Program Review for Academic Programs

AP Full Official Liberal Arts
Campus National campus AP Review Submission Date August 26, 2016
Completed by Resida S. Keller, Languages & Literature Division Chairperson AR Review Cycle 2014-2015
Program Goals
Program goals are broad statements concerning knowledge, skills, or values that the faculty members expect the graduating students to achieve.
Upon successful completion of this degree program, students will be able to: 1. Enrich and deepen self-knowledge by exploring different academic experiences.
2. Articulate and understand their experiences through effective writing, reading, speaking, and various modes of artistic expression.
3. Demonstrate fundamental knowledge and basic skills appropriate to their personal and professional goals in their chosen area of specialization.
Program History
This section describes the history of the program. This includes the date and reason of implementation, significant milestones in the development of the program, and significant current activities.
The Associate of Arts degree program in Liberal Arts was established in 1975 to enable students to transfer to a four-year college, university, or other institution. Other than the addition and establishment of more focused and area-specific liberal arts degrees such as the Liberal Arts/Media studies and the Liberal Arts/Education programs (adopted in 1997) or the Liberal Arts/HCOP [Health Careers Opportunities Program], there have been no major changes to the structure of the Liberal Arts program in the past 10 years. The program learning outcomes (above) for the L.A. Degree program were adopted in Spring 2005.
Program Description
The program description describes the program, including its organization, relationship to other programs in the system, program design, degree(s) offered, and other significant features of the program, such as elements/resources for forward-looking new program contributions to the state’s economy, or specialized program accreditation.
1. Organization: The Liberal Arts program is currently organized with the Chairperson of the Languages and Literature division being the person responsible for collection of SLO information from faculty and responsible for implementation of assessment activities and any improvement plans. All academic divisions at the National campus contribute to the Liberal Arts program. Students completing this program receive an Associate of Arts degree which often leads to the transferring to other institutions of higher education within the region and the United States for more specialized study. 2. Relationship to other programs in the system: The liberal Arts program is one of the two-year academic majors offered at the National campus of COM-FSM. Many of the courses in the Liberal Arts program are either major course requirements for other programs or it shares courses with other majors. For example, as part of the program requirements, students are required to take courses in the natural sciences, social sciences, health sciences, humanities and language arts.
Program Admission Requirements
This section describes the requirements for admission into the program and other requisites.
All students accepted for admission into the college are eligible to enter/major in the Liberal Arts program. Currently, students undecided on a major are also listed as Liberal Arts majors until they decide otherwise. The college’s admissions criteria is listed on the college website at http://www.comfsm.fm/publications/catalog-2015-2016 requirements.pdf. These criteria are followed when admitting students into the Liberal Arts program.
Program Certificate/Degree Requirements
This section specifies the requirements for obtaining a certificate/degree in the program, including specific courses,, sequencing of courses, total credits, internships, practical, etc.
The Liberal Arts program as it currently stands consists of General Education Core Requirements in English [9 credits], Natural Sciences [7 credits], Mathematics, Social Sciences, Computer Applications and Humanities [3 credits each], and Exercise Sports Science [1 credit]. In addition to General Education core requirements, there are the Major Requirements which include the following courses: three credits for each of these courses—Speech Communication (EN/CO 205), Health Science (SC 101), Introduction to Sociology (SS 130), General Psychology (SS/PY 101); three credits each of a 200-levelEnglish course and Humanities elective, six credits of any classes from either the Natural Science or Social Science group of courses and nine credits of open electives, totaling up to sixty-two credits (62) required for an Associate of Arts degree. Currently students are encouraged to follow a specified sequence of courses so that they are able to complete the program within two years.
Here is the suggested sequence of Liberal Arts courses as it currently stands in the college catalog: First Semester
EN 110 Advance Reading…………………………….3
EN 120a Expository Writing I……………………….3
CA 100 Computer Literacy…………………………..3
MS 100 College Algebra………………………………3
SS 150 History of Micronesia………………………..3
15 total credits Second Semester
EN 120b Expository Writing II………………………3
EN/CO 205 Speech Communication………………3
SS/PY 101 General Psychology…………………….3
Humanities Elective……………………………………..3
Science with Lab ……………………………………….4
16 total credits Third Semester
SC 101 Health Science………………………………..3
SS 130 Intro to Sociology…………………………….3
Non-Lab Science or Agriculture…………………….3
English Elective…………………………………………..3
Specialty …………………………………………………..3
Exercise Sports Science course………………………1
16 total credits Fourth Semester
Specialty……………………………………………………3
Humanities Elective……………………………………..3
Open Elective…………………………………………….3
Open Elective…………………………………………….3
Open Elective…………………………………………….3
15 total credits Source: General Catalog 2015 – 2016 pg. 49 http://www.comfsm.fm/catalog/2015-2016/Catalog-2015-2016.pdf
As is apparent in the list of courses required for the program, students in the program are not required to complete any internships, field experiences, practicums or licensing as this is a program that encourages exploration into a general course of study to help students transfer to other institutions or to further learn about different fields of study.
Program Courses and Enrollment
This section lists courses offered in the program, including number of sections, course enrollment, section fill rates, and redundancy of courses across the institution.
Program Term Sections Enroll Max Enroll AVGclassSize
Liberal Arts(AA) FALL 2014 21 548 411 19.6
Liberal Arts(AA) FALL 2015 16 393 302 18.9
Liberal Arts(AA) Spring 2014 23 546 410 17.8
Liberal Arts(AA) Spring 2015 20 520 392 19.6

