Degree Program Assessment Reports : View Reports

Unit: Physics & Astronomy
Program: Physics (PhD)
Degree: Doctorate
Date: Wed Nov 18, 2020 - 10:01:06 am

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

1. Developed skills or gained experience as a physics or science educator

2. Engage in advanced theoretical and experimental physics studies of core principles of physics, including Classical Mechanics (at the level of Goldstein), Electrodynamics (at the level of Jackson or Panofsky), Quantum Mechanics (at the level of Landau, Sakurai or Shankar) and Statisitical Mechanics (undergraduate level)

3. Establish expertise in focused areas of physical theory and experiment

4. Produced directed study or original research in theoretical or experimental physics in a specific discipline

(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., 7. Interact professionally with others.)

5. Gained exposure in current topics in theoretical and experimental physics in specific areas of physics research

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

Department Website URL: http://www.phys.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: http://www.phys.hawaii.edu/

Other:

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

Curriculum Map File(s) from 2020:

File (11/18/2020)

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.

Students in the doctoral program gain experience as physics educators by teaching assistanceships. The Assessment Committee used undergraduate student evaluations of their TAs to gauge the level of achievement of Learning Outcome 1.

In the fall of 2020, grades of doctoral students in the core graduate courses were collected and analyzed. These couses are Phy 610 (Analytical Mechanics), Phys 650 (Electrodynamics I), Phys 651 (Electrodynamics II), Phys 670 (Quantum Mechanics) and Phys 671 (Quantum Mechanics). These grades are used to assess the level of achievement of Learning Objectve 2.

In February 2019 and February 2020, a Qualifying Exam was administered to graduate students. Performance on this exam is used to assess the level of achievement of Learning Objective 2.

Moreover, satisfactory performance on the Qualifying Exam (a grade of P*) is required in order to remain in good standing in the doctoral program.

Several dissertation defenses were conducted during this time frame. The dissertation consists of original research conducted by the doctoral student, and the defense is used to assess the level of achievement of Learning Objective 4. Moreover, passing dissertation defense is required in order to successfully complete the doctoral program.

This material was used to make changes to the program and to assessment procedures.

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.

Core course grades were evaluated from the 27 students enrolled in the doctoral program in Fall 2018 who had recorded grades for at least one core course. This excludes, for example, first year students.

Qualifying Exam grades were evaluated from 22 students currently enrolled in the doctoral program who have already taken the Exam at least once.

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.

617 undergraduate students completed mid-semester surveys of physics laboratory courses for which the TA was in the doctoral program. Assessing overall satisfaction on a scale of 1-5 (5 being highest), 24% of the students gave a rating of 4, and 58% gave a rating of 5. These results seem to indicate satisfactory performance in achieving Learning Outcome 1, and represent a significant improvement in performance compared to the previous assessment report (Fall 2018).

The core graduate courses are the courses which cover the material determined by the department to constitute "core principles of physics," and gaining competency in this material constitutes Learning Outcome 2. The student grade averages of students currently enrolled in the doctoral program are as follows:

Phys 610: 3.8 +- 0.3

Phys 650: 3.7 +- 0.4

Phys 651: 3.9 +- 0.3

Phys 670: 3.4 +- 0.5

Phys 671: 3.3 +- 0.5

These averages largely lie in the B-A range. Overall, this result seems to indicate satisfactory performance in achieving SLO 2. These results are consistent with those obtained in the previous assessment.

Of the 22 students currently in the doctoral program who had taken the qualifying exam at least once, 17 have received a grade of P*, which is the grade necessary to advance in the doctoral program. Two have recieved a grade of P (necessary to qualify for a Master's degree, in the absence of a Master's thesis, but not to advance to candidacy), and three have received a highest grade of F. Overall, this result seems to indicate satisfactory performance in achieving SLO 2, consistent with performance on core courses. These results are consistent with those obtained in the previous assessment.

Since 2018, 11 students successfully defended their dissertation (demonstrating achievement of Learning Outcome 4) and received doctoral degrees. No students have failed their dissertation defense. These results are consistent with those obtained in the previous assessment.

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 size of the Assessment Committee has been increased from 2 to ~6, in order to insure that there are enough personnel to conduct robust assessment activity.

The graduate qualifying exam instructions have been modified to clarify the level of the statistical mechanics portion of the exam, and to clarify for students the purpose of the exam (to test competency in core principles of physics [SLO 2]).

A new graduate course, Phys 760 (General Relativity), has been created in order to meet student needs.

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 sample of recent students who left the doctoral program due to inadequate performance on the Qualifying Exam is too small to yield meaningful conclusions.

It has been determined that low TA pay is having an adverse effect on graduate student recruitment, retention, and morale. This issue has been raised with the College of Natural Sciences, with the hope of obtaining a pay raise for TAs in the future.

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

1. Developed skills or gained experience as a physics or science educator

3. Establish expertise in focused areas of physical theory and experiment

4. Produced directed study or original research in theoretical or experimental physics in a specific discipline

5. Gained exposure in current topics in theoretical and experimental physics in specific areas of physics research

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.