Unit: Social Work
Program: Social Welfare (PhD)
Degree: Doctorate
Date: Mon Oct 14, 2013 - 2:52:16 pm

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

Each student completing the doctoral program will be expected to possess a comprehensive body of knowledge about the field of social welfare, related behavioral and social sciences, and the social work profession in relation to a social problem area. Each student will obtain the ability to conduct independent research on a critical social problem.

Specifically, each doctoral graduate is expected to achieve the following educational objectives:

  1. Apply relevant social work and social science knowledge to the resolution of critical social problems.
  2. Critically evaluate the cultural dimensions of social problems and promote strategies for social problem resolution.
  3. Delineate and analyze social policy and social work practice issues related to substantive areas in social welfare and conceptualize the social or behavioral processes characterizing them.
  4. Analyze and apply social science theories, findings, and research methodologies to social welfare knowledge-building concerns.
  5. Formulate professionally relevant and theoretically productive research questions and hypotheses, and investigate them through empirical research, with particular concern and sensitivity to culturally appropriate research methodologies and needs in Hawai‘i and the Pacific region.
  6. Integrate and synthesize research findings into the body of professional knowledge.
  7. Disseminate knowledge through publications and/or teaching.

2) Your program's SLOs are published as follows. Please update as needed.

Department Website URL: http://www.hawaii.edu/sswork/
Student Handbook. URL, if available online: http://hawaii.edu/sswork/forms/phd/2013-2014%20PHD_Manual.pdf
Information Sheet, Flyer, or Brochure URL, if available online: http://www.hawaii.edu/sswork/bulletin.html
UHM Catalog. Page Number: pp. 320-322
Course Syllabi. URL, if available online:

3) Select one option:

Curriculum Map File(s) from 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.

The Review Committee Report for the Ph.D. Social Welfare Program (dated April 9, 2012), was submitted to the University of Hawai`i at Mānoa Graduate Division by Review Committee members Dennis Kauahi, Sandra A. LeVasseur, and David Takeuchi.  The Review Committee was charged with assessing the Social Welfare Ph.D. program and its overall quality, educational value, role within the University of Hawai`i, role within the academic discipline and profession, and resource requirements.

The six questions that guided the assessment were:

1.      Is the program organized to meet its objectives?

2.      Are program resources adequate?

3.      Is the program efficient?

4.      Is there evidence of program quality?

5.      Are program outcomes compatible with the objectives?

6.      Are program objectives still appropriate functions of the college and the university?

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.

The Review Committee examined the School’s self-study and additional materials that provided more details to the self-study:

·         A list of the Ph.D. graduates over the past five years with placements

·         A list of the completed dissertations

·         The curriculum vita for faculty

·         The results of a student survey conducted in Fall Semester 2011

In addition to these materials, two web links provided access to the UH system strategic plans and the UH Mānoa vision. 

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

The Program Review Committee provided the UH MBTSSW with a week of further data collection through discussions with members of the faculty, staff, students and agencies; and met in analysis discussions to determine the quality of education provided to doctoral students.

The MBTSSW PhD Program, similarly, obtains data from students via course evaluations, and student meetings bi-annually, to evaluate the quality, effectiveness of its program objectives.

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: Three evaluators from outside & UH Graduate Division

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.

Please see the Review Committee Report for the Ph.D. Social Welfare Program.  The link will be provided soon.  

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

The program continues to work towards the recommendations of the Review Committee.

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 Review Committee made the following recommendations to the Graduate Division and MBTSSW:

  1. Enable the School to develop a research infrastructure for pre and post awards.
  2. Provide the School with a permanent home.
  3. Facilitate the hiring of additional tenure-line faculty.
  4. UH should work with the School on its advancement (fund raising) efforts.
  5. The School should examine the availability of courses for Ph.D. students.

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.