The data shows that there are more sections offered during the Spring semester than the Fall semester, and also more classes offered during 2014 than in 2015 respectively; the actual total enrollment in courses within the program ranged from a low 302 up to a high of 411 during this assessment cycle and class sizes dropped with Fall and Spring 2014 having the highest class enrollment and Fall and Spring 2015 seeing a drop in class enrollment. Enrollment numbers have dropped since the beginning of the assessment cycle in 2014 and have steadily followed a downward trend in 2015-16.

Below are listed the course requirements for the program along with the sections of each course offered each semester during this assessment cycle.

Program Course Requirements SP 14 Fall 14 SP 15 Fall 15 SP 16
EN/CO 205 Speech Comm. 4 4 3 2 2
SC 101 Health Science 6 4 7 4 4
SS 130 Intro. To Sociology 2 2 2 2 2
SS/PY General Psychology 3 333 3 2 2
           
EN 201 Intro to Literature 3 4 4 1 1
EN 208 Intro to Philosophy 4 3 2 2 2
EN 209 Intro to Religion 1 1 1 0 0

Humanities Elective

Program Course Requirements SP 14 Fall 14 SP 15 Fall 15 SP 16
AR 101 Intro to Art 1 3 5 4 4
MU 101 Intro to Music 4 4 4 4 4
SS 170 History I 1 2 1 1 0
SS 171 History II 1 0 1 0 1
EN 201 Intro to Literature 3 4 4 1 1
EN 208 Intro to Philosophy 4 3 2 2 2
FL 101 Japanese I 3 3 2 2 2
FL 102 Japanese II 1 0 1 1 0
FL 103 Chinese I 2 2 2 2 2
FL 104 Chinese II 0 0 0 0 0
Program Faculty
This section reports the faculty of the program, including full-time and part-time faculty. The degrees held and rank are provided for the full-time and part-time faculty. Finally, provide the faculty student ratio for the program.

