Unit: Art & Art History
Program: Art (BA, BFA)
Degree: Bachelor's
Date: Fri Oct 14, 2011 - 10:48:15 am

1) Below are your program student learning outcomes (SLOs). Please update as needed.

Our department has five degree programs: the BA in studio art, the BA in art history, the BFA (a pre-professional studio art degree), the MFA (a terminal degree for studio artists) and the MA in art history.  Each of these programs has developed five SLOs organized around five themes which are shared across programs.  The result is a matrix of 25 program-level SLOs, which is downloadable in PDF format on our departmental website at http://www.hawaii.edu/art/students/resources/PDFs/2008assess_matrix-1.pdf.

2) Your program's SLOs are published as follows. Please update as needed.

Department Website URL: http://www.hawaii.edu/art/students/resources/PDFs/2008assess_matrix-1.pdf
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

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.

Curriculum Map File(s) from 2011:

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.


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.

Our department’s protocol for assessment evaluates the work of graduating students in each of our five degree programs.  In each annual round of assessment, we evaluate the work of students in a single degree program, based on the five program SLOs (per degree program) listed in item 1 above.  This year’s assessment targeted the MFA program. However, as noted below, we also completed the assessment for our BFA program which was begun last year (see last year's report for BFA SLOs).

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.

See question 10 below. This part of our assessment activities focused on our MFA program and will be reported on in the MA/MFA report.

7) State how many persons submitted evidence that was evaluated. If applicable, please include the sampling technique used.

The portfolios submitted this year were for the MFA program - please see MA/MFA report. We also collected BFA portfolios for evaluation in the next round of BFA assessment (five years from now).

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)

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)

10) For the assessment question(s) and/or assessment goal(s) stated in Question #5:
Summarize the actual results.

The evaluation of the MFA portfolios is still ongoing.  Because the portfolios are collected from graduating students, they only become available during finals week of Spring Semester.  The actual evaluation work then takes place during the fall semester.

The BFA portfolios collected last year were evaluated by a faculty committee as described above and in last year’s assessment report, using a scoring rubric. On average, the results were favorable, as we expected (the BFA students pass a portfolio review to enter the program and go through a capstone seminar before graduation; thus, we already have a pretty good sense of how well they are fulfilling our learning objectives): for each SLO, over 80% of portfolios were rated 3 (proficient) or 4 (exemplary), which was what we had hoped for.

11) State how the program used the results or plans to use the results. Please be specific.

We presented the results of the BFA assessment to the faculty in a meeting at the end of the fall semester.  In general the reaction was positive, since the results seemed to confirm what we already thought we knew about the BFA program. This round of assessment does not suggest the need for any substantive changes to the program, but it does suggest some potential avenues for refining the assessment process (see next question).

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.

Some evaluators felt that they couldn’t evaluate all SLOs based on the materials submitted. The committee felt that in part this was because we didn’t do a good enough job of explaining the instrument; but there is also reason to think that the portfolios as currently submitted do not cover all areas of student learning. In general, SLOs 3-5, but especially #4, seem to refer to things that we expect studio art students to do verbally but not in writing. The faculty discussion on how to evaluate these SLOs better next time is still ongoing. In addition, we see the need to institute better procedures for collecting graduation portfolios from MFA and MA students, given how difficult it was to do so this round.

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.