Unit: Public Health Studies
Program: Public Health (PhD)
Degree: Doctorate
Date: Fri Nov 13, 2020 - 3:19:14 pm

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

1. 1. Apply data management, analysis, interpretation, and visualization techniques in: proposal writing, intervention development, evaluation, and monitoring of public health problems and interventions.

(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.)

2. 2. Select appropriate research designs and methods to address public health questions of importance to diverse communities.

(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., 6. Conduct research or projects as a responsible and ethical professional, including consideration of and respect for other cultural perspectives.)

3. 3. Critique research appropriateness, including the ethical aspects of research designs, subject recruitment, and data collection that involve communities.

(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.)

4. 4. Critically analyze, use, and synthesize data from multiple sources to address public health problems/issues.

(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. 5. Promote co-learning between researchers, public health professionals, and communities.

(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., 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.)

6. 6. Demonstrate and apply high ethical standards to all activities, including research conduct and the handling of information and data.

(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., 6. Conduct research or projects as a responsible and ethical professional, including consideration of and respect for other cultural perspectives.)

7. 7. Engage stakeholders and manage teams, groups, and organizations to identify issues of concern and develop and translate public health solutions to diverse communities.

(1. Demonstrate comprehensive knowledge in one or more general subject areas related to, but not confined to, a specific area of interest., 3. Apply research methodology and/or scholarly inquiry techniques specific to one’s field of study., 7. Interact professionally with others.)

8. 8. Analyze and evaluate the impact of local, national, and global trends and interdependencies on public health related problems and systems.

(1. Demonstrate comprehensive knowledge in one or more general subject areas related to, but not confined to, a specific area of interest., 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.)

9. 9. Integrate evidence and community experience to describe, anticipate, and mediate public health needs and problems.

(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.)

10. 10. Identify and apply appropriate theory and evidence-based approaches to inform the design and evaluation of public health interventions for diverse communities.

(1. Demonstrate comprehensive knowledge in one or more general subject areas related to, but not confined to, a specific area of interest., 3. Apply research methodology and/or scholarly inquiry techniques specific to one’s field of study., 6. Conduct research or projects as a responsible and ethical professional, including consideration of and respect for other cultural perspectives.)

11. 11. Apply monitoring and evaluation frameworks to assess global and domestic programs, policies, and systems.

(1. Demonstrate comprehensive knowledge in one or more general subject areas related to, but not confined to, a specific area of interest., 3. Apply research methodology and/or scholarly inquiry techniques specific to one’s field of study.)

12. 12. Analyze and translate the impact of current and proposed policy on public health.

(1. Demonstrate comprehensive knowledge in one or more general subject areas related to, but not confined to, a specific area of interest., 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.)

13. 13. Identify, develop, implement, and evaluate teaching methods that are appropriate to diverse audiences.

(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.)

14. 14. Demonstrate effective written and oral skills for communicating with persons across the lifespan from diverse cultural, lifestyle, socioeconomic, educational, racial, ethnic and professional backgrounds.

(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.)

15. 15. Facilitate and expand collaborative relationships with a variety of entities (e.g. government, non-profit, community, and academia).

(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.)

16. 16. Utilize the integrating concepts and skills involved in culturally appropriate community engagement, empowerment, and intervention translation with diverse communities.

(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://manoa.hawaii.edu/publichealth/phd-ph-competencies
Student Handbook. URL, if available online: http://manoa.hawaii.edu/publichealth/sites/manoa.hawaii.edu.publichealth/files/downloads/cbtr_handbook.pdf
Information Sheet, Flyer, or Brochure URL, if available online:
UHM Catalog. Page Number: https://manoa.hawaii.edu/catalog/schools-colleges/sw/ph/
Course Syllabi. URL, if available online: http://manoa.hawaii.edu/publichealth/courses
Other:

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

Curriculum Map File(s) from 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 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.

In all doctoral classes, specific assignments are required through which students can demonstrate mastery of course SLOs and PhD program competencies. Extent of mastery is demonstrated through a test or assessed against a rubric (.e.,g for written assignments). 

Every year, students completes an annual review through which they report on milestone progress and plans and assess their mastery of required competencies. These data are reviewed by the PhD Exec Cmte every fall. Based on findings from annual review and new information from other sources (e.g., our accrediting body and UHM administration re: budget/resources), actions related to individual students are taken and adjustments are made to curriculum.

 

 

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.

In addition to in-class assessments:

100% of students in year 2 or more of the program have completed the annual review every year. This includes a self-assessment of mastery of PhD program competencies, as well as a report of milestones achieved and planned, and a self-assessment of strengths and weakness for timely progress through the program.

100% of students complete a 5-part qualifying exam by the end of their 2nd year. 

100% of students complete and present a qualifying paper (which is a systematic literature review) that is assessed by 2 outside reviewers against a rubric prior to approval. This is completed by the end of their 2nd year.

100% of students complete and defend a dissertation proposal, pass a comprehensive exam, and complete and defend a 3-paper dissertation.

  

 

 

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.

Per self-report (with confirmation of dissertation cmte chair), 100% of students who are ABD rate themselves as competent or very competent in each SLO. These tend to be students who have been with the program 3 or more years. In contrast, only 40% of the pre-ABD students rate themselves as competent or very competent in each SLO. These tend to be students who have only completed 1 or 2 years with the program, plus some of our students who are working full time and going slowly. We expect them to report full mastery by the end of their coursework and proposal defense.

Also, as noted before

100% of students in year 2 or more of the program have completed the annual review every year. This includes a self-assessment of mastery of PhD program competencies.

100% of students complete a 5-part qualifying exam by the end of their 2nd year. 

100% of students complete and present a qualifying paper (which is a systematic literature review) that is assessed by 2 outside reviewers against a rubric prior to approval. This is completed by the end of their 2nd year.

100% of students complete and defend a dissertation proposal, pass a comprehensive exam, and complete and defend a 3-paper dissertation.

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 PhD Executive Cmte, which includes the PhD in PH Grad Chair and faculty members who teach the bulk of the PhD in PH courses, reviews the results of the annual review of students every fall. In addition, the program assesses itself against program indicators, e.g., 100% of students will complete the qualifying phase by the end of their 2nd year, and 75% will find employment within 6 months of graduation. These data are reviewed by the cmte in the spring semester.  Every three years, a subcmte reviews the competencies and adjusts them based on findings from the annual review of students, the program indicators, an alumni survey, and external context (e.g., budget cuts, increasing vs. decreasing demand for the program). 

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 started our once-every3-year review of competencies and courses in Fall 2020. Based on changes to our accreditation standards and data from the annual review of students, SLO mastery data, admissions/demand, barriers to progress, etc, we are now proposing a number of changes to the program for fall 2022.  For example, our accreditors no longer require PhD in PH students to accrue as many or more credits than the MPH (masters in PH) students, so we are proposing to reduce the requirement from 42 credits (plus 800) to 34 credits (plus 800). Our revised curriculum map shows that all our SLOs will still be covered in at least 3 classes, so the SLOs will likely not change. We also are attracting more students without the MPH, and these students need to track differently than students entering with an MPH because they need to complete 18 credits of MPH courses (as pre/co-reqs) along with PhD courses. Also, more students are attending the program part-time. Thus, we are creating a proposal to reduce the required credits and to provide pathways for four groups of students: 1) with MPH fulltime, 2) with MPH part-time, 3) without MPH fulltime, and 4) without MPH part-time. The regular collection of assessment data is very helpful to our review process.

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

N/A