The program faculty consists of faculty members from the different academic divisions of the college. The Liberal Arts program is taught by a unique mix of the college’s existing faculty members as the program requirements consist of courses that come from many of the different divisions of the college. The Languages and Literature Division faculty, for the most part, act as advisors and teachers to the students who choose Liberal Arts as their major. Here is a list of the current faculty members of the Liberal Arts program:

Biza, Leilani : (Languages and Literature)
B.A. University of Guam
M.A. University of Guam Devanesam Senarathgoda (Languages/Literature)
B.A., Spicer Memorial College, India
M.A., Andrews University, Michigan Gonzales, Jazmin: ( Math/Scienc; HCOP coordinator)
B.S. Central Philippines University;
M.A. University of the Philippines Haglelgam, John: (Social Science)
B.A. University of Hawaii
M.A. University of Hawaii
M.P.A. Harvard University Kamikubo, Akiko: (Languages and Literature)
B.A. Tokyo University of Foreign Studies
M.A. Tokyo University of Foreign Studies Keller, Resida: (Languages and Literature)
B.A. Brigham Young University-Hawaii
M.Ed. San Diego State University		 John, Rathnamony Jothy (Languages/Literature)
B.A., Spicer Memorial College, India
M.A., Andrew University, Michigan Paul, Kasiano: (Languages and Literature)
M.A. Saint Patrick Seminar and University Rivera, Monica: (Languages and Literature)
B.A. University of California
M.A. University of Wyoming Manuel-Ehmes, Delihna: (Social Science)
A.A. College of Micronesia-FSM
Certificate in Clinical Psychology University of Hawaii-Manoa
B.S. Missouri Southern State College
M.S. Capella University Sam, Lucy Donre: (Social Science)
B.A. University of Hawaii at Hilo
M.A. San Diego State University Yumei Helen Gao
Chinese Language Volunteer teaching thru arrangements with the Chinese Embassy
Program Indicators
This section provides the data for analyzing the extent to which the program has achieved the established outcomes and criteria. This is the most important part of the program review. The data that will be collected and evaluated are the following:
Assessment of course student learning outcomes of program courses All assessments of courses offered under the Liberal Arts program for the Spring/Fall 2014 and Spring/Fall 2015 semesters can be found on the college’s TracDat page with special access/permission required.
Assessment of program student learning outcomes

  1. For the 2014-2015 assessment of the Liberal Arts program learning outcomes, the PSLO #1 which states “Enrich and deepen self-knowledge by exploring different academic experiences.” was the outcome that the division focused on during this assessment cycle.

Listed below is the summary of what we looked at and what we found.
What we looked at:
ASSESSMENT ACTIVITY: For the 2014-2015 SY, the students in the Foreign Language (FL) courses were assessed on their performance and speaking ability in the foreign language that they studied. Students had to demonstrate the ability to carry out a simple conversation with a native speaker of the language that they studied. These assessment activities covered PSLO 1 and 2 of the Liberal Arts program with a specific focus on students’ speaking abilities.
TARGET: 100% of all students who took the FL 101: Japanese I, FL102: Japanese II, and FL103: Chinese I courses were assessed. Since these classes are electives for the Liberal Arts students.

  • The rubric for assessing their speech was developed by the FL faculty from the Japanese and Chinese courses. The rubric was designed to assess how well the students could demonstrate 1. proper pronunciation, 2. proper use of words and 3. fluency during an oral performance of a specific situation. Each individual student’s ability was ranked on a scale of 1-3 with 0-1.4 points for a poor performance, 1.5-2.4 for an average performance and 2.5-3 for an excellent performance.

Listed below are the results of the assessment of 107 Japanese students and 48 Chinese students.
What we found:
Japanese Courses

  • 106 out of 107 (99%) students were able to pronounce the Japanese words well enough for a native speaker to understand.
  • 92 out of 107 (86%) were able to recall, recite and use appropriate words in the proper way to carry out conversations. This area was where the most students showed a weakness.
  • 93 out of 107 (87%) students were able to demonstrate fluency through their smooth delivery during their performance.

