Unit: Communications
Program: Communication (BA)
Degree: Bachelor's
Date: Wed Nov 18, 2020 - 12:54:03 pm

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

1. Design communication and media projects to make meaningful contributions to diverse social, professional or academic communities, communicating effectively orally, in writing, and through digital media.

(1b. Specialized study in an academic field, 2b. Conduct research, 2c. Communicate and report)

2. Reflect critically on communication products such as media productions, research and policy reports and everyday texts.

(1b. Specialized study in an academic field, 2a. Think critically and creatively)

3. Demonstrate preparedness for academic and professional careers in communication.

(1b. Specialized study in an academic field, 3a. Continuous learning and personal growth)

4. Demonstrate global awareness, including an awareness of cultures in the Hawaii-Pacific region and issues related to cross-cultural communication.

(1a. General education, 1c. Understand Hawaiian culture and history, 3b. Respect for people and cultures, in particular Hawaiian culture)

5. Engage in collaborative problem solving, both face-to-face and in online environments.

(1a. General education)

6. Analyze the ethical dimensions of communication.

(1a. General education, 2a. Think critically and creatively)

7. Critically evaluate the use of technology in communication.

(1b. Specialized study in an academic field, 2a. Think critically and creatively)

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

Department Website URL: http://communications.manoa.hawaii.edu/
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:

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.


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.)

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)

8) Briefly explain the assessment activities that took place since November 2018.

In Fall 2018, the program analyzed 80 portfolios from 3 tracks ('ICTs & Policy', 'Communication in Communities', and 'Media Arts that include Digital Cinema and Multimedia'), evaluated by 10 raters (including 6 faculty and 4 alumni in spring and summer 2018). The portfolios were collected from the capstone courses in which faculty ask students to select artifacts of their choice to present their learning on each program learning outcome.

The results were presented to all faculty.

A faculty group and alumni interpreted the results and brainstormed ways for improvement.

The department published the assessment effort in April 2019 at the Assessment for Curricular Improvement Poster Exhibit at UH Manoa and won Best Faculty Engagement award.

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.

Eighty (80) students' portfolios were collected from 2016-2017 cohorts. Students were sampled using stratified random sampling technique: 6-8 students randomly selected from each capstone course. Thirty (30) randomly selected portfolios were evaluated by 2 raters.

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)

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)

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.

PLOs % Larger than 1.5 on the rubric (meeting minimal expectations) Number of artifacts evaluated
1 64 66
2 48 65
3 47 66
4 47 68
5 45 66
6 43 65
7 51 67


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)

15) Please briefly describe how the program used its findings/results.

The assessment coordinators invited a faculty group and 3 alumni to interprete the results and brainstormed ways to enhance the curriculum on 2/25/2019.

As a result, the participating faculty brainstormed ways to implement strategies to enhance ethical analysis (PLO6), such as applying for a general education ethical focus course designation and make their assignment instructions more explicit for students to provide ethical analysis.

The assessment coordinators also identified issues with instructions for the portfolio and led effort for capstone faculty members to give more consistant expecations for students to compile their portflios.


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.

Presented the project at the UH Manoa's Assessment for Curricular Improvement Poster Exhibit in April 2019 and at the WASC ARC conference in April 2019.

See the poster link here: http://manoa.hawaii.edu/assessment/poster-exhibit/communication-2019/

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