Program: Pacific Islands Studies (BA)
Date: Fri Dec 18, 2020 - 9:39:21 pm
1) Program Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs) and Institutional Learning Objectives (ILOs)
1. 1. Students can describe the diversity and similarity of issues in Oceania.
(1a. General education, 1b. Specialized study in an academic field, 1c. Understand Hawaiian culture and history)
2. 2. Students can identify major events in the history of the region and analyze processes of change in island societies.
(1a. General education, 1b. Specialized study in an academic field, 1c. Understand Hawaiian culture and history, 2a. Think critically and creatively)
3. 3. Students can research and communicate indigenous issues and concerns.
(1b. Specialized study in an academic field, 2b. Conduct research, 2c. Communicate and report, 3a. Continuous learning and personal growth, 3b. Respect for people and cultures, in particular Hawaiian culture)
4. 4. Students can demonstrate critical thinking and write analytically.
(2a. Think critically and creatively, 2b. Conduct research, 2c. Communicate and report)
5. 5. Students can interact with and advocate for Pacific Island communities at home or abroad.
(1b. Specialized study in an academic field, 3a. Continuous learning and personal growth, 3b. Respect for people and cultures, in particular Hawaiian culture, 3d. Civic participation)
2) Your program's SLOs are published as follows. Please update as needed.
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: CPIS new website, to be updated with program outcomes when staff available.
3) Please review, add, replace, or delete the existing curriculum map.
- File (11/19/2020)
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.
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?
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.)
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)
8) Briefly explain the assessment activities that took place since November 2018.
Faculty assessed SLO3 an SLO4 this academic year. Faculty created a rubric for SLO3. Designated assignments were collected from PACS BA majors in PACS 201, 202, 301, 302, 303, 401, and 493. Approximately 50% of the sample from each class was evaluated using two rubrics. A total of 27 samples were evaluated for each SLO by four faculty. SLO4 is assessed every two years to examine student writing and the impact of the "Write Oceania" our Pacific Studies disciplinary writing program.
Faculty assessed SLO2 and SLO5 and drafted a rubric for SLO 2 for first use. Designated assignments were collected in PACS 201, 202, 301, 302, 303, 401, and 493. 22 total samples (50% of collected PACS BA students' per course) were assessed by four faculty.
After discussions in 2018-2019 and a lost faculty position, we have updated our SLOs to remove SLO6 from our BA Program Outcomes and also updated the curriculum map. Currently the PACS 303 course has been taught by an instructor, becuase it has been a required course. In Fall 2020 we proposed significant curricular changes (to no longer designated particular 200 and 300 level courses) in order to offer additional, contemporary courses from a smaller faculty rather than specific courses on a set time line. Further we propose to remove the three concentration areas, including the arts and performance course and concentration due to faculty shortages. These proposed changes have neither been approved nor denied as of November 2020. Data on Capstones for Spring 2020 was impacted by shifting online during the pandemic. Based on We plan to shift the content and pedagogy for the Capstone course to a community-based research course, no longer restricted to majors. This will broaden a target audience and serve more students across many disciplines who can benefit from Indigenous methodologies when working in Pacific Islander communities.
9) What types of evidence did the program use as part of the assessment activities checked in question 7? (Check all that apply.)
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.)
10) State the number of students (or persons) who submitted evidence that was evaluated. If applicable, please include the sampling technique used.
SLO3 - 27 total samples, a random selection of approximately 50% of the samples from each PACS course (from majors only) in 200-400 level courses.
SLO4 - 27 total samples, a random selection of approximately 50% of the samples from each PACS course (from majors only) in 200-400 level courses.
SLO2 - 22 total samples, a random selection of approximately 50% of the samples from each PACS course (from majors only) in 200-400 level courses.
SLO5 - 22 total samples, a random selection of approximately 50% of the samples from each PACS course (from majors only) in 200-400 level courses.
11) Who interpreted or analyzed the evidence that was collected? (Check all that apply.)
Ad hoc faculty group
Persons or organization outside the university
Advisors (in student support services)
Students (graduate or undergraduate)
12) How did they evaluate, analyze, or interpret the evidence? (Check all that apply.)
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)
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.
