Unit: Electrical Engineering
Program: Electrical Engineering (PhD)
Degree: Doctorate
Date: Thu Oct 11, 2012 - 7:40:38 pm

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

The Department of Electrical Engineering adheres to the student learning outcomes of the Graduate Division:

"In general, a student who has successfully complete the graduate degree requirements should be able to

  1. Demonstrate mastery of the methodology and techniques specific to the field of study.
  2. Communicate both orally and in writing at a high level of proficiency in the field of study.
  3. Conduct research or produce some other form of creative work.
  4. Function as a professional in the discipline."

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

Department Website URL: http://www-ee.eng.hawaii.edu/content.php?pag=5

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:

3) Select one option:

Curriculum Map File(s) from 2012:

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.

The advisor of each PhD candidate along with the appropriate committee was asked to assess the candidate at three critical points (qualifying exam, comprehensive exam, defense) with respect to the performance questions

1)     SLO1:Theory

2)     SLO1:Methodology

3)     SLO2:Oral Communication

4)     SLO2:Written Communication

5)     SLO3:Original Research

6)     Overall Assessment.

by using the scoring rubrics

1)     Unacceptable

2)     Marginal

3)     Acceptable

4)     Exceptional

5)     Not Applicable.

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 PhD advisor and the appropriate committee evaluations of how well the PhD candidate met the outcomes on the qualifying exam, comprehensive exam, and thesis defense.

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

We have 8 assessments.

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.

Aggregate Assessment Results (8 PhD assessments):


Unacceptable: 0, Marginal: 3, Acceptable: 3.5, Exceptional: 1.5, Not Applicable: 0
Acceptable or better: 63% of 8 applicable assessments


Unacceptable: 0, Marginal: 0, Acceptable: 4.67, Exceptional: 3.33, Not Applicable: 0
Acceptable or better: 100% of 8 applicable assessments

SLO2:Oral Communication

Unacceptable: 1, Marginal: 1, Acceptable: 3, Exceptional: 3, Not Applicable: 0
Acceptable or better: 75% of 8 applicable assessments

SLO2:Written Communication

Unacceptable: 1, Marginal: 0, Acceptable: 1.17, Exceptional: 1.83, Not Applicable: 4
Acceptable or better: 75% of 4 applicable assessments

SLO3:Original Research

Unacceptable: 0, Marginal: 1, Acceptable: 2.83, Exceptional: 4.17, Not Applicable: 0
Acceptable or better: 88% of 8 applicable assessments

Overall Assessment

Unacceptable: 0, Marginal: 1, Acceptable: 2.33, Exceptional: 3.67, Not Applicable: 0
Acceptable or better: 86% of 7 applicable assessments

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

The results show that SLO1, SLO2, and SLO3 are met at an acceptable level or better.  The results also show that the overall performance of the EE PhD program is acceptable or better. These results do not raise any red flags in any area, which suggests that no drastic actions need to be taken at this point.  The lowest scores are obtained in SLO1 with respect to ``theory’’; 63% of 8 applicable assessments are acceptable or better. The results will be shared with the graduate committee, and discussions will take place to find ways of continually improving the EE PhD program including the achievement of SLO1 at a higher level.

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.

The graduate committee needs to work on developing an assessment method for SLO4 ``Function as a professional in the discipline’’.

The graduate committee needs to work on closing the loop from the assessment results to actual actions in order to continually improve the EE PhD program. This requires mapping the educational and research activities undertaken by a PhD student during his/her graduate studies (such as courses taken, the seminars attended, the thesis research, etc.) to the SLOs.

The assessment questionnaire needs to be updated to clarify the instructions to the faculty.

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.