Program: Anthropology (MA)
Degree: Master's
Date: Mon Oct 11, 2010 - 3:42:28 pm
1) Below are the program student learning outcomes submitted last year. Please add/delete/modify as needed.
1. Four Field background knowledge at BA level
2. Range of Anthropological research topics and skills for professional presentation
3. Mentoring relationship with faculty
4. Precise statement of academic goals; learn to conceptualize research
5. Fundamentals of Core Fields at graduate level; integration of selected specific
fields, holistic tradition of the discipline
6. Fundamental knowledge of anthropological methods at graduate level
7. Fundamental knowledge of anthropological theory at graduate level
8. Introduction to culture areas literature; expertise in area of individual research
9. Graduate level academic substance and instructional dynamics
10. Knowledge of the diverse range of distinct disciplinary perspectives in
anthropology
11. Original anthropological research, data collection, analysis, and writing in
thesis format
12. Professional level scholarly paper writing and research proposal writing
2) As of last year, your program's SLOs were published as follows. Please update as needed.
Department Website URL: 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: NA Other: Other: 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.
- File (03/16/2020)
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.
0% 1-50% 51-80%
81-99% 100%5) State the assessment question(s) and/or goals of the assessment activity. Include the SLOs that were targeted, if applicable.
We decided to extend our curriculum map to the MA program
6) State the type(s) of evidence gathered.
The format for the BA curriculum map, with program SLOs arrayed against specific courses did not make sense in the MA program format as many of our program requirements are not courses per se. We undertook to re-examine each requirement for the MA and state the specific student learning outcome that it targeted. This resulted in a "map" that consists of two columns, requirements matched against SLOs specific to each requirement. The procedure involved a meeting of the "cultural caucus", a subset of the anthropology faculty that meets as needed for policy discussions. A draft of the map was submitted to the Department Curriculum Committee for further comment and refinement.
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) Dean/Director Other: 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) Other: 9) State how many persons submitted evidence that was evaluated.
If applicable, please include the sampling technique used.
Producing a curriculum map was viewed as a policy formation and clarification exercise. Participants, as noted above, drew on their experiences as graduate faculty members and occupants of particular positions--such as Graduate Chair, Department chair, and so on--in examining each requirement in light of its specific learning outcome.
10) Summarize the actual results.
It was determined that a per course analysis did not differentiate clearly the learning outcomes that MA students can expect in the program. Non-course requirements, such as colloquium attendance, committee formation, and so on, as well as meta-course requirements, such as course type differentiation into "theory" "method" and "area", and so on, clearly have important and specific SLO implications.
11) How did your program use the results? --or-- Explain planned use of results.
Please be specific.
The delineation of specific SLOs associated with each program requirement will be used to facilitate the production of rubrics to be used in evaluation of students' mastery of the skills and knowledge that are targeted in the requirements. To take one example, student presentations in seminar settings as well as more formal field research reports and organized "pre-meeting" talks given by students who are preparing to present papers at professional meetings, can be evaluated in terms of rubrics based on the SLO concerned with the substance and style of professional presentation. Theses and Plan B papers, and the oral defenses associated with them, can be more objectively evaluated in terms of program goals using the curriculum map--for example, the foregrounding of theory, method, and distinctive disciplinary perspectives--which will result in more uniformly fair and rigorous evaluation based on rubrics shared by students and faculty.
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.
Explicitly stating SLOs for the graduate program seems obvious and redundant because the faculty and the students have firm ideas about goals and outcomes. However, stating the obvious can have the effect of uncovering differences in emphasis that at times may result in different emphases or perspectives in the evaluation of student work and progress. Such differences can introduce a degree of uncertainty and unevenness in expectation on the parts of both students and faculty. That being said, the benefits of routinization in assessment attenuate as one moves up the academic ladder toward professional mastery of the field. Expert performance depends on a creative and intuitive "feel for the game" rather than basic ABCs, and teaching/learning at the higher graduate levels depends on subtle and individualized interaction between professor and student.