Unit: Asian Studies
Program: Asian Studies (MA)
Degree: Master's
Date: Tue Nov 17, 2020 - 9:52:09 am

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

1. Possess an advanced understanding of at least one (1) Asian language. This means college-level fluency in reading, writing, speaking at the 302 level of a language relevant to the students area of concentration.

2. Demonstrate an understanding of issues and problems in the arts, humanities, and social sciences as related to Asia.

3. Demonstrate the ability to understand research and conduct research using at least one of the methodologies of various disciplines i.e. humanities, arts and social sciences.

4. Demonstrate ability in integrating all of the above factors in a final major research project (either Plan A or B)

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

Department Website URL: https://manoa.hawaii.edu/asianstudies/academic-programs/graduate/
Student Handbook. URL, if available online: https://manoa.hawaii.edu/asianstudies/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Grad-Handbook-2020-21-final.pdf
Information Sheet, Flyer, or Brochure URL, if available online: https://manoa.hawaii.edu/asianstudies/academic-programs/graduate/#overview
UHM Catalog. Page Number: https://manoa.hawaii.edu/catalog/schools-colleges/spas/asan/
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.

Student assessment of graduate courses were reviewed with particular attention being paid to student written comments.  Exit interviews were conducted with graduating students.  Faculty assessment of oral defenses of both Plan B and Plan A students.

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.

A hundred student evaluations were reviewed.  Exit interviews were conducted with 10 graduating students.

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.

Faculty evaluations of graduate students completing both Plan A and Plan B programs confirm a 100% achievement of departmental and University SLOs.  A review of student comments in the assessment of graduate courses confirm a majority of graduate students met the stated SLOs of each course.  Faculty evaluation of discussions and written work further confirm at least 90% of the students were able to meet the departmental SLOs.

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.

A review of student comments confirmed the need to create a program of study that addressed international affairs.  This resulted in the creation of the MAIA degree program which catered to students who had already established professional careers but desired further knowledge and training in Asian politics, economics and security issues.  

Evaluations of student work showed a need to provide more writing opportunities and research guidelines through the introductory graduate ASAN 600 course.  Assessment also indicated a need to provide professional development workshops for graduate students so they could enter into the work force or further their academic goals.

As always, student comments regarding course readings and topics help to guide faculty in shaping their courses to address both current world situations, student interest as well as address deficiencies in student knowledge that may be vital to study and reasearch of a particular area.

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.

Graduate students expressed a desire to create a cohort of students within the program which lead to casual afternoon gatherings among current graduate students within the program.  Asian Studies faculty have long believed that students not only learn within the classroom environment but also from discussing their research with their peers.  This was confirmed by many students commenting that they would have appreciated more time within their seminar classes to break into smaller discussion groups.  

A weekly "Ohana Lunch" session was instituted by the Chair of the program to encourage building a cohort not only among graduate students but also our undergraduate students.  Unfortunately due to the Covid 19 pandemic both the graduate afternoon gatherings and the weekly lunches have been discontinued.

The program also learned that as with the undergraduate program short videos on our website of former Asian studies graduates and their current occupations became both an encouragement to current students in the program and a recruitment tool.  Graduate students in particular also pointed out that the reputation of the Asian Studies faculty also played a role in their decision to attend UHM along with the depth of course offerings dealing with Asia.  Many students also pointd out the ability to work with the East West Center and for our Foreigh Area Officers a chance to attend seminars at the Asia Pacific Center for Security Studies.

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