Standard 2
Achieving Educational Objectives Through Core Functions
Teaching and Learning
Focus Group:
Jan Moore
Nancy Johnson
Janet Six
Colleen Shishido
Linda Fujitani
Jung Won Park
Clifford Rutherford
Mark Hoffman
Elaine Yamashita
Larry Janik
Donna Harbin
Julia “Koewa” Martin
Francine Ching
Elisabeth Reader
Clifford Averill
The focus group broke into three discussion groups. Two groups started at the beginning and
worked down through the questions; one group began at the end and worked up. One group,
who started from the beginning, only got about half way through. The group that started at the
end, thought that they had answered the questions half way through, and didn’t answer the
beginning standards since they seemed redundant.
Evidence:
2.1a Programs are appropriate for the degree level.
 Programs have been approved by curriculum committee, faculty senate and BOR.
Some programs have professional accreditation.
 Some programs(Culinary, nursing) are strong. MCC has perception of not being as
good as mainland schools.
46%
54%
We do this well
Aspects need our attention
2.1b Programs are staffed sufficiently by qualified faculty.
 Faculty meets UH minimum qualifications.
 Faculty are knowledgeable about subject matter, but may lack teaching experience
and lacks ability to adjust to new teaching strategies
 College relies too heavily on lecturers.
8%
85%
8%
We do this well
Aspects need our attention
Needs significant development
2.2a All degrees awarded are clearly defined in terms of entry-level requirements.
 Programs with entrance requirements (BAS, nursing, dental) have clear entry-level
requirements.


Many (but not all) courses have prerequisites. College has COMPASS exam
requirements. With open-door policy, courses rely on prerequisites, but they are often
waived.
Math and English skills are lacking and need improvement.
25%
67%
8%
We do this well
Aspects need our attention
Not enough evidence
2.2b Levels of student achievement are defined and reflected in syllabi for both General Ed.
and program major courses.
 Syllabi, course outlines have student learning outcomes
33%
50%
8%
8%
We do this well
Aspects need our attention
Needs significant development
Not enough evidence
2.2c Baccalaureate programs engage students in an integrated course of study that includes
General Ed. (including at the upper division level) and a significant in-depth study in a
given major.
 BAS degree have course outlines and program learning outcomes
 Yes-Gen. Ed at upper division classes and courses within major
 More math and science (is needed) for ECET
64%
9%
27%
2.3a
Aspects need our attention
Needs significant development
Not enough evidence
Student learning outcomes and expectations are clearly stated at the course, program
and, as appropriate, at the institutional level.
 Program review, course outlines, assessment
 At this time, not all courses have student learning outcomes.
 The instructors need to make sure that all materials in the SLO are being taught.
 SLOs need to be on the college’s website
 More math (is needed) for ECET.
36%
64%
We do this well
Aspects need our attention
2.3b The institution’s student learning outcomes are reflected in academic programs and
policies, curriculum, advisement, library and information resources.
 We don’t have institutional student learning outcomes
 More ahupua’a
 Shared resources
 Webmaster
82%
18%
2.4a
The institution’s expectation for student learning are developed and widely shared in the
college and, as appropriate, with external stakeholders.
 Curriculum, advisory committees, MCC channel
 Yes, it’s widely published (faculty meetings); however, our website needs a lot of
attention.
 Maui College can always look at better ways to share our expectations with students,
community, etc.
9%
55%
36%
2.4b
We do this well
Aspects need our attention
Needs significant development
Faculty take collective responsibility for establishing, reviewing, fostering, and
demonstrating the attainment of these expectations.
 Grad surveys, employer surveys, licensing exams stats, focus groups
 It is very evident that we have seen both sides where faculty/lecturers have/have not
taken the responsibility in this area—needs improvement. For example, a faculty who
is not on tenure track and a long term tenured track faculty who is on their way out—
“just here killing time.”
17%
50%
33%
2.5
Aspects need our attention
Needs significant development
We do this well
Aspects need our attention
Needs significant development
Programs actively involve students in learning, have high expectations and provide
students with ongoing feedback on their performance.
 Student evals, surveys, evaluation tools
 Varies by program and course/instructor
 Goal consistency



Many of our programs have high expectations—pockets of excellence and pockets
need improvement.
We have gotten feedback from students regarding lecturers/instructors, but not
necessarily for programs.
Grad lever survey is the exit at commencement.
33%
42%
17%
8%
2.6a
Graduates consistently demonstrate achievement of program learning outcomes.
 External exams, employer surveys.
 AAS graduates who are accepted into BA programs
 Due to the high number of lecturers, there is a lot of academic freedom; is everyone
following the same (?) of teaching. Are we giving the students quality?
 Students do go into the fields (ex. jobs) but are we tracking them and where or how
they are doing in their careers?
67%
17%
17%
2.6b
Aspects need our attention
Needs significant development
Not enough evidence
The institution ensures that expectations for student learning are embedded in standards
faculty use to evaluate student work.



Curriculum process, course outlines
No unified testing is currently being done
Is the institution (administration) supplying the faculty with tools to get this done?
8%
67%
17%
8%
2.7a
We do this well
Aspects need our attention
Needs significant development
Not enough evidence
We do this well
Aspects need our attention
Needs significant development
Not enough evidence
Programs are subject to systematic program review.
 Yes, CTE have annual program reviews; LA is in process.
 All programs are on a schedule. LBRT program review continues to work on
challenges. Program reviews are used to guide programs; however, it is not timely –
they should be submitted a lot sooner for all to utilize. Data collection has been time
consuming for faculty/staff. More IT help needed.
75%
25%
We do this well
Aspects need our attention
2.7b
Program review includes achievement of program learning outcomes, retention, and
completion. Where appropriate, results of licensing exams and placement and evidence
from external constituencies are included.
 Yes, annual
 Not enough evidence due to the data that is collected. Is the data valid?
33%
We do this well
50%
Aspects need our attention
17%
Not enough evidence