Program: American Studies: Historic Preservation (Graduate Certificate)
Degree: Certificate, Graduate
Date: Thu Oct 20, 2011 - 11:35:01 am
1) Below are your program student learning outcomes (SLOs). Please update as needed.
1) An overall knowledge of the field of historic preservation in the U.S. and internationally;
2) Knowledge of procedures, laws and international agreements pertaining to historic preservation practice nationally and internationally;
3) Knowledge of the range and types of historic properties/resources, their characteristics and special conservation requirements;
4) Critical thinking skills relevant to identifying and analyzing historic resources and formulating strategies for their recognition and protection;
5) Competence in scholarly and professional writing and in oral communication;
6) Advanced research skills, including knowledge of primary and secondary sources necessary in the historic preservation field;
7) Basic and advanced documentation skills for identifying, describing and in other ways recording historic and cultural resources.
2) Your program's SLOs are published as follows. Please update as needed.
Student Handbook. URL, if available online: NA
Information Sheet, Flyer, or Brochure URL, if available online: http://www.historic.edu/amst/blog
UHM Catalog. Page Number:
Course Syllabi. URL, if available online: Laulima
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.
The program content has been further discussed with members of the community, potential employees, former students and fellow teachers and scholars at UH and other institutions. We are in the process of creating a questionnaire for both current students and graduates to gain a better idea of what students want in their education and how well the program has prepared them (for graduates). This is being done through our existing on-line newsletter and will be incorporated into our new website.
These meetings and discussions have helped lead to a reappraisal of course content and educational needs. This reassessment is reflected in modifications to existing syllabi and the re-naming of four courses to reflect new directions in the field. AmSt 677 Community Preservation is now being re-titled as Historic Preservation Planning; AmSt 676 Documentation of Historic Resources will soon be Documentation of Historic and Cultural Resources. AmSt 681 Vernacular Traditions in American Architecture and Material Culture is being re-titled Vernacular Architecture and Material Culture. In addition, three existing courses, Anth 645, Historic Preservation; AmSt 679 Elements of Style in American Architecture and Decorative Arts; and AmSt 474 Preservation: Hawai‘i, Asia and the Pacific; and AmSt 676 Documentation of Historic Resources are being cross-listed with either American Studies or Architecture to encourage more interdisciplinary participation. (We have completed the cross-listing on Anth/Anst 645; the other courses still await approval.)
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.
We are still devising an instrument for surveying students and graduates. We hope to complete this before next assessment period. We hope to include data gathering as part of the new website.
Several courses have been modified in the last two years to reflect changes in the field as understood through conference participation by the director and through conversations with others in the historic preservation field (including conversations with students and graduates). For example, issues of “Cultural Landscapes,” and “Intangible Culture,” now form bigger components in the introductory course and in the course readings.
7) State how many persons submitted evidence that was evaluated. If applicable, please include the sampling technique used.
- Student evaluations; open-ended opinions
- In-class discussions with students
- Discussions with fellow UHM faculty
- Meetings of the departmental Curriculum Committee
- Meetings at other educational organizations
- Discussions with others in the Hawai‘i historic preservation community
- Discussions with National Park Service personnel and educators
- Discussions with Hawai‘i legislators
- Discussions with Statewide governmental and community-based organizations
The total number of respondents stands at 96.
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.
There have been changes to the syllabi and readings in AmSt 675, AmSt 474, AmSt 681 and AmSt 679.
11) State how the program used the results or plans to use the results. Please be specific.
Further discussions with National Park Service and State officials will take place in the coming year. NCPE will also be notified of the changes once they have been approved.
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.
Additional modifications will await further collection of data through our website. Tentative results include the recognition of the need for greater emphasis on interpretation of sites and the possible increased use of new “visualization” and mapping technologies. The director has been working increasingly with community organizations and is gaining a better sense of what is needed in Hawai‘i.
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.
The assessment process has further strengthened interdepartmental discussions, particularly with the graduate programs in Urban and Regional Planning, Anthropology and Architecture. We have also established stronger contacts with community organizations and government programs in which our graduating students are employed. We foresee increasing levels of contact between and among departments, leading, we hope to the first steps toward creation of a master’s level program. We have begun fresh projects with both the National park Service and the State Historic Preservation office which will afford new opportunities for Historic Preservation students. We also believe the modifications to course titles and content will help strengthen student and graduate competencies and better prepare them for careers in the historic preservation field.