Unit: Sociology
Program: Sociology (MA)
Degree: Master's
Date: Wed Nov 14, 2018 - 1:25:39 pm

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

1. Demonstrate understanding of a broad range of sociological theories and research methods.

(1. Demonstrate comprehensive knowledge in one or more general subject areas related to, but not confined to, a specific area of interest.)

2. Demonstrate ability to design a research project to address a sociological problem or issue of theoretical interest.

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

3. Apply principles to protect human subjects in the design of sociological research.

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

4. Demonstrate ability to carry out an independent research project to collect and analyze research data.

(3. Apply research methodology and/or scholarly inquiry techniques specific to one’s field of study.)

5. Demonstrate ability to interpret research results in relation to sociological theory.

(4. Critically analyze, synthesize, and utilize information and data related to one’s field of study.)

6. Demonstrate clear and effective verbal and written communication skills.�

(5. Proficiently communicate and disseminate information in a manner relevant to the field and intended audience., 7. Interact professionally with others.)

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

Department Website URL: http://www.sociology.hawaii.edu/
Student Handbook. URL, if available online: http://www.sociology.hawaii.edu/documents/graduate_program.pdf
Information Sheet, Flyer, or Brochure URL, if available online: http://www.sociology.hawaii.edu/graduate/ma.html
UHM Catalog. Page Number: http://www.catalog.hawaii.edu/schoolscolleges/arts-sciences/departments/soc.htm
Course Syllabi. URL, if available online: http://socialsciences.people.hawaii.edu/esyllabi/index.cfm

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 faculty continue to meet every Spring to conduct an annual review of graduate students.  This review evaluated MA and PhD students, placing them in three categories: "satisfactory progress", "warning", and "drastic action" based upon time in program and accomplishment of major progress milestones, including coursework requirements, Qualifying Review exam, Comprehensive Exam, Dissertation Proposal Defense, and Dissertation Defense.  Signs of partial progress such as formation of Guidance or Dissertation Committees, guided writing of QR papers, and approval of Comprehensive Exam reading lists may also affect the evaluation.  The Chair of that student's guidance committee or dissertation committee presents an evaluation of the student, and  other relevant faculty also provided feedback.  The faculty then agree on an assessment for each student.  Then, the Chair of the Graduate program sent the students letters describing their review status, and in case of "warning" or "drastic action", the goals that must be taken to achieve satisfactory progress.

Each SLO should be achieved at latest by a particular milestone as follows: Coursework: 1, 2.  Plan A: (Thesis Proposal Defense: 3, 4.  Thesis Defense: 5, 6.)  Plan B: (Final Report: 3, 4, 5, 6).

The faculty have decided to more directly incorporate discussion of SLOs into our Annual Review standards, and discussions will be ongoing on how best to do so.



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: Thesis Proposals

10) State the number of students (or persons) who submitted evidence that was evaluated. If applicable, please include the sampling technique used.

Since milestone progress is used as a primary tool for assessment, the number of students providing materials of each type varies greatly from semester to semester, depending on the trajectories of student in the program.  One person has completed a thesis and is graduating Fall 2018.

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.

As mentioned, there is one student successfully completing their MA thesis requirements, and there were no negative outcomes reported with regards to thesis proposal or defense activities.

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.

As mentioned, the term of the current graduate chair began this semester, and thus no substantive program changes have been made yet to curriculum or procedures.

Consideration will be made of necessary changes to thesis and final report procedures to streamline workflow and clarify rules, thus providing for more prompt and reliable assessment.

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.

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