Program: Electrical Engineering (PhD)
Degree: Doctorate
Date: Mon Nov 16, 2020 - 10:11:37 pm
1) Program Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs) and Institutional Learning Objectives (ILOs)
1. Demonstrate mastery of the methodology and techniques specific to the field of study.
(2. Demonstrate understanding of research methodology and techniques specific to one’s field of study.)
2. Communicate both orally and in writing at a high level of proficiency in the field of study.
(5. Proficiently communicate and disseminate information in a manner relevant to the field and intended audience.)
3. Conduct research or produce some other form of creative work.
(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., 6. Conduct research or projects as a responsible and ethical professional, including consideration of and respect for other cultural perspectives.)
4. Function as a professional in the discipline.
(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://www-ee.eng.hawaii.edu/content.php?pag=5
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 (11/12/2020)
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.
The advisor of each PhD candidate along with the appropriate committee was asked to assess the candidate at three critical points (qualifying exam, comprehensive exam, defense) with respect to the performance questions
1) SLO1:Theory
2) SLO1:Methodology
3) SLO2:Oral Communication
4) SLO2:Written Communication
5) SLO3:Research or Creative Work
6) SLO4:Professionalism
7) Overall Assessment.
by using the scoring rubrics
1) Unacceptable
2) Marginal
3) Acceptable
4) Very Good
5) Exceptional
6) Not Applicable.
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.
We have 16 assessments.
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.
Aggregate Assessment Results (16 PhD assessments):
SLO1:Theory
Unacceptable: 0, Marginal: 3.5, Acceptable: 4, Very Good: 5.5, Exceptional: 3, Not Applicable: 0
Acceptable or better: 78% of 16 applicable assessments
SLO1:Methodology
Unacceptable: 0, Marginal: 1, Acceptable: 2, Very Good: 9.5, Exceptional: 3.5, Not Applicable: 0
Acceptable or better: 94% of 16 applicable assessments
SLO2:Oral Communication
Unacceptable: 0, Marginal: 3, Acceptable: 5, Very Good: 4.5, Exceptional: 3.5, Not Applicable: 0
Acceptable or better: 81% of 16 applicable assessments
SLO2:Written Communication
Unacceptable: 0, Marginal: 1, Acceptable: 7.5, Very Good: 4.5, Exceptional: 1, Not Applicable: 2
Acceptable or better: 93% of 14 applicable assessments
SLO3: Research or Creative Work
Unacceptable: 0, Marginal: 0, Acceptable: 7.5, Very Good: 3.5, Exceptional: 5, Not Applicable: 0
Acceptable or better: 100% of 16 applicable assessments
SLO4:Professionalism
Unacceptable: 0, Marginal: 1, Acceptable: 2.5, Very Good: 8, Exceptional: 4.5, Not Applicable: 0
Acceptable or better: 94% of 16 applicable assessments
Overall Assessment
Unacceptable: 0, Marginal: 0, Acceptable: 4, Very Good: 5, Exceptional: 4, Not Applicable: 0
Acceptable or better: 100% of 13 applicable assessments
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 results show that SLO1, SLO2, SLO3, and SLO4 are met at an acceptable level or better. The results also show that the overall performance of the EE PhD program is acceptable or better. These results do not raise any red flags in any area, which suggests that no drastic actions need to be taken at this point. The results will be shared with the graduate committee, and discussions will take place to find ways of continually improving the EE PhD 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.
The following updates to the assessments are made after the approval of the faculty:
- Include SLO4 ``Function as a professional in the discipline’’ in the assessments. Similar to the other SLOs, assess SLO4 at the time of qualifying exam, comprehensive exam, and defense.
- Add another rubric ``Very Good'' between ``Acceptable'' and ``Exceptional'' to make more refined assessments.
- Clarify the instructions in the assessment questionnaire to better relate the assessments to the SLOs. This includes a change of wording in SLO1.
In addition, the graduate committee worked on closing the loop from the assessment results to actual actions in order to continually improve the EE PhD program. Accordingly, we are in the process of addressing the SLOs in the graduate-level course syllabi.