Chinese Course:

  • 34 out of 48 (71%) were able to pronounce the Chinese words well enough for a native speaker to understand.
  • 34 out of 48 (71%) were able to recall, recite and use appropriate words in the proper way to carry out conversations.
  • 34 out of 48 (71%) students were able to demonstrate fluency through their smooth delivery during their performance.
  •  

Based on the assessment, it seems that our students are doing fairly well when it comes to learning another foreign language in comparison to English.
******************************************************
For the 2015-2016 assessment of the Liberal Arts program learning outcomes, the PSLO #2 which states “Articulate and understand their experiences through effective writing, reading, speaking, and various modes of artistic expression” was the outcome that the division focused on during this assessment cycle, with specific emphasis on their reading abilities.
Listed below is the summary or what we looked at and what we found.

What we looked at:

ASSESSMENT ACTIVITY: For the 2015-2016 SY, the students in all of the Advanced Reading courses were assessed on their ability to comprehend and summarize the reading information from a pre-selected article. Students had to demonstrate the ability to identify and extract specific information from the reading such as facts, definitions, antonyms and synonyms as well as main ideas and contradictory information based on their readings. These assessment activities covered PSLO 2 of the Liberal Arts program with a specific focus on students’ reading abilities. During the Fall 2015 semester, the assessment was done as a summative assessment at the end of the semester. During the Spring 2016 semester, the assessment was given as both a pre and post- test and then the results were also compared to the summative results of students from the previous semester.

TARGET: 100% of all students who took the EN 110 Advanced Reading classes during the year (Fall 2015 and Spring 2016) were assessed. Since this class is a general education class, it allowed us to look at all the students in general as well as how students from different majors were doing in comparison to Liberal Arts students.

Listed below are the results of the assessment of 211 students who were assessed in our Advanced Reading courses during the 2015-2016 School Year.

What we found:

For the Fall summative assessment, 128 students were assessed in seven sections of EN 110. The assessment tool consisted of six specific questions that assessed students’ abilities of distinguishing, identifying and showing understanding of the following information:

1. Main Idea; 2. Purpose; 3. Important details: Cause/Effect; 4. important details: Contradictory Information; 5. important details: FACTs; and 6. Theme.

Of the 128 students, here is what we found:

? No class scored above 70% on questions 3, 4 and 6 indicating that the EN 110 classes need to focus more on helping students identify important details such as Causes/Effects (#3), contradictory information (#4) and theme (#6). ? For question 3, in the section that performed the lowest, 22% of the students got this question correct while in the section that performed the highest, 55% of the students got this question correct. Overall, only 36% or 46 students out of 128 got this question correct. ? For question 4, in the section that performed the lowest, 0% of the students got this question correct while in the section that performed the highest, 40% of the students got this question correct. Overall, only 23% or 30 students out of 128 got this question correct. ? For question 6, in the section that performed the lowest, 14% of the students got this question correct while in the section that performed the highest, 33% of the students got this question correct. Overall, only 27% or 35 students out of 128 got this question correct. ? All of the sections performed at 70% or higher for questions 1,2 and 5 which indicates that students may have a greater understanding of Main idea (#1), Purpose (#2) and Important details: Facts (#5) when reading. ? For question 1, overall, 77% or 99 students out of 128 got this question correct. ? For question 2, overall, 71% or 91 students out of the 128 got this question correct. ? For question 5 overall, 83% or 106 students out of the 128 got this question correct.

For the Spring 2016 assessment, 83 students were assessed for both the Pre and Post assessments. Although more students were enrolled in the EN110 sections, many students did not take the post-test or had incomplete post-tests therefore the number of students whose assessment performance was assessed were only those who took both.

