Program: Civil Engineering (MS)
Date: Mon Oct 14, 2013 - 7:51:09 pm
1) Below are your program's student learning outcomes (SLOs). Please update as needed.
The student learning outcomes are 1) attainment of in-depth technical knowledge in subdiscipline of specialization; 2) an ability to perform engineering with enhanced technical proficiency in subdiscipline of specialization; 3) an ability to present work orally and in written form; and 4) an ability to perform either original research, possibly with direction, and/or detailed, open-ended project work.
Please note: we are in the process of modifying these.
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:
UHM Catalog. Page Number:
Course Syllabi. URL, if available online:
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.
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.
We assessed all of the 4 SLOs
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.
All graduating MS students were evaluated at defense and thesis by his/her graduate committee
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.)
Ad hoc faculty group
Persons or organization outside the university
Advisors (in student support services)
Students (graduate or undergraduate)
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.
There were 16 students who completed Plan B and 4 students who completed Plan A. The results are presented in the following charts. The scores are 1=Unsatisfactory, 2=Developing, 3=Satisfactory, and 4=Exemplary. The charts indicate that for all students, there were no scores of 1. For Plan B students there were just a few scores of 2 (only 2 students) and there were none for Plan A. Plan B students, there are about 30-35% 4's for oral presentations but somewhat lower numbers of 4's for the Plan B report. Plan B students scored more 4's than 3's for the oral defense and scored about 50% 3's and 4's on the thesis document. The results indicate very satisfactory performance of the MS students on these SLOs. The evaluation sheet also has space for comments and several were received. The comments are all complementary and do not offer much insight.
I cant seem to paste the figures in here.
12) State how the program used the results or plans to use the results. Please be specific.
We will inform the faculty that the students are doing well.
There do not seem to be weaknesses to highlight - there are one or two students that had developing oral skills
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 SLOs need to be revised. The rubric needs to have more descriptive definitions of the scores.