Unit: Philosophy
Program: Philosophy (PhD)
Degree: Doctorate
Date: Fri Oct 28, 2011 - 5:26:12 pm

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

1. Philosophical reading competence in a philosophically significant language other than English.

2. Reading and research competence in English.

3. Knowledge and understanding of the Western philosophical tradition and where applicable a non-Western tradition.

4. Ability to participate in a field of contemporary philosophical endeavor.

5. Ability to conduct and write up publishable research.

6. Mastery of a specific topic.

7. Ability to express and defend their views in oral presentations.

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

Department Website URL: www.hawaii.edu/phil
Student Handbook. URL, if available online: N/A
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.

No map submitted.

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.

PhD students sit a canonical area exam on historical texts.

Previously, they also sat a contemporary area exam in a particular field. We recently substituted for this a requirement that they take, and sit the appropriate exams for, two contemporary issue graduate seminars.

Each year the Department reviews the progress of each student in the graduate program. Each professor ranks the students they have taught (in the previous four semesters); the results are compiled by the graduate chair, and used as a basis for discussion of student progress.

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.

Examination committees evaluate exam performance.

The Department evaluates student progress through the program.

In the end, the job market assesses candidates as they apply for teaching positions.

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

All professors contribute to the annual overall ranking (used primarily for the purpose of assigning financial support) of graduate students in our program. Committee members are involved in the evaluation of exam performances. Graduate students evaluate the quality of individual courses offered, and they, as well as faculty, and especially the graduate chair, keep an eye on the overall effectiveness of the doctoral program.

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.

It was determined last spring that our department no longer possessed the necessary (faculty) resources to make the contemporary area exam an effective means of evaluating graduate student knowledge. Accordingly, we replaced it with a new contemporary issues coursework requirement.

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

See #10.

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.

We are conscious of the fact that our doctoral program is currently under pressure from a shortage of faculty--a problem that is currently exacerbated by the fact that several senior faculty are entitled to take sabbaticals this year and next. We are having to find ways of coping.

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.