Program: Philosophy (MA)
Degree: Master's
Date: Tue Oct 09, 2012 - 12:54:47 pm
1) Below are your program's student learning outcomes (SLOs). Please update as needed.
1. Proficiency in at least one philosophically significant language other than English.
2. Students are able to conduct philosophical research which leads either to a thesis or a significant portfolio of shorter works.
3. Students demonstrate the ability to write and prepare presentations at a high level of proficiency.
*Given recent changes in the MA there is no way to reflect other possible outcomes within the allocated numbers of characters.
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: Information Sheet, Flyer, or Brochure URL, if available online: UHM Catalog. Page Number: Course Syllabi. URL, if available online: NA Other: Other: 3) Select one option:
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.
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.
8) State how many persons submitted evidence that was evaluated. If applicable, please include the sampling technique used.
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.
12) State how the program used the results or plans to use the results. Please be specific.
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.
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.
The M.A. program has been unchanged in the past ten years. It involves the completion of ten courses in philosophy, the satisfaction of a second-language requirement, and the passing of a culminating exam. Our graduate students have never been shy about indicating potential improvements in our graduate program. A number of changes have been made to the doctoral program in response to such suggestions. But no grad student has ever suggested that the M.A. program needs restructuring. And virtually all of our graduating M.A. students are sufficiently satisfied with the quality of graduate education in our program that they apply to go on to the doctoral program. (At the moment, moreover, student numbers in our M.A. program are very low. Last year we had just four M.A. students registered. However, we take this to be an indication of problems with the level of financial support we provide--or rather don't provide--our M.A. students, rather than a matter of dissatisfaction with the program. Indeed, how could students who don't choose to enter the program be in a position to criticize it?)