Of the 83 students, here is what we found:

? For questions 1 and 2 in the pre-test, only one section each was able to score above 70% overall while in the post-test, two of the sections assessed were able to score above 70% overall for both questions.
? For question 6, three sections were able to perform at a 70% or higher on this question.
? No class scored above 70% for questions #3, 4 and 6 in the pre-test (similar to Fall 2015 assessment) while for the post-test, no class scored above 70% for questions #3, 4 and 5
. ? PRE-TEST: For question 3, in the section that performed the lowest, 32% of the students got this question correct while in the section that performed the highest, 45% of the students got this question correct. Overall, only48 % or 40 students out of 83 got this question correct.
? POST-TEST: For question 3, in the section that performed the lowest, 35% of the students got this question correct while in the section that performed the highest, 55% of the students got this question correct.
? PRE-TEST: For question 4 in the section that performed the lowest, 4% of the students got this question correct while in the section that performed the highest, 25% of the students got this question correct. Overall, only 17% or 14students out of 83 got this question correct
? POST-TEST: For question 4, in the section that performed the lowest, 38% of the students got this question correct while in the section that performed the highest, 55% of the students got this question correct.
? PRE-TEST: For question 6, in the section that performed the lowest, 4% of the students got this question correct while in the section that performed the highest, 27% of the students got this question correct. Overall, only 17% or 14students out of 83got this question correct.
? POST-TEST: For question 5, in the section that performed the lowest, 35% of the students got this question correct while in the section that performed the highest, 60% of the students got this question correct.
? The performance of the students in the post test improved overall although all of the classes do need to work on improving instruction on concepts such as important details such as Causes/Effects (#3), contradictory information (#4), important details: facts (#5) and theme (#6).
Program enrollment (historical enrollment patterns, student credits by major)

LIBERAL ARTS PROGRAM ENROLLMENT DATA

(SPRING 2014-FALL 2015)

Spring 2014 Enrollment by Major and Campus

Major Description

 Degree Chuuk Kosrae National Pohnpei Yap Students
Liberal Arts AA 1 23 161 30 25 240

Fall 2014 Enrollment by Major and Campus

Major Description

 Degree Chuuk Kosrae National Pohnpei Yap Students
Liberal Arts AA 5 22 152 44 17 240

Spring 2015 Enrollment by Major and Campus

Major Description

 Degree Chuuk Kosrae National Pohnpei Yap Students
Liberal Arts AA 2 42 152 28 25 249

Fall 2015 Enrollment by Major and Campus

Major Description

 Degree Chuuk Kosrae National Pohnpei Yap Students
Liberal Arts AA 7 14 161 15 12 209

 

Enrollment by Major and Campus

Major Degree Term Chuuk Kosrae National Pohnpei Yap Students
L.Arts AA Fall 2014 5 22 152 44 17 240
L.Arts AA Fall 2015 7 14 161 15 12 209
L.Arts AA Spring 2014 1 23 161 30 25 240
L.Arts AA Spring 2015            
L.Arts AA Spring 2016 7 5 143 7 13 249
This set of data further confirms the downward decline in enrollment in the major. The enrollment figures show a drastic drop in enrollment at the state campuses overall. This drop in enrollment could be due to the fact that many students can now already declare a major even if they are still taking many students can now already declare a major even if they are still taking General Education or Pre-requisite courses like ESL or ACE courses even before transferring to the National campus; because Liberal Arts is not a major that is available to students at state campuses, they often opt to major in a program that is available in their location. At the National campus, most new students who are ‘undecided’ about a major are, by default, counted as Liberal Arts majors for financial aid and other tracking purposes until they declare a major otherwise.
Average class size

Total Program Sections by Major, term,sections and Average Class Size

Prog Term Sections Enroll Max Enroll AVG Class Size SectionRatio
Lib.Arts Fall ’14 21 548 411 19.6 75.0%
Lib.Arts Fall ’15 16 393 302 18.9 76.8%
Lib.Arts Spr ’14 23 546 410 17.8 75.1%
Lib.Arts Spr ’15 20 520 392 19.6 75.4%

The average class size is capped for all Liberal Arts courses between 20-25 students. According to the data above, the average class size of most of the Liberal Arts classes during this assessment period fell between 18-20 students, which is a reasonably sized number for optimum instruction with consideration of our teaching facilities, equipment and other resources.
Course completion rate
Subject Description. Course # Term Students ABC or P % Course Completion rate W%

