Unit: English
Program: English (BA)
Degree: Bachelor's
Date: Thu Nov 15, 2018 - 10:53:42 am

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

1. Demonstrate an ability to read critically and interpret a variety of texts

(1a. General education, 2a. Think critically and creatively)

2. Demonstrate in writing the comprehension, analysis, and interpretation of a variety of texts.

(1a. General education, 1b. Specialized study in an academic field, 2a. Think critically and creatively, 2b. Conduct research, 2c. Communicate and report)

3. Demonstrate knowledge and comprehension of texts and traditions in different historical periods.

(1a. General education, 1b. Specialized study in an academic field, 2a. Think critically and creatively, 2b. Conduct research)

4. Use secondary sources in the analysis and interpretation of texts.

(1a. General education, 1b. Specialized study in an academic field, 2a. Think critically and creatively, 2b. Conduct research, 2c. Communicate and report)

5. Demonstrate knowledge and comprehension of Hawai'i's geographic and cultural location in the Pacific.

(1a. General education, 1c. Understand Hawaiian culture and history, 2a. Think critically and creatively, 3b. Respect for people and cultures, in particular Hawaiian culture)

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

Department Website URL: http://english.hawaii.edu/undergraduate-program/
Student Handbook. URL, if available online:
Information Sheet, Flyer, or Brochure URL, if available online:
UHM Catalog. Page Number: English program information page (online)
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.

As part of the on-going efforts to assess and revise the undergraduate curriculum, we analyzed graduating students’ self reports, as recorded in the annual English BA Student Exit Surveys from Fall 2015 to Spring/Summer 2018. One goal was to assess the overall efficacy of each of the SLOs, by asking students how well they thought they demonstrated proficiency in each of the SLOs at the end of their undergraduate majors in English. In order to prepare for the upcoming assessment and revision of the SLOs for ENG 320, Introduction to English Studies (the only course required of all English Majors), we also looked at how well they thought the class had helped them achieve specific SLOs.

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.

A total of 200 students answered the survey questions in the three Exit Surveys from Fall 2017 to Summer 2018. Students answered questions on a 1-5 scale (see below) and were also invited to submit individual comments.

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 Learning Outcomes. Question 26 on the Exit Surveys (a total of 200 students responded)       

 

SLO

To what extent can you do the following?

Not at all

1

 

 

2

Adequate

 

3

 

 

4

Very Well

5

Total of

Adequate or Better

3-5

1

Demonstrate an ability to read critically and interpret a variety of texts

 

0

(0%)

 

1

(.5%)

 

22

(11%)

 

60

(30%)

 

117

(58.5%)

 

 

99.5%

2

Demonstrate in writing the comprehension, analysis, and interpretation of a variety of texts

 

0

(0%)

 

2

(1%)

 

17

(8%)

 

75

(37.50%)

 

107

(53.50%)

 

 

99%

3

Demonstrate knowledge and comprehension of texts and traditions in different historical periods

 

1

(.5%)

 

6

(3%)

 

31

(22%)

 

72

(37.5%)

 

92

(37%)

 

 

96.5%

4

Use secondary sources in the analysis and interpretation of texts

 

0

(.5%)

 

2

(2.5%)

 

13

(15%)

 

18

(36%)

 

36

(46%)

 

 

97%

5

Demonstrate knowledge of Hawaii and/or Pacific texts in cultural and historical context*

 

4

(2%)

 

20

(10%)

 

58

(29%)

 

66

(33%)

 

52

(26%)

 

 

87.5%

 

*This question is stated differently in 2015 Curriculum Map, which reads “Demonstrate knowledge and comprehension of Hawaii’s geographic and cultural location in the Pacific”)

 

2. ENG 320 “Introduction to English Studies” Questions 10 and 11 on the Exit Survey

N=200

 

 

 

1

Not at all

2

3

4

5

Very much

10.

How much did the literary and/or rhetorical criticism presented in ENG 320 help you to become a more critical/analytical reader in subsequent English Department classes? [SLO 1]

 

18

(9%)

 

22

(11%)

 

43

(21.5%)

 

54

(27%)

 

63

(31.5%)

11.

How effective was ENG 320 in introducing you to the appropriate style formats for the discipline and to major bibliographic work? [SLO 4]

 

21

(10.5%)

 

24

(12%)

 

51

(25.5%)

 

49

(24.5%)

 

55

(27.5%)

 

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.

1. Results on SLOs in exit survey were mostly good (high percentages), but we are continuing to tweak the Curriculum Map and SLOs. Language for some SLOs were revised and the map now indicates that ENG 320 and 400 level Studies courses are targeted for assessment.  

2. Details for ENG 320 assessment to be undertaken in spring 2019 are in process this semester.

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.

The review of the curriculum and the revision of the curriculum map has also produced other decisions.

1. Because ENG 320 has for some time been perceived (students and faculty) as not serving the undergraduate population as a whole with its emphasis on literary theories, the department is considering splitting the course into two (402 would be the second course), with theory being in both but downplayed in the new 320 and emphasized in 402. The target population for 402 is those students planning on advanced degrees.

2. The department is discussing altering the historical breadth requirement.

3. A new course has been added, ENG 497, “Career Decisions for Majors/Minors,” to help students prepare for the job market and for post-baccalaureate programs.

4. For advising purposes, the department has approved organizing courses into Pathways: Creative Writing; Literary Histories and Genres; Cultural and Literary Geographies; Composition, Rhetoric, and Pedagogy; Writing, Editing, and Digital Media.

5. The Curriculum Commitee in spring 2019 will review the student exit survey to line it up better with the new curriculum map and to add questions about the new course ENG 497, pathways, and advising.
 

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

n/a