Degree Program Assessment Reports : View Reports

Unit: Architecture
Program: Landscape Architecture (MLA)
Degree: Master's
Date: Wed Nov 18, 2020 - 1:28:16 pm

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

1. MLA SLO 1 History, theory & criticism: This SLO combines knowledge and skills in the areas of design history, design theory, criticism, critical thinking; interdisciplinarity; sustainability, resiliency, stewardship; and health, safety, welfare.

(1. Demonstrate comprehensive knowledge in one or more general subject areas related to, but not confined to, a specific area of interest., 2. Demonstrate understanding of research methodology and techniques specific to one’s field of study., 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., 5. Proficiently communicate and disseminate information in a manner relevant to the field and intended audience., 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. MLA SLO 2 Design processes and methodology: This SLO combines knowledge and skills in critical thinking, analysis, ideation, synthesis, site program and iterative design development at various scales, and design communication.

3. MLA SLO 3 Natural and cultural systems and processes: This SLO combines knowledge and skills in plants and ecosystems sciences, with a focus on tropical climates and Asia/Pacific; built environment and infrastructure; human factors and social and community systems; human health and well-being; as well as Hawaiian sense of place and cultural practices.

(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., 7. Interact professionally with others.)

4. MLA SLO 4 Communication and documentation: This SLO combines knowledge and skills in written communication, oral communication, visual and graphic communication/representation; design and construction documents; numeracy, quantitative problem-solving/communication; and community and client engagement.

(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., 5. Proficiently communicate and disseminate information in a manner relevant to the field and intended audience., 7. Interact professionally with others.)

5. MLA SLO 5 Implementation: This SLO combines knowledge and skills in construction technology and site engineering; site materials; use and management of plants and vegetation; and policies and regulation.

6. MLA SLO 6 Computer applications and advanced technologies: This SLO combines knowledge and skills in 2D and 3D visualization and modeling; design communication from conceptual to construction drawings; and geospatial analysis.

(1. Demonstrate comprehensive knowledge in one or more general subject areas related to, but not confined to, a specific area of interest., 4. Critically analyze, synthesize, and utilize information and data related to one’s field of study., 5. Proficiently communicate and disseminate information in a manner relevant to the field and intended audience.)

7. MLA SLO 7 Assessment and evaluation: This SLO combines knowledge and skills in site assessment, pre-design analysis, landscape performance, post-occupancy evaluation, and visual and scenic assessment.

8. MLA SLO 8 Professional practice: This SLO combines knowledge and skills in leadership; values, ethics; practice; and construction administration.

(1. Demonstrate comprehensive knowledge in one or more general subject areas related to, but not confined to, a specific area of interest., 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., 7. Interact professionally with others.)

9. MLA SLO 9 Research and scholarly methods: This SLO combines knowledge and skills in quantitative and qualitative methods; establishing a research hypothesis; framing research questions; literature/case study review/precedent review; research integrity and protection of human subjects; and communication of research.

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

Department Website URL: http://www.arch.hawaii.edu/master-of-landscape-architecture-accreditation/

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: 2019 Landscape Architectural Accreditation Board (LAAB) Accreditation Candidacy Application Self Evaluation Report (SER).

3) Please review, add, replace, or delete the existing curriculum map.

Curriculum Map File(s) from 2020:

File (11/18/2020)

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.

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):

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?

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: 2018-19 LAAB accreditation candidacy MLA self-evaluation report and digital collection & summary of all MLA course materials and students work samples to date; April 2019 LAAB accreditation candidacy evaluation on-site program visit and summary report.

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

Regular MLA curriculum discussions, including necessary course adjustments as needed, during regular SOA curriculum committee meetings and monthly MLA program instructor meetings (December 2018 - October 2020)

December 2018 School of Architecture day-long faculty studio review assessment session (including evaluation of F18 ARCH 651 outcomes)

February 2019 submission of MLA program self-evaluation report (SER) for LAAB accreditation candidacy application

February 2019 digital submission of all MLA course materials and student work samples from program courses offered to that date (high and low student competency examples) as part of LAAB accreditation candidacy application

April 14 – 17, 2019 LAAB evaluator on-site MLA program visit, evaluation, and report (all LAAB standards were found to be met)

May 2019 School of Architecture day-long faculty studio review assessment session (including evaluation of S19 ARCH 652 outcomes)

December 2019 School of Architecture day-long faculty studio review assessment session (including evaluation of F19 ARCH 651 and ARCH 761 outcomes)

March 2020 adjustments to planned S21 ARCH 764 capstone design research culminating experience course structure (UHM paperwork)

May 2020 School of Architecture day-long faculty studio review assessment session (including evaluation of S20 ARCH 652 and ARCH 743 outcomes)

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: 2019 LAAB accreditation candidacy application materials and feedback (see above and below)

Other 2: Instructor presentations to the entire faculty during semester-end, day-long studio review evaluation sessions

10) State the number of students (or persons) who submitted evidence that was evaluated. If applicable, please include the sampling technique used.