 

            

English

201

Spring 2014

61

45

73.8%

4.95

English

201

Fall 2014

80

55

68.8%

10%

English

201

Spring 2015

80

70

87.5%

1.3%

English

201

Fall 2015

24

      

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

English

208

Spring 2014

105

79

75.2%

4.8%

English

208

Fall 2014

80

62

73.8%

3.6%

English

208

Spring 2015

110

79

72%

5.5%

English

208

Fall 2015

45

      

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

English

209

Spring 2014

21

16

76.2%

0%

English

209

Fall 2014

24

15

62.5%

4.2%

English

209

Spring 2015

24

18

75%

4.2%

English

209

Fall 2015

Not offered

      

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Art

101

Spring 2014

36

24

66.7

11.1%

Art

101

Fall 2014

75

47

62.7%

10.75

Art

101

Spring 2015

158

87

55.1%

8.9%

Art

101

Fall 2015

99

      

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Foreign Languages

101

Spring 2014

70

47

67.1%

15.7%

Foreign Languages

101

Fall 2014

97

67

69.1%

8.2%

Foreign Languages

101

Spring 2015

41

28

68.3%

14.6

Foreign Languages

101

Fall 2015

50

      

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

Foreign Languages

102

Spring 2014

15

10

66.7%

20%

Foreign Languages

102

Fall 2014

Not offered

      

Foreign Languages

102

Spring 2015

12

8

66.7%

25%

Foreign Languages

102

Fall 2015

11

      

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

Foreign Languages

103

Spring 2014

39

30

76.1%

2.6%

Foreign Languages

103

Fall 2014

43

37

86%

0%

Foreign Languages

103

Spring 2015

49

39

79.6%

2%

Foreign Languages

103

Fall 2015

46

      

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

General Psychology

101

Spring 2014

98

 75

76.5

4.1%

Psychology

101

Fall 2014

86

66

76.7%

3.5%

Psychology

101

Spring 2015

81

64

79%

4.9%

Psychology

101

Fall 2015

53

      

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

Social Science

130

Spring 2014

52

31

59.6%

21.2%

Social Science

130

Fall 2014

50

28

56%

8 %

Social Science

130

Spring 2015

50

28

56%

22%

Social Science

130

Fall 2015

44

      

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

Social Science

170

Spring 2014

41

28

68.3%

7.3%

Social Science

170

Fall 2014

62

46

74.2%

8.1%

Social Science

170

Spring 2015

36

24

66.7%

2.8%

Social Science

170

Fall 2015

26

      

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

Social Science

171

Spring 2014

28

22

78.6%

7.1%

Social Science

171

Fall 2014

Not offered

      

Social Science

171

Spring 2015

24

20

83.3%

4.2%

 

 

Fall 2015

Not offered

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

Science

101

Spring 2014

148

72

48.6

18.2%

Science

101

Fall 2014

138

55

39.1%

14.5%

Science

101

Spring 2015

183

100

54.6%

15.3%

Science

101

Fall 2015

81

      

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

Music

101

Spring 2014

81

73

90.1%

4.9%

Music

101

Fall 2014

105

99

94.3%

5.7%

Music

101

Spring 2015

76

71

93.4%

3.9%

Music

101

Fall 2015

73

      

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

Speech Communication

205

Spring 2014

106

70

66%

9.45

Speech Communication

205

Fall 2014

102

80

78.4%

2.0%

Speech Communication

205

Spring 2015

72

54

75%

5.6%

Speech Communication

205

Fall 2015

43

    
Course completion rate

Total course completion by program

Program term enrolled W ABCorP W_% CC_%


Liberal Arts (AA)

Fall 2013

490

44

337

9.0%

68.8%

 

Liberal Arts (AA)

