Have formal Program Learning Outcomes (PLOs) or Student Learning Outcomes (SLOS) been developed?
Yes.
Published where? (website)
See Psychology SLOs, Curriculum Matrix, and Rubrics. SLOs are also published in the UH Hilo Student Catalog for Psychology.
Do PLOs include or imply link to Core Competency? (AY 2022-2023: Written Communication)?
Yes
Process of Core Competency Assessment:
Course (400- level)
PSY 431 Brain Disease. For Spring 2023, the Course was also designated as Writing Intensive (WI)
Type of Student Artifact
Research Proposal
Assignment
Students were asked to prepare a research proposal on a nervous system disease of their choice. All topics were reviewed for approval by the instructor prior to submission. Students were expected to submit proposals that outlined the problem and how the researcher (student) planned to address the problem. The proposal was to have been written in the format of a National Institute of Health Research Grant with a minimal length of 10 pages. Format to be followed: (1) specific aims (1 page); (2) research strategy including a narrative stating why the research is significant, how it contributes to human health. How this project involves innovation in studying brain disease, and the approach to be taken (2 pages); (3) aims in terms of subjects and all necessary resources with an explanation of how resources would be utilized in the experiment (2-3 pages); (4) expected or anticipated results and/or pitfalls in relation to the central question and any potential problems or limitations of the research design (1-2 page); (5) future directions which is an explanation of how this study would contribute to an increased knowledge of the field of study and what future studies it may facilitate (1-2 pages); and (6) literature cited, minimum of fifteen references.
Rubric or other instrument
GE Rubric for Written Communication and Rubric for WI
Data (measurement of the competency)
Ten (n = 10 ) research proposals were scored by 2 readers from the department. The overall means for the written assessment (based on n =10 scores) on a 4-point scale were as follows:
-
- Line of Reasoning = 3.05
- Organization = 3.25
- Content = 3.00
- Language/Prose/Syntax = 3.25
Based on their overall means, 30% of the students were classified as advanced, 60% were classified as competent, and 10% were classified as emerging. No students were classified as beginning.
The overall means for the WI assessment (based on n =10 scores) on a 3-point scale were as follows:
-
- Learning of Course Material (Vocabulary) = 2.65
- Prose/Discourse = 2.5
- Analysis/Insight = 2.4
Action Taken in Response to the Data (What will you do in response to the Findings?)
The department, as a whole, decided to make the following recommendations to individual faculty for implementation in their courses:
-
- Provide more opportunities for individual student feedback from faculty. This could take the form of anything from individual meetings with students to discuss progress up to more extensive feedback on rough drafts (and final drafts) of papers. This is the same feedback the department provided for the oral assessments in the last academic year.
- Encourage more student participation in the writing process, meaning that students should be encouraged to more proactively seek out opportunities for instructor feedback, feedback from peers, and assistance at established campus institutions such as Kilohana.
- If not already provided, give students rubrics so that they’re clear on faculty expectations for their work. Perhaps also have examples of previous student work available for students to review so that they have models for their work.
Date of Last Program Review
2009 (Department is in progress to undertake program review in AY 2021-2022)