Unit: Anthropology
Program: Anthropology (MA)
Degree: Master's
Date: Mon Nov 26, 2012 - 1:47:03 pm

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

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:
UHM Catalog. Page Number:
Course Syllabi. URL, if available online: NA

3) Select one option:

Curriculum Map File(s) from 2010:

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.

5th SLO: Fundamentals of core field at MA level; integration of selected specific fields, holistic tradition of the discipline.  The department voted to increased required core course from 2 to 3. In recognition of the career choices open to MA degree holders, plus individual students interests, the department is also establishing multiple routes of study for an applied MA degree in anthropology.  Still no one has suggested that the MA degree SLOs be changed.

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.

No specific assessment procedures have been discussed much put in place other than the course grade.  The assigning of course grades based on course standards is completely in the hands of the instructor. Still, these core courses are almost always taught by our senior professors, who are apt to apply core standards more rigorously than not. Also the MA student's commitee and principal advisor oversee the core course performances of their advisees.

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

See page 7.

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)
Other: no one "analyzed" the final course grades; but the instructor and student's graduate advisor and committee are aware of the performance in core courses.

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)

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

The MA program is organized around individual candidate's interests and career aims. The department mainly requires some broad and integrated knowledge of the discipline in its 4 fields. This is accomplished through remedial work at the undergraduate level and/or success in 3 of 4 core courses.  Clearly we need to establish ways to 'measure' the learning outcome of this pedagogical effort. One thought is to require some kind of MA exit exam or essay, a proposition that stirs much discussion and debate among the faculty.  This is partly because the various fields are so different in their methodologies and interests. We need to bring the question of MA learning assessment to a special faculty meeting.

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

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.

Some of the faculty, myself in particular are (and need to) reevaluate 1) the relevance of our MA degree, 2) assign much more importance to it as a wothwhile terminal graduate degree, and 3) come up with ways of assessing the overall learning outcomes of those who increasingly select a terminal MA degree. One thing the faculty is doing is developing special MA degrees for students aiming to apply the knowledge outside of the academy. We already have in place an applied MA degree for archaeology and now we are developing one for cultural anthropology.  

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.

Our MA program did not engage in formal assessment activities for reasons already expressed.  To formalize what is already a fairly rigorous evaluation scenario of MA student performances, the faculty will have to come together more than it has and latitude will have to be extended to the notion that each student and each of the fields and each of the various MA degree paths have a certain integrity of their own when it comes to what they learned, should know and do know.  There needs to be much more time-consuming work, not to mention good will put into this effort.