Program: Plant & Environmental Protection Sci (BS)
Degree: Bachelor's
Date: Wed Jan 05, 2011 - 8:56:50 am
1) Below are the program student learning outcomes submitted last year. Please add/delete/modify as needed.
1. Students will demonstrate growth in the ability to analyze and communicate about an environmental issue. 2. Students will recognize and be able to explain the biology of at least 10 insect orders. 3. Students will recognize and be able to describe the biology and management methods of at least five significant plant pathogens in each category: Fungi, Bacteria, Nematodes and Viruses. 4. Students will be able to describe the biology and damage (weeds), and explain the limitations and ethical implications of control strategies. 5. Students will be able to explain and provide examples of biological control, economic benefits, injury levels, and thresholds based on pest management options. 6. Students will demonstrate the ability to apply skills learned to a “real world” situation or employment experience and effectively describe the experience (communication skills). 7. Students will demonstrate ability to clearly communicate results of self-analysis and critical thinking.
2) As of last year, your program's SLOs were published as follows. Please update as needed.
Department Website URL: http://www.ctahr.hawaii.edu/peps/
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: We anticipate addition of the SLOs to an Information sheet and course syllabi] 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.
1. Students will demonstrate growth in the ability to analyze and communicate about an environmental issue. 6. Students will demonstrate ability to apply skills learned in a “real world” situation or employment experience and effectively describe the experience (communication skills).
6) State the type(s) of evidence gathered.
We have developed two benchmarks to determine whether we are meeting the above SLOs with students at an introductory level in the program, and students in their final year in the program. We have identified these two SLOs as overall measures of program success, while our other SLOs are addressed by performance in individual courses.
Benchmark #1: All 64 students in PEPS 210 participated in one of three Service Learning Projects [Collection of Invasive Algae in Kaneohe Bay; Propagation of Native Plants and Vegetable Starters; Manoa Stream Clean up and Planting of Native Plants (Restoration);] Each student demonstrated the ability to draft a Prospectus of the event they selected; Participated in the event; Prepared a on-line (Power point) presentation of what was done, how it was done, the results and environmental benefits; Evaluated/peer reviewed other presentations providing comments on the quality and value of each presentation.
Benchmark #2: The student completing the PEPS 495 Capstone program described the benefits and limitations of our PEPS courses.
| Unsatisfactory | Satisfactory | Exceptional | ||
| 1. | Student will demonstrate growth in the ability to analyze and communicate environmental issues.
Benchmark #1: 80% of PEPS 210 students will demonstrate a 80% point accumulation for Service Learning Project (SLP) in PEPS 210 course. |
Less than 70% final grade on PEPS 210 SLP or less than C grade in 310 or 451 | 71-79% final grade on PEPS 210 SLP or C grade in 310 or 451 | 80% + final grade on PEPS 210 SLP or B grade or better in 310 or 451 |
| 2. | Student will recognize and be able to explain the biology of at least 10 insect orders. | Less than C grade in PEPS 363 and 363L | C grade in PEPS 363 and 363L | B grade or better in PEPS 363 and 363L |
| 3. | Student will recognize and be able to describe biology and management methods for at least five significant plant pathogens in each category: Fungi, viruses, bacteria, nematodes. | Less than C grade in PEPS 405 | C grade in PEPS 405 | B grade or better in PEPS 405 |
| 4. | Student will be able to describe the biology and damage of at least 5 invasive insects, plant pathogens, or plants (weeds), and explain the limitations and ethical implications of control strategies. | Less than C grade in PEPS 350, 421, 422, 481 or no credit in 499 | C grade in PEPS 350, 421, 422, 481 or credit in 499 | B grade or better in PEPS 350, 421, 422, 481 or credit in 499 |
| 5. | Student will be able to explain and provide examples, biological controls, economic benefits, injury levels and the thresholds based pest management options. | Less than C grade in PEPS 421, 422 or 468 | C grade in PEPS 421, 422 or 468 | B grade or better in PEPS 421, 422 or 468 |
| 6. | Student will demonstrate ability to apply skills learned to "real world" situation or employment experience and effectively describe the experience (communication skills). | Less than C grade in PEPS 495 Capstone | C grade in PEPS 495 Capstone | B grade or better in PEPS 495 Capstone |
| 7. | Student will demonstrate ability to clearly communicate results of self analysis and critical thinking.
Benchmark #2: Students completing PEPS 495 will describe program benefits and limitations, and make clear suggestions for program improvement in their Capstone report. |
No evaluation of PEPS program in PEPS 495 Capstone report. No evidence of selfanalysis or critical thinking. | Description of benefits of PEPS program in PEPS 495 Capstone report. Some evidence of self-analysis & critical thinking. | Description of benefits and limitations and clear suggestions for improvement of PEPS program in PEPS 495 Capstone report. Excellent evidence of self-analysis & critical thinking. |
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.
1. For PEPS 210, all 64 students completed the service learning assignment. Three evaluated items are required by each student, for a total of 192 pieces of evidence.
2. For PEPS 495, Capstone reports were completed for one student. We now have over 20 students and 7 are seniors and should be graduating soon providing more data.
10) Summarize the actual results.
a. For PEPS 210, 87% of the students were able to score in the 90% range for an ‘A’ on this project.
b. For PEPS 495, one student included a full discussion of the courses found to be most helpful and did not have any suggested improvements.
11) How did your program use the results? --or-- Explain planned use of results.
Please be specific.
As developed for this assessment, no program needs were identified.
No major program changes were deemed necessary, based on student improvement suggestions. Several faculty expressed willingness to develop more hands-on experiments.
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.
The Assessment Process has been placed under the Undergraduate Advisor. There will be a more robust Assessment Process developed for the Department. This will require Departmental discussion of the SLOs and Faculty Responsibility for addressing specific SLOs. Given that the Fall semester of 2010 is already done, only a few changes can be made by the Spring semester of 2011. However, improvements will be made to items 2, 3, and 4.