SLO3 Using a new rubric, 75% (20/27) scored a 2 or above. 52% (14/27) scored 3 or above. The overall mean was 2.45; the upper division mean score was 2.74. We do not have learning achivement expectations for this SLO.
SLO4 Using a familiar rubric, 93% (25/27) scored a 2 or above, 67% (18/27) scored 2.5 or above. The overall mean was 2.68; the upper division mean was 2.80.In 2016-2017 the results for the SLO were much higher. (At that time 96% scored a 2 or higher, 88% scored 2.5 or above. The overall mean was 3.09 and the upper division mean was 3.10.)
This did not meet our learning achievement expectations for this SLO. We have not determined a cause or made curriculuar changes yet.
SLO2 Using a newly developed rubric, 82% (18/22) scored a 2 or above. 32% (7/22) scored 3 or above. the overall mean was 2.28; the upper division mean score was 2.28. We do not have learning achivement expectations for this SLO.
SLO5 Using a familiar rubric, 27% (6/22) scored a 2 or above, 0% (/022) scored 2.5 or above. The overall mean was 1.83; the upper division mean was 1.86. We do not have learning achivement expectations for this SLO.
14) What best describes how the program used the results? (Check all that apply.)
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)
15) Please briefly describe how the program used its findings/results.
Results of assessment show that the evidence being collected for evaluation does not always align with the SLO being assessed. This is an ongoing issue, and more likely reflects the assignment and not the students' true learning outcomes. We struggle to clearly identify course assignments that are appropriate for program SLO assessment and have discussed creating signature assignments that are embedded into course, rather than a misaligned sample.
SLO4 results were discouraging to faculty as overall they have felt student writing has improved. Certain aspects have improved (ex. citation) while still being underdeveloped. Two of the required courses no longer retain the writing intensive focus designations and faculty have shifted to cover sabbaticals and leaves.The curriculum committee was short two faculty and had fewer meetings to work on alignment and rubric design. Still the commitee did draft rubrics for SLOs 2 and 3, which were used during the past two academic years. The rubric for SLO5, used twice, still needs to be revised to better represent the advocacy and engagement opportunities of the program. The pandemic of Spring 2020 limited options for student engagement in the community and the samples assessed were poorly aligned with the SLO. Faculty debated whether they would write N/A or select (1) when the samples were inappropriate, rather than assess students' work which was not directly relevant to the SLO/rubric.
The prorgam used finding to propose significant curricular changes, and given recent assessment results, again, which we feel are results of poor alignment, and new rubrics, rather than true assessment of student performance, will seek to establish performance measures, and signature assingments for 200 and 300 level courses. The Capstone has been redesigned for Fall 2021.
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.
Faculty have discussed a number of issues arising from assessment processes and results. 1) Transfer students sometimes enter the degree program without the appropriate preparation, thus the writing program must become more versatile to address a broader range of issues, from organizing and prewriting, to citations and literature reviews. Students require incentives to utilize the services of the writing program GA for course assignments and projects.
Writing remains a challenge for many of our students.
The teaching faculty and educational specialist (5 total faculty) are challenged to meet regularly given the other commitments and challenges of the NRC grant activities, teaching and research commitments and campus reorganization discussions. Faculty recognize a need to refine and update the curriculum, including SLOs, as part of an overall enrollment effort to meet the needs of diverse students and PACS majors declaring as Freshmen and transfer students. The pandemic and move to online instruction seems to particular impact non-traditional students and first generation students who benefit tremendously from the direct support of and interaction with faculty and peers in a face-to-face environment. For students of Pacific Islands heritage, this change has involved a dramatic shift in the relationships that enhance learning.
Faculty need support to design/designate assignments that are better aligned to the SLOs. Consideration of course syllabi (SLOs and assignments) may be the next step for the curriculum committee.
A major realization concerns availability of faculty given current workloads, lost positions and sabbaticals. Combined with distance learning and the shifts to a new college, we are cognizant of our limitations and the need for more support to do the work of an academic program, and a national resource center. We look forward to seeking assisistance tfrom the assessment office to design and implement a more manageable and useful assessment process. As always, we value the results and insights of our assessment efforts, and appreciate the feedback we received in the process.