18 MLA students

10 instructors (AY 2020-21)

The MLA program sampling follows LAAB accreditation documentation requirements. At the end of each semester, we collect all MLA course handouts, as well as three to four examples of high achievement student deliverables and one or two examples of student deliverables that demonstrate minimum required competency for all significant class assignments, and tests such as:

- Written assignments

- Projects

- Mid-term exam

- Mid-term project

- Final exam

- Quizzes

- Final project

- Physical model photographs

- Evidence of instructor feedback, grading/evaluation of student achievement (for example, copies of graded tests/exams/quizzes, marked up papers, other forms of evidence of written feedback)

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: MLA program director & graduate chair

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: Invited studio critics and LAAB accreditation candidacy evaluation (see below)

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 three -year MLA program, which commenced operations in F18, has yet to complete its first full curriculum and assessment cycle. The first class of MLA students is expected to graduate in May 2021.

Thus far, the faculty has had a chance to review the program outcomes to date at the conclusion of the ARCH 651, ARCH 652, ARCH 761, and ARCH 743 studio courses respectively (all noted as moments when assessment evidence is collected in the MLA curriculum map). These outcomes have been discussed during SOA faculty studio reviews and subsequent monthly MLA program instructor meetings. Initial, slight course content adjustments have been made by instructors accordingly as needed (for courses that have already been offered more than once), the outcomes of which will have to be evaluated during subsequent review cycles.

The MLA program is still in the process of collecting a complete set of coursework and outcomes from third-year MLA courses (currently ongoing: F20 and S21 semesters) and can thus not yet comprehensively evaluate complete program-level learning outcomes. Per the curriculum map, mastery of all MLA SLO should have been achieved—and will be evaluated for the first time—at the completion of an initial full three-year course cycle of MLA curriculum (expected May 2021).

During academic year 2018-19, the MLA program underwent its formal LAAB accreditation candidacy status application and review. All LAAB accreditation criteria were met. The program achieved accreditation candidacy status in September 2019.

LAAB’s accreditation standards for first-professional landscape architecture programs. Such as the MLA, include:

Standard 4: Student and Program Outcomes.
The program shall prepare students to pursue careers in landscape architecture.

INTENT: Students should be prepared – through educational programs, advising, and other academic and professional opportunities – to pursue a career in landscape architecture upon graduation. Students should have demonstrated knowledge and skills in creative problem solving, critical thinking, communications, design, and organization to allow them to enter the profession of landscape architecture.

In her 2019 summary candidacy report, the LAAB evaluator in her Report of the Site Visitor (Master of Landscape Architecture Candidacy Review), found that the UHM MLA program had met Standard 4 (without recommendations).

In response to “Standard 4, Part A., Assessment 1: Does student work demonstrate the competency required for entry level positions in the profession of landscape architecture?” the LAAB evaluator remarked in her report: “The first class appears to be doing very competent work that reflects the range of their academic and professional backgrounds. Their work demonstrates the program’s promise.”

In response to “Standard 4, Part A., Assessment 2: Do students demonstrate their achievement of the program’s learning objectives, including critical and creative thinking and their ability to understand, apply and communicate the subject matter of the professional curriculum as evidenced through project definition, problem identification, information collection, analysis, synthesis, conceptualization and implementation?” the LAAB evaluator remarked: “Student work and conversations with students indicated that they have a good grasp of their coursework and an excellent understanding of the landscape architecture profession.”

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: At the conclusion of our inaugural MLA cohort’s spring 2021 ARCH 764 culminating experience (Plan B capstone design research), in May 2021, the MLA program faculty and graduating students, with the help of local professionals, will evaluate MLA program-level student learning outcomes against MLA SLOs, using a rubric to be developed this spring. Based on the result of this evaluation of one initial, complete curriculum sequence in 2021—and in preparation for the program’s AY 2021-22 LAAB accreditation application—the program faculty, SOA curriculum committee, and MLA program director & graduate chair will use assessment results to review potential program modifications with the goal to continuously improve curriculum delivery.

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

Please see 14) above

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.

We excitedly anticipate first comprehensive conclusions and further opportunities to use assessment results for ongoing program improvements upon the conclusion of our inaugural MLA cohort’s spring 2021 ARCH 764 culminating experience (Plan B capstone design research), in May 2021. At that time, we will have seen the curriculum played out in its entirety for the first time and collected evidence from all courses that comprise a full three-year MLA course cycle.

Further, the initial MLA program LAAB accreditation application, which we anticipate during AY 2021-22, will require thorough and complete documentation of all course materials, student work samples, and outcomes.These materials and LAAB's evaluation of the program against its curriculum and assessment standards will provide a great basis for subsequent program-level outcome assessment and curriculum or course adjustments as needed.