Program: Botany (PhD)
Degree: Doctorate
Date: Wed Nov 18, 2020 - 3:38:37 pm
1) Program Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs) and Institutional Learning Objectives (ILOs)
1. Demonstrated mastery of subject area including methodology and techniques
(1. Demonstrate comprehensive knowledge in one or more general subject areas related to, but not confined to, a specific area of interest., 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., 4. Critically analyze, synthesize, and utilize information and data related to one’s field of study.)
2. Demonstrated proficiency in oral and written communication
(5. Proficiently communicate and disseminate information in a manner relevant to the field and intended audience.)
3. Demonstrated ability to plan, conduct and analyze independent/original research
(3. Apply research methodology and/or scholarly inquiry techniques specific to one’s field of study., 4. Critically analyze, synthesize, and utilize information and data related to one’s field of study.)
4. Develop abilities to contribute as responsible and productive professionals in botanical sciences and related fields.
(5. Proficiently communicate and disseminate information in a manner relevant to the field and intended audience., 6. Conduct research or projects as a responsible and ethical professional, including consideration of and respect for other cultural perspectives., 7. Interact professionally with others.)
2) Your program's SLOs are published as follows. Please update as needed.
Department Website URL: http://www.botany.hawaii.edu/plant/info-botany-graduate/
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: 3) Please review, add, replace, or delete the existing curriculum map.
- File (10/27/2020)
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 SLOs6) 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.
Students in the Botany PhD program were evaluated using procedures in place in the Botany Department's PhD Program. Results from the evaluation were disseminated to faculty, who commented on them and proposed improvements to the program. Further discussion regarding implementation is ongoing.
Following the merger of the Biology, Botany, and Microbiology Departments, faculty members in the Departments' graduate programs (Zoology, Botany, and Microbiology, respectively) held extensive discussions regarding adoption of common SLOs and evaluation procedures (rubrics) for all six graduate programs (3 MS, 3 PhD). The goal is to continue working toward common standards and procedures that will allow the three programs to provide all graduate students in Life Sciences with experiences of similar quality.
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.
Seven of the nine PhD students who completed degrees during the time period were evaluated. Two were not evaluated because their MS scoring rubric was not submitted.
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.
Number of students who: (failed to meet / met / exceeded) expectations for SLOs
- 1&3 combined methodology & techniques = (0/3/4)
- 2a = oral (0/1/6)
- 2b = written (0/2/5)
- 3a = data collection (0/3/4)
- 3b = data analysis (1/2/4)
- 4 = (0/2/5)
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 its findings/results.
Discussion is taking place to determine how to improve student performance in data analysis.
A new, common set of SLOs and a more detailed rubric have been adopted (both of which are different from those used for this assessment cycle) to help gather data that are more precise and are comparable among the six Life Sciences graduate programs.
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.
A new, common set of SLOs and a more detailed rubric have been adopted to help gather data that are more precise and are comparable among Life Sciences programs.