Program: History (PhD)
Degree: Doctorate
Date: Wed Aug 28, 2013 - 8:48:45 pm
1) Below are your program's student learning outcomes (SLOs). Please update as needed.
PhD Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs)
1) Students can demonstrate a mastery of the theories and methodologies of the discipline of history.
2) Students can demonstrate a comprehensive knowledge of the historiography of their fields of specialization.
3) Students can conduct original research based on primary sources.
4) Students can write expository prose and orally present their ideas at a professional
standard.
2) Your program's SLOs are published as follows. Please update as needed.
Department Website URL: http://manoa.hawaii.edu/history/graduate
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: 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, 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.
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.
8) State how many persons submitted evidence that was evaluated. If applicable, please include the sampling technique used.
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.
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.
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.
This academic year (2012-2013), the committee began to implement our first year of a 4-Year Graduate Assessment Plan. Our plan was to begin with the MA and PhD SLO#4, "Students can write expository prose and present their ideas at a professional standard." However, we decided not to assess any material for the graduate students this year as the sample was too narrow. Only six students (3 MA and 3 PhD) graduated in Fall 2012. The committee decided to gather material from a two–year period in order to provide a broader sample of the student accomplishments, as this will make our scoring more accurate.
The committe did complete the required rubrics for this task, however. See below for detail.
PhD rubric for SLO #4 ("Students can write expository prose and present their ideas at an advanced level."):
|
Level |
Interpretation and Use |
|
3 – Accomplished |
Communicates sophisticated analytical ideas and arguments of publishable quality Clear and coherent narrative Expressive grammatical use of language |
|
2 – Competent |
Clear and coherent narrative Grammatical use of language Correct use of citations and formatting |
|
1 – Developing |
Lacks clarity and narrative organization Has some grammatical errors Has errors of citations and formatting |
As the tables above show, only three levels are set out ("1. accomplished"; "2. competent"; "3. developing") since none of our graduate students should be at the “4. beginning” level.
The foregoing rubrics aside, the committee worked with some of the material gathered in order to make certain decisions about its future activities. We decided that we would evaluate chapters from each work rather than a complete dissertation or thesis in order to better address the specific SLOs. For instance, SLO#4 that focuses on the development of the argument (or, say, "narrative") should sample from the substantive chapters. Similarly, SLO#2 with a focus on historiography may be assessed effectively by drawing upon the Introduction of a dissertation where the historiographical debates are a central concern.
The committe will begin implementing the first year of a PhD 4-Year Assessment Plan in Fall 2013, starting with SLO#4 ("students can write expository prose and present their ideas at a professional standard"), using PhD dissertations gathered in 2012-2013. The committee will also a prepare the scoring guide for SLO#3: "Students can conduct original research based on primary sources."