Fall 2014

426

21

306

4.9%

71.8%

Liberal Arts (AA)

Spring 2014

443

33

316

7.4%

71.3%

Liberal Arts (AA)

Spring 2015

417

27

313

6.5%

75.2%

 

Liberal Arts

Spring 2016

334

51

178

15.3%

53.3%

 

 

Course completion rates show that overall rates were higher during the spring semesters. The lowest passing rate was in the Health Science course with a rate of 39.1% while the Humanities courses boasted the highest passing rates with student passing rates for the foreign languages, history, music and arts classes ranging from the high 70s to 100% passing rates consistently across the board. Social science courses had the next highest passing rates, followed by English classes and the natural science courses.
Student persistence rate (semester to semester)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fall 2014 FTFT cohort persisted Spring 2015

  

 

 

          

 

 

major

degree

cohort

Spring 2015

Persistence

 

 

Liberal Arts

AA

51

39

76.5%

 

 

          

 

 

Fall 2015 FTFT cohort persisted Spring 2016

  

 

 

          

 

 

major

degree

cohort

Spring 2016

Persistence

 

 

Liberal Arts

AA

18

20

111.1%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The data shows that persistence rates during the Fall 2014-Spring 2015 semesters were at a low rate of 76.% however, during the next year, students who started in Fall 2015 continued and persisted in their enrollment during the Spring of 2016 causing a dramatic increase as all of the students continued, along with two additional students.
Student retention rate (Fall-to-Fall for two-year programs; Fall-to-Spring for one-year programs) The retention rate for Fall 2013 to Fall 2014 was 62.5% with 35 out of 56 students returning the next fall; and Fall 2014-to Fall 2015 retention rate was 68.6% with 35 returning out of 51 students. The retention rate increased slightly with an increase of 6.1% but remained steady in the 60+ percentage range.
Success rates on licensing or certification exams (CTE, TP, Nursing, etc) Not Applicable—Liberal Arts students are not required to take any exams for licensing or certification.
Graduation rate based on yearly number

Students

AY
13/14

AY
14/
15

AY
15/
16

G
100%

G
150%

G
200%

GR
100

GR
150

GR
200

 

                  

 

66

2

10

2

0

2

12

0

0.030303

0.181818

Graduates (College-wide)

      

 

