Integrated Monitoring and Evaluation in the Intercollege Nutrition

Transcription

Integrated Monitoring and Evaluation in the Intercollege Nutrition
Integrated Monitoring and Evaluation in the Intercollege Nutrition PhD Program
University of University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa
Marie Kainoa Fialkowski and Rachel Novotny
Outcome Assessment Development
The Intercollege Nutrition PhD Program is a relatively new program,
begun in Fall 2007. The Program has recently redoubled efforts to
communicate at all levels - in student recruitment, among enrolled
students, and among faculty across the participating colleges. This
effort includes enhancing student and program monitoring and
evaluation at all program and academic milestones. The effort
involved revising the program’s student learning outcomes (SLOs)
for the program and development of rubrics and other assessment
tools that will be used to monitor and evaluate student completion
of SLOs. These rubrics and assessments tools are being
implemented for the first time in 2014 – 2015. A summary of
results will be presented to program faculty annually. These results
will inform any necessary program changes and the
implementation of those changes. Monitoring and evaluation tools
serve to enhance program communication and development.
Qualifying Examination
Domain
Basic nutrition
Nutrition biochemistry
SLO1
Question
Appropriate Rating
(1) Does not meet (2) Marginal
(3) Meets (4) Exceeds
SLO1
Teaching Evaluation
(1) Does not meet (2) Marginal
(3) Meets (4) Exceeds
In-class lectures
SLO7
Acceptable Preliminary
Ideas for Dissertation
Research
(1) Does not meet (2) Marginal
(3) Meets (4) Exceeds
Open-ended
Literature Review
SLO1
SLO2
SLO7
Laboratory Instruction
Nutrition research methods (1) Does not meet (2) Marginal
(3) Meets (4) Exceeds
SLO1, SLO4
Level
Appropriate Rating
Open-ended
Instructional activities
Dissertation Proposal/Defense and Comprehensive Exam
Methods
Open-ended
SLO4
SLO7
The Intercollege PhD Program in Nutrition Student Teaching Evaluation is
completed at the end of the semester by the student’s teaching mentor.
SLO2
Analysis
SLO4
Student Learning Outcomes (SLO)
SLO 1: Comprehensive understanding of core nutrition knowledge
SLO 2: Advanced scholarship in a specialty area
SLO 3: Demonstrate multi-disciplinary perspectives when forming
research questions, designing research, drawing inferences, and
articulating implications of research findings through the exposure
to social and career-building disciplines
SLO 4: Develop skills in research methodologies demonstrated by
conducting original scholarly research
SLO 5: Develop skills in grant writing
SLO 6: Understand research ethics
SLO 7: Effectively disseminate research findings via peer-reviewed
publications, seminars and practical applications such as teaching
Teaching Experience
(SLO 1 and SLO7)
Circle One
Content delivered
Addresses key points in sufficient detail to address
lesson/course objectives
(1) Poor (2) Fair
(3) Average (4) Good
(5) Excellent
Classroom teaching technique
Suitability of techniques for level and type of class
(including individual/ pair/ group work)
Use of teaching aids
(1) Poor (2) Fair
(3) Average (4) Good
(5) Excellent
Classroom management
Demonstrates ability to monitor, control, and
adapt
(1) Poor (2) Fair
(3) Average (4) Good
(5) Excellent
Teacher attitude
Rapport with students
Motivation of learners
Maintenance of students' interest and attention
(1) Poor (2) Fair
(3) Average (4) Good
(5) Excellent
Student Evaluation
SLO
Question
SLO1 What activities/experiences
SLO2 enhanced your learning?
SLO 6 What activities/experiences
impeded your learning?
Discussion
SLO1
Language use
General intelligibility & adequate pronunciation
Open-ended
(1) Does not meet (2) Marginal
(3) Meets (4) Exceeds
Applies appropriate and rigorous methods.
Methods align with the research question/hypothesis and theory.
Identifies study groups.
Identifies study design.
Identifies measurements to be used.
Points out the advantages and disadvantages of each
method/measurement used.
(1) Does not meet (2) Marginal
(3) Meets (4) Exceeds
Aligns with research questions/hypotheses.
Is replicable.
(1) Does not meet (2) Marginal
(3) Meets (4) Exceeds
Demonstrates critical understanding. Evaluation of results.
Integration of results.
Able to apply findings broadly.
(1) Does not meet (2) Marginal
(3) Meets (4) Exceeds
Original
Contribution
Expands or alters thinking of the field.
(1) Does not meet (2) Marginal
(3) Meets (4) Exceeds
SLO4
Nutrition
knowledge
Responses to questions demonstrate synthesis of knowledge in nutrition. (1) Does not meet (2) Marginal
(3) Meets (4) Exceeds
SLO1
SLO3
SLO5
Please rank your career
building skills
Please rank your grant
writing skills
(1) Poor
(2) Fair
(3) Average
(4) Good
(5) Excellent
(1) Poor (2) Fair
(3) Average (4) Good
(5) Excellent
(1) Poor (2) Fair
(3) Average (4) Good
(5) Excellent
Comprehensive & up to date. Contextualizes the problem. Selective,
analytical, and thematic.
Clearly articulates gap in knowledge being addressed by the dissertation.
If relevant, contains table of key papers addressing topic, showing
estimates of association.
Contains conceptual framework.
Clearly states research questions.
Appropriate Rating
Interdisciplinary
knowledge
The Intercollege PhD Program in Nutrition Student Evaluation also assesses
feedback related to degree program, advisers, post-graduation goals and
other factors that may affect student performance.
Intercollege PhD Program in Nutrition
University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa
Responses to questions demonstrate synthesis of knowledge in nutrition
& nutrition’s application to specialty field(s).
(1) Does not meet (2) Marginal
(3) Meets (4) Exceeds
SLO2
Dissemination
SLO7
Voice
Audibility and projection
Appropriate Ranking
Open-ended
SLO7
Other areas related to
instruction
Expected Performance
Research Ethics
SLO6
Communication is effective, skillfully presenting arguments in support of (1) Does not meet (2) Marginal
thesis.
(3) Meets (4) Exceeds
Responses to questions exhibit superior breadth and depth of knowledge
in subject area.
Demonstrates honesty, objectivity, integrity, carefulness, openness,
confidentiality, responsibility, competence and protection of participant
rights
(1) Does not meet (2) Marginal
(3) Meets (4) Exceeds