Program: English (BA)
Degree: Bachelor's
Date: Mon Oct 31, 2011 - 2:27:55 pm
1) Below are your program student learning outcomes (SLOs). Please update 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) Your program's SLOs are 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 Other: 3) Below is the link(s) to your program's curriculum map(s). If we do not have your curriculum map, please upload it as a PDF.
4) For your program, the percentage of courses that have course SLOs explicitly stated on the syllabus, a website, or other publicly available document is as follows. Please update as needed.
0% 1-50%
51-80% 81-99% 100%5) For the period June 1, 2010 to September 30, 2011: State the assessment question(s) and/or assessment goals. Include the SLOs that were targeted, if applicable.
ENG 100 Composition
How well are students in Composition 1 achieving the stated outcomes for the following SLO?:
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.
6) State the type(s) of evidence gathered to answer the assessment question and/or meet the assessment goals that were given in Question #5.
Each Fall 2010 Composition 1 instructor was asked to submit to the Manoa Assessment Office clean copies of three randomly-selected students' research papers (or essays/reports which include outside sources). 63% of sections taught submitted student work.
7) State how many persons submitted evidence that was evaluated. If applicable, please include the sampling technique used.
Random stratified sampling (by section).
As the January 2010 faculty reading session was limited, about half of the submitted student work was evaluated (39 texts or 4% of students enrolled in the course). The remaining texts will be scored November 2011.
8) Who interpreted or analyzed the evidence that was collected? (Check all that apply.)
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: 9) How did they evaluate, analyze, or interpret the evidence? (Check all that apply.)
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: 10) For the assessment question(s) and/or assessment goal(s) stated in Question #5:
Summarize the actual results.
2% of papers were deemed "well prepared," 67% "prepared," 23% "partially prepared" and 8% "not prepared." Fewer texts achieved "well prepared" or "prepared" levels in Fall 2010 than in Spring 2010. However, the "not prepared" category was under 10% for the first time since information literacy has been assessed by the department, and these results show considerable improvement over papers submitted Spring 2009. Nevertheless, the data are based on the assessment of about 50% of the papers submitted, and complete data will be available only after completion of the Fall 2010 SLO#3 assessment process in November 2011.
11) State how the program used the results or plans to use the results. Please be specific.
The Manoa Assessment Office compiled and distributed the results for discussion to the Department Assessment Committee and the Director of the English Language Institute. The results were later reported and discussed at a department meeting in March 2011. The full Fall 2010 data (which will include the results of the November 2011 reading), will be reported by the Department Assessment Committee to a department meeting scheduled for April 2012. As a result of departmental discussion, the Department Assessment Committee expects certain modifications in the praxis of instructors to ensure that a higher percentage of future Composition 1 students achieve either "well prepared" or "prepared" levels for writing tasks involving information literacy (SLO#3).
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.
Students need help improving in the following areas:
1. the mechanics of citation (mainly in the bibliography),
2. the in-text introduction (lead-in) of quotation, and
3. the separation of source ideas from student writer ideas.
13) Other important information.
Please note: If the program did not engage in assessment, please explain. If the program created an assessment plan for next year, please give an overview.
For 2011/12, the department will complete the reading and assessment of Composition 1 SLO#3 (November) and both produce a rubric for, and complete the assessment of, SLO#2 (revision), using student materials collected Spring 2011. Results from the assessment of SLO#2 should be avaiulable by the end of the academic year. Initial consideration will also be given to the assessment of ENG 270, and the Assessment Chair will be working with the Department Curriculum Committee to formulate appropriate SLOs for that series as well as an undergraduate program curriculum map.