Program: Business Administration (PhD)
Degree: Doctorate
Date: Tue Nov 03, 2020 - 4:39:53 pm
1) Program Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs) and Institutional Learning Objectives (ILOs)
1. Demonstrate comprehensive knowledge in the field of specialization and business administration in general
(1. Demonstrate comprehensive knowledge in one or more general subject areas related to, but not confined to, a specific area of interest.)
2. Demonstrate the aptitude for designing and conducing research in the area of specialization and business administration
(2. Demonstrate understanding of research methodology and techniques specific to one’s field of study.)
3. Demonstrate the ability to analyze, synthesize, and utilize quantitative and/or qualitative data in the domain of inquiry
(4. Critically analyze, synthesize, and utilize information and data related to one’s field of study.)
4. Create knowledge in the area of specialization and business administration as a field as demonstrated by publication in peer-reviewed journals, peer-reviewed conference proceedings, and dissertation research.
(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. Proficiently communicates and disseminates information orally and in writing in a manner relevant to the field.
(5. Proficiently communicate and disseminate information in a manner relevant to the field and intended audience., 7. Interact professionally with others.)
6. Collaborate on scholarly projects with colleagues and peers.
(7. Interact professionally with others.)
7. Value the importance of conducting research 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.)
2) Your program's SLOs are published as follows. Please update as needed.
Department Website URL: http://shidler.hawaii.edu/phd
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 (11/04/2020)
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.
- Maintain a GPA of 3.0 or higher each semester
- Receive a grade of B or higher in all doctoral seminars
- Pass a qualifying exam by the end of the first year
- Pass a comprehensive exam by the end of the second year
- Complete and successfully defend a dissertation proposal by the end of the third year
- Complete and successfully defend a dissertation by the end of the fourth year
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.
Between November 1, 2018 and October 31, 2020, we conducted 2 assessments.
To assess academic performance of first and second year students, we reviewed their academic records. We also evaluated what they summitted as part of thier qualifying and comprehensive exams. Dissertation proposal and oral defense were used to evaluate students who have already completed their doctoral exams. Disseration and oral defense were used to evaluate those who have already passed the dissertation proposal defense. Students not in good academic standing as stipulated in the program handbook were required to self report their progress toward their next milestone.
For the assessment done in 2019:
* Qualifying exams were given to 3 first-year students. Comprehensive exams were given to 3 second-year students.
* We received 9 dissertation proposals and 2 disseration for evaluation.
* 8 students who were not in good academic standing submitted a progress report.
* 5 Students who were not in good academic standing, out of 6, submitted a progress report.
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: Program Coordinator12) 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.
The evaluation of qualifying exams, comprehensive exams, dissertation proposals, and disserations received yielded satisfactory results. To date, we have 31 students in the program. Among those students, 9 of them are not in good academic standing. Among these 9 students:
* 7 of them are making remarkable progress.
* 1 of them has been on leave of absence
* 1 of them is currently not enrolled.
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 goal of the assessment is to learn if each student has achieved major milestones in a timely manner and to identify actions that must be taken by respective parties to get students not in good standing back on track.
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.
We introduced changes to the assessment methods back in 2017. The new methods gave the program a better picture of where students are in their journey toward the PhD. With better insights, we have been able to offer more assistance to those in need and enhance students' out-of-course experience.
17) If the program did not engage in assessment activities, please justify.
N/A