Unit: Microbiology
Program: Microbiology (PhD)
Degree: Doctorate
Date: Thu Oct 11, 2012 - 5:48:52 pm

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

Microbiology PhD

Program Purpose

The Ph.D. program in the Department of Microbiology at the University of Hawaii is designed to give students the academic and technical skills to become independent scientists and researchers.  We strive to provide each graduate student with broad knowledge in microbiology and in-depth knowledge in their area of specialization.  Students are trained in both traditional and state-of-the-art technologies to be applied to the design and conduct of original research projects.  Additionally, students have access to both basic and advanced coursework to further their academic and research goals.

Student Learning Outcomes

1.  Design microbiological or immunological experiments at an advanced graduate level.

2.  Demonstrate proficiency with a variety of classical and modern microbiology techniques.

3.  Read, understand and evaluate current literature in their discipline.

4.  Produce significant scientific research results.

5.  Research results and interpretations of those results should be clearly presented both orally and in peer reviewed publications

6.  Develop awareness and perspective as a member of a local, national and global scientific community

7.  Compete successfully for productive employment or postdoctoral training in industry or academic institutions.

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

Department Website URL: http://www.hawaii.edu/microbiology/PhD.html
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:
Other:
Other:

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.

0%
1-50%
51-80%
81-99%
100%

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.)

Yes
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 comprehensive written and oral exams are a major assessment tool for the department.  The current format of the comprehensive exams was questioned as was the need for a qualifying exam (used as a diagnostic exam in this case).

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.

Results and usefulness of previous years qualifying and comprehensive exams were considered.

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

Each of 7 faculty members recounted examples of qualifying and comprehensive exam results from disssertation committes on which they served and evaluated their usefulness as an assessment tool as well as value to students as a learning tool. 

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)
Dean/Director
Other:

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)
Other:

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

It was determined that the qualifying exam was of little value and the structure of the comprehensive exams did not adequately test a student's breadth of knowledge nor their ability to evaluate the methods and logic of scientific research.

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

The qualifying exam was eliminated and the format and evaluation of comprehensive exams was restructured.

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.

NA

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.