Program: Biomedical Sciences: Tropical Medicine (PhD)
Degree: Doctorate
Date: Mon Nov 16, 2020 - 10:28:43 am
1) Program Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs) and Institutional Learning Objectives (ILOs)
1. Demonstrate a knowledge base in the various disciplines of Tropical Medicine.
(1. Demonstrate comprehensive knowledge in one or more general subject areas related to, but not confined to, a specific area of interest.)
2. Demonstrate a mastery of technical and experimental research methodologies.
(2. Demonstrate understanding of research methodology and techniques specific to one’s field of study.)
3. Demonstrate the ability to plan, execute, interpret, and evaluate experimental studies.
(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. Demonstrate skills required for instruction, assessment and mentoring of undergraduate and MS students.
(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.)
5. Demonstrate proficiency in written and verbal communication skills in various teaching formats and in professional presentations.
(5. Proficiently communicate and disseminate information in a manner relevant to the field and intended audience., 7. Interact professionally with others.)
6. Demonstrate sufficient mastery and scientific maturity to assess the work of peers in related fields.
(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/tropicalmedicine/?page_id=373 Student Handbook. URL, if available online: http://manoa.hawaii.edu/tropicalmedicine/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Tropical-Medicine-Graduate-Handbook-2020.pdf
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.
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.
Issues with the current format of the comprehensive exam was discussed at departmental faculty meetings which led to assigning the department's curriculum committee to discuss this issue and potential solutions. The outcome of the discussion identified two issues: (1) need for clarification of the current comprehensive exam guidelines in the student handbook, and (2) the desire to evaluate the broader, disciplinary knowledge base in the comprehensive exam. While the qualifying examination assesses the basic knowledge based acquired after completion of core coursework, there was a desire to evaluate high levels of understanding after PhD students have taked their advanced courses, seminars and journal clubs and gained practical experience through their research experiences. For the first issue, revised guidelines were developed, incorportated into the current version of the graduate handbook, and discussed with students. For the second issue, the curriculum committee developed a modified comprehensive examination format and brought it up for discussion by the faculty in the current academic year. These modifications will also be discussed with students in a focus-group setting. Once a final, revised comprehensive exam is acceptable to both students and faculty, the revised format will be implemented.
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.
Review and discussion of recent comprehensive exams of a selection of recent PhD students (13 students in last 5 years).
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.
The majority of PhD students pass the current comprehensive examination the first time that they take it. However, since the comprehensive exam is focused on a grant proposal prepared by the student, the scope of the exam is relatively narrow and does not reflect a higher level of thinking for the broader discipline. Therefore, a revised comprehensive exam which achieves the latter objective is under development.
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 program used the assessment results in two ways:
- Clarification of current comprehensive exam guidelines in graduate student handbook and during new student orientation
- Development of a revised comprehensive exam format that has been reviewed by the faculty and will be discussed with students in the current academic year.
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.
No additional conclusions or discoveries.
17) If the program did not engage in assessment activities, please justify.
Not applicable.