Unit: English
Program: English (BA)
Degree: Bachelor's
Date: Mon Oct 11, 2010 - 9:46:22 am

1) Below are the program student learning outcomes submitted last year. Please add/delete/modify as needed.

Students develop advanced skills as readers, writers, and interpreters of texts across a variety of genres and rhetorical situations and recognize Hawai’i’s geographic and cultural location in the Pacific as part of a challenging program in literary and cultural studies, English language studies, composition and rhetoric, and creative writing,

2) As of last year, your program's SLOs were published as follows. Please update as needed.

Department Website URL: http://www.english.hawaii.edu
Student Handbook. URL, if available online:
Information Sheet, Flyer, or Brochure URL, if available online:
UHM Catalog. Page Number: 115
Course Syllabi. URL, if available online:
Other: English Department Mission Statement and Strategic Plan, p. 2 at http://www.english.hawaii.edu/users

3) Below is the link to your program's curriculum map (if submitted in 2009). If it has changed or if we do not have your program's curriculum map, please upload it as a PDF.

No map submitted.

4) The percentage of courses in 2009 that had course SLOs explicitly stated on the syllabus, a website, or other publicly available document is indicated below. Please update as needed.


5) State the assessment question(s) and/or goals of the assessment activity. Include the SLOs that were targeted, if applicable.

SLO #3: Students will be able to compose an argument that makes use of source material that is relevant and credible and that is integrated in accordance with an appropriate style guide. 

How well are students achieving SLO #3? To what extent do students

a) supply an outside source when needed;
b) select germane source material;
c) select source materials from authoritative and/or appropriate sources - e.g. experts, reviewed by experts, appropriate popular materia, etc.; and

 d) follow rules of appropriate style guide in citing source material within the text and for creating a bibliography/works cited/reference list. 

6) State the type(s) of evidence gathered.

Instructors teaching FW sections submitted copies of their students' research essays/reports to the Manoa Assessment Office.

7) Who interpreted or analyzed the evidence that was collected?

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)

8) How did they evaluate, analyze, or interpret the evidence?

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)

9) State how many persons submitted evidence that was evaluated.
If applicable, please include the sampling technique used.

-- Essays from 94 students were evaluated
-- Random stratified sampling (stratified by section) was used to select the 94 essays.

10) Summarize the actual results.

* Does not include 8 essays deemed “not scorable” because student writer did not indicate that external sources were used.

All dimensions*






Not prepared




Partially prepared








Well prepared







11) How did your program use the results? --or-- Explain planned use of results.
Please be specific.

a. The English Department Chairperson will email faculty teaching FW and encourage them to take advantage of Hamilton Library's information literacy workshops and to emphasize information literacy skills during the semester.

b. The English Department, English Language Institute, and the Assessment Office will assess information literacy again in Fall 2010.

12) Beyond the results, were there additional conclusions or discoveries? This can include insights about assessment procedures, teaching and learning, program aspects and so on.

Overall, the faculty team who scored the essays was encouraged by the level of emphasis in FW courses in regards to information literacy. The percentage of student papers deemed prepared and well prepared rose from the previous assessment of SLO #3 in 2009 (see table in 10). However, the faculty team did note the need for more improvement: the sample papers scored included 8 essays deemed unscorable, because the papers did not include any external sources at all.

Later, the Department Assessment Committee, after considering feedback from the faculty team that did the scoring, decided to review and possibly refine the scoring rubric for SLO #3, in regards to Relevancy and Credibility of sources.

Collection and scoring went well. However, collecting all students' research essays/reports and then selecting a sample was burdensome and a waste of paper.

13) Other important information:

More faculty than in previous scoring sessions participated in the scoring session (August 2010), possibly indicating an increased awareness among faculty of the importance of assessment in improving FW curricula. Based on this scoring session, the Department Assessment Committee believes that faculty generally would like to see more departmental discussions on FW pedagogy and the sharing of resources (assignments, syllabi, etc.) among instructors.