Program: Hawaiian (BA)
Degree: Bachelor's
Date: Tue Oct 16, 2012 - 8:03:03 am
1) Below are your program's student learning outcomes (SLOs). Please update as needed.
Kawaihuelani has two sets of program curriculum.
1) Upon completion of two years of Hawaiian language (HAW 101-202), our students should be able to . . .
Speaking:
|
Listening:
|
Reading:
|
Writing:
|
|
Cultures, Comparisons, Connections, Communities:
|
2) Upon completion of a B.A. in Hawaiian Language, our students should be able to . . .
|
Speaking |
|
|
Listening |
|
|
Reading |
|
|
Writing |
|
|
Cultures, Comparisons, Connections, & Communities |
|
2) Your program's SLOs are published as follows. Please update as needed.
Department Website URL: website still under construction Student Handbook. URL, if available online: NA
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.
The two main program SLOs our program targeted during this period focused on verbal and non-verbal language as well as application of cultural knowledge and worldview.
Upon completion of a B.A. in Hawaiian, students should be able to . . .
· Present information, concepts, and ideas to an audience of listeners at an advanced level of fluency and accuracy.
· Expand and broaden appropriate application of Hawaiian language and culture appropriately in authentic settings within and beyond the classroom in order to connect to other disciplines, contexts, and domains, access information, and interact with others in the Hawaiian language community.
Our program was interested in seeing how well and to what extent our students were meeting these select program SLOs. While we focused our attention on our fourth year students for whom these program SLOs were intended, we also looked at data related to our second and third years students as a way to see how they were approaching these final outcomes and how they compared to our more advanced students.
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.
For this time period, we continued our assessment of student learning at Mūkīkī Wai Nā Mamo o Mānoa, an existing Hawaiian language activity that our students already participate in where we collected evidence to answer our assessment question above. It is a yearly multifaceted Hawaiian language celebration/competition developed in the 2004-2005 academic year by several of our Kawaihuelani faculty members. It was created as a venue to showcase students’ achievements in Hawaiian language acquisition of traditional performance forms as well as contemporary communication mediums such as theatre, film and multi-media presentations. The annual competition strategically includes appropriate categories for university students from various levels of language learning (beginning, intermediate, advanced and graduate level). Students aspire to reach higher levels of language fluency and competency as they strengthen their language skills through participating in the festival.
Student work entered in the following categories of the competition were assessed: Haʻi ʻŌlelo (multimedia speech presentations), Hana Keaka (theater), Haku Wikiō (video production), Haku Mele (song composition), and Haʻi ʻŌlelo Hōʻeuʻeu (persuasive speeches presented by our graduate students).
8) State how many persons submitted evidence that was evaluated. If applicable, please include the sampling technique used.
Of the 599 unduplicated students enrolled in our Hawaiian language courses in the Spring 2012 semester, 95 participated in Mūkīkī Wai this year. This comes out to a 16% participation rate.
See pie charts attached that illustrate these overall participation numbers as well as the break down for each level (first through fourth year, and graduate level).
Of the 95 students who participated, 82 submitted evidence that was evaluated for program assessment. These 82 students made up 34 individual/group entries in 4 categories enrolled in 200-600 level courses.
Of the 82 students who were assessed, 44 were from second year, 6 were from third year, 25 were from fourth year, and 7 were graduate students.
We acknowledge upfront that these numbers are probably not substantial enough to make generalizations about how our students are doing in general at meeting these two program SLOs, however they do provide a glimpse into our program that can serve as a reference point to compare data from other complementary assessment activities we plan to engage in this academic year (see questions #14), and these number will hopefully motive our colleagues to enter their students in Mūkīkī Wai in the near future in order to validate these initial findings with more substantial numbers.
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.
See bar charts attached that illustrate our results graphically (charts are summarized below).
In summary, 67.7% of students were identified as meeting expectations, while 17.6% were exceeding and 14.7% were approaching in terms of the cultural knowledge and worldview SLO (red bars in attached bar charts). No students were identified as not meeting expectations for this SLO. In terms of the verbal and non-verbal language SLO, 58.8% were identified as meeting, 20.6% were exceeding, and 20.6% were approaching. Again no students were identified as not meeting expectations for this SLO (blue bar in attached bar charts). The results, again, were promising. This group of students out performed our 2011 sample group in that more students were identified as meeting expectations for both SLOs and no students for either SLO were identified as not meeting.
12) State how the program used the results or plans to use the results. Please be specific.
The results from this second implementation will be shared with our colleagues as a motivation to become involved. We hope to spark their curiosity to look closer and seek more data to substantiate (or refute) these findings by encouraging them to participate in Mūkīkī Wai (encouraging their students to enter, serving as evaluators, etc.) as well as the assessment activities of the program as a whole. We do not expect to use these results to make any dramatic changes or improvements to our program. We need to wait until we have data from a more substantial sampling before we can move forward in this way, which we hope to have as a result of motivating our colleagues to participate in Mūkīkī Wai 2013.
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.
After our first pilot activity in Spring 2011, several lessons were learned and areas were identified for improvement in terms of the process and tools themselves. We hoped to address them in our second implementation this past Spring 2012, but we were unable to get to all of them, so we plan to do our best to address those that we did not get to in the upcoming Mūkīkī Wai Nā Mamo o Mānoa in Spring 2013, including…
- We hope that sharing the initial results from the pilot will motive more instructors to enter their students, especially those who teach HAW 202, 402, and our upper division content area courses because their students are those we are targeting specifically in to our program SLOs.
- Revise the rubrics for the Haku Puke category so this data can be used as well.
- Share rubrics with instructors well before the event in order to familiarize them with the tools and generate feedback so that adjustments can be made in time to share the tools with their students as well as the evaluators who will use them on the day of the event.
- Meet with the evaluators ahead of time to familiarize them with the rubrics and scores as well as engage them in norming conversations.
NOTE: The faculty member who was in charge of this particular assessment activity moved to another department on campus, so we will have to see what we are able to accomplish without her assistance next semester.
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.
As you may remember from our 2011 Annual Assessment Report, our undergraduate faculty participated in an evaluation/assessment retreat/workshop with the assistance of the UHM Assessment Office on September 15, 2011 in order to not only review our curriculum as a whole but also to prepare for and make decisions about our UHM program review and accreditation application to WINHEC. One of the outcomes of this retreat was that we identified two assignments/artifacts for both HAW 202 (demonstration speech & exit interview) and 402 (oral presentation & research paper) that we can collect and evaluate for program assessment purposes using a rubric designed by our instructors.
In Spring 2012, we followed up with our fourth year teachers in terms of HAW 402 assignments/artifacts to collect, the rubric, and the process. We were able to clarify and find agreement and plan to implement this new assessment activity for HAW 402 sometime this academic year.