Program: Creative Media (BA)
Degree: Bachelor's
Date: Mon Apr 11, 2022 - 12:57:37 pm
1) Program Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs) and Institutional Learning Objectives (ILOs)
1. 1. Critical Thinking: Constructively critique their own and others intellectual and creative work.
(2a. Think critically and creatively)
2. 2a. Writing: Write a creative work that tells a story.
(2a. Think critically and creatively, 2c. Communicate and report)
3. 2b. Writing: Write a critical piece that applies theoretical principles.
(2b. Conduct research, 2c. Communicate and report)
4. 3. History and Aesthetics: Know the intellectual history of cinema and place their work within that history.
(1b. Specialized study in an academic field)
5. 4a. Professional Skills & Creativity: Create a visual narrative through application of appropriate principles and production skills [production & animation]
(1b. Specialized study in an academic field, 2a. Think critically and creatively, 2c. Communicate and report)
6. 4b. Professional Skills & Creativity: Conduct and communicate original research findings [critical studies]
(2b. Conduct research)
7. 4c. Professional Skills & Creativity: Understand the essential collaborative nature of creative productions by working as a team member.
(3a. Continuous learning and personal growth)
8. 5. Ethics and Responsibility: Understand and articulate the role and rights of a responsible artist.
2) Your program's SLOs are published as follows. Please update as needed.
Department Website URL: http://acm.hawaii.edu/studentinfo/#1603480745991-d9020a14-f88a
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.
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.
Our main assessment-related activity involved restructuring the curriculum.
Faculty had observed that not all students were moving from program entry to program finish in a way that helped them achieve all outcomes and ensured that they completed advanced-level courses. Thus the faculty undertook a comprehensive review of the current curriculum and used their knowledge of student strengths and weaknesses to revise the track pathways for digital cinema, critical studies (now called creative media), and animation. All faculty worked to revise the curriculum pathways with the ACM Chair and are also currently advising students of the new portfolio application review system implemented in October 2020. While all declared majors are creative media majors, the faculty hope that students will be able to chart clearer pathways through the major as well as specialize in digital cinema and animation tracks.
The faculty have piloted several curriculum ideas to begin developing a stronger pathway through the major focused on strengthening foundational classes as well as clearer movement from the 300 level track courses into the 400 level advanced courses. In addition, the faculty have also instituted a new Capstone Creative Production Class (ACM 486) for digital cinema and animation students to create ambitious projects during their senior year before graduation as a culminating project. All ACM faculty assess these capstone projects in the development stage when projects are presented to all faculty in an oral defense format at ACM Pitch Day every semester for feedback, critique, and evaluation to receive the greenlight to enroll in the course. In addition, all ACM faculty assess the success of these projects at their completion in the ACM Student Film Showcase. The results from these pilots and the review of the curriculum determined that changes were needed to the curriculum map and thus were included in the redesigned curriculum structure.
Previously for assessment of the animation track, ACM 420 was used as a culminating advanced level course to assess the progress of animation students. Since animation students currently can only participate in the ACM 486 Creative Capstone class in spring semesters, the committee recommends that both ACM 486 and ACM 420 be used for assessment endeavors.
The result of faculty efforts include the following:
● a clear pathway that is easy for students to navigate;
● a set of pathways that ensure students enter courses prepared to do the level of expected work
● a new portfolio requirement that students submit upon program entry that is used to guide students to the correct pathway and allows advisors to tailor the pathway based on student needs
● more students moving through the curriculum as a cohort
● a new capstone course that enables students in different tracks to come together and develop their projects in a collaborative class (ie. Narrative, documentary, animation, & indigenous filmmakers)
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 faculty participated in the curriculum investigation/review.
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: All faculty members of ACM12) 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.
ACM Faculty used voting rubrics as well as professional judgement for several ACM assessment projects including ACM Pitch Day, the Abernethy Screenwriting Competition, and the ACM Student Showcase.
The results of the discussions and curriculum review revealed that not all students were moving effectively through the curriculum. (E.g., some students never completed advanced coursework; other students were skipping important preparatory courses). This led to observations that the curriculum needed to be restructured and/or enhanced.
In December 2019-January 2020, Dr. Christine Acham, ACM Chair, also completed an audit of the classes all of our students had enrolled in for the different tracks which revealed and supported many of the observations submitted in this report. Students were jumping from beginnning level and foundation core classes to 400 level advanced classes as well as the Creative Captsone Course. It was also noted that students were graduating from the digital cinema track without taking a well rounded course curriculum. It was also found that there was a lack of faculty to teach the number of majors in our program which also has impacted student trajectory through the pathway.
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.
Due to the department chair’s and faculty’s enormous efforts: the entire curriculum and all course pre-requisite changes were submitted in a single semester.
Now that the decisions have been made and the paperwork submitted in Fall 2019, the faculty need to regroup and refresh their memory about the new structure and faculty need to understand how to efficiently work with students in the previous system and those on the new system especially regarding advising and portfolio submissions.
We recognize that implementation will be challenging for the faculty, particularly given the changes needed given COVID-19.
Previous methods of assessing at the program level -- e.g., the showcase and the need to better articulate standards/expectations (rubric) – still warrant further discussion from the faculty. Last year, the assessment committee noted that the voting rubric for the student showcase needed to be clarified. The committee recommends that faculty reformulate how voting and awards decisions are evaluated before the next student showcase in Spring 2021.
Possible future plans include further discussion with faculty re. the advising sheets, and possible methods in which we can employ assessment such as using ACM 486, the capstone course, and ACM 420 as a place to collect evidence of student learning.
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 ACM Chair and Faculty have created a plan for future assessment activities to assess the changes that are currently being put in place from our assessment activities last year. They include the following:
Future plans:
Spring 2021 -- finalize a plan for assessment based on the new curriculum structure (curriculum/assessment committee). The committee recommendations to formulate an action plan include the following:
● determine how to move forward with using the capstone course, ACM 420 and the ACM Spring Student Showcase to examine student achievement;
● determine how judging rubrics could be utilized for the Abernethy Screenwriting Competition; faculty discussion regarding the creation of a separate animation screenwriting award or a fairer distribution of award funding amongst digital cinema and animation projects through the competition
● determine the role of the evidence that might be able to be collected from the Hawaiʻi International Film Festival (HIFF) in which students submit and are evaluated by external evaluation and judging. We may also consider surveying students regarding why they do and or do not submit to HIFF so we can better understand how to encourage students to submit their work to external film festivals
● determine if encouragement in faculty nominations of projects for external film festival submissions and/or nominations of students for student grants, awards and fellowships could be built into annual calendar and used for assessment
● determine if CILECT (International Association of Film and Television Schools) film prize competition could be incorporated into faculty assessment goals
● determine if end of year track surveys and exit surveys may be a possibility for assessment
Fall 2021 -- inform the faculty and get feedback (invite student comments/feedback) on new curriculum structure
Spring 2022 -- pilot the plan and collect/evaluate student work
Fall 2022 -- faculty discussion of what was learned about teaching and learning from the pilot; finalize assessment plan