Unit: East Asian Languages & Literatures
Program: East Asian Lang & Lit: Japanese (PhD)
Degree: Doctorate
Date: Tue Oct 23, 2012 - 4:24:11 pm

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

Japanese Language and Linguistics

1. Demonstrate comprehensive knowledge about the field, especially in areas of their expertise and its connection of related areas of research

2. Evaluate the purposes, approaches, designs, and analyses of published research in areas of their expertise

3. Produce scholarly work at the level of quality adequate for publication

4. Establish membership in their field and develop their presence in that discipline

5. Design and teach graduate-level courses in the areas of their specialization

6. Handle a job interview and job talk

Japanese Literature

1. Demonstrate comprehensive knowledge of the history of Japanese literature and the relevant scholarship in the field of Japanese literary studies

2. Use and analyze sources written in classical and modern Japanese, and evaluate them from an informed theoretical perspective

3. Develop their field of scholarly expertise in the area of their concentration, and situate themselves within the critical field of Japanese literary studies

4. Develop analytical and critical skills, and apply them to close textual readings of primary and secondary sources

5. Use Japanese and Western theoretical literature, both premodern and modern

6. Integrate relevant research in designing and teaching courses in their area of specialization 

7. Produce an original contribution to the scholarly discourse in their area of specialization

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

Department Website URL: http://www.hawaii.edu/eall/jpn/grad.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: http://www.hawaii.edu/eall/jpn/courses.html

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.


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.

Curriculum committees in each academic program regularly review data such as enrollment figures, results of diagnostic and comprehensive examinations, and student surveys to assess how effectively it meets its objectives (satisfaction with the program, learning outcomes in terms of publications and conference presentations, plans after graduation, suggestions for program improvement, etc).

All SLOs were targeted.

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. Dissertation/comprehensive exams.   All PhD programs culminate in capstone projects (dissertation and comprehensive examination). In addition the graduate programs, especially those in PhD programs, encourage their students to present their work at national and international conferences.

2. Participation in the College of LLL student exit survey.  For AY 2011-12, 3 out of 5 Lg & Ling Ph.D. recipients participated in the survey (a 60% return rate).  0 of 1 Literature Ph.D. recipients participated.

3. Monitoring postgraduate professional activities and achievements. The department's Graduate Student Services Specialist makes use of limited time and resources to monitor postgraduate professional activities and achievements.  This information is compiled and published each semester in a newsletter which is distributed to faculty, graduate students, and interested community members as well as to peer programs at other institutions, and posted on the department website (Newsletters are currently not available due to the website undergoing a reconstruction).

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

See #9.

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)

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: 1. Within each individual course, the course instructor interprets evidence of student learning. 2. Within each program, the student's advisor and committee monitor student progress through the program and achievement of its objectives. 3. The graduate faculty in each program rank orders graduate students annually for tuition waiver eligibility based on their overall level of academic achievement. Applications for graduate assistantships are evaluated in a similar way. 4. The Literature faculty experimented with using a set of rubrics to evaluate completed PhD dissertations.

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

We will make specific assessment results available to the AO upon request.

Also, the 2012 EALL exit survey summary report will be available from the department/college upon request.

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

Both the Japanese Linguistics and Japanese Literature sections meet regularly to discuss and rank student performance.

Currently, each student is required to meet with his/her adviser once every semester.

We have discussed the need for a periodic update of the program website. The current Japanese Section Head has requested that individual faculty modify their website information to provide more details to graduate 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.

1. Last year, after using a set of rubrics used to assess dissertations borowed from the ntural sciences, the Literature faculty decided to modify the procedure to more effectively reflect the methodology and goals of its discipline.  The new set of rubrics will be finalized once a new dissertation is completed and ready for evaluation.

2. It is generally agreed that the exit surveys conducted by LLL are effective for program assessment; however, the ultimate success of the procedure depends upon a high rate of participation. There is strong support for making the exit survey mandatory, if LLL will agree to do so. 

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.