Program: Philosophy (MA)
Degree: Master's
Date: Thu Oct 10, 2013 - 3:49:51 pm
1) Below are your program's student learning outcomes (SLOs). Please update as needed.
1. Proficiency in at least one philosophically significant language other than English.
2. Students are able to conduct philosophical research which leads either to a thesis or a significant portfolio of shorter works.
3. Students demonstrate the ability to write and prepare presentations at a high level of proficiency.
*Given recent changes in the MA there is no way to reflect other possible outcomes within the allocated numbers of characters.
2) Your program's SLOs are published as follows. Please update as needed.
Department Website URL: www.hawaii.edu/phil
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: syllabi Other: Other: 3) Select one option:
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.
Our assessment of the M.A. students and their product is ongoing, and the program appears to be functioning just fine. We have had no complaints from Master's students regarding the program (and our graduate students--through the Philosophy Students Association--regularly do point out problems when these arise in the doctoral program). Indeed, we have had expressions of high levels of satisfaction, and this is borne out by the fact that most of our M.A. graduates are eager to move on to our own doctoral program (unless financial constraints encourage them to apply elsewhere).