Program: Linguistics (PhD)
Date: Thu Oct 13, 2011 - 2:25:13 pm
1) Below are your program student learning outcomes (SLOs). Please update as needed.
The primary objective of the Ph.D. program is to provide full professional training for those seeking careers in research. Our program goals are therefore to provide training in the relevant areas in the discipline and to cultivate research skills.
2) Your program's SLOs are published as follows. Please update as needed.
Student Handbook. URL, if available online: www.ling.hawaii.edu/graduate/pdfs/PhDmanual.pdf
Information Sheet, Flyer, or Brochure URL, if available online:
UHM Catalog. Page Number:
Course Syllabi. URL, if available online:
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.
- File (03/16/2020)
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.
Yearly faculty-wide assessment is performed, whereby each student's grades, performance in class, and performance on research activity is evaluated. The goals are to provide faculty with a fully-informed view of the students' progress, as well as to provide students with individualized feedback on their performance and progress through the degree program.
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.
Both numerical ranks (1-9) and short answers were gathered.
7) State how many persons submitted evidence that was evaluated. If applicable, please include the sampling technique used.
Each student was evaluated, and each student was sent a letter summarizing this evaluation. All students that were within the expected norm for progress through the degree were informed so, and those students that were delayed were informed so. Overall, progress has improved over the past few years, and relatively few students fall outside the norm.
8) Who interpreted or analyzed the evidence that was collected? (Check all that apply.)
Ad hoc faculty group
Persons or organization outside the university
Advisors (in student support services)
Students (graduate or undergraduate)
9) How did they evaluate, analyze, or interpret the evidence? (Check all that apply.)
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.
38 PhD students were judged to be making satisfactory progress. 3 were not and were placed on probation.
11) State how the program used the results or plans to use the results. Please be specific.
Letters were sent to students.
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.
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.
None. We plan to continue with the same assessment procedures, which have been very useful to both students and faculty.