Degree Program Assessment Reports : View Reports

Unit: Human Nutrition, Food & Animal Sciences
Program: Food Science (MS)
Degree: Master's
Date: Mon Nov 16, 2020 - 12:31:58 pm

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

1. Demonstrate mastery of fundamental knowledge in the field of food science.

(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.)

2. Demonstrate advanced scholarship in their specialty area in the field of food science.

3. Communicate both orally and in writing at a high level of proficiency.

4. Conduct and interpret food research.

5. Function as a professional in their chosen discipline.

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

Department Website URL: https://cms.ctahr.hawaii.edu/hnfas/Academics/Food-Science-MS

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.

Curriculum Map File(s) from 2020:

File (11/11/2020)

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.

Evidence of students' performance was collected, including GPA, results of the candidacy exam, grades of seminar classes, results of the thesis defense, presentations at local and national conferences, and awards won by the students.

Surveys were conducted with students who graduated in the past two years. Selected survey questions follow. (1) Can you critically review scientific publications and independently develop experiments or research proposals for food-related projects? (2) In a professional manner, can you present your scientific work to the general public? (3) Do you feel you were prepared for a job in the food industry or academic institutes? If not, what are you lacking? (4) What would you recommend we change to enhance our program quality?

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.

Our MS program had 4 graduates in 2019 and 3 graduates in 2020. All of them participated in the Food Science Graduate Survey.

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: Graduate Chair

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.

All students in our program have maintained GPA of at least 3.0 (SLO1, SLO2).

Eight students took and passed the candidacy exam (SLO1, SLO3).

All students in our program received a B or better grade in Seminar class (SLO3).

Seven students successfully defended their theses (SLO3, SLO4).

Fourteen students in our program presented their research at the college student research symposium (SRS). Six of them did research presentations at international conference meetings, including the Institute of Food Technologists (IFT) and International Association of Food Protection (IAFP) annual meetings (SLO3, SLO5).

Four students won awards at the college SRS (SLO3, SLO5).

Three students received the first and second places at the Division Student Competition of the IFT in 2018 and 2019. (SLO3, SLO5).

Four students published their research findings in peer-reviewed journals (SLO3, SLO5).

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.

Our students have been well trained. They have succeeded in competing with peers and finding employment or pursuing further postgraduate studies after graduation. Our oral candidacy exam has been a significant challenge to most of Food Science MS candidates. Students are encouraged to strengthen their communication skills by participating in collaborative projects and becoming an active member of IFT and Hawaii IFT.

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.

Expecting 5 graduates this academic year, our program would be able to meet the minimum of 3 graduates per year (5 year average) and successfully shift up from the listed UHM small programs.

Because of one lost faculty member in 2017 and thereafter no replacement filled, there has been inconsistent instruction leadership for FSHN 430 Food Chemistry and/or FSHN 607 Advanced Food Chemistry, which is a huge challenge to students as well as remaining faculty members.

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

N/A