Program: English (BA)
Date: Sat Oct 10, 2009 - 6:31:37 pm
1) List your program's student learning outcomes (SLOs).
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) Where are your program's SLOs published?
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
3) Upload your program's current curriculum map(s) as a PDF.
4) What percentage of courses have the course SLOs explicitly stated on the course syllabus, department website, or other publicly available document? (Check one)
5) State the SLO(s) that was Assessed, Targeted, or Studied
6) State the Assessment Question(s) and/or Goal(s) of Assessment Activity
7) State the Type(s) of Evidence Gathered
8) State How the Evidence was Interpreted, Evaluated, or Analyzed
An English Department faculty/G.A. team assisted by the UHM Assessment Office applied a rubric drafted by the English Department Assessment Committee and then revised and finalized by our Assessment Coordinator and the UHM Assessment office.Scoring team: Professors Erica Clayton, Mark Heberle, Ruth Hsu and graduate candidates Holly Bruland, Philip Drake, and Annette Priesman Prepping team: Monica Stitt-Bergh and Marlene Lowe of the UHM Assessment office
9) State How Many Pieces of Evidence Were Collected
10) Summarize the Actual Results
Overall, only 6% of student writers were “well-prepared” enough to fully satisfy criteria for information literacy; 48% were “prepared”; 26% were “partially prepared”; and 21% were“not prepared” (Four separate skills were evaluated, each with its own results, with “relevancy” and “credibility” of sources being the strongest areas, “adherence to citation rules” the weakest, and “makes use of sources [where necessary]” between these extremes
11) Briefly Describe the Distribution and Discussion of Results
The Department’s 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 Assessment Coordinators and the 2009-2010 Departmental Assessment Committee
Initially, among UHM Assessment officials and the two departmental coordinators, who also discussed what is to be done next
12) Describe Conclusions and Discoveries
13) Use of Results/Program Modifications: State How the Program Used the Results --or-- Explain Planned Use of Results
14) Reflect on the Assessment Process
Not really—if there time, personnel, and funding sufficient, we would read far more papers than we were able to do last year.The assessment session was well-organized and revelatory for assessors; the rubric underwent revision several times and ended being very effective in locating skills and helping to uncover their relatively disappointing implementation; what was learned form this assessment will be helpful and valuable for the next
15) Other Important Information
The same procedure, possibly with more papers, can be followed for assessment of the next FW SLO. The Department Assessment Committee sees the need to have all four General Education-approved SLOs not only included on all English 100 syllabi but also practiced more extensively by students in future semesters.
Beyond direct assessment of FW SLOs, the English Department instituted a policy of collecting and examining faculty syllabi every semester to determine whether or not faculty are meeting minimum expectations and including SLOs. Collection of 300- and 400-level syllabi and such analysis took place in 2008-2009 along with dissemination of a college-wide survey for all B.A., M.A., and Ph.D graduates in spring 2009, and the results will be used to identify and address apparent weaknesses in the three programs as well as to see what we are doing well.