Program: Civil Engineering (PhD)
Date: Mon Oct 14, 2013 - 8:14:25 pm
1) Below are your program's student learning outcomes (SLOs). Please update as needed.
The student learning outcomes are 1) attainment of further in-depth technical knowledge in subdiscipline of specialization; 2) an ability to perform engineering utilizing state-of-the-art research and techniques in area of specialization; 3) proficiency in oral and written communication; 4) obtain experience in teaching at the university level; and 5) an ability to carry out independently original research in area of expertise.
Note: we are revising these SLOs
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.
All 5 SLOs were evaluated
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.
Defenses and dissertations
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 only 2 PhD students who completed the degree in this year. The scores were 1=unsatisfactory, 2=developing, 3=satisfactory, and 4=exemplary. Neither of the students recieved any 1's. One student was rated with a 2 on SLO #3a written communication and a note that said this evaluation needs to happen at the comprehensive exam and mitigations made as necessary. The students were rated mostly with 3's and just a few 4's. The sample size was very small.
12) State how the program used the results or plans to use the results. Please be specific.
The results do indicate that some students may need additional training in writing skills. Nearly all of our PhD students are international, so this is not a surpise to our faculty. But it will be suggested to see if there is inertia to try and do something about it.
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 are currently being revised. Also a rubric is being developed thatt has good descriptions of the meanings of each score for each SLO.