Unit: Psychology
Program: Psychology (MA)
Degree: Master's
Date: Thu Nov 19, 2020 - 4:19:41 pm

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

1. Developing knowledge and understanding: Demonstrates knowledge in one or more general subject areas related to, but not confined to, a specific area of interest.

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

2. Developing knowledge and understanding: Demonstrates an understanding of research methodology and techniques specific to one�s field of study.

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

3. Application (apply research methods; use critical thinking skills): Applies research methodology specific to one�s field of study.

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

4. Application (apply research methods; use critical thinking skills): Critically analyzes and synthesizes information and data related to one�s field of study.

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

5. Communicate Effectively: Proficiently communicates and disseminates information in a manner relevant to the field.

(5. Proficiently communicate and disseminate information in a manner relevant to the field and intended audience.)

6. Conduct responsible, ethical research: Conducts research or projects 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.)

7. Interact professionally: Interacts professionally with others.

(7. Interact professionally with others.)

8. Sociocultural and international awareness: Demonstrates an awareness and understanding of sociocultural and international diversity.

(7. Interact professionally with others.)

9. Sociocultural and international awareness: Understands the effects of culture on psychological processes and is able to apply this knowledge in research and practice.

(7. Interact professionally with others.)

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

Department Website URL: https://psychology.manoa.hawaii.edu/
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: https://psychology.manoa.hawaii.edu/learning-objectives/

3) Please review, add, replace, or delete the existing curriculum map.

Curriculum Map File(s) from 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.

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 November 1, 2018 and October 31, 2020?

Yes
No (skip to question 17)

7) What best describes the program-level learning assessment activities that took place for the period November 1, 2018 and October 31, 2020? (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)
Investigate other pressing issue related to student learning achievement for the program (explain in question 8)
Other:

8) Briefly explain the assessment activities that took place since November 2018.

1. Students are evaluated on SLOs with regard to their work related to theses and dissertations. The evaluation of SLOs is integrated in surveys committee memers need to complete after each defense. 

2. The department conducts annual student surveys. In each annual survey, students are asked to indicate whether and when they have accomplished important developmental milestones related to learning.

 

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.

All students are evaluated on SLOs based on their performance on thesis proposal, thesis, dissertation proposal, or dissertation. Specifically, evidence is collected via the following way:

 

1. IRB approvals are required for all students who conduct research that involve human subjects.

 

2. Oral defenses are required for all thesis proposal, thesis, dissertation proposal, and dissertation defenses.

 

3. Portfolio of student work is required for all clinical students.

 

4. Comprehensive exams are required for all students.

 

5. clinical practicum and internship are required for all clinical students.

 

6. Coommittee members of thesis/dissertation are required to complete online evaluation of student thesis, dissertation, and oral defense, after student defenses.

 

7.  Faculty members are asked to include SLOs in their syllabi and the department curriculum map has been developed.

 

 

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 from the evaluation, analysis, interpretation of evidence (checked in question 12). For example, report the percentage of students who achieved each SLO.

Quantitative results with regard to SLOs are collected via ratings from committee members after they evaluate students' thesis proposal and thesis. Specifically, we ask committee memebers to evaluate students' acheivement of SLOs related to six different domains: research literature and state of research questions, use of research methodology, ethics, writing, presentation, and broad impact of the study. In terms of literature review and state of research questions, 39.5% of the students received a "satisfactory" rating indicating that their research question is mostly clear but needs minor adjustments to be appropriate for a thesis or dissertation. The practical or scholarly significance for psychology is addressed but needs additional discussion to be sufficient. 49.45% of the students received an "excellent" rating indicating that their research question is clear and appropriate. The practical or scholarly significance for psychology is thoroughly addressed. 9.9% of the students received an "marginal" rating indicating that their research question is somewhat clear, but needs major adjustments to be appropriate for a thesis or dissertation. The practical or scholarly significance for psychology is only partially addressed. In terms of use of research methodology, 44.4% of the students received a "satisfactory" rating, indicating that their study methods and analyses are mostly appropriate to answer the research question(s). 51.9% of the students received an "excellent" rating, indicating that their study methods and analyses are fully appropriate to answer the research question(s). 2.5% of the students received a "marginal" rating, indicating that their study methods and analyses are somewhat appropriate to answer the research question(s). In terms of ethics, 17.3% of the students received a "satisfactory" rating, indicating that their research has minor flaws ethically. 81.5% of the students received an "excellent" rating, indicating that their research is ethically sound. In terms of writing, 39.5% of the students received a "satisfactory" rating, indicating that there are few errors of APA style and other writing conventions. Discussion of findings was mostly coherent and incorporated much of the previous work in the field. 49.4% of the students received an "excellent" rating, indicating that there are no errors of APA style and other writing conventions. Discussion of findings was coherent and fully incorporated the previous work in the field. 9.9% of the students received a "marginal" rating, indicating that there are some errors of APA style and other writing conventions. Discussion of findings was somewhat coherent and incorporated some previous work in the field. In terms of presentation, 37% of the students received a "satisfactory" rating, indicating that their oral presentation of the research study was mostly clear.  Mostly answered committee questions related to the research. Was mostly professional during the presentation and/or during the question and answer period. 60.5% of the students received an "excellent" rating, indicating that their oral presentation of the research study was clear. Thoroughly answered committee questions related to the research. Was professional and thoughtful during the presentation and/or during the question and answer period.1.2% of the students received a "marginal" rating, indicating that their oral presentation of the research study was somewhat clear. Minimally answered committee questions related to the research. Was somewhat unprofessional during the presentation and/or during the question and answer period. In terms of broad impact of the study, 50.6% of the students received a "satisfactory" rating, indicating that they mostly understands the broader impact of research and practice. Needed some additional prompting on the importance of generalizability of research findings and/or sensitivity to cultural diversity. 45.7% of the students received an "excellent" rating, indicating that they have full understanding of the broader impact of the research study on research and practice. Thorough presentation of the importance of generalizability of research findings and/or sensitivity to cultural diversity. 2.5% of the students received an "marginal" rating, indicating that they have some understanding of the broader impact of the research study on research and practice. Limited presentation of the importance of generalizability of research findings and/or sensitivity to cultural diversity.. 
 
 

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 its findings/results.

The quantitative evaluation ratings are collected after the students' defense and are used as a basis to summarize overall performance of students at MA level. The comittee members rate students' thesis/thesis proposal and decide on whether to pass the thesis and recommend students to tbe admitted to he Phd program. 

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.

In general, our department faculty feel that thesis and dissertation are the best way of evaluating students. Most of our students successfully defended their theses and were admitted into the Phd. program. 

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