Unit: BusAdmin PhD
Program: Business Administration (PhD)
Degree: Doctorate
Date: Fri Nov 16, 2018 - 3:49:33 pm

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

1. Demonstrate comprehensive knowledge in the field of specialization and business administration in general

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

2. Demonstrate the aptitude for designing and conducing research in the area of specialization and business administration

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

3. Demonstrate the ability to analyze, synthesize, and utilize quantitative and/or qualitative data in the domain of inquiry

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

4. Create knowledge in the area of specialization and business administration as a field as demonstrated by publication in peer-reviewed journals, peer-reviewed conference proceedings, and dissertation research.

(3. Apply research methodology and/or scholarly inquiry techniques specific to one’s field of study., 5. Proficiently communicate and disseminate information in a manner relevant to the field and intended audience.)

5. Proficiently communicates and disseminates information orally and in writing in a manner relevant to the field.

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

6. Collaborate on scholarly projects with colleagues and peers.

(7. Interact professionally with others.)

7. Value the importance of conducting research as a responsible and ethical professional.

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

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

Department Website URL: http://shidler.hawaii.edu/phd
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:
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.

We carry out annual assessment activities at the end of spring semester. We use both direct and indirect data collection method to determine if students make satisfactory progress toward program completion as stipulated in the program handbook, i.e.

  • Maintain a GPA of 3.0 or higher each semester
  • Receive a grade of B or higher in all doctoral seminars
  • Pass a qualifying exam by the end of the first year
  • Pass a comprehensive exam by the end of the second year
  • Complete and successfully defend a dissertation proposal by the end of the third year
  • Complete and successfully defend a dissertation by the end of the fourth year

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.

In Spring/Summer 2017, we requested all students in the program (28) to complete a survey. All of them did it. Qualifying exams were given to 7 first-year students. Comprehensive exams were given to 7 second-year students.

In Spring/Summer 2018, we requested 5 students who are not in good academic standing as stipulated in the program handbook and 5 third-year students who has not yet defended their dissertation proposal to self-report their progress. All of them provided inputs needed for evaluation. Qualifying exams were given to 3 first-year students and 1 second-year student. Comprehensive exams were given to 8 second-year students. There were 3 students who submitted their dissertation for evaluation.

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: Program Coordinator

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.

In Spring/Summer 2017, we celebrated the graduation of 7 students. 7 out of 28 Students were not in good academic standing as stipulated in the program handbook. One of them did not pass the qualifying exam (SLO 2). Another did not take the comprehensive exam (SLO 1) in a timely manner. The rest was in the dissertation stage (SLO 4 and SLO 5).

In Spring/Summer 2018, we celebrated the graduation of 3 students. Students who were admitted in 2016 and 2017 have made satisfactory progress. They achieved their first year (SLO 2) or second year (SLO 1) milestones. 10 out of 32 Students were not in good academic standing. One did not take the comprehensive exam (SLO 1) in a timely manner. The rest was in the dissertation stage (SLO 4 and SLO 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.

From the results, we learned that although students have comprehensive knowledge in the field of their specialization and understanding of research methodology and techniques used in their discipline, many of them have difficulties mastering their knowledge and research skills in the process of developing a dissertation proposal. Based on the results from Spring/Summer 2018 assessment, only one out of 6 students managed to develop and defend the disseration proposal in a timely manner. 

We requested facultiy advisors designated as representatives from respective areas of specialization to set up a meeting with students to learn more about their progress and difficulties that they encountered. Doing so enabled the program to address their problems and help them develop an action plan to bring them back on path toward their proposal and future dissertation.

We also made adjustments to the assessment procedure. Instead of asking all students to evaluate themselves and asking faculty members who interact with students to evaluate students' progress, the program conducted the assessment using information shown in students' online records (STAR). Additional inquiries were made to students in the third year and above to collect information on their progress toward dissertation proposal defense and final dissertation defense. We then shared a summary of students' progress with designated faculty advisors aka department representatives who serve as an intermediary between the porgram and faculty in their department.

The adjustments were made because we did not learn much from data provided in Spring 2017 by both students and faculty members through surveys. Comparing to the procedure used in previous years, the new procedure gave the program a better picture of where students are in their journey toward the PhD.

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.

There are a few lessons learned from Spring/Summer 2018 assessment.
1) The program needs a document that describes assessment procedures.
2) Any changes to assessment procedures should be discussed with department representatives who serve as an intermediary between the porgram and faculty in their department prior to adoption.

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

N/A