Degree Program Assessment Reports : View Reports

Unit: Second Language Studies
Program: Second Language Studies (MA)
Degree: Master's
Date: Fri Nov 13, 2020 - 10:10:25 am

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

1. Knowledge Base of Second Language Studies: Our graduates will develop familiarity with topics and concepts fundamental to the broad knowledge base of the field of Second Language Studies, including: (a) the scope of issues and methods in applied linguistics, (b) linguistic analysis, (c) second language acquisition, and (c) sociolinguistics. They will also understand how their own interests in SLS relate to the larger academic, educational, and sociopolitical contexts of the discipline.

2. Utilization of Research: Our graduates will be able to access, understand, and critically evaluate the current SLS research literature and engage in systematic investigation of topics and concepts in the SLS knowledge base to inform their own and others' professional practices.

(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., 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.)

3. Professionalism: Our graduates will acquire the disposition to continue professional development for the duration of their careers, seeking increased knowledge of themselves and the discipline while remaining flexible and open to change. To do so, they will acquire the skills to communicate and interact effectively with their colleagues, in order to promote effective and ethical professional environments. In addition, our graduates will be able to communicate skillfully about their SLS work, both orally (e.g., at work or professional meetings) and in writing (e.g., through in-house reports and/or articles in professional newsletters and journals).

(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: https://www.hawaii.edu/sls/graduate/ma/ma-program/

Student Handbook. URL, if available online: https://www.hawaii.edu/sls/wp-content/uploads/201006_SLS-Academic-Handbook_rvsdOct2020.pdf

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.

Curriculum Map File(s) from 2020:

File (11/12/2020)

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.

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):

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.

Performance by all MA students in the program is assessed on an on-going basis through evaluation of performance in coursework and interactions between students and faculty. We find these mostly informal assessments provide important qualitative information about how our program meets individual students' needs, and how students meet our program expectations.

For the quantitative program-level assessment presented in this report, we analysed exit-survey data from MA students who graduated in AY18/19 and AY19/20. This data consists of graduates' self-evaluation of attainment of program SLOs. This survey is distributed annually through the College of LLL and includes questions specifically targeted at evaluation of our program 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.

Performance by all MA students in the program (fluctuating around 40 total) is assessed on an on-going basis through performance in coursework and interactions between students and faculty. All graduate faculty members (currently 11) are involved in these interactions.

For the quantitative program-level assessment presented in this report, we analysed exit-survey data from MA students who graduated in AY18/19 and AY19/20. This data consists of graduates' self-evaluation of attainment of program SLOs. A total of 35 students graduated from our MA program during that time; 31 of them completed the exit survey.

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: Graduate Chair, Graduate Program Assistant

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.

For the exit-survey questions (aligned with SLOs 1-3) listed below, students are asked to respond on a scale of 1 ('not at all') to 5 ('very well'). For each question, we indicate the number of respondents (out of 31) who selected 4 or 5:

14. Self-assessment of learning outcomes.

Knowledge base of SLS: “To what extent have you developed familiarity with...?” {SLO#1}

(a) the scope of issues and methods in applied linguistics: 24/31

(b) linguistic analysis: 18/31

(d) sociolinguistics: 25/31

Utilization of Research: “To what extent are you able to…..” {SLO#2}

(a) access, understand, and critically evaluate the current SLS research literature: 25/31

(b) engage in systematic investigation of topics and concepts in the SLS knowledge base to inform your own and others' practices: 25/31

Professionalism: “To what extent have you acquired….” {SLO#3}

(a) the disposition to continue professional development for the duration of your career, seeking increased knowledge of yourself and the discipline while remaining flexible and open to change: 28/31

(b) the skills to interact effectively with your colleagues, in order to promote effective and ethical professional environments: 25/31

These results indicate that the majority of MA graduates considers themselves as having met SLOs 'well' or 'very well'. There is some variability in these ratings for the different subspecializations in SLO1 (Knowledge base). We believe this is due in large part to variability in students' own interests and their consequent (dis)investment in acquiring knowledge in different subareas. (See response to Q15 regarding program level changes in SL analysis area, prompted in part by exit survey data.)

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.

Program-related insights deriving from instructors' assessment of students' course performance and advisors' interactions with students feed into department conversations on a regular and on-going basis. The annual exit survey results, which are shared with graduate faculty, contribute further feedback on how students are performing in our program and how our program is performing for our students. As a result, we are able to make minor adjustments and additions to the program on an on-going basis. Let me provide two recent examples:

1) Earlier this semester, we had heard from students - mostly through informal interactions - that they feel they do not know enough about the peer-review process for academic publication in the field (relevant to SLO#3, professionalism). As a result, we offered a panel discussion by faculty members including Q&A during our regular Thursday Brownbag slot (10/8/2020). Student feedback was very positive, and we are planning a follow-up event for early Spring.

2) Informal student communciation, as well as feedback on recent annual exist surveys, had indicated some concerns about SLO#1 in the Second Language Analysis subarea. This is reflected in the numbers reported above (Q13): 18/31 graduates evaluated their attained knowledge in this domain as 4 or 5 on a 1-5 scale. 8 selected a score of 3 ("adequate") while 3 selected a score of 2. This indication of a minority, yet still a substantial number, of students not feeling fully prepared in this knowledge domain prompted us to review the core course in this subfield (SLS 441). This review revealed that the dynamics in this class had shifted significantly over the years due to the fact that 441 had become a required course for the BA in SLS program, in addition to being a required course for MA students. The resultant mix of BA and MA students, both taking the class for core requirements, proved to be problematic for some. As a result, we created a now approved new SL analysis course at the undergraduate level (SLS 301), with the expectation that this will also serve to improve dynamics in SLS 441 and MA students' learning outcomes in SL analysis.

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.

(see response to previous question)

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

2. Utilization of Research: Our graduates will be able to access, understand, and critically evaluate the current SLS research literature and engage in systematic investigation of topics and concepts in the SLS knowledge base to inform their own and others' professional practices.

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

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

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):

6) Did your program engage in any program learning assessment activities between November 1, 2018 and October 31, 2020?

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.)

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

9) What types of evidence did the program use as part of the assessment activities checked in question 7? (Check all that apply.)

10) State the number of students (or persons) who submitted evidence that was evaluated. If applicable, please include the sampling technique used.

11) Who interpreted or analyzed the evidence that was collected? (Check all that apply.)

12) How did they evaluate, analyze, or interpret the evidence? (Check all that apply.)

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.

14) What best describes how the program used the results? (Check all that apply.)

15) Please briefly describe how the program used its findings/results.

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.

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