major

degree

AY2013/ 14

AY2014/15

AY2015/
16

Liberal Arts

AA

51

36

34
         

Based on the above data, during this assessment cycle, none of the Liberal Arts graduates were able to complete the program within two years. Within three years, the rate improved with graduation rates resulting in a 30% increase. An additional 18% were able to graduate after four years or 200% time period. This shows that very few students are able to complete the program in the allotted two year period. When given a little bit more time to complete over the two year period, nine times more students were able to complete the program. The low graduation rates has propelled the Languages and Literature division into trying to work with our students closely in making good decision during course selection so that they can graduate within the allotted two years. Because there is no room for failure or make-up and typically for some courses, students need more time as they do repeat courses, course pre-requisites and the program courses’ connection to other programs is discussed with students so they can make wise choices on their courses and can decrease their chances of having to repeat a course.
The available data appeared to be contradictory in some areas when compared to other areas (i.e. rates seem to be extremely low when compared to number of graduates).
Students seat cost Not Available
Cost of duplicate or redundant courses, programs or services Not Applicable
Students’ satisfaction rate Not Applicable
Alumni data Not Applicable
Employment data and employer feedback (employer survey) Not Available: Because the Liberal Arts program does not feed directly into a specific field in which our graduates can follow or pursue, the challenge of tracking students once they leave the college has be daunting. Students are prepared to take on and choose a variety of options when they leave and because these options are many and varied, it is very difficult to accurately account for students once they leave. Through anecdotal data and social media, some of our graduates can be accounted for as being currently employed but no official means of tracking has been employed by the program.
Program added or cancelled at nearby regional institutions (PCC, GCC, Hawaii schools, UOG, CMI, NMC) Not Available
Transfer rate Not Available: The Languages and Literature division is currently working on coming up with a template of a form that our graduates will be filling in to help keep track of the movement of our graduates. Collaboration with the office of Admissions and Records is also needed to help identify students who transfer (via transcript requests) and also to identify Liberal Arts students who further their studies here at the college by pursuing second degrees and enrolling in third-year programs.
Analysis
Findings This section provides discussion of information discovered as a result of the evaluation such as problems or concerns with the program and what part of the program is working well and meeting expectation. The data that was most disappointing was the low graduation rates of the Liberal Arts students and this review showed that more needs to be done in assisting our students so that they can graduate at the 100% time range and not longer. The low completion rates in some specific classes is also an area of concern since students need to pass the courses before they can take other courses and if they are not successfully completing their core requirements, then everything else will be delayed leading to the low graduation rate of our program participants. There are some specific classes that students seem to be consistently performing poorly in as well so maybe teacher development is also an area that the program needs to work on as well as tutoring and additional support for those specific classes.
Recommendations This section provides recommendations from the program on what to do to improve or enhance the quality of program and course learning outcomes as well as program goals and objectives. This section should also include suggestions that describe how the program might be able to create opportunities for a better program in the future. Some examples are exploring alternate delivery mechanisms, forming external partnerships, or realigning with other programs. One of the most common recommendations from program faculty on their course level assessments is the need for the program to review our course pre-requisites as most of the faculty feel that the pre-requisites are necessary as they help build skill and knowledge that the students will need in order to be successful in all of their core requirement courses as well as their electives. Because of this, the program faculty will continue to review and recommend pre-requisites for all of our core classes as we review course outlines. Another recommendation is to help provide information on the kinds of options that students have upon graduating with a degree in Liberal Arts. Because most students don’t know what they can do after earning a Liberal Arts degree, they tend not to do much planning or preparation for paths that they can take upon graduating from COM-FSM. The Liberal Arts program faculty will be working with cohort groups in the upcoming assessment cycle to ensure that they have a solid idea and have plans on what they will be pursuing upon graduation. Workshops with IOM and other college staff is in the works so that they can help to prepare our graduates as most students felt that they would be transferring or pursuing higher degrees as the next step after graduation.
Lastly, the program faculty will be working with our current potential graduates as well as our new students so that even while here they can work on making good academic choices that will help them graduate faster and when they leave, they can have a plan in mind that they just have to put into action. An advising workshop for our faculty is one area that is being looked into to help facilitate and improve advising with our students. A recommendation that was suggested that would help with the compilation of the program review is the availability of current data and the accessibility of such data on the website. The compiling of the program review each assessment cycle will definitely be expedited if the required data was readily available to all on the college website without the need for program review writers/drafters to have to request for such data individually. Also, the available data should be CURRENT—data for the years in which we were compiling the program review were not readily available while the data from previous assessment cycles (which we didn’t need) were the ones readily available. If data from previous years can be posted on the website, then the data from current years should also be able to be posted and available as well. The data also needs to be CONSISTENT—i.e. sometime data found on different pages (the IRPO page or the data page or on the home page)were not the same even though the data was labeled and the years were listed, they were not the same and sometimes contradictory so it was difficult to determine which was the “real” data to use.

Contact Us:

Security & Brand:

Resources:

Publications:

Directory:


© Copyright 2026 College of Micronesia-FSM | Site Disclaimer P. O. Box 159, Kolonia, Pohnpei, 96941 – (691) 320-2480
College of Micronesia-FSM is accredited by the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges, Western Association of Schools and Colleges, 428 J Street, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA 95814, (415) 506-0234, an institutional accrediting body recognized by the Council for Higher Education Accreditation and the U.S. Department of Education. Additional information about accreditation, including the filing of complaints against member institutions, can be found at www.accjc.org

Powered by COMFSM​

wpChatIcon