Program: Communication (BA)
Date: Tue Oct 15, 2013 - 10:15:20 am
1) Below are your program's student learning outcomes (SLOs). Please update as needed.
Abstracted from the Catalog & the Website: The undergraduate program reflects the department's commitment to the mission of the College of Social Sciences: to offer courses that provide students with a sound understanding of fundamental communication processes in contexts ranging from formal organizations to the community, and the society at large. The program also provides students the opportunity to select courses that allow them to specialize in a variety of interest areas within the field, including interpersonal communication, intercultural communication, international communication, organizational communication, information and communication technologies, telecommunication and multimedia production. Specialization pathways can be self-selected or chosen in consultation with a faculty advisor.
Among the learning outcomes we anticipate are that students can:
SLO1 Design communication and media projects to make meaningful contributions to diverse social, professional or academic communities, communicating effectively orally, in writing, and through digital media.
SLO2 Reflect critically on communication products such as media productions, research and policy reports and everyday texts.
SLO3 Demonstrate preparedness for academic and professional careers in communication.
SLO4 Demonstrate global awareness, including an awareness of cultures in the Hawaii-Pacific region and issues related to cross-cultural communication.
SLO5 Engage in collaborative problem solving, both face-to-face and in online environments.
SLO6 Analyze the ethical dimensions of communication.
SLO7 Critically evaluate the use of technology in communication.
2) Your program's SLOs are published as follows. Please update as needed.
Student Handbook. URL, if available online:
Information Sheet, Flyer, or Brochure URL, if available online: NA
UHM Catalog. Page Number: 108
Course Syllabi. URL, if available online: http://socialsciences.people.hawaii.edu/esyllabi/index.cfm
Other: Most faculty post syllabi on their own UHM websites
Other: Department website --http://www.communications.hawaii.edu/com/index.html
3) Select one option:
- File (10/07/2013)
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, 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.)
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.
All seven SLOs were targeted. We looked to see the degree to which our seniors completing capstone portfolios (required for graduation) demonstrated competency.
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.
A rubric was refined to measure outcomes. Each portfolio was assessed for each SLO. The rubric had four categories: unacceptable, marginal, proficient, and exemplary. Portfolio artifacts spanned a range of media and were aligned with specific SLOs.
8) State how many persons submitted evidence that was evaluated. If applicable, please include the sampling technique used.
40 students. We have three tracks, and are doing one track each year. This year, all students in the Com in Communities track capstone were included.
9) Who interpreted or analyzed the evidence that was collected? (Check all that apply.)
Ad hoc faculty group
Persons or organization outside the university
Advisors (in student support services)
Students (graduate or undergraduate)
Other: A panel of faculty and external advisory board met to evaluate.
10) How did they evaluate, analyze, or interpret the evidence? (Check all that apply.)
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.
|Unacceptable||Marginal||Proficient||Exemplary||Total meeting benchmark|
Three pairs of scorers independently assessed one third of the portfolios. The pairs were used to assess intercoder reliability.
12) State how the program used the results or plans to use the results. Please be specific.
The results lead to rubric and process refinement for future semesters.
A summary report will be presented to Communication faculty in late October, and we will work to identify a few changes to focus on for upcoming spring capstones. In some cases, the panel found that portfolio artificats did not match what we are assessing, so part of this will be to refine the process and feedback of portfolio production to be sure these are in alignment.
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.
The panel recommends that communication with students about the SLOs be more systematic throughout the program. Further, the panel noted that many excellent service learning and civic engagement activities exist but are not reflected in the SLOs or rubric. We may discuss adding an additional SLO to address this, as it is a critical part of our program. The process of serving on the assessment panel was also helpful in integrating new faculty into our program and making them feel more comfortable and aware of its goals (as well as providing their own insights about how to improve it).