Program: East Asian Lang & Lit: Korean (PhD)
Degree: Doctorate
Date: Fri Oct 15, 2010 - 7:20:48 pm
1) Below are the program student learning outcomes submitted last year. Please add/delete/modify as needed.
Ph.D. in Korean Language and Linguistics
1. Demonstrate comprehensive knowledge about the field, especially in areas of their expertise and its connection of related areas of research
2. Evaluate the purposes, approaches, designs, and analyses of published research in areas of their expertise
3. Produce scholarly work at the level of quality adequate for publication
4. Establish membership in their field and develop their presence in that discipline
5. Design and teach graduate-level courses in the areas of their specialization
6. Handle a job interview and job talk
Ph.D. in Korean Literature
[In addition to the M. A. SLOs,] recipients of the Ph.D. in Korean literature should be able to:
1. Demonstrate an understanding of current secondary literature in the field by critically engaging the arguments of major scholars.
2. Produce a significant and original contribution to current scholarly discourse in his/her area of specialization.
2) As of last year, your program's SLOs were published as follows. Please update as needed.
Department Website URL: www.hawaii.edu/eall
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: 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.
All SLOs were targeted.
6) State the type(s) of evidence gathered.
No specific questions were asked. However, curriculum committees in each academic program regularly review data such as enrollment figures, results of diagnostic and comprehensive examinations, and student surveys to assess how effectively it meets its objectives. This includes revising curriculum, course requirements, exams, etc.
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.
See #7
10) Summarize the actual results.
The AY 2009-2010 survey data were distributed among EALL graduate faculty members. We discussed the results at a recent EALL graduate faculty meeting. Other types of data on student learning are normally discussed in individual sections.
11) How did your program use the results? --or-- Explain planned use of results.
Please be specific.
The following program modification were made based on information gathered about our students' learning experiences and outcomes:
We will make the information about our graduate courses more available to our students (e.g., post them on the department website)
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.
We will develop strategies for improving the response rate of the exit survey.