Program: History (BA)
Degree: Bachelor's
Date: Wed Aug 28, 2013 - 8:41:54 pm
1) Below are your program's student learning outcomes (SLOs). Please update as needed.
Undergraduate Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs):
1) Students can explain historical change and continuity.
2) Students can develop a clear argument using recognized historical methods.
3) Students can write clear expository prose and present their ideas orally according to disciplinary conventions.
4) Students can interpret and use primary sources.
5) Students can identify the main historiographical issues in a specific area of concentration.
2) Your program's SLOs are published as follows. Please update as needed.
Department Website URL: http://manoa.hawaii.edu/history/undergraduate
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: Some individual faculty share departmental SLOs on their syllabi. Other: Course listings on departmental website: http://manoa.hawaii.edu/history/courses Other: Our curriculum map is also published: http://manoa.hawaii.edu/history/undergraduate3) 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, 2012 and September 30, 2013? (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, 2012 to September 30, 2013: State the assessment question(s) and/or assessment goals. Include the SLOs that were targeted, if applicable.
During the academic year 2012-13, we continued our 5-Year Assessment Plan (completing our fourth year of the Plan) and assessed SLO#3: "Students can write clear expository prose and present their ideas orally according to disciplinary conventions."
In addition to SLO#3, the committee originally planned to assess SLO#1 ("students can explain historial change and continuity") the same academic year, and then SLO#2 ("students can develop a clear argumetn using recognized historical methods") in the year 2013-2014. The committee decided to eliminate SLO#2, however, since extensive discussions led the committee to conclude that SLO#2 was substantially the same as SLO#3 and hence unnecessary. This conclusion is based on the new rubrics that the committee drew up with respect to SLO#1 and SLO#2, and comparison of the rubrics for SLO#2 and SLO#3. See below for detail:
Rubric for SLO#1 (Students can explain historial change and continuity.):
|
Level |
Interpretation and Use |
|
4 – Accomplished |
Analyzes change over time as an integral part of argument Demonstrates a critical understanding of change and continuity |
|
3 – Competent |
Recognizes significance of change and continuity Develops an argument not based change and continuity |
|
2 – Developing |
Includes some chronology, but fails to interpret this as historical development Fails to develop an argument |
|
1 – Beginning |
Has errors of chronology Unclear or incoherent narrative |
Rubric for SLO#2 ("Students can develop a clear argument using recognized historical methods."):
|
Level |
Interpretation and Use |
|
4 – Accomplished |
Communicates sophisticated analytical ideas and arguments Distinguishes primary and secondary sources |
|
3 – Competent |
Clear and coherent narrative Distinguishes primary and secondary sources Grammatical use of language |
|
2 – Developing |
Lacks clarity and narrative organization Has some grammatical errors |
|
1 – Beginning |
Unclear and incoherent narrative Has grammatical errors |
Rubric for SLO #3 ("Students can write clear expository prose and orally present their ideas according to disciplinary conventions."):
|
Level |
Interpretation and Use |
|
4 – Accomplished |
Communicates sophisticated analytical ideas and arguments Clear and coherent narrative Expressive grammatical use of language Correct use of citations and formatting |
|
3 – Competent |
Clear and coherent narrative Grammatical use of language Correct use of citations and formatting |
|
2 – Developing |
Lacks clarity and narrative organization Has some grammatical errors Has errors of citations and formatting |
|
1 – Beginning |
Unclear and incoherent narrative Has grammatical errors Has errors of citations and formatting |
In light of foregoing considerations, the committee made slight changes to the 5-Year Assessment Plan. The changes are indicated in bold below:
Original 5-Year Assessment Plan
2009-10: SLO #4 (496 in fall, 400-level in spring)
2010-11: SLO #5 (496 in fall, 396 in spring)
2011-12: SLO #3 (496 in fall, 400-level in spring)
2012-13: SLO #3, continued (300-level in fall); SLO #1 (496 in spring)
2013-14: SLO #2 (496 in fall, 300-level in spring)
Revised 5-Year Assessment Plan
2009-10: SLO #4 (496 in fall, 400-level in spring)
2010-11: SLO #5 (496 in fall, 396 in spring)
2011-12: SLO #3 (496 in fall, 400-level in spring)
2012-13: SLO #3, continued (300-level in spring) ONLY
2013-14: SLO #1 (496 in fall, 300-level in spring)
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.
We collected in Spring 2012 sample papers from HIST 300-level courses. We analyzed these sample papers in Fall 2011 for assessing SLO #3.
8) State how many persons submitted evidence that was evaluated. If applicable, please include the sampling technique used.
A total of 12 papers were collected from 300-level courses for evaluation. The sampling technique was to request each 300-level instructor to share a representative range of papers based on the scoring rubric we designed for this particular SLO.
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.
Fall 2012 was this committee's third semester of evaluating SLO #3 ("students can write clear expository prose and orally present their ideas according to disciplinary conventions"). When we evaluated the papers from our 400-level courses in Spring 2012, we set the bar at 2/3 of the papers would be at a 3 ("competent") or better. In surveying the 300 level papers in Fall 2012, we found half of the sample at a 3 ("competent") or better, and all of the papers were at a 2 ("developing") or better. This is the first time we evaluated papers from our Department where no paper was scored below a 2 ("developing"). We surmise this as meaning that tangible progress is being made with our Department using SLOs as an expectation for student work.
12) State how the program used the results or plans to use the results. Please be specific.
The results of last year's assessment activities will be reported to the Department at large at our departmental meeting in Fall 2013, in conjunction with the ongoing discussion about capstone courses and majors, especially questions regarding the desirability or otherwise of retaining or modifying HIST 496 as our capstone course. Meanwhile, the assessment committee will continue to compile the records of its annual activities and findings so that it will be able to produce a comprehensive report for the Department at the end of the 5-year Assessment Plan.
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.
Next academic year (2013-2014) will be the final year of our first 5-Year Assessment Plan, and therefore we will be preparing a final report to the Department based on our survey results from the previous years. In addition to eliminating SLO#2, we will be discussing the possibility of adding a new SLO for the future. One possibility is separating the oral presentation component from SLO#3 to its own SLO, though we will have to have further discussions about how best to evaluate this task. Another possibility is to add an SLO that focuses on digital literacy, though we will have to be discussions about where this new skill would be assessed in our program.
We have also had discussions about requiring a new course for our majors, History 296, which has a focus on critical reading of primary sources and developing writing skills, to join History 396 and 496 as an arc of structured courses to better prepare our students in our core skills. During the upcoming year, the committee will be using our accumulated data to make a formal recommendation to the Department about revising our undergraduate curriculum.
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.
n/a