Program: Linguistics (PhD)
Date: Thu Oct 11, 2012 - 11:08:45 am
1) Below are your program's student learning outcomes (SLOs). Please update as needed.
The primary objective of the Ph.D. program is to provide full professional training for those seeking careers in research. Our program goals are therefore to provide training in the relevant areas in the discipline and to cultivate research skills.
2) Your program's SLOs are published as follows. Please update as needed.
Student Handbook. URL, if available online: www.ling.hawaii.edu/graduate/pdfs/PhDmanual.pdf
Information Sheet, Flyer, or Brochure URL, if available online:
UHM Catalog. Page Number:
Course Syllabi. URL, if available online:
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.
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.
Yearly faculty-wide assessment is performed, whereby each student's grades, performance in class, and performance on research activities is evaluated. The goals are to provide faculty with a fully-informed view of the student's progress, as well as to provide students with individualized feedback on their performance and progress through the degree program.
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.
Both numerical ranks (1-9) and short answers were gathered.
8) State how many persons submitted evidence that was evaluated. If applicable, please include the sampling technique used.
Each student was evaluated, and each student was sent a letter summarizing this evaluation. All students that were within the expected norm for progress through the degree were so informed, and those students that were delayed were also so informed. Overall, progress has steadily improved during the past several years, and relatively few students fall outside the norm.
9) Who interpreted or analyzed the evidence that was collected? (Check all that apply.)
Ad hoc faculty group
Persons or organization outside the university
Advisors (in student support services)
Students (graduate or undergraduate)
10) How did they evaluate, analyze, or interpret the evidence? (Check all that apply.)
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.
47 PhD students were judged to be making satisfactory progress. 3 were not and were placed on probation.
12) State how the program used the results or plans to use the results. Please be specific.
Letters were sent to the students.
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.
We plan to continue with the same assessment procedures, which have been very useful to both students and faculty.