Unit: Social Work
Program: Social Welfare (PhD)
Degree: Doctorate
Date: Thu Nov 19, 2020 - 6:27:33 am

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

1. Analyze and apply social welfare theories, research findings and research methodologies �to resolve critical social welfare problems (Qualifying Examination);

(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.)

2. Formulate relevant research questions, and apply appropriate research methods in culturally-appropriate research design. (Qualifying Examination);

(2. Demonstrate understanding of research methodology and 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. Understand and analyze social welfare policies, and their impact on social work practice within communities and populations in-need. (Qualifying Examination);

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

4. Develop substantive knowledge in a field of social welfare (e.g. child welfare, health and mental health disparities, poverty, indigenous wellbeing, aging). �(Specialization Plan);

(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.)

5. Conduct rigorous research which aims to advance social work practice, policy and knowledge development. (Comprehensive Examination);

(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. Integrate and synthesize research findings into the body of professional knowledge (Final Examination/completion of the Dissertation); and

(2. Demonstrate understanding of research methodology and techniques specific to one’s field of study., 4. Critically analyze, synthesize, and utilize information and data related to one’s field of study.)

7. Disseminate knowledge through publications and/or teaching (Publications, presentations at conferences, teaching internship/regular courses while in the PhD program).

(5. Proficiently communicate and disseminate information in a manner relevant to the field and intended audience., 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/sswork/dsw/
Student Handbook. URL, if available online: https://www.hawaii.edu/sswork/wp-content/uploads/2019-2020-PHD-manual_FINAL2.pdf
Information Sheet, Flyer, or Brochure URL, if available online: https://www.hawaii.edu/sswork/phd/
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:

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.

The program uses Qualify Exams as Benchmarks for SLOs 1, 2, and 3. Students take Qualify Exams (QE) after they completed the required core courses in the respective areas. There are four areas: Knowledge Development, Policy, Quantitative Methods, and Qualitative Methods. The Exams are conducted during summer. Pass QE is required to continue the program and results of QE are used to measure the achivement of SLOs.

The program uses Specialization Plan(SP) as a benchmark for SLO4. Students' Specialization Plan is a written document which describe students’ program of study in the Ph.D. program. The SP explains the human/social problem area the student proposes to study, importance of the problem, and rationale for selecting the topic, and learning objectives. The SP is required students' SP committee's approval. The program uses SP committee's approval as evidence to measure SLO4. 

The program uses rubrics developed in 2015 to collect direct evidence on students' performance on program SLOs 5. 6 and 7. There are rubics for Comprehensive Exams (CE), and Dissertation Defence(DD). In the events of CE and DD, dissertation committee members complete and submit their evaluation for students. 

Meanwhile, all students are required to submiss individual annual student review rubrics in Spring semester advising time, which include their self-evaluation of progress in all SLOs, and discuss it with their academic advisers. 

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: Specialization plan
Other 2:

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

Students take Qualify Exams (QE) after they completed the required core courses in the respective areas. There are four areas: Knowledge Development, Policy, Quantitative Methods, and Qualitative Methods. The Exams are conducted during summer. Five students took Qualify Exams in Summer 2019; and Six students took Qualifying Exams in Summer 2020.

Two students took the Comprehensive Exams (CE), and three students passed the final Dissertation Defence(DD) during this review period. Using the Rubric for CE, and the Rubric for DD, dissertation committee members completed and submitted their evaluation for students. 

All students are required to submiss individual annual student review rubrics in Spring advising time, and discuss it with their academic advisers. Spring 2020 = 10 students submitted individual student review rubric; Spring 2019 = 8 students submitted individual student review rubric. 

 

 

 

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 our curriculum map, benchmarks for SLO1,2, and 3 are Qualifying Exam (QE). During this review period, SLO1, Seven students took QE related section, Knowledge Development, all pass (100%). SLO2. Eight students took QE related sections, Quantitative and Qualitative Research Methods, all pass (100%). SLO3. Seven students took QE related section, Six pass (85%).

Benchmark for SLO4 is Specialization plan.Three students worked on Specialization plan during this review period time and all have received approval from their committee members (100%). 

Benchmark for SLO5 is Comprehensive Exam (CE), evaluated by Dissertation committee members.Two students took CE during this review period, both students were rated by all committee members as "meets or exceeds SLO5" (100%).

Benchmarks for SLO6 and SLO7 are Final Exam, Dissertation Defense (DD), evaluated by Dissertation committee members. Three students took final Dissertation Defense during this review period. All student were rated by their committee members as "meets or exceeds" SLO6 (100%) and SLO7 (100%). 

In summary, the results of evaluation from Qualifying Exams, Specializaton Plan, Comprehensive Exams, and Dissertation Defense show 100% achievement for all SLOs but SLO3 (85%). In fact, 85% achievement in SLO is affected by one student, who did not pass the Policy section of QE. A plan to support the student has put in place.

 

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.

Results were used for program policy changes: Revisited and clarified admission policies, i.e. master degree requirement, pre-requesite courses; revised the course sequencies; Revised the Qualify exam policies. 

We also used it for improve students' out-of-course expereince: e.g. Summer advising and new student transition support; supported PhD student monthly gathering/mentoring; Alumni connections. 

 

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 program has had a program review in Spring 2019, and received constructive feedback from the external review committee. We have been used these feedback to improve our student recruitment and retention. The program has also conducted the first PhD alumni survey in Spring 2020 that help assess our program's stregnthen and identify areas to improve. 

 

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

N/A