Unit: Music
Program: Music (BA, BMus)
Degree: Bachelor's
Date: Mon Oct 08, 2012 - 2:50:44 pm

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

1) Performance Skills. All students, regardless of career plans, should grow in musicianship during their time at UHM.  Performance skills encompass technical skill on an instrument or voice, ability to perform in an ensemble, confidence and stage presence, and perhaps most importantly, aesthetic judgment. Recognizing that each student brings a unique background of preparation and aptitude to college-level music study, the department chooses to emphasize improvement and growth rather than the attainment of a uniform technical standard.

2) Basic Musicianship. The ability to hear, analyze, read, and write music is essential to musical study and the music profession. These skills fall under the general category of music theory and aural skills.

3) Knowledge of Literature. Knowledge of music history is essential in connecting the music programs to the broad liberal background of the university as a whole.

4) Cross-cultural appreciation and understanding of diverse musical traditions. Experiences in ethnomusicology develop attitudes and skills for engaging musical and cultural diversity. They relate directly to the University's commitment to educating for a multicultural and diverse community. They foster multiple intelligences in a cross-cultural setting.

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

Department Website URL: http://www.hawaii.edu/uhmmusic/students/Student%20Learning%20Outcomes.pdf
Student Handbook. URL, if available online:
Information Sheet, Flyer, or Brochure URL, if available online:
UHM Catalog. Page Number:
Course Syllabi. URL, if available online: NA
Other: http://manoa.hawaii.edu/assessment/archive/pdf/2005/2005Music.pdf

3) Select one option:

Curriculum Map File(s) from 2011:

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) Did your program engage in any program assessment activities between June 1, 2011 and September 30, 2012? (e.g., establishing/revising outcomes, aligning the curriculum to outcomes, collecting evidence, interpreting evidence, using results, revising the assessment plan, creating surveys or tests, etc.)

No (skip to question 14)

6) For the period June 1, 2011 to September 30, 2012: State the assessment question(s) and/or assessment goals. Include the SLOs that were targeted, if applicable.

During Fall 2011-Spring 2012, we wrote our report and applied for re-accreditation with NASM (National Association of Schools of Music), our national accreditors. We linked our detailed report to our assessment tools. Every syllabus in the department was checked to be sure to include a department SLO. All SLOs were directly linked to the NASM Common Body of Knowledge and Skills: overall objectives, practices, and levels of expectation.

7) State the type(s) of evidence gathered to answer the assessment question and/or meet the assessment goals that were given in Question #6.

The NASM team gathered evidence during their visit by checking student files as far back as three years. They collected data such as Board exam grades, recital evaluations, senior project evaluations, and job placement after graduation.

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

The entire faculty submitted evidence for each student, as is standard procedure for our department. The NASM team selected student folders at random to review.

9) 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)

10) 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)

11) For the assessment question(s) and/or assessment goal(s) stated in Question #6:
Summarize the actual results.

NASM responded to our report with some questions, but, in general, they were pleased with the standards we uphold for our students. They were particularly impressed by our assessment tools and with our consistent use of SLOs.

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

We are currently working on our response to the NASM team. Some revisions will include curricular issues which are being addressed (adding courses, adjusting current courses). 

13) Beyond the results, were there additional conclusions or discoveries?
This can include insights about assessment procedures, teaching and learning, program aspects and so on.

Having department SLOs that are aligned with our national accreditors insures our students of a high quality music education and allows the department to stay on task with these particular goals of the music learning process.

14) If the program did not engage in assessment activities, please explain.
Or, if the program did engage in assessment activities, please add any other important information here.