Program: Pacific Islands Studies (MA)
Degree: Master's
Date: Fri Oct 12, 2012 - 2:38:05 pm
1) Below are your program's student learning outcomes (SLOs). Please update as needed.
MA in Pacific Islands Studies
Student Learning Objectives
MA SLO 1 Students can evaluate Pacific Studies as an organized, interdisciplinary field of study that includes indigenous epistemologies and perspectives.
MA SLO 2 Students can demonstrate a wide range of historical, geographic, and cultural knowledge about Oceania
MA SLO 3 Students can analyze conceptual, political, cultural, and ethical issues confronting students of Oceanic societies.
MA SLO 4 Students can analyze a specialized aspect of the history, culture, politics, or international relations of one or more of the island societies of Oceania.
MA SLO 5 Students can interact with Pacific Islander communities in culturally sensitive research, collaboration, and advocacy.
Certificate in Pacific Islands Studies
1.1 Students can demonstrate a wide range of historical, geographic, and cultural knowledge about Oceania
1.2 Students can demonstrate expertise in a Pacific-related specialty area relevant to the student’s research focus in another graduate program.
1.3 Students can analyze contemporary conceptual, political, cultural, and ethical issues confronting students of Oceanic societies.
2) Your program's SLOs are published as follows. Please update as needed.
Department Website URL: Student Handbook. URL, if available online: 
Information Sheet, Flyer, or Brochure URL, if available online: NA UHM Catalog. Page Number: Course Syllabi. URL, if available online: http://www.hawaii.edu/cpis/psi/index.html (some, not all courses) 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.
The goals for MA program assessment were to reexamine the MA program SLOs and the MA curriculum map, to more closely review alignment of course SLOs with program outcomes, and consider methods for assessment of student comprehensive exams, theses, and portfolios in light of program outcomes.
Specifically, we also sought to examine student outcomes for SLOs 1, 3, and 4.
Additionally, we examined 2011 exit survey for all students who graduated in calendar year 2011.
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.
Faculty presented their course syllabi and SLOs to identify intersections with the MA program outcomes. The curriculum map was revised based on collective discussion of course content and outcomes. Further, the Program SLOs were also slightly revised to reflect minor changes in outcomes.
We determined that a well-designed rubric would be helpful in evaluating student comprehensive exams to assess the strengths and weaknesses of our program. We will model a rubric on sample provided from the Assessment office as used in the History department at UHM.
To assess program SLO1, we reviewed 5 student essays gathered from the introductory 600 level course (PACS 601). In assessing SLO3 and SLO4 we reviewed previously completed rubrics used to assess student presentations in the final 600 level course (PACS 603), Spring 2012.
In reviewing exit surveys, we realized that there is much overlap in the content of our required courses and the curriculum specialist is charting out the readings and course content to make recommendations on updating or expanding course content.
8) State how many persons submitted evidence that was evaluated. If applicable, please include the sampling technique used.
For SLO1, every 3rd paper of the batch scan was selected for review, resulting in 5 individuals’ essays, or 30% of the class. For SLO 3 and 4, we reviewed rubrics for all 15 individual students who made final presentations (100%).
Eight individuals responded to the exit survey and we reviewed 100% of the responses.
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.
We revised the curriculum map and encouraged all faculty to include SLOs on course syllabi. We examined samples rubrics for final assessment of student mastery of program outcomes as demonstrated in theses, comprehensive exams, and portfolio projects. We are archiving work that demonstrates varying levels of accomplishment.
In analysis of data for SLO1, results revealed that of the 5 samples there was 1 accomplished response, 2 competent responses and 2 developing responses. All were strong in discussions of indigenous perspectives, but less competent in describing the interdisciplinary nature of the program and indigenous epistemologies desired.
In analyzing program SLOs 3 and 4, students were competent (80%) or accomplished (20%) in meeting the outcomes for both SLOs.
In reviewing exit surveys, we realized that there is much overlap in the content of our required courses and the curriculum specialist is charting out the readings and course content to make recommendations on updating or expanding course content.
12) State how the program used the results or plans to use the results. Please be specific.
The results of our assessment highlighted that while students are reaching outcomes successfully, their oral presentation and writing skills could be improved. We discussed that just as other absent pre-requisites require additional coursework, we would in the future identify those students in need of additional writing or presentation skills and refer them to campus supports and resources, and require additional courses to address gaps.
We realized we need support in designing rubrics if they are to be useful, and that our exit surveys need refining to provide more helpful information about student experiences in the MA program. Even so, we benefitted from student responses that pointed us to closer collaboration to prevent duplication of material in a limited number of 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.
Comprehensive exams can more explicitly target program outcomes and not materials covered in courses. MA students need more preparation and practice in methodologies, and research activities prior to working on the thesis, and students seek more support for their second year in the degree program. We plan to address these issues this academic year.