers who are actually teaching these courses to create these standards. This process was not only initiated by these instructors who saw a need but was then carried forward by them over the last few years. Many of our First Year teachers are I-2 faculty or even temporary lecturers, but they committed to seeing this work through because they saw the value in it for their students. Instead of a committee made up of senior faculty who may not have taught HAW 101 or 102 in years, we instead chose the approach that those in the classroom everyday are the ones who see what is working and was is not, and therefore they need to be a strong voice in the development of the SLOs, content, pedagogy, and assessment procedures for those courses. The success of this approach is also informing how we are thinking about continuing this process for our Second Year Hawaiian classes.

 

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