Program: Political Science (PhD)
Degree: Doctorate
Date: Tue Oct 09, 2012 - 5:23:44 pm
1) Below are your program's student learning outcomes (SLOs). Please update as needed.
We assume students who enter graduate level study have been given appropriate training in the fundamentals of the discipline and possess the qualities necessary to produce graduate-level work. From the admissions process on, students are assessed upon several important outcomes.
1. The ability to produce quality scholarship.
At the graduate level we anticipate that students will use their knowledge of the fundamentals of the discipline as well as the critical evolution of the discipline over time to help contribute to that field through their own research.
2. Mastery of one or more of the sub-fields offered in the major.
Our program offers subfields that form the specialization a graduate student will develop while enrolled in the program. We expect students graduating from the program to have mastered one or more of these subfields. Specifically, they should have an understanding of the traditional and critical literature of the subfield and be able to demonstrate a mastery of these fields.
3. Ability to think politically. Much like our expectations of the undergraduate majors, we require students to think politically about social phenomenon. Comprehending that all social, economic, and cultural processes are also political is a crucial learning outcome. That comprehension creates knowledgeable citizenry capable of acting on policy decisions and conduct. That no knowledge is innocent, but that all knowledge has consequences is key to this learning outcome.
2) Your program's SLOs are published as follows. Please update as needed.
Department Website URL: http://www.politicalscience.hawaii.edu/graduate-program.html Student Handbook. URL, if available online: http://www.politicalscience.hawaii.edu/graduate-program.html
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:
- File (03/16/2020)
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.
We have a faculty meeting every spring where we assess each student individually along the lines of our SLOs and general degree expectations. If we feel they are not making sufficient progress at the graduate level then we recommend that they be placed on academic probation. This could lead to dismissal without change.
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.
1. Courses completed. 2. Number of POLS 699 (directed readings taken) 3. Progress towards degree. 4. Comprehensive exams and proposal progress.
8) State how many persons submitted evidence that was evaluated. If applicable, please include the sampling technique used.
Each graduate student is required to submit a self assessment. We have a total of 105 graduate students of which approximately 20% submitted self assessments. The faculty meets to identify issues for all 105 students.
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: The entire faculty meets10) 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: Using self-assessment reports11) For the assessment question(s) and/or assessment goal(s) stated in Question #6:
Summarize the actual results.
Students were placed on probation and/or were recommended to be dropped from the program based upon their progress towards meeting the goals of the department.
12) State how the program used the results or plans to use the results. Please be specific.
We have an ongoing process that ties continued status in the graduate program to our assessment process.
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.
There are numerous holes in our curriculum, including the lack of courses on methodology and basic political science that would better help our students achieve the SLOs.