Program: Sociology (MA)
Degree: Master's
Date: Sat Nov 20, 2010 - 4:27:25 pm
1) Below are the program student learning outcomes submitted last year. Please add/delete/modify as needed.
Student Learning Outcomes for the Plan MA Degree (draft) a. understanding of a broad range of sociological theories and methods, and commonly used statistical techniques b. ability to design a feasible research project to address a sociological problem or issue of theoretical interest c. understanding of principles of protection of human subjects and how to design sociological research that respects and protects human subjects. d. ability to carry out an independent research project to collect and analyze research data that addresses a sociological question e. ability to interpret research results in relation to sociological theory, to draw reasonable inferences, and to report research results and conclusions accurately and effectively.
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: NA Information Sheet, Flyer, or Brochure URL, if available online: NA 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.
A. How the individual MA student was progressing through the program and meeting each benchmark. The program benchmarks are linked to the SLOs as shown in the curriculum map. Two are met by courses, and the rest by successful completion of writing requirements evaluated by the student's committee.
B. How MA students in general are moving through the program and whether there are any points at which they seem to get stuck. This is measured through our Annual Review of all graduate students, in which the faculty collectively reviews each student's progress through the benchmarks and any problems are discussed.
6) State the type(s) of evidence gathered.
A. We track each student's progress through the MA program in our graduate student database, which records when they have completed coursework, had their thesis proposal accepted, and completed the thesis and passed the oral. We know where each student is and what the committee has approved. They must pass the theory and methods courses, which meet three of the SLOs. They must have the thesis proposal accepted and then must complete the thesis satisfactorily in order to finish the program, and those two approvals measure the remaining SLOs.
B. The updated database forms the basis for our Annual Review of All graduate students. The entire faculty looks at the progress against time benchmarks, hears a brief report form the student's chair or advisor, and then votes on which letter (A=satisfactory progress, B=warning of deficiency; C=warning of serious deficiency and dismissal if not corrected by the next review; D=drop from the program). There is a variation of the letter reflecting each program benchmark and what we expect the student to accomplish in the next year (i.e., the next benchmark). The information available at the Annual Review includes everything in the database, including the previous annual review letters and any notes tht were incorporated in those letters, so the faculty make decisions with full knowledge of the student's progress.
There were 18 students in the MA program during all or part of the 2009-2010 academic year from June 2009 to September 2010. Data were reviewed for all of those students, including what was in the database and the oral report made at the Annual Review meeting by the student's chair or advisor. The database subsequently was updated to include the 2010 Annual Review letter informatiion (as part of the process of sending formal letters to the students).
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.
Materials from all 18 students in the MA program was evaluated. The material varied depending on where they were in the program. All of this material is collected as part of their normal process of the degree program and the department's management of the graduate program. Therefore students "submitted evidence" through their theory and methods core courses, and through their submission of the MA thesis proposal and the actual thesis, both generally in multiple drafts until the committee found them satisfactory.
10) Summarize the actual results.
Eighteen student were in the program during this time period, nine of whom were admitted during 2009-2010. Seven students completed their theses and receive Plan A MA degrees during the tiem period. Of the remaining 11, four have had their thesis proposal approved and are currently writing, one is currently on leave in Africa and may not return, and one was admitted as a Plan B MA in conjunction with a docotral program in another department. All are progressing satisfactorily through the program and are on track for successful completion.
Our record of success is also measured by what the students do after completing the program. Two of the students who completed the MA program were subsequently admitted to the department's doctoral program and another is now in a doctoral program at UC-Irvine. All of the remaining four have full-time employment. Three are working in Japan (including one at Goldman Sachs and another at a top-ranked Japanese insurance firm) and the fourth has a research position in the UH administration.
Since 5 MA students graduated in the fall semester, only 13 were included in the Annual Review on March 2, 2010. Eleven received A letters, and 2 received B letters. One of the students with a B letter subsequently completed the degree, and the other is pending. In the annual review we found no problems with the program or its quality standards that need to be addressed.
11) How did your program use the results? --or-- Explain planned use of results.
Please be specific.
Through the Annual Review, student progress is monitored closely and we catch any problems early. We also use the process to determine whether there is need for any program changes. At present everything is working well and our record of getting MA students through the program successfully in a timely fashion is clear.
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.
no
13) Other important information:
none