Program: Civil Engineering (MS)
Date: Sat Nov 17, 2018 - 12:05:30 am
1) Program Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs) and Institutional Learning Objectives (ILOs)
1. Demonstrate in-depth technical knowledge in a subdiscipline of specialization
(1. Demonstrate comprehensive knowledge in one or more general subject areas related to, but not confined to, a specific area of interest.)
2. Evaluate critically and synthesize literature to inform engineering solutions
(4. Critically analyze, synthesize, and utilize information and data related to one’s field of study.)
3. Present effectively technical work orally in a formal setting
(5. Proficiently communicate and disseminate information in a manner relevant to the field and intended audience., 7. Interact professionally with others.)
4. Produce technical reports and/or publishable manuscripts
(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. Perform engineering research or conduct projects that address open-ended problems
(2. Demonstrate understanding of research methodology and techniques specific to one’s field of study., 3. Apply research methodology and/or scholarly inquiry techniques specific to one’s field of study., 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 asneeded.
Student Handbook. URL, if available online: http://www.cee.hawaii.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Civil-and-Environmental-Engineering-Graduate-Student-Handbook.pdf
Information Sheet, Flyer, or Brochure URL, if available online:
UHM Catalog. Page Number:
Course Syllabi. URL, if available online:
3) Please review, add, replace, or delete the existing curriculum map.
- File (03/16/2020)
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.)
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.
We assessed all 36 Masters students who completed their degrees during this period; including 10 Plan A and 26 Plan B.
We evaluated the results to see how well the SLOs are being achieved and if there are areas where we need modifications to facilitate improvement.
9) What types of evidence did the program use as part of the assessment activities checked in question 7? (Check all that apply.)
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.)
10) State the number of students (or persons) who submitted evidence that was evaluated. If applicable, please include the sampling technique used.
The evaluation is of the students thesis and thesis defense. All students are evaluated at that time by their thesis committee members. After completion of the exam, the committee members discuss and agree upon the varuious ratings on the evaluation form using the approved rubric.
36 MS students were evaluated.
11) Who interpreted or analyzed the evidence that was collected? (Check all that apply.)
Ad hoc faculty group
Persons or organization outside the university
Advisors (in student support services)
Students (graduate or undergraduate)
12) How did they evaluate, analyze, or interpret the evidence? (Check all that apply.)
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.
The Plan A and Plan B students scored the same on average (3.7) for the two criteria for oral presentations (3a = delivery, 3b = content and organization). The lowest scores for Plan A students was 3.40 for criteria 5a (develops research questions). The lowest scores for Plan B were 3.42 also for criteria 5a. The Plan A students scored about the same as the Plan B students on the three criteria for the thesis/report. For the four criteria on SLO#5 (perform research on open-ended problems) the Plan A students did only slightly better than the Plan B students. These results should be expected because the Plan A students generally work longer on more difficult problems with more mentoring from the their advisor and committee. The evaluation sheet also has space for comments, however very few comments were received. The comments are all complementary.
Overall, the results indicate very satisfactory performance of the MS students on the SLOs, with no deficiencies identified that would necessitate program modifications. Although all the score goals were all achieved, there are some patterns that we can learn from. The lowest scores for Plan A and B were in Developing Research Questions. This is arguably the hardest part of doing research for beginners (Masters students). The program does not have a research theory/methods course, rather research skills are taught by faculty mentoring our students typically on a one-on-one basis. The program is not prepared to offer additional classes on research methods or related topics at this time, but faculty have agreed to be sure to spend the necessary time with each student to teach research methods.
14) What best describes how the program used the results? (Check all that apply.)
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.
The students performance met expectations. The results were shared with the faculty and celebrated
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 faculty are having good discussions about the rubric and the assessment scores.