Program: Philosophy (BA)
Date: Wed Nov 09, 2011 - 10:08:27 am
1) Below are your program student learning outcomes (SLOs). Please update as needed.
1. Students acquire the skills
1.1. of careful reading and interpretation of philosophical texts
1.2. of writing clear, succinct, and well-argued papers
1.3. of responding critically to the ideas advanced by others
1.4. of expressing ideas logically and coherently.
2. Students acquire a basic knowledge of the history of Western Philosophy.
3. Students are acquainted with at least one non-Western philosophical tradition.
4. Students are acquainted with at least one major field in contemporary philosophy.
5. Students demonstrate the ability to write a paper on a philosophical topic on which they have conducted independent research.
2) Your program's SLOs are published as follows. Please update as needed.
Student Handbook. URL, if available online:
Information Sheet, Flyer, or Brochure URL, if available online: NA
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.
- 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.
1) Critical Thinking.
2) Text Comprehension.
3) Text Analysis.
2) Quality of narrative (structure, coherence, analysis, ideas, critical response).
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.
- Seniors’ papers. (15)
- Papers submitted for the David Hall prize. (3)
- Papers submitted for UH/HPU Undergraduate Conference. (8)
- 1-page narrative that majors have to submit when they fill out their goldenrod form. (7)
- Quizzes for Courses on History of Philosophy (211-213). (54)
Presentations made by selected seniors in Phil 449 (capstone course) before the Department at Semester End Party. Seniors vote among themselves to determine who should present.(3-4)
7) State how many persons submitted evidence that was evaluated. If applicable, please include the sampling technique used.
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)
Other: Undergraduate chair [senior papers plus 1-page narrative]
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.
About 25% of our seniors are in the range very good-excellent, 30% are good writers, and 45% at a satisfactory level.
11) State how the program used the results or plans to use the results. Please be specific.
Deficits in our students’ skills are discussed in Department meetings.
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.
To our surprise, our seniors were extremely satisfied with the quality of the program, mostly emphasizing critical thinking and writing skills as assets for further studies or entering professional life . (This is what they wrote in their 1-page narratives.)
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.
This year students in 110 (Inductive Logic) and 101 (Morals and Society) took a generic exam on critical reasoning skills. At the end of each of these course the same exam will be administered again with a view toward gauging how much these students have progressed in developing in reasoning skills. These skills are implicit in the Department's SLOs, 1.1-1.4. The assessment is undertaken with the cooperation of Susan Hippensteele in Social Science.
For one UG course last spring (PHIL 310 - Ethics in Health Care), students were queried at the end of the course on each of the SLOs: Given what you have put into the course, and as regards each of the SLOs, the course (1) met, (2) did not meet, (3) exceeded your expectations. These results were examined by the instructor.
Additional information for question 8:
Course instructors scored the quizzes.
Faculty committee was responsible for the David Hall Prize, UH/HPU undergraduate conference submissions, and presentations.
Undergraduate chair interpreted/analyzed the senior papers and 1-page narrative.
Additional information for question 9:
Rubric used to evaluate oral skills.
Quizzes in PHIL 211-213 were scored.
Professional judgment used